Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Sep 2005 01:58:22 GMT, wrote:


I have no interest in blind testing. I am interested in comparing
products in the same way I listen to them.


Yes, we've all heard that old strawman before. Bascically, you know
that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up,
there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to
each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected?
Why do you not trust your ears alone?


Just as a note, speaking of myself, I do wish to trust my ears alone,
and if I lived with somebody or had a good audiophile buddy or the
dealers would let me borrow equipment long term, I would have my buddy
hook up everything behind a screen and do all my evaluative listening
blind.

I also think Stereophile/Absolute Sound reviews should be done on
"black boxes" or equipment behind screens.

Stewart, you often characterize this argument as though it were about
listening blind versus listening sighted.. i.e., whether you know what
you are hearing or whether you don't. Let me state, for the record,
that this distinction isn't directly relevant to my own theories. It's
not the blindness of blind tests I object to, but rather how the method
of comparing sound affects sensitivity.

I won't bother to restate these opinions since we have been over this
ground enough times already. I expect you will say the ear is most
sensitive to differences under quick-switch, and that all the available
evidence supports that. Fine.

Mike

P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for
days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials:
that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever?

  #42   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:58 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
" wrote in message
...

snip


If you self-appointed 'scientists' want to run such experiments, do
so
on your time and your dime.

The scientists who do these kinds of tests are the movers and shakers
in
the
filed of audio, not just hi-fi but all areas relating to sound
perception.
They use double blind protocols because they want valid results and
they
know they can't get them from sighted lsitening.


Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists
specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs
and
telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and
psychological
comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic,
and
have found they can validate differences when a conventional
short-snippet
test resulted in a "null".


Please list them.


Tsutomu Oohashi, Emi Nishina, Manabu Honda, Yoshiharu Yonekura, Yo****aka
Fuwamoto, Norie Kawai, Tadao Maekawa, Satoshi Nakamura, Hidenao Fukuyama,
and Hiroshi Shibasaki


Ah yes, the notorious Pioneer-backed attempt to prove that we really
need 100kHz bandwidth. Got any Europeans or Americans?


Actually, Stewart, if you looked further you would find that Oohashi and
many of his team have been doing work in psychoacoustics and neurophysiology
for many years and are well published. Put you chauvinism aside, why don't
you.

Moreover, your assertion that Pioneer funded the research is just that, an
assertion. No proof has ever been offered or cited. It may or may not have
been funded by a consortium...but if so, that is common practice in many
contries, including Great Britain and the United States. Was JJ's work at
AT&T invalid because it was privately funded? The validity depends on how
well the study was done and the results, peer-reviewed.


  #43   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Sep 2005 01:58:22 GMT, wrote:


I have no interest in blind testing. I am interested in comparing
products in the same way I listen to them.


Yes, we've all heard that old strawman before. Bascically, you know
that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up,
there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to
each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected?
Why do you not trust your ears alone?


Just as a note, speaking of myself, I do wish to trust my ears alone,
and if I lived with somebody or had a good audiophile buddy or the
dealers would let me borrow equipment long term, I would have my buddy
hook up everything behind a screen and do all my evaluative listening
blind.

I also think Stereophile/Absolute Sound reviews should be done on
"black boxes" or equipment behind screens.

Stewart, you often characterize this argument as though it were about
listening blind versus listening sighted.. i.e., whether you know what
you are hearing or whether you don't. Let me state, for the record,
that this distinction isn't directly relevant to my own theories. It's
not the blindness of blind tests I object to, but rather how the method
of comparing sound affects sensitivity.

I won't bother to restate these opinions since we have been over this
ground enough times already. I expect you will say the ear is most
sensitive to differences under quick-switch, and that all the available
evidence supports that. Fine.

Mike

P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for
days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials:
that's 160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever?


Mike, not to the best of my knowledge.

But you are right about us being beat over the head as being against blind
testing (because it is a useful bogeyman) while the real objection has been
that short-snippet, quick-switching, comparative testing a la abx are
potentially and inherently anti-musical. The objectivists here and on other
newsgroups have no real answer to the potential problem that you, I, Mark,
and others have raised...their world can only make sense if such
complicating factors (that just happend to scream out for a validation test)
are completely ignored.



  #44   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Sep 2005 22:18:51 GMT, wrote:

wrote:
(Irrelevancies snipped)


AFAIK good camera equipment doesn't have the wide variety in price that
audio equipment does, especially for equipment that is identical in
performance.


Most of the Japanese equipment is fairly close in performance and
price, because the prices asked do not support the kind of engineering
and manufacturing quality that a company like Leica strives for.


Typical Leica snob attitude, ignoring the basic fact that the serious
players, Nikon and Canon, have massive R&D departments, and turn out
lenses which are far beyond the capability of a tiny 'garden shed'
operation like Leitz. Unless of course you count the 'Leica' lenses
used on Panasonic digital cameras....................


But the lenses they COULD make are not the lenses they DO make. It's
simply not possible to make a lens that sells for $400 equal to one
that sells for $2400, when the glass itself of the higher-priced lens
costs $1000! Leica's glass and mechanical perfection cannot be matched
at a lower price point. It's not physically possible. Canon or Nikon
could not sell their lenses at Leica price points.

Anybody COULD make Leica-quality lenses IF they used Leica-quality
materials and designs, but...they DON'T. If they did, they'd cost about
the same. Considering what a lot of high-end audio gear costs, Leica
stuff is a bargain.

Indeed, a quite recent AP test noted that the new Canon 60mm f2.8
macro lens was essentially perfect, and was the best lens that the
reviewer had ever tested.


Check out the 100mm APO-Marco-Elmarit-R. It's essentially perfect
(diffraction-limited).

http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/...kolumne/12.pdf


I have demonstrated the high quality level of Leitz/Leica optics to my
own satisfaction and that of others.

You have picked a preference where actual differences exist. Most of the
claimed audio differences don't meet that criteria, they are sonically
indistinguishable when one uses only one's ears.


You mean ALL CD players and ALL ampls sound the same? Hogwash.


How would you know? Your audio comparisons are analogous to comparing
lenses which have been smeared with vaseline.


Do I detect an insult there?


--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #45   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to
tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was
connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously
extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof.


I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with
the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of
my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the
possibility of halucination is remote.


The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable
in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the
case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote
possibility.


You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.


Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'.


It is contrary to everything we know about cables and about human
hearing. *Of course* it's an extraordinary claim. Your continued
denial will not alter this most obvious fact.


You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.


False on its face. I am not the only one who makes such a claim, and
you know it.


Read it again. I did not say that others do not make *claims*.
Interesting however that not one of these vocal few has actually
stepped up to the plate.


It's pretty hard to
find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end'
player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary
errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream'
players.

Mark Levinson?


Indeed, the original 'Reference' DAC charged $10,000 for the privilege
of listening to a pretty average DAC which had virtually no immunity
from jitter in the incoming data stream. You certainly could hear
differences among transports with that dog!


I heard the whole set-up (transport and DAC) and the combo sounded
quite beautiful.


So what? Any decent CD player sounds quite beautiful - depending on
the CD, of course! To pay more than $20,000 for such a device is a
pretty foolish indulgence, unless you already own the world's best
speakers and have them installed in an acoustically perfect room.

Ever considered just how similar this marketing spiel is to silly bits
of audio gear like the Ah Tjoeb CD player, which brings a 'mainstream'
Marantz CD player 'up to audiophile standards'.....................


Not the same thing. The Leitz lenses were redesigned by their original
designers to meet Leitz's standards. What matters is the performance,
and whether they met the Leitz standards. These were not 'tweaks' but
redesigns.


Hogwash - they were simply tweaks. Your logic is fatally flawed, since
Leitz would not have needed to buy in the designs from Zeiss and
Schneider if they had been capable of designing them in-house.


Bascically, you know
that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up,
there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to
each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected?
Why do you not trust your ears alone?


I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system,
because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any
blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was
convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully
conducted.


Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori.

I have no 'beliefs'. There is only the conclusion that since what what
I heard changed with the product, the the product is the cause of the
change in what I heard. A belief is something that is held without any
kind of evidence, perhaps because it is what one is told.


You believe that you heard a difference, but there is no evidence that
this 'difference' has any physical existence - hence it's simply your
belief.

You could of course prove your claim quite easily, but like
all the others, you seem strangely reluctant to do so.

You're being impolite. May I interest you in some gut string?


Lack of response noted. I use synthetic, because I need an excuse for
my lack of ability on the tennis court....... :-)


Why am I not surprised....

I'm sure you believe that: 'All string plays the same...'


Had you actually read what I wrote, you would not have made such a
foolish statement.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



  #46   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"P.S. How often has anybody done a blind test in which they listened for
days? Let's say 4 switches per trial, 2 days per switch, 20 trials: that's
160 days. Has this ever happened? Ever?"

How often has it been done standing on the right foot while the left hand
is embedded up to the wrist in cheese doodles?

Seriously, the only question is not knowing,ie. blind testing, and all
this other mental tap dancing irrelevant because no restraints otherwise
are required. As mentioned, testing has been done with the only control
being a cloth placed over connections to implement blindness, the results
were obvious.

  #48   Report Post  
Gary Vander Schel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 11 Sep 2005 22:29:13 GMT, "Gary Vander Schel"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2005 03:36:46 GMT, wrote:

snip

Probably people who don't believe that high octane petrol improves
performance. BTW, you can't buy petrol that bad in the UK..........

Really?

Yes. Your 'regular' 87 octane fuel is the equivalent of about 92 RON
in Europe. UK 'regular' fuel is 95 RON, with 98 RON (the equivalent of
your 93) being available for high-performance engines. Note that most
European engines have their power ratings quoted for 98 RON fuel - it
*does* make a difference.

If I want to fill up my tank with 94 octane gas, who are you to tell
me
that I'm wasting my money?

I use 98. I get about 2 mpg better mileage, which just about covers
the extra cost, and more power, which is why I buy it. That you seem
unaware of this scientific fact is unsurprising.


I'm unaware and skeptical of your 'scientific facts' about high octane
petrol.
http://www.answers.com/topic/petrol
http://www.fact-sheets.com/cars/high_octane_gas/


Perhaps you should try reading some modern literature on the subject.
Most European cars have their power outputs quoted for 98RON fuel, the
equivalent of your 93, and certainly do produce less power with lower
octane fuel. Basically, the modern engine management system sets up
the engine to give best results with whatever fuel is in the tank. My
own car (Audi A3 3.2) has a compression ratio of 11.3:1, and
definitely does benefit from the best fuel I can find. Similarly,
turbocharged engines like that In my wife's TT will adjust boost
levels to suit the available fuel and atmospheric conditions.
--

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that using fuel with the octane
rating that meets (not exceeds) the manufacturer's recommendation is
appropriate. The variable timing capabilities of modern engine management
systems will allow it to run on lower octane w/ no knock (which apparently
you've done). Have you tried using fuel w/ an octane rating exceeding 98
RON?

OTOH, my wife's '97 MX-5 had a 15-20% drop in kpl/mpg when using higher
octane fuel than recommended by the manufacturer (probably due to the lower
volatility of high octane fuels).


..

  #49   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to
tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was
connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously
extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof.


I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with
the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of
my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the
possibility of halucination is remote.


The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable
in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the
case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote
possibility.


There has to be something to reinforce, no?

You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.


Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'.


It is contrary to everything we know about cables and about human
hearing.


"We"? What do you mean, "we"?

*Of course* it's an extraordinary claim. Your continued
denial will not alter this most obvious fact.


What an extraordinary claim is is, fortunately, not defined by Stewart
Pinkerton. We have many good philosophers and scientists who have
discussed such issues, and I can say with confidence that claiming to
hear differences among ampas, CD players, and cables, is not an
'extraordinary claim'. I have posted links to discussions of what an
'extraordinary claim' is, and you have ignored them.

(Moderator: how does this post get through?)

[Moderator note: The same way yours do. -- deb ]

You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.


False on its face. I am not the only one who makes such a claim, and
you know it.


Read it again. I did not say that others do not make *claims*.
Interesting however that not one of these vocal few has actually
stepped up to the plate.


You're beginning to bore me.

It's pretty hard to
find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end'
player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary
errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream'
players.

Mark Levinson?

Indeed, the original 'Reference' DAC charged $10,000 for the privilege
of listening to a pretty average DAC which had virtually no immunity
from jitter in the incoming data stream. You certainly could hear
differences among transports with that dog!


I heard the whole set-up (transport and DAC) and the combo sounded
quite beautiful.


So what? Any decent CD player sounds quite beautiful - depending on
the CD, of course! To pay more than $20,000 for such a device is a
pretty foolish indulgence, unless you already own the world's best
speakers and have them installed in an acoustically perfect room.


So, whose business is it? Who are you to tell people how much they are
permitted to spend on their equipment?


Ever considered just how similar this marketing spiel is to silly bits
of audio gear like the Ah Tjoeb CD player, which brings a 'mainstream'
Marantz CD player 'up to audiophile standards'.....................


Not the same thing. The Leitz lenses were redesigned by their original
designers to meet Leitz's standards. What matters is the performance,
and whether they met the Leitz standards. These were not 'tweaks' but
redesigns.


Hogwash - they were simply tweaks. Your logic is fatally flawed, since
Leitz would not have needed to buy in the designs from Zeiss and
Schneider if they had been capable of designing them in-house.


They were not capable of designing them in-house until they had more
time to study the various problems of retro-focus wide-angle designs.
Remember, this was 1968! Leitz's experience did not include retro-focus
lens design. In the meantime, they needed product to sell. Lots of
companies do this. I remember testing the 21mm Super-Angulon-R f/4
(Leitz-made, Scheider design) against the 20mm Nikkor f/3,5. There was
no contest. The SA trounced the Nikkor. Seven years later, in about
1975, Leitz Canada came out with a 19mm f/2,8 design that represented
an advance over the 21mm SA. It was one stop faster and had higher
contrast. Fifteen years later (1990) and improved second-generation
19mm was introduced. It is superb and represents state-of-the-art
performance in the 18-21mm focal length range. There is no equal made
by anyone.

But all this took time.



Bascically, you know
that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up,
there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to
each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected?
Why do you not trust your ears alone?


I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system,
because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any
blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was
convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully
conducted.


Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori.


I don't remember you...sitting next to me.


I have no 'beliefs'. There is only the conclusion that since what what
I heard changed with the product, the the product is the cause of the
change in what I heard. A belief is something that is held without any
kind of evidence, perhaps because it is what one is told.


You believe that you heard a difference, but there is no evidence that
this 'difference' has any physical existence - hence it's simply your
belief.


Oh, is that so?


  #51   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

So why imply that it is only snake oil - like 'high-end' audio cables,
which definitely *are* a waste of money?

According to whom? On whose authority? YOURS?


No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to
tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was
connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously
extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof.


I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with
the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of
my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the
possibility of halucination is remote. It is possible to induce
halucinations through sleep deprivation:

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php...b=5&o=0&fpart=

It seems to me that even if typical audiophile listening
comparisons
are not the last word in scientific methodology, there is no need
for
constant badgering. Listening comparisons are not intended to be
rigorous, methodical tests. It is not your place to tell us that
they
should be.

So stop making baseless assertions about what you think you hear.

I do hear it. It's not 'baseless'.

You do *not* hear anything which exists in the physical sound field.
This is a mere assertion, and will not become true no matter how often
you repeat it.

Proof?


You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.


Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'. We have gone over
this before. No-one in philosophy or any science would call listening
to cables and reporting audible differences 'making an extraordinary
claim'.


They would if they knew the science behind cables and that such a result is
impossible for very well understood reasons.

I am not claiming that the cables violate any laws of nature.


Yes you are.

The class of all things natural exceeds the class of all things
measurable. An 'extraordinary claim' violates some commonly-accepted
truth of nature (e.g., once men die, they don't come back to life), or
invokes some wild explanation (aliens from outer space) that assumes
facts not in evidence. Aliens cannot be used to explain your
'abduction' because the existence of aliens is itself unsupported and
remotely unlikely. You cannot use something even less-well established
to prove something that is highly dubious itself. Claiming to hear
differences in aduo cables, amps, or CD players is not by any stretch
of the imagination 'making an extraordinary claim'.

Claiming that something impossible happened is an extraordinary claim, to
reasonable people.

  #52   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 14 Sep 2005 02:53:36 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:58 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists
specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to codecs
and
telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and
psychological
comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of comparative-monadic,
and
have found they can validate differences when a conventional
short-snippet
test resulted in a "null".


Please list them.

Tsutomu Oohashi, Emi Nishina, Manabu Honda, Yoshiharu Yonekura, Yo****aka
Fuwamoto, Norie Kawai, Tadao Maekawa, Satoshi Nakamura, Hidenao Fukuyama,
and Hiroshi Shibasaki


Ah yes, the notorious Pioneer-backed attempt to prove that we really
need 100kHz bandwidth. Got any Europeans or Americans?


Actually, Stewart, if you looked further you would find that Oohashi and
many of his team have been doing work in psychoacoustics and neurophysiology
for many years and are well published. Put you chauvinism aside, why don't
you.


Not chauvinism, simply that you are reeling off one single team whose
commecially sponsored work remains uncorroborated. Hardly 'movers and
shakers'.

Moreover, your assertion that Pioneer funded the research is just that, an
assertion. No proof has ever been offered or cited. It may or may not have
been funded by a consortium...but if so, that is common practice in many
contries, including Great Britain and the United States.


Nice sidestep, Harry...........

Was JJ's work at
AT&T invalid because it was privately funded? The validity depends on how
well the study was done and the results, peer-reviewed.


Quite so - and the Oohashi results remain uncorroborated.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #54   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT,
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to
tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was
connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously
extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof.

I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with
the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of
my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the
possibility of halucination is remote.


The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable
in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the
case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote
possibility.


There has to be something to reinforce, no?


Yes, but the 'something' can easily be an erroneous first impression. How do you
demonstrate that it wasn't?


You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.

Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'.


It is contrary to everything we know about cables and about human
hearing.


"We"? What do you mean, "we"?


Oh, engineers, physicists, psychologists, those sorts of people.

*Of course* it's an extraordinary claim. Your continued
denial will not alter this most obvious fact.


What an extraordinary claim is is, fortunately, not defined by Stewart
Pinkerton. We have many good philosophers and scientists who have
discussed such issues, and I can say with confidence that claiming to
hear differences among ampas, CD players, and cables, is not an
'extraordinary claim'.


Are these particular philosophers and scientists knowledgeable about
what the engineers, physicists, and psychologists have learned?

Read it again. I did not say that others do not make *claims*.
Interesting however that not one of these vocal few has actually
stepped up to the plate.


You're beginning to bore me.


Might we then anticipate your retirement from your misguided and
often flat-out erroneous (e.g. resolution) attempts at argument, soon?


I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system,
because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any
blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was
convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully
conducted.


Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori.


I don't remember you...sitting next to me.


Alas, your own description reveals its inherent flaws.

You can, of course, continue to claim
that resolution means frequency extension, that what you hear
must be real because you really believe it is, or other
such black-is-white assertions from what seems to be a profound
urge to wish-fulfillment rather than reason,
but from here on I intend to do no more than
just continue to watch Mssrs. Pinkerton,
Pierce, et al. eviscerate your arguments.
Your posts will be filed accordingly.



--

-S

  #55   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 14 Sep 2005 02:53:36 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 12 Sep 2005 03:58:58 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


Please note that at least some of these "mover and shaker" scientists
specifically exploring the reproduction of music (as opposed to
codecs
and
telephone transmission) give great attention to physical and
psychological
comfort, eschew short snippet testing in favor of
comparative-monadic,
and
have found they can validate differences when a conventional
short-snippet
test resulted in a "null".


Please list them.

Tsutomu Oohashi, Emi Nishina, Manabu Honda, Yoshiharu Yonekura,
Yo****aka
Fuwamoto, Norie Kawai, Tadao Maekawa, Satoshi Nakamura, Hidenao
Fukuyama,
and Hiroshi Shibasaki

Ah yes, the notorious Pioneer-backed attempt to prove that we really
need 100kHz bandwidth. Got any Europeans or Americans?


Actually, Stewart, if you looked further you would find that Oohashi and
many of his team have been doing work in psychoacoustics and
neurophysiology
for many years and are well published. Put you chauvinism aside, why
don't
you.


Not chauvinism, simply that you are reeling off one single team whose
commecially sponsored work remains uncorroborated. Hardly 'movers and
shakers'.

Moreover, your assertion that Pioneer funded the research is just that, an
assertion. No proof has ever been offered or cited. It may or may not have
been funded by a consortium...but if so, that is common practice in many
contries, including Great Britain and the United States.


Nice sidestep, Harry...........

Was JJ's work at
AT&T invalid because it was privately funded? The validity depends on how
well the study was done and the results, peer-reviewed.


Quite so - and the Oohashi results remain uncorroborated.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


Peer-reviewed and accepted as sound research is one thing, Stewart.
Coorroborated is another. I said the research was reviewed and accepted for
publication. I didn't say it had yet been corroborated. The corroboration
work is proceeding as we write, I believe. Corroboration of complex
research requiring special facilities and equipment is not a "quick and
easy" job. I have posted this fact several times on various forums. Your
reply is simply so much smoke.




  #56   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message

So, whose business is it? Who are you to tell people how much they are
permitted to spend on their equipment?


False claim, nobody has said any such thing. What has been said is, that it
is foolish to waste money on expensive cables, since they are incapable of
sounding different from normally priced ones.

Bascically, you know
that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up,
there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to
each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected?
Why do you not trust your ears alone?

I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system,
because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any
blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology.


The reason is to make sure that it's your ears alone being used to make the
determination.

I was
convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully
conducted.


Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori.





I have no 'beliefs'. There is only the conclusion that since what what
I heard changed with the product, the the product is the cause of the
change in what I heard. A belief is something that is held without any
kind of evidence, perhaps because it is what one is told.


Actually that's a definition of faith.

You believe that you heard a difference, but there is no evidence that
this 'difference' has any physical existence - hence it's simply your
belief.


Oh, is that so?

Yes.

What would make you so hesitant, based on all the research, that you
shouldn't try doing the comparison blind?

Bottom line, there is no such thing as cable sound difference if the cables
are of any decent quality. Any claim to the contrary, is an extraordinary
one and is out of synch with everything known about the nature of hearing
and the properties of wire.

  #57   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steven Sullivan wrote:


The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable
in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the
case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote
possibility.


There has to be something to reinforce, no?


Yes, but the 'something' can easily be an erroneous first impression. How do you
demonstrate that it wasn't?


Why do I have to demonstrate it to anybody? Are you the audio purchase
police?

You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.

Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'.

It is contrary to everything we know about cables and about human
hearing.


"We"? What do you mean, "we"?


Oh, engineers, physicists, psychologists, those sorts of people.


Oh, really? Were they sitting next to me? I don't think so!


*Of course* it's an extraordinary claim. Your continued
denial will not alter this most obvious fact.


What an extraordinary claim is is, fortunately, not defined by Stewart
Pinkerton. We have many good philosophers and scientists who have
discussed such issues, and I can say with confidence that claiming to
hear differences among amps, CD players, and cables, is not an
'extraordinary claim'.


Are these particular philosophers and scientists knowledgeable about
what the engineers, physicists, and psychologists have learned?


What have tey learned about what I can hear in my room?

Read it again. I did not say that others do not make *claims*.
Interesting however that not one of these vocal few has actually
stepped up to the plate.


You're beginning to bore me.


Might we then anticipate your retirement from your misguided and
often flat-out erroneous (e.g. resolution) attempts at argument, soon?


This group is specifically set up to discuss high-end audio. You're not
doing that. You're trying to say there is no such thing as high-end
audio.

I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system,
because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any
blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was
convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully
conducted.

Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori.


I don't remember you...sitting next to me.


Alas, your own description reveals its inherent flaws.


You cannot 'argue' facts out of existence. I'll trust my senses before
I'll trust someone in a discussion group.

You can, of course, continue to claim
that resolution means frequency extension, that what you hear
must be real because you really believe it is, or other
such black-is-white assertions from what seems to be a profound
urge to wish-fulfillment rather than reason,
but from here on I intend to do no more than
just continue to watch Mssrs. Pinkerton,
Pierce, et al. eviscerate your arguments.
Your posts will be filed accordingly.



--

-S


  #58   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 15 Sep 2005 02:59:18 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT,
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to
tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was
connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously
extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof.

I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with
the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of
my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the
possibility of halucination is remote.


The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable
in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the
case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote
possibility.


There has to be something to reinforce, no?


That would be your first impression, likely formed bedfore the music
starts. I think you've been around here long enough that we know this
will be directly related to the prestige of the badge.

You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.

Here we go again. It is NOT an 'extraordinary claim'.


It is contrary to everything we know about cables and about human
hearing.


"We"? What do you mean, "we"?


The accumulated body of human knowledge. Scientists and engineers, if
you like.

*Of course* it's an extraordinary claim. Your continued
denial will not alter this most obvious fact.


What an extraordinary claim is is, fortunately, not defined by Stewart
Pinkerton.


Nor indeed by you - despite your vigorous assertiuons.

We have many good philosophers and scientists who have
discussed such issues, and I can say with confidence that claiming to
hear differences among ampas, CD players, and cables, is not an
'extraordinary claim'.


You say *everything* with great confidence. Little of it is actually
true, however...............

I have posted links to discussions of what an
'extraordinary claim' is, and you have ignored them.


Actually, you are the one who has used 'edited highlights' in
evidence, while ignoring the basic fact that an extraordinary claim is
simply one which requires a suspension of acceptance of the body of
human knowledge. In this regard, hearing differences among cables is
right up there with alien abduction. After all, we can't *prove* that
aliens don't exist, can we?

(Moderator: how does this post get through?)

[Moderator note: The same way yours do. -- deb ]


LOL! :-)

Isn't it interesting that it's *always* the confidently asserting
'subjectivists' who want to silence the voice of reason? :-)

You are the one who needs to provide proof of your extraordinary claim
that *you* can hear what no one else has been able to hear.

False on its face. I am not the only one who makes such a claim, and
you know it.


Read it again. I did not say that others do not make *claims*.
Interesting however that not one of these vocal few has actually
stepped up to the plate.


You're beginning to bore me.


Lack of response noted. Also, you're assuming that I care.

It's pretty hard to
find a bad one these days - unless you spend a fortune on a 'high-end'
player, which is often subject to the most horrific and elementary
errors of design, and can indeed sound different from 'mainstream'
players.

Mark Levinson?

Indeed, the original 'Reference' DAC charged $10,000 for the privilege
of listening to a pretty average DAC which had virtually no immunity
from jitter in the incoming data stream. You certainly could hear
differences among transports with that dog!

I heard the whole set-up (transport and DAC) and the combo sounded
quite beautiful.


So what? Any decent CD player sounds quite beautiful - depending on
the CD, of course! To pay more than $20,000 for such a device is a
pretty foolish indulgence, unless you already own the world's best
speakers and have them installed in an acoustically perfect room.


So, whose business is it? Who are you to tell people how much they are
permitted to spend on their equipment?


I'm doing no such thing, I'm simply pointing out that it's a foolish
indulgence - much like buying Leica gear. I will graciously permit you
to continue demonstrating such foolishness as long as you like.

Ever considered just how similar this marketing spiel is to silly bits
of audio gear like the Ah Tjoeb CD player, which brings a 'mainstream'
Marantz CD player 'up to audiophile standards'.....................

Not the same thing. The Leitz lenses were redesigned by their original
designers to meet Leitz's standards. What matters is the performance,
and whether they met the Leitz standards. These were not 'tweaks' but
redesigns.


Hogwash - they were simply tweaks. Your logic is fatally flawed, since
Leitz would not have needed to buy in the designs from Zeiss and
Schneider if they had been capable of designing them in-house.


They were not capable of designing them in-house until they had more
time to study the various problems of retro-focus wide-angle designs.
Remember, this was 1968! Leitz's experience did not include retro-focus
lens design. In the meantime, they needed product to sell. Lots of
companies do this. I remember testing the 21mm Super-Angulon-R f/4
(Leitz-made, Scheider design) against the 20mm Nikkor f/3,5. There was
no contest. The SA trounced the Nikkor. Seven years later, in about
1975, Leitz Canada came out with a 19mm f/2,8 design that represented
an advance over the 21mm SA. It was one stop faster and had higher
contrast. Fifteen years later (1990) and improved second-generation
19mm was introduced. It is superb and represents state-of-the-art
performance in the 18-21mm focal length range. There is no equal made
by anyone.


I doubt that Zeiss, Canon or Nikon would agree with you, especially
given the outstanding quality of the 1978 Nikon 20mm f4 - but thanks
for finally admitting that Leitz bought in lens designs because they
had less design ability than Zeiss or Schneider.

But all this took time.


Bascically, you know
that you'd fail, so you trot out this old excuse. Well, heads up,
there's no reason not to listen for hours, days or weeks at a time to
each item, so why is it so critical that you *know* what's connected?
Why do you not trust your ears alone?

I did. I could not help but 'know' which ones were in the system,
because I had to unplug them and replace them. I did not 'avoid' any
blindeness, but I had no reason to pursue such a methodology. I was
convinced by the results of the comparison, which was carefully
conducted.


Clearly, it was *far* from carefully conducted, a priori.


I don't remember you...sitting next to me.


No need - since you already admitted that was a *sighted* test, and
hence worthless.

I have no 'beliefs'. There is only the conclusion that since what what
I heard changed with the product, the the product is the cause of the
change in what I heard. A belief is something that is held without any
kind of evidence, perhaps because it is what one is told.


You believe that you heard a difference, but there is no evidence that
this 'difference' has any physical existence - hence it's simply your
belief.


Oh, is that so?


Yes, it is so.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #59   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[Moderator note: No more camera lens discussion please. -- deb ]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

I have posted links to discussions of what an
'extraordinary claim' is, and you have ignored them.


Actually, you are the one who has used 'edited highlights' in
evidence, while ignoring the basic fact that an extraordinary claim is
simply one which requires a suspension of acceptance of the body of
human knowledge. In this regard, hearing differences among cables is
right up there with alien abduction. After all, we can't *prove* that
aliens don't exist, can we?


But there is no good reason to suppose they do. That is not the case
with audio products. There are many people who can hear differences
between products. I am one of them.


(Moderator: how does this post get through?)

[Moderator note: The same way yours do. -- deb ]


LOL! :-)

Isn't it interesting that it's *always* the confidently asserting
'subjectivists' who want to silence the voice of reason? :-)


Not so. It's just that you seem to be a broken record. Your arguments
carry no weight and fly in the face of experience.



So, whose business is it? Who are you to tell people how much they are
permitted to spend on their equipment?


I'm doing no such thing, I'm simply pointing out that it's a foolish
indulgence - much like buying Leica gear.


This response is telling. My Leica gear is the best investment I have
ever made. It is demonstrably superior in mechanical and optical
quality and in durability. It is actually cheaper in the long run. But
since you obviously don't understand the economics of this, it will be
your loss.

I will graciously permit you
to continue demonstrating such foolishness as long as you like.


I liked the term 'indulgence' better. The problem, as I see it, is
simply that you're cheap.


Ever considered just how similar this marketing spiel is to silly bits
of audio gear like the Ah Tjoeb CD player, which brings a 'mainstream'
Marantz CD player 'up to audiophile standards'.....................

Not the same thing. The Leitz lenses were redesigned by their original
designers to meet Leitz's standards. What matters is the performance,
and whether they met the Leitz standards. These were not 'tweaks' but
redesigns.

Hogwash - they were simply tweaks. Your logic is fatally flawed, since
Leitz would not have needed to buy in the designs from Zeiss and
Schneider if they had been capable of designing them in-house.


They were not capable of designing them in-house until they had more
time to study the various problems of retro-focus wide-angle designs.
Remember, this was 1968! Leitz's experience did not include retro-focus
lens design. In the meantime, they needed product to sell. Lots of
companies do this. I remember testing the 21mm Super-Angulon-R f/4
(Leitz-made, Scheider design) against the 20mm Nikkor f/3,5. There was
no contest. The SA trounced the Nikkor. Seven years later, in about
1975, Leitz Canada came out with a 19mm f/2,8 design that represented
an advance over the 21mm SA. It was one stop faster and had higher
contrast. Fifteen years later (1990) and improved second-generation
19mm was introduced. It is superb and represents state-of-the-art
performance in the 18-21mm focal length range. There is no equal made
by anyone.


I doubt that Zeiss, Canon or Nikon would agree with you, especially
given the outstanding quality of the 1978 Nikon 20mm f4


The Leitz 21mm Schneider-desined SA came out in 1968. At that time, the
21mm Leitz lens blasted the then-current 20mm 3.5 Nikkor.

The 19mm Canadian Leitz design came out in 1975.

- but thanks
for finally admitting that Leitz bought in lens designs because they
had less design ability than Zeiss or Schneider.


They had another design team in Canada along with production
facilities. Between the two, a lot of good lenses came out in the 70's
and 80's. But it does take time to design lenses that meet Leitz
standards.


I don't remember you...sitting next to me.


No need - since you already admitted that was a *sighted* test, and
hence worthless.


I'll not dignify this with a response.


  #62   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 25 Sep 2005 20:51:29 GMT, wrote:

[Moderator note: No more camera lens discussion please. -- deb ]

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

I have posted links to discussions of what an
'extraordinary claim' is, and you have ignored them.


Actually, you are the one who has used 'edited highlights' in
evidence, while ignoring the basic fact that an extraordinary claim is
simply one which requires a suspension of acceptance of the body of
human knowledge. In this regard, hearing differences among cables is
right up there with alien abduction. After all, we can't *prove* that
aliens don't exist, can we?


But there is no good reason to suppose they do. That is not the case
with audio products. There are many people who can hear differences
between products. I am one of them.


You keep repeating this assertion, but that's all it is, until such
time as you try it when you don't *know* what's connected. No one else
has yet passed this crucial test. Of course, if you're actually an
alien or a typing dog, that might be different.

(Moderator: how does this post get through?)

[Moderator note: The same way yours do. -- deb ]


LOL! :-)

Isn't it interesting that it's *always* the confidently asserting
'subjectivists' who want to silence the voice of reason? :-)


Not so. It's just that you seem to be a broken record. Your arguments
carry no weight and fly in the face of experience.


If I seem to be a broken record, that's because nothing has changed.
People like you come along, make wild claims about hearing 'cable
sound', and then magically disappear when challenged to demonstrate
that they can hear such differences when they don't *know* which cable
is connected.

Those arguments carrry the weight of all current scientific knowledge,
and the experience has been unchanging for six years or so. Where's
the beef? Where's the one single person in the world who *really*
trusts their ears and can *really* hear 'cable sound'?

photographic bit snipped at moderator insistence

I will graciously permit you
to continue demonstrating such foolishness as long as you like.


I liked the term 'indulgence' better. The problem, as I see it, is
simply that you're cheap.


No, I always buy the best. Just not always the most expensive. That
leaves more money for buying the best of something else.

I don't remember you...sitting next to me.


No need - since you already admitted that was a *sighted* test, and
hence worthless.


I'll not dignify this with a response.


What a surprise..........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #65   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


If I seem to be a broken record, that's because nothing has changed.
People like you come along, make wild claims about hearing 'cable
sound', and then magically disappear when challenged to demonstrate
that they can hear such differences when they don't *know* which cable
is connected.



The only conditions that matter are listening in my own familiar room
to my own system. If anyone can manage to make this unsighted, fine.



  #66   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 27 Sep 2005 02:10:22 GMT, wrote:

wrote:
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


After all, we can't *prove* that
aliens don't exist, can we?

But there is no good reason to suppose they do. That is not the case
with audio products.


Yes it is. Every audible difference must have a physical cause, and
there is no known (or even seriously hypothesized) physical cause for
an audible difference between two wires with similar electrical
characteristics.


Who says they have 'similar electrical characteristics'? I presume they
certainly do not.


You presume without knowledge. Aside from resistance, which is purely
a function of wire gauge, there's not much variation in electrical
paremeters, despite what slick salesmen like George Cardas will try to
tell you. The extreme ends of the reactance scale are represented by
Kimber 8TC and Alpha-Core 'Goertz' MI at the low-inductance end, and
Naim NACA5 at the high-inductance end.

I've compared ten-foot lengths of the Kimber and Naim cables into a 3
ohm load, and there's less than 1dB difference at 20kHz, and of course
less as frequency reduces. Since this is significantly less than the
variation common between two tweeters in the same pair of speakers, I
doubt that it's audible.

Note that the standard entry criterion for a DBT comparison is a
requirement of matching to less than 0.2dB at 10kHz, which would mean
that the cables actually do have pretty similar basic LCR electrical
characteristics. If someone wants to bring a ludicrously extreme cable
to the party, I can simulate any 'audiophile' cable, including the
$1,000 a foot guys, for less than a buck a foot.

Just because you don't know the science doesn't mean
the science doesn't exist.

There are many people who can hear differences
between products. I am one of them.


No, you just one of those who still THINKS he can, because he's never
made a comparison that follows standard scientific research practice.
Just because you don't know the science doesn't mean the science
doesn't exist.


Quite so.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #67   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart:

Even I am not so naive as to imagine that cables that are electrically
identical in all ways will not sound the same. They will. he trouble is
that we may not be able to measure all of the electrical values. I
presume that some small electrical differences exist between the $100
Monster interconnect cables and the $50 Monster interconnect cables.

It could be something as simple as better connections......

I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether
you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them...

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 27 Sep 2005 02:10:22 GMT, wrote:

wrote:
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

After all, we can't *prove* that
aliens don't exist, can we?

But there is no good reason to suppose they do. That is not the case
with audio products.

Yes it is. Every audible difference must have a physical cause, and
there is no known (or even seriously hypothesized) physical cause for
an audible difference between two wires with similar electrical
characteristics.


Who says they have 'similar electrical characteristics'? I presume they
certainly do not.


You presume without knowledge. Aside from resistance, which is purely
a function of wire gauge, there's not much variation in electrical
paremeters, despite what slick salesmen like George Cardas will try to
tell you. The extreme ends of the reactance scale are represented by
Kimber 8TC and Alpha-Core 'Goertz' MI at the low-inductance end, and
Naim NACA5 at the high-inductance end.

I've compared ten-foot lengths of the Kimber and Naim cables into a 3
ohm load, and there's less than 1dB difference at 20kHz, and of course
less as frequency reduces. Since this is significantly less than the
variation common between two tweeters in the same pair of speakers, I
doubt that it's audible.

Note that the standard entry criterion for a DBT comparison is a
requirement of matching to less than 0.2dB at 10kHz, which would mean
that the cables actually do have pretty similar basic LCR electrical
characteristics. If someone wants to bring a ludicrously extreme cable
to the party, I can simulate any 'audiophile' cable, including the
$1,000 a foot guys, for less than a buck a foot.

Just because you don't know the science doesn't mean
the science doesn't exist.

There are many people who can hear differences
between products. I am one of them.

No, you just one of those who still THINKS he can, because he's never
made a comparison that follows standard scientific research practice.
Just because you don't know the science doesn't mean the science
doesn't exist.


Quite so.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #70   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


This has been done with several people who claimed 'night and day'
differences such as you have done. Same result in each case - the
'obvious' differences mysteriously vanish when you don't *know* what's
connected.


The differences were not 'night and day', but subtle. 'Subtle' does not
mean 'non-existent', however. Don't distort or misquote me.



  #73   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 29 Sep 2005 02:09:20 GMT, wrote:

Stewart:

Even I am not so naive as to imagine that cables that are electrically
identical in all ways will not sound the same. They will. he trouble is
that we may not be able to measure all of the electrical values.


Utter nonsense, we can *easily* measure all the electrical parameters
associated with cables. Remember, that +/- 0.1dB entrance criterion
for level-matched testing is about 1%, a considerable difference to
anyone interested in measurements alone. My own test gear is a
thousand times more sensitive than that.

I presume that some small electrical differences exist between the $100
Monster interconnect cables and the $50 Monster interconnect cables.


Indeed, there will be small differences in R, L, and C, but so long as
they don't cause more than 0.2dB of difference at 10kHz - which is
unlikely - then there will not be any *audible* difference.

It could be something as simple as better connections......

I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether
you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them...


You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous
occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious
reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist". Well, the reality is
that you only *imagined* that you heard it, and it does *not* really
exist. Furthermore, this is easily proved, so what's your problem?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #74   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 29 Sep 2005 03:40:30 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

wrote:
Stewart:


Even I am not so naive as to imagine that cables that are electrically
identical in all ways will not sound the same. They will. he trouble is
that we may not be able to measure all of the electrical values.


Which electrical values might we not be able to measure? (I mean
real ones, not imaginary ones.)


With a good reactance meter, you can also measure the imaginary
components! :-)

[ Moderator note: I wondered if anyone was going to catch that. --
deb]

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #76   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 15 Sep 2005 02:59:18 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT,
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to
tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was
connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously
extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof.

I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with
the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of
my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the
possibility of halucination is remote.

The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable
in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the
case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote
possibility.


There has to be something to reinforce, no?


That would be your first impression, likely formed bedfore the music
starts. I think you've been around here long enough that we know this
will be directly related to the prestige of the badge.


I wish that reviewers listened to equipment blind, for the purposes of
audio reviews, and that many audiophiles would choose equipment by
listening without knowing its identity. The latter doesn't happen for
mostly practical reasons; the former should happen. Presumably they
have the resources.

If one doesn't know the identity, then at least we can narrow down the
reported reaction to (1) the sound, (2) the reviewer's mood or other
random neuronal firing.

Mike

  #79   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 15 Sep 2005 02:59:18 GMT,
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 13 Sep 2005 03:43:39 GMT,
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

No 'authority' required, not one single person has *ever* been able to
tell nominally competent wires apart when they didn't *know* what was
connected. Your persistent claim that *you* can is obviously
extraordinary, yet you refuse to offer proof.

I don't have to. I claim only that I hear a difference consistent with
the change of the product in the chain, which is, of course a report of
my own experience. It was a consistent, repeatable experience, so the
possibility of halucination is remote.

The reality of the situation is that consistency is almost inevitable
in this case. See 'reinforcement' in any psy textbook. It's also the
case that real audible differences among cables is an extremely remote
possibility.

There has to be something to reinforce, no?


That would be your first impression, likely formed bedfore the music
starts. I think you've been around here long enough that we know this
will be directly related to the prestige of the badge.


I wish that reviewers listened to equipment blind, for the purposes of
audio reviews, and that many audiophiles would choose equipment by
listening without knowing its identity. The latter doesn't happen for
mostly practical reasons; the former should happen. Presumably they
have the resources.



Actually, I'm being told over and over on RAO that 'it doesn't matter'
to consumers whether the differences they hear are 'real' or not.
It only matters that they're real to *them*.

Needless to say, I find this viewpoint curiously incurious, not to
mention a boon to snake-oil salesmen.

If one doesn't know the identity, then at least we can narrow down the
reported reaction to (1) the sound, (2) the reviewer's mood or other
random neuronal firing.


And in the second case, it's inappropriate to attribute the 'sound' to the
gear. Do you think reviewers in , say, Stereophile, will agree?



--

-S

  #80   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Sep 2005 02:09:20 GMT, wrote:

Stewart:

Even I am not so naive as to imagine that cables that are electrically
identical in all ways will not sound the same. They will. he trouble is
that we may not be able to measure all of the electrical values.


Utter nonsense, we can *easily* measure all the electrical parameters
associated with cables. Remember, that +/- 0.1dB entrance criterion
for level-matched testing is about 1%, a considerable difference to
anyone interested in measurements alone. My own test gear is a
thousand times more sensitive than that.

I presume that some small electrical differences exist between the $100
Monster interconnect cables and the $50 Monster interconnect cables.


Indeed, there will be small differences in R, L, and C, but so long as
they don't cause more than 0.2dB of difference at 10kHz - which is
unlikely - then there will not be any *audible* difference.

It could be something as simple as better connections......

I don't know, or care to know, what those differences are, or whether
you can measure them...all I know is that I can HEAR them...


You *know* no such thing. This has been explained to you on numerous
occasions, but you refuse to accept it. You have the classic religious
reply of "I heard it, so it *must* really exist".


I think it is more likely that Uranium Committee is skeptical that your
paradigm is sufficient to demonstrate that differences do not exist,
just as I am. On the other hand, condescending to those you disagree
with certainly has a ring of religious dogma to it...

Mike

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Free Ipods JayD7217 Vacuum Tubes 1 April 25th 05 01:06 AM
Nothing but 100% Pure Audiogon Customer Satisfaction Sound Emporium Marketplace 0 February 28th 05 03:34 PM
FS: AMPS $25 SPEAKERS $19 PAIR - FREE SHIPPING NEXXON Pro Audio 0 August 21st 04 04:28 AM
Market Your Product? www.ttdown.com Audio Opinions 0 April 28th 04 06:01 PM
Yet another DBT post Andrew Korsh High End Audio 205 February 29th 04 07:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:39 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"