Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201   Report Post  
Steve Maki
 
Posts: n/a
Default Audio challenge (was weakest Link in the Chain)

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
...
BTW, the number $4,000 has been thrown around here recently. So

far as I
know, no one has a fixed list of contributors and amounts, and

some people
who have offered to contribute in the past may not have been

heard from
recently. Perhaps, in the interests of truth in advertising, we

should say
there's a pot in the low-to-mid thousands. If we get an actual

taker, we'll
probably have to confirm the pool.


OK, it's time to get some people to step up to the challenge.


We do this every few years - I've been in for $400 from the start.
I might as well adjust it for inflation - let's say $500 and the
infamous Yamaha AX-700. Oops, I sold that. OK, $500 and a QSC
ABX comparitor. That's it...

--
Steve Maki
  #202   Report Post  
Steve Maki
 
Posts: n/a
Default Audio challenge (was weakest Link in the Chain)

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
...
BTW, the number $4,000 has been thrown around here recently. So

far as I
know, no one has a fixed list of contributors and amounts, and

some people
who have offered to contribute in the past may not have been

heard from
recently. Perhaps, in the interests of truth in advertising, we

should say
there's a pot in the low-to-mid thousands. If we get an actual

taker, we'll
probably have to confirm the pool.


OK, it's time to get some people to step up to the challenge.


We do this every few years - I've been in for $400 from the start.
I might as well adjust it for inflation - let's say $500 and the
infamous Yamaha AX-700. Oops, I sold that. OK, $500 and a QSC
ABX comparitor. That's it...

--
Steve Maki
  #203   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default Audio challenge (was weakest Link in the Chain)

Rusty Boudreaux wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
...
BTW, the number $4,000 has been thrown around here recently. So

far as I
know, no one has a fixed list of contributors and amounts, and

some people
who have offered to contribute in the past may not have been

heard from
recently. Perhaps, in the interests of truth in advertising, we

should say
there's a pot in the low-to-mid thousands. If we get an actual

taker, we'll
probably have to confirm the pool.


OK, it's time to get some people to step up to the challenge.

I'll add $5,000 of my own hard cash to the pot for any winner
involving cables, amps, CD players, DACs, isolation devices,
power cords, etc.

The trials must be proctored and verified by someone such as Tom
Nousaine.

The offer stands indefinitely.

I can always be found at:
r us t y d ot bou dr ea u xatieeedotorg


I committed to $100 before. I will raise it to $200.
  #204   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 20:05:36 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 15 Jan 2004 06:20:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

May be so, but the considerable increase in transparency between equipment
of the early 80's seems mostly attributable to the passive components. Not
much else has changed in amplifiers, for example.


Utter garbage! Firstly, there has been no improvement in transparency,
since the best amps already were sonically transparent, and secondly,
what radically changed in amplifiers during the '70s was the active
components, as high-speed bipolar power transistors became available.

And yet the cumulative effect of improved (from a sound standpoint)
capacitors and low-noise resistors has been a marked increase in
transparency.


Rubbish. Any improvement through the '70s occurred in the treble, and
was due to the imroved speed of the power devices allowing dramatic
reductions in switching distortion and HF IMD, absolutely nothing at
all to do with passives, as metal film resistors and film/foil
capacitors were already standard in good quality amplifiers.

I have a mid '80s amplifier which sounds exactly the same as a good
modern amplifier. You are talking nonsense, there is *no* 'increase in
transparency' with modern amps, because amps were pretty much a done
deal by the mid '80s. It is also *impossible* for two cables with the
same resistance to have any effect on bass.


I think if you read my post, I said "early '80's" not "mid-eighties". The
early '80's is when most companies switched to using better passives.


Utter rubbish. You are once again making it up as you go along,
because you refuse to admit your errors. There was of course much
*noise* about 'better' passives in the '80s, but as with 'audiophile'
cables, there was no *real* difference in performance. This remains
true today, with lots of little back-street companies offering magical
'upgrades' to perfectly good audio components.

So
yes, by the mid-late '80's most amps sounded better. I would have been more
prudent to say late '70's. And of course it would be a moot point if you
didn't misquote me.


Nice dodge, Harry..................

Let me be quite clear. Amplifier design simply *has not* audibly
improved since the *early* '80s, or indeed the late '70s, and that has
*nothing* to do with passive components, but everything to do with the
general availability of much faster bipolar power transistors, which
haven't improved significantly since that time.

Further, modern resistors are not different in any way from those
which were available in the mid-70s (leaving aside the highly
specialised bulk-metal resistors which appeared in the early '80s),
and neither have film/foil capacitors, indeed top-class film caps are
*harder* to find now than they were in the '80s.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #205   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

On 15 Jan 2004 22:38:18 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"normanstrong" wrote in message
...


A 3rd person should be present to verify the cable connection,
immediately AFTER the subject has made his guess. This 3rd person
should have no contact with the subject during the period of the test.
The subject's wife is a good choice for the 3rd person.

If you want to cross all the t's and dot all the i's, I recommend a
4th person to proctor the subject. In any case, there should never be
a person who knows the actual connection that is within range of the
subject.


As has been said here so many times, doing dbt's to evaluate equipment at
home is a simple process; anyone should do it *whenever* they want to
eliminate sighted bias and use the ears only.

All you need are four people and a weeks time to do it right. But that's
just me, obviously looking for an out! :-)


It certainly is, since it can all be done in a couple of hours.......
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #206   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:15:34 GMT, François Yves Le Gal
wrote:

On 15 Jan 2004 20:12:11 GMT, (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

In fact,
the technically very best speaker cable that money can buy is made by
Dunlavy Audio, and guess what? John Dunlavy himself admits that it
sounds just like zipcord.


Nope. Quoting John Dunlavy:

"I have clearly stated, within many of my posts here on the NET that,
within properly operating hi-end audiophile systems, expensive
loudspeaker and interconnect cables can seldom make an audible
difference or improvement."

Seldom never.

"However, I do believe it is possible that a properly designed cable
might potentially improve the audible accuracy of some high-end
audiophile systems."

A properly designed cable *might* improve the audible accuracy of a system.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...s1.newsguy.com


At least you did give the full reference for that particular quote,
although I note that you failed to highlight this part:

"Frankly, however, during blind A-B comparisons between the most
expensive loudspeaker cables, 12 AWG ZIP Cord and DAL's Z-6 cable, no
audible differences appear to exist within a properly operating,
hi-end, audiophile system."

So, as ever, you use selected highlights as an argument, when it's
clear even from that one article which you quoted, that JD *did* say
that his best cable sounds just like zipcord. Typical of you, Frankie,
absolutely typical.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #208   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:11:56 GMT, (Buster Mudd)
wrote:

Oh. I guess I was under the impression that the claims of the
manufacturers were immaterial to your contention. Jeez, the claims of
nearly *any* manufacturer should be taken w/ a major grain of salt, it
doesn't require a DBT to set off ones' bull**** detectors when
Marketing Speak comes a 'calling! I thought it was the claims of the
listeners, those who said they could hear a difference between Tara
Labs or Monster Cable or Nordost et al, & Home Depot zip cord, that
was being challenged.

So you're saying you AGREE that there's (potentially) an audible
difference between cheap zip cord and expensive boutique cable, right?

Also, did you fail to get the point that I can match the FR of
*any* 'audiophile' cable for a couple of dollars?


I got that point. What I apparently didn't get is what the specifics
of this $4000 (+/-) challenge are. I thought, based on many posts by
yourself (Mr. Pinkerton), Mr. Nousaine, Mr. Krueger, & others, that
the contention was that those who claim they can hear a difference
between different speaker cables (or interconnects) were mistaken,
that they were succumbing to sighted bias & that in fact there were
*no* audible differences between any competent cable designs.


That's exactly correct.

But now
you're saying no audible differences "except for frequency response
anomalies" ...or no audible differences except for those that can be
matched with a couple dollars worth of passive components. I'm just
trying to get a handle on what the rules of this game are.


Note that any cable which does *not* have a flat FR is *by definition*
not a competent cable. However, it's no big deal to match the FR of
any particularly weird cable with a couple of buck's worth of passive
components. Are you suggesting that this is somehow cheating?!

I certainly understand how critically important level matching at a
single reference frequency is...but if having done so, frequency
response anomalies are evident, one would have to concede that the two
products under test probably sound different.


And if the 'boutique' cable is non-flat, then would you agree that it
is *by definition* inferior?

I guess the above didn't clarify it for me. I apologize if I seem
dense, but I am truely & honestly interested in knowing exactly what
the specifics of this $4000 challenge are...not because I disagree
with the basic premise, but because based on the posts I've read I
find that the basic premise is not at all clear-cut and obvious.


Of course it's clear-cut, the level-matching across the audio band has
*always* been a precondition.

If there's an audible difference between cable A & cable B, that
difference must be audible ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. If all other
things are NOT equal, you're not really comparing Cable A to Cable B,
your comparing Cable A (+X) to Cable B (where X is some other variable
that, if I understand you correctly, causes Cable A to ...duh! sound
like Cable B!)


Nope, we are making sure that ultra-cheap cable A has the same gross
LCR characterictics as ultra-expensive cable B. Check any 'boutique'
cable adverts, you will *never* see basic FR differences referenced as
having anything to do with the claimed sonic superiority of those
cables.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #209   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Audio challenge (was weakest Link in the Chain)

On 16 Jan 2004 06:32:33 GMT, Steve Maki wrote:

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote:


OK, it's time to get some people to step up to the challenge.


We do this every few years - I've been in for $400 from the start.
I might as well adjust it for inflation - let's say $500 and the
infamous Yamaha AX-700. Oops, I sold that. OK, $500 and a QSC
ABX comparitor. That's it...


OK, I'm in for $500.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #210   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

On 16 Jan 2004 03:08:42 GMT, (Buster Mudd) wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message ...
Buster Mudd wrote:

I guess I'm confused: I got the impression from the posts I'd read
here that your claim was that the differences between boutique
audiophile speaker cable & Home Depot 12awg zip cord would be
inaudible in DBTs. But you're saying that spectral distortions
potentially introduced by these cables *don't* count?

The "claim" is not that all cables are indistinguishable, though sometimes
people's wording is imprecise. (This is Usenet, not a peer-reviewed journal,
after all.) The "claim" is that, if a difference is really heard, it will be
the result of resistance-related (or perhaps inductance/capacitance related)
frequency response anomalies.


Oh, well that seems incredibly obvious (and mercifully concise, thank
you).

Though that doesn't quite explain how a Snake Oil Advocate would go
about separating the (quote-unquote) "objectivists" from their hard
earned +/- $4000.


Easy - just prove you can hear a difference.

If Joe Schmoe claims there is an audible difference
between, say, Home Depot 12awg zip cord ($0.25/foot) and Tara Labs
"The One" ($500/foot), & the ABX/DBT proctors claim "if a difference
is really heard, it will be the result of resistance-related (or
perhaps inductance/capacitance related) frequency response anomalies",
shouldn't the proper response be

"Ok, whatever"

...and then everyone just goes home & listens to music, in complete
agreement. Where does this whole You Only *Think* You Can Hear The
Difference challenge come into play?


Easy, just sit down, *listen* to the two cables, and *prove* that you
can hear a difference when you don't *know* which one's connected.
That's all you have to do.

What, you are seriously suggesting that adding a couple of buck's
worth of passive components to 12 AWG 'zipcord', in order to provide
accurate level-matching to *any* $500 a foot cable, is somehow
*cheating*?!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #212   Report Post  
---MIKE---
 
Posts: n/a
Default Earphones for cable testing?

Some posters have suggested that the movement of a listener's head by as
little as a few inches would alter the sound more than a change of
cables. I agree. That being said, why not run the test using
earphones? The greater sensitivity of the earphones should make the
test more sensitive.


-MIKE
  #213   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

(Buster Mudd) wrote in message
...
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
...
Buster Mudd wrote:
I guess I'm confused: I got the impression from the posts I'd read

here that your claim was that the differences between boutique
audiophile speaker cable & Home Depot 12awg zip cord would be
inaudible in DBTs. But you're saying that spectral distortions
potentially introduced by these cables *don't* count?
The "claim" is not that all cables are indistinguishable, though

sometimes people's wording is imprecise. (This is Usenet, not a
peer-reviewed journal, after all.) The "claim" is that, if a difference
is really heard, it will be the result of resistance-related (or perhaps
inductance/capacitance related) frequency response anomalies.


Oh, well that seems incredibly obvious (and mercifully concise, thank
you).

Though that doesn't quite explain how a Snake Oil Advocate would go
about separating the (quote-unquote) "objectivists" from their hard
earned +/- $4000. If Joe Schmoe claims there is an audible difference
between, say, Home Depot 12awg zip cord ($0.25/foot) and Tara Labs
"The One" ($500/foot), & the ABX/DBT proctors claim "if a difference
is really heard, it will be the result of resistance-related (or
perhaps inductance/capacitance related) frequency response anomalies",
shouldn't the proper response be

"Ok, whatever"

...and then everyone just goes home & listens to music, in complete
agreement. Where does this whole You Only *Think* You Can Hear The
Difference challenge come into play?


First of all, in many cases where audiophiles claim to hear differences
there really aren't substantial FR differences. Wire isn't wire, but
12-gauge copper is 12-gauge copper (and really isn't distinguishable from
12-gauge silver).

And when 12-gauge wire isn't 12-gauge wire, it's because a "designer" has
done something to intentionally muck it up, like loading resistors into
those funny little boxes on the ends. Since many audiophiles seem so
impressed with those boxes that they're willing to spend hundreds of dollars
on them, it's worth demonstrating that we can produce the same (distorting)
effect with a few bucks worth of Radio Shack gewgaws.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&...tmail/es2&ST=1
  #214   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

Tom Nousaine wrote:

I'd say your comments are showing that you are working that way. Even IF
we
allow full credence to your "argument" you still only have mild evidence
that
DVD-A and SACD may be useful technology. There's nothing in the Oohashi
report
that has any bearing on the amp/cable issue.

Actually, there's nothing in the Oohashi report that has any bearing on SACD
or DVD-A either. The reason Oohashi used a proprietary recording/playback
system was that commercially available equipment did not produce his
supposed "hypersonic effect."

Interestingly, in order to replicate Oohashi's findings, you must buy his
system.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
High-speed users—be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet
Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1
  #215   Report Post  
normanstrong
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

"John Corbett" wrote in message
news:BcINb.76887$I06.335211@attbi_s01...
In article , "normanstrong"
wrote:


I'd do 18 trials, instead of 20, since the probability of 14

correct
is 4.8%--very close to the statistical requirement of 5%.


Actually the p-value for 14/18 is .0154 and the p-value for 13/18 is

...048, so
you could ask for at least 13 correct in 18 trials if you wanted a

...05
level test.


You are so right! I slipped a column. Forgive me, please. Change
that to 13 out of 18.

Norm Strong


  #216   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

"chung" wrote in message
news:AvJNb.64752$5V2.72335@attbi_s53...
Harry Lavo wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
newsqhNb.52763$5V2.65388@attbi_s53...
Harry Lavo wrote:


Well lets start with timbre, dimensionality, width and depth of
soundstage,
transparency, microdynamics, macrodynamic freedom, etc etc.

And you think these are not caused by frequency responses

differences
or
distortion differences. And seriously, in cables?


I think these things can be caused by subtle differences in the

passive
components used, and in how they and the design itself handle

dynamics.

Well, you are not making sense here. If there are subtle differences in
passive components, they have to show up in frequency response,
distortion or noise measurements. All of those you said DBT's are
capable of differentiating. Especially if it's fast A/B switching, and
not extended, open-ended evaluation.


Yes, but not necessarily in the conventional distortion measurements.

BTW, active components play a much, much more important role than
passives in the resulting sound. Any difference is more likely due to
active parts (like poorly designed DAC's) than passive parts. Of

course,
the modders would like you to think that passives rule...


May be so, but the considerable increase in transparency between

equipment
of the early 80's seems mostly attributable to the passive components.


You are simply speculating. Care to provide any evidence to back that up?

I would say that the apparent increase of transparency in equipment is
due to the prevalent use of CD's as source material. It's much harder to
achieve transparency when your phono stages, your cartridge, etc. all
contribute signigicant sources of degradations. We probably have even
higher level of transparency now that there is more care in the
mastering of SACD's, DVD-A's and CD's (such as XRCD). The digital
technology exposes weak analog designs (like poor amps with high noise
levels) much more than vinyl technology.

In any event, metal film resistors and high quality capacitors have been
in use since at least the '70's. And in a properly designed amplifier,
those components (whether they are carbon resistors or metal film
resistors for instance) make very little difference in sound.

Not
much else has changed in amplifiers, for example.


Depends on how you make comparisons. There were poorly designed
amplifiers. There are still bad ones now.

And yet the cumulative effect of improved (from a sound standpoint)
capacitors and low-noise resistors has been a marked increase in
transparency.


Big OSAF.

All you need to prove your point is to provide measurements using
so-called high-end passives vs stock passives, and show improvements
that are above hearing thresholds. Has anyone done that?


I'm not here to prove my point. I'm trying to describe what I have heard as
a practicing audiophile of long standing. The big improvement came when the
industry moved en masse to using better capacitors and resistors..up until
that time the prevailing engineering opinion was they didn't matter. But
they did, and do.
And buy the way, the effect is not just cd although I don't dispute that
eliminating the phono preamp gives greater potential. But the improvement
also incuded phono stages.


snip


Just provide evidence that a measureable difference exceeding JND is

not
detectible in DBT's, but verifiably detectible in open-ended sighted
testing (or any test protocol you care to come up with). If your
speculations are true, it should not be too hard to do this, correct?


Since there is no technical reason why a cable should affect bass, your
concept of "dynamic clamp" is suspicious. That also raises the question
of how real are your claims of microdynamics, macrodynamics,
dimensionality, etc. Until you can state these in technical terms, I'm
afraid that they are not transferrable concepts.


This is RAHE, not RAT. I describe; you engineers figure out (by
investigating) what explains it.


This one is easy. You were not making a careful comparison. Bass
response depends a lot on the room acoustics and your listening
position, and there is no way a cable could cause a dynamic clamp in bass.


Nothing was changed but the cables in a room that I and my partner were
intimately familiar with and had the best acoustics I've ever had (both
theoretcially and in actual practice). She heard it; I heard it, and two
friends heard it. I've never rejected a product as rapidly as that one,
that's how bad it was.

That is how progress has always come about
in this hobby of ours.


We make progress if we learn to listen carefully...


And if we learn to leave 1% of ourselves open to saying "hmm, that sure
doesn't fit what I *think* I know...I wonder....". So you wonder if I
changed something else and I tell you no. Now what? Not even going to ask
me what cable it was?
  #217   Report Post  
Mkuller
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

Mkuller wrote:
Research - The program used is tested beforehand to determine the
artifact's
audibility within it.
Audio - Usually music is the program which is a very *insensitive*
source.


"Bob Marcus"
Why would a program be tested beforehand to determine an artifact's
audibility, when the point of the research itself is to determine the
artifact's reliability? What evidence do you have that music is any less
insensitive under any other test that doesn't involve the imagination? Come
on, real evidence.


Thank you for making my point. If the differences between two amplifiers
happen to be a difference in frequency response at 12kHz and the program chosen
is sensitive only up to 11kHz you will get...null results. I beleive it was jj
who corrected me when I said that DBTs were insensitive - he said the test
isn't but music as a program is. Part of the problem with music is that it is
dynamic, ever-changing and audible memory is notoriuosly poor at hanging on to
differences with a dynamic program.

If you're going to lecture us about the scientific method, you ought to try
practicing a little of it. It's not enough to claim that a test had some
element that you suspect would affect its reliability. You must also offer
some evidence that this element actually can affect its reliability. Until
you have such evidence, you are talking through your hat. In the meantime,
the paradigm for testing audible differences stands.


From your questions it's pretty obvious that you don't have an real experience
or knowledge in applying DBTs scientifically. I've explained where I see some
important differences in their application between research and audio and all
you can do is turn the question around and ask me for proof. I'm looking for
proof that DBTs actually work in comparing audio components with music and
don't obscure the subtle audible differences. From my experience and scientific
knowledge it appears to me that they don't.

I have told you that I believe they do this because of the way the brain works
in storing and recalling audible memory. Relaxed listening uses a different
part of the brain than the matching/decision-making required in ABX. So far the
only differences DBTs seem to reveal in audio component testing are big ones -
gross frequency response and loudness (i.e. as in speakers or bright CD
players). If you have proof or evidence that DBTs actually work for the use you
are suggesting, please provide it to me. If not, you are welcome to your
belief system and I'll stick to mine.
Regards,
Mike

  #218   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

Harry Lavo wrote:


And if we learn to leave 1% of ourselves open to saying "hmm, that sure
doesn't fit what I *think* I know...I wonder....". So you wonder if I
changed something else and I tell you no. Now what? Not even going to ask
me what cable it was?


Not necessary, since that would be like sighted testing at this point.
Go back and re-run your test first. Then report here if you truly
believe that your have repeatable, verifiable results (bass clamping,
i.e.). We can get hold of that cable to make some measurements. That's
how we can improve our understanding of things. Knowing the identity of
the cable adds nothing at this time, and can only smear the reputation
of that cable if you made an errant observation.
  #219   Report Post  
François Yves Le Gal
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

On 16 Jan 2004 16:16:58 GMT, (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

At least you did give the full reference for that particular quote,


I always give full references, Mr. Pinkerton.

although I note that you failed to highlight this part:

"Frankly, however, during blind A-B comparisons between the most
expensive loudspeaker cables, 12 AWG ZIP Cord and DAL's Z-6 cable, no
audible differences appear to exist within a properly operating,
hi-end, audiophile system."


Here's the full post:

SNIP
"Subject: Dunlavy at the 2001 Electronics Show
From:
(John Dunlavy)
Date: 12/20/00 2:00 PM Mountain Standard Time
Post of 12/20.00 from


In his above referenced post, commenting on a recent post from Howard
Ferstler, Harold Nash wrote:

From the above, are we to assume that you are saying that Dunlavy
does not have any integrity and does not have the courage of his
convictions? How do you otherwise condone his compromise?
How about if he also advertised that he will use Shakti stones on
his gear and paint all his CES show CDs purple? Would you then
defend what appears to be hypocrisy on Dunlayvs part by saying
what you said above? I guess you mean that business is business,
caveat emptor, never give a sucker an even break. etc.


From your record of postings here and elsewhere which are repleet
with diatribes about snake oil and sleezy high end salespeople it is
shocking to see you write what you just did. If you condone Dunalvy
using 'snake-oil' to sell gear and attract customers then you cannot
condem anyone else for that. I used to admire your courage
Howard but I now wonder of you lack the courage of your own
loudly repeated conviction as it seems that Dunalvy does.
This is a black day for the Rationalists who beleived in you.


Well, how does one answer such a post as this?

I have clearly stated, within many of my posts here on the NET that,
within properly operating hi-end audiophile systems, expensive
loudspeaker and interconnect cables can seldom make an audible
difference or improvement. So - why did I design and why does DAL
sell cables that might not make any improvement in the audible
accuracy of a system?

The answer is relatively simple and should be easily understood by
most readers.

As an engineer with appropriate technical/professional credentials, I
believe in designing products that first conform to the teachings of
competent engineering and physics - and whose relevant
electrical/audible properties can be confirmed by accurate, lab
quality measurements. (Such professional E.E. credentials are
typically missing among those who design audiophile cables for many
large audiophile cable companies.)

Most of the expensive, "high-tech appearing" audiophile loudspeaker
cables do not conform to this criteria. They are sold largely on the
basis of a "hi-tech appearance" rather than "real world design and
performance criteria".

Recognizing this, I was curious (as an engineer) whether audiophiles
would accept and approeciate cables designed according to good
engineering criteria.

Frankly, however, during blind A-B comparisons between the most
expensive loudspeaker cables, 12 AWG ZIP Cord and DAL's Z-6 cable, no
audible differences appear to exist within a properly operating,
hi-end, audiophile system.

But my "reasoning" asks the question: why not manufacture and sell
cables whose properties conform to proper design criteria - rather
than mere "appearance" and a "high ticket" price tag?

However, I do believe it is possible that a properly designed cable
might potentially improve the audible accuracy of some high-end
audiophile systems. But it is far less likely that an expensive but
"poorly designed" cable could achieve the same result.

Much the same can be said for expensive interconnect cables with a
hi-tech appearance but which seldom possess optimum electrical
properties required for bes audiophile system performance. The three
most important electrical properties of interconnect cables a 1)
good shielding, 2) low capacitance and 3) low micphonics. I designed
DAL interconnect cables with the intent of achieving these three most
important properties.

I sincerely hope the above info explains my position regarding hi-end
audiophile loudspeaker and interconnect cables.

John D."

Note that John Dunlavy has added "However, I do believe it is possible that
a properly designed cable might potentially improve the audible accuracy of
some high-end audiophile systems" after reporting a single listening test
(in unkown conditions), so my quotes were perfectly relevant.

So, as ever, you use selected highlights as an argument, when it's
clear even from that one article which you quoted, that JD *did* say
that his best cable sounds just like zipcord. Typical of you, Frankie,
absolutely typical.................


I thought that drivel and ad hominem attacks were forbidden here, Mr.
Pinkerton. Thank you for proving me wrong in that respect. And it's Mr. Le
Gal to you, Mr. Pinkerton, not "Frankie".

  #220   Report Post  
Mkuller
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

(Mkuller) wrote:
With sighted listening, you have the *possibility* of bias interfering and
giving false positive results. With DBTs you have the *certainty* of the

test
interfering with subtle audible details and providing false negatives, since
most all DBTs give null results. It would appear sighted listening (under

some
circumstances) is actually superior.



(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
As ever, lots of handwaving and protestations from Kuller, with
absolutely *no* support. In actual *fact*, with sighted listening you
have the *certainty* of bias casusing false positive results, as you
can easily prove by *not* changing anything in such a test, while all
Mike means by DBTs 'interfering with subtle details', is that the
results don't match his sighted expectations.

Basically, all of physics, neurophysiology, electrical engineering,
and controlled listening tests tells us that 'wire is wire', but this
*must* be wrong, because Mike likes expensive cables. Hmmm......


Sorry but *physics, neurophysiologygy and EE* don't tell us that, you do. And
without any proof to back it up.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary *proof*, Mike, not mere
handwaving..................


Yes, and that goes for your claims as well. I have never heard two different
amplifiers that sound the same - your claim that they do is pretty
extraordinary. Your only *evidence* is DBTs used in a flawed way that obscures
the audible differences. Yet you are unable to provide any verification the
the test actually *works* in the way you are advocating it. Extraordinary
claims...
Regards,
Mike



  #222   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:fuJNb.64736$5V2.72379@attbi_s53...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:fBkNb.68743$na.39732@attbi_s04...
(Audio Guy) wrote:

n article gi4Nb.55157$8H.104911@attbi_s03,
"Harry Lavo" writes:

..snips to specific content.....


Thank you for remembering. However, you don't quite remember

accurately.
The control test I proposed is similar to the Oohashi et al test in

that it
is evaluative over a range of qualitative factors, done in a relaxed

state
and environment, and with repeated hearing of full musical excerpts.

But
it
is not a duplicate of the test. The arguments for such tests have

been
made here for years..long before the Oohashi article was published.

Let's remember that the Oohashi "article" was not "published" in a
peer-reviewed journal but exists as an AES Convention Preprint like my

AES
Preprints. Therefore they carry exactly the same weight as anything

I've
presented at a Convention, AES Chapter Presentation or in a consumer

audio
magazine.


Tom the Oohashi article I introduced here was peer reviewed and appeared

in
Journal of Neurophysiology.


OK; point taken. I wonder why this hasn't appeared in the JAES?

It was discussed extensively and I repeated
the link often. Here is the link once again.:

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548

I find it troubling that you, who makes a living as a "testing expert",
would have ignored such an important discussion, regardless of what you

may
have thought of it. Else you would know it was a peer-reviewed and well
documented piece of research.


Actually a similar piece was presented in 1991 at an AES Convention but

was not
selected for publication.

But what have I "ignored?" That ultrasonic stimulus can influence body
functions? If you read the paper carefully you'll see that certain bias

may
have been implemented (the "random" selection of presentation order was

exactly
repeated in reverse instead of re-randomization) but even so the data

shows
that in their subjective analysis that subjects weren't able to show a

"liking"
for one vs the other. It is true that they seemed to see one as softer,

more
reverberant but the "like vs dislike" factor was not significant.


Yes but they alternated "a" and "b" to get rid of any order bias. However,
I must admit I am not sure why the did the fixed sequence, as Bob Marcus and
I discussed here some time back, it was probably in order to allow them to
listen once without evaluating, and then to do the written evaluation on the
"second" listen. We both wish more detail had been in the article on this.
However, so long as the alternated the order of "a" and "b" there is no
experimental order bias.

So what? That most likely means that there was no significantly important

sound
quality difference.


There were statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level
on several factors, and these correlated with the physiological differences
registerd in the brain, as measured in other segments of the tests. The
mechanisms obviously are not known, as they admitted.

But again .... so what? You seem to be just hunting for evidence that

supports
your pre-held ideas. There's nothing wrong with that per se but you have

not,
so far, done anything but propose an hypothesis that you, nor anyone else

has
ever, tested.


No, as I stated from the start the Oohashi experiment is of great interest
for two reasons:

1) because it departs from the conventional wisdom and if correct has
far-reaching implications. Thus I would hope it would cause a) a little
less certainty about the conventional wisdom, and b) an effort to either
confirm or deny the findings.

2) the test itself was carefully constructed to create a relaxed environment
for the musical evaluations, and the piece was played to conclusion each
time, giving enough time for the emotional part of the listening experience
to kick in. And the test was evaluative, rather than comparaive in nature.
Technically it was proto-monadic, meaning the test "cells" were evaluated
separately, but with knowledge of the other "cell" when doing so.

Be MY Guest. I'll be more than happy to supply consultation without charge

and
assist in any reasonable manner.


Well given my age and current financial resources, I would have to make it
my remaining life's work....

But if anybody out there wants to do such a test and has the resources to
pursue an adequate dbt ab or abx vs. evaluative dbt protomondaic vs. sighted
evaluative protomonadic, I too would be happy to assist in design and
implementation.


He and
his researchers apparently reached the same conclusion...that it was

a
more
effective way of testing for the purposes under study...which were
semi-open-ended evaluations of the musical reproduction. Double

blind,
by
the way, as was my proposed test.

As long as it's double blind I have no problems with it, but I have
yet to see you propose any reason for rejecting the current DBTs
except that they don't agree with your sighted results.

.


That's because you continually ignore the arguments of myself and other
"subjectivists" here on RAHE and elsewhere. The reasons have been well
documented. You'll find my reiteration of them elsewhere in this thread.


This is just not true. Personally I've listened to and incorporated those
arguments into controlled listening environments time and again. The

single
largest problem I've encountered is actually getting a 'proponent' into a
controlled testing environment. Indeed one of my experiments (documented

in
Stereo Review in 1998 "To Tweak or Not to Tweak") was conducted because an
on-line proponent argued that 'series tweaks' were needed to uncover

audible
differences (one wire by itself may not reveal differences but a series of
tweaks would.) That particular proponent agreed to a test, to be held in

his
system, where I would place a single 'bad' wire in his system and he would

only
have to tell me if that wire were "in" the system with the I/O terminals
covered with a blanket.

As you might suspect that subject "disappeared" two weeks before that
experiment (to be held at my own personal expense) was to be held. So, I

did it
myself by assembling a system with vacumn tube preamp,RCL power amp,

special
interconnects and speaker cables, an outboard DAC, special vibration

control
devices and wire/cable dress and comparing that to a system with a 20 year

old
$99 kit preamp, a 10 year old integrated amplier, junk box rcas and 16 ga
car-audio zip cord speaker cables with non-PC dress (6-feet for one

channel and
25-feet for the other with the longer section wrapped around the AC

cables.) I
was trying to find as large a 'tweak' system difference as I could muster

with
the idea of dis-sembling the system to which 'tweaks' mattered.

I was surprised that I couldn't distinguish either system driving the PSB
Stratus Mini PSACS reference speakers (with frequency response curves

taken in
the NRC anechoic chamber) using an ABX Comparitor.


Well I appreciate that you did respond to his discussion, although I am not
a "tweaker" and think it was a rather vulnerable place to start.

Interestingly not one of 10 hard-core audiophiles was able to reliably
distinguish one system from the other either in 10-16 trial single

listener,
sweet spot sessions with no time limits and NO switching devices. They all
brought their own prefered cds for evaluation.

Good for you. Testing other people was an obvious next step.

But after getting those results, it never entered your mind that it could be
the test technique itself at fault (as it relates to the ear/brain
processing)? Seems to me that's where the "belief system" kicks in, so as
not to even think about the technique itself being a potential issue.

Again you are joining Stewart in repeating an (at best)

half-truth
ad
nauseum here. Those firms use DBT's for specific purposes to

listen
for
specific things that they "train" their listeners to hear. That

is
called
"development".


Sure and ..... what else is there to hear but "real acoustical"

differences?

Some of the blind tests I've conducted were testing the ability of

self-trained
listeners to identify 'differences' that had been described as "pretty

amazing"
by the subject using the very reference system and the programs that he

had
claimed illustrated these differences clearly.

One in particular used as long as 5 weeks in-situ training using the

actual
test apparatus and others have used the reference system of the

claimants.


You have cited that test before, but without details as to how the final
choices were made (eg what happens after the weeks of listening, it
continues to be an "antedotal outlier" in your work.


What's the question?


Well, for example, was it comparative, evaluative, or an identification
test. And was that done throughout each "trial" or was it done at the end.
If at the end, then there is still the stress of "choice". How was the
blinding handled, who else was present, etc.

In the food industry we used such tests for color, for
texture and "mouth feel", for saltiness and other flavor
characteristics.
That is a far cry from a final, open-ended evaluation whereby

when
you
start
you have simply a new component and are not sure what you are

looking
for /
simply listening and trying to determine if / how the new

component
sounds
vs. the old. It is called "open ended" testing for a reason...

Sure but one can do such a test without sound and still get usable

results
for
marketing purposes.

I'm not interested in how the sound "feels in the mouth" unless that

feel
is
soley related to sound quality. If we wish to limit the assessment to

sound
alone then bias-mechanisms are needed AND closely spaced presentations

are
the
most sensitive.


The above is simply jibberish. :-)


What matters to me is SOUND QUALITY and not "mouth feel."


I was giving you a metaphor example. "mouth feel" is a specific of food
evaluation, just as "brightness" is a specific of sound reproduction
evaluation. Or "grain" or "bass cleanness" or "two-dimensionality", etc.
In other words, if you know what you are looking for you can easily use a
comparative dbt ab test to determine relative presence or absence or liking
vs. disliking. That's why we used this type of testing in development. But
it was not as useful in obtaining overall acceptance / desireability of the
product, where monadic or proto-monadic testing turned out to be more
reliable/meaningful.

Yes, because it never ends, and so never gets to a result.


This is just retoric and is absolute nonesense! :-(

How so, if it is open-ended it seems by definition to not have an end.
How do you tell when it has reached the end, when it gets the results
you want?

To move off-topic for a moment I will say that most open sound quality
evaluations I've seen tend to do exactly that. Generally the

'evaluation'
starts with a presentation (salesman, conventioneer, audiophile, etc)

after
which the presenter asks "whaddya think?" This is followed by some

discussion
in which only a few present engage. Often they will report different

"things."
Then the presenter will say "Let's try again with BETTER material" and

the
process will continue, often with considerable 'negotiation' of

differences,
until there is a trial where the 'right' answers are given and then the

session
is over. Sometimes there will be continued program delivery and some
hand-waving and back-slapping. But, I've seen the script played time

and
again.


We are talking about how audiophiles do comparisons in their own homes,

not
with salesmen in a convention or showroom. Talk about straw men!


I'd say you were adressing Stawmen. I was describing how how I've seen

sound
quality assessments being made. Of course, I'm also, perhaps unfairly,
extrapolating them to single listener-home decisions but, quite frankly,

I'm
used to hearing enthusiasts defend purchase decisions based on "reviews."


I'm talking about audiophiles who prefer open-ended, sighted or blind
evaluations in their own home systems to make component choices. Your
statement above about salesmen is a complete non-sequitor.

could reason to believe that conventional dbt or abx testing is

not
the
best
way to do it and may mask certain important factors that may be

more
apparent in more relaxed listening.

There's been no evidence that this is true, other than the

non-published
Oohashi test.


There has never been a test run with a control test that would show this.
That is the crux of the matter.


Ball in your court. Be glad to helpin any reasonable way.


Well, your profession depends on you being credible. Don't you think a
definitive test in your current techniques favor would swing the remaining
"doubters" into your corner. Wouldn't you like to be the person who finally
lays the dbt "fears" to rest? After all, you *are* one of the biggest
proponents of the test, and yet you have yet to do any real verification of
its worth for purposes of open-ended evaluation. You continually accept
null results as meaning that no differences exist (which is unscientifc)
rather than confirming that the test itself isn't biased in this direction.


Not that this isn't an interesting theorem. But, there's no replicated

evidence
to support it. On the other hand, ABX and other blind testing has quite

an
interesting set of data on testing audible quotient of products that

fit
within
the known limits of human acoustical thresholds.


Okay, what is the "known limit" of soundstage depth, tom?


Perceptible in listening bias controlled conditions. Or any other

conditions
with elements known to exceed human threshold acoustical limits.

"Phantoms"
work for me as along as they are replicable.


I'm reasonably astute, but I am having trouble understanding what you are
saying here, Tom. Can you further explain, please.

Mr Lavo seems to be arguing that some kind of 'test' that requires

lengthy
evaluation under "open-ended" conditions would somehow be more suitable

for the
average enthusiast. My guess is that no one except a few who may own a

store
would have such an opportunity and that a week-end or overnight ABX

test
(perhaps with the QSC $600 ABX Comparitor) or other bias controlled

test
is not
only more practical but quite implementable for the truly curious.


Well, son, let's see if you have a fever. I'm sorry but I just broke my
last thermomenter. We'll just use this barometric probe instead...it

should
tell us the same thing. It is used to measure weather every day, and
weather includes temperature, doesn't it? :-)


I'll accept the emoticon. I expect you'll do the same for me.


I always have. That's what they're for.

And again, your only defense is that DBT results don't agree with
your opinions. DBTs can and have been done over long periods with
relaxed listening, and the results are the same.


On Tom's say so and without any detailed description or published

data.

Actually that has been published in Audio and The $ensible Sound. You

may
can
also trace data to the SMWTMS site through www.pcabx.com


No monadic or proto-mondadic evaluative tests have ever been done as a
control. without them you have *no* proof...simply assertion.


And that's doubly the case Harry with your comments as well. You seem to

expect
that your extrapolations from an unreplicated ultrasonic frequency study
somehow also has application to the wire/amp debate. Simply assertion ....

no
real appicable data.


The Oohashi et al test has nothing to do with it other than to serve as an
interesting example. I was arguing for proto-monadic open-ended home
evaluation here long before I stumbled across the Oohashi article. I'm not
sure I used those words but that was what I was arguing in favor of.

I'm
talking about a rigorous, scientific test of dbt, control

proto-mondadic,
and sighted open ended testing. With careful sample selection,

proctoring,
statistical analysis, and peer-reviewed publication. Once that is

done
I
will be happy to accept what conclusions emerge. It hasn't been

done,
and
so *assertiosn* that comparative dbt's such as abx are appropriate

is
just
that, an assertion.


As is your hypothesis. But bias-controlled listening tests of any kind, no
matter how un-intrusive, have never shown that wire/amp sound has any

basis in
acoustical reality. When are you going to show us some data and stop

"arguing?"


When a proper control test has been done, as I have stated. And if you
don't like my suggestion for a control test, propose one of your own that
aims to bridge the gap between sighted evaluative listening and conventional
dbt comparative tests.

As is hte hypothesis that this test will have some useful benefit. And

I
think
this poster is right; this test would be rejected if it failed to

support
that
theory.


Well, I'll give you the same reply I gave him. You are assuming it would
give the same results. suppose it showed that proto-monadic testing
actually supported sighted evaluative listening tests. you don't think

it
would be reported. Your assumption shows that you are operating from a
belief system, not as a proponent of truly scientific testing.


I'd say your comments are showing that you are working that way. Even IF

we
allow full credence to your "argument" you still only have mild evidence

that
DVD-A and SACD may be useful technology. There's nothing in the Oohashi

report
that has any bearing on the amp/cable issue.


Nor am I saying there is. Nor am I talking specifically about DVD-A and
SACD. My only reference to Oohashi was to the type of evaluative test set
up they used to do their research, which seem to be along the lines many
audiophiles on this forum have argued in favor of.



It's much more than an assertion, it has data to back it up, unlike
your assertions that audio DBTs are just "assertions".

The issue isn't so much the blind vs
sighted as it is the comparative vs. the evaluative....and while

a
double
blind evaluative test (such as the proto-monadic "control test" I
outlined)
may be the ideal, it is so difficult to do that it is simply not
practical
for home listeners treating it as a hobby to undertake. So as
audiophiles
not convinced of the validity of convention dbt's for open-ended
evaluation,
we turn to the process of more open ended evaluative testing as a

better
bet
despite possible sighted bias.


Better bet? As opposed to any other process that reduces the likelihood of
false positives?


Yep.


IOW he's willing to accept the increased (actually the nearly

universal)
probablity of false positives as being less important than limiting the

results
to sound quality alone.


Yes, with the distinct possiblity that the "sound quality only" test is
actually missing/masking some key evaluative areas.


How could it "miss/mask" key sound quality areas by eliminating non-sonic
influences? If you're suggesting that non-sonic variables are important

......
wjho would argue with that?


What is this whole discussion about, Tom?

If you are suggesting that factors other than sound quality are more

important
to YOU, I have no trouble with that. Indeed because I've listened to so

many
amplifiers under listening bias controlled conditions and found that

nominally
competent ones are sonically equivalent I no longer consider "sound

quality" as
the most important purchase consideration. So what? Why should anyone

else
care?


I am suggesting that for evaluative purposes for chosing home audio gear
(even if one wants to choose primarily based on sound) that using
comparative quick-switch ab or abx testing *may* be throwing at least a few
parts of the baby out with the bath-water. Until proven otherwise.



Sounds like he's a marketeer, doesn't it


Since you obviously share the opinion that marketers are dishonest, I'd
suggest you try a little test.


Who said or implied dishonesty? A marketers job is to market products as

far as
I can tell. No dishonesty infered or implied as a class. You "said" that
factors other than sonics may be important to consumers. I'd fully agree

with
that ..... but I wouldn't argue that experiments that use listener bias
controls are somehow "missing" or "masking" important sound quality

issues.


Well, that's the whole issue of how the testing / evaluation is done now,
isn't it?

I'll blindfold you and put you in a roomful
of people. Ask any and all of them questions that show honesty or
dishonesty, and then tell me whom the marketers are. See if you can

pick
them blind, eh?


Tell you what; put me in a room with Floyd Toole, Dave Clark, You, Bill
Clephane, Woody Cade, Bob Harley, John Atkinson, Roger Cox, Jerry

Novetsky, and
a few others, and then disguise their voices with Lexicon effects and with
audio topics I'll be able to tell the bull-throwers from the others.


I never claimed to be an engineer, allthough my father was (and wishes I had
been). I did happen to live across the street from Ken Moore, then head of
CBS labs back in the early '70's and had many an interesting discussion with
him over drinks about engineering and audiophilia. Suffice it to say, his
AR receiver and AR-4's didn't cut it with me, nor my preoccupation with
extended frequency response and accurate phase response with him. But I
learned a lot, and had a good time.

Please do not infer that I think marketers are dishonest. But I do not

think
for a minute that a good one would not use every tool in the basket to

sell
product.

If that were my job (and it isn't) I'd use all those tools. Perhaps that's

why
I'm not in marketing.


Thank you, that sets you apart from Stewart.

You are right up to a point. But a *GOOD* marketer (both in the effects
achieved and in ethical standards) differentiates between choosing the best
way of presenting the truth about a product, and promoting a lie.

  #223   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

"chung" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:


And if we learn to leave 1% of ourselves open to saying "hmm, that sure
doesn't fit what I *think* I know...I wonder....". So you wonder if I
changed something else and I tell you no. Now what? Not even going to

ask
me what cable it was?


Not necessary, since that would be like sighted testing at this point.
Go back and re-run your test first. Then report here if you truly
believe that your have repeatable, verifiable results (bass clamping,
i.e.). We can get hold of that cable to make some measurements. That's
how we can improve our understanding of things. Knowing the identity of
the cable adds nothing at this time, and can only smear the reputation
of that cable if you made an errant observation.


Well, the cable is long since gone, so I can't do that. It was about nine
years ago anyway. I don't believe it is even in that manufacturers line any
longer (which may mean mine wasn't the only negative reaction). All I will
say is that it was from a well known and reputable manufacturer.

I thought perhaps you had some idea of what the "bad" cables were by name.
  #224   Report Post  
Kalman Rubinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:38:47 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

There were statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level
on several factors, and these correlated with the physiological differences
registerd in the brain, as measured in other segments of the tests. The
mechanisms obviously are not known, as they admitted.


And those differences were recorded at very strange and unlikely
locations in the brainstem.

Kal

  #225   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

Mkuller wrote:

Mkuller wrote:
Research - The program used is tested beforehand to determine the
artifact's
audibility within it.
Audio - Usually music is the program which is a very *insensitive*
source.


"Bob Marcus"
Why would a program be tested beforehand to determine an artifact's
audibility, when the point of the research itself is to determine the
artifact's reliability? What evidence do you have that music is any

less
insensitive under any other test that doesn't involve the imagination?

Come
on, real evidence.


Thank you for making my point.


How did I make your point? Oh, wait, I see--I did so by writing something
you could completely misconstrue...

If the differences between two amplifiers
happen to be a difference in frequency response at 12kHz and the program

chosen
is sensitive only up to 11kHz you will get...null results.


As you would in any comparison. The artifact is in the sound, Mike, not in
the equipment. If the artifact is at 12kHz and the program has no signal
above 11kHz (I have no idea how a program could be "sensitive"), then the
artifact doesn't exist in that program. The reason DBT subjects will "miss"
it is because it isn't there. That's the advantage of DBTs over sighted
listening--they miss the artifacts that aren't there. Sighted listeners hear
the artifacts that aren't there.

I beleive it was jj
who corrected me when I said that DBTs were insensitive - he said the

test
isn't but music as a program is. Part of the problem with music is that

it is
dynamic, ever-changing and audible memory is notoriuosly poor at hanging

on to
differences with a dynamic program.


Which is true whenever and however you compare audio components. That's what
JJ said to you.

If you're going to lecture us about the scientific method, you ought to

try
practicing a little of it. It's not enough to claim that a test had

some
element that you suspect would affect its reliability. You must also

offer
some evidence that this element actually can affect its reliability.

Until
you have such evidence, you are talking through your hat. In the

meantime,
the paradigm for testing audible differences stands.


From your questions it's pretty obvious that you don't have an real

experience
or knowledge in applying DBTs scientifically. I've explained where I

see some
important differences in their application between research and audio

and all
you can do is turn the question around and ask me for proof.


Please quote me correctly. I didn't ask for proof. I asked for evidence.
Evidence that these are indeed important differences, that they produce less
reliable results. If you want to challenge settled science, that's what you
have to do, Mike. And you can't.

I'm looking for
proof that DBTs actually work in comparing audio components with music

and
don't obscure the subtle audible differences. From my experience and

scientific
knowledge it appears to me that they don't.


Then your scientific knowledge is woefully inadequate. I can't help that.

I have told you that I believe they do this because of the way the brain

works
in storing and recalling audible memory. Relaxed listening uses a

different
part of the brain than the matching/decision-making required in ABX. So

far the
only differences DBTs seem to reveal in audio component testing are big

ones -
gross frequency response and loudness (i.e. as in speakers or bright CD
players). If you have proof or evidence that DBTs actually work for the

use you
are suggesting, please provide it to me. If not, you are welcome to

your
belief system and I'll stick to mine.


The difference between your belief system and mine is that my beliefs
conform to accepted scientific findings in the fields of physics,
electronics, and psychoacoustics. Yours do not.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy...n.asp?cid=3963



  #226   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
news:WuYNb.81412$xy6.137942@attbi_s02...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:38:47 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

There were statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence

level
on several factors, and these correlated with the physiological

differences
registerd in the brain, as measured in other segments of the tests. The
mechanisms obviously are not known, as they admitted.


And those differences were recorded at very strange and unlikely
locations in the brainstem.


Kal, I am not a brain expert by any means but I believe they were in areas
normally associated with emotional response (specifically "pleasure
response") based on other work done in this area. If I am wrong, please
expand and explain.

Harry

  #227   Report Post  
Pat Wilson
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

Nick Georges wrote in message news:9aiKb.65416$I07.286195@attbi_s53...
Ok...I'll bite.

IMO, the #1 component is defiantly the room.
I've got great speakers...and they sound like crap because of my room.
I will quote from something else I read recently; "a great room can make
a marginal system sound magical, and a bad room can make a great system
sound horrendous".

Not verbatim, but you get the idea..and it is true as I've lived both
ends of this spectrum in the past year.

in my last house, I ran a system I put together for $1200. It was the
cats ass. Completely pleasing and then some.
In my current house, I built a system costing 5x this...and it is
nothing but frustration. Again, the room is putting all of my upgraded
components and speakers to waste.

My other rule of thumb is "crap in, crap out"...so source and material
are high on that list.

I'd go:
1. room
2. speakers
3. source/material
4. amp

and I'd leave it there as a premap is just not even necessary in a
purely digital domain...which is where I live. If you are listening to
LPs and tapes, then i'm sure it has a place on the list.


In my opinion, the way to budget a system:

1. Speakers (1. mains 2. sub 3. center 4. surrounds)
2. Player
3. Receiver
4. Speaker cables
5. RCA/Interconnects

Sincerely

  #228   Report Post  
Kalman Rubinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:45:29 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

Kal, I am not a brain expert by any means but I believe they were in areas
normally associated with emotional response (specifically "pleasure
response") based on other work done in this area. If I am wrong, please
expand and explain.


I have not read the article in a while; since it came out, in fact.
However, I do recall that they tried to make such a case but the areas
were related to other sensory systems, iirc. I remember being puzzled
about why the researchers (and the reviewers) weren't equally puzzled.
If I have the time, I'll go back and look for the specifics.

Kal

  #229   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

Harry Lavo wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:


And if we learn to leave 1% of ourselves open to saying "hmm, that sure
doesn't fit what I *think* I know...I wonder....". So you wonder if I
changed something else and I tell you no. Now what? Not even going to

ask
me what cable it was?


Not necessary, since that would be like sighted testing at this point.
Go back and re-run your test first. Then report here if you truly
believe that your have repeatable, verifiable results (bass clamping,
i.e.). We can get hold of that cable to make some measurements. That's
how we can improve our understanding of things. Knowing the identity of
the cable adds nothing at this time, and can only smear the reputation
of that cable if you made an errant observation.


Well, the cable is long since gone, so I can't do that. It was about nine
years ago anyway. I don't believe it is even in that manufacturers line any
longer (which may mean mine wasn't the only negative reaction). All I will
say is that it was from a well known and reputable manufacturer.

I thought perhaps you had some idea of what the "bad" cables were by name.


I don't believe any cable can cause bass clamping. It will take an
extraordinary effort to design a cable that affects the bass response.
Therefore I believe your comparison test was either at fault, or your
definition of "bass clamping" means something other than I thought.

You can change the volume slightly, and perceive a substantial change in
bass. That's why something like an ABX comparator, and quick switching,
short snippet testing, can be very useful.
  #230   Report Post  
Mkuller
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

Mkuller wrote:
I have told you that I believe they do this because of the way the brain

works
in storing and recalling audible memory. Relaxed listening uses a

different
part of the brain than the matching/decision-making required in ABX. So

far the
only differences DBTs seem to reveal in audio component testing are big

ones -
gross frequency response and loudness (i.e. as in speakers or bright CD
players). If you have proof or evidence that DBTs actually work for the

use you
are suggesting, please provide it to me. If not, you are welcome to

your
belief system and I'll stick to mine.



"Bob Marcus"
The difference between your belief system and mine is that my beliefs
conform to accepted scientific findings in the fields of physics,
electronics, and psychoacoustics. Yours do not.


So you say, once again. It always comes down to this. The difference is that
you believe in yours and I in mine - that's the only difference. You still
have not provided me any verification test or proof that DBTs work in
open-ended audio equipment comparisons using music and do not obscure subtle
detail. Claiming that you have *science* on your side is not enough, since
science relys on proof, not assertions.
Regards,
Mike


  #231   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

François Yves Le Gal wrote:

Well, how does one answer such a post as this?


*snip*

The easiest way it to bypass all of this and backtrack the metal itself.

Nobody makes their own copper. This is done at a smelting plant/foundry.
Big machinery with huge hundred million dollar plus investments
and hot, dangerous equipment. The slag pot trucks alone are so heavy
that they could run over your car and literally not feel the bump.
The slag pits themselves are monitored and controlled like coat plant ash
piles - they are considered toxic material and regulated as such.

No sane company would re-smelt the copper as refining it further would
require better equipment and higher temperatures than the original
stuff. It never happens.

The copper comes from the plant in 99.99 or 99.999%(OFC) pure
slabs that weigh several tons and are extruded after being shipped
to the company into wire or copper pots or whatever they desire.

There are maybe a few dozen such plants in the entire world - and
that's IT for copper production. Everyone uses the same copper,
made to the same stnadards, so whatever you see that's made of
copper, unless it's an alloy, is exactly the same stuff.

The same holds true for gold - it is made 99.99x% pure ingots and then
shipped to the various companies to be used for whatever they desire -
plating for connectors or jewelery or alloys or whatnot.

Wire really IS wire, because it comes from the same place. Only
the manner in which it is made into wire/configuration and size/shape
make any differnece.

  #232   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

Harry Lavo wrote:

"chung" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:


And if we learn to leave 1% of ourselves open to saying "hmm, that sure
doesn't fit what I *think* I know...I wonder....". So you wonder if I
changed something else and I tell you no. Now what? Not even going to

ask
me what cable it was?


Not necessary, since that would be like sighted testing at this point.
Go back and re-run your test first. Then report here if you truly
believe that your have repeatable, verifiable results (bass clamping,
i.e.). We can get hold of that cable to make some measurements. That's
how we can improve our understanding of things. Knowing the identity of
the cable adds nothing at this time, and can only smear the reputation
of that cable if you made an errant observation.


Well, the cable is long since gone, so I can't do that. It was about nine
years ago anyway. I don't believe it is even in that manufacturers line any
longer (which may mean mine wasn't the only negative reaction). All I will
say is that it was from a well known and reputable manufacturer.

I thought perhaps you had some idea of what the "bad" cables were by name.


BTW, you can cause a great deal of "bass clamping" if you reverse the
phase of one of the cables. In that case, even my wife knew that
something was wrong

  #233   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

(Mkuller) wrote:

Mkuller wrote:
Research - The program used is tested beforehand to determine the
artifact's
audibility within it.
Audio - Usually music is the program which is a very *insensitive*
source.


"Bob Marcus"

Why would a program be tested beforehand to determine an artifact's
audibility, when the point of the research itself is to determine the
artifact's reliability? What evidence do you have that music is any less
insensitive under any other test that doesn't involve the imagination? Come
on, real evidence.


Thank you for making my point. If the differences between two amplifiers
happen to be a difference in frequency response at 12kHz and the program
chosen
is sensitive only up to 11kHz you will get...null results. I beleive it was
jj
who corrected me when I said that DBTs were insensitive - he said the test
isn't but music as a program is. Part of the problem with music is that it is
dynamic, ever-changing and audible memory is notoriuosly poor at hanging on
to
differences with a dynamic program.


It is true that music is generally much less sensitive than test signals. Yet,
audiophiles have no trouble pointing out large, night and day, pretty amazing
differences using music as a source in uncontrolled listening sessions. What do
you use?


If you're going to lecture us about the scientific method, you ought to try
practicing a little of it. It's not enough to claim that a test had some
element that you suspect would affect its reliability. You must also offer
some evidence that this element actually can affect its reliability. Until
you have such evidence, you are talking through your hat. In the meantime,
the paradigm for testing audible differences stands.


From your questions it's pretty obvious that you don't have an real
experience
or knowledge in applying DBTs scientifically.


Neither do you it would appear :-)

I've explained where I see
some
important differences in their application between research and audio and all
you can do is turn the question around and ask me for proof. I'm looking for
proof that DBTs actually work in comparing audio components with music and
don't obscure the subtle audible differences. From my experience and
scientific
knowledge it appears to me that they don't.


It looks to me that you are only complaining because you don't like the
results. There's nothing wrong with questioning; many have, but none of them
has produced any real evidence that anything is sonically obscured with
listening bias controls. The data suggests that listening without rigorous bias
control routinely delivers false positives.

Indeed, my own research shows that humans, including experienced audio
enthisiasts, will regularly report sonic differences between 2 identical sound
presentations delivered one after another.


I have told you that I believe they do this because of the way the brain
works
in storing and recalling audible memory. Relaxed listening uses a different
part of the brain than the matching/decision-making required in ABX.


Results with non-ABX protocols have delivered the same results. Besides there's
nothing except bias-controls and a fixed protocol that precludes "relaxed"
listening. Indeed that's one of the big advantages of the process ... it
encourages attention. The other is the gathering of analyzable data.

So far
the
only differences DBTs seem to reveal in audio component testing are big ones
-
gross frequency response and loudness (i.e. as in speakers or bright CD
players). If you have proof or evidence that DBTs actually work for the use
you
are suggesting, please provide it to me.


They actually do 'work.' What you seem to want is evidence that they produce
reults that fit with your pre-held beliefs even when it's not really the truth
of the matter.

If not, you are welcome to your
belief system and I'll stick to mine.
Regards,
Mike


I'll go with the methods that produce reliable data on sonc truth. You can
stick to your beliefs.

  #234   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:35:51 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
As ever, lots of handwaving and protestations from Kuller, with
absolutely *no* support. In actual *fact*, with sighted listening you
have the *certainty* of bias casusing false positive results, as you
can easily prove by *not* changing anything in such a test, while all
Mike means by DBTs 'interfering with subtle details', is that the
results don't match his sighted expectations.

Basically, all of physics, neurophysiology, electrical engineering,
and controlled listening tests tells us that 'wire is wire', but this
*must* be wrong, because Mike likes expensive cables. Hmmm......

Sorry but *physics, neurophysiologygy and EE* don't tell us that, you do. And
without any proof to back it up.


Sorry, they do - look it up.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary *proof*, Mike, not mere
handwaving..................

Yes, and that goes for your claims as well. I have never heard two different
amplifiers that sound the same - your claim that they do is pretty
extraordinary.


Actually no, your claim that they do *not* is extraordinary - look it
up.

Your only *evidence* is DBTs used in a flawed way that obscures
the audible differences. Yet you are unable to provide any verification the
the test actually *works* in the way you are advocating it. Extraordinary
claims...


Nice try, but all of existing science says that you are wrong. If you
doubt this, write an article to the AES suggesting otherwise, and see
if it even passes first review.............................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #236   Report Post  
Buster Mudd
 
Posts: n/a
Default clarifying conditions for $4k challenge

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:11:56 GMT,
(Buster Mudd)
wrote:
But now
you're saying no audible differences "except for frequency response
anomalies" ...or no audible differences except for those that can be
matched with a couple dollars worth of passive components. I'm just
trying to get a handle on what the rules of this game are.


Note that any cable which does *not* have a flat FR is *by definition*
not a competent cable.


It's not an accurate cable, certainly. But conceivably it could be a
perfectly competantly designed cable with intentionally euphonic
innaccuracies, no? Regardless of whether one believes this is a
desireable practice in audio, one has to admit that it is an available
practice in audio.


However, it's no big deal to match the FR of
any particularly weird cable with a couple of buck's worth of passive
components. Are you suggesting that this is somehow cheating?!


yes, actually, it does seem like cheating. If you have to fudge the
product, by introducing more hardware into the test apparatus in order
to level the playing field (so to speak), you are no longer comparing
A to B.


I certainly understand how critically important level matching at a
single reference frequency is...but if having done so, frequency
response anomalies are evident, one would have to concede that the two
products under test probably sound different.


And if the 'boutique' cable is non-flat, then would you agree that it
is *by definition* inferior?


I would agree, absolutely. I am aware that there are some listeners
(or, heaven forfend, some cable designers) that might disagree, but
that is their prerogative. Again, I thought your contention was that
those who claim they can hear the difference between 2 different
speaker cables (or interconnects) are only imagining those
differences. I didn't realize that a precondition of the test was that
the cables actually had to sound identical.


If there's an audible difference between cable A & cable B, that
difference must be audible ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. If all other
things are NOT equal, you're not really comparing Cable A to Cable B,
your comparing Cable A (+X) to Cable B (where X is some other variable
that, if I understand you correctly, causes Cable A to ...duh! sound
like Cable B!)


Nope, we are making sure that ultra-cheap cable A has the same gross
LCR characterictics as ultra-expensive cable B. Check any 'boutique'
cable adverts, you will *never* see basic FR differences referenced as
having anything to do with the claimed sonic superiority of those
cables


Again, I didn't think the $4k challenge was contingent upon specific
claims of various manufacturers, I thought it was directed at claims
of listeners who contend they can discern an audible difference
between say, Home Depot 12awg zip cord & the boutique cable of their
choice. What the marketing spin doctors have said in advertisements or
"technical papers" about that boutique cable of choice should be
immaterial in a test designed simply to prove or disprove whether or
not the listener's claim is valid, no?
  #237   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default clarifying conditions for $4k challenge

Buster Mudd wrote:

I would agree, absolutely. I am aware that there are some listeners
(or, heaven forfend, some cable designers) that might disagree, but
that is their prerogative. Again, I thought your contention was that
those who claim they can hear the difference between 2 different
speaker cables (or interconnects) are only imagining those
differences. I didn't realize that a precondition of the test was that
the cables actually had to sound identical.


No, the precondition is that they have to measure within nominal
standards (0.1 dB from 20 Hz to 10KHz is what Stewart uses). Whether
they actually sound identical, that's what the $4K (now much higher)
challenge is designed to find out.

If you are saying that any two cables that measures within that
tolerance has to sound the same, well, that's exactly our position, too.
But the cable believers *know* that the cable sound is due to some
superior quality intrinsic in the cable, and does not show up in simple
frequency response measurements. That's what the cable challenge is
intended to debunk.

By the way, you're overly concerned with the requirement that Stewart
laid down. I would say that 95+% of all cables, zip-cord or boutique,
meet that requirement handily.

  #238   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default clarifying conditions for $4k challenge

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:11:56 GMT, (Buster Mudd)
wrote:

Note that any cable which does *not* have a flat FR is *by definition*
not a competent cable.


It's not an accurate cable, certainly. But conceivably it could be a
perfectly competantly designed cable with intentionally euphonic
innaccuracies, no? Regardless of whether one believes this is a
desireable practice in audio, one has to admit that it is an available
practice in audio.


In an engineering context, a cable that distorts the signal beyond tolerance
(in this case measured by audibility) is incompetent. But you're right that
an audiophile may be perfectly happy with such a cable.

You've hit upon a philosophical difference of opinion among audiophiles.
Some tend to hold that amps and cables SHOULD be transparent, leaving the
speakers and room as the primary variables. Others like either the challenge
or the result of mixing less neutral components.


However, it's no big deal to match the FR of
any particularly weird cable with a couple of buck's worth of passive
components. Are you suggesting that this is somehow cheating?!


yes, actually, it does seem like cheating. If you have to fudge the
product, by introducing more hardware into the test apparatus in order
to level the playing field (so to speak), you are no longer comparing
A to B.

I certainly understand how critically important level matching at a
single reference frequency is...but if having done so, frequency
response anomalies are evident, one would have to concede that the

two
products under test probably sound different.


And if the 'boutique' cable is non-flat, then would you agree that it
is *by definition* inferior?


I would agree, absolutely. I am aware that there are some listeners
(or, heaven forfend, some cable designers) that might disagree, but
that is their prerogative. Again, I thought your contention was that
those who claim they can hear the difference between 2 different
speaker cables (or interconnects) are only imagining those
differences.


Well, you were wrong, then, weren't you? :-)

I didn't realize that a precondition of the test was that
the cables actually had to sound identical.


No. A precondition of the test is that WE have to know that the cables
actually sound identical. What others believe is up to them.

If there's an audible difference between cable A & cable B, that
difference must be audible ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. If all other
things are NOT equal, you're not really comparing Cable A to Cable B,
your comparing Cable A (+X) to Cable B (where X is some other variable
that, if I understand you correctly, causes Cable A to ...duh! sound
like Cable B!)


Nope, we are making sure that ultra-cheap cable A has the same gross
LCR characterictics as ultra-expensive cable B. Check any 'boutique'
cable adverts, you will *never* see basic FR differences referenced as
having anything to do with the claimed sonic superiority of those
cables


Again, I didn't think the $4k challenge was contingent upon specific
claims of various manufacturers, I thought it was directed at claims
of listeners who contend they can discern an audible difference
between say, Home Depot 12awg zip cord & the boutique cable of their
choice. What the marketing spin doctors have said in advertisements or
"technical papers" about that boutique cable of choice should be
immaterial in a test designed simply to prove or disprove whether or
not the listener's claim is valid, no?

Well, it's not *really* aimed at an individual listener's claim. It's really
aimed at the claim that the companies making high-priced cables are offering
anything that can't be had for a few bucks.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________

  #239   Report Post  
Buster Mudd
 
Posts: n/a
Default more rules of $4k challenge questions

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On 16 Jan 2004 03:08:42 GMT,
(Buster Mudd) wrote:

Though that doesn't quite explain how a Snake Oil Advocate would go
about separating the (quote-unquote) "objectivists" from their hard
earned +/- $4000.


Easy - just prove you can hear a difference.


Yet I got the impression from Bob Marcus' earlier statement if a
difference is really heard, it will be the result of
resistance-related (or perhaps inductance/capacitance related)
frequency response anomalies that the "objectivists" were allowing
that differences may be discernable, they were just attributable to
fundamentals of electricity rather than voodoo & flooby-dust.

If Joe Schmoe claims there is an audible difference
between, say, Home Depot 12awg zip cord ($0.25/foot) and Tara Labs
"The One" ($500/foot), & the ABX/DBT proctors claim "if a difference
is really heard, it will be the result of resistance-related (or
perhaps inductance/capacitance related) frequency response anomalies",
shouldn't the proper response be

"Ok, whatever"

...and then everyone just goes home & listens to music, in complete
agreement. Where does this whole You Only *Think* You Can Hear The
Difference challenge come into play?


Easy, just sit down, *listen* to the two cables, and *prove* that you
can hear a difference when you don't *know* which one's connected.
That's all you have to do.


So is it safe to conclude that you (Mr. Pinkerton) & Mr. Marcus are
not in complete agreement on what the claims of the "Snake Oil
Advocates" actually are, or how one would go about disproving their
allegations? Bob says there might be differences but those
differences have their origins in basic principles, not magical
properties; Stewart says there aren't differences, period. Have I got
that right?

What, you are seriously suggesting that adding a couple of buck's
worth of passive components to 12 AWG 'zipcord', in order to provide
accurate level-matching to *any* $500 a foot cable, is somehow
*cheating*?!


Frankly I believe that if you add anything to the DUT you have
compromised the test. Heisenberg & all that rot. This is what
intrigues me most about this whole $4k cable challenge: not the claims
of either camp, but the specifics of any testing methodology that
would be endorsed by both camps. If I thought I could hear a
difference between component A & component B, and a skeptic told me
"Prove it by discerning a difference between component A & component
B+C" I would feel as if they had misunderstood my original claim. (or
that they were stacking the deck, as it were.)

I understand the absolute necessity of level matching at a reference
frequency. Yet you insist that if 2 cables which level match at one
reference frequency do not level match at another, that aberration
must be compensated for. I don't understand is how you can
legitimately claim that this test methodology is a fair AB comparison,
when you are no longer comparing A to B.

  #240   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default more rules of $4k challenge questions

Buster Mudd wrote:

Yet I got the impression from Bob Marcus' earlier statement if a
difference is really heard, it will be the result of
resistance-related (or perhaps inductance/capacitance related)
frequency response anomalies that the "objectivists" were allowing
that differences may be discernable, they were just attributable to
fundamentals of electricity rather than voodoo & flooby-dust.

snip

So is it safe to conclude that you (Mr. Pinkerton) & Mr. Marcus are
not in complete agreement on what the claims of the "Snake Oil
Advocates" actually are, or how one would go about disproving their
allegations? Bob says there might be differences but those
differences have their origins in basic principles, not magical
properties; Stewart says there aren't differences, period. Have I got
that right?

Nope. Stewart and I are in agreement. If we weren't, he wouldn't be
insisting on the level-matching that has you so perplexed, would he? I'm
just trying to explain why he's insisting on it, although I get the
impression I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know. (Just
remember--many audiophiles don't believe it.)

I think you've missed the contribution of one other participant here, Chung,
who said:

By the way, you're overly concerned with the requirement that Stewart
laid down. I would say that 95+% of all cables, zip-cord or boutique,
meet that requirement handily.


Unless there's something other than simple wire in that boutique cable (like
those funny little boxes with resistors inside), it's very likely that we
can buy cable off the shelf at Home Depot that will meet Stewart's
requirement. So you needn't worry that we're cooking the test.

Now, if there really are resistors in the signal path, all bets are off
unless we can put resistors in our signal path, too. But our resistors won't
cost hundreds of dollars.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — optimizes dial-up to the max!
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gallons of Snake Oil malcolm Audio Opinions 3 February 17th 04 09:41 AM
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results. Bruno Putzeys High End Audio 78 December 19th 03 04:27 AM
cabling explained Midlant Car Audio 8 November 14th 03 04:07 AM
Digital Audio Cable Question(s) Hugh Cowan High End Audio 11 October 8th 03 07:15 PM
science vs. pseudo-science ludovic mirabel High End Audio 91 October 3rd 03 09:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:45 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"