[Ableza]

I couldn't agree more. I also let those cable discussions pass, because participating is pointless. And indeed, I have no reason to visit those "audio science" bois. The problem with "audio science" is this, in my opinion:

REAL science works more or less like this:
1. Scientist makes an observation.
2. Proper measurements are made to clearly describe the observation.
3. Scientist tries to explain the observation in line with current scientific theories.
4. If the explanation is satisfactory, it stops here.
5. If it is not, the scientist looks into better/different types of measurements.
6. If that doesn't explain the observation, the scientist looks into modifying the theory, or to come up with a complete new theory that explains the observation. Obviously, the new theory will only be accepted when it can be supported by experiments.

This is how we went from Newton to Einstein, etc.

So a real scientist is infinitely curious. And he knows very well that being "right" today doesn't mean anything tomorrow. Science evolves. And you can only be successful in this field if you have a truly open mind, if you are open to new observations that challenge trusted theories.

But these audio "science" adepts stop at point 3. And if the explanation is not satisfactory, they don't doubt the measurements. They don't look for better theories. They simply say "your observation is wrong, you can't hear a difference because I can't measure it". That is not real science, it's a farce.

Great post. One of the goals in holistic science, which is my background, is to ensure the observation is complete and to include as much of the entire system in the observation model as possible before attempting analysis. Also, to realize that with human systems there are almost always cases where causal analysis is impossible, where the mechanisms in the model may not be known, and to use phenomenology to describe those behaviours. One error that many amateur audio "scientists" make is to focus on one effect and then jump to grand universal conclusions after deciding they have found a cause. "I think the sound stage is bigger therefor it is caused by this widget and everyone will agree." They fail to realize that what they observed may be a small part of the system, that it may be perceivable to only them or their small test set under very specific circumstances, that the cause (measured or not) they test may not be the only cause, and that their conclusion should be very narrow and only be applied to their specific test conditions.

 

[Paladin79]

I don't disagree but would add that it's not necessarily a/the scientist that makes the initial observation. I get quite vexed with the "sound scientists" who say that because I observed X I need to provide explanation Y. I am not a scientist. An actual scientist may choose to follow up my observation (or not) but I am under no obligation to come up with a possibly tortured explanation.

It's almost like requiring a surveillance camera in Strange Evidence to actually explain the phenomenon it observed.

Part of my background is in science but not audio science per se.

There are folks who can hear things others cannot, or they have been exposed to enough of an area that they can tell differences.

I get skeptical if someone tells me they can hear the difference in two nearly identical pieces of wires. My first response, is "Great! show me." Occasionally I will find someone who can do this in blind listening but it is rare. I try to make no such claims myself and if others can hear things I cannot, more power to them.

Some science is taking the work of others and doing experimentation. There is an excellent non-fiction book covering Guglielmo Marconi and how some of his inventions came about. Thunderstruck by Eric Larson, a very good read IMHO.

 

[Porteroso]

There are folks who can hear things others cannot, or they have been exposed to enough of an area that they can tell differences.

I get skeptical if someone tells me they can hear the difference in two nearly identical pieces of wires. My first response, is "Great! show me."

We're all totally beating a dead horse, not sure why, but I agree totally. The idea that science knows all there is to know about running electricity through copper or silver wires is of course, bollocks. There are certainly people with better ears than others, but blind tests are the only thing that matters. Music is my vocation, and I doubt that I could tell the difference between a copper cable and a silver, or a coat hanger for that matter. So for me, anything expensive is a waste. If someone else can hear the difference, then for them, it's money well spent.

Time and time again, wise posters on this forum are saying "you need to hear it for yourself," or "YMMV" or whatever else, but it is simply human nature for all of us to want to be able to read a definitive "this is better than this other thing," because we just want to know. But until science can tell us that the whatever from Lithuania actually works, the only relevant measurement is listening for yourself.

 

[45longcolt]

One of the best things about music is that it transcends the limits of vocabulary and even thought. Ableza's "rant," and the replies it has inspired, illustrate how easy it is to get caught up in the miasma of language, ego and status seeking that all too often spoils our enjoyment of what should be a fun hobby. While it is proper to call out the charlatans, the misguided and the just-plain-jerks, let's hope people aren't dissuaded from experimenting. That's how you learn, grow and discover new delights. And while it may be useful to report on your experiences, please don't assume you've discovered some Universal Truth. Share and enjoy.

 

[Ableza]

I would argue that science does indeed know everything there is to know about electricity running through wire, but that those effects are not what is important in audio.

 

[Paladin79]

One of the best things about music is that it transcends the limits of vocabulary and even thought. Ableza's "rant," and the replies it has inspired, illustrate how easy it is to get caught up in the miasma of language, ego and status seeking that all too often spoils our enjoyment of what should be a fun hobby. While it is proper to call out the charlatans, the misguided and the just-plain-jerks, let's hope people aren't dissuaded from experimenting. That's how you learn, grow and discover new delights. And while it may be useful to report on your experiences, please don't assume you've discovered some Universal Truth. Share and enjoy.

Nicely said.

In the meantime I am getting some tubes together to send to Jason so folks there can check our some 6sn7's they may not have heard before and most likely I will learn from their likes and dislikes.

I did have an opportunity not long ago to listen to 20 top name DAC's in one sitting and it was a very nice way to narrow down my listening preferences. The tubes may help someone decide that some $20 tubes can sound remarkably good.

@bcowen is kind enough to help with some quality octal extensions for use inside Lyr 3's, if that is what Jason ends up using.

 

[FLTWS]

Excellent read on all your posts today fellas. Sometimes we forget the obvious and get buried in the minutiae of our personal preferences as topics under discussion evolve.
I just try to keep in mind that I can never tell anyone what they will hear, I can only tell them what I heard.
Respect everyone's position;
(except for the

).
And furthermore... I'm due for second cup-o-jo!

 

[EricDH]

Great post. One of the goals in holistic science, which is my background, is to ensure the observation is complete and to include as much of the entire system in the observation model as possible before attempting analysis. Also, to realize that with human systems there are almost always cases where causal analysis is impossible, where the mechanisms in the model may not be known, and to use phenomenology to describe those behaviours. One error that many amateur audio "scientists" make is to focus on one effect and then jump to grand universal conclusions after deciding they have found a cause. "I think the sound stage is bigger therefor it is caused by this widget and everyone will agree." They fail to realize that what they observed may be a small part of the system, that it may be perceivable to only them or their small test set under very specific circumstances, that the cause (measured or not) they test may not be the only cause, and that their conclusion should be very narrow and only be applied to their specific test conditions.

Your post is a welcome addition.

I am well aware that the way I described science in my post, is from the objectivist stance (widely, but not exclusively, used in the exact sciences), where the observer is an outsider, who doesn't interact with the observed phenomena, and certainly has no impact on the observation itself (or at least tries to minimize his impact at any cost).

Contrary to that is the subjectivist stance (which is somewhat similar, or at least partly overlaps with the holistic approach as you describe it). This stance is widely (but again not exclusively) used in social sciences. Here, the observer does interact with the observed phenomena (or persons), and is aware that his influence may and often will impact the results. When the subjectivist stance started in research, many objectivist scientists argued that the subjectivist way of researching was not science at all. They pushed the "subjectivists" into defense mode, which in turn lead to subjectivists tighten their methodologies.

I believe that current consensus is that both objectivist and subjectivist stances in science (each with their proven methodologies) have their merit.

 

[Ableza]

Your post is a welcome addition.

I am well aware that the way I described science in my post, is from the objectivist stance (widely, but not exclusively, used in the exact sciences), where the observer is an outsider, who doesn't interact with the observed phenomena, and certainly has no impact on the observation itself (or at least tries to minimize his impact at any cost).

Contrary to that is the subjectivist stance (which is somewhat similar, or at least partly overlaps with the holistic approach as you describe it). This stance is widely (but again not exclusively) used in social sciences. Here, the observer does interact with the observed phenomena (or persons), and is aware that his influence may and often will impact the results. When the subjectivist stance started in research, many objectivist scientists argued that the subjectivist way of researching was not science at all. They pushed the "subjectivists" into defense mode, which in turn lead to subjectivists tighten their methodologies.

I believe that current consensus is that both objectivist and subjectivist stances in science (each with their proven methodologies) have their merit.

And audio is both. It is objectivist inside the gear, and subjectivist once the acoustic waveform is created. Because human perception is involved.

In my field of Cybernetics, the idea that the act of observation impacts the system is a given, whether interaction occurs or not. Again, because of human perception and interpretation.

 

[Robert Padgett]

Let me go on record...I studied Science at school, and I discovered the Stereo at the same time.
The parameter I use is my ears. On any given day, my mood, my attitude, the barometric pressure, the humidity, and the weather can affect my hearing, so any observations I could relate are dependent upon "set and setting" of the listening.

If your enjoyment in this hobby is seeking an improvement, in a manner that can be repeated by others, I am glad you are an innovator. If you only like to listen to Classical music through headphones, I can relate, as I have gained this appreciation. And if you just want to hear Led Zeppelin II on a really good stereo, I can do that.

What others think, discover or write about their listening experience is limited to those listeners, and it may or may not be something that I can also enjoy.
That is to say, if you cannot hear the difference between cable A or cable B, that's not going to affect my listening impressions. It is nice when somebody agrees with me, but it is also OK if they disagree.
The real issue is whether we can disagree, without being disagreeable.

If a hobby is an enjoyable endeavor, it should be fun. That is my two-cents worth.

 

[Xcalibur255]

I did get 100 hours on a Foton tube and I am listening now and comparing it to a fairly new one that started out with the same specs. There is a difference, and with a few quick tests I am going to say that it appears to be measurable as well but I may not get into extensive testing till tomorrow. @bcowen will be pleased. I can see it on VU meters, there is some harshness rounded out but the level is not what the new one reads. Bass seems a bit stronger but that is easy enough to check.

Certain parameters like emission are supposed to improve during the first few hours of a new tube's life. The explanation I've commonly seen is that it's due primarily to the getter working to get the last minute traces of air out of the tube and improve the vacuum integrity.

 

[Paladin79]

Certain parameters like emission are supposed to improve during the first few hours of a new tube's life. The explanation I've commonly seen is that it's due primarily to the getter working to get the last minute traces of air out of the tube and improve the vacuum integrity.

Agreed, now after 100 hours I would think a decline is starting.

 

[Xcalibur255]

Anybody remember the Monster Cable litany of threatened lawsuits a number of years ago? They were sending cease and desist letters, and even intent-to-sue letters to anybody using the word Monster in their brand or company name. Easily confusable entities like Monster Mini-Golf and Monster car wash...you know stuff that was real similar. I remember LMAO at the response from Blue Jeans Cable to their initial threat (which was over a connector design) -- made me want to buy some Blue Jeans cables even though I didn't need any. Never followed it to see what the eventual outcome was, although I haven't bought a Monster Cable product since (and never will again) due to their strong arm and threatening tactics.

This was Blue Jean's response:

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/response041408.pdf

Main page here:

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/

They tried to sue Disney to get them to stop using the word Monster in the movie Monsters Inc. I remember reading the response from the Disney lawyers on that one, which was both scathing and subtly tongue-in-cheek. Priceless.

 

[Robert Padgett]

They tried to sue Disney to get them to stop using the word Monster in the movie Monsters Inc. I remember reading the response from the Disney lawyers on that one, which was both scathing and subtly tongue-in-cheek. Priceless.

How about Monster Energy drink? I bet that was an interesting letter to NASCAR...

 

[RCBinTN]

Great rant @Ableza ... you are an effective ranter

When I was working, we were tasked to investigate a product complaint.
A re-work machine operator had spliced together two different products (rolls of film) and sent the finished roll to the customer.
P&G of course caught the mistake and they were pissed.

We used the 8D = 6W2H method to investigate, which includes human factors.
There were many contributing causes ... the products stored together, impossible to visually see their difference, and etc.
Our opinion, however, was this: the operator was a temporary worker, he'd applied for full status but was rejected, and was working his last shift on a Friday night unsupervised.
Our conclusion - it wasn't a mistake at all, but a deliberate act. We wanted to ask him, but he was on his way to Amsterdam.