Wire is Wire? Amp is Amp?

[Fella]

Have a read folks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-end_audio_cables

Has anyone read this thesis in it's entirity? :

“A New Methodology for Audio Frequency Power Amplifier Testing Based on
Psychoacoustic Data that Better Correlates with Sound Quality”


"Daniel Cheever points out a number of flaws in conventional testing
that indicate the ear is extremely sensitive to tiny signals well above
the normally-expected range of human hearing. The high-order harmonics
to which he refers exert an influence on our perception of the sound
that is vastly disproportionate to their strength, to the point that
research from as far back as 1937 indicates that high-order harmonics
may actually exceed the subjective effect of their lower-order cousins."!!!!

So tell us "arns" how is all this wrong and how is all what u say "right"?

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Have a read folks:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-end_audio_cables

> Has anyone read this thesis in it's entirity? :

On a really empty stomach... ;-)

> “A New Methodology for Audio Frequency Power Amplifier
> Testing Based on Psychoacoustic Data that Better
> Correlates with Sound Quality”

The word new seems to be misappropriated there.

> "Daniel Cheever points out a number of flaws in
> conventional testing that indicate the ear is extremely sensitive to tiny
> signals well above the normally-expected range of human hearing.

He may claim that, but he doesn't prove it. His idea of evidence corresponds
to most well-educated people's idea of unfounded assertions.

> The high-order harmonics to which he refers exert an influence on our
> perception
> of the sound that is vastly disproportionate to their strength, to the
> point that research from as far back as 1937 indicates
> that high-order harmonics may actually exceed the subjective effect of
> their
> lower-order cousins."!!!!

That is indeed is common knowlege, and has been long before 1989. He says
that, and it is true. I provide evidence to support this belief at
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/nonlinear/ . Note the date at the bottom of
the page > 6 years ago!

> So tell us "arns" how is all this wrong and how is all
> what u say "right"?

It's not all wrong because part of it is common knowledge. Unfortunately the
paper's BS factor is pretty high.

A few eyars back I turned Cheever's paper over to a well-known audio
authority (PhD, AES papers) who was researching the same topic. I can't
remember his exact words, but as I recall they weren't anything that I'd
quote in public. Let's just say that he was *highly dismissive*. ;-)

[Harry Lavo]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> Have a read folks:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-end_audio_cables
>
> Has anyone read this thesis in it's entirity? :
>
> “A New Methodology for Audio Frequency Power Amplifier Testing Based on
> Psychoacoustic Data that Better Correlates with Sound Quality”
>
>
> "Daniel Cheever points out a number of flaws in conventional testing that
> indicate the ear is extremely sensitive to tiny signals well above the
> normally-expected range of human hearing. The high-order harmonics to
> which he refers exert an influence on our perception of the sound that is
> vastly disproportionate to their strength, to the point that research from
> as far back as 1937 indicates that high-order harmonics may actually
> exceed the subjective effect of their lower-order cousins."!!!!
>
> So tell us "arns" how is all this wrong and how is all what u say "right"?

Actually, it was discussed not long ago either here or on RAHE, RAP, or
RAT....but I can't find the discussion using google because the
dissertation's name is not mentioned, but rather the post contained a link
to the dissertation.

I was roundly criticized because in introducing the link I mentioned it was
an MIT doctoral dissertation, whereas it was a UNH masters
dissertation....but damned if I can find it.

It was previously introduced on RAO in 2002 in response to a post by Arny,
but really didn't get discussed as such there.

[Sander deWaal]

Fella > said:

>Have a read folks:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-end_audio_cables
>
>Has anyone read this thesis in it's entirity? :
>
>“A New Methodology for Audio Frequency Power Amplifier Testing Based on
>Psychoacoustic Data that Better Correlates with Sound Quality�
>
>
>"Daniel Cheever points out a number of flaws in conventional testing
>that indicate the ear is extremely sensitive to tiny signals well above
>the normally-expected range of human hearing. The high-order harmonics
>to which he refers exert an influence on our perception of the sound
>that is vastly disproportionate to their strength, to the point that
>research from as far back as 1937 indicates that high-order harmonics
>may actually exceed the subjective effect of their lower-order cousins."!!!!
>
>So tell us "arns" how is all this wrong and how is all what u say "right"?


The Cheever papers were discussed in many audio groups.
As usual, it is a mix of truhs, half-truths and some untruths (at
least from a technical viewpoint).

I saw some things there that made explaining why I design my amps the
way I do, a little easier.

I have a friend who is into carbon-based interlinks and reports
substantial differences between that and standard copper cables.

Next, he's trying a speaker cable with a Z of 70 mOhm per meter.

Running 3 meters each side will give 0.42 ohms total in series.
I can imagine that this will sound different in some cases.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Eeyore]

Fella wrote:

> Have a read folks:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-end_audio_cables
>
> Has anyone read this thesis in it's entirity? :
>
> “A New Methodology for Audio Frequency Power Amplifier Testing Based on
> Psychoacoustic Data that Better Correlates with Sound Quality”
>
> "Daniel Cheever points out a number of flaws in conventional testing
> that indicate the ear is extremely sensitive to tiny signals well above
> the normally-expected range of human hearing. The high-order harmonics
> to which he refers exert an influence on our perception of the sound
> that is vastly disproportionate to their strength, to the point that
> research from as far back as 1937 indicates that high-order harmonics
> may actually exceed the subjective effect of their lower-order cousins."!!!!

It's a shame he had to bugger up an excellent idea with ideas of ultrasonics
being involved.

Graham

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Fella" > wrote in message
>
>>So tell us "arns" how is all this wrong and how is all
>>what u say "right"?
>
> Unfortunately the
> paper's BS factor is pretty high.
>

Thank you Arns, for the confirmation. He is not the master of science,
you are.. :)