I noted with interest the differing opinions on cables, interconnects, price
points value for money etc. I noted the debates as to how many electrons can
you lose etc.

I've noted the shrillness of the blind test, sighted test debates and the
"If it costs more" it's gotta sound better debates.

Might I humbly suggest that the majority of the reason people buy these
various cables and pay the amounts they do are for two reasons?

Aesthetics

Bragging rights

I mean we've spent all this money on beautiful looking amps, CD players,
speakers, racks, turntables and subs. How could we possibly hook it up with
radio shack and lamp chord and call it a thing of beauty?

John Royer wrote:

I noted with interest the differing opinions on cables, interconnects,
price
points value for money etc. I noted the debates as to how many electrons
can
you lose etc.

I've noted the shrillness of the blind test, sighted test debates and the
"If it costs more" it's gotta sound better debates.

Might I humbly suggest that the majority of the reason people buy these
various cables and pay the amounts they do are for two reasons?

Aesthetics

Bragging rights

I don't think so. I think most of these people really, honestly believe they
are buying a better-sounding product--either because it sounds better to
them or because they trust whoever told them it sounds better. And, frankly,
why should you or I care why they do so? It's their money, and they're
happy.

I mean we've spent all this money on beautiful looking amps, CD players,
speakers, racks, turntables and subs. How could we possibly hook it up with
radio shack and lamp chord and call it a thing of beauty?

And that is a perfectly good reason to choose a cable. In fact, it's why I
try to keep my lampcord hidden!

bob

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

On 4/28/04 6:29 PM, in article , "John Royer"
wrote:

I noted with interest the differing opinions on cables, interconnects, price
points value for money etc. I noted the debates as to how many electrons can
you lose etc.

I've noted the shrillness of the blind test, sighted test debates and the
"If it costs more" it's gotta sound better debates.

Cables and interconnects are the wacky world of audio - there certainly are
ways to make cables that are really good (I am thinking of RF cables as is
my professional experience) and they won't be cheap - and it is debatable
how noticeable the differences might be (some claim to notice a difference,
some don't), though noting stirs passion than a subjectivist and objectivist
arguing about them!

Might I humbly suggest that the majority of the reason people buy these
various cables and pay the amounts they do are for two reasons?

Aesthetics

For sure a handsome cable is a thing of beauty - and a well packages
interconnect or speaker cable can improve the looks of a rat's nest.


Bragging rights

Depends to who.

There are people who earnestly believe that certain cables can be used as
tone controls.

I mean we've spent all this money on beautiful looking amps, CD players,
speakers, racks, turntables and subs. How could we possibly hook it up with
radio shack and lamp chord and call it a thing of beauty?

"Bob Marcus" wrote:

John Royer wrote:

I noted with interest the differing opinions on cables, interconnects,
price
points value for money etc. I noted the debates as to how many electrons
can
you lose etc.

I've noted the shrillness of the blind test, sighted test debates and the
"If it costs more" it's gotta sound better debates.

Might I humbly suggest that the majority of the reason people buy these
various cables and pay the amounts they do are for two reasons?

Aesthetics

Bragging rights

I don't think so. I think most of these people really, honestly believe they
are buying a better-sounding product--either because it sounds better to
them or because they trust whoever told them it sounds better. And, frankly,
why should you or I care why they do so? It's their money, and they're
happy.

I mean we've spent all this money on beautiful looking amps, CD players,
speakers, racks, turntables and subs. How could we possibly hook it up with
radio shack and lamp chord and call it a thing of beauty?

And that is a perfectly good reason to choose a cable. In fact, it's why I
try to keep my lampcord hidden!

bob

But a common pitch given to a purchaser of a new amplifier or other device is
"you wouldn't want to compromise this great sounding amplifier with cheap
cables would you?"

"John Royer" wrote in message
...

Might I humbly suggest that the majority of the reason people buy these
various cables and pay the amounts they do are for two reasons?

Aesthetics

Bragging rights

I mean we've spent all this money on beautiful looking amps, CD players,
speakers, racks, turntables and subs. How could we possibly hook it up
with
radio shack and lamp chord and call it a thing of beauty?


I'm pretty much in total agreement here. Another thing might be the peace
and comfort in their knowing that they bought the best their current
available funds permit. After all when you feel good about yourself
everything sounds and looks better. Since the whole shebang is in your mind
anyway, they *are* right despite DBT and measurements.

On 4/28/04 11:45 PM, in article oT_jc.42116$YP5.3141755@attbi_s02,
"Nousaine" wrote:

And that is a perfectly good reason to choose a cable. In fact, it's why I
try to keep my lampcord hidden!

bob

But a common pitch given to a purchaser of a new amplifier or other device is
"you wouldn't want to compromise this great sounding amplifier with cheap
cables would you?"

I was never given that pitch, though I can see how an unscrupulous
salesperson might do so.

If I ever buy "high end" cables it would be to upgrade the looks of the rats
nest behind my stack, or if I needed some shielding also and the cables in
question offered real shielding.

Or I wanted that neat battery pack on the cloth bound cables from AQ! :-)

John Royer writes:
I noted with interest the differing opinions on cables, interconnects, price
points value for money etc. I noted the debates as to how many electrons can
you lose etc.

I've noted the shrillness of the blind test, sighted test debates and the
"If it costs more" it's gotta sound better debates.

Might I humbly suggest that the majority of the reason people buy these
various cables and pay the amounts they do are for two reasons?

Aesthetics

Bragging rights

It doesn't seem to be right to bag everyone into the groups
"Subjectivist" or "Objectivist". It seems to me that there's a
spectrum of beliefs in audio.

Here's a few examples of things some people claim make a difference to
their listening experience:

The P.W.B. Red 'x' Co-ordinate Pen

Tice Clock

Shakti Stones

Green CD marker pens

Expensive cables with special properties

Amplifiers with ineffable properties

CD vs. SACD

Supersonic tweeters

Valve amplifiers

Loudspeakers

Room acoustics

Aesthetics and Bragging rights don't explain all the things in this
list. Everyone interested in hi-fi reproduction believes in some of
these. There's a spectrum of belief here, not a simple yes/no.

Andrew.

wrote:

It doesn't seem to be right to bag everyone into the groups
"Subjectivist" or "Objectivist".Â* It seems to me that there's a
spectrum of beliefs in audio.

As in anything. But there's also a very clear line between some beliefs and
others. Some beliefs are supported by empirical evidence. Others aren't.

Here's a few examples of things some people claim make a difference to
their listening experience:

Â* The P.W.B. Red 'x' Co-ordinate Pen

Â* Tice Clock

Â* Shakti Stones

Â* Green CD marker pens

Â* Expensive cables with special properties

Â* Amplifiers with ineffable properties

Â* CD vs. SACD

Â* Supersonic tweeters

Â* Valve amplifiers

Â* Loudspeakers

Â* Room acoustics

Aesthetics and Bragging rights don't explain all the things in this
list.Â* Everyone interested in hi-fi reproduction believes in some of
these.Â*

Please explain what it means to "believe in loudspeakers." You're trying to
create some equivalence between the real and the imaginary here. That's like
saying, some people believe in chemotherapy, and some people believe in
laetrile.

There's a spectrum of belief here, not a simple yes/no.

No, for most of the items on your list, there is a simple yes/no. Either we
have empirical evidence that it can make a difference, or we don't. Now, you
are free to believe that any or all of these things can make a difference,
even absent any empirical evidence that they do. But that puts you on one
side of the line.

There are a few things on your list that are a bit more complicated. For
example, most of us would agree that valve amps can sound different from SS
amps. But we disagree about why they do, and we disagree about whether the
differences are good or bad. But opinions on these questions tend to break
the same way that the simpler matters/doesn't matter question breaks: I
don't know of any "objectivists" who think that tube amps really sound
better. And I don't know too many tube enthusiasts who are willing to accept
the idea that their preference is merely the result of euphonic distortions
or frequency response anomalies caused by high output impedances.

The line looks pretty clear to me.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Best Restaurant Giveaway Ever! Vote for your favorites for a chance to win
$1 million! http://local.msn.com/special/giveaway.asp

wrote:
John Royer writes:
I noted with interest the differing opinions on cables, interconnects, price
points value for money etc. I noted the debates as to how many electrons can
you lose etc.

I've noted the shrillness of the blind test, sighted test debates and the
"If it costs more" it's gotta sound better debates.

Might I humbly suggest that the majority of the reason people buy these
various cables and pay the amounts they do are for two reasons?

Aesthetics

Bragging rights

It doesn't seem to be right to bag everyone into the groups
"Subjectivist" or "Objectivist". It seems to me that there's a
spectrum of beliefs in audio.

Here's a few examples of things some people claim make a difference to
their listening experience:

The P.W.B. Red 'x' Co-ordinate Pen

Tice Clock

Shakti Stones

Green CD marker pens

Expensive cables with special properties

Amplifiers with ineffable properties

CD vs. SACD

Supersonic tweeters

Valve amplifiers

Loudspeakers

Room acoustics

Aesthetics and Bragging rights don't explain all the things in this
list.
Everyone interested in hi-fi reproduction believes in some of
these. There's a spectrum of belief here, not a simple yes/no.

You've included stuff that *everyone* would agree makes a sonic diffefence
if changed -- speakers, room acoustics -- and which *no one* would explain as
being due to 'aesthetics' or 'bragging rights'. So *of course*
your statement is true.




--

-S.

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

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message news:qKQnc.65610$kh4.3888785@attbi_s52...

There are a few things on your list that are a bit more complicated. For
example, most of us would agree that valve amps can sound different from SS
amps. But we disagree about why they do, and we disagree about whether the
differences are good or bad. But opinions on these questions tend to break
the same way that the simpler matters/doesn't matter question breaks: I
don't know of any "objectivists" who think that tube amps really sound
better. And I don't know too many tube enthusiasts who are willing to accept
the idea that their preference is merely the result of euphonic distortions
or frequency response anomalies caused by high output impedances.

The line looks pretty clear to me.

bob

Despite many claims regarding the 'euphony' of tube amps, I dislike
the mushy, distorted sound I hear from them in most cases. I was in a
salon a couple of years ago listening to some fairly large speakers
being, I believe, underdriven by some well-regarded tube amp. I
pointed out that it stunk(!), and they switched to a more powerful
tranny amp. Better. Much better. I am sometimes disappointed in how
poor the hearing of audio salon personnel is. The combination was
quite poor, and they didn't notice it.

wrote in message
news:vLNnc.19847$z06.3270558@attbi_s01...
John Royer writes:
I noted with interest the differing opinions on cables, interconnects,
price
points value for money etc. I noted the debates as to how many
electrons can
you lose etc.

I've noted the shrillness of the blind test, sighted test debates and
the
"If it costs more" it's gotta sound better debates.

Might I humbly suggest that the majority of the reason people buy these
various cables and pay the amounts they do are for two reasons?

Aesthetics

Bragging rights

It doesn't seem to be right to bag everyone into the groups
"Subjectivist" or "Objectivist". It seems to me that there's a
spectrum of beliefs in audio.

Here's a few examples of things some people claim make a difference to
their listening experience:

The P.W.B. Red 'x' Co-ordinate Pen

Tice Clock

Shakti Stones

Green CD marker pens

Expensive cables with special properties

Amplifiers with ineffable properties

CD vs. SACD

Supersonic tweeters

Valve amplifiers

Loudspeakers

Room acoustics

Aesthetics and Bragging rights don't explain all the things in this
list. Everyone interested in hi-fi reproduction believes in some of
these. There's a spectrum of belief here, not a simple yes/no.

There was once a fad for CD dampers. Mod Squad had one. Following that one
following that one was another by Mel Schilling of "Music and Sound". His
first location IIRC was in Pennsylvania. He was the first dealer in the USA
to sell Magneplanar and Audio Research. He sold a SP3-A-1 and Tympani IIIA
(8 panels in all) to a long lost friend of mine where I spent many an hour
of listening. I remember his also having bought a Technics SP-10 turntable
fitted with one of the first, if not THE first, Decca tonearm and cartridge,
also from Mr. Schilling, whose "Music and Sound" moved to California. So for
my little reminiscence, but these $20 disc dampers, little platters placed
over CDs, could hardly come under the headings of aesthetics and bragging,
being more like the green marking pens. Included in this group might be
those little rings applied to the CDs outer edge and Armor All :-). I recall
one of the first exotic, but short-lived, loudspeaker cables by Mark
Levinson (the man), pure copper in a flat and very pliant plastic like
casing. I remember listening to a Mark Levinson HQD system (Hartley
sub-woofers, double stacked Quad speakers and Decca ribbon tweeters. Amps,
preamps and crossovers for the whole system again by Levinson. It's nearly
impossible for me to compare that system to today's modern marvels, but I
feel it could more than hold its own. After all short term audio memory
recall is said to be amazingly short, but 35 years?

Bob Marcus writes:
wrote:

It doesn't seem to be right to bag everyone into the groups
"Subjectivist" or "Objectivist".B It seems to me that there's a
spectrum of beliefs in audio.

As in anything. But there's also a very clear line between some
beliefs and others. Some beliefs are supported by empirical
evidence. Others aren't.

That's true.

Here's a few examples of things some people claim make a difference to
their listening experience:

B The P.W.B. Red 'x' Co-ordinate Pen

B Tice Clock

B Shakti Stones

B Green CD marker pens

B Expensive cables with special properties

B Amplifiers with ineffable properties

B CD vs. SACD

B Supersonic tweeters

B Valve amplifiers

B Loudspeakers

B Room acoustics

Aesthetics and Bragging rights don't explain all the things in this
list.B Everyone interested in hi-fi reproduction believes in some of
these.B

Please explain what it means to "believe in loudspeakers."

Oh come on, Bob. I'm talking about whether making a change to X will
have an audible effect.

You're trying to create some equivalence between the real and the
imaginary here.

No, I don't think so. I'm making no judgment in this post about
whether people's beliefs are true or false.

That's like saying, some people believe in chemotherapy, and some
people believe in laetrile.

That is in fact the case.

The point I'm trying to make is that almost everyone is skeptical with
regard to _something_. Even the most credulous hi-fi tweaker probably
has difficulty believing that The P.W.B. Red 'x' Co-ordinate Pen has
an audible effect.

There's a spectrum of belief here, not a simple yes/no.

No, for most of the items on your list, there is a simple
yes/no. Either we have empirical evidence that it can make a
difference, or we don't.

That's a different question. I'm talking about a spectrum of belief,
not a spectrum of reality. Perhaps the most vocal "subjectivists"
here would draw a line somewhere in the region of Shakti Stones.

Your primary concern seems to be "does this have a real sonic effect?"
That is an interesting question, but another interesting question is
"what do people believe?" closely followed by "why do they believe
it?"

Andrew.

wrote in news:x96oc.71447$Ik.5193990@attbi_s53:

Your primary concern seems to be "does this have a real sonic effect?"
That is an interesting question, but another interesting question is
"what do people believe?" closely followed by "why do they believe
it?"

Andrew.

I am a believer! A believer of not all things (indeed, very little
things)can be proved by present so called science. But we still live in
this world.

So when people said, "you can't prove it by using physics, maths,
chemistry, or what so ever, it is not true!"

Then I will say, "Prove to me that your next step will not make you
fall." Or "Prove to me that you love your mother."

People believe they can hear and are hearing the difference, as quoted
from Andrew, is a "spectrum of people"; people believe that there is no
scientific prove, so there is no difference, when they heard the
difference, they thought of something else to disprove it, that is
another "spectrum of people".

So, when people told me the little magic green CD marker can make their
music sounds better, I can only say, "I wish your green CD marker can do
the same thing to my music!" With a smile.

Panzzi

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
...
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:qKQnc.65610$kh4.3888785@attbi_s52...

Despite many claims regarding the 'euphony' of tube amps, I dislike
the mushy, distorted sound I hear from them in most cases. I was in a
salon a couple of years ago listening to some fairly large speakers
being, I believe, underdriven by some well-regarded tube amp. I
pointed out that it stunk(!), and they switched to a more powerful
tranny amp. Better. Much better. I am sometimes disappointed in how
poor the hearing of audio salon personnel is. The combination was
quite poor, and they didn't notice it.

Any equipment running outside its operational envelope, like the example you
sited, is going to be audibly distingushible from equipment that is not
being overdriven at the input, or running into the output clipping level,
etc. etc.

One of the high-end audio stores here is run by a blind guy. Talk about
someone who knows about "blind testing"! From my brief meetings with him, I
would be absolutely positive that he would have heard the issue you noted
above -- in about 2.5 seconds or less...

He may just have the ultimate marketing excuse for being selective, I don't
know. But I do know that when he says he can hear the difference, I
believe him.

-afh3

Panzzi wrote:
wrote in news:x96oc.71447$Ik.5193990@attbi_s53:

Your primary concern seems to be "does this have a real sonic effect?"
That is an interesting question, but another interesting question is
"what do people believe?" closely followed by "why do they believe
it?"

Andrew.

I am a believer! A believer of not all things (indeed, very little
things)can be proved by present so called science. But we still live in
this world.

If you don't believe what 'so called science' has to say, on what
basis do you believe what you believe?

So when people said, "you can't prove it by using physics, maths,
chemistry, or what so ever, it is not true!"

Then I will say, "Prove to me that your next step will not make you
fall." Or "Prove to me that you love your mother."

And I will say, what do you accept as *proof* of anything?
What are *your* standards of proof?

People believe they can hear and are hearing the difference, as quoted
from Andrew, is a "spectrum of people"; people believe that there is no
scientific prove, so there is no difference, when they heard the
difference, they thought of something else to disprove it, that is
another "spectrum of people".

Do you believe that it's possible for a statement to
objectively be *right* or *wrong* , or is it always a 'spectrum of
beliefs'?



--

-S.

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

Back when used to look at some of the literature I read an article
about "high quality" cable. The writer came to the conclusion that yes,
there is a difference, but that cheap wires may sound better than
expensive, heavy duty cable. One of my Probe Jades ( powered by Mac
tubes) has heavy cable, the other the cheapest wire possible...no
difference in sound. BTW I am easy to please with TV...a 19` set is OK
for me, but I require great audio for music.

"Panzzi" wrote in message
...
wrote in news:x96oc.71447$Ik.5193990@attbi_s53:

Your primary concern seems to be "does this have a real sonic effect?"
That is an interesting question, but another interesting question is
"what do people believe?" closely followed by "why do they believe
it?"

Andrew.

I am a believer! A believer of not all things (indeed, very little
things)can be proved by present so called science. But we still live in
this world.

So when people said, "you can't prove it by using physics, maths,
chemistry, or what so ever, it is not true!"

Then I will say, "Prove to me that your next step will not make you
fall." Or "Prove to me that you love your mother."

This a rather specious argument which I regularly need to clarify for my
students. In explaining the difference between knowledge and belief, I hold
text book in my hand away from my body and ask, "Who believes that if I let
go of the book it will fall?" Invariably someone will catch on and say that
it's a silly question because there is no need for belief as the question is
one of known fact. Gravity works and we know the book will fall. I then
ask for them to prove it, which they can't do and get flustered about. I
remind them that we don't need to prove it for this particular book in my
particular hand at this particular time for it to still be a known fact.
The proof was constructed centuries ago. That's how proof works. The green
CD pen has been proven not only not to work, but to have no mechanism in
which to work. Such belief in a disproven theory is the definition of
misguided.

Bruce

People believe they can hear and are hearing the difference, as quoted
from Andrew, is a "spectrum of people"; people believe that there is no
scientific prove, so there is no difference, when they heard the
difference, they thought of something else to disprove it, that is
another "spectrum of people".

So, when people told me the little magic green CD marker can make their
music sounds better, I can only say, "I wish your green CD marker can do
the same thing to my music!" With a smile.

Panzzi

Panzzi wrote:
wrote in news:x96oc.71447$Ik.5193990@attbi_s53:

Your primary concern seems to be "does this have a real sonic effect?"
That is an interesting question, but another interesting question is
"what do people believe?" closely followed by "why do they believe
it?"

Andrew.

I am a believer! A believer of not all things (indeed, very little
things)can be proved by present so called science. But we still live in
this world.

So when people said, "you can't prove it by using physics, maths,
chemistry, or what so ever, it is not true!"

Then I will say, "Prove to me that your next step will not make you
fall." Or "Prove to me that you love your mother."

People believe they can hear and are hearing the difference, as quoted
from Andrew, is a "spectrum of people"; people believe that there is no
scientific prove, so there is no difference, when they heard the
difference, they thought of something else to disprove it, that is
another "spectrum of people".

So, when people told me the little magic green CD marker can make their
music sounds better, I can only say, "I wish your green CD marker can do
the same thing to my music!" With a smile.

Panzzi

So, do you think that we can never prove if magic green CD markers can
make any difference?

"One of the high-end audio stores here is run by a blind guy. Talk about
someone who knows about "blind testing"! From my brief meetings with him,
I would be absolutely positive that he would have heard the issue you
noted above -- in about 2.5 seconds or less...

He may just have the ultimate marketing excuse for being selective, I
don't know. But I do know that when he says he can hear the difference,
I believe him."

The blind notion was tested, a group of blind folk did no better in
identifying gear by listening alone then do sighted folk. The "blind folk
have superior hearing" is an urban myth. Blind folk pay more attention to
sound as clues for the space they are in and only listen differently to
the sound clues there for anyone to hear. They can determine spacial
information more easily from the practical practice of benefiting from
doing so. I think it possible they can be aware of more spacial
information on a recording and perhaps realize the recording is therefore
more "real" then some other recording with regard to fidelity of spacial
information. That the guy is blind doesn't exclude him from all of the
distortions of perception sighted folk have when knowing which bit is
being heard.

On 5/12/04 6:40 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

The blind notion was tested, a group of blind folk did no better in
identifying gear by listening alone then do sighted folk. The "blind folk
have superior hearing" is an urban myth. Blind folk pay more attention to
sound as clues for the space they are in and only listen differently to
the sound clues there for anyone to hear.

While an urban myth - you could say that the blind PAY ATTENTION TO sound
much more than sighted people do. Since careful listening is a skill as
much as other sense based skills, it is possible that they have a higher
skill level than the general population.

They can determine spacial
information more easily from the practical practice of benefiting from
doing so. I think it possible they can be aware of more spacial
information on a recording and perhaps realize the recording is therefore
more "real" then some other recording with regard to fidelity of spacial
information. That the guy is blind doesn't exclude him from all of the
distortions of perception sighted folk have when knowing which bit is
being heard.

On 5/11/04 11:39 PM, in article , "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

I am a believer! A believer of not all things (indeed, very little
things)can be proved by present so called science. But we still live in
this world.

If you don't believe what 'so called science' has to say, on what
basis do you believe what you believe?

Perhaps he is talking about an unhappiness with the current state of the
art? There are also a lot of individuals who claim to be scientific types
that reject observation out of hand and call into question the people that
report those observations.

I would point out, that both the sate of the art and rejecting observations
out of hand are NOT science or the scientific method - but human reaction.

"Perhaps he is talking about an unhappiness with the current state of the
art? There are also a lot of individuals who claim to be scientific types
that reject observation out of hand and call into question the people that
report those observations.

I would point out, that both the sate of the art and rejecting
observations out of hand are NOT science or the scientific method - but
human reaction."

You fail to mention two things, observation also is not the end step,
testing them in a structured way is so as to test explanations of them and
to exclude irrelevant variables. There is a current state of the art in
testing and an established benchmark based on some number of the listening
alone tests being done for wire and amps. Given the very consistent
results, all additional observations can be evaluated and that only with
testing can any additional observation be shown not to be but one more
example of the previous results.

"afh3" wrote in message news:YBdoc.28561$536.5392150@attbi_s03...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
...
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
news:qKQnc.65610$kh4.3888785@attbi_s52...

Despite many claims regarding the 'euphony' of tube amps, I dislike
the mushy, distorted sound I hear from them in most cases. I was in a
salon a couple of years ago listening to some fairly large speakers
being, I believe, underdriven by some well-regarded tube amp. I
pointed out that it stunk(!), and they switched to a more powerful
tranny amp. Better. Much better. I am sometimes disappointed in how
poor the hearing of audio salon personnel is. The combination was
quite poor, and they didn't notice it.

Any equipment running outside its operational envelope, like the example you
sited, is going to be audibly distingushible from equipment that is not
being overdriven at the input, or running into the output clipping level,
etc. etc.

Tubes just don't have the power that transistors do. I have never
heard a tube amp that I liked. Never.


One of the high-end audio stores here is run by a blind guy. Talk about
someone who knows about "blind testing"! From my brief meetings with him, I
would be absolutely positive that he would have heard the issue you noted
above -- in about 2.5 seconds or less...

He may just have the ultimate marketing excuse for being selective, I don't
know. But I do know that when he says he can hear the difference, I
believe him.

-afh3

On 13 May 2004 03:05:05 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Tubes just don't have the power that transistors do.

A sweeping generalisation that is simply not true in many cases.

I have never
heard a tube amp that I liked. Never.

Perhaps you should listen to some *good* tube amps, such as the ARC
VT-100 or the C-J Premier Eight. You'll find that they sound just like
a good SS amp, i.e. they don't *have* any sound of their own.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

chung wrote in :

So, do you think that we can never prove if magic green CD markers can
make any difference?

No, chung. I'm not saying that the magic green CD markers can actually make
any sonic difference itself.

All I'm saying, if the magic green CD marker can makes Mr. XXX feels better
or lead him to belief that there is a difference, that is fine. I wish that
same magic green CD marker can make me feel the same way, too.

Same thing, yesterday I went to a furniture store and saw a $10,000.00 "Hi-
Fi chair", if by seating on it I can hear a $10,000.00 difference, well,
even a $5,000.00 difference, I will buy it!

Listening is a pleasure, it just like traveling. My friends questioned me
about spending $20,000.00 on a cruise tour is worth or not? I said,
"Scientifilly, it might not worth it, but I like it, and my family like it,
that is all that matter."

Panzzi

Panzzi wrote:
chung wrote in :

So, do you think that we can never prove if magic green CD markers can
make any difference?

No, chung. I'm not saying that the magic green CD markers can actually make
any sonic difference itself.

You are not answering my question. You said that some things can never
be proven. My question was, and is, do you believe that we can ever
prove that magic green CD markers make a difference.

On 5/12/04 11:04 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

You fail to mention two things, observation also is not the end step,

Yes, that's true - but I made no claims that it WAS the end step.

On 5/13/04 3:06 PM, in article BGPoc.42335$z06.6207688@attbi_s01, "chung"
wrote:


You are not answering my question. You said that some things can never
be proven. My question was, and is, do you believe that we can ever
prove that magic green CD markers make a difference.

Sure you can! Next time you use them, you will be able to prove that they
make the edge of your CD turn GREEN!

Seriously, though, the right question would be WHAT KIND of difference would
they make, and how could one measure it?

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:CcMoc.763$Dz.99286@attbi_s52...
On 13 May 2004 03:05:05 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Tubes just don't have the power that transistors do.

A sweeping generalisation that is simply not true in many cases.

I have never
heard a tube amp that I liked. Never.

Perhaps you should listen to some *good* tube amps, such as the ARC
VT-100 or the C-J Premier Eight. You'll find that they sound just like
a good SS amp, i.e. they don't *have* any sound of their own.

I HAVE heard the big Audio Research stuff. I was including them in my
statement. I have heard Conrad-Johnson too, but not recently. Tubes do
not sound good to my ears.

From: Bromo
Date: 5/13/2004 5:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: d2Uoc.43245$536.7593177@attbi_s03

On 5/12/04 11:04 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

You fail to mention two things, observation also is not the end step,

Yes, that's true - but I made no claims that it WAS the end step.



In science it is the first step. In audiophilia it is the first and last steps.

Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On 13 May 2004 03:05:05 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Tubes just don't have the power that transistors do.

A sweeping generalisation that is simply not true in many cases.

If the former were true given the models presently being sold (might be true)
wouldn't that mean that according to current audio urban legend tubes are more
dangerous to speakers?

I'm wondering where the thread about Cary amps blowing tweets might be?

I have never
heard a tube amp that I liked. Never.

Perhaps you should listen to some *good* tube amps, such as the ARC
VT-100 or the C-J Premier Eight. You'll find that they sound just like
a good SS amp, i.e. they don't *have* any sound of their own.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

OK I'm proposing a Battle of the Urban Legends here. Are the present assemblage
of tubed amps lower powered than solid amps? It would seem to me that this may
be the case as a rule of thumb.

Indeed I'm referencing the S&V 2004 Buyers Guide and the Cary Audio transistor
amplifiers are all rated from 100 to 200 watts into 8 ohms while the tubed
models are rated at 15 to 50 watts.

If this were the case and the Urban Legend that "small" amplifiers are
dangerous to tweeters is also true ......then why aren't we seeing threads
about the awful problems that tubed owners are having with cooked tweeters
(and/or other drivers)?

Bromo wrote:
On 5/13/04 3:06 PM, in article BGPoc.42335$z06.6207688@attbi_s01, "chung"
wrote:


You are not answering my question. You said that some things can never
be proven. My question was, and is, do you believe that we can ever
prove that magic green CD markers make a difference.

Sure you can! Next time you use them, you will be able to prove that they
make the edge of your CD turn GREEN!

Seriously, though, the right question would be WHAT KIND of difference would
they make, and how could one measure it?

Of course we are talking about sonic differences in this discussion. The
question is not whether he or you believes there is a difference. It is
whether Mr. Panzzi thinks that there is a way to prove whether there is
a sonic difference. He seems to be of the opinion that these type of
effects cannot be proven to exist or not exist.

Bruce Abrams wrote:

"Panzzi" wrote in message
...
wrote in news:x96oc.71447$Ik.5193990@attbi_s53:

Your primary concern seems to be "does this have a real sonic effect?"
That is an interesting question, but another interesting question is
"what do people believe?" closely followed by "why do they believe
it?"

Andrew.

I am a believer! A believer of not all things (indeed, very little
things)can be proved by present so called science. But we still live in
this world.

So when people said, "you can't prove it by using physics, maths,
chemistry, or what so ever, it is not true!"

Then I will say, "Prove to me that your next step will not make you
fall." Or "Prove to me that you love your mother."

This a rather specious argument which I regularly need to clarify for my
students. In explaining the difference between knowledge and belief, I hold
text book in my hand away from my body and ask, "Who believes that if I let
go of the book it will fall?" Invariably someone will catch on and say that
it's a silly question because there is no need for belief as the question is
one of known fact. Gravity works and we know the book will fall. I then
ask for them to prove it, which they can't do and get flustered about. I
remind them that we don't need to prove it for this particular book in my
particular hand at this particular time for it to still be a known fact.
The proof was constructed centuries ago. That's how proof works. The green
CD pen has been proven not only not to work, but to have no mechanism in
which to work. Such belief in a disproven theory is the definition of
misguided.

Bruce

People believe they can hear and are hearing the difference, as quoted
from Andrew, is a "spectrum of people"; people believe that there is no
scientific prove, so there is no difference, when they heard the
difference, they thought of something else to disprove it, that is
another "spectrum of people".

So, when people told me the little magic green CD marker can make their
music sounds better, I can only say, "I wish your green CD marker can do
the same thing to my music!" With a smile.

Panzzi

Let me add another anecdote to this story. I have a good friend who owned a
particular high-end model amplifier. He once told me that it was sonically
superior to one of my amplifiers. After a short "how do you know this" session
he agreed to bring it to my next audio club meeting for a controlled listening
test.

After failing to reliably identify his "baby" when compared to my unit along
with a few other members he complained that the "system" was unfamiliar and
that probably masked differences.

So I installed the test set-up (ABX switch) in his home reference system and
asked him to 1) figure out IF the amplifiers did sound different and 2) select
the programs that MOST signficantly HIGHLIGHTED those differences.

After 5-weeks of in-situ practice he still held the opinion that the amplifiers
DID sound different and I went to his reference system so he could demonstrate
this to anyone else.

But even using his own system; 5-weeks of practice, specially selected programs
he was unable to reliably identify his own amp in his own system when levels
channel-to-channel were matched at 100 and 1 kHz and 10 kHz.

So if you want to think that he enjoyed some special satisfaction from
"thinking" that his amplifier was superior.... so be it. But don't stop the
rest of us for searching for real acoustical differences upon which to make
selection decisions.

And don't be afraid of lurkers being aware of what controlled listening tests
have revealed to us.

You were faulting some people for excluding some observations as
incomplete investigation, to which I mentioned it remains also incomplete
if all the observations are collected and some testing of them is not
done. After collecting, exclusions of observations as not verified by
emperical comparsion is the final step before explanation. It wasn't what
you said but what you failed to say.

You fail to mention two things, observation also is not the end step,



Yes, that's true - but I made no claims that it WAS the end step.

Bromo wrote in :

On 5/13/04 3:06 PM, in article BGPoc.42335$z06.6207688@attbi_s01,
"chung" wrote:


You are not answering my question. You said that some things can
never be proven. My question was, and is, do you believe that we can
ever prove that magic green CD markers make a difference.

Sure you can! Next time you use them, you will be able to prove that
they make the edge of your CD turn GREEN!

Seriously, though, the right question would be WHAT KIND of difference
would they make, and how could one measure it?


My answer is: I do not believe that we can ever prove that magic green CD
markers make a difference.

All I'm trying to say is: if that so called magic green CD markers can make
anyone sense a difference, then there is a value of its existence.

Same thing as I like Japanese Sashimi a lot, but a lot of my friends scare
to death! Can I prove to them the raw fish taste really really good and
they are silly not to try that?

Panzzi

On 5/14/04 12:15 PM, in article Lg6pc.377$gr.33538@attbi_s52, "S888Wheel"
wrote:

From: Bromo
Date: 5/13/2004 5:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: d2Uoc.43245$536.7593177@attbi_s03

On 5/12/04 11:04 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

You fail to mention two things, observation also is not the end step,

Yes, that's true - but I made no claims that it WAS the end step.



In science it is the first step. In audiophilia it is the first and last
steps.


Therein lies the difference between profession and HOBBY.

Panzzi wrote:
Bromo wrote in :

On 5/13/04 3:06 PM, in article BGPoc.42335$z06.6207688@attbi_s01,
"chung" wrote:


You are not answering my question. You said that some things can
never be proven. My question was, and is, do you believe that we can
ever prove that magic green CD markers make a difference.

Sure you can! Next time you use them, you will be able to prove that
they make the edge of your CD turn GREEN!

Seriously, though, the right question would be WHAT KIND of difference
would they make, and how could one measure it?


My answer is: I do not believe that we can ever prove that magic green CD
markers make a difference.


Is that the same as saying that you can never prove that magic green
markers do not make a difference?

All I'm trying to say is: if that so called magic green CD markers can make
anyone sense a difference, then there is a value of its existence.

If someone says that he senses that 1+1=3, does it follow then that
there is a value to saying 1+1=3?


Same thing as I like Japanese Sashimi a lot, but a lot of my friends scare
to death! Can I prove to them the raw fish taste really really good and
they are silly not to try that?


So it seems like you are extrapolating that to say that we can never
prove anything when it comes to audio, or anything in life for that matter.


Panzzi

Bromo wrote:

On 5/14/04 12:15 PM, in article Lg6pc.377$gr.33538@attbi_s52, "S888Wheel"
wrote:

From: Bromo
Date: 5/13/2004 5:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: d2Uoc.43245$536.7593177@attbi_s03

On 5/12/04 11:04 PM, in article ,
" wrote:

You fail to mention two things, observation also is not the end step,

Yes, that's true - but I made no claims that it WAS the end step.



In science it is the first step. In audiophilia it is the first and last
steps.


Therein lies the difference between profession and HOBBY.

True. But you never hear birdwatchers rejecting the research findings of
biologists and claiming that their methodology hasn't been validated.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Getting married? Find tips, tools and the latest trends at MSN Life Events.
http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married

(Nousaine) wrote in message news:qs6pc.1072$qA.167000@attbi_s51...


Indeed I'm referencing the S&V 2004 Buyers Guide and the Cary Audio transistor
amplifiers are all rated from 100 to 200 watts into 8 ohms while the tubed
models are rated at 15 to 50 watts.

If this were the case and the Urban Legend that "small" amplifiers are
dangerous to tweeters is also true ......then why aren't we seeing threads
about the awful problems that tubed owners are having with cooked tweeters
(and/or other drivers)?

Clipping behaviour of tubes and SS amps differs. Tubes clip in a
softer manner, which does not create the nasty waves that a clipping
transistor amp does.

On 5/15/04 10:38 AM, in article , "chung"
wrote:

Same thing as I like Japanese Sashimi a lot, but a lot of my friends scare
to death! Can I prove to them the raw fish taste really really good and
they are silly not to try that?


So it seems like you are extrapolating that to say that we can never
prove anything when it comes to audio, or anything in life for that matter.

I think the proof comes in listening enjoyment "in total" rather than spec
sheets.

Case in point is the Japanese SET amps that distort horridly - but the
colorations are very rich and pleasant, especially to those who buy them for
that sound.

Who is right, who is wrong? Who cares!

I can state unequivically that I really liked playing Mark Knopfler's latest
CD on my stereo system this evening - and the sound is just the way I like
it.

As far as proving anything about "life" - in small metters, such as audio
and amplifier blind tests and whether someone's ears can detect something
other than what we have learned to measure - I am sure we can make progress.
About the big things - meaning of life, etc - I very much doubt there will
be much societal progress in that, though individual results may vary! :-)