You, and everyone else subscribed to the thread and who have been
reading it since its inception, are very much aware of the parameters
(general framework as outlined in the example procedure)
There's a large body of scientific literature that shows your proposed testing protocol isn't scientific. I can only conclude that your effort here is a con.
... 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 ... 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 ... It’s the
preponderance of the evidence that prevails.
That is quite true. That's why those who promote such tests should be using themselves first as subjects; if they are sincere, they'd want as large a body of test results as possible. They'd also want to ensure that each test be scientifically valid, which is most likely if it's consistent with established testing methodologies, such as quick switching. The poster who is promoting this "challenge" is clearly a con, and I suspect that's why the moderators are removing his posts.
Why should those who claim cables sound different and cables and fuses are directional have to prove anything, much less submit to a test?
Agreed. You don't have to. Unless of course you wish to take me up on my challenge and have an opportunity to win some gold.
I actually don’t think you or any Uber skeptic remains open minded to an alternative, unless of course it helps YOUR case.
True. Forgive me for not wanting to give my gold away.
Now I don't know but I've been told It's hard to run with the weight of gold Other hand I heard it said It's just as hard with the weight of lead
Of course, the other Strawman argument you make is that a person making claims has to prove them.
Nope!
The person does not have to, but should. In the absence of proof, expect the naysayers to scream "balderdash" (or offer challenges, incentives and so forth so as to entice the person making the claim)
There is abundant research on this that conflicts with your claim that quick switching isn't required for a proper audio test. It's a puzzle that you choose to avoid existing research while promoting your $25,000 challenge, which increasingly appears bogus.
You can choose to think of this as the beginning of new research, or not. You can also choose to think of this as an improper audio test, or not. Your prerogative. Don't (or do) participate in my challenge. Your choice. Sorry, I'm not giving away the gold.
The story teller makes no choice, soon you will not hear his voice
If you're sincere about double blind testing, I suggest you look at the existing body of evidence about how double blind testing for audio is properly conducted. Then subject yourself to the rigors of such a test before insisting others do the same.
I'm sincere that it's *impossible* to *reliably* hear an audible difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed.
I disagree with cleeds about the onus of proof. I do think it is good practice that those who offer an extraordinary claim that breaks with traditional science provide proof.
Thank you, @willemj
It just seems so logical to me that it is weird that there is so much angst about it.
If the game is lost, then we're all the same No one left to place or take the blame
What stuns me is that the most vocal advocate here for blind testing doesn't know how to conduct such a test and exempts himself from the requirement .
This isn't about proper etiquette. It's about what truth is proof against all lies.
Because you are making this offer the burden is on you to provide the specific terms of the offer and the means under which this test will be conducted and those means should be reviewed in public here by the forum members to insure that there is no fraud on your part after all you have promised $25,000 at stake!
@clearthink
You did mention (privately) that you and I should refrain on posting any dollar amount, on account of forum moderation (i.e. our posts are likely to be removed).
Realistically, I’ve already posted more than enough in this thread.
You, and everyone else subscribed to the thread and who have been reading it since its inception, are very much aware of the parameters (general framework as outlined in the example procedure) and you and all others are very much aware how to contact me - privately - if you have a genuine interest about pursuing my challenge and demonstrating that you can do the impossible.
I’m done with this thread.
Nothing to tell now; let the words be yours, I’m done with mine.
gdhal"You don’t have to. Unless of course you wish to take me up on my challenge and have an opportunity to win some gold." I am very pleased to see that you are again offering your $25,000 challenge to those who compete in your test of audio cables. Because you are making this offer the burden is on you to provide the specific terms of the offer and the means under which this test will be conducted and those means should be reviewed in public here by the forum members to insure that there is no fraud on your part after all you have promised $25,000 at stake!
Why should those who claim cables sound different and cables and fuses are directional have to prove anything, much less submit to a test?
Agreed. You don’t have to. Unless of course you wish to take me up on my challenge and have an opportunity to win some gold.
I actually don’t think you or any Uber skeptic remains open minded to an alternative, unless of course it helps YOUR case.
True. Forgive me for not wanting to give my gold away.
Now I don’t know but I’ve been told It’s hard to run with the weight of gold Other hand I heard it said It’s just as hard with the weight of lead
Of course, the other Strawman argument you make is that a person making claims has to prove them.
Nope!
The person does not have to, but should. In the absence of proof, expect the naysayers to scream "balderdash" (or offer challenges, incentives and so forth so as to entice the person making the claim)
There is abundant research on this that conflicts with your claim that quick switching isn’t required for a proper audio test. It’s a puzzle that you choose to avoid existing research while promoting your $25,000 challenge, which increasingly appears bogus.
You can choose to think of this as the beginning of new research, or not. You can also choose to think of this as an improper audio test, or not. Your prerogative. Don’t (or do) participate in my challenge. Your choice. Sorry, I’m not giving away the gold.
The story teller makes no choice, soon you will not hear his voice
If you’re sincere about double blind testing, I suggest you look at the existing body of evidence about how double blind testing for audio is properly conducted. Then subject yourself to the rigors of such a test before insisting others do the same.
I’m sincere that it’s *impossible* to *reliably* hear an audible difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed.
I disagree with cleeds about the onus of proof. I do think it is good practice that those who offer an extraordinary claim that breaks with traditional science provide proof.
Thank you, @willemj
It just seems so logical to me that it is weird that there is so much angst about it.
If the game is lost, then we’re all the same No one left to place or take the blame
What stuns me is that the most vocal advocate here for blind testing doesn’t know how to conduct such a test and exempts himself from the requirement .
This isn’t about proper etiquette. It’s about what truth is proof against all lies.
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.?
I
don't doubt that on a good quality system, different cables sound
subtlely different. Whether that subtle difference is worth 5, 10 or
even 20K is another story.
Agreed! Whether the results are worth the cost is a completely subjective choice.
However, it just stuns me that there is any
dispute over the value of double blind testing to test outlandish claims
made for any piece of equipment or cables .. What is wrong with
removing the possibility of bias and just make judgments ...
What stuns me is that the most vocal advocate here for blind testing doesn't know how to conduct such a test and exempts himself from the requirement ... based on his performance in the same kind of sighted test that he thinks is unreliable for everyone else. That, and his bogus $25,000 wager, make it clear he has some funny agenda.
I'm not at all convinced of the value of blind testing to the typical audiophile, by the way. But the efforts some go to insist that others submit to such testing, while they enjoy some special exemption, just doesn't make any sense.
I don't doubt that on a good quality system, different cables sound subtlely different. Whether that subtle difference is worth 5, 10 or even 20K is another story. However, it just stuns me that there is any dispute over the value of double blind testing to test outlandish claims made for any piece of equipment or cables. Perception is reality. People are programmed to like a 20K cable better than lamp cord, or some exotically expensive preamp over one less so. What is wrong with removing the possibility of bias and just make judgments -- albeit subjective ones -- based solely on what one hears, without knowing the components? It just seems so logical to me that it is weird that there is so much angst about it. Imagine if the FDA decided to permit sales of drugs based on whether someone "thought" that it made them better. Why shouldn't the same apply to audio?
I agree with cleeds that research has shown that audio memory is short, perhaps no more than a few seconds. That is also one of the most pertinent criticisms of uncontrolled listening tests. I disagree with cleeds about the onus of proof. I do think it is good practice that those who offer an extraordinary claim that breaks with traditional science provide proof.
gdhal.... As to switching quickly,
realistically/practically that doesn't play a role ...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
There is abundant research on this that conflicts with your claim that quick switching isn't required for a proper audio test. It's a puzzle that you choose to avoid existing research while promoting your $25,000 challenge, which increasingly appears bogus. If you're sincere about double blind testing, I suggest you look at the existing body of evidence about how double blind testing for audio is properly conducted. Then subject yourself to the rigors of such a test before insisting others do the same.
In the interim, everyone here is free to offer their observations free of any testing requirement, notwithstanding your insistence that "they shouldn't make such claims."
I remain open minded to an
alternative. Like speaker wire, I'm flexible.
Then why don't you subject yourself to double blind tests?
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.”
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.
I am late to join the interconnect believer group. I am also an acoustical engineer with a full
laboratory and extraordinary facilities for resolving and understand sound. That said, I am late to join the believer
group largely because I could not quantify through measurement or hear a difference in sound
between so called high quality and usually expensive interconnects and average
usually low cost interconnects…..that is until I upgraded by sound system. Now running the Audio Research Ref 6, Bergman
TT, Pass Labs Class A and Wilson Maxx III’s, the use of high quality interconnects make a
huge difference in detail, clarity, staging and overall enjoyment compared to
the simple cables I used to use. I now
use the Morrow Elite series throughout and will never doubt the benefit of
cable technology to high quality sound again. The improvement is day and night....no blind test needed.
I’m not advocating for anything. So please, lets clear the air.
That’s just not true. You wagered $25,000 on this proposed test of yours until the moderators shut it down.
Your proposed testing protocol is inherently flawed, in large part because it doesn’t allow for quick switching between the two choices. Meanwhile, you dismiss with a wave of the hand the suggestion that you undertake a proper test. What is it that frightens you so? Why not conduct your own, valid, double blind test?
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?
Blind test advocates such as yourself claim that sighted tests are unreliable.
I'm not advocating for anything. So please, lets clear the air.
Cleeds, I think there is some confusion or misunderstanding in general (i.e. not just you) throughout the thread with regard to my posts herein the thread.
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.
As an EXAMPLE ONLY, the person making such claim that he/she can RELIABLY audibly hear a difference when/if reversing a cable should receive a passing grade when subjected to the following EXAMPLE PROCEDURE.
(1) The person subject to the test cannot see the equipment, but can hear (unobstructed) sound from it.
(2) A musical passage is played. In our example, lets play the Grateful Dead "Deal" (but we just as well could play the star spangled banner) from start to finish (or a few seconds or a few minutes, whatever).
(3) When Deal finishes, the person subject to the test waits approximately two minutes. The person is waiting for Deal (or the star spangled banner) to resume (play again from the beginning).
(4) During the wait, "another person or persons" would reverse, OR NOT reverse, the wire. In this context, reversing the wire means removing the wire (each channel of a two channel system, one channel at a time) from the speaker and the amplifier. Then, taking the ends of the cable that were on the speaker and attaching the ends to the amplifier, maintaining correct polarity, and repeating for the other channel. The speaker wire ends that were on the amplifier are connected to the speaker.
(5) The other person or persons in this EXAMPLE ONY is a known trusted source, who is/are the only person or persons to record whether or not the wire WAS OR WAS NOT reversed.
(6) The music resumes. The person subjected to the test listens until he/she is comfortable (upon completion or during the playback) in stating, "yes, the speaker wire has been reversed" or "no, the speaker wire has not been reversed". The person subjected to the test must make one or the other declaration within a specified amount of time.
(7) The person or persons other than the one subjected to the test records the response and compares the response to WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID OR DID NOT DO with the speaker wire. Their recording indicates a "pass" or "fail" grade, attributed to the person subjected to the test.
(8) The aformentioned EXAMPLE ONLY procedure is repeated a number of times so that there is a VERY HIGH CONFIDENCE level that the person subjected to the test, passes or fails. For EXAMPLE, the test might be conducted 30 times, in which case Deal (or the star spangled banner) would have played 60 times. So the person subjected to the test (and who purportedly can audible hear a difference as to whether or not the wire has been reversed), would be expected to make the correct response (items 6 and 7) the overwhelming majority of the time (25?).
(9) Of the 30 EXAMPLE ONLY tests, the person or persons who have subjected the person who has listened compares the reponses to the agreed upon majority (25) and on that basis declares "yes, you can reliably detect whether or not ordinary speaker wire is reversed" or "no, you cannot reliably detect whether or not ordinary speaker wire is reversed".
Simple really, for those who purportedly can hear the difference.
Scientific. Double blind. Sounds best. Im keen to know how to conduct and quantify scientifically what sounds best to my ears and ears/ brain of other subjects in this double blind test. Am I to insert electrodes in the brain or cerebral circulation to measure an electrical or neurotransmitter response ? Assuming the brief is to ascertain what sounds best using what sounds best to the subjects ears/brains is no problem. Provided you trust my findings. I have tried the latter and found beyond doubt that cables do impart a different sound coming out the speakers into human ears to the brain of subjects familiar with our hobby. All conditions in the experiment were the same. Only cables were changed. Also can confirm that cables have direction bias.
There is no difference without a blind test, so there is no need for me to try it blind
You’re not making any sense. Blind test advocates such as yourself claim that sighted tests are unreliable. Yet you now seek special exception from being subjected to the rigors of blind/scientific testing, based upon your special privileged use of the same methodology you claim is unreliable when cited by others. That is an extreme example of expectation bias and illogic.
Also, my challenge (undefined but can be worked out) is open to you too
I have a passing interest in double-blind testing, even though I think it has little value to audiophiles and is mostly a waste of my time. But I’m not interested in gambling, and your efforts to turn your challenge into wagering is what I suspect led the moderators to delete your posts.
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. 🙄
Have you actually confirmed this by conducting a double-blind test? If so, please tell us how you conducted the test. Or ... are you just speculating?
Cleeds, I’m using Belden 5T00UP. It’s been tried both ways/direction. There is no difference without a blind test, so there is no need for me to try it blind. Unrelated to wire but related to blind testing, I have conducted a blind test where my DAC is concerned.
Also, my challenge (undefined but can be worked out) is open to you too.
Of course you will leave it to the court of public opinion that is exactly why I insisted from the beginning that all discussions regarding your "challenge" be conducted publically in this forum where you first proposed your "challenge" and not in secret except for those matters that are truly appropriate and proper to keep confidential such as account numbers and like matters.
@clearthink
Of course my challenge was posted in public on this forum. How else would I obtain the proverbial "sucker born every minute"?
Because the challenge was made publicly doesn’t mean that once engaged any other matters are public.
It’s apparent you and I cannot agree on even the most basic elements of my challenge. Imagine if you and I attempted to formulate any details. Not sure you would ever undertake my challenge in my lifetime.
gdhal"I’ll leave it for the court of public opinion to decide who means business" Of course you will leave it to the court of public opinion that is exactly why I insisted from the beginning that all discussions regarding your "challenge" be conducted publically in this forum where you first proposed your "challenge" and not in secret except for those matters that are truly appropriate and proper to keep confidential such as account numbers and like matters. Anytime you want to resurrect your "challenge" please feel free to offer it again in public and I will accept provided that it remain in public which is what I insisted on from the beginning for reasons which I stated and if you do that I hope you will first research how a proper double-blinded test must be conducted so that we don't have to waste time resolving that issue first because as others have pointed out it is clear you do not understand proper double-blinded test protocols and methodologies.
Actually we (you and I) were doing fairly well in the very beginnings.
Only after I mentioned (privately) that my rationale for having to skype first is because seeing and hearing you lends additional credibility to the authenticity of your interest did things go awry. I went further to add that for all I know, and I’m not saying or implying you are, nevertheless it is a theoretical possibility, you could be a 14 year old school girl without the financial means and/or legal authority to enter into any agreement.
I’ll leave it for the court of public opinion to decide who means business, and speculate as to why you refuse to skype even after I posted my skype ID, and politely asked you to communicate.
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. 🐖
gdhal"I appreciate your contacting me via PM. I believe it fair to write that you and I are at an impasse. Your refusal to skype first and foremost and insistence that we publicize here on the forum what in my view is personal means that we have “irreconcilable differences”. I thank you for your interest."
I made it clear from the beginning that this challenge should be conducted in public and that includes the design, terms, conditions, methodology and location of the test. You then not only insisted on first conducting discussions privately via skype but you also sought to engage me in a private discussion as to the other terms of the test rendering whatever we would have decided to be dubious in value because it would have lacked input from the interested parties here which is who you initially engaged when first you proposed this challenge. You have also shown previously in this thread as has been pointed out by others that you do not know how to conduct a proper, reliable, repeatable test, or a double-blinded test at all meaning that it would have been impossible for me to satisfy your terms and conditions so I must say that I do not think you're challenge was ever intended to be taken seriously but rather was another effort to raise again the "it all sounds the same and if you believe otherwise you have to conduct a double-blinded test
the onus is on you to conduct that test" argument which is patent nonsense.
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.
Plain English has no chance. Complex English does. Except it has to
be pursued by the reader to the ends of their own psychological
limits.... otherwise nothing comes through. Ie, one has to elevate
themselves to the question and answer set. It is already as simplified
as it can be and that is noted to be quite ineffective. Questions and
answers equal one another.
@teo_audio, as you so deftly illustrated above, torturing syntax like Torquemada torturing an apostate doesn't result in "complex English". Nice dodge, but no cigar. Language can be used to communicate, or to obfuscate; I'll leave to readers to identify your usage for themselves.
I think it's clear that cables - whether speaker cables or interconnects - can indeed sound different. Cables can be, and are in some cases, designed as blunt force tone controls, altering the signal to an audible level during transmission. I don't, personally, find that to fulfill the basic purpose of a cable, that being to transfer the signal from component A to component B with as little change as possible. If it measures like a choke, it's a choke, not a cable. It is also possible, and certainly not unknown, for components (Naim anyone?) to have somewhat pathological input/output sections that are not stable over the *normal* ranges of R/L/C encountered in cables. But IMO we're talking about pathology here, not good engineering design.
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. None of the cables tested were of the 'pathological design' variety, or designed for a "specific sound" - they were a number of well constructed AQ cables (i.e. no batteries, no potted network boxes, no elevators, no...well, you get the idea).
As I suspected this test just ended up being held at a waffle house. The exact type of waffle being tested remains unknown, but the results of the waffling are certain
I appreciate your contacting me via PM. I believe it fair to write that you and I are at an impasse. Your refusal to skype first and foremost and insistence that we publicize here on the forum what in my view is personal means that we have “irreconcilable differences”. I thank you for your interest.
Oh yeah...Step 4-Listen to music and stop worrying about truth, it's all reproduced music....Step 5-Attend concerts of all types in all sorts of venues...it helps to know what music sounds like...
Step 1-Try some different cables in YOUR system. The Cable Company has a lending library for at-home testing. Step 2- Buy cables you think enhance your listening pleasure.
You can trade or sell said cable at later date as your tastes and/or system changes.
Step 3- (Most important) Ignore anyone on-line or off-line posters or "experts"/"engineers" who want "Blind Testing" or "Scientific Measurements" to "prove" or disapprove the spending of any $$ on cables...or any other part of YOUR system.
Having been the subject of The Amazing Randi’s Newsletter five times, sharing space with Uri Geller 🥄 once, and a bunch of ghost hunters 👻 and dowsers on others, and having been involved with negations with Randi’s Education Foundation for the Million Dollar Challenge for the Intelligent Chip, I think I can say without any risk of contradiction that I know a little bit more about the ups and downs of blind test $$$$ 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.
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? 😳
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
