702, you're right. AWG9 is twice the size of your present ones. Try it out, A-B or otherwise and post if there's a difference in sound. Regards. |
Philiphans: What I have are 3 x 12 AWG and 3 x 14 AWG. Double the size of the 12 AWG would be 9 AWG. Are you suggesting I double the size of my power cord and AB it or not?
Katharina: What do you find troubling? ABX testing IS comparative testing by listening alone, minus the cues that cause biases and therefore invalid listening results. Inattention to biases and prejudices does not make for better evaluation. If you trust your hearing, you should especially try to understand what it means to test by only hearing. |
Jostler, I never presumed they would sound different. I dont know of any reason why they would. They just do. But you bring up a question Ive been meaning to ask. Why would the volume level be different from one wire to another. Speaker cables or interconnects? |
Sorry about the speaker cable thing, Paul. My brain must have gone on the fritz for a second, there. As for what explains the differences you hear among similar cables, your presumption of difference is definitely a factor, but it's not the only one. Connection quality may be an issue, as well as levels. And as those ABX results show, it takes a very small difference in levels to make an audible difference (and at those levels, you won't even notice that one is louder than the other). |
Paul, nope, it isn't and I don't know any Mogami owners. Your thoughts on the webside in question parallel mine, however it got me thinking all the same and Jostler well put. My wife used to take the cards away for good. Regards! |
Remarkable.
No way to respond without seeming sarcastic. I'm sure Detlof didnt think I was suggesting that speaker cables were tested with headphones. I dont even know how you'd do that.
Lots of people believe and argue that all interconnects sound the same. As far as speaker wire goes, lots of people believe and argue that if the gauge is sufficient for the length of the cable, all copper wire, stranded, solid or whatever sounds the same. Im not sure if many people claim that copper and silver are indistinguishable, but some do.
So, if I hear a difference between 12 gauge copper stranded and 11 gauge Audioquest or 9 or 13 gauge Kimber or doubled twisted 14 gauge Romex in lengths for which 14 gauge should be more than adequate, am I hearing real differences in the wire or is it indigestion?
Oh, Detlof, if you read this, is Mogami 3082 marketed where you are? If so, what does it cost, and do you know anyone who has used it? |
Paulwp: First of all, the ABX results posted for speaker cables did not use headphones. Granted, most of these sorts of tests use small samples, and it's possible that they just used people with "untrained" ears. But often (including those cable tests, I believe) the subjects were people who at least *thought* they were experienced listeners. At any rate, there is nothing stopping anyone from assembling a panel of the most accomplished audiophiles in the world and conducting a similar test that will demonstrate, once and for all, that one 12-gauge copper wire does not sound like another. Note, however, that no one has done so yet.
As for your own experience, please remember that no one claims that all wires sound alike. (That is a canard foisted on us objective types by people who can't seem to muster arguments against the statements we do make.) So it's quite possible that in the cases where you do hear differences, the cables themselves (and not, say, the barometric pressure) are really delivering a different sound.
Detlof: Of course I do, but the feeling usually passes after 24 hours or so. That's when my wife gives me back my credit cards. |
Detlof, Im troubled by your response to the ABX "results" on the website Jostler referred you to. Without knowing the experience, listening skills or hearing acuity (word?) of the listeners, where they were, or what they listened to and what playback source, I still wouldnt be surprised that they couldnt tell any differences listening through the headphone jack of a Bryston 2B. Of course, if you read the other results, you will "learn" that so long as you are in 16 bit and solid state country, wire is wire, bits are bits and watts are watts. So sell all of your equipment except your speakers, go down to your local discount emporium and buy a cheap cd player and a receiver with enough power to drive your speakers.
In my experience, most cables Ive heard are very difficult to tell apart. So difficult I cant say with confidence that they are different. But with some, I have no doubts at all. The differences are in details that dont come through headphones or headphone jacks; palpable imaging, image specificity, layering. I dont know if these things can be measured at all. And Im sure my brother, who has no interest in this subject, would hear no differences at all.
I use inexpensive cables, even cheap ones, because (1) I'm cheap and would prefer all cables to sound alike, (2) the ones I use are good enough, (3) my playback system is affected more by my listening rooms and placement restrictions than by any wire, and (4) I'm not sure the differences I hear aren't caused by subtle changes in barometric pressure when I get up and down to change the cables.
So, I dont think cables are that important, but the ABX results on that website do nothing for me at all. |
Jostler: Basically I do agree, but don't you ever feel the urge to break the boundaries of reason and what science tells us to expect and try to hear for more, if you know what I mean? You may well make a fool of yourself, but then perhaps not. Who knows....To me there is no way out of the dilemma. |
Detlof: We can all trust our ears up to a point. The trick is to know what that point is. |
Ha Kat, there you got me...its the old theological question between knowing and believing....Yes I trust my ears, but I don't know if I should. Satisfied? (-; |
Detlof, not that I mind, I often like your posts, but you seem ambivalent in your stand. Do you trust your ears or don't you? Honest answer please... cheers |
Jostler, I've just been on the webside you proposed. Fascinating. The ABX results of the wire tests are indeed devastating. All the same, I still tend to think that I can believe my ears in most of the cases. All the same, I shall plan some testing of my own in due course with the help of the source you had mentioned and I will let you know. |
Thanks, Jostler. very helpful. Shall check into this. |
Detlof: For a good bibliography of the DBT field, check out www.oakland.edu/~djcarlst/abx.htm. Good DBTs are designed to maximize the likelihood of a positive result, although golden ears must deny this. |
Costrosk, thanks, you too made an excellent practical point of regular contact surface cleaning for ic's which many of us will overlook. Any gear would only be as good as its tarnished contact.
Like i said, it helps tremendously if you have a large circle of audiophile friends to swap and try out cables before deciding.
My attempt to try understand the price of a new pc is that a quarter of the money goes to materials; another quarter to marketing and the remaining half to skilled labor. If you ever have a chance to look inside one you might understand the skill required to handmake each, one at a time. Several pc maker cannot survive making just one product.
A gifted listener-audiophile is the worst combination for a person to be. He/she is hard to please for long. Because cables do sound differently with each equipment, such person's life can be a complicated one indeed! The blissfully "filtered" listener has far easier path leading to music enjoyment. Regards. |
702, the 9 AWG might be too large for the IEC unless its a specially built one. Please check again, the regular stock cord is usually 3x18AWG (0.75~0.8 mm2), so 3x14 or 3x12 AWGs would be fine for this experiment. Ensure their fitness with your stockist before he cuts the cable!
For the listen, if you're familiar with the sonics of yr poweramp, you can go straight to test it, skipping the AB'g. Live with it for a while...but please keep us posted. Regards. |
702 ..I have a very basic and perhaps naive question: Would you maintain, that ALL highend cable manufacturers peddle in snake oil? If not, where would you draw the line, apart from basic considerations like resistance, capacitance etc? Would you then also say, that the insistence say of the Spectral people, that their gear be solely used with the MIT wires, reflects rather a commercial reality than a scientific one, based on design criteria? Also, since I am unfamiliar with all the literature, do practically all double blind tests which have been published go against the claims of the golden eared? And if yes, what would you say was the bias of the people, who undertook the testing and devised the procedures and last, were do you think I could best read up about it. Hope I'm not too much of a bother. But I suppose I am not the only one, who's interested. Regards, |
Philiphans: I do have that publication at home and will dig it out. However, I would caution you that the paper apparently deals with recognition of codec noise, which is far different from cabling effects that may or may not exist. For one thing, codec noise exists and can be repeatedly and reliably detected and measured to verify what the gifted listeners hear. My problem is with "gifted" listeners who claim to hear things that can't be verified, and only when they know what they're listening to.
Thanks for the test suggestion. I'll make a 9 AWG power cable, and when I get a chance, I'll do an ABX test between one of my power amps and another identical model. |
702, your right to say the money saved could find better use elsewhere. Neither do I agree exotic cables should be priced so ridiculously high, that's why I always bought them used.
A stock powercord will have reached the point of diminished returns (pdr) when we cannot determine any more differences (sonically) between the standard coppers and PVCs used in its construction. Audiophiles who have exceptional hearing acuity are able to squeeze that last few percent beyond pdr. I can't prove it to you myself, but Seymour Shlien of Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada K2H 8S2 published a scientific paper "Auditory Models for Gifted Listeners" in the Audio Engineering Society Nov 2000 journal. If I may quote from the abstract: He wrote, "Some listeners are especially sensitive to minute codec quantization noise. Various pyschoacoustic tests were performed in order to measure the characteristics of these listeners. Though the auditory filter bandwidths of these listeners appeared to be normal, some had unusual abilities to detect weak signals buried in noise."
Please try to get hold of this very good publication for your scientific reference.
Coming back to our powercord. 702 may i suggest to you a very simple DIY experiment costing a few $. Prepare a pc from ordinary cable double the conductor size of your present powercord to your poweramp and try it out. Please post whether you can hear any difference. Regards. |
702....the biases you speak of do exist and indeed I often worry if what I think I am hearing is perhaps nothing but wishful thinking. So if the oppportunity arises, I will try put my hearing to the test. On the other hand I beg you to consider, that biases unconsciously may also work the other way in the sense, that differences which truly do exist are either simply not percieved or an experimental set up is made such, that the outcome leans heavily towards a preconcieved model. All this does not prove that "you" are wrong and "we" are right, all I am trying to say is, that I have doubts towards "science" when it becomes absolute, just as I would naturally doubt the hype, advertisements about wires abound in. Contrary to your stand, I think I can hear differences between ordinary and "exotic" cables, but I am all with you in your "crusade" for scepticism, because this field especially abounds in snakeoil, hype and mark ups which are nothing but indecent. Again, on the other hand, you see, I find it just as indecent, when some cable manufacturers, with serious academic backgrounds, who truly have advanced the state of the art, are put down as simple charlatans by the " measuring crowd ". |
Philiphans: If it gives you great pleasure to buy exotic cables, go ahead. It's a free country, free markets, etc. I prefer to spend money on what I have a reasonable expectation would add performance and am therefore skeptical of spectacular claims that have no technical, scientific, common-sense backup. Or even any empirical data to back up the claims.
Show me a system that sounds superb with exotic cabling (PCs, ICs, speaker wire), and I'm certain that I or anyone else can make it sound equally superb with stock and low-cost cabling.
And with the money saved I can go to concerts, buy CDs, buy an occasional new musical instrument, etc. And go skiing, travelling, etc.
You're right that you don't need to know the technical aspects of audio to enjoy it at least up to a certain level, but I've found that studying and working with and developing audio technology over the past 20+ years has helped me enjoy it more, and given me a very enjoyable career at the same time. Your mileage may vary. |
Detlof: And I'm saying there are ways to find out if something really is "there" or not.
I'm out to enjoy music and audio, too, but it doesn't mean I want to waste lots of money on something that doesn't add anything. |
Garfish: Why do you say I don't trust my senses? That's either an irrational assumption or a deliberate distortion of what I've ben saying. I've been saying that you should use your ears, but in a way that eliminates prejudices and biases, however subconscious they are, so that you judge solely on what is audible.
If that makes me a "non-believer," I'll accept that label. |
Jadem6, I do not agree with "Why don't all high performance sports cars come out with Shelby specs. or what ever. The after market in auto is huge! Does that make it snake oil too?"
If you buy a Porsche or "hi end" auto (not mass market Ford) then the tires ARE specific to that car and HIGHLY recommended for the handling of the auto. Porsche and others do not sell you a very expensive car and then provide it with $50 tires... it KILLS the whole intent of the purchase (handling) and the car would not be worth it. If you went to a Porsche dealer and he said "if you buy this car for $100k and then Tweek it with new $1k tires, it will NOW handle the way it was meant to...I would call that snake oil! Are you telling me that in Hifi, I can expect to purchase a $20k amp that doesn't sound very good UNTIL I add a new Superduper power cable. So again, I ask why don't all "Hi Fi" companies provide a power cable that takes full advantage of there product....or maybe they already do! |
Thank-you Jerie, and might I add that the products I've owned with separate power supplies all have had very different umbilical cord designs. Some extremely stuff and well insulated and others tightly wrapped. Every one has discussion in there manuals about these umbilical cords and there specific design criteria. (more of the great conspiracy I guess) Why don't manufacturers use high end cords out of the factory? Some do. Why don't all manufacturers us the best capacitors, transformers, etc. and why do some offer upgraded power supplies? I think the answer is a far away as the auto industry. Why don't all high performance sports cars come out with Shelby specs. or what ever. The after market in auto is huge! Does that make it snake oil too? (Oh by the way, Kennedy is not living on an island with Jim Morrison, that was just a theory) |
Bowhunter: Some High End amp manufacturers do! My Classe CA 300 came with a high-end "super-duper" power cord and I understand that NAD recommends the use of their power cord. Some "High End Amp" manufacturers such as Krell have even produced, marketed and sold speaker cable. Apogee also recommended cables for their speakers. However, I think speaker cables, like interconnects tend to be system dependant. People tend to purchase cables to fine tune their audio rig. People are looking for synergy in their audio system. They should choose the cable and get the kind of sound that makes them happy. Moreover, the competition is tough in the consumer electronics business. It's very difficult to make a killing. Adjusting your pricing to add an expensive power cord could cost you some business . I think most manufacturers play things pretty close to the vest to maximize profits while remaining competitive. Regards; -Jerie |
Help me understand why HighEnd Amp companies do not include a super duper power cord specifically designed for their amp and that adds just $500 to the overall cost. Seems to me that Amp and Speaker makers would get in on this high profit opportunity if it had any value to the customer at all.... and maybe even if it didn't. If I made a $100k pair of speakers, I would also make sure I sold or included the best cables possible to make sure my customers could hear the way they should sound (or at least the way I thought they should sound).
|
Superb post, Philphans!!
I don't pretend to get the science behind it, but I do know from experience IC's do make a difference. I don't know that I'd notice the change if someone snuck the original ICs back on my gear, but I know for a fact that I hear a difference between them and the ones I use and the other sets I bought and don't use. The differences are small, subtle, but decidedly audible. I tend to discount the hyperbolic claims that an IC suddenly brought out a gigantic soundstage or made the system mesmerisingly involving or any of that, but if someone tells me that there is less grain in the treble, or better definition in the bass, or some similarly reasonable change in their swap, I can believe it. For the more grandiose claims, I mostly figure it was probably time to clean and tighten the contacts (it can be quite astounding the difference that can make!) and a new set of IC's were just part of the deal.
As to power, well, I haven't gotten to that point in the progression of my audiophilia yet, but I don't preclude the possibility. Electricity is a wacky thing, capable of popping up in the most amusing and haphazard places and ways. The best I can manage right now is a dedicated circuit and a Monster strip (only my oldest amp has non-stock PC, and that actually looks more like somebody built it on the weekend using spare parts from a job site than a proper PC). As to what the heck is going on when that public utility power slams its way into my transformers, I suspect I'd actually rather not know, but since I want my tranformers to do the best they can, it makes sense to me to make it as easy as possible for them by providing plenty o clean juice. My opinion is that this is one area where you get what you pay for - good gear has better transformers, etc. Could be completely wrong, but then, I have an amp that makes much better music with its upgrades than it did stock. Wonder why?
The only objection I have is in pricing this stuff; I just don't believe it's based on sonics at all. Obviously, it can't be in R & D; that would mean a science based reason would exist for whatever properties manufacturers claim for their cables, and few if any of them try suggesting that seriously. So it must be in materials and processes - except that pure gold cables wouldn't cost what some of these outfits are charging for copper/silver/alloy wire. So I'm guessing that marketing probably accounts for quite a chunk - and that's something I do my damndest to avoid paying for.
In any event, if it sounds good to you, buy it and use it. If it doesn't, please don't sell it to me!
chas |
Hi 70242, exotic cable designers do have some thingies which they cannot publish for science sake. They have to survive to fight another cord/conditioner battle in the commercial reality.
i'm technically trained for my profession in electronics & electrics and an AES member. For the love of reproduced music i'm also a severe case of "audiophilisis", a Believer. My tech knowledge is sufficient for my day job, but i'm not always able to understand completely why there are sonic differences i could hear between designer & stock cords. I choose to pursue my hobby to the fullest, enjoying the music with just that little bit more clarity and realism which i could achieve with good designer interconnects, conditioners and powercords. I'll try to figure out why or read up maybe some day, but waste no time now, enjoy the music!
They are expensive because most of them are handmade & are of very good materials. I bought them used, so could change them about without losing too much money. But beware, not all "designer" gear are crap-free. Having a group of audiophile friends helps, some even allow me hometrial. I think all true audiophiles would agree with me, that we need not understand the technicalities to enjoy our hobby, and this is what Audiogon is all about isn't it. There is nothing wrong with stock cords; they are good value for the average hifi enthusiast i must insist.
Here is something more technical. A well known audiocable maker uses "lossy" PVC, average loss PE & low loss teflon materials for their cable insulation to make products, some of them even have all three types in combinations and geometries. What is significant is that this maker is able to match each buyer's budget from good to excellent sonics consistently. It also said that PVC is underated becuse of its "lossiness" but good sonically. And that teflon is overated because it "glares" sonically and need to counteract with some other foamed materials and "airspaces" geometry. Then there is this secret wire-drawing method which imparts a special surface finish for good tranfer high audio frequencies; which also made all its earlier cables obsolete! There isn't any new technology here. You see cable makers like this one do have a good grasp of the sonic capability of their different cable models in order to assign the "correct" price. I actually bought and still using their interconnect and speaker cables. I did not wait for them to publish any white paper on this technology. They are probably just clever innovations which make the sonic difference.
I have a G-clef Gutwire pc on my cdp, AudioPower Industries PL313's for 845 tube monoblocs all fed through a Chang lightspeed 6400. They are not top notch pricewise, but for for my low power demand they are far better sounding than stock cords. Bought used, they are excellent value. |
Hello 702, there is one basic mistake in your assumption:
"We" are not trying to offer scientific proof for what we maintain we hear. All what we are saying is that " there is something. " It is not necessarily our concern, if science agrees with us or not. Even if we were of scientific bend or training, here we are hobbyists out to enjoy ourselves, not scientists. However we are tired of being ridiculed or being taught boring lessons in schoolboy physics or elementary psychological testing routines by people who have no clue about the history of science or, worse, of epistemology and theory of knowledge. If they had, they would get off their occasionally asinine high horses, because they would know that for the last 350 years there have been discussions like ours going on ad nauseam, about people who have maintained that they were on to something, being ridiculed and persecuted by the mainstream . Of course there was snake oil and charlatans, but more often than not,science had to acknowlege that assumptions previoulsy being persecuted as false, did have their objective foundations in science after all. Messmer comes to mind here, as just one example. So I am afraid that I have to answer, permission granted Redkiwi I hope, also to your sermon with a hearty RHUBARB! |
Did anyone just hear something? Didn't think so. Must of been the wind... |
70242; It's a shame that you don't trust your senses. Craig |
Fpeel: in what way do the "non-believers" inhibit reasonable exchange? There's no insistance that "if something can't be measured it must be psychological." No, the scientific approach would be to be open-minded; that is, "go ahead, prove it." Either measure it and show the results, prove that the effects are audible in double-blind testing by correctly identifying A or B a statistically significant number of times, or explain how it works so others can investigate the phenomenon. Nobody's offered any of these.
Testimonials of "I'm listening to a stock power cable. My, it sounds harsh. Now I'm listening to a Shunyata. Wow, so much more depth and clarity; it's not even subtle!" do not constitute proof or even reliable evidence. It's not being closed-minded to press this point.
Scientific progress is not scattershot. It is based on accumulated knowledge and understanding and continual examination. Even progress based on unforseen discoveries does not develop without understanding the discovered phenomenon. This takes investigation of the discovery. Without understanding there is no progress. Simply asserting that this power cord or that will affect a device's audio performance with no plausible explanation or proof is not understanding. Asserting that power cords are outside the realm of understandable technology also is not understanding, and it's just plain silly to boot. If something previously unknown is occurring with power cords, then please enlighten us on what's going on. Write a paper on it and submit it to the Audio Engineering Society for peer review. Otherwise, go join Pons and Fleischmann with their "cold fusion" scam.
Science doesn't have to investigate every imaginable allegation to maintain credibility or to remain open-minded. If someone asserts that a ball tossed straight up into the air will sometimes float there and not fall back down, it's up to that person to go ahead and prove it by repeatable means; it's not up to the disbelieving scientist to spend the rest of his waking hours tossing a ball straight up to prove that it'll never happen.
Likewise, if someone asserts that contrary to understood physical principles of resistance, inductance, and capacitance, something is going on in wire such that certain braiding techniques and pretty insulation will affect audio signals, or will somehow affect the AC power and somehow improve the audio performance of the device it's attached to, then go ahead: prove your assertion.
To me, it's reasonable to believe that if a system sounds superb with designer power cords and interconnects and speaker wire, it'll also sound superb with stock power cords and interconnects and speaker wire (of adequate gauge), and for a lot less money. |
|
|
|
Thanks for responding. No harm done, you're so right: Next! |
No, I'm the one who should be apologizing, Detlof. Just reread your post and, oops! My blunder. Sorry about that. Still, enough of this topic. It's been beat to death. Next! |
Sorry, You make me look sheepish. I was trying to be funny. Seems I wasn't. Please throw me a lifewest... |
What I read was the suggestion of a one-to-one bet. No science, no statistics, just schoolyard bully taunting. If you saw something different, fine. At this point the water line has reached my eyebrows and I'm swimming back to shore. Enjoy the water, but watch out for the sharks. |
Now REALLY, Fpeel, you haven't properly digested Stevemj's posts. Please PROVE that betting would make a test like that moot.
I suggest a double blind setting with people, who have betted, and a similar group, identical in n, age and gender to group one, who have not. Furthermore two control groups are necessary. Firstly one, where all think that they have made a bet, but in fact have not. Secondly another group, where all are under the impression not to have placed bets, but who actually have. Then of course, we have to agree on the maths used, to work out a possible statistical significance. As for finding members for the placebo control groups, I think it would not be difficult to recruit them here, many of us - on both sides of the great divide between "scientists" and "believers" are prone to occasional attacks of suggestibility, which I am ready to prove : I suggest a double blind.......please read from the second paragraph of this post. Thankyou. |
Steve, my assertion was not that the "believers" here have attributed any specific phenonema to psychological influence, but that it was erroneous to claim its existence and potential for influence has been discounted by that group. Quite the contrary and if you more closely read the torrent of posts you've elicited that would have been more clear.
BTW, your suggestion of a sizeable bet with someone that they can't succeed in a blind test would render said test moot. The added influence a bet would have on the subjects would inject an immeasureable stimuli into the equation, thus no true conclusion could be drawn. Better to double check the scientific method before proceeding so as to not waste time with a worthless effort. |
Stevemj, you know where to contact us, please feel free to email me at any time to discuss double-blind tests further. Many thanks, kind regards, Richard. |
|
JD - What I see constantly being put forward is called an "argument from ignorance". This kind of argument works like this, since we don't really understand how things work, whatever the arguer is claiming must be true. |
Welcome everyone, rec.audio.oinion.
chas |
Vantage - Where are you located? Are you willing to consider a $10,000 bet. I don't want to do this if it isn't worth the trouble. If so, we can seriously consider how to arrange this. |
Hey folks, chill a little, here, please. In just 37 posts what could have been a really useful discussion broke down to the standard "You don't want to hear what I'm saying, so I won't talk to you anymore, and further more (fill in the insult of your choice here)". But dammit, both sides have the same problem - a question to which they do not have an answer.
There is in this thread the illustration of the "musicality" of tube amps, and the observation that they apparently have higher levels of harmonic "distortion" in the lower harmonics. I'm neither a scientist, nor a fully qualified audiophile, but even I can imagine a possibility - that tube amps can pass thru more of the harmonics of the instrument than solid state does. Their inherent harmonic distortion amplifies those harmonics of the instrument (it's a guess, here folks - please see above disclaimer). My point here is that any scientist should be able to demonstrate that this is or is not physically possible, if not precisely "true". And develop theories of why it could be true, if present science can't absolutely prove/disprove the effect. The one illustration of a double bind test where differences in power cords were detected with a surprising degree of accuracy (and 100% is not the standard for reliability in such a test) should be written up and published, so such a test can be examined and duplicated (and if the participants can't write it up in standard scientific format, perhaps an objectivist could lend a hand?). The possibility that the "Golden Ears" actually can hear things others can not must be examined. Lord knows my spouse can hear things I don't! I mean, there's alot going on that just plain requires a whole lot more study. Which leads us to the plain and simple fact that study costs money and requires resources and organization that a group of hobbiests assembled on an internet usegroup just isn't all that likely to be able to assemble. It's a noble cause, we have all the knights and shining armor we require, we just lack Camelot and the King to pull it all together. I liken basic scientific research to feudal times - lots of fiefs, some grander than others, and lots of feuds, some pettier than others, but lacking a cohesive, central thrust that would unite the effort into a totally effective force. Instead, we have to pull the disparate pieces together to effect a desired outcome. I don't know this for a fact, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that when I pay a seemingly exhorbitant price for a piece of gear, I'm not paying merely for the assembled components, but rather the bulk of the cost is for the research that led the design team to assemble the components in the way that they did. I'd be interested in knowing more about the history of Canada's famed anechoic chamber, for example. It's a potential model for the type of facility I think we need in audio to fully develop the potential for accurate sound reproduction. I just wonder if the economics exist for such a project?
Well, anyway, let's among ourselves drop the swords and daggers, try to overlook the real and imagined slights in the interest of extracting the intent and valuable content of a given post, and above all continue to help one another extract the best from what the audio gods have given us thus far.
and if you don't, you blithering idiot, I'll flame the bejesus outta ya ;-)
chas |
Stevmj, put your money where your mouth is! We would be more than willing to participate in a properly conducted double-blind test where samples of power cords, for example, are rotated in a random manner by an independent party who has no interest in, or knowledge of, the cables under test. For our own business purposes we have conducted such tests where we have introduced different types of cables and cords (our own and other makes) to people who have absolutely no interest in audio or equipment other than they listen to music, both live and recorded (usually via their car radio or occasionally play a cassette on their midi-systems) or are involved in music during the course of their work. These people have no preconceived beliefs or notions that they "have" to find a difference or are under any obligation to do so, they just listen and give their unbiased opinion on what they hear and what their perceptions tell them. The results are interesting and using music tracks that they themselves choose and are familiar with there has not been one occasion where they failed to differentiate a change in cable. The cords were swapped randomly by another person who also has no idea of the cable types nor any vested interest in the procedure. There are a lot of "things" we as humans do not understand in this world. But just because we cannot analyze it and label it and place it in a convenient slot in the annals of human science does not mean that one person can say "...it cannot be true and therefore you must be wrong or a fool..." and deny anyone else who may feel and think differently their right to enjoy those differences. Flame on....! Regards, Richard at www.vantageaudio.com |
