AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 6/15/2004 5:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: gBMzc.40266$eu.31721@attbi_s02

S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Rich.Andrews"
Date: 6/15/2004 3:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

With all of the discussion regarding "tweaks" and "mods" that has been
prevalent, I was wondering not if any of them had any merit, or hold even
then slightest chance of making a difference, but whether or not one could

devise a quantifiable test to prove the claims made. I think it is up to
the person making the claims to prove them.

In the medical field there is anecdote and there is proof. Without proof,

an anecdote is just that, a nice story. An anecdote could also be an
indicator that some effect is happening, but the anecdote by itself
substantiates or proves nothing.

For example, how can one devise a test to prove that XYZ product not just
sounds but also measures "significantly" different than the $0.49 variety
available at Walmart? If we are able to view and manipulate single atoms,

there must be a way to measure and quantify and therefore qualify an
effect claimed.

It is as if we are in the early days of Hi-Fi placing speakers in cabinets

of various sizes until we find something that sounds good. We are trying
all manner of substances without a clue as to what is going on.

As near as I can tell, those making claims of speaker cables,
interconnects, etc are just guessing at what is going on. They don't know

and even if they did, they can't prove it with measurements and tests
using laboratory equipment. There are some theories floating around, but
no one has proposed any experiments to prove these theories. I believe
that if we fully understand a mechanism, then we are able to produce a
better product than all of the guesswork done previously.

This begs the question of how would one go about proving these
unsubstaniated claims.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

I think one could start by comparing actual signals. If a given tweak makes
absolutely no measurable difference in the signal then it can't possibly
make a
difference in the sound.

What's to prevent someone from claiming, 'you haven't measured the *right
thing*'?

Nothing I suppose. But one can always ask this someone what they think is not
being measured. Who knows, maybe in some cases such people are actually right.

Along with the ever-popular 'not everything can be measured'?

People can claim anything they want to claim. I believe everything that can be
heard by a human being can be measured. That doesn't mean it always is being
measured when some one makes measurements.

And, too, a measurable difference is not necessarily audible.

Never said it was. However if there is no measurable differences between two
signals then there is nothing to discuss. They will make the same sound with
the same associated equipment.