Attention Scientists, Engineers and Na-s

Stevmj, put your money where your mouth is! We would be more than willing to participate in a properly conducted double-blind test where samples of power cords, for example, are rotated in a random manner by an independent party who has no interest in, or knowledge of, the cables under test. For our own business purposes we have conducted such tests where we have introduced different types of cables and cords (our own and other makes) to people who have absolutely no interest in audio or equipment other than they listen to music, both live and recorded (usually via their car radio or occasionally play a cassette on their midi-systems) or are involved in music during the course of their work. These people have no preconceived beliefs or notions that they "have" to find a difference or are under any obligation to do so, they just listen and give their unbiased opinion on what they hear and what their perceptions tell them. The results are interesting and using music tracks that they themselves choose and are familiar with there has not been one occasion where they failed to differentiate a change in cable. The cords were swapped randomly by another person who also has no idea of the cable types nor any vested interest in the procedure. There are a lot of "things" we as humans do not understand in this world. But just because we cannot analyze it and label it and place it in a convenient slot in the annals of human science does not mean that one person can say "...it cannot be true and therefore you must be wrong or a fool..." and deny anyone else who may feel and think differently their right to enjoy those differences. Flame on....! Regards, Richard at www.vantageaudio.com

Hey folks, chill a little, here, please. In just 37 posts what could have been a really useful discussion broke down to the standard "You don't want to hear what I'm saying, so I won't talk to you anymore, and further more (fill in the insult of your choice here)". But dammit, both sides have the same problem - a question to which they do not have an answer.

There is in this thread the illustration of the "musicality" of tube amps, and the observation that they apparently have higher levels of harmonic "distortion" in the lower harmonics. I'm neither a scientist, nor a fully qualified audiophile, but even I can imagine a possibility - that tube amps can pass thru more of the harmonics of the instrument than solid state does. Their inherent harmonic distortion amplifies those harmonics of the instrument (it's a guess, here folks - please see above disclaimer). My point here is that any scientist should be able to demonstrate that this is or is not physically possible, if not precisely "true". And develop theories of why it could be true, if present science can't absolutely prove/disprove the effect. The one illustration of a double bind test where differences in power cords were detected with a surprising degree of accuracy (and 100% is not the standard for reliability in such a test) should be written up and published, so such a test can be examined and duplicated (and if the participants can't write it up in standard scientific format, perhaps an objectivist could lend a hand?). The possibility that the "Golden Ears" actually can hear things others can not must be examined. Lord knows my spouse can hear things I don't! I mean, there's alot going on that just plain requires a whole lot more study. Which leads us to the plain and simple fact that study costs money and requires resources and organization that a group of hobbiests assembled on an internet usegroup just isn't all that likely to be able to assemble. It's a noble cause, we have all the knights and shining armor we require, we just lack Camelot and the King to pull it all together. I liken basic scientific research to feudal times - lots of fiefs, some grander than others, and lots of feuds, some pettier than others, but lacking a cohesive, central thrust that would unite the effort into a totally effective force. Instead, we have to pull the disparate pieces together to effect a desired outcome. I don't know this for a fact, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that when I pay a seemingly exhorbitant price for a piece of gear, I'm not paying merely for the assembled components, but rather the bulk of the cost is for the research that led the design team to assemble the components in the way that they did. I'd be interested in knowing more about the history of Canada's famed anechoic chamber, for example. It's a potential model for the type of facility I think we need in audio to fully develop the potential for accurate sound reproduction. I just wonder if the economics exist for such a project?

Well, anyway, let's among ourselves drop the swords and daggers, try to overlook the real and imagined slights in the interest of extracting the intent and valuable content of a given post, and above all continue to help one another extract the best from what the audio gods have given us thus far.

and if you don't, you blithering idiot, I'll flame the bejesus outta ya ;-)

chas

Vantage - Where are you located? Are you willing to consider a $10,000 bet. I don't want to do this if it isn't worth the trouble. If so, we can seriously consider how to arrange this.

Welcome everyone, rec.audio.oinion.

chas

JD - What I see constantly being put forward is called an "argument from ignorance". This kind of argument works like this, since we don't really understand how things work, whatever the arguer is claiming must be true.