Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
|
#242
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:10:42 +0300, Fella wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:55:52 +0300, Fella wrote: Sorry - your tone is just far too rude for me to join this one. If you can't be even a little civilized, I'm not interested. Oh my! A fourth item to the list: I need to learn some manners too I guess. Here is a copy-paste of the ORIGINAL post, Mr Pearce, no cuss words there, dig in: ------------------------------------------------------------- Fella Jan 19, 8:25 am Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion From: Fella - Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:25:56 +0200 Local: Wed,Jan 19 2005 8:25 am Subject: James Randi: "Wire is not wire. I accept that." I sent this email to: ' "Greetings, I am an "audio quack" as you would put it. I can hear sonic differences between amplifiers, CD players, even WIRE, speaker wire. Is your challenge applicable to, for instance, speaker cables? Mine certainly is - indeed, it's specifically *for* cables. The self made speaker cables I am currently using (you are free to measure and examine these using pink noise, etc, prior to putting them to the test) against radioshack lamp cords. I am claiming that I can hear the difference as to which is employed each and every time. Since "wire is wire" this must fall into the realm of your challenge. No problem. Care to make it interesting by putting your own money where your fat mouth is? I do have my reservations though: !) A revealing amplifier (densen beat b 100 mk5, for instance), high quality speakers (sonus faber cremona floorstanders for instance) and a decent CD player will be used to conduct the test. No problem. And you can use any music you like, and any volume level you like. !!) No abx comparator boxes in between, the wires should be interchanged manually. No problem. !!!) Someone I trust (but of course I will not have any sort of eye contact, or any form of other contact with him/her duration of the test) to actually observe that the wires are being changed (or not) and the data recorded" No problem, a third-party proctor acceptable to both parties is a standard part of the deal. James Randi replied that: "There are big differences between lamp cord and larger-gauge cable. That's not the question, at all. Wire is not wire. I accept that." More on "challenging the million dollar challenge" later. This post, on a FYI basis. Randi failed to stipulate one simple condition - regardless of the nature of the two cables, they must provide the same voltage level at the speaker terminals +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz. No problem for me to match any 'audiophile' cable of your choice in that regard, with a few feet of cheap 'zipcord' and perhaps a few pennies worth of capacitors for the really bizarre stuff like MIT and Transparent cables with the 'network boxes'. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:10:42 +0300, Fella wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:55:52 +0300, Fella wrote: Sorry - your tone is just far too rude for me to join this one. If you can't be even a little civilized, I'm not interested. Oh my! A fourth item to the list: I need to learn some manners too I guess. Here is a copy-paste of the ORIGINAL post, Mr Pearce, no cuss words there, dig in: ------------------------------------------------------------- Fella Jan 19, 8:25 am Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion From: Fella - Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:25:56 +0200 Local: Wed,Jan 19 2005 8:25 am Subject: James Randi: "Wire is not wire. I accept that." I sent this email to: ' "Greetings, I am an "audio quack" as you would put it. I can hear sonic differences between amplifiers, CD players, even WIRE, speaker wire. Is your challenge applicable to, for instance, speaker cables? Mine certainly is - indeed, it's specifically *for* cables. The self made speaker cables I am currently using (you are free to measure and examine these using pink noise, etc, prior to putting them to the test) against radioshack lamp cords. I am claiming that I can hear the difference as to which is employed each and every time. Since "wire is wire" this must fall into the realm of your challenge. No problem. Care to make it interesting by putting your own money where your fat mouth is? I do have my reservations though: !) A revealing amplifier (densen beat b 100 mk5, for instance), high quality speakers (sonus faber cremona floorstanders for instance) and a decent CD player will be used to conduct the test. No problem. And you can use any music you like, and any volume level you like. !!) No abx comparator boxes in between, the wires should be interchanged manually. No problem. !!!) Someone I trust (but of course I will not have any sort of eye contact, or any form of other contact with him/her duration of the test) to actually observe that the wires are being changed (or not) and the data recorded" No problem, a third-party proctor acceptable to both parties is a standard part of the deal. James Randi replied that: "There are big differences between lamp cord and larger-gauge cable. That's not the question, at all. Wire is not wire. I accept that." More on "challenging the million dollar challenge" later. This post, on a FYI basis. Randi failed to stipulate one simple condition - regardless of the nature of the two cables, they must provide the same voltage level at the speaker terminals +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz. No problem for me to match any 'audiophile' cable of your choice in that regard, with a few feet of cheap 'zipcord' and perhaps a few pennies worth of capacitors for the really bizarre stuff like MIT and Transparent cables with the 'network boxes'. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:01:02 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote: Fella said: http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html eyes shut or open all I heard was some dude saying "da da da da".. Strange.....all I heard was "BaBaBaBa", either with my eyes open or closed. Is there a conclusion to draw from this? You are unusually wired? :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton said:
Is there a conclusion to draw from this? You are unusually wired? :-) Make that unusually weird and I'll agree with you! -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:38:40 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote: (Don Pearce) said: So I ask the experts again: how relevant is double blind testing of components for the end consumer? And why has it to be forced upon people discussing audio gear in an audio hobby- or opinion group? It is of no relevance at all. Anyone is free to buy what he wants, for whatever reason he wants. I assume this means even when the thick faceplate is supposed to make an amp sound "better"? g Particularly so! Add a few blue LEDs and the sound becomes mega hi fi. But here we are on rec.audio.tech; we aren't typical end consumers and we are discussing the technicalities of audio. So if someone claims that A has a better sound than B, that becomes a valid topic for discussion. That goes double when interesting side issues such as the psychology of hearing make such enormous impacts on the wa we hear things. I'm sorry, I was reading this from RAOpinion, where people have a slightly different outlook. Ah! It is always the first on the list that counts. But nevertheless, even in RATech, there must be posts every now and then from people who changed the coupling caps in their amp from stock to Mundorf-Gate Wonderblack MITChateauRoux BumbleBees, with stellar results. That would be inventors bias rather than sighted bias. It is even stronger and more pernicious. One can hardly expect this to really be the case, unless something else than just sound quality (!) enters the field . So, the phenomenon we observed above is just as valid in designing, building and modifying (existing) gear as it is in selecting complete components for an audio system. One would hope that a commercial designer wouldn't fall for such novice errors, and would blind test all major design steps after having checked by measurement that the thing is doing what he wants. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
|
#248
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:51:32 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: It's not a real problem - you just use a shorter length of thinner zipcord, so that the inductive treble drop of the zipcord falls within the required tolerance band, while maintaining reasonably equal loop resistance to the longer, thicker cable. FYI, I have compared fifteen feet of highly inductive Naim NACA5 (my own speaker cable, as it happens), with a similar length low-inductance construction made from multistrand computer cable, using my own low-impedance Apogee speakers. Despite a 1.2dB difference at 20kHz, no audible difference was heard by five listeners, even on acoustic jazz with lots of cymbal work. I'm pretty confident that such basic LC differences aren't a problem in practice - but I expect that Fella will come up with plenty of ingenious excuses to avoid his pet fantasies being blown away............... -- I see that, but think of it this way. Frequency response errors caused by cable impedance should be part of the difference that the listener is trying to identify - they shouldn't be ironed out by equalization. I would suggest that levelling be done only at 1kHz, and allow whatever frequency response errors may result to stand. As you say, with any reasonable length of cable they just aren't going to be audible anyway. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton said:
FYI, I have compared fifteen feet of highly inductive Naim NACA5 (my own speaker cable, as it happens), ....... Please stop your silly naim-dropping. Thank you. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:24:39 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote: Umm......yes and no. I have polypropylen coupling caps in my tube and hybrid amps, and found them to be sounding vastly better after mounting them. I did a (single) blind listening test with ordinary Siemens MKTs, heard no difference. I took IM, THD, S/N and F measurements, no difference. Then I mounted them again, it sounded vastly better. So, while it is proven that there are no differences in sound quality, my *knowing* they're in there makes it so. And since that is the way I listen to music, fully knowing what's in my home made boxes, I left them in. Coherently put. But at what point during an evening would you let a visitor in on the secret so he could enjoy the better sound too? d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
|
#253
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:05:50 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote: (Don Pearce) said: Coherently put. But at what point during an evening would you let a visitor in on the secret so he could enjoy the better sound too? Ah, there we have it! I make stuff just for myself, and in the event that I sell the thing, I'm sure to let the future buyer know what's in the box. From there, 2 things can happen: #1. The poor victim actually knows what a polypropylen cap is, and knows how to determine its value (if not parrots the HE magazines *grin* ) , or: #2. The poor victim is so intimidated by the sheer look of the things (the size of beer cans) that he won't ask any questions. :-) Now here's a question. Suppose you told a listener which type of cap was in each of a pair of amps, but he wasn't aware of the significance - didn't know which was "supposed" to sound better, that is. He would be listening fully sighted, but would he hear a difference? And if he did, would he be statistically more likely to identify the "correct" amplifier as being better? d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
|
#256
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 21:16:46 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton said: FYI, I have compared fifteen feet of highly inductive Naim NACA5 (my own speaker cable, as it happens), ....... Please stop your silly naim-dropping. Thank you. Ah, you remember those classic adverts from the '70s? Those were the days. Personally, I preferred the Gale speaker adverts.... :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#257
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:42:10 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote: (Don Pearce) said: Now here's a question. Suppose you told a listener which type of cap was in each of a pair of amps, but he wasn't aware of the significance - didn't know which was "supposed" to sound better, that is. If this is of any significance: My wife, who is affected by my love for music and its reproduction, serves as some kind of proxy listener for me. I always let her listen first after I've modified something. He would be listening fully sighted, but would he hear a difference? She sometimes hears differences, but no doubt she's influenced by the (subconscious) clues I give her. I already taught her the difference btw. a ECC88 and a KT88...... Size matters! *grin* And if he did, would he be statistically more likely to identify the "correct" amplifier as being better? She mostly dislikes what I've done, it is seldom that she values a mod as an improvement. Although if my (subconscious) clues were solely responsible for her judgement, she would cry "hallelujah!" after every modification I've made :-) Not quite the scenario I had in mind. You told her which was your mod, and I guess it would depend on how many brownie points you had earned with her that day whether she voted for or against. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#258
|
|||
|
|||
|
#259
|
|||
|
|||
|
#261
|
|||
|
|||
|
#262
|
|||
|
|||
|
#263
|
|||
|
|||
There once was a man named Jack He went down to the Radio Shack He bought cheap wire.. But it failed to inspire So should we label him a quack? Hammingaway Inc. |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... As to why it must be forced on people discussing audio gear - it isn't.Nobody is obliged to read the thread, and most news readers have the facility to ignore a thread. On the other hand, as it is an audio group and not a music group, it is a topic which is very much central to the ethos of the group, and if you think otherwise, then in all probability you would do well to consider unsubscribing from it. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com You STILL haven't figured out that this thread is crossposted. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:55:05 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... As to why it must be forced on people discussing audio gear - it isn't.Nobody is obliged to read the thread, and most news readers have the facility to ignore a thread. On the other hand, as it is an audio group and not a music group, it is a topic which is very much central to the ethos of the group, and if you think otherwise, then in all probability you would do well to consider unsubscribing from it. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com You STILL haven't figured out that this thread is crossposted. Yes I have, but I never change the crossposting status of somebody else's thread, and I always post from the point of view of the primary group. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:55:05 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message .. . As to why it must be forced on people discussing audio gear - it isn't.Nobody is obliged to read the thread, and most news readers have the facility to ignore a thread. On the other hand, as it is an audio group and not a music group, it is a topic which is very much central to the ethos of the group, and if you think otherwise, then in all probability you would do well to consider unsubscribing from it. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com You STILL haven't figured out that this thread is crossposted. Yes I have, but I never change the crossposting status of somebody else's thread, and I always post from the point of view of the primary group. To you, the primary group is the one you usually post in. to me, the primary group is the one I usually post in. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:46:43 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:55:05 -0400, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message . .. As to why it must be forced on people discussing audio gear - it isn't.Nobody is obliged to read the thread, and most news readers have the facility to ignore a thread. On the other hand, as it is an audio group and not a music group, it is a topic which is very much central to the ethos of the group, and if you think otherwise, then in all probability you would do well to consider unsubscribing from it. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com You STILL haven't figured out that this thread is crossposted. Yes I have, but I never change the crossposting status of somebody else's thread, and I always post from the point of view of the primary group. To you, the primary group is the one you usually post in. to me, the primary group is the one I usually post in. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Which appears first in your headers? That is the primary group, whichever you may be posting in. That is a decision by the OP the other groups are essentially for information, just in case they are interested. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
Sander deWaal wrote:
Fella said: http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html eyes shut or open all I heard was some dude saying "da da da da".. Strange.....all I heard was "BaBaBaBa", either with my eyes open or closed. Is there a conclusion to draw from this? The conclusion is that we should never listen to music from our gear with our eyes open. |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
Why all this anger you pukey cocksucker? Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:00:55 +0300, Fella wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella wrote: Don Pearce wrote: Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias "psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias" you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is this "bias" the invention of the borg? I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they make those high-end gear so good looking. Never mind academic papers, Just beleive you me, eh, Mr. Pearce? Sure. Never mind academic papers, science says that you shouldn't beleive what you hear if you see it. Ok. Academic papers are not written about the bleedin' obvious! experience it for yourself Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests. Amps that sounded HUGELY different in the real world sounded confusingly similar when subjected to an ABX. I, in a sincere manner, relayed my observations to RAO also. That's because what you hear in an ABX test *is* the real world. What you *think* you hear in a sighted comparison is mostly happening *inside* your head. In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels, in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads. Indeed they do - so what? And THERE ARE NO thousand and one banana connections, level matching boxes, ABX relay boxes, etc in between the amps and the speakers. Nor need there be in an ABX test. Indeed, for a cable test you don't usually need any level-matching at all, you can simply swap the cables over. What's 'confusing' about that? So when you guys effectively *make* the amps sound similar with the abx premise, Utter bull**** - you're pathetically clinging to a baseless fantasy. and when you add memory effects, learning effects, and the strain of the tested to the equation the amps that sound vastly different in the real world sound similar in an artificial abx environment. No, they simply sound as they always did. If they really *do* sound different, then quick-switched DBTs are proven to tbe the *most* sensitive method of revealing subtle, but *real*, sonic differences. That brain-dead clowns like you imagine that they hear all kinds of things in sighted comparisons, does not change reality. I find it the least bit surprising that this phenomenon has confused you "objectivist" types. And is still confusing to you.. We ain't the ones who are confused here, Fella! :-) And why did you delete that part of my post that told you how to achieve what you demand - scared to find out, perhaps? I opened a new discussion on the subject with the header: Attn pinkerton, wire is not wire. No, you didn't - and wire most definitely is just wire, you cretin. You are cordially invited. http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html eyes shut or open all I heard was some dude saying "da da da da".. That proves that you're deaf, as well as an idiot......... |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:22:55 +0300, Fella wrote: Don Pearce wrote: Nobody argues that wire is wire. Absolutely nobody, yes. I certainly do argue that, but .. Shove that but up your butt you cocksucker! |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
You got your ass handed to you on a platter and you are asking for more,
that's all. I don't have the time. No academic papers about the bleedin obvious eh? You slimy cocksucker. "We say it so it's bleedin obvious". You slimy slimy piece of **** cocksucker! Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:16:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Fella" wrote in message et Don Pearce wrote: Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias "psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias" you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is this "bias" the invention of the borg? Great practical example suggested by a bright guy: http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html Sighted bias can make you *hear* something that was never said. Fella claims to hear 'da da da da', eyes open or closed. There seem only two logical choices: a) He's a brain-dead troll b) He's deaf I guess (c) both of the above, is certainly a possibility........ |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
Sander deWaal wrote:
(Don Pearce) said: Strange.....all I heard was "BaBaBaBa", either with my eyes open or closed. Is there a conclusion to draw from this? Fella has poor hearing and you have lousy eyesight? :-)))) Can you _*believe*_ the arrogance in these fools? |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:14:34 +0300, Fella wrote: So hearsay anecdotes like this and non-applicable, faulty abx/dbt:ing made you people lose faith in your own ears then? Am I correct? No, it's clowns like *you* .. NOW YOU BEHAVE YOU BRAINDEAD BORG! BE-HAVE! |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:10:42 +0300, Fella wrote: The self made speaker cables I am currently using (you are free to measure and examine these using pink noise, etc, prior to putting them to the test) against radioshack lamp cords. I am claiming that I can hear the difference as to which is employed each and every time. Since "wire is wire" this must fall into the realm of your challenge. No problem. Care to make it interesting by putting your own money where your fat mouth is? FAT MOUTH? EITHER YOU START TO BE-HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU COCKSUCKER OR I'LL COME AND KICK THE LIVING **** OUT OF YOU! |
#275
|
|||
|
|||
LOOK YOU PUKEY PIECE OF ****! I AM READY ANYTIME TO TAKE WHATEVER TWO-BIT CHALLENGE YOU HAVE. YES I CAN PUT MY OWN MONEY ON THIS. AND YES I HAVE DONE BLIND TESTING WITH CABLES AGAINST MY (EVEN SOME OF THE HIG-END STUFF) CABLES. ITS JUST THAT IF YOU DON'T BEHAVE I'LL KICK YOUR 60 YEAR OLD BUTT BEFORE AND AFTER THE TEST ALSO. SO BEHAVE YOU COCKSUCKER! Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:10:42 +0300, Fella wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:55:52 +0300, Fella wrote: Sorry - your tone is just far too rude for me to join this one. If you can't be even a little civilized, I'm not interested. Oh my! A fourth item to the list: I need to learn some manners too I guess. Here is a copy-paste of the ORIGINAL post, Mr Pearce, no cuss words there, dig in: ------------------------------------------------------------- Fella Jan 19, 8:25 am Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion From: Fella - Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:25:56 +0200 Local: Wed,Jan 19 2005 8:25 am Subject: James Randi: "Wire is not wire. I accept that." I sent this email to: ' "Greetings, I am an "audio quack" as you would put it. I can hear sonic differences between amplifiers, CD players, even WIRE, speaker wire. Is your challenge applicable to, for instance, speaker cables? Mine certainly is - indeed, it's specifically *for* cables. The self made speaker cables I am currently using (you are free to measure and examine these using pink noise, etc, prior to putting them to the test) against radioshack lamp cords. I am claiming that I can hear the difference as to which is employed each and every time. Since "wire is wire" this must fall into the realm of your challenge. No problem. Care to make it interesting by putting your own money where your fat mouth is? I do have my reservations though: !) A revealing amplifier (densen beat b 100 mk5, for instance), high quality speakers (sonus faber cremona floorstanders for instance) and a decent CD player will be used to conduct the test. No problem. And you can use any music you like, and any volume level you like. !!) No abx comparator boxes in between, the wires should be interchanged manually. No problem. !!!) Someone I trust (but of course I will not have any sort of eye contact, or any form of other contact with him/her duration of the test) to actually observe that the wires are being changed (or not) and the data recorded" No problem, a third-party proctor acceptable to both parties is a standard part of the deal. James Randi replied that: "There are big differences between lamp cord and larger-gauge cable. That's not the question, at all. Wire is not wire. I accept that." More on "challenging the million dollar challenge" later. This post, on a FYI basis. Randi failed to stipulate one simple condition - regardless of the nature of the two cables, they must provide the same voltage level at the speaker terminals +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz. No problem for me to match any 'audiophile' cable of your choice in that regard, with a few feet of cheap 'zipcord' and perhaps a few pennies worth of capacitors for the really bizarre stuff like MIT and Transparent cables with the 'network boxes'. |
#276
|
|||
|
|||
|
#277
|
|||
|
|||
jclause wrote:
In article , says... FYI, I have compared fifteen feet of highly inductive Naim NACA5 (my own speaker cable, as it happens), with a similar length low-inductance construction made from multistrand computer cable, using my own low-impedance Apogee speakers. Despite a 1.2dB difference at 20kHz, no audible difference was heard by five listeners, even on acoustic jazz with lots of cymbal work. With hi-dollar wire some are obsessed... With its cost and looks they are impressed But I'd like to suggest They do a blind test.. Then with savings of money they'll be blessed. Hammingaway Inc. Hi jclause, our regular poet hemmingway.. Actually, one of the only blind tests that *worked* that I did was with wires. |
#278
|
|||
|
|||
|
#279
|
|||
|
|||
EddieM wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote EddieM wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote If they really could hear a difference under other conditions, then they'd hear it under DBT. History tells us that these claimed 'night and day' differences mysteriously vanish when the listener doesn't actually *know* what's connected. As you know, you and Don Pearce are both contradicting one another here who stated earlier that the DBT is a test about identified differences only and NOT a test about the ability to identify. This a very good point. Time to change the meds, Eddie.................... No rebuttal ? "Koward." Well when pukey has no rebuttal it will be so that it's "bleedin obvious" and that the other side has a "fat mouth" or "take their medicine" etc.. you know, the usual pukey-borg ****tyness. |
#280
|
|||
|
|||
Fella wrote EddieM wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote EddieM wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote If they really could hear a difference under other conditions, then they'd hear it under DBT. History tells us that these claimed 'night and day' differences mysteriously vanish when the listener doesn't actually *know* what's connected. As you know, you and Don Pearce are both contradicting one another here who stated earlier that the DBT is a test about identified differences only and NOT a test about the ability to identify. This a very good point. Thanks Fella. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Arny vs. Atkinson debat - Could someone post a blow by blow? | Audio Opinions | |||
The Bill May Report on Single-Ended Output Transformers for 300B etc | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Sub Amps - a Follow up Question | Tech | |||
Yet another DBT post | High End Audio | |||
Run Rabbit Run | Vacuum Tubes |