Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
lcw999
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.

Even though there are millions out there picking and choosing
components and cables and changing cables...this little group
still tends to "have all the answers". There is a tendency to
measure things...with a limited tool set. This is a small vocal
minority with an Engineering mindset..for the most part!

Suggestions have been made that they cannot get to the
real issues of the measurement and numericalizing of the
audio domain until more extended toolsets are developed.

As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding
our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not yet
know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work and
makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a rather
oblique issue not related to electronics and cables, etc. Some*
that have written 100,000 responses on these Newsgroups, found
humor in the issue.

The point was that someday it is entirely possible that
once we get down to those most basic levels, some
scenarios as follows might evolve.

1. We might well be able to manipulate some particles
that, much like the Medical profession does with the
bloodstream, we inject elements to better measure
and determine what is going on there.

In this scenario in electronics it might well be possible
to superimpose an intense particle injection on top
of the audio stream and develop measurement
techniques on this most fundamental level that
can be interpreted. There is another sub-atomic
level of processes going on below the audio in
the wire. Who thinks something along these
lines is not attainable? Who thinks that the
measurement processes showing watts, volts
rise-times, etc..is the end of the trail?

Then some comments were made regarding
"...thinking outside of the lines.." This did not
sit too well with some. When, in fact it is these
types that are the "movers and shakers"..things
will get done by this "A" type personality. In fact,
there is an interesting article in the latest edition
of Stereophile regarding one of the individuals
that grasp much of the negative aspects of
metals and its use in Audio components. I suspect we
we shall someday find a bombardment in the
sub-atomic particle level that gives some
negative characteristics to metal in many
applications. There is another sub-particle
world down there...we are just not there yet.
We are still dabbling in a "broadbrush" dimension.

We must await the Scientist and their study
of what makes this all tick and hang together.
When we learn more, then, we will slowly begin
to develop tools and methods to manipulate
this sub-particle dimension. That opens mental
horizons never really touched upon. For example:
..what really causes the so-called "skin-effect" on
audio cables and its alteration of the audio***..I suspect
that when more basic info is available in the sub-particle
arena, there might be an alterable function in the wire
extrusion processes...where wire might well be
bombarded with a given set of sub-particles to achieve
a given effect. The power to manipulate our Universe
will take a quantum leap when we get down to
grasping these most basic particle issues.

The point of all this is that we still have a long way to
go and some basic work is still awaiting in most
disciplines. This basic work will not get accomplished
by the mindset that "we have the answers and if you
differ "..you have a problem with your imagination".
I don't accept that. This is not acceptable. I hear
differences in some cables..others do not!

Let us root for those hidden research Scientist
who are stiving to get all this basic info..it will
be a better Universe when they do..in many
disciplines!

The upshot of all this is to keep an open
mind.

* Interesting story about this kind of thing...

In the Italian Legislature Marconi was
held up for ridicule when one member
of the Legislature held up a wire** and
boldly stated "nothing can go through
this wire...there is no hole in it" This
was followed by a roaring laughter and
approval.

** (This was related to the antenna wire)

(The principle of RF energy was alien to this
group..naturally it must have a hole to flow
through..using their given set of knowledge)

The Legislative member was serious!
It was such a new and unbelievable concept!

Leonard...

*** This is an issue within Amateur radio and
certain wire antennas when loading the
antennas with RF.

  #2   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

lcw999 wrote:
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.


There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.



Not just engineering, but those who are aware of decades of
work in the psychology of human perception and judgement.

Don't forget taht "objectivism' in audio rests on *two* foundations:
1) technical properties of the components, media, and formats
2) psychological/psychoacoustic research

they are both essential to the argument.


Even though there are millions out there picking and choosing
components and cables and changing cables...this little group
still tends to "have all the answers".


Millions more simply buy the cable the guy at Best Buy recommends.

There is a tendency to
measure things...with a limited tool set. This is a small vocal
minority with an Engineering mindset..for the most part!



I question your understanding of the 'tool sets' involved, and of the
sophistication of some of the main engineering voices here.
*Your* grasp of science , from what I've seen, is dominated by
the sorts of things one gets from speculative, gee-whiz
'Tao of Physics'-like popularizations that border on the pseudoscientific,
when they don't pass over into it outright.

For example:

As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding
our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not yet
know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work and
makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a rather
oblique issue not related to electronics and cables, etc. Some*
that have written 100,000 responses on these Newsgroups, found
humor in the issue.


etc.

Alas, in a place like this, it's not enough to utter the words 'Sub-Particle
issues' or 'quantum mechanics' as if they explain anything --
you actually have to give evidence that they
might be relevant to audible difference. Sorry, even capitalizing them
won't help.






--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

  #3   Report Post  
Bruce Abrams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Whether we can measure and quantify sub-particles (that may or may not exist
and may or may not have any electrical significance) is irrelevant when it
comes to what is audible. No one on this forum has ever stated that "if it
can't be measured it can't be heard." Many of us have stated that if an
audible effect is claimed to exist yet is not measurable, its audibility
needs to be verified before anyone is willing to go to extraordinary lengths
to measure and quantify the cause of the effect.

For example, when an audible difference between two cables is claimed to be
observed that is not attributable to measured resitance, capacitance and
inductance, the audibility of the effect must be verified before anyone
looks for another physical property that is causing the claimed effect. The
process of discovering a new physical property would certainly be subject to
the rigors of scientific process and peer review (and would likely result in
a Nobel prize to the discovering scientist). Shouldn't the observation of
such an effect at least be subject to verification under basic controlled
conditions? In other words, without scientific evidence that an effect
exists, no one is willing to attempt to measure it. How would you measure
the amount of green cheese in the moon? The answer is that you wouldn't
unless you knew it was made of green cheese. How do you measure what is
causing two cables to sound different? You don't until you've proven that
they sound different. "I heard a difference when I switched cables" isn't
proof.


"lcw999" wrote in message
news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.

Even though there are millions out there picking and choosing
components and cables and changing cables...this little group
still tends to "have all the answers". There is a tendency to
measure things...with a limited tool set. This is a small vocal
minority with an Engineering mindset..for the most part!

Suggestions have been made that they cannot get to the
real issues of the measurement and numericalizing of the
audio domain until more extended toolsets are developed.

As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding
our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not yet
know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work and
makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a rather
oblique issue not related to electronics and cables, etc. Some*
that have written 100,000 responses on these Newsgroups, found
humor in the issue.

The point was that someday it is entirely possible that
once we get down to those most basic levels, some
scenarios as follows might evolve.

1. We might well be able to manipulate some particles
that, much like the Medical profession does with the
bloodstream, we inject elements to better measure
and determine what is going on there.

In this scenario in electronics it might well be possible
to superimpose an intense particle injection on top
of the audio stream and develop measurement
techniques on this most fundamental level that
can be interpreted. There is another sub-atomic
level of processes going on below the audio in
the wire. Who thinks something along these
lines is not attainable? Who thinks that the
measurement processes showing watts, volts
rise-times, etc..is the end of the trail?

Then some comments were made regarding
"...thinking outside of the lines.." This did not
sit too well with some. When, in fact it is these
types that are the "movers and shakers"..things
will get done by this "A" type personality. In fact,
there is an interesting article in the latest edition
of Stereophile regarding one of the individuals
that grasp much of the negative aspects of
metals and its use in Audio components. I suspect we
we shall someday find a bombardment in the
sub-atomic particle level that gives some
negative characteristics to metal in many
applications. There is another sub-particle
world down there...we are just not there yet.
We are still dabbling in a "broadbrush" dimension.

We must await the Scientist and their study
of what makes this all tick and hang together.
When we learn more, then, we will slowly begin
to develop tools and methods to manipulate
this sub-particle dimension. That opens mental
horizons never really touched upon. For example:
..what really causes the so-called "skin-effect" on
audio cables and its alteration of the audio***..I suspect
that when more basic info is available in the sub-particle
arena, there might be an alterable function in the wire
extrusion processes...where wire might well be
bombarded with a given set of sub-particles to achieve
a given effect. The power to manipulate our Universe
will take a quantum leap when we get down to
grasping these most basic particle issues.

The point of all this is that we still have a long way to
go and some basic work is still awaiting in most
disciplines. This basic work will not get accomplished
by the mindset that "we have the answers and if you
differ "..you have a problem with your imagination".
I don't accept that. This is not acceptable. I hear
differences in some cables..others do not!

Let us root for those hidden research Scientist
who are stiving to get all this basic info..it will
be a better Universe when they do..in many
disciplines!

The upshot of all this is to keep an open
mind.

* Interesting story about this kind of thing...

In the Italian Legislature Marconi was
held up for ridicule when one member
of the Legislature held up a wire** and
boldly stated "nothing can go through
this wire...there is no hole in it" This
was followed by a roaring laughter and
approval.

** (This was related to the antenna wire)

(The principle of RF energy was alien to this
group..naturally it must have a hole to flow
through..using their given set of knowledge)

The Legislative member was serious!
It was such a new and unbelievable concept!

Leonard...

*** This is an issue within Amateur radio and
certain wire antennas when loading the
antennas with RF.

  #4   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Steven Sullivan wrote:


lcw999 wrote:
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.


There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.



Not just engineering, but those who are aware of decades of
work in the psychology of human perception and judgement.

Don't forget taht "objectivism' in audio rests on *two* foundations:
1) technical properties of the components, media, and formats
2) psychological/psychoacoustic research

they are both essential to the argument.


And, with regard to the argument that we don't have a current tool set capable
of measuring particle elements in cabling I'm wondering why the cable-sound
element still been unable to demonstrate an ability to 'hear' these differences
when any level of bias control is installed. If the effect can be demonstrated
as real and remains unmeasurable then we have an issue. But when the effects
have never been shown to exist as a real acoustical phenomenon why should we
care?


Even though there are millions out there picking and choosing
components and cables and changing cables...this little group
still tends to "have all the answers".


Millions more simply buy the cable the guy at Best Buy recommends.


The use of the characterization as "millions" is certainly unverified and fails
to take into account that the market for boutique cables is most likely
relatively small, dependent on up-grades, and very heavily based on advertising
so promotion is much more evident than with products that require heavy capital
investment.


There is a tendency to
measure things...with a limited tool set. This is a small vocal
minority with an Engineering mindset..for the most part!



I question your understanding of the 'tool sets' involved, and of the
sophistication of some of the main engineering voices here.
*Your* grasp of science , from what I've seen, is dominated by
the sorts of things one gets from speculative, gee-whiz
'Tao of Physics'-like popularizations that border on the pseudoscientific,
when they don't pass over into it outright.

For example:

As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding
our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not yet
know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work and
makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a rather
oblique issue not related to electronics and cables, etc. Some*
that have written 100,000 responses on these Newsgroups, found
humor in the issue.


etc.


So why can't proponents; "manufacturers" (no high-end cable company I know
smelts draws wire), wholesalers, retailers, reviewers, enthusiasts ever show an
ability to hear these effects when someone else is critically watching?

Alas, in a place like this, it's not enough to utter the words 'Sub-Particle
issues' or 'quantum mechanics' as if they explain anything --
you actually have to give evidence that they
might be relevant to audible difference. Sorry, even capitalizing them
won't help.


My take on this is that the debate always seems to re-arrive back to the
intersection where amp/wire proponents will argue that science/engineering
doesn't have the tools to prove the subjectivist case .... instead of simply
proving it acoustically with listening demonstration free of sensory perceptual
bias.
  #5   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Ah, the very tools that are totally and completely required to settle the
wire, amp, etc. questions are already at hand, your ears. We can do a
complete evaluation with listening alone as the experiment. All we need
is evaluate two level matched etc. items without knowledge which is active
and determine if any of our perceived by listening alone correlates with
which is the active gear. All one need do is have someone place a cloth
over the connections so as to remove knowledge during the listening alone
with only our ears as tools. We need not look to the future and some new
knowledge of sub atomic phenomena when we have the tools attached to each
of our heads. I'm told when this has been done that the correlation of
reported differences from ears alone to which was the actual active gear
is at a level similar to that of random guessing. The only possible new
measurement that could somehow then make a difference that we don't now
have is either some distortion from cloth touching connectrs or some esp
type feedback that modulates the electrical performance of the unknown
active gear. What other possible measurement of what would undermine the
above "just use your ears" listening alone test?

Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.

Even though there are millions out there picking and choosing
components and cables and changing cables...this little group
still tends to "have all the answers". There is a tendency to
measure things...with a limited tool set. This is a small vocal
minority with an Engineering mindset..for the most part!

Suggestions have been made that they cannot get to the
real issues of the measurement and numericalizing of the
audio domain until more extended toolsets are developed.

As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding
our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not yet
know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work and
makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a rather
oblique issue not related to electronics and cables, etc. Some*
that have written 100,000 responses on these Newsgroups, found
humor in the issue.

The point was that someday it is entirely possible that
once we get down to those most basic levels, some
scenarios as follows might evolve.

1. We might well be able to manipulate some particles
that, much like the Medical profession does with the
bloodstream, we inject elements to better measure
and determine what is going on there.

In this scenario in electronics it might well be possible
to superimpose an intense particle injection on top
of the audio stream and develop measurement
techniques on this most fundamental level that
can be interpreted. There is another sub-atomic
level of processes going on below the audio in
the wire. Who thinks something along these
lines is not attainable? Who thinks that the
measurement processes showing watts, volts
rise-times, etc..is the end of the trail?

Then some comments were made regarding
"...thinking outside of the lines.." This did not
sit too well with some. When, in fact it is these
types that are the "movers and shakers"..things
will get done by this "A" type personality. In fact,
there is an interesting article in the latest edition
of Stereophile regarding one of the individuals
that grasp much of the negative aspects of
metals and its use in Audio components. I suspect we
we shall someday find a bombardment in the
sub-atomic particle level that gives some
negative characteristics to metal in many
applications. There is another sub-particle
world down there...we are just not there yet.
We are still dabbling in a "broadbrush" dimension.

We must await the Scientist and their study
of what makes this all tick and hang together.
When we learn more, then, we will slowly begin
to develop tools and methods to manipulate
this sub-particle dimension. That opens mental
horizons never really touched upon. For example:
..what really causes the so-called "skin-effect" on
audio cables and its alteration of the audio***..I suspect
that when more basic info is available in the sub-particle
arena, there might be an alterable function in the wire
extrusion processes...where wire might well be
bombarded with a given set of sub-particles to achieve
a given effect. The power to manipulate our Universe
will take a quantum leap when we get down to
grasping these most basic particle issues.

The point of all this is that we still have a long way to
go and some basic work is still awaiting in most
disciplines. This basic work will not get accomplished
by the mindset that "we have the answers and if you
differ "..you have a problem with your imagination".
I don't accept that. This is not acceptable. I hear
differences in some cables..others do not!

Let us root for those hidden research Scientist
who are stiving to get all this basic info..it will
be a better Universe when they do..in many
disciplines!

The upshot of all this is to keep an open
mind.

* Interesting story about this kind of thing...

In the Italian Legislature Marconi was
held up for ridicule when one member
of the Legislature held up a wire** and
boldly stated "nothing can go through
this wire...there is no hole in it" This
was followed by a roaring laughter and
approval.

** (This was related to the antenna wire)

(The principle of RF energy was alien to this
group..naturally it must have a hole to flow
through..using their given set of knowledge)

The Legislative member was serious!
It was such a new and unbelievable concept!

Leonard...

*** This is an issue within Amateur radio and
certain wire antennas when loading the
antennas with RF.



  #6   Report Post  
Ban
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

lcw999 wrote:

Suggestions have been made that they cannot get to the
real issues of the measurement and numericalizing of the
audio domain until more extended toolsets are developed.

As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding
our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not
yet know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work
and makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a
rather oblique issue not related to electronics and cables,
etc. Some* that have written 100,000 responses on these
Newsgroups, found humor in the issue.


Leonard,
I really would recommend before going into the unknown, to be informed about
what science up to now has found out. There is nothing more revealing than
reality, you will find even answers to questions which havn't come up.

In the Italian Legislature Marconi was
held up for ridicule when one member
of the Legislature held up a wire** and
boldly stated "nothing can go through
this wire...there is no hole in it" This
was followed by a roaring laughter and
approval.


Your view is exactly like these Italien parliamentists (still today it's the
same), who are uninformed and unscientific. You must be of Italian heritage.
We tend to believe in all kind of magic and mystic things, it is a gift from
Catholicism.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
  #7   Report Post  
Dick Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

lcw999 wrote in message news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
In the Italian Legislature Marconi was
held up for ridicule when one member
of the Legislature held up a wire** and
boldly stated "nothing can go through
this wire...there is no hole in it" This
was followed by a roaring laughter and
approval.


Then, my friend, let's complete the analogy. It is members
of the audiophile community that are the analogs of the Italian
Legislature. You have describe a body utterly unversed in
physics, electronics, and the extent of knowledge. They scoff
when presented with ideas counter to their deeply held believe
system, a system NOT shaped through knowledge, experimentation
and rigor, but through blind intuition and political agenda.

Oh, and this also applies to the Italian Legislature as well,
beside the audiophile community.

You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such,
without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that
field who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant
in the macro world.

Yes,

"They laughed at Marconi,"

they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

  #8   Report Post  
lcw999
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:

lcw999 wrote in message
news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
In the Italian Legislature Marconi was held up for ridicule when one
member
of the Legislature held up a wire** and boldly stated "nothing can go
through this wire...there is no hole in it" This was followed by a
roaring laughter and approval.


Then, my friend, let's complete the analogy. It is members of the
audiophile community that are the analogs of the Italian Legislature.
You have describe a body utterly unversed in physics, electronics, and
the extent of knowledge. They scoff when presented with ideas counter to
their deeply held believe system, a system NOT shaped through knowledge,
experimentation and rigor, but through blind intuition and political
agenda.

Oh, and this also applies to the Italian Legislature as well, beside the
audiophile community.

You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such,
without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that field
who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the
macro world.


Sorry, but I have discussed this with individuals in this realm.
Perhaps you meant "micro"...but, there is not enough knowledge
available at this early state to know what can be related to any of
these sub-particle dimensions. The reason for the comments about
particle issues was to merely wake up those that think that our
awareness of current "seemingly known" issues is most likely tied in
with other levels of particles... therefore...we will learn much in
the future about what is now referred to as a "stable, all is known"
category. Don't get upset here...we are still stumbling through the
basics...more will evolve. Don't be surprized that we might well
learn to manipulate certain particles in this sub-particle domain.

Yes,

"They laughed at Marconi,"

they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.


I don't think Bozo existed at that time...
Thanks for the comments anyway.

Leonard...

  #9   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:29:13 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:


You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such,
without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that field
who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the
macro world.


Sorry, but I have discussed this with individuals in this realm.
Perhaps you meant "micro"...but, there is not enough knowledge
available at this early state to know what can be related to any of
these sub-particle dimensions. The reason for the comments about
particle issues was to merely wake up those that think that our
awareness of current "seemingly known" issues is most likely tied in
with other levels of particles... therefore...we will learn much in
the future about what is now referred to as a "stable, all is known"
category. Don't get upset here...we are still stumbling through the
basics...more will evolve. Don't be surprized that we might well
learn to manipulate certain particles in this sub-particle domain.


However, you failed to note that all this handwaving is totally
irrelevant to audio. Why? Because *before* you start investigating a
cause, you need to demonstrate the existence of an effect. This, you
have signally failed to do. Cold fusion, anyone?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #10   Report Post  
lcw999
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 20:36:01 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:29:13 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:


You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such,
without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that field
who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the
macro world.


Sorry, but I have discussed this with individuals in this realm.
Perhaps you meant "micro"...but, there is not enough knowledge
available at this early state to know what can be related to any of
these sub-particle dimensions. The reason for the comments about
particle issues was to merely wake up those that think that our
awareness of current "seemingly known" issues is most likely tied in
with other levels of particles... therefore...we will learn much in
the future about what is now referred to as a "stable, all is known"
category. Don't get upset here...we are still stumbling through the
basics...more will evolve. Don't be surprized that we might well
learn to manipulate certain particles in this sub-particle domain.


However, you failed to note that all this handwaving is totally
irrelevant to audio. Why? Because *before* you start investigating a
cause, you need to demonstrate the existence of an effect. This, you
have signally failed to do. Cold fusion, anyone?


Whoa..again!! This whole verbal process was stated in such
a manner to make the point that perhaps we should be a
bit wary of "..having all the answers"...this early in the game.
We do not yet have such fundamental factors about what
makes things tick yet...new breakthroughs come daily.

So watch the "..start investigating a cause"..misreadings. No
investigating a cause here..If one does not see the logic mentioned
above then remain in the box..be happy! Sorry one has to revert to the
"handwaving" routine, etc. The rigidness of some learned processes
early in the game has apparently "read-in" many "imagined" threats
here. Perhaps, I should paint a picture, again: Look over the
fences..other disciplines are knocking on the door of potential change
for all current knowledge on any given subject. This defensiveness is
normal!! It is the Scientific World that is going to rewrite so much of
what we know...as they always have. Do not continue to hide in the
engineering defensiveness!

The Scientist might well provide a toolset that the
engineers can use to prove "all cables are the same*
in the audio domain". Then one would not have to
resort to the "ole Phychology of audio trick", where
all is imagined...frequently used if it differs from some "in the box
beliefs"! Sorry! One cannot consistently keep using this ole
"bias" bucket toolset..people tend to not believe all that.

Leonard...

* But then, those hateful, devious types that
make these "designer" cables might start injecting
them with SOMETHING..and change the sound.
This requiring two pages of small print exceptions
to render the new toolset as correct!
Drat, one cannot win! Mercy..mercy!



  #11   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

lcw999 wrote:
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 20:36:01 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:29:13 GMT, lcw999 wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:
You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such,
without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that
field
who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the
macro world.

Sorry, but I have discussed this with individuals in this realm.
Perhaps you meant "micro"...but, there is not enough knowledge
available at this early state to know what can be related to
any of
these sub-particle dimensions. The reason for the comments about
particle issues was to merely wake up those that think that our
awareness of current "seemingly known" issues is most likely
tied in
with other levels of particles... therefore...we will learn
much in
the future about what is now referred to as a "stable, all is
known"
category. Don't get upset here...we are still stumbling through
the
basics...more will evolve. Don't be surprized that we might well
learn to manipulate certain particles in this sub-particle
domain.

However, you failed to note that all this handwaving is totally
irrelevant to audio. Why? Because *before* you start investigating a
cause, you need to demonstrate the existence of an effect. This, you
have signally failed to do. Cold fusion, anyone?

Whoa..again!! This whole verbal process was stated in such a
manner to make the point that perhaps we should be a
bit wary of "..having all the answers"...this early in the game.
We do not yet have such fundamental factors about what
makes things tick yet...new breakthroughs come daily.


Objectivist: Elephants do not fly. Can you give any evidence that they
do?

Some Subjectivist: Whoa! Particle Physics tells us there are a lot of
things we don't yet understand, at the particle level. We simply cannot
trust our eyes at this time to tell us whether elephants fly. We don't
have the advanced tools to detect flying elephants. I'm sure some day
in the future, we will have the basic understanding and the tools to
appreciate how elephants can fly. And we cannot dismiss anecdotes of
people seeing flying elephants; that will be the easy way out.
  #12   Report Post  
David Collins
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

In article RAl9c.108645$_w.1357635@attbi_s53,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Cold fusion, anyone?


Nowadays it's all Zero Point Energy, or nothing.

Go Casimir, go

DC

--
Dave Collins Entropy just isn't what it used to be!

www.collinsaudio.com

  #13   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 22:42:18 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 20:36:01 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:29:13 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:


You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such,
without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that
field
who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the
macro world.

Sorry, but I have discussed this with individuals in this realm.
Perhaps you meant "micro"...but, there is not enough knowledge
available at this early state to know what can be related to
any of
these sub-particle dimensions. The reason for the comments about
particle issues was to merely wake up those that think that our
awareness of current "seemingly known" issues is most likely
tied in
with other levels of particles... therefore...we will learn
much in
the future about what is now referred to as a "stable, all is
known"
category. Don't get upset here...we are still stumbling through
the
basics...more will evolve. Don't be surprized that we might well
learn to manipulate certain particles in this sub-particle
domain.


However, you failed to note that all this handwaving is totally
irrelevant to audio. Why? Because *before* you start investigating a
cause, you need to demonstrate the existence of an effect. This, you
have signally failed to do. Cold fusion, anyone?


Whoa..again!! This whole verbal process was stated in such
a manner to make the point that perhaps we should be a
bit wary of "..having all the answers"...this early in the game.
We do not yet have such fundamental factors about what
makes things tick yet...new breakthroughs come daily.


Whoa yourself! Of course we don't know everything about the Universe,
but we *do* know that not one single person has *ever* been able to
demonstrate the existence of 'cable sound'. Without *evidence* of
audible difference, the is *no* need to go off into the realms of
fantasy looking for subatomic causes - for a non-existent effect.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #14   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

lcw999 wrote in message news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.


According to William of Occam, nature does not work in a more
complicated way than necessary. Given two explanations, the one that
is simpler is more likely to be true. The simplest explanation for why
people hear difference between cable is that there are audible
differences between cables. Citing 'psychological factors' is no
explanation at all.

  #15   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

lcw999 wrote in message
news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.


According to William of Occam, nature does not work in a more
complicated way than necessary. Given two explanations, the one that
is simpler is more likely to be true.


As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not
simpler."

The simplest explanation for why
people hear difference between cable is that there are audible
differences between cables.


The simplest explanation for why the sun rises in the east and sets in the
west is that the sun revolves around the earth. So much for Occam. (Or,
rather, so much for your version of Occam.)

Citing 'psychological factors' is no
explanation at all.


So what is Occam's explanation for why people sometimes hear differences
between things that are exactly the same?

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/



  #17   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Bob Marcus" wrote:



Michael Scarpitti wrote:

lcw999 wrote in message
news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading
you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.


According to William of Occam, nature does not work in a more
complicated way than necessary. Given two explanations, the one that
is simpler is more likely to be true.


As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible,
but not
simpler."

The simplest explanation for why
people hear difference between cable is that there are audible
differences between cables.


The simplest explanation for why the sun rises in the east and sets in
the
west is that the sun revolves around the earth. So much for Occam. (Or,
rather, so much for your version of Occam.)

Citing 'psychological factors' is no
explanation at all.


So what is Occam's explanation for why people sometimes hear
differences
between things that are exactly the same?

bob


Or the folks on this wonderful episode of Candid Camera where subjects
gladly
described the major "differences" in the taste of wine which was poured
out of
the same bottle. In this case Candid Camera had a table with several
filled
glasses of wine which were filled from the same bottle but each of
which had a
partially filled open bottle of wine placed next to each glass. I think
the
simplest explantion was expectation effect/ common human percepual bias
mechanisms.

Of course, they only had interviews with a few subjects and it is
possible that
they had to conduct 100 trials to get a small number of "interesting"
responses. But, that doesn't seem likely ...... only 60-minutes or NBC
(remember the pick-up side-gas-tank explosion story where they had to
use
rocket motors to get crash explosions?) would be capable of such gross
offense.


Even so Candid Camera they only had 6 of 25 or so with perceptually
biased
answers it's still likely that the simplest explanation of cable sound
IS human
perceptual bias.
  #18   Report Post  
lcw999
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:48:56 +0000, Nousaine wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote:



Michael Scarpitti wrote:

lcw999 wrote in message
news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading
you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.


According to William of Occam, nature does not work in a more
complicated way than necessary. Given two explanations, the one that
is simpler is more likely to be true.


As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible,
but not
simpler."

The simplest explanation for why
people hear difference between cable is that there are audible
differences between cables.


The simplest explanation for why the sun rises in the east and sets in
the
west is that the sun revolves around the earth. So much for Occam. (Or,
rather, so much for your version of Occam.)

Citing 'psychological factors' is no
explanation at all.


So what is Occam's explanation for why people sometimes hear
differences
between things that are exactly the same?


We never have had the hard facts that any two of anything is
"exactly" the same. You are going from the source
(amps-preamp-spk) to the acoustic sphere (air-atmospheric
pressure-etc) to the variables of the individual ear-brain
structure that varies somewhat between every individual...so if
with todays toolsets you determining anything is "exactly" the
same.. ..be a bit cautious about the "exactly" stuff. We are not
there yet. One can fix about any problem with ye ole "bias-box".
What a wonderful tool!

bob


Or the folks on this wonderful episode of Candid Camera where subjects
gladly
described the major "differences" in the taste of wine which was poured
out of
the same bottle. In this case Candid Camera had a table with several
filled
glasses of wine which were filled from the same bottle but each of which
had a
partially filled open bottle of wine placed next to each glass. I think
the
simplest explantion was expectation effect/ common human percepual bias
mechanisms.

Of course, they only had interviews with a few subjects and it is
possible that
they had to conduct 100 trials to get a small number of "interesting"
responses. But, that doesn't seem likely ...... only 60-minutes or NBC
(remember the pick-up side-gas-tank explosion story where they had to
use
rocket motors to get crash explosions?) would be capable of such gross
offense.


Even so Candid Camera they only had 6 of 25 or so with perceptually
biased
answers it's still likely that the simplest explanation of cable sound
IS human
perceptual bias.

__________________________________________________ _

In other postings we refer to the more logical "perceptual
interpretation". However, to pursue a given agenda we
now use "perceptual bias". One cannot lose with this
type of engineering. The ole "bias toolbox" has been
opened again. Can't have it both ways!! No one really
believes "all is the same"..the truth is probably somewhere
in the middle. Some are different..others, much the same.

Leonard...

  #25   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:03:46 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:kbjac.138194$_w.1598626@attbi_s53...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 02:54:22 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message ...

I don't think so. Muller-Lyrer lines, photos of the St Louis Arch (examples of
built-in human perceptual error) and experiments where its been shown that
humans will gladly report differences a large majority of the time when given 2
identical sound presentations telsl me that the simplest explanation is that
perceptual error is the most likely cause of cable-sound.

For an 'explanation' to 'explain', there must be some content. Citing
'perceptual bias' does not account for many of the aspects in
listening, such as consistency from time to time.


Absolute nonsense! Repetitive reinforcement is one of the mosty basic
psychological precepts.


We have been over this.


Indeed we have, and you ignored the obvious explanation the last time,
too...............

I listened to several amplifiers several
months apart. If there was no 'real' difference between them, why was
the same sound character present that I had heard before?


Because you expected it. I take it that you *are* equipped with a
memory?

I mean, you
have to give an account that shows how I could manage such a
sophisticated feat...

Obviously, you can't...


Obviously, I did, and you ignored it again. It's not a 'sophisticated
feat', it's very, very basic human behaviour.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



  #26   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

lcw999 wrote:



On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:48:56 +0000, Nousaine wrote:

"Bob Marcus"
wrote:



Michael Scarpitti wrote:

lcw999 wrote in message
news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to
have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading
you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.


According to William of Occam, nature does not work in a more
complicated way than necessary. Given two explanations, the one that
is simpler is more likely to be true.

As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible,
but not
simpler."

The simplest explanation for why
people hear difference between cable is that there are audible
differences between cables.

The simplest explanation for why the sun rises in the east and sets
in
the
west is that the sun revolves around the earth. So much for Occam.
(Or,
rather, so much for your version of Occam.)

Citing 'psychological factors' is no
explanation at all.

So what is Occam's explanation for why people sometimes hear
differences
between things that are exactly the same?


We never have had the hard facts that any two of anything is
"exactly" the same. You are going from the source
(amps-preamp-spk) to the acoustic sphere (air-atmospheric
pressure-etc) to the variables of the individual ear-brain
structure that varies somewhat between every individual...so if
with todays toolsets you determining anything is "exactly" the
same.. ..be a bit cautious about the "exactly" stuff. We are not
there yet. One can fix about any problem with ye ole "bias-box".
What a wonderful tool!

bob


Or the folks on this wonderful episode of Candid Camera where subjects
gladly
described the major "differences" in the taste of wine which was
poured
out of
the same bottle. In this case Candid Camera had a table with several
filled
glasses of wine which were filled from the same bottle but each of
which
had a
partially filled open bottle of wine placed next to each glass. I
think
the
simplest explantion was expectation effect/ common human percepual
bias
mechanisms.

Of course, they only had interviews with a few subjects and it is
possible that
they had to conduct 100 trials to get a small number of "interesting"
responses. But, that doesn't seem likely ...... only 60-minutes or NBC
(remember the pick-up side-gas-tank explosion story where they had to
use
rocket motors to get crash explosions?) would be capable of such gross
offense.


Even so Candid Camera they only had 6 of 25 or so with perceptually
biased
answers it's still likely that the simplest explanation of cable sound
IS human
perceptual bias.

__________________________________________________ _

In other postings we refer to the more logical "perceptual
interpretation". However, to pursue a given agenda we
now use "perceptual bias". One cannot lose with this
type of engineering. The ole "bias toolbox" has been
opened again. Can't have it both ways!! No one really
believes "all is the same"..the truth is probably somewhere
in the middle. Some are different..others, much the same.

Leonard...



Actually any two objects can never be physically identical (one will
always
have a microscopic bit of duct more or less) but when conditions are
arranged
so that subjects get two presentations that are arranged to be
perceptually
identical (or so similar that they fall below known thresholds) and
still
subjects report "differences" what are we supposed to believe?

It's interesting that presentations arranged to be acoustically
identical will
be reported as perceptually different by humans; and that when
experienced
audiophiles "fail" to reliably identify amps/cables when nothing moe
than a
cloth is placed over the input/output terminals some folks will argue
that
there WERE "real" differences that cannot yet be "measured" will be
uncovered
later.

I still wonder why some amp/cable manufacturer with nominally competent
electrical performance can't produce a bias controlled listening test
that
shows their products have any sound of their own?

It's a quandry. So many want me to "believe" but when I say "OK show me
....
when you don't know the answers in advance" --- no one can. I'm not
thinking
that 'unmeasurable but real' differences fit into the equation in a
meaningful
way.
  #27   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Wquac.42199$w54.279014@attbi_s01...

Absolute nonsense! Repetitive reinforcement is one of the mosty basic
psychological precepts.


We have been over this.


Indeed we have, and you ignored the obvious explanation the last time,
too...............


There is no 'explanation'. It accounts for nothing.

I listened to several amplifiers several
months apart. If there was no 'real' difference between them, why was
the same sound character present that I had heard before?


Because you expected it. I take it that you *are* equipped with a
memory?


'What' did I expect the first time? How was I able to remember all the
details? How was I able to produce all the details the first time and
do it flawlessley again later? Any such 'explanation' is false on its
face.

  #30   Report Post  
Bruce Abrams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:xVLac.47343$gA5.602175@attbi_s03...
(Nousaine) wrote in message

news:aAsac.142981$_w.1631847@attbi_s53...


Absolute nonsense! Repetitive reinforcement is one of the mosty basic
psychological precepts.

We have been over this. I listened to several amplifiers several
months apart. If there was no 'real' difference between them, why was
the same sound character present that I had heard before? I mean, you
have to give an account that shows how I could manage such a
sophisticated feat...

Obviously, you can't...


That would be most likely due to hindsight bias a known bias effect in

medical
analysis. When you already 'know; the expected effect it most assuredly

will
reappear when bias mechanisms are noy controlled. Why not try this for
yourself?


Why don't you try listening to two different cables under sighted
conditions and see what happens?


I did. That's how I became a proponent of blind testing in the first place.
I had been auditioning cables and forget which one I left in the system.
Thinking I was listening to cable A, I heard the 'characteristics' of cable
A. When I went to switch back to cable B I saw that I was actually
listening to cable B. So I asked my wife to do the switching without
telling me which was which. At that point I could no longer identify which
cable I was listening to. (FWIW, the cables under test at the time were
Kimber 8TC and Music Metre Signature.)


  #31   Report Post  
Bruce Abrams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
...
(Nousaine) wrote in message

...
lcw999
wrote:

I still wonder why some amp/cable manufacturer with nominally competent
electrical performance can't produce a bias controlled listening test
that
shows their products have any sound of their own?

It's a quandry. So many want me to "believe" but when I say "OK show me
...
when you don't know the answers in advance" --- no one can. I'm not
thinking
that 'unmeasurable but real' differences fit into the equation in a
meaningful
way.


It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like
cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper
stuff that does.


Actually, it should come as a great surprise to those who are willing to
spend mega-bucks on cables every so often, and even more of a surprise to
the reviewers who wax poetic over the incredible difference one megabuck
cable makes over another.

Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons
between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show
differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables.


Perhaps you could explain the reasoning in the above statement. What is it
that a "high-end cable" does better than the "cheaper stuff" that would make
it sound different? You suggest a measure of quality. Can we define
"quality" in this context? If two pieces of wire measurable pass a signal
equally well and are sonically indistinguishable under controlled
conditions, what other qualitative measure would you apply? Does it make a
difference if one is 12 guage Home Depot speaker wire and one is Kimber
Black Pearl? You stated that, "...the better the quality, the more closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences." What if the
quality of the "cheaper stuff" was already adequate to be functionally
perfect for the application?

Here's an example of what I mean: 802.11B runs at 11 megabit, while 802.11G
runs at 22 megabit, so G must be better/faster, right? Well if the only
thing I use my wireless network for is internet access and my internet
bandwidth is 5 megabit, is G better? Only in technical sense, as I will
perceive no benefit.

  #32   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Bruce Abrams wrote:


"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:xVLac.47343$gA5.602175@attbi_s03...
(Nousaine) wrote in message
news:aAsac.142981$_w.1631847@attbi_s53...


Absolute nonsense! Repetitive reinforcement is one of the mosty basic
psychological precepts.

We have been over this. I listened to several amplifiers several
months apart. If there was no 'real' difference between them, why was
the same sound character present that I had heard before? I mean, you
have to give an account that shows how I could manage such a
sophisticated feat...

Obviously, you can't...

That would be most likely due to hindsight bias a known bias effect in

medical
analysis. When you already 'know; the expected effect it most assuredly

will
reappear when bias mechanisms are noy controlled. Why not try this for
yourself?


Why don't you try listening to two different cables under sighted
conditions and see what happens?


I did. That's how I became a proponent of blind testing in the first place.
I had been auditioning cables and forget which one I left in the system.
Thinking I was listening to cable A, I heard the 'characteristics' of cable
A. When I went to switch back to cable B I saw that I was actually
listening to cable B. So I asked my wife to do the switching without
telling me which was which. At that point I could no longer identify which
cable I was listening to. (FWIW, the cables under test at the time were
Kimber 8TC and Music Metre Signature.)


I became interested in bias-controls when I had the same experience with
capacitors. For enthusiasts this kind of thing seems inevitable. After the 2nd
or 3rd 'mistake' I think one has to decide if he's going to investigate true
audibility or not or just ignore contrary evidence.

  #33   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message
...
lcw999
wrote:

I still wonder why some amp/cable manufacturer with nominally competent
electrical performance can't produce a bias controlled listening test
that
shows their products have any sound of their own?

It's a quandry. So many want me to "believe" but when I say "OK show me
...
when you don't know the answers in advance" --- no one can. I'm not
thinking
that 'unmeasurable but real' differences fit into the equation in a
meaningful
way.


It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like
cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper
stuff that does. Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons
between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show
differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables.


Iszzzat so! In the 90s I conducted 2 separate bias controlled wire-sound tests
in audiophiles home systems (one an enthusiast and one an audio salesman) who
both claimed that their particular wire was substantially better sounding than
zip-cord. Both had several hundred dollars of speaker cabling in their systems.
Interestingly neither was able to reliably differentiate their reference
cabling from $0.18 a foot zipcord. I then repeated this with a 20-year old
female college student comparing the zip cord to an 8-foot set of $990 Tara
Labs RSC speaker wires. She was also unable to tell them apart.

It's also intersting to think about what a wire "manufacturer" actually
"makes." For example the Tara Labs RSC (a rectangular shaped copper wire in a
translucent casing) was recognized by a member at an audio club ...."I know
that wire; we used that to restrap starter motors when I worked at ....."

I've visited Transparent Audio Marketing in New Hampshire and I didn't see
anything being manufactuered there except for network boxes and terminations.
The "wire" was in an old barn wound on cable spools with New England Wire and
Cable stamped on them. IOW wire "manufacturers" don't make wire. At best they
terminate them.

I'm guessing that companies such as Monster Cable may not even have to
warehouse cables but simply have them drop-shipped from the manufacturer
directly to the vendor from the manufacturer/packaging house. It's all BS but
technically brilliant marketing.

  #34   Report Post  
Frank O. Hodge
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Wquac.42199$w54.279014@attbi_s01...


Absolute nonsense! Repetitive reinforcement is one of the mosty basic
psychological precepts.

We have been over this.


Indeed we have, and you ignored the obvious explanation the last time,
too...............



There is no 'explanation'. It accounts for nothing.


I listened to several amplifiers several
months apart. If there was no 'real' difference between them, why was
the same sound character present that I had heard before?


Because you expected it. I take it that you *are* equipped with a
memory?



'What' did I expect the first time?


What had you decided that you wanted to expect? That's what.

How was I able to remember all the
details? How was I able to produce all the details the first time and
do it flawlessley again later?


How were you able to remember all such things, in a way that (not
ostensibly, sort of nominally, only very putatively) you took to
validate your hypothesis? (How do you know that you heard, and
remembered, "all the details," initially and "flawlessl[]y" later? What
about the ones that you forgot to listen for, i.e., forgot to say that
you heard? You listened for a,b,c; I suggest you listen for x,y,z; now
you'd have to restate your listening results, unless perhaps x,y,z (or
a,b,c) don't exist anyway, not a hard thing inasmuch as we haven't
bothered to define any of them. Which one was the lamp cord, from the
hardware store?) How were you able to persist in self-delusion?

Any such 'explanation' is false on its
face.


No kidding?

(We are discussing loudspeakers, right? And LPs?)

  #36   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message
news:Mx_ac.156391$Cb.1611810@attbi_s51...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
...
(Nousaine) wrote in message

...
lcw999
wrote:

I still wonder why some amp/cable manufacturer with nominally

competent
electrical performance can't produce a bias controlled listening test
that
shows their products have any sound of their own?

It's a quandry. So many want me to "believe" but when I say "OK show

me
...
when you don't know the answers in advance" --- no one can. I'm not
thinking
that 'unmeasurable but real' differences fit into the equation in a
meaningful
way.


It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like
cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper
stuff that does.


Actually, it should come as a great surprise to those who are willing to
spend mega-bucks on cables every so often, and even more of a surprise to
the reviewers who wax poetic over the incredible difference one megabuck
cable makes over another.

Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons
between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show
differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables.


Perhaps you could explain the reasoning in the above statement. What is

it
that a "high-end cable" does better than the "cheaper stuff" that would

make
it sound different? You suggest a measure of quality. Can we define
"quality" in this context? If two pieces of wire measurable pass a signal
equally well and are sonically indistinguishable under controlled
conditions, what other qualitative measure would you apply? Does it make

a
difference if one is 12 guage Home Depot speaker wire and one is Kimber
Black Pearl? You stated that, "...the better the quality, the more

closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences." What if the
quality of the "cheaper stuff" was already adequate to be functionally
perfect for the application?

Here's an example of what I mean: 802.11B runs at 11 megabit, while

802.11G
runs at 22 megabit, so G must be better/faster, right? Well if the only
thing I use my wireless network for is internet access and my internet
bandwidth is 5 megabit, is G better? Only in technical sense, as I will
perceive no benefit.


If you will lay your prejudices aside, The Absolute Sound has run a survey
of speaker cables in the last two issues (Feb/Mar, Apr/May just out).
Previously they did a survey of interconnects. Both surveys done by Paul
Seydor and Neil Gader. To quote part of Paul's summary: "... Let me also
emphasize that our capsule descriptions have for the most part *really
magnified* the differences among these cables. The reality is that it
typically required keen, rather exhausting, and decidedly *not* enjoyable
concentration to ferret out most of the individual characteristics we've
attempted to describe. Could we tell which cable was connected up, say, a
few hours after a session or the next morning, if we didn't know? Maybe
with the cables that fell to either extreme of the tonal-balance spectrum,
but, as in our interconnect survey, I'd not want to place my hard-earned
money on it...." (TAS, *Loudspeaker Cable Survey, Part Two*, April/May 2004
pp 63-64). BTW they included a 14gauge Home Depot cable derived from an
outside power cord in the survey and it did pretty well.

This group's objectivists might want to consider that they have continued to
attack their own fantasia, while the audio world has moved on.
  #37   Report Post  
Stephen McLuckie
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Nousaine wrote:

I became interested in bias-controls when I had the same experience with
capacitors. For enthusiasts this kind of thing seems inevitable. After the

2nd
or 3rd 'mistake' I think one has to decide if he's going to investigate

true
audibility or not or just ignore contrary evidence.


Did you come to any conclusions about capacitor "sound"?

Stephen

  #38   Report Post  
Wylie Williams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Nousaine"
It's also intersting to think about what a wire "manufacturer" actually
"makes." For example the Tara Labs RSC (a rectangular shaped copper wire

in a
translucent casing) was recognized by a member at an audio club ...."I

know
that wire; we used that to restrap starter motors when I worked at ....."

I've visited Transparent Audio Marketing in New Hampshire and I didn't see
anything being manufactuered there except for network boxes and

terminations.
The "wire" was in an old barn wound on cable spools with New England Wire

and
Cable stamped on them. IOW wire "manufacturers" don't make wire. At best

they
terminate them.

I'm guessing that companies such as Monster Cable may not even have to
warehouse cables but simply have them drop-shipped from the manufacturer
directly to the vendor from the manufacturer/packaging house. It's all BS

but
technically brilliant marketing.


You are right; most wire is made by a few companies for the many who
market it. For many years I bought wire from a wire company owner who freely
stated that all his wire was made by one of the large wire manufacturers.
Sometimes he had a standard product imprinted with his name; sometimes he
specified the conductor material, gauge, configuration, and insulation. I
am sure that the others do about the same. I have no problem with that.
Outsourcing applies to far more than wire. I recently sold a $2,000 KEF
subwoofer. The carton said "Made in China". Is it a good subwoofer? That
should be determined, not by whether it was made in the UK or in China, or
how well it is marketed, but by its performance.

Wylie Williams
The Speaker and Stereo Store

  #39   Report Post  
Bruce Abrams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message
news:Mx_ac.156391$Cb.1611810@attbi_s51...

*snip*

If you will lay your prejudices aside, The Absolute Sound has run a survey
of speaker cables in the last two issues (Feb/Mar, Apr/May just out).
Previously they did a survey of interconnects. Both surveys done by Paul
Seydor and Neil Gader. To quote part of Paul's summary: "... Let me also
emphasize that our capsule descriptions have for the most part *really
magnified* the differences among these cables. The reality is that it
typically required keen, rather exhausting, and decidedly *not* enjoyable
concentration to ferret out most of the individual characteristics we've
attempted to describe. Could we tell which cable was connected up, say, a
few hours after a session or the next morning, if we didn't know? Maybe
with the cables that fell to either extreme of the tonal-balance spectrum,
but, as in our interconnect survey, I'd not want to place my hard-earned
money on it...." (TAS, *Loudspeaker Cable Survey, Part Two*, April/May

2004
pp 63-64). BTW they included a 14gauge Home Depot cable derived from an
outside power cord in the survey and it did pretty well.

This group's objectivists might want to consider that they have continued

to
attack their own fantasia, while the audio world has moved on.


If the audio world has moved on, why are there still companies selling
obscenely priced speaker cables that are indistinguishable from 12 guage zip
cord? The answer is that they haven't really moved on. Here's how I read
Paul's summary...We can't really tell the difference between cables, but
there must be some difference because nobody would spend that much money on
cables if there wasn't, and if there really aren't any differences Kimber,
Transparent, MIT, etc. no longer have any reason for existing and if they
don't exist they can't buy ad space and if they don't buy ad space...(NB I
don't believe anyone would write a good review of bad equipment just to save
the advertising revenue. That is not the same as allowing perceptual bias
to infect a review by not controlling for it.)
  #40   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Bruce Abrams wrote in message news:Mx_ac.156391$Cb.1611810@attbi_s51...


It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like
cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper
stuff that does.


Actually, it should come as a great surprise to those who are willing to
spend mega-bucks on cables every so often, and even more of a surprise to
the reviewers who wax poetic over the incredible difference one megabuck
cable makes over another.


I have described, before, my test of listening to $50 Monster
interconnect and $100 Monster interconnect. I can tell them apart.


Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons
between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show
differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables.


Perhaps you could explain the reasoning in the above statement. What is it
that a "high-end cable" does better than the "cheaper stuff" that would make
it sound different?


You can read the product literature just as easily as I can. They
explain in the literature what features the cable has.

I bought this one:

http://www.monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=129

1 m. pair - 3.28 ft. ILR2-1M 102310 $99.95 pr.

I compared it to an older Monster cable that was about half that
price.

You suggest a measure of quality. Can we define
"quality" in this context? If two pieces of wire measurable pass a signal
equally well and are sonically indistinguishable under controlled
conditions, what other qualitative measure would you apply? Does it make a
difference if one is 12 guage Home Depot speaker wire and one is Kimber
Black Pearl? You stated that, "...the better the quality, the more closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences." What if the
quality of the "cheaper stuff" was already adequate to be functionally
perfect for the application?


It isn't. I could tell the two interconnect cables apart, easily.
Better imaging, transient repsonse, etc.


Here's an example of what I mean: 802.11B runs at 11 megabit, while 802.11G
runs at 22 megabit, so G must be better/faster, right? Well if the only
thing I use my wireless network for is internet access and my internet
bandwidth is 5 megabit, is G better? Only in technical sense, as I will
perceive no benefit.


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
Hearing aids and music John Richards High End Audio 12 April 7th 04 06:29 PM
Can network, video and sound cables be combined to save space? Gilden Man General 4 February 3rd 04 12:33 PM
Comments about Blind Testing watch king High End Audio 24 January 28th 04 05:03 PM
Note to the Idiot George M. Middius Audio Opinions 222 January 8th 04 08:13 PM
hearing loss info Andy Weaks Car Audio 17 August 10th 03 08:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:17 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"