Now for something completely different. A Global Tweak. Let’s see if we have any players. I’m going to do something, a tweak, I’m not saying what, so it will be blind, this afternoon AFTER 4 PM sometime, but not after 5. So you won have to wait too long. This will give anyone a chance to get familiar with the sound of his system BEFORE I do it, so he can compare BEFORE and AFTER the Global Tweak.
I will post on this thread to give a heads up 😳 right after I do whatever it is I’m going to do. The only thing I will say about it is it should be audible on any system anywhere. It’s a Global Tweak so you should be able to hear it anywhere in the world.
|
I’m afraid you’re have to do a lot better than that, old bean. The Amazing Randi offered $1 Million to pass his version of the blind test scam. I prefer not to get involved in blind test scams. Michael Fremer was also smart enough not to get involved with Randi’s blind test flim flam, even for a million duckaleros. As nice a person as Randi is personally, I might add. Thanks but no thanks. Been there done that. 😛 |
Oh, I get it. A real skeptic, not a fake one. Bravo!
|
|
Oh, there’s something wrong with you!
|
Is there something the matter with you? ~ Judge Judy
|
I didn’t delete it. Why would I? You cannot delete or edit your own post once it’s been there for 30 minutes.
They don’t keep me here because I’m gorgeous. They keep me here because I’m smart. - Judge Judy |
Yes, what’s also fascinating is the blind test advocates or dogmatists whatever have obviously made their minds up already, without even waiting for the test. I mean, come on people! Hel-loo!
If it doesn’t make sense it’s not true. - Judge Judy
|
One assumes you’re speaking for yourself. I remember very clearly what I heard yesterday. And the day before. And last week. And last year. I always considered limited audio memory to be an old wives tale.
|
“People would generally be much better off if they believed in too much rather than too little.”
- P. T. Barnum
|
gdhal
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Disbelievers have the right to place a burden of proof on any individual(s) who state the *impossible*. Those who state the impossible are under no obligation to prove anything. The right to state whatever one happens to believe is granted to everyone. I may not agree with what you have to say/write, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Anyone who can audible detect a difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed from speaker to amp and vice versa while maintaining polarity has an opportunity to <undefined term> benefit. All are invited as I do not discriminate but like any other professional require privacy. Inquire within.
I dub thee The Amazing Hal. 🤑 |
@gdhal, is it true that when you lie your pants really are on fire? 🔥
|
All the more reason not to accept blind tests, uh, blindly. There is no reason why ANY blind test protocol should be considered above all others as being infallible. That’s because there are too many things that can go wrong with ANY test protocol, at least for audio related tests. The difference with the Cold Fusion Test was that results were POSITIVE. What Uber Skeptics are saying is that a blind test will prove some audiophile claim to be false, I.e., test results will be NEGATIVE. Which means nothing, as I’ve said. |
By the way, this thread is not ugly. The truth is sometimes ugly.
|
@cleeds No, this is how science works:
Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[8][9] In 1989 the United States Department of Energy (DOE) concluded that the reported results of excess heat did not present convincing evidence of a useful source of energy and decided against allocating funding specifically for cold fusion. A second DOE review in 2004, which looked at new research, reached similar conclusions and did not result in DOE funding of cold fusion.[10]
Your friend and humble scribe
|
No, it means the results must be repeatable. Remember Cold Fusion. They had rigged the rest or whatever. You certainly don’t want to replicate phony test procedures. That’s why you want completely independent tests. As I said before one test all by itself has no meaning if the results are negative. Ideally you want a lot if independent tests that come up with the same results. If one is negative you throw that one out. Problem solved.
|
Just to mention, the word repeatable can be misleading. The reason being if you mean repeatable by the same person we must insist on independent tests. Even then the word repeatable is a little tricky since the very nature of the initial test could have been flawed. So repeating a flawed test wouldn’t have any value, would it? The tests should be independent in every sense of the word. Different system, different test conductor, different test subject(s). The results, now those should be repeatable.
|
OK, I’ll try one more time. The link to the AES meeting minutes found among all those blind test links (as if sheer numbers are supposed to mean something) revealed - now get this! -BELDEN had supposedly conducted BLIND TESTS for wire directionality with some unnamed audio magazine. AND that the results were supposedly negative. So here’s the $64K Question, y’all: where is the evidence of that Belden blind test? Did it just disappear? Hel-loo!
|
Speaking of verbal diarrhea, here is an excerpt from one the links willemj referred to, this one apparently minutes of an AES meeting on the dodgy subject of wire directionality. This ought to be interesting, right?
“Steve (guest technician) started by making a distinction between things we can measure in wire (resistance, capacitance, inductance), and those things we can’t measure (soundstage, "detail", "directionality", and other things you can "hear"). There is rarely a correlation between what you can measure and what you can hear.”
>>>>Steve was apparently not aware of the HiFi Tuning data that showed directionality measurements of fuses. Or that ANY wire or cable can be measured with a volt ohm meter and shows resistance differences according to direction. Duh! There is rarely a correlation between what you can measure and what you can hear? Oh, please! Give me a break!
“For best electron flow, you want to use a metal that has low resistance. In circular-mil ohms per foot at 20°C., silver leads the way at 9.9, copper is next at 10.4, gold is 14.7, aluminum is 17, nickel is 47, and steel is 74. Although silver is the best conductor, it has several disadvantages: it tarnishes, which then interferes with connection; it is pretty expensive; and it cannot be annealed. Wire is made by repeatedly pushing metal through ever-smaller dies, until it is the size you want. This process is really boring to watch, and now is all done by robots. After going through the dies, the wire is very brittle and easy to break. Copper wire can be heated to 700 and annealed, which lines up the crystalline structure and removes the brittleness, making it very useful for cable purposes.”
>>>>For best electron flow? Are they kidding? The electrons are not (rpt not) flowing. Photons are flowing. Electrons are barely moving. Hel-loo! I submit that annealing will not “line up” the crystal structure that has been irreparably distorted by being drawn through the die. And establishing directionality! I mean come on, that doesn’t even make sense.
“Directionality, or the idea that electricity flows better in one direction through a cable than the other, is a common concept among certain self-identified audiophiles. Belden did a double-blind test for cable directionality in conjunction with an audiophile magazine. The end result was perfectly random. Belden is still happy to manufacture and sell directional cables to enthusiasts. They make up a long length of cable, cut it in segments, identify the ends of the segments so they know how it came off the spool (length A->B, length B->C, length C->D, etc), and then let the customer identify by careful listening which direction is "better". Over thousands of cables sold, the chosen "best" signal flow is random, for segments cut from the same spool!
>>>>Certain self-identified audiophiles? Whoa! Hey, what are they talking about? Huh? Belden did a double blind test for cable directionality with an audiophile magazine? Where is it? What magazine? Talk is cheap!
>>>>How would Belden or anyone know that the thousands of Belden cables sold were random for directionality? I mean, come, on people! Get real! Where’s the data? Belden must be selling their cables to a different set of enthusiasts since almost everyone on this forum reports obviously directionality. This whole AES report is very hard to swallow. Are they lying? Maybe.
your friend and humble scribe,
geoff kait
machina dramatica
|
willemj
For those interested in various blind tests, a few days ago on 03-16 2018 in this thread jssmith posted two links to a large range of blind tests. You can argue with some of the methodologies, but the aggregate weight of the results should give audiophiles pause for thought.
>>>>Actually they probably shouldn’t give audiophiles food for thought. 🦀 🐬 🐟 The only time anyone should take notice of blind tests, to be completely up front about it, is when the total number of INDEPENDENT blind tests with negative results - for the SAME DEVICE(S) UNDER TEST -outweighs the total number with POSITIVE RESULTS by a WIDE MARGIN. Positive results are more interesting than negative ones because they can obtained in spite of any mistakes in the system, procedure, bad hearing, etc., assuming there are any.
For a single blind test - regardless of the procedure, listeners, etc. - I recommend throwing the test out. Period. Whereas for a single blind test with positive results I’d say, wait a minute, this looks interesting. Let’s wait and see if there are like this. If you get a whole bunch of negative results from independent tests and ZERO positive results then maybe I’ll start to pay attention. Til then, knock yourselves out. Smoke if ya got em.
pop quiz
Why have most Uber Skeptics made up their minds completely BEFORE any tests have even been performed? |
moto_man
Perception is reality.
Actually, perception is not (rpt not) reality. Why? Because if test results of any test - including a double blind test - are negative you cannot assume there’s no difference between cables OR that device X doesn’t work as claimed OR that wire directionality is a hoax. The test just wasn’t capable of revealing the differences, that’s all. No biggie. Happens all the time. There are too many things that can go wrong with a particular test, including the test conductor is all thumbs, the person who put the system together is all thumbs, the test procedure is faulty, the test subject’s hearing is faulty or he’s inexperienced, the weather. Things of that nature. Now, if there were a number of tests conducted independently that gave negative results of some hypothesis or another then maybe you might have something. It’s the preponderance of the evidence that prevails.
pop quiz
Why doesn’t the military or the FAA or NASA any other procurer of technology conduct blind tests on competing devices such as aircraft, launch vehicles, communications radios, smartphones, computers, antennas, etc.? |
gdhal
I’m not suggesting that one listens and then comes back to listen 24 hours later. We’re talking a matter of minutes. Those who claim to hear a difference should be able to demonstrate to disbelievers, or they shouldn’t make such claims. Additionally, within the framework of the EXAMPLE PROCEDURE I provided herein in a previous post, I remain open minded to an alternative. Like speaker wire, I’m flexible.
>>>It’s actually a strawman argument to presume that blind tests will demonstrate anything to disbelievers. The plain fact if the matter is nothing can deter the Uber Skeptic from his belief. Not counterargymen, not measurements, not tests. Not ever blind tests, which are for some reason considered sacred by Uber Skeptics. But as we’ve seen all tests, including blind test, can be attached on a number of levels. For one thing nobody agrees on what the protocol of a blind test should be. Therefore, ANY blind test is subject to scrutiny and attack. I actually don’t think you or any Uber skeptic remains open minded to an alternative, unless of course it helps YOUR case.
Of course, the other Strawman argument you make is that a person making claims has to prove them. That’s your first mistake from which all your other mistakes naturally flow. 😁
Let me conclude with this excerpt from the intro to Zen and the Art of Debunkery.
“Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, institutionalization, hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a psychological, social and ecological vacuum. So disconnected has official science become from the greater scheme of things, that it tends to deny or disregard entire domains of reality and to satisfy itself with reducing all of life and consciousness to a dead physics.
As the millennium turns, science seems in many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.”
your friend and humble scribe, GK
|
Almost everyone who is, you know, an advanced audiophile, for lack of a better term, agrees that cables sound different and that cables, like fuses, are directional. Why should those who claim cables sound different and cables and fuses are directional have to prove anything, much less submit to a test? Shouldn’t it be the skeptics who should submit to testing? Testing someone else devises. Then they should be required to apologize publicly.
|
Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump.
|
You can’t cheat an honest man. 😛
|
gdhal
“What I’m stating (and by extension offering in the way of a challenge), is that in cases where a person claims to be able to audibly hear a difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed, the person who is making that claim would NOT reliably audibly hear a difference if said speaker wire were reversed WITHOUT his/her prior knowledge to whether or not the wire was actually reversed.”
>>>>That is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard all day, which is saying something. I imagine that theory of yours should be filed under the heading, Wishful Thinking. It’s actually kind of the opposite situation. Folks who hear differences in sighted tests may often not (rpt not) hear them in blind tests because blind tests are inherently flawed - they are too complicated, too stressful, and are often run by extremely persistent skeptics, I.e., biased. You know, like The Amazing Randi. Not too mention there’s certainly reason to wonder about the listeners in many so called reliable blind tests. Where do they get them from - under a bridge somewhere?
|
smikell
SO, please explain how your cable directional. If my explanation doesn’t convince you, try making a little test board to put between your amp and your speaker. Just put a simple diode in line with the signal you believe to be directional. That will force your signal to be directional......
Oh, I don’t recommend it, cause I don’t know what a series of positive only electrical pulses will do to your speakers..... I suspect it will be nothing but bad.........
But then, I’m only a degreed engineer from a podunk school like GaTech, who spent his entire career building electronics and if you ever heard me sing, I have a tin ear.
As I used to tell my management, knowing is much better than thinking, but stop thinking, cause you’re not qualified.
>>>>You convinced me. Cables are not directional. I will email all the High End cable and fuse companies to advise them to please stop scamming naive gullible audiophiles by using those deceptive arrows on all their cables and power cords ASAP. I will also notify the thousands of happy customers who actually can hear wire and cable directionality. 🙄
|
gdhal
Someone said, “And yes, in years past I have participated in open (sighted) A/B testing of cables, and subsequent single blind and double blind tests of the same cables and found that differences were easily detected in open testing, yet vanished without a trace in both blinded tests.”
Thank you, @keithahughes
EDIT:
It also vanishes without a trace when dollars are involved.
>>>>Uh, hey, guys, the reason the differences don’t show up in blind tests is the same reason that Randi NEVER lost a Million Dollar bet. Ever. It’s the old double blind tests scam. Blind tests are generally too weird, too constraining, too much trouble, too much stress, especially when those involved aren’t used to them. Hel-loo! It certainly does not (rpt not) mean that sighted tests are any less reliable that blind tests, in any case. Or that there aren’t differences among the cables tested. If it doesn’t make sense it’s not true. Judge Judy. FWIW I get excellent results over the years with A/B/A tests, until a selection can be made, sometimes over the course of time. It depends on how obvious the differences are, as well as other factors. I have no idea why some people think tests are a slam dunk or easy to do right. Sighted tests AND blind tests are a pig in a poke. 🐖
|
Having been the subject of The Amazing Randi’s Newsletter five times, sharing space with Uri Geller 🥄 once, and a bunch of ghost hunters 👻 and dowsers on others, and having been involved with negations with Randi’s Education Foundation for the Million Dollar Challenge for the Intelligent Chip, I think I can say without any risk of contradiction that I know a little bit more about the ups and downs of blind test $$$$ challenges than the average bear. 😛
|
lanceo
I know of no reports that can claim undisputed, unbiased, statistically significant accuracy. For that matter, I haven’t been able to find any publications that have accurately quantified the difference, in the distortion of audio frequency electrical signals, between Siltech Emperor Crown and zip-cord speaker cables.
Just because you haven’t found any doesn’t mean they’re not out there. Maybe you need to refine your search terms. 😃 You can always use the reliable excuse, the dog ate my homework.
|
An impasse?! Oh, my! How exciting. Did I predict that or what? 😃 |
raindance
geoffkait, if you think that photons have a hard time moving in cables, you’d be 100% right unless they are fiber optic cables :)
>>>>>From what I can tell, the speed of photons (electromagnetic wave) is actually slower in fiber optic cable than it is in coax copper cable. Who woulda thunk it? 😳
|
Uh, then why did you say,
“Those are interconnect cables, which are entirely different than speaker wire.”
|
Nobody said it was supposed to be speaker cable. Got coffee? ☕️ You keep bringing up blind tests. Have you done any? Care to let us know your results? 😀 Also, you obviously missed the entire point of article. As did both posters who provided link to article. |
Actually while the article is fascinating it actually doesn’t explain why cables sound different. The article explains why the L-G cable sounds different from other conventional cables. It’s fascinating because it predates the High Fidelity Cables that also employ mu metal for the conductor by about 25 years. Note to self: could the information that the article is from 1991 be written any smaller?
|
Looks like someone had the smarts to copy the High Fidelity Cables. Besides mu metal can be applied to cables external to the jacket since it’s an absorber as opposed to a reflector. You know, what with the induced magnetic field all cables exhibit. |
You are obviously a person of considerable taste and perception. Take two placebos and call me in the morning.
|
Yes, nugat, you convinced me with your plain science talk. 🤡
|
Nugat, excellent attempt at science speak. I get it. That was verrry goood. 🤡
|
Non slippery? My comments are the only ones that aren’t slippery. Maybe if you tried speaking plain English someone could respond. Who knows?
|
Whoa! What the ding ding? What you takin’ about, Willis?
|
Sorry, that article you linked to is completely inaccurate. Randi’s education foundation is/was loaded to the gills with technical folks who helped Randi develop his test procedures. Randi had precious little to do with it. He did not get involved with discussions with potential challengers either. He had a committee that dealt with all that. Randi was neither technical nor an audiophile. He was a magician.
|
Big deal. No one ever suggested there was a standard for directionality. Recall directionality is sound related only. Duh! There are no technical standards for Polarity, for soundstage, for realism, for room acoustics, for speaker placement, for vibration, for RFI/EMI, for Noise, for Distortion, frequency response, dynamic range. Yet somehow we are able to find our way. Well, sometimes...fortunately, directionality is often the easiest to get to the bottom of. All you have to do is reverse the cable or fuse, whatever. Fortunately some companies control directionality, even for power cords making it pretty much a no brainer. No comment. I wouldn’t hold my breath for a MIL STD for directionality any time real soon. 😡
|
|
You’ve not done much testing before, have you? This is what always happens in these $$$ challenges. One side wants to minimize the chances of success. That would be you. The other side should wish to maximize his chances of success, no?. That’s why Randi never lost a bet. It’s the art of running a blind test. 😛 People assume they can just walk right in and do it, easy as one, two, three.
|
My suggestions are independent of brand of cable.
|
A couple of things if I can be so bold. All cables used in the test should have at least 200 hours of break in. Preferably using a break in machine but break in using music is acceptable. All connectors should be cleaned and wiped dry. The test system used should be checked for correct Polarity using XLO Test CD, in phase and out of phase track. Preferably the source(s) CDs or whatever should also be checked for correct Polarity. The source should be familiar to the listener. The system should also be familiar to the listener. He should perhaps be allowed to use his own CDs for the test. At a minimum the listener should be allowed to familiarize himself with the sound of the test system prior to testing. Kind of like warm up pitches in baseball. Loudness should be controlled. Time of day should be controlled. Early morning on weekends is best, or late at night. Testing during bad weather should be avoided. The number of consecutive tests that must be passed should be minimized. The number of people allowed in the room should be kept at a minimum.
|
I was privy to the inner workings of The Amazing Randi’s 1M Dollar Challege for The Intelligent Chip, to see if a customer of mine could identify the treated CD in blind tests ten out of ten times. This is just like it! Amazing! Who’s gonna blink first? 😉
|
It’s just The Amazing Randi Million Dollar Challenge Scam for peanuts. 🥜
|
I say it was blind. Looks like we disagree. Oh well....
|
