Topic: Cable burn in?

[Javier Cinakowski]

edit: to be ironically hypocritical.  T+

very intesested in these results. 

[SparkE!]

edit: to be ironically hypocritical.  T+

very intesested in these results. 

[best ScoobyDoo voice]  Ruuuuh??? Rironic? Rippocritical? [/best ScoobyDoo voice]

[it-goes-to-eleven]

24/96 Bluegrass samps are ready..  The first is a slow number with vocal where the instruments come in one at a time and seems well suited for testing, the second is an intense and hectic instrumental.

I wanted to collect some test results but realized I don't have a balanced output source that can take a digi stream.  Best I can do is pc > ua5  > rca to xlr > v3> test cable > 722.  That would work but is not ideal (note to self, order mytek). I'll probably take a stab at it anyway. Shoot me a pm if you'd like the samples for testing.

My most interesting test candidates are 15' radio shack, 25' mil silver-teflon (and 2'), 15' canare quad (and various), 6' 1804a.  Once we get the testing rolling, I think we should do some quad vs. 2 pair tests, both for overall quality and resistance to noise from cellphones and dimmers.  I have both types of silver-teflon.

[morningdew]

I'm interested in any tests done to compare cables.  I have a 100' spool of 1804a that is just sitting around collecting dust.

Someone gave me 100' of the mil. spec. sliver clad, teflon coated stuff right before I was getting ready to make up a bunch of cables.  I made a pair of 50' footers.  I used the sliver clad stuff instead of the 1804a because I assumed it was better.

I would like to hear someones' thoughts on 1804a vs. the sliver clad.  Both before and after burn in.

[RebelRebel]

30 second Classical Samples are uploading now, Spark.

[Church-Audio]

Guysonic makes some of the best sounding omni binaural mics I have ever heard for under $800 I would be glad to be lumped in with him any day thanks for the compliment!
Chris Church

I do notice a pattern here it seems that anyone who makes mics and preamps gets treated like shit IMO that’s why some of the people I know in the business will not come on here anymore to talk.

You mean GuySonic and Len Moskowitz?  The GuySonic and Moskowitz material from 10 years ago on dat-heads still ranks at the top of the arrogant self promotion I've witnessed.  If you want to lump yourself in with those guys you're going to have to make a much much bigger ass of yourself.

Doug Oade gets treated with a hell of a lot of respect.   So apparently designing mics and preamps is not the common trait that draws disrepect.  It isn't strictly a vendor thing.  There are plenty of vendors here who get a lot of respect.

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Guysonic makes some of the best sounded omni binaural mics I have ever heard for under $800 I would be glad to be lumped in with him any day thanks for the compliment!
Chris Church

He does make excellent mics.   

But I've never found the high quality of his mics to sufficiently balance the negative impact his personal style has on the forums in which he is a participating member.   Alot of it comes from his "I've been doing this for x number of years, so I know everything" attitude I've seen displayed time and time again.   As I mentioned above, being a mic builder is not the issue. 

[Church-Audio]

Do you want the test tones from me I have 96k 24bit or 192 24 bit MLS and 1k or pink noise white noise what ever you need please let me know.

edit: to be ironically hypocritical.  T+

very intesested in these results. 

[best ScoobyDoo voice]  Ruuuuh??? Rironic? Rippocritical? [/best ScoobyDoo voice]

[SparkE!]

Do you want the test tones from me I have 96k 24bit or 192 24 bit MLS and 1k or pink noise white noise what ever you need please let me know.

Thanks Chris, but I can generate any test signals that I need.  I've got music samples from freelunch and I'm waiting for a link to the clips that Teddy is sending.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

So what format do folks prefer for the comp files?  24/48?  Should we even be producing 16 bit versions?   If so, should we just do the original recordings at 24/44 to avoid the resampling step?

[SparkE!]

I plan to play the source material at 24/96, either by burning it to DVD-A and playing it back on a compatible deck (most likely) or by using a stock UA-5 as the playback device.  It would be nice to keep the source as clean as possible so that we don't mask any of the subtle differences that are claimed to exist between various cables.

[RebelRebel]

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

    *   Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
    * Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
    * Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
    * Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
    * Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
    * Quantify, wherever possible.
    * If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
    * "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
    * Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are

    * Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
    * Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

    * Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
    * Argument from "authority".
    * Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
    * Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
    * Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
    * Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
    * Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
    * Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
    * Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
    * Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
    * Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
    * Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
    * Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
    * Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
    * Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
    * Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
    * Confusion of correlation and causation.
    * Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
    * Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
    * Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"



   

[SparkE!]

Well, I've recorded two sets of samples from 24 bit files that were provided by Teddy and by Freelunch.  One set is for people who do not have a good soundcard, but have a way to burn and listen to DVD-A sources.  The other is for people who have a good soundcard and can use something like PCABX or WinABX to compare two sources and see if they can identify which is which when played randomly

The a-set samples are 3 recordings of each clip.  All 3 recordings are done with the same equipment in the signal path, except that 2 are done with one set of cables and 1 is done with the other set of cables (which I will call the odd recording).  One set of cables is brand new and the other set is well broken in.  The goal is to identify which 1 sample of the 3 is the odd recording.  Extra credit if you can identify which cable set was used on the odd recording.

The b-set samples are 2 recordings of each clip.  1 recording is done with one cable set and 1 recording is done with the other cable set.

Both the a-set samples and the b-set samples will be made available soon, probably by bittorrent.  There is a problem with the b-set samples because for some reason, they will not play in PCABX.  This may be due to the .wav format that they use.  When I tracked them out, I used CDWave and used the alternate 24 bit format so that the tracked files could be flac'd.  Maybe that's the problem.  Maybe they have to be re-stored in a different WAV format so that PCABX can use them.  I've seen references to PCABX being used to compare 24 bit files, so there has to be a way to do this, but I have not figured it out yet.

If you want to get ready for comparing b-set samples, then you'll want to read up on PCABX:

http://www.pcabx.com/getting_started.htm

I love their motto: "Shedding light by means of the combustion of snake oil"

[SparkE!]

OK, I found a way around the issue that WinABX and PCABX do not play 24 bit files.  It turns out that foobar2000 has an integrated ABX comparator utility.  What you do is highlight both test tracks in your playlist, right click and choose Utils/ABX two tracks...

Get foobar2000 here

foobar2000 also plays flac files directly, so it's a nice player for use on your PC.  It also means that you don't have to unflac to wav files in order to do an ABX comparison.

[F.O.Bean]

OK, I found a way around the issue that WinABX and PCABX do not play 24 bit files.  It turns out that foobar2000 has an integrated ABX comparator utility.  What you do is highlight both test tracks in your playlist, right click and choose Utils/ABX two tracks...

Get foobar2000 here

foobar2000 also plays flac files directly, so it's a nice player for use on your PC.  It also means that you don't have to unflac to wav files in order to do an ABX comparison.

and also nero 6 ultra has plugisn to burn cd's directly from flac/shn, which comes in VERY handy instead of decoding/encoding your flacs/shns just to burn them to cdr