Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.

Even though there are millions out there picking and choosing
components and cables and changing cables...this little group
still tends to "have all the answers". There is a tendency to
measure things...with a limited tool set. This is a small vocal
minority with an Engineering mindset..for the most part!

Suggestions have been made that they cannot get to the
real issues of the measurement and numericalizing of the
audio domain until more extended toolsets are developed.

As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding
our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not yet
know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work and
makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a rather
oblique issue not related to electronics and cables, etc. Some*
that have written 100,000 responses on these Newsgroups, found
humor in the issue.

The point was that someday it is entirely possible that
once we get down to those most basic levels, some
scenarios as follows might evolve.

1. We might well be able to manipulate some particles
that, much like the Medical profession does with the
bloodstream, we inject elements to better measure
and determine what is going on there.

In this scenario in electronics it might well be possible
to superimpose an intense particle injection on top
of the audio stream and develop measurement
techniques on this most fundamental level that
can be interpreted. There is another sub-atomic
level of processes going on below the audio in
the wire. Who thinks something along these
lines is not attainable? Who thinks that the
measurement processes showing watts, volts
rise-times, etc..is the end of the trail?

Then some comments were made regarding
"...thinking outside of the lines.." This did not
sit too well with some. When, in fact it is these
types that are the "movers and shakers"..things
will get done by this "A" type personality. In fact,
there is an interesting article in the latest edition
of Stereophile regarding one of the individuals
that grasp much of the negative aspects of
metals and its use in Audio components. I suspect we
we shall someday find a bombardment in the
sub-atomic particle level that gives some
negative characteristics to metal in many
applications. There is another sub-particle
world down there...we are just not there yet.
We are still dabbling in a "broadbrush" dimension.

We must await the Scientist and their study
of what makes this all tick and hang together.
When we learn more, then, we will slowly begin
to develop tools and methods to manipulate
this sub-particle dimension. That opens mental
horizons never really touched upon. For example:
..what really causes the so-called "skin-effect" on
audio cables and its alteration of the audio***..I suspect
that when more basic info is available in the sub-particle
arena, there might be an alterable function in the wire
extrusion processes...where wire might well be
bombarded with a given set of sub-particles to achieve
a given effect. The power to manipulate our Universe
will take a quantum leap when we get down to
grasping these most basic particle issues.

The point of all this is that we still have a long way to
go and some basic work is still awaiting in most
disciplines. This basic work will not get accomplished
by the mindset that "we have the answers and if you
differ "..you have a problem with your imagination".
I don't accept that. This is not acceptable. I hear
differences in some cables..others do not!

Let us root for those hidden research Scientist
who are stiving to get all this basic info..it will
be a better Universe when they do..in many
disciplines!

The upshot of all this is to keep an open
mind.

* Interesting story about this kind of thing...

In the Italian Legislature Marconi was
held up for ridicule when one member
of the Legislature held up a wire** and
boldly stated "nothing can go through
this wire...there is no hole in it" This
was followed by a roaring laughter and
approval.

** (This was related to the antenna wire)

(The principle of RF energy was alien to this
group..naturally it must have a hole to flow
through..using their given set of knowledge)

The Legislative member was serious!
It was such a new and unbelievable concept!

Leonard...

*** This is an issue within Amateur radio and
certain wire antennas when loading the
antennas with RF.

lcw999 wrote:
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.


Not just engineering, but those who are aware of decades of
work in the psychology of human perception and judgement.

Don't forget taht "objectivism' in audio rests on *two* foundations:
1) technical properties of the components, media, and formats
2) psychological/psychoacoustic research

they are both essential to the argument.


Even though there are millions out there picking and choosing
components and cables and changing cables...this little group
still tends to "have all the answers".

Millions more simply buy the cable the guy at Best Buy recommends.

There is a tendency to
measure things...with a limited tool set. This is a small vocal
minority with an Engineering mindset..for the most part!


I question your understanding of the 'tool sets' involved, and of the
sophistication of some of the main engineering voices here.
*Your* grasp of science , from what I've seen, is dominated by
the sorts of things one gets from speculative, gee-whiz
'Tao of Physics'-like popularizations that border on the pseudoscientific,
when they don't pass over into it outright.

For example:

As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding
our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not yet
know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work and
makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a rather
oblique issue not related to electronics and cables, etc. Some*
that have written 100,000 responses on these Newsgroups, found
humor in the issue.

etc.

Alas, in a place like this, it's not enough to utter the words 'Sub-Particle
issues' or 'quantum mechanics' as if they explain anything --
you actually have to give evidence that they
might be relevant to audible difference. Sorry, even capitalizing them
won't help.






--

-S.

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

Steven Sullivan wrote:


lcw999 wrote:
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.


Not just engineering, but those who are aware of decades of
work in the psychology of human perception and judgement.

Don't forget taht "objectivism' in audio rests on *two* foundations:
1) technical properties of the components, media, and formats
2) psychological/psychoacoustic research

they are both essential to the argument.

And, with regard to the argument that we don't have a current tool set capable
of measuring particle elements in cabling I'm wondering why the cable-sound
element still been unable to demonstrate an ability to 'hear' these differences
when any level of bias control is installed. If the effect can be demonstrated
as real and remains unmeasurable then we have an issue. But when the effects
have never been shown to exist as a real acoustical phenomenon why should we
care?


Even though there are millions out there picking and choosing
components and cables and changing cables...this little group
still tends to "have all the answers".

Millions more simply buy the cable the guy at Best Buy recommends.

The use of the characterization as "millions" is certainly unverified and fails
to take into account that the market for boutique cables is most likely
relatively small, dependent on up-grades, and very heavily based on advertising
so promotion is much more evident than with products that require heavy capital
investment.


There is a tendency to
measure things...with a limited tool set. This is a small vocal
minority with an Engineering mindset..for the most part!


I question your understanding of the 'tool sets' involved, and of the
sophistication of some of the main engineering voices here.
*Your* grasp of science , from what I've seen, is dominated by
the sorts of things one gets from speculative, gee-whiz
'Tao of Physics'-like popularizations that border on the pseudoscientific,
when they don't pass over into it outright.

For example:

As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding
our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not yet
know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work and
makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a rather
oblique issue not related to electronics and cables, etc. Some*
that have written 100,000 responses on these Newsgroups, found
humor in the issue.

etc.

So why can't proponents; "manufacturers" (no high-end cable company I know
smelts draws wire), wholesalers, retailers, reviewers, enthusiasts ever show an
ability to hear these effects when someone else is critically watching?

Alas, in a place like this, it's not enough to utter the words 'Sub-Particle
issues' or 'quantum mechanics' as if they explain anything --
you actually have to give evidence that they
might be relevant to audible difference. Sorry, even capitalizing them
won't help.

My take on this is that the debate always seems to re-arrive back to the
intersection where amp/wire proponents will argue that science/engineering
doesn't have the tools to prove the subjectivist case .... instead of simply
proving it acoustically with listening demonstration free of sensory perceptual
bias.

Whether we can measure and quantify sub-particles (that may or may not exist
and may or may not have any electrical significance) is irrelevant when it
comes to what is audible. No one on this forum has ever stated that "if it
can't be measured it can't be heard." Many of us have stated that if an
audible effect is claimed to exist yet is not measurable, its audibility
needs to be verified before anyone is willing to go to extraordinary lengths
to measure and quantify the cause of the effect.

For example, when an audible difference between two cables is claimed to be
observed that is not attributable to measured resitance, capacitance and
inductance, the audibility of the effect must be verified before anyone
looks for another physical property that is causing the claimed effect. The
process of discovering a new physical property would certainly be subject to
the rigors of scientific process and peer review (and would likely result in
a Nobel prize to the discovering scientist). Shouldn't the observation of
such an effect at least be subject to verification under basic controlled
conditions? In other words, without scientific evidence that an effect
exists, no one is willing to attempt to measure it. How would you measure
the amount of green cheese in the moon? The answer is that you wouldn't
unless you knew it was made of green cheese. How do you measure what is
causing two cables to sound different? You don't until you've proven that
they sound different. "I heard a difference when I switched cables" isn't
proof.


"lcw999" wrote in message
news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.

Even though there are millions out there picking and choosing
components and cables and changing cables...this little group
still tends to "have all the answers". There is a tendency to
measure things...with a limited tool set. This is a small vocal
minority with an Engineering mindset..for the most part!

Suggestions have been made that they cannot get to the
real issues of the measurement and numericalizing of the
audio domain until more extended toolsets are developed.

As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding
our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not yet
know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work and
makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a rather
oblique issue not related to electronics and cables, etc. Some*
that have written 100,000 responses on these Newsgroups, found
humor in the issue.

The point was that someday it is entirely possible that
once we get down to those most basic levels, some
scenarios as follows might evolve.

1. We might well be able to manipulate some particles
that, much like the Medical profession does with the
bloodstream, we inject elements to better measure
and determine what is going on there.

In this scenario in electronics it might well be possible
to superimpose an intense particle injection on top
of the audio stream and develop measurement
techniques on this most fundamental level that
can be interpreted. There is another sub-atomic
level of processes going on below the audio in
the wire. Who thinks something along these
lines is not attainable? Who thinks that the
measurement processes showing watts, volts
rise-times, etc..is the end of the trail?

Then some comments were made regarding
"...thinking outside of the lines.." This did not
sit too well with some. When, in fact it is these
types that are the "movers and shakers"..things
will get done by this "A" type personality. In fact,
there is an interesting article in the latest edition
of Stereophile regarding one of the individuals
that grasp much of the negative aspects of
metals and its use in Audio components. I suspect we
we shall someday find a bombardment in the
sub-atomic particle level that gives some
negative characteristics to metal in many
applications. There is another sub-particle
world down there...we are just not there yet.
We are still dabbling in a "broadbrush" dimension.

We must await the Scientist and their study
of what makes this all tick and hang together.
When we learn more, then, we will slowly begin
to develop tools and methods to manipulate
this sub-particle dimension. That opens mental
horizons never really touched upon. For example:
..what really causes the so-called "skin-effect" on
audio cables and its alteration of the audio***..I suspect
that when more basic info is available in the sub-particle
arena, there might be an alterable function in the wire
extrusion processes...where wire might well be
bombarded with a given set of sub-particles to achieve
a given effect. The power to manipulate our Universe
will take a quantum leap when we get down to
grasping these most basic particle issues.

The point of all this is that we still have a long way to
go and some basic work is still awaiting in most
disciplines. This basic work will not get accomplished
by the mindset that "we have the answers and if you
differ "..you have a problem with your imagination".
I don't accept that. This is not acceptable. I hear
differences in some cables..others do not!

Let us root for those hidden research Scientist
who are stiving to get all this basic info..it will
be a better Universe when they do..in many
disciplines!

The upshot of all this is to keep an open
mind.

* Interesting story about this kind of thing...

In the Italian Legislature Marconi was
held up for ridicule when one member
of the Legislature held up a wire** and
boldly stated "nothing can go through
this wire...there is no hole in it" This
was followed by a roaring laughter and
approval.

** (This was related to the antenna wire)

(The principle of RF energy was alien to this
group..naturally it must have a hole to flow
through..using their given set of knowledge)

The Legislative member was serious!
It was such a new and unbelievable concept!

Leonard...

*** This is an issue within Amateur radio and
certain wire antennas when loading the
antennas with RF.

lcw999 wrote:

Suggestions have been made that they cannot get to the
real issues of the measurement and numericalizing of the
audio domain until more extended toolsets are developed.

As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding
our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not
yet know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work
and makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a
rather oblique issue not related to electronics and cables,
etc. Some* that have written 100,000 responses on these
Newsgroups, found humor in the issue.


Leonard,
I really would recommend before going into the unknown, to be informed about
what science up to now has found out. There is nothing more revealing than
reality, you will find even answers to questions which havn't come up.

In the Italian Legislature Marconi was
held up for ridicule when one member
of the Legislature held up a wire** and
boldly stated "nothing can go through
this wire...there is no hole in it" This
was followed by a roaring laughter and
approval.

Your view is exactly like these Italien parliamentists (still today it's the
same), who are uninformed and unscientific. You must be of Italian heritage.
We tend to believe in all kind of magic and mystic things, it is a gift from
Catholicism.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

Ah, the very tools that are totally and completely required to settle the
wire, amp, etc. questions are already at hand, your ears. We can do a
complete evaluation with listening alone as the experiment. All we need
is evaluate two level matched etc. items without knowledge which is active
and determine if any of our perceived by listening alone correlates with
which is the active gear. All one need do is have someone place a cloth
over the connections so as to remove knowledge during the listening alone
with only our ears as tools. We need not look to the future and some new
knowledge of sub atomic phenomena when we have the tools attached to each
of our heads. I'm told when this has been done that the correlation of
reported differences from ears alone to which was the actual active gear
is at a level similar to that of random guessing. The only possible new
measurement that could somehow then make a difference that we don't now
have is either some distortion from cloth touching connectrs or some esp
type feedback that modulates the electrical performance of the unknown
active gear. What other possible measurement of what would undermine the
above "just use your ears" listening alone test?

Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.

Even though there are millions out there picking and choosing
components and cables and changing cables...this little group
still tends to "have all the answers". There is a tendency to
measure things...with a limited tool set. This is a small vocal
minority with an Engineering mindset..for the most part!

Suggestions have been made that they cannot get to the
real issues of the measurement and numericalizing of the
audio domain until more extended toolsets are developed.

As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding
our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not yet
know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work and
makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a rather
oblique issue not related to electronics and cables, etc. Some*
that have written 100,000 responses on these Newsgroups, found
humor in the issue.

The point was that someday it is entirely possible that
once we get down to those most basic levels, some
scenarios as follows might evolve.

1. We might well be able to manipulate some particles
that, much like the Medical profession does with the
bloodstream, we inject elements to better measure
and determine what is going on there.

In this scenario in electronics it might well be possible
to superimpose an intense particle injection on top
of the audio stream and develop measurement
techniques on this most fundamental level that
can be interpreted. There is another sub-atomic
level of processes going on below the audio in
the wire. Who thinks something along these
lines is not attainable? Who thinks that the
measurement processes showing watts, volts
rise-times, etc..is the end of the trail?

Then some comments were made regarding
"...thinking outside of the lines.." This did not
sit too well with some. When, in fact it is these
types that are the "movers and shakers"..things
will get done by this "A" type personality. In fact,
there is an interesting article in the latest edition
of Stereophile regarding one of the individuals
that grasp much of the negative aspects of
metals and its use in Audio components. I suspect we
we shall someday find a bombardment in the
sub-atomic particle level that gives some
negative characteristics to metal in many
applications. There is another sub-particle
world down there...we are just not there yet.
We are still dabbling in a "broadbrush" dimension.

We must await the Scientist and their study
of what makes this all tick and hang together.
When we learn more, then, we will slowly begin
to develop tools and methods to manipulate
this sub-particle dimension. That opens mental
horizons never really touched upon. For example:
..what really causes the so-called "skin-effect" on
audio cables and its alteration of the audio***..I suspect
that when more basic info is available in the sub-particle
arena, there might be an alterable function in the wire
extrusion processes...where wire might well be
bombarded with a given set of sub-particles to achieve
a given effect. The power to manipulate our Universe
will take a quantum leap when we get down to
grasping these most basic particle issues.

The point of all this is that we still have a long way to
go and some basic work is still awaiting in most
disciplines. This basic work will not get accomplished
by the mindset that "we have the answers and if you
differ "..you have a problem with your imagination".
I don't accept that. This is not acceptable. I hear
differences in some cables..others do not!

Let us root for those hidden research Scientist
who are stiving to get all this basic info..it will
be a better Universe when they do..in many
disciplines!

The upshot of all this is to keep an open
mind.

* Interesting story about this kind of thing...

In the Italian Legislature Marconi was
held up for ridicule when one member
of the Legislature held up a wire** and
boldly stated "nothing can go through
this wire...there is no hole in it" This
was followed by a roaring laughter and
approval.

** (This was related to the antenna wire)

(The principle of RF energy was alien to this
group..naturally it must have a hole to flow
through..using their given set of knowledge)

The Legislative member was serious!
It was such a new and unbelievable concept!

Leonard...

*** This is an issue within Amateur radio and
certain wire antennas when loading the
antennas with RF.

lcw999 wrote in message news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
In the Italian Legislature Marconi was
held up for ridicule when one member
of the Legislature held up a wire** and
boldly stated "nothing can go through
this wire...there is no hole in it" This
was followed by a roaring laughter and
approval.

Then, my friend, let's complete the analogy. It is members
of the audiophile community that are the analogs of the Italian
Legislature. You have describe a body utterly unversed in
physics, electronics, and the extent of knowledge. They scoff
when presented with ideas counter to their deeply held believe
system, a system NOT shaped through knowledge, experimentation
and rigor, but through blind intuition and political agenda.

Oh, and this also applies to the Italian Legislature as well,
beside the audiophile community.

You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such,
without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that
field who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant
in the macro world.

Yes,

"They laughed at Marconi,"

they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:

lcw999 wrote in message
news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
In the Italian Legislature Marconi was held up for ridicule when one
member
of the Legislature held up a wire** and boldly stated "nothing can go
through this wire...there is no hole in it" This was followed by a
roaring laughter and approval.

Then, my friend, let's complete the analogy. It is members of the
audiophile community that are the analogs of the Italian Legislature.
You have describe a body utterly unversed in physics, electronics, and
the extent of knowledge. They scoff when presented with ideas counter to
their deeply held believe system, a system NOT shaped through knowledge,
experimentation and rigor, but through blind intuition and political
agenda.

Oh, and this also applies to the Italian Legislature as well, beside the
audiophile community.

You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such,
without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that field
who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the
macro world.

Sorry, but I have discussed this with individuals in this realm.
Perhaps you meant "micro"...but, there is not enough knowledge
available at this early state to know what can be related to any of
these sub-particle dimensions. The reason for the comments about
particle issues was to merely wake up those that think that our
awareness of current "seemingly known" issues is most likely tied in
with other levels of particles... therefore...we will learn much in
the future about what is now referred to as a "stable, all is known"
category. Don't get upset here...we are still stumbling through the
basics...more will evolve. Don't be surprized that we might well
learn to manipulate certain particles in this sub-particle domain.

Yes,

"They laughed at Marconi,"

they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

I don't think Bozo existed at that time...
Thanks for the comments anyway.

Leonard...

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:29:13 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:

You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such,
without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that field
who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the
macro world.

Sorry, but I have discussed this with individuals in this realm.
Perhaps you meant "micro"...but, there is not enough knowledge
available at this early state to know what can be related to any of
these sub-particle dimensions. The reason for the comments about
particle issues was to merely wake up those that think that our
awareness of current "seemingly known" issues is most likely tied in
with other levels of particles... therefore...we will learn much in
the future about what is now referred to as a "stable, all is known"
category. Don't get upset here...we are still stumbling through the
basics...more will evolve. Don't be surprized that we might well
learn to manipulate certain particles in this sub-particle domain.

However, you failed to note that all this handwaving is totally
irrelevant to audio. Why? Because *before* you start investigating a
cause, you need to demonstrate the existence of an effect. This, you
have signally failed to do. Cold fusion, anyone?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 20:36:01 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:29:13 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:

You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such,
without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that field
who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the
macro world.

Sorry, but I have discussed this with individuals in this realm.
Perhaps you meant "micro"...but, there is not enough knowledge
available at this early state to know what can be related to any of
these sub-particle dimensions. The reason for the comments about
particle issues was to merely wake up those that think that our
awareness of current "seemingly known" issues is most likely tied in
with other levels of particles... therefore...we will learn much in
the future about what is now referred to as a "stable, all is known"
category. Don't get upset here...we are still stumbling through the
basics...more will evolve. Don't be surprized that we might well
learn to manipulate certain particles in this sub-particle domain.

However, you failed to note that all this handwaving is totally
irrelevant to audio. Why? Because *before* you start investigating a
cause, you need to demonstrate the existence of an effect. This, you
have signally failed to do. Cold fusion, anyone?

Whoa..again!! This whole verbal process was stated in such
a manner to make the point that perhaps we should be a
bit wary of "..having all the answers"...this early in the game.
We do not yet have such fundamental factors about what
makes things tick yet...new breakthroughs come daily.

So watch the "..start investigating a cause"..misreadings. No
investigating a cause here..If one does not see the logic mentioned
above then remain in the box..be happy! Sorry one has to revert to the
"handwaving" routine, etc. The rigidness of some learned processes
early in the game has apparently "read-in" many "imagined" threats
here. Perhaps, I should paint a picture, again: Look over the
fences..other disciplines are knocking on the door of potential change
for all current knowledge on any given subject. This defensiveness is
normal!! It is the Scientific World that is going to rewrite so much of
what we know...as they always have. Do not continue to hide in the
engineering defensiveness!

The Scientist might well provide a toolset that the
engineers can use to prove "all cables are the same*
in the audio domain". Then one would not have to
resort to the "ole Phychology of audio trick", where
all is imagined...frequently used if it differs from some "in the box
beliefs"! Sorry! One cannot consistently keep using this ole
"bias" bucket toolset..people tend to not believe all that.

Leonard...

* But then, those hateful, devious types that
make these "designer" cables might start injecting
them with SOMETHING..and change the sound.
This requiring two pages of small print exceptions
to render the new toolset as correct!
Drat, one cannot win! Mercy..mercy!

lcw999 wrote:
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 20:36:01 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:29:13 GMT, lcw999 wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:
You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such,
without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that
field
who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the
macro world.

Sorry, but I have discussed this with individuals in this realm.
Perhaps you meant "micro"...but, there is not enough knowledge
available at this early state to know what can be related to
any of
these sub-particle dimensions. The reason for the comments about
particle issues was to merely wake up those that think that our
awareness of current "seemingly known" issues is most likely
tied in
with other levels of particles... therefore...we will learn
much in
the future about what is now referred to as a "stable, all is
known"
category. Don't get upset here...we are still stumbling through
the
basics...more will evolve. Don't be surprized that we might well
learn to manipulate certain particles in this sub-particle
domain.
However, you failed to note that all this handwaving is totally
irrelevant to audio. Why? Because *before* you start investigating a
cause, you need to demonstrate the existence of an effect. This, you
have signally failed to do. Cold fusion, anyone?
Whoa..again!! This whole verbal process was stated in such a
manner to make the point that perhaps we should be a
bit wary of "..having all the answers"...this early in the game.
We do not yet have such fundamental factors about what
makes things tick yet...new breakthroughs come daily.


Objectivist: Elephants do not fly. Can you give any evidence that they
do?

Some Subjectivist: Whoa! Particle Physics tells us there are a lot of
things we don't yet understand, at the particle level. We simply cannot
trust our eyes at this time to tell us whether elephants fly. We don't
have the advanced tools to detect flying elephants. I'm sure some day
in the future, we will have the basic understanding and the tools to
appreciate how elephants can fly. And we cannot dismiss anecdotes of
people seeing flying elephants; that will be the easy way out.

In article RAl9c.108645$_w.1357635@attbi_s53,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Cold fusion, anyone?

Nowadays it's all Zero Point Energy, or nothing.

Go Casimir, go

DC

--
Dave Collins Entropy just isn't what it used to be!

www.collinsaudio.com

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 22:42:18 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 20:36:01 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:29:13 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:

You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such,
without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that
field
who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the
macro world.

Sorry, but I have discussed this with individuals in this realm.
Perhaps you meant "micro"...but, there is not enough knowledge
available at this early state to know what can be related to
any of
these sub-particle dimensions. The reason for the comments about
particle issues was to merely wake up those that think that our
awareness of current "seemingly known" issues is most likely
tied in
with other levels of particles... therefore...we will learn
much in
the future about what is now referred to as a "stable, all is
known"
category. Don't get upset here...we are still stumbling through
the
basics...more will evolve. Don't be surprized that we might well
learn to manipulate certain particles in this sub-particle
domain.

However, you failed to note that all this handwaving is totally
irrelevant to audio. Why? Because *before* you start investigating a
cause, you need to demonstrate the existence of an effect. This, you
have signally failed to do. Cold fusion, anyone?

Whoa..again!! This whole verbal process was stated in such
a manner to make the point that perhaps we should be a
bit wary of "..having all the answers"...this early in the game.
We do not yet have such fundamental factors about what
makes things tick yet...new breakthroughs come daily.

Whoa yourself! Of course we don't know everything about the Universe,
but we *do* know that not one single person has *ever* been able to
demonstrate the existence of 'cable sound'. Without *evidence* of
audible difference, the is *no* need to go off into the realms of
fantasy looking for subatomic causes - for a non-existent effect.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

lcw999 wrote in message news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.


According to William of Occam, nature does not work in a more
complicated way than necessary. Given two explanations, the one that
is simpler is more likely to be true. The simplest explanation for why
people hear difference between cable is that there are audible
differences between cables. Citing 'psychological factors' is no
explanation at all.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

lcw999 wrote in message
news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.


According to William of Occam, nature does not work in a more
complicated way than necessary. Given two explanations, the one that
is simpler is more likely to be true.

As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not
simpler."

The simplest explanation for why
people hear difference between cable is that there are audible
differences between cables.

The simplest explanation for why the sun rises in the east and sets in the
west is that the sun revolves around the earth. So much for Occam. (Or,
rather, so much for your version of Occam.)

Citing 'psychological factors' is no
explanation at all.

So what is Occam's explanation for why people sometimes hear differences
between things that are exactly the same?

bob

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

"Bob Marcus" wrote:



Michael Scarpitti wrote:

lcw999 wrote in message
news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading
you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.


According to William of Occam, nature does not work in a more
complicated way than necessary. Given two explanations, the one that
is simpler is more likely to be true.

As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible,
but not
simpler."

The simplest explanation for why
people hear difference between cable is that there are audible
differences between cables.

The simplest explanation for why the sun rises in the east and sets in
the
west is that the sun revolves around the earth. So much for Occam. (Or,
rather, so much for your version of Occam.)

Citing 'psychological factors' is no
explanation at all.

So what is Occam's explanation for why people sometimes hear
differences
between things that are exactly the same?

bob

Or the folks on this wonderful episode of Candid Camera where subjects
gladly
described the major "differences" in the taste of wine which was poured
out of
the same bottle. In this case Candid Camera had a table with several
filled
glasses of wine which were filled from the same bottle but each of
which had a
partially filled open bottle of wine placed next to each glass. I think
the
simplest explantion was expectation effect/ common human percepual bias
mechanisms.

Of course, they only had interviews with a few subjects and it is
possible that
they had to conduct 100 trials to get a small number of "interesting"
responses. But, that doesn't seem likely ...... only 60-minutes or NBC
(remember the pick-up side-gas-tank explosion story where they had to
use
rocket motors to get crash explosions?) would be capable of such gross
offense.


Even so Candid Camera they only had 6 of 25 or so with perceptually
biased
answers it's still likely that the simplest explanation of cable sound
IS human
perceptual bias.

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:48:56 +0000, Nousaine wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote:



Michael Scarpitti wrote:

lcw999 wrote in message
news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading
you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.


According to William of Occam, nature does not work in a more
complicated way than necessary. Given two explanations, the one that
is simpler is more likely to be true.

As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible,
but not
simpler."

The simplest explanation for why
people hear difference between cable is that there are audible
differences between cables.

The simplest explanation for why the sun rises in the east and sets in
the
west is that the sun revolves around the earth. So much for Occam. (Or,
rather, so much for your version of Occam.)

Citing 'psychological factors' is no
explanation at all.

So what is Occam's explanation for why people sometimes hear
differences
between things that are exactly the same?

We never have had the hard facts that any two of anything is
"exactly" the same. You are going from the source
(amps-preamp-spk) to the acoustic sphere (air-atmospheric
pressure-etc) to the variables of the individual ear-brain
structure that varies somewhat between every individual...so if
with todays toolsets you determining anything is "exactly" the
same.. ..be a bit cautious about the "exactly" stuff. We are not
there yet. One can fix about any problem with ye ole "bias-box".
What a wonderful tool!

bob

Or the folks on this wonderful episode of Candid Camera where subjects
gladly
described the major "differences" in the taste of wine which was poured
out of
the same bottle. In this case Candid Camera had a table with several
filled
glasses of wine which were filled from the same bottle but each of which
had a
partially filled open bottle of wine placed next to each glass. I think
the
simplest explantion was expectation effect/ common human percepual bias
mechanisms.

Of course, they only had interviews with a few subjects and it is
possible that
they had to conduct 100 trials to get a small number of "interesting"
responses. But, that doesn't seem likely ...... only 60-minutes or NBC
(remember the pick-up side-gas-tank explosion story where they had to
use
rocket motors to get crash explosions?) would be capable of such gross
offense.


Even so Candid Camera they only had 6 of 25 or so with perceptually
biased
answers it's still likely that the simplest explanation of cable sound
IS human
perceptual bias.
__________________________________________________ _

In other postings we refer to the more logical "perceptual
interpretation". However, to pursue a given agenda we
now use "perceptual bias". One cannot lose with this
type of engineering. The ole "bias toolbox" has been
opened again. Can't have it both ways!! No one really
believes "all is the same"..the truth is probably somewhere
in the middle. Some are different..others, much the same.

Leonard...

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:



lcw999 wrote in message
news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc.

There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have
an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End
audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you"
There are no detectable differences in cables, etc.


According to William of Occam, nature does not work in a more
complicated way than necessary. Given two explanations, the one that
is simpler is more likely to be true. The simplest explanation for why
people hear difference between cable is that there are audible
differences between cables. Citing 'psychological factors' is no
explanation at all.

I don't think so. Muller-Lyrer lines, photos of the St Louis Arch (examples of
built-in human perceptual error) and experiments where its been shown that
humans will gladly report differences a large majority of the time when given 2
identical sound presentations telsl me that the simplest explanation is that
perceptual error is the most likely cause of cable-sound.

(Nousaine) wrote in message ...


I don't think so. Muller-Lyrer lines, photos of the St Louis Arch (examples of
built-in human perceptual error) and experiments where its been shown that
humans will gladly report differences a large majority of the time when given 2
identical sound presentations telsl me that the simplest explanation is that
perceptual error is the most likely cause of cable-sound.

For an 'explanation' to 'explain', there must be some content. Citing
'perceptual bias' does not account for many of the aspects in
listening, such as consistency from time to time.

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message
...


I don't think so. Muller-Lyrer lines, photos of the St Louis Arch (examples
of
built-in human perceptual error) and experiments where its been shown that
humans will gladly report differences a large majority of the time when
given 2
identical sound presentations telsl me that the simplest explanation is
that
perceptual error is the most likely cause of cable-sound.

For an 'explanation' to 'explain', there must be some content. Citing
'perceptual bias' does not account for many of the aspects in
listening, such as consistency from time to time.

Consistency? Now you want to bring reliability as an issue? Get ready to tell
us how what reliabiliy evidence you want to bring to the table.

Even so the extant evidence is pretty strong in the other direction. IOW no
single person in any given experiment where even nominal bias controls were
implemented (no switch contacts, personal reference systems, reference
programs, no time limits with a cloth placed over the amp/speaker terminals)
has been able to confirm an ability to "hear" nominally competent amsp/cables.

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 02:54:22 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message ...

I don't think so. Muller-Lyrer lines, photos of the St Louis Arch (examples of
built-in human perceptual error) and experiments where its been shown that
humans will gladly report differences a large majority of the time when given 2
identical sound presentations telsl me that the simplest explanation is that
perceptual error is the most likely cause of cable-sound.

For an 'explanation' to 'explain', there must be some content. Citing
'perceptual bias' does not account for many of the aspects in
listening, such as consistency from time to time.

Absolute nonsense! Repetitive reinforcement is one of the mosty basic
psychological precepts.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

lcw999 wrote:

"Bob Marcus" wrote:

So what is Occam's explanation for why people sometimes hear
differences
between things that are exactly the same?

We never have had the hard facts that any two of anything is
"exactly" the same.

No, I meant literally exactly the same, as in, nobody flipped the switch (or
switched in the other cables, or whatever). If we can be fooled then (and we
can), why can't we be fooled when somebody does flip the switch? And if we
*can* be fooled when somebody does flip the switch, how do we know we
haven't been fooled? (Answer: Bias controls!)

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage. Multiple plans available.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&...ave/direct/01/

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:kbjac.138194$_w.1598626@attbi_s53...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 02:54:22 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

(Nousaine) wrote in message ...

I don't think so. Muller-Lyrer lines, photos of the St Louis Arch (examples of
built-in human perceptual error) and experiments where its been shown that
humans will gladly report differences a large majority of the time when given 2
identical sound presentations telsl me that the simplest explanation is that
perceptual error is the most likely cause of cable-sound.

For an 'explanation' to 'explain', there must be some content. Citing
'perceptual bias' does not account for many of the aspects in
listening, such as consistency from time to time.

Absolute nonsense! Repetitive reinforcement is one of the mosty basic
psychological precepts.

We have been over this. I listened to several amplifiers several
months apart. If there was no 'real' difference between them, why was
the same sound character present that I had heard before? I mean, you
have to give an account that shows how I could manage such a
sophisticated feat...

Obviously, you can't...

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message ...


I don't think so. Muller-Lyrer lines, photos of the St Louis Arch (examples of
built-in human perceptual error) and experiments where its been shown that
humans will gladly report differences a large majority of the time when given 2
identical sound presentations telsl me that the simplest explanation is that
perceptual error is the most likely cause of cable-sound.


For an 'explanation' to 'explain', there must be some content. Citing
'perceptual bias' does not account for many of the aspects in
listening, such as consistency from time to time.

Every time I pay an obscene boatload of money for cables, my whole
system sounds much better. Every time, just the same way.

And, oh man, when I found out that there really were such things as
cable trestles! Thank god they cost so much!