My observation is that much of the high end advancement seems to have been
made by making changes that the best educated people say are not appreciable
improvements.Who can you trust to know what is better? Listeners or
engineer/scientists? Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other. I
remember several McIntosh tube owners I knew who switched to the new
improved transistors. All the EEs said transistors were an advancement.
Now there are a few contrary opinions in that regard. .
As for the cable enhancer it isn't fair to judge a product because the
salesman failed to make his point. Even the best products are sold by
incompetents or con men at times, but the pitch doesn't affect the product,
just your attitude. In an almost related context I recall reading that in
the early days electricity was thought to be a vapor in the air called
effluvium. Somehow they figured out how to store it in a "condenser". Now
the effluvium theory is discredited . However condensers (now called
capacitiors) work just the same as before, only with a new theory. The words
did not affect reality at all.
I just wish to share my experience; feel free to prefer your own opinion.

Wylie Williams

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Wylie Williams" wrote:

.....large snips.....

As for wire break in, that too is real, though not always dramatic. My
most
dramatic personal experience was when using 25 foot silver coated speaker
wire in my home. The first listen was dreadful. Extremely and
unlistenably
harsh. At that time I was already a believer in cable break in and I had
a
device called a cable enhancer that used a proprietary test tone to break
in
cables and interconnects. After 10 days of break in I found the cables to
be
vastly inproved. My wife, an impartial observer, had hated the cables
first
time.

Ah the Cable Enhancer. This product brings back an anecdote that some
might
find interesting about misinterpretation of data and how bias and hidden
assumptions are introduced in listening sessions.

At a CES a few years ago I walked into a display where the Cable Ehancer
was
being exhibited. I spent a moment and decided to leave, but the exhibitor
snagged me by the collar and said that I just "had" to listen to wires
'enhanced' by this device.

Sensing an odor of bovine feces I said OK but asked that he start with the
best
possible material so the 'differences' would be most dramatic right from
the
start. In the meantime a writer for another magazine had appeared in the
exhibit.

So the demonstration began with me, him and a 3rd party whom I didn't know
as
listeners. The Exhibitor held up two sets interconnects one which was said
the
be new and other had been broken-in overnight with the Enhancer.

One set was hooked up to this cd player and we listened for 2-3 minutes.
Then
the other set was installed and we repeated the test for roughly the same
duration. (Recall this was with, what was agreed to be the most dramatic
programming.)

The Exhibitor then asked expectantly "what did you think?" One of the
other
listeners thought the 1st one sounded 'better' while the other said that
the
2nd sounded better. I said they sounded the same to me, which they did.

The Exhibitor then said "Let's try again with BETTER program material" and
he
repeated the test. This time the other two had reversed opinions about
which
sounded 'better' and they still sounded the same to me.

So....we did it one more time and both the other listeners agreed that the
2nd
alternative sounded 'better.' My answer was the same as before. Because
this
time the enhanced cable was said to sound 'better' the demo was finished
and
the others began chatting animatedly about cable-enhancement and I sneaked
out.

Well we've all been in simialr situations before but I was surprised to
read in
the other guy's column a few months later that he had been 'amazed' that
this
demo had shown the Cable Enhancer was able to 'change' the sound quality
of
wire.

But there was no evidence of that from the event. Of course, there were no
bias
controls employed. We had not been officially informed of which cable was
enhanced and which was not, but it wasn't too hard tofigure that
out....the
demo ended when the 'right' answers were given.

But, even so, the differences were not such that the 1st run with the
already
agreed upon 'best' program had inconclusive results. The Exhibitor agreed
to
use his best stuff first. When that didn't get the right response then he
resorted to "better" programs.

Furthermore the test only ran long enough to get the 'right' answer. Once
that
was garnered no more data was gathered and all that went before was
ignored.

Let's dredge the data. We had no statistical evidence that a real
difference
was heard; opposing responses on the first 2 trials and 'no difference' on
3
trials. The chances of getting 2/3 to give the same response when 2
identical
sound presentations are given is practically assured.

So wrong answers were ignored. No difference, the most radically wrong
response, answers were ignored. Only the proper responses are accepted.

I see the same kind of thing happen when people will try to negotiate
differences in demonstrations. "We'll maybe you didn't hear the suave
midrange
but surely the lack of hoodedness in the lower treble was clearly audible"
is
the kind of thing I see all the time in group demonstrations or sales
presentations.

But my point here is that wires don't break-in, speakers don't break-in
and
nothing in audio breaks-in except lps and they ain't breakin'-in they're
wearing out. But, it's easy to convince yourself otherwise.

But even if there were a break-in process components would naturally
break-in
anyway. If break-in makes you feel better go ahead but observe caution
with
speakers. The speaker break-in procedure of feeding a pair of speaker
placed
face-to-face and wired in reverse polarity with noise is potentially
dangerous.
It's not that hard to drive them hard enough and long enough to cause the
voice
coil glue to heat up and bubble in the gap. Be careful.

"Wylie Williams" wrote:

My observation is that much of the high end advancement seems to have been
made by making changes that the best educated people say are not appreciable
improvements.

The "high-end" has never made an 'advancement' in sound quality. They merely
package current technology in different ways (sometimes grossly incompetent
ways) or simply make merchandising/marketing claims for it.

Ionce had a great debate with a person claimimg that the original MacIntosh
amplifier was proof that my statement that the audio industry in general and
the high-end in particular simply used communications industry trickle-down
technology was false. Inerestingly enough another poster noted that he still
owned one of the MacIntosh units referenced and that the interior of the
chassis still had a sticker that said "licensed from Western Electric" where
Frank MAcIntosh had previously worked.

Who can you trust to know what is better? Listeners or
engineer/scientists? Sometimes one is right, sometimes the other.

But this carries the assumption that engineers/scientists are not also
listeners.The dichotomy is patently false. Much of the seminal listening
evaluation of communications technology (which forms the platform for pro and
consumer audio, including the invention of 'stereo') was conducted at Bell Labs
in the 30s.

I
remember several McIntosh tube owners I knew who switched to the new
improved transistors. All the EEs said transistors were an advancement.
Now there are a few contrary opinions in that regard.

So why does modern day MacIntosh make solid state amplifiers these days?

As for the cable enhancer it isn't fair to judge a product because the
salesman failed to make his point.

This demonstration was claimed to have been conducted by the manufacturer.

Even the best products are sold by
incompetents or con men at times, but the pitch doesn't affect the product,
just your attitude.

Yes, but the pitch didn't make the case although naive subjects bought it. That
was the point. IF that product was able to change the sound of cables why
wasn't the experimental outcome more obvious? Why did it rely on the semi-open
easily-biased demonstration? Why didn't the company have a paper with published
results that could be replicated?

In an almost related context I recall reading that in
the early days electricity was thought to be a vapor in the air called
effluvium. Somehow they figured out how to store it in a "condenser". Now
the effluvium theory is discredited . However condensers (now called
capacitiors) work just the same as before, only with a new theory. The words
did not affect reality at all.
I just wish to share my experience; feel free to prefer your own opinion.

Wylie Williams

So you still believe a Cable Enhancer changes the sound of cables? Want to
prove that in a bias-controlled experiment? I'm assuming you still have a Cable
Enhancer. No?