Analysis of Paper on Measurements of RCA Cables by Kunchur (Video)

[voodooless]

Maybe what we can get from this, if I may dare... I went into this paper convinced that stereo speakers can portray height. That make me biased and prone to not catch some key problems with it. I think that how you've brought it up, and how you conclude, tell me that you went into it clearly questioning is intent, and that makes you also a bit biased on how you analyse the paper. My 2 cents.

Oh absolutely! I'm biased against this person knowing his past antics. But I'm also skeptical by default about basically everything. So I try to stick to the objective facts, look at what is written and try to see if it makes any sense. Obviously, that's not always the end of it. My bias makes some extrapolations about what I think others will read into the paper, and infer a certain motive or intent. I have no proof of that (yet). That is just my opinion. Welcome to the internet

Maybe next time, I need to delineate better what I think are objective facts, and what are my opinions.

 

[kschmit2]

Anyone have any Q-sound CD's? Altering things they could place things up high and low and even behind you with only two speakers. Proves it can be done. Doesn't prove that a minimalist recording accurately does such a thing.

not sure if it is Q-Sound, but here are two Qobuz-playlists with titles that employ at least similar effects:

Open Qobuz

open.qobuz.com

Open Qobuz

open.qobuz.com

 

[tomtoo]

Could someone now define to me the words 'high-end' ? Regarding sound reproducing devices?

I mean its used in a 'scientific paper', imo then there should be a definition?

 

[Blumlein 88]

not sure if it is Q-Sound, but here are two Qobuz-playlists with titles that employ at least similar effects:

Open Qobuz

open.qobuz.com

Open Qobuz

open.qobuz.com

The wiki on Q-sound has a list of a few of the albums done with Q-sound. I would think Qobuz likely has them.

QSound - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Blumlein 88]

Could someone now define to me the words 'high-end' ? Regarding sound reproducing devices?

It was coined by Harry Pearson I think of The Absolute Sound magazine.

High end was gear that offered the finest most musical playback as judged by listening. Not necessarily high priced or high specifications. But life-like enjoyable sound as judged by listeners. It pretty quickly became equivalent to high quality and high priced in most people's minds.

So a Benchmark amp with superlative performance may or may not be judged high end. Some tube amps, or SS amps with modest specifications would be if the consensus was they offered excellent subjective sound quality.

 

[Thomas savage]

Maybe next time, I need to delineate better what I think are objective facts, and what are my opinions.

No, but the self reflection and willingness to listen and ultimately understand one another is the best of what these forums can facilitate.

You both have done really well , it's a rare example unfortunately.

Without these ingredients we end up in a echo chamber and launch ourselves towards the kind of room think , guru bullshit that's so seductive to many and defines these ' social media ' type interactions.

So , cheers and those reading , take a leaf .

 

[tomtoo]

It was coined by Harry Pearson I think of The Absolute Sound magazine.

High end was gear that offered the finest most musical playback as judged by listening. Not necessarily high priced or high specifications. But life-like enjoyable sound as judged by listeners. It pretty quickly became equivalent to high quality and high priced in most people's minds.

So a Benchmark amp with superlative performance may or may not be judged high end. Some tube amps, or SS amps with modest specifications would be if the consensus was they offered excellent subjective sound quality.

And? Whats now the definition? And who is the judge? And what are the laws that the judge can judge about? Is it that 100000 people have to decide this is good sound? Or is there a priest that tells you this is good sound?

For a word like 'high-end' is no place in science. And if its used i would say its intentional. About the intention i dont know.

I mean who,would use the word 'blablabla' in a physics paper?

 

[odarg64]

And? Whats now the definition? And who is the judge? And what are the laws that the judge can judge about? Is it that 100000 people have to decide this is good sound? Or is there a priest that tells you this is good sound?

For a word like 'high-end' is no place in science. And if its used i would say its intentional. About the intention i dont know.

I mean who,would use the word 'blablabla' in a physics paper?

I stop reading reviews, impression or papers the moment I encounter nonsensical language or concepts. I served as a peer reviewer in my former field (I'm now retired) and rejected a couple of papers for this very reason, which I made clear to editors. Though not my field of study, I didn't get far with this paper and indeed stopped reading when I encountered "'high-end audio' (HEA) systems," a meaningless term. This researcher is not to be taken seriously.

My guess is that we have a tenured, full professor who no longer needs to earn their keep from the university (i.e., via grant money) other than meeting their teaching obligations until retirement. The equipment is likely paid for, so they have little overhead while conducting their 'studies.' I've seen this situation before, but could very well be wrong in this case. Just speculation. Feel free to ignore.

 

[beagleman]

One thing I see often..........


"I know what I hear", (from guys claiming to hear differences in cables, and almost universally with higher priced ones sound better)

But I NEVER see them say....."I know what I hear and can prove it, or demonstrate it"


My take on this. Some guys simply think they are right, no matter what and it is a personality disorder or mild mental issue, where they lack the ability to realize what is being discussed., and can never think they are wrong........
Anyone can think or claim to see or hear ANYTHING. But it needs to be validated or demonstrated to make ANY meaningful difference...............

 

[beagleman]

I stop reading reviews, impression or papers the moment I encounter nonsensical language or concepts. I served as a peer reviewer in my former field (I'm now retired) and rejected a couple of papers for this very reason, which I made clear to editors. Though not my field of study, I didn't get far with this paper and indeed stopped reading when I encountered "'high-end audio' (HEA) systems," a meaningless term. This researcher is not to be taken seriously.

My guess is that we have a tenured, full professor who no longer needs to earn their keep from the university (i.e., via grant money) other than meeting his teaching obligations until retirement. The equipment is likely paid for, so they have little overhead while conducting their 'studies.' I've seen this situation before, but could very well be wrong in this case. Just speculation. Feel free to ignore.

I learned Years ago............


A product, cable, component, or what have you, will either pass an Alternating current Electrical signal Fully intact, OR degraded to some degree.

Nothing is Musical, or High end, or Listenable or any of the silly terms given to electrical components.

They are all simply passing a signal.

I would see on Audio forums (mostly so called High end ones) guys asking why the speaker Engineers seem to never use Poly caps in the crossovers..........

They would debate as to cost and so on, but in the end, they would never want to hear the reality, that high cost caps DO NOT make an audible difference, nor a measurable electrical difference.

We used Basic caps cause they passed the signal for all intents completely intact. The use of High priced caps was not only pointless, but guys that think that stuff matters, would insist on a particular brand or boohoo it being a generic Poly or one from china or what have you.

 

[MacCali]

I love this. Measurements are so critical to make sure we don't get ripped off on audio gear....seriously.

That’s what I have been saying this whole time. I mean fundamentally that’s what Amir’s mission is I absolutely can’t understand how anyone can be mad about this. Speaking about our subjective counterparts, and I am not mad at them nor do I feel they are wrong.

You do you boo. I know others on here feel otherwise about subjective audio. I feel this should not be a fence a between. I stated previously even though Danny from GR research is a whole bunch of hot air, when he apologized for calling Amir and his following statements on the video, whether it came from his heart or was good for business, is extremely accurate.

Third to that, coming from pro measurements aspect. I tell people have you ever owned a product that really has poor measurements? And if you have what is your honest opinion about it?

I ask these questions because if you truly did know you owned something that was pure garbage, at least in stereo, doesn’t sound as bad as you would think.

I own a total trash unit that is below 40 db sinad, I bought it only cause it was so cheap. I actually enjoyed it and found out the measurements are god awful in every aspect. This was a moment to really fathom.

I also own a system which is state of the art to have a comparative analysis. My findings are fairly surprising.

I am not saying the poorly measuring equipment sounds better than the best. But I cannot provide any quantified difference. ie its 40% worse than the best.

This alone makes me understand the side of the subjective society and I really want you guys to understand this to create peace.

 

[milosz]

@amirm Isn't the wavelength of 20KHz around a little bit higher than one centimeter? Am i missing something in your transmission line explanation?

Maybe someone has already answered this, but in free air a 20 kHz electromagnetic wave (NOT a sound wave) has a wavelength of 15 kilometers. Due to velocity of transmission of electromagnetic waves being different in cables than in air (velocity factor), wavelength of 20 kHz in a cable is about half of that in free air. So, for 20 kHz about 7.5 km; about 5 miles. Transmission line theory therefore tells us that we do not consider an audio cable to be a transmission line until it is about a half mile long.... the cable's real world behavior will agree very closely to analysis using lumped parameters, no need to use transmission line theory. That is, what is the value of resistance, capacitance and inductance of this cable (i.e., it's impedance) - knowing this will tell you just about everything you need to know about what that cable will do to audio going through it. Even though snake oil wire merchants tell you that their mobius-strip 4 dimensional braid pattern or kryptonite dielectric will somehow make the sound better, whatever that wire or cable is doing to the audio could be done with regular wire to which is added the same resistance, capacitance and inductance as was measured in the fancy wire. Which is to say, for fancy wires to change the sound at all they must be acting as electrical filters- in which case they are not wires at all but filter networks - tone controls, basically.

 

[MacCali]

There is no lack of peace. It does not need to be "created". Not only that, but I believe 'most everyone here understands subjectivists. What subjectivists either can't or won't accept are logical thought in science-based endeavors, and the discipline that is necessary for those endeavors to bear fruit.

Jim

I agree with you, I think the mods have been on top of posts lately. I mean peace by Amir posts a review, someone who is subjective will come to that thread basically telling Amir and us we are wrong and it sounds amazing. That’s the gist of it

Our members will then mock/clown/laugh at these people. Not everyone does this and Amir who is virtually our lead never does this and gives clear concise responses to say how this incorrect. A professional approach if he would even waste his time to do so, in our community we may see it’s a waste of time to change these people.

All I say for one is for us just to leave those people be. Basically if you got nothing positive to say don’t say nothing at all.

Why do I say this? Clearly it’s impossible to change certain people. That’s fine, but even if we can convert one person that’s great. But being rude or disrespectful will push these people away from that ever happening.

Clearly what the subjective person is doing here is disrespectful to us. Don’t be like them, we don’t want to be like them.

 

[Blumlein 88]

And? Whats now the definition? And who is the judge? And what are the laws that the judge can judge about? Is it that 100000 people have to decide this is good sound? Or is there a priest that tells you this is good sound?

For a word like 'high-end' is no place in science. And if its used i would say its intentional. About the intention i dont know.

I mean who,would use the word 'blablabla' in a physics paper?

I agree with all of your objections and most especially in a "science" paper. Nevertheless I gave you the definition. One Kunchur would agree with. Asking him to answer your questions would be the next step.

High end audio is somewhere halfway between art and religion. Almost like asking what is the definition of great art?

Art
Creative work to evoke aesthetic response

High end audio is work to evoke aestetic response in the listener of recorded stereo sound.

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

For the record I still do think that a "proper" sound system can deliver a 3D image. Yes you'll ask me what is proper and I'll tell you that I don't know still.
Alright, this paper is not a proof of that. So what I think is just what I think and not what I know. And I did state that for one I didn't think that the paper was perfect or that or it need to be, and I also stated that I can be wrong too.I am interested in knowing more about the mechanisms of it, it's an interesting subject. There's a issue with the music chosen, I'd like to read an other one.

So what do you think? There is no right or wrong, it's a discussion. Do you think a stereo system can deliver a 3D image or strictly depth and width? In the end it's an attempt to answer that. I think a stereo system can.

It would be interesting to try such experiments with a coaxial speaker such as those from KEF and Genelec. I suspect, once ones preconceptions have been removed, the "height" effect will be, too. With a two-way system, due to there needing to be physically offset drivers with a cross-over, some component of the audio spectrum that we normally use for sound localization will be carried by the midrange/woofer as well, and this can induce ILDs that we could possibly interpret as cues with respect to height. Same goes with room reflections as they can emerge from differing trajectories on their way to the listening position. Or even comb-filtering, as others have pointed out, could mimic the spectral coloration induced by the ears that we use to determine height in the first place. The effect of the speaker topology and room have a powerful impact of how we perceive things. From a review of the FR30, the reviewer noted that it had a very deep soundstage, which is likely due to the inclusion of the super tweeter on the back of the speaker. This will add a sense of depth due to there being sound coming from both the front baffle as well as reflecting off of the back of the room. Its important to note that this will be artificial, even though its likely to be subjectively pleasing from a listening standpoint.

I'm not saying height is impossible in a two-channel recording. But with conventional microphones there is no mechanism in place to convey it. It would genuinely be interesting to repeat his experiment on height with proper controls, but I suspect the results would be to dispel the existence of height in conventional stereo recordings once biases have been removed. I think we know enough about psychoacoustics to have a reasonable degree of confidence at this point to draw that conclusion. But, I am also genuinely open to being proven wrong since that is where all your interesting discoveries come from

On a side note, since I have the equipment to do so, I repeated one of his experiments, namely Temporal resolution by bandwidth restriction and my results were not good. They showed that Kunchur had neglected, at a minimum, two things. The first being having a control to keep the fundamental energy in all the waveforms the subjects were subjected to constant, and the second to actually do high resolution FFT of the actual output from the apparatus to ensure there are no IMD components clustered around the harmonics of the square wave since these alone can give unintended cues to the subjects. I know my generator does the same thing, and I suspected I could hear a difference just from those alone. But the upshot was once all those aspects were removed and I repeated the experiment, its clear he was getting a false positive. Once the harmonics have been pushed out of the audio spectrum leaving only the fundamental, any waveform chosen simply sounds the same as a sine wave at the same frequency. Its simple physics at that point. Its unfortunate that he falls prey to such things, but I think we can say that any paper he has written on audio is, at best, junk science.

 

[PeteL]

It would be interesting to try such experiments with a coaxial speaker such as those from KEF and Genelec. I suspect, once ones preconceptions have been removed, the "height" effect will be, too. With a two-way system, due to there needing to be physically offset drivers with a cross-over, some component of the audio spectrum that we normally use for sound localization will be carried by the midrange/woofer as well, and this can induce ILDs that we could possibly interpret as cues with respect to height. Same goes with room reflections as they can emerge from differing trajectories on their way to the listening position. Or even comb-filtering, as others have pointed out, could mimic the spectral coloration induced by the ears that we use to determine height in the first place. The effect of the speaker topology and room have a powerful impact of how we perceive things. From a review of the FR30, the reviewer noted that it had a very deep soundstage, which is likely due to the inclusion of the super tweeter on the back of the speaker. This will add a sense of depth due to there being sound coming from both the front baffle as well as reflecting off of the back of the room. Its important to note that this will be artificial, even though its likely to be subjectively pleasing from a listening standpoint.

I'm not saying height is impossible in a two-channel recording. But with conventional microphones there is no mechanism in place to convey it. It would genuinely be interesting to repeat his experiment on height with proper controls, but I suspect the results would be to dispel the existence of height in conventional stereo recordings once biases have been removed. I think we know enough about psychoacoustics to have a reasonable degree of confidence at this point to draw that conclusion. But, I am also genuinely open to being proven wrong since that is where all your interesting discoveries come from

On a side note, since I have the equipment to do so, I repeated one of his experiments, namely Temporal resolution by bandwidth restriction and my results were not good. They showed that Kunchur had neglected, at a minimum, two things. The first being having a control to keep the fundamental energy in all the waveforms the subjects were subjected to constant, and the second to actually do high resolution FFT of the actual output from the apparatus to ensure there are no IMD components clustered around the harmonics of the square wave since these alone can give unintended cues to the subjects. I know my generator does the same thing, and I suspected I could hear a difference just from those alone. But the upshot was once all those aspects were removed and I repeated the experiment, its clear he was getting a false positive. Once the harmonics have been pushed out of the audio spectrum leaving only the fundamental, any waveform chosen simply sounds the same as a sine wave at the same frequency. Its simple physics at that point. Its unfortunate that he falls prey to such things, but I think we can say that any paper he has written on audio is, at best, junk science.

Microphones, as you say are not intelligent and have no HRTF. But Instruments have directivity no? If You try to capture a snare drum, If You capture it 2 m above, it will not sound the same as if you position the mic at the players ears or closed miked or from the back. delays and reflections will also be captured, Why would the listener not be able to hear these differences that where captured and not interpret them, perceive them, as height?

 

[MacCali]

You are correct; Amir is professional and circumspect. There are several other long-time members here who share those characteristics. It's fortunate that we have this type of person here.

You seem to be working under the assumption that everyone who posts here as a seeming subjectivist is sincere and posting in good faith. I believe that is not true. Many are trolls. They are not sincere, nor do they communicate in good faith.

Jim

Totally agree with you upon this and that’s why I said they are virtually disrespecting us. Let them troll, some are and some aren’t. I don’t think it matters to us right, it’s not going to change our perspective.

Would you not consider if we just completely ignored the comment and they got no reaction out of us they would return? Even if they did once we neglect the drama they try to create they will vanish.

But my point from above is when it comes to equipment in a chain, not including cables or power conditioners and the like. I can understand from personal experience how someone could say this amp or dac which measures in the -80’s “sounds” good because as I stated I’ve owned an amp that is less than 40, has distortion in the teens at very low watts and is basically classified as trash in our books. Crosstalk is trash too. Everything about it is bad.

Ironically it doesn’t sound as horrible as you may think and I still use it to this day to listen to music on a secondary system I have.

So who knows what the motiv is and who cares. This is merely the dozen times I witnessed it and I don’t go through every page of every review. I’m sure it’s far more consistent.

I am just saying it’s something to consider and I wish my message would be heard across our forums and community. An idea to entertain. Agree to disagree.

I am simply going by my experience and to me it helps me answer the question, what the heck are these people talking about. Clearly it’s crap so how could they say it’s good in cases where they are not trolling

I further push this notion in the sense that probably most of us objective audiophiles may have owned something at worst having mediocre measurements before you ever considered measurements. So if I couldn’t really hate the product at -40 db vs 120 how would you[anyone] be able to differentiate -70 vs 120. Hoping this gives better understanding

This is not a push to say measurements are meaningless, nor that an inferior measuring product is better than state of the art.

 

[JSmith]

Would you not consider if we just completely ignored the comment and they got no reaction out of us they would return?

The problem is with that is if misinformation is posted and not addressed, some readers may think that the comment is correct. So it is quite important for incorrect comments to be responded to with correct information and for clear agenda types to be jostled.


JSmith

 

[PeteL]

You are correct; Amir is professional and circumspect. There are several other long-time members here who share those characteristics. It's fortunate that we have this type of person here.

You seem to be working under the assumption that everyone who posts here as a seeming subjectivist is sincere and posting in good faith. I believe that is not true. Many are trolls. They are not sincere, nor do they communicate in good faith.

Jim

Google Hanlon's razor.

 

[Cars-N-Cans]

Microphones, as you say are not intelligent and have no HRTF. But Instruments have directivity no? If You try to capture a snare drum, If You capture it 2 m above, it will not sound the same as if you position the mic at the players ears or closed miked or from the back. delays and reflections will also be captured, Why would the listener not be able to hear these differences that where captured and not interpret them, perceive them, as height?

That is indeed a very interesting point! We are capturing instruments and voices that themselves have very complex radiation patterns, and using microphones and speakers that, by their design, MUST have a predefined and predictable radiation pattern with respect to recording and playback of sounds. Otherwise, they wont work the way we want them to. I think the opposite is likely true with respect to imaging. Imposing such constraints likely alters much of the spatial cues, which is probably one reason its so hard to get a good sounding recording with only two microphones. They only capture a small slice of the emitted spectrum, and any additional cues that we normally use to interpolate, such as small head motions and the interactions with our relatively large ears, are lost in the process. These cues are both the changes in spectrum induced by our ears with respect to relative position (that microphones wont include) as well as changes in tonality as we move about. Its one reason why head tracking is needed with headphones if you want full binaural audio. Its my experience that everything images just behind the head, and along the axis of the ears, otherwise in binaural recordings. Those subtle cues are missing.