Hear-hear, Redkiwi: Short and unrhubarbily to the point. Cheers, |
Hi Sean. I am going to make one "picky point", that is meant to add to your post rather than negate it. And that is that I disagree that the techs have to "renounce" or "dismiss" anything except their assumptions. For a true scientist, all you have to do is accept that there might be more than you currently understand, or that maybe you haven't applied your existing knowledge to what is really going on.
I have two daughters aged 7 and 9, and keep reminding them of a "SECRET". That secret is that the biggest fool in the world is the person that believes he/she knows everything. Beliefs are very useful things to have, but just like the shoes they grow out of so regularly, that they need to always be ready to grow out of their beliefs too. |
I have to agree with Albert. Aside from a few posts that aimed for the jugular, i think that we were able to confirm at least ONE thing and do it reasonably civil. Most of the "regulars" agree and those that didn't agree still don't.
As an electronics tech, i can somewhat understand where some of these folks are coming from. It is hard for those that are "technically minded" and "electronically educated" to basically "renounce" or "dismiss" all of their education and background. As such, they will probably continue to believe as they do until they are shown differently or experience "changes" for themselves. I know that i used to think that a lot of this stuff was all "hogwash". First hand experience is HARD to deny, especially if the differences are quite obvious.
The funny thing that i find about all of these "wire debates" is that the "average person" simply listens and makes observations for themselves. While they are "uneducated" as to brands, specs, etc... or what to expect from specific models or designs, they can typically identify differences quite readily in MOST comparisons. On the other hand, those that are "electronically educated" seem to denounce any differences. Is it due to "preconcieved notions" ??? You can't say that this is the case with the "average person" as they have NO background or ideas as to what to expect from brand x or brand y. They simply have to go by their own judgement and what they experience first hand.
While i know that the "purists" will say that sighted tests mean NOTHING, i do not share that opinion for the above reasons. As such, i think that most people want to use what works or "sounds" best in their system, regardless of brand or design. If we are "normal" citizens, finding the best performer at the lowest price is something that we would all strive for. If that truly were the case, we would all own Pioneer, Technics, Fisher, etc... if it DID perform the same or better than many of the other brands that we do use. Seeking something "better" is what led us away from most of those pieces into the the components and cables that we use today. As such, we have "learned" much along the way in terms of hands & "ears on" experience. Like those that are "electronically educated", we are not about to throw away OUR "education" in these matters without being shown something different first-hand. We are simply the other side of the same coin.
On that "note", i'd like to say thanks to all for voicing an opinion and i hope that you enjoy your music and systems. Whatever they may be.... Sean
> |
My sincere thanks to Redkiwi and the others here that are as obsessed with the music as I am. I was afraid I would open this thread tonight and see a big bloody battle again. It is SO nice to see familiar names and sensible data posted on this subject. |
A $ (or euro) 0,02 "burned" vs. raw cable, blind testing experiment.
Unanimously, "burned in" cables sounded better overall: slightly more musical (I use the word as proposed in the posts following Detlof's thread on the subject), also, thicker bass, smoother vs strident highs, better imaging.
Story: Prompted by Sean's thread & the plethora of fascinating posts (thank you, all), I convinced the local Nordost dealer & two other audiophiles to conduct a blind A-B listening test. Dealer provided the cable info below.
Test cables: Nordost Quattro fil (IC). Burn-in: dealer's german machine (clearaudio?), allegedly 1 week + normal use, 1 week. Control cables, 4fil out of the box.
Test cables used between pre & power.
System parametres:
"Burnt-in" (dealer) quattro fil IC, spm ref speaker cables.
Sources: Clearaudio ref TT/Insider. Symphonic Line Reference CDP.
Amps: Symphonic Line Kraftquelle pre, RG7 power (also "burnt-in" according to dealer). A-Physic Avanti speakers.
Music excerpts: P Floyd "The Wall" ("...we don't need no educAItion..."), LP / Mahler 5th, Barbirolli (intro, ofcourse: those winds...), CD / Meet Me in London, Naim CD ("Caruso" with a female voice.)/Chesky's "Golden Ears" (Vivaldi's flute concerto, intro to 1st flute solo)
The 3-strong "panel" had 10 points assessment sheets, too, prepared by one who is a contributor to a local audio mag. (We tried to do this, seriously...)
What else? I had a great time playing audio reviewer, listened to the excerpts religiously and repeatedly for 4 hrs. It'll take some time before I listen to this stuff again (desintoxication).
Ofcourse, this was an informal experience that I thought of sharing with y'all as a small token to the posts above.
Cheers, Greg |
The problem now Albert and Redkiwi, Seldon and Sean on another post is that what ever this guy comes up with for equipment, assuming he does, will not be trusted by me. How after all this time can I believe he owns the equipment he'll say? His points have been make over and over, now he's come back with the same points, no new insight. His bed was made long ago, if we want to discuss his issues, let's start figuring ways to substantiate our findings, not for this guys sake, but to help study other products. First step is to stop giving this guy the value we have by simply not responding. I read through his posts last night on a number of topics, all the same crap. I will not waste my time talking to him any further and I suggest the same until he has something to offer. The ultimate insult to me was on the "Audiogon Recordings to die for" post. After so many great posts, all he was able to add was support to one disk. It was too much to ask that he add his own favorites to the thread. I hope it prides him in being the only blemish on that thread, maybe Audiogon will help by removing his worthless statement. |
Albert and Redkiwi,
Both of you have made very sensible, intelligent posts. Mr 702, however, worships at the altar of numbers and you're not going to budge him.
Albert- your story about the racing boat reminds me of my checkered past when I was involved with fast cars. Cant' remember how many times two cars had identical bhp, torque curves, and drivers of the same physical mass. Yet when pitted against one another, there was always a winner. The hardline data types would say it should have been a dead heat every time. But it never was. Why? Obviously there was more going on there than the pure numbers would suggest.
Can we bury this already dead horse?? |
In an attempt to add to Albert's well made points. First, in this labour of love I have learnt that faithfulness to the music is not measured well by any of the measures used in electrical engineering. We will all agree that "no distortion of the original signal" is what we want to achieve. But what we find is that most real speakers in real rooms have levels of measured distortion that are an order of magnitude greater than the distortion of a competent amp. And yet, I find that the kind of distortion introduced by an amp does far more damage to my musical enjoyment than do the distortions of most speakers. This may lead on to the conclusion that there are some forms of distortion that are worse than others, or to be more specific, that say 1% of 2nd order harmonic distortion is more benign than 0.1% of 9th order harmonic distortion. And such a finding (albeit subjective) would be very valuable. But this conclusion can only be arrived at by a mixture of measurement and listening. Without the listening part 702, your numbers are just numbers with no meaningful reference point in reality. Without listening, how do you know what level of distortion is acceptable, and how do you know whether that level is more or less acceptable depending on what type of distortion is involved, and how do you know whether a halving of distortion is meaningful or whether it needs to be reduced by an order of magnitude, or just 10%, to be meaningful for a listener. Your numbers create the illusion of some linear relationship, and some ability to sum those numbers, that I believe does not exist for a listener trying to enjoy music in the home - and you cannot prove me wrong on this point - except perhaps by listening. Second, my experience of ABX tests is that people hear the obvious tonal balance differences only, when listening for the short periods involved with ABX testing. But the distortions that cause an audiophile to tear his or her hair out and go on wild binges on the current cable of the month, are those less obvious ones, that emerge from a deeper familiarity, and a growing unease with the music making (or destroying) qualities of a piece of equipment. I would never trust an ABX test to select a piece of equipment - the suggestion is laughable - and maybe Albert has it right, that you just don't have enough listening experience with high-end audio gear to realise how laughable it is. |
702, you are obviously coming from different side of the business. Our request for you to discuss your choices in equipment is to determine whether you actually listen to music.
If you are blessed to hear exclusively live performances, then that is just wonderful ( for you). The rest of us must contend with the parts and pieces that make up our systems in a never ending attempt at perfection. You continue to dismiss anyone's opinion that offers their experience as to the performance differences in cables (or whatever). The problem is that you never try to enter into our world, where we are trying to make it right with the tools we have at hand.
Perhaps at your place of employment numerical data is the only truth you need, as it allows your projects to pass or fail, becoming self fulfilling in your experiences. I have no clue as to what role you actually play in the audio community, as you are vague about that as well.
I do know that If you continue expressing your data only point of view, and never touch on the hard knock experiences of making your music system work, you will never get any converts. You are undoubtedly Intelligent and strong willed, but you obviously lack experience in the specific areas we are discussing at this site.
My comments about your lack of dedication to music refers to your insistence (particularly) of ABX testing. You never discuss the pleasure of new software, or the real life choices you have had to make to get your system right. You make it appear that you are not involved in our labor of love, but rather for the love of the scientific aspect, and the shelter it seems to provide you. I can never relate to someone who enjoys the numbers more than the experience of making long term choices that evolve the music toward greatness.
I have a true story to relate. My best friend spent much of his youth, racing cigarette boats. These are the ultra high speed variety, powered by large auto racing engines. One Sunday during a competition, he and his mechanic had spent two weeks prepping the "perfect' engine for their boat. The dyno tests proved that it had the most horsepower possible, the hull was the perfect design for the weight and drive system, and they had worked out the exact fuel mixture for the temperature and humidity. They felt absolutely assured that their work of art would sweep all the competitors aside.
The very first run, with perfect execution in every driving skill, they met with severe defeat. His mechanic charged over to the competitors boat, and returned with a report. "That guys engineering is absolute crap, he is using the wrong fuel injection, his camshaft is not the right grind for that engine, and drive train is a mismatch for the hull."
My friend just stared at him silently for a moment, and then replied, "Why don't you go explain all that to him, maybe he will give up and go home instead of sticking around here kicking our butt all day."
Often, the guy that keeps experimenting, focusing his experience, and continuing to discover and educate himself as to what works, wins the prize. Numerical data is just a guideline, it is not a substitute for long term listening, or the free exchange of ideas among those trying to solve the problems of musical reproduction. |
Will someone please conduct some tests? All we need is an electron microscope (one of you must have access to one) and some copper samples.
1. Have one control sample, one sample that you apply a signal to for 30 days, and one sample that you subject to mechanical stress followed by applying a signal for 30 days.
2. Get an image of what each sample looks like before the tests.
3. Get an image of what they look like after the tests.
Did the crystal structure change in any of them? Did orientation of crystals change? Did the magnitude of angles at crystal junctions change? Did the gaps between crystals change?
I'll be the first to admit I've heard some cables that sounded bright at first, but then "broke-in". But I'd like to see if anyone can find real evidence of such phenomena. |
Jerie: What's your obsession with other people's gear? Is it evaluating performance by nameplate?
Jadem6: Please tell me what testing you find superior to DBT. If you can't tell me, perhaps you don't have a point to make?
Albertporter: And in what way am I not dedicated to music? Man, last week, Easter week, was my busiest time of the year musically.
I find solace in performance. And knowing and learning how to improve performance, the better to reproduce musical recordings. Knowing and learning involves understanding the technology, which involves the messy involvement with numbers and measurement and testing and experimenting. What's wrong with that?
If you've listened to recordings, attended concerts, gone to films, seen a Broadway show, or watched TV in the past 20 years there's a good chance you've heard some things I've been a part of developing.
Jadem6: I cannot question your ability to cut and paste. Certainly dielectrics have different properties. Knowing how they apply to audio cabling is key, and that's where you need to brush up, if possible. The purpose of a signal cable (IC or speaker) is to convey audio, in the form of electrical signals, from one component to another. The ideal cable will not affect the signal. Any cable will, though, because we are dealing with real properties of resistance, capacitance, and inductance. However, it's not at all difficult to make cable in such a way as to absolutely minimize the effects on the audio, although some people like high-capacitance cables that roll off the highs (because cables that don't would sound too "bright"). And it's not very expensive to do so, either. But there's not a lot of profit margin in selling cables inexpensively to the unsuspecting. |
Bruce: Nice post. I will soon be in a position where the final addition or tweak to my system will be the speaker cables. I am satisfied with my (very) reasonably priced IC's and will just have to find a pair of speaker cables that sinc with the rest of the system as well as outperform my budget Kimber Kable. I also just finished emails with another member "off" forum in which we discussed the importence of our systems sounding good to very good on a variety of source material. This is something that often gets left to the way side and is one reason that I have had to reject some of the hyper detailed cables for use in my system. If Mitch Ryder does not sound half way decent, then the piece of equipment is not for me. |
Great points Bruce. First I'm in 100% agreement that cables are a tweak, not a base component. Once the system is created, then is the time to try cables and I.C. to bring out the last potential from the equipment. Assuming that was completed, I'm wondering if you take bass for instance. A recording that sounds tight and full on your system may be the sum correlation to the cables used during the recording process and the cables used on your system. I am wondering if a cable with a strength in bass such as the one used on the tape machine by Mapleshade, combined with a cable in your own system that also accentuated the bass. Would the net result become too much base? Then taking that same recording to a system that didn't accentuate the bass might make the overall result extremely pleasing. Food for thought, and maybe an explanation of why some pieces touted as great reference recordings can be lifeless to some. |
Bruce,
Just so! That's exactly how I've approached it. Am currently looking for a sufficiently resolving IC for CD to pre/pro, having found good ICs between amps and pre. Of course, I should get help because 702 has told me the rules of physics and Ohm's law no longer apply. (Hadn't you heard, 702, that Ohm's law had been repealed after an aroused citizenry was mobilized?) Yep, we're all in wonderland now so you'll have to guide us. Bring on those charts and graphs. |
Sound jugement Bruce, in my opinion. |
Jadem6, Just to throw a little more oil on the fire, you state "To do this I went through some of the recordings I personally find to be well recorded with above average sonic achievements." I believe a more accurate statement would read "To do this I went through some of the recordings I personally find to sound good on my system."
I think this is THE huge variable in how systems are evaluated. We tend to use the same recordings to evaluate various components. For instance, I may have a recording that has been deemed to have excellent bass. Perhaps it is a little bass heavy, but on some systems this is just the ticket to sonic excellence. Using this recording, I would judge more neutral systems to be bass deficient.
For this and other reasons, I advocate spending most of your budget on components, and saving the big "cable question" to the end when you are putting on the finishing touches and have a system of sufficient resolution to make these megabuck decisions.
Happy listening |
Thanks Angela, I have a bit more now to add. I just spent about a half hour looking through the M.I.T., Cal Poly and Stanford research programs. I recommend any of you who have a true interest in the science of the art to please spend some time at the very well written M.I.T. site. If a certain area of research is of interest to you, I know from personal experience that a quick note to the proper professor will give you direct information.
In my short research I've been able to find out that there are some scientists (I'd call M.I.T. fairly informed) who are taking some of the issues of dielectrics, wave technology along with measurements of such quite seriously. I think the people who have knowledge and interest of engineering may find this a great read.
The following are some direct pastes of web pages followed by the address to further reading:
"The proposed program is to develop and apply dielectrometry technology to non-destructive testing of materials and systems. Interdigital frequency-wavelength dielectrometry can be used to measure stratified distributions of dielectric permittivity and conductivity of insulating materials. The complex dielectric permittivity is directly related to other material properties, such as moisture content, temperature, concentration of impurities and additives, density, aging status, etc. The analysis of spatial and temporal variations of these properties lends valuable insights into physical phenomena that take place in materials, electric power apparatus, and civil infrastructures; provides instrumentation for system monitoring and diagnostics; and can be used for optimization of design and performance characteristics." http://web.mit.edu/lees-lab/www/full/frames/index1024.html
"The proposed research is for the continued analytical, computational, and experimental study using optical tomography measurements of high voltage insulation, conduction, prebreakdown and breakdown characteristics in dielectrics. The methodology uses electric field induced birefringence (Kerr effect) with an improved sensitive optical measurement system and a new advanced mathematical formulation that allows calculation of electric field magnitude and direction in any electrode geometry from optical intensity measurements. Because the physics of high voltage charge injection and transport, prebreakdown and electrical breakdown are not known for most metal/dielectric systems, the electric field distribution cannot be calculated from knowledge of system geometries alone. Optical measurements provide a direct approach to determining electrical constitutive laws and learning the physics of the electrical breakdown process and so offers a research methodology for major advances in increasing the breakdown strength of dielectric systems."
http://web.mit.edu/lees-lab/www/full/frames/index1024.html
for general knowledge:
http://www.mit.edu
Finally I went to the Kimber Kable web site and looked at there library. The following is the opening paragraph of there library listing.
Over one thousand volumes exist in the private library at Kimber Kable. A comprehensive library resource is critical in developing and manufacturing the finest products. Cable manufacture requires significant expertise in many disciplines; plastics, metals, plating, extruding, machining, soldering and magnetics, to name a few. In addition the cable must be tested and evaluated which requires knowledgeable expertise in acoustics, electronics and test instrumentation. The final link is the correlation between tested results and subjective impressions, access to previous research in this area is very important. Products that are developed with a great library resource are much more likely
to be technically advanced, more cost effective and consistently manufactured.
What I found here was just how little the "experts" here at AudiogoN understand. Listen to there statements, then look here to see all they chose to ignore. It's amazing, and I'd like to say most of use are one hell of a lot closer to understanding audio than the quite vocal few who have been asked to change there approach. Enough said, I hope some of us take the time to learn from this knowledge available and continue to update each other. Maybe a "research" section of the site would be helpful. Have fun reading! J.D. |
JD, you been busy. Most excellant post, my friend. I must say that you're getting much better at your stand up since your last attempt! Very enjoyable! |
Today was the day, I was finally going to get this cable thing figured out. After been told by an accomplished recording engineer here at AudiogoN that cable makes no difference either scientifically or in any measurable way, I thought I'd look into what his pears thought. To do this I went through some of the recordings I personally find to be well recorded with above average sonic achievements. I found some extremely enlightening results. First I looked at what the Engineers at Chesky, both Bob Katz and Billy Pilgrim have been using in there recording procedures. I have come to the conclusion that Chesky is actually a puppet corporation of George Cardas's. I was amazed to find that Cardas cables and interconnects are used on all the Chesky recordings I own, oddly no reference to Radio Shack or standard 12Ga spool wire. Knowing this was a fluke and a subsidiary of a larger company I simply moved on.
Next on the review list was Groove Note, surely they have no affiliations. Well I was surprised to find that Michael C. Ross, recording engineer for Groove Note was using Audio Quest cabling. This seems easy to under stand in that we all know Audio Quest gives all the recording studios cabling for free, that explained to me why so many mid-fi studios I looked at also were using Audio Quest. It was at this exact moment that I realized Audio Quest is the "king pin" in the hi-fi conspiracy. Audio Quest, Audio Tekna, Audio Magic, Audio Prism, Audio .... All these companies are mere fronts for the great audio empire run by some as yet undetermined organization with the sole purpose of brainwashing naive audiophiles. At this time I was sure the C.I.A. and organized crime had moved on from the Kennedy assassination to audio, I knew this to be true until I found Keith O. Johnson from Reference Recordings was using M.I.T. cabling, this seemed odd to me, how could a company as respected as RR remain on the outside of the great conspiracy?
Still with no answers I went to the Mapleshade label. This was a no brainier, Mapleshade was surely using Mapleshade cabling. After all they make and sell cables so they wouldn't use another brand, right? Wrong! Pierre Sprey the engineer for Mapleshade used Audio quest and Maple shade. Man, another front corp. I then read the information in the Mapleshade (Wildchild) disk of a fantastic Rasta band *Midnight* "Ras Mek Peace" and a description of the never ending process Pierre went through trying to get the best possible sound. Twice he talks about trying different cables and interconnects, and further discussed using a "weird new silver double-tube wires" on the tape machine that added half octave of base responce. I further learned that they were also using Omega Mikro interconnects in the system. How odd it seems that the one known cable maker is using three or four different brands.
These people, in my opinion are the leaders of the industry and they have all found cabling important enough to list in there bio, and yet "the great engineer" of AudiogoN sees no benefit.
In Architecture the majority of the Architects I know I would not seek out for advice. I know in other businesses that meritocracy is the norm, greatness takes creativity and risk taking. There are bad Doctors, bad Lawyers, bad store clerks, you name it. I hate to say it 70242.241, but I believe you may be just another very average engineer and maybe are not in any position to lecture to us about the state of the art of audio. So for now good-by, J.D. |
The "Cable Cooker" is the best I have used and it does, speaker, interconnects and power cords with superb and noticeable results. Generally, more open, dynamic, detailed and faster. Highly recomnmended! |
702, you wrote:
Albertporter: In what way do I or Stevemj reject "finding what works?" That is precisely
our point, to accurately find what works. I do not fit your profile of the people you know in
audio? I'm okay with that. And I've been involved with a few state of the art audio products
here and there, too, with more in the chute.
My reply:
You reject what works simply by not searching for it. You find solace in the numbers and blind tests, rather than putting great product in real life situations and having the confidence in your own ability to make a decision based on the results.
You do not fit my profile of other engineers in audio as most of them are dedicated to music. I have never heard you speak of a single piece of music, nor of your own equipment. In addition, I know dozens of audio manufacturers on a personal basis, many for more than 20 years. Every one of these people test their creations with music in an audio system. As to your involvement in audio design, reveal what projects you are (or were) involved in, and I probably know the people you work with. In fact, if you posted with your true name, I would probably already know the answer to my question. |
Hey 7, I've told you twice this past winter. In that you have chosen to not listen, well I think your not worth the effort. You are the worst of the worst in my opinion, and I have no more time for your games Sir. |
702442: Allow me to retort. It is difficult for me and many others on this site to indulge your request for clarification as you and your pals ignore repeated requests to post YOUR GEAR and your experiences with them. You hide behind your rhetoric in a transparent attempt to weasel away from the obvious. The simple truth is that you have no experience and are subsequently ignorant. None of you have exhibited a "strong knowledge of audio". In fact even Audiogon has asked that you contribute elswhere in these forums. The truth is that you can't! Your inability to contribute any meaningful dialog across multi-topic discussions is a forgone conclusion. I stand by what I have written. Your "blah, blah, blah" speaks volumes. It is obvious that your inability to hear differences is solely due to the fact that you just don't listen. C'mon pony-boy, post your gear and tells us all about it. Grant all of us the same courtesy we have shown to you over and over again. You won't do it and we all know why. Inexperienced and ignorant. I trust this clears things up for you. -Jerie |
7, i think that you'll find that sometimes electrical measurements VERIFY what we hear even though it would not show up under "normal" test procedures. Moncrieff did reviews of products and talked about ( others still do it today ) product X having a "blacker background" than product Y and product Z. The differences between he and the current breed is that he actually showed the differences via scope photos that product X actually had deeper nulls on the negative going portions of the same signals than either product Y or Z. Is it possible for someone to hear such absolutely minute discrepancies in signal ??? I guess so because he was able to make note of such things BEFORE measuring them. Keep in mind that we are talking duration lengths of microseconds and output level differences of microvolts at best. This is NOT recognized by the scientific community as being "above the accepted minimum hearing threshold", etc....
I also know where your coming from as someone that makes a living working with electrical measurements. I don't think that we know everything about how such things work and try to keep an open mind about them. Measurements DO give us something to compare and baseline one product against another while explaining SOME of the if's and why's to us. Besides that, they give us a baseline for repeatability as to how something works "normally". The problem is that many of the actual "industry standard" test procedures may not be up to the level of discernment that the actual equipment is capable of doing or to what we can hear. THIS is what causes many of the problems that the "regulars" on this site and several others have problems with. Just because something measures similar under specific test conditions DOES NOT mean that it HAS to perform the same under dynamic use. There are specific test parameters that are followed, but who is to say that they are measuring the "most correct" criteria as to what we consider important when listening ???
I think that your approach of refining circuitry via measurements AND listening tests is about the only way that this industry will make progress. Obviously we've been the way of "best measurements" via SS electronics in the 70's and we've all heard how most of that sounded. Sean
> |
Jadem6: Okay, PLEASE tell me what methods for comparison you prefer, and what steps you take for eliminating prejudices and biases and ensuring that evaluations are made solely on what is audible. If you have a better way, please tell us what it is.
Albertporter: In what way do I or Stevemj reject "finding what works?" That is precisely our point, to accurately find what works. I do not fit your profile of the people you know in audio? I'm okay with that. And I've been involved with a few state of the art audio products here and there, too, with more in the chute.
Adamanteus: You contradict yourself sharply. You label us the "measurement only" crowd (which is not true; measurement is a tool for understanding and refining designs, circuit behavior, etc., not an end in itself), and then decry our insistance on DBT, which involves listening and nothing else, including measurement.
Also, electronic instrumentation (which has nothing to do with double-blind testing) _can_ detect stuff that not even the most golden ear among us can hear, but that doesn't mean everything that can be measured is useful.
I don't know what rules or laws apply in this forum. Apparently not Ohm's Law, laws of physics, etc. ;)
Jerie: In what way is Stevemj "inexperienced, ignorant," blah, blah, blah? He exhibits a strong knowledge of audio, which I find to be a very refreshing change of pace here.
It's inane to me to talk about this being better than that, and then reject making a fair and direct head-to-head comparison between them to see if it's true and to what degree. Why have races with a start and a finish line? Gee, we'll just _discuss_ which car and driver are faster and more skilled and choose the winner that way. Let's nip this baseball season in the bud; everybody knows the best team is ... who? |
70242,
I believe you've misread my scribblings. Nowhere have I expressed a fear of DBTs. In fact, I think they have their uses; but the measurement-only crowd ( among whom you seem to number ) puts too much emphasis on them. Put another way, the numbers folks display an almost religious passion in their belief that if it can't be measured, it can't be heard. There is a staggering amount of anecdotal evidence that contradicts that.
I ain't afraid of DBTs, merely think their capability of resolving subtle differences is overdone.
I do believe, again, do believe that eventually the things we benighted listeners hear, and which you do not, will be amenable of quantification: the technology to measure these things just isn't sophisticated enough. Electronic instrumentation is not nearly refined enough to search out the things the human auditory system can perceive. |
Isn't this beginning to get really silly? RHUBARB to all. Lets do as Albert says, lets "shut up and dance", exchange and share with each other for the advancement of music in the home and its enjoyment. |
"CHEAP ONES" sorry, I am also testing 2 keyboards.... |
I double blind tested some tires this morning on the interstate. The screeching tires and screams of terror where about the same with both sets, so I will stick with the cheep ones for now. |
Not all EE's are so stubborn-minded so don't go classifying everyone here along with the rest of 'em. This from an old-school "wire-is-wire" EE who's finally HEARD the light! My testing is blind too - blind faith, because I don't fully understand the reasons explaining what I unquestionably do hear.
I don't fully comprehend all of the physics involved in driving my automobile either - but that certainly doesn't stop me from enjoying that experience. |
Steve today is an extremely sad day, you have lost all respect. My 13 year old son with C.P. living in a wheel chair with extreme limits on his social interaction has proven to be more grown up than you. I feel very sorry for you "PAL" |
Jadem, 702's post is on topic. His opinion obviously is that DBTs are the only scientifically valid way to compare new and "burned-in" cables. I happen to disagree with him, an agree with you, but I think that in this thread his comments are on topic and were invited by the title of the thread.
Scientists have been around a lot longer than double blind tests, observing things, recording their observations, testing hypotheses. For myself, I reject the notion that I am biased in favor of finding or not finding difference in cables, ie, that my observations are untrustworthy. I trust myself. And for that reason, I am interested in what other people have to say about differences in cables and whether burning in makes a difference.
On topic: I have never found any difference between brand new interconnects and well-seasoned interconnects, and the idea of burning-in cables makes no sense to me. But, but, I have found huge changes in speaker cables after a few hours of use. More bass, more clarity, better soundstaging and imaging. I dont really care if it makes sense and Im certainly not interested in proving it to anyone. |
You posted:
You just won't behave yourself . Just because you are an electrical engineer who works in audio and nearly everyone else who posts here doesn't even understand electricity, doesn't give you the right to go
making stupid anti-group statements. Right on JD, I'm with you pal.
Do you sincerely believe your dialogue is supportive of the people who visit here? Looks more like a backhanded slap at us poor slobs that do not understand electricity. Why do you offer cloaked praise for 702 "the engineer," and then act surprised that we have not seen a change in your posting habits?
As for 702, I do not know what kind of engineering you do, but you certainly do not fit the profile of the people I know in audio. Four days ago I wrote three top audio engineers, one in speakers, one in amplifiers and one in cable. All three shuttered at the topic of scientific argument. I am asking permission right now to reprint their replies. These engineers have chosen to move past the discussion stage, they provide state of the art product to the real world. |
Stevemj: Much like the spoiled, obnoxious child who is severely lacking social graces and in need of direction, please allow me to give you the proper direction you so sorely require:
1) Your sarcastic demeanor is inappropriate.
2) Your inability to contribute any meaningful dialog across multi-topic discussions is forgone conclusion.
3) Your banter is ill conceived and mean spirited.
4) You are dreadfully inexperienced, ignorant and you are quickly wearing out your welcome on this site.
Except your failure of refined social skill sets and work hard to improve yourself. Get out of your dull existence and find some attention that will bring you positive fulfillment thereby giving your life validation, credibility and purposeful meaning. I trust this satisfies the request for direction that you asked for. -Jerie |
I agree with you 110% Albert. I am trying my best to fit in. I have expressed none of my opinions about HIFI stuff for days. Perhaps you could provide me with a list of things that are appropriate for me to say. |
Shame on you too Stevemj, there you go, protecting the scientific evidence again. Obviously it is more important for you to be "scientific" about all this, than finding what works. As far as 702, I hope that this topic is being monitored, obviously you have even less respect for the people that host us, than those of us that BLINDLY follow the rules. Now that is a blind test! I hope you do not expect us to have any compassion for you when you are banned for failure to follow Audiogon's request. Pretty much tells me what I need to know about your character and integrity. Why would I ever believe in a method set forth by a person who has such blatant disregard for the rules? Or is it a fact that because you are such a clever engineer, that the rules do not apply to you? |
Shame on you 702! There you go getting scientific again. You just won't behave yourself. Just because you are an electrical engineer who works in audio and nearly everyone else who posts here doesn't even understand electricity, doesn't give you the right to go making stupid anti-group statements. Right on JD, I'm with you pal. |
No 70242.241, that's not "the" way to do it. That's "a" way to do it. This is exactly the reason you've been asked to change your aproach. You believe this is the way to do it, there are other ways, to bad you've chosen to not accept that. |
Detlof: Actual, double blind tests are of prime importance in things psychological. In pharmaceutical testing, there are always those who will report feeling better because they were seen by a physician and given a pill or medication; this is called the placebo effect. This would skew a test to a possible false positive unless you have a control group receiving placebo treatment to compare to the ones receiving real medication.
Redkiwi, Albertporter, Amanteus: What's to fear about double-blind testing? All I suggested was to actually determine whether "burning in" cables produced audible changes, and well, that's the way to do it. |
Please forgive my ignorance but what's the explanation of this Rhubarb acronym that y'all are throwing around - am I missing a good joke here? |
|
Redkiwi,
You're too polite, mate. "Rhubarb" would not be my first choice, but since most of the posters here seem refined and educated, I'll refrain from proferring the word I had in mind.
Glad to see you're still hanging around, as it were. I'm opting out now because there are some technical questions the measurement set has refused to answer but which, IMHO, bear upon the whole topic. Willful blindness perhaps? Will still keep reading and watch the saga unfold. |
Redkiwi, the "insist and insist again" in your post is dead on. Their preference in this forum appears to be centered on convincing us that our equipment and our music systems should be held accountable to their standards of testing.
I will hold to that view, just as soon as they offer information that aids in improving my music, or they choose to contribute to the cost of doing things their way. My testing procedures have resulted in equipment matching that consistently produces music that I love. Perhaps these guys have let the blindfold slip over their ears as well as their eyes, this would explain why they think all wire sounds the same.
By the way, I hope you know that the "Shut up and Dance" was aimed at the ABX guys who would rather fight than switch. The switch in this case being the "on" button of their music system. |
Absolutely Albert - if I boogie better by painting my cables red or my CDs green then I ought to be able to say so here. Good point Detlof, but what appears to happen with these debates is the repetitive tyranny by a few who insist on double blind tests, and then insist again, and then insist again, and then insist again............. whenever a certain set of topics arise. And then they have the gall to argue that their position is valid because electrons are electrons - like that closes the debate? I have said too much again and will return to my pledge to leave these pointless exchanges alone. |
Redkiwi, fond greetings: There will be RHUBARB as long as humans debate. As for double blind tests, they DO have their merits. Many of us would not be around any more, if they did not exist. As you know, the pharmaceutical industry must rely heavily on them in the development and testing of new drugs. They seem to work on a biochemical, physiological level. Strangely, they often do not in the psychological field. What we see here in this debate, is just one example for this strange fact, which has bugged experimental psychology just as much as it bugs some of us here. |
Redkiwi, again you have saved me considerable aggrivation in my own reply to this. When did this site become one of ABX arguments rather tools needed to make music? Reminds me of a bumper sticker that circulated in my area for a good while, it read, "Shut up and Dance." |
I would love to comment, but I am restricted by my own commitment to myself and others here to just say RHUBARB. But perhaps I am allowed to comment on the wine tasting analogy. I have participated in blind tasting tests of wine and they served to prove nothing I didn't already know from many years of tasting wines - they taste different from each other. The thing is, I have learnt a lot from experience of the world without the benefit of blind tests, such as stopping at red traffic lights to avoid collisions (would be interesting to do a blind test on that wouldn't it)? Next time a sexual conquest insists I wear a condom, perhaps I will insist on a blind test first. I will shut up now in quavering fear of the negative votes I will get for the use of sarcasm. But honestly, what a load of RHUBARB that still pervades these debates. |
Then again, it could all be immaterial, akin to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It seems to me that it would be very easy to see if cables improve with "burn-in." Directly compare "burnt-in" cables with identical "non-burnt-in" cables. Double-blind test, either ABX or same-different. See if a statistically significant number of trials indicate that there is probably an audible difference between them. If not, I don't insist on accepting the null argument; we can do more testing.
And/or do electrical analyses on cables before "burn-in" and after, measuring the conductance and reactance over maybe 5 Hz up to 100 kHz. |
Richard I think your going in a good direction. I too believe we should ask "possible" questions, and rather than simply dismissing them as so often is the case, we need to explore the theory. 70242.241 has asked the question, I believe meant to state the fact that metal has no memory, when bent or pounded or what ever the structure is indeed altered. We know that heating the metal will re-disperse the elements evenly though the material. I think the question of wave flow, and a new question of electro magnetic fields produced when current is passed should be looked at. Maybe there is something there as current rides through the metal moving via electrons it might indeed alter something. |
They could just claim that they burn it in for us, or make up some theory saying their design is so advanced and outstanding that it is just fine out of the box. But you don't see it happen? Seems like that would be a good marketing ploy to set yourself apart from the other guys. "Our cable is so advanced you don't need to burn it in" ! They could even double the price of the cables that don't need it. |
