|   What do you data worshippers think of.... | pctower
Sep 27, 2003 8:10 AM | | Sean's initial efforts and approach:
http://www.audioasylum.com/scripts/t.pl?f=general&m=288746
And yes, I know that nothing that is measured can be said to make a difference unless that is demonstrated under controlled listening tests, so save the usual lecture.
I'm wondering what you think about his approach to measuring possible electronic differences between cables and his early results. |
| He brought a spectrum analyzer home | Norm Strong
Sep 27, 2003 10:57 AM | | yet there isn't a single number from it in the article. He makes much of the size of the improvement--but no numbers.
"I'm not talking about .1 or .2 db here" OK, what is he talking about?
"Blowing my mind with differences....measured differences" (in AC cords.) OK, ok, let's see the numbers. He could have written that post without ever seeing a spectrum analyzer. |
| re: What do you data worshippers think of.... | FLZapped
Sep 27, 2003 12:37 PM | | i One can easily measure and chart the variances in signal rise time due to various loading conditions when changing signal cables.
After reading that statement, bringing the analyzer home is the only thing he did, because this is <b>NOT</B> a measurement you use a spectrum analyzer for......
-Bruce |
| Hay Bruce. | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 28, 2003 8:01 PM | | I tend to define terms narrowly myself, and consider a spectrum analyzer to be those things we use to analyze the spectral content of complex waveforms. However, the term is used pretty liberally today, and some of the things being sold as spectrum analyzers are actually multi-function devices. It sounds to me as if the guy may well have taken an analyzer home from work, but doesn't have a clue what the heck he's seeing. With the right equipment the things he says he's seeing are easy enough to see, but are meaningless at audio frequencies. Measuring the rise-time of a 3mHz. square wave will show things that have zip to do with audio, and this guy probably doesn't have a clue what his measurements actually mean. The fact that they surprise him prove that he doesn't have a clue. Isn't that so?
R.O. |
| Hey there.....HAY.... is for horses | skeptic
Oct 3, 2003 5:44 AM | | The guy Sean who posted this seems to me to be in all likelihood a technician, not an engineer (with appologies to Woodman.) That is not to say that technicians can't have great insight into the meaning of what they see. But that is not usually the focus of their training.
Sean said, "... I just started tinkering with all of this" and that is a very good characterization of what he is doing, not research as he originally claimed.
The scientific approach to understanding if and how different audio cables make a difference requires several steps. Double blind tests to see if there are audible differences. Electrical measurements to see if there are electrical differences. And then a correlation between the electrical tests to find a commonality of differences,and then of course, more double blind tests with additional electrical testing to confirm the hypothesis of which electrical measurement differences translate into which audible differences. Of course Sean did none of this. He was just tinkering as he said.
As EVERY electrical engineer alive today has been taught and should know, looking at the rise time of a square wave and using a spectrum analyzer are two different ways of viewing amplitude frequency response. As the thread relating to the Japanese experiment posted here some months ago demonstrated for the umteen thousandth time (after the initial procedural error was corrected), extending frequency response beyond 20 khz has no audible effect on human sound perception (except to possibly introducing added noise and distortion by overloading circuits and speakers at useless frequencies.) Using frequency response analysis has been an accepted way to understand a dynamic process using steady state measurements and mathematical concepts. We also have far more powerful methods to capture and analyze complex non periodic electrical waveforms and mathematical functions starting with storage oscilloscopes and extending to computerized data capture and analysis equipment. The fact that an entire industry built on the superiority of its wires has not even attempted a serious analysis to prove their product is proof enough for me that they are afraid of it because they already have a very good idea of what the outcome would be.
As for power cords, any electrical engineer worth his salt who is assigned to designing a high end audio product or any other electronic device must take into account that electrical noise and other disturbances to the AC power source will occur at one time or another in actual field use and must design a power supply sufficiently capable of filtering it out to make the performance of his equipment immune to it. If he didn't, changing a three foot power cord won't fix it. And if it could, he'd have been incompetent not to have included the better one as part of his design in the first place. |
| re: What do you data worshippers think of.... | mtrycrafts
Sep 27, 2003 9:45 PM | | As was mentioned, not a single number posted.
How well can that spl meter repeat the same exact signal? Was it digital where he just read the fractional sol, or analog and he interpreted?
Why not just measure the signal voltage on the speaker terminals? Volt meters are more accurate. I forgot, did he identify the spl meter? May not be up to the task at hand.
If power cord makes a measured difference at the speaker terminla, let alone at the components output terminal, this fact would have been well published by power cable makers. I am not aware of any such data by anyone.
Sean needs more coaching by some who are in the know. |
| re: What do you data worshippers think of.... | pctower
Sep 28, 2003 9:16 AM | | I find it interesting that in your effort to discredit him because he obviously doesn't share your particular religious views of audio, you ignore the following:
Seans comment: "At this point in time, most of this is conjecture based on very limited and "non-lab grade" testing. I hope to carry this quite a bit further and be able to document the effects of cabling in multiple aspects of system operation. This will probably be a long and drawn out process though, as i have a regular job, have bills to pay and about a dozen other projects that i'm also working on."
Question to Sean: "It would be interesting to see some of the test results."
Sean's response: "I haven't gotten to the point where i'm "really" set up to do anything like this. Like i said, i'm still in the "tinkering" stages."
If Tom Nousaine were at a similar point in one of his projects and provided a similar interim report, you'd be singing his praises to high heaven. But then again you and he share the same biases. Is it possible that you and he also share the same body? |
| What attack, PC? | Pat D
Sep 28, 2003 12:20 PM | | I don't see any attack, PC, but where's the data? Why would one bother to report on something with no results?
Do you not think mtry's advice to use a good voltmeter at the speaker terminals is good advice? |
| What attack, PC? | pctower
Sep 28, 2003 1:28 PM | | b I don't see any attack, PC, but where's the data?
Of course you wouldn't. You share mtry's biases.
b Why would one bother to report on something with no results?
To get constructive feedback on his methods. But then again, you aren't really saying what bothers you. You're concerned that someone is performing tests that might ultimately yield results that run counter to your religious audio beliefs.
b Do you not think mtry's advice to use a good voltmeter at the speaker terminals is good advice?
I have no idea. I'm a lawyer, not an engineer. What I do know is that if it is good advice, it ought to be posted in the forum where Sean will see it and where it could be of benefit to Sean. |
| What attack, PC? | Pat D
Sep 28, 2003 6:06 PM | | b you aren't really saying what bothers you.
What bothers me about Sean has nothing much to do with audio, PC. Perhaps you should do a search for some of his opinions on Outside Asylum. |
| What attack, PC? | pctower
Sep 28, 2003 8:06 PM | | Thanks for the heads up. I'll check it out. |
| What attack, PC? | FLZapped
Oct 26, 2003 4:03 AM | | I don't know that it is relevant that Sean has other interests, viewpoints, or opinions. That would be like saying my interest in Astronomy, Photogoraphy, Gardening, etc., precludes my having an interest in audio as well, or an occational politcal debate would either.
-Bruce |
| Yes, your bias is affecting the way you see this Phil. (nt) | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 28, 2003 8:24 PM | | (nt)= no text. |
| Tom Nousaine would never do that | Norm Strong
Sep 28, 2003 12:20 PM | | Tom would never give a report until he knew what he was doing. Neither would I.
Sean Whatever-his-name-is has made extraordinary claims, supposedly backed up by science and measurement, and given us nothing. He should never have mentioned science or spectrum analyzers if he was not going to use any of it. |
| Tom Nousaine would never do that | pctower
Sep 28, 2003 1:54 PM | | b Tom would never give a report until he knew what he was doing. Neither would I.
Of course you wouldn't. You and Tom know everything and have no need for constructive input. However, as with Pat, you're really not saying what is bothering you.
b Sean Whatever-his-name-is has made extraordinary claims, supposedly backed up by science and measurement, and given us nothing.
You choose to read into it more than is there. Sean said:
b At this point in time, most of this is conjecture based on very limited and "non-lab grade" testing. I hope to carry this quite a bit further and be able to document the effects of cabling in multiple aspects of system operation. This will probably be a long and drawn out process though, as i have a regular job, have bills to pay and about a dozen other projects that i'm also working on.
But of course you choose to ignore this disclaimer. He believes he hears differences in components and cables, so he can't possibly be capable of conducting proper tests, even with the assistance of constructive input. By definition on this board, he's an idiot.
Well, as JoeE SP9 said in another post: you guys are intolerant. I'm just surprised his assessment was confirmed so quickly.
JoeE SP9 forgot to mention, extremely biased and dedicated to discrediting anyone who might attempt to conduct experiments that had even a remote chance of producing results that challenge your religious audio beliefs. But, of course, anyone who would use an ARC SP9 preamp is a member of the great unwashed class, and not worthy of even posting on this board.
Funny: I never see you refer to "Mtrycrafts Whatever-his-name-is" or "Skeptic Whatever-his-name-is" or "Monstrous Mike Whatever-his-name-is" or "Pat D. Whatever-his-name-is". There are a lot of guys who love shooting off their mouths on the internet, but who insist on hiding behind anonymity. |
| Tom Nousaine would never do that. | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 28, 2003 8:35 PM | | I would not do it either Phil, but that's a far cry from saying I'm perfect. It says that I realize that I make mistakes, lots of them, and that I've learned from experience not to shoot off my mouth about my measurements until I understand what they mean. I can see from some of the later comments that there is some bias against "what's-his-name" and that the other "what's-their-names" can't be seen as totally objective, but that adds nothing to the value of the guys findings. He's still got a long way to go.
Misdirected work is often criticized by those who see its flaws. That's the risk of publishing one's work. Criticizing the work or methods in NOT the same thing as criticizing the worker. Turns out that you are right about some of the people here being biased (as if we didn't know that already) but you're still misreading many if not most of the criticisms, due to what appears to be your own strong biases and beliefs.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
R.O. |
| I don't know who Tom Nousaine is or would he would do..so what? | skeptic
Oct 3, 2003 6:54 AM | | Whatever my name is, I hope that what I say is judged on its own merits and not on any claimed reputaton or credentials I might have. I had no intention of responding to any more of your postings Phil, but you seem to be up to your old tricks and have somehow drawn me into it. It is a lawyer's gambit that when you can't impeach the testimony, you impeach the witness any way you can. I for one have grown tired of these nasty little exchanges I've had with you in the past and which you seem to instigate and perpetuate. If you have nothing of value to contribute because every time you are challenged with a technical concept, you hide behind the fact that you are a lawyer and not an engineer, why don't you consider what you start and where it is going before you push it too far. And then again, maybe you already have and you like this kind of useless banter and bickering. |
| Tom Nousaine he ain't | RobotCzar
Sep 28, 2003 5:26 PM | | I guess its lawyerthink to assume any anwser to a question like "What do you think about this.." is an attack. Especially if you ask for some numbers--hey what do you expect from data worshipers? By the way, is calling someone a data worshiper an attack? Or praise?
Well, I think the post is drivel from a novice tinkerer. Is that an attack also? |
| Tom Nousaine he ain't | pctower
Sep 28, 2003 8:02 PM | | b By the way, is calling someone a data worshiper an attack? Or praise?
Neither. It's intended to grab people's attention and try to get some juices flowing around this sleeping porch.
b Well, I think the post is drivel from a novice tinkerer. Is that an attack also?
That is the type of response I normally see from John Curl. So you tell me. Is it an attack? |
| Well, at least I won't compare you to Jon Risch! | Pat D
Oct 4, 2003 5:42 AM | | p It's intended to grab people's attention and try to get some juices flowing around this sleeping porch.
More like Clark Johnsen. |
| Well, at least I won't compare you to Jon Risch! | pctower
Oct 4, 2003 6:01 AM | | I ask a lot of questions and when I believe I detect flaws in the answers, I probe. As a lawyer, that is what my education and experience leads me to do. As a trial lawyer, I'm constantly dealing with different areas of expertise in which I lack formal training, education and experience.
My job is to probe the foundations of expert opinion in an effort to determine whether an expert's opinion is based on solid foundation or is flawed. The role of an expert in a trial is to provide opinion in areas that are beyond the capabilities and knowledge of lay people in an effort to assist the jury in dealing with such issues. So, in some sense, I am the voice of the lay people on the jury attempting as best a lay person can to ask questions that will help me and the jury determine if the expert's opinion is worthy of use in what often can be an awesome responsibility imposed upon a jury to render a decision that can involve millions of dollars or forever change a person's life.
I don't consciously attempt to act as a trial lawyer when I'm on an audio board, but as it is a pattern of behavior and thought that I normally apply in my work, I'm sure that I often fall into that pattern on audio boards.
However, there is one difference. My job as a trial attorney is to advocate one particular position. On the audio boards the majority of people seem to fall solidly within one camp or the other and devote most of their energy to trying to point out how stupid and wrong the other side is. I have no interest in engaging in that battle. My interest is to ask questions as they occur to me and to pursue answers that I believe deserve further scrutiny.
Does that make me like Clark Johnsen? |
| You really have balls Phil | skeptic
Oct 4, 2003 7:08 AM | | Have you forgotten that you not only defended but advocated limiting debate here in the same way it is limited at Cable Asylum for the same ostensible reasons? That you advocated censorship by the same criteria? That you would stiffle the very debate here that attracts you to this site? That you would turn this site into a clone of the very thing some of us detest, not only for its one sided hoplessly unfair bias but because its policies in many ways represent the most contemptable aspects of any human community, namely the ultimate monopoly on what is true and what isn't by an empowered clique? Doesn't Cable Asylum remind you just a little of Gallileo and the inquisition? As an attorney presumably educated and trained in the United States you championed the very antithesis of the intellectual foundation of not only our legal system but of our civilization itself.
People here who have questioned the validity of arguements for a point of view that has no objective evidence of proof are not looking to make other people appear stupid. However, if their positions are unsupportable then that is what should be argued. They would be stupid themselves if they said nothing and just let it go. That is unless their hands were tied and their mouths were gagged as it is at CA and as you would have it here. |
| You really have balls Phil | pctower
Oct 5, 2003 1:20 PM | | You have totally mis-stated my position. I defended the legal right of anyone to run their particular board as they wanted, even if I didn't personally approve of the way they chose to run it. I also explained what I thought was the justification AA has for limiting debate on the Cable Asylum, and expressed my own personal opinion that I had no problem with a board that chose to limit discussion of cables to purely subjective statements, provided, it permitted no technical discussion at all, and I have made it clear that is why personally, I don't approve of the way the Cable Asylum is run - that is because they do allow technical debate, but only allow one side to be heard.
I have clearly stated, repeated, that my own personal opinion is that any board that permits technical discussion of any nature should not have the kind of censorship that exists at the Cable Asylum. That is why when I was still posting on AA I was one of the first, if not the first, Inmate to suggest establishment of the Prop Head board.
But, again, from a purely legal standpoint, I'll defend anyone's legal right to run their own board anyway they want as long as they don't break any law, such as laws against child pornography.
And speaking of BALLS, it must really take a large set to so consistently and blatantly mistate and mischaracterize my position. In doing so, you employ every trick and abhorrent subterfuge that you repeatedly accuse the cable companies of using. |
| Phil, is it Alzheimers or are you just wishing you hadn't? | skeptic
Oct 5, 2003 2:46 PM | | I'm not going deep sea diving into ancient archives looking for one of your famous postings but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you have forgotten what you said rather than call you and out and out liar. In addition to the things you claim you said, which I agree you also said, you advocated having exactly the same policy here that they have at CA in regard to censorship of discussion of DBTs and for the same bogus reason of not starting flamethrowing arguements with them. Perhaps someone else will dig through all the archives to find it but I don't have to. I remember it clearly as the day I lost all respect for you. We've had this discussion more than once before but this is the first time you deny saying it. Think back Phil. Maybe you will remember and appologize to the rest of us for wanting to chase those of us who didn't agree with you at the time out of here too. BTW, If you do go hunting, it was around the first time you and Resident Loser said that the two of you were quitting never to return. The first of several times.
As far as CA having whatever censorship policy they want, it is certainly true that they are entitled to it. What is contemptable is the illusion that they would have people visiting their site believe that it is an open forum for people to objectively discuss a topic when in reality it is an active advocate for an industry whose products are of unproven value and can be very expensive especially in light of what they would replace. In other words, is is as sneaky, deceptive, and misleading as the people whose products they are promoting. |
| You are truly pathetic. | pctower
Oct 5, 2003 9:47 PM | | You have a very big MOUTH, but won't even go to the bother to try and find backup for your allegations, which are blatantly false.
I never advocated censorship of DBT discussions on this board. What I did suggest was that in my view of what consitutes courteous behavior on the internet, I believed that if a group of people are interested only in sharing their subjective experiences with cables, they should be allowed to do so, without every single thread in which they attempt to do so being "hijacked" (the word I used) by those wanting to restate the DBT argument for the one millionth time.
My opinion was based solely on what I consider polite behavior and respecting the wants and needs of others who use the public audio boards. I never once suggested that such a rule be enforced through some type of censorship. I was talking etiquet, not enforced censorship.
The reality is that the people here who constantly challenged those who wanted just to discuss amongst themselves subjective experienced made it so unpleasant for those people that they ultimately left and formed AA, with the result that such discussions are now non-existent on this board. That may or may not be a good thing, but it certainly limits the variety of viewpoints one can now find on this board, and it seems to limit the level of interest people have in this board, as it is always just the same old boring few of us who ever bother to even post anything here.
But, again, you have made a false allegation about my advocating censorship, and you don't even have enough concern for your own integrity to do a little research and find that you are dead wrong. |
| You are truly pathetic. | skeptic
Oct 6, 2003 2:56 PM | | Your words Phil;
Posted by: pctower
Oct-18-02, 01:36 PM
"re: Why AA is an inferior forum"
".......Either you did not construct your second sentence carefully, or you have your facts wrong. The anti-DBT rule applies only to the Cable Asylum. Anyone is free to discuss cable DBTs at Inmate Central (as was done recently), at the General Asylum and at the Tweaks Asylum (as Jon, who also moderates that forum, has expressly invited me to do).
The anti-DBT rule, BTW, was imposed for the sole purpose of preventing rabid, naysayer extremeists from destroying that forum the way they destroyed this forum, and preventing them from dragging participation down to just a precious few in numbers, as is the case here.
Here's the bottom line for me. Over the past several days, within the confines of two threads, and under the heavy hand of the anti-DBT rule, I've participated in a dialog at the Cable Asylum that has been far more intelligent, thought provoking, knowledgeable, and interesting that all of the serious dialogs, combined, that I've had here over the past 8 months.
The problem is not with the people at either forum. Monstrous Mike and Bruce have made substantial contributions to that dialog at the Cable Asylum. The people at one site are no better or worse than the people at the other site. But where there is a stark contrast between the two sites is in their respective board cultures. Board cultures transcend and are detached from individual members (whoever did that wet monkey thing lately, maybe step in and help me). And there is absolutely no question is mine mind that the board culture at AA is far more condusive to intelligent, knowledgeable and productive dialog than is this forum's culture."
Remember these words of your Phil? Reading back through your criticisms of this board you started telling us how horrible this place is with virtually your first posting and never seemed to stop. Yet you may have more postings than anyone else by far. What else could one possibly conclude from this statement of yours? What else could one think other than that this place is not conducive to intelligent knowledgable and productive dialogue because it doesn't have the same culture as the other board. And what is the one and only difference between the two forums created by the rules which limit discussion and hence shape the culture? The anti DBT rule which they have and we don't ergo, we should do the same as they do to keep rabid, naysayer extremeists from constantly destroying this forum and dragging participation down to just a precious few in numbers. Your words Phil. And you didn't have to be a logician to figure out exactly what you meant.
How do you like your crow? With or without salt? |
| You are even more pathetic than I thought or... | pctower
Oct 7, 2003 5:33 AM | | just plain dumb.
Of course, I have criticized much of what I see here. I make no secret about that. I have also criticized much of what I see at AA. I have previously referred back to the comment you quote and said it represented my view of what was going on at the two boards at the time of that comment and as it relates to that time period I stand by the comment.
But to twist that comment to me advocating censorship on this board is beyond the pale. I made it clear I was discussing "board cultures" and referred to the censorship at the Cable Asylum using the pejoritive term "heavy hand".
You love to comment on others' educational background. Apparently, you missed any class dealing with logic, or received Fs in any class you took dealing with logic. Have you yourself considered asking for a refund of any portion of your tuition?
Further, you severely, bitterly and in a mean-spirited manner castigate others whose technical approach or analysis you disagree with, yet in non-technical areas your thinking is some of the sloppiest and illogical I have seen from someone who loves to brag about his background. Did you at least learn enough outside of the field of engineering to know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"?
Finally, in attempting to construct a contorted and baseless argument to support your irresponsible allegation that I have advocated censorship on this board, you fail to quote the numerous posts of mine here and at AA where I have clearly stated my belief that any board that allows techical discussions of cables or other aspects of audio should not have the kind of censorship employed at the Cable Asylum where only one side of the issue can be heard. Your ignoring those numerous times where I have taken a strong stand on that issue is dishonest. In this context it is at least as dishonest as are all of the tactics employed by cable companies on which you love to pontificate. |
| A weak defense counselor is better than none at all..or is it? | skeptic
Oct 7, 2003 6:55 AM | | The words you wrote then speak for themselves. You don't have to be a mathemetician to add two and two to get to four. It was clear what you wanted. You wanted this place to be AA without Jon Risch and John Curl. What you secretly want is to go back to CA and be one of the respected "in" folks. That will never happen because not only are you not part of the plan for that site to boost the sale of audio cables, you don't have the technical expertise or credentials to impress the unfortunate tyros who stumble into the place looking for what they hope is objective informed opinion and advice.
The only reason you keep coming here is that unlike CA, you are accepted even though you hold most of us and this board in very low esteem. This place is the best you can do for now.
You may be surprised to learn this but I don't read every word you post. In fact I rarely read any of them on this site. I only scanned this thread after a large number of hits had already been made and I only responded because you made a derogatory remark about me. On the few occasions I have visited CA over the last few years, I have only read you postings a handful of times. That was because quite frankly, I was embarrassed for you at the way you are treated there. As little regard as I have for your opinions, it still seems cruel to see how your dignity is constantly abused by those people. Anybody with any self respect who was treated the way you are, would sooner or later stop going back there. You act like a spurned lover who never gives up hope.
As for my education and technical credentials I was always very reluctant to even mention them because I believe that the logic of arguements should stand or fall on their own merits, and not because of a degree announcing to the world the proponent is an "expert." I only mentioned them when I was repeatedly challenged by other people who felt that they meant something. And rarely when I run into a know it all who is trying to convince some tyro that he should buy a 3 foot length of power cord for $80 or $800 fix his problems instead of keeping the 8 cent one he has, I will cite my many years of experience designing, building, and troubleshooting power distribution and power conditioning equipment as evidence that I know what I am talking about.
I have already wasted too much time replying to you and as far as I am concerned this issue is closed. |
| You are certainly right about one thing... | pctower
Oct 7, 2003 8:52 AM | | My words do speak for themselves, and I'll stand by them any day against the inane allegations and comments that spew forth from your bitter, acerbic mouth.
BTW, are you an advisor to the Gray Davis campaign? One is puke politics, the other puke posting; but nonetheless both are still puke no matter which way you slice it. |
| Well, at least I won't compare you to Jon Risch! | Pat D
Oct 4, 2003 5:26 PM | | Clark is something of an instigator, and so are you.
Indeed, Clark Johnsen makes outrageous comments to generate discussion and sits back to enjoy it. He posts some very controversial link to generate comment, seldom giving an opinion of his own.
I don't see how calling people data worshippers and self-proclaimed objectivists promotes much useful discussion. As well, pointing out some alleged concealed motives does nothing to prove that my opinions, or mtry's opinions, or Norm Strong's opinions are unfounded or untrue.
Now, as to not being an engineer, you actually seem to have enough knowledge of electronics to be able to understand that, if one is interested in what actually reaches the speakers, it makes a good deal of sense to measure the signal at the speaker terminals. That is what affects the sound. I find it hard to believe that you have no idea whether this is a good idea or not. |
| My response | pctower
Oct 5, 2003 1:31 PM | | b Now, as to not being an engineer, you actually seem to have enough knowledge of electronics to be able to understand that, if one is interested in what actually reaches the speakers, it makes a good deal of sense to measure the signal at the speaker terminals. That is what affects the sound. I find it hard to believe that you have no idea whether this is a good idea or not.
First, let's get it clear where I stand on this in general. The following is something I posted (I believe it was at AA) several months ago:
"Hi Ted:
Ive been using after-market cables for over 20 years. About 2 years ago, as I was in the process of making some major changes to my system and setting up a dedicated listening room, I auditioned at great length in my system in excess of 20 different brands of cables before I chose the combination of power cords, interconnects, speaker cables, digital cable and phono cable that works for me. However, all of my auditions were sighted and in light of what scientific research has shown as to how unreliable hearing and our other senses can be, there is no way I could claim, from a scientific viewpoint, that any of the cables actually were responsible for audible sonic differences. I am extremely happy with my choices, but I really dont know what is truly responsible for my perceptions, and when I sit down to listen to music I dont care nor even think about it.
However, from a purely scientific viewpoint, sighted auditions are completely unreliable because, as I said, there is a great deal of scientific research that shows how unreliable our senses can be and how easily they can be affected by attitudes, beliefs and expectations, as opposed to the actual stimuli our senses are attempting to detect and differentiate.
Our brains are far more complex than any machine, but our evolutionary history has caused our senses to excel in areas that were important to our survival as a race and be far less reliable in areas that were not essential to survival. Accordingly, there are distinct limitations to the sensitivity of our senses and there is an extremely complex process that occurs in the brain as it receives and interprets nerve signals from our sensory organs. These brain processing functions also developed primarily to enable and enhance our survivability, and these brain processing functions, while probably extremely good at those things required for survival, may very well be woefully inadequate in enabling us to distinguish between actual audible sonic differences and those perceptions resulting from our attitudes, beliefs and expectations.
I have lost the link, but a report was published several months ago in which psychologists were able to imprint in the memories of approximately one-third of the participants vivid memories of having seen Bugs Bunny at Disneyland. Well, we all know that Bugs Bunny never appears at Disneyland, and yet the implanted memories were as real to these people as any memory.
Our evolution has imbued our senses with marvelous capabilities, but it, as I say, has also resulted in some clear limitations both in sensitivity and how our brain processes nerve signals. Fortunately, our intellect has allowed us to analyze and understand much about how our senses and our brains interact and also to develop incredible technology to fill in the gaps where our senses and brain processing functions are unreliable.
It actually is a little sad to me when I see how many people seem to want to reject the understanding, knowledge and instruments for measurements that our intellect has blessed us with, simply because at times the conclusions to which all of these wonderful tools may lead are at variance with what our unaided, and often unreliable, senses and brain processing functions seem to be telling us at an experiential level.
With regard specifically to AudioQuest, I have never seen any scientific tests that demonst |
| My response (part 2) | pctower
Oct 5, 2003 1:32 PM | | With regard specifically to AudioQuest, I have never seen any scientific tests that demonstrate that any AudioQuest model differs sonically from any other model, or for that matter, from any other cable. Of course, I can say the same thing for ever other brand on the market, including the brands I shelled out good, hard money to buy. In no way am I suggesting you not enjoy your cables. I certainly enjoy my system, and for my personal purposes, I consider my cables to be an important part of my system. But that all has to do with personal choice and enjoyment. When it comes to a purely hard-nosed, scientific look at the subject of cables, I want to see actual, valid test results that demonstrate that any of the cables we audiophiles love to play with can actually be responsible for a true, audible sonic difference or improvement. So far I havent seen any such test results, but that, of course, in no way means that such valid test results dont exist."
This is also something I posted at AA a while back:
"Just as the laws of nature (physics) govern how the cannonball and the feather will fall in a vacuum, the laws of nature (the laws that govern the physical universe) ultimately govern every process involved in the electronic reproduction of music including how we perceive that reproduction. Accordingly, at least theoretically, there is nothing involved in that process that should be beyond the ability of science to measure and explain.
Lets take a look at what we are talking about here. I assume we all can agree that sound travels in waves, and that the electronic reproduction of sound is explained by the processes that occurs at the microphone where sound waves are translated into electronic signal, at the point where that signal is somehow stored, and later at the point where that signal (in the form of waveforms that can be measured) are retrieved to be amplified and sent on to the speaker, where a process occurs which is essentially the opposite of what occurred at the microphone.
Ideally the sound waves emitted by the speaker would be identical to those that hit the microphone. Of course, everyone recognizes that with our current technology that is not possible. However, at each stage from microphone to speaker we have the technology to measure alterations that occur to the waveform of the electronic signal from the point it enters the given stage to the point it leaves that same stage, including temporal relationships. Thus, with respect to cables, if we look at the waveform, including temporal relationships, both at the input and output of the cable and find no difference, then, assuming we have measured the waveform going in to the cable and waveform going out, including temporal relationships, to a point of sensitivity greater than what is known regarding the sensitivity of human hearing (which isnt particularly good), and we see no measurable change caused by the cable, then I can see no way to conclude that the cable is affecting the wave form in its long journey from microphone to speaker.
Moreover, if we make those measurements on cable X and cable Y and neither shows any effect on the waveform, but in sighted auditions people claim they hear clear differences between the two cables, I can see no possible way that one could come to any other conclusion than that the differences are due to factors such as the attitude, beliefs and expectations of the people who perceive differences, rather than to anything the cables are actually doing or not doing to be responsible for such differences in perception. I would really like someone to explain how we could come to any other conclusion under such circumstances.
If the waveforms coming out of the speakers are identical as cable X and cable Y are switched in and out of the system, and assuming no other changes such as moving the speakers, then the waveforms hitting the listeners ear will not be changed by a switching of these two cables (bec |
| My response (part 3) | pctower
Oct 5, 2003 1:34 PM | | If the waveforms coming out of the speakers are identical as cable X and cable Y are switched in and out of the system, and assuming no other changes such as moving the speakers, then the waveforms hitting the listeners ear will not be changed by a switching of these two cables (because remember I am assuming the waveforms were shown in measurements to be identical using instruments capable of greater sensitivity than human hearing), and yet people claim to hear differences between cables X and cable Y, then the only explanation for such differences has to be what happens inside the heads of the listeners once the sound waves hit their ear drum.
So, the processes involved in electronic reproduction of music, and the laws of nature that govern these processes are well known. Moreover, from what I understand we have instruments that can measure the effect these processes have on the shape and temporal relationship of the waveforms as they travel from microphone to speaker and on to ear drum. If no change can be found in the waveforms as they are emitted by the speaker, or even as they come out of the cable, regardless of whether cable X or cable Y is used, then we either have to conclude that differences have been perceived by the listeners because of (A) the placebo effect, or (B) because of some supernatural force that has never been documented in anything other than audio cables.
Now of course, if the measurements were to show that switching cables X and Y in and out of the system did cause a difference in the signal coming out of each cable significant enough to ultimately cause a difference in the waveforms emitted by the speakers, then one could properly conclude that at least some of the differences perceived by the listeners between the two cables is due to an actual, measurable physical phenomenon occurring within the cable. However, to the best of my knowledge, such measured differences have never been made between two similar cables of similar length and gauge.
In short, the laws that govern the physical universe dictate both how the cannonball and the feather fall in a vacuum and how cables affect the waveforms. There is no room for subjectivity in any of this if the physical phenomenon going on between the input and output of the cables dont show some effect on the waveforms and/or their temporal relationships that is significant enough to cause an actual audible effect. In such a case, the subjectivity, of necessity, becomes solely a factor of what happens once the ear drum sends the nerve signals on the way to the brain.
If anyone can show me where I am wrong in any of this, Im all ears, so to speak."
No one ever stepped forward to try and show me where I was wrong. So, I would hope that if Sean continues with his "testing" that he does so properly, and I would use what I have just quoted above (hopefully with the assistance of knowledgeable engineers) as my guide in determining whether he is doing so.
b I don't see how calling people data worshippers and self-proclaimed objectivists promotes much useful discussion. As well, pointing out some alleged concealed motives does nothing to prove that my opinions, or mtry's opinions, or Norm Strong's opinions are unfounded or untrue.
If you don't like or appreciate my provocative style, I'm sorry. That's just me. But when it really comes to the nut-cutting, where we get to talking specifics, I try as best I can to make my comments as rational as possible. |
| Gotcha!!!!! | Pat D
Oct 5, 2003 6:03 PM | | That's an awful lot of text to make a simple point which I made in two or three sentences, I believe.
b If you don't like or appreciate my provocative style, I'm sorry.
Now, I didn't mention Clark Johnsen idly, and I will pull a "Clark Johnsen" on you: did I say I didn't like it?
Gotcha! |
| Oh darn, I loose! | pctower
Oct 5, 2003 9:34 PM | | If you're going to liken me to Johnsen because we're both provocative, would you also liken Monica Lewinsky to Barbara Bush because they both engaged in sexual activities with a President? |
| Well, at least I won't compare you to Jon Risch! | mtrycrafts
Oct 12, 2003 11:59 PM | | b My job is to probe the foundations of expert opinion in an effort to determine whether an expert's opinion is based on solid foundation or is flawed.
Then you are at the wrong boards, here or at AA. You need to contact the experts in the real audio industry, the heavy hitters like Toole and Sean Olive, et al. |
| Well, at least I won't compare you to Jon Risch! | pctower
Oct 17, 2003 9:38 AM | | Hi mtrycrafts. Just saw this post.
Good point. I have read a lot of Toole's material and learned a great deal. He writes in a style that a lay person can follow and I really appreciate that.
However, I have learned a great deal here also, particularly from people like you. I admire both your discipline and your refusal to take the bait and get hooked into personal bashing. While my behavior might not show it, I consider you a role model in a number of ways. |
| Phil, you need to look again. You have this all wrong. | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 28, 2003 8:21 PM | | Mtry isn't trying to discredit anyone because of what he believes. I can't believe you said that, because nothing could be further from the truth. I'm reading this thread from top to bottom, and to this point all Mtry has done is commented on the guy's methods. I'll add to what Mtry said by saying that the guy obviously doesn't have a clue what he is doing. That's not a personal attack. It's an observation on his skills and experience with test equipment. The fact that he is surprised by what he sees tells me that he hasn't figured it out yet. The fact that he's drawing conclusions on things he hasn't figured out is no crime, but it does mean that he's confused and I can tell you for sure that he's run amok. I can measure differences in the things he's measuring too, just as easily as he can, and they are obvious. His problem is that he hasn't got a clue what his measurements mean. He'll learn as he gains experience and is not to be faulted for his lack of experience. Just because I know for a fact that he's run amok, and I take the time to point it out so it won't confuse others, doesn't mean that I'm out to get the guy because he's preaching contrary to my faith. That's what you have said of Mtry, and you are wrong. I'm certain of it. What I see is the faithful (you) seeing what has transpired through a vale of bias that has totally blinded you to what is going on here. If you're responding to something Mtry says later on, then my comments apply only to what I see so far, and "the way it looks right now." My apology if I spoke before reading far enough. If I didn't, I think you owe Mtry an apology.
I give the guy credit for trying. The guys ragging him for the effort are wrong, IMHO. If it really bugs them they should be busy helping him sort it all out properly. They probably don't because the probably can't.
R.O. |
| BTW | pctower
Sep 28, 2003 9:26 AM | | I had no doubt that none of you self-proclaimed "objectivists" would see (or at least admit to seeing) some value in someone who doesn't share your obvious biases, but who is willing to roll up his sleeves and get his hands dirty by conducting tests that apparently haven't been reported before, and who has the courage to provide interim reports on his efforts so that those who see flaws in what he is doing can provide constructive input, rather than hiding over here in safe territory and taking pot shots.
Yet you have no problem falling all over yourselves praising and touting DBT test results conducted under severely flawed protocols, merely because they advance your own personal viewpoints.
I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to allow you and others to demonstrate your own biases and lack of objectivity on this subject. |
| OK Phil, that post was just a load of shit. (nt) | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 28, 2003 8:39 PM | | (nt)= no text. |
| I don't think this fellow has the time (or the smarts) to be | woodman
Sep 28, 2003 3:58 PM | | doing this sort of intensive research. Besides, when he starts talking about sonic differences using different power cords, he exposes himself to me as someone that is too easily duped into believing things that quite simply are not true.
I followed the thread down to where he was describing his 5 different systems. Seeing what they're comprised of (not to mention what they probably cost), it's little wonder that he said that he "has bills to pay". Unless he's a fellow attorney with sufficient income to afford all of these electronic toys, I don't think he's got enough spare time on his hands to be pursuing all of this nonsensical "testing" that he's taken it on himself to do.
woodman
P.S. I'm most certainly
b not
a "data worshipper". |
| Woodmanm, As usual, you are right | skeptic
Oct 3, 2003 7:25 AM | | Especially about Sean not having the smarts. In fact he isn't even aware that he is way out of his depth. If you could prove anything with just a spectrum analyzer, John Curl would have done it a long time ago. He has the money, equipment, time, and financial incentive to prove something. Not to mention his enormous ego. Also, IMO, everthing that comes from Cable Asylum is highly suspect since those who post there are aware of and have acceded to the fact that the guy who owns that message board has or at least proposed a mission statement which allows only positive experiences with cables to be discussed. In other words, anyone who posts there is automatically biased and has a preconceived notion of what the outcome of any experiment should be.
At first I thought Sean calling what he was doing "research" was merely pretentious puffery but then upon reflection I realized that this guy doesn't even understand what real research is about. A tinkerer. Like most people working on audio equipment. Going nowhere. Also like most other people in that business. And all the while deluded by themselves and their friends that they are. Hehehehehe. (too bad there are no emoticons on this board.) |
| In conclusion... | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 28, 2003 8:43 PM | | ..., I'm disappointed in you, Phil. I never realized you could let your own biases blind you to the extent that has been revealed in this thread. I say that to you as a friend, for whatever it's worth. I humbly suggest that you step back and take a long hard look at what has transpired here.
R.O. |
| In conclusion... | pctower
Sep 29, 2003 5:13 PM | | I've never claimed to be any less subject to the influence of bias than anyone. The fact that I comment on what I believe to be bias in someone else should not be taken as a claim that I am any less biased.
I still stand by all I said. You presented some degree of detail in your crique, although I still think it was pretty general. However, this really is an engineers' site, so I assume you and others feel the flaws in his approach are so obvious you don't need to go into detail.
Others, at AA, who claim to be engineers, apparently see it a little different. So, without details and dialog between engineers who apparently disagree with one another, it just becomes another typical audio board pissing match.
I'm sorry you're disappointed in me. However, I do have to wonder how much of that is due to the fact that I don't accept everything you say as gospel just because it is you who say it. I can tell you that from the perspective of a lay person, I find very little content in the engineering discussions that occur on the web. The rare ones that appear to have substance are way over my head. The rest, as I said, are just pissing matches.
Almost never, however, do engineers attempt to explain technical issues to lay people in ways that we can understand. For all his faults and errors, at least Jon tries. |
| In conclusion... | jneutron
Sep 29, 2003 6:11 PM | | ""Almost never, however, do engineers attempt to explain technical issues to lay people in ways that we can understand. For all his faults and errors, at least Jon tries""PT
I concur..
And, I find at times, that trying to explain is far more difficult than understanding..
Cheers, John |
| So you agree that Jon is a good role model. | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 30, 2003 10:15 PM | | Yea, I'm definitely disappointed. Some people seem so intelligent at first. I need to stop expecting so much of others. My bad.
R.O. |
| Those words come from where?. | jneutron
Oct 1, 2003 8:50 PM | | Stating admiration of someone who tries is not the same thing as elevating one to the status of role model..
One who tries at least....tries. as opposed to those who would simply prefer to be spoon fed.
A role model is one to emulate. But, who said the fact that Jon was trying should elevate him to the status of role model? You..
Why you choose to combine the two, I do not know.
Cheers, John |
| Now we reach the inevitable point... | skeptic
Oct 3, 2003 7:42 AM | | ...where your bombast has lead to recriminations from other people and you start expressing regret and self pity. It's disgusting for a grown man to keep behaving this way.
"However, this really is an engineers' site, "
Wrong again Phil. This site welcomes everyone at any and every level of experience and expertise and is open to just about any point of view on any subject including those having nothing to do with audio. Too bad you can't come here and enjoy it for just that. |
| Now we reach the inevitable point... | pctower
Oct 3, 2003 1:08 PM | | You in this post:
b "However, this really is an engineers' site, "
b Wrong again Phil. This site welcomes everyone at any and every level of experience and expertise and is open to just about any point of view on any subject including those having nothing to do with audio. Too bad you can't come here and enjoy it for just that.
Your comment directed to me in another post in this same thread:
b Between you and Sean, you wouldn't know a valid test if it came flying out of space like a brick and hit you square in the head. |
| I'll tell you this.... | Monstrous Mike
Sep 30, 2003 11:42 AM | | The guy has put forth some initial effort to measure cables. So far so good. He even admits his testing is in its infancy.
He then goes on to reach conclusions about the sound of the cables. This is so utterly non-scientific and non-objective that I doubt anyone with a scientific interest in cables would continue following his "work".
People who are already biased towards cable differences will likely follow it earnestly since he has already given away his pre-determined conclusion.
While I have not done any measuring of cable properties with instruments, I have done my own listening tests under various conditions. Yet I have never reached any conclusions about cable sonics. I have only ever simply stated that I doubt there are differences as claimed by audio enthusiasts and if there any differences at all, there are very small, and certainly not worth the time, effort or money being put into the exotic cable industry.
And further, this is what I believe is the common sentiment among the engineers here. You seem to keep pinning us with sayings like "cable sonics are impossible" or like your subject's condescending remark "data worshippers".
If you take a long hard look at, it is the people who believe in cable sonics and very large obvious sound differences who are the extremists in this debate. They are the ones who have definitively made conclusions, not the nayayers.
The only people I cannot really figure out are the "engineers" or other technical types that use flawed data, equations and applications of physics to support cable sonic differences which in reality have not yet been reliably or sceintifically proven or even demonstrated. I have a strong feeling that there may be social or even psychological factors at work regarding their behavior.
The preceding was the expressed written opinion of Monstrous Mike and cannot be duplicated or reproduced without the risk of enormous bouts of laughter. |
| I'll tell you this.... | pctower
Sep 30, 2003 6:31 PM | | b He then goes on to reach conclusions about the sound of the cables. This is so utterly non-scientific and non-objective that I doubt anyone with a scientific interest in cables would continue following his "work".
I certainly understand the point you're making. On the other hand, it was an audio board, not a scientific journal. I believe that he put enough disclaimer language in to alert people to the fact that he had no valid scientific data to this point and that the rest was conjecture. The fact that he didn't maintain strict protocol in all that he said is not in my opinion a basis to automatically discredit anything he might do in the future. If he comes back and reports what he contends is hard data, then he certainly should expect critical peer review.
b And further, this is what I believe is the common sentiment among the engineers here. You seem to keep pinning us with sayings like "cable sonics are impossible" or like your subject's condescending remark "data worshippers".
There are times when I'm serious and times when I'm not. My "data worshipper" comment was not intended to be taken seriously. My comment to RADAR about what I perceive to be a lack of willingness on behalf of engineers who post on the web to engage in meaningful dialog and my complaint about what I perceive is a lack of willingness to explain things in lay terms was not intended as a comment just about engineers here. If anything, my comments are probably more appropriate for the likes of Curl and Hansen.
If you want to know how I think it should be done, simply read any post that jneutron has ever posted (although, by way of comment I would have to observe that sometimes he easily manages to go right over my head, but when I ask him to explain what he is talking about in lay terms, he is very patient and accomodating). Without in any way intending to take anything away from any other person who posts here or at AA, I would say that I believe jneutron is a model of what I'd like to see more of on the web.
b The only people I cannot really figure out are the "engineers" or other technical types that use flawed data, equations and applications of physics to support cable sonic differences which in reality have not yet been reliably or sceintifically proven or even demonstrated. I have a strong feeling that there may be social or even psychological factors at work regarding their behavior.
I agree with you and have said so many times over at AA. I don't comment on that much here because there is very little of it going on here.
b People who are already biased towards cable differences will likely follow it earnestly since he has already given away his pre-determined conclusion.
Perhaps. But, if they are that easily swayed, I have little respect for them.
BTW, thanks for your thoughtful comments and it's good to see you checking in. |
| It must make you wonder.... | Monstrous Mike
Oct 1, 2003 9:15 AM | | You are right on with your assessments of John Curl and jneutron. I can't believe the patience jneutron has in his technical questioning given that he is rarely answered in a civilized manner (let alone answered technically) by many over at AA.
I am not willing to go to the extent that jneutron does in dissecting any technical arguements for cable sonics. It's simply not worth the effort to me. I have yet to see any scientific findings that are worthy of investigation and most importantly, repetition. Right now, all we have is a mish-mash of laws of physics, equations, properties of materials and anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately, the good work done by jneutron in trying to get to the bottom of this has been like nailing jello to a wall.
And like I have said in the past, it's not that I have decisively concluded that all cable sonics are non-exsistent, it's just I am patiently waiting for some solid technical reasons in favour. Someone has to tie it all together and create a technical report that can be understood and repeated by other scientists.
At this point, all we are doing is socializing although sometimes I have been pointed to information and facts that I had not known before and that has been beneficial for me. |
| It must make you wonder.... | pctower
Oct 2, 2003 7:30 AM | | b At this point, all we are doing is socializing although sometimes I have been pointed to information and facts that I had not known before and that has been beneficial for me.
You're right, Mike. Mainly we are just socializing and when I think about it that's what I enjoy most about the web and sometimes I forget that and get carried away. I consider the regulars here as "virtual" friends and I need to remember to treat them as I treat my flesh friends.
The nastiness of certain people at AA made the socializing at AA very unpleasant for me. Maybe things will change someday, and I'll go back, but for me, with what little time I have for the web these days, I'll stay with the good ole' AR cable forum. |
| I'll tell you this.... | skeptic
Oct 3, 2003 7:33 AM | | " If anything, my comments are probably more appropriate for the likes of Curl and Hansen."
Who are you kidding Phil, I've read some of your exchanges with Curl over at CA. He wouldn't give you the right time of day. He's as big a jackass as Jon Risch. He said he will not talk to anyone who disagrees with him unless they are a degreed engineer. That means if he talks to you, you have to be one of his toadies. Maybe that explains it. |
| No, not really.... | Monstrous Mike
Oct 3, 2003 5:28 PM | | <b>He said he will not talk to anyone who disagrees with him unless they are a degreed engineer.</b>
I am a degreed engineer and he will not talk to me. It is because I have not designed an audio amp nor done any real life work in the field of audio. Jon Risch falls into this category as well. It is a common Ad Hominem attach that both of them use. I really can't imagine this type of behavior being acceptable in electrical engineering in general let alone any other profession.
All my work in the frequency range of HF to EHF is fairly irrelevent to audio, or so the story goes. Ironically, while doing my Master's degree, there were no topics or thesis conducted by other students or even areas of interest by the faculty that were in the audio range. Oh well. |
| No, not really.... | skeptic
Oct 3, 2003 5:57 PM | | "there were no topics or thesis conducted by other students or even areas of interest by the faculty that were in the audio range."
I found this out as an undergraduate at my first visit to an IEEE show. Audio was an infinitesimal little corner of an obscure galaxy in a remote forgotten part of the electrical engineering universe. That was 35 years ago. Since then, it has gotten even less important. People here may not belive it but if you are an electrical engineer and you are designing consumer audio equipment, unless you own your own company and making megabucks, you are one losing flunky. Two years ago out of curiousity, I accepted a job with an A/V contracting firm. It took exactly one month for there to be a "parting of the ways." It was so unbearably boring as a profession. (And I was in the video end of it too.)
"I really can't imagine this type of behavior being acceptable in electrical engineering in general let alone any other profession."
It isn't. What makes Risch so reprehensible is that as the moderator, he willingly plays the role of a Nazi mind control gestapo (I've chosen that phrase because it is IMO an accurate description of what he does.) He denies to others at the lowest level, the free and open discussion of all questions and ideas that was afforded to him at the highest level when he received his education allowing him to enjoy the fruits of being hired as and called engineer. He is an intellectual traitor to those who trained him and a disgrace to the educational institution that granted him his degree. |
| Follow-up: The best and the worst. | pctower
Sep 30, 2003 7:16 PM | | Just saw this:
http://www.audioasylum.com/scripts/t.pl?f=prophead&m=6362
Curl avoids all technical discussion. He is driven solely by a belief that this is war and anyone who is not a "true" believer is the enemy against whom any tactic designed to destroy is acceptable.
Jneutron sticks to the technical issues. What a class act he is. What an incredibly sad buffoon is John Curl.
When I complain here or at AA, I think I'm usually detecting that the primary objective of the post I'm responding to is to be "right" or to show how "incompetent" or "foolish" the other person is, rather than a reasonable and honest effort to get to the truth.
Yes, Sean's post had conjecture and supposition. But I detected some willingness in him to work pass that and perform some valid testing.
As I believe mtry has said in the past, the universe doesn't care what we think. The physical universe is what it is, and no degree of opinion or belief, or even true knowledge, will ever change that. |
| Follow-up: The best and the worst. | skeptic
Oct 3, 2003 8:02 AM | | Between you and Sean, you wouldn't know a valid test if it came flying out of space like a brick and hit you square in the head. |
| Follow-up: The best and the worst. | pctower
Oct 3, 2003 1:00 PM | | Can't speak for Sean, but you're certainly right about me. Never claimed I could. |
| How about this experiment, Phil?.... | Monstrous Mike
Sep 30, 2003 11:58 AM | | Let's take Sean's post and edit it. Let's make it sound exactly the same but from the perspective of a naysayer who doesn't believe in cable differences, like me.
Here is how it could go:
<b>My recent adventures into cable research would be right up your alley Phil. All i can tell you is that if someone does not believe that cables ( of all types ) don't make a difference in terms of the linearity of a system ( both amplitude and frequency response ), they are exactly correct.
I brought my HP Spectrum Analyzer home from work and am working on blowing my mind with the lack of differences i'm seeing. I'm not only talking about analog / digital signal cables here, but there are no measurable differences that AC cables have on a system also. One can easily measure and chart the signal rise time due and see there are no differences due to various loading conditions when changing signal cables.
To top it off, those that don't think that some type of "AC filtration" is necessary are right again. That is, IF they are trying to obtain the best budget / performance out of their systems as is possible. You wouldn't believe the amount of "crap" riding the lines where i am. I would have to assume that any location that is highly populated would have something similar taking place. Those out in the boonies with their own "private transformer" might have a slightly different situation, but my guess is that even their AC is not as clean as one might think. Using two AC cords with identical conductors & core materials ( one shielded, the other unshielded ) on an SACD player resulted in both no audible and no measurable frequency response deviations in the system, regardless of the "crap" on the line.
PS... I just started tinkering with all of this, but what i've seen leads me to believe that there is a nothing more going on here than what most believe.
PPS... I agree about the multitudes of cables. The problem is, it takes no skill, research, test equipment or capital to make and market cables. Given the high profit margin involved with most of them, one can understand why there are so many people jumping on the wagon. One can also understand why there are so many "pieces of junk" being sold. Problem is, most of these people are selling their "junky old cables" to purchase more expensive "junky new cables". Different sounds: no. Different prices: yes.</b>
So how does that read Phil? I'm wondering what you think about my approach to measuring possible electronic differences between cables and my early results. |
| How about this experiment, Phil?.... | pctower
Sep 30, 2003 6:57 PM | | First, let's add this from one of his follow-up post (which was part of the thread at the time I posted the link here, with appropriate modification, to make it a fair comparison:
b I am currently working on rounding up several different test CD's that have the specific signals that i'm looking for in order to conduct more specific tests. While i could manually inject tones at line level, my goal is to try and determine if different cables or different components could possibly introduce variatons into the linearity of the system from source to load. In order to do that, the sources themselves would have to be contributing the base signal into the rest of the system. Hence the need for the specific test discs.
b Given these findings, it would be logical to assume that components don't generally have what is often referred to as a unique "voice", regardless of specific cabling and support components. One can certainly try to change the loading characteristics that the device sees by changing interconnects and / or vary the input impedance and content of spectrum being fed to such a device by playing with the AC feed, but there is little doubt in my mind ( now ) that circuit response and stability could not be affected by such things. I assume that most circuits working within parameters for which they are designed (and most electronics today are designed to contend with most normal load conditions) are virtually 100% stable under any of these normally encountered situation. Since most modern circuits operating within reasonable parameters are stable, we end up with little measurable and sonic differences in system performance.
b Other than that, i've not had a chance to do a large amount of testing. The testing that i have done has shown pretty much no measurable differences in how components load up at line level though. From what i can recall, _______ demonstrated much the same thing using either a Spectrum Analyzer or Network Analyzer during "open house" with several AR people there to witness / verify the results.
b Some food for thought: I just couldn't hear differences in cables.
b At this point in time, most of this is conjecture based on very limited and "non-lab grade" testing. I hope to carry this quite a bit further and be able to document the lack of effects of cabling in multiple aspects of system operation. This will probably be a long and drawn out process though, as i have a regular job, have bills to pay and about a dozen other projects that i'm also working on.
With that added, I'd say that this guy clearly has strong preconceived beliefs or biases. Yet he seems willing to engage in testing that not many have attempted. As I'm not an engineer, I have nothing constructive to suggest to him. However, I would hope that if there are problems with his approach that are obvious that someone will point that out to him and give him a chance to make adjustments to ensure that he ultimately produces reliable data.
The real test is yet to come. Will he listen to constructive suggestions and engage in fruitful dialog to ensure he uses the best possible procedures. And, will he ultimately let the chips fall where they may regardless of his obvious biases and preconceived notions. |
| pc you're a no-good WireNut Wacko trying to strir up the boys | Richard Greene
Oct 1, 2003 4:37 PM | | As usual.
Just like a child banging a metal cup on the bars of the monkey cage at the zoo.
Since I haven't given YOU a hard time in quite a while,
this post will make my day:
That there are measurable sound transmission differences among wires has been known for decades. The only relevant question is the ability to hear those measurable differences using wires whose lengths are typical of the lengths used by audiophiles, while listening to music played at a consistent SPL.
The WireNuts have had over 20 years to present credible double or single-blind audition evidence that money spent on premium wires resulted in audibly better sound quality. But these pesky WireNuts have failed miserably ... because virtually every discussion ends in the pitiful golden ear mantra: "I know what I hear" ... rather than
"These wires sound better and I have proof!". |
| The most intriguing part was when... | Tony_Montana
Oct 1, 2003 5:38 PM | | ...he measured differences between power cords with an SPL meter. That just shows that testing protocol was flawed. Even if it was truth (and credible) and difference between power cords can be measured with an SPL meter, [higher end] cable companies would let the whole world know about it with a blow horn, and be on it like ugly on Ape :) |
| The most intriguing part was when... | pctower
Oct 1, 2003 6:05 PM | | I suffer from severe graphics envy. I really wish I knew how to do stuff like that.
BTW, I've been referred to as "Phil The Gorilla" (after the real one from St. Louis) on many more than one occasion.
Great ape! |
| Pc, it is really easy. | Tony_Montana
Oct 1, 2003 6:49 PM | | First you have to find the image:
To do that, go to <http://www.google.com/> and then click on "Images". Then enter the type of image you are looking for in the search box (like Ape). Then when you find an image that you like, click on it. Then again, click on the image [box] which should only display that image only in your browser. Then LEFT click on the address bar in your browser (Internet Explorer) and that will high light the URL of the image. Then RIGHT click on the highlighted address and click "Copy".
I hope so far so good.
So if you want to post that image, when you click on "reply' button to a post, there is window on the bottom of main massage window labeled "Post an image URL". Just point your mouse pointer in the box, right click and then paste. That should do it.
Let me know if you have any problems :) |
| Pc, it is really easy. | pctower
Oct 2, 2003 7:34 AM | | WOW, that's great.
Thanks. I could be dangerous with this new found power. |
| Cool. | Tony_Montana
Oct 2, 2003 10:03 AM | | Just don't post naked pictures :)
. |
| pc you're a no-good WireNut Wacko trying to strir up the boys | pctower
Oct 1, 2003 6:01 PM | | b Just like a child banging a metal cup on the bars of the monkey cage at the zoo.
Best description of me I've read in a long time. My wife would surely agree.
b The WireNuts have had over 20 years to present credible double or single-blind audition evidence that money spent on premium wires resulted in audibly better sound quality. But these pesky WireNuts have failed miserably ... because virtually every discussion ends in the pitiful golden ear mantra: "I know what I hear" ... rather than
"These wires sound better and I have proof!".
Can't argue with that. The contortions the fundamentalist yeasayers go through to skirt the issues is often painful to watch. |
| How about that chief WireNut Wacko Risch the party pooper | Richard Greene
Oct 2, 2003 12:06 PM | | Does the wife compare you to a child ...
or think you belong in a cage?
Someone posts an ABX test proposal at Audio Asylum involving mailing out a CDR of songs played though different interconnects (so people can "test" interconnects without even having them at home!)
... and party pooper Risch not only criticizes the bizarre methodology (deserved), but also posts in the topic box,
so everyone can see it:
"I recommend that no one waste their time participating at all."
A true party pooper.
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/289908.html |
| Measurements! | Abex
Oct 2, 2003 3:15 PM | | I think measurements are taken to an extreme in audio. While some are a "need to know" others do not have any relevence as to how the component will act in a system. I have seen great spec'd things sound bad and vica versa.
In cables there are to many variables to take into account. One that intrigues me at the moment is Dielectrics. I have been experimenting with some which have been said to be poor,but am finding that given the proper application work great. Another aspect that seems to be ignored is the way electrons might be assisted or inhibited with the use of certain materials. While AIR is said to be the perfect insulator I have found it not to be the best to use in sonics. It just might be the way it interacts with my components,but I do believe given the right geometry and Insulator wires will provide a better path for electrons to be carried which will change the end result in playback.
JMO |
| Toldya So | skeptic
Oct 3, 2003 8:19 AM | | The last time Phil Tower said his final goodbye, because he was going to be very busy with a new job, I said I thought he would come back to start more of his inane arguements because he is irresistably drawn to this site where he can engage on both sides of any arguement to his hearts content. I'm convinced that's why he comes here. At CA, they just ignore him (and sometimes blow him off.) This thread has certainly given him another opportunity to do what he appears to like best when he comes here. At one point, I predict he will stay true to form, leave either with his tail between his legs (that's how he usually goes) or find some other excuse such as personal or professional business to take up his time. But have no fear, if you enjoyed this thread, he will surely be back again, most likely in two or three months to start a brand new round of this mental masturbation.
BTW Phil, if you didn't like my posts, next time don't mention my name. I wasn't planning to respond to any of this dribble until I saw it.
And by the way Phil, as for me remaining anonymous, I remind you that at one time when you wanted to communicate with me, I gave you my e-mail address and we exchanged quite a bit of mail---to my eventual regret. I only made that mistake once subsequently and have promised myself not to do it again. |
| Toldya So | pctower
Oct 3, 2003 1:10 PM | | b And by the way Phil, as for me remaining anonymous, I remind you that at one time when you wanted to communicate with me, I gave you my e-mail address and we exchanged quite a bit of mail---to my eventual regret. I only made that mistake once subsequently and have promised myself not to do it again.
Yes, and to this day I have maintained the confidence of that anonymity, and will continue to do so. As to your "eventual regret", I have no idea what I ever did to personally offend you. |
| |
