Wire - Some comments by Belden reps
Dana Alan
was staffing a product demonstration booth. I had a chance to lunch with
three of their representatives and the talk got around to audio wire (I
wonder if I had anything to do with that?). As we went along, they opened
up a little spoke on the subject for a few minutes. However, due to certain
clauses in legal contracts, they stopped short of divulging names - and
asked me that if I ever reported on this, to not mention anything that might
give away their identity. Also, while these guys knew Steve Lampen, who
writes in these forums, he was not at this conference. Just wanted to make
that clear.
During this conversation, they told me that Belden manufactures a number
of the various esoteric interconnect and speaker cables for high-end
audio companies. Most of those companies have no cable manufacturing
facilities, and so turn to companies like Belden to make custom cables
for them. Belden is happy to have the business, and agrees to never
divulge which cables are manufactured by them.
However during the course of entering into these contracts, and setting up
the manufacturing processes to produce the cables to spec, Belden's
engineers have had the opportunity to evaluate many of the designs. Belden
employs quite a few EE's as their business is producing high quality,
fully functional wires/cables to be used under simple to highly demanding
situations.
These reps told me that it is a joke amongst Belden's engineers that these
high-end companies are able to sell wire at such outrageous prices. And
that many of the designs are mind-boggling.
One of them looked at me and stated that he hadn't seen a single cable yet
that could audibly outperform a properly made 12AWG zipcord-type speaker
cable. He had seen designs that would sound different than the #12 wire,
but that was due to these designs inducing less accuracy. And many that
did measure different in some way, but not in any way that would audibly
affect a speaker - outside of some designs that were so ill-conceived that
they would create problems in the amp.
Again, they said that they were happy to take the business. But they
wouldn't be buying any expensive wires for their own home systems.
Dana
Peter Corey
Naughty, Naughty;
Shouldna said that.
Without question thas a fact.
Joel what's his name sure hit the number when he came up with the
Monster gimmick.
Your post was worth repeating (over and over again)
Think it'll make a difference ?
Not a chance!
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/powerless.html
--
Regards;
P.Corey
The Hi-End Haven.
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/hiendhaven.html
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/cheaptweaks.html
|~ |=|= |~ |=
0`|~ 0`0` |~|~ 0` |=0`
0` 0`0` 0`
http://home.att.net/~pcor/
Rob Bertrando
($0.25/ft) OFC twisted strand 12-AWG wire, which I have been unable to
distinguish from some very expensive speaker wire, if the length is kept
short (~5' or so). I haven't ever experimented w/ comparisons with longer
length speaker cables. As has been repeatedly mentioned here and in other
forums, the connection may be more important than the cable. I use polished
copper O-rings.
This is with a Parasound HCA 2200 MkII and NHT 3.3's.
Jim Seymour
In article <7isn5a$15k0$3...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
alan...@hotmail.com (Dana Alan) writes:
[snip]
>
> During this conversation, they told me that Belden manufactures a number
> of the various esoteric interconnect and speaker cables for high-end
> audio companies. ...
[snip]
>
> One of them looked at me and stated that he hadn't seen a single cable yet
> that could audibly outperform a properly made 12AWG zipcord-type speaker
> cable. ...
[snip]
Coincidentally, the above information nearly precisely
duplicates what I was told in a phone conversation with a
reliable (IMO) source, just yesterday.
I will not divulge the source, nor the source of his
information. But I swear, as Dave Barry is wont to say, I
am not making this up :-).
Regards,
Jim
--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
jsey...@jimsun.LinxNet.com | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
http://home.msen.com/~jimsun | http://www.trustcenter.de/cgi-bin/SearchCert.cgi
George M. Middius
> But I swear, as Dave Barry is wont to say, I
> am not making this up :-).
Dave says, "I swear I am not making this up."
George M. Middius
Peter Corey
As long as contact is sound, Ohm's law prevails.
A fact that may disappoint occupants of Never never Land.
I use ordinary banana plugs.
Except when using our "Rusty Hangers".
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/coathangers.html
Peter Corey
Gary Sanford wrote:
>
> On 31 May 1999 01:03:38 GMT, alan...@hotmail.com (Dana Alan) wrote:
>
> big snip on how the real wire world works......
>
> A voice of sanity in the cable wilderness.
> I guess the truth really is out there.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Gary Sanford
> sanf...@ibm.net
AMEN !
Gary Sanford
Annika1980
WIRE = WIRE !!!
-Annika -----> Totally Digital !!!
Jim Seymour
"Rob Bertrando" <rbb...@earthlink.net> writes:
[snip]
> ... As has been repeatedly mentioned here and in other
> forums, the connection may be more important than the cable. I use polished
> copper O-rings.
A good intro to another issue I was wondering about.
It occurs to me that a potential problem with copper-to-copper
connections would be that of oxidization. Unless you have a
gas-tight seal, connections that were once good could become
marginal. Turning into hi-resistance, perhaps intermittent, or
power- or frequency-sensitive connections. Even turning once
"good" connections into fairly efficient rectifiers.
I'm just theorizing, here. I'm *not* propounding!
Comments?
Lupine
Dana Alan <alan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7isn5a$15k0$3...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>One of them looked at me and stated that he hadn't seen a single cable yet
>that could audibly outperform a properly made 12AWG zipcord-type speaker
>cable.
Then either he has limited experience, or was lying.
For example, there is a clear measurable and audible difference between my running 4 guage and 1/0 guage
in my car stereo system. Running the 12AWG zipcord-type speaker cable would result in such an enormouse
difference, the amplifiers and processors would shut down within five minutes of moderate playing. E.g. even someone deaf could tell
the difference.
Also, on the speaker cable end, there are plenty of times where non-twisted pair speaker cables can have noise.. which twisted pair
can solve.
Both are real, and measurable difference based upon simple phsyical properties such as resistance, inductance etc.
Dana Alan
<lup...@NOSPAMaja.freenet.net> wrote:
> Dana Alan <alan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7isn5a$15k0$3...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
> >One of them looked at me and stated that he hadn't seen a single cable yet
> >that could audibly outperform a properly made 12AWG zipcord-type speaker
> >cable.
> Then either he has limited experience, or was lying.
> For example, there is a clear measurable and audible difference between
my running 4 guage and 1/0 guage
> in my car stereo system. Running the 12AWG zipcord-type speaker cable
would result in such an enormouse
> difference, the amplifiers and processors would shut down within five
minutes of moderate playing. E.g. even someone deaf could tell the
difference.
He/we might have already stated that we were assuming using the cables
under typical home conditions. We were not discussing car audio and I
have very little experience and knowledge of car audio applications. I
know there are a lot of low impedences present in car audio and am
certainly willing to accept that running a 15-20' cable from a
trunk-mounted amp into a 2 ohm load is more demanding than your typical
7-10' run into stable 4-8 ohm loads.
> Also, on the speaker cable end, there are plenty of times where non-twisted
> pair speaker cables can have noise.. which twisted pair can solve.
This may be true, but I've never observed it in real-life in an audio
system. I have experienced this problem with computer network cables.
Dana
Arny Krüger
Lupine wrote in message <92824826...@news.remarQ.com>...
>
>Dana Alan <alan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7isn5a$15k0$3...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>
>>One of them looked at me and stated that he hadn't seen a single
cable yet
>>that could audibly outperform a properly made 12AWG zipcord-type
speaker
>>cable.
>
>Then either he has limited experience, or was lying.
>
>For example, there is a clear measurable and audible difference
between my running 4 guage and 1/0 guage
>in my car stereo system. Running the 12AWG zipcord-type speaker
cable would result in such an enormouse
>difference, the amplifiers and processors would shut down within
five minutes of moderate playing. E.g. even someone deaf could tell
the difference.
OK, so the guy does not eat, sleep and drink car audio.
>Also, on the speaker cable end, there are plenty of times where
non-twisted pair speaker cables can have noise.. which twisted pair
can solve.
OK, so the guy does not eat, sleep and drink car audio.
>Both are real, and measurable difference based upon simple phsyical
properties such as resistance, inductance etc.
Car audio is a different game than home audio. I think its "real"
audio, but it's just a different game.
I'm getting my nose shoved into car audio by some consulting I've
taken on. Interesting - amps whose input and output signals are 8
volts RMS. In a noisy environment, I guess so. But it ain't home
audio.
Just because some signal source can't put out 8 volts RMS does not
mean it's substandard, provided we are talking home audio, which most
people around here are.
Just because you are hot in car audio does not mean that people who
address their comments to home audio have "limited" experience,
right?
Arny Krüger
Jim Seymour wrote in message <7j0q0a$ae3$1...@ink.msen.com>...
>In article <7iu92r$8mj$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Rob Bertrando" <rbb...@earthlink.net> writes:
>[snip]
>> ... As has been repeatedly mentioned here and
in other
>> forums, the connection may be more important than the cable. I
use polished
>> copper O-rings.
>
>A good intro to another issue I was wondering about.
>
>It occurs to me that a potential problem with copper-to-copper
>connections would be that of oxidization. Unless you have a
>gas-tight seal, connections that were once good could become
>marginal.
Gas-tight seals are not rocket science with pure copper. It's soft
enough so that it deforms enough to provide one for tight
connections.
>Turning into hi-resistance, perhaps intermittent, or
>power- or frequency-sensitive connections. Even turning once
>"good" connections into fairly efficient rectifiers.
>I'm just theorizing, here. I'm *not* propounding!
It happens. Copper Oxide has a relatively low break-down voltage and
is often pretty fragile. This means that if someone unknowingly has a
loose connection, and replaces his cables wholesale, he'll eliminate
the copper oxide junction, and get audibly better sound.
Of course, if one just cleaned the connections, and/or kept them
tight, there would be audibly better sound without the expense and
inconvenience of replacing your cables.
Trevor Wilson
Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:hpU43.999$GT....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com...
> It happens. Copper Oxide has a relatively low break-down voltage and
> is often pretty fragile. This means that if someone unknowingly has a
> loose connection, and replaces his cables wholesale, he'll eliminate
> the copper oxide junction, and get audibly better sound.
>
> Of course, if one just cleaned the connections, and/or kept them
> tight, there would be audibly better sound without the expense and
> inconvenience of replacing your cables.
>
**Excellent advice.
--
Cheers,
Trevor Wilson
Lavos999
>It happens. Copper Oxide has a relatively low break-down voltage and
>is often pretty fragile. This means that if someone unknowingly has a
>loose connection, and replaces his cables wholesale, he'll eliminate
>the copper oxide junction, and get audibly better sound.
>
>Of course, if one just cleaned the connections, and/or kept them
>tight, there would be audibly better sound without the expense and
>inconvenience of replacing your cables.
I personally prefer gold-plated cables, because these are resistant to
oxidation. Gold-plated interconnects at Radio Shack cost only $5-$10 a pair.
----------
"As a basic step of self-esteem, learn to treat as the mark of a cannibal any
man's *demand* for your help. To demand it is to claim that your life is *his*
property."
- John Galt
Arny Krüger
Lavos999 wrote in message
<19990601212619...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
>"Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>>It happens. Copper Oxide has a relatively low break-down voltage
and
>>is often pretty fragile. This means that if someone unknowingly has
a
>>loose connection, and replaces his cables wholesale, he'll
eliminate
>>the copper oxide junction, and get audibly better sound.
>>
>>Of course, if one just cleaned the connections, and/or kept them
>>tight, there would be audibly better sound without the expense and
>>inconvenience of replacing your cables.
>
>I personally prefer gold-plated cables, because these are resistant
to
>oxidation. Gold-plated interconnects at Radio Shack cost only $5-$10
a pair.
I've got just a few of those... ;-) Of course, their utility in my
main system is limited because RS is the pits when it comes to
balanced I/O - they just don't really have anything to offer.
Lupine
Lavos999 <lavo...@aol.comSPAMKILL> wrote in message news:19990601212619...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
>"Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>>It happens. Copper Oxide has a relatively low break-down voltage and
>>is often pretty fragile. This means that if someone unknowingly has a
>>loose connection, and replaces his cables wholesale, he'll eliminate
>>the copper oxide junction, and get audibly better sound.
>>
>>Of course, if one just cleaned the connections, and/or kept them
>>tight, there would be audibly better sound without the expense and
>>inconvenience of replacing your cables.
>
>I personally prefer gold-plated cables, because these are resistant to
>oxidation. Gold-plated interconnects at Radio Shack cost only $5-$10 a pair.
The majority of "gold plated" connectors are so thin, that they easily wear off, including those rat shack models.
Arny Krüger
Lupine wrote in message <92833106...@news.remarQ.com>...
Agreed. But, in home audio cables are not usually mated that often.
Dana Alan
<ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> Lupine wrote in message <92833106...@news.remarQ.com>...
> >
> >Lavos999 <lavo...@aol.comSPAMKILL> wrote in message
> >>I personally prefer gold-plated cables, because these are resistant
> to
> >>oxidation. Gold-plated interconnects at Radio Shack cost only
> $5-$10 a pair.
> >
> >The majority of "gold plated" connectors are so thin, that they
> easily wear off, including those rat shack models.
Yes, the RS jacks are not heavy gold plated, however they do have
some wearability. I have two sets at home that I have plugged in
and unplugged over a dozen times each, yet there is only the
slightest sign of visible wear (and no base metal showing)
on the inside of the jacks. Of course, your mileage may vary,
particularly if the fit happens to be tight on your equipment.
Besides, aren't many interconnects "gold plated?" I'm not aware of
any that have solid 24-kt gold connectors - but wouldn't be surprised
to learn that there are some - even if it would be a pain to keep them
in shape. Don't remember anyone advertising that
their connectors are solid 12-kt gold either. Of course I know there
are varying thicknesses of gold plating.
Dana
Anonymous
>
> Like I always say .....
> WIRE = WIRE !!!
>
make it wire=wire=wire.
Paul Dormer
>Like I always say .....
>
>WIRE = WIRE !!!
A fuckin' stupid comment = A fuckin' stupid comment
Paul Dormer Me...@clara.net
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sound Design, Editing, Mastering
dave weil
Lupine wrote:
> Dana Alan <alan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7isn5a$15k0$3...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>
> >One of them looked at me and stated that he hadn't seen a single cable yet
> >that could audibly outperform a properly made 12AWG zipcord-type speaker
> >cable.
>
> Then either he has limited experience, or was lying.
Well, it doesn't matter because he never established whether he had auditioned these cables under true dbt <g>. Right? Therefore we
must dismiss it out of hand until he produces experimental evidence that the placebo effect wasn't in play. Heck, that's the rules for
making such statements around here, right? <vbg>
Jim Seymour
lavo...@aol.comSPAMKILL (Lavos999) writes:
[snip]
>
> I personally prefer gold-plated cables, because these are resistant to
> oxidation.
I had rather assumed that gold-plating would be de rigueur.
Non?
> Gold-plated interconnects at Radio Shack cost only $5-$10 a pair.
I have purchased (bulk) cable from RS once or twice before and
have never been happy with the quality. (E.g.: TV antenna coax,
"mic" cable. etc.) So I naturally have some concerns about the
quality of their interconnect cables.
I assume you're happy with them? (Otherwise one supposes you
wouldn't have mentioned them in the first place:-).)
Arny Krüger
Paul Dormer wrote in message <377477b4...@news.clara.net>...
>annik...@aol.com (Annika1980) wrote:
>
>>Like I always say .....
>>
>>WIRE = WIRE !!!
>
>A fuckin' stupid comment = A fuckin' stupid comment
>
Childishly abusive writing - childishly abusisve writing.
Paul Dormer
>>>WIRE = WIRE !!!
>>
>>A fuckin' stupid comment = A fuckin' stupid comment
>
>Childishly abusive writing - childishly abusisve writing.
Nice try.. but the sides don't match, and you used a minus sign
resulting in a nonsensical equation.
George M. Middius
> >Childishly abusive writing - childishly abusisve writing.
> Nice try.. but the sides don't match, and you used a minus sign
> resulting in a nonsensical equation.
Cut him some slack, Paul. Arnii is on his home turf here.
George M. Middius
Lavos999
>I've got just a few of those... ;-) Of course, their utility in my
>main system is limited because RS is the pits when it comes to
>balanced I/O - they just don't really have anything to offer.
By balanced I/O do you mean XLR/Cannon connectors?
Lavos999
>>I personally prefer gold-plated cables, because these are resistant to
>>oxidation. Gold-plated interconnects at Radio Shack cost only $5-$10 a pair.
>
>The majority of "gold plated" connectors are so thin, that they easily wear
>off, including those rat shack models.
Really? News to me. I've used a Radio Shack gold-plated video interconnect to
connect two VCR's for the past several years, and there is no visible wear on
the plug even though I've moved and reconfigured my system a few times.
Arny Krüger
Paul Dormer wrote in message <376201d9...@news.clara.net>...
>"Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>>>>WIRE = WIRE !!!
>>>
>>>A fuckin' stupid comment = A fuckin' stupid comment
>>
>
>Nice try.. but the sides don't match, and you used a minus sign
>resulting in a nonsensical equation.
It's always been true thoughout all RAO history, that when mortally
wounded, the victim starts whining about spelling and punctuation.
Paul Dormer
>>>>>WIRE = WIRE !!!
>>>>
>>>>A fuckin' stupid comment = A fuckin' stupid comment
(1) >>>Childishly abusive writing - childishly abusisve writing.
>>Nice try.. but the sides don't match, and you used a minus sign
>>resulting in a nonsensical equation.
>
>It's always been true thoughout all RAO history, that when mortally
>wounded, the victim starts whining about spelling and punctuation.
Look at your comment (1) above.. you just couldn't help yourself from
commenting on my use of language, could you?
Hypocrite.
Dana Alan
Seymour) wrote:
> > Gold-plated interconnects at Radio Shack cost only $5-$10 a pair.
>
> I have purchased (bulk) cable from RS once or twice before and
> have never been happy with the quality. (E.g.: TV antenna coax,
> "mic" cable. etc.) So I naturally have some concerns about the
> quality of their interconnect cables.
You know, now that you mention it, I haven't been happy with some
of their wire either. For example, I own a DSS dish with a dual
LNB. I have two 60's runs from my grounding block to the LNB,
one of Belden RG-6 and the other of RS RG-6. I get a 90% signal
through the Belden on LNB Port 1 and an 88% signal when I swap
it over to LNB Port 2. But through the RS coax, I get 67% on 1 and
63% on 2.
I crimped both sets of wires myself, using high grade RG-6 F-
connectors. I thought the problem might be that I did a poor
job on the RS coax. So I went out and stripped both ends and
carefully installed new F-connectors. This made no difference.
So I'm going to have to go out and pull up (from my cable trench)
all of the RS coax and replace it. What a pain.
That said, I've had good results from RS Gold interconnects.
Dana
Arny Krüger
dave weil wrote in message <3756D0C4...@mindspring.com>...
(1) Dana has done some DBT's, so he might just reply: "I did this and
this...", and then you look a little foolish...
(2) Placebo Effects primarily relate to issues about false positives.
If someone says "I perceived no difference", usually Placebo Effects
are out of the picture.
Arny Krüger
Lavos999 wrote in message
<19990604031429...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...
>"Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>>I've got just a few of those... ;-) Of course, their utility in my
>>main system is limited because RS is the pits when it comes to
>>balanced I/O - they just don't really have anything to offer.
>
>By balanced I/O do you mean XLR/Cannon connectors?
Or TRS.
You can get the wire and connectors at RS. For finished product, it
goes downhill real fast.
RS TRS and XLR connectors are way old tech. I prefer more modern
stuff - easier to assemble. Of course, their gold stuff has the thin
plating and if you use it a lot, it turns silver at wear points.
The one TRS cable they have is an extension cord for headphones -
male/female. Not much use for that as an interconnect. I think I've
seen a M-M XLR cable there, but it was one length and also M/M, and
usually out of stock.
Arny Krüger
Lavos999 wrote in message
<19990604031541...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...
>"Lupine" <Lup...@NOSPAMaja.freenet.net> wrote:
>
>>>I personally prefer gold-plated cables, because these are
resistant to
$5-$10 a pair.
>>
>>The majority of "gold plated" connectors are so thin, that they
easily wear
>>off, including those rat shack models.
>
>Really? News to me. I've used a Radio Shack gold-plated video
interconnect to
>connect two VCR's for the past several years, and there is no
visible wear on
>the plug even though I've moved and reconfigured my system a few
times.
>
Try them for apps where you mate and unmate the connectors daily, or
more often. Or don't! ;-)
Anonymous
>
> (2) Placebo Effects primarily relate to issues about false positives.
> If someone says "I perceived no difference", usually Placebo Effects
> are out of the picture.
but an indicatoin his agenda just kicked in. <w>
Jim Seymour
alan...@hotmail.com (Dana Alan) writes:
> In article <7j6u6s$300$2...@ink.msen.com>, jsey...@jimsun.LinxNet.com (Jim
> Seymour) wrote:
anymore.]
>
> You know, now that you mention it, I haven't been happy with some
> of their wire either. For example, I own a DSS dish with a dual
> LNB. I have two 60's runs from my grounding block to the LNB,
> one of Belden RG-6 and the other of RS RG-6. I get a 90% signal
> through the Belden on LNB Port 1 and an 88% signal when I swap
> it over to LNB Port 2. But through the RS coax, I get 67% on 1 and
> 63% on 2.
That's a sign of inferior coax. Like I have purchased (only
once--when I was in a hurry) from RS. When I re-did my roof
antenna (a much less demanding application than yours), I went
out and got Belden RG-6.
>
> I crimped both sets of wires myself, using high grade RG-6 F-
> connectors. I thought the problem might be that I did a poor
> job on the RS coax. So I went out and stripped both ends and
> carefully installed new F-connectors. This made no difference.
Well, it was worth the test anyway, I suppose. But if RS coax
is still the same quality-level of coaxial cable they have been
selling in the past, it was certainly the cable itself.
Just take some apart and compare it to the Belden. It's easy
to see.
>
> So I'm going to have to go out and pull up (from my cable trench)
> all of the RS coax and replace it. What a pain.
Are you putting this stuff inside something? Like semi-rigid
conduit (non-metallic)? Exposed to the elements, normal coax is
only good for (as I recall) about 7 years. (The increase in
acid rain has likely reduced that. I don't know for sure.) I
don't know about its life-span in the ground. (I suppose it
would depend on soil wetness, acidity, etc.)
>
> That said, I've had good results from RS Gold interconnects.
Thanks for the input. (No pun intended--this time.) That's
two votes in favour.
Paul Wagner
> alan...@hotmail.com (Dana Alan) writes:
> > You know, now that you mention it, I haven't been happy with some
> > of their wire either. For example, I own a DSS dish with a dual
> > LNB. I have two 60's runs from my grounding block to the LNB,
> > one of Belden RG-6 and the other of RS RG-6. I get a 90% signal
> > through the Belden on LNB Port 1 and an 88% signal when I swap
> > it over to LNB Port 2. But through the RS coax, I get 67% on 1 and
> > 63% on 2.
> > That said, I've had good results from RS Gold interconnects.
>
> Thanks for the input. (No pun intended--this time.) That's
> two votes in favour.
I replaced the cable on an RS PZM mic with Monster mic cable, and the
non-distorting frequency range widened and the signal got louder.
I have also used RS interconnects when setting up an elderly client's
teaching-studio student-recording system, and they were a big
improvement (esp noise rejection) over blisterpack stuff, but we could
both easily hear the additional definition granted by Monster Interlink
when we hooked it up to one channel of the sytem, start to end.
He's replacing the RS with Monster a pair at a time as his budget
affords, and is happier and happier with his recording system; his
students are, as well.
--PW--
Lavos999
>>Really? News to me. I've used a Radio Shack gold-plated video
>interconnect to
>>connect two VCR's for the past several years, and there is no
>visible wear on
>>the plug even though I've moved and reconfigured my system a few
>times.
>>
>
>Try them for apps where you mate and unmate the connectors daily, or
>more often. Or don't! ;-)
Fortunately, I don't have to reconfigure my system on a daily basis, and I
suspect most other home users don't either. And, of course, most professional
users employ balanced interconnects, as you have indicated.
Lavos999
>In article <19990601212619...@ng-fv1.aol.com>,
> lavo...@aol.comSPAMKILL (Lavos999) writes:
>[snip]
>>
>> I personally prefer gold-plated cables, because these are resistant to
>> oxidation.
>
>I had rather assumed that gold-plating would be de rigueur.
>Non?
Yes, but I'd wager that the majority of stereo systems aren't hooked up with
gold-plated interconnects. A lot of people use those 50-cent throwaways that
are included with most hi-fi equipment.
>> Gold-plated interconnects at Radio Shack cost only $5-$10 a
>pair.
>
>I have purchased (bulk) cable from RS once or twice before and
>have never been happy with the quality. (E.g.: TV antenna coax,
>"mic" cable. etc.) So I naturally have some concerns about the
>quality of their interconnect cables.
Someone else mentioned problems with coax from Radio Shack. I don't have
experience with that, but I did use two video interconnects (RCA plugs, not
S-video) to hook together two hi-fi VCR's for dubbing. There were no visible
problems.
>I assume you're happy with them? (Otherwise one supposes you
>wouldn't have mentioned them in the first place:-).)
Yep - they're cheap and they work fine. Of course, I'm sure that there are
other gold-plated cables for a similar low cost that work just as well.
Lavos999
>That's a sign of inferior coax. Like I have purchased (only
>once--when I was in a hurry) from RS. When I re-did my roof
>antenna (a much less demanding application than yours), I went
>out and got Belden RG-6.
Where do you buy Belden coax cable? Also, are there any online tutorials on how
to cut coax to your own length and install the F-connectors?
Arny Krüger
Lavos999 wrote in message
<19990605041408...@ng-ci1.aol.com>...
>jsey...@jimsun.LinxNet.com (Jim Seymour) wrote:
>
>>That's a sign of inferior coax. Like I have purchased (only
>>once--when I was in a hurry) from RS. When I re-did my roof
>>antenna (a much less demanding application than yours), I went
>>out and got Belden RG-6.
>
>Where do you buy Belden coax cable? Also, are there any online
tutorials on how
>to cut coax to your own length and install the F-connectors?
>
Belden dealers and distributors. Please see
http://www.belden.com/products/Catalog/newpage.htm for their online
catalog and information about where to buy.
>Also, are there any online tutorials on how to cut coax to your own
length and install the F-connectors?
Cutting to length is usually done with diagonal side-cutting pliers
or a special cable cutting shears. The former is a standard
hardware-store item. The latter can be obtained from dealers and
distributors who specialize in selling to people who install cable
systems and computer networks.
Trimming can be done with the same diagonal side-cutting pliers, or
again, a special trimming tool sold by from dealers and distributors
who specialize in selling to people who install cable systems and
computer networks. I think that Radio Shack may have coax trimming
tools, too,
The essence of trimming for F connectors is to cut away the sheath,
and shield to a certain length, leave a little stub of inner
insulation, and then leave a longer piece of inner conductor. The
stub of inner insulation should be pretty short, maybe 1 quarter of
an inch. The inner conductor can be cut long at this point, maybe 3/4
of an inch past the inner insulation.
It's best to get a really good crimping tool. You want one with a lot
of mechanical advantage. Radio Shack has has a compund-action tool in
their stores and it represents about the minimum. This tool is
generally bought from tool sold by from dealers and distributors who
specialize in selling to people who install cable systems and
computer networks.
The F-connector is slipped over the trimmed end of the wire. The
F-connector has an internal barrel that slips under the shield and
outer insulation, and over the inner insulation and inner conductor.
You want the whole internal barrel to slip under, and this can take
some pushing and twisting. Then you crimp, and trim the inner
conductor so that it extends about a quarter inch out of the F
connector.
Dealers and distributors who specialize in selling to people who
install cable systems and computer networks include Jensen tools
include Jensen:
http://www.jensentools.com/bin/sct25/jensen/v1/cateframe.html (see
wire and cable tools - Crimpers, Strippers, Cutters, and Removal
Tools, Coaxial Cable Strippers, Paladin, and ProCrimper 2 Crimp Tool)
for a higher end supplier, and http://cyberguys.com/ , (2 Blade Coax
Stripping Tool 115-2170 and Coax Crimp Tool 115-2190 ) for example.
dave weil
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
> dave weil wrote in message <3756D0C4...@mindspring.com>...
> >
> >
> >Lupine wrote:
> >
> >> Dana Alan <alan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7isn5a$15k0$3...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
> >>
> >> >One of them looked at me and stated that he hadn't seen a single
> cable yet
> >> >that could audibly outperform a properly made 12AWG zipcord-type
> speaker
> >> >cable.
> >>
> >> Then either he has limited experience, or was lying.
> >
> >Well, it doesn't matter because he never established whether he had
> auditioned these cables under true dbt <g>. Right? Therefore we
> >must dismiss it out of hand until he produces experimental evidence
> that the placebo effect wasn't in play. Heck, that's the rules for
> >making such statements around here, right? <vbg>
> >
>
> (1) Dana has done some DBT's, so he might just reply: "I did this and
> this...", and then you look a little foolish...
You miss the point. I was talking about him relating some cable
manufacturer's rep's (or engineer's) claims to support his (Dana's)
position. Not anything that *Dana* has or hasn't done. and who knows,
maybe the rep *did* do dbts. But it wasn't established.
> (2) Placebo Effects primarily relate to issues about false positives.
> If someone says "I perceived no difference", usually Placebo Effects
> are out of the picture.
Well, forget placebo then. The point is the same. If I claim that I
"have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.
Ravinious Lupinus
dave weil wrote in message <37594E63...@mindspring.com>...
> (2) Placebo Effects primarily relate to issues about false positives.
> If someone says "I perceived no difference", usually Placebo Effects
> are out of the picture.
Well, forget placebo then. The point is the same. If I claim that I
"have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.
###
This is assuming that the "error" or possible error is equal in effect. This
does not appear to be true for humans. For what ever reason, humans are more
likely to believe they hear a 'difference' when there is no difference..
then "no difference" when there is a difference (*)
(*) assuming that the difference is audible and the person is of sufficient
hearing ability. Obviously, between any two events.. there will alwasy be
SOME measureable difference.
Nousaine
> (2) Placebo Effects primarily relate to issues about false positives.
> If someone says "I perceived no difference", usually Placebo Effects
> are out of the picture.
<<<Well, forget placebo then. The point is the same. If I claim that I
"have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.>>>
Okey Dokey...how about some data and details here? If you have some evidence
why not disclose it?
Paul Wagner
> If I claim that I
> "have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
> accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
> makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
> saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.
> This is assuming that the "error" or possible error is equal in effect. This
> does not appear to be true for humans. For what ever reason, humans are more
> likely to believe they hear a 'difference' when there is no difference..
> then "no difference" when there is a difference (*)
The skew is, according to one poster here, 75%/25%.
Both close enough to the middle of the percentage spectrum to make your
statement in your first paragraph accurate, IMO...
Paul Wagner
>
> Lupine posted:
>
> > (2) Placebo Effects primarily relate to issues about false positives.
> > If someone says "I perceived no difference", usually Placebo Effects
> > are out of the picture.
>
> "have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
> accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
> makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
> saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.>>>
>
> why not disclose it?
This is simple logic, and basic observation. People BOTH perceive
things, due to preexisting internal bias, as different when not and as
same when not.
No "evidence" is necessary, and no "disclosure" required.
dave weil
Ravinious Lupinus wrote:
> dave weil wrote in message <37594E63...@mindspring.com>...
>
> > (2) Placebo Effects primarily relate to issues about false positives.
> > If someone says "I perceived no difference", usually Placebo Effects
> > are out of the picture.
>
> Well, forget placebo then. The point is the same. If I claim that I
> "have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
> accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
> makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
> saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.
>
> ###
>
> This is assuming that the "error" or possible error is equal in effect. This
> does not appear to be true for humans. For what ever reason, humans are more
> likely to believe they hear a 'difference' when there is no difference..
> then "no difference" when there is a difference (*)
>
> (*) assuming that the difference is audible and the person is of sufficient
> hearing ability. Obviously, between any two events.. there will alwasy be
> SOME measureable difference.
Huh? I don't have to assume any such thing. A claim has been made. Whether or
not there's a difference is a moot point. According to the dbt people, if you
claim to hear *something*, whether or not it's a difference or not, your claim
must be backed up by dbt before you can prove that you're not hearing imaginary
effects. Now, in *my* world, I wouldn't necessarily doubt what was heard by
those reps. But according to the testing crowd, how could you prove they were
correct any other way? Or is there suddenly some scientific waiver *just*
because you don't hear any differences?
Tom wrote:
Okey Dokey...how about some data and details here? If you have some evidence
why not disclose it?
Hey Tom, why should I have to prove that with data and details? You guys are
the "scientists." Tell me what fallacious about holding "all" claims up to the
same testing standard? If I *don't* hear differences between equipment, I'm
don't need to prove *my* assertions?
Maybe I was unclear. I should have said "If one is *subject* to being
discounted because of possible false impressions, then the other should be
too." Got a problem with that? For instance, why shouldn't *your* perception
that a certain class of disparate amps sounds alike also be up for testing?
After all, you have preconditioned yourself to believe that and have a stake in
the result turning out a certain way. That's not much different than those
preconditioned to believe otherwise through the media, sales, and marketing.
Ravinious Lupinus
Nousaine wrote in message <19990610001444...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
>Lupine posted:
>
>> (2) Placebo Effects primarily relate to issues about false positives.
>> If someone says "I perceived no difference", usually Placebo Effects
>> are out of the picture.
>
><<<Well, forget placebo then. The point is the same. If I claim that I
>"have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
>accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
>makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
>saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.>>>
>
evidence
>why not disclose it?
Okay, how about this "fact": I did not post that text that you fraudulently
attribute to me?
"dave weil" wrote it.
In your zeal for verbal masturbation.. perhaps you should take the two
seconds to actually bother to read?
dave weil
> Maybe I was unclear. I should have said "If one is *subject* to being
> discounted because of possible false impressions, then the other should be
> too." Got a problem with that? For instance, why shouldn't *your* perception
> that a certain class of disparate amps sounds alike also be up for testing?
> After all, you have preconditioned yourself to believe that and have a stake in
> the result turning out a certain way. That's not much different than those
> preconditioned to believe otherwise through the media, sales, and marketing.
Tom, before you write back saying that you *have* done testing to support your
poinion, please note that I'm just using that assertion as an "example" of the "no
difference" side, not challenging you to prove your assertions.
Arny Krüger
Ravinious Lupinus <Lupine...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:4zE73.18273$Yq5.17...@news2.pompano.net...
> > If someone says "I perceived no difference", usually Placebo Effects
> > are out of the picture.
>
> Well, forget placebo then. The point is the same. If I claim that I
> "have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
> accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
> makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
Actually, the claim that one does not hear differences is a negative
hypothesis, and well known to be difficult or impossible to prove. That's
one reason why its really up to people who claim proof for a positive
hypothesis to prove their claims.
Steve
difference...
I can definately see a difference when using better interconnect wiring (no
interference lines, shadows and snow)...a signal is a signal whether is it
audio or video.
Better cables mean better shielding and protection of the signal.
Steve
Ravinious Lupinus wrote in message <4zE73.18273>Well, forget placebo then.
Arny Krüger
Steve <smi...@sedona.intel.com> wrote in message
news:7joo5i$a...@news.or.intel.com...
> How about instead of "hearing" the difference instead seeing the
> difference...
>
> I can definately see a difference when using better interconnect wiring
(no
> interference lines, shadows and snow)...a signal is a signal whether is it
> audio or video.
>
> Better cables mean better shielding and protection of the signal.
>
As I discovered when I replaced some generic video cable with Belden 1694A
for a long run that was picking up EMI when I closed the door of my
microwave oven, and causing my DSP to momentarily mute.
Ravinious Lupinus
Arny Krüger wrote in message ...
>
>Ravinious Lupinus <Lupine...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
>news:4zE73.18273$Yq5.17...@news2.pompano.net...
>>
>> dave weil wrote in message <37594E63...@mindspring.com>...
>>
>>
>> > (2) Placebo Effects primarily relate to issues about false positives.
>> > If someone says "I perceived no difference", usually Placebo Effects
>> > are out of the picture.
>>
>> "have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
>> accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
>> makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
>> saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.
>
>hypothesis, and well known to be difficult or impossible to prove. That's
>one reason why its really up to people who claim proof for a positive
>hypothesis to prove their claims.
While you have misquoted me, I'll respond.
The claim that one does not PERCEIVE a difference is a positive statement.
Simply as a statement contains a "not" does not mean it is necessarily a
negative hypothesis.
However, it does not require a high threshhold of proof. It is entirely
possible ( and believable ) that someone did not hear a difference, when
there really is a difference. People hear differently.. especially when you
consider that hearing ability diminishes with age and exposure.. I seem to
be especially sensitive to the 15hz region compared to most.. and I'm driven
nuts by noises ( ac vents etc ) that other people can't hear.
Now, the claim that there is *NO* audible difference in reality.. ( and not
just to that one person ). is a negative hypothesis.
Nousaine
<<<Okey Dokey...how about some data and details here? If you have some evidence
why not disclose it?>>>
<<<<Hey Tom, why should I have to prove that with data and details? You guys
are
the "scientists." Tell me what fallacious about holding "all" claims up to the
same testing standard? If I *don't* hear differences between equipment, I'm
don't need to prove *my* assertions?>>>>
Hey how many people here have 'claimed that their wire' made no difference?
Excpet for me?
<<<Maybe I was unclear. I should have said "If one is *subject* to being
discounted because of possible false impressions, then the other should be
too." Got a problem with that? For instance, why shouldn't *your* perception
that a certain class of disparate amps sounds alike also be up for testing?>>>>
It is...it has been. That's the point.
<<After all, you have preconditioned yourself to believe that and have a stake
in
the result turning out a certain way. That's not much different than those
preconditioned to believe otherwise through the media, sales, and marketing.>>>
That's not true. I was preconditioned the same way you were. It took controlled
listenign tests to show me I was wrong. I have no stake in 'no difference'. My
job is professional subjective evaluation of audio products. I have no stake in
anything but the truth professional or otherwise.
Anonymous
>
> Well, forget placebo then. The point is the same. If I claim that I
> "have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
> accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
> makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
you can never prove a negative. i have this
feeeling of dejaw0lph..........................
do you?
Anonymous
>
> Lupine posted:
> <<<Well, forget placebo then. The point is the same. If I claim that I
> "have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
> accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
> makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
> saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.>>>
>
> why not disclose it?
coz he has none.
Anonymous
>
> This is simple logic, and basic observation. People BOTH perceive
> things, due to preexisting internal bias, as different when not and as
> same when not.
prove the last part with a single controlled experimnet.
> No "evidence" is necessary, and no "disclosure" required.
>
oh yes it is.
Ravinious Lupinus
Anonymous wrote in message <1999061116...@berlin.neuropa.net>...
>Nousaine wrote:
>>
>> Lupine DID NOT posted:
Oh, dejanews has plenty of news that both you and "No-brain" does not have
the reading comprehension to comprehend the "fact" that those words are not
mine.
In your frantic attempt to verbally masturbate over the issue.. both of you
have fraudulently deleted MY response to the above post, and resorted to
lying by claiming that *I* posted the above. (*)
(*) to prevent you from pulling a Klinton.. yes, technically I "posted" the
above, as well as five other poeple, including yourself.. as it was
CONTAINED in my response.. as I was qouting the origional poster. I did not
post the above myself.
So, your claims of "no evidence" ring even more hollow, given how you must
forge who posted what.
Ravinious Lupinus
>>
>> Well, forget placebo then. The point is the same. If I claim that I
>> "have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
>> accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
>> makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
>> saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.
>
>feeeling of dejaw0lph..........................
>do you?
Perhaps if you bothered to spend two seconds before firing off a response..
you'ld know that those are not my words.
Of course, this *IS* assuming you have the cranial capacity to differentiate
between who posts what on USENET>
Anonymous
ooooooooooookay lesssseeeeeeeeee...................
http://x36.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=487729925
so either your software is broken or you dont know how
ot use it or you tried to pass someone elses words as
yours or misattibuted some yourself.now which is it ?
Anonymous
> >> Lupine DID NOT posted:
> >> "have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
> >> accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
> >> makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
> >> saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.>>>
> >>
> >> why not disclose it?
> >coz he has none.
>
> Oh, dejanews has plenty of news that both you and "No-brain" does not have
> the reading comprehension to comprehend the "fact" that those words are not
> mine.
> In your frantic attempt to verbally masturbate over the issue.. both of you
> have fraudulently deleted MY response to the above post, and resorted to
> lying by claiming that *I* posted the above. (*)
>
> (*) to prevent you from pulling a Klinton.. yes, technically I "posted" the
> above, as well as five other poeple, including yourself.. as it was
> CONTAINED in my response.. as I was qouting the origional poster. I did not
> post the above myself.
> So, your claims of "no evidence" ring even more hollow, given how you must
> forge who posted what.
ooooooooooookay lesssseeeeeeeeee...................
Nousaine
<<<Oh, dejanews has plenty of news that both you and "No-brain" does not have
the reading comprehension to comprehend the "fact" that those words are not
mine.
In your frantic attempt to verbally masturbate over the issue.. both of you
have fraudulently deleted MY response to the above post, and resorted to
lying by claiming that *I* posted the above. (*)>>>
Oh lighten up. You made your point. "Fraudulently" deleted? By the way you had
made quite a few claims in your last guise as Wolph as I recall. No matter.
Why don't you repost your response again?
Ravinious Lupinus
Anonymous wrote in message <1999061121...@berlin.neuropa.net>...
>> >> Well, forget placebo then. The point is the same. If I claim that I
>> >> "have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
>> >> accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy
who
>> >> makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what
I'm
>> >> saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.
>> >feeeling of dejaw0lph..........................
>> >do you?
>>
>> Perhaps if you bothered to spend two seconds before firing off a
response..
>> you'ld know that those are not my words.
>> Of course, this *IS* assuming you have the cranial capacity to
differentiate
>> between who posts what on USENET>
>
>http://x36.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=487729925
>so either your software is broken or you dont know how
>ot use it or you tried to pass someone elses words as
>yours or misattibuted some yourself.now which is it ?
While you are retreating to dejanws.. perhaps you should have done a more
professional and complete search?
I'm sick of having to hold your hand, and showing you how to do a PROPER
search on deja news.
This article was posted by dave weil on 1999/06/05
http://x33.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?thitnum=0&AN=486050984.1&mhit
num=42&CONTEXT=929230402.365494376
Dave wrote and posted the paragraph that both you and "no brain" attributed
to me.
My post, which is a response to his.. has my section clearly seperated from
his section via ####
It was posted on 1999/06/10 Now, unless you wish to argue that the 10th of
June 1999 occured prior to the 5th of June 1999..
I also posted a correct to Noussaine on the 10th of June as well, pointing
out his error. Now, perhaps you choose to ignore that post, or you are not
capable of comprehending it.. but your attempt today of claiming I wrote
the above is simply fraudulent.
This matter is now closed. If you don't agree, take it up with deja.com
Oh, btw:
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Anonymous
as a former beta tester and someone who made
some propositoins that were later implemented
i think i can do without yur help to use dejenews.
>
> This article was posted by dave weil on 1999/06/05
> http://x33.deja.com/[ST_rn=if]/threadmsg_if.xp?thitnum=0&AN=486050984.1&mhit
> num=42&CONTEXT=929230402.365494376
> Dave wrote and posted the paragraph that both you and "no brain" attributed
> to me.
listen carefully W0lphie boy: when you post something
here its _YOUR_ responsiblity to make your reply
clearly separated (and indentified) from
the posting you quote NOT MINE. i dont have
time to check if each posting IDed inthe reference
field was properly indented and attributed by
Mister W0lph and his composer.
>
> My post, which is a response to his.. has my section clearly seperated from
> his section via ####
is this standard practice let alone an intuitive
practice? answer: NO.
http://www.netannounce.org/news.announce.newusers/
> It was posted on 1999/06/10 Now, unless you wish to argue that the 10th of
> June 1999 occured prior to the 5th of June 1999..
engage brain before replying next time ok?
>
> I also posted a correct to Noussaine on the 10th of June as well, pointing
> out his error.
_YOU_ made the mistake NOT Nousaine.
Now, perhaps you choose to ignore that post, or you are not
> capable of comprehending it.. but your attempt today of claiming I wrote
> the above is simply fraudulent.
all i claim today is what i have written above.
you can argue till blue in the face but i wont
back down.
> This matter is now closed. If you don't agree, take it up with deja.com
>
> Oh, btw:
> Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
as Nousaine correctly pointed out it was a wacky-wacko
posting and youre well known here for htis kind of
postings so our replies were in good faith considering
that itis common assumption that its _YOUR_ responsibility
to make _YOUR_ positngs clear. insulting respected people
like Nousaine for _YOUR_ mistakes is a sure way to lose
readers interest in your views and probably a sign of
dementia.
http://x36.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=487729925
dave weil
Now tell me why one situation should be true and the other not. Doesn't a claim have
to be proven in this scientific universe that you propose? Why would *not* being
able to detect differences be sancrosant? Are we just supposed to take their word
for it?
Boy, *that's* some selective science!
dave weil (the original poster)
Anonymous wrote:
> Ravinious Lupinus wrote:
> >
> > Anonymous wrote in message <1999061116...@berlin.neuropa.net>...
> > >Nousaine wrote:
> > >> Lupine DID NOT posted:
> > >> <<<Well, forget placebo then. The point is the same. If I claim that I
> > >> "have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
> > >> accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
> > >> makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
> > >> saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.>>>
> > >>
> > >> Okey Dokey...how about some data and details here? If you have some evidence
> > >> why not disclose it?
> > >coz he has none.
> >
> > Oh, dejanews has plenty of news that both you and "No-brain" does not have
> > the reading comprehension to comprehend the "fact" that those words are not
> > mine.
> > In your frantic attempt to verbally masturbate over the issue.. both of you
> > have fraudulently deleted MY response to the above post, and resorted to
> > lying by claiming that *I* posted the above. (*)
> >
> > (*) to prevent you from pulling a Klinton.. yes, technically I "posted" the
> > above, as well as five other poeple, including yourself.. as it was
> > CONTAINED in my response.. as I was qouting the origional poster. I did not
> > post the above myself.
> > So, your claims of "no evidence" ring even more hollow, given how you must
> > forge who posted what.
>
dave weil
Anonymous wrote:
> Ravinious Lupinus wrote:
> >
> > Well, forget placebo then. The point is the same. If I claim that I
> > "have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
> > accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
> > makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
> > saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.
>
> you can never prove a negative.
In this case you certainly can. I can take two cables (or amps, or preamps,
etc.) that are grossly different in specs and trick you by maintaining that
they measure the same. If you don't hear any differences, then you've either:
a. indicated that specs don't have an audible influence
b. indicated that people's perceptions are primarily capable of gross
manipulation
c. indicated that the testees don't have the acuity to be able to properly
identify the differences that specs can cause
Note that I'm not accusing those people of any of those possibilities. But
they *can* be eliminated. I'm guessing that if you can trick someone into
finding differences, then it's possible to trick them into *not* finding
differences too. If you're not going to just take somebody's word that they
hear what they hear in the case of claimed differences perceived, then I'm not
going to take somebody's word that they *don't* hear differences.
Anonymous
>
> Anonymous wrote:
> > Ravinious Lupinus wrote:
> > > Well, forget placebo then. The point is the same. If I claim that I
> > > "have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
> > > accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
> > > makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
> > > saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.
> > you can never prove a negative.
>
> In this case you certainly can. I can take two cables (or amps, or preamps,
> etc.) that are grossly different in specs
"grossly different in specs" = performance differnces
that are above audibility threshold ?
and trick you by maintaining that
> they measure the same.
<BZZTTT!> you cant trick me. blind listening
separates whats audible from what its not
statisticaly speaking.
> If you don't hear any differences, then you've either:
>
> a. indicated that specs don't have an audible influence
below or above threshold?
> b. indicated that people's perceptions are primarily capable of gross
> manipulation
true. thats how the High End works.
> c. indicated that the testees don't have the acuity to be able to properly
> identify the differences that specs can cause
below or above thresold? if below golden ears are
rare for sure.
>
> Note that I'm not accusing those people of any of those possibilities. But
> they *can* be eliminated.
absolutely! thats why serious people use contolled
listening to separate fantasy from reality.
I'm guessing that if you can trick someone into
> finding differences, then it's possible to trick them into *not* finding
> differences too.
sorry but you cant trick people in blind listening
coz bias cant have any actoin on the listener (in
a statistiscal sense).
If you're not going to just take somebody's word that they
> hear what they hear in the case of claimed differences perceived,
oh but i do! blind listening IS reliable.
then I'm not
> going to take somebody's word that they *don't* hear differences.
use proper methodologu for both and see how
closely similar perceptoins can be..................
dave weil
Anonymous wrote:
> dave weil wrote:
> >
> > Anonymous wrote:
> > > Ravinious Lupinus wrote:
> > > > Well, forget placebo then. The point is the same. If I claim that I
> > > > "have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
> > > > accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
> > > > makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
> > > > saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.
> > > you can never prove a negative.
> >
> > In this case you certainly can. I can take two cables (or amps, or preamps,
> > etc.) that are grossly different in specs
>
> "grossly different in specs" = performance differnces
> that are above audibility threshold ?
What I'm saying is that I can take two cables that measure differently (or amps
for that matter) and do the same thing that has been done to others - i.e. lie to
the testee that they actually measure the same. I think that there's the
possibility that they might be fooled into not hearing the differences that might
or might not be there.
>
>
> and trick you by maintaining that
> > they measure the same.
>
> <BZZTTT!> you cant trick me. blind listening
> separates whats audible from what its not
> statisticaly speaking.
I'm sure that's what the guy at the party said. That's what *I've* said when I've
claimed to hear *differences* between zip cord and hi-end stuff. <shrug> I'm
saying that the claims for hearing *no* differences *should* be supported by blind
testing (which the objectivists have said isn't necessary.)
>
>
> > If you don't hear any differences, then you've either:
> >
> > a. indicated that specs don't have an audible influence
>
> below or above threshold?
Either. Because possibility "b" might go into effect.
>
>
> > b. indicated that people's perceptions are primarily capable of gross
> > manipulation
>
> true. thats how the High End works.
No, that's how fragile human perception can be.
>
>
> > c. indicated that the testees don't have the acuity to be able to properly
> > identify the differences that specs can cause
>
> below or above thresold? if below golden ears are
> rare for sure.
Who knows if it's not tested? <wink, wink>
>
>
> >
> > Note that I'm not accusing those people of any of those possibilities. But
> > they *can* be eliminated.
>
> absolutely! thats why serious people use contolled
> listening to separate fantasy from reality.
But it wasn't done when Dana quoted the cable engineers that they never heard any
differences. And so I suggested that what's fair for the folks that hear
differences (i.e. that they test their assertions with blind testing) then it
follows that those not hearing differences should have to do blind testing to make
sure that they haven't simply convinced themselves that the possible differences
that might be present aren't being ignored because they have the blind faith in
scientific measurements being absolutely correlated to auditory perception. In
other words, that there may be factors that we either don't know about or haven't
yet measured (but of course we don't have to study that any further because
everything about audiology has been known for years <yes, this *is* sarcasm>
>
> I'm guessing that if you can trick someone into
> > finding differences, then it's possible to trick them into *not* finding
> > differences too.
>
> sorry but you cant trick people in blind listening
> coz bias cant have any actoin on the listener (in
> a statistiscal sense).
Sorry, I didn't say anything about tricking within blind testing, just that blind
testing would have to be used because you *might* be able to be tricked into
believing that there are *no* differences too. And if that were possible, then
perhaps we *don't* know everything there is to know about how we perceive
stimuli. Note that I'm not claiming one way or the other, just that you'd have to
eliminate the possibility *if* dbt is the end all and be all that people claim it
is.
>
>
> If you're not going to just take somebody's word that they
> > hear what they hear in the case of claimed differences perceived,
>
> oh but i do! blind listening IS reliable.
Read my lips - there was *no* blind testing done regarding these cable rep claims.
>
>
> then I'm not
> > going to take somebody's word that they *don't* hear differences.
>
> use proper methodologu for both and see how
> closely similar perceptoins can be..................
There we go. Now you get it.
Arny Krüger
dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3765B97D...@mindspring.com...
>
>
> What I'm saying is that I can take two cables that measure differently (or
amps
> for that matter) and do the same thing that has been done to others - i.e.
lie to
> the testee that they actually measure the same. I think that there's the
> possibility that they might be fooled into not hearing the differences
that might
> or might not be there.
I think that could be done with inexperienced listeners. A person who is
well-trained would stand their ground - if they hear a diffrence, its very
hard to dissuade them of it.
The positive results of an ABX of other DBT are very hard to argue with. You
can arugue about the source of what is heard, but its very hard to deny that
it was heard.
Ravinious Lupinus
dave weil wrote in message <376490D6...@mindspring.com>...
>
>
>Anonymous wrote:
>
>> Ravinious Lupinus wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, forget placebo then. The point is the same. If I claim that I
>> > "have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
>> > accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy
who
>> > makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what
I'm
>> > saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.
>>
>> you can never prove a negative.
>
>In this case you certainly can. I can take two cables (or amps, or
preamps,
that
>they measure the same. If you don't hear any differences, then you've
either:
>
>a. indicated that specs don't have an audible influence
>manipulation
>identify the differences that specs can cause
Oh, he can claim you have not "proven it", as he could be lying and
intentionally not indentifying it when he really can..
Actually, I think people are confusing two DIFFERENT issues:
A) Whether or not something is inaudible to a particular person.
B) Whether or not something is inaudible.. period.
B is obviously virtually impossible to prove. However, you can "prove" it
just about as well as you can prove just about any modern scientific
theory.. by having a large enough statistically sampling, and then applying
statistical analysis to the outcome.
dave weil
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3765B97D...@mindspring.com...
> >
> >
> > What I'm saying is that I can take two cables that measure differently (or
> amps
> > for that matter) and do the same thing that has been done to others - i.e.
> lie to
> > the testee that they actually measure the same. I think that there's the
> > possibility that they might be fooled into not hearing the differences
> that might
> > or might not be there.
>
> I think that could be done with inexperienced listeners. A person who is
> well-trained would stand their ground - if they hear a diffrence, its very
> hard to dissuade them of it.
This is an assumption that you don't get to make. Why not? Because it's not
backed up with testing, right? See, I can also say that I stand my ground (that
I've heard improvements over zip cord with certain hi-end cables, or differences
between competently designed amps) and you guys will say, "But you have to test
that by using dbt. Otherwise, you might be imagining things. It's the same
with *your* assertion about "well-trained" people. They are also subject to the
same perception shifts based on suggestion as anyone else. Maybe even more so
since they've based everything on lab testing. They *know* that there can't be
audible effects not based on some correlation to specs. (Of course, you know my
answer to that, which I won't repeat here.)
dave weil
Ravinious Lupinus wrote:
Well people can do that in a dbt by just guessing instead of actually trying to
get the answers right. I don't think any of us are claiming that the
objectivists would deliberately do that to prove their point. Nor do I think
that someone who maintains that they hear no differences would lie just to be
lying. Now their perceptions might lie and subsequently they don't hear the
differences because they've convinced themselves that they don't exist.
Arny Krüger
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3765B97D...@mindspring.com...
> >
> >
> > What I'm saying is that I can take two cables that measure differently
(or
> amps
> > for that matter) and do the same thing that has been done to others -
i.e.
> lie to
> > the testee that they actually measure the same. I think that there's
the
> > possibility that they might be fooled into not hearing the differences
> that might
> > or might not be there.
>
>> I think that could be done with inexperienced listeners. A person who is
>> well-trained would stand their ground - if they hear a diffrence, its
very
>> hard to dissuade them of it.
>This is an assumption that you don't get to make. Why not? Because it's
not
>backed up with testing, right?
Actually it is backed up with testing, and JJ has observed the same thing.
>>See, I can also say that I stand my ground (that I've heard improvements
over zip cord with certain hi-end cables, or differences
>>between competently designed amps) and you guys will say, "But you have to
test
>>that by using dbt. Otherwise, you might be imagining things.
I think you've changed the story. See what you started out saying: that
"they might be fooled into not hearing the differences
that might or might not be there".
Taking the phrase "they might be fooled into not hearing the differences
that might or might not be there." apart, I see that part of it is kinda
hard to explain. Who is "fooled" if they "don't hear" differences that (are)
"not there"? I submit that nobody is. Therefore there is only one part of
your phrase to analyze: "they might be fooled into not hearing the
differences that... (are)... there. I'm addressing this. Now you seem
changed to be talking about claiming differences that may or may not be
there.
Claiming and actually hearing may or may not be the same thing - that's the
larger issue at stake. Anybody can claim anything they want, and if their
claims are not put to some kind of test for reasonableness, how can we tell
if their claims are sufficiently reliable and meritorious to base concrete
actions on?
>It's the same wiith *your* assertion about "well-trained" people. They are
also subject to the
>same perception shifts based on suggestion as anyone else.
True, so we cover our bets by doing a DBT. The DBT can produce false
negatives, but producing false positives in a DBT is pretty hard to do. I
was addressing what happens if you get a positive result in a DBT, but as
you put it, tried to "dissuade them of it". I can tell you what the results
are from real world experience - if you press hard enough, the guy may ask
you what the heck you are trying to pull!
>Maybe even more so since they've based everything on lab testing. They
*know* that there can't be
>audible effects not based on some correlation to specs. (Of course, you
know my
>answer to that, which I won't repeat here.)
The correlation between technical evaluations and listening tests are not
perfect. So, if there are any doubts, the obvious thing to do is perform a
reliable listening test. OTOH, if you find a component with a significant
30 dB hole in its response at 1 KHz, using a technical test, how much more
do you have to do? I've done that - see
http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/audiocat-winamp210/index.htm . AFAIK, the
product is still on the market, and selling. ;-)
Arny Krüger
>
> Well people can do that in a dbt by just guessing instead of actually
trying to
> get the answers right. I don't think any of us are claiming that the
> objectivists would deliberately do that to prove their point.
I think that I've seen published claims that DBT administrators would
browbeat people into doing that - see:
http://www.stereophile.com./fullarchives.cgi?20
"The Listeners' Manifesto" By Robert Harley , January 1992.
> Nor do I think
> that someone who maintains that they hear no differences would lie just to
be
> lying.
I think that this might happen.
> Now their perceptions might lie and subsequently they don't hear the
differences because they've convinced themselves that they don't exist.
This can happen. But it does not seem to happen often - I think that's
because the ego is such an important part of human personality.
Anonymous
>
> Anonymous wrote:
> > >
> > > Anonymous wrote:
> > > > Ravinious Lupinus wrote:
> > > > > Well, forget placebo then. The point is the same. If I claim that I
> > > > > "have" heard differences and I'm told that I need a dbt to be able to
> > > > > accurately make that claim, then the same must hold true for the guy who
> > > > > makes the claim that he "hasn't" heard any differences. That's what I'm
> > > > > saying. If one is discountable, then the other should be too.
> > > > you can never prove a negative.
> > > In this case you certainly can. I can take two cables (or amps, or preamps,
> > > etc.) that are grossly different in specs
> > that are above audibility threshold ?
>
> for that matter) and do the same thing that has been done to others - i.e. lie to
> the testee that they actually measure the same. I think that there's the
> possibility that they might be fooled into not hearing the differences that might
> or might not be there.
in open listening yes.
> > and trick you by maintaining that
> > > they measure the same.
> > <BZZTTT!> you cant trick me. blind listening
> > separates whats audible from what its not
> > statisticaly speaking.
>
> I'm sure that's what the guy at the party said. That's what *I've* said when I've
> claimed to hear *differences* between zip cord and hi-end stuff. <shrug> I'm
> saying that the claims for hearing *no* differences *should* be supported by blind
> testing
absolutely even though false negatives are outnumbered
by false positives. human nature you know........
> (which the objectivists have said isn't necessary.)
so far i could name 2 subjectivists guilty of such probably
to sound raesonable......................................
how many objectivits would you be able to name ?
> >
> > absolutely! thats why serious people use contolled
> > listening to separate fantasy from reality.
>
> But it wasn't done when Dana quoted the cable engineers that they never heard any
ok.
> > sorry but you cant trick people in blind listening
> > coz bias cant have any actoin on the listener (in
> > a statistiscal sense).
>
> Sorry, I didn't say anything about tricking within blind testing, just that blind
ok.
> > oh but i do! blind listening IS reliable.
>
> Read my lips - there was *no* blind testing done regarding these cable rep claims.
ok.
> > then I'm not
> > > going to take somebody's word that they *don't* hear differences.
> > use proper methodologu for both and see how
> > closely similar perceptoins can be..................
>
> There we go. Now you get it.
so we agree that open listening is unreliable
no matter if hte answer is correct or not.
after all guessing in a random process makes you
right half the time.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Arny Krüger <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:37664958...@mindspring.com...
>>
>> Well people can do that in a dbt by just guessing instead of actually
>trying to
>> get the answers right. I don't think any of us are claiming that the
>> objectivists would deliberately do that to prove their point.
Of course, this shows up clearly in results involving controls.
>I think that I've seen published claims that DBT administrators would
>browbeat people into doing that - see:
>http://www.stereophile.com./fullarchives.cgi?20
>"The Listeners' Manifesto" By Robert Harley , January 1992.
Of course, this shows up clearly in the control results.
>> Now their perceptions might lie and subsequently they don't hear the
>differences because they've convinced themselves that they don't exist.
Of course, this shows up clearly in the control results.
>This can happen. But it does not seem to happen often - I think that's
>because the ego is such an important part of human personality.
Of course, this shows up clearly in the control results.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1999, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
dave weil
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:376646CB...@mindspring.com...
>
> "Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> > dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:3765B97D...@mindspring.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > What I'm saying is that I can take two cables that measure differently
> (or
> > amps
> > > for that matter) and do the same thing that has been done to others -
> i.e.
> > lie to
> > > the testee that they actually measure the same. I think that there's
> the
> > > possibility that they might be fooled into not hearing the differences
> > that might
> > > or might not be there.
> >
> >> I think that could be done with inexperienced listeners. A person who is
> >> well-trained would stand their ground - if they hear a diffrence, its
> very
> >> hard to dissuade them of it.
>
> >This is an assumption that you don't get to make. Why not? Because it's
> not
> >backed up with testing, right?
>
> Actually it is backed up with testing, and JJ has observed the same thing.
It wasn't in this case. It was just another one of those claims, right? A
Belden rep or reps (I don't remember) claimed not to able to hear differences.
According to you guys (like what happened when I claimed *to* be able to hear
differences) it should be backed up by testing. Not testing that's occured in
the past but those specific claims.
>
>
> >>See, I can also say that I stand my ground (that I've heard improvements
> over zip cord with certain hi-end cables, or differences
> >>between competently designed amps) and you guys will say, "But you have to
> test
> >>that by using dbt. Otherwise, you might be imagining things.
>
> I think you've changed the story. See what you started out saying: that
> "they might be fooled into not hearing the differences
> that might or might not be there".
That's right. I'm just saying that if I make those claims, I'm asked to back it
up with dbt. So should the guy who claims to hear *no* differences. What is so
difficult to understand about that?
>
>
> Taking the phrase "they might be fooled into not hearing the differences
> that might or might not be there." apart, I see that part of it is kinda
> hard to explain. Who is "fooled" if they "don't hear" differences that (are)
> "not there"? I submit that nobody is.
If I tell them that the cables measure the same (and they don't) and they then
proceed to reinforce that, i.e. "You're right, they *do* sound the same!" then
they've been tricked, whether or not they're just an audio geek like me or a
trained engineer like you Arny. I'm saying that if you can trick somebody on
the differences side, you can do it on the no differences side. Possibly.
Wouldn't you think that someone would have to prove by dbt that he or she
doesn't hear differences too? Those are *your* standards, not mine. If I hear
differences, then I hear them, whether backed by a dbt test or not. I'd guess
the same would be true for someone who *doesn't* hear differences.
> Therefore there is only one part of
> your phrase to analyze: "they might be fooled into not hearing the
> differences that... (are)... there. I'm addressing this. Now you seem
> changed to be talking about claiming differences that may or may not be
> there.
I'm just talking about trickery, like the infamous Krell trick. We all concede
that people can be fooled. You seem to be taking the position that a "trained"
person isn't susceptable to that. I'd disagree.
>
>
> Claiming and actually hearing may or may not be the same thing - that's the
> larger issue at stake.
Bingo! That's why dbt is almost irrelevant. If you hear something, you hear
it, whther you've been tricked or not - whether you've been preconditioned or
not. And it may or may not be correlated to another person's experience.
> Anybody can claim anything they want, and if their
> claims are not put to some kind of test for reasonableness, how can we tell
> if their claims are sufficiently reliable and meritorious to base concrete
> actions on?
That's what the original point was about the claims of the Belden reps. I'm
just demanding some consistancy in position.
>
>
> >It's the same wiith *your* assertion about "well-trained" people. They are
> also subject to the
> >same perception shifts based on suggestion as anyone else.
>
> True, so we cover our bets by doing a DBT. The DBT can produce false
> negatives, but producing false positives in a DBT is pretty hard to do
(which implies that it's *not* impossible? That it's happened before, but in
very small instances?)
> . I
> was addressing what happens if you get a positive result in a DBT, but as
> you put it, tried to "dissuade them of it".
I never was talking about a dbt. I was talking about exposing someone who
"claims" to hear no differences by tricking him as described above. Hey, maybe
he might not be able to be tricked. Who knows? Perhaps we'll have some
enterprising Shain-like person pull a fast one on an objectivist sometime just
to prove a point. <g>
> I can tell you what the results
> are from real world experience - if you press hard enough, the guy may ask
> you what the heck you are trying to pull!
>
> >Maybe even more so since they've based everything on lab testing. They
> *know* that there can't be
> >audible effects not based on some correlation to specs. (Of course, you
> know my
> >answer to that, which I won't repeat here.)
>
> The correlation between technical evaluations and listening tests are not
> perfect.
Bingo again! But you've based EVERYTHING on it. You've said that we know how
specs affect hearing. That we've known it for years. I've always said that
there are cracks in the data (mostly in how the brain works, but perhaps there
is a bit of unknown in how certain data correlates to the ultimate processing of
the audio signal by the brain.) Or perhaps better put, we should continue to
investigate the relationship between measurements and hearing, because we
*don't* know absolutely how it works, which you've just agreed with.
> So, if there are any doubts, the obvious thing to do is perform a
> reliable listening test. OTOH, if you find a component with a significant
> 30 dB hole in its response at 1 KHz, using a technical test, how much more
> do you have to do? I've done that - see
> http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/audiocat-winamp210/index.htm . AFAIK, the
> product is still on the market, and selling. ;-)
Once again, I've always said that dbts have their place. But that the lack of
them doesn't mean that I can't pass my own observations along without them being
totally discounted without a dbt. Audio is no different than shoes. I say to
you, "Hey, these shoes feel great on my feet." So you try them for yourself.
You don't have to do a dbt to determine that they feel good on your feet too (or
the converse...pardon the pun) It's called chatting about preferences. We do
it here too and it's not the end of the world if every claim isn't backed up by
dbts.
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>I never was talking about a dbt. I was talking about exposing someone who
>"claims" to hear no differences by tricking him as described above. Hey, maybe
>he might not be able to be tricked. Who knows? Perhaps we'll have some
>enterprising Shain-like person pull a fast one on an objectivist sometime just
>to prove a point. <g>
Well, not this Shain, Dave, although it *is* a fetching
fantasy. I think your point is well-taken, myself. I also have to
point out that I am increasingly dissatisfied with the
objectivist/subjectivist labels because I think they mean next to
nothing. Most of us are both simultaneously, so where does that leave
us?
For example, my own experience has been that I have difficulty
hearing differences in a lot of gear, sighted or unsighted, but I
somehow always end up with a strong preference for one or the other.
I'd argue that I am an objectivist in most ways except that I
experience no conflict making decisions based upon what I intuitively
prefer.
This seems no different from a lot of folks here.
Ed
dave weil
"Edward M. Shain" wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:09:54 -0500, dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I never was talking about a dbt. I was talking about exposing someone who
> >"claims" to hear no differences by tricking him as described above. Hey, maybe
> >he might not be able to be tricked. Who knows? Perhaps we'll have some
> >enterprising Shain-like person pull a fast one on an objectivist sometime just
> >to prove a point. <g>
>
> Well, not this Shain
I suspected as much and was going to say that you were probably too considerate to
consider something as devious as that but I thought I'd let *you* say so.
> , Dave, although it *is* a fetching
> fantasy. I think your point is well-taken, myself. I also have to
> point out that I am increasingly dissatisfied with the
> objectivist/subjectivist labels because I think they mean next to
> nothing.
As am I. I just use it as shorthand to describe those who think that mid-fi and zip
cords are *the* standard for audio reproduction and who disallow claims of what
people hear simply because they haven't done a dbt (it's just too lengthy to type
all of that.)
> Most of us are both simultaneously, so where does that leave
> us?
>
> For example, my own experience has been that I have difficulty
> hearing differences in a lot of gear, sighted or unsighted, but I
> somehow always end up with a strong preference for one or the other.
> I'd argue that I am an objectivist in most ways except that I
> experience no conflict making decisions based upon what I intuitively
> prefer.
That's sooooo true. I've always said that dbts have a place in choosing
preferences. Just not to the exclusion of listening for listening's sake (perhaps
one's mind is less cluttered with the "testing protocol.")
George M. Middius
> > I also have to
> > point out that I am increasingly dissatisfied with the
> > objectivist/subjectivist labels because I think they mean next to
> > nothing.
> As am I. I just use it as shorthand to describe those who think that mid-fi and zip
> cords are *the* standard for audio reproduction and who disallow claims of what
> people hear simply because they haven't done a dbt (it's just too lengthy to type
> all of that.)
Um, dave, we already have a convenient shorthand label for that
group of individuals. In fact, it's just one little syllable.....
George M. Middius
Arny Krüger
> As am I. I just use it as shorthand to describe those who think that
mid-fi and zip
> cords are *the* standard for audio reproduction and who disallow claims of
what
> people hear simply because they haven't done a dbt (it's just too lengthy
to type
> all of that.)
I think that if you say, over and over 100 times while twirling in the
middle of a green chalk pentagram, "Placebo effects don't have any effect
me", we'll be glad to certify anything you say you hear in cable tests...
Of course, the pentagram has to be on the wall, up about 3 feet! ;-)
> That's sooooo true. I've always said that dbts have a place in choosing
> preferences. Just not to the exclusion of listening for listening's sake
(perhaps
> one's mind is less cluttered with the "testing protocol.")
I think you are confusing "listening for seeing's sake" (sighted
evaluations) with "just listening" (DBT's).
If you haven't figured it out yet, there is a controversy about the
audibility of speaker cables that have the same measured frequency response,
+/- 0.1 dB, at the speaker. Claims about subtle or controversial effects
should be demonstrated with a DBT.
dave weil
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:37680569...@mindspring.com...
>
> > As am I. I just use it as shorthand to describe those who think that
> mid-fi and zip
> > cords are *the* standard for audio reproduction and who disallow claims of
> what
> > people hear simply because they haven't done a dbt (it's just too lengthy
> to type
> > all of that.)
>
> I think that if you say, over and over 100 times while twirling in the
> middle of a green chalk pentagram, "Placebo effects don't have any effect
> me", we'll be glad to certify anything you say you hear in cable tests...
> Of course, the pentagram has to be on the wall, up about 3 feet! ;-)
As for you who claims that it probably wouldn't have any effect on you and other
"experienced" testers. However, we'll turn the pentagram into a poster of an
ocilliscope and change the chant to "It's impossible to hear any difference
because the specs say it's impossible." ;-). And I'm not talking about
"certifying" any claims. Just passing them along to others that might wish to
do their own testing, dbt or otherwise. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO DBTS PER SE. And
I'd love to "certify" my findings but I can't even get you to ship me an abx
box...
>
>
> > That's sooooo true. I've always said that dbts have a place in choosing
> > preferences. Just not to the exclusion of listening for listening's sake
> (perhaps
> > one's mind is less cluttered with the "testing protocol.")
>
> I think you are confusing "listening for seeing's sake" (sighted
> evaluations) with "just listening" (DBT's).
Nope. I'm just talking about listening.
> If you haven't figured it out yet, there is a controversy about the
> audibility of speaker cables that have the same measured frequency response,
> +/- 0.1 dB, at the speaker. Claims about subtle or controversial effects
> should be demonstrated with a DBT.
That's my point. There *might* be other factors involved.
Ravinious Lupinus
dave weil wrote in message <3767BE41...@mindspring.com>...
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
Wrong. If the rep stated that there is *NO* audible difference.. that is a
positive assertion about the state of affairs.. and should be required to
give evidence.
But he stated that *HE* could not hear a difference. That is a personal
experience.. and really does not require much evidence. In fact, the
threshold of evidence is so low.. that unless you think he is personally
lying.. simply him stating that he can't hear it, is evidence enough that he
can't hear it.
Arny Krüger
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
Got a pentium PC running Windows?
dave weil
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:376912A8...@mindspring.com...
>
> "Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> > dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
Look, I wouldn't see much benefit about passing the signal through a choke point
like a PC. I would feel better about using a passive device though.
dave weil
Ravinious Lupinus wrote:
> <snip>
> >According to you guys (like what happened when I claimed *to* be able to
> hear
> >differences) it should be backed up by testing. Not testing that's occured
> in
> >the past but those specific claims.
>
> Wrong. If the rep stated that there is *NO* audible difference.. that is a
> positive assertion about the state of affairs.. and should be required to
> give evidence.
>
> But he stated that *HE* could not hear a difference. That is a personal
> experience.. and really does not require much evidence. In fact, the
> threshold of evidence is so low.. that unless you think he is personally
> lying.. simply him stating that he can't hear it, is evidence enough that he
> can't hear it.
Thank you. That's what I've been saying all along. That's the "benefit of the
doubt" that non-dbters are asking for.
Arny Krüger
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:376912A8...@mindspring.com...
>
> "Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> > dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
I think you are too biased for serious DBT. Sorry to bother you.
dave weil
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:376A3890...@mindspring.com...
>
> "Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> > dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:376912A8...@mindspring.com...
> >
> > "Arny Krüger" wrote:
> >
> > > dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
That's just bullshit. If the computer is the limiting factor, what good is it
in the real world? If I took your abx box and wanted to interpose a table
radio, I think you'd object.
Now the computer's sound card is better than that table radio but you're still
adding extraneous devices that will have an impact on the final sound. It won't
"prove" my claim to have heard differences on the stereo that I claimed to have
heard differences, now would it?
You had gone so far as to request my address so that you could send me a box to
conduct a test. I did several follow-ups, to no avail.
I don't think bias enters into your backing out. I won't tell you *what* I
think it is.
Thanks for your time though.
Peter Corey
dave weil wrote:
>
> Ravinious Lupinus wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > >According to you guys (like what happened when I claimed *to* be able to
> > hear
> > >differences) it should be backed up by testing. Not testing that's occured
> > in
> > >the past but those specific claims.
> >
> > positive assertion about the state of affairs.. and should be required to
> > give evidence.
> >
> > But he stated that *HE* could not hear a difference. That is a personal
> > experience.. and really does not require much evidence. In fact, the
> > threshold of evidence is so low.. that unless you think he is personally
> > lying.. simply him stating that he can't hear it, is evidence enough that he
> > can't hear it.
What's THIS discussion about?
Doesn't it depend on the *PURPOSE* of the statement ?
If he in fact is confining his statement to describing a personal
experience (whether he CAN or for that matter CANNOT hear a difference)
then that's fine
But if if the purpose of his statement is to rationalize his perception
of a reality then that surely invites testing to confirm the reality.
Other than that who should object (or for that matter) care.
In any event:
It's not that you can or cannot hear the differences.
It's that the differences you do or do not hear,
are the differences that are or are not really there to be heard !
Agreed?
Or, gentlemen, shall we continue the dance .
> > Thank you. That's what I've been saying all along. That's the "benefit of the
> > doubt" that non-dbters are asking for.
And to which *non*-dbters as opposed to *anti*-dbters are surely
entitled!
\\\\|////
| ^ ^ |
[ 0 = ]
-oOOo-(_)-oOOo-
| | |
Peter Corey
Hanging in!
oooO_________0ooo
( ) ( )
\ ( ) /
\_) (_/
http://home.att.net/~pcor/Pages/hiendhaven.html
|~ |=|= |~ |=
0`|~ 0`0` |~|~ 0`|~ 0`|=
0` 0`0` 0` 0`
George M. Middius
> What's THIS discussion about?
> Doesn't it depend on the *PURPOSE* of the statement ?
> If he in fact is confining his statement to describing a personal
> experience (whether he CAN or for that matter CANNOT hear a difference)
> then that's fine
> But if if the purpose of his statement is to rationalize his perception
> of a reality then that surely invites testing to confirm the reality.
> Other than that who should object (or for that matter) care.
> In any event:
You've apparently switched your dream journal, required by your
therapist, with your RAO babbling. Please rectify this mistake
immediately. The RAO QC Council requires that dues-paying
members like you submit only anti-audio gibberish. Get your act
together or it will be gotten together for you.
George M. Middius
Arny Krüger
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:376A3890...@mindspring.com...
>
> "Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> > dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:376912A8...@mindspring.com...
> >
> > "Arny Krüger" wrote:
> >
> > > dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
That's just it. Computers are not necesssarily the choke points you make
them out to be. For openers, there are such things as PC interface cards
with digital I/O and external ADC/DAC boxes. Then, in for certain
well-designed internal cards, they are actually quieter than the same ADC &
DAC chips run in competitve ADC/DAC boxes.
>If I took your abx box and wanted to interpose a table radio, I think you'd
object.
So you think that all computer sound cards have the fidelity of table
radios? Well I guess you backed out of that hyberbole, and well you did.
>Now the computer's sound card is better than that table radio but you're
still adding extraneous devices that will have an impact on the final sound.
Prove it.
> It won't "prove" my claim to have heard differences on the stereo that I
claimed to have heard differences, now would it?
Things just aren't necessarily the way you think. There are sound cards that
perform easily as well as the best external ADC's and DAC's. Given that
computers can extract 100.000000% accurate digital tracks from audio CD's,
we can have the "reference" sound of the CD coming out of the PC as clean if
not cleaner than the same CD playing through your CD player. Then, we can
make highly accurate of the same CD after its signal passes through whatever
components we can think of. Now, compare the "reference" to what we recorded
coming out of the UUT's. If your amps and speakers are really good, what you
will hear is the sound of the UUT, right?
>You had gone so far as to request my address so that you could send me a
box to conduct a test. I did several follow-ups, to no avail.
Thta's because physical ABX boxes are like hens teeth. Of course, last I
heard, you can buy one from QSC for something like $650. Be my guest.
OTOH, a PC with a "to die for" sound card is the universal audio component
of the future. In that context, my software ABX Comparator will haul the
mail.
>I don't think bias enters into your backing out. I won't tell you *what* I
think it is.
Lack of willingness to loan people valuable resources when PC software
provides a ready alternative.
Arny Krüger
>
>
> Ravinious Lupinus wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > >According to you guys (like what happened when I claimed *to* be able
to
> > hear
> > >differences) it should be backed up by testing. Not testing that's
occured
> > in
> > >the past but those specific claims.
> >
a
> > positive assertion about the state of affairs.. and should be required
to
> > give evidence.
> >
> > But he stated that *HE* could not hear a difference. That is a personal
> > experience.. and really does not require much evidence. In fact, the
> > threshold of evidence is so low.. that unless you think he is personally
> > lying.. simply him stating that he can't hear it, is evidence enough
that he
> > can't hear it.
>
of the
> doubt" that non-dbters are asking for.
What do you mean by that? If someone can't hear a difference, what's wrong
with admitting it?
George M. Middius
<html>
"George M. Middius" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>You're in my dreams, Mr. Corey: I love you.
<br>Will you whisper to me while I babble?</blockquote>
GMM
<br>
<br>
<br> </html>
dave weil
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:376A8E44...@mindspring.com...
>
> "Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> > dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:376A3890...@mindspring.com...
> >
> > "Arny Krüger" wrote:
> >
> > > dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > news:376912A8...@mindspring.com...
> > >
> > > "Arny Krüger" wrote:
> > >
> > > > dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
So I tell you what. When I run my turntable through my DAC, we'll talk.
>
>
> >If I took your abx box and wanted to interpose a table radio, I think you'd
> object.
>
> So you think that all computer sound cards have the fidelity of table
> radios? Well I guess you backed out of that hyberbole, and well you did.
Read below knucklehead. I guess *you* never use hyperbole...and I guess you use
faulty logic too.
>
>
> >Now the computer's sound card is better than that table radio but you're
> still adding extraneous devices that will have an impact on the final sound.
>
> Prove it.
Prove that it doesn't. Or are you saying that all DACs are alike?
>
>
> > It won't "prove" my claim to have heard differences on the stereo that I
> claimed to have heard differences, now would it?
>
> Things just aren't necessarily the way you think. There are sound cards that
> perform easily as well as the best external ADC's and DAC's. Given that
> computers can extract 100.000000% accurate digital tracks from audio CD's,we
> can have the "reference" sound of the CD coming out of the PC as clean ifnot
> cleaner than the same CD playing through your CD player. Then, we canmake
> highly accurate of the same CD after its signal passes through
> whatevercomponents we can think of. Now, compare the "reference" to what we
> recorded
I DON'T USE MY COMPUTER IN MY SYSTEM. Therefore it's not a valid test of what
I was claiming in the first place because it's not the component that was doing
the processing, i.e. the original CD player, and the turntable. <sheesh> If I
switch speakers during a subsequent test, wouldn't you'd claim that the second
test (the dbt) wouldn't prove the first case? Or bring in a different DAC?
Isn't that introducing a new variable?
> >You had gone so far as to request my address so that you could send me a
> box to conduct a test. I did several follow-ups, to no avail.
>
> Thta's because physical ABX boxes are like hens teeth.
Then why didn't you say so instead of implying that you would send one? Please
don't make me quote my private letters to you regarding setting up the test.
> >I don't think bias enters into your backing out. I won't tell you *what* I
> think it is.
>
> Lack of willingness to loan people valuable resources when PC software
> provides a ready alternative.
Then you shouldn't have offered - puffing yourself up as some important guy
willing to prove his point by macho-ly sending out the challenge - "Send me your
address." Made you sound real willing, but in fact you never had any intention
of doing it. So much for the courage of your convictions. You're the one who
said, "Send your address..." in this big challenge. I didn't ask you, you
challenged me. But I'll be damned if I'm going to run a "double-blind test"
through a home computer. Not until the computer becomes part of my system.
dave weil
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
> dave weil <dwe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:376A392C...@mindspring.com...
> >
> >
> > Ravinious Lupinus wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > >According to you guys (like what happened when I claimed *to* be able
> to
> > > hear
> > > >differences) it should be backed up by testing. Not testing that's
> occured
> > > in
> > > >the past but those specific claims.
> > >
> > > Wrong. If the rep stated that there is *NO* audible difference.. that is
> a
> > > positive assertion about the state of affairs.. and should be required
> to
> > > give evidence.
> > >
> > > But he stated that *HE* could not hear a difference. That is a personal
> > > experience.. and really does not require much evidence. In fact, the
> > > threshold of evidence is so low.. that unless you think he is personally
> > > lying.. simply him stating that he can't hear it, is evidence enough
> that he
> > > can't hear it.
> >
> > Thank you. That's what I've been saying all along. That's the "benefit
> of the
> > doubt" that non-dbters are asking for.
>
> What do you mean by that? If someone can't hear a difference, what's wrong
> with admitting it?
Because according to you guys, it's not provable until you do a double-blind.
Guys like me claim that it isn't an absolute necessity to do a dbt to make a
claim either way - apparently you think so too...unless you're not willing to
say those same words regarding someone who claims to hear differences. And if
you don't, then your bias is showing.
Arny Krüger
Arny wrote:
> > > Got a pentium PC running Windows?
Dave wrote:
> > Look, I wouldn't see much benefit about passing the signal through a
choke
> > point
> > like a PC. I would feel better about using a passive device though.
> > I think you are too biased for serious DBT. Sorry to bother you.
> >That's just bullshit. If the computer is the limiting factor, what good
is
> it in the real world?
Arny wrote:
> That's just it. Computers are not necesssarily the choke points you make
> them out to be. For openers, there are such things as PC interface cards
> with digital I/O and external ADC/DAC boxes. Then, in for certain
> well-designed internal cards, they are actually quieter than the same ADC
&
> DAC chips run in competitve ADC/DAC boxes.
>So I tell you what. When I run my turntable through my DAC, we'll talk.
Your inability to exploit modern technology when it would be advantageous to
you is not my problem.
> >If I took your abx box and wanted to interpose a table radio, I think
you'd object.
> So you think that all computer sound cards have the fidelity of table
> radios? Well I guess you backed out of that hyberbole, and well you did.
>Read below knucklehead. I guess *you* never use hyperbole...and I guess
you use faulty logic too.
Why bring up table radios and equate them to computer sound?
>> >Now the computer's sound card is better than that table radio but
you're still adding extraneous devices that will have an impact on the final
sound.
>> Prove it.
>Prove that it doesn't. Or are you saying that all DACs are alike?
The good ones sound alike - transparent.
Dave wrote:
>> > It won't "prove" my claim to have heard differences on the stereo that
I
>> > claimed to have heard differences, now would it?
Arny wote:
>> Things just aren't necessarily the way you think. There are sound cards
that
>> perform easily as well as the best external ADC's and DAC's. Given that
>> computers can extract 100.000000% accurate digital tracks from audio
CD's,we
>> can have the "reference" sound of the CD coming out of the PC as clean
ifnot
>> cleaner than the same CD playing through your CD player. Then, we canmake
>> highly accurate of the same CD after its signal passes through
>> whatevercomponents we can think of. Now, compare the "reference" to what
we
>> recorded
> I DON'T USE MY COMPUTER IN MY SYSTEM.
Your inability to exploit modern technology when it would be advantageous to
you is not my problem.
>Therefore it's not a valid test of what I was claiming in the first place
because it's not the component that was doing
>the processing, i.e. the original CD player, and the turntable. <sheesh>
If I
>switch speakers during a subsequent test, wouldn't you'd claim that the
second
>test (the dbt) wouldn't prove the first case? Or bring in a different DAC?
If you compare two things under consistent circumstances, what could be
wrong with tat?
Isn't that introducing a new variable?
> >You had gone so far as to request my address so that you could send me a
> box to conduct a test. I did several follow-ups, to no avail.
>
> Thta's because physical ABX boxes are like hens teeth.
>Then why didn't you say so instead of implying that you would send one?
Please don't make me quote my private letters to you regarding setting up
the test.
I actually have no recollection of them at all. Quote what you will if you
need to do it to satisfy yourself.
> >I don't think bias enters into your backing out. I won't tell you *what*
I think it is.
> Lack of willingness to loan people valuable resources when PC software
> provides a ready alternative.
>Then you shouldn't have offered - puffing yourself up as some important guy
>willing to prove his point by macho-ly sending out the challenge - "Send me
your
>address." Made you sound real willing, but in fact you never had any
intention
>of doing it. So much for the courage of your convictions. You're the one
who
>said, "Send your address..." in this big challenge. I didn't ask you, you
>challenged me.
I actually have no recollection of that at all. Quote what you will if you
need to do it to satisfy yourself.
> But I'll be damned if I'm going to run a "double-blind test"
>through a home computer. Not until the computer becomes part of my system.
Your inability to exploit modern technology when it would be advantageous to
you is not my problem.
Ravinious Lupinus
Arny Krüger wrote in message ...
>> > But he stated that *HE* could not hear a difference. That is a personal
>> > experience.. and really does not require much evidence. In fact, the
>> > threshold of evidence is so low.. that unless you think he is
personally
>> > lying.. simply him stating that he can't hear it, is evidence enough
>that he
>> > can't hear it.
>>
>> Thank you. That's what I've been saying all along. That's the "benefit
>of the
>> doubt" that non-dbters are asking for.
>
>What do you mean by that? If someone can't hear a difference, what's wrong
>with admitting it?
There is not only "nothing wrong" with it.. alot of the bullshit that
strangles the industry would go away if people simply admitted what they can
not hear.. and concentrate on what they can hear!
Anonymous
>
> I think you are too biased for serious DBT. Sorry to bother you.
no one is biased enough to make DBT resuts inconsistent.
not even F BLaine Dickson <w>
Ravinious Lupinus
Anonymous wrote in message <1999062116...@berlin.neuropa.net>...
Actually, a biased person setting it up can certainly make it inconsistant.
Especially when dealing with gain structure and the like.