Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:15:36 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote: chung wrote in : Lawrence Leung wrote: Have you published any science paper? Have you published any book? In regarding to audiophile topic(s)? There are millions of real audiophiles in the world are agreeing on cable theory, only you and your dozen experienced audiophile refuse to accept. What exactly is "cable theory" as applied to audio? How do you come up with "millions"? Cable theory? Go to your local book store and start looking for it, they have plenty; Or search the Net, plenty of independent individual gave out objective point of view on cables. Utter garbage! There is *no such thing* as 'cable theory', aside from obvious physical effects of RLC variations. There is of course a whole raft of pseudoscientific technobabble on the websites of Cardas, Tara Labs et al, but this is not scientific theory, merely smoke and mirrors concealing large vats of snake oil. Millions? Minus you, we have millions. ![]() I doubt if the so-called 'high end' cable industry sells to more than a few thousand benighted souls at most, worldwide. I note that not one single audiophile of your 'millions' has even *attempted* to claim the $4k pool for the 'cable challenge', despite all the claims of 'night and day' differences that even wives can hear from the kitchen....... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#42
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#43
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi, Chung,
A good way to start reading will be "The complete guide to High-End Audio (second edition)" by Robert Harley, editor-in-chief of The Absolute Sound and The Perfect Vision Magazines. It is a very objective book. In regarding to cables, he has some interesting comments. I personally don't believe in high dollar cables will automatically give better sound. The ultimate purpose of a Hi-Fi system is one word: "transparent", like the singer is singing right in front of you in your listening room, like the whole orchestra came to your listening room to perform in front of you. Cables cannot make any source sound better, the best it can do is to 100% translate the music from that source. Now, tell me, as a linkage between the amplifier and speakers, or linkage between your preamp and amplifier, or linkage between your source to your preamp. Should we pay more attention to that? Or just stuff them with some cheap copper wire? The choice is yours. Typically I think 5% of my budget on cable is an absoulte minimum, but I would not go more than 15% of my entire budget. But I have to admit that, the marketing stategy play a very important role, sometime I just can't resist myself to buy a very good package and nice cable outfit cable, and came up it didn't sound even close to my expectation. But that would not draw me to a conclusion that "wire is wire", because they are not! Difference wire material has its own characteristic, I will choose the right one to fit into my other components. I even switch interconnect when I switch listening from vocal to instrument music. I hope I won't offense you in anyway. If I did, I didn't intense to do that, but please still accept my apology. ![]() Lawrence Leung |
#45
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
chung wrote in :
I have also seen plenty of independent individuals gave out objective views on incarnation, creationism, big-foot, UFO's, etc. Some even claim that Elvis still walks among us. Hah! May be he does. BTW, do you think those individuals have the *same* theory on cables? What about Stewart's theory, which is shared by a lot of people, that there is absolutely no need to pay more than Radio Shack cables? Stewart's so called "theory" (theory by defintion is being proven, his hasn't) only shared by his friends. If you believe that, good, you will save a lot of money from now on. I want to believe , but after I experience that, I can't. Millions? Minus you, we have millions. ![]() Still waiting to hear from you how you arrived at "millions". I guess we won't hold our collective breath... Millions? I don't know, educated guess? ![]() many "audiophile" here in the world? Lawrence Leung |
#46
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lawrence Leung wrote:
Hi, Chung, A good way to start reading will be "The complete guide to High-End Audio (second edition)" by Robert Harley, editor-in-chief of The Absolute Sound and The Perfect Vision Magazines. It is a very objective book. In regarding to cables, he has some interesting comments. So, some questions for you, is Mr. Harley an electrical engineer or physicist? Does he have a cable theory, or is he just passing out his opinions? What does he say about budget for cables? I personally don't believe in high dollar cables will automatically give better sound. So why not put down Home Depot or Radio Shack cables? The ultimate purpose of a Hi-Fi system is one word: "transparent", like the singer is singing right in front of you in your listening room, like the whole orchestra came to your listening room to perform in front of you. Transparency in a cable is extremely easy to accomplish. Cables cannot make any source sound better, the best it can do is to 100% translate the music from that source. Now, tell me, as a linkage between the amplifier and speakers, or linkage between your preamp and amplifier, or linkage between your source to your preamp. Should we pay more attention to that? Or just stuff them with some cheap copper wire? The choice is yours. Transparency in a cable is extremely easy to accomplish. You can verify this by making measurements, or by doing blind listening tests. You can buy cheap copper wires, or you can buy the same wires with designer labels and pay. The choice is yours. Typically I think 5% of my budget on cable is an absoulte minimum, but I would not go more than 15% of my entire budget. Why would there need to be a lower limit on cables? Why would a more expensive system require more expensive cables? But I have to admit that, the marketing stategy play a very important role, sometime I just can't resist myself to buy a very good package and nice cable outfit cable, and came up it didn't sound even close to my expectation. But that would not draw me to a conclusion that "wire is wire", because they are not! Difference wire material has its own characteristic, I will choose the right one to fit into my other components. I even switch interconnect when I switch listening from vocal to instrument music. I hope I won't offense you in anyway. If I did, I didn't intense to do that, but please still accept my apology. ![]() What you have done is to provide amusement to some of us ![]() Lawrence Leung |
#47
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lawrence Leung wrote:
chung wrote in : I have also seen plenty of independent individuals gave out objective views on incarnation, creationism, big-foot, UFO's, etc. Some even claim that Elvis still walks among us. Hah! May be he does. Hah! Like maybe there is a creditable "cable theory"? BTW, do you think those individuals have the *same* theory on cables? What about Stewart's theory, which is shared by a lot of people, that there is absolutely no need to pay more than Radio Shack cables? Stewart's so called "theory" (theory by defintion is being proven, his hasn't) only shared by his friends. If you believe that, good, you will save a lot of money from now on. I want to believe , but after I experience that, I can't. Stewart's theory agrees with EE principles and what we know about JND (just noticeable differences) in human hearing. Your cable theory, based on what you have posted in this forum, is based on myths. Millions? Minus you, we have millions. ![]() Still waiting to hear from you how you arrived at "millions". I guess we won't hold our collective breath... Millions? I don't know, educated guess? ![]() many "audiophile" here in the world? Now I see how you come up with those estimates. Just throw out some numbers. What makes you guess qualify as "educated"? Lawrence Leung |
#48
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
chung wrote in news:RKFLb.8211$sv6.21706@attbi_s52:
So, some questions for you, is Mr. Harley an electrical engineer or physicist? Does he have a cable theory, or is he just passing out his opinions? What does he say about budget for cables? Go read it yourself, and you will understand. I personally don't believe in high dollar cables will automatically give better sound. So why not put down Home Depot or Radio Shack cables? Listen, I said "I don't believe in high dollar cables will automatically give better sound." That didn't meet I believe hook up my ten thousand dollars equipments with some cheap and dirty copper wire make any sense. The ultimate purpose of a Hi-Fi system is one word: "transparent", like the singer is singing right in front of you in your listening room, like the whole orchestra came to your listening room to perform in front of you. Transparency in a cable is extremely easy to accomplish. No, it is not, unless you cannot or refuse to distinguish the differences Cables cannot make any source sound better, the best it can do is to 100% translate the music from that source. Now, tell me, as a linkage between the amplifier and speakers, or linkage between your preamp and amplifier, or linkage between your source to your preamp. Should we pay more attention to that? Or just stuff them with some cheap copper wire? The choice is yours. Transparency in a cable is extremely easy to accomplish. You can verify this by making measurements, or by doing blind listening tests. You can buy cheap copper wires, or you can buy the same wires with designer labels and pay. The choice is yours. There is a problem here. By doing measurements or doing blind tests, you can tell the difference but that would not give you audio transparency. You cannot find the same cheap copper wires with designer labels, if you can, prove it. That is a very irresponsible accuse. Typically I think 5% of my budget on cable is an absoulte minimum, but I would not go more than 15% of my entire budget. Why would there need to be a lower limit on cables? Why would a more expensive system require more expensive cables? A more expensive system suppose to have a higher definition, higher ability to reproduce the original source, hence need better material to transfer the sound to the speakers. What you have done is to provide amusement to some of us ![]() That is a little rude, I tried to be polite and objective... But, hey, if I can provide amusement to some of you, that's good. Because some of us here already laugh enough for other opinions. ![]() Lawrence Leung |
#49
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lawrence Leung wrote:
chung wrote in news:RKFLb.8211$sv6.21706@attbi_s52: So, some questions for you, is Mr. Harley an electrical engineer or physicist? Does he have a cable theory, or is he just passing out his opinions? What does he say about budget for cables? Go read it yourself, and you will understand. I read his section on cables. I see nothing there remotely approaching a cable theory. All he had was some advice for how much to spend. Is this the best you can come up with as an example of "cable theory"? I personally don't believe in high dollar cables will automatically give better sound. So why not put down Home Depot or Radio Shack cables? Listen, I said "I don't believe in high dollar cables will automatically give better sound." That didn't meet I believe hook up my ten thousand dollars equipments with some cheap and dirty copper wire make any sense. Why not give it a try first, and see if you can tell the cables apart from you expensive ones? Blind, of course. The ultimate purpose of a Hi-Fi system is one word: "transparent", like the singer is singing right in front of you in your listening room, like the whole orchestra came to your listening room to perform in front of you. Transparency in a cable is extremely easy to accomplish. No, it is not, unless you cannot or refuse to distinguish the differences You mean I fail to *believe* in your claim? Cables cannot make any source sound better, the best it can do is to 100% translate the music from that source. Now, tell me, as a linkage between the amplifier and speakers, or linkage between your preamp and amplifier, or linkage between your source to your preamp. Should we pay more attention to that? Or just stuff them with some cheap copper wire? The choice is yours. Transparency in a cable is extremely easy to accomplish. You can verify this by making measurements, or by doing blind listening tests. You can buy cheap copper wires, or you can buy the same wires with designer labels and pay. The choice is yours. There is a problem here. By doing measurements or doing blind tests, you can tell the difference but that would not give you audio transparency. Actually, I would venture that when you do the blind test on cables, you will not tell the difference. It is trivially easy to transmit an audio signal a few feet using wires. Why make it sound so hard? You cannot find the same cheap copper wires with designer labels, if you can, prove it. That is a very irresponsible accuse. Typically I think 5% of my budget on cable is an absoulte minimum, but I would not go more than 15% of my entire budget. Why would there need to be a lower limit on cables? Why would a more expensive system require more expensive cables? A more expensive system suppose to have a higher definition, higher ability to reproduce the original source, hence need better material to transfer the sound to the speakers. So you think the more you pay for a cable, the more "transparent" a cable is? I hope you realize that it is the extraordinary individual who can tell normally competent cables apart. The ones that are not designed to be tone controls. We are still looking for that person. There is at least $4K waiting for you, if you think you could do it. What you have done is to provide amusement to some of us ![]() That is a little rude, I tried to be polite and objective... Sorry, it is just so funny when someone say that there is a cable theory accepted by millions of audiophiles... Here's some common-sense advice from someone who was associated with McIntosh for a long long time: http://home.earthlink.net/~rogerr7/wire.htm Here's from an "Sound and Vision" audio reviewer: *** Q. Would it be okay for me to use single conductor wire as speaker cables running through the attic or under the house? Does stranded wire provide some sonic benefit? It would be far cheaper and easier for me to run 12-gauge wire to a plate with banana receptacles and then use specialty cable at each end to patch to the amplifier and speakers. Jon Schwendig, Santa Clara, CA A. There are a lot of myths about speaker wires, but in the end it's thickness that counts, and 12 gauge should be heavy enough for any reasonable domestic application. I've taken several comparative listening sessions over the years, and the sort of wire you want to use involves no sonic degradation that I (or anybody else in the tests) could hear. You could even wire the whole distance from amp to speakers using 12-gauge, but it would probably be more convenient to use something more flexible for the actual connection to components. Specialty audiophile cables would serve that purpose nicely, although more modest cables would work just as well." *** You are much better off following this type of practical advice! But, hey, if I can provide amusement to some of you, that's good. Because some of us here already laugh enough for other opinions. ![]() Lawrence Leung |
#50
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jón Fairbairn" wrote in message
news:iJDLb.7654$sv6.21172@attbi_s52... Like a varistor or for that matter a light bulb. If you put 10A through a piece of really thin wire it will warm up, so its resistance will increase -- so one could argue that such wire might not sound the same as a pure series resistor. If you use hair thin wire you may see some power compression...similar to voice coil heating. However, with reasonable gauge speaker wire the temperature change due to power dissipation is much, much less than changes in ambient room temperature. but capacitance has no effect in a speaker cable, .. at the sort of levels you might expect in wires? Correct. and inductance simply rolls off the highs, although I've not actually heard any difference even with a 3dB droop at 20kHz, which is a *very* extreme situation. That is interesting. I /would/ have expected that to be detectable (although not by anyone my age, alas). Even pristine human hearing is not very discriminating at the ends of the audible range. |
#51
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9 Jan 2004 17:54:00 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in : I have no idea what you mean by 'current-dependent resistance', but capacitance has no effect in a speaker cable, and inductance simply rolls off the highs, although I've not actually heard any difference even with a 3dB droop at 20kHz, which is a *very* extreme situation. Capacitance has some effect in a speaker cable, especially if the speaker cable has high capacitance. 1. It may cause the amplifier connected to start oscillated, if the amplifier is some old model that cannot handle that kind oscillation, the amplifier will shut down itself. I experienced it before. Well yes, but this doesn't affect the signal itself, it's just an indication that you have an incompetent amplifier. 2. If the speaker is a electrostatic speaker, the effect will be even worst. And will still have nothing whatever to do with the signal delivered to the speaker terminals. But, Mr. Pinkerton, that doesn't even concern you because all you are using is the Home Depot 12 AWG zip-cord cable, they are just plain nothing. Indeed so, they are nothing, because like all other cables, they don't have any sound of their own. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#52
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:58:06 GMT, "=?iso-8859-1?q?J=F3n?= Fairbairn"
wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) writes: On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:19:25 GMT, wrote: Your first paragraph implies that bell wire can be heard, which goes some short way towards answering my question, but where is the limit of detectability for that sort of sillyiness? How little resistance -- in particular current dependent resistance -- can be detected? How much inductance/capacitance? It does depend on the listener, but experience suggests that level differences around 0.5-1 dB can be heard by most listeners. Thanks. I suppose it depends a fair bit on the amplifier and speaker as to what effect a series resistance has on the shape ultimate output. I have no idea what you mean by 'current-dependent resistance', Like a varistor or for that matter a light bulb. Ah, OK, you actually did mean what you said! :-) If you put 10A through a piece of really thin wire it will warm up, so its resistance will increase -- so one could argue that such wire might not sound the same as a pure series resistor. That's true, and indeed 'power compression' is a well-known effect due to the heating of the loudspeaker voice coil at high SPLs. but capacitance has no effect in a speaker cable, .. at the sort of levels you might expect in wires? I think if I put a 100µF capacitor in parallel with the speaker terminals something might be noticed :-) No, if the amplifier is capable of dumping enough current, there will be no audible effect whatever. As it happens, I *have* tried this with 40uF capacitors. and inductance simply rolls off the highs, although I've not actually heard any difference even with a 3dB droop at 20kHz, which is a *very* extreme situation. That is interesting. I /would/ have expected that to be detectable (although not by anyone my age, alas). It's quite surprising how much treble has to drop off before it's noticeable, and I do use young listeners when I'm messing about with that kind of effect, as I tail off around 17-18kHz these days. :-( -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#53
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:05:52 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote: chung wrote in news:RKFLb.8211$sv6.21706@attbi_s52: Transparency in a cable is extremely easy to accomplish. No, it is not, unless you cannot or refuse to distinguish the differences Yes, it is, and not one single person has *ever* shown an ability to tell the difference under blind conditions. Transparency in a cable is extremely easy to accomplish. You can verify this by making measurements, or by doing blind listening tests. You can buy cheap copper wires, or you can buy the same wires with designer labels and pay. The choice is yours. There is a problem here. By doing measurements or doing blind tests, you can tell the difference but that would not give you audio transparency. Yes, it does, and you can *not* tell the difference. You cannot find the same cheap copper wires with designer labels, if you can, prove it. That is a very irresponsible accuse. It's not irresponsible at all, as no 'audiophile' maker actually draws their own wire. 99% of it comes from mass-market suppliers such as Belden, it's simply packaged in fancy insulation. Typically I think 5% of my budget on cable is an absoulte minimum, but I would not go more than 15% of my entire budget. Why would there need to be a lower limit on cables? Why would a more expensive system require more expensive cables? A more expensive system suppose to have a higher definition, higher ability to reproduce the original source, hence need better material to transfer the sound to the speakers. However, any old cable will do the job perfectly well. What you have done is to provide amusement to some of us ![]() That is a little rude, But accurate................. I tried to be polite and objective... Well, you failed, since your comments are completely subjective and have no basis in electrical theory. But, hey, if I can provide amusement to some of you, that's good. Because some of us here already laugh enough for other opinions. ![]() Quite so........... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#54
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 9 Jan 2004 01:28:19 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Stewart wrote: What the heck has any of this to do with 'high-rez'? The fact that you don't yet have such a machine to gain much experience, thereby undercutting badly your attempts to diss the formats here on RAHE. Not at all, since I have listened to several players and several formats, and I'm very familiar with the technology behind the various formats. OTOH, I am very much behind DVD-A simply because of its multi-channel capability. Listening and regourously testing are two different things...and you haven't done the latter. If you support DVD-A for its multichannel then you also should be supporting SACD for its multichannel. At this point you have no "hearing" basis for choosing one over the other...only a technical preconception. Until then, it is indeed difficult to take some of your protestations seriously. What you *really* mean is that you're desperately reaching, because you have no rational rebuttal to my 'high-rez' arguments............. No, Stewart, I'm a marketing man. Aaaaaah, all is explained! Only in your somewhat warped view of the world. I happen to know lots of marketing people who are scrupulously honest. As am I. I'm just trying to add to your creditability! ;-) Credibility enhanced by association with a marketing man - fascinating concept........................... No, creditability enhanced by getting rid of the inconsistencies in your professed beliefs and the reality of what you show the world. I'm afreaid your subjective biases are showing once again. |
#55
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lawrence Leung wrote:
chung wrote in news:RKFLb.8211$sv6.21706@attbi_s52: So, some questions for you, is Mr. Harley an electrical engineer or physicist? Does he have a cable theory, or is he just passing out his opinions? What does he say about budget for cables? Go read it yourself, and you will understand. I have it open in front of me...his chapter on cables, like the rest of the book, is a mix of solid fact, good advice, and ridiculous assertion, assumption, and speculation. E.g. from p. 322: "Note that copper isn;t isotropic; it looks decidedly different in one direction than the other. Al copper made into thin wires exhibits a chevron structure. THis chevron structure may explain why some cables sound different when reversed." That isn't *theory*..that's *putting the cart before the horse*. and p 312 " Not only is the sound of a cable partially system-dependent, but the sonic characteristics of a specific cable will work better musically in some systems than others.....Fortunately, evluation cables and interconnects is relatively simple; the levels are automatically matched between cables, and you don't have to be concerned about absolute-polarity reversal. One pitfall, however, is that cables and interconnects need to to break in before they sound their best." There is no, zero, scientific evidence presented for this astonishing claim. With good reason: there isn't any to present. Transparency in a cable is extremely easy to accomplish. No, it is not, unless you cannot or refuse to distinguish the differences Where's the scientific or engineering evidence for this claim? Transparency in a cable is extremely easy to accomplish. You can verify this by making measurements, or by doing blind listening tests. You can buy cheap copper wires, or you can buy the same wires with designer labels and pay. The choice is yours. There is a problem here. By doing measurements or doing blind tests, you can tell the difference but that would not give you audio transparency. How do *you* determine audio transparency without them? You cannot find the same cheap copper wires with designer labels, if you can, prove it. That is a very irresponsible accuse. Typically I think 5% of my budget on cable is an absoulte minimum, but I would not go more than 15% of my entire budget. Why would there need to be a lower limit on cables? Why would a more expensive system require more expensive cables? A more expensive system suppose to have a higher definition, higher ability to reproduce the original source, hence need better material to transfer the sound to the speakers. Even Harley says that there's little correlation betweem price and performance, as regards cables. That's one of his bits of *good* advice. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#56
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#57
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"chung" wrote in message
news:RKFLb.8211$sv6.21706@attbi_s52... Lawrence Leung wrote: Hi, Chung, A good way to start reading will be "The complete guide to High-End Audio (second edition)" by Robert Harley, editor-in-chief of The Absolute Sound and The Perfect Vision Magazines. Former Stereophile etc. It is a very objective book. In regarding to cables, he has some interesting comments. It's a book which is completely devoted to the subjective feel-good approach. So, some questions for you, is Mr. Harley an electrical engineer or physicist? Does he have a cable theory, or is he just passing out his opinions? What does he say about budget for cables? To quote: "spend 5 to 15 % of the budget on cables". Actually 5 % is listed as a minimum figure. So what he actually preaches is the 10 % figure commonly listed the audiophile rags the last decades. Some of his statements about cables: "a poor cable will quickly cause listening fatigue" "some cables sound smooth, but obscure the music's fine details" "a poor quality cable makes the bass slow, mushy..." "many cables overlay the treble with a coarse texture" etc Esp1 |
#58
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Lawrence Leung wrote: chung wrote in news:RKFLb.8211$sv6.21706@attbi_s52: So, some questions for you, is Mr. Harley an electrical engineer or physicist? Does he have a cable theory, or is he just passing out his opinions? What does he say about budget for cables? Go read it yourself, and you will understand. I have it open in front of me...his chapter on cables, like the rest of the book, is a mix of solid fact, good advice, and ridiculous assertion, assumption, and speculation. E.g. from p. 322: "Note that copper isn;t isotropic; it looks decidedly different in one direction than the other. Al copper made into thin wires exhibits a chevron structure. THis chevron structure may explain why some cables sound different when reversed." That isn't *theory*..that's *putting the cart before the horse*. Not to mention the fact that he did not understand that the current flowing through the cable is AC: it flows in both directions. There would be measureable distortion if resistance is different depending on direction. There is a Noble prize waiting here for someone to establish that... and p 312 " Not only is the sound of a cable partially system-dependent, but the sonic characteristics of a specific cable will work better musically in some systems than others.....Fortunately, evluation cables and interconnects is relatively simple; the levels are automatically matched between cables, and you don't have to be concerned about absolute-polarity reversal. One pitfall, however, is that cables and interconnects need to to break in before they sound their best." There is no, zero, scientific evidence presented for this astonishing claim. With good reason: there isn't any to present. Mr. Harley has totally destroyed any shred of credibility he might have as an objective reviewer, with statements like that. |
#59
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ok! So only you guys know, only you guys right!
The what so ever EE principal, physics theory never draw into a conclusion like: "So, it concluded that wire is wire, cable does not matter", that is your conclusion, so do not try to add that to the scientists. Fine, if you insist on living in that little hole, that's your life, your opinion. BTW, how come nobody can answer my question: "If you can distinguish two cables the first time, why bother to do another 19 times? If you can't distinguish them, why bother to give yourself a second chance?" When I was in college, everytime I proved a theory, I only need to prove it once, never heard of I have to continusly prove to it 16 out of 20 times to pass the proof. You can happily enjoy your what so ever principal, while the others (I tempted to use millions again) are still enjoying the open air of cable world. Good luck! Lawrence Leung |
#60
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
(Stewart Pinkerton) writes:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:58:06 GMT, "=?iso-8859-1?q?J=F3n?= Fairbairn" wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) writes: but capacitance has no effect in a speaker cable, .. at the sort of levels you might expect in wires? I think if I put a 100uF capacitor in parallel with the speaker terminals something might be noticed :-) No, if the amplifier is capable of dumping enough current, there will be no audible effect whatever. As it happens, I *have* tried this with 40uF capacitors. Gosh. I stand corrected. I was expecting that something would give way. In a cable I suppose you would get filtering from the combined effect of RL and C because they are spread along the length. I wouldn't expect anything exciting at audio frequencies, though. and inductance simply rolls off the highs, although I've not actually heard any difference even with a 3dB droop at 20kHz, which is a *very* extreme situation. That is interesting. I /would/ have expected that to be detectable (although not by anyone my age, alas). It's quite surprising how much treble has to drop off before it's noticeable, I'm beginning to wonder just what it is that /is/ noticable. When measured at the listening position my ESL 63s have distinct top end roll-off (I can't remember the figures). I don't know if I imagine it, but speakers that don't roll off like this sound "aggressive" -- but I'm willing to accept that something more complicated than the top end response is needed to explain that. and I do use young listeners when I'm messing about with that kind of effect, Where do you find young listeners whose ears haven't been damaged by excessive SPLs these days? My young neighbour seems to listen at levels that make the airbrick in his wall sound like the port in a speaker! as I tail off around 17-18kHz these days. :-( I suspect I do to. I can still hear 15.625kHz OK (:-), but apart from that I haven't checked. -- Jón Fairbairn |
#61
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"normanstrong" writes:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:19:25 GMT, wrote: How little resistance -- in particular current dependent resistance -- can be detected? Be careful about the use of the term "current dependent resistance." Most of the effects are due to the temperature coefficient. It is current dependent only to the extent that the current affects the temperature. Yes, indeed. That's what I was thinking of. In fact, I don't know of any wire whose resistance is a function of the current flowing through it, if the temperature is held constant. Superconductors. And if anyone makes any money by peddling superconducting speaker cables as the next big thing, I want a cut, please ;-) -- Jón Fairbairn |
#62
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lawrence Leung wrote:
Ok! So only you guys know, only you guys right! The what so ever EE principal, physics theory never draw into a conclusion like: "So, it concluded that wire is wire, cable does not matter", that is your conclusion, so do not try to add that to the scientists. I don't think you understand what some of us are saying, which is that competently designed cables all sound the same. And that it is trivially easy to design competent cables that are audibly transparent. And that the cost of a cable has a small effect on the performance of the cable. You don't need to spend 15%, or 5%, of your system cost on cables. Spending more on a cable does not lead to a better sounding cable. Of course you can come up with cables that sound different. Some companies actually intentionally do that. Fine, if you insist on living in that little hole, that's your life, your opinion. And if you believe that you have to spend at least 5% of your system cost on cables, well, that's your life, too ![]() BTW, how come nobody can answer my question: "If you can distinguish two cables the first time, why bother to do another 19 times? If you can't distinguish them, why bother to give yourself a second chance?" You have to understand that anyone can randomly guess right. Just like if you were to guess the outcome of a coin toss, there is a 50% chance of guessing right. If you can guess the outcome of a coin toss 19 out of 20 times, you're onto something. When I was in college, everytime I proved a theory, I only need to prove it once, never heard of I have to continusly prove to it 16 out of 20 times to pass the proof. Just out of curiosity, what theory did you prove in college? You can happily enjoy your what so ever principal, while the others (I tempted to use millions again) are still enjoying the open air of cable world. Good luck! Happy cable hunting! Lawrence Leung |
#63
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Jón Fairbairn" wrote in message
... I suspect I do to. I can still hear 15.625kHz OK (:-), but apart from that I haven't checked. It is said that Beethoven enjoyed listening to the very little that he was able to. Could it be that musical creativity and amount of pleasure in its hearing is inversely related to one's hearing acuity? |
#64
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
chung wrote in
news:qy1Mb.19937$xy6.55222@attbi_s02: I don't think you understand what some of us are saying, which is that competently designed cables all sound the same. And that it is trivially easy to design competent cables that are audibly transparent. And that the cost of a cable has a small effect on the performance of the cable. You don't need to spend 15%, or 5%, of your system cost on cables. Spending more on a cable does not lead to a better sounding cable. Of course you can come up with cables that sound different. Some companies actually intentionally do that. I agree! Spending more on a cable does not lead to a better sounding cable. That's why we have to choose! But according to someone here, we can simply just omit that process. Any dirty copper wire is going to sound exactly like a 6N copper wire, which I cannot agree on. And "transparent" is the ultimate goal, I don't think anyone can meet that goal yet! ![]() BTW, how come nobody can answer my question: "If you can distinguish two cables the first time, why bother to do another 19 times? If you can't distinguish them, why bother to give yourself a second chance?" You have to understand that anyone can randomly guess right. Just like if you were to guess the outcome of a coin toss, there is a 50% chance of guessing right. If you can guess the outcome of a coin toss 19 out of 20 times, you're onto something. It is not a guessing Chung, you either hear the difference or not, as simple as this. But when you keep on doing the process over and over again, how long it is going to take to do 20 blind test, or at least 16 blind test? By the time you almost done, you will be sick of that same music and all sound the same, I believe by then, even if you change your preamp, amp, source, they all sound the same, anyone ever tried that? When I was in college, everytime I proved a theory, I only need to prove it once, never heard of I have to continusly prove to it 16 out of 20 times to pass the proof. Just out of curiosity, what theory did you prove in college? Any theory! Where in the world you need to prove the same theory twice (or more) before you score a 100% on that question? Happy cable hunting! I have to admit that, the "cable hunting" process is kind of fun, especially you can find a good cable with reasonable money. Lawrence Leung |
#65
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lawrence Leung wrote:
Ok! So only you guys know, only you guys right! The what so ever EE principal, physics theory never draw into a conclusion like: "So, it concluded that wire is wire, cable does not matter", that is your conclusion, so do not try to add that to the scientists. Fine, if you insist on living in that little hole, that's your life, your opinion. BTW, how come nobody can answer my question: "If you can distinguish two cables the first time, why bother to do another 19 times? If you can't distinguish them, why bother to give yourself a second chance?" When I was in college, everytime I proved a theory, I only need to prove it once, never heard of I have to continusly prove to it 16 out of 20 times to pass the proof. If it was a theory that went against or was trying to disprove established theories, then twice to rule out a fluke. 20 times is plainly trying to make the data fit the hypothesis. |
#66
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lawrence Leung wrote:
chung wrote in news:qy1Mb.19937$xy6.55222@attbi_s02: I don't think you understand what some of us are saying, which is that competently designed cables all sound the same. And that it is trivially easy to design competent cables that are audibly transparent. And that the cost of a cable has a small effect on the performance of the cable. You don't need to spend 15%, or 5%, of your system cost on cables. Spending more on a cable does not lead to a better sounding cable. Of course you can come up with cables that sound different. Some companies actually intentionally do that. I agree! Spending more on a cable does not lead to a better sounding cable. Great. Now please explain why if your system is expensive, you have to spend a proportionately higher amount on cables. Shouldn't the cost of cables be a fixed cost instead of being a percentage of the total cost, since the performance of a cable does not necessarily depend on its cost? That's why we have to choose! But according to someone here, we can simply just omit that process. Any dirty copper wire is going to sound exactly like a 6N copper wire, which I cannot agree on. And "transparent" is the ultimate goal, I don't think anyone can meet that goal yet! ![]() How do you define "dirty" copper wire? What is 6N copper wire? Why can't cables and interconnects be transparent? You need to understand the concept of JND (just noticeable differences). For example, if one cable causes a 0.01 dB droop at 20 KHz, and another 0.02 dB droop at the same frequency, you can't tell those cables apart. BTW, how come nobody can answer my question: "If you can distinguish two cables the first time, why bother to do another 19 times? If you can't distinguish them, why bother to give yourself a second chance?" You have to understand that anyone can randomly guess right. Just like if you were to guess the outcome of a coin toss, there is a 50% chance of guessing right. If you can guess the outcome of a coin toss 19 out of 20 times, you're onto something. It is not a guessing Chung, you either hear the difference or not, as simple as this. Exactly. If it's not a random guess, you should get the right answer a large percentage of the time. If it's just a random guess, half the testees will get the right answer the first time. But when you keep on doing the process over and over again, how long it is going to take to do 20 blind test, or at least 16 blind test? By the time you almost done, you will be sick of that same music and all sound the same, I believe by then, even if you change your preamp, amp, source, they all sound the same, anyone ever tried that? There has been no report of people getting the right answer the first few trials, and then failing subsequently. If the difference is so great that even your 6 year old in another room can immediately tell, what's the problem here? When I was in college, everytime I proved a theory, I only need to prove it once, never heard of I have to continusly prove to it 16 out of 20 times to pass the proof. Just out of curiosity, what theory did you prove in college? Any theory! Please give one example. Are you confusing "theorem" with theory? Where in the world you need to prove the same theory twice (or more) before you score a 100% on that question? When you prove a theory, you should put in all the steps in the proof process so that others can repeat it. It has to be verifiable. If your theory is that cables sound different, how come no one has been able to verify it? Happy cable hunting! I have to admit that, the "cable hunting" process is kind of fun, especially you can find a good cable with reasonable money. Fun for you obviously. Extremely boring for a lot of us. Lawrence Leung |
#67
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:40:17 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote: chung wrote in news:qy1Mb.19937$xy6.55222@attbi_s02: I don't think you understand what some of us are saying, which is that competently designed cables all sound the same. And that it is trivially easy to design competent cables that are audibly transparent. And that the cost of a cable has a small effect on the performance of the cable. You don't need to spend 15%, or 5%, of your system cost on cables. Spending more on a cable does not lead to a better sounding cable. Of course you can come up with cables that sound different. Some companies actually intentionally do that. I agree! Spending more on a cable does not lead to a better sounding cable. That's why we have to choose! But according to someone here, we can simply just omit that process. Any dirty copper wire is going to sound exactly like a 6N copper wire, which I cannot agree on. So show us some *evidence* that this is so, not just your unsupported opinion. And "transparent" is the ultimate goal, I don't think anyone can meet that goal yet! ![]() I do, theory suggests that I am right, and I can prove it by simple experimentation. Where is your *evidence* that this is not the case? BTW, how come nobody can answer my question: "If you can distinguish two cables the first time, why bother to do another 19 times? If you can't distinguish them, why bother to give yourself a second chance?" You have to understand that anyone can randomly guess right. Just like if you were to guess the outcome of a coin toss, there is a 50% chance of guessing right. If you can guess the outcome of a coin toss 19 out of 20 times, you're onto something. It is not a guessing Chung, you either hear the difference or not, as simple as this. But when you keep on doing the process over and over again, how long it is going to take to do 20 blind test, or at least 16 blind test? As long as you like. By the time you almost done, you will be sick of that same music and all sound the same, I believe by then, You don't have to listen to the same music. even if you change your preamp, amp, source, they all sound the same, anyone ever tried that? Yes, all good amps sound the same. I am less certain about CD players, but the differences are certainly very small. When I was in college, everytime I proved a theory, I only need to prove it once, never heard of I have to continusly prove to it 16 out of 20 times to pass the proof. Unfortunately, *claiming* that you can hear a difference does not constitute proof. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#68
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:13:33 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote: Ok! So only you guys know, only you guys right! No, the entire world body of physicists and electrical engineers is right, and 'audiophiles' tend not to be technically sophisticated - and also tend to be paranoid about 'tweaks'. The what so ever EE principal, physics theory never draw into a conclusion like: "So, it concluded that wire is wire, cable does not matter", that is your conclusion, so do not try to add that to the scientists. Actually, electrical and neurophysiological theory and experimental evidence *does* tell us that differences among cables are at a level which is *far* below audibility. Fine, if you insist on living in that little hole, that's your life, your opinion. No, it's a plain fact, and neither you nor anyone else has *ever* been able to show evidence that this is not the case. BTW, how come nobody can answer my question: "If you can distinguish two cables the first time, why bother to do another 19 times? If you can't distinguish them, why bother to give yourself a second chance?" Simple - you might simply have made a lucky guess the first time. Getting 16 correct out of 20 gives you 95% probability that you are not guessing. BTW, note that if you use a large number of listeners, this probability level means that 1 in 20 of them *will* achieve 16 out of 20 just by random chance! When I was in college, everytime I proved a theory, I only need to prove it once, never heard of I have to continusly prove to it 16 out of 20 times to pass the proof. You seem to be missing the point that these are *observations*, not theories. Also, theory suggests that all cables *do* sound the same, so you need to come up with solid *evidence* in rebuttal. You can happily enjoy your what so ever principal, while the others (I tempted to use millions again) are still enjoying the open air of cable world. And you can happily enjoy your *illusion* that cables sound different. The *facts* however, will remain the same. Wire is wire. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#69
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 10 Jan 2004 22:51:45 GMT, "=?iso-8859-1?q?J=F3n?= Fairbairn"
wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) writes: On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:58:06 GMT, "=?iso-8859-1?q?J=F3n?= Fairbairn" wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) writes: but capacitance has no effect in a speaker cable, .. at the sort of levels you might expect in wires? I think if I put a 100uF capacitor in parallel with the speaker terminals something might be noticed :-) No, if the amplifier is capable of dumping enough current, there will be no audible effect whatever. As it happens, I *have* tried this with 40uF capacitors. Gosh. I stand corrected. I was expecting that something would give way. In a cable I suppose you would get filtering from the combined effect of RL and C because they are spread along the length. I wouldn't expect anything exciting at audio frequencies, though. To be fair, you can't do this with any old amplifier, it has to be able to pump enough current to charge and discharge that capacitor! Further, you don't get any RC filtering, you simply get RL filtering with a high inductance cable. Since any reasonable cable will have a capacitance of much less than a tenth of a microFarad, this isn't generally an issue in any case. Where do you find young listeners whose ears haven't been damaged by excessive SPLs these days? My young neighbour seems to listen at levels that make the airbrick in his wall sound like the port in a speaker! Oi lives in the country, oi does! :-) as I tail off around 17-18kHz these days. :-( I suspect I do to. I can still hear 15.625kHz OK (:-), but apart from that I haven't checked. Yup, another good argument in favour of 100Hz TVs! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#70
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 19:00:34 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 9 Jan 2004 01:28:19 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: Stewart wrote: What the heck has any of this to do with 'high-rez'? The fact that you don't yet have such a machine to gain much experience, thereby undercutting badly your attempts to diss the formats here on RAHE. Not at all, since I have listened to several players and several formats, and I'm very familiar with the technology behind the various formats. OTOH, I am very much behind DVD-A simply because of its multi-channel capability. Listening and regourously testing are two different things...and you haven't done the latter. I have done it as well as is reasonably feasible with what I have to hand - certainly with as much rigour as anything you have done. Did *you* make *blind* comparisons. If not, then you fall far behind. If you support DVD-A for its multichannel then you also should be supporting SACD for its multichannel. I have already done so, several times. At this point you have no "hearing" basis for choosing one over the other...only a technical preconception. I have already stated that I and others hear no significant differences among *well made* CD, SACD and DVD-A, so you are correct in this statement, if not for reasons which you normally accept. Until then, it is indeed difficult to take some of your protestations seriously. What you *really* mean is that you're desperately reaching, because you have no rational rebuttal to my 'high-rez' arguments............. No, Stewart, I'm a marketing man. Aaaaaah, all is explained! Only in your somewhat warped view of the world. I happen to know lots of marketing people who are scrupulously honest. As am I. I accept your self-description, although your observational skills and gullibility might perhaps be called into question......... :-) I'm just trying to add to your creditability! ;-) Credibility enhanced by association with a marketing man - fascinating concept........................... No, creditability enhanced by getting rid of the inconsistencies in your professed beliefs and the reality of what you show the world. You have yet to show any such inconsistency, my experience just doesn't chime with *your* belief system. I'm afreaid your subjective biases are showing once again. I work for a Bank, we have lots of marketing people, I have yet to meet one single one of them that I would trust. I suspect that those outside the well-controlled financial services industry are unlikely to be *more* honest. No doubt you are the exception, but I do find your debating tactics to be, shall we say, selective. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#71
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:29:18 +0000, Joseph Oberlander wrote:
If it was a theory that went against or was trying to disprove established theories, then twice to rule out a fluke. 20 times is plainly trying to make the data fit the hypothesis. To quit testing a theory after two successful tries is certainly not the scientific method I learned in college. It would be nothing more than a nice indicator that perhaps you are on to something. Theories get tested, retested, challanged and examined over and over, often for years or decades. Obviously the more critical and important the issue, the more important and extensive the testing. I certainly wouldn't want to be the recipient of a cancer drug that appeared to work twice before it was released to market! It is difficult to construct truly double blind listening tests, especially in the home environment. First, BOTH the listening subjects and the test administrator should be "blind" as to which is which when running the test. This actually requires a third party to choose and set up the system - cables in this instance. Second, it is difficult to construct a setup that is theoretically neutral. For example, inserting an A-B switch in the cable circuit now introduces a variable or potential influence that is not present in a hard-wired setup. On the other hand, hard wiring results in a time lapse between comparisons; this introduces the well proven, widely erratic variable of human memory. I tend to fall into the category that once certain minimum electrical requirements have been met, the differences between cables is microscopic at audio frequencies. I'll get more of a difference moving my speaker 1/2" in the listening room. The other nice thing is cables are an item that I get to put in the "not real important in the big scheme of things" category. No one lives or dies and the earth does not wobble off its axis if I use the "wrong" cable. My only question is do I get derive a lot of pleasure from my stereo when I listen to music. I happy to report that I do. |
#72
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 11 Jan 2004 16:29:18 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote: Lawrence Leung wrote: Ok! So only you guys know, only you guys right! The what so ever EE principal, physics theory never draw into a conclusion like: "So, it concluded that wire is wire, cable does not matter", that is your conclusion, so do not try to add that to the scientists. Fine, if you insist on living in that little hole, that's your life, your opinion. BTW, how come nobody can answer my question: "If you can distinguish two cables the first time, why bother to do another 19 times? If you can't distinguish them, why bother to give yourself a second chance?" When I was in college, everytime I proved a theory, I only need to prove it once, never heard of I have to continusly prove to it 16 out of 20 times to pass the proof. If it was a theory that went against or was trying to disprove established theories, then twice to rule out a fluke. 20 times is plainly trying to make the data fit the hypothesis. No, it's simple probability. Once could be a fluke, twice could be a fluke, just like in coin tossing. In order to have *reasonable* confidence that it's not just lucky guessing, you need 16 out of 20 correct. Hey, if Lawrence feels that it's a 'night and day' difference, then he should get it right *every* time, yes? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#73
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#74
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:46:35 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in : Yes, it is, and not one single person has *ever* shown an ability to tell the difference under blind conditions. No, you are wrong. You should re-phrase that to: "... under my blind conditions." They are not 'my' blind conditions, they are a standard test for reasonable confidence that there really is a detectable difference. I can set up a more ridiculos test so that even I put one million dollars in the pool, still nobody can claim, then I can say whatever I want. There is nothing wrong with blind test, but your version of blind test is nonsense. 95%, who said it has to be 16/20 or what so ever, only the person (or some people) set it that way and claim it is the fact? See above. If you are confident that your cables *really* make a significant difference, why wouldn't you be able to tell that difference 100% of the time? It's not irresponsible at all, as no 'audiophile' maker actually draws their own wire. 99% of it comes from mass-market suppliers such as Belden, it's simply packaged in fancy insulation. You are wrong, again. Where did you come with "no audiophile maker...", do you have any evidence, or just you think? Remember you used the word "no", means all cable companies! I know at least three make their own cables, I even know where did they make them, and they are not using any mass-market suppliers such as Belden. Name them. However, any old cable will do the job perfectly well. To your standard, yes! To anyones standard. I tried to be polite and objective... Well, you failed, since your comments are completely subjective and have no basis in electrical theory. What kind of theories you are using? Any theory concluded: "All wires are the same, it will not affect sound quality." If there is, show it to everyone, who and where? It is all in your head, you jiggle all the theories that you ever know and draw that conclusion yourself. Clearly, you are deliberately ignoring all existing evidence which shows that standard 'zipcord' has no nonlinearities detectable above -140dB (or even lower, that's the limit of the equipment I've been able to use, or have ever read about). That is more than a hundred times below any non-linearity that has ever been shown to be detectable by humans. You are doing a lot of arm-waving here, but you have shown absolutely *nothing* to back up your wild claims. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#75
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lawrence Leung wrote in message
news:vKhMb.25630$5V2.38454@attbi_s53... (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in : Yes, it is, and not one single person has *ever* shown an ability to tell the difference under blind conditions. No, you are wrong. No, he's right. No one's ever shown this ability, under *any* blind conditions. You should re-phrase that to: "... under my blind conditions." I can set up a more ridiculos test so that even I put one million dollars in the pool, still nobody can claim, then I can say whatever I want. There is nothing wrong with blind test, but your version of blind test is nonsense. 95%, who said it has to be 16/20 or what so ever, only the person (or some people) set it that way and claim it is the fact? With all due respect, Lawrence, you're missing the basic idea here. If I read you correctly, you seem to believe that you can listen to one cable, then replace it with another cable, decide whether the second sounds different from the first, and that settles the matter. But it doesn't settle the matter, because the heart of the matter is that some of us believe that those who claim to hear differences under these circumstances are actually imagining it. Now, it's always a little hard for audiophiles to accept the idea that something they plainly hear might be imaginary, but there is a substantial scientific literature that says that this is a common occurrence. You'll see it referred to here and elsewhere as Expectation Bias or the Placebo Effect. What happens is that you see the change being made, and that influences how you "hear." Strange, but demonstrably true. So we need some way to determine whether the difference you think you hear is real or imaginary. We do this by designing a test in which you do not know what you are listening to (i.e., blind). There are a variety of ways to do this, including the ABX test and the A-B difference test. In the former, you must tell us what X is. In the latter, you must tell us whether B is the same as or different than A. Either way, you've got a 50-50 chance of being right, so if you did it just once and got the right answer, it could be just a lucky guess. That's why we require multiple trials, and there are some general statistical rules for how many trials and how many correct answers you need. Stewart's 16-out-of-20 condition is perfectly reasonable. If you want to claim that you can hear differences between cables, this is what you have to do to prove it to us skeptics. It's not an unreasonable standard; it's a standard based on general scientific understanding of human hearing. bob |
#76
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#77
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bob Marcus" wrote in
: So we need some way to determine whether the difference you think you hear is real or imaginary. We do this by designing a test in which you do not know what you are listening to (i.e., blind). There are a variety of ways to do this, including the ABX test and the A-B difference test. In the former, you must tell us what X is. In the latter, you must tell us whether B is the same as or different than A. Either way, you've got a 50-50 chance of being right, so if you did it just once and got the right answer, it could be just a lucky guess. That's why we require multiple trials, and there are some general statistical rules for how many trials and how many correct answers you need. Stewart's 16-out-of-20 condition is perfectly reasonable. If you want to claim that you can hear differences between cables, this is what you have to do to prove it to us skeptics. It's not an unreasonable standard; it's a standard based on general scientific understanding of human hearing. Thank you for your reasoning. The thing is, Stewart's "blind test" already assumed that the subject will guess at the beginning because of the $4000 pool. I know what you saying, sometime we will bias on certain if we see the cable first, but you know, do it yourself at home, in regardless of that "attractive" $4000, honestly to yourself, I bet the difference between a cheap dirty zip-cord and a 6N copper wire is obvious; same thing as a solid copper interconnect and a silver/copper hybrid interconnect. I can say that, because I have done it and experiencing the difference, many times. I don't need to do any nonsense test to prove to me that is right. The test has a major problem because of the extend of time it consume, and as I pointed out above, it bias that the tester will lie even if he/she cannot tell the difference. I say, if I can tell the difference the first time, that is! Why didn't I want to do it 20 times in a roll, because we are human, human will adapt to an environment quite easily, after a few time of identical testing, especially under loud volume, everything will just sounds the same, cables, speakers, amp, preamp, source (of course you can tell between a CD and LP). The set up of the test is nonsense. That is why as proclaim by Stewart why so many years, nobody even wanted to do the test, because people have better way to spend their time. Lawrence Leung |
#78
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Buster Mudd wrote:
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... With levels matched to +/- 0.1 dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz, experience suggests that 'wire is wire'. If you can prove different, there's a $4k pot waiting to be collected. What if one of the (alleged) differences between 2 different cables is that they are *not* matched at all three of those frequencies? I.e., what if when the 2 test cables are precisely level matched at 1kHz, one of them measures +1dB at 10kHz and -0.5dB at 100Hz? Surely you're not suggesting that those differences be somehow compensated for to maintain level matching at all three reference frequencies? Well, I can't answer for the others, but IMO, such a cable as you describe is either a) incredibly poorly engineered/manufactured, or b) intended to affect the sound (i.e. 'stealth' tone control). In either case differences might be heard. But no one, IME, is saying that cables can't be made to affect the sound, just that nominally competent cables, designed to be *just* transmission cables, will not. Keith Hughes |
#79
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Lawrence Leung
wrote: No, you are wrong. You should re-phrase that to: "... under my blind conditions." (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: They are not 'my' blind conditions, they are a standard test for reasonable confidence that there really is a detectable difference. Yes, they are 'your' (and the other objectivsts here) blind conditions. There has been no verifying test to show that the blind tests used in other areas of science actually work in open-ended audio component comparisons. I can set up a more ridiculos test so that even I put one million dollars in the pool, still nobody can claim, then I can say whatever I want. There is nothing wrong with blind test, but your version of blind test is nonsense. 95%, who said it has to be 16/20 or what so ever, only the person (or some people) set it that way and claim it is the fact? See above. If you are confident that your cables *really* make a significant difference, why wouldn't you be able to tell that difference 100% of the time? Because the test you have chosen doesn't seem to work in this application. Mr. Leung is correct here. Regards, Mike |
#80
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Buster Mudd wrote:
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... With levels matched to +/- 0.1 dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz, experience suggests that 'wire is wire'. If you can prove different, there's a $4k pot waiting to be collected. What if one of the (alleged) differences between 2 different cables is that they are *not* matched at all three of those frequencies? I.e., what if when the 2 test cables are precisely level matched at 1kHz, one of them measures +1dB at 10kHz and -0.5dB at 100Hz? If that's the case, then those cables are different, sonically. No need to do any DBT. Surely you're not suggesting that those differences be somehow compensated for to maintain level matching at all three reference frequencies? No, they are simply different, and one of them is intentionally designed to be a tone-control. BTW, part of the reason for this post (in addition to honestly wanting to know the answer) is that twice now in the last three weeks I have posted responses specifically asking for details about ABX cable evaluation & the Pinkerton/Nousaine $4k challenge, and neither of those posts have appeared! So this is a test. [ Moderator's note: Several people have reported similar problems with Google.com. Those of you also having this problem need to send your posts as email to . -- deb ] |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Gallons of Snake Oil | Audio Opinions | |||
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results. | High End Audio | |||
cabling explained | Car Audio | |||
Digital Audio Cable Question(s) | High End Audio | |||
science vs. pseudo-science | High End Audio |