|
Hey, glubson, if must post some light hearted jibber jabber would it be asking too much to do it on the right thread?
|
More to the point, I’d bet dollars to doughnuts naysayers and non believers on the thorny issues of burn in and directionality and cables in general have psyched themselves out. Psychologically predisposed, I think the psychologists would say. Uummmm, did somebody say doughnuts? 🍩 🍩 🍩
|
dachshund
I have read much of these comments (out of total curiosity) since I THOUGHT I HAVE HEARD IT ALL!! WOW, Really? I am aware that some can hear better than other's? BUT! i am also knowledgeable enough to know when i see a Scam being perpetuated on the public! it is a total Psychoacoustic sales tactic! Please people! DOGS CAN'T HEAR WHAT YOUR SAYING!
>>>>>Well, dachshunds can’t, but they run down a man at forty paces.
|
|
Someone’s clock shall soon be cleaned.
|
ganainm
“If your experience suggest things that violate well established scientific norms I would usually suggest to any student to ponder, hard, alternative explanations, other than "oh all that estblished science is wrong". But IF you really have the chops and the data to PROVE that old science wrong, I assure you the Nobel committee is listening. Nobody on this forum has done so, so you mignt look elsewhere for facts on wire and signal transmisson.
Because the OP asked. Many lovely people believe otherwise.”
What well established scientific norms are you talking about? I certainly hope nobody broke any scientific laws. Because if anyone broke Ohm’s law I say we hang him.
”If I could explain it to the average dude they wouldn’t have given me the Nobel prize.” |
ganainm
Musician, Physician, EE degree, Ham, Audiophile. No, cables do not have burn in or have directionality. Many things CAN change such as your listening position, air density and your ears and brain. But for those who do believe in wires with magic properties, it is harmless fun. Unless they talk you out of real money. And you get to decide what that is. This is my thought based on experience physics and physiology.
Best Appeal to Authority award of the week. Bravo!
|
glubson to self: gee that guy seems like he knows something. I think I’ll ride in on his coattails and scold geoffkait again and brag about my simple experiment (which by the way is discredited by the thousands of other experiments with the opposite result. How unlucky can one person be? Shall we call you gullible glubson? 🤔
|
Glupson
Only quasi-technical babbling seems to be allowed.
>>>>That’s where you come in.
|
ganainm
Thing is Geoff, nobody HAS given you a Nobel prize. The "appeal to authority" is not MY authority but say, about a million lbs of EE and Physics texts back to Maxwell and Faraday and hundreds of universities, thousand of recording studios and all those players of Strads who laugh at your directional or burnt in wire. Yeah. Appeal to those authorities.
>>>>Millions and millions? Who are you, Carl Sagan? That’s all just a big Strawman argument. You seem to excel at illogical arguments. Nobody said any EE or Physics texts explain why wires are directional or improve on break-in. Nor do they refute it. As I said no scientific laws have been broken in the process. No need for all the angst.
So, in some ways audiophiles are actually smarter than all those millions of lbs of EE and Physics texts and those millions of EE and Physics PhDs who never heard of wire directionality or break in. Or if they have heard of they smugly dismiss it on grounds that it isn’t in their textbooks from school. Do you believe learning stops as soon as you get your diploma? 👨🎓
Let me ask you, you don’t really think science is complete, do you? Do you know everything? From what you say you’re objection seems to be that it “doesn’t sound right” to you. In other words you have no real technical argument in this particular area, correct? I mean other than name dropping. Nobody has given you the Nobel Prize, either.
”Knowledge can be defined as what remains after you subtract out all the things you forgot from school.” |
koan2
i see the reason for a car’s brakes - to heat treat the rotors evenly and burnish an set the pads, but I have never seen any explanation for speaker cables.
>>>>We see that here a lot. They frequently say proudly, “I have found no evidence to support their claim.” 😛 Just because you see no reason for it doesn’t mean there isn’t one. There is no apparent reason why a super huge black hole 3 Million times the mass of our sun is in the middle of our galaxy, either. I thought all the world loves a mystery. Ah, sweet mystery of life!
|
So, help me understand. You think that anyone who disagrees with you is creating a pissing contest? Is that that the EE part of your brain talking or the pharma part? |
Not only is there no advantage to a manufacturer for lying about directionality or break in it doesn’t make sense at all to lie about it because directionality and break in are so controversial and would almost certainly be a turn off to a lot of folks, especially sensitive gullible newbies, and mean less business rather than more. Top high end cable manufactures like Audiopquest are *outspoken* on the subject of directionality, whereas other manufacturers might be “playing it safe” by not mentioning it, or don’t know, or dismiss it. The same logic applies to cryogenics, another hot button for naysayers. Most high end cable manufacturers routinely cryo their cables, whether they advertise it or not. They are smart enough to know that if they didn’t cryo their cables they wouldn’t be able to compete. |
ganainm
Yes I think "manufacturers lie or are just plain wrong". The why is debatable of course but will seem obvious to many.
>>>>What evidence do you have they are lying or just plain wrong, as you say? And how do you know it seems obvious to many?
GK, no, I do not think "anyone who disagrees with me js engaging in a pissing contest". Just you.
>>>>>Fair enough. |
Uh, I think you mean do you have to burn in the air molecules for your wireless stereo.
“‘Tis better to burn it than to burn out.” |
This whole argument highlights in no uncertain terms the ever widening chasm that exists between the mid fi community and the high end community. If it were not for the fact that many audiophiles have learned how to get their systems to the point where hearing cable and fuse directionality and other tweaks that provide subtle but powerful improvements to those who deserve to reap their benefits. But these tweaks are not silver bullets. Not by a long shot. They won’t necessarily make or break a system, they won’t even necessarily be audible in many systems, or audible by some people who may or may not be trained/experienced to hear changes in tweaks. So it goes. Live and let die.
Made the scene, week to week
Day to day, hour to hour
The gate is straight
Deep and wide
Break on through to the other side
Break on through to the other side
|
The Stealth Flagship Sakra V12 XLR interconnects are actually Directional, at least according to Stealth.
Home /Sakra V12 XLR Interconnect (Pair)
Sakra V12 XLR Interconnect (Pair)
by Stealth Audio
Starting from :$16,000.00
Length
Price with selection: $16,000.00
Quantity
The Sakra V12 is quite different from the standard Sakra: the cables are indeed directional – since they are CONICAL inside and outside, and feature our new “vari-cross” geometry – the cross-section of the cable varies along their length; this is done to improve the impedance matching between the source and the receiving end; Sonically, the cables are more relaxed right out of the box, and sound yet more full-bodied (and thus natural) while having improved resolution and transparency over the "original" Sakra.
Because of the improved geometry the Sakra V12 is more relaxed and natural (right out of the box, in a brand new condition the V12 sounds more “broken in” – compare to the original Sakra with 1000+ hours on it)
In other words, the Sakra V12 is simply a better cable and is our flagship analog interconnect for 2013.
Addendum:
Śakra V17 Limited Edition. Double runs of Vari-Cross amorphous wire-in-Helium, C-37 treated, STEALTH custom RCA and XLR.
[Whoa! You don’t see C-37 everyday. Or wire-in-Helium for that matter!] |
I suspect that the expression, “tests are performed using generally accepted methods” opens up a whole can of worms since as we have already see there really are no generally accepted test methods. Even the lofty double blind test has no official protocol or methodology. Reasonable people disagree with how to perform a double blind test.
As I’ve oft pointed out, negative results of blind tests cannot be used to categorically claim failure of the device(s) under test. Results of a blind test, in and of itself, cannot be generalized. Now, if there were twenty or thirty independent blind tests, however they were performed, one might look at the pass/fail ratio and try to draw conclusions and find comfort. Positive results are a different story, inasmuch as positive results are obtained in spite of all the things that can affect the results of a test.
|
Uh, that’s why I removed it, Professor. Duh! Maybe you need some more coffee.
|
Also, there is no dilemma posed by comments or claims by high end manufacturers. That’s what you skeptical philosophical guys call a Strawman argument. Please give us a break.
|
Terminology like drastically improves or radically improves or transforms performance are what is known as puffing. There is no prohibition against puffing. Just so that you know. Besides, it’s not like burning in cables is a product or anything. Give me a break! The term drastic improvement, even if someone at Nordost said it, perhaps some English major, who knows, hardly justifies a long philosophical diatribe. Ironically, IIRC Nordost is not (rpt not) on board the directionality train, maybe they had an epiphany recently, so skeptics take note. OK, let the inquisition continue.
|
One can’t help wondering why in the world anyone would pursue this issue so strenuously, so verbosely, so relentlessly. What can be the motivation for being so long winded, so argumentative? To show off philosophy skills? To show off writing skills? To prove that he’s a real skeptic? To prove he too smart to be fooled by audiophile tricks? Or too smart to be fooled by unscupulous and lying high end cable manufacturers? Or to be taken in by a conspiracy of true believers, money hungry manufacturers and deluded audiophiles who drank the Jim Jones Kool Aide. I’m serious. What drives these people? What a waste of time. |
Speaking of a complete waste of time,
Howdy, analogluvr! 😛 |
maritime, give my condolences to your liver. 🤠
|
Skeptics would argue the Moon landing was faked by Stanley Kubrick, commissioned by NASA, on the elaborate set of the lunar landscape, of his movie, Space Odyssey 2001, and they will point to many inconsistencies such as no background stars in the photos of the astronauts on the moon surface, the fact that the American flag is waving in the photos (no air on the Moon, hel-loo!) and that actually being able to send a manned rocket ship to the moon and land a man on its surface in a precalculated manner is obviously way beyond the technical capabilities of the 1960s, especially the hugely complicated and laborious orbital mechanics, transfer orbits included, and lack of super computers, which were best realized in the movie, The Martian with Matt Damon. Even on his deathbed Kubrick is rumored to have whispered, I faked the landing. I needed the money to pay for Space Odyssey. |
One thing I forgot regarding the Moon landing hoax. It was Kubrick’s wife who came up with the idea for the famous Neil Armstrong line, “One small step for man, one giant step for mankind.” Which was a nice touch.
|
As I was in the first class of Aerospace Engineers immediately following Kennedy’s announcement of the birth of US Space Program it’s highly unlikely that I would be a skeptic of the Moon landing.
|
Question. You said, from what we know about auditory memory...
Remind me. What do we know about auditory memory? |
I have no problem with Belden. As long as it has Teflon or air dielectric, is cryod and is controlled for directionality.
|
Being able to hear “sheen” from Teflon dielectric but not being able to hear cable direction is an excellent example of WTF? 😛
|
stevecham
No one here has the courage to talk about everyone’s brain burn-in period though. Neurons are far more adaptable than speaker cables. We are very good at the process of belief.
>>>>Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Here we go again with the Anti Audiophile screed that it’s all psychological, audiophiles are easily fooled, directionality and burn in can’t possibly be real so audiophiles must be either lying or hallucinating. Maybe they’re two beers over the line. 🍺 🍺 Placebo effect, expectation bias, alien abduction, mass hysteria. 😂 Pick your fav.
|
Oh, like it couldn’t be something else in the cable that caused the “sheen,” you know, other than the dielectric? Get real! Was the cable burned in? 😛
|
Please don’t pollute audio discussions with pharma blind tests. There is no similarity whatsoever between drug tests and audio tests. In other words, for you philosophy majors out there, and master debaters, it’s a Strawman argument. This is just more philosophical quackery. 🦆 🦆 🦆
|
Outsiders and anti audiophiles frequently claim audiophile tweaks and audiophile rituals are weird or bizarre. It’s part of a carefully orchestrated smear campaign carried out under the pretense of protecting gullible audiophiles and argued with all the gusto of an English or Philosophy student. Apparently no approval from the top is needed to go after audiophiles, the besmircher can be a lone wolf or homegrown anti audiophile. |
Run away! Run away! The brown bomber is back! 💩 💩 💩 💩 |
blueranger
Hey here is something to think about. All the naysayers need to think about what lays beyond known physics. The unknown. People are hearing differences and the current testing equipment cannot pick up on the differences. AB testing is a farce. You have to evaluate for long periods of time to notice the small differences.
>>>Actually, neither burn in or wire directionality disobeys any known laws of physics. So, you can forget about what might or might not happen in the future. It’s irrelevant. |
Claims that remain controversial among the relevant experts (e.g. I’ve seen many EEs say why the technical claims made by audiophiles or expensive cable companies are nonsense), and where the explanations are dubious, and the evidence almost purely anecdotal.
>>>Two things, professor, claiming that many EEs say technical claims made by audiophiles or cable companies are dubious is not only second hand evidence but it’s also, you guessed it! an Appeal to Authority. What about the many EEs who say the claims are not (rpt not) dubious? You’re just going to ignore those, right? Furthermore, anecdotal evidence is still evidence. It is in fact empirical evidence. Hel-loo! Sorry, professor, care to try again? |
Roger Russell? Oh, please! Let sleeping dogs 🐕 lie.
“I saw Jesus on a slide of bread.”
I wouldn’t criticize anyone’s spelling if I were you, partner. 🤠
|
Reminder, when someone accuses people of not learning science nine times out of ten he’s an English major.
“Only quote facts.”
|
Don’t fret, there’s always the chance it’s just your hearing. When’s the last time you had your ears candled? 🕯 |
blueranger
Does science know all about the behavior of atoms and electrons? I don't think tbere is a physicist, electrical engineer or researcher that would bet their life on it. Oh well the discussion goes on.
>>>>Science is not a person so it doesn’t know anything. Scientists are not all the same, some know more about atoms and electrons than others. One thing you can bet your life on is that atom physics and particle physics are *very* mature sciences. So, even if you personally don’t know the answer someone does, sure as shootin’.
|
Hey, whatever you’re comfortable with. 😛
|
Whoa! Hey, chill, I just explained why *electrically* there’s a difference. Do I have to draw you a picture?
|
Glubson, obviously the listening tests were done by folks who weren’t hearing impaired. No offense to you personally. And the results correlated with wire direction. I.e., they weren’t random. Duh! There is no operator error when 80,000 hear it.
|
That’s the wrong question. The correct question is, why is directionality so audible when the difference in resistance is so small one direction vs the other? I don’t think anyone really knows. Physically, in microscope photos, there does appear to be non symmetrical distortion of the wire crystal structure caused by being pulled through the die.
|
In the famous HiFi Tuning measurements of electrical characteristics of fuses of many brands including stock fuses, the lower resistance direction was always consistent with the direction that sounded the best, both for DC circuits and AC circuits. But as noted on the HiFi Tuning data sheets, the rather small differences measured did not account for the relatively significant differences heard in listening tests of “directionality.” And as fate would have it that’s how directionality can be controlled, by controlling the manufacturing process starting with the wire as it comes off the final die. I.e., it’s predictable. Hel-loo! |
stevecham
None of those numbers in that first set of data for FUSE direction 1 vs. 2 are qualifed as statistically significant. We’re talking differences in microOhm and there should be at least three measurements per trial so that a standard deviation is calculated. But of course, a single number stands as "accurate."
The directionality in our subjective minds is far more compelling than any microOhm differences. I’ll bet no one on earth can hear such differences, only if THEY WANT TO.
>>>>Again, you’re not paying careful attention. The differences in measured resistance, while small, were consistent in that they correlated to the direction of the wire pull. And - as I already mentioned - the measured differences are consistent with listening tests. God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. The differences are not (rpt not) insignificant, in any case. I.e., the differences are not (rpt not) random.
Besides, you can eliminate psychological causes by careful testing, no?
|
glupson
Direction does not matter. I tried. Next thread, please.
>>>>>Operator error noted. Try harder.
|
|
