[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by colonelkernel8 /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, they have significant interest in making money.

Well I guess that's true, but that does not mean the study is wrong or that they don't have even more interest in creating something meaningful. After all, the more robust the methodology is, the less one can dismiss it as marketing.

I've spoken to Roy and Steve and I sense a real good faith effort to create a tangible, scientific metric and testing methodology.

One thing that was clear from the PPT presentation, they really went into a very detailed methodology that was designed by real scientists and engineers.

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slash47 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Come on man... If it turns out there is an explainable difference between cables and 'power cleaners' and stuff like that, it would be quite interesting to know, wouldn't it? If this piece is just a preview that summarizes their findings so far that's fine with me. If this is 'it', it's rather shallow and a wee bit pointless.

This is just a preview. As I stated earlier, there is a white paper coming and they told me the presentation would be placed online soon.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif It goes into more detail on the methodology but these are respected scientists and sound engineers doing the work.

Are they? The two case studies are some of the most amateurish work I've seen. As is their website.

se

 

[TwoTrack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Are they? The two case studies are some of the most amateurish work I've seen. As is their website. se

You seem really out to get these guys. As I said, it's just a preview. The full presentation I saw at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest was quite good and I know my presentations.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif You seem really out to get these guys.

Not out to get anyone. It's amateurish. Even for a preview. And why is it still just a preview? The case studies are dated May 2009. That's nearly a year ago.

Quote:

The full presentation I saw at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest was quite good and I know my presentations.

Who gave the presentation? Acuity? If so, what on earth is a so-called "independent" testing entity doing giving dog and pony shows venues like RMAF?

se

 

[Shark_Jump]

Look at start of Fig 4 shows a approx 17.5% difference in amplitude between origional track and CDP.

Now look at Fig 1 ref. signal and Fig 2 CPP output. At the same time point there is no visible difference at all.

On this basis I would hazard a guess that the Figures 1 to 3 are in linear pk-pk amplitude or the like whereas Figures 4 to 6 are in PERCENTAGE OF 1 DECIBEL.

Hence we are talking about differences of the order of a mosquito fart at 100yards.

 

[TwoTrack]

I'm out of here. No one has an open mind on this forum.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm out of here. No one has an open mind on this forum.

Least of all you.

se

 

[crapback]

I still want to know what unit the amplitude in graphs 1 to 3 are measured in.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shark_Jump /img/forum/go_quote.gif Look at start of Fig 4 shows a approx 17.5% difference in amplitude between origional track and CDP. Now look at Fig 1 ref. signal and Fig 2 CPP output. At the same time point there is no visible difference at all. On this basis I would hazard a guess that the Figures 1 to 3 are in linear pk-pk amplitude or the like whereas Figures 4 to 6 are in PERCENTAGE OF 1 DECIBEL. Hence we are talking about differences of the order of a mosquito fart at 100yards.

I zoomed in and took screenshots of the figs and cropped them in Gimp, there are visible differences at a high enough zoom (400 - 800%) but they do not seem to be consistent with the high % differences they quote. And as mentioned elsewhere what they call distortion routinely goes to 15 or 18% these are literally unbelievable figures for something that is not broken.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nonsense. Parties use their own experts in court all the time and mostly they pay them too.

Yet they aren't brought in under the premise of being unbiased either.

Quote:

Getting back to this type of dispute, everyone has some bias or another even things like too much ego invested in some arcanity like audio cable differences or lack thereof. The issue is the reliability and repeatablity of a result. The scientific way to challenge a result is to attempt to replicate it and fail.

And that's the thing, we don't even know what's being tested or the methodology. There's no way to currently repeat it.

 

[MrGreen]

There is 1 million dollars currently on offer for anyone who can prove that cables in audio make a difference. Can't remember the guy who set it, he sets a lto of these sorts of challenges though.


It has been left unclaimed.


Until someone can claim it audiophiles are kidding themselves with cables for "acoustic" properties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif some of the most amateurish work I've seen. As is their website.

Haha wow you aren't kidding.

 

[n3rdling]

heh, that 'evidence' is pretty bad. I'll read the full report when it's released, but I don't have high hopes given the preview.

 

[brendon]

This is ridiculous ! There are so many flaws pointed out by people and the OP is lamenting that people dont have an open mind ? Why can't he see that there is a good chance this is pure BS being thrown at us given the innumerable holes in their report.

 

[SoupRKnowva]