• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

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

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,145
Likes
3,829
Location
Germany
If you had to mix a radio play. And you want to give the impression that a person climbs up some stairs in a room, and speaks from above? You have the typical tools, eq, reverb, delay,.... What would you do?
Now add another speaker that stands on the floor?

What i like thats maybe thought about is, that for a 3d impression the canvas has not to be 3d. Its enough to fool the brain into 3d.

What bring us back to a sitting or standing trumpet player.
 
Last edited:

Sokel

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
1,675
Likes
1,220
For me,who don't care how the recording is made and if they use effects to recreate height,is it enough to trust the LEDR test for positioning (at the any limits I may have) or I need something more?
Theories are 99% but we have to put in in use,thats the value.
Thank god I didn't need a medical doctor,he would slowly talked me to death :facepalm:.
 

PeteL

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
2,659
Likes
2,740
If you had to mix a radio play. And you want to give the impression that a person climbs up some stairs in a room, and speaks from above? You have the typical tools, eq, reverb, delay,.... What would you do?
Now add another speaker that stands on the floor?

What i like thats maybe thought about is, that for a 3d impression the canvas has not to be 3d. Its enough to fool the brain into 3d.
It's a complex subject, I don't have an answer to your question, but in the context of music reproduction, an other factor that could be brought in, and I know it is opening a whole other can of worm, but just thinking of it now, and yes it's not about pure science but it's about perception.
What if... The third dimension when referencing a music mix was not, or not necessarily "spatial"
I am thinking, and it's I admit disturbingly simplistic. The frequency spectrum. At the end of the day it's a scaled quantity of a fixed size. If we are still thinking of the analogy of putting objects in a box. A stereo mix obviously has a width (paning of the instruments) a depth (reverberation, delays) but elements are also "positioned" from bass to treble. Sure it has nothing to do with height, but is it not a "dimension"? If things are not distributed on that scale, a mix will be congested, instrument "separation" will suffer, etc. Those are still dimensional concepts. Just tought of it 3D, or "third D" Could be just as stupid as that... I know it's quite a side track compared to the rest of my discourse, just brain storming here, conceptually.
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,145
Likes
3,829
Location
Germany
It's a complex subject, I don't have an answer to your question, but in the context of music reproduction, an other factor that could be brought in, and I know it is opening a whole other can of worm, but just thinking of it now, and yes it's not about pure science but it's about perception.
What if... The third dimension when referencing a music mix was not, or not necessarily "spatial"
I am thinking, and it's I admit disturbingly simplistic. The frequency spectrum. At the end of the day it's a scaled quantity of a fixed size. If we are still thinking of the analogy of putting objects in a box. A stereo mix obviously has a width (paning of the instruments) a depth (reverberation, delays) but elements are also "positioned" from bass to treble. Sure it has nothing to do with height, but is it not a "dimension"? If things are not distributed on that scale, a mix will be congested, instrument "separation" will suffer, etc. Those are still dimensional concepts. Just tought of it 3D, or "third D" Could be just as stupid as that... I know it's quite a side track compared to the rest of my discourse, just brain storming here, conception-ally.

We can do easy science here. Just a radio ,a person that carrys it around in a room, directed to the stereo mics. Going down to floor and up as high he can with the radio while walking. Thats it, do science. I would say its easy to hear he tonal change, and with this the brain gets a good impresion what happens.
 
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
16,444
Likes
28,337
It's a complex subject, I don't have an answer to your question, but in the context of music reproduction, an other factor that could be brought in, and I know it is opening a whole other can of worm, but just thinking of it now, and yes it's not about pure science but it's about perception.
What if... The third dimension when referencing a music mix was not, or not necessarily "spatial"
I am thinking, and it's I admit disturbingly simplistic. The frequency spectrum. At the end of the day it's a scaled quantity of a fixed size. If we are still thinking of the analogy of putting objects in a box. A stereo mix obviously has a width (paning of the instruments) a depth (reverberation, delays) but elements are also "positioned" from bass to treble. Sure it has nothing to do with height, but is it not a "dimension"? If things are not distributed on that scale, a mix will be congested, instrument "separation" will suffer, etc. Those are still dimensional concepts. Just tought of it 3D, or "third D" Could be just as stupid as that... I know it's quite a side track compared to the rest of my discourse, just brain storming here, conceptually.
You will have to ask someone adept at mixing. When I've tried to do such things if there are more than 3 tracks it just ends up sounding like a hashy mess. Or almost (almost mind you) as bad as a Phil Spector recording. As odd as it seems, I can process each channel as it needs up to 8 channels anyway, and if I pan everything left, right or center it sounds much more distinct. Much better result for listeners. And having multiple tracks in one of those three positions doesn't make them sound on top of each other in a way you would guess would happen.


If you ever watch the documentary on Muscle Shoals, and if you haven't you might want to, they show some of the old original equipment used in the 1960s there. The mixing board didn't have pan pots. It had 3 way switches. Each switch was Left, Center or Right. Some were 3 way flip switches and some were 3 way rotary switches.

Universal Audio 610 Vacuum tube mixing board. See how each channel in the board has a switch, labeled L(eft), M(iddle) and R(ight).

1662037146134.png



1662038089786.png
 
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
16,444
Likes
28,337
We can do easy science here. Just a radio ,a person that carrys it around in a room, directed to the stereo mics. Going down to floor and up as high he can with the radio while walking. Thats it, do science. I would say its easy to hear he tonal change, and with this the brain gets a good impresion what happens.
I can think of a couple reason this might give cues to height, yet without giving actual height. It really needs doing in an outdoor setting so you get no reflections from the radio regardless of whether it is high or low.
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,145
Likes
3,829
Location
Germany
I can think of a couple reason this might give cues to height, yet without giving actual height. It really needs doing in an outdoor setting so you get no reflections from the radio regardless of whether it is high or low.

Sure it gives no real hight. But your brain translates the tonal changes to hight. Couse you used to that a radio on the floor has more bass, and has less reverbed sound than a radio that is near ceiling.. And for that absolutly no 'high-end'(what ever the definition of that is) system is needet.
I mean the brain is a fu..ing squeeze it into your reality machine. Just look on some 3d street paintings. ;)
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,145
Likes
3,829
Location
Germany
You will have to ask someone adept at mixing. When I've tried to do such things if there are more than 3 tracks it just ends up sounding like a hashy mess. Or almost (almost mind you) as bad as a Phil Spector recording. As odd as it seems, I can process each channel as it needs up to 8 channels anyway, and if I pan everything left, right or center it sounds much more distinct. Much better result for listeners. And having multiple tracks in one of those three positions doesn't make them sound on top of each other in a way you would guess would happen.


If you ever watch the documentary on Muscle Shoals, and if you haven't you might want to, they show some of the old original equipment used in the 1960s there. The mixing board didn't have pan pots. It had 3 way switches. Each switch was Left, Center or Right. Some were 3 way flip switches and some were 3 way rotary switches.

Universal Audio 610 Vacuum tube mixing board. See how each channel in the board has a switch, labeled L(eft), M(iddle) and R(ight).

View attachment 228015


Man i love this mixing console. This are volume potis for the hands of a real man. And this nice high-end switched sound controlles -6,-3,0,+3,+6. To hell, who ever invented digital consolles. ;)
 
Last edited:

killdozzer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
1,174
Likes
1,156
I keep getting asked to address the paper by professor Kunchur on his latest paper as promoted by a number of youtubers. There, he claims to have found correlated measurements for why different cable "grades" make an audible difference. So I put together a presentation detailing his testing and problems with it:


It is long (41 minutes) but hopefully you can skim through it. If not, you have for reference next time someone throws the paper/youtube video at you. :)

Edit: link to the paper: http://boson.physics.sc.edu/~kunchur/papers/Interconnect-cable-measurements--Kunchur.pdf
You've been very clear, easily understandable, straight to the point on every issue and aspect. You did set it straight. The only said thing being all this should be universally accepted already. You gave some of your time and thought for something simple and obvious. But, as you said, since new kids have to learn it too (like the Korean kid), it's nice you took the effort.
 

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
1,502
Likes
2,649
Location
Vancouver(ish)
Man i love this mixing console. This are volume potis for the hands of a real man. And this nice high-end switched sound controlles -6,-3,0,+3,+6. To hell, who ever invented digital consolles. ;)
The person assigned to the task of cleaning the pots in an analog console.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
2,044
Likes
2,181
Last time I checked, AES is not a federal agency...

That's not what the directive means. It means any papers describing results from research funded by federal agencies (NIH, DOE, DARPA, etc) must be made public domain.

Kunchur's funding has not been specified AFAIK but presumably is not federal, otherwise he would have had to disclose that in his papers.
 

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,271
Likes
2,358
Location
Southern California
At audio frequencies on the signaling side of things, it’s noise that’s the principal concern. Audio doesn’t look any different than DC to wires other than the fact that it wriggles up and down (maybe skin effect, but the inner conductor diameter is too small to really impact things), and the load resistance of a DAC or amp input is usually high enough to be negligible in terms of conductor resistance. But that same high source and load resistance/impedance means it’s vulnerable to AC hum and RF pickup. Any sort of RF signal that is modulated at an audible rate can potentially be heard once amplified, and linear circuits are real good at acting as AM receivers. It’s the main reason I replaced all my cables as I got tired of hum and listening to the transmitter in my cellphone. But In my case Amazon basics cables (which are probably a copy of someone else’s) had good enough shielding to eliminate that. Granted a hand-held transceiver can still cause issues, but exposing equipment of any sort to substantial RF will have an impact. But pretty much any competent cable manufacturer will be able to make interconnects that will have “SOTA” performance.
agreed, RF/hum/noise is a nightmare which is why I exclusively only use XLR microphones now, but elsewhere in my recording chain there's sometimes noise that I dont know about until post-production, UGH
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
2,044
Likes
2,181
For heaven's sake, can this far too long discussion of Kunchur's work on height perception and of 3D recording be removed to its own thread? This one is about his *cable* nonsense.
 

Mihalis

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
71
Likes
52
Hahaha finally we found what signal can cause distortion to Amir’s cool.
I am submitting this video to the Oxford dictionary as example of the word “mystified”.
 

tomtoo

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
3,145
Likes
3,829
Location
Germany
I like Kunchurs 'papers' since i have.
IMG_20220902_100932972_1.jpg


@amirm
Want some too? ;)

P.S since i have them i can even enjoy more YT reviews. I bought some nice looking crystals to put on the amp. And if you believe it or not, now it sounds much better.
 
Last edited:

odarg64

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 17, 2022
Messages
105
Likes
144
Location
Ceti Alpha V
Supposedly by the good folks at IOSR-JECE.
Acceptance within 10 days. Rapid publication (within a month). Interesting, if not sketchy. That might be typical for a medical or public health publication where rapid response is needed to determine treatment or procedures in real-time. Seems weird for a publication covering these topics:
  • Hybrid Renewable Energy and Energy Saving
  • Controllers, Drives and Machine Design
  • Fuzzy and Hybrid Optimization
  • Artificial Immune System
  • Conditional Monitoring and Instrumentation
  • Circuits and Devices
  • Communication and Information Processing
  • Electrical Engineering Communications
  • Electromagnetics and Microwave
  • Measturement and Testing
  • Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
  • Optics and Optoelectronics
  • Devices and Systems
  • Semiconductors
  • Systems and Control Engineering
  • Power Engineering
  • Power Transmission
  • Transmission Lines etc.

The peer review process is only as good as one's peers. I've had reviews that were quite helpful, providing suggestions which were incorporated into the paper. I've had others indicating lack of adequate understanding on the part of the reviewer, but still requiring my time to write a coherent (polite) response. That's how it goes. Hopefully they learned something new. Good editors are helpful in weeding out reviewer nonsense.

In fields of study with fewer active researchers, one can have a pretty idea about the identify of reviewers. My advisor once received an anonymous review which included some derogatory language. We were pretty sure who it was and complained to the editor, who disqualified the reviewer and requested a review from a different peer.
 
Last edited:

voodooless

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
5,735
Likes
9,432
Location
Netherlands
Acceptance within 10 days. Rapid publication (within a month). Interesting, if not sketchy.
Well, you need a single rapid read to find more than enough stuff to dismiss the article. I guess writing it all down can take 10 days ;)
The peer review process is only as good as one's peers.
So, those peer reviews? Are they usually made public after an article is published? Would be interesting to see what they found/missed.
 
Top Bottom