[Jtom94]

I read the whole article and i disagree with almost everything said in that article.

 

[terriblepaulz]

Quote:

I read the whole article and i disagree with almost everything said in that article.

Please elaborate - with citations to relevant authority.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Biasing an amp is a piece of cake. My MV-52 has to be biased and it's nothing. Turn a screw until a LED goes on, back off until it goes out. A five year-old can do it.

NOS tubes are overhyped. Yeah, some sound good. But so do a lot of reproduction tubes. I buy the reproductions and am happy with them. I only buy/build gear that uses popular reproduction tubes and ones where NOS is cheap and plentiful - then lay away a stockpile. Caps and resistors will always be around.

 

[Jtom94]

Its just my opinion. Simply, I've reached different conclusions based on my experience. I'm not saying he's wrong or ill informed. I just disagree with his conclusions.  

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

I read the whole article and i disagree with almost everything said in that article.

I disagree with gravity, and agree with the geocentric model.
 
You and I are going to be good friends.
 

 

[Jtom94]

I'm definitely going to reread the article.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Biasing an amp is a piece of cake. My MV-52 has to be biased and it's nothing. Turn a screw until a LED goes on, back off until it goes out. A five year-old can do it.

NOS tubes are overhyped. Yeah, some sound good. But so do a lot of reproduction tubes. I buy the reproductions and am happy with them. I only buy/build gear that uses popular reproduction tubes and ones where NOS is cheap and plentiful - then lay away a stockpile. Caps and resistors will always be around.

 
How many of them are that easy to bias though?  How much does a similar amplifier cost?  I know if I needed an amp today, I could go get a simple gainclone off PE for $150 or so shipped to my front door.  What tube amp has similar power ratings, output impedance, and distortion level performance?
 
If you can find a tube amp meant for the long haul great, but there's definitely a higher cost associated with it and cons attached too.  Headphone tube amps may be the only tube amps I'd even half-way consider due to high impedance headphones.
 

 

[jmb777]

I would be more inclined to believe this article if it wasn't written in such a bad tone.
it reminds of ramblings by ill-informed people giving their two cents on Atheism vs Creationism, the writer doesn't state anything new, he simply introduces a idea and then says "well that's not true, so, you know, there you go disproved" Now there may well be evidence on each of his points and he most probably has more experience than me in the audio world, but he clearly can't put together a well constructed argument. 
 
Take a look at the burn-in section, there he simply states that once wires and components in many electrical items are made they are 'set' and will not alter, well if that were true then these items would presumably never fail and work forever, which of course they do not, therefore the electrical circuitry and components must physically change, and it's to easy believe that in the first few hours of use that this is when they would change the fastest and thus 'burn-in'. 
 
As it goes with cables, it is all about transferring the most amount of available electrons presented from a source to the next component, now it is not debatable as to whether a purer cable would be able to transport more electrons, if a cable has impurities within it this would create a resistance that would reduce the electron numbers. Now it is debatable whether that can be heard or not, there is no doubt that its not having an effect, just if it is an audible effect, now if somebody wants to spend more money to make sure they are getting everything out of their equipment then they shouldn't be stopped or frowned upon, it's up to them if they can hear the difference, even if the difference is in their head so what? whether it was physical or psychological their equipment now sounds better than before.
I personally would not dish out for the top end cables, i would probably make my own for less but i don't have an 'issue' with other people doing it. 

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Take a look at the burn-in section, there he simply states that once wires and components in many electrical items are made they are 'set' and will not alter, well if that were true then these items would presumably never fail and work forever, which of course they do not, therefore the electrical circuitry and components must physically change, and it's to easy believe that in the first few hours of use that this is when they would change the fastest and thus 'burn-in'. 
 
They usually fail because a solder joint has broken.  It has nothing to do with the amount of usage besides how they're flexed/abused.  Only other thoughts would be oxidation.  With interconnects oxidation isn't a large concern, and honestly I'd say it's probably small with speaker wire too.
 
As it goes with cables, it is all about transferring the most amount of available electrons presented from a source to the next component, now it is not debatable as to whether a purer cable would be able to transport more electrons, if a cable has impurities within it this would create a resistance that would reduce the electron numbers. Now it is debatable whether that can be heard or not, there is no doubt that its not having an effect, just if it is an audible effect, now if somebody wants to spend more money to make sure they are getting everything out of their equipment then they shouldn't be stopped or frowned upon, it's up to them if they can hear the difference, even if the difference is in their head so what? whether it was physical or psychological their equipment now sounds better than before.
 
Because salesmen use it to scam customers out of legitimate upgrades that do make a physical difference.  I could sell you a ritualistic dance pattern to do before listening to music for $1K and make vague claims all day -- but in the end it would be dishonest marketing diatribe I've made up.  Dishonesty shouldn't be rewarded, and they should be called out on it.  There's nothing showing that audiophile cables make an audible difference, and until there is it's perfectly apt to say the claims made are lies which is why they're on the article.
 
I personally would not dish out for the top end cables, i would probably make my own for less but i don't have an 'issue' with other people doing it. 
 
Some of us dislike con-artists.  Magnets on fuel lines, rocks on amps, a battery operated clock with a dot on it . . . the voodoo tweako audiophile junk is helping kill the hobby.  Sane people look, roll their eyes, and use it as an example and justification to discredit the hobby.

 

 

[dsf3g]

Expensive power cords are my favorite. I mean, think about it: was your house wired with $50.00 a foot cable? No. It was probably wired with $.25 cents a foot insulated contractor grade electrical wiring. And the electric current probably goes through 50 feet of this stuff before reaching your wall socket (never mind the stuff your power company uses outside the house). So why, then, is super expensive, super shielded cable on that last 6 feet from your wall socket to your amp supposed to make "all the difference in the world?"

 

[ex0du5]

It's a magic power cord. Forged in the fires of Mordor.

 

[p a t r i c k]

jmb777 writes:

I would be more inclined to believe this article if it wasn't written in such a bad tone.it reminds of ramblings by ill-informed people giving their two cents on Atheism vs Creationism, the writer doesn't state anything new, he simply introduces a idea and then says "well that's not true, so, you know, there you go disproved" Now there may well be evidence on each of his points and he most probably has more experience than me in the audio world, but he clearly can't put together a well constructed argument.

I don't think the article is intended to be read as if it were an academic paper. In the journal it comes from I think you will find much more discussion on the issues raised.

jmb777 continues:

Take a look at the burn-in section, there he simply states that once wires and components in many electrical items are made they are 'set' and will not alter, well if that were true then these items would presumably never fail and work forever, which of course they do not, therefore the electrical circuitry and components must physically change, and it's to easy believe that in the first few hours of use that this is when they would change the fastest and thus 'burn-in'.

You write that "it is easy to believe that", but I do think that more is required. How are the wires going to change in their nature due to their use in those first few hours?

I don't think this kind of change has been observed in a measurable scientific manner so it is reasonable surely to ask those who claim this change takes place to provide a scientific demonstration?

The burden of providing evidence lies with those making the claim that something about these wires changes in a couple of hours and that actually changes the nature of an audio signal going through them in a way that is apparent to the listener.

jmb777 continues:

As it goes with cables, it is all about transferring the most amount of available electrons presented from a source to the next component, now it is not debatable as to whether a purer cable would be able to transport more electrons, if a cable has impurities within it this would create a resistance that would reduce the electron numbers. Now it is debatable whether that can be heard or not, there is no doubt that its not having an effect, just if it is an audible effect,

In this you make a series of assertions and describe them as 'debatable'. In truth they are very unlikely given what we do know about audio signals and electricity, but I would love to see some scientific demonstration that these things do happen.

jmb777 continues:

now if somebody wants to spend more money to make sure they are getting everything out of their equipment then they shouldn't be stopped or frowned upon, it's up to them if they can hear the difference, even if the difference is in their head so what? whether it was physical or psychological their equipment now sounds better than before.I personally would not dish out for the top end cables, i would probably make my own for less but i don't have an 'issue' with other people doing it.

I agree with you that if people want to spend money on these things then that is their right, as far as I am concerned people can do whatever they like with their money.

However in the audio world we see these people making these claims but they do not provide any scientific evidence. Although they often look down upon those of us who wish for scientific evidence, they use pseudo science as the basis for their claims, just as you are doing.

Unfortunately now very many people are spending a great deal of money on the advice of these "gurus" with their pseudo-science for things that have no scientific basis whatsoever and are with current scientific knowledge considered rather unlikely.

So are the audiophile "gurus" going to start demonstrating scientifically that their pseudo-science has some basis in reality?

With regard to ascertaining audibility well conducted blind ABX testing is, I think, a very good way to do this. Surely the advocates of all these wonders, the components and wires that change in nature over a couple of hours and the amazing claims for differences in various audio cables, can show us clearly that all these changes/differences take place and that they are audible in blind ABX tests?

Personally I've been waiting for these demonstrations for over 30 years.

 

 

[dsf3g]

Quote:

jmb777 continues:

now if somebody wants to spend more money to make sure they are getting everything out of their equipment then they shouldn't be stopped or frowned upon, it's up to them if they can hear the difference, even if the difference is in their head so what? whether it was physical or psychological their equipment now sounds better than before.I personally would not dish out for the top end cables, i would probably make my own for less but i don't have an 'issue' with other people doing it.

I agree with you that if people want to spend money on these things then that is their right, as far as I am concerned people can do whatever they like with their money.

However in the audio world we see these people making these claims but they do not provide any scientific evidence. Although they often look down upon those of us who wish for scientific evidence, they use pseudo science as the basis for their claims, just as you are doing.

Unfortunately now very many people are spending a great deal of money on the advice of these "gurus" with their pseudo-science for things that have no scientific basis whatsoever and are with current scientific knowledge considered rather unlikely.

So are the audiophile "gurus" going to start demonstrating scientifically that their pseudo-science has some basis in reality?

With regard to ascertaining audibility well conducted blind ABX testing is, I think, a very good way to do this. Surely the advocates of all these wonders, the components and wires that change in nature over a couple of hours and the amazing claims for differences in various audio cables, can show us clearly that all these changes/differences take place and that they are audible in blind ABX tests?

Personally I've been waiting for these demonstrations for over 30 years.

 

 
Yeah, the problem isn't the guys spending money on snake oil. It's the professional reviewers writing for magazines who make claims for equipment that they do not, or choose not to back up with methodologically sound testing.
 

 

[InnerSpace]

Quote:

As it goes with cables, it is all about transferring the most amount of available electrons presented from a source to the next component, now it is not debatable as to whether a purer cable would be able to transport more electrons, if a cable has impurities within it this would create a resistance that would reduce the electron numbers.

I don't love grumpy old know-everything curmudgeons like the Audio Critic folks, but it's basic misunderstandings like the above that hurt the other side.  If a cable becomes part of a completed circuit, then a state of electric charge will propagate through said circuit at a speed approaching the speed of light.  But actual electrons will move very, very slowly - small fractions of a millimeter per second - and because audio circuits are AC circuits, they will then move right back to where they started.  In other words, they vibrate microscopically, but they don't really go anywhere.  The image of a cable being a pipeline through which electrons are flowing at lightning speed is entirely wrong, and it's a post-hoc image folks dream up to "explain" a basis for effects that may not exist.

 

[Rdr. Seraphim]

So, in your estimation, are cables the most major failure regarding issues with reviewer methodological sound testing? Are they the worst of offenders? What other areas should be included relative to methodological sound testing? E.g. amplifiers? DACs?