[jnjn]

Quote:

@jnjn:
 
Not entirely sure to what extent you agree with me!
 
I agree entirely that science does provide mechanisms whereby cables can affect the sound, just not the magic ones beloved of audiophiles, that are invariably dependent on some unknown aspect of the cable. As for my foolishly adopted stance, it is one that I feel that one must adopt by logical necessity when faced with unfalsifiable claims with no supporting evidence, lest I seriously entertain the possibility that I am followed by invisible, incorporeal gnomes. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot. 
 
Or is your criticism of pt.3 (and indeed 1) more a squabble over semantics? Technically, some audiophile ideas about cables make sense (sufficient gauge, that sort of thing), but I think you know to what I refer.
 

We agree in that it is not magic.  We also agree that explaining any change as being caused by magic is useless.
 
It is very important to seperate the claims made of the cables themselves, and what happens when they are used in situ.  I can make two different IC types which will measure identically on the bench to 7 or 8 digits precision, yet perform very differently in the final application.  If I did not know why, then I would be left with magic as the only plausible explanation.
 
Tossing out an individual's assertion of a change in sound because they cannot present a reasonably coherent explanation is what I call foolish, or better yet, just unwise. It doesn't mean they are correct in their assertion, just that it is not wise to toss it because the person does not have any engineering understandings.   I extend that lack of expertise to the vendors as well..look at the shunyata test...well done, may indeed correlate to a change, but has an explanation with no meaning in reality.  I would not toss the possibility of a line cord effecting a difference just because I know their explanation is bogus.. They claim cord characteristic impedance is the thing, but they missed the boat.
 
jn
 
 

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

1.  Suggestions are certainly uncontestable.  Existing science absolutely provides mechanisms whereby power cords and IC's do affect the system. To state otherwise is unscientific..
 
2.  Concurrence.
 
3.  It would be foolish to adopt this stance.  You can easily be proven incorrect.
 
Properly performed DBT's which control for all human response foibles are a good thing.
 
Cheers, jn
 
 

On point 1:  Power cords and ICs.
some food for thought:
some power cords have built in noise filters, too bad the vendors obscure their claims in BS & gobbelygook.
I find it very hard to beleive that a good noise filtering system or power conditioner is NOT audible in some hi fi systems (I believe it would depend on the power supply design of the audio equipment) as there is always a lot of noise conducted and radiated by power lines and most other operating electrical equipment.
some IC and power cords are shielded, some are not, but is it audible?
Cable geometry; twisted, coaxial, etc., but is it audible
technically it is easy to prove that Teflon is a superior insulator to rubber, but is is audible?
same argument goes for capacitors, theoretically Teflon is one of the very best dielectrics (insulators) for a capacitor, again, but is it audible?
Theoretically this should all make some difference.
 
The cable vendors are their own worst enemies, instead of baffling us with marketing mumbo jumbo show us some scientific proof and engineering measurements, guys!
 
 

 

[Deadeight]

Quote:

[snip]
 
The cable vendors are their own worst enemies, instead of baffling us with marketing mumbo jumbo show us some scientific proof and engineering measurements, guys!
 
 

By doing this and trying to argue on scientific terms, they've already lost. If they publish measurements, it would take only a few moments to see that these differences are inaudible. They have to use marketing mumbo jumbo, it's all they have.
 
In my opinion. 

 

[Chris J]

I think Russ Andrews used to publish some graphs and measurements, short version of a long story: they got soundly shot down for doing this.
Apparently they proved their AC power cable reduced powerline noise. They got shot down by some advertising board in the UK because they also stated that this would make your equipment sound better but couldn't prove the latter claim. How ironic.
OTOH no wonder the cable companies baffle us with BS. When they don't they get sued!

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

I think Russ Andrews used to publish some graphs and measurements, short version of a long story: they got soundly shot down for doing this.
Apparently they proved their AC power cable reduced powerline noise. They got shot down by some advertising board in the UK because they also stated that this would make your equipment sound better but couldn't prove the latter claim. How ironic.
OTOH no wonder the cable companies baffle us with BS. When they don't they get sued!

That's not ironic at all. They shouldn't have made claims they could not demonstrate. Then it's not an issue.  
 
Frankly, I can think of more than one audio company that should have their ads and packaging shot down by an advertising board for making false (or unproven, or unprovable) claims.

 

[TheAttorney]

Quote:

 
Its not just a joke and I'm not making fun of anyone.  I'm using my imagination and thinking outside of the box. 

I don't think you're thinking out of the box, even if you think you're thinking it.
A long time ago, when I was a Sound Scientist, the understood engineering best practice was to use DD turntables because they had the best wow&flutter measurements, and low mass arms and low tracking cartridges. When I tried my first turntable-designed-by-listening (Rega Planar 3), I was completely floored by how much better this simple belt drive sounded. Further down the track, it became accepted science that it's not just the amount of wow and flutter, it's also the type. Plus many other considerations about vibration control and resonances.
 
This is an example where a subjective observation flew in the face of accepted scientific wisdom at the time, but science did catch up in the end. It was always there, but scientists were just not looking in the right places. For cables, I don't know what the scientific explanations are. I'm genuinely curious, but I can live without it. But most likely, the eventual explanation will be more subtle than was for my turntable analogy. One thing I've never claimed is that it's due to magic or mysterious forces. Those are terms that the sceptics keep bringing up. Only the sceptics seem to get into a lather about Marketing BS. I never pay any attention to it - it's the end result that counts.
 
Quote:

Properly performed DBT's which control for all human response foibles are a good thing.

Yes they are. However, the only human response foible that they can't control for is, by definition, the very act of being in a DBT. I'm talking about the A/B rapid switching types. Theoretically, you can have a DBT that lasts all year, but in practice that's not how they're run.
 
 

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

 
Yes they are. However, the only human response foible that they can't control for is, by definition, the very act of being in a DBT. I'm talking about the A/B rapid switching types. Theoretically, you can have a DBT that lasts all year, but in practice that's not how they're run.
 
 

So, you are saying that when people think they hear a difference when using a new cable. Then cannot tell the difference between them in a properly run DBT, that the more likely answer is that being in a DBT is the problem? Not any number of the demonstrable and well supported psycho-acoustical phenomena we know affect listening experiences?
 
Sorry. If a perceived effect vanishes when objectively tested, the most likely answer is not that the test is flawed.

 

[jnjn]

Quote:

That's not ironic at all. They shouldn't have made claims they could not demonstrate. Then it's not an issue.  

I do not like you. 

 
If it were up to you, there would be no victoria secret advertisements...  That is not a world I choose to live in..
 
jn
 
 

 

[jnjn]

Quote:

So, you are saying that when people think they hear a difference when using a new cable. Then cannot tell the difference between them in a properly run DBT, that the more likely answer is that being in a DBT is the problem? Not any number of the demonstrable and well supported psycho-acoustical phenomena we know affect listening experiences?
 
Sorry. If a perceived effect vanishes when objectively tested, the most likely answer is not that the test is flawed.

In principle, I agree.
 
In practice, humans perceive localization in strange yet wonderful ways which are not controlled for in dbt's.  On the surface, the test conditions seem rigorous, in practice they may not be appropriate for the task at hand.
 
jn

 
 

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

I do not like you. 

 
If it were up to you, there would be no victoria secret advertisements...  That is not a world I choose to live in..
 
 

Women's underthings are one place where I will whole-heartedly accept claims of magical properties and defying physics. 
 

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAttorney /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Yes they are. However, the only human response foible that they can't control for is, by definition, the very act of being in a DBT. I'm talking about the A/B rapid switching types. Theoretically, you can have a DBT that lasts all year, but in practice that's not how they're run.

I'm not sure where this claim is coming from. Most of the tests I've been aware of over the years allowed for rather leisurely listening times. Now, because our auditory memory tends to diminish as differences become more and more subtle, a good blind test demands that when the decision to switch from A to B or B to A is made, that that transition take place as rapidly and seamlessly as possible. But that's not the same thing as rapidly switching back and forth between A and B. Are you sure you're not confusing one type of "rapid switching" for the other? Because that's one of the most common misunderstandings about AB testing that I see out there.
 
se
 
 
 

 

[Chris J]

Quote:

That's not ironic at all. They shouldn't have made claims they could not demonstrate. Then it's not an issue.  
 
Frankly, I can think of more than one audio company that should have their ads and packaging shot down by an advertising board for making false (or unproven, or unprovable) claims.

My point was the company used to publish measurements that showed the cable reduced poweline noise, i.e they made a claim they could back up.
Then they crossed some line by stating the cable makes your stereo sound better.
They got their butt kicked, now they publish NO measurements.
 


Quote:

I do not like you. 

 
If it were up to you, there would be no victoria secret advertisements...  That is not a world I choose to live in..
 
jn
 
 

I agree.
In addition, why do we accept the outlandish claims the wine connoisseurs make?
For me there are two different wines: white and red. OK, I exaggerate. But I find it difficult to tell the difference between various Chardonnays, never mind different vintages.
 
 

 

[liamstrain]

Quote:

I agree.
In addition, why do we accept the outlandish claims the wine connoisseurs make?
For me there are two different wines: white and red. OK, I exaggerate. But I find it difficult to tell the difference between various Chardonnays, never mind different vintages.
 

That's akin to saying there are only open or closed headphones to choose between ... and we know and can measure differences between different models within them. Some people can tell the differences better than others, but they are measurable. Ditto wine. Thrown them in a spectrometer and you'll see the differences. This is not the case with two cables of equal resistance/inductance/capacitance but different materials. 
 

 

[jnjn]

Quote:

My point was the company used to publish measurements that showed the cable reduced poweline noise, i.e they made a claim they could back up.
Then they crossed some line by stating the cable makes your stereo sound better.
They got their butt kicked, now they publish NO measurements.
 

I agree.
In addition, why do we accept the outlandish claims the wine connoisseurs make?
For me there are two different wines: white and red. OK, I exaggerate. But I find it difficult to tell the difference between various Chardonnays, never mind different vintages.
 
 

Quite honestly, I wish that there was only red and white wine.  In the past, my wife and I were very cheap dates.  Unfortunately, we have in the last several years, started to tell the difference between the wines we've grown accustomed to, and some of the more expensive bottles to be had in the local grape growing area.  My wallet does indeed prefer the under 10 bucks bottles of chardonnay.  Unfortunately, we have found at least two sources of excellent (to us) chards in the 35 dollar range, and have been amazed at the gift bottles in the 150 dollar per range..
 
While price is not the driver for us, we absolutely know the difference from the first taste..if anybody can fool us in a comparison between our 35'vers and one less than 10, I would purchase several cases instantly..no questions asked...  Oh, and I used to laugh at all that "hint of pepper", "aftertaste of peach" yada yada stuff the wine guys would say...but sunovagun, I'm learning that my first response to such wording was.....foolish on my part...
 
jn
 

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Ditto wine. Thrown them in a spectrometer and you'll see the differences.

 
Actually, blind testing is routine in the wine tasting business.
 
se