You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Rockinghorse Winner
bullshit in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after
another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind
testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio
press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What
are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker
cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail
I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL!
*R* *H*
--
The 19th-century clown Joseph Grimaldi, when old and incurably depressed,
visited a doctor. The physician advised him to cheer himself up by seeing
the great comedian Grimaldi. Whereupon his patient told him: Doctor, I am
Grimaldi.
Sonnova
(in article <7be2puF...@mid.individual.net>):
> Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of
> bullshit in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after
> another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind
> testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio
> press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What
> are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker
> cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail
> I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL!
>
> *R* *H*
>
Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It
should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound the
same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in
computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! It's bad
enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog audio
can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros?
Gimme a break!
Walker
news:h2uia...@news6.newsguy.com...
I met Kimber in SLC in 1979 and thought that he was a nut case.
I was as much as skeptic as anyone until a few months ago when a friend sent
me two pairs of Panther interconnects and one pair of Panther speaker cables
with a $600.00 price tag. He wouldn't accept a dime if I didn't see an
appreciable difference and I had to run them for at least 100 hours before
deciding. He had persuaded me to build a system he designed that is
outstanding and I trust his opinion. I had nothing to lose but I was also
intrigued and had wanted to try them. However, I wasn't convinced and was
still ready to debunk them. The last thing that I wanted to do was spend
$600 on a few cables.
I ran them for over 100 hours and then switched back to my old cables
expecting to hear nothing different. I had heard new things in some
recordings and the overall bass seemed tighter and bigger but I attributed
it to more intense listening as I was consciously judging them. I was
surprised and shocked to hear a remarkable difference with the old cables
and the terms of 'open sound stage' and 'deeper bass' are totally relevant
with the new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
worth the money.
I'm not running out to spend another $2K for the rest of the system and the
TV surround system. My system is conservatively worth $7K and the $600 is
less than 10%. IMHO spending $500 for cabling a -$2K system is crazy and the
money can be better spent on upgrading the components.
Bob Walker
Sonnova
(in article <h2vob...@news7.newsguy.com>):
I know Ray. He does believe that cables have a "major affect on the sound of
one's system" but, on the other hand, he did invent the IsoMike system and
that's certainly no myth.
>
> I was as much as skeptic as anyone until a few months ago when a friend sent
> me two pairs of Panther interconnects and one pair of Panther speaker cables
> with a $600.00 price tag. He wouldn't accept a dime if I didn't see an
> appreciable difference and I had to run them for at least 100 hours before
> deciding. He had persuaded me to build a system he designed that is
> outstanding and I trust his opinion. I had nothing to lose but I was also
> intrigued and had wanted to try them. However, I wasn't convinced and was
> still ready to debunk them. The last thing that I wanted to do was spend
> $600 on a few cables.
>
> I ran them for over 100 hours and then switched back to my old cables
> expecting to hear nothing different. I had heard new things in some
> recordings and the overall bass seemed tighter and bigger but I attributed
> it to more intense listening as I was consciously judging them. I was
> surprised and shocked to hear a remarkable difference with the old cables
> and the terms of 'open sound stage' and 'deeper bass' are totally relevant
> with the new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
> me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
> worth the money.
>
> I'm not running out to spend another $2K for the rest of the system and the
> TV surround system. My system is conservatively worth $7K and the $600 is
> less than 10%. IMHO spending $500 for cabling a -$2K system is crazy and the
> money can be better spent on upgrading the components.
>
> Bob Walker
A lot of people get deluded this way, so you're not alone. But believe me if
you were to switch between your old cables and the new ones in a double-blind
evaluation, you would not be able to tell one cable from the other. No one
ever has been able to it. You see, the properties of wire are well known.
Have been for decades. Between DC and about 100KHz, there is nothing that you
can do to Interconnects less than 10 ft long or speaker cables less than 25
ft long without external components added to them that would affect the sound
in any way.
Gary Eickmeier
news:h2vob...@news7.newsguy.com...
You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
> me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
> worth the money.
>
> I'm not running out to spend another $2K for the rest of the system and
> the
> TV surround system. My system is conservatively worth $7K and the $600 is
> less than 10%. IMHO spending $500 for cabling a -$2K system is crazy and
> the
> money can be better spent on upgrading the components.
Huh? First you say it is worth the money, then you say spending $500 on
cabling is crazy. Can you parse that out for me?
Gary Eickmeier
Guenter Scholz
.... well, they did not quite all sound the same by a considerable margin.
These 'audiophile' cables more often than not tended to be either highly
inductive or capacitive and consequently did affect the sound you heard.
Consequently these cables sounded 'different' and different was often thought
as better. Of course none of them worked as well as zip-cord. I'll never
forget the first time I saw the frequency response of a pair of Appogee
Duettas (or some such) you could have gone sking on the response curve it
decreased that much to the high frequencies... they sure sounded 'different
all right.
cheers
Ed Seedhouse
new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
> me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
> worth the money.
> Bob Walker
Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
can hear such differences under blind conditions. Such a test should
be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
million dollars?
Scott
That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically
running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real
demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be
disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the
laws of physics. The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the
paranormal. Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves
something to be true it ceases to be "paranormal." I mean would
quantum physics have qualified for the JREF challenge before
physicists figured it out? I mean really, particles that are not
really there until they are looked at? sounds pretty "magical" to me.
Arny Krueger
Actually, one knows not what he believes versus what he advertises.
> but, on the other
> hand, he did invent the IsoMike system and that's
> certainly no myth.
Isomike is no myth but it is not really a new idea.
>> I was as much as skeptic as anyone until a few months
>> ago when a friend sent me two pairs of Panther
>> interconnects and one pair of Panther speaker cables
>> with a $600.00 price tag. He wouldn't accept a dime if I
>> didn't see an appreciable difference and I had to run
>> them for at least 100 hours before deciding. He had
>> persuaded me to build a system he designed that is
>> outstanding and I trust his opinion. I had nothing to
>> lose but I was also intrigued and had wanted to try
>> them. However, I wasn't convinced and was still ready to
>> debunk them. The last thing that I wanted to do was
>> spend $600 on a few cables.
So then Mr. Walker you did electrical measurements and blind listening
tests, and what did you find?
>> I ran them for over 100 hours and then switched back to
>> my old cables expecting to hear nothing different. I had
>> heard new things in some recordings and the overall bass
>> seemed tighter and bigger but I attributed it to more
>> intense listening as I was consciously judging them. I
>> was surprised and shocked to hear a remarkable
>> difference with the old cables and the terms of 'open
>> sound stage' and 'deeper bass' are totally relevant with
>> the new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if
>> you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my
>> head it's an improved sound and worth the money.
Sighted evaluations, no electrical measurements, the usual unsupported
opinion song-and-dance.
> A lot of people get deluded this way, so you're not
> alone.
It is not a delusion, it is an illusion. Delusion is a pathology, but
illusion is normal human behavior. Mr. Walker's perceptions are in the range
of normal human behavior, given that his evaluation methodology lacks a
great deal.
> But believe me if you were to switch between your
> old cables and the new ones in a double-blind evaluation,
> you would not be able to tell one cable from the other.
Agreed.
> No one ever has been able to it. You see, the properties
> of wire are well known. Have been for decades. Between DC
> and about 100KHz, there is nothing that you can do to
> Interconnects less than 10 ft long or speaker cables less
> than 25 ft long without external components added to them
> that would affect the sound in any way.
If his old speaker cables were 24 gauge so-called "speaker cable", then he
might have even heard an actual difference.
Ed Seedhouse
:
> > Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
> > JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
> > can hear such differences under blind conditions. �Such a test should
> > be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
> > million dollars?
>
> That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically
> running a shell game with their so called challenge.
Well then surely it is your duty to turn them in to the police for
fraud, and we will shortly read about their conviction for a criminal
offense.
>Any real
> demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be
> disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the
> laws of physics.
Yet JREF is indeed offering the money for anyone who can distinguish
between two cables that, according to the laws of physics, sound
different.
>The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the
> paranormal. Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves
> something to be true it ceases to be "paranormal."
Really, you are only displaying your own misunderstanding of their
offer. That is all taken care of in the rules.
But it's fascinating to see how quickly the excuses come out.
Rockinghorse Winner
(Possibly *snipped* for brevity):
> So then Mr. Walker you did electrical measurements and blind listening
> tests, and what did you find?
>
>>> I ran them for over 100 hours and then switched back to
>>> my old cables expecting to hear nothing different. I had
>>> heard new things in some recordings and the overall bass
>>> seemed tighter and bigger but I attributed it to more
>>> intense listening as I was consciously judging them. I
>>> was surprised and shocked to hear a remarkable
>>> difference with the old cables and the terms of 'open
>>> sound stage' and 'deeper bass' are totally relevant with
>>> the new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if
>>> you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my
>>> head it's an improved sound and worth the money.
>
> Sighted evaluations, no electrical measurements, the usual unsupported
> opinion song-and-dance.
Right. A scientific study with a sample of 1, a biased experimenter, no
control sample, unreproducible results, and no environmental controls.
IOW, an anecdote.
ScottW2
>
> > On Jul 7, 8:07�am, "Walker" <walker...@cox.net> wrote:
> > �new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
>
> > > me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
> > > worth the money.
> > > Bob Walker
>
> > Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
> > JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
> > can hear such differences under blind conditions. �Such a test should
> > be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
> > million dollars?
>
> That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically
> running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real
> demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be
> disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the
> laws of physics.
As it should be as most exotic cable manufacturers make claims of
magical properties outside the laws of physics.
There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an
audible difference. High source impedance devices requiring low
capacitance
cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that
quickly come to mind. But none of these require hi-dollar cables to
address.
ScottW
Sonnova
(in article <7bj9bmF...@mid.individual.net>):
The only way that "audiophile' cables can sound "different" is for the
manufacturer to add external components to the cables in the form of chokes,
capacitors, and resistors. These either peak the response somewhere in the
audible spectrum or roll it off. There is simply nothing you can do to a
couple of reasonable lengths of wire ALONE between an amp and a pair of
speakers that could have the slightest affect at audio frequencies. Maybe
that's what those big blocks are on the ends of some "high-end" speaker
cables - housing for large caps and inductors. Maybe those cables that are
sold as powered, "active cables" actually have active filters in them. 8^)
Guenter Scholz
.... I'd agree depending on what you call reasoanble. In many situations
cable runs of 10's of feet is used. an inductor is a coil of wire. Heck,
you can buy wire would resistors that are non-inductive and they are not
very long.... Naim amps need a highly inductive speaker wire to keep it from
oscillating into difficult ie capacitive loads. Wasn't Kimber cable braided
flat so it could fit into carpets... many parallel strands of wire make a
good capacitor. So, depending on the amp you could get noticable effects.
We certainly noticed doing ABX texting. But most critical we found was
level matching across the audible frequency spectrum and that proved next to
impossible to do. it was not extremely difficult to identify a component
when the, say, highs were off by as little as a few dB over a few octaves.
cheers
Scott
> On Jul 8, 10:33�am, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 3:06�am, Ed Seedhouse <eseedho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 7, 8:07�am, "Walker" <walker...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > �new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
>
> > > > me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
> > > > worth the money.
> > > > Bob Walker
>
> > > Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
> > > JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
> > > can hear such differences under blind conditions. �Such a test should
> > > be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
> > > million dollars?
>
> > That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically
> > running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real
> > demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be
> > disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the
> > laws of physics.
>
> As it should be as most exotic cable manufacturers make claims of
> magical properties outside the laws of physics.
the question isn't claims by manufacturers. the question is audible
differences between cables.
>
> There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an
> audible difference. � High source impedance devices requiring low
> capacitance
> cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that
> quickly come to mind. �But none of these require hi-dollar cables to
> address.
According to Ed proving that will get you a million dollars form the
JREF.
I am skeptical that the JREF has actually made such an open challenge.
Ed Seedhouse
> There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an
> audible difference. � High source impedance devices requiring low
> capacitance
> cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that
> quickly come to mind. �But none of these require hi-dollar cables to
> address.
These effects are only applicable in cables that exceed one half
wavelength. The half wavelength of an electrical impulse oscillating
at 100K will be 3000 meters at most. If electrons in a wire travel at
1/10 of the speed of light in a vacuum then the half wavelength of a
20Khz tone will be 750 meters. It becomes pertinant at radio
frequences, where a 14 mhz signal is assumed to have a wavelength of
about 20 meters in air. A 14khz electromagnetic wave in air will have
a wavelenth a thousand times greater.
Sorry, I don't think your gonna have any 750 meter cables in your home
audio setup.
Ed Seedhouse
> According to Ed proving that will get you a million dollars form the
> JREF. I am skeptical that the JREF has actually made such an open challenge.
See http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
Randi has specifically stated this applies also to claims of audible
differences between cables.
Sonnova
(in article <h33s0...@news2.newsguy.com>):
> On Jul 8, 2:28ï¿œpm, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 10:33ï¿œam, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 8, 3:06ï¿œam, Ed Seedhouse <eseedho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Jul 7, 8:07ï¿œam, "Walker" <walker...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> ï¿œnew ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
>>
>>>>> me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
>>>>> worth the money.
>>>>> Bob Walker
>>
>>>> Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
>>>> JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
>>>> can hear such differences under blind conditions. ï¿œSuch a test should
>>>> be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
>>>> million dollars?
>>
>>> That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically
>>> running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real
>>> demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be
>>> disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the
>>> laws of physics.
>>
>> As it should be as most exotic cable manufacturers make claims of
>> magical properties outside the laws of physics.
>
> the question isn't claims by manufacturers. the question is audible
> differences between cables.
And every double-blind test of cables ever made has proven beyond any doubt,
that there is no audible difference between either interconnects or speaker
cables. I don't care if one pair under test is a $4000/pair of 1 meter
Nordost Valhallas and the other is a $3 pair of 1 meter molded throw-away
specials from Radio Shack. Nobody will be able to tell them apart in a
non-sighted comparison.
>> There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an
>> audible difference. ￜ High source impedance devices requiring low
>> capacitance
>> cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that
>> quickly come to mind. ï¿œBut none of these require hi-dollar cables to
>> address.
>
> According to Ed proving that will get you a million dollars form the
> JREF.
> I am skeptical that the JREF has actually made such an open challenge.
Don't know about the challenge, but even devices with high source impedances
aren't going to make a difference over a meter or two. There is simply no way
that a coaxial cable can have enough inductance, resistance, or capacitance
to affect an audio signal in any audibly detectable way.
Arny Krueger
message news:7bl50aF...@mid.individual.net
>
> .... I'd agree depending on what you call reasoanble. In
> many situations cable runs of 10's of feet is used.
So what?
> an inductor is a coil of wire.
An inductor is a coil of wire that has surprizingly little in common with a
cable. In fact, cables minimize their inductance by simply having two
conductors that are close to each other and have current flowing in them in
opposite directions.
> Heck, you can buy wire would
> resistors that are non-inductive and they are not very
> long....
????
> Naim amps need a highly inductive speaker wire
> to keep it from oscillating into difficult ie capacitive
> loads.
That is known as an amplifier that is very poorly designed.
> Wasn't Kimber cable braided flat so it could fit
> into carpets...
Braided speaker cable was not an innovation of Kimber.
> many parallel strands of wire make a good capacitor.
Simply not true. Most cables are formed of parallel strands of wire, and
few if any of them are very good capacitors.
> So, depending on the amp you could get
> noticable effects.
Only true of the very few amplifiers that are badly designed. Rare
pathological exceptions are a poor basis for making up a rule.
> We certainly noticed doing ABX texting.
ABX texting? Are you talking about cell phones????
> But most critical we found was level matching
> across the audible frequency spectrum and that proved
> next to impossible to do.
Sounds like a very pathological setup.
> it was not extremely difficult
> to identify a component when the, say, highs were off by
> as little as a few dB over a few octaves.
No, its very easy to ear a few dBs over many octaves. But how do you hook up
normal audio components in a normal audio system and obtain such incredibly
large differences that are simply due to reasonable speaker cable, and
nothing else?
Walt
> There is simply nothing you can do to a
> couple of reasonable lengths of wire ALONE between an amp and a pair of
> speakers that could have the slightest affect at audio frequencies.
You could take a pair of wire cutters and snip one of the conductors.
That would have an audible effect (i.e. the speakers would be silent).
You could strip the insulation and make a short circuit. You'd hear that
as the amp frying (or blowing a fuse if you're lucky)
You could separate the two conductors and make a bunch of loops to
create an inductor. That would have an audible effect.
You could attach connectors with cold solder joints that are non-linear,
and this would induce distortion.
There are many things one can do to the wire to make things sound worse.
Of course, what you meant is that there's nothing you can do to
*improve* the signal transfer at audio frequencies. I can't disagree
with you there.
//Walt
Sonnova
(in article <7bl50aF...@mid.individual.net>):
2 meters for coaxial interconnects, 5 meters for speaker runs.
> In many situations
> cable runs of 10's of feet is used. an inductor is a coil of wire. Heck,
> you can buy wire would resistors that are non-inductive and they are not
> very long.... Naim amps need a highly inductive speaker wire to keep it from
> oscillating into difficult ie capacitive loads. Wasn't Kimber cable braided.
Still, if you measure the cables characteristics per foot, multiply them by
the length of the run and do the math for say, 100 Hz and 20 KHz, you'll find
that you would have run most interconnects for more than 20 ft before you'd
see even a 1 dB drop at 20 KHz. You're going to hear that? No.
>
> flat so it could fit into carpets... many parallel strands of wire make a
> good capacitor. So, depending on the amp you could get noticable effects.
In some early solid state amps, some braided cables caused the output stages
to become so unstable that they went into ultrasonic oscillation causing the
amp in question (an Acoustat, if memory serves) to self destruct. The
listeners in the room heard nothing untoward up until the very instant that
thermal runaway made the amp go poof!
Arny Krueger
news:h33s0...@news2.newsguy.com
> the question isn't claims by manufacturers. the question
> is audible differences between cables.
If it wasn't for the numerous carefully-crafted self-serving bogus claims by
vendors and reviewers, far fewer audiophiles would "hear" these generally
non-existent "audible differences".
Steven Sullivan
> On Jul 8, 3:06?am, Ed Seedhouse <eseedho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 8:07?am, "Walker" <walker...@cox.net> wrote:
> > ?new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
> >
> > > me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
> > > worth the money.
> > > Bob Walker
> >
> > Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
> > JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
> > be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
> > million dollars?
> That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically
> running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real
> demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be
> disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the
> laws of physics.
Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of
devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible
difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching
for output devices, of course). There is also of course the whole
realm of devices, treatments, and tweaks that have only the faintest
(or no) rational basis for having the claimed audible effect in the
first place, much less the substantial differences reported. In that
category we can put the Belt's tweaks, Shakti stones, Mpingo discs,
the Hallograph, the craziness at Machina Dynamica, LP demagnetizers,
cryogenic treatment of CDs, and the like.
So there are plenty of pairs of devices, including cables, or
treatmetns, that would fit the requirements -- if measured performance
does not predict an audible difference, yet the subject 'passed' the
challenge, then they would be eligible for the million, because there
would be no known physical cause.
Last I heard, though, the challenge is being phased out, mainly
because no one has ever managed to even pass the preliminary tests,
and the 'big guns' of the flimflam world -- the Uri Gellers and the
Sylvia Browns -- are far too canny to submit themselves to certain
exposure as frauds. The JREF (whose money it is, not Randi's
personally) wants to use it more actively.
>The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the paranormal.
Michael Fremer made much the same objection during the Pear/Tara
cables dustup.
Randi replied: "We define "paranormal" as describing an event or a
phenomenon that can actually be shown to occur, but has no explanation
within scientific reasoning.
Detecting differences between two varieties of excellent conductors of
low-voltage electrical signals . speaker leads . via a direct auditory
test, would fall within this usage.
Regardless, we of course have the right to accept this claim as
paranormal in nature, and we hereby do accept it as such. We will even
create, for the purposes of this experimental protocol, a special
category of "golden ears," just for [Fremer]".
Fremer still objected: "But there are scientific explanations for
sonic differences among cables, including (among others) inductance,
resistance and capacitance, all of which can have an effect on
frequency response. Effective shielding (or not) can and does affect
measurable noise spectra due to the intrusion (or not) or RFI/EMI.
The word "excellent" is meaningless IMO.
In addition, as I described to you in my email, the 1/3 octave
equalizer example indicates that hearing something that.s not measured
does not indicate "paranormal" activity, ESP or any such thing. It
indicates something scientifically verifiable but not at the time the
observation is made and checked against available measurable
standards. The word "paranormal" is loaded. I don.t like it. If I pass
this test I will be declared to have "paranormal" abilities, which I
deny. It will be like the "lucky coin" business with the amplifiers."
And Randi replied:
"Sir, I assure you that I'm quite familiar with such things as
inductance, resistance, and capacitance as possible factors in
performance. Well, let's leave out the designation "paranormal", then,
since it seems that it intrudes on your sensitivity standards.....look
forward to discussing the parameters, location, and time for a test.
With great enthusiasm!""
In the end, the cable challenge disintegrated because Pear Audio -- a
ridiculous review of whose cables (they were declared 'danceable',
don't you know) sparked the dust-up --wouldn't lend Fremer a pair of
their cables. So Fremer (who hadn't been the reviewer of the Pears in
the first place) wanted to use his own Tara Labs cables. As of March
2008 Randi was still asking his readers if someone could lend them
some Pear Cables to test.
Randi has also called out challengers to claim the prize for
demonstrating audible effects of LP demagnetizing. AFAIk Fremer hasn't
taken him up on that one.
>Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves something to
>be true it ceases to be "paranormal." I mean would quantum physics
>have qualified for the JREF challenge before physicists figured it
>out?
You're seriously equating the claims and effects that audiophiles
tout, with quantum effects whose existence was confirmed repeatedly by
multiple scientists doing careful experiments?
--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine
Steven Sullivan
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 21:34:16 -0700, Scott wrote
> And every double-blind test of cables ever made has proven beyond any doubt,
> that there is no audible difference between either interconnects or speaker
> cables.
..except where any of the cables show a signficance measureable departure from flat 'frequency
response'. As I recall one of the cables in Larry Greenhill's cable shoot-out did.
Meaning only, again, that there's no great unknown property of cables we need to investigate
in order to explain audiophile's reports of cable sound. It's always either imagination, or a
measurable property of the system.
Scott
> On Jul 9, 4:34�am, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > According to Ed proving that will get you a million dollars form the
> > JREF. �I am skeptical that the JREF has actually made such an open challenge.
>
> Seehttp://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
which simply supports what I said earlier.
>From your link...
"At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show,
under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal,
supernatural, or occult power or event."
What, according to the JREF qualifies as such things?
"2.2 What is the definition of �paranormal� in regards to the
Challenge?
Webster�s Online Dictionary defines �paranormal� as �not
scientifically explainable; supernatural.�"
Since any audible differences between cables will ultimately have a
scientifically explanation the challenge is a farce.
>
> Randi has specifically stated this applies also to claims of audible
> differences between cables.
Randi is an EE? He has done a lot of posturing on the subject. But so
what? Doesn't change the basic facts about the challenge as stated by
the JREF webpage you posted the link to. It is a trivial task to make
cables sound different from one another. The challenge is a joke.
Randi apparently had nothing better to do. Sad really. He used to be
relevant.
Steven Sullivan
> On Jul 8, 2:28?pm, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 10:33?am, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 8, 3:06?am, Ed Seedhouse <eseedho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jul 7, 8:07?am, "Walker" <walker...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
> > > > > worth the money.
> > > > > Bob Walker
> >
> > > > Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
> > > > JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
> > > > be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
> > > > million dollars?
> >
> > > That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically
> > > running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real
> > > demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be
> > > disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the
> > > laws of physics.
> >
> > As it should be as most exotic cable manufacturers make claims of
> > magical properties outside the laws of physics.
> the question isn't claims by manufacturers. the question is audible
> differences between cables.
The question is claims by manufacturers that are echoed by the more excitable and credulous
reviwer contingent in thye high-end publications. Pear Cables for example claimed that its
published data show that it's cables would sound better than others, and a high end reviewer
raved about how 'danceable' they sounded.
There is no question that audible differnece CAN exist between cables.
> > There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an
> > audible difference. ? High source impedance devices requiring low
> > capacitance
> > cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that
> > quickly come to mind. ?But none of these require hi-dollar cables to
> > address.
> According to Ed proving that will get you a million dollars form the
> JREF.
> I am skeptical that the JREF has actually made such an open challenge.
Feel free to apply for it, and see.
You might also read a testimonial here of someone who actually went into a
psychic' challenge with FREF, and came away impressed (and disabused of his 'psychic'
notions'.
Scroll down to 'a happy convert'
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/172-swift-march-7-2008.html
btw, the Randi/Fremer exchange in my preceding post were all from
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/97-swift-october-12-2007.html
Scott
> Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 3:06?am, Ed Seedhouse <eseedho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 7, 8:07?am, "Walker" <walker...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > ?new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
>
> > > > me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
> > > > worth the money.
> > > > Bob Walker
>
> > > Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
> > > JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
> > > can hear such differences under blind conditions. ?Such a test should
> > > be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
> > > million dollars?
> > That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically
> > running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real
> > demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be
> > disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the
> > laws of physics.
>
> Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of
> devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible
> difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching
> for output devices, of course).
And yet we found audible differences between CDPs under blind
conditions. Which simply showed that not all the relevant things were
being measured. And yet this same psuedo-scientific misinformation
continues to be pawned off as true and supported by "science' to this
day.
> There is also of course the whole
> realm of devices, treatments, and tweaks that have only the faintest
> (or no) rational basis for having the claimed audible effect in the
> first place, much less the substantial differences reported. In that
> category we can put the Belt's tweaks, Shakti stones, Mpingo discs,
> the Hallograph, the craziness at Machina Dynamica, LP demagnetizers,
> cryogenic treatment of CDs, and the like.
>
> So there are plenty of pairs of devices, including cables, or
> treatmetns, that would fit the requirements -- if measured performance
> does not predict an audible difference, yet the subject 'passed' the
> challenge, then they would be eligible for the million, because there
> would be no known physical cause.
OK then do tell us about the "measured" performance of all the tweaks
you just cited as paranormal. You are refering to measured
performance. So it must be fair to assume someone has actually done
some measurements.
> >The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the paranormal.
>
> Michael Fremer made much the same objection during the Pear/Tara
> cables dustup.
>
> Randi replied: "We define "paranormal" as describing an event or a
> phenomenon that can actually be shown to occur, but has no explanation
> within scientific reasoning.
So Fremer was right. Because it follows that any audible difference
between cables will have a scientific explination.
>
> Detecting differences between two varieties of excellent conductors of
> low-voltage electrical signals . speaker leads . via a direct auditory
> test, would fall within this usage.
There in lies the debate. But it seems that some simply debate by
declaring they are simply right. Why Randi decided to jump into this
is beyond me. It isn't a question of paranormal activity but a
question of whether or not the distortions of any cable are audible.
The dead moose in the room for everyone on the JREF side of this
debate is that it is quite easy to make cables sound different.
>
> Regardless, we of course have the right to accept this claim as
> paranormal in nature, and we hereby do accept it as such. We will even
> create, for the purposes of this experimental protocol, a special
> category of "golden ears," just for [Fremer]".
I suppose yoy have the right to misuse words for the sake of fueling
the flames between objectivists and subjectivists if that is what you
are into doing. But it doesn't change the *fact* that any audible
differences between cables will have a scientific explination and none
of this has anything to do with the paranormal.
>
> Fremer still objected: "But there are scientific explanations for
> sonic differences among cables, including (among others) inductance,
> resistance and capacitance, all of which can have an effect on
> frequency response. Effective shielding (or not) can and does affect
> measurable noise spectra due to the intrusion (or not) or RFI/EMI.
>
> The word "excellent" is meaningless IMO.
According to Webster it does have meaning. I think I'm taking Webster
over you. Not sure what relevance your unorthodox opinion about the
meaning or lack of about that word has on any of this though.
That is one side of it. But the fact still remains Randi never managed
to put any audiophile claims to the preliminary test. He resolved
nothing with all his grandstanding. He kinda made a bit of an ass of
himself on the whole subject by painting people with an overly broad
brush. Then when faced with his numerous misrepresentations of the
facts he dismissed them as unimportant.
>
> >Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves something to
> >be true it ceases to be "paranormal." I mean would quantum physics
> >have qualified for the JREF challenge before physicists figured it
> >out?
>
> You're seriously equating the claims and effects that audiophiles
> tout, with quantum effects whose existence was confirmed repeatedly by
> multiple scientists doing careful experiments?
No, I was asking a question in regards to the rules of JREF challenge.
Certainly you realize that there was a time when many of the
implications of quantum mechanics had not been confirmed by any
experiemtnal evidence? Did you catch the part where I said "before
physicists figured it out?"
After further reading turns out they would have had to pay up on that
one. They draw the line at physics as known at the time of the
challenge. I guess they are banking on the belief that such future
discoveries will not be a factor in any challenges.
But now I have to ask. With all this grandstanding what is stopping so
called skeptics from simply taking on these so called "voodoo" beliefs
in audio by actually testing the objects that are found to be so
objectionable? If objectivists want to debunk things....why not
actually do it? I would expect things like Belt tweeks to be easy
pickings. Personally I just don't care that much. If Peter Belt and
his followers are having fun I see no point it trying to stop that.
Dick Pierce
> On Jul 8, 9:28�pm, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an
> > audible difference. � High source impedance devices requiring low
> > capacitance
> > cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that
> > quickly come to mind. �But none of these require hi-dollar cables to
> > address.
>
> These effects are only applicable in cables that exceed one half
Nope, wrong.
That the wavelengths are MUCH longer makes the
lumped parameters important (why they're longer
you also got wrong, but we'll deal with that separately)
Take a high source impedance, oh 10kOhms.
Hook a cable to that whose capacitance is,
say, 200 pF. And let's say the load resistance
is 100kOhms. That arrangement, all by itself, will
result in a frequency response that looks like:
20 -0.8
... ...
2030 -0.8
2560 -0.9
3230 -0.9
4060 -0.9
5120 -0.9
6450 -1
8130 -1.1
10200 -1.2
12900 -1.4
16300 -1.7
20500 -2.1
This is the simple attenuation due to the source
impedance, distributed capacitance and load
impedance. And the wavelengths are MUCH
longer than this 10 foot cable used in this test.
If your assertion were carried to it's logical
extreme, you could assert that simple resistors
and capacitors couldn't filter frequencies whose
wavelength is bigger than the individual
components.
> The half wavelength of an electrical impulse
> oscillating at 100K
An impulse doesn't oscillate at such a frequency.
An impulse, by its definition, is a broad-band
phenomenon.
> will be 3000 meters at most. �
Speed of light is roughly 3x10^8 meters/second.
Since:
c = f l
and thus:
l = c/f
then if c=3x10^8 and f=1x10^5, then
l = 3x10^8 / 1*10^5
thus l = 3x10^3, or 3000 for a FULL wavelength.
There's no way that a half wavelength could
ever be more than 1500 meters.
> If electrons in a
> wire travel at 1/10 of the speed of light in a
> vacuum then the half wavelength of a 20Khz
> tone will be 750 meters. �
Wrong. Completely. The signal propogation
velocity is NOT related to the electron drift
velocity in a conductor. The drift velocity is,
literally, a snail's pace: for currents like
what we're talking about, it's measured in
feet per HOUR.
If your assertion were correct: that the
electrons in the wire were zipping along
at some 30,000,000 (3x10^7) meters per
second, your assertion has some issues.
For one, at that sort of velocity, relativistic
effects are already significant. For another,
an electron witn that sort of velocity has
a kinetic energy of around 3000 eV: where
did the 3000 volt accelerating potential that
got them going that fast come from?
The SIGNAL PROPOGATION velocity is
something else entirely. Yes, it's related to
the speed of light in a vacuum by something
called the velocity factor for the conductor,
which for caox cable is on the order of 0.5
or so. Thus, the signal velocity in a cable is
on the the order of 150,000,000 meters per
second.
That wavelength at 20 kHz is not, as you
suggested, 750 meters, but 7500 meters,
or on the order of a mile.
> It becomes pertinant at radio frequences,
> where a 14 mhz signal is assumed to
> have a wavelength of about 20 meters in
> air.
It's not ASSUMED to be anything: it is or it isn't.
> Sorry, I don't think your gonna have any 750
> meter cables in your home
> audio setup.
Irrelevant, since your assumptions are wrong.
Guenter Scholz
1 mm/sec in a good conductor like copper.... if you used single crystal wire
(as vdHull advocated) you might get them going to ... I don't know, but say
about 1 to 10 cm/sec. How will that affect your above argument?
cheers
Guenter Scholz
Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>"Guenter Scholz" <sch...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in
>message news:7bl50aF...@mid.individual.net
>>
.... snip the glib comments...
>> an inductor is a coil of wire.
>
>An inductor is a coil of wire that has surprizingly little in common with a
>cable. In fact, cables minimize their inductance by simply having two
>conductors that are close to each other and have current flowing in them in
>opposite directions.
>
.... well, I guess, it all depends on how the speaker cable is physically
arranged; ie, how the individual strands are arranged etc
>> Heck, you can buy wire would
>> resistors that are non-inductive and they are not very
>> long....
>
>????
FYI, a wire wound resistor is a small 1 cm or so cylinder with wire wound
on it and it is used to provide resistance. There won't be more than about
10 cm or so of wire. The inductance this coil of wire causes can be problem
some in certain applications... ie you don't need 10's of feet depending on
the application - in this case - the amp.
>
>> Wasn't Kimber cable braided flat so it could fit
>> into carpets...
>
>Braided speaker cable was not an innovation of Kimber.
... fine, I'm getting old and don't remember the brand...
>
>> many parallel strands of wire make a good capacitor.
>
>Simply not true. Most cables are formed of parallel strands of wire, and
>few if any of them are very good capacitors.
Arnie, you'd be correct iff the wires were not individually insulated as is
the case of the above speaker wire. nevertheless, even the strands of wire
in your zip cord, not insulated as they are, will provide capacitance because
of an effect known as the skin effect ... the gist of which is that depending
on the frequency electrons do not travell uniformely in the wire
>
>> We certainly noticed doing ABX texting.
>
>ABX texting? Are you talking about cell phones????
>
.... ahh the typo argument... been there done that :-) If you truly haven't
heard of ABX testing, you should inquire about it.
>> But most critical we found was level matching
>> across the audible frequency spectrum and that proved
>> next to impossible to do.
>
>Sounds like a very pathological setup.
you'd be suprised how poorly matched channels can be on older 'audiphile'
tube stuff...
>
>No, its very easy to ear a few dBs over many octaves. But how do you hook up
>normal audio components in a normal audio system and obtain such incredibly
>large differences that are simply due to reasonable speaker cable, and
>nothing else?
.... like I said, you use some of the 'audiphile' cables, a longer run does
help, and then use your ABX box to switch between said and, say, zip cord to
your hearts content. Suprising how difficult it is if your betting some
money (beer) on your opinion :-)
cheers
Sonnova
(in article <7bmn1bF...@mid.individual.net>):
Not if they are ONLY wire there can't be. Even very long cables can only
attenuate the top-end of the spectrum and even then it's not really
noticeable unless one can actually hear 20 KHz and above well enough to
discern a 1 to 2 dB roll off.
Sonnova
(in article <h352s...@news3.newsguy.com>):
Look, They're 'bling' pure and simple. Audio jewelry. Even I think that woven
nylon jacketed speaker cable as big as a fire hose looks cool as do expensive
interconnects. Were I so rich that the money these cables cost didn't mean
anything more to me than pocket change, I'm sure my stereo would be fully
cabled with the expensive spread. Mind you, I wouldn't expect any performance
advantage, it would just make the system look cool. I have no problem with
that attitude - as long as the rich buyer knows that he's only buying looks,
expensive cable is harmless. But most audiophiles who invest megabucks in
cable are buying it because they've been told that it "improves the sound" of
their system and they believe it and the audio rags perpetuate that myth and
I think THAT borders on the criminal.
Sonnova
(in article <h352o...@news3.newsguy.com>):
> On Jul 8, 9:28ï¿œpm, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an
>> audible difference. ￜ High source impedance devices requiring low
>> capacitance
>> cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that
>> quickly come to mind. ï¿œBut none of these require hi-dollar cables to
>> address.
>
> These effects are only applicable in cables that exceed one half
> wavelength. The half wavelength of an electrical impulse oscillating
> at 100K will be 3000 meters at most. If electrons in a wire travel at
> 1/10 of the speed of light in a vacuum then the half wavelength of a
> 20Khz tone will be 750 meters. It becomes pertinant at radio
> frequences, where a 14 mhz signal is assumed to have a wavelength of
> about 20 meters in air. A 14khz electromagnetic wave in air will have
> a wavelenth a thousand times greater.
>
> Sorry, I don't think your gonna have any 750 meter cables in your home
> audio setup.
>
Nor is anyone else. The entire notion of wire affecting audio frequencies in
the lengths that people are apt to use is ridiculous.
Sonnova
(in article <7bmh64F...@mid.individual.net>):
> Sonnova wrote:
>
>> There is simply nothing you can do to a
>> couple of reasonable lengths of wire ALONE between an amp and a pair of
>> speakers that could have the slightest affect at audio frequencies.
>
> You could take a pair of wire cutters and snip one of the conductors.
> That would have an audible effect (i.e. the speakers would be silent).
Smartass! But you're right.
>
> You could strip the insulation and make a short circuit. You'd hear that
> as the amp frying (or blowing a fuse if you're lucky)
>
> You could separate the two conductors and make a bunch of loops to
> create an inductor. That would have an audible effect.
It would have to be a lot of loops!
>
> You could attach connectors with cold solder joints that are non-linear,
> and this would induce distortion.
>
> There are many things one can do to the wire to make things sound worse.
> Of course, what you meant is that there's nothing you can do to
> *improve* the signal transfer at audio frequencies. I can't disagree
> with you there.
Actually, what I meant was that there are no applications of fancy, expensive
materials, no special "strand orientation" no high-tech dielectrics between
cable elements, no super connectors, or any other of the hundred and one
things that cable makers throw at their cable designs to justify the high
prices, that actually would cause them to sound different (better or worse)
than a cheap Radio Shack cable or a length of 14 gauge lamp cord for speaker
cable. I'm not talking here about cables with molded or wood boxes on the
ends filled with inductors, resistors and capacitors and are DESIGNED to
alter the frequency response of the cable, I'm talking about cables made of
nothing but copper wire and connectors - no matter HOW fancy.
Sonnova
(in article <7bmh55F...@mid.individual.net>):
> "Guenter Scholz" <sch...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in
> message news:7bl50aF...@mid.individual.net
>>
>> .... I'd agree depending on what you call reasoanble. In
>> many situations cable runs of 10's of feet is used.
>
> So what?
>
>> an inductor is a coil of wire.
>
> An inductor is a coil of wire that has surprizingly little in common with a
> cable. In fact, cables minimize their inductance by simply having two
> conductors that are close to each other and have current flowing in them in
> opposite directions.
>
>> Heck, you can buy wire would
>> resistors that are non-inductive and they are not very
>> long....
>
> ????
>
>> Naim amps need a highly inductive speaker wire
>> to keep it from oscillating into difficult ie capacitive
>> loads.
>
> That is known as an amplifier that is very poorly designed.
>
>> Wasn't Kimber cable braided flat so it could fit
>> into carpets...
>
> Braided speaker cable was not an innovation of Kimber.
>
>> many parallel strands of wire make a good capacitor.
>
> Simply not true. Most cables are formed of parallel strands of wire, and
> few if any of them are very good capacitors.
Well, they ARE good capacitors, just very tiny ones. They may even have an
affect on signals that pass through them, as long as those signals are on the
order of 100 MHz of so. 8^)
>
Walker
news:h310u...@news2.newsguy.com...
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:07:28 -0700, Walker wrote
> (in article <h2vob...@news7.newsguy.com>):
>
>> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
>> news:h2uia...@news6.newsguy.com...
>>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
>>> (in article <7be2puF...@mid.individual.net>):
>>>
>
> if
> you were to switch between your old cables and the new ones in a
> double-blind
> evaluation, you would not be able to tell one cable from the other. No one
> ever has been able to it. You see, the properties of wire are well known.
> Have been for decades. Between DC and about 100KHz, there is nothing that
> you
> can do to Interconnects less than 10 ft long or speaker cables less than
> 25
> ft long without external components added to them that would affect the
> sound
> in any way.
>
Have any of you actually tried a set of these cables or are you simply going
by what you've read or heard and accepted it as fact because it looks good
on paper?
It's a point of refining what is already highly refined and the difference
is very subtle but obvious when you know your system. It's not going to make
any difference with a Radio Shack system but it blends in with the upgraded
parts of a high end system and doesn't become the weak link in the chain.
There's nothing wrong with decent lamp cord and interconnects slightly
better than those that come with stereos but neither are the OEM connectors,
transformers, tubes, capacitors, resistors and coils etc on high end gear
yet some of us can't wait to upgrade them. Why not the cables that connect
them all?
It's similar to a top level wine from the same vineyard and winery but a
year apart. Any of us, even wine connoisseurs unfamiliar with that
particular wine, will think that both wines are identical and so will the
guy writing for the food magazine but those used to that wine will recognize
the difference immediately.
If a couple of you are interested and have enough experience with audiophile
systems to report back on it here I'll agree to participate in a test at my
house with my system and the recordings of my choice. I'll have the
components outside the stand with easy access to the interconnects and the
speaker wires are all on banana plugs. It's all tube gear and can't be
turned off and on rapidly but this can't be a rapid test and will take time
between changes. It may be weird and I'll only do it a few times but if I
can't convince you with 80% accuracy from 10 changes over a couple of hours
I'll buy you lunch. However, if I do hit 8/10 you'll buy me lunch and suffer
my ridicule. Who knows; it might be over quickly with three wrong choices
but even on blind guessing I'll probably hit 50% and not crap out before six
tries. Worse thing that can happen to you, aside from buying lunch, is that
you'll enjoy a couple of hours with a kick ass system and you might even say
"Screw the test and I'm buying lunch but I just want to listen to music".
I'm in Las Vegas and some of you will be coming here because that's what a
lot of people do. Email me and we'll trade phone numbers and maybe set up
something. If you don't have a car I'll come and get you and take you back
to your hotel.
There are only three options; I can tell the difference, I can't tell the
difference or I just like going out to lunch.
Bob Walker
walk...@cox.net
ScottW2
> On Jul 8, 2:28�pm, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 10:33�am, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 8, 3:06�am, Ed Seedhouse <eseedho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 7, 8:07�am, "Walker" <walker...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > �new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
>
> > > > > me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
> > > > > worth the money.
> > > > > Bob Walker
>
> > > > Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
> > > > JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
> > > > can hear such differences under blind conditions. �Such a test should
> > > > be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
> > > > million dollars?
>
> > > That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically
> > > running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real
> > > demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be
> > > disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the
> > > laws of physics.
>
> > As it should be as most exotic cable manufacturers make claims of
> > magical properties outside the laws of physics.
>
> the question isn't claims by manufacturers.
It is to me and it quite obviously is to the JREF challenge.
> the question is audible
> differences between cables.
My general opinion is that when audible differences between cables
exist, the cause is a deficiency in the cable design or the equipment
the cable connects.
>
>
>
> > There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an
> > audible difference. � High source impedance devices requiring low
> > capacitance
> > cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that
> > quickly come to mind. �But none of these require hi-dollar cables to
> > address.
>
> According to Ed proving that will get you a million dollars form the
> JREF.
Really. So if I put together a system that hums due to a ground loop
and then
replace an interconnect with one with a much lower resistance ground
path audibly reducing the hum....I'll win?
> I am skeptical that the JREF has actually made such an open challenge.
They haven't. The challenge is about the magical claims of many hi-
end cable manufacturers as your quote shows.
ScottW
Scott
>
I don't need to apply. I have read the rules. I know that my
application will be rejected. But tell you what. You have my
permission to apply on my behalf. Give it a shot. see for yourself
that this is not an open challenge of any claims of audible differnces
between cables.
Dick Pierce
> It's similar to a top level wine from the same
> vineyard and winery but a year apart.
And explain why double-blind taste testing of wines
is de rigor in wine comparisons and is not
accepted in the high end audio realm?
> Any of
> us, even wine connoisseurs unfamiliar with that
> particular wine, will think that both wines are
> identical and so will the guy writing for the food
> magazine but those used to that wine will recognize
> the difference immediately.
And are more than willing to submit themselves to
properly controlled blind testing.
Your preconceived notions are showing. You might
want to see to that.
Scott
> On Jul 8, 9:34 pm, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 2:28 pm, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 8, 10:33 am, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 8, 3:06 am, Ed Seedhouse <eseedho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 7, 8:07 am, "Walker" <walker...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > > new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
>
> > > > > > me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
> > > > > > worth the money.
> > > > > > Bob Walker
>
> > > > > Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
> > > > > JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
> > > > > can hear such differences under blind conditions. Such a test should
> > > > > be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
> > > > > million dollars?
>
> > > > That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically
> > > > running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real
> > > > demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be
> > > > disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the
> > > > laws of physics.
>
> > > As it should be as most exotic cable manufacturers make claims of
> > > magical properties outside the laws of physics.
>
> > the question isn't claims by manufacturers.
>
> It is to me and it quite obviously is to the JREF challenge.
If so then why are they bothering reviewers? Why not make the
challenge to the cable manufacturers. maybe because it is silly to
challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague
assertions that are pretty much unchallengable? I guess the real
question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a
world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value. Ads
are sales pitches not documentaries.
>
> > the question is audible
> > differences between cables.
>
> My general opinion is that when audible differences between cables
> exist, the cause is a deficiency in the cable design or the equipment
> the cable connects.
I'm not going to take you to task for any of your personal subjective
opinions. But I hope you understand that such opinions are just that,
personal and subjective as opposed to universal and objective.
>
>
>
> > > There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an
> > > audible difference. High source impedance devices requiring low
> > > capacitance
> > > cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that
> > > quickly come to mind. But none of these require hi-dollar cables to
> > > address.
>
> > According to Ed proving that will get you a million dollars form the
> > JREF.
>
> Really. So if I put together a system that hums due to a ground loop
> and then
> replace an interconnect with one with a much lower resistance ground
> path audibly reducing the hum....I'll win?
By what Ed has represented yes. I suspect not. But I have actually
read and understood the rules of the challenge. Apparently that gives
me a "unique view" on the subject.
>
> > I am skeptical that the JREF has actually made such an open challenge.
>
> They haven't. The challenge is about the magical claims of many hi-
> end cable manufacturers as your quote shows.
1. It isn't an open challenge.
2. There are no magical claims I know of. If you can cite any
manufacturers claiming their cables perform better due to magic I'd
like to see it.
Scott
wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2:58�pm, "Walker" <walker...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > It's similar to a top level wine from the same
> > vineyard and winery but a year apart.
>
> And explain why double-blind taste testing of wines
> is de rigor in wine comparisons and is not
> accepted in the high end audio realm?
Um, it certainly is used in *some* cases. I'm pretty confident that
the vast majority of wine tasting is not done with double blind
protocols. I think a more interesting question would be how do the
results of the double blind comparisons in wine tasting differ from
the sighted ones. i don't think that question has ever been carefully
studied. then my next question would be who buys wine by the bottle or
glass blind? As for the lack of acceptance for blind protocols in high
end audio, I use blind protocols in my auditions, does that mean I am
not participating in the high end?
>
> > Any of
> > us, even wine connoisseurs unfamiliar with that
> > particular wine, will think that both wines are
> > identical and so will the guy writing for the food
> > magazine but those used to that wine will recognize
> > the difference immediately.
>
> And are more than willing to submit themselves to
> properly controlled blind testing.
I know a few wine connoisseurs, none of which have done any double
blind taste testing in building their wine collections. do you think
that is a problem?
Walker
news:h3111...@news2.newsguy.com...
> "Walker" <walk...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:h2vob...@news7.newsguy.com...
>
> You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
>> me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
>> worth the money.
>>
>> the
>> TV surround system. My system is conservatively worth $7K and the $600 is
>> less than 10%. IMHO spending $500 for cabling a -$2K system is crazy and
>> the
>> money can be better spent on upgrading the components.
>
> Huh? First you say it is worth the money, then you say spending $500 on
> cabling is crazy. Can you parse that out for me?
>
> Gary Eickmeier
>
What I said was that the $600 was less than 10% of the value of my system
and justifiable to the extent of being a minor part of it and that spending
$500.00 is overkill on an over the counter system with $20.00 worth of
Chinese parts. A gravel road with a small stretch of smooth pavement in the
middle is still considered a gravel road.
I spent over $500.00 for coils and caps alone upgrading my crossovers and if
nothing else the quality of the cables are a much better match than lamp
cord and off of the wall interconnects. I have a TV surround system with $6K
worth of vintage Altec and JBL speakers. The receiver is a Sony ES and all
of the stuff I use is connected either optical or DA and there's not a
single analog interconnect. I'll upgrade their respective crossovers with
the 1/2 the money of premium speaker cables and after that I'll add separate
amps and get the drivers remagnetized. By that time the system will be worth
around $20K and then I might consider new $2K speaker cables; again around
10% of the value of the system.
Bob W
Walker
news:7bmv73F...@mid.individual.net...
What I was referring to is that someone who is familiar with something
notices subtle changes before anyone who is not familiar with it and I was
using the fine wine as the concept of high end and not run of the mill.
I have no qualms about double blind testing and I've issued a challenge if
you read that far. I'm willing to be tested under my controlled conditions
and by people who are qualified. I'm not about to let every Tom, Dick and
Harry into my house and I'll only do it two or three times but I'm willing
and prepared to be shown up if that's what reality dictates.
Bob W
Sonnova
(in article <h35el...@news3.newsguy.com>):
> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> news:h310u...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:07:28 -0700, Walker wrote
>> (in article <h2vob...@news7.newsguy.com>):
>>
>>> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h2uia...@news6.newsguy.com...
>>>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
>>>> (in article <7be2puF...@mid.individual.net>):
>>>>
>>
>> A lot of people get deluded this way, so you're not alone. But believe me
>> if
>> you were to switch between your old cables and the new ones in a
>> double-blind
>> evaluation, you would not be able to tell one cable from the other. No one
>> ever has been able to it. You see, the properties of wire are well known.
>> Have been for decades. Between DC and about 100KHz, there is nothing that
>> you
>> can do to Interconnects less than 10 ft long or speaker cables less than
>> 25
>> ft long without external components added to them that would affect the
>> sound
>> in any way.
>>
>
> Have any of you actually tried a set of these cables or are you simply going
> by what you've read or heard and accepted it as fact because it looks good
> on paper?
No, I have not actually tried a set of these expensive cables lately, but on
the other hand, I haven't flapped my arms while I jump off a roof either,
but I know that doing so will NOT result in my flying. Just as I know that
nothing that one can do with wire and a set of connectors will have any
affect on an audio signal, and for the same reason. The laws of physics says
that wire is wire from DC to at least 50 KHz. I have, in the past, however
been privy to a number of double-blind listening tests of highly touted and
expensive cables vs the cheap molded variety, and nobody on a panel of audio
experts, including some rather famous ones, could detect any difference
whatsoever between the two.
> It's a point of refining what is already highly refined and the difference
> is very subtle but obvious when you know your system. It's not going to make
> any difference with a Radio Shack system but it blends in with the upgraded
> parts of a high end system and doesn't become the weak link in the chain.
I do advocate the use of good interconnects which are well made. In fact, I
recommend the use "quasi-balanced" interconnects (where the shield is not
part of the cable, carries no current, and is just an electromagnetic and
electrostatic shield. Good connections, kept clean and as air-tight as
possible are important. It is also important for the wire used in the cables
to be well soldered to the connectors and not just crimped. This is in the
name of reliability and a low noise floor, however, not in the name of one
cable sounding better than another.
> There's nothing wrong with decent lamp cord and interconnects slightly
> better than those that come with stereos but neither are the OEM connectors,
> transformers, tubes, capacitors, resistors and coils etc on high end gear
> yet some of us can't wait to upgrade them. Why not the cables that connect
> them all?
As long as you understand that simple cables will neither enhance or detract
from your system's performance as long the above criteria are met, there is
nothing wrong with upgrading one's cables. Just don't expect a $1000 pair of
say, speaker cables, to sound any "better" than the same length of 14 gauge
lamp cord.
> It's similar to a top level wine from the same vineyard and winery but a
> year apart. Any of us, even wine connoisseurs unfamiliar with that
> particular wine, will think that both wines are identical and so will the
> guy writing for the food magazine but those used to that wine will recognize
> the difference immediately.
No, it's not similar at all. Wine is the result of a long process filled with
variables, many of which are NOT under the wine maker's direct control.
Weather, rainfall, soil conditions vary from one growing season to the next,
the wine maker cannot control these and they make a big difference in the
quality of the final product. Wire. OTOH, is wire. as long as it's copper,
connected firmly to the connectors at each end and the connectors themselves
make decent contact, there are no variables. Now different cable
manufacturers will tell you that the way they orient the cable strands in
their products or the type of insulation they use make them sound "better"
and may spew-out marketing mumbo-jumbo about suppressing spurious outside
magnetic fields, etc., but this is all stuff and nonsense AT AUDIO
FREQUENCIES. Now, at 100 MHz, it is every bit possible that these things
might make a difference, but from DC to 50 or even 100 KHz in runs for
speaker cable of less than 50 Ft from the amplifier and in interconnects less
than 20 ft from component to component, these things simply do not apply in
any audible way.
> If a couple of you are interested and have enough experience with audiophile
> systems to report back on it here I'll agree to participate in a test at my
> house with my system and the recordings of my choice. I'll have the
> components outside the stand with easy access to the interconnects and the
> speaker wires are all on banana plugs. It's all tube gear and can't be
> turned off and on rapidly but this can't be a rapid test and will take time
> between changes. It may be weird and I'll only do it a few times but if I
> can't convince you with 80% accuracy from 10 changes over a couple of hours
> I'll buy you lunch. However, if I do hit 8/10 you'll buy me lunch and suffer
> my ridicule. Who knows; it might be over quickly with three wrong choices
> but even on blind guessing I'll probably hit 50% and not crap out before six
> tries. Worse thing that can happen to you, aside from buying lunch, is that
> you'll enjoy a couple of hours with a kick ass system and you might even say
> "Screw the test and I'm buying lunch but I just want to listen to music".
Could be That I would enjoy your system immensely, but OTOH, WRT your test,
been there, done that. and there is no difference. There can't be. It's as
impossible as jumping off a roof, flapping your arms and flying. Physics says
that both are impossible and so they are.
>
> I'm in Las Vegas and some of you will be coming here because that's what a
> lot of people do. Email me and we'll trade phone numbers and maybe set up
> something. If you don't have a car I'll come and get you and take you back
> to your hotel.
>
> There are only three options; I can tell the difference, I can't tell the
> difference or I just like going out to lunch.
>
> Bob Walker
> walk...@cox.net
Will do next time I'm heading out to Vegas.
>
Andrew Barss
:>
:> And explain why double-blind taste testing of wines
:> is de rigor in wine comparisons and is not
:> accepted in the high end audio realm?
It is, unfortunately, not de rigeur in wine tastings.
It seems more common that in audio, but, for example,
Robert Parker, the most powerful man in the wine world,
refuses to do blind tastings, apparently:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2067055
: I know a few wine connoisseurs, none of which have done any double
: blind taste testing in building their wine collections. do you think
: that is a problem?
Depends on whether they make claims to the effect that wine X is remarkably
superior to wine Y, X represents the terroire better, or whatever parallels
the claims among audio delusionists. If it's just "I like French burgundies,
and I particularly like this one, so I bought a case", then of course not.
But suppose, to make up an example, a wine company started
marketing bottle label demagnetizers, for $2000 each, and some
influential wine critic said that the wine in the demagnetized
bottle was smoother, richer, had a longer aftertaste, and
expressed the winemaker's true intent with more
clarity that one would think possible. And then someone started marketing
wine racks made from African blackwood (mpingo), and gosh darn it if
Michael Fremer's brother-in-law didn't see an immediate improvement in
the flavor and nose of his Sauternes, which improvement only
got more pronounced the closer they were to the center of the rack!
Would you
a) nod wisely and hope to save the scratch for the label demagntizer and
blackwood rack, or
b) laugh at these guys, and think they were deluding
themselves, and should do a double-blind taste test to back up the
claims?
And sighted wine tastings give results that show people who think a wine is
expensive experience it as tasting better, even if it's the SAME wine
from the SAME bottle that they had previously tasted as a cheap one:
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/01/expensive_wine_tastes_better.php
-- Andy Barss
Steven Sullivan
WHO did, and under *what* conditions?
> Which simply showed that not all the relevant things were
> being measured. And yet this same psuedo-scientific misinformation
> continues to be pawned off as true and supported by "science' to this
> day.
I know of no case where a measurable reason for audible difference was not found.
Do you?
> > There is also of course the whole
> > realm of devices, treatments, and tweaks that have only the faintest
> > (or no) rational basis for having the claimed audible effect in the
> > first place, much less the substantial differences reported. In that
> > category we can put the Belt's tweaks, Shakti stones, Mpingo discs,
> > the Hallograph, the craziness at Machina Dynamica, LP demagnetizers,
> > cryogenic treatment of CDs, and the like.
> >
> > So there are plenty of pairs of devices, including cables, or
> > treatmetns, that would fit the requirements -- if measured performance
> > does not predict an audible difference, yet the subject 'passed' the
> > challenge, then they would be eligible for the million, because there
> > would be no known physical cause.
> OK then do tell us about the "measured" performance of all the tweaks
> you just cited as paranormal. You are refering to measured
> performance. So it must be fair to assume someone has actually done
> some measurements.
Except, that's not always necessary, Scott. It's not like science
starts from a blank slate when confronted with every claim. Something
that has no rational basis for making a difference -- based on known
laws of physics and engineering -- requires evidence FROM THE PEOPLE MAKING THE
CLAIM that is actually works.
> > >The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the paranormal.
> >
> > Michael Fremer made much the same objection during the Pear/Tara
> > cables dustup.
> >
> > Randi replied: "We define "paranormal" as describing an event or a
> > phenomenon that can actually be shown to occur, but has no explanation
> > within scientific reasoning.
> So Fremer was right. Because it follows that any audible difference
> between cables will have a scientific explination.
Now all Fremer has to do is show that the differences HE claims to hear
ARE due to those well-known scientific explanations. Because cables
typically shouldn't be different enough in the known parameters, to
have differences. Yet he hears them routinely.
LOL. It's *Fremer* you're replying to there, not me, Scott. *He's* the
once who was quibbling about the word 'excellent'.
> That is one side of it. But the fact still remains Randi never managed
> to put any audiophile claims to the preliminary test.
The onus is on the claimants to submit to the preliminary process,
where the claimant works with JREF to come to a suitable protocol.
Dowsing, ESP and other reported phenomena also have scientific explanations
on tap (typically to do with psychological effects). So really, by your criteria,
nothing he's testing is really 'paranormal'.
> He resolved
> nothing with all his grandstanding. He kinda made a bit of an ass of
> himself on the whole subject by painting people with an overly broad
> brush. Then when faced with his numerous misrepresentations of the
> facts he dismissed them as unimportant.
And Fremer made a typical ranting lunatic of himself in his replies.
Meanwhile, Stereophile decided Randi was a fraud because his real
name isn't Randi. Atkinson later clains that was all sarcasm.
> > >Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves something to
> > >be true it ceases to be "paranormal." I mean would quantum physics
> > >have qualified for the JREF challenge before physicists figured it
> > >out?
> >
> > You're seriously equating the claims and effects that audiophiles
> > tout, with quantum effects whose existence was confirmed repeatedly by
> > multiple scientists doing careful experiments?
> No, I was asking a question in regards to the rules of JREF challenge.
> Certainly you realize that there was a time when many of the
> implications of quantum mechanics had not been confirmed by any
> experiemtnal evidence? Did you catch the part where I said "before
> physicists figured it out?"
Before physicists 'figured it out' they had observed these puzzling
effects under laboratory conditions. Big difference.
> But now I have to ask. With all this grandstanding what is stopping so
> called skeptics from simply taking on these so called "voodoo" beliefs
> in audio by actually testing the objects that are found to be so
> objectionable?
What is stopping subjectivists -- the ones who actually beleive in this stuff --
from volunteering to win $1 million?
> If objectivists want to debunk things....why not
> actually do it? I would expect things like Belt tweeks to be easy
> pickings. Personally I just don't care that much. If Peter Belt and
> his followers are having fun I see no point it trying to stop that.
Gee, and what is the typical response from subjectivists when presented
with data gathered by objectivists?
Mr. Finsky
because the debaters have already made up their minds. The greatest
scientist in the world could not convince Arny that he was wrong
unless he had used Arny's preferred testing method. The most
"rational" objectivist could not convince Harry Pearson, Gordon Holt
or any subjectivist that they cannot hear the difference between
products. Has anyone ever been convinced by what they read in this
subject matter? Every explanation I have read that demonstrates why
double-blind testing does not work makes sense to me. Arny would
probably never bother to read past the first line. On the other hand,
Harry Pearson would probably never read an article "proving" that you
cannot hear the difference between cables or amps.
In the end, everyone is preaching to the converted but no one is
really convincing anyone to change.
As for me, I know that $30 cables do not sound the same as $400
cables, which do not sound like $5000 cables. Whether the difference
is worth the money is the better question. I believe that if you spend
about 2-5% of your budget on cables, you would be content with the
sound and not feel like you have been conned.
Sonnova
(in article <h35il...@news5.newsguy.com>):
> On Jul 9, 12:37ï¿œpm, Dick Pierce <dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 2:58ï¿œpm, "Walker" <walker...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> It's similar to a top level wine from the same
>>> vineyard and winery but a year apart.
>>
>> And explain why double-blind taste testing of wines
>> is de rigor in wine comparisons and is not
>> accepted in the high end audio realm?
>
> Um, it certainly is used in *some* cases. I'm pretty confident that
> the vast majority of wine tasting is not done with double blind
> protocols.
Actually, that depends upon whether or not we're talking about formal or
informal wine tastings. No formal does not mean tie and tails, it means that
wines are being formally tested for rank, and yes, formal tasting is a wine
test, and is always double blind as are food tastings such as those done by
serious food magazines.
> I think a more interesting question would be how do the
> results of the double blind comparisons in wine tasting differ from
> the sighted ones. i don't think that question has ever been carefully
> studied. then my next question would be who buys wine by the bottle or
> glass blind? As for the lack of acceptance for blind protocols in high
> end audio, I use blind protocols in my auditions, does that mean I am
> not participating in the high end?
The problem with sighted evaluations is that the label sets up expectations.
If I were to give you two glasses of Merlot to taste, and you saw me decant
one from a bottle marked Chateau St, Jean from Sonoma CA and the other was a
bottle of "Two-Buck-Chuck" from Trader Joe's, you would have expectations
that the much more expensive Chateau St Jean Merlot would be the better wine,
and so it would be. This has been proven over and over and over again.
Sighted biases spoil the test. In fact, tests have been conducted where the
exact same wine was poured into both a cheap labeled bottle and an expensive
labeled bottle and the wine from the expensive labeled bottle has won, every
time even though both were the same wine!
>>> Any of
>>> us, even wine connoisseurs unfamiliar with that
>>> particular wine, will think that both wines are
>>> identical and so will the guy writing for the food
>>> magazine but those used to that wine will recognize
>>> the difference immediately.
>>
>> And are more than willing to submit themselves to
>> properly controlled blind testing.
>
> I know a few wine connoisseurs, none of which have done any double
> blind taste testing in building their wine collections. do you think
> that is a problem?
No. They are choosing wines that they like, they are not usually trying to
choose wine based on which of a number of bottles is the best of that type.
Double-blind testing in wine is done to rate wines for awards or for
publications where ranking is important irrespective of cost or brand. Back
in the 1970's, for instance, the wine world was shocked to find that a famous
French wine institute had awarded their grand prize to a bottle of California
cabernet. Nobody was more shocked by this result than the tasting panel of
French wine connoisseurs who unanimously voted for the California wine. All
said that had they known the wine was not French, they probably wouldn't have
given it as high of a score as they did, thus validating the value of
double-blind wine tasting in such judgings.
Sonnova
(in article <7bmpflF...@mid.individual.net>):
It would but there isn't any just as the "scientific explanation" says there
won't be.
>
>>
>> Detecting differences between two varieties of excellent conductors of
>> low-voltage electrical signals . speaker leads . via a direct auditory
>> test, would fall within this usage.
>
>
> There in lies the debate. But it seems that some simply debate by
> declaring they are simply right. Why Randi decided to jump into this
> is beyond me. It isn't a question of paranormal activity but a
> question of whether or not the distortions of any cable are audible.
> The dead moose in the room for everyone on the JREF side of this
> debate is that it is quite easy to make cables sound different.
Well, in a left-handed way, I think I understand. Since the laws of physics
dictate that there can be no differences between the "sound" imparted by two
different cables of the same length, then if such differences ARE found to
exist, then the reason why they sound different must lie outside of the
physical world, I.E. the reasons must be metaphysical; in other words
paranormal.
>
>>
>> Regardless, we of course have the right to accept this claim as
>> paranormal in nature, and we hereby do accept it as such. We will even
>> create, for the purposes of this experimental protocol, a special
>> category of "golden ears," just for [Fremer]".
>
> I suppose yoy have the right to misuse words for the sake of fueling
> the flames between objectivists and subjectivists if that is what you
> are into doing. But it doesn't change the *fact* that any audible
> differences between cables will have a scientific explination and none
> of this has anything to do with the paranormal.
But science tells us that there can be no differences at audio frequencies.
>>
>> Fremer still objected: "But there are scientific explanations for
>> sonic differences among cables, including (among others) inductance,
>> resistance and capacitance, all of which can have an effect on
>> frequency response.
He's right except in one all-important regard: while differences in
inductance, resistance and capacitance do have an effect on frequency
response, the values of those inductors, capacitors, and resistors would have
to be orders of magnitude higher than it is possible to build a couple of
meters of coaxial cable to have or for a reasonable length of sufficiently
heavy speaker cable to have in order for these cables to have to cause any
audible affect on signals in the audio passband. Of course, some cable
manufacturers can add external capacitance, resistance, and inductance to
their cables to consciously alter the frequency rsponse characteristics of
their cables, but that's cheating, isn't it? The whole idea of high-end cable
marketing is that each brand of cables advertises that their product
compromises the signals LESS than do their competitors.
Ed Seedhouse
> On Jul 9, 11:59 am, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
> > > > > > JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
> > > > > > can hear such differences under blind conditions. �Such a test should
> > > > > > be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
> > > > > > million dollars?
>
> > > > > That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically
> > > > > running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real
> > > > > demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be
> > > > > disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the
> > > > > laws of physics.
>
> > > > As it should be as most exotic cable manufacturers make claims of
> > > > magical properties outside the laws of physics.
>
> > > the question isn't claims by manufacturers.
>
> > It is to me and it quite obviously is to the JREF challenge.
>
> If so then why are they bothering reviewers? Why not make the
> challenge to the cable manufacturers. maybe because it is silly to
> challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague
> assertions that are pretty much unchallengable? I guess the real
> question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a
> world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value. Ads
> are sales pitches not documentaries.
A little google searching comes up with http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-09/092807reply.html
which shows you what he actually said, and that he actually challenged
Pear Audio's claims directly. You'll need to scroll down the page to
the headline: MORE CABLE NONSENSE.
JWV Miller
> This discussion about cables and double-blind testing is absurd
> because the debaters have already made up their minds. The greatest
> scientist in the world could not convince Arny that he was wrong
> unless he had used Arny's preferred testing method.
Certainly some of the debaters have made up their minds since they
claim to hear differences that can't be substantiated using unbiased
testing. One would be hard pressed to find competent scientists let
alone the world's greatest scientist (nominations please?) who would
have confidence that sighted tests of speaker cables can reliably
differentiate between small differences in sounds. Arny's methodology
tries to minimize biases and yet be as sensitive as possible to
detecting small sound differences. Please cite any instances where
Arny has indicated that only his testing methods will produce valid
results.
> The most
> "rational" objectivist could not convince Harry Pearson, Gordon Holt
> or any subjectivist that they cannot hear the difference between
> products.
So let them reliably identify the differences with blind testing and
then everyone will believe.
Has anyone ever been convinced by what they read in this
> subject matter? Every explanation I have read that demonstrates why
> double-blind testing does not work makes sense to me.
Really? How about blind testing doesn't work because the wind is
blowing from the northeast or blind testing doesn't work because
hearing can't take place without hearing. Its quite easy to come up
with hypotheses why blind testing doesn't work but demonstrating
convincingly that there is any validity in such notions is much
harder.
> Arny would
> probably never bother to read past the first line. On the other hand,
> Harry Pearson would probably never read an article "proving" that you
> cannot hear the difference between cables or amps.
Arny often reads past the first line to point out the absurdities
associated with sighted testing.
>
> In the end, everyone is preaching to the converted but no one is
> really convincing anyone to change.
Are you sure of that? It seems that the number of die-hard
subjectivists here has declined significantly over the past several
years. The subjectivists in this thread are greatly outnumbered by
those disputing magic cable claims.
>
> As for me, I know that $30 cables do not sound the same as $400
> cables, which do not sound like $5000 cables. Whether the difference
> is worth the money is the better question. I believe that if you spend
> about 2-5% of your budget on cables, you would be content with the
> sound and not feel like you have been conned.
Everyone is free to believe what they wish. Unbiased testing has never
demonstrated that there is any advantage to using exotic expensive
cables over competent low-cost cables suitable for the application.
Sonnova
(in article <h35ed...@news3.newsguy.com>):
> In article <7bmh55F...@mid.individual.net>,
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> "Guenter Scholz" <sch...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in
>> message news:7bl50aF...@mid.individual.net
>>>
>
> .... snip the glib comments...
>
>>> an inductor is a coil of wire.
>>
>> An inductor is a coil of wire that has surprizingly little in common with a
>> cable. In fact, cables minimize their inductance by simply having two
>> conductors that are close to each other and have current flowing in them in
>> opposite directions.
>>
> .... well, I guess, it all depends on how the speaker cable is physically
> arranged; ie, how the individual strands are arranged etc
At VHF and UHF frequencies, yes, performance MIGHT well be dependent upon how
"strands are arranged, etc" but at audio frequencies? No.
>
>>> Heck, you can buy wire would
>>> resistors that are non-inductive and they are not very
>>> long....
>>
>> ????
>
> FYI, a wire wound resistor is a small 1 cm or so cylinder with wire wound
> on it and it is used to provide resistance.
Of course this wire is a high resistance wire like nichrome and not simple
copper. It is used to make wire-wound resistors simply because it has high
resistance and dissipates current as heat.
There won't be more than about
> 10 cm or so of wire. The inductance this coil of wire causes can be problem
> some in certain applications... ie you don't need 10's of feet depending on
> the application - in this case - the amp.
>
>>
>>> Wasn't Kimber cable braided flat so it could fit
>>> into carpets...
>>
>> Braided speaker cable was not an innovation of Kimber.
>
> ... fine, I'm getting old and don't remember the brand...
>>
>>> many parallel strands of wire make a good capacitor.
>>
>> Simply not true. Most cables are formed of parallel strands of wire, and
>> few if any of them are very good capacitors.
>
> Arnie, you'd be correct iff the wires were not individually insulated as is
> the case of the above speaker wire.
He's correct anyway. Kirchoff's law and all that.
> nevertheless, even the strands of wire
> in your zip cord, not insulated as they are, will provide capacitance because
> of an effect known as the skin effect ... the gist of which is that depending
> on the frequency electrons do not travell uniformely in the wire
What, pray tell, does skin effect have to do with frequencies between DC and
20 KHz? Skin effect comes into play at frequencies above somewhere around 10
MHz, but below that, the effect is nil. In fact at microwave frequencies,
skin effect is the operative conductor model. So much so that at those
frequencies one can dispense with the core of the conductor altogether. Ever
heard of a wave guide?
Arny Krueger
news:7bno1gF...@mid.individual.net
> This discussion about cables and double-blind testing is
> absurd because the debaters have already made up their
> minds.
It appears that you have made up your mind, for better or worse.
> The greatest scientist in the world could not
> convince Arny that he was wrong unless he had used Arny's
> preferred testing method.
That would be a proven false claim, given my support for the ABC/hr and a
number of other reliable testing procedures that I did not personally
develop, unlike ABX.
> The most "rational" objectivist
> could not convince Harry Pearson, Gordon Holt or any
> subjectivist that they cannot hear the difference between
> products.
There seems to be some indications that some of the leading subjectivist
reviewers may have private thoughts and doubts about their life's work.
> Has anyone ever been convinced by what they
> read in this subject matter?
Yes, tons of people. Even I had to be convinced to do the first ABX test.
> Every explanation I have
> read that demonstrates why double-blind testing does not
> work makes sense to me.
The false claim here is that DBTs do work. What they fail to do are things
that are known by other reliable means to be impossible.
> Arny would probably never bother
> to read past the first line.
Easy to say, hard to prove.
> On the other hand, Harry
> Pearson would probably never read an article "proving"
> that you cannot hear the difference between cables or amps.
Krueger has no doubt read far more Pearson, Atkinson, Fremer, even
Moncrieff, than vice-versa.
> In the end, everyone is preaching to the converted but no
> one is really convincing anyone to change.
There are actually a large number of people who have adopted the reliable
listening test way. You can find them here and on other forums.
> As for me, I know that $30 cables do not sound the same
> as $400 cables, which do not sound like $5000 cables.
Talk about someone with their mind made up!
> Whether the difference is worth the money is the better
> question.
Whether there is any signficant difference once the hype and bad science is
stripped way is the best question.
> I believe that if you spend about 2-5% of your
> budget on cables, you would be content with the sound and
> not feel like you have been conned.
I know that there is generally no electronic or audible difference between
$3, $30, $300, and $5,000 cables. In every reasonable case, what comes out
is an excellent facsimile of what went in.
Walker
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 11:58:44 -0700, Walker wrote
> (in article <h35el...@news3.newsguy.com>):
>
>> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
>> news:h310u...@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:07:28 -0700, Walker wrote
>>> (in article <h2vob...@news7.newsguy.com>):
>>>
>>>> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:h2uia...@news6.newsguy.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
>>>>> (in article <7be2puF...@mid.individual.net>):
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> going
>> by what you've read or heard and accepted it as fact because it looks
>> good
>> on paper?
>
> No, I have not actually tried a set of these expensive cables
Then you're not qualified to speak about them and anything that you say is
nothing but conjecture based on a common belief or doctrine of physical
reality. Reality is challenged and disproven every day and we call it
progress. That's why we have solar power, LCD TVs and cell phones and are
planning a manned trip to Mars. Otherwise we'd still be churning butter and
watching TV by candle light.
The cable thing has been challenged and may well be proven in a few years
with new instruments that are more sensitive or looking for something else
to measure. Until it relates to something important no one will care but to
the initiated it doesn't matter because we have it already and are enjoying
it.
I'll sum up by saying that I've done it and I've seen it and I know others
who have as well and unless you've tried and failed several times you can't
objectively say that I'm wrong and even then you won't convinve me otherwise
but I'll respect you for trying and honor your right to pontificate. You are
welcome to your beliefs but don't confuse doctrine with fact and I choose to
explore and will continue to do so.
Bye, it was nice.
Bob W
ScottW2
Because they won't come out to play is my best guess.
Reviewers to answer letters to editors occasionally
and some are even silly enough to engage on the internet.
> maybe because it is silly to
> challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague
> assertions that are pretty much unchallengable?
Didn't the UK just tell a cable manufacturer to stop the false ads?
http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1234/uk-cracking-down-on-bs-audio-cable-advertising
> I guess the real
> question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a
> world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value.
Some people hope for a better world.
With so much information flowing around in media, a requirement
for truth in advertising isn't a bad thing IMO.
> Ads
> are sales pitches not documentaries.
I don't know anyone who likes to get ripped off.
Do you?
>
>
>
> > > the question is audible
> > > differences between cables.
>
> > �My general opinion is that when audible differences between cables
> > exist, the cause is a deficiency in the cable design or the equipment
> > the cable connects.
>
> I'm not going to take you to task for any of your personal subjective
> opinions. But I hope you understand that such opinions are just that,
> personal and subjective as opposed to universal and objective.
I prefer to consider them informed opinions. As Dick Pierce kindly
pointed
out there are cases where interconnects can play a role in frequency
response.
There are numerous papers on the web showing you how voltage drops
across
ground in cable can affect noise floors.
Here's one for example.
http://www.jensen-transformers.com/an/generic%20seminar.pdf
Audio isn't rocket science or magic and if a cable is making a
difference,
I've provided you with two very likely causes worth exploring to
understand why.
Once you understand why, it won't cost you much at all to address.
ScottW
Scott
Dennis Drake among others when listening to various test pressings of
his Mercury CDs, under double blind conditions if memory serves me
correctly.
>
> > Which simply showed that not all the relevant things were
> > being measured. And yet this same psuedo-scientific misinformation
> > continues to be pawned off as true and supported by "science' to this
> > day.
>
> I know of no case where a measurable reason for audible difference was not found.
> Do you?
You seem to have been claiming that standard meausurements predict
that all CDPs sound the same. I simply pointed out that "those"
measurements clearly did not tell the whole story and only served to
fuel urban legend under the guise of science about the sound of CDPs.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > There is also of course the whole
> > > realm of devices, treatments, and tweaks that have only the faintest
> > > (or no) rational basis for having the claimed audible effect in the
> > > first place, much less the substantial differences reported. In that
> > > category we can put the Belt's tweaks, Shakti stones, Mpingo discs,
> > > the Hallograph, the craziness at Machina Dynamica, LP demagnetizers,
> > > cryogenic treatment of CDs, and the like.
>
> > > So there are plenty of pairs of devices, including cables, or
> > > treatmetns, that would fit the requirements -- if measured performance
> > > does not predict an audible difference, yet the subject 'passed' the
> > > challenge, then they would be eligible for the million, because there
> > > would be no known physical cause.
> > OK then do tell us about the "measured" performance of all the tweaks
> > you just cited as paranormal. You are refering to measured
> > performance. So it must be fair to assume someone has actually done
> > some measurements.
>
> Except, that's not always necessary, Scott. It's not like science
> starts from a blank slate when confronted with every claim. Something
> that has no rational basis for making a difference -- based on known
> laws of physics and engineering -- requires evidence FROM THE PEOPLE MAKING THE
> CLAIM that is actually works.
I'm pretty sure that if one wanted to do this "scientifically" one
would have to actually do some meaningful measurements to pass peer
review. You spoke about "measured" performance. Are you now saying
that we can speak about "measured performance" without the need of
actual measurements? That strikes me as rather unscientific not to
mention just plain wrong headed. Why are you refering to "measured
performance" when no such measurements have been made?
>
> > > >The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the paranormal.
>
> > > Michael Fremer made much the same objection during the Pear/Tara
> > > cables dustup.
>
> > > Randi replied: "We define "paranormal" as describing an event or a
> > > phenomenon that can actually be shown to occur, but has no explanation
> > > within scientific reasoning.
> > So Fremer was right. Because it follows that any audible difference
> > between cables will have a scientific explination.
>
> Now all Fremer has to do is show that the differences HE claims to hear
> ARE due to those well-known scientific explanations. Because cables
> typically shouldn't be different enough in the known parameters, to
> have differences. Yet he hears them routinely.
Actually Fremer doesn't "have" to do anything. The challenge fell
apart and never made it to the preliminary stage of testing. Nothing
was proven or resolved.
I have no problem disagreeing with Fremer. But your reference to that
opinion lacked any context. you just floated it out there for no
apparent reason or attribution to it's author.
>
> > That is one side of it. But the fact still remains Randi never managed
> > to put any audiophile claims to the preliminary test.
>
> The onus is on the claimants to submit to the preliminary process,
> where the claimant works with JREF to come to a suitable protocol.
No the onus is on both parties and is pretty much acknowledged by JREF
in their webpage. they acknowledge that a failure to reach an
agreement on protocols and is not proof of anything about the claims
being considered for testing.
>
> Dowsing, ESP and other reported phenomena also have scientific explanations
> on tap (typically to do with psychological effects). So really, by your criteria,
> nothing he's testing is really 'paranormal'.
It's not my criteria it is the criteria of the JREF. I have already
posted the relevant quotes from their webpage on the subject. If you
disagree with them then take it up with them.
>
> > He resolved
> > nothing with all his grandstanding. He kinda made a bit of an ass of
> > himself on the whole subject by painting people with an overly broad
> > brush. Then when faced with his numerous misrepresentations of the
> > facts he dismissed them as unimportant.
>
> And Fremer made a typical ranting lunatic of himself in his replies.
> Meanwhile, Stereophile decided Randi was a fraud because his real
> name isn't Randi. Atkinson later clains that was all sarcasm.
Fremer often resorts to such behavior. it is not one of his qualities
as a personality in the business. But it has no bearing on the fact
that Randi was making numerous factual errors in this whole mess and
dismissed them as trivial when faced with them. Fremer's volitility
does not excuse Randi's behavior.
>
> > > >Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves something to
> > > >be true it ceases to be "paranormal." I mean would quantum physics
> > > >have qualified for the JREF challenge before physicists figured it
> > > >out?
>
> > > You're seriously equating the claims and effects that audiophiles
> > > tout, with quantum effects whose existence was confirmed repeatedly by
> > > multiple scientists doing careful experiments?
> > No, I was asking a question in regards to the rules of JREF challenge.
> > Certainly you realize that there was a time when many of the
> > implications of quantum mechanics had not been confirmed by any
> > experiemtnal evidence? Did you catch the part where I said "before
> > physicists figured it out?"
>
> Before physicists 'figured it out' they had observed these puzzling
> effects under laboratory conditions. Big difference.
They had? I think not. I believe physicists had concluded they had
pretty much figured out everything there was to figure out with
Newtonian physics except for this one little problem with black body
radiation. I'm pretty sure they had not observed the many "puzzling
effects" of quantum physics at that point. If they had I don't think
they would have drawn such profoundly eroneous conclusions about the
state of physics.
>
> > But now I have to ask. With all this grandstanding what is stopping so
> > called skeptics from simply taking on these so called "voodoo" beliefs
> > in audio by actually testing the objects that are found to be so
> > objectionable?
>
> What is stopping subjectivists -- the ones who actually beleive in this stuff --
> from volunteering to win $1 million?
I have already explained that a few times. a shell game is a shell
game no matter how you dress it. But back to the point, why didn't you
answer my question? what is stopping so called skeptics from simply
taking on these so called "voodoo" beliefs in audio by actually
testing the objects that are found to be so objectionable?
>
> > If objectivists want to debunk things....why not
> > actually do it? I would expect things like Belt tweeks to be easy
> > pickings. Personally I just don't care that much. If Peter Belt and
> > his followers are having fun I see no point it trying to stop that.
>
> Gee, and what is the typical response from subjectivists when presented
> with data gathered by objectivists?
>
I'll tell you when the objectivist do a proper job of it. But I guess
you think all the posturing and name calling instead is....more
effective? more rational?
Scott
Neither. I have no interest in laughing at others simply because I see
the world differently. That is the first step on the road to
intolerance. IMO we have seen more than enough of that in this world.
heck, you could have cut to the chase and just asked me about the LP
demagnetizer given that I am an audiophile with a rather extensive LP
collection. I have neither saved up for one nor laughed at anyone for
enjoying theirs. Why is it about "laughing rights" for some? Why is it
so bothersome that people enjoy things that likely are nothing more
than a placebo.
>
> And sighted wine tastings give results that show people who think a wine is
> expensive experience it as tasting better, even if it's the SAME wine
> from the SAME bottle that they had previously tasted as a cheap one:
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008/01/expensive_wine_tastes_better.php
>
So one can improve the percieved taste just by changing the price tag.
Sounds like a cool wine tweek. And one that is quite effective.
Dick Pierce
> testing is absurd because the debaters have
> already made up their minds.
... snip ...
> As for me, I know that $30 cables do not sound
> the same as $400 cables, which do not sound
> like $5000 cables.
Q.E.D.
Thank you for providing both a premise and proof
in one post.
Sonnova
(in article <7bno1gF...@mid.individual.net>):
> This discussion about cables and double-blind testing is absurd
> because the debaters have already made up their minds. The greatest
> scientist in the world could not convince Arny that he was wrong
> unless he had used Arny's preferred testing method. The most
> "rational" objectivist could not convince Harry Pearson, Gordon Holt
> or any subjectivist that they cannot hear the difference between
> products. Has anyone ever been convinced by what they read in this
> subject matter? Every explanation I have read that demonstrates why
> double-blind testing does not work makes sense to me. Arny would
> probably never bother to read past the first line. On the other hand,
> Harry Pearson would probably never read an article "proving" that you
> cannot hear the difference between cables or amps.
>
> In the end, everyone is preaching to the converted but no one is
> really convincing anyone to change.
>
> As for me, I know that $30 cables do not sound the same as $400
> cables, which do not sound like $5000 cables.
Well, if they don't. then some cable manufacturers are purposely designing
their cables to be fixed "tone controls" because simple runs of coax or 16
gauge or larger stranded conductors used as speaker cable have no sound. They
merely conduct the signal applied to them. extremely long runs can cause a
build-up of impedance factors that can cause a slight roll-off above 10-15
KHz, but that's about all.
Whether the difference
> is worth the money is the better question. I believe that if you spend
> about 2-5% of your budget on cables, you would be content with the
> sound and not feel like you have been conned.
If you spend any more than is necessary to do the job reliably expecting to
get some increase in performance by doing so, you have been conned.
Arny Krueger
> In article <7bmh55F...@mid.individual.net>,
> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> "Guenter Scholz" <sch...@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in
>> message news:7bl50aF...@mid.individual.net
>>>
>
> .... snip the glib comments...
>
>>> an inductor is a coil of wire.
>>
>> An inductor is a coil of wire that has surprizingly
>> little in common with a cable. In fact, cables minimize
>> their inductance by simply having two conductors that
>> are close to each other and have current flowing in them
>> in opposite directions.
> .... well, I guess, it all depends on how the speaker
> cable is physically arranged; ie, how the individual
> strands are arranged etc
Actually, strand arrangement does not make much difference. Even extreme
cases of that, where the strands are separately insulated, makes no
difference.
> FYI, a wire wound resistor is a small 1 cm or so
> cylinder with wire wound on it and it is used to provide
> resistance.
FYI, wire wound resistors can be up to 50 cm long. Even low powered
wirewound resistors are generally far longer than 1 cm.
> There won't be more than about 10 cm or so of wire.
Just completely wrong. Wire wound resistors can have dozens of meters of
wire in them.
> The inductance this coil of wire causes can be
> problem some in certain applications... ie you don't need
> 10's of feet depending on the application - in this case
> - the amp.
OTOH, if you you wind a wire wound resistor like it was wound with speaker
cable, with parallel wires carrying current flowing in opposite directions,
you have what is known in the trade as a "non-inductive wirewound resistor".
>>> Wasn't Kimber cable braided flat so it could fit
>>> into carpets...
>>
>> Braided speaker cable was not an innovation of Kimber.
> ... fine, I'm getting old and don't remember the brand...
>>
>>> many parallel strands of wire make a good capacitor.
>>
>> Simply not true. Most cables are formed of parallel
>> strands of wire, and few if any of them are very good
>> capacitors.
> Arnie, you'd be correct iff the wires were not
> individually insulated as is the case of the above
> speaker wire.
?????
Speaker wire is geneally composed of two individually insulated wires. But,
it still isn't a very good capacitor.
> nevertheless, even the strands of wire in
> your zip cord, not insulated as they are, will provide
> capacitance because of an effect known as the skin effect
Bad science. Skin effect is not a capacitive (electrostatic) effect. It is
actually an electomagnetic effect. Skin effect is not due to insulation.
> ... the gist of which is that depending on the frequency
> electrons do not travel uniformely in the wire
That much is true, but the reason why has nothing to do with insulation.
Skin effect has to do with the density of the magnetic field around the
wire. A tube has far less skin effect than a cylinder with equal
current-carrying capacity because the magnetic field created by the
conductor is more widely dispersed due to the larger diameter of the tube.
>>> We certainly noticed doing ABX texting.
>> ABX texting? Are you talking about cell phones????
>>> But most critical we found was level matching
>>> across the audible frequency spectrum and that proved
>>> next to impossible to do.
>>
>> Sounds like a very pathological setup.
>
> you'd be suprised how poorly matched channels can be on
> older 'audiophile' tube stuff...
Not really, because I am an older "audiophile" and did extensive testing of
tubed gear back in the day.
>> No, its very easy to ear a few dBs over many octaves.
>> But how do you hook up normal audio components in a
>> normal audio system and obtain such incredibly large
>> differences that are simply due to reasonable speaker
>> cable, and nothing else?
> .... like I said, you use some of the 'audiphile' cables,
Been there done that.
> a longer run does help,
Have to stay relevant here.
> and then use your ABX box to
> switch between said and, say, zip cord to your hearts
> content.
Been there, done that.
> Suprising how difficult it is if your betting
> some money (beer) on your opinion :-)
I'm not betting on my opinion, I'm betting on what I've done, what others
have done, and what the basic science behind it says.
Harry Lavo
news:h36h3...@news3.newsguy.com...
> On Jul 9, 10:40 pm, "Mr. Finsky" <fineze...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>snip<
> Really? How about blind testing doesn't work because the wind is
> blowing from the northeast or blind testing doesn't work because
> hearing can't take place without hearing. Its quite easy to come up
> with hypotheses why blind testing doesn't work but demonstrating
> convincingly that there is any validity in such notions is much
> harder.
>snip<
It is interesting to note that my attempt to define how such validation of
ABX testing for evaluation of differences in musical reproduction might be
done, here on RAHE a few years ago, the attempt wasn't met by constructive
dialog but rather repeated attempts to ridicule and disparage (a) the idea
of the validation itself ("it wasn't needed...abx was 'settled science' ")
and (b) the specific suggestions of test techniques and sequences made by me
(themselves used extensively in the realm of food testing and psychological
experimentation). This dispite the fact that the validation techniques I
was proposing were to some degree incorporated within ABC/hr testing,
considered even by the double-blind enthusiasts as superior to abx for
evaluation of music.
I'm afraid I agree with Mr. Finsky, attempts at constructive dialog on this
subject go nowhere.
khu...@nospam.net
Exactly Harry, and you were trying to co-opt test designs/validations
appropriate for *preference* testing into a *difference* detection test
(ABX). I and others attempted to explain the fallacy of that conflation
relative to validation. The methodology to validate a preference test
is not the same as that for a differentiation test, as *purpose* of the
test is different, thus the confounding variables that need controlled
are different. You refuse to accept this, and choose to consider such
criticism as "disparagement". That's your choice, of course, but it's
hardly a fair evaluation of the history of this subject.
> I'm afraid I agree with Mr. Finsky, attempts at constructive dialog on this
> subject go nowhere.
If you choose to interpret any disagreement with your preconceived
opinions as "not constructive", then I would agree with you.
Keith Hughes
Andrew Barss
: I'm pretty sure that if one wanted to do this "scientifically" one
: would have to actually do some meaningful measurements to pass peer
: review. You spoke about "measured" performance. Are you now saying
: that we can speak about "measured performance" without the need of
: actual measurements? That strikes me as rather unscientific not to
: mention just plain wrong headed. Why are you refering to "measured
: performance" when no such measurements have been made?
There are well-established means of doing perception tests for
peer-reviewed science journals. Subjwcts can try to differentiate two
stimuli; judge them to be the same or different; rank them on a 5-point
scale of preference; etc.
ABX, plus a subject and stimulus sample size big enough
to do simple stats on, would pass peer review at
any good journal.
-- Andy Barss
Sonnova
(in article <7bp4aqF...@mid.individual.net>):
> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> news:h35si...@news3.newsguy.com...
>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 11:58:44 -0700, Walker wrote
>> (in article <h35el...@news3.newsguy.com>):
>>
>>> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h310u...@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:07:28 -0700, Walker wrote
>>>> (in article <h2vob...@news7.newsguy.com>):
>>>>
>>>>> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:h2uia...@news6.newsguy.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
>>>>>> (in article <7be2puF...@mid.individual.net>):
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Have any of you actually tried a set of these cables or are you simply
>>> going
>>> by what you've read or heard and accepted it as fact because it looks
>>> good
>>> on paper?
>>
>> No, I have not actually tried a set of these expensive cables
>
> Then you're not qualified to speak about them and anything that you say is
> nothing but conjecture based on a common belief or doctrine of physical
> reality. Reality is challenged and disproven every day and we call it
> progress. That's why we have solar power, LCD TVs and cell phones and are
> planning a manned trip to Mars. Otherwise we'd still be churning butter and
> watching TV by candle light.
Hogwash, Three years in Lockheed Missile and Space Company's Cable Lab taught
me more about conductors than all the double-blind tests ever conducted.
There is no way for a simple speaker cable of adequate wire size or an
interconnect of the lengths generally used in people's stereo systems can
possibly have any affect on the sound of the signal passing through them.
It's simply not possible. If you want to believe in that kind of snake oil,
be my guest, but you are deluding yourself. No difference exists because no
difference CAN exist. That's been proved over the years by countless
double-blind evaluations.
>
> The cable thing has been challenged and may well be proven in a few years
> with new instruments that are more sensitive or looking for something else
> to measure. Until it relates to something important no one will care but to
> the initiated it doesn't matter because we have it already and are enjoying
> it.
Not likely. There is nothing in wire left to measure that isn't already
measurable. Let me repeat: No one has EVER been able to tell the difference
between expensive cables and cheap (but properly functioning) cables in any
double-blind test ever conducted. Wire is wire at audio frequencies
> I'll sum up by saying that I've done it and I've seen it and I know others
> who have as well and unless you've tried and failed several times you can't
> objectively say that I'm wrong and even then you won't convinve me otherwise
> but I'll respect you for trying and honor your right to pontificate. You are
> welcome to your beliefs but don't confuse doctrine with fact and I choose to
> explore and will continue to do so.
They aren't "beliefs" they are simple laws of physics Just as you can't flap
your arms and fly like a bird for very good physical reasons, cable can have
no "sound" for other very good physical reasons.
Harry Lavo
news:7bp7tfF...@mid.individual.net...
I pointed out to you several times that in fact tests of statistical
"difference" are routinely applied to the scalars in using such tests. Thus
the base tests for validation were large samples with proven statistical
differences in total and across attributes, across a chosen and agreed upon
population of audiophiles. All the ABX test had to do was to show a similar
set of overall differences among a fairly large sameple of people, using 17
point samples, to validate. That seemed too threatening, I guess.
In other words the base test did measure "preference", but the preference of
large groups of people of equipment reproducing music, with a proven
statistical "difference" of this preference as a starting point. What other
standard would you use to illustrate that there was a real subjective
statistical difference (in preference of musical reproduction)? Moreover,
the subjects do not even know that equipment is the variable being tested
since they are monadically evaluating a musical sample.
>
>> I'm afraid I agree with Mr. Finsky, attempts at constructive dialog on
>> this
>> subject go nowhere.
>
> If you choose to interpret any disagreement with your preconceived
> opinions as "not constructive", then I would agree with you.
I beg to differ. You raised the point...I refuted it...and you and others
simple insisted as you do here that you were right and ignoring the fact
that I was talking about a demonstrably statistically significant preference
as the starting point.
Scott
> On Jul 9, 1:06�pm, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > �maybe because it is silly to
> > challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague
> > assertions that are pretty much unchallengable?
>
> Didn't the UK just tell a cable manufacturer to stop the false ads?
>
> http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1234/uk-cracking-down-on-bs-audio-ca...
I read something about it. but I am much more familiar with the state
of advertising here in the U.S.
Enough so that i don't ever confuse advertising copy with impatial
objective information.
>
> > I guess the real
> > question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a
> > world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value.
>
> �Some people hope for a better world.
> �With so much information flowing around in media, a requirement
> for truth in advertising isn't a bad thing IMO.
A better world? seriously aren't there more significant ways to better
the world than policing ad copy in the high end of audio?
>
> > �Ads
> > are sales pitches not documentaries.
>
> �I don't know anyone who likes to get ripped off.
> �Do you?
Indeed I don't. But I have only run across one person so far that
actually felt ripped off after buying a cable. Have you bought
expesive cables only to feel ripped off afterwards?
> > I'm not going to take you to task for any of your personal subjective
> > opinions. But I hope you understand that such opinions are just that,
> > personal and subjective as opposed to universal and objective.
>
> �I prefer to consider them informed opinions.
And this sets you apart from every other audiophile how? They are
still personal and subjective. And I still support you in having those
opinions. After all it is what sounds good to you that matters in your
persuit of excellent sound.
ScottW2
> On Jul 10, 8:17锟絘m, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 9, 1:06锟絧m, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > 锟絤aybe because it is silly to
> > > challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague
> > > assertions that are pretty much unchallengable?
>
> > Didn't the UK just tell a cable manufacturer to stop the false ads?
>
> >http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1234/uk-cracking-down-on-bs-audio-ca...
>
> I read something about it. but I am much more familiar with the state
> of advertising here in the U.S.
> Enough so that i don't ever confuse advertising copy with impatial
> objective information.
As you must. Too bad an honest manufacturer cannot be believed
because of the nonsense of others.
It's also too bad that manufacturer won't get any interest from
dealers
when trying to get his product represented in the audio shops.
>
>
>
> > > I guess the real
> > > question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a
> > > world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value.
>
> > 锟絊ome people hope for a better world.
> > 锟絎ith so much information flowing around in media, a requirement
> > for truth in advertising isn't a bad thing IMO.
>
> A better world? seriously aren't there more significant ways to better
> the world than policing ad copy in the high end of audio?
Is that a reasonable justification...that there is always a more
heinous crime to condemn?
I've managed to enjoy this hobby without dealing with Pol Pot,
but I haven't been able to avoid bs cable sales.
Call me selfish.
>
>
>
> > > 锟紸ds
> > > are sales pitches not documentaries.
>
> > 锟絀 don't know anyone who likes to get ripped off.
> > 锟紻o you?
>
> Indeed I don't. But I have only run across one person so far that
> actually felt ripped off after buying a cable. Have you bought
> expesive cables only to feel ripped off afterwards?
No, I either buy on the cheap or build my own. But the sales pitches
once only pushed at over priced salans have moved mainstream into
Radio Shack and Best Buy pushing overpriced monster crap.
That over priced garbage is even showing up on home depot shelves and
displacing other reasonably priced interconnects off the shelves
which is getting very annoying. The crap is as pernicious as caulpera
taxifolia.
>
> > > I'm not going to take you to task for any of your personal subjective
> > > opinions. But I hope you understand that such opinions are just that,
> > > personal and subjective as opposed to universal and objective.
>
> > 锟絀 prefer to consider them informed opinions.
>
> And this sets you apart from every other audiophile how?
Is every other audiophile alike? Just in this thread alone we've had
numerous false
claims debunked. If I've said something false, I'm open to a
rational explanation of what and why.
> They are
> still personal and subjective.
Not really. They are based on simple and long proven fundamentals of
electronics and mechanics. It is the uninformed that must declare all
things subjective as they have no other recourse.
> And I still support you in having those
> opinions.
Some of my statements are speculation in the absense of sufficient
detail to declare as "applicable" fact to situation described. But in
general the reasons I give are based in simple fundamental physics and
indisputable.
> After all it is what sounds good to you that matters in your
> persuit of excellent sound.
In the pursuit of excellent sound, I think why is as important as
what.
What gives a single data point. Why can provide you a compass and
direction.
Without why you are left with trial and error your only tool in a
world of inifinite options.
Knowing why can also reap great rewards in maximizing price/
performance ratio.
ScottW
Sonnova
(in article <7bqer5F...@mid.individual.net>):
> On Jul 10, 2:00ï¿œpm, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 8:17ï¿œam, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 9, 1:06ï¿œpm, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> ï¿œmaybe because it is silly to
>>>> challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague
>>>> assertions that are pretty much unchallengable?
>>
>>> Didn't the UK just tell a cable manufacturer to stop the false ads?
>>
>>> http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1234/uk-cracking-down-on-bs-audio-ca...
>>
>> I read something about it. but I am much more familiar with the state
>> of advertising here in the U.S.
>> Enough so that i don't ever confuse advertising copy with impatial
>> objective information.
>
> As you must. Too bad an honest manufacturer cannot be believed
> because of the nonsense of others.
> It's also too bad that manufacturer won't get any interest from
> dealers
> when trying to get his product represented in the audio shops.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I guess the real
>>>> question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a
>>>> world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value.
>>
>>> ï¿œSome people hope for a better world.
>>> ï¿œWith so much information flowing around in media, a requirement
>>> for truth in advertising isn't a bad thing IMO.
>>
>> A better world? seriously aren't there more significant ways to better
>> the world than policing ad copy in the high end of audio?
>
> Is that a reasonable justification...that there is always a more
> heinous crime to condemn?
> I've managed to enjoy this hobby without dealing with Pol Pot,
> but I haven't been able to avoid bs cable sales.
> Call me selfish.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> ï¿œAds
>>>> are sales pitches not documentaries.
>>
>>> ï¿œI don't know anyone who likes to get ripped off.
>>> ï¿œDo you?
>>
>> Indeed I don't. But I have only run across one person so far that
>> actually felt ripped off after buying a cable. Have you bought
>> expesive cables only to feel ripped off afterwards?
>
> No, I either buy on the cheap or build my own. But the sales pitches
> once only pushed at over priced salans have moved mainstream into
> Radio Shack and Best Buy pushing overpriced monster crap.
> That over priced garbage is even showing up on home depot shelves and
> displacing other reasonably priced interconnects off the shelves
> which is getting very annoying. The crap is as pernicious as caulpera
> taxifolia.
I believe that one has to pay a certain amount above the price of Radio Shack
crappola to get interconnect cables that are quasi-balanced and decently
made, but this level of quality addresses reliability and a low noise floor,
not sonics. I.E. I'm perfectly all right with buying Monster Cable's lowest
price quasi-balanced cable (about $30 give or take a few bucks for 1 or 2
meter lengths.) It's well made, reliable and worth the price for the peace of
mind.
Scott
> On Jul 10, 2:00�pm, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 8:17�am, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 9, 1:06�pm, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague
> > > > assertions that are pretty much unchallengable?
>
> > > Didn't the UK just tell a cable manufacturer to stop the false ads?
>
> > >http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1234/uk-cracking-down-on-bs-audio-ca...
>
> > I read something about it. but I am much more familiar with the state
> > of advertising here in the U.S.
> > Enough so that i don't ever confuse advertising copy with impatial
> > objective information.
>
> �As you must. Too bad an honest manufacturer cannot be believed
> because of the nonsense of others.
> �It's also too bad that manufacturer won't get any interest from
> dealers
> when trying to get his product represented in the audio shops.
>
Huh? Who in particular has had this problem?
>
>
> > > > I guess the real
> > > > question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a
> > > > world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value.
>
> > > �Some people hope for a better world.
> > > �With so much information flowing around in media, a requirement
> > > for truth in advertising isn't a bad thing IMO.
>
> > A better world? seriously aren't there more significant ways to better
> > the world than policing ad copy in the high end of audio?
>
> �Is that a reasonable justification...that there is always a more
> heinous crime to condemn?
Yes, extremely reasonable IMO.
> I've managed to enjoy this hobby without dealing with Pol Pot,
> but I haven't been able to avoid bs cable sales.
> Call me selfish.
you haven't? So you have bought expensive cables and felt ripped off?
If that was the case you should have gone with a vendor that offered a
free home trial. there are many that do so.
>
>
>
> > > > �Ads
> > > > are sales pitches not documentaries.
>
> > > �I don't know anyone who likes to get ripped off.
> > > �Do you?
>
> > Indeed I don't. But I have only run across one person so far that
> > actually felt ripped off after buying a cable. Have you bought
> > expesive cables only to feel ripped off afterwards?
>
> �No, I either buy on the cheap or build my own.
Then how is it you are not avoiding cable sales as you claimed above?
you kind of lost me there. It would seem that you have avoided the
very trappings you seem very concerned about. I don't see where you
have a problem.
>�But the sales pitches
> once only pushed at over priced salans have moved mainstream into
> Radio Shack and Best Buy pushing overpriced monster crap.
> That over priced garbage is even showing up on home depot shelves and
> displacing other reasonably priced interconnects off the shelves
> which is getting very annoying. �The crap is as pernicious as caulpera
> taxifolia.
Oh c'mon. I have been to Home Depot. They still sell the same stuff
they always sold. If that is what you want. I would think that even
folks who are convinced that all cables sound the same would at least
buy something along the lines of Blue Jean cables simply because they
are well made.
>
>
>
> > > > I'm not going to take you to task for any of your personal subjective
> > > > opinions. But I hope you understand that such opinions are just that,
> > > > personal and subjective as opposed to universal and objective.
>
> > > �I prefer to consider them informed opinions.
>
> > And this sets you apart from every other audiophile how?
>
> Is every other audiophile alike?
In the belief that their opinions are informed? I have never met one
that thought otherwise. If you have please point em out.
> Just in this thread alone we've had
> numerous false
> claims debunked. � If I've said something false, I'm open to a
> rational explanation of what and why.
I wish I could put you in touch with Andy Payor. I think he would have
a few things to say about your assertions on the sound of TT platters.
But I don't know how to get a hold of him. Many audiophiles do many
home brewed auditions/tests/comparisons all with various indeterminal
levels of rigor and out of that we find a multitude of opinions many
of which directly contradict other opinions. I don't doubt your
sincerity or integrity. but I do respectfully doubt a few of your
opinions.
>
> > They are
> > still personal and subjective.
>
> �Not really. �They are based on simple and long proven fundamentals of
> electronics and mechanics. �It is the uninformed that must declare all
> things subjective as they have no other recourse.
Again I have my suspicions that Andy Payor had you beat on that and he
clearly drew very different conclusions than you did on a number of
specific things when it comes to TT design and sound. Unfortunately
the last time I saw his data was in Hong Kong 8 years ago. I wish I
had copies.
>
> > �And I still support you in having those
> > opinions.
>
> �Some of my statements are speculation in the absense of sufficient
> detail to declare as "applicable" fact to situation described. �But in
> general the reasons I give are based in simple fundamental physics and
> indisputable.
>
> > After all it is what sounds good to you that matters in your
> > persuit of excellent sound.
>
> �In the pursuit of excellent sound, I think why is as important as
> what.
> What gives a single data point. �Why can provide you a compass and
> direction.
> Without why you are left with trial and error your only tool in a
> world of inifinite options.
> Knowing why can also reap great rewards in maximizing price/
> performance ratio.
>
I don't have a problem with trial and error.
ScottW2
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:22:13 -0700, ScottW2 wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 2:00�pm, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 10, 8:17�am, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 9, 1:06�pm, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague
> >>>> assertions that are pretty much unchallengable?
>
> >>> Didn't the UK just tell a cable manufacturer to stop the false ads?
>
> >>>http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1234/uk-cracking-down-on-bs-audio-ca...
>
> >> I read something about it. but I am much more familiar with the state
> >> of advertising here in the U.S.
> >> Enough so that i don't ever confuse advertising copy with impatial
> >> objective information.
>
> > �As you must. Too bad an honest manufacturer cannot be believed
> > because of the nonsense of others.
> > �It's also too bad that manufacturer won't get any interest from
> > dealers
> > when trying to get his product represented in the audio shops.
>
> >>>> I guess the real
> >>>> question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a
> >>>> world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value.
>
> >>> �With so much information flowing around in media, a requirement
> >>> for truth in advertising isn't a bad thing IMO.
>
> >> A better world? seriously aren't there more significant ways to better
> >> the world than policing ad copy in the high end of audio?
>
> > �Is that a reasonable justification...that there is always a more
> > heinous crime to condemn?
> > I've managed to enjoy this hobby without dealing with Pol Pot,
> > but I haven't been able to avoid bs cable sales.
> > Call me selfish.
>
> >>>> are sales pitches not documentaries.
>
> >>> �Do you?
>
> >> Indeed I don't. But I have only run across one person so far that
> >> actually felt ripped off after buying a cable. Have you bought
> >> expesive cables only to feel ripped off afterwards?
>
> > �No, I either buy on the cheap or build my own. �But the sales pitches
> > once only pushed at over priced salans have moved mainstream into
> > Radio Shack and Best Buy pushing overpriced monster crap.
> > That over priced garbage is even showing up on home depot shelves and
> > displacing other reasonably priced interconnects off the shelves
> > which is getting very annoying. �The crap is as pernicious as caulpera
> > taxifolia.
>
> I believe that one has to pay a certain amount above the price of Radio Shack
> crappola
That very much depends on what RS crapola. They used to offer a
decent moderately priced interconnect. Not the bottom of line unplated
contact stuff.
A decent gold plated connector. Last time I went to a store (over a
year ago)
I checked on line to confirm stock. When I got to the store they only
had their
overpriced RS gold line (which as far as I can tell is just
repackaging what I want
and marking it up), Monster cable and some extremely cheap crap. When
I asked for the cable I wanted, I found it was only in the stock room
and only customers who actually asked for it could get it. Now they
don't even stock having priced up the RS to monster levels.
> to get interconnect cables that are quasi-balanced
Not sure what you mean by "quasi-balanced". All my interfaces are
se.
> and decently
> made, but this level of quality addresses reliability and a low noise floor,
> not sonics. I.E. I'm perfectly all right with buying Monster Cable's lowest
> price quasi-balanced cable (about $30 give or take a few bucks for 1 or 2
> meter lengths.)
My biggest complaint with monster is that tornado RCA connector which
doesn't
meet industry stds and is so tight they have to be practically screwed
on.
They damage receptacles and put unnecessary strain on the entire assy
to remove.
> It's well made, reliable and worth the price for the peace of
> mind.
Every time I had to remove that monster connector, it was war :).
For anything more than the RCA home depot (now only available in 6ft
or more on my last visit as more and more shelf space is gobbled up by
monster), I prefer blue jean cables.
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/audio/index.htm
They tell you exactly what cable they use so if you want to know
shield effectivity or capacitance/ft....you can.
ScottW
khu...@nospam.net
> <khu...@nospam.net> wrote in message
<snip>
>> Exactly Harry, and you were trying to co-opt test designs/validations
>> appropriate for *preference* testing into a *difference* detection test
>> (ABX). I and others attempted to explain the fallacy of that conflation
>> relative to validation. The methodology to validate a preference test
>> is not the same as that for a differentiation test, as *purpose* of the
>> test is different, thus the confounding variables that need controlled
>> are different. You refuse to accept this, and choose to consider such
>> criticism as "disparagement". That's your choice, of course, but it's
>> hardly a fair evaluation of the history of this subject.
>
> I pointed out to you several times that in fact tests of statistical
> "difference" are routinely applied to the scalars in using such tests.
For "preference" yes. Showing that the results of group A are or are
not statistically different is not at all the same as a *difference*
(i.e. a/b with other variables - such as participants - held constant)
test with sufficient replicates to evaluate the response statistically.
> Thus
> the base tests for validation were large samples with proven statistical
> differences in total and across attributes, across a chosen and agreed upon
> population of audiophiles. All the ABX test had to do was to show a similar
> set of overall differences among a fairly large sameple of people, using 17
> point samples, to validate. That seemed too threatening, I guess.
Threatening, no. Uninformative, certainly. You want to use *as a
reference* a test that a) has not been validated for difference
distinction and b) that focuses on another parameter altogether, i.e.
preference, and c) presents numerous confounding variables (re:
"...across attributes..." as you stated above).
>
> In other words the base test did measure "preference", but the preference of
> large groups of people of equipment reproducing music, with a proven
> statistical "difference" of this preference as a starting point. What other
> standard would you use to illustrate that there was a real subjective
> statistical difference (in preference of musical reproduction)?
One that looks for difference Harry, not one that looks at "preference",
however that may be defined for any given individual. That is the
problem with your approach. When preference can be affected by a whole
assortment of parameters, parameters that vary from individual to
individual, from day to day for any particular individual, the results
cannot then be correlated to any particular stimulus. You can say that
there was a statistically significant preference for A, for example, but
you cannot unambiguously associate that preference with the *difference*
between A and B, only with the fact that the "A" population, at the time
of testing, were more inclined to rate music from "A" higher than were
the population that ranked music from "B". You have, in essence,
performed a "music appreciation" test between two populations, where the
changing of equipment is actually a *confounding* variable in evaluating
the results. If you had each participant rate both A and B, then you
must, perforce, introduce a significant time delay that introduces all
the other physical/emotional variations that can affect enjoyment, and
thus scaling, OR you have to use a quicker switching methodology that
then brings all of your purported flaws of ABX with it. And throws in a
variable scaling method to further reduce precision.
> Moreover,
> the subjects do not even know that equipment is the variable being tested
> since they are monadically evaluating a musical sample.
Ergo, they cannot have training in detection of relevant differences
either. They will, of course, also be subject to all the other "faults"
leveled at ABX (ad nauseum) relative to focus, and attention, etc.
>
>
>>> I'm afraid I agree with Mr. Finsky, attempts at constructive dialog on
>>> this
>>> subject go nowhere.
>> If you choose to interpret any disagreement with your preconceived
>> opinions as "not constructive", then I would agree with you.
>
> I beg to differ. You raised the point...I refuted it...and you and others
> simple insisted as you do here that you were right and ignoring the fact
> that I was talking about a demonstrably statistically significant preference
> as the starting point.
I beg to differ as well. You provided a refutation, the efficacy of
which has not been demonstrated.
OK Harry, here's a very possible scenario for you:
Case A: Two different systems, A and B (and what the differences are is
not important to the point) are tested using an ABX methodology. 20
people are tested, 20 trials each, and at p=0.01 the results for
difference were significant. Systems A and B are measured electrically
and acoustically, and are shown to be clearly and significantly
different in response.
Posit: The differences in A and B, while measurable and detectable by
trained listeners, *on average* does not affect the musical enjoyment
either system provides.
Case B: The same systems A and B are tested monadically for preference.
100 people are tested for each system. The results show that at p=0.01
or 0.05, the scalar means are not statistically different, nor are the
variances.
*Your* conclusion: ABX has been shown to be inaccurate, and is thus
discarded. No other conclusion is possible if the monadic preference
test is accepted as a suitable standard.
The *correct* conclusion: ABX has been shown to provide detectability
for a measurable acoustic difference below the threshold at which that
difference affects 'musical appreciation' however defined by the scalar
descriptions used in your monadic test. Thus the monadic test for
preference is shown, in this instance, to be an inappropriate reference.
For your proposed test to be of *any* utility as a comparison standard
for ABX, it would have to demonstrate detectability for the range of
parameters for which ABX is used. You haven't done that, and IMO, it
cannot be done, for the reasons provided in the case presented above.
Please examine the case study and feel free to provide any rationale for
why that situation cannot or would not arise, and if it does arise, how
that does not invalidate your monadic preference test as a reference to
validate ABX. You will keep in mind, I hope, that any reference
standard must be shown appropriate across the range of probes to be
validated.
Keith Hughes
ScottW2
> On Jul 10, 8:22�pm, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 2:00�pm, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 8:17�am, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 9, 1:06�pm, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > �maybe because it is silly to
> > > > > challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague
> > > > > assertions that are pretty much unchallengable?
>
> > > > Didn't the UK just tell a cable manufacturer to stop the false ads?
>
> > > >http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1234/uk-cracking-down-on-bs-audio-ca...
>
> > > I read something about it. but I am much more familiar with the state
> > > of advertising here in the U.S.
> > > Enough so that i don't ever confuse advertising copy with impatial
> > > objective information.
>
> > �As you must. Too bad an honest manufacturer cannot be believed
> > because of the nonsense of others.
> > �It's also too bad that manufacturer won't get any interest from
> > dealers
> > when trying to get his product represented in the audio shops.
>
> Huh? Who in particular has had this problem?
Who hasn't? I don't see any low cost cables being offered in
salons.
>
>
>
> > > > > I guess the real
> > > > > question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a
> > > > > world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value.
>
> > > > �Some people hope for a better world.
> > > > �With so much information flowing around in media, a requirement
> > > > for truth in advertising isn't a bad thing IMO.
>
> > > A better world? seriously aren't there more significant ways to better
> > > the world than policing ad copy in the high end of audio?
>
> > �Is that a reasonable justification...that there is always a more
> > heinous crime to condemn?
>
> Yes, extremely reasonable IMO.
>
> > I've managed to enjoy this hobby without dealing with Pol Pot,
> > but I haven't been able to avoid bs cable sales.
> > Call me selfish.
>
> you haven't? So you have bought expensive cables and felt ripped off?
No, I've tried to politely endure sales droids on a mission
but worse, I see declining retail availability everywhere.
> If that was the case you should have gone with a vendor that offered a
> free home trial. there are many that do so.
Trial and error is not my preferred method of deciding where to
spend
my time.
>
> > > > > �Ads
> > > > > are sales pitches not documentaries.
>
> > > > �I don't know anyone who likes to get ripped off.
> > > > �Do you?
>
> > > Indeed I don't. But I have only run across one person so far that
> > > actually felt ripped off after buying a cable. Have you bought
> > > expesive cables only to feel ripped off afterwards?
>
> > �No, I either buy on the cheap or build my own.
>
> Then how is it you are not avoiding cable sales as you claimed above?
> you kind of lost me there.
and I'll leave it at that.
> It would seem that you have avoided the
> very trappings you seem very concerned about. I don't see where you
> have a problem.
>
> >�But the sales pitches
> > once only pushed at over priced salans have moved mainstream into
> > Radio Shack and Best Buy pushing overpriced monster crap.
> > That over priced garbage is even showing up on home depot shelves and
> > displacing other reasonably priced interconnects off the shelves
> > which is getting very annoying. �The crap is as pernicious as caulpera
> > taxifolia.
>
> Oh c'mon. I have been to Home Depot. They still sell the same stuff
> they always sold. If that is what you want.
No, they don't. They used to sell a 3 ft. cable. Last time I was
there
Monster was occupying that space.
> I would think that even
> folks who are convinced that all cables sound the same would at least
> buy something along the lines of Blue Jean cables simply because they
> are well made.
I like Blue Jean cables as they actually tell you clearly what
you're getting.
But in general I find the home depot GE stuff
(I think the latest branding is ultra pro grade) just fine.
>
>
>
> > > > > I'm not going to take you to task for any of your personal subjective
> > > > > opinions. But I hope you understand that such opinions are just that,
> > > > > personal and subjective as opposed to universal and objective.
>
> > > > �I prefer to consider them informed opinions.
>
> > > And this sets you apart from every other audiophile how?
>
> > Is every other audiophile alike?
>
> In the belief that their opinions are informed?
No, with opinions that are actually informed.
But that does exemplify some segments of high-end audio
today, all one needs is belief.
> I have never met one
> that thought otherwise. If you have please point em out.
>
> > Just in this thread alone we've had
> > numerous false
> > claims debunked. � If I've said something false, I'm open to a
> > rational explanation of what and why.
>
> I wish I could put you in touch with Andy Payor. I think he would have
> a few things to say about your assertions on the sound of TT platters.
> But I don't know how to get a hold of him. Many audiophiles do many
> home brewed auditions/tests/comparisons all with various indeterminal
> levels of rigor and out of that we find a multitude of opinions many
> of which directly contradict other opinions. I don't doubt your
> sincerity or integrity. but I do respectfully doubt a few of your
> opinions.
Likewise. My methodology in this case was simple. Take a bad case
platter which rings like a bell and listen to the record strongly
coupled to the
platter and then decoupled from the platter. If platter resonance was
an
audible factor, it should have been easy in such a case to hear a
difference.
I didn't.
>
>
>
> > > They are
> > > still personal and subjective.
>
> > �Not really. �They are based on simple and long proven fundamentals of
> > electronics and mechanics. �It is the uninformed that must declare all
> > things subjective as they have no other recourse.
>
> Again I have my suspicions that Andy Payor had you beat on that and he
> clearly drew very different conclusions than you did on a number of
> specific things when it comes to TT design and sound. Unfortunately
> the last time I saw his data was in Hong Kong 8 years ago. I wish I
> had copies.
So do I.
ScottW
Sonnova
(in article <h3afj...@news1.newsguy.com>):
> On Jul 11, 8:21ï¿œam, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:22:13 -0700, ScottW2 wrote
>> (in article <7bqer5F24tg9...@mid.individual.net>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2:00ï¿œpm, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 10, 8:17ï¿œam, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 9, 1:06ï¿œpm, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> ï¿œmaybe because it is silly to
>>>>>> challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague
>>>>>> assertions that are pretty much unchallengable?
>>
>>>>> Didn't the UK just tell a cable manufacturer to stop the false ads?
>>
>>>>> http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1234/uk-cracking-down-on-bs-audio-ca...
>>
>>>> I read something about it. but I am much more familiar with the state
>>>> of advertising here in the U.S.
>>>> Enough so that i don't ever confuse advertising copy with impatial
>>>> objective information.
>>
>>> ï¿œAs you must. Too bad an honest manufacturer cannot be believed
>>> because of the nonsense of others.
>>> ï¿œIt's also too bad that manufacturer won't get any interest from
>>> dealers
>>> when trying to get his product represented in the audio shops.
>>
>>>>>> I guess the real
>>>>>> question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a
>>>>>> world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value.
>>
>>>>> ï¿œSome people hope for a better world.
>>>>> ï¿œWith so much information flowing around in media, a requirement
>>>>> for truth in advertising isn't a bad thing IMO.
>>
>>>> A better world? seriously aren't there more significant ways to better
>>>> the world than policing ad copy in the high end of audio?
>>
>>> ï¿œIs that a reasonable justification...that there is always a more
>>> heinous crime to condemn?
>>> I've managed to enjoy this hobby without dealing with Pol Pot,
>>> but I haven't been able to avoid bs cable sales.
>>> Call me selfish.
>>
>>>>>> ï¿œAds
>>>>>> are sales pitches not documentaries.
>>
>>>>> ï¿œI don't know anyone who likes to get ripped off.
>>>>> ï¿œDo you?
>>
>>>> Indeed I don't. But I have only run across one person so far that
>>>> actually felt ripped off after buying a cable. Have you bought
>>>> expesive cables only to feel ripped off afterwards?
>>
>>> ï¿œNo, I either buy on the cheap or build my own. ï¿œBut the sales pitches
>>> once only pushed at over priced salans have moved mainstream into
>>> Radio Shack and Best Buy pushing overpriced monster crap.
>>> That over priced garbage is even showing up on home depot shelves and
>>> displacing other reasonably priced interconnects off the shelves
>>> which is getting very annoying. ï¿œThe crap is as pernicious as caulpera
>>> taxifolia.
>>
>> I believe that one has to pay a certain amount above the price of Radio
>> Shack
>> crappola
>
> That very much depends on what RS crapola. They used to offer a
> decent moderately priced interconnect. Not the bottom of line unplated
> contact stuff.
> A decent gold plated connector. Last time I went to a store (over a
> year ago)
> I checked on line to confirm stock. When I got to the store they only
> had their
> overpriced RS gold line (which as far as I can tell is just
> repackaging what I want
> and marking it up), Monster cable and some extremely cheap crap. When
> I asked for the cable I wanted, I found it was only in the stock room
> and only customers who actually asked for it could get it. Now they
> don't even stock having priced up the RS to monster levels.
>
>> to get interconnect cables that are quasi-balanced
>
> Not sure what you mean by "quasi-balanced". All my interfaces are
> se.
Quasi-balanced - Most premium interconnects are made this way. In a quasi
balanced coaxial interconnects, there are three conductors: The shield, and
two wires inside the shield. One of the wires is "hot", the other is "return"
and then there's the shield. The "hot" conductor is affixed to both RCA
connector tips, the return is affixed to both RCA connector barrels
(completing the circuit) and the shield is connected to the barrel on only
one end. It covers the whole cable from end to end but since it is connected
at only one end, it carries NO SIGNAL and is a shield only. Cheap
interconnects are only half shielded because the shield is also the return.
One can easily tell a Quasi-balanced interconnect because there is always
arrows on either the connectors, printed at intervals on the cable itself, or
on labels affixed to the cable. The arrows point AWAY from the end that has
the shield connected to the barrel of the RCA plug. Proper proceedure is to
use the pre-amp or the integrated amp/receiver as the common ground plane so
that all arrows on all cables point away from that component. Most people
wrongly interpret the arrow to mean signal direction and usually arrange
these cables with the arrow pointing in the direction of signal flow. I.E.
FROM the tuner or CD player TO the preamp, FROM the pre-amp TO the power amp,
etc. This is wrong the arrows should point away from the pre-amp/
integrated/receiver toward everything else. So there is one common reference
point for all of the shields. THis arrangement is best for the lowest noise
and prevents ground-loops. I also ground my preamp to a cold water pipe, but
this is optional, especially if your listening room has three prong mains
plugs where one is grounded.
>> and decently
>> made, but this level of quality addresses reliability and a low noise floor,
>> not sonics. I.E. I'm perfectly all right with buying Monster Cable's lowest
>> price quasi-balanced cable (about $30 give or take a few bucks for 1 or 2
>> meter lengths.)
>
> My biggest complaint with monster is that tornado RCA connector which
> doesn't
> meet industry stds and is so tight they have to be practically screwed
> on.
> They damage receptacles and put unnecessary strain on the entire assy
> to remove.
>
>> It's well made, reliable and worth the price for the peace of
>> mind.
>
> Every time I had to remove that monster connector, it was war :).
>
> For anything more than the RCA home depot (now only available in 6ft
> or more on my last visit as more and more shelf space is gobbled up by
> monster), I prefer blue jean cables.
>
> http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/audio/index.htm
>
> They tell you exactly what cable they use so if you want to know
> shield effectivity or capacitance/ft....you can.
Except that they're only HALF shielded. The center conductor is shielded but
the shield is also the "return" half of the circuit (so it appears from their
description) and carries a signal so the shield is not "shielded". If you're
happy with them, fine, but I wouldn't use them in my system for that reason.
Steven Sullivan
> unless he had used Arny's preferred testing method. The most
> "rational" objectivist could not convince Harry Pearson, Gordon Holt
> or any subjectivist that they cannot hear the difference between
> products.
Wanna bet?
Here's Gordon Holt, interviewed in 2007 for Stereophile's 25th anniversary
issue
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/
"Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real
world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s,
when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls
(double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other
serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of
endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual
embarrassment for me..."
> As for me, I know that $30 cables do not sound the same as $400
> cables, which do not sound like $5000 cables.
No, you don't *know* that. You *believe* that.
--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine
Harry Lavo
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>> <khu...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Exactly Harry, and you were trying to co-opt test designs/validations
>>> appropriate for *preference* testing into a *difference* detection test
>>> (ABX). I and others attempted to explain the fallacy of that conflation
>>> relative to validation. The methodology to validate a preference test
>>> is not the same as that for a differentiation test, as *purpose* of the
>>> test is different, thus the confounding variables that need controlled
>>> are different. You refuse to accept this, and choose to consider such
>>> criticism as "disparagement". That's your choice, of course, but it's
>>> hardly a fair evaluation of the history of this subject.
>>
>> I pointed out to you several times that in fact tests of statistical
>> "difference" are routinely applied to the scalars in using such tests.
>
> For "preference" yes. Showing that the results of group A are or are not
> statistically different is not at all the same as a *difference* (i.e. a/b
> with other variables - such as participants - held constant) test with
> sufficient replicates to evaluate the response statistically.
How can you say that? I was proposing two monadic samples of 300 people
each. Much more statistical;u reliable than seventeen sample individual
tests. In fact the JAES has published peer-reviewed articles that show that
at seventeen samples, even the statistical sampling guidelines commonly used
are in error...slightly in favor of a "null" result.
>
>> Thus the base tests for validation were large samples with proven
>> statistical differences in total and across attributes, across a chosen
>> and agreed upon population of audiophiles. All the ABX test had to do
>> was to show a similar set of overall differences among a fairly large
>> sameple of people, using 17 point samples, to validate. That seemed too
>> threatening, I guess.
>
> Threatening, no. Uninformative, certainly. You want to use *as a
> reference* a test that a) has not been validated for difference
> distinction and b) that focuses on another parameter altogether, i.e.
> preference, and c) presents numerous confounding variables (re: "...across
> attributes..." as you stated above).
This is a test technique used widely and statistical significance is just
that....significant. Your charges are pure fantasy. You can't have
statistically significant difference in preference without there being a
difference.
Looke Keith. People are listening to MUSIC. THEY are asked to rate the
experience. THEY are asked to RATE the reproduced music on a "liking" scale
(that's how they express their "preference".) They are also asked to rate
specific musical attributes (the sound of the violins, for example, or the
sound of the tympani, or the sound of the guitars, etc.)
When you have two large samples, exposed to the same music, and with only
one variable changed (lets say the CD player use) if you get statistically
significant differences in the ratings you KNOW that it is the variable
creating it. The ratings are very similar to those use in ABC/hr, and is
one of the reason it is prefered to ABC...it measures quality differences,
not just differences.
There IS *no direct preference* expressed in monadic testing....the only way
a preference shows up is because of statistical sampling of two large bases
or respondents. That is WHY I proposed this very expensive and cumbersome
test as the "touchstone" demonstrating that a real difference in preference
exists. Isn't that after all what we as audiophiles hope to achieve in our
own testing? And as an added benefit, it is able to give an indication of
in what area of musical reproduction that rating preference exists.
Just like two years ago, you just keep raising the same old cannards and in
the process show you really don't stop to understand the technique I am
expousing. If you doubt it, consult a real experiemental psychologist or
statistician.
>
>> Moreover, the subjects do not even know that equipment is the variable
>> being tested since they are monadically evaluating a musical sample.
>
> Ergo, they cannot have training in detection of relevant differences
> either. They will, of course, also be subject to all the other "faults"
> leveled at ABX (ad nauseum) relative to focus, and attention, etc.
Absolutely not, since they are not doing comparisons nor quick switching.
They are simply listening to one set of music, taking notes as they see fit,
and at the end rating the experience overall and on certain attributes.
Their are NONE of the problems of ABX.
>
>>
>>
>>>> I'm afraid I agree with Mr. Finsky, attempts at constructive dialog on
>>>> this
>>>> subject go nowhere.
>>> If you choose to interpret any disagreement with your preconceived
>>> opinions as "not constructive", then I would agree with you.
>>
>> I beg to differ. You raised the point...I refuted it...and you and
>> others simple insisted as you do here that you were right and ignoring
>> the fact that I was talking about a demonstrably statistically
>> significant preference as the starting point.
>
> I beg to differ as well. You provided a refutation, the efficacy of which
> has not been demonstrated.
Except every day in many fields. I am not talking about a technique
restricted to audio. It is a general technique used to objective subjective
judgements in general.
>
> OK Harry, here's a very possible scenario for you:
>
> Case A: Two different systems, A and B (and what the differences are is
> not important to the point) are tested using an ABX methodology. 20
> people are tested, 20 trials each, and at p=0.01 the results for
> difference were significant. Systems A and B are measured electrically
> and acoustically, and are shown to be clearly and significantly different
> in response.
>
> Posit: The differences in A and B, while measurable and detectable by
> trained listeners, *on average* does not affect the musical enjoyment
> either system provides.
>
> Case B: The same systems A and B are tested monadically for preference.
> 100 people are tested for each system. The results show that at p=0.01 or
> 0.05, the scalar means are not statistically different, nor are the
> variances.
>
> *Your* conclusion: ABX has been shown to be inaccurate, and is thus
> discarded. No other conclusion is possible if the monadic preference test
> is accepted as a suitable standard.
First, 100 is too small a sample. I posited 300, which is generally
accepted as large enough to show small rating differences if they exist due
to the variable under test.
Second, the test in both tests is for positive difference. There is no
sense in a statistical "no difference". The applied statistics are
different, but the concept is the same.
The worst that can happen is that there is "no difference" (signicant at the
95% level) in overall rating, but there are differences in attribute ratings
(again at the 95%+ level). However these are still valuable, and show that
their *are* perceived differences in sound atributes even if their is no
difference in overall ratings. So in this case, you conclude that their are
audible differences.
If both the overall rating and the individual attribute ratings show no
difference at the 95% level, then you can conclude that in all liklihood
their is no difference due to the variable under test.
The point of this is to find a variable that does show up as a difference in
monadic preference amongst a large group of audiophiles (or perhaps
sub-seqment of same) in a test that is equally double-blind and which is
evaluative and ratings based, relaxed, music-focused, and which doesn't
require a forced choice.
Then to subject the same variable to the standard abx tests for difference
and find out how well that test fares in spotting those same
differences....how many people succeed, how many fail, how obvious does the
difference seem to show up. Only if ABX failed to detect the differences in
any appreciable way would ABX be judged a failure. That's why I call it a
validation test. If ABX is doing its job and is as good at evaluating
musical reproduction differences as it is in spotting distortion artifacts
among trained listeners, then this test should be a piece of cake for
ABX.....especially as you keep insisting that the monadic test is less
sensitive than ABX.
However, insisting that such a test not be done because it is not needed
("proved science") or somehow inappropriate is simply begging the question.
I propose that we see. That's a validation test.
>
> The *correct* conclusion: ABX has been shown to provide detectability for
> a measurable acoustic difference below the threshold at which that
> difference affects 'musical appreciation' however defined by the scalar
> descriptions used in your monadic test. Thus the monadic test for
> preference is shown, in this instance, to be an inappropriate reference.
>
> For your proposed test to be of *any* utility as a comparison standard for
> ABX, it would have to demonstrate detectability for the range of
> parameters for which ABX is used. You haven't done that, and IMO, it
> cannot be done, for the reasons provided in the case presented above.
>
> Please examine the case study and feel free to provide any rationale for
> why that situation cannot or would not arise, and if it does arise, how
> that does not invalidate your monadic preference test as a reference to
> validate ABX. You will keep in mind, I hope, that any reference standard
> must be shown appropriate across the range of probes to be validated.
I have done just that above.
Steven Sullivan
That's not a very detailed description. I assume you would want the test
to meet the strict criteria *you* keep saying tests to date
usually haven't met.
> >
> > I know of no case where a measurable reason for audible difference was not found.
> > Do you?
> You seem to have been claiming that standard meausurements predict
> that all CDPs sound the same.
Nope. Straw man. And you should know better.
> >
> > Before physicists 'figured it out' they had observed these puzzling
> > effects under laboratory conditions. Big difference.
> They had? I think not. I believe physicists had concluded they had
> pretty much figured out everything there was to figure out with
> Newtonian physics except for this one little problem with black body
> radiation. I'm pretty sure they had not observed the many "puzzling
> effects" of quantum physics at that point. If they had I don't think
> they would have drawn such profoundly eroneous conclusions about the
> state of physics.
You might want to look up 'photoelectric effect', for example, before
you attempt such arguments, much less claim that 'physicists',
wholesale, had 'concluded they they had pretty much figured out everything
there was to figure out with Newtonian physics'.
Scott
> On Jul 11, 8:25�am, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 8:22�pm, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 2:00�pm, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 10, 8:17�am, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 9, 1:06�pm, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > �As you must. Too bad an honest manufacturer cannot be believed
> > > because of the nonsense of others.
> > > �It's also too bad that manufacturer won't get any interest from
> > > dealers
> > > when trying to get his product represented in the audio shops.
>
> > Huh? Who in particular has had this problem?
>
> �Who hasn't? �I don't see any low cost cables being offered in
> salons.
I don't see ipods there either and yet millions of people have managed
to get them. again I don't see the problem. Would you actually be in
favor of dictating what private business owners offer for sale? I'm a
free enterprise kind of guy. I'd rather let the "salon" owners pick
their products and I'll pick my places to shop. I really don't see any
cheap cable crisis.
>
> > > I've managed to enjoy this hobby without dealing with Pol Pot,
> > > but I haven't been able to avoid bs cable sales.
> > > Call me selfish.
>
> > you haven't? So you have bought expensive cables and felt ripped off?
>
> �No, I've tried to politely endure sales droids on a mission
> but worse, I see declining retail availability everywhere.
Seriously? You seriously see a cheap cable crisis?
> > >�But the sales pitches
> > > once only pushed at over priced salans have moved mainstream into
> > > Radio Shack and Best Buy pushing overpriced monster crap.
> > > That over priced garbage is even showing up on home depot shelves and
> > > displacing other reasonably priced interconnects off the shelves
> > > which is getting very annoying. �The crap is as pernicious as caulpera
> > > taxifolia.
>
> > Oh c'mon. I have been to Home Depot. They still sell the same stuff
> > they always sold. If that is what you want.
>
> �No, they don't. �They used to sell a 3 ft. cable. Last time I was
> there
> Monster was occupying that space.
>
> > > Is every other audiophile alike?
>
> > In the belief that their opinions are informed?
>
> No, with opinions that are actually informed.
Would you consider your beliefs on TT design better informed than Andy
Payor's? You are simply trying to set yourself apart by declaring your
beliefs are facts while other peoples' beliefs are just beliefs. Can't
go there with you. But alas, many many audiophiles do seem to share
your self confidence.
>
> > > Just in this thread alone we've had
> > > numerous false
> > > claims debunked. � If I've said something false, I'm open to a
> > > rational explanation of what and why.
>
> > I wish I could put you in touch with Andy Payor. I think he would have
> > a few things to say about your assertions on the sound of TT platters.
> > But I don't know how to get a hold of him. Many audiophiles do many
> > home brewed auditions/tests/comparisons all with various indeterminal
> > levels of rigor and out of that we find a multitude of opinions many
> > of which directly contradict other opinions. I don't doubt your
> > sincerity or integrity. but I do respectfully doubt a few of your
> > opinions.
>
> �Likewise. �My methodology in this case was simple. Take a bad case
> platter which rings like a bell and listen to the record strongly
> coupled to the
> platter and then decoupled from the platter. �If platter resonance was
> an
> audible factor, it should have been easy in such a case to hear a
> difference.
> I didn't.
But you can't draw any universal conclusions on one particular test
that lacked any number of controls including a same sound bias that
may have been present. Certainly you can see the difference between
your home brewed comparison and the sort of data that one would use to
draw universal conclusions. You have set one listener up as a
reference, yourself. You failed to provide important bias controls.
You did nothing to calibrate the sensitivity of the test. what of the
number of trials? maybe you had a bad day? I actually saw the write
ups on a good deal of the work Any Payor did on developing the
Rockport Sirius III. I have to give him a huge edge on rigor.
>
>
> > > �Not really. �They are based on simple and long proven fundamentals of
> > > electronics and mechanics. �It is the uninformed that must declare all
> > > things subjective as they have no other recourse.
>
> > Again I have my suspicions that Andy Payor had you beat on that and he
> > clearly drew very different conclusions than you did on a number of
> > specific things when it comes to TT design and sound. Unfortunately
> > the last time I saw his data was in Hong Kong 8 years ago. I wish I
> > had copies.
>
> � So do I.
I'm going to check with the folks at Continuum. They seem to have done
research that may have actually been more extensive than Andy Payor's.
The problem with this sort of stuff is that not everyone wants to
share their research. I can understand why. I will also check with the
folks at SME.
Steven Sullivan
> Scott <S888...@aol.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> And explain why double-blind taste testing of wines
> :> is de rigor in wine comparisons and is not
> :> accepted in the high end audio realm?
> It is, unfortunately, not de rigeur in wine tastings.
> It seems more common that in audio, but, for example,
> Robert Parker, the most powerful man in the wine world,
> refuses to do blind tastings, apparently:
> http://www.slate.com/?id=2067055
The bigger the name as a 'connoisseur', the more they have to lose
in a controlled situation.
It's analogous to the sitch in the audio industry too.
Steven Sullivan
Did we ever 'watch TV by candlelight'?
The 'common belief or doctrine of physical reality' is what lets you
predict, with pretty good accuracy, that your TV and cell phone
will work tomorrow. Indeed, that 'science' itself will continue
to work .The laws of physics aren't likely to change
wholesale overnight.
Which is what some of the loopier audio tweaks would actually
require. Would you say we should hold off considering them unlikely
to have real effects, just because some audiophiles claim to they do?
> I'll sum up by saying that I've done it and I've seen it and I know others
> who have as well and unless you've tried and failed several times you can't
> objectively say that I'm wrong and even then you won't convinve me otherwise
> but I'll respect you for trying and honor your right to pontificate. You are
> welcome to your beliefs but don't confuse doctrine with fact and I choose to
> explore and will continue to do so.
Your highly uncontrolled 'observations' do not necessarily generate
the 'facts' you believe them to.
Scott
> Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 5:26 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 9, 9:04 am, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of
> > > > > devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible
> > > > > difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching
> > > > > for output devices, of course).
> > > > And yet we found audible differences between CDPs under blind
> > > > conditions.
>
> > > WHO did, and under *what* conditions?
> > Dennis Drake among others when listening to various test pressings of
> > his Mercury CDs, under double blind conditions if memory serves me
> > correctly.
>
> That's not a very detailed description.
You didn't ask for a detailed desciption. You asked who did it and
under what conditions. I answered your question.
> �I assume you would want the test
> to meet the strict criteria *you* keep saying tests to date
> usually haven't met.
I asked Dennis himself about these tests. He said they were level
matched time synched double blind. What more do you want?
>
>
>
> > > I know of no case where a measurable reason for audible difference was not found.
> > > Do you?
> > You seem to have been claiming that standard meausurements predict
> > that all CDPs sound the same.
>
> Nope. Straw man. �And you should know better.
here are your words from this thread. "Audiophiles routinely claim
audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured
performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables,
for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course)."
You might want to check thse things before crying strawman. (note for
moderator: I am leaving all quotes in tact for sake of showing that
these were Steve's words in context)
>
>
>
> > > Before physicists 'figured it out' they had observed these puzzling
> > > effects under laboratory conditions. Big difference.
> > They had? I think not. I believe physicists had concluded they had
> > pretty much figured out everything there was to figure out with
> > Newtonian physics except for this one little problem with black body
> > radiation. I'm pretty sure they had not observed the many "puzzling
> > effects" of quantum physics at that point. If they had I don't think
> > they would have drawn such profoundly eroneous conclusions about the
> > state of physics.
>
> You might want to look up 'photoelectric effect', for example, before
> you attempt such arguments, much less claim that 'physicists',
> wholesale, had 'concluded they they had pretty much figured out everything
> there was to figure out with Newtonian physics'.
So that adds up to "many" puzzling things? I think you are grasping at
straws here. And missing the point. That being many things derived
from quantum physics would have seemed like magic 150 years or so ago
and would have actually met the Randi challenge.
Scott
> Andrew Barss <ba...@mint.u.arizona.edu> wrote:
> > :>
> > :> And explain why double-blind taste testing of wines
> > :> is de rigor in wine comparisons and is not
> > :> accepted in the high end audio realm?
> > It is, unfortunately, not de rigeur in wine tastings.
> > It seems more common that in audio, but, for example,
> > Robert Parker, the most powerful man in the wine world,
> > refuses to do blind tastings, apparently:
> >http://www.slate.com/?id=2067055
>
> The bigger the name as a 'connoisseur', the more they have to lose
> in a controlled situation.
>
> It's analogous to the sitch in the audio industry too.
Do tell us how Robert Parker stands to diminish his name should he
choose to use blind protocols in his evaluation of wines? If it has
been so widely accepted among wine connoisseurs I see no logical
reason that he would stand to lose anything by such a change in his
protocols.
ScottW2
> On Jul 11, 9:38�pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 9, 5:26 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 9, 9:04 am, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of
> > > > > > devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible
> > > > > > difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching
> > > > > > for output devices, of course).
> > > > > And yet we found audible differences between CDPs under blind
> > > > > conditions.
>
> > > > WHO did, and under *what* conditions?
> > > Dennis Drake among others when listening to various test pressings of
> > > his Mercury CDs, under double blind conditions if memory serves me
> > > correctly.
>
> > That's not a very detailed description.
>
> You didn't ask for a detailed desciption. You asked who did it and
> under what conditions. I answered your question.
>
> > �I assume you would want the test
> > to meet the strict criteria *you* keep saying tests to date
> > usually haven't met.
>
> I asked Dennis himself about these tests. He said they were level
> matched time synched double blind. What more do you want?
I'd like to know the exact CDPs were tested. Were they current
generation DACs or is this a test of obsolete DAC technology?
ScottW
Andrew Barss
: Do tell us how Robert Parker stands to diminish his name should he
: choose to use blind protocols in his evaluation of wines? If it has
: been so widely accepted among wine connoisseurs I see no logical
: reason that he would stand to lose anything by such a change in his
: protocols.
He assigns wines points on a 100 point scale (though I've never seen anything
rated below around 76-80 points). He also claims to be able to recall with
precision every wine he's ever had.
Suppose he were subjected to blind taste tests, and it were discovered that
his point scores vary tremendously from those assigned when he knew
the wine, its year, its maker, etc. Down goes his reputation.
-- Andy Barss
ScottW2
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:45:29 -0700, ScottW2 wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 8:21�am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:22:13 -0700, ScottW2 wrote
> >> (in article <7bqer5F24tg9...@mid.individual.net>):
>
> >>>> On Jul 10, 8:17�am, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jul 9, 1:06�pm, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague
> >>>>>> assertions that are pretty much unchallengable?
>
> >>>>> Didn't the UK just tell a cable manufacturer to stop the false ads?
>
> >>>>>http://www.audiojunkies.com/blog/1234/uk-cracking-down-on-bs-audio-ca...
>
> >>>> I read something about it. but I am much more familiar with the state
> >>>> of advertising here in the U.S.
> >>>> Enough so that i don't ever confuse advertising copy with impatial
> >>>> objective information.
>
> >>> because of the nonsense of others.
> >>> dealers
> >>> when trying to get his product represented in the audio shops.
>
> >>>>>> I guess the real
> >>>>>> question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a
> >>>>>> world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value.
>
> >>>>> �With so much information flowing around in media, a requirement
> >>>>> for truth in advertising isn't a bad thing IMO.
>
> >>>> A better world? seriously aren't there more significant ways to better
> >>>> the world than policing ad copy in the high end of audio?
>
> >>> heinous crime to condemn?
> >>> I've managed to enjoy this hobby without dealing with Pol Pot,
> >>> but I haven't been able to avoid bs cable sales.
> >>> Call me selfish.
>
> >>>>>> are sales pitches not documentaries.
>
> >>>>> �Do you?
>
> >>>> Indeed I don't. But I have only run across one person so far that
> >>>> actually felt ripped off after buying a cable. Have you bought
> >>>> expesive cables only to feel ripped off afterwards?
>
> >>> once only pushed at over priced salans have moved mainstream into
> >>> Radio Shack and Best Buy pushing overpriced monster crap.
> >>> That over priced garbage is even showing up on home depot shelves and
> >>> displacing other reasonably priced interconnects off the shelves
I think there is far more benefit to lower impedance returns than
shielding
the return.
This is worth studying.
http://www.jensen-transformers.com/an/an004.pdf
"The 99 dB figure can be improved further by lowering the shield
resistance of the 5 foot cable which uses a foil shielded cable with
#24 gauge drain wire (25 mohm per foot). Cable using a #18 gauge
equivalent braided copper shield (6.5 mohm per foot) will lower hum
level by 5 dB from 99 dB to 104 dB."
ScottW
Scott
> On Jul 12, 7:45锟絘m, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 9:38锟絧m, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 9, 5:26 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jul 9, 9:04 am, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of
> > > > > > > devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible
> > > > > > > difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching
> > > > > > > for output devices, of course).
> > > > > > And yet we found audible differences between CDPs under blind
> > > > > > conditions.
>
> > > > > WHO did, and under *what* conditions?
> > > > Dennis Drake among others when listening to various test pressings of
> > > > his Mercury CDs, under double blind conditions if memory serves me
> > > > correctly.
>
> > > That's not a very detailed description.
>
> > You didn't ask for a detailed desciption. You asked who did it and
> > under what conditions. I answered your question.
>
> > > to meet the strict criteria *you* keep saying tests to date
> > > usually haven't met.
>
> > I asked Dennis himself about these tests. He said they were level
> > matched time synched double blind. What more do you want?
>
> generation DACs or is this a test of obsolete DAC technology?
>
the production of his 1994 remasters of the Mercury classical catalog.
This particular anomly was discovered when he was testing the physical
product from various manufacturers. He discovered that with certain
CDPs the CDs from some manufaturers were quite less than transparent
compared to the masters. This observation was later confirmed in a
number of other tests conducted by other parties.
Sonnova
(in article <7btrksF...@mid.individual.net>):
The bottom line here is that the laws of physics (including the electrical
theory that governs the behavior of electrical conductors with frequency)
are immutable. Perpetual motion is impossible and always will be. Humans
cannot fly without the use of machines, one cannot lift a locomotive by his
muscle power alone, and normal runs of audio cables, by themselves, can have
no effect on the signal passing through them. They either are conductors are
they aren't.
Sonnova
(in article <7buh1nF...@mid.individual.net>):
What if Robert Parker were to find that his DBT results were at odds with
his stated (and published) opinions? It would diminish his credibility, and
he probably realizes that.
Scott
That is a very differnt thng than simply transitioning protocols and
continuing to make judgements. Yes you make a legitimate supposition.
But then haven't other wine connoisseurs actually done quite well in
literally recalling and identifying wines even under blind conditions?
Blind protocols might not be the grand diminisher that your
supposition proposes. It assumes he would fail quite miserably. An
assumption I would not make.
Arny Krueger
news:h3dcc...@news5.newsguy.com
> they were not current for sure. These tests were done in
> service of the production of his 1994 remasters of the
> Mercury classical catalog. This particular anomly was
> discovered when he was testing the physical product from
> various manufacturers. He discovered that with certain
> CDPs the CDs from some manufaturers were quite less than
> transparent compared to the masters. This observation was
> later confirmed in a number of other tests conducted by
> other parties.
There is an extant AES paper that was presented by Dennis Drake in 1992
presented in its entirety at this URL:
http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf
It says:
"As Mrs. Cozart Fine and I began our evaluation sessions in April 1989, it
became
very clear to us that the A/D conversion process was a very critical step in
our production
work. As the producer once described it, the sounds from different
converters were
all different "bowls of soup". We began auditioning every A/D converter that
we could
obtain. Our test methodology was simple: while playing an original master as
source, we
would switch between the direct output of our console and the output of the
digital
chain. The digital chain consisted of the converter under test feeding a
Sony 1630 PCM
Processor. The final link in the chain was the Apogee filter modified D/A
section of the
Sony 1630. At times, we would substitute different D/A converters for
listening evaluations,
but we always returned to the Sony converters or the D/A's of our Panasonic
3500
DAT machine for reference purposes.
"Our monitoring set-up consisted of a Cello Audio Suite feeding balanced
lines to
Cello Performance Amplifiers, which in turn were driving B & W 808 Monitor
Loudspeakers. As we compared the various digital converters to the playback
of the
actual analog source, we found that the soundstage of the orchestra was
always
reduced in width when listening to the digital chain. We also found that
many A/D converters
exhibited a strident string sound, unnatural sounding midrange, and a loss
of air
or ambience around the instruments"
This above formal presentation of the relevant so-called Denni Drake tests
includes many details that are different from what we have seen presented on
RAHE. For one thing, the evaluation was not of CD players, and for another,
there is no evidence of level matching, time synching, or bias controls.
ScottW2
> On Jul 12, 9:58嚙窮m, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 12, 7:45嚙窮m, Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 11, 9:38嚙緘m, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 9, 5:26 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Scott <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jul 9, 9:04 am, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of
> > > > > > > > devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible
> > > > > > > > difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching
> > > > > > > > for output devices, of course).
> > > > > > > And yet we found audible differences between CDPs under blind
> > > > > > > conditions.
>
> > > > > > WHO did, and under *what* conditions?
> > > > > Dennis Drake among others when listening to various test pressings of
> > > > > his Mercury CDs, under double blind conditions if memory serves me
> > > > > correctly.
>
> > > > That's not a very detailed description.
>
> > > You didn't ask for a detailed desciption. You asked who did it and
> > > under what conditions. I answered your question.
>
> > > > to meet the strict criteria *you* keep saying tests to date
> > > > usually haven't met.
>
> > > I asked Dennis himself about these tests. He said they were level
> > > matched time synched double blind. What more do you want?
>
> > generation DACs or is this a test of obsolete DAC technology?
>
> the production of his 1994 remasters of the Mercury classical catalog.
> This particular anomly was discovered when he was testing the physical
> product from various manufacturers. He discovered that with certain
> CDPs the CDs from some manufaturers were quite less than transparent
> compared to the masters. This observation was later confirmed in a
> number of other tests conducted by other parties.
Players as well as digital audio tools in mixing/mastering have
certainly advanced in 15 years but the caveat that "certain" CDPs and
CDs from "some manufacturers" doesn't sound like condemnation of the
format with what was available 1.5 decades ago.
ScottW
khu...@nospam.net
> <khu...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:h3aju...@news7.newsguy.com...
>> Harry Lavo wrote:
>>> <khu...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> <snip>
>>> I pointed out to you several times that in fact tests of statistical
>>> "difference" are routinely applied to the scalars in using such tests.
>> For "preference" yes. Showing that the results of group A are or are not
>> statistically different is not at all the same as a *difference* (i.e. a/b
>> with other variables - such as participants - held constant) test with
>> sufficient replicates to evaluate the response statistically.
>
> How can you say that? I was proposing two monadic samples of 300 people
> each. Much more statistical;u reliable than seventeen sample individual
> tests.
IF the focus of the test is the same. Musical enjoyment is NOT the same
focus as evaluating a (usually) just detectable difference.
> In fact the JAES has published peer-reviewed articles that show that
> at seventeen samples, even the statistical sampling guidelines commonly used
> are in error...slightly in favor of a "null" result.
Again, I'm not questioning population size. But you can sample a
thousand people and the resulting statistics are worthless if the test
is insensitive to the parameter of interest.
>
>>> Thus the base tests for validation were large samples with proven
>>> statistical differences in total and across attributes, across a chosen
>>> and agreed upon population of audiophiles. All the ABX test had to do
>>> was to show a similar set of overall differences among a fairly large
>>> sameple of people, using 17 point samples, to validate. That seemed too
>>> threatening, I guess.
>> Threatening, no. Uninformative, certainly. You want to use *as a
>> reference* a test that a) has not been validated for difference
>> distinction and b) that focuses on another parameter altogether, i.e.
>> preference, and c) presents numerous confounding variables (re: "...across
>> attributes..." as you stated above).
>
> This is a test technique used widely and statistical significance is just
> that....significant. Your charges are pure fantasy.
OK, where was your monadic or proto-monadic test previously used for
discrimination of low level or just noticeable audible differences?
Show where that's been validated or is routinely used. Ever?
> You can't have
> statistically significant difference in preference without there being a
> difference.
Very true. And *what* is that difference? In your test you cannot
unambiguously attribute the preference to the physical difference in the
A/B systems. Why? Because you're using an indicator
(enjoyment/appreciation/satisfaction) that is not directly linked to the
parameter you're trying to measure. An indicator, as I pointed out
previously, that is clearly influenced by many factors outside of the
physical systems being evaluated.
<snip>
>
> Looke Keith. People are listening to MUSIC. THEY are asked to rate the
> experience. THEY are asked to RATE the reproduced music on a "liking" scale
> (that's how they express their "preference".) They are also asked to rate
> specific musical attributes (the sound of the violins, for example, or the
> sound of the tympani, or the sound of the guitars, etc.)
OK, and...
>
> When you have two large samples, exposed to the same music, and with only
> one variable changed (lets say the CD player use) if you get statistically
> significant differences in the ratings you KNOW that it is the variable
> creating it. The ratings are very similar to those use in ABC/hr, and is
> one of the reason it is prefered to ABC...it measures quality differences,
> not just differences.
Well, no statistician will ever say you "KNOW" something based on
statistical difference. You know, the old correlation/causation thing?
But Harry, you cannot change only ONE thing in your test. You changed
the CD player, AND the sample population. You're assuming homogeneity
in the sample population relative to a rather esoteric parameter (i.e.
musical enjoyment) that may or may not be correct.
>
> There IS *no direct preference* expressed in monadic testing....
Yes, I got that Harry.
> the only way
> a preference shows up is because of statistical sampling of two large bases
> or respondents.
Yes, I got that too Harry.
> That is WHY I proposed this very expensive and cumbersome
> test as the "touchstone" demonstrating that a real difference in preference
> exists. Isn't that after all what we as audiophiles hope to achieve in our
> own testing? And as an added benefit, it is able to give an indication of
> in what area of musical reproduction that rating preference exists.
>
> Just like two years ago, you just keep raising the same old cannards and in
> the process show you really don't stop to understand the technique I am
> expousing. If you doubt it, consult a real experiemental psychologist or
> statistician.
Gratuitous ad hominem comment noted. Thanks Harry, that's really
showing how *you* "<were not>...met by constructive dialog but rather
repeated attempts to ridicule and disparage...". Just like two years
ago, you are making the same basic argument - if I don't agree with you,
I'm just ignorant.
>
<snip>
>> *Your* conclusion: ABX has been shown to be inaccurate, and is thus
>> discarded. No other conclusion is possible if the monadic preference test
>> is accepted as a suitable standard.
>
> First, 100 is too small a sample.
It's an "example", not a protocol.
> I posited 300, which is generally
> accepted as large enough to show small rating differences if they exist due
> to the variable under test.
> Second, the test in both tests is for positive difference. There is no
> sense in a statistical "no difference". The applied statistics are
> different, but the concept is the same.
"Positive" difference?
>
> The worst that can happen is that there is "no difference" (signicant at the
> 95% level) in overall rating, but there are differences in attribute ratings
> (again at the 95%+ level). However these are still valuable, and show that
> their *are* perceived differences in sound atributes even if their is no
> difference in overall ratings. So in this case, you conclude that their are
> audible differences.
>
> If both the overall rating and the individual attribute ratings show no
> difference at the 95% level, then you can conclude that in all liklihood
> their is no difference due to the variable under test.
The variable under test has already been shown to be detectable in ABX -
that was stipulated in the test case. What that result shows is that
your preference test was insensitive to the difference that ABX testing
identified.
>
> The point of this is to find a variable that does show up as a difference in
> monadic preference amongst a large group of audiophiles (or perhaps
> sub-seqment of same) in a test that is equally double-blind and which is
> evaluative and ratings based, relaxed, music-focused,
You can easily do that by having Population A listen to music through
$20 computer speakers, and Population B listen through Watt/Puppy
speakers. No difference in kind from your example of a CD player
change. Now, we'll identify many differences in the preference test, and
we'll be able (though with some logistical difficulties) to do an ABX
test on A and B, and X will indeed be easily identifiable. Your exact
criterion of "a variable that does show up as a difference in
monadic preference amongst a large group of audiophiles" was met, and
ABX confirmed it. Ok, so now ABX is validated right? If not, then why?
See the problem Harry? You propose a very cumbersome test to try and
*find* some artifact that preference testing can identify that ABX can't
confirm. That's not validation, that's a fishing expedition. Since you
do not have any boundary limits for either test, you cannot test at or
near those boundaries, nor can you demonstrate that one test has
sufficient precision to challenge or validate the other. The speaker
example above is clearly a gross situation, but the concept is the same
since the boundaries are undefined. You can find any number of such
variables that your test confirms, and ABX then confirms, but you can
still postulate that there are "other" nuances or more subtle
differences that ABX would not be able to find. That will *always* be
the case until the boundaries are defined, meaning that you need never
accept any result as definitive.
> and which doesn't
> require a forced choice.
Another canard that is not proven, Harry. No matter what the scalar is,
or how it's phrased, placing a rating on "how the violins sound" for
example is a forced, evaluative choice. I've yet to seen any evidence to
suggest that "A or B" is a more cognitively disruptive choice than "how
do the violins sound?" which requires internal comparisons and choices
between the current sound and your own internal 'reference' for violins.
And clearly, if your scalars for "sound attributes" are of sufficient
detail and specificity to allow you to conclude A and B are different
(as you claim above), when the overall scoring is not significantly
different, then evaluation and comparison choices are unavoidable.
> Then to subject the same variable to the standard abx tests for difference
> and find out how well that test fares in spotting those same
> differences
ABX can't spot "these same differences" because it only looks for
difference.
> ....how many people succeed, how many fail, how obvious does the
> difference seem to show up. Only if ABX failed to detect the differences in
> any appreciable way would ABX be judged a failure.
Difference, singular. A and B are distinguishable or they are not. It's
a binary result. I don't know how "...in any appreciable way..." could
even apply to ABX.
> That's why I call it a
> validation test. If ABX is doing its job and is as good at evaluating
> musical reproduction differences as it is in spotting distortion artifacts
> among trained listeners, then this test should be a piece of cake for
> ABX
You're ignoring the test case altogether. Why? Why not answer the
question posed? In the test case described, there was already an ABX
verified difference. It was measurable, physically, and it did not show
up as a change in preference. In that case, the "reference standard" is
shown to be inappropriate. So, are you saying that the test case, as
presented (OK, let's modify it to include 300 individuals for your
test), could not happen?
> .....especially as you keep insisting that the monadic test is less
> sensitive than ABX.
For what it's designed for yes. And that is NOT for evaluating preference.
>
> However, insisting that such a test not be done because it is not needed
> ("proved science") or somehow inappropriate is simply begging the question.
Strawman Harry, I said nothing about "proved science". And I did not
say that validation was inappropriate, I pointed out why I believe your
proposed test is inappropriate for the intended use. Not the same thing
at all.
>
> I propose that we see. That's a validation test.
If, as in the test case described, there are some number of instances
where ABX does exactly what it was designed for (as I understand the
reasoning), and detects very subtle or just noticeable artifacts that
distinguish systems A and B, but those artifacts do not positively or
adversely affect the music played through those systems (above the
limits of perception), then your test *cannot* confirm those
differences, and would thus be inappropriate. As in the case of
speakers discussed above, your test would "validate" ABX quite handily,
but what would that prove?
> I have done just that above.
>
Well, not really.
Keith Hughes
[ We are getting too close to personal attacks here. Please,
everyone in this thread, tone it down. Take a few breaths
before hitting Send and make sure you're arguing points
rather than people. -- dsr ]
John Stone
<son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote:
The term "quasi balanced" is very misleading. There's nothing more balanced
about such a configuration than there is with a set of single conductor
shielded interconnects. The output of the preamp and input to the amp remain
in unbalanced configuration, and the ground, therefore, still carries the
signal return. The components see no real difference between this
configuration and a single conductor with shield.
I also can't see how this configuration can have any impact whatsoever on a
ground loop problem. Such a condition results from connecting the grounds of
two components that are sitting at two different potentials. And as I said,
electrically speaking, the interconnection is exactly the same; hot to hot,
and ground to ground.
>> They tell you exactly what cable they use so if you want to know
>> shield effectivity or capacitance/ft....you can.
>
> Except that they're only HALF shielded. The center conductor is shielded but
> the shield is also the "return" half of the circuit (so it appears from their
> description) and carries a signal so the shield is not "shielded". If you're
> happy with them, fine, but I wouldn't use them in my system for that reason.
>
I don't understand what you mean by "half shielded". Even if only connected
at one end, the shield and ground return leads will still be electrically in
parallel, so anything sitting on the shield line will also be there on the
ground line. What would be the purpose of shielding the ground side of a
shielded interconnect?
Steven Sullivan
> On Jul 12, 9:58?am, ScottW2 <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'd like to know the exact CDPs were tested. ?Were they current
> > generation DACs or is this a test of obsolete DAC technology?
> >
> they were not current for sure. These tests were done in service of
> the production of his 1994 remasters of the Mercury classical catalog.
> This particular anomly was discovered when he was testing the physical
> product from various manufacturers. He discovered that with certain
> CDPs the CDs from some manufaturers were quite less than transparent
> compared to the masters. This observation was later confirmed in a
> number of other tests conducted by other parties.
Again, why not publish the details of the CDPs, the test setup,
the stats of the results...this sort of thing would be slam-dunks
for 'subjectivists'. Or was Drake simply unaware of teh appalling
lack of evidence from that side, even while he decided to conduct
such a test?
Harry Lavo
news:7bv848F...@mid.individual.net...
And I'm talking about perceiving differences in audio reproduction equipment
when reproducing music, as evaluated using ABX. I am DIRECTLY measuring
real differences in the base sample....differences perceived statistically
as different between the variable under test and its control, while
reproducing music. How much more "on paramenter" can you get? It is "on
paramenter", it is just not measured directly (a good thing....see below).
>>
>>>> Thus the base tests for validation were large samples with proven
>>>> statistical differences in total and across attributes, across a chosen
>>>> and agreed upon population of audiophiles. All the ABX test had to do
>>>> was to show a similar set of overall differences among a fairly large
>>>> sameple of people, using 17 point samples, to validate. That seemed
>>>> too
>>>> threatening, I guess.
>>> Threatening, no. Uninformative, certainly. You want to use *as a
>>> reference* a test that a) has not been validated for difference
>>> distinction and b) that focuses on another parameter altogether, i.e.
>>> preference, and c) presents numerous confounding variables (re:
>>> "...across
>>> attributes..." as you stated above).
>>
>> This is a test technique used widely and statistical significance is just
>> that....significant. Your charges are pure fantasy.
>
> OK, where was your monadic or proto-monadic test previously used for
> discrimination of low level or just noticeable audible differences?
> Show where that's been validated or is routinely used. Ever?
This is irrelevant...if their is a statistical difference in the monadic
test, it can either be at threshold or above threshold...but that is
irrelevant as the fact will be that it is perceived (again, the statistical
evaluation says so). It is then the ABX test's job to show that the same
difference is perceived under ABX conditions.
>
>> You can't have
>> statistically significant difference in preference without there being a
>> difference.
>
> Very true. And *what* is that difference? In your test you cannot
> unambiguously attribute the preference to the physical difference in the
> A/B systems. Why? Because you're using an indicator
> (enjoyment/appreciation/satisfaction) that is not directly linked to the
> parameter you're trying to measure. An indicator, as I pointed out
> previously, that is clearly influenced by many factors outside of the
> physical systems being evaluated.
You are so WRONG here. Any psychological researcher will tell your that an
indirect measurement is the best way, as it eliminates any chance that
focusing on the variable directly distorts the validity of the measurement.
This is perhaps one of the potentially most damaging arguments against ABX,
btw...in other words, focusing on difference (when it comes to appraising
musical reproduction) can actually get in the way of hearing differences as
might be perceived in normal, non-critical listening. Two different states
of consciousness.
>
>
> <snip>
>>
>> Looke Keith. People are listening to MUSIC. THEY are asked to rate the
>> experience. THEY are asked to RATE the reproduced music on a "liking"
>> scale
>> (that's how they express their "preference".) They are also asked to
>> rate
>> specific musical attributes (the sound of the violins, for example, or
>> the
>> sound of the tympani, or the sound of the guitars, etc.)
>
> OK, and...
>>
>> When you have two large samples, exposed to the same music, and with only
>> one variable changed (lets say the CD player use) if you get
>> statistically
>> significant differences in the ratings you KNOW that it is the variable
>> creating it. The ratings are very similar to those use in ABC/hr, and is
>> one of the reason it is prefered to ABC...it measures quality
>> differences,
>> not just differences.
>
> Well, no statistician will ever say you "KNOW" something based on
> statistical difference. You know, the old correlation/causation thing?
> But Harry, you cannot change only ONE thing in your test. You changed
> the CD player, AND the sample population. You're assuming homogeneity
> in the sample population relative to a rather esoteric parameter (i.e.
> musical enjoyment) that may or may not be correct.
Keith, there is a whole science developed among researchers to guide the
selection of random samples that are matched. Your argument is a
non-starter.
I have reason for the comment (see below) but I agree I should not have made
it. I apologize.
>>
> <snip>
>
>>> *Your* conclusion: ABX has been shown to be inaccurate, and is thus
>>> discarded. No other conclusion is possible if the monadic preference
>>> test
>>> is accepted as a suitable standard.
>>
>> First, 100 is too small a sample.
>
> It's an "example", not a protocol.
>
>> I posited 300, which is generally
>> accepted as large enough to show small rating differences if they exist
>> due
>> to the variable under test.
>> Second, the test in both tests is for positive difference. There is no
>> sense in a statistical "no difference". The applied statistics are
>> different, but the concept is the same.
>
> "Positive" difference?
That's how researchers often refer to a statistically significant attribute,
since one leg of the test will rate higher than the other.
>>
>> The worst that can happen is that there is "no difference" (signicant at
>> the
>> 95% level) in overall rating, but there are differences in attribute
>> ratings
>> (again at the 95%+ level). However these are still valuable, and show
>> that
>> their *are* perceived differences in sound atributes even if their is no
>> difference in overall ratings. So in this case, you conclude that their
>> are
>> audible differences.
>>
>> If both the overall rating and the individual attribute ratings show no
>> difference at the 95% level, then you can conclude that in all liklihood
>> their is no difference due to the variable under test.
>
> The variable under test has already been shown to be detectable in ABX -
> that was stipulated in the test case. What that result shows is that
> your preference test was insensitive to the difference that ABX testing
> identified.
Again, you show a lack of understanding of what I proposed. The first step
is to find an equipment variable that DOES expose a difference in monadic
appreciation....THEN undertak ABX testing to see if it delivers the same
result. Not the othe way around. Your failure to understand the difference
is one of the reasons I made the comment above. The other is your
insistence that a statistical difference in ratings is somehow not "on
parameter" to measuring differences.
>
>>
>> The point of this is to find a variable that does show up as a difference
>> in
>> monadic preference amongst a large group of audiophiles (or perhaps
>> sub-seqment of same) in a test that is equally double-blind and which is
>> evaluative and ratings based, relaxed, music-focused,
>
> You can easily do that by having Population A listen to music through
> $20 computer speakers, and Population B listen through Watt/Puppy
> speakers. No difference in kind from your example of a CD player
> change. Now, we'll identify many differences in the preference test, and
> we'll be able (though with some logistical difficulties) to do an ABX
> test on A and B, and X will indeed be easily identifiable. Your exact
> criterion of "a variable that does show up as a difference in
> monadic preference amongst a large group of audiophiles" was met, and
> ABX confirmed it. Ok, so now ABX is validated right? If not, then why?
I'm talking of the more subtle types of differences that audiophiles often
feel exist and abx'rs routinely deny exist except in their heads.
>
> See the problem Harry? You propose a very cumbersome test to try and
> *find* some artifact that preference testing can identify that ABX can't
> confirm. That's not validation, that's a fishing expedition. Since you
> do not have any boundary limits for either test, you cannot test at or
> near those boundaries, nor can you demonstrate that one test has
> sufficient precision to challenge or validate the other. The speaker
> example above is clearly a gross situation, but the concept is the same
> since the boundaries are undefined. You can find any number of such
> variables that your test confirms, and ABX then confirms, but you can
> still postulate that there are "other" nuances or more subtle
> differences that ABX would not be able to find. That will *always* be
> the case until the boundaries are defined, meaning that you need never
> accept any result as definitive.
I just spoke above of the criteria, as I have in the past. I am looking to
find a difference on a variable that "objectivists" believe not to exist.
Only once and if we find it can it then serve as a basis for the validation.
You are the one setting up the strawman example.
>
>> and which doesn't
>> require a forced choice.
>
> Another canard that is not proven, Harry. No matter what the scalar is,
> or how it's phrased, placing a rating on "how the violins sound" for
> example is a forced, evaluative choice. I've yet to seen any evidence to
> suggest that "A or B" is a more cognitively disruptive choice than "how
> do the violins sound?" which requires internal comparisons and choices
> between the current sound and your own internal 'reference' for violins.
> And clearly, if your scalars for "sound attributes" are of sufficient
> detail and specificity to allow you to conclude A and B are different
> (as you claim above), when the overall scoring is not significantly
> different, then evaluation and comparison choices are unavoidable.
Let me reiterate....one is an after-the-fact holistic rating agains that
perceived reality....which is exactly how most audiophiles make judgements
about the quality of their system. The other is a forced choice "in real
time" between snippets of sound (I know, I know, but the reality is this
test requires to and fro'ing to make any kind of choice.in real
time....seventeen or more in succession, in fact. Find me a dozen
psychological researchers who will claim that a direct forced choice is the
same as a monadic rating on a subjective scale, and I will cede the point.
That dozen simply don't exist (at leas if they got "A"'s in their
course-work).
>
>> Then to subject the same variable to the standard abx tests for
>> difference
>> and find out how well that test fares in spotting those same
>> differences
>
> ABX can't spot "these same differences" because it only looks for
> difference.
Yes, but first it has to spot the difference. And then in follow up, people
taking the test ought to be able to give some indication of what they
thought the difference was. Again, because we are "validating" the use of
the test as a useful tool for home evaluation of audio gear, as is so often
the matra here.
>
>> ....how many people succeed, how many fail, how obvious does the
>> difference seem to show up. Only if ABX failed to detect the differences
>> in
>> any appreciable way would ABX be judged a failure.
>
> Difference, singular. A and B are distinguishable or they are not. It's
> a binary result. I don't know how "...in any appreciable way..." could
> even apply to ABX.
The outlier argument. If thirty people do the test, and one or two succeed
but others do not, is it significant or not. Or if no one person's choices
prove significant, but the overall sample when lumped together does. Small
sample difference testing is not as simple as it is often made out to be.
>
>> That's why I call it a
>> validation test. If ABX is doing its job and is as good at evaluating
>> musical reproduction differences as it is in spotting distortion
>> artifacts
>> among trained listeners, then this test should be a piece of cake for
>> ABX
>
> You're ignoring the test case altogether. Why? Why not answer the
> question posed? In the test case described, there was already an ABX
> verified difference. It was measurable, physically, and it did not show
> up as a change in preference. In that case, the "reference standard" is
> shown to be inappropriate. So, are you saying that the test case, as
> presented (OK, let's modify it to include 300 individuals for your
> test), could not happen?
Because in your "test case" you've got it bass-ackward, as I've already
pointed out.
>
>> .....especially as you keep insisting that the monadic test is less
>> sensitive than ABX.
>
> For what it's designed for yes. And that is NOT for evaluating
> preference.
It is less sensitive for the purpose it is designed for? Can you restate or
explain what you mean, please?
>>
>> However, insisting that such a test not be done because it is not needed
>> ("proved science") or somehow inappropriate is simply begging the
>> question.
>
> Strawman Harry, I said nothing about "proved science". And I did not
> say that validation was inappropriate, I pointed out why I believe your
> proposed test is inappropriate for the intended use. Not the same thing
> at all.
No you didn't, but other supporters of the ABX test have, many times. I
wasn't just talking about you....I am sorry if I didn't make that clear.
>
>>
>> I propose that we see. That's a validation test.
>
> If, as in the test case described, there are some number of instances
> where ABX does exactly what it was designed for (as I understand the
> reasoning), and detects very subtle or just noticeable artifacts that
> distinguish systems A and B, but those artifacts do not positively or
> adversely affect the music played through those systems (above the
> limits of perception), then your test *cannot* confirm those
> differences, and would thus be inappropriate. As in the case of
> speakers discussed above, your test would "validate" ABX quite handily,
> but what would that prove?
>
First you use a "strawman" test variable. Second you have the validation
bass-ackward, as I have pointed out. Let's focus on differences that "do"
affect perception of the musical reproduction, although very subtly. THAT
is an appropriate test case....the validation is to show that ABX also
deteects those differences among a population of similarly-chosen
audiophiles, and does not instead create an artificial "null" difference, as
audiophiles often claim it does. When used to find diffeeencs in musical
reproduction, not in distortion artifact or frequency response or volume
differences.
>> I have done just that above.
>>
> Well, not really.
I think really.
Arny Krueger
news:h37mg...@news7.newsguy.com
> It is interesting to note that my attempt to define how
> such validation of ABX testing for evaluation of
> differences in musical reproduction might be done, here
> on RAHE a few years ago, the attempt wasn't met by
> constructive dialog but rather repeated attempts to
> ridicule and disparage (a) the idea of the validation
> itself ("it wasn't needed...ABX was 'settled science' ")
> and (b) the specific suggestions of test techniques and
> sequences made by me (themselves used extensively in the
> realm of food testing and psychological experimentation).
Harry, it is clear to many of the rest of us that there are many people in
the world who try to give their lives purpose by:
(1) Finding a situation that may or may not even exist and that only they
and perhaps a few other people even perceive to be a problem.
(2) Trying to promote some expensive and unwieldy method for purportedly
solving the purported "problem".
Good examples of such a thing would be the SACD and DVD-A formats that
followed this model quite exactly.
(1) Promoters of DVD-A and SACD alleged the existence of sound quality
problems with the Audio CD format that not even they could demonstrate by
conventional means other than the well-known and totally invalid methodology
of sighted or single blind evaluation.
(2) They spent actual millions if not 100's of millions of dollars invented
new recorders and players based on their new technology, and additional
equal or greater amounts of money recording and re-recording existing
recordings in the new format.
To this day there is no conventionally-obtained evidence that shows that the
new formats had any inherent audible benefits at all, the products never
were accepted in the mainstream, and many of the record company executives
that bet their careers on the new formats lost their jobs.
> This despite the fact that the validation techniques I
> was proposing were to some degree incorporated within
> ABC/hr testing, considered even by the double-blind
> enthusiasts as superior to ABX for evaluation of music.
This misstates the difference between ABX and ABC/hr testing. ABX is to this
day the best known generally used methodology for determining that audio
products even sound different. ABC/hr is a methodology for rating audio
products in terms of their degradation of the audio signal. Applying the
ABC/hr methodology to products that don't even sound different in ABX
testing is a waste of time.
> I'm afraid I agree with Mr. Finsky, attempts at
> constructive dialog on this subject go nowhere.
Actually they do in contexts where people are required to do more than
pontificate when they suggest that there problems with generally accepted
science as related to audio. One such place is called the Hydrogen Audio
Forum, and I heartily suggest Harry that you try to sell your ideas there.
Google is your friend!
Steven Sullivan
> >
> > Nope. Straw man. ?And you should know better.
> here are your words from this thread. "Audiophiles routinely claim
> audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured
> performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables,
> for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course)."
> You might want to check thse things before crying strawman. (note for
> moderator: I am leaving all quotes in tact for sake of showing that
> these were Steve's words in context)
What does the word 'typical' mean to you, Scott? Does it mean 'all'?
Please now and forever stop claiming the me, Arny, or any of the
other people you argue with about this over and over, claim that
*All* (X) sound *the same*. Thanks.
> > You might want to look up 'photoelectric effect', for example, before
> > you attempt such arguments, much less claim that 'physicists',
> > wholesale, had 'concluded they they had pretty much figured out everything
> > there was to figure out with Newtonian physics'.
> So that adds up to "many" puzzling things? I think you are grasping at
> straws here.
I think you need to review the history of 20th C physics. You're out
of your depth.
Scott
>
> Players as well as digital audio tools in mixing/mastering have
> certainly advanced in 15 years but the caveat that "certain" CDPs and
> CDs from "some manufacturers" doesn't sound like condemnation of the
> format with what was available 1.5 decades ago.
>
> ScottW
It wasn't meant as condemnation. It was a correction of Steve's
assertion that "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among
classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict
audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-
matching for output devices, of course).
Scott
> "Scott" <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
You skipped the relevant part of the paper. Jeez.
"Upon further investigation, it turned out that the plant had three
different laser
beam recorders and that one of them sounded different than the other
two. After making
a glass master of the �Balalaika Favorites� on all three LBR�s and
comparing the subsequent
CD test discs from each, we were definitely able to identify the
�thinner sounding�
lathe. From the information given to us by the plant engineers,
apparently this lathe was
configured with different front end electronics."
In an exchange of emails Dennis told me that this particular sonic
defect was CDP dependent. It was in those emails that he gave details
of level matching, time synching and DB protocols.
Scott
> Again, why not publish the details of the CDPs, the test setup,
> the stats of the results...this sort of thing would be slam-dunks
> for 'subjectivists'. �Or was Drake simply unaware of teh appalling
> lack of evidence from that side, even while he decided to conduct
> such a test?
>
Why don't you ask Dennis Drake? He was very kind in discussing these
things with me via email. Slam dunks? It's a hobby not a basketball
game.
Sonnova
(in article <7bvmgsF...@mid.individual.net>):
Well of course not. The term comes from the obvious association with a real
balanced interconnect where the hot and the return and the shield are all
separate circuits. "Quasi" refers, just as obviously to the dictionary
definition of the word meaning "apparently but not really". It means what it
says: Not really balanced. But nonetheless, in a "quasi-balanced" audio
interconnect the shield carries no signal and is just a shield. Sort of like
extending the chassis out to the peripheral components.