Steve, the fact that some people CAN and DO have very high "guess" ratios while doing blind testing PROVES that there HAS to be differences amongst cables. It also proves that there are different levels of hearing ability. Just because 10 people score negatively on blind tests does not negate the fact that one or two might score positively.
As i previously stated, J. Peter Moncrieff was able to determine whether there was or wasn't an ABX box hooked up into the system under test. He did this 10 out of 10 times !!! All testing was done under "blind" conditions with witnesses to verify the results. Obviously, this was no fluke with 100% accuracy. These results caused them to actually change / redesign the relay being used in the internals of the ABX boxes themselves.
While i know that I could NEVER hear something like that myself, i also know that test equipment would not really be able to measure any APPRECIABLE changes in impedance with the addition of the ABX box's relay and connections in the audio path / circuit. As such, Moncrieff's ears were obviously FAR superior to what we think the human ear to be capable of detecting. The "good" thing about all of this is that he was able to do this type of stuff on a regular basis. The better part of all of this is that, he too was a scientist. Not only did he tell you what he heard, he presented measurements as to why things happened as they did. The best of both worlds in my opinion.
That is why i specified a "trained listener" earlier in one of these threads. The average joe ( me included ) simply wouldn't have the know how of what or how to listen for such subtle clues or details that would give the differences away. Someone that IS trained can focus on things that you or i would simply overlook due to a limited attention span, lack of training or a lower level of discernment.
I don't think that anyone here would belittle "science" as a whole. Obviously we wouldn't have the gear or knowledge that we currently do if it wasn't for research and development. At the same time, i think that most of us realize that we as humans ( scientists ARE humans ) know just enough to be dangerous. As such, we have elevated what little that we do know to the point of thinking that we ARE all-knowing. THIS is what puts the "blinders" on science and discoveries, as it rules out the potential for discoveries that don't follow the normal train of thought or what is "right" according to theory. After all, the Earth IS the center of the Universe and is still flat, right ??? Sean
> |
Steve, the dichotomy we are locked on here is probably not to be solved. I find it difficult to believe, that all of those who are aware of differences in the way a cable "sounds" after "burn-in" are victims of some sorts of mass hysteria, just as I find it difficult to believe, that the laws of physics should suddenly be null and void. So the idea, that something third is going on, which we really know nothing about, is perhaps not too far fetched after all. Double blind tests seem to show, that the " third factor" seems to lie rather within the psyche of the "believers", but since we know, that often the outcome of those experiments are heavily dependent on the experimental set-up and the maths involved and those factors again on the conscious or unconscious biases of the experimenters, also DBT are not really conclusive.
Hence, in my humble opinion, something like "sceptical modesty" would befit both parties in this never ending argument. I know of my own personal gullibility and know for sure, that emotional factors will influence the way I percieve things. So though of good musical hearing, I am also a sceptic. This dilemma however does not prevent me from enjoying the music. Besides, with new cables or not, my system never sounds the same. There are always subtle, however clearly noticeable differences to the day before.
The more complex the system, the more factors can influence the way it will perform. It can be likened to musical instruments, which also never sound the same from one day to the other. So I don't really care much, what causes a change, as long as the system "sounds right", i.e. musical and I'll start fretting and tweaking if it does not, until I've got it right again. Sometimes I also have to "fret and tweak" on myself, because, when I'm not "right", the system won't sound "right " either. So..and I say this with a selfironic grin .. the two way relationship between an audiophile and his system is a rather complex one, to say the least, and physics will never be able to explain all of it. |
Sean, you're so right! Hearing acuity can be trained well beyond that level, which even complex measurements will be able to show. Another example for what our senses are capable of: Wine tasters or perfume testers ( vive la France )are schooled for years and can point out subtle differences which no chemical testing ever could and the industry depends heavily on their results. Why should it be different on the aural level? |
Garfish,
Point taken. I guess the afterthought about Emerson and his hobgoblins confused me. Seemed like you were damning him with faint praise. Guess you meant to praise Caesar, not to bury him. Cheers. |
Vantageaudio: Do you seriously find fault with Steve's assertion that all electrons are alike? Really? No, come on, do you? Are you saying they're different? Do different electrons move at different speeds or something? Or with less grain and improved soundstage?
Kdmeyer: As Steve mentioned, the heat buildup in audio cabling is so microscopically minuscule as to be negligible. And that's a good thing, because when metals (copper, silver, et al) heat up, their resistance to current flow increases. That would degrade their performance characteristics, especially for speaker cables.
Detlof: Wine tasters can indeed discern fine gradations between wines. But wines also have been proven to sometimes change with age and environment, whereas cables have not.
I would be highly suspicious, though, of a wine "expert" who looks at the label, sips some wine, and then says "Ah, yes, of course. Pinot noir. Domaine Carneros 1997. It certainly is," then after a palate-cleansing cracker, goes on to the next one, looks at the label, tastes the wine and says, "David Bruce Russian River 1998, yes, I could tell, it has the shadings that one would expect only from this vintage." And so on. Yet in audio, we're supposed to accept this sort of "testing" as "proof" of phenomena that are highly improbable or scientifically impossible. |
As a former wine afficionado I must jump in here and say that I personally know two acknowledged wine experts and they have never expressed an opinion anything like that described by 70242. I do see his point, but we (the cables make a difference members) are not some group of followers being beckoned by the Pied Pipers of the Audio Press to parade behind their golden ears and march to the rhythm of their imaginary distinctions. Instead we are mostly experienced listeners with decades of experience with open, but still skeptical minds who are aware of audio phenomena that is not completely explained yet. What is gained by asserting we are all wrong and that we are imagining "burn in" or differences in coax cables? |
Steve: I grant your point that heat in your example appears unlikely to make much difference. My point was in response to somebody previously who said electrons sloshing through a wire make no change to the wire. Heat cycling is just one example of a change-inducing physical effect that electron sloshing does have on wire. Maybe there are other effects not related to heat. And, given the subtleties of the differences we claim to hear, maybe it doesn't require much of a physical change to make the cable audibly different.
Also, relating to your example--I'm not an engineer, but couldn't the amount of power running through a speaker wire be substantially higher, enough even to create a measurable heating? So, even if a cable conditioner doesn't generate enough power to make a difference in your opinion, maybe burning in a speaker wire with real signal would at least push a lot more power through the wire and potentially have a much greater physical effect? |
Lets not bicker about wine experts 702 and of course wines change with age. Cables do not, you so adamantly say. I think it would have been more correct to have added something like " as far as the laws of physics tell us".
This would make a subtle but very significant difference, because it leaves open the possibility, slight as it may be, that new evidence could lead to new hypotheses and finally to new insights. Not with you, the way I percieve it and please forgive me, if I am wrong. To me, your statement has the quality of absoluteness to it and therin lies the weakness of all arguments from your side of the fence. It makes you vulnerable for attacks of dogmatism, of closed mindedness, of a basically deeply IRRATIONAL belief in the infallibilism of all precepts of science, whereas also here, as in all human endevour, there is questioning, movement and change on many fronts.
Tell me honestly - although I'll grant you, this is a poor example - how can you really KNOW , if cables change with age or not? All you could say, to my mind at least, that according to physics, this is highly improbable, that they could change. If you imply more, you move into the realm of BELIEFS, namely that in the unshakeable nature of the laws of physics. As far as makro physics are concerned, belief and knowledge are good bedfellows and I have no trouble with your argument. It gets more tricky, when we enter the realm of micro physics. I am no expert, not technically trained, but does not the flow of electrons through molecules of metal touch both fields of physics and thus inspite of the established laws of electricity does leave some white spots on this so well explored territory? So already here a doubt in respect of the absoluteness of your statement seems legitimate. But then there is another aspect, which lets me doubt the absoluteness of your assumtions about the audiophile quality of wires even more: And that is simply the very large number of people who report hearing differences and whose description of what they hear with what cables often has a certain uniformity to it. The hypothesis, that what they report could be safely put in the realm of phantasy, while the people themselves obviously suffered from some minor form of psychopathology, which more over is fed by unscrupulous manufacturers, dealers, the press and advertisers, is probably more then daring. In fact, it seems even highly infantile, when we consider sociological data of the average audiophile: Which is: over average education + training, high incidence of academics + professionals, over average positions and incomes..... etc. Doesn't really sound like a bunch of irrational, illadvised romantics, does it? No, the longer I follow this and similar arguments here, and I do this, because I am (also professionally) fascinated with how we come to find our "truths" and how we argue and defend them, I am slowly coming to the conclusion, that probably those that hear differences in wire are the REALISTS afer all, and those who deny it are the BELIEVERS. Just my thoughts, and 702, sorry if I accused you of an absolutism, which you perhaps don't have at all.. but well, it sounded like that to me.
Regards |
Hello 70242, in reply to your above post I can only say that I am not attempting to find fault with the assertion made by stevemj or anyone else. I am also not saying that there are different electrons. However I am asking if stevemj (or someone) would care to expand on their assertion. It is my understanding that sometime ago a person called Schrodinger proposed that the electron should be thought of a continuous distribution of time dependent waves and denoted this by means of a forumla. This became known as the "Schrodinger wave" but this is only true if the wave remained confined to the atom. However, it is also my understanding that outside an atom electrons can be found in a small region of space so that in general the wave density does not agree with the formula. Another person by the name of Bohr later proposed that the intensity of this wave does not represent the actual charge density of the electron but the probable density of the electron and conceived as a small local particle. It is these and others studies that lead to the belief that there are possible differences in electron charge patterns and their subsequent behavior and that this may have some relationship to the perceived differences we experience between components..??? The subject will always be open to debate and useful and meaningful contributions can only help all our understanding and listening pleasure. Regards, Richard. |
Anyone who resolutely believes that the flow of current through conductors - be they copper, silver, gold - does not affect the physical properties of said wire should chat with any competent and experienced electrician. These guys work with this stuff day in and day out. I had a minor epiphany a few years ago when an electrician was doing some work at my shop and told me that the metals (wiring and switches) implicated in his repairs had simply failed owing to long use and continued exposure to currents. In simple English, the physical, and therefore electrical, properties of the conductors had been altered with use. They had failed because the metals had become embrittled and acted more like resistors than conductors, almost porcelain-like in their behavior; i.e., they weren't conducting, rather they were highly resistive. "They just wore out", he said.
Now given the truth of this, it seems to follow that there is a life cycle to cables, just as with anything else. If you accept that, you must also allow for a youth, maturity and old age to cables. (That's bad news though for those of us who put significant dollars into them, hoping they'll outlast us.) Methinks entropy figures in here somewhere. Any metallurgists here who can elucidate this phenomenon of changes to metals when current is induced?
|
The proof is in the hearing, at least this is what I feel that this hobby is all about. In that any difference perceived is in fact "real" as in "I think, therefore I exist." Proof other than that perceived through the senses does not really mean anything to me (look at various amplifier specs and then listen to the amps themselves and you will see where I am coming from). There was an English tube amp produced a few years ago that looked like garbage on paper and spec'd the same as well. It sounded wonderful. According to the spec's though it should have sounded like a tuner placed between stations, go figure. There is no way that a scientifically measurable difference can be proved to be an audible one (for everyone) and in the same vein it is impossible to prove that a scientifically non-measurable "difference" does not exist to the senses. We know very little, IMO, about our physical world and even less about the human brain and perception. I am all for an open discussion, however if one has not actually auditioned (whether it be blind or not) the gear that is being disrespected then that "one's" opinion is an ultimate act of "pon-tune-if-ica-tion" (my new made up word) and is a waste of cyber space. On the other side of the coin though, I was upset to read Jostler's thread of today in that he obviously does listen to music and audition equipment and is therefore actively involved in this hobby. In this regard his (unpopular) opinions are valid one's, IMO, and should not be censored. |
Dekay is right, when listening to music and auditoning equipment you have to trust your senses-- also in many other endeavors in life. |
Vantageaudio: The wave properties of electrons do not seem to be the issue here, but instead whether electron flow as "burn-in" will somehow alter the crystal structure of the wire and over time improve its properties of conduction. (Wouldn't simply moving, bending, twisting, or coiling the wire affect its "crystal structure?") Schrödinger's wave theory does not even hint that electrons differ amongst themselves, although they will have different energy levels if they receive different amounts of energy. Millikan calculated from his observations that electron mass is about 1/2000 that of a proton or neutron. If it's true that only the valence electrons make up the electron cloud about the positive ions and the electron flow in an electrical conductor when a voltage potential is applied, then it just seems that in any kind of "burn-in" scenario anyone's described here, there's not nearly enough mass or energy in those electrons to even nudge those positive ions about in the lattice, let alone "realign" them. |
Bmpnyc: I know a few wine experts, and they've never done that either. But if someone did, their actions in the scenario I described would show them to be a poseur and not an expert.
Garfish: Trust your senses, yes, but also keep them in check through investigation and understanding, including knowing how to make a comparison. My senses suggest that the sun, planets, and stars all revolve around the earth--that's what it looks like, right?--but I know that's not what actually is happening.
Detlof: I said cables have not been proven to change over time. I may be skeptical about any prospects that they will ever be, but I don't see what's absolutist about that. |
702; I get the impression that we may actually agree on a lot except maybe for minor differences in "procedure", or maybe "what is the next step". Cheers. Craig |
702, granted and I also agree with Garfish, that we are often closer than it may seem, but I often sense absolutism on both sides, which is detrimental to progress of knowledge for both sides. |
702, thanks for the reply, maybe we are all progressing in the right direction of meaningful discussions and who knows, ultimately we may stumble across an explanation that will transpose into a forumla that we can all understand and use to explain some of these effects we perceive? Regarding wave properties, I would have thought we need to look along these lines as any effects that may (or not depending upon your viewpoint) well be caused by the transfer of wave charge along, say, a conductor. The sources quoted are only a small part of the many complex contributions on the subject of particle matter. Speaking of altering structure, is it not possible that somewhere along the line sub-atomic particles are indeed being re-aligned (I'm not saying or suggesting they are "altered")into a more ordered and natural structure after being disturbed during the manufacturing process? Could there be anything here that we should look at to help understand these "changes"? Regards, Richard. |
Excuse my typo "...forumla..." should read "...formula..." |
Why would cable companies insist that their cable needs to be burned in if it doesn't change the sound? They aren't making money by the # of hours you play the cable. Seems like it would be easy enough for a company to say "our cable is good from the start" all others are inferior and have to be burned in. But that isn't the case, at least as far as I tell. |
No money, basically you make a good point here, but don't many audiophiles react in the sense of : Since all "good", meaning very expensive, cables neeed to be burnt in and this is always expressively mentioned in the glossy literature, then something must be "wrong" with a cable, which is said to work right out of the box. So if you like, but I am not implying that this is so in most cases, you could just as well infer, that all that burning in stuff is merely a necessary marketing hype (next to clever pricing)for the manufacturer to sell his wire as something special and top notch. |
They could just claim that they burn it in for us, or make up some theory saying their design is so advanced and outstanding that it is just fine out of the box. But you don't see it happen? Seems like that would be a good marketing ploy to set yourself apart from the other guys. "Our cable is so advanced you don't need to burn it in" ! They could even double the price of the cables that don't need it. |
Richard I think your going in a good direction. I too believe we should ask "possible" questions, and rather than simply dismissing them as so often is the case, we need to explore the theory. 70242.241 has asked the question, I believe meant to state the fact that metal has no memory, when bent or pounded or what ever the structure is indeed altered. We know that heating the metal will re-disperse the elements evenly though the material. I think the question of wave flow, and a new question of electro magnetic fields produced when current is passed should be looked at. Maybe there is something there as current rides through the metal moving via electrons it might indeed alter something. |
Then again, it could all be immaterial, akin to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It seems to me that it would be very easy to see if cables improve with "burn-in." Directly compare "burnt-in" cables with identical "non-burnt-in" cables. Double-blind test, either ABX or same-different. See if a statistically significant number of trials indicate that there is probably an audible difference between them. If not, I don't insist on accepting the null argument; we can do more testing.
And/or do electrical analyses on cables before "burn-in" and after, measuring the conductance and reactance over maybe 5 Hz up to 100 kHz. |
I would love to comment, but I am restricted by my own commitment to myself and others here to just say RHUBARB. But perhaps I am allowed to comment on the wine tasting analogy. I have participated in blind tasting tests of wine and they served to prove nothing I didn't already know from many years of tasting wines - they taste different from each other. The thing is, I have learnt a lot from experience of the world without the benefit of blind tests, such as stopping at red traffic lights to avoid collisions (would be interesting to do a blind test on that wouldn't it)? Next time a sexual conquest insists I wear a condom, perhaps I will insist on a blind test first. I will shut up now in quavering fear of the negative votes I will get for the use of sarcasm. But honestly, what a load of RHUBARB that still pervades these debates. |
Redkiwi, again you have saved me considerable aggrivation in my own reply to this. When did this site become one of ABX arguments rather tools needed to make music? Reminds me of a bumper sticker that circulated in my area for a good while, it read, "Shut up and Dance." |
Redkiwi, fond greetings: There will be RHUBARB as long as humans debate. As for double blind tests, they DO have their merits. Many of us would not be around any more, if they did not exist. As you know, the pharmaceutical industry must rely heavily on them in the development and testing of new drugs. They seem to work on a biochemical, physiological level. Strangely, they often do not in the psychological field. What we see here in this debate, is just one example for this strange fact, which has bugged experimental psychology just as much as it bugs some of us here. |
Absolutely Albert - if I boogie better by painting my cables red or my CDs green then I ought to be able to say so here. Good point Detlof, but what appears to happen with these debates is the repetitive tyranny by a few who insist on double blind tests, and then insist again, and then insist again, and then insist again............. whenever a certain set of topics arise. And then they have the gall to argue that their position is valid because electrons are electrons - like that closes the debate? I have said too much again and will return to my pledge to leave these pointless exchanges alone. |
Redkiwi, the "insist and insist again" in your post is dead on. Their preference in this forum appears to be centered on convincing us that our equipment and our music systems should be held accountable to their standards of testing.
I will hold to that view, just as soon as they offer information that aids in improving my music, or they choose to contribute to the cost of doing things their way. My testing procedures have resulted in equipment matching that consistently produces music that I love. Perhaps these guys have let the blindfold slip over their ears as well as their eyes, this would explain why they think all wire sounds the same.
By the way, I hope you know that the "Shut up and Dance" was aimed at the ABX guys who would rather fight than switch. The switch in this case being the "on" button of their music system. |
Redkiwi,
You're too polite, mate. "Rhubarb" would not be my first choice, but since most of the posters here seem refined and educated, I'll refrain from proferring the word I had in mind.
Glad to see you're still hanging around, as it were. I'm opting out now because there are some technical questions the measurement set has refused to answer but which, IMHO, bear upon the whole topic. Willful blindness perhaps? Will still keep reading and watch the saga unfold. |
|
Please forgive my ignorance but what's the explanation of this Rhubarb acronym that y'all are throwing around - am I missing a good joke here? |
Detlof: Actual, double blind tests are of prime importance in things psychological. In pharmaceutical testing, there are always those who will report feeling better because they were seen by a physician and given a pill or medication; this is called the placebo effect. This would skew a test to a possible false positive unless you have a control group receiving placebo treatment to compare to the ones receiving real medication.
Redkiwi, Albertporter, Amanteus: What's to fear about double-blind testing? All I suggested was to actually determine whether "burning in" cables produced audible changes, and well, that's the way to do it. |
No 70242.241, that's not "the" way to do it. That's "a" way to do it. This is exactly the reason you've been asked to change your aproach. You believe this is the way to do it, there are other ways, to bad you've chosen to not accept that. |
Shame on you 702! There you go getting scientific again. You just won't behave yourself. Just because you are an electrical engineer who works in audio and nearly everyone else who posts here doesn't even understand electricity, doesn't give you the right to go making stupid anti-group statements. Right on JD, I'm with you pal. |
Shame on you too Stevemj, there you go, protecting the scientific evidence again. Obviously it is more important for you to be "scientific" about all this, than finding what works. As far as 702, I hope that this topic is being monitored, obviously you have even less respect for the people that host us, than those of us that BLINDLY follow the rules. Now that is a blind test! I hope you do not expect us to have any compassion for you when you are banned for failure to follow Audiogon's request. Pretty much tells me what I need to know about your character and integrity. Why would I ever believe in a method set forth by a person who has such blatant disregard for the rules? Or is it a fact that because you are such a clever engineer, that the rules do not apply to you? |
I agree with you 110% Albert. I am trying my best to fit in. I have expressed none of my opinions about HIFI stuff for days. Perhaps you could provide me with a list of things that are appropriate for me to say. |
Stevemj: Much like the spoiled, obnoxious child who is severely lacking social graces and in need of direction, please allow me to give you the proper direction you so sorely require:
1) Your sarcastic demeanor is inappropriate.
2) Your inability to contribute any meaningful dialog across multi-topic discussions is forgone conclusion.
3) Your banter is ill conceived and mean spirited.
4) You are dreadfully inexperienced, ignorant and you are quickly wearing out your welcome on this site.
Except your failure of refined social skill sets and work hard to improve yourself. Get out of your dull existence and find some attention that will bring you positive fulfillment thereby giving your life validation, credibility and purposeful meaning. I trust this satisfies the request for direction that you asked for. -Jerie |
You posted:
You just won't behave yourself . Just because you are an electrical engineer who works in audio and nearly everyone else who posts here doesn't even understand electricity, doesn't give you the right to go
making stupid anti-group statements. Right on JD, I'm with you pal.
Do you sincerely believe your dialogue is supportive of the people who visit here? Looks more like a backhanded slap at us poor slobs that do not understand electricity. Why do you offer cloaked praise for 702 "the engineer," and then act surprised that we have not seen a change in your posting habits?
As for 702, I do not know what kind of engineering you do, but you certainly do not fit the profile of the people I know in audio. Four days ago I wrote three top audio engineers, one in speakers, one in amplifiers and one in cable. All three shuttered at the topic of scientific argument. I am asking permission right now to reprint their replies. These engineers have chosen to move past the discussion stage, they provide state of the art product to the real world. |
Jadem, 702's post is on topic. His opinion obviously is that DBTs are the only scientifically valid way to compare new and "burned-in" cables. I happen to disagree with him, an agree with you, but I think that in this thread his comments are on topic and were invited by the title of the thread.
Scientists have been around a lot longer than double blind tests, observing things, recording their observations, testing hypotheses. For myself, I reject the notion that I am biased in favor of finding or not finding difference in cables, ie, that my observations are untrustworthy. I trust myself. And for that reason, I am interested in what other people have to say about differences in cables and whether burning in makes a difference.
On topic: I have never found any difference between brand new interconnects and well-seasoned interconnects, and the idea of burning-in cables makes no sense to me. But, but, I have found huge changes in speaker cables after a few hours of use. More bass, more clarity, better soundstaging and imaging. I dont really care if it makes sense and Im certainly not interested in proving it to anyone. |
Steve today is an extremely sad day, you have lost all respect. My 13 year old son with C.P. living in a wheel chair with extreme limits on his social interaction has proven to be more grown up than you. I feel very sorry for you "PAL" |
Not all EE's are so stubborn-minded so don't go classifying everyone here along with the rest of 'em. This from an old-school "wire-is-wire" EE who's finally HEARD the light! My testing is blind too - blind faith, because I don't fully understand the reasons explaining what I unquestionably do hear.
I don't fully comprehend all of the physics involved in driving my automobile either - but that certainly doesn't stop me from enjoying that experience. |
I double blind tested some tires this morning on the interstate. The screeching tires and screams of terror where about the same with both sets, so I will stick with the cheep ones for now. |
"CHEAP ONES" sorry, I am also testing 2 keyboards.... |
Isn't this beginning to get really silly? RHUBARB to all. Lets do as Albert says, lets "shut up and dance", exchange and share with each other for the advancement of music in the home and its enjoyment. |
70242,
I believe you've misread my scribblings. Nowhere have I expressed a fear of DBTs. In fact, I think they have their uses; but the measurement-only crowd ( among whom you seem to number ) puts too much emphasis on them. Put another way, the numbers folks display an almost religious passion in their belief that if it can't be measured, it can't be heard. There is a staggering amount of anecdotal evidence that contradicts that.
I ain't afraid of DBTs, merely think their capability of resolving subtle differences is overdone.
I do believe, again, do believe that eventually the things we benighted listeners hear, and which you do not, will be amenable of quantification: the technology to measure these things just isn't sophisticated enough. Electronic instrumentation is not nearly refined enough to search out the things the human auditory system can perceive. |
Jadem6: Okay, PLEASE tell me what methods for comparison you prefer, and what steps you take for eliminating prejudices and biases and ensuring that evaluations are made solely on what is audible. If you have a better way, please tell us what it is.
Albertporter: In what way do I or Stevemj reject "finding what works?" That is precisely our point, to accurately find what works. I do not fit your profile of the people you know in audio? I'm okay with that. And I've been involved with a few state of the art audio products here and there, too, with more in the chute.
Adamanteus: You contradict yourself sharply. You label us the "measurement only" crowd (which is not true; measurement is a tool for understanding and refining designs, circuit behavior, etc., not an end in itself), and then decry our insistance on DBT, which involves listening and nothing else, including measurement.
Also, electronic instrumentation (which has nothing to do with double-blind testing) _can_ detect stuff that not even the most golden ear among us can hear, but that doesn't mean everything that can be measured is useful.
I don't know what rules or laws apply in this forum. Apparently not Ohm's Law, laws of physics, etc. ;)
Jerie: In what way is Stevemj "inexperienced, ignorant," blah, blah, blah? He exhibits a strong knowledge of audio, which I find to be a very refreshing change of pace here.
It's inane to me to talk about this being better than that, and then reject making a fair and direct head-to-head comparison between them to see if it's true and to what degree. Why have races with a start and a finish line? Gee, we'll just _discuss_ which car and driver are faster and more skilled and choose the winner that way. Let's nip this baseball season in the bud; everybody knows the best team is ... who? |
7, i think that you'll find that sometimes electrical measurements VERIFY what we hear even though it would not show up under "normal" test procedures. Moncrieff did reviews of products and talked about ( others still do it today ) product X having a "blacker background" than product Y and product Z. The differences between he and the current breed is that he actually showed the differences via scope photos that product X actually had deeper nulls on the negative going portions of the same signals than either product Y or Z. Is it possible for someone to hear such absolutely minute discrepancies in signal ??? I guess so because he was able to make note of such things BEFORE measuring them. Keep in mind that we are talking duration lengths of microseconds and output level differences of microvolts at best. This is NOT recognized by the scientific community as being "above the accepted minimum hearing threshold", etc....
I also know where your coming from as someone that makes a living working with electrical measurements. I don't think that we know everything about how such things work and try to keep an open mind about them. Measurements DO give us something to compare and baseline one product against another while explaining SOME of the if's and why's to us. Besides that, they give us a baseline for repeatability as to how something works "normally". The problem is that many of the actual "industry standard" test procedures may not be up to the level of discernment that the actual equipment is capable of doing or to what we can hear. THIS is what causes many of the problems that the "regulars" on this site and several others have problems with. Just because something measures similar under specific test conditions DOES NOT mean that it HAS to perform the same under dynamic use. There are specific test parameters that are followed, but who is to say that they are measuring the "most correct" criteria as to what we consider important when listening ???
I think that your approach of refining circuitry via measurements AND listening tests is about the only way that this industry will make progress. Obviously we've been the way of "best measurements" via SS electronics in the 70's and we've all heard how most of that sounded. Sean
> |
702442: Allow me to retort. It is difficult for me and many others on this site to indulge your request for clarification as you and your pals ignore repeated requests to post YOUR GEAR and your experiences with them. You hide behind your rhetoric in a transparent attempt to weasel away from the obvious. The simple truth is that you have no experience and are subsequently ignorant. None of you have exhibited a "strong knowledge of audio". In fact even Audiogon has asked that you contribute elswhere in these forums. The truth is that you can't! Your inability to contribute any meaningful dialog across multi-topic discussions is a forgone conclusion. I stand by what I have written. Your "blah, blah, blah" speaks volumes. It is obvious that your inability to hear differences is solely due to the fact that you just don't listen. C'mon pony-boy, post your gear and tells us all about it. Grant all of us the same courtesy we have shown to you over and over again. You won't do it and we all know why. Inexperienced and ignorant. I trust this clears things up for you. -Jerie |
Hey 7, I've told you twice this past winter. In that you have chosen to not listen, well I think your not worth the effort. You are the worst of the worst in my opinion, and I have no more time for your games Sir. |
702, you wrote:
Albertporter: In what way do I or Stevemj reject "finding what works?" That is precisely
our point, to accurately find what works. I do not fit your profile of the people you know in
audio? I'm okay with that. And I've been involved with a few state of the art audio products
here and there, too, with more in the chute.
My reply:
You reject what works simply by not searching for it. You find solace in the numbers and blind tests, rather than putting great product in real life situations and having the confidence in your own ability to make a decision based on the results.
You do not fit my profile of other engineers in audio as most of them are dedicated to music. I have never heard you speak of a single piece of music, nor of your own equipment. In addition, I know dozens of audio manufacturers on a personal basis, many for more than 20 years. Every one of these people test their creations with music in an audio system. As to your involvement in audio design, reveal what projects you are (or were) involved in, and I probably know the people you work with. In fact, if you posted with your true name, I would probably already know the answer to my question. |
