[dparrish]

Phreon,

Being TRULY objective/rational also means being willing to consider the possibilities based on experience, not just on the ability to measure something using known criteriae.

As Kelly said, I, too, would prefer not to hear the differences in cabling, as I am a school music teacher (and don't make alot of money), but I DO. In my experience, there is a difference in most every cable I've heard. This applies to my listening to many interconnects, speaker cables, and digital connects (I in fact heard a digital coax that Kelly brought over--I would NEVER have thought there to be ANY difference in digital cables--but there was).

There is a long history of scientific knowledge advancing DESPITE what the concensus of current scientists/scientific knowledge would argue. I have spent enough time on rec.audio.highend (the source you quoted for the cable test) to know that the group that runs that forum has DEFINATELY made up its mind (read=close-minded) that cables do not/could not possibly sound different. You seem to claim that those of us who DO hear these differences are either experiencing a psychological phenomena or are just not rational; I, on the other hand, would say that we are just more open-minded, willing to accept the differences we hear, without any (currently)scientific measurements to back up our claims

I would politely suggest that you drop this attempt to persuade us, because we cannot deny that we hear these differences, despite what others may hear/not hear.

 

[dparrish]

Having said what I did above, I DO understand your skepticism regarding the idea that the more expensive a cable is, the better it must sound.

There certainly are people out there who would take advantage of audiophile dollars without really delivering on claims--this is true of any industry though. The fact that there are no generally agreed-upon measurements to associate with a particular cable's sound DOES further complicate the problem.

But this doesn't mean that those differences don't exist, or that more expensive cables can't sound better. In fact, my experience has been that, MOST of the time, more expensive TENDS to sound better (to my ears). This is a generalization and is not always true. As more is learned about how to make cables sound better (purer/fewer-crystalled copper, for example) and more companies implement these features, the cost of better sounding cables does tend to come down over time--at least that is my perception. But, at least based on MY experience, more expensive often translates into better sound. Occasionally one finds a bargain which might sound almost as good as a very expensive item, but this has largely been the exception for me.
But then again, I SOMETIMES prefer the food of a cheap restaurant to that of an expensive one, but this is a rarity as well.

 

[Phreon]

Quote:

Originally posted by dparrish Phreon, Being TRULY objective/rational also means being willing to consider the possibilities based on experience, not just on the ability to measure something using known criteriae. As Kelly said, I, too, would prefer not to hear the differences in cabling, as I am a school music teacher (and don't make alot of money), but I DO. In my experience, there is a difference in most every cable I've heard. This applies to my listening to many interconnects, speaker cables, and digital connects (I in fact heard a digital coax that Kelly brought over--I would NEVER have thought there to be ANY difference in digital cables--but there was). There is a long history of scientific knowledge advancing DESPITE what the concensus of current scientists/scientific knowledge would argue. I have spent enough time on rec.audio.highend (the source you quoted for the cable test) to know that the group that runs that forum has DEFINATELY made up its mind (read=close-minded) that cables do not/could not possibly sound different. You seem to claim that those of us who DO hear these differences are either experiencing a psychological phenomena or are just not rational; I, on the other hand, would say that we are just more open-minded, willing to accept the differences we hear, without any (currently)scientific measurements to back up our claims I would politely suggest that you drop this attempt to persuade us, because we cannot deny that we hear these differences, despite what others may hear/not hear.

I certainly do not want to come off as sounding dismissive. I just find it very curious that a group of people could be so sure of their convictions, yet at the same time actively avoid double blind testing that could confirm their ability to distinguish cables once and for all. We are all succeptible to the effects of our hopes and desires. Can you ascribe the the popularity of Bose speakers to any other phenomena? Bose speakers are big name items and are expensive. They *must* be good!

Am I close minded for saying te sky is blue and the Earth is round? Why are the rec.audio folks close minded for stating that there is no significant difference between cables when in double blind tests, people cannot distinguish the difference? What other explanation can you offer for their sudden lack of discrimination skills when they cannot see which cable they are listening to? How can you dismiss baisc laws of physics that refute the manufacturer's claims?

I had a discussion the other day with a friend about the difference between Excedrin and Excedrin Migraine. They swear that Excedrin Migraine works much better. Even after pointing out on the product labels that both items are identical, they still would not agree that the "migraine formula" is not more effective than the "regular formula" Were they being open minded or closed minded? Is the difference anything other than the placebo effect?

Isn't it close minded to dismiss an entire group of people because they don't hold your views? Are astrophysicists closed minded for refusing all arguments that the earth is flat?

As I've stated before, my mission is not to persuade anyone. I just want some answers to why a $500 power cable should make a difference. An answer beyond pure conjecture. Both you and Kelly have done nothing but say in so many words, "You ask to many questions, I don't like that, please stop".

I'm sorry if you or Kelly find my desire to gather facts obnoxious. I have not made any derisive statements and really don't want to argue with anyone, but if someone challenges accepted scientific laws using bad logic, I will respond. Like I said, it's unfortunate that you or anyone are troubled by my questions...I admit I'm annoyingly persistant though.

I read the Virtual Dynamics (I found that name ironic, look up the def. of virtual) technology section and nearly laughed myself out of my couch. Most of the claims they make are only vaguely applicable in the audio range of frequencies (not 60hz power) and the rest are outright fabrications.

For example, here's their blurb explaining their "Speed of Light" technology:

"Electrons can travel at the speed of light. The capacitance of a cable will often limit how close to light speed an electron can reach. By placing an Acceleration Field within the path of the electrons, we accelerate the electron back to the speed of light. This results in a great increase in the cable's power throughput.

Our engineers have not yet fully put a finger on why Speed of Light is so dramatic. We expect to soon have a vast understanding to share with you on our new technology.
"

Accceleration field? Have not fully put a finger on why Speed of Light is so dramatic? I wonder why that is? Why would speeding up the travel of electrons to your amplifier's power supply via an "acceleration field"(not possible) effect it's soundstage? The speed of electrons, or more precisely the speed that electrons flow at below those in free space, in a conductor, is directly related to the capacitance of the insulator surrounding it. The common term for this is "velocity factor". When dealing with frequencies and voltages withinin the realm of your household supply, velocity factor has no effect. To put it simply, the whole explanation they give is a load of crap. That goes for their explanation of the "Coloumb Effect" in their "Dynamic Filtering" technology as well. And the "Poly Phenyl Either", correctly known as Polyphenyl ETHER, in their ProTecX treatment is found in many common contact cleaners and lubricants. It's been around for years. Not that revolutionary.


The VD Basic cable may very well have measurable benefits, but the the complete load of hogwash given on their page is not the reason.

So can anyone offer a rational explanation as to why these high expense cables are better, other than saying, "Cause I know it's true, science is bad, neener neener neener" ?


Phreon

Any typographical or grammatical errors you my sense are due to the current solar flux shifting the aperture grid of your monitor.

 

[Hirsch]

This is a DBT-free forum. Since there seems to be no place else for this to go, I'm locking the thread.