| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Bravo!
I have been slogging my way through some of the audio mags for a few months
now, noting instances of dubious claims of difference, as per my post a few months back about the preponderance of such claims, which someone here questioned. I must report that after even one issue the sheer volume of blithely-asserted nonsense in such journals begins to wear on one's soul, and so it's been slow going. Having read the latest issue of The Audio Critic, however, I think perhaps I don't need to bother anymore, as Peter Aczel, who has surely been following the press at least as closely as I have for the last decade, has echoed my perception forcefully and in spades, explaining why he's given up pinpointing instances of misinformation in the audio press: "We have reached the point where virtually the entire audio press is in tacit denial of the realities of electrical engineering and electroacoustics. The false assumptions we used to attack have become the self-evident givens of the audio journalists. Fiction is now accepted fact, mindless misinformation is unquestioned mainstream. ...For our newer readers I should perhaps point out all over again the pathetic fallacy of talkign abotu soundstaging, or front-to-back-depth, or open/closed quality, or graininess, or any other sonic characteristics of purely electronic signal paths that are less than, say, 20 years old. What the human ear can differentiate are frequency response, level, noise, and to a lesser extent distortion. That's all..... ....What you are told in Stereophile, TAS, and other such publications is arbitrary effect without an explainable cause." -- Peter Aczel 'Our Last Hip Boots Column', TAC 29, p 5. Refreshingly blunt, no-nonsense editorializing, detailed technical and listening reports on components that *forbid* the usual subjectivist flights of fancy, *and* he's extroardinarily rude to letter-writers. My subscription check's in the mail! -- -S. ______ "You're an abuser Sullivan....a base beast with intellect but little intelligence to show for it" -- KENNEH! |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo - Audio Citic?
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo - Audio Citic?
Mkuller wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Having read the latest issue of The Audio Critic, however, I think perhaps I don't need to bother anymore, as Peter Aczel, who has surely been following the press at least as closely as I have for the last decade, has echoed my perception forcefully and in spades, explaining why he's given up pinpointing instances of misinformation in the audio press: Isn't this the same Audio Critic - Peter Aczel - who used his magazine to promote his Fourier loudspeaker company with a rave review - without mentioning the company was his? And then after he was called on this by the legitimate audio press, didn't he stop publishing and shaft all of those with paid subscriptions? Real credible source. Why would any of that make him a non-credible source of facts about audio, Mike? A convicted felon would be just as right as a Nobel prizewinning physicist, if he claimed that perpetual motion was impossible. -- -S. ______ "You're an abuser Sullivan....a base beast with intellect but little intelligence to show for it" -- KENNEH! |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo - Audio Citic?
I've subscribed to Peter's mag since it first came out and I have never been
'shafted'! He has always fullfilled his subscription obligation even if it took 2 to 3 years to complete a 4 issue subscription. Ron "Mkuller" wrote in message ... Isn't this the same Audio Critic - Peter Aczel - who used his magazine to promote his Fourier loudspeaker company with a rave review - without mentioning the company was his? And then after he was called on this by the legitimate audio press, didn't he stop publishing and shaft all of those with paid subscriptions? Real credible source. Regards, Mike |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo!
Lads & Lasses,
I find it quite presumptious to claim that " What the human ear can differentiate are frequency response, level, noise, and to a lesser extent distortion. That's all....." Let's have a few counterexamples. 1)Add a pre-echo to a signal at -40dB, spaced 10ms away from the main signal. The frequency response of such a process is flat to within +/-0.05dB, the ripples 100Hz apart. Inaudible? Someone stepping through the audio band at 3rd octave intervals would miss it completely. Looking at a sinewave on the scope wouldn't tell you anything. 2)Jitter. Jitter has been proven to be audible. Listening tests have been performed (have a look at Julian Dunns papers on www.nanophon.com ) to determine a gabarith of the jitter spectrum above which the effects are audible. Yet, neither spec tests which are quoted will catch jitter. Before its importance was realised, the objectivist brigade shooed when the audibility of digital cables and sources was noted. Once it was proven though, they all suddenly heard it too (it was allowed). Now there's what I call autosuggestion. Here's the upshot: audible differences between electrical devices must by definition be measurable electrically. Nowhere does it say though that our existing measurement techniques cq figures-of-merit are all that is needed to bring to light the electrical phenomena involved. Any claim, by anyone, that our knowledge on a certain subject is complete, is thoroughly unscientific. In the meantime, and even afterwards, "depth", "air", "punch" -and what have you- are not measurements. They are simply a description of how certain electrical phenomena sound to the human ear when applied to audio. The most obvious example is 2nd harmonic distortion, which is invariably described as "warm" or "fat" sounding. What do you want? "You know, it sounds, well, 2nd harmonic"? I imagine going "It sounds very -20dBC at 1kHz off 256*Fs". So, will the people who enjoy their audio using measuring equipment please leave some room for those who prefer to use their ears? We are listening to the same electronic phenomena. If some like to talk about it in human terms instead of numbers, let them. If they discover something unexpected in the process, start looking for the cause instead of denying it based on prewar technical concepts. It is the same in any field of science and engineering though. Scientists can nearly bite off each-others head over hypotheses. Objective it ain't. Best, Bruno |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo!
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
..For our newer readers I should perhaps point out all over again the pathetic fallacy of talkign abotu soundstaging, or front-to-back-depth, or open/closed quality, or graininess, or any other sonic characteristics of purely electronic signal paths that are less than, say, 20 years old. What the human ear can differentiate are frequency response, level, noise, and to a lesser extent distortion. That's all..... I'm afraid not. Depending on the frequency involved, localization occurs based on intensity differences between the ears (mostly at the lower frequencies, if I remember right) and the time delay, or phase difference, between the ears. People can indeed tell from which direction a sound is coming, with one notable exception: you cannot (so the text says) tell where a sound is coming from if you get the same sound at both ears; for example, when the sound is directly in front of you, above you, or behind you. Some recordings attempt to preserve or artificially create the cues that assist people to localize sounds. I find it very easy to believe that certain combinations of equipment that minimize irregularities in phase shift will tend to reproduce these cues more accurately as they were recorded. The simple fact is that reactive components will cause a phase shift in the electrical signal and the output isn't going to match the input. Matching that phase shift between components, your environment, and your desires is a perfectly valid goal. Otherwise, why bother positioning your speakers, for example? One thing I *will* point out to our younger readers and anyone else, is that any soundstage experience you have will be profoundly affected by your past experience. For example, a former roommate would hear the soundstage of most recordings behind the speakers whereas I generally hear the soundstage in front of the speakers. Why? I'm not sure anyone knows at this point. Perhaps it is because his experiences with music were attending performances, while mine was giving performances. Here's a link to someone doing research on localization. The site includes a significant number of references. Tom http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/~duda/Duda.Research.html |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo!
Bruno Putzeys wrote:
Lads & Lasses, I find it quite presumptious to claim that " What the human ear can differentiate are frequency response, level, noise, and to a lesser extent distortion. That's all....." Let's have a few counterexamples. 1)Add a pre-echo to a signal at -40dB, spaced 10ms away from the main signal. The frequency response of such a process is flat to within +/-0.05dB, the ripples 100Hz apart. Inaudible? Someone stepping through the audio band at 3rd octave intervals would miss it completely. Looking at a sinewave on the scope wouldn't tell you anything. Frequency response is not limited to amplitude response over frequency. It includes group delay and phase responses, too. 2)Jitter. Jitter has been proven to be audible. Listening tests have been performed (have a look at Julian Dunns papers on www.nanophon.com ) to determine a gabarith of the jitter spectrum above which the effects are audible. Yet, neither spec tests which are quoted will catch jitter. Before its importance was realised, the objectivist brigade shooed when the audibility of digital cables and sources was noted. Once it was proven though, they all suddenly heard it too (it was allowed). Now there's what I call autosuggestion. Distortion is not limited to non-linear, power-series type of distortion. It includes jitter, which can be observed as a signal at the ourput that is not present at the input (hence distortion). Similar to how one measures phase noise and intermudulation products. Here's the upshot: audible differences between electrical devices must by definition be measurable electrically. Nowhere does it say though that our existing measurement techniques cq figures-of-merit are all that is needed to bring to light the electrical phenomena involved. Any claim, by anyone, that our knowledge on a certain subject is complete, is thoroughly unscientific. Not complete perhaps, but good enough. Do you have any evidence otherwise? In the meantime, and even afterwards, "depth", "air", "punch" -and what have you- are not measurements. They are simply a description of how certain electrical phenomena sound to the human ear when applied to audio. The most obvious example is 2nd harmonic distortion, which is invariably described as "warm" or "fat" sounding. What do you want? "You know, it sounds, well, 2nd harmonic"? I imagine going "It sounds very -20dBC at 1kHz off 256*Fs". So, will the people who enjoy their audio using measuring equipment please leave some room for those who prefer to use their ears? It seems to me that those who place high value on measurements have always stated that preference is sacrosanct. It is those who insist that everything must be subjective and that the engineers don't listen to music who seem to leave no room for those who prefer accuracy and finding out if things really do *sound* different, and enjoy music at the same time, thank you. We are listening to the same electronic phenomena. If some like to talk about it in human terms instead of numbers, let them. If they discover something unexpected in the process, start looking for the cause instead of denying it based on prewar technical concepts. Fine, but have you noticed that there are posters here who do not want to start looking for the causes? And then there are those who don't care about accuracy? On the other hand, when has an "objectivist" deny something based on prewar technical concepts? All they insist is to make sure the "something" is real first, and not a figment of one's imagination. Don't you think that's a fair thing to do? It is the same in any field of science and engineering though. Scientists can nearly bite off each-others head over hypotheses. Objective it ain't. Now you are stretching. Of course there are areas of hot debates in science. But in audio reproduction as in amps and cables? Best, Bruno |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo!
Thomas Krueger wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ... ..For our newer readers I should perhaps point out all over again the pathetic fallacy of talkign abotu soundstaging, or front-to-back-depth, or open/closed quality, or graininess, or any other sonic characteristics of purely electronic signal paths that are less than, say, 20 years old. What the human ear can differentiate are frequency response, level, noise, and to a lesser extent distortion. That's all..... I'm afraid not. Depending on the frequency involved, localization occurs based on intensity differences between the ears (mostly at the lower frequencies, if I remember right) and the time delay, or phase difference, between the ears. So, I need to write Mr. Aczel and ask him to add 'phase difference'? Because the other ingredients, frequency and level, are already accounted for. I suspect that Mr. Aczel is aware of phase effects, so I wonder if perhaps he somehow subsumed them under the other categories of 'things the ear can differentiate' he names. -- -S. ______ "You're an abuser Sullivan....a base beast with intellect but little intelligence to show for it" -- KENNEH! |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo!
"chung" wrote in message
... Bruno Putzeys wrote: Lads & Lasses, I find it quite presumptious to claim that " What the human ear can differentiate are frequency response, level, noise, and to a lesser extent distortion. That's all....." Let's have a few counterexamples. 1)Add a pre-echo to a signal at -40dB, spaced 10ms away from the main signal. The frequency response of such a process is flat to within +/-0.05dB, the ripples 100Hz apart. Inaudible? Someone stepping through the audio band at 3rd octave intervals would miss it completely. Looking at a sinewave on the scope wouldn't tell you anything. Frequency response is not limited to amplitude response over frequency. It includes group delay and phase responses, too. Yes, but the awareness of the importance of these other incarnations of frequency response is still low. Certainly among those with the strongest views. 2)Jitter. Jitter has been proven to be audible. Listening tests have been performed (have a look at Julian Dunns papers on www.nanophon.com ) to determine a gabarith of the jitter spectrum above which the effects are audible. Yet, neither spec tests which are quoted will catch jitter. Before its importance was realised, the objectivist brigade shooed when the audibility of digital cables and sources was noted. Once it was proven though, they all suddenly heard it too (it was allowed). Now there's what I call autosuggestion. Distortion is not limited to non-linear, power-series type of distortion. It includes jitter, which can be observed as a signal at the ourput that is not present at the input (hence distortion). Similar to how one measures phase noise and intermudulation products. You mean it includes any non-linear effect, regardless of what is needed to detect it. In that case I admire your broad-mindedness. It means you will agree that cable artefacts will be standard fare once we figured out how to measure them. Here's the upshot: audible differences between electrical devices must by definition be measurable electrically. Nowhere does it say though that our existing measurement techniques cq figures-of-merit are all that is needed to bring to light the electrical phenomena involved. Any claim, by anyone, that our knowledge on a certain subject is complete, is thoroughly unscientific. Not complete perhaps, but good enough. Do you have any evidence otherwise? That is your view. In the meantime, and even afterwards, "depth", "air", "punch" -and what have you- are not measurements. They are simply a description of how certain electrical phenomena sound to the human ear when applied to audio. The most obvious example is 2nd harmonic distortion, which is invariably described as "warm" or "fat" sounding. What do you want? "You know, it sounds, well, 2nd harmonic"? I imagine going "It sounds very -20dBC at 1kHz off 256*Fs". So, will the people who enjoy their audio using measuring equipment please leave some room for those who prefer to use their ears? It seems to me that those who place high value on measurements have always stated that preference is sacrosanct. It is those who insist that everything must be subjective and that the engineers don't listen to music who seem to leave no room for those who prefer accuracy and finding out if things really do *sound* different, and enjoy music at the same time, thank you. I am pretty much a "meter reader" when designing. However, if there's something I can hear but cannot (yet) measure, I won't ignore it. We are listening to the same electronic phenomena. If some like to talk about it in human terms instead of numbers, let them. If they discover something unexpected in the process, start looking for the cause instead of denying it based on prewar technical concepts. Fine, but have you noticed that there are posters here who do not want to start looking for the causes? And then there are those who don't care about accuracy? Those who don't care about accuracy are outside my boundaries too (lowther horns etc). However, it is those who claim most strongly that this or that effect is nonexistent that are refusing to dig into the problem. On the other hand, when has an "objectivist" deny something based on prewar technical concepts? All they insist is to make sure the "something" is real first, and not a figment of one's imagination. Don't you think that's a fair thing to do? It is the same in any field of science and engineering though. Scientists can nearly bite off each-others head over hypotheses. Objective it ain't. Now you are stretching. Of course there are areas of hot debates in science. But in audio reproduction as in amps and cables? The fights are as vicious, if not more. Best, Bruno |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo!
Bruno Putzeys wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... Bruno Putzeys wrote: Lads & Lasses, I find it quite presumptious to claim that " What the human ear can differentiate are frequency response, level, noise, and to a lesser extent distortion. That's all....." Let's have a few counterexamples. 1)Add a pre-echo to a signal at -40dB, spaced 10ms away from the main signal. The frequency response of such a process is flat to within +/-0.05dB, the ripples 100Hz apart. Inaudible? Someone stepping through the audio band at 3rd octave intervals would miss it completely. Looking at a sinewave on the scope wouldn't tell you anything. Frequency response is not limited to amplitude response over frequency. It includes group delay and phase responses, too. Yes, but the awareness of the importance of these other incarnations of frequency response is still low. Certainly among those with the strongest views. Not true. Those who you think have the strongest views are actually the more technically inclined. You are being unnessarily condescending if you assume they don't understand frequency response. 2)Jitter. Jitter has been proven to be audible. Listening tests have been performed (have a look at Julian Dunns papers on www.nanophon.com ) to determine a gabarith of the jitter spectrum above which the effects are audible. Yet, neither spec tests which are quoted will catch jitter. Before its importance was realised, the objectivist brigade shooed when the audibility of digital cables and sources was noted. Once it was proven though, they all suddenly heard it too (it was allowed). Now there's what I call autosuggestion. Distortion is not limited to non-linear, power-series type of distortion. It includes jitter, which can be observed as a signal at the ourput that is not present at the input (hence distortion). Similar to how one measures phase noise and intermudulation products. You mean it includes any non-linear effect, regardless of what is needed to detect it. In that case I admire your broad-mindedness. It means you will agree that cable artefacts will be standard fare once we figured out how to measure them. Well very rarely do we restrict distortion to linear effects only  .What cable artifacts are you talking about? And what is it about cables that we don't know how to measure? Here's the upshot: audible differences between electrical devices must by definition be measurable electrically. Nowhere does it say though that our existing measurement techniques cq figures-of-merit are all that is needed to bring to light the electrical phenomena involved. Any claim, by anyone, that our knowledge on a certain subject is complete, is thoroughly unscientific. Not complete perhaps, but good enough. Do you have any evidence otherwise? That is your view. In the meantime, and even afterwards, "depth", "air", "punch" -and what have you- are not measurements. They are simply a description of how certain electrical phenomena sound to the human ear when applied to audio. The most obvious example is 2nd harmonic distortion, which is invariably described as "warm" or "fat" sounding. What do you want? "You know, it sounds, well, 2nd harmonic"? I imagine going "It sounds very -20dBC at 1kHz off 256*Fs". So, will the people who enjoy their audio using measuring equipment please leave some room for those who prefer to use their ears? It seems to me that those who place high value on measurements have always stated that preference is sacrosanct. It is those who insist that everything must be subjective and that the engineers don't listen to music who seem to leave no room for those who prefer accuracy and finding out if things really do *sound* different, and enjoy music at the same time, thank you. I am pretty much a "meter reader" when designing. However, if there's something I can hear but cannot (yet) measure, I won't ignore it. Aren't you going to first make sure that you "hear" it? We are listening to the same electronic phenomena. If some like to talk about it in human terms instead of numbers, let them. If they discover something unexpected in the process, start looking for the cause instead of denying it based on prewar technical concepts. Fine, but have you noticed that there are posters here who do not want to start looking for the causes? And then there are those who don't care about accuracy? Those who don't care about accuracy are outside my boundaries too (lowther horns etc). You know, reading the posts on this forum, most of the subjectivists are "outside your boundaries", whatever that means. However, it is those who claim most strongly that this or that effect is nonexistent that are refusing to dig into the problem. No, you got it wrong. What they say is first establish that the effect is audible, by applying the proper controls. So far, no one has got past that first step, when it comes to cables. Why dig into a "problem" when it is not established that it is a problem? If I tell you that my CD sounds better with red ink on it, are you going to "dig into the problem", or are you going to verify that it does sound different first? On the other hand, when has an "objectivist" deny something based on prewar technical concepts? All they insist is to make sure the "something" is real first, and not a figment of one's imagination. Don't you think that's a fair thing to do? It is the same in any field of science and engineering though. Scientists can nearly bite off each-others head over hypotheses. Objective it ain't. Now you are stretching. Of course there are areas of hot debates in science. But in audio reproduction as in amps and cables? The fights are as vicious, if not more. Among engineers and scientists on cable sound? There are hot debates and vicious fights over cables and amps in the engineering community? You have to be kidding. When is the last time you see an IEEE journal article on cable or amp sound? Best, Bruno |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo - Audio Citic?
(Mkuller) wrote:
Isn't this the same Audio Critic - Peter Aczel - who used his magazine to promote his Fourier loudspeaker company with a rave review - without mentioning the company was his? And then after he was called on this by the legitimate audio press, didn't he stop publishing and shaft all of those with paid subscriptions? Real credible source. (George Evans) wrote: That's completely incorrect, Mike. In Volume 2, Number 3, Spring through Fall 1980, pages 7 and 8 of the The Audio Critic Aczel gave full disclosure of his relationship with Fourier, did not publish a "rave review" of the loudspeaker, never used any subsequent issue of the magazine to promote Fourier, and when The Audio Critic resumed publishing he fulfilled the subscriptions of the old subscribers, at least those who confirmed their current addresses at that time. If you're going to criticize please do it on the basis of fact. The facts on Fourier are easily obtainable and verifiable by anyone with a collection of back issues, and there are a lot of us out there. As a charter subscriber to Audio Critic (see my letter on pg. 44 of Vol.1, No.1) I believe I know what I'm talking about. I went back to the issue you named (Vol.2, No. 3, Fall 1980) read through the two page rave review he gave the Fourier speaker and found no mention of his involvement with the company other than he had some input on the design. As you recall, that was the last issue of The Audio Critic for 7 years. At that time I had helped found The Northern California Audio Society and was publishing a monthly 7 page newsletter to our 300 members. One Saturday in 1981, I called Peter Aczel and spoke to him about his publication, the Fourier speaker and what appeared to be a serious conflict of interest. He was very arrogant and condescending and refused to directly answer the questions I was asking him. He appeared to have something to hide and unhappy to have been called on it. The Audio Critic reappeared with issue 10 (Fall 1987). In it he wrote a self-serving 2 page account of the Fourier saga, painting himself as a victim of industry politics (even though he had been an audio manufacturer's public relations hack before he began publishing). He admitted here for the first time that he owned just less than half of the company stock, now that it was bankrupt. I believe he still owes me a couple of issues from my subscription. Regards, Mike |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo!
chung wrote in message ...
Bruno Putzeys wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Snip What cable artifacts are you talking about? And what is it about cables that we don't know how to measure? One does not need to know much about electronics (I don't) to see a primitive logical fallacy here. We don't know what there is about cables "that we don't know how to measure" because we haven't measured it yet. We did not know what there was to measure about a falling apple till it happened to hit Newton on the nose. Not the way to advance SCIENCE, that I'm sure you hold dear, Mr. Chung. Snip No, you got it wrong. What they say is first establish that the effect is audible, by applying the proper controls. So far, no one has got past that first step, when it comes to cables. Why dig into a "problem" when it is not established that it is a problem? If I tell you that my CD sounds better with red ink on it, are you going to "dig into the problem", or are you going to verify that it does sound different first? Please explain how do you "verify" and by which "proper controls" that Tom or Harry hear what they say they do. Spell it out and show the evidence that you have a foolproof experiment-confirmed verification that confirms their testimony or gives it a lie. Among engineers and scientists on cable sound? There are hot debates and vicious fights over cables and amps in the engineering community? You have to be kidding. When is the last time you see an IEEE journal article on cable or amp sound? When is the last time you saw an IEEE article on any audio component sound? Perhaps the controversy takes place elsewhe between the engineers such as Manley, Hafler, Strickland, Meitner, Pass and Paravicini designing stuff and engineers in Rahe saying they can't hear the point of it. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo - Audio Citic?
mkuller wrote:
The Audio Critic reappeared with issue 10 (Fall 1987). In it he wrote a self-serving 2 page account of the Fourier saga, painting himself as a victim of industry politics (even though he had been an audio manufacturer's public relations hack before he began publishing). He admitted here for the first time that he owned just less than half of the company stock, now that it was bankrupt. I believe he still owes me a couple of issues from my subscription. I don't want to criticise the Audio Critic too much, because it's such an easy target. However, I did audition the Fourier One loudspeaker at a high end store after it was released. Even though Aczel had touted it as the "only fundamentally correct" speaker design, it was just another 3-way box speaker that didn't sound like anything special. IMHO that's why Aczel's company failed - the speaker wasn't very good. Now was that our Audio Critic subscription money that was used to fund Aczels 45% of the Fourier loudspeaker company for 7 years? And what about all the subscribers who changed addresses during the publication's 7 year hiatus? Here's a guy that seemed angry to begin with, regards himself as an expert (with little or no training), starts a speaker company with subscriber's money, goes bankrupt and blames bad luck and industry politics. That the now resurrected Audio Critic has a small cult following of 'objectivists' who want to bash the High End industry should come as no surprise. Regards, Mike |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo - Audio Citic?
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo - Audio Citic?
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo!
ludovic mirabel wrote:
chung wrote in message ... Bruno Putzeys wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Snip What cable artifacts are you talking about? And what is it about cables that we don't know how to measure? One does not need to know much about electronics (I don't) to see a primitive logical fallacy here. We don't know what there is about cables "that we don't know how to measure" because we haven't measured it yet. First please establish that there is something inadequate about our current measurements. Since you already said that you don't know much about electronics, I would not expect you to be able to answer that. Perhaps Mr. Bruno would enlighten us. We did not know what there was to measure about a falling apple till it happened to hit Newton on the nose. Not the way to advance SCIENCE, that I'm sure you hold dear, Mr. Chung. The way to advance science is to clearly establish that an observation is real and repeatable first determining that our current state of understanding is lacking. Not sure what that reference to Newton or the apple was all about. Snip No, you got it wrong. What they say is first establish that the effect is audible, by applying the proper controls. So far, no one has got past that first step, when it comes to cables. Why dig into a "problem" when it is not established that it is a problem? If I tell you that my CD sounds better with red ink on it, are you going to "dig into the problem", or are you going to verify that it does sound different first? Please explain how do you "verify" and by which "proper controls" that Tom or Harry hear what they say they do. Spell it out and show the evidence that you have a foolproof experiment-confirmed verification that confirms their testimony or gives it a lie. Absolutely not interested to go there to satisfy you. Many on this forum have tried. No point in wasting bandwidth. In any event, Mr Bruno has a much better understanding of the importance of controls than you seem to give him credit for. Among engineers and scientists on cable sound? There are hot debates and vicious fights over cables and amps in the engineering community? You have to be kidding. When is the last time you see an IEEE journal article on cable or amp sound? When is the last time you saw an IEEE article on any audio component sound? Thanks for agreeing that there is no hot debate or vicious fight among the engineering community or the scientists. Perhaps the controversy takes place elsewhe between the engineers such as Manley, Hafler, Strickland, Meitner, Pass and Paravicini designing stuff and engineers in Rahe saying they can't hear the point of it. Please establish that there are vicious fights and hot debates among those on amplifier and cable sound. In any event, those are boutique audiophile designers, not the scientists and engineering community that Mr. Bruno would refer to when he said "It is the same in any field of science and engineering though. Scientists can nearly bite off each-others head over hypotheses". Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo!
chung wrote:
The way to advance science is to clearly establish that an observation is real and repeatable first determining that our current state of understanding is lacking. Not sure what that reference to Newton or the apple was all about. Sorry, there is a word missing. It should have read "The way to advance science is to clearly establish that an observation is real and repeatable first *before* determining that our current state of understanding is lacking". |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bravo!
"Bruno Putzeys" wrote in message
... You mean it includes any non-linear effect, regardless of what is needed to detect it. In that case I admire your broad-mindedness. It means you will agree that cable artefacts will be standard fare once we figured out how to measure them. There are not, have never been, and never will be any cable "artefacts" that are not *completely* accounted for by R, L and C (resistance, capacitance and inductance). - Gary Rosen |
Linear Mode
