Why on earth do speaker wires sound different?

[Nevalti]

Are you sure about that ?
People I have met who do Binaural , Ambiasonic and other multi channel format diffusion etc would probably say something else.
Have you listened to binaural (adjusted ) recordings ?
I suggest having a look at this

http://www.dallassimpson.com/

who knows more about this than anyone I have ever met

Also , image a phase and perception are regular topics for discussion on the CEC list
maybe have a look there as there are many rather clever folks who have studied this in depth

Ah, this is very intriguing. I wonder why you can, apparently, hear positional information on his recordings but I can not?

I listened very carefully to the 'Aquapump' demonstration recording on his web-site and could detect absolutely no back or front cues nor any height cues nor any distance cues. Absolutely none. All of the sounds were located within my skull, never outside it. Even the bird positions could not be located as he walked along and they are usually one of the easiest sounds to locate.

I would never accuse you of imagining that you can hear something that was not really there or of being influenced by the exaggerated claims in his web-site but would you mind checking his Aquapump recording again and tell us if you can really hear even vague 3 D positions. For example, when you hear water - where is it? When you first hear the pump - is it ahead of you or somewhat left or right? Are the birds higher or lower than the top of your head? Even the footsteps don't sound as if they are lower than my head when I listen.

In fairness I have heard Binaural recordings that are more 'open' than this one, my interest is simply that you cite him as a good exponent of the art but I can not remotely hear whatever it is you are hearing. If you think it is a good example I would be pleased to hear what other people think. It is similar, in some ways, to me claiming that I can hear differences between certain equipment and other people saying that they can not or even that I can not. Was 'woo' the word used earlier? Whatever that means.

And yes, I was listening on head-phones; I also tried ear-phones with exactly the same result. Through speakers a Binaural recording should sound all 'wrong' - and it did.

[MrGongGong]

Ah, this is very intriguing. I wonder why you can, apparently, hear positional information on his recordings but I can not?

I haven't listened to Aquapump for a while
but hear the whole thing as an immersive three dimensional thing

the water starts in the lower left hand side to my ears very quietly then is joined by a lower right which moves round and so on ...........
If you knew who he was I doubt you would describe his "claims" as "exaggerated"

I think you are looking for the wrong things entirely

A trip to the audiologist might save you a fortune in esoteric hi fi !

[gradus]

Didn't the BBC ( I think it was them) run some technical tests a year or two back inviting interested listeners using headphones to compare and rank different recording arrangements including Binaural, Ambisonic etc ? I remember the tests asked participants to rank different mic techniques used to record (I think) the Kings College Choir with reference to where the sound appeared to originate when listening via headphones - back of the head, all round, out front, etc and remember experiencing some quite different effects according to the mic setups used.
I wonder what conclusions were drawn, if any.

[jayne lee wilson]

LOL. Ok, but in principle, if a number of similar kinds of experiments had been carried out, using the right kind of music, would you be prepared to accept the method as probably the best way of determining whether audible differences exist?

And do you also reject the earlier experiment (by Clark and Greenhill) mentioned in the first part of the article?

Doesn't your Clark and Greenhill example prove my point - that listeners can learn through extended listening, even if to short excerpts, to do things they couldn't with unprepared rapid switching?

Recall the John Atkinson piece again - I'm afraid I tend to agree with one of the follow-ups (where he mentions that ABX is a "forced-choice experiment") to it that this abx system seems DESIGNED to prove you can't hear differences reliably - set up with the agenda to prove they don't exist. If someone becomes good at spotting differences quickly after training, that UNDERMINES the original premise of an abx system (at least the one you repeatedly invoke, with animal, instinctive, reactions), and also starts to make it look almost too elaborate to be of any practical use.

I got a 2ndhand Audioquest Emerald interconnect, cd to pre, made CD replay a bit bright but I liked it; but when I wanted another found it had been replaced with the Python. Put the Python in. Bit too smooth and dull, but very precise soundstage etc.... wasn't sure. Did some A-B comparisons on short pieces. Sure enough, I got very confused about which was which. OK. Left the Python in for a few days. Then changed back to Emerald. Left it in for a bit.. now it sounded far too sharp. My ears couldn't now accept it. Kept the Python, later put it through the whole system...

That's just an anecdote, but who could tell me which impression was correct? Would you insist I stuck with the Emerald, just because in rapid A-B tests I couldn't reliably identify it? Or keep the one I most enjoyed?
I don't offer this example as scientifically rigorous in the least: just a subjective, real-world, domestic example of what can happen when you have to make a choice.

Phileas - I'm not really trying to win an argument, only to look at what we all do when we listen (carefully. to good equipment) - especially when we choose. If you really believe in that ABX system, how does it benefit you if, as you said, it wouldn't really be such a good "tool of choice" if a dealer offered you a new active speaker system? When WOULD it be useful?

[Phileas]

Jayne

I'm advocating proper testing as a form of sanity check.

Also, I don't agree with your interpretation of the Clark & Greenhill experiment.

[Nevalti]

I haven't listened to Aquapump for a while
but hear the whole thing as an immersive three dimensional thing

the water starts in the lower left hand side to my ears very quietly then is joined by a lower right which moves round and so on ...........
If you knew who he was I doubt you would describe his "claims" as "exaggerated"

I think you are looking for the wrong things entirely

A trip to the audiologist might save you a fortune in esoteric hi fi !

It is a shame you didn't have time to check it again, I still don't know if the sample on the web site is working properly or not, only that it certainly doesn't work for me.

I don't know what 'wrong things' you imagine I am 'looking for', I simply couldn't hear any sounds outside my skull. I certainly couldn't hear anything remotely three dimensional yet, when playing music through my loudspeakers I can 'see' the positions of the various parts of the orchestra (etc) with a high degree of certainty. That system provides me with a 3D image between, behind, in front of and outside my speakers (not behind me).

Could it possibly be that some of us are able to detect or perhaps simply notice things that some others do not? We could speculate on the possible reasons why you can hear things via head-phones that I can not hear. Two obvious alternatives are that my hearing is defective or that my brain processes the information in a different way. The 3D image is of course an illusion whether it comes from speakers or headphones. Could it be that one of us is 'fooled' by the headphone illusion and one of us is 'fooled' by the speaker illusion? Given such differences, and we are all 'fooled' to varying degrees by many illusions, could it not also be the case that some people can hear 'better' aspects of equipment that other people decry as figments of the imagination?

I had my hearing checked a couple of years ago, just for fun, when I took my wife to her audiologist. Apart from the inevitable age related HF reduction (he said my hearing rolls off steeply above 18kHz) it was "remarkably good" for someone of my age. I don't buy 'esoteric hifi', I simply use my ears before I buy anything. That way I am not left wondering if it is worth the money or not. If you buy wisely, superb hifi is available virtually free (see my earlier post on this).

[MrGongGong]

It is a shame you didn't have time to check it again,

I did listen again
but online not on the CD that he gave me several years ago
and I do hear a very clear 3D image

I suspect you probably mean something else when you talk about 3D imaging in relation to sound
Do you really hear Dallas's binaural recording as if everything is in one place ?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Just supposing we accept the fact that a particular interconnect makes the sound smooth, solid, dynamic, provides ability and verve - whatever they all mean, then I would have expected to see some research into WHAT in this or that cable design gave the sound that improved quality. Lower resistance, inductance, capacitance, contact resistance of connectors, etc. - what's driving the improvement?

That's the process that has been applied down the years to hi-fi design and it's had the benefit of making hi-fi better and more affordable. An excellent example of that process at work (and I've mentioned this before) was that done by Bill Woodman and co. at ATC into distortion in loudspeakers. That resulted in the adoption of non-conducting magnetic materials in loudspeaker magnet design and thus a significant reduction in distortion. Papers were written on the subject, patents applied for. No bullshit, no snake oil.

If a similar study was carried out on cables as to what produced these fabulous improvements then henceforward they could adopt those features and perhaps (a) prices would fall, and (b) the sales of such proven interconnects would rocket - to the benefit of the manufacturer.

But that's not happening. Or has it already happened - years ago - and they concluded that simply getting resistance, capacitance and inductance to certain levels was all that was required?

[Nevalti]

I did listen again
but online not on the CD that he gave me several years ago
and I do hear a very clear 3D image

Thanks for checking again. I just did the same test on a different PC using its own DAC and then with a separate DAC. Unfortunately I got just the same result but with a nice improvement in atmosphere and clarity. All of the sounds still stayed inside my skull. I got no clue whatsoever which directions things were in other than left/right and at no point could I ever 'see' something ahead of me. When he is near the pump, and there is a secondary rhythmic noise, he turns around, and that is obvious from the direction of the pump, but at no point during his turn does the pump appear to be either in front of me or behind me. It would be interesting to ask people to tell us whether they think he turned clock-wise or anti clockwise. I certainly have no idea.

There was one very brief sound, a pigeon clapping its wings together, just before he reached the pump, where I instinctively felt it was above me and to the left but that may simply have been because, in a woodland setting, we expect pigeons to be in trees. I wonder what would happen to the vertical image you detect if he stood on his head?

So what is it you are hearing. Can you close your eyes and get the impression that there are sounds well out in front of you? Can you tell which way he turns? Can you tell in what direction the distant traffic is? How high up is the pouring water? Is it at head height or ground level?

I suspect you probably mean something else when you talk about 3D imaging in relation to sound

I don't see how. We are talking about an illusion of reality aren't we? To me there was not the slightest way I could imagine I was really there with wild-life all around me but when I make a similar (static) wildlife recording and play it back whilst leaving my windows open at the speaker end of the room, no-one would know if it was real sounds outside or a recording. For that sort of atmospheric recording I have found a couple of omnis more convincing that cardiods (etc) and I think I could hear that benefit in the 'Aquapump' recording - but that was all. No 3D I'm afraid. No illusion of reality, just a vague sense of 'presence' from the omnis.

Do you really hear Dallas's binaural recording as if everything is in one place ?

No; that is not what I said. Interestingly though, one pair of headphones I tried placed the sounds across the rear of my skull rather than between my ears. I have no idea why.

[Nevalti]

...... has it already happened - years ago - and they concluded that simply getting resistance, capacitance and inductance to certain levels was all that was required?

This is very much the reason for my initial question. If a manufacturer sets out to make a 'better' cable, what part(s) is he going to 'improve' and why do 'better' cables always cost more than others 'lower' down his range? R&D recovery? Surely not, because if it genuinely sounds 'better', the competition need simply take his 'better' cable apart and replicate it without any R&D cost. I have little doubt that all the hifi cable 'manufacturers' know precisely where their competitors source their component materials. For that reason, a cheap but 'esoteric' Chinese interconnect is probably the best interconnect to buy. How many of us do that?

I can certainly accept that the law of diminishing returns really does cut in at some point but we are still left with the interesting fact that one of us finds Fred's model 'C' better than model 'D' and visa versa.

[Dave2002]

I don't think you understand sales and marketing. There will always be people who will buy in cheap products, maybe put them in new packaging, and then sell them on as "superior" products. There will also be people foolish enough to buy them.

Of course not every supplier will be doing that - some will genuinely be trying to make better products or to provide better service, and sell them on at a fair price, but there are enough that aren't doing that, or are misguided, or don't know or don't care, or are just plain dishonest to fill the market.

[Nevalti]

I don't think you understand sales and marketing.....

Do you really have that low an opinion of me?

[Dave2002]

Do you really have that low an opinion of me?

No!

Sorry, am away right now, so can't type at speed or at length.

I'll try with the accurate detection of direction though, since you made some rather strong assertions which seemed to be based on imagined scenarios rather than actual evidence.

I'll follow with a similar scenario though. Imagine you are at a concert, and you close your eyes. Now you can hear the orchestra and you think it's laid out in a conventional way. You keep your eyes closed. You are listening to a new piece, so you don't know it. After a while a new instrument appears, perhaps a harp, a piano, or a saxophone. Mentally you place it at a particular orientation relative to yourself, and then you open your eyes and look. You can't see the player, so you keep looking, and eventually locate him or her a considerable angle away from the expected position. I am convinced that this can and does happen.

There can be several reasons for this.

1. Some of us really can't do accurate spatial localisation.
2. The hall has an ambience (echoes, reverberation etc.) which make this hard, or can mislead.

Try doing this in some venues, such as the RAH. It is perfectly plausible that spatial awareness can be compromised in venues like that.

[Dave2002]

Re msg 111 We don't know how old you are, but if you have been able to hear up to 18kHz in recent years your hearing is indeed remarkably good. Young asthmatics can do very well, and didn't James Lovelock claim to have been able to hear over 20kHz, even at a fairly advanced age?

When I was younger the fluorescent lights on some buses used to upset me somewhat - I think they whistled around 15kHz, as did the 625 line TVs. I suspect there are lots of unpleasant noises in labs full of computer screens, and I think I can detect them sometimes. Oddly, few of the younger people who use those facilities complain. Maybe modern equipment really is quiet at high frequencies. I can't say.

[Gordon]

The high pitched 15.625 kHz from 625 line tellies, which had a high power scanning generator at that frequency, typically with a ferrite transformer core that was piezo-electric and so emitted sound naturally, is very rare now because modern sets don't use CRTs. Modern flat panel displays don't scan like that. Fluorescent tubes however can and do whistle still. A badly designed switched mode power supply transformer core could make a noise though.

Hearing up to 18 kHz is indeed rare in older people. When I was 25 I could easily hear 18 and in a quiet room 20 but not now!! I am now 68 and have no underlyng health issues and can hear 15 well in both ears in quiet surroundings or with headphones on. I have a very small tinnitus from time to time usually first thing in the morning, and it sounds like 18 kHz used to!! What matters though is not so much hearing HF in absolute terms - you can always turn the wick up until you think you can - but to what extent is your hearing at that frequency reduced in accuity compared to mid range, say 1 kHz. One needs to calibrate one's measurement. Furthermore in natural music the level at the extreme HF is typically well down in amplitude compared to the mid range so their contribution to the overall impression is not necessarily dominant. The loss of HF can be partially compensated by an extra touch of distortion that adds to the power in the HF!!

Human ears have a natural variable accuity across the band of audio frequencies that varies with loudnesss; ears are most sensitive around 3 kHz and are logarithmic. If you look at the Fletcher-Munson curves for perceived loudness the implication is that it matters what volume level you listen at to get the "correct" tonal balance of a complex sound. In the context of recorded music, "correct" is the listening level that was used in final mastering of a mix and that of course varies widely and different mastering equipment will have an effect. There will be a notional sweet spot at some listening level [acoustic that is] when it is close to the mastering level. Too high a volume and it sounds bass and treble heavy, too low and it sounds bass and treble light. So listening at the right and, when comparing systems, constant acoustic loudness matters if you are looking for "fidelity" rather than adjusting level to taste.