The Audio Critic
Steven Sullivan
after not seeing it for awhile), bought it, and
halfway through, realized I'd read it before. Sure enough,
it said '2003' on the cover. Yikes. Anyone know when the
next issue is due?
--
-S.
"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
Nousaine
Don't have copy close by but the last issue had Ivan Berger as Guest Editor and
was delivered in the Fall 2003. I've received no notice of a new issue from
Peter subsequently. Why not write or call him to inquire/complain. That's what
I'm going to do :-)
Steven Sullivan
> >
> >Is Issue 29 the most recent one? Saw it on the stands a few days ago
> >after not seeing it for awhile), bought it, and
> >halfway through, realized I'd read it before. Sure enough,
> >it said '2003' on the cover. Yikes. Anyone know when the
> >next issue is due?
> >
> >--
> >
> >-S.
> >
> >"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
> >-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director
> Don't have copy close by but the last issue had Ivan Berger as Guest Editor and
> was delivered in the Fall 2003.
That was issue 29..which apparently remains on the stands, as
per the instructions I noew see on the cover. What's weird is that
it seems to have disappeared from the local stands near me...then
*re*appeared recently.
> I've received no notice of a new issue from
> Peter subsequently. Why not write or call him to inquire/complain. That's what
> I'm going to do :-)
When I do write, it will be to subscribe. I have never seen the
state of audiophilia and the audio press summarized more honestly,
accurately, and succinctly than in Aczel's final 'Hip Boots' column.
lcw999
> Is Issue 29 the most recent one? Saw it on the stands a few days ago
> after not seeing it for awhile), bought it, and
> halfway through, realized I'd read it before. Sure enough,
> it said '2003' on the cover. Yikes. Anyone know when the
> next issue is due?
___________________________________________________
Ref: Audio Critic..
I subscribed to this publication a some years ago and it was
irratic to say the least. Some issues would never materialize,
etc.
Also, Aczel seemed to view himself a kind of "critic of the critics",
...and consistently tended to "spit into the wind". He seemed to
relish the role of fighting the "booger" of the mainstream. Much
bitterness abounded there. He would state the obvious and
wait for the masses to acknowledge his deep insights. The
problem was taking a steady diet of this kind of flow...it all
gets a bit tiresome after awhile and the shock has worn off!
Personal attacks were rampant. I suspect that he has challenged
the technical qualifications of every member on the staff
of Stereophile. All the while Stereophile moved from a rather
"scruffy" underground publication to a full "mainstream"
slick publication under the current Editor. Audio critic
still remains a "hit or miss" underground publication.
As his targets would ebb and flow..so did the publication status.
After reading a few of the publications you begin to realize you're
involved with a rather bitter mindset with an axe to grind.
Leonard...
Steven Sullivan
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:51:06 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > Is Issue 29 the most recent one? Saw it on the stands a few days ago
> > after not seeing it for awhile), bought it, and
> > halfway through, realized I'd read it before. Sure enough,
> > it said '2003' on the cover. Yikes. Anyone know when the
> > next issue is due?
> ___________________________________________________
> Ref: Audio Critic..
> I subscribed to this publication a some years ago and it was
> irratic to say the least. Some issues would never materialize,
> etc.
> Also, Aczel seemed to view himself a kind of "critic of the critics",
> ...and consistently tended to "spit into the wind". He seemed to
> relish the role of fighting the "booger" of the mainstream.
I'm aware of his rep as a critic of audiophilia. Good for him.
(Did you really just write 'booger'? I haven't heard that since
Montgomery Burns mentioned the 'booger man'.)
> Much
> bitterness abounded there. He would state the obvious and
> wait for the masses to acknowledge his deep insights. The
> problem was taking a steady diet of this kind of flow...it all
> gets a bit tiresome after awhile and the shock has worn off!
What's tiresome to me is the head-in-the-sand, I-can't-hear-you
attitude of the audio press towards scientific and engineering reality.
And that's been going on a *whole lot* longer.
> Personal attacks were rampant. I suspect that he has challenged
> the technical qualifications of every member on the staff
> of Stereophile.
You mean guys like Harley, who write about cable burn-in?
> All the while Stereophile moved from a rather
> "scruffy" underground publication to a full "mainstream"
> slick publication under the current Editor. Audio critic
> still remains a "hit or miss" underground publication.
And as we know, quality is measured by commercial success.
> As his targets would ebb and flow..so did the publication status.
> After reading a few of the publications you begin to realize you're
> involved with a rather bitter mindset with an axe to grind.
*You* begin to realize that. *I* realized that there is, at last,
someone publishing an audio magazine that *didn't* buy into
the endless nonsense of sighted comparison. As Aczel notes,
even magazines that publish 'good guys' like David Ranada (Sound
& Vision), still also publish dubious reviews based on sighted comparison
of components that require controlled comparison.
lcw999
> lcw999 <lcw...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:51:06 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>> > Is Issue 29 the most recent one? Saw it on the stands a few days ago
>> > after not seeing it for awhile), bought it, and halfway through,
>> > realized I'd read it before. Sure enough, it said '2003' on the
>> > cover. Yikes. Anyone know when the next issue is due?
>
>> ___________________________________________________
>
>> Ref: Audio Critic..
>
>> I subscribed to this publication a some years ago and it was irratic
>> to say the least. Some issues would never materialize, etc.
>
>> Also, Aczel seemed to view himself a kind of "critic of the critics",
>> ...and consistently tended to "spit into the wind". He seemed to
>> relish the role of fighting the "booger" of the mainstream.
>
>
> I'm aware of his rep as a critic of audiophilia. Good for him.
>
> (Did you really just write 'booger'? I haven't heard that since
> Montgomery Burns mentioned the 'booger man'.)
Yep! An old term..
>
>
>> Much
>> bitterness abounded there. He would state the obvious and wait for
>> the masses to acknowledge his deep insights. The problem was taking a
>> steady diet of this kind of flow...it all gets a bit tiresome after
>> awhile and the shock has worn off!
>
> What's tiresome to me is the head-in-the-sand, I-can't-hear-you attitude
> of the audio press towards scientific and engineering reality. And
> that's been going on a *whole lot* longer.
Perhaps the Audio press doesn't agree with you and blunders on to its
success without believing as you do. They must be doing something
right!
>
>
>> Personal attacks were rampant. I suspect that he has challenged the
>> technical qualifications of every member on the staff of Stereophile.
>
> You mean guys like Harley, who write about cable burn-in?
Yes! ever hear a cable that had "spitty" sounding silibance and have
it slowly subside after a week or two. But, I forgot, they all sound
the same..I should have never ask!
>
>> All the while Stereophile moved from a rather "scruffy" underground
>> publication to a full "mainstream" slick publication under the
>> current Editor. Audio critic still remains a "hit or miss"
>> underground publication.
>
> And as we know, quality is measured by commercial success.
Yes, we know that commercial success represents all that is right with
the world. Quality is based on this...surely you jest? (humor)
Perhaps, we are all upset because Stereophile just blunders on without
accepting all the tenets you or I believe in. I find it an excellent
publication in the Audio field with much information about the
industry...not found anywhere else. Also, I find David Ranada and his
insights interesting and I read his column in most every issue.
However, if one prefers the "rip and slash" tactics of Aczel..then, so
be it. That one treasures Aczel's opinion does tend to raise the
eyebrow!
>> As his targets would ebb and flow..so did the publication status.
>> After reading a few of the publications you begin to realize you're
>> involved with a rather bitter mindset with an axe to grind.
>
> *You* begin to realize that. *I* realized that there is, at last,
> someone publishing an audio magazine that *didn't* buy into the endless
> nonsense of sighted comparison. As Aczel notes, even magazines that
> publish 'good guys' like David Ranada (Sound & Vision), still also
> publish dubious reviews based on sighted comparison of components that
> require controlled comparison.
Ooooh...sighted comparison...can one drop any lower in this audio
domain than have this occur? How could anyone express any degree of
professionalism with these weird habits? This is the real "booger" in
the audio profession. So many of these misled Hi-Enders do it.
Leonard...
Sean Fulop
>someone publishing an audio magazine that *didn't* buy into
>the endless nonsense of sighted comparison.
>
But, you can't deny the importance of sighted comparison when it's
really the *appearance of the case* that is the most important attribute
of a piece of audio equipment.
-Sean
Nousaine
Of course appearance is important. I don't think anyone suggests otherwise. But
many confuse appearance with sound quality and when they claim that a Green Pen
improved the sound of their cds one has to 1) be skeptical and 2) ask for sound
quality validation. Otherwise we'd all be wasting time "trying" that latest,
greatest tweak which is most likely the equivalent of a miracle carburetor.
chung
>
> Yes! ever hear a cable that had "spitty" sounding silibance and have
> it slowly subside after a week or two. But, I forgot, they all sound
> the same..I should have never ask!
It's perfectly OK to ask. The answer is no, you are imagining it.
There is no physical property of the cable that requires burn-in to
acheive a superior (whatever that is) state.
In fact, this is one of the rare forums where you actually get a good
answer for this kind of questions, so bring on more questions!
Steven Sullivan
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 20:24:23 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > I'm aware of his rep as a critic of audiophilia. Good for him.
> >
> > (Did you really just write 'booger'? I haven't heard that since
> > Montgomery Burns mentioned the 'booger man'.)
> Yep! An old term..
> >> Much
> >> bitterness abounded there. He would state the obvious and wait for
> >> the masses to acknowledge his deep insights. The problem was taking a
> >> steady diet of this kind of flow...it all gets a bit tiresome after
> >> awhile and the shock has worn off!
> >
> > What's tiresome to me is the head-in-the-sand, I-can't-hear-you attitude
> > of the audio press towards scientific and engineering reality. And
> > that's been going on a *whole lot* longer.
> Perhaps the Audio press doesn't agree with you and blunders on to its
> success without believing as you do. They must be doing something
> right!
By that argument, Sound & Vision, which at least nods towards the need for DBT,
must be doing something even righter, since it sells
better than either of the two big 'high end' mags.
> >> Personal attacks were rampant. I suspect that he has challenged the
> >> technical qualifications of every member on the staff of Stereophile.
> >
> > You mean guys like Harley, who write about cable burn-in?
>
> Yes! ever hear a cable that had "spitty" sounding silibance and have
> it slowly subside after a week or two.
Nope.
> But, I forgot, they all sound
> the same..I should have never ask!
Yes, and the earth is not flat. Neither claim is surprising to
those who understand the reasoning behind them...yet vocal
minorities of naysayers persist. Alas my hobby seems to be
populated by one of them.
> >> All the while Stereophile moved from a rather "scruffy" underground
> >> publication to a full "mainstream" slick publication under the
> >> current Editor. Audio critic still remains a "hit or miss"
> >> underground publication.
> >
> > And as we know, quality is measured by commercial success.
> Yes, we know that commercial success represents all that is right with
> the world. Quality is based on this...surely you jest? (humor)
er...yes, I was being sarcastic.
> Perhaps, we are all upset because Stereophile just blunders on without
> accepting all the tenets you or I believe in.
Obviously, 'we' aren't all upset by it. And you and I dont' seem to
have much commonality of belief.
> I find it an excellent
> publication in the Audio field with much information about the
> industry...not found anywhere else.
Indeed, it's industry reportage seems fine. But I doubt most subscribers
buy it for *that* (at least, based on what I've seen in its letter columns).
> Also, I find David Ranada and his
> insights interesting and I read his column in most every issue.
Not in Stereophile you don't. The readers' howls of outrage would
be deafening.
> However, if one prefers the "rip and slash" tactics of Aczel..then, so
> be it. That one treasures Aczel's opinion does tend to raise the
> eyebrow!
To anyone of a scientific bent, any issue of Stereophile will exercise
the eyebrows far more vigorously than TAC.
> >> As his targets would ebb and flow..so did the publication status.
> >> After reading a few of the publications you begin to realize you're
> >> involved with a rather bitter mindset with an axe to grind.
> >
> > *You* begin to realize that. *I* realized that there is, at last,
> > someone publishing an audio magazine that *didn't* buy into the endless
> > nonsense of sighted comparison. As Aczel notes, even magazines that
> > publish 'good guys' like David Ranada (Sound & Vision), still also
> > publish dubious reviews based on sighted comparison of components that
> > require controlled comparison.
> Ooooh...sighted comparison...can one drop any lower in this audio
> domain than have this occur? How could anyone express any degree of
> professionalism with these weird habits? This is the real "booger" in
> the audio profession. So many of these misled Hi-Enders do it.
Indeed. Nicely summarized. Thanks.
Steven Sullivan
LOL. But how often is that realization admitted to, in component
reviews?
Farrell8882
about rahe, rao, ram, etc.
Does anyone know who the guy caricatured sitting in front of his computer,
issuing forth rage -- oops, opinion -- was supposed to be?
S Koons
> > >someone publishing an audio magazine that *didn't* buy into
> > >the endless nonsense of sighted comparison.
> > >
>
> > But, you can't deny the importance of sighted comparison when it's
> > really the *appearance of the case* that is the most important attribute
> > of a piece of audio equipment.
>
> LOL. But how often is that realization admitted to, in component
> reviews?
>
more concerned with appearances - especially for speakers, which can be
pretty ugly.
But I also wondered how much appearance affects the preception of the
sound. -- Do massive cases induce the listeners to describe the sound as
massive? Do rounded cases induce descriptions of rounder sound? This
wouldn't be too hard to test. Perhaps it's already been done. Anyone want
to put a small amp in a big case and test against another unit of the same
model?
Steven Sullivan
On a related note 'brand effect' of speakers has already been studied,
byt the folks at the speaker comparison
lab at H-K/JBL, and IIRC, they found that rating of sound quality
were often related to brand...and that that perception often changed
when the brand info was kept from the listener. So if something as
simple as knowing the brand of the speaker can have this effect, surely
the *appearance* can too.
Sean Fulop
> sound. -- Do massive cases induce the listeners to describe the sound as
> massive? Do rounded cases induce descriptions of rounder sound? This
> wouldn't be too hard to test. Perhaps it's already been done. Anyone want
> to put a small amp in a big case and test against another unit of the same
> model?
Well, I remember some luminary writing about this (maybe it was Bob
Harley, I can't remember). Anyway, some "high-end" manufacturers have
over the years put their products into extra-heavy cases, with the
result that the consumer is more likely to judge the product positively
after they hoist it into their home. Of course, it is well-known
(though sometimes not by audiophiles) that many high-end manufacturers
are really purveyors of poorly-engineered products that they put
together themselves into fancy cases in small production runs --- and
hence, at higher prices. The trouble is, a "boutique" product is not
necessarily a better product, even if it is legitimately costly. Try
making your own car someday, from scratch, engineering it yourself.
Engine too. Your resulting quality is unlikely to match even Lada, much
less Honda. But your new car will also cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
I used to preach the mantra that "Sony sucks" and believed all the
missives against "mass-produced" audio products. Well, my new Sony
DVD/CD-R is about the finest sounding CD-player I've ever heard. After
fifteen years of playing CDs, I've finally found a CD player that sounds
pretty much as good as my old Thorens TD-318 playing a record. I am
blown away. I am also a convert to the idea that technology does
eventually trickle down, and that mass-produced audio products aren't
always crap, just as mass-produced cars aren't always crap.
-Sean
lcw999
> lcw999 wrote:
>>
>> Yes! ever hear a cable that had "spitty" sounding silibance and
>> have it slowly subside after a week or two. But, I forgot, they
>> all sound the same..I should have never ask!
>
>
> It's perfectly OK to ask. The answer is no, you are imagining it. There
> is no physical property of the cable that requires burn-in to acheive a
> superior (whatever that is) state.
Whoa..."no physical property of the cable....."
One, cannot truthfully make this type of statement at
point in time..see the below section on Particle
Physics!
>
> In fact, this is one of the rare forums where you actually get a good
> answer for this kind of questions, so bring on more questions!
Hmmm...let me see..you do not hear something...therefore the
individual that does, is imagining it. Very scientific and an
extremely easy out. Tell us more about this overwhelming method of
determining what the individual next to you is hearing or not hearing?
Do temper those opinions that wire characteristics are fixed forever!
Also, do be aware that Particle physics study is showing us that we do
not understand or grasp, at this point in time, all the the variables
that any given organic component is subjected to...we are not there
yet. What they are telling us is that we should not mistakenly plow
along thinking we have all the factors together yet. There is interplay
between particles that are understood..the variables of this particle
interplay is not understood. So rather than jumping to an easy
conclusion that "someone is imagining" something..therefore it does not
exist...perhaps, one should wait until more is known about particle
physics and its interplay with all things. A rather Scientific thing to
do. Wire being in an organic state is subject to magnetics, RF,
gravitational issues and a lot of variables not fully inderstood..so
temper this urge to make statements about what another can or can't
detect.
But, then if one has it all together and can use the ole "...you are
imagining that scenario.." then I must politely step back and
mumble..O.K.!! Awed with the Pseudo-Scientic insights that abound
within some Engineering thought processes!
Leonard...
P.S. Note that over the years the Scientific disciplines tend to
root out the facts of the "real world" and pass this along to
the Engineering domain to utilize in its constructive
processes. However, when Engineering begins to reach back into
the Scientific domain and attempts to become
pseudo-scientist...we get into this easy "...you are imagining
this..." technique. Please, enough..wait intil the Scientic
domain works it way through all the issues in the Particle
theory. We are all involved in this
"Electro-Chemical-Organic" sphere. What we do not
"understand"...is grossly effecting us daily...The Scientist
will eventually unravel this.. Be patient. Do attempt to gain
something from the "Agnostic" thinking processes and
look at yourself in the mirror and honestly state:
" I just don't know all the answers yet"
"Help me to know that "I don't know"
in the many spheres of human intellect".
Bob Marcus
>On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:56:20 +0000, chung wrote:
>
> > lcw999 wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes! ever hear a cable that had "spitty" sounding silibance and
> >> have it slowly subside after a week or two. But, I forgot, they
> >> all sound the same..I should have never ask!
> >
> >
> > It's perfectly OK to ask. The answer is no, you are imagining it. There
> > is no physical property of the cable that requires burn-in to acheive a
> > superior (whatever that is) state.
>
> Whoa..."no physical property of the cable....."
> One, cannot truthfully make this type of statement at
> point in time..see the below section on Particle
> Physics!
> >
> > In fact, this is one of the rare forums where you actually get a good
> > answer for this kind of questions, so bring on more questions!
>
> Hmmm...let me see..you do not hear something...therefore the
> individual that does, is imagining it. Very scientific and an
> extremely easy out. Tell us more about this overwhelming method of
> determining what the individual next to you is hearing or not hearing?
It's called perceptual psychology--a well-established scientific discipline.
I suggest you acquaint yourself with it. A basic textbook on psychoacoustics
would be a good place to start.
We aren't talking about a theory of everything. We're talking about how an
electrical current passes through a passive device at audio frequencies.
And, yes, we've pretty much got that one nailed--at least to within the
tolerances necessary to make the statement you objected to above. Ask any
particle physicist.
>
> "Help me to know that "I don't know"
> in the many spheres of human intellect".
Rather than belittling engineers, perhaps you might try to understand what
they are saying to you. They are not the only ones on this forum who do not
know everything.
bob
_________________________________________________________________
Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and
safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp
chung
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:56:20 +0000, chung wrote:
>
>> lcw999 wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes! ever hear a cable that had "spitty" sounding silibance and
>>> have it slowly subside after a week or two. But, I forgot, they
>>> all sound the same..I should have never ask!
>>
>>
>> It's perfectly OK to ask. The answer is no, you are imagining it. There
>> is no physical property of the cable that requires burn-in to acheive a
>> superior (whatever that is) state.
>
> Whoa..."no physical property of the cable....."
> One, cannot truthfully make this type of statement at
> point in time..see the below section on Particle
> Physics!
The whole statement is this:
"The answer is no, you are imagining it. There is no physical property
of the cable that requires burn-in to acheive a superior (whatever that
is) state."
We have been using cables, the type that is used in audio, for over
hundred years, in making measurements or in applications much more
stringent than audio. We have never found an audio cable that needs burn
in. I feel I am safe in making that statement. Other than arguing
philosophically, do you have any evidence to refute what I said?
>>
>> In fact, this is one of the rare forums where you actually get a good
>> answer for this kind of questions, so bring on more questions!
>
> Hmmm...let me see..you do not hear something...therefore the
> individual that does, is imagining it. Very scientific and an
> extremely easy out.
No, again, you are cutting out the pertinent parts of my statement. My
statement applies to burn-in effects, when someone said after a certain
time, the sibilance goes away. I was not making a general statement on
other audible/non-auidible qualities of the cable. Please be careful
about what you are arguing against; it seems to me that you are erecting
strawmen.
> Tell us more about this overwhelming method of
> determining what the individual next to you is hearing or not hearing?
See my response above.
>
> Do temper those opinions that wire characteristics are fixed forever!
Nothing in the cable will change over several days or weeks that will
lend to the sibilance going away. Of course, you can have corrosion in
the terminals that cause the sound to be different.
Forever is a very long time. My answer was to what you posed, which was
that someone noticed the sibilance going away within a short time.
>
> Also, do be aware that Particle physics study is showing us that we do
> not understand or grasp, at this point in time, all the the variables
> that any given organic component is subjected to...we are not there
> yet.
It's one thing to say that there are things we do not understand. I
absolutely agree that there are a lot of things we do not understand.
It's another to say that since we do not understand everything, then we
must not know whether there is cable burn-in effect or not. The
extrapolation simply does not follow logically.
For there to be a cable burn-in effect, there has to be (a) measureable
effects (which are more sensitive than human hearing) that indicate so,
or (b) controlled listening tests than indicate so. None of those has
ever come up.
> What they are telling us is that we should not mistakenly plow
> along thinking we have all the factors together yet. There is interplay
> between particles that are understood..the variables of this particle
> interplay is not understood. So rather than jumping to an easy
> conclusion that "someone is imagining" something..therefore it does not
> exist...perhaps, one should wait until more is known about particle
> physics and its interplay with all things.
No, you have to show either (a) or (b) in my response above, which no
one has shown in over a hundred years. I would say that the chances are
someone doing that are between very slim and none.
The fact that we don't know everything does not mean that we have to
question everything. For instance, 1+1=2 is still true, whether we still
have gaping holes in our knowledge of particle physics or not.
> A rather Scientific thing to
> do. Wire being in an organic state
Please be careful with the words you use. How would you define organic?
You mean it's living and growing?
> is subject to magnetics, RF,
> gravitational issues and a lot of variables not fully inderstood..so
> temper this urge to make statements about what another can or can't
> detect.
But cable burn-in?
>
> But, then if one has it all together and can use the ole "...you are
> imagining that scenario.."
On cable burn-in, that is an absolutely correct statement. If you have
any evidence, please share with us.
> then I must politely step back and
> mumble..O.K.!! Awed with the Pseudo-Scientic insights that abound
> within some Engineering thought processes!
I have to say I am equally awed with the pseudo-scientific insights that
abound outside of some engineering thought processes!
>
> Leonard...
>
> P.S. Note that over the years the Scientific disciplines tend to
> root out the facts of the "real world" and pass this along to
> the Engineering domain to utilize in its constructive
> processes. However, when Engineering begins to reach back into
> the Scientific domain and attempts to become
> pseudo-scientist...we get into this easy "...you are imagining
> this..." technique. Please, enough..wait intil the Scientic
> domain works it way through all the issues in the Particle
> theory. We are all involved in this
> "Electro-Chemical-Organic" sphere. What we do not
> "understand"...is grossly effecting us daily...The Scientist
> will eventually unravel this.. Be patient. Do attempt to gain
> something from the "Agnostic" thinking processes and
> look at yourself in the mirror and honestly state:
>
> " I just don't know all the answers yet"
Hey, I can't help it if that means you don't know any answer!
out...@city-net.com
hear an echo? What people hear is by definition in their head,ie. an
interpretation of the process of perception. What we want to exclude
is the physical reality to know what remains is created somewhere
down stream of the ears. That person next to you and you can both
use a double blind listening alone test to do this. In previous
examples testing wire, the differences people "hear" tend toward
being random, which also tends to exclude all but what is past the
ears as the source of same.
Don't you mean quantum physics and not particle physics? It is the
former upon which folk tend to retreat when subjective experiences
tend not to survive objective testing. If scientists will get it
right some day and engineers are in the middle "shaky" ground, where
does that leave the subjectiv impressionist? The current concensus
of science is that human perception can cause us to report things
that don't have physical reality. If you want to advance some new
alternative explanation, it is your place to provide the evidence
for it. It is very very easy to trick human hearing perception and
it can be demonstrated without reference to the sub-atomic level of
physical reality. Knowing that, the best current explanation about
reported "sound" of wire experiences fall within this reality, why
then propose some new notion?
> Hmmm...let me see..you do not hear something...therefore the
> individual that does, is imagining it. Very scientific and an
> extremely easy out. Tell us more about this overwhelming method of
> determining what the individual next to you is hearing or not hearing?
>
> Do temper those opinions that wire characteristics are fixed forever!
>
> Also, do be aware that Particle physics study is showing us that we do
> not understand or grasp, at this point in time, all the the variables
> that any given organic component is subjected to...we are not there
> yet. What they are telling us is that we should not mistakenly plow
> along thinking we have all the factors together yet. There is interplay
> between particles that are understood..the variables of this particle
> interplay is not understood. So rather than jumping to an easy
> conclusion that "someone is imagining" something..therefore it does not
> exist...perhaps, one should wait until more is known about particle
> physics and its interplay with all things. A rather Scientific thing to
> do. Wire being in an organic state is subject to magnetics, RF,
> gravitational issues and a lot of variables not fully inderstood..so
> temper this urge to make statements about what another can or can't
> detect.
>
> But, then if one has it all together and can use the ole "...you are
> imagining that scenario.." then I must politely step back and
> mumble..O.K.!! Awed with the Pseudo-Scientic insights that abound
> within some Engineering thought processes!
>
> Leonard...
>
> P.S. Note that over the years the Scientific disciplines tend to
> root out the facts of the "real world" and pass this along to
> the Engineering domain to utilize in its constructive
> processes. However, when Engineering begins to reach back into
> the Scientific domain and attempts to become
> pseudo-scientist...we get into this easy "...you are imagining
> this..." technique. Please, enough..wait intil the Scientic
> domain works it way through all the issues in the Particle
> theory. We are all involved in this
> "Electro-Chemical-Organic" sphere. What we do not
> "understand"...is grossly effecting us daily...The Scientist
> will eventually unravel this.. Be patient. Do attempt to gain
> something from the "Agnostic" thinking processes and
> look at yourself in the mirror and honestly state:
>
> " I just don't know all the answers yet"
>
lcw999
> lcw999 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:56:20 +0000, chung wrote:
>>
>>> lcw999 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes! ever hear a cable that had "spitty" sounding silibance and
>>>> have it slowly subside after a week or two. But, I forgot, they
>>>> all sound the same..I should have never ask!
>>>
>>>
>>> It's perfectly OK to ask. The answer is no, you are imagining it.
>>> There is no physical property of the cable that requires burn-in to
>>> acheive a superior (whatever that is) state.
>>
>> Whoa..."no physical property of the cable....." One,
>> cannot truthfully make this type of statement at
>> point in time..see the below section on Particle
>> Physics!
>
> The whole statement is this:
>
> "The answer is no, you are imagining it. There is no physical property
> of the cable that requires burn-in to acheive a superior (whatever that
> is) state."
I don't think some "required" burn-in is the issue here. I have
detected silibance change from a slightly "metalllic" quality on
certain recording of some female voices. Current measuring
processes do not address this issue. Therefore, it does not
exist. I don't buy this. Illogic prevails here. Therefore the
tendency to indicate that an individual is "imagining" this!
Sorry we haven't the tools yet to "measure" or numericalize all
this...in time we will. In the meantime, be happy in your work
and pass all this off as some kind of "mass imagination" of
millions! Great ploy if one can get away with it. Why do I feel
that I'm wasting my time here?
>
> We have been using cables, the type that is used in audio, for over
> hundred years, in making measurements or in applications much more
> stringent than audio. We have never found an audio cable that needs burn
> in. I feel I am safe in making that statement. Other than arguing
> philosophically, do you have any evidence to refute what I said?
I can't help it if your array of measuring tools is short..you
have more work to do in this measurement arena..sorry!
Don't hint of imagination...get to work, rectify your tool set
incompleteness.
Granted we have been using cables for many moons...however, many
audio engineers have made appearances on some of these Newsgroups and
indicated that certain cables seemed best in certain
environments..therefore they used them! There are aspects of cables
in the audio environment that you cannot measure and one's only
recourse is to listen with the "final arbitrator" the ear!
However, one that has the "answers" tends to "poo-poo" the ear and
the ear-brain construct...one cannot measure this yet, therefore let
us ridicule this process...speak of illogic! An admission that their
toolset is incomplete in this arena.
As to refuting what you say..that has been made clear already, I
hear sibiliance change, you do not, you cannot measure it,
therefore I cannot hear this (I'm merely imagining this). You are
unable to refute my logic in this matter..so be it. In the
amplifier-room acoustics-air-etc-receptor(ear-brain)
environment...I hear the change...you cannot..and will not. May I
use your most powerful tool? You are imagining that the change in a
given cable interaction with an amplifier speaker combo does not
exist!
>>> In fact, this is one of the rare forums where you actually get a good
>>> answer for this kind of questions, so bring on more questions!
>>
>> Hmmm...let me see..you do not hear something...therefore the
>> individual that does, is imagining it. Very scientific and an
>> extremely easy out.
>
> No, again, you are cutting out the pertinent parts of my statement. My
> statement applies to burn-in effects, when someone said after a certain
> time, the sibilance goes away. I was not making a general statement on
> other audible/non-auidible qualities of the cable. Please be careful
> about what you are arguing against; it seems to me that you are erecting
> strawmen.
Ahhh...ye ole "strawman"...seems like a term from over on that audio
newsgroup that represents all that is good about the world. (Humor
here)
>> Tell us more about this overwhelming method of
>> determining what the individual next to you is hearing or not
>> hearing?
>
> See my response above.
>>
>> Do temper those opinions that wire characteristics are fixed
>> forever!
>
> Nothing in the cable will change over several days or weeks that will
> lend to the sibilance going away. Of course, you can have corrosion in
> the terminals that cause the sound to be different.
There is an assumption here that one is, at this point in time is
"measuring" all pertinent parameters...my comments about perhaps we
do not know what other parameters are there that we cannot measure.
A certain level of Engineering never wants to admit that current
measuring processes to numericalize their world might not be
complete..thus my hint about the picture being incomplete in
understanding all particles and their interplay. If indeed one has
it all together with the current "know facts"..then so be it. This
interplay has reached an end!
> Forever is a very long time. My answer was to what you posed, which was
> that someone noticed the sibilance going away within a short time.
>
>
>> Also, do be aware that Particle physics study is showing us that we
>> do not understand or grasp, at this point in time, all the the
>> variables that any given organic component is subjected to...we are
>> not there yet.
>
> It's one thing to say that there are things we do not understand. I
> absolutely agree that there are a lot of things we do not understand.
> It's another to say that since we do not understand everything, then we
> must not know whether there is cable burn-in effect or not. The
> extrapolation simply does not follow logically.
Missed the point: misconstrued the point: ad infinitum.
No one said we do not understand everything..logical?
Follow this: we have not acheived perfection in our ability to
measure many aspects in many areas of human endeavor...try to
admit this and extrapolate as necessary.
> For there to be a cable burn-in effect, there has to be (a) measureable
> effects (which are more sensitive than human hearing) that indicate so,
> or (b) controlled listening tests than indicate so. None of those has
> ever come up.
>
>> What they are telling us is that we should not mistakenly plow
>> along thinking we have all the factors together yet. There is
>> interplay between particles that are understood..the variables of
>> this particle interplay is not understood. So rather than jumping to
>> an easy conclusion that "someone is imagining" something..therefore
>> it does not exist...perhaps, one should wait until more is known
>> about particle physics and its interplay with all things.
>
> No, you have to show either (a) or (b) in my response above, which no
> one has shown in over a hundred years. I would say that the chances are
> someone doing that are between very slim and none.
>
> The fact that we don't know everything does not mean that we have to
> question everything. For instance, 1+1=2 is still true, whether we still
> have gaping holes in our knowledge of particle physics or not.
>
>> A rather Scientific thing to
>> do. Wire being in an organic state
>
> Please be careful with the words you use. How would you define organic?
> You mean it's living and growing?
Sorry I used terms that confused you...Einstein and others have used
this term to generalize the categories of the makeup of our
environment ...but, it was a rather pale effort at humor..maybe?
Growing wires? However, as we learn to manipulate things on the most
basic particle level...who knows? Widen your horizons...this touches
on the very crux of my comments on current measuring techniques.
>> is subject to magnetics, RF,
>> gravitational issues and a lot of variables not fully inderstood..so
>> temper this urge to make statements about what another can or can't
>> detect.
>
> But cable burn-in?
My point dealt with silibance...however, I don't deny that at
this point in time, cable characteristics tend to change in a
manner that alters audio somewhat. I understand you can't
measure this...yet. Enough of this "..if I can't measure
it...it doesn't exist". All cannot be viewed in a numerical
world at present. Grasp this!
Perhaps..you did not get the hint that "all is not known
about any process at this point in time". Newer and
more comprehensive measuring techniques will come
about...but, there is not much of a desire here to do
much more than to argue with the current array of tools
available. Perhaps this interplay has run its course,
as mentioned above. Sorry.
chung
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 00:09:40 +0000, chung wrote:
>
>> lcw999 wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:56:20 +0000, chung wrote:
>>>
>>>> lcw999 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes! ever hear a cable that had "spitty" sounding silibance and
>>>>> have it slowly subside after a week or two. But, I forgot, they
>>>>> all sound the same..I should have never ask!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's perfectly OK to ask. The answer is no, you are imagining it.
>>>> There is no physical property of the cable that requires burn-in to
>>>> acheive a superior (whatever that is) state.
>>>
>>> Whoa..."no physical property of the cable....." One,
>>> cannot truthfully make this type of statement at
>>> point in time..see the below section on Particle
>>> Physics!
>>
>> The whole statement is this:
>>
>> "The answer is no, you are imagining it. There is no physical property
>> of the cable that requires burn-in to acheive a superior (whatever that
>> is) state."
>
> I don't think some "required" burn-in is the issue here. I have
> detected silibance change from a slightly "metalllic" quality on
> certain recording of some female voices.
Wait a second. Are you talking about sibilance changing over a short
period of time, which you presumed to be cable burn-in, or are you
talking about two cables that have different amounts of sibilance?
It is possible, though barely, that some cables may change the amount of
sibilance in some systems with high output impedance. But that is a
different kind of phenomenon from burn-in, which I said only happens in
your imagination.
> Current measuring
> processes do not address this issue.
Why not? Sibilance is a fairly gross frequency response symptom that can
be easily measured with today's equipment. You really need to develop a
better understanding of what we can measure, instead of assuming all
those things we cannot measure.
>Therefore, it does not
> exist. I don't buy this.
Seems like another strawman to me.
> Illogic prevails here. Therefore the
> tendency to indicate that an individual is "imagining" this!
> Sorry we haven't the tools yet to "measure" or numericalize all
> this...in time we will. In the meantime, be happy in your work
> and pass all this off as some kind of "mass imagination" of
> millions! Great ploy if one can get away with it. Why do I feel
> that I'm wasting my time here?
Uh, because maybe your position is shaky?
>>
>> We have been using cables, the type that is used in audio, for over
>> hundred years, in making measurements or in applications much more
>> stringent than audio. We have never found an audio cable that needs burn
>> in. I feel I am safe in making that statement. Other than arguing
>> philosophically, do you have any evidence to refute what I said?
>
> I can't help it if your array of measuring tools is short..you
> have more work to do in this measurement arena..sorry!
> Don't hint of imagination...get to work, rectify your tool set
> incompleteness.
We have been able to measure frequency response effects that lead to
different amounts of sibilance since at least 1950's. Now we can measure
errors several orders of magnitude lower than we did then.
>
> Granted we have been using cables for many moons...however, many
> audio engineers have made appearances on some of these Newsgroups and
> indicated that certain cables seemed best in certain
> environments..therefore they used them!
You mean like 75-ohm cable should be used for S/PDIF connections? Or
that if you have high output impedance, you should use lower capacitance
cables? Sure, those make sense. But have you heard any audio engineer
acknowledge the existence of cable burn-in? And are you confusing an
electrical engineer with someone who does mastering or recording?
>There are aspects of cables
> in the audio environment that you cannot measure and one's only
> recourse is to listen with the "final arbitrator" the ear!
Those aspects that you cannot measure are way below the threshold of
human hearing.
>
> However, one that has the "answers" tends to "poo-poo" the ear and
> the ear-brain construct...one cannot measure this yet, therefore let
> us ridicule this process...speak of illogic! An admission that their
> toolset is incomplete in this arena.
You know, it seems like you always have the questions to "poo-poo" the
science and engineering :).
>
> As to refuting what you say..that has been made clear already, I
> hear sibiliance change, you do not, you cannot measure it,
> therefore I cannot hear this (I'm merely imagining this).
Of course we can measure it. We make a frequency response measurement
before "burn-in" and after "burn-in". If there is sibilance change, it
will show up as a fairly major difference.
>You are
> unable to refute my logic in this matter..so be it.
Well, it's more like you refuse our attempts to refute your logic. But
it's up to you to believe whatever you want to.
>In the
> amplifier-room acoustics-air-etc-receptor(ear-brain)
> environment...I hear the change...you cannot..and will not. May I
> use your most powerful tool? You are imagining that the change in a
> given cable interaction with an amplifier speaker combo does not
> exist!
Of course, the difference between you and me is that I can back up my
claim with measurements, with theory, and you can't!
The assumption that you have falsely made is that sibilance is something
we could not yet measure.
>
> A certain level of Engineering never wants to admit that current
> measuring processes to numericalize their world might not be
> complete..thus my hint about the picture being incomplete in
> understanding all particles and their interplay. If indeed one has
> it all together with the current "know facts"..then so be it. This
> interplay has reached an end!
It seems you still don't grasp the point of what we are saying. There
are things we do not understand, but there are also things we do
understand well. For example, the fact that we have unanswered questions
in particle physics does not mean that Ohms Law may not work, at the
level of accuracy that is necessary for audio.
>
>> Forever is a very long time. My answer was to what you posed, which was
>> that someone noticed the sibilance going away within a short time.
>>
>>
>>> Also, do be aware that Particle physics study is showing us that we
>>> do not understand or grasp, at this point in time, all the the
>>> variables that any given organic component is subjected to...we are
>>> not there yet.
>>
>> It's one thing to say that there are things we do not understand. I
>> absolutely agree that there are a lot of things we do not understand.
>> It's another to say that since we do not understand everything, then we
>> must not know whether there is cable burn-in effect or not. The
>> extrapolation simply does not follow logically.
>
> Missed the point: misconstrued the point: ad infinitum.
> No one said we do not understand everything..logical?
Hmmm, you lost me there. Are you saying that I was wrong to say "we do
not understand everything"?
>
> Follow this: we have not acheived perfection in our ability to
> measure many aspects in many areas of human endeavor...try to
> admit this and extrapolate as necessary.
Again, it does not require perfect measurement ability (whatever that
means to you) to measure response differences that lead to more or less
sibilance. Just like it does not require perfect measurement ability to
develop any and all of the wonderful electronic products that we use
daily and have come to depend on. Like a cellphone, or a PC. These
products are much more complex than audio cables.
Oh, so you were not talking about burn-in? But my statement that you
seem to have such a big issue with was regarding burn-in!
>however, I don't deny that at
> this point in time, cable characteristics tend to change in a
> manner that alters audio somewhat.
"I don't deny" leaves many possibilities. Do you believe that there is
cable burn-in? I thought you were so sure that there was sibilance
change over a short time in your previous posts.
> I understand you can't
> measure this...yet. Enough of this "..if I can't measure
> it...it doesn't exist". All cannot be viewed in a numerical
> world at present. Grasp this!
Again, you are missing some of the major qualification. If I can't
measure frequency response changes using equipment that can reveal
frequency response errors several orders of magnitude more sensitive
than the ear, then the postulated sibilance change over a short time
simply was a figment of your imagination.
Perhaps you didn't get the hint that there is also a lot that is known
about aduio reproduction, especially regarding how cables do not require
burn-in?
lcw999
> lcw999 wrote:
>>On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:56:20 +0000, chung wrote:
>>
>> > lcw999 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Yes! ever hear a cable that had "spitty" sounding silibance and
>> >> have it slowly subside after a week or two. But, I forgot, they
>> >> all sound the same..I should have never ask!
>> >
>> >
>> > It's perfectly OK to ask. The answer is no, you are imagining it. There
>> > is no physical property of the cable that requires burn-in to acheive a
>> > superior (whatever that is) state.
>>
>> Whoa..."no physical property of the cable....."
>> One, cannot truthfully make this type of statement at
>> point in time..see the below section on Particle
>> Physics!
>> >
>> > In fact, this is one of the rare forums where you actually get a good
>> > answer for this kind of questions, so bring on more questions!
>>
>> Hmmm...let me see..you do not hear something...therefore the
>> individual that does, is imagining it. Very scientific and an
>> extremely easy out. Tell us more about this overwhelming method of
>> determining what the individual next to you is hearing or not hearing?
>
> It's called perceptual psychology--a well-established scientific discipline.
> I suggest you acquaint yourself with it. A basic textbook on psychoacoustics
> would be a good place to start.
Hmmmm...been there! Done that! Does not relate to this issue.
This has to do with not being able to measure some phenomenon!
Therefore, it does not exist.
>>
Bob Marcus
This makes me wonder whether you even understand what "this issue" is.
>
> This has to do with not being able to measure some phenomenon!
> Therefore, it does not exist.
Who said that? No one but you. If you must invent ludicrous assertions in
order to have something to argue against, then I would agree with your
statement elsewhere that you are wasting your time here.
Now, look closely at what Chung actually did say: "There is no physical
property of the cable that requires burn-in to achieve a superior (whatever
that is) state." If you'd care to argue with that statement, you might do so
constructively in one of two ways:
1) You could suggest some physical property of cables that affects
audibility and *does* require burn-in.
2) You could demonstrate in some objective fashion that you are not merely
imagining some difference between a mint-condition cable and a burned-in
version of same. Since you have already read at least one psychoacoustics
textbook, we can assume you know how to carry out such a demonstration.
You have done neither of those things. Instead, you have invented a
non-existent debating partner who keeps bringing up "measurement." And you
argue that because Chung has not solved all the problems of particle
physics, his knowledge of anything can be dismissed. That's a bit like
saying that because we haven't figured out what dark energy is, we can't say
that the earth revolves around the sun.
bob
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
lcw999
> You are in the right place to get answers for your questions, do we hear
> an echo? What people hear is by definition in their head,ie. an
> interpretation of the process of perception. What we want to exclude is
> the physical reality to know what remains is created somewhere down
> stream of the ears. That person next to you and you can both use a
> double blind listening alone test to do this. In previous examples
> testing wire, the differences people "hear" tend toward being random,
> which also tends to exclude all but what is past the ears as the source
> of same.
Somewhere we have lost track of the purpose of all this
effort in the audio realm. We are trying to create the illusion
of music within the ear-brain structure. Granting that this
must be passed via an "acoustic sphere-air" and the initiating
device, the speaker and the components behind it.
As I have mentioned before, the ear-brain realm is the final
arbitrator...it receives the information and then lends an
interpretation to what it receives. It is within that decision
process that we feel that there is discrepancy about linearity,
etc, that exists in the process back
toward the amplification, etc. If that individual accepts
what he is hearing through his processes. Exactly where does the
individual that has a set of those processes that interprets the
same info, slightly differently, feel so prompted to relate that
all the amps are the same therefore no one really hears the
difference.
And please let us not get into all the books written on how the
ear can mislead you...we've all been there, done that! Most of us
out here have been in so-called "test" to verify this...this is
accepted that this can happen.. but it is not a "cut in stone"
dictate that it will happen.
My suggestion here is that we don't have the array of tools yet to
test all parameters. All this "anecdotal" info is a nagging
reminder that some broad minded members of the Engineering
profession might well look seriously at the "measurement process"
in a new light. One that is well read in the Scientific process
will find that this ole "anecdotal" infomation spurs many
investigations that opens many doors. Use it...don't be so timid
about stepping out of the box!
>
> Don't you mean quantum physics and not particle physics? It is the
> former upon which folk tend to retreat when subjective experiences tend
> not to survive objective testing. If scientists will get it right some
> day and engineers are in the middle "shaky" ground, where does that
> leave the subjectiv impressionist? The current concensus of science is
> that human perception can cause us to report things that don't have
> physical reality. If you want to advance some new alternative
> explanation, it is your place to provide the evidence for it. It is
> very very easy to trick human hearing perception and it can be
> demonstrated without reference to the sub-atomic level of physical
> reality. Knowing that, the best current explanation about reported
> "sound" of wire experiences fall within this reality, why then propose
> some new notion?
No..not Quantum..Particle! Before we can determine all the basic
qualities of anything we will have to get to the root of the most
basic particles and how this all fits into the scheme of things.
We will surely find that we are currently flying a bit blind at
present regarding metals, wires and how they are much effected by
the triumvirate of this "Electro-Organic-Chemical" Universe we are
in. In fact, there is an interesting article in the latest
Stereophile that touches on the matter of eliminating metals in
certain devices that reproduce music. There is an interplay
here...we haven't pursued this very well. It is this kind of
inter-action that I think the guys that are "outside of the
box"..tend to excel...these are excellent "mindsets".. we can't
excel and go forward without them. They are quick to see that
Eng-101 doesn't apply here..
..this requires thinking outside the lines...
I think the story that all Freshmen or Sophs encounter in College
regarding the 3 blindmen and the Elephant fits well here. When ask
what an Elephant was like they related:
#1 An Elephant is much like a rope...(his tail)
#2 No it was like a pipe.. (his tusk)
#3 Not so..it was like wall.. (his side)
We are probably much like this at this point in time.. ..we just
don't have a clear picture yet of how to measure all aspects of
the audio realm. Our toolset is skimpy at the present.
Back to the issue...perhaps it will move to the Quantum efforts when
the question arises as to the "glue" that motivates and holds this
all together. These questions are currently being applied to the
Quantum domain anyway viewed from other mindsets. Perhaps the
Quantum Physics domain will then point to another level of Particles
as yet undiscovered! And on it goes!
Oh yes..don't let the efforts of the mental processes to give one
some alternative view lead you into the thinking that it has lost
touch with physical reality! This is the element I have been
talking about...not enough knowledge on so many basic issues..when
not given a good grounding in knowledge it can appear to flounder.
In many areas of Science it is easily grasped that until we get a
handle on Particle Theory, there are a myriad of disciplines that
will not be complete...thus the story regarding the Elephant. We
are still blind in some areas.
Steven Sullivan
> lcw999 wrote:
> >
> > However, one that has the "answers" tends to "poo-poo" the ear and
> > the ear-brain construct...one cannot measure this yet, therefore let
> > us ridicule this process...speak of illogic! An admission that their
> > toolset is incomplete in this arena.
> You know, it seems like you always have the questions to "poo-poo" the
> science and engineering :).
Speaking of ridicule, I found this parody amusing
(found today over on avsforum.com):
//
Objectivist: Elephants do not fly.
Subjectivist: They might, and if they did it could be important.
Objectivist: Elephants do not fly.
Subjectivist: What if they had really big ears and flapped them rapidly?
Objectivist: They still couldn't fly.
Subjectivist: Are you saying that no matter how aerodynamic and powerful they were....
Objectivist: Well then they wouldn't be elephants.
Subjectivist: So you agree that it could happen.
Objectivist: Elephants do not fly.
Subjectivist: You just don't believe anything do you?
Objectivist: What?
Subjectivist: I've taken a poll, 75% of people believe in elephant flight.
Objectivist: 75% of people are stupid.
Subjectivist: You have your ideas and we have ours. Can't we all just get along?
Objectivist: Fool!
Subjectivist: Rude jerk!
Nousaine
wrote:
>lcw999 wrote:
...snip to specific content......
>> This has to do with not being able to measure some phenomenon!
>> Therefore, it does not exist.
>
>Who said that? No one but you. If you must invent ludicrous assertions in
>order to have something to argue against, then I would agree with your
>statement elsewhere that you are wasting your time here.
>
>Now, look closely at what Chung actually did say: "There is no physical
>property of the cable that requires burn-in to achieve a superior (whatever
>that is) state." If you'd care to argue with that statement, you might do so
>constructively in one of two ways:
>
>1) You could suggest some physical property of cables that affects
>audibility and *does* require burn-in.
>
>2) You could demonstrate in some objective fashion that you are not merely
>imagining some difference between a mint-condition cable and a burned-in
>version of same. Since you have already read at least one psychoacoustics
>textbook, we can assume you know how to carry out such a demonstration.
He could demonstrate that in a "subjective" fashion with a replicable
bias-controlled listening test.
>You have done neither of those things. Instead, you have invented a
>non-existent debating partner who keeps bringing up "measurement." And you
>argue that because Chung has not solved all the problems of particle
>physics, his knowledge of anything can be dismissed. That's a bit like
>saying that because we haven't figured out what dark energy is, we can't say
>that the earth revolves around the sun.
>
>bob
I find it interesting that the only acoustical phenomena (IKO) that cannot be
electrically or acoustically "measured" and IS truly audible (with replicable
experimentation) is phantom imaging and data reduction.
That's it; even after a hundred years of research. And now we're supposed to
believe that every new "tweak" that hasn't been verified falls just below our
measurement threshold ... forgetting that those phenomena CAN BE verified with
controlled listening tests.
Nousaine
lcw999 wrote:
....many snips .....
>>
>> Perhaps..you did not get the hint that "all is not known
>> about any process at this point in time".
>
>Perhaps you didn't get the hint that there is also a lot that is known
>about aduio reproduction, especially regarding how cables do not require
>burn-in?
>
>>Newer and
>> more comprehensive measuring techniques will come
>> about...but, there is not much of a desire here to do
>> much more than to argue with the current array of tools
>> available. Perhaps this interplay has run its course,
>> as mentioned above. Sorry.
Argument about "tools"; that's what these threads finally come to. This one
seems to have originated because engineers don't have good enough tools to
measure the sibilance in an audio cable that's been broken in.
I find it interesting that when a subjectivist fails to validate a claim it's
always because the most sophisticated listening tools (bias controlled
listening tests) "obscure" subtle (or even 'night and day') differences and the
most sensitive technical electrical and acoustical measurement equipment can
only detect "gross" frequency response and level differences (which are well
below human threshold differences.)
It's never acknowledged that subjectivists have failed to produce a replicable
or public demonstration with even the most modest of bias control (even as
modest as placing an opague cloth over I/O terminals) validating the claim.
It's the Tug McGraw Merchandising Syndrome ..... you just gotta believe ....
even when you can't prove it. Everybody else HAS to PROVE that you can't hear
anything you CLAIM to hear even if you can't demonstrate same. The difference
is Tug actually showed his team could win.
I once discussed this aspect with a good friend in the industry. There are so
many cranks and snake-oil products I wondered why few, given they are often
competing with each other for our dollars, are willing to publicly point out
that competition is FOS. He said it's just a matter of an insider industry
understanding that "I won't say your BS is BS as long as you will do likewise."
normanstrong
news:OfG7c.59390$Cb.900450@attbi_s51...
> I don't think some "required" burn-in is the issue here. I
have
> detected silibance change from a slightly "metalllic"
quality on
> certain recording of some female voices. Current measuring
> processes do not address this issue. Therefore, it does
not
> exist. I don't buy this. Illogic prevails here. Therefore
the
> tendency to indicate that an individual is "imagining"
this!
> Sorry we haven't the tools yet to "measure" or
numericalize all
> this...in time we will. In the meantime, be happy in your
work
> and pass all this off as some kind of "mass imagination"
of
> millions! Great ploy if one can get away with it. Why do I
feel
> that I'm wasting my time here?
Probably because you ARE wasting your time here. Certainly so if you
expect to persuade me or Mr. Chung that there is something that can be
heard but not measured. The reason the "ear is the final arbiter" is
not because the ear is so remarkably sensitive, but because the ear is
the participant that's going to fork over the dough.
Norm Strong
chung
Thanks, that just about captures the essence of some of the debates. Of
course, I'm biased :).
Actually, there seems to be another line, or two, of attack here:
Subjectivist: There are a lot of things we do not know. I suggest that
we step outside of the box, and look for ways to explain how an elephant
can fly. We just cannot ignore someone's anecdote that he's seen a
flying elephant.
Or:
Subjectivist: Since no one has proven conclusively that elephants do not
fly, how can anyone say elephants cannot fly? Some living objects can
fly, so why can't an elephant fly? Isn't the elephant a living object?
Sorry if anyone is offended. Feel free to make fun of the objectivists'
position.
chung
Subjectivist: It's really hard to know if elephants fly or not, the
eye-brain construct is important you know. You can't say that I am just
imagining that the elephants can fly, since you don't see what I see.
And have you looked at every elephant in the history of the world?
Objectivist: Saying that the elephant can fly is an extraordinary claim.
Prove it.
Subjectivist: Proof? This is only an hobby. There is a problem with
objectively proving, because every time you really sit down, bring in
your cameras and recorders, and carefully observe an elephant, you can't
see it flying. The process of trying to catch it flying and that of
observing elephants in nature are two really different tasks. No one has
ever proven that anything could not fly this way.
Objectivist: We have the equipment to observe flying objects much
smaller than an elephant for decades. No one has shown any evidence that
elephants fly.
Subjectivist: We cannot prove that they fly, but we cannot prove that
they cannot fly either. Therefore the truth must be somewhere in
between: Some of the time, under certain conditions, there are elephants
that do fly.
Obejctivist: That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard! You guys are
totally clueless.
Subjectivist: You have been banned from our forum.
Mkuller
>
Glad you guys are able to amuse yourselves. If you're so smart and clever, why
aren't all audiophiles 'objectivists', instead of just a few here on RAHE?
Maybe you have too much time on your hands. And don't ask me to prove it...
Regards,
Mike
Steven Sullivan
> >chung chun...@covad.net wrote:>
> >Objectivist: Elephants do not fly.
> >Etc., etc.,...
> >
> Glad you guys are able to amuse yourselves. If you're so smart and clever, why
> aren't all audiophiles 'objectivists', instead of just a few here on RAHE?
May I refer you again to the line in the parody regarding '75% of all people'?
Btw, the few here on RAHE hardly constitute the entire population of
objectivists in audiophilia. Surely you realize that?
> Maybe you have too much time on your hands. And don't ask me to prove it...
You sound tense. Try laughing instead.
Bob Marcus
> >chung chun...@covad.net wrote:>
> >Objectivist: Elephants do not fly.
> >Etc., etc.,...
> >
>
> Glad you guys are able to amuse yourselves. If you're so smart and
> clever, why
> aren't all audiophiles 'objectivists', instead of just a few here on
> RAHE?
If you're so smart and clever, how come the vast majority of music
lovers who have a home audio system of any kind rely on the
interconnects and power cords that came in the box?
That's the trouble with being smart and clever--no one listens to you!
>
> Maybe you have too much time on your hands.
And what's your excuse for posting here? ;-)
But speaking of wasting time:
Subjectivist: You cannot state for certain that an elephant can't fly
until biologists have completely mapped its genome.
bob
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page –
FREE download! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/
chung
>>chung chun...@covad.net wrote:>
>>Objectivist: Elephants do not fly.
>>Etc., etc.,...
>>
>
> Glad you guys are able to amuse yourselves. If you're so smart and clever, why
> aren't all audiophiles 'objectivists', instead of just a few here on RAHE?
>
I must not be smart or clever, since I don't understand that question at
all. Are you saying that if we are really smart and clever, then all
audiophiles would be objectivists? So the fact that not all audiophiles
are objectivists proves that we are not smart or clever? And when did we
say that we are smart and clever? Please clarify.
> Maybe you have too much time on your hands. And don't ask me to prove it...
That one is obvious. No proof required.
> Regards,
> Mike
>
Steven Sullivan
> Mkuller wrote:
>>> chung chun...@covad.net wrote:>
>>> Objectivist: Elephants do not fly.
>>> Etc., etc.,...
>>>
>>
>> Glad you guys are able to amuse yourselves. If you're so smart and
>> clever, why
>> aren't all audiophiles 'objectivists', instead of just a few here on
>> RAHE?
> If you're so smart and clever, how come the vast majority of music
> lovers who have a home audio system of any kind rely on the
> interconnects and power cords that came in the box?
> That's the trouble with being smart and clever--no one listens to you!
>>
>> Maybe you have too much time on your hands.
> And what's your excuse for posting here? ;-)
> But speaking of wasting time:
> Subjectivist: You cannot state for certain that an elephant can't fly
> until biologists have completely mapped its genome.
WRONG. Even then, they might still fly! After all, science
can't measure everything.
Bruce J. Richman
An objectivist statement with which this primarily subjectivist, but
scientifically trained and oriented occasional objectivist fully agrees. :)
Seriously, though, it appears to me that many of the subjectivist comments,
whether in comparing loudspeakers, amplifiers, or other pieces of audio gear,
often discuss variables such as "imaging', "soundstaging", "warmth", "body",
"truth of timbre" which are not easily quantified or measured. Or if they are,
not to the extent that different observers/evaluators would probably agree on
common definitions.
IMHO, the endless debates on RAHE about the validity and or viability of
subjective vs. objective opinions are (a) repetitive, (b) tiresome, (c)
nonproductive, and (d) about as futile as attempts to "convert" followers of a
particular religion or set of political beliefs to adopt another set of
beliefs.
I'm perfectly willing to concede, as a scientifically trained and oriented
psychologist, for example, that perceptual experiences are influenced by
various biases. But so what? I would hypothesize that most subjectivists also
realize this, and *simply don't care*. If they happen to prefer vinyl, tubes,
a particular brand of preamplifier/amplifier and/or speaker because they
*perceive* it as providing them with more pleasure than other alternatives, I
think it is perfectly valid for them to express their opinion on RAHE. Neither
proof nor justification is necessary.
And as far as measurements are concerned, it may well be that as has happened
in the past, more valid and refined ways of measuring certain variables
associated with audio equipment will be discovered in the future - most likely
through the R&D departments of various audio manufacturers, or perhaps in
academic settings in which various psychoacoustical phenomena are subjected to
empirical research.
Bruce J. Richman
Steven Sullivan
> An objectivist statement with which this primarily subjectivist, but
> scientifically trained and oriented occasional objectivist fully agrees. :)
> Seriously, though, it appears to me that many of the subjectivist comments,
> whether in comparing loudspeakers, amplifiers, or other pieces of audio gear,
> often discuss variables such as "imaging', "soundstaging", "warmth", "body",
> "truth of timbre" which are not easily quantified or measured.
> Or if they are,
> not to the extent that different observers/evaluators would probably agree on
> common definitions.
They aren't well-defined terms even by people who use them.
> IMHO, the endless debates on RAHE about the validity and or viability of
> subjective vs. objective opinions are (a) repetitive, (b) tiresome, (c)
> nonproductive, and (d) about as futile as attempts to "convert" followers of a
> particular religion or set of political beliefs to adopt another set of
> beliefs.
But the difference is, two religions are arguing over matters that usually
cannot be reality-tested. Religion differs from science in that its tenets are
neither contingent upon nor tested against reality.
So subj vs. obj is not religion against religion,
it's religion against science.
> I'm perfectly willing to concede, as a scientifically trained and oriented
> psychologist, for example, that perceptual experiences are influenced by
> various biases. But so what? I would hypothesize that most subjectivists also
> realize this, and *simply don't care*. If they happen to prefer vinyl, tubes,
> a particular brand of preamplifier/amplifier and/or speaker because they
> *perceive* it as providing them with more pleasure than other alternatives, I
> think it is perfectly valid for them to express their opinion on RAHE. Neither
> proof nor justification is necessary.
But it's rarely jsut about preference. It's usually about *why* someone prefers something.
And it gets into particulars: *htis* unit sounds 'bright' or 'fast' and *that*
one sounds 'veiled' or 'slow'. Do these statements have any meaning? They
certainly imply real difference.
Crack oppen any issue of any audio mag, and you will surely see plenty of
statements taht cannot be construed as meaning ,
"this is what I perceive, but hey, it's jsut as likely could be *imagining* all of it".
When there *is* the strong possibility of bias, and there *isn't* technical
reason to predict audible difference, then proof and justification for an unqualified
claim of audible difference ARE reasonable to request.
> And as far as measurements are concerned, it may well be that as has happened
> in the past, more valid and refined ways of measuring certain variables
> associated with audio equipment will be discovered in the future - most likely
> through the R&D departments of various audio manufacturers, or perhaps in
> academic settings in which various psychoacoustical phenomena are subjected to
> empirical research.
It may well be. But until then, it's unreasonable to ignore or discount what
is known *now*.
chung
>
>>
>
> An objectivist statement with which this primarily subjectivist, but
> scientifically trained and oriented occasional objectivist fully agrees. :)
>
> Seriously, though, it appears to me that many of the subjectivist comments,
> whether in comparing loudspeakers, amplifiers, or other pieces of audio gear,
> often discuss variables such as "imaging', "soundstaging", "warmth", "body",
> "truth of timbre" which are not easily quantified or measured.
> Or if they are,
> not to the extent that different observers/evaluators would probably agree on
> common definitions.
Or those words with no universal definition at all? Like musical? Dark?
Fast? Slow?
>
> IMHO, the endless debates on RAHE about the validity and or viability of
> subjective vs. objective opinions are (a) repetitive, (b) tiresome, (c)
> nonproductive, and (d) about as futile as attempts to "convert" followers of a
> particular religion or set of political beliefs to adopt another set of
> beliefs.
If you look carefully, the debates pitting subjectivists against
objectivists are the most popular threads on rahe. For the same reason
that you and I are posting on this thread. There is something there that
attract us to this type of debate.
>
> I'm perfectly willing to concede, as a scientifically trained and oriented
> psychologist, for example, that perceptual experiences are influenced by
> various biases. But so what? I would hypothesize that most subjectivists also
> realize this, and *simply don't care*. If they happen to prefer vinyl, tubes,
> a particular brand of preamplifier/amplifier and/or speaker because they
> *perceive* it as providing them with more pleasure than other alternatives, I
> think it is perfectly valid for them to express their opinion on RAHE. Neither
> proof nor justification is necessary.
We always say that you can pick equipment based on whatever standards
you like, and that preferences are sarcosanct, and you don't need to
jsutify them. But when someone makes technical claims to support
preferences, then those technical claims are indeed challengeable. Or
when someone states that present toolsets are insufficient to measure
certain audio phenomenon, without any attempt to validate that the
phenomenon does exist, then you will see fairly vocal rebuttals.
>
> And as far as measurements are concerned, it may well be that as has happened
> in the past, more valid and refined ways of measuring certain variables
> associated with audio equipment will be discovered in the future - most likely
> through the R&D departments of various audio manufacturers, or perhaps in
> academic settings in which various psychoacoustical phenomena are subjected to
> empirical research.
Sure, better and better tools will become valuable. In fact a really
good tool is the ABX device. But how about first determining if the
psychoacoustical phenomena are really based on sound?
>
> Bruce J. Richman
>
Mkuller
debate" again, so all subthreads discussing DBTs are ended. -- deb ]
>Steven Sullivan ssu...@panix.com wrote:>
>But the difference is, two religions are arguing over matters that usually
>cannot be reality-tested. Religion differs from science in that its tenets
>are
>neither contingent upon nor tested against reality.
>So subj vs. obj is not religion against religion,
>it's religion against science.
>
Actually, it's 'observational' reporting versus pseudoscience.
There are belief structures on both sides, probably the most rigid being the
ones who say they have 'science' on their side. Many subjectivists will
concede that when there is a validation test for the objectivist's bias control
method, they would accept it (reality test). Many objectivists can't even
imagine they could be wrong. Which seems more like a 'religion' to you?
Regards,
Mike
Bruce J. Richman
Only for those who aer unwilling to allow subjectivists the freedom to express
their individual preferences without trying to challenge those preferences by
insisting on biased-controlled testing challenges. For the nominal
subjectivist either expressing an opinion about certain pieces of audio
equipment or perhaps wanting feedback from others, such testing is basically
irrelevant in terms of how they (a) make comparative decisions, and (b) listen
under normal circumstances. Most subjective audiophiles don't base their audio
equipment decisions on double blind, levdel-matched testing protocols. And in
addition, they don't listen with their eyes closed, one can safely assume.
Therefore, while douible-blind, bias-controlled testing might be desirable for
those interested in objective measurements uber alles, they appear to hold
little interest for those who are willing to let their *perceptions*, complete
with biases of various kinds, dictate their buying and listening preferences.
And for most subjectivists, IMHE and IMHO, constant challenges to individual
preferences, derogatory comments about software playback mediums that don't
meet some rigid test of "musical accuracy" (which may well be irrelevant given
the transmutations taking place between the performance and the recorded event
presented on disc and played back over assorted systems).........very *much*
have the flavor of a religion. It's just a different religion that is being
thrown in the face of the "nonbelievers".
>> I'm perfectly willing to concede, as a scientifically trained and oriented
>> psychologist, for example, that perceptual experiences are influenced by
>> various biases. But so what? I would hypothesize that most subjectivists
>also
>> realize this, and *simply don't care*. If they happen to prefer vinyl,
>tubes,
>> a particular brand of preamplifier/amplifier and/or speaker because they
>> *perceive* it as providing them with more pleasure than other alternatives,
>I
>> think it is perfectly valid for them to express their opinion on RAHE.
>Neither
>> proof nor justification is necessary.
>
>But it's rarely jsut about preference. It's usually about *why* someone
>prefers something.
>And it gets into particulars: *htis* unit sounds 'bright' or 'fast' and
>*that*
>one sounds 'veiled' or 'slow'. Do these statements have any meaning? They
>certainly imply real difference.
>
They imply *perceptual* differences to the *individual* making the comparisons.
Since objectivists generally don't accept the phenomena of individual
preferences based on *individual* frames of reference that depend on aural
memory, subjective experience, and quite likely, attention to different aural
variables (e.g. imaging, soundstaging, resolution (or ability to perceive
individual instruments within the sound field). Again, your frame of reference
(or "religiion" re. the selection of audio equipment, if you'll permit the
metaphor) is simply different that of subjectivists. Your belief system is not
apparently shared by most subjectivists, and theirs is not shared by you.
Attempts to *convert* the other faction by either is, IMHO, a waste of time.
And attempts to derogate the other faction accomplishes no useful purpose other
than to generate more ill will, suspicion, and lack of trust on both sides.
>Crack oppen any issue of any audio mag, and you will surely see plenty of
>statements taht cannot be construed as meaning ,
>"this is what I perceive, but hey, it's jsut as likely could be *imagining*
>all of it".
>
>When there *is* the strong possibility of bias, and there *isn't* technical
>reason to predict audible difference, then proof and justification for an
>unqualified
>claim of audible difference ARE reasonable to request.
>
No, they are not - among the many subjectivists that are not particularly
interested in matters other than the enjoyment of music as played through
whatever audio equipment they have selected for whatever personal
preference-based reasons they choose. Objectivists simply don't believe that
people can make personal decisions about audio equipment and have individually
variable perceptions without feeling any profound need to investigate whether
their decisions are substantiated by technical measurements and/or blind
testing.
It is quite likely that various types of market research geared toward
subjectivists could very well include variables more meaningful to them than
those favored by objectivists.
>> And as far as measurements are concerned, it may well be that as has
>happened
>> in the past, more valid and refined ways of measuring certain variables
>> associated with audio equipment will be discovered in the future - most
>likely
>> through the R&D departments of various audio manufacturers, or perhaps in
>> academic settings in which various psychoacoustical phenomena are subjected
>to
>> empirical research.
>
>It may well be. But until then, it's unreasonable to ignore or discount what
>is known *now*.
>
>
>
It's unreasonable for objectivists who want to make their decisions based
solely on either technical specifications and/or the results of bias-controlled
testing. It is most definitely *not* unreasonable for those whose belief
system, with all its probable imperfections, places more value on subjective
opinions and individual preferences.
Bruce J. Richman
chung
> Objectivists simply don't believe that
> people can make personal decisions about audio equipment and have individually
> variable perceptions without feeling any profound need to investigate whether
> their decisions are substantiated by technical measurements and/or blind
> testing.
Most subjectivists consider me an objectivist. I don't care how you
decide what equipment to buy or use. It's your preference, and as we
keep saying, and apparently subjectivist keep ignoring, you do not have
to justify your preference. So you are again erecting a strawman, and
burning it down.
>
>
>
>>> And as far as measurements are concerned, it may well be that as has
>>happened
>>> in the past, more valid and refined ways of measuring certain variables
>>> associated with audio equipment will be discovered in the future - most
>>likely
>>> through the R&D departments of various audio manufacturers, or perhaps in
>>> academic settings in which various psychoacoustical phenomena are subjected
>>to
>>> empirical research.
>>
>>It may well be. But until then, it's unreasonable to ignore or discount what
>>is known *now*.
>>
>>
>>
>
> It's unreasonable for objectivists who want to make their decisions based
> solely on either technical specifications and/or the results of bias-controlled
> testing. It is most definitely *not* unreasonable for those whose belief
> system, with all its probable imperfections, places more value on subjective
> opinions and individual preferences.
>
Hey, you are welcome to place as much value as you want on subjective
opinion and your preferences. It's your money, and you can spend it any
way you like. Why keep repeating the same line, over and over again?
> Bruce J. Richman
>
Keith
Whereas I have no allegiance to the mainstream audio press, I found
Audio Critic to be so drenched with vitriol that I found myself feeling
depressed after having read it. The editor had somehow allowed the
subject matter to bring out the worst in him.
More quantifiable, however, was their admiration of high end equipment
that bought advertising space in their magazine. At the time that I read
it, those were Boulder and McIntosh, if memory serves me correctly.
These two brands had the same high end aspirations, pretense and
performance as any amplifier brand which Audio Critic otherwise
lambasted. I understand that a small publication may have to pander more
to advertisers than large publications, but this observation, plus the
editorial tone, was again, just depressing.
I recall a complimentary letter to the editor from another similar
publication, and the Audio Critic editor took the author to task for
trying to pander to him, for goodness' sake! I just thought that the
editor was running amuck. Not a professional publication.
lcw999 wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:51:06 +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:
>
>
>> Is Issue 29 the most recent one? Saw it on the stands a few days ago
>> after not seeing it for awhile), bought it, and
>> halfway through, realized I'd read it before. Sure enough,
>> it said '2003' on the cover. Yikes. Anyone know when the
>> next issue is due?
>
>
> ___________________________________________________
>
> Ref: Audio Critic..
>
> I subscribed to this publication a some years ago and it was
> irratic to say the least. Some issues would never materialize,
> etc.
>
> Also, Aczel seemed to view himself a kind of "critic of the critics",
> ...and consistently tended to "spit into the wind". He seemed to
> relish the role of fighting the "booger" of the mainstream. Much
> bitterness abounded there. He would state the obvious and
> wait for the masses to acknowledge his deep insights. The
> problem was taking a steady diet of this kind of flow...it all
> gets a bit tiresome after awhile and the shock has worn off!
> Personal attacks were rampant. I suspect that he has challenged
> the technical qualifications of every member on the staff
> of Stereophile. All the while Stereophile moved from a rather
> "scruffy" underground publication to a full "mainstream"
> slick publication under the current Editor. Audio critic
> still remains a "hit or miss" underground publication.
>
> As his targets would ebb and flow..so did the publication status.
> After reading a few of the publications you begin to realize you're
> involved with a rather bitter mindset with an axe to grind.
>
> Leonard...