Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
BiWire Jumpers on biwireable speakers.
#31
(02-Aug-2020, 12:07)daniel.avasilichioaei Wrote: Why not just follow manufacturer instructions?... There is nothing to loose.
Speaker internal cables (for bass and treble) may have length adjusted in conformity with jumpers cable type and length.

The claim is on Audioquest's web site, not a speaker manufacturer's. You're right, there is nothing to lose. Nothing to win either.

Internal speaker wires are the length they need to be to reach the drivers. I've never heard of a designer making all wires a different or the same length for any purpose. Probably because they know it's a waste of time.
                                                    Lifetime Roon, Mac mini, int. SSD, ext. HDD, tv as monitor, key board and track pad on bean bag as remote,Devialet 200, Od'A #097, Blue jeans speaker cable,                                     
                                                                                                                                                                            Dynaudio C1 MkII.
                                                                                                                                                                              Jim Smith's GBS.
                                                                                                                                                                        Northern NSW Australia.
Reply
#32
(03-Aug-2020, 00:45)Pim Wrote:
(02-Aug-2020, 12:07)daniel.avasilichioaei Wrote: Why not just follow manufacturer instructions?... There is nothing to loose.
Speaker internal cables (for bass and treble) may have length adjusted in conformity with jumpers cable type and length.

The claim is on Audioquest's web site, not a speaker manufacturer's. You're right, there is nothing to lose. Nothing to win either.

Internal speaker wires are the length they need to be to reach the drivers. I've never heard of a designer making all wires a different or the same length for any purpose. Probably because they know it's a waste of time.

Cable length needs to be put in perspective especially from a time perspective.

I'm currently using 5m on the left and 2m on the right, so that's a 3m difference.
At the speed of light (3E8 m/s) that's a huge difference of 10ns!
given the speed of sound (340 m/s) that's 3.4µm!

I'm not that precise with my sitting, nor my neck stiffness...

This to say that the length difference with cross overs will be 2 orders of magnitude lower, meaning that if you could hear a difference, then you should better glue yourself in a block of concrete, because any movement greater than 30nm would have a greater impact than the difference if lengths of cables....

Jean-Marie
MacBookPro -> Air -> WiFi -> PLC -> Ethernet -> Devialet 220pro with Core Infinity (upgraded from 120) -> AperturA Armonia
France
Reply
#33
I think we´re all a bit far from the subject already and so far I have been mocking and joking about it but it is becoming a bit serious.
It isn´t a matter of timming or unbalance between channels, wich i´m used to identify, but a reasonable tonal difference.

Isn't there anyone else who can do a similar test?
Innuos ZenMini, Devialet 220 Pro CI, Black Sixteen speaker cables, Sonus Faber Guarneri Tradition and a pair of ears.
Reply
#34
I'm with @BoyScout. We need reports from other people doing similar tests.

Yes, there are differences in the length of the positive and negative cable lengths to each driver because of the way the cable is connected to the crossover arrangement. Yes, as Pim and Jean-Marie have both stated, the differences in length are insignificant and will not produce an audible difference but we have no reason to believe that, if there is a difference, that difference is due to the difference in cable length. A difference, if there is a difference, could also be due to the difference in connection to the crossover.

Quick story: Back in 1903 the Wright Brothers made the first powered flight with a heavier than air aircraft at Kittyhawk. Some weeks later a noted engineer published proof that reports of the flight were mistaken or a hoax because heavier than air flight wasn't possible and using mathematics based on the accepted scientific knowledge of that day. His big mistake was not in the maths, the maths were sound; nor was it in what he claimed as scientic knowledge, his claims about that honestly represented the knowledge of the day. His big mistake was a lack of observation on his part. Science attempts to explain observations and that process starts with observation. While we use scientific theory to make predictions, that theory does not guarantee that the predictions will be right, it just predicts what we should observe if the theory is right. If the observations do not agree with the prediction then the first step in science is to repeat the observations and to determine whether they are correct. If the observations are determined to be correct then the current theory is wrong and a new theory which can also predict the new observations is developed.

Simply claiming that any difference has to be due to differences in cable length and that those differences in length can not produce an audible result is repeating the same mistake that engineer made when he "proved" that heavier than air flight was impossible. The history of science is littered with accounts of people making the same mistake.

We need confirmation or refutation of the observation that this connection method makes an audible difference. That can only be done by other people repeating the exact same experiment, connecting a speaker with this specific connection method and seeing whether or not it makes an audible difference. A nice, professionally conducted, double blind test would be best but we aren't going to get that so the best we can do here, in this forum, is to see what anecdotal evidence we can find and there's no reason to look down our noses at anecdotal evidence because the first observations that start any scientific process always appear as a single, anecdotal report which eventually is either confirmed or refuted.

It's possible to come up with all sorts of claims that any difference would have to be caused by one thing or another but if you're going to dismiss a report on the basis that those causes can not result in the claimed difference, your "refutation" is only as good as your attribution of the cause. If you don't identify the right cause, you don't have a refutation and the only way to find out the right cause, if there really is a difference here, is to start by repeating the exact same test as BoyScout has done and attempting to confirm or refute his observation. Asserting that any difference can only be caused by the differences in cable length is a guess and I'm quite happy to accept that those differences in length will not cause a difference but that fact does not mean that BoyScout's observation is wrong. All it means is that if his observation is right then the cause must be something else.

If we're going to be scientific about this, let's at least try to follow the scientific method which is to start with observations, confirm or refute those observations by replicating the experiment, and then if we confirm the observations start to look for an explanation for why the connection method makes a difference. The scientific method is not to assert that the only difference is in cable length, especially when that ignores that the difference in cable length is due to a different connection method, and to dismiss the observation out of hand because the difference in cable length can not result in an audible difference. That approach is the same approach as the engineer who "proved" that heavier than air flight was impossible used to dismiss the reports of the Wright Brothers flight.
Roon Nucleus+, Devilalet Expert 140 Pro CI, Focal Sopra 2, PS Audio P12, Keces P8 LPS, Uptone Audio EtherREGEN with optical fibre link to my router, Shunyata Alpha NR and Sigma NR power cables, Shunyata Sigma ethernet cables, Shunyata Alpha V2 speaker cables, Grand Prix Audio Monaco rack, RealTRAPS acoustic treatment.

Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Reply
#35
David, I don't get into discussions about the merits of re-clockers, USB converters and the like because I just don't know enough about them. I've tried a re-clocker and it made no difference to my ears but I still wouldn't say it doesn't make a difference because I might be listening for the wrong thing. This is a different story though. Your comparison with the Wright brothers makes it sound like this is rocket science. It's not. It's a very simple signal running through a very simple piece of cable. Jean-Marie's explanation above says it all. That's really all there is.

Suggesting there might be more to it is like investigating whether there's a difference between this message, which I'm typing on a wireless key board, and the last one, which I wrote on my laptop. You wouldn't investigate that because you know the only difference is the letters I typed. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you want scientific proof, my theoretical comparison with TV's and coax cable should be enough. In science, once you have proven that there's no difference a a frequency into the MegaHertz, knowing that the higher the frequency is, the higher the chance of an impact, you're not going to then look into lower frequencies knowing they are much more robust.

Signal in cables and signal in the air are very similar this way. Long wave radio can run through trees, bounce off clouds and reach very, very far. Satellite (into the GigaHertz) stops working as soon as there's a branch from a tree hanging in front of it. What you're suggesting to investigate is whether there might be an improvement in long wave radio when we leave the door open to let the signal into a house 20km away from the transmitter. It might be at 1000km but at 20km, absolutely not.
                                                    Lifetime Roon, Mac mini, int. SSD, ext. HDD, tv as monitor, key board and track pad on bean bag as remote,Devialet 200, Od'A #097, Blue jeans speaker cable,                                     
                                                                                                                                                                            Dynaudio C1 MkII.
                                                                                                                                                                              Jim Smith's GBS.
                                                                                                                                                                        Northern NSW Australia.
Reply
#36
Pim,

I have to repeat that the difference in cable length is not the only difference, the connection is different. Draw a circuit diagram and the circuit will be slightly different. I don't know if that circuit difference will make a difference to the sound, I'm not into electronic circuitry, but you are ignoring that difference and making the assumption that the only difference is that of cable length. Science depends on the replicability of results under identical circumstances and an experiment with TVs and coax cables does not replicate the circumstances of a speaker connection.

I have no idea whether this connection method for speakers with BiWire terminals makes a difference or not but the only way to find out is by repeating observations with that connection method, not by arguing that because cable length differences of the scale involved can't make a difference (I agree on that point) or by comparing this connection method to a different setup with a TV. Doing a different experiment with 2 TVs and comparing visual results does not constitute a replication of a biwire connection to a two way speaker and it doesn't prove anything about what happens with the speaker connection. It's that simple. Replication of the observation about the speaker connection requires that you repeat the exact same connection with speakers. I am most definitely not suggesting that what we investigate is analogous to "whether there might be an improvement in long wave radio when we leave the door open to let the signal into a house 20km away from the transmitter".
Roon Nucleus+, Devilalet Expert 140 Pro CI, Focal Sopra 2, PS Audio P12, Keces P8 LPS, Uptone Audio EtherREGEN with optical fibre link to my router, Shunyata Alpha NR and Sigma NR power cables, Shunyata Sigma ethernet cables, Shunyata Alpha V2 speaker cables, Grand Prix Audio Monaco rack, RealTRAPS acoustic treatment.

Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Reply
#37
@David A To apply the scientific method, we have to agree on what is the scope of the system being investigated.

If the aim is to prove whether there or not there is an objective difference in sound, one has to exclude the listener from the system and use measurements, for example by recording the "before" and "after" sound and looking for differences.  In that case listening reports are simply not relevant because they introduce a dependency on the listener who is by definition not part of the system being investigated.

On the other hand if the object of the exercise is to determine whether there is a perceived difference in sound quality, then the system being investigated includes the listener.  In that case the sciences involved include physiology, psychology, possibly neurochemistry, and so on - things that affect people.  There are many effects in those sciences that are likely to be significant, in fact much more significant than the difference in the audio hardware, but are completely ignored in the anecdotal reports we normally hear on forums like this.  Such reports might serve to prompt the question of whether there is something to investigate, but are not themselves part of an investigation.

Designing a scientific study to determine whether a difference in audio hardware reliably does or does not cause a difference in perceived sound for some set of listeners is a non-trivial effort.  One has to ask, if the engineering says there is negligible chance of an objective difference existing, why bother?  What would anyone do with the result?  These discussions would still continue because the results of a scientific investigation matter not a jot to one's personal, subjective experience when listening to music.

Incidentally, to your point about the circuit diagram: it would be identical in both wiring configurations.
Roon (Mac Mini), Wilson Benesch Full Circle, Expert 1000 Pro CI, Kaiser Chiara
Warwickshire, UK
Reply
#38
@David A One comment about your Kittyhawk story: while it's undoubtedly entertaining, it's not directly germane to the current discussion. Flight is an objective (measurable, repeatable) phenomenon, which is not what we have here.

To be analogous to Kittyhawk, we first have to make an objective observation - for example, that there's a systematic change in frequency response between the two speaker connection methods - and then investigate how current science or engineering explain it (or not).
Roon (Mac Mini), Wilson Benesch Full Circle, Expert 1000 Pro CI, Kaiser Chiara
Warwickshire, UK
Reply
#39
@thumb5 ,

I have no problem with measurements but the question is what measurements would capture differences in some aspects of sound quality. For example, say the claimed difference is in the quality of the soundstage and/or imaging within the soundstage. What measurements are you going to rely upon?

Some things such as frequency response, distortion, signal to noise ratio, are easily measured but for others there are currently no agreed measurements. This is not something new. I started getting interested in audio back in the '60s and specifications and test reports gave a measurement for THD but did not include any details of the overtone structure of the distortion. There were arguments about whether there could be an audible difference between 2 components with identical THD measurements which were not resolved until we started to see measurements for the overtone structure of the distortion. When CD players were introduced in the mid '80s the specifications and test measurements for distortion were for THD and IMD but no one was measuring jitter and we saw similar arguments about the audibility of differences in players with identical THD and IMD measurements which were not resolved until we started to see jitter measurements.

The simple fact is that measurements are only useful if you measure the right thing and we often don't start measuring the right thing until some time after there's a solid base of anecdotal reports of a difference which cannot be explained by the measurements being conducted. Listening reports have been the triggering factor for the development of tests which reveal that there is a basis for previously doubted claims that there was an audible difference.

You said that flight is an objective, ie measurable and repeatable, phenomenon but that this is not what we have here. If we don't have the appropriate measurement, which as I have shown is not an unknown situation, we can still show that the phenomenon is an objective fact with repeatable listening tests conducted under controlled conditions which can establish the objective nature of the phenomenon. Repeatability is often much easier to demonstrate than measurability.

I pointed out that designing a good scientific study to prove that the claimed difference in this case is not a simple thing, not a "non-trivial effort" in your words. We are in agreement on that. If such a test has not been conducted, and I'm not aware of such a test in this case, that doesn't mean that reports of the difference are mistaken or unfounded, just that no one yet has done the test and, if there is no commercial advantage to proving the difference, then it is quite possible that no one will ever do such a test and all we will ever have is less reliable test results and anecdotal reports. Given that proving that the suggested change in connection method doesn't help sell either speakers or cables, given that anyone with single wire cables and a pair of speakers with biwire terminals can implement it in a matter of minutes by simply changing their existing connection at no financial cost, and given that the only people who would benefit if there is a difference perceived as an improvement are the listeners, there is probably little incentive for anyone to conduct a well designed and executed test in this case.

In summary, we still can't measure everything we regard as a quality of reproduced sound and it is possible for differences to exist and not, at least not yet, be measured. When a claim can't be verified by measurement then the only way to verify or dismiss it is by listening and well designed and organised listening tests don't usually get conducted until there is a solid base of anecdotal reports.

As for Kittyhawk, no one needed measurements to prove the Wright Brothers claim. A number of reliable eye witnesses and a couple of photographs is all that was needed, and doubters could go and watch a subsequent flight. That's a pretty good reason for why measurements aren't needed to prove every claim. Verified observation often precedes measurement.
Roon Nucleus+, Devilalet Expert 140 Pro CI, Focal Sopra 2, PS Audio P12, Keces P8 LPS, Uptone Audio EtherREGEN with optical fibre link to my router, Shunyata Alpha NR and Sigma NR power cables, Shunyata Sigma ethernet cables, Shunyata Alpha V2 speaker cables, Grand Prix Audio Monaco rack, RealTRAPS acoustic treatment.

Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Reply
#40
There is a very well established scientific methodology which is ABX and double blind studies.

They allow to establish if a group of people can reliably identify and perceive an objective difference between two things, outside of measurements.

The neat thing is that, when applied to audio, it also encompasses our ears and brain.

The less nice aspect is that these are very tedious exercices which most people don’t like/bother to do.

Those are not very popular amongst audiophile circles nor the audiophile industry and I leave it to the reader to pick is favorite explanation why they are not.

Jean-Marie
MacBookPro -> Air -> WiFi -> PLC -> Ethernet -> Devialet 220pro with Core Infinity (upgraded from 120) -> AperturA Armonia
France
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)