Most Important, Unloved Cable...
jinjuku "I got into a conversation with William Low at WBF forum. He said people, all over the world, all the time, at all sorts of venues (trade shows) hear the difference in their Ethernet cabling. Even in this very thread someone said they had people over that could hear the difference. Were they camping out for two weeks? Michael Lavorgna said the differences in Ethernet cabling are 'Plain as Day' and 'Readily Apparent'. So someone is lying." well, not lying necessarily. So it goes. |
Dynaquest4 goeff: I said: "...the OP suggested, no...he essentially said, that the equipment in your test did not cost enough and therefore would only provide mediocre results." You said: "Actually the OP suggested no such thing. Good try." OP actually said to jinjuku: "Seriously, a couple hundred dollar system is what you are putting up for evidence? How about you get some serious gear and do the test? Audiophilia is not the reduction of quality to the lowest common denominator. You WILL get mediocre sound that way." Makes sense to me. Not to mention he might very well be all thumbs. Or deaf in one ear. Who knows? there are lots of reasons why people sometimes get negative results. |
jinjuku @geoffkait I know Mike Lavigne couldn’t tell his $30,000 Magnum Opus from Monster cable. Helpful hint: He has a $500,000 system. You don’t say? Was that during the period when his system was out of phase? There are many reasons why some people don’t hear things. Not being able to put together a system that doesn’t have at least one mistake in it or be able to maintain that system are just two reasons. Could be the time of day. Cables not broken in. Yada, yada, yada. One test doesn’t prove anything. Getting negative results proves nothing. I would be the first to say even a very expensive system can sound bad. I’ve heard plenty that didn’t sound good. It’s not generally because of the equipment or the cables, though. It’s something else. Look within. |
jinjuku "Wait, so people can have positive results totally sighted, negative results when the answers are taken away before hand?" I didn’t say that. Nor do I think the statement is true. "So you are saying sighted evaluation is the legitimate way to go about this and controlling for confirmation bias is not?" No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying ALL tests are subject to a whole range of potential problems and issues. Consequently, one test cannot prove anything. Especially if results are negative. Too many things can and do go wrong. "Ergo: sighted means everything goes ’correct’ and bias controlled evaluation means everything can go wrong." I’m not saying that at all. I don’t think it’s true, either. "In your setup, if you have a layer 3 managed switch, and I turn on link aggregation and supply a generic CAT6 cable that all bets are off because now everything is wrong?" I don’t agree with that statement. I don’t even know what that statement is supposed to mean. 😄 |
Geoffkait: There it is! Did I call that one or not? It was just a matter of time. The Appeal to Controlled Blind Testing argument. One of the most oft used logical fallacies of them all. to which jinjuku replied, "You may have missed the evaluation of a $250 computer output and that of high end streamer where the claimant could listen at their leisure fully sighted. On their own equipment, their own room, their own material, their own time frame. Fully sighted testing and complete control of the tracks." I was commenting on the recent post outlining double blind testing protocols. |
Re Teo’s link to holographic universe. The following paragraphs describe David Bohm’s view of the universe, which he enunciated many years ago, circa 1980. Borrowed from photography, the hologram is Bohm’s favorite metaphor for conveying the structure of the Implicate Order. Holography relies upon wave interference. If two wavelengths of light are of differing frequencies, they will interfere with each other and create a pattern. “Because a hologram is recording detail down to the wavelength of light itself, it is also a dense information storage.” Bohm notes that the hologram clearly reveals how a “total content–in principle extending over the whole of space and time–is enfolded in the movement of waves (electromagnetic and other kinds) in any given region.” The hologram illustrates how “information about the entire holographed scene is enfolded into every part of the film.” It resembles the Implicate Order in the sense that every point on the film is “completely determined by the overall configuration of the interference patterns.” Even a tiny chunk of the holographic film will reveal the unfolded form of an entire three-dimensional object. Proceeding from his holographic analogy, Bohm proposes a new order–the Implicate Order where “everything is enfolded into everything.” This is in contrast to the explicate order where things are unfolded. Bohm puts it thus: “The actual order (the Implicate Order) itself has been recorded in the complex movement of electromagnetic fields, in the form of light waves. Such movement of light waves is present everywhere and in principle enfolds the entire universe of space and time in each region. This enfoldment and unfoldment takes place not only in the movement of the electromagnetic field but also in that of other fields (electronic, protonic, etc.). These fields obey quantum-mechanical laws, implying the properties of discontinuity and non-locality. The totality of the movement of enfoldment and unfoldment may go immensely beyond what has revealed itself to our observations. We call this totality by the name holomovement.” g kait machina dynamica advanced audio concepts |
dgarretson @jinjuku "The main problem with your test(if I understand it correctly) is that it is a multivariable experiment. You swap cables 7-10 times at regular intervals throughout one track. Unfortunately the music is changing on top of the cable changes-- confusing the listener by precluding direct comparisons. What you need to do is to repeat the track(or a segment of that track) with the same cable across the duration of each sample. Then all that the listener must do is to identify and appraise the deviant segment. And the odds at 7:1 are still in favor of the house..." Not only that but the simple act of unplugging one set of cables and inserting another destroys the subtle electric mechanical interface, so in my book is a big NO NO when you’re trying to get to the bottom of things. Rome wasn’t built in a day. There’s no reason to hurry. Having the cables under test completely broken in is critical, too. Preferably on a cable cooker, not just music. In addition, to be technically correct about the test, the proper directionality of all cables involved should be predetermined. Otherwise the whole exercise would be more than a little fruitless IMHO. |
Jinjuku wrote, "What you are seeing is the same convolution of logic applied to a straight forward evaluation method that is applied to all sorts of baseless and unproven claims about data cabling." There’s the problem! Buy declaring it "data cabling" you’re completely ignoring the fact that the actual signal is the same as any other signal through wire or cable. It’s an electromagnetic wave that obeys the same laws of physics as any other signal, whether the signal contains data or music or doodlebugs. This is all starting to look like the same old bits is bits argument we’ve heard so much about over the past what, 35 years? |
Shadorne wrote, "Almarg +1 I agree it is most likely the faulty poorly designed boutique equipment used by the evangelists here." By poorly designed boutique equipment one supposes you’re referring to things made by Meitner, Oppo, Lamm, Curl or DartZeel. Or did you mean Bose, Radio Shack and Pioneer and Kenwood? Shadorne then wrote, "Knowing what Jinjuku has stated technically about Ethernet (all that buffering of digital bits) then the ONLY conclusion is that "unintended pathways" are interfering with the audio signal for those few audiophiles that have noted audible differences." Well, that would certainly explain why my Sony Walkman CD player sounds so good, you know, what with the data buffering and lack of unintended pathways. Are no fuses better than any fuse and are no cables or interconnects better than any interconnects? |
Jujinku wrote, "I’m not bothered by the idea of people hearing differences between ethernet cables. Not at all. If I actually believed this mystical ability I wouldn’t offer $2000 and if they actually believed in this mystical ability they wouldn’t refuse to take it." Sorry to say you’re a long way from the going rate for audiophiles. Self respecting Audiophiles would turn their noses up at the suggestion of $2000. The going rate was set by The Amazing Randi a long time ago in his Million Dollar Challenge to Michael Fremer if he could hear the difference between some uber expensive $20K cables and some Monster Cable which, in case you don’t know, is the de facto standard for cables that are just OK but nothing special. All you folks out there that like Monster Cable please don’t tweet me or send any angry emails. |
almarg Shadorne, I partially agree and partially disagree with your latest post above. I agree that sensitivity to ethernet cable differences is a manifestation of less than ideal behavior by the components that are involved. And in at least some cases might be an indication that the designer’s expertise is less than ideal. However arguably no design is perfect, and all designs represents the net result of countless tradeoffs, including practical ones such as cost. (And by that I am not referring just to production costs, but to development costs, time constraints on the development process, etc). So components having less sensitivity to differences in that cable may very well have any number of countless other downsides that are conceivable, in comparison with competitive products that are more sensitive to those differences. Let’s see, no design is perfect. All designs represent the net result of countless tradeoffs. Including practical ones like cost. Costs involved with production. Development costs. Time constraints on the development process. Some components may have countless other downsides conceivably compared to other products. Whoa! Hey! You forgot one thing, Al. The sky is blue. 😀 |
Yes, I did forget that one, Geoff. Thanks for pointing that out. But sometimes common sense and technically supportable middle-ground positions seem to get overlooked in disputes between those at opposite extremes of the belief spectrum. Al, no they don’t get overlooked. Those common things you listed, the ones that are patently true, don’t mean anything. It’s an interesting logical fallacy, though, using obvious truths to try to make it seem like your argument must be true. It's really the old Appeal to Reason logical fallacy in different clothes. My hat’s off to you. Old lawyer trick? 😬 You could employ the same tactics to try to prove almost anything in this hobby. Because such and such is true there must be no audible differences between fuses. Or, because such and such is true there must be audible differences between fuses. They can’t both be true. Let’s call it the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Occam’s razor. 😬 I actually don’t think this is an argument between two extremes. It’s just a typical audiophile argument, subjectivists vs objectivists, that’s all. Same old, same old. |
Waterzlife +1 I’ve POOGED my Dyna monoblock amps by having regulated everything including regulated filament supplies, aircraft output tubes, upgraded power supplies, military NOS Sylvania, RCA and Sylvania tubes I got from my bud who was in tech maintenance at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Enid Lumley cable tunnels, and naked Quad 57s - no grills, no dust covers. No more teacher’s dirty looks! |
jinjuku The point behind the offer, and it’s an honest offer, is to simply show that people don’t have as much faith in their ears as they think they do or would like others to believe. >>>>>>We we also know that people’s hearing is frequently not as good as they think it is or claim it to be. We also know that people’s systems are frequently not as good as they think it is or as good they claim them to be. So what else is new? I’m ok with that outcome. It’s a data point in and of itself and that data is certainly valid. Out of a count of 52 people that I’ve seen directly state large delta in Ethernet cabling SQ I have 0 takers. That forms a picture that any reasonable and prudent person can form for themselves. >>>>>The data point is, however, not (rpt not) valid IF the person is unable to hear differences that are actually there OR if the test system is either not (rpt not) resolving enough or has errors in it. That’s kind of the whole point why negative results should be thrown out. If negative results meant anything every pseudo skeptic in town would be crowing that this or that controversial tweak failed his little controlled blind test. Follow? On the typical response of scientifically invalid. My suggested evaluation rig closely mirrors the evaluation process that people use to come to the conclusion of SQ differences. If their opinion is good in that case then it will hold water with the same people when done with my proposed setup. >>>>I suppose you never got the memo that skeptics and pseudo skeptics never actually get positive results for these sorts of things. Something to do with the reverse expectation bias or some other psychological issue. Besides if they did get positive results how could they face their friends? 😫 |
geoffkait: I suppose you never got the memo that skeptics and pseudo skeptics never actually get positive results for these sorts of things. Something to do with the reverse expectation bias or some other psychological issue. Besides if they did get positive results how could they face their friends? to which jinjuku replied, "I’m pretty sure I could, bias controlled, get results with say 128Kbps MP3 vs 24/192." >>>>>Huh? First, the differences between 24/192 and MP3 aren’t really controversial, I.e., "these sorts of things." Second, I said negative results mean nothing, not (rpt not) positive results. If you get positive results with 24/192 vs MP3 it certainly doesn’t mean there are not (rpt not) audible differences in cables, something that is controversial. That would be illogical. And audible to whom? |
Geoffkait: Second, I said negative results mean nothing. To which jinjuku replied, "You can say whatever you want. No result certainly has value however just like it does in all other branches of science." >>>>>>Nope, sorry, it’s the same in all (rpt all) branches of science. You just haven’t figured out what I mean yet. A test is just a data point. It has no value all by itself. It only has value when placed in the context of other tests. Even if many tests are negative but a few are positive I would not be so fast to discount the thing under test. Yes, I realize a positive result could be due to bias, but we are eliminating bias, remember? Obviously pseudo skeptics are different. Then jinjuku wrote, "It means one of two things in the context here: 1. There is no difference 2. You can’t hear the difference" >>>>As I just said it does not (rpt not) mean any such thing. As I already explained at least twice there are many reasons why a test can have negative results. If life was so simple every pseudo skeptic in town would be running around yelling, "I told you it didn’t work!" For whatever controversial thingamabob you want to talk about. Either is okay by me. Email me at ethernetcablechallenge@mail.com when you are ready to walk vs talk. I’ll get you all the details and we can move forward from there. ->>>>>>No. Thanks, anyway. |
shadorne wrote, "Ah yes the bait and switch technique. People don't like the challenging idea that claimed results aren't audible enough to be tested - so now they protest about the use of pronouns, suggest that this is some kind of Nigerian scam and self proclaim that the thread is dead!" >>>>>>Whoa! Huh?! Your reading comprehension skills are about the same level as jujitsu. Did you both go to the same school? You know, when you put words in other people's mouths it's called a Strawman argument, a logical fallacy. Better luck next time. then, shadorne wrote, "These are all smoke and mirrors from what has been demonstrated here: when challenged nobody is willing to stand behind their claims of audible differences!" >>>>>No, what is clear, however, is that pseudo skeptics won't even test their own ridiculous claims. Real skeptics would at least make some modicum of effort to get to the bottom of things. Pseudo skeptics never do. They keep waiting for someone else to do it then complain when nobody does anything. So, what else is new?😳 |
shadorne wrote, "Jinjuku presented a difference in opinion on the audibility of Ethernet cables and was actually willing to challenge others to test the differences in the system of choice of those making the wild claims. All harmless stuff to me. The fact that no test will happen simply adds more weight to the view that the audibility of differences are pretty small or subtle, if any." Whoa! Huh? Difference of opinion? That’s exactly the same way that The Amazing Randi presented his Million Dollar Challenge to audiophiles to pass a double blind test for expensive cables and the Intelligent Chip. What made the whole thing so preposterous is that The Amazing Randi and his band of merry skeptics previously made a career out of challenging folks who claimed to have paranormal abilities, you know like Uri Geller, the famous spoon bender. And dowsers! spiritualists, ghost chasers, etc. Why he chose to go after audiophiles is anyone’s guess. Although, I can pretty much guess. Whereas The Anazing Randi had deep pockets courtesy of Johnny Carson one assumes jujitsu doesn’t have such rich friends in high places. |
jinjuku This person" is singular so the correct word is his. Singular possessive. Case closed. "Their, them, themselves, they (as singular pronouns) Many English speakers believe that using the plural pronouns they, them, themselves, and their in gender-neutral singular constructions is incorrect. For example, these people would consider the them in “call a friend and ask them to come over” to be wrong because them by definition refers to multiple people, whereas in this clause its antecedent (a friend) is singular. But there are problems with this view." You are inferring a gender when it hasn’t been provided to you. Keep on swinging and missing. >>>>Again with the logical fallacies. English must be your second language. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Except when it comes to English grammar. "Knowledge is defined as everything that’s left after you subtract out all the stuff you forgot from school." - old audiophile axiom |
It’s funny how people take naysayers sooo seriously, as if they have legitimate arguments. It’s like saying The Amazing Randi just has a difference of opinion about high end cables or that he’s just skeptical that the Intelligent Chip works. Give me a break. It’s nothing of the kind. It’s just that people get a lot of pleasure going after audiophiles. Just like they do going after spoon benders and ghost whisperers. 👻 You’ve seen cats tease dogs, right? Same thing.🐩 |
I believe in the influence of human consciousness and the subconscious on water - among other things - especially in relation to the formation of ice crystals of water, not only when exposed directly to specific spoken words and phrases or thoughts but also specific written messages. But this is very different from what you referred to, water memory. My Morphic Message Labels, which influence sound, would be quite capable of influencing how ice crystals form. ❄️ ❄️ ❄️ |
jujitsu wrote, "I laugh every time I see someone say something like the above. Because Randi didn’t get 1000 mystical spoon benders to test, so when he exposed Uri Geller for the charlatan that he is, it’s not really valid and we hold out the possibility that people can actually bend spoons with their mind. Incredible ’logic’. Here’s the thing: You aren’t aural savants. You’re aural spoon benders. The real reason that you will not sit for a bias controlled evaluation is that when you crash and burn, and you most certainly will, EVERYTHING you have an opinion about when it comes to the audibility of equipment will be worthless. When you’ve been exposed either making stuff up or hallucinating then you can’t be trusted." >>>>>>jujitsu, your obvious contempt for audiophiles and the whole scientific method notwithstanding, the real reason The Amazing Randi never (rpt never) lost a Million Dollar Challenge was because the test protocol was obviously slanted to favor Randi. And to favor him to such an extent he virtually couldn’t loose. It was rigged every which way to Sunday. That’s what Wellfed found out dealing with the stacked deck of James Randi Education Foundation when he agreed to take the Million Dollar Challenge for the Intelligent Chip, the little orange quantum thingie that is placed on top of a CD player for improving the sound of the disc. (I have to respect that Randi had Kramer, formerly of Butthole Surfers rock group, coordinate the blind test of the Intelligent Chip.) So did Michael Fremer, of Stereophile, whilst negotiating with Randi’s crew for a $20K high end cable test, discover it’s not an even playing field. Let me give some examples, gentle readers. In the case of the Million Dollar Challenge for the Intelligent Chip Wellfed was expected to perform the test at some location other than his own house and on a system of Randi’s choosing. I.e., some unfamiliar God knows what system. Keep in mind Randi nor any of his crew were audiophiles. Also, the CDs could not be treated a priori, which would have been beneficial to Wellfed since differences with the Intelligent Chip would presumably be easier to detect. There was also a dispute how many people from Randi’s crew were to have been present at the test. Finally Wellfed would have had to guess correctly 10 out of 10 consecutive trials. Give me break! |
willemj Well, here for the measurements: http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2015/02/measurements-intercontinental-internet.html http://archimago.blogspot.nl/2015/02/measurements-ethernet-cables-and-audio.html willemj, would it be fair to say without looking more closely at the fine details of those tests, the take-away is things that measure the same also sound the same? Is that what you would have us believe? No wonder the cable controversy has been going on without letup for 40 years. |
Actually, in the real world, claims do not (rpt not) have to be substantiated, proven or any such thing. Products do not (rpt not) have to be proven to work, they do not (rpt not) have to be explained. Measurements are not (rpt not) required. Those are all old wives’ tales. Have fun in your pseudo skeptic's daydream. 🍭 |
shadorne, your humorous attitude notwithstanding, if what you’re saying was actually true, which it’s not (rpt not), then people would be suing aftermarket fuse companies that sell non UL listed fuses. Of course, no one is. No one has even tried to sue me for the Teleportation Tweak. Whew, that was a close call! Why don't you see any lawsuits over high end tweaks? Because it’s not possible to prove some suspicious looking audio tweak doesn’t work. Especially in a court of law. Follow? So, getting back to the case in UK, I’m sure willemj is not telling the whole story for whatever reason. If it doesn’t make sense it’s not true. Audio is by its very nature subjective. One person gets good results, another person doesn’t. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. 🍪 |
