Re: setting up ABX tests at home

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:17:48 -0800, bear wrote
(in article <foqojc02tlc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):

> Sonnova wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:53:33 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
>> (in article <fon6lt01bbe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>> 
>>> "Greg Wormald" <greg.wormald@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:folrst02p34@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> 
> <snip>
>> 
>> This is correct. At audio frequencies, signal levels, and source 
>> impedances, 
>> wire is wire. Now, perhaps at microwave frequencies, the size,
composition 
>> and routing of cables makes a difference, but from 20 Hz to 20KHz it 
>> matters 
>> not one whit unless you are running extremely long runs (like 30 ft or 
>> more) 
>> of coax carrying a line-level signal, then one might experience some
small 
>> amount of high-frequency roll-off, but this is not what we're talking 
>> about, 
>> here. 
>> 
>> Try this. Take a 1-meter length of Radio Shack coax, solder some cheap 
>> tin-plated RCA plugs on each end and use it for one channel of a run
from, 
>> say, your CD player to your amplifier (or preamp) and use a 1-meter
length 
>> of 
>> Nordost Valhalla (at $4000/meter) or any other "high-priced spread" for
the 
>> other channel. I DEFY you to hear any difference whatsoever between the
two 
>> channels (all else being equal). Cables are s**** oil pure and simple. 
>> There 
>> is simply no known characteristics of physics, electronics, or music
that 
>> would cause any two interconnects to have any sound whatsoever. My rule
of 
>> thumb is to buy cables on build quality for reliability and don't spend

>> another penny above what is necessary to get decent, gas tight
connections 
>> at 
>> the cable/component interface, and adequate strain relief. 
> 
> This is a good example of an invalid test.
> Or at least a highly flawed test that is so limiting that the results
are 
> meaningless - and almost always will conform to the expected results.
> 
> The amount of acoustical 'cues' available in a mono signal are
significantly 
> lower than from a stereo signal. Put another way, it is much much harder
to 
> hear 
> differences in mono sources than with stereo sources (assuming a stereo
set 
> up 
> that 'properly images'). Therefore a test with left/right channels is
doomed 
> to 
> yield results that don't mean very much about anything.
> 
> Stereo is a prerequisite for such tests. Not sufficient, but a
prerequisite.
> 
>             _-_-bear

OK. there are other ways to do this test. Use two high-level inputs to
your 
amplifier/preamp and use a "Y" to feed the signal into a homemade pair and

the Nordost Valhalla simultaneously. Then switch at the amp between the
two. 
Now you're listening in stereo, but the results will be the same. You
won't 
hear any differences because they aren't ANY!