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.
I recall my university lectures, regarding "skin effect" and the findings of Lamb and Heaviside. I would proffer the notion that most of the self-professed "golden eared" audiophiles would have found these lectures most uncomfortable to endure. My professor for "EE-101" worked in the design department at Scott before he got the calling to teach. I recall his assessment of one willing to pay thousands of dollars for a piece of wire a few meters long was not particularly flattering.
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.
Just the opposite is the case! You've proposed a test that would produce invalid or unreliable results because it isn't double-blind.
Regardless of the type of test or
however conducted, the spirit in what I'm suggesting to those who
purport to hear a difference is that *they* should take it upon
themselves to validate what they believe
Double-blind testing is time-consuming and tedious. Audiophiles who are happy with their systems have no incentive to undertake such testing. It's great if you want to validate your beliefs and if you undertake such a test, please share the details with us.
......After all, you want this to be double-blind, correct? A much, much better approach is to employ an abx test and with the right equipment, no assistant is required. I’ve long found it interesting that so many who clamor for others to conduct double-blind tests actually don’t know how to properly conduct such a test.
@cleeds
Seems to me you’re skirting the issue. Regardless of the type of test or however conducted, the spirit in what I’m suggesting to those who purport to hear a difference is that *they* should take it upon themselves to validate what they believe, even if simply for their own confirmation. In other words, the only one that ultimately stands to benefit or gain an additional level of satisfaction would be the one making the claim that they can hear a difference, not the one who claims they cannot.
... those who purport to hear a difference when they
reverse their speaker wire really ought to perform their own blind
testing (of course with the assistance of a trusted friend).
That's pretty silly. Those who have reversed their speaker wire are probably happy with the result - they have no need to test it for you. On the other hand, if you enjoy performing double-blind tests - go for it! Please post results here.
The notion to engage a "trusted friend" in the test is also ill-advised, because it can only taint the process. Plus, if you're going to rely on a friend for help, you'll need two. After all, you want this to be double-blind, correct? A much, much better approach is to employ an abx test and with the right equipment, no assistant is required.
I've long found it interesting that so many who clamor for others to conduct double-blind tests actually don't know how to properly conduct such a test.
geoffkait, if you think that photons have a hard time moving in cables, you'd be 100% right unless they are fiber optic cables :)
But electrons, it is an audiophile fact, can be trained to all go in a specific direction and only for a specific band of frequencies too (the imaginary audiophile skin effect).
I'll maintain that for those who purport to hear a difference when they reverse their speaker wire really ought to perform their own blind testing (of course with the assistance of a trusted friend).
This would be the best song to listen to in order to arrive at your conclusion.
This thread is similar to most of the UFO conspiracy ones: people endlessly argue the topic but the most forget that it is not a topic of science because it deals with individual and often isolated experiences and may involve unique perception states. It is, again and again, paraphrasing Pass, the case of Sommeliers relying on Chemists.
Let’s, at least, agree that:
1) Hearing perception, as any other cognitive functions, is relevant. Case in point: I have a friend with a sort of superhuman audio perception (confirmed by tests) who prefers a certain level of emphasis in the midrange (including sibilance range) while I can’t tolerate it for more than a minute. I have a simple explanation why that might be the case: he hears much more in lowest and the highest range of the audio spectrum so it is only natural for him to emphasize the mids to normalize it. In short, if a cable sounds better even for a single person in their own system after they spend hours of listening to a wide range of material (or they spot a UFO and are not known to hallucinate) that alone ends the topic for me.
2) No audio-path component can be evaluated alone and should exclude the original sound source or space we listen to it (or headphones we use). Case in point, the same component may have a different impact on another component in different systems and may result in a "worse" or "same" or "better" experience for various listeners. One question, however, will remain: what is "worse", "same" or "better" unless it is A/B-ed with a wide range of live sounds in the same listening space (preferably including human speech too). If the majority of listeners hears no difference after changing a cable in the same system ad after they spend hours of listening to a wide range of material (or they never spot a UFO) that does not surprise me either.
geoffkait wrote @12:24pm 3-14-2018Big
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. 😡
Sound waves, as well as their electrical interpretations are sinusoidal, not directional. So is AC current. That means that first they are positive, then diminish, go to zero, increase as negative, peak, diminish again to zero, cross back to positive, grow to a positive peak, ...... wash rinse repeat, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. So if your wire is directional, then one half of your music is ALWAYS messed up. Ever watch your speaker cone. See, it goes out. stops, goes back, stops.... Same with your AC cord. Don't think of it as a firehose, but as a two man cross-cut saw. First lumberjack A pulls on it, and then lumberjack B pulls it back. Back and forth. Next thing you know, the tree is cut in two, work is performed. Not like a chainsaw, where the chain only goes in one direction. Chainsaw=DC. AC is more like having two hoses each interacting through pistons with a mechanism on each end, say a cross-cut saw. You have a two pistons, each driving one end of the saw. When we push a piston down on hose A, it pushes on cross-cut saw end A. When we then push on Piston B, it pushes on the other side, pushing the saw back. No water ever leaves the system, but energy at one end is transmitted to the other end. That energy can be transmitted into the system by using a simple cam pushing the pistons back in forth with a circular cam driven by a simply water wheel. This is why AC power transmission works so well.
The AMP is outputting a sinusoidal waveform. The output of the AMP is still positive-negative-positive-n-p-n-p-n................... Again, slap the output onto an oscilloscope, watch, and learn. The only electrical circuits I know of that don't cross zero are very high speed ECL chips. Those move from -2.2V to -5.2v for digital circuits. The price you pay for this unique feature and the blazing speed, is a chip that will fail in less than 10 seconds if not actively cooled. Chips go faster if they don't have to reverse the flow of electrons, but just change the pressure (voltage) in one direction.
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.
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.
I realize nobody said it was supposed to be speaker cable. Yes, I have coffee. I'm bringing up blind tests because I happen to have read and understood the title of the thread. Yes, I have performed blind testing. Thank you Geoff.
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.
This article is from 1991 (I think) but just re-published and explains some scientific reasons why cables can sound differently. A good read for anyone interested or anyone who thinks audio need more science.
Those are interconnect cables, which are entirely different than speaker wire.
And yes, I certainly do agree there are scientific reasons why cables can sound different. Doesn't mean they do or will though. Pitting the scientific reasons against a blind test to determine if the listener actually does discern a sonic difference is also entirely different.
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?
This article is from 1991 (I think) but just re-published and explains some scientific reasons why cables can sound differently. A good read for anyone interested or anyone who thinks audio need more science.
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.
Non slippery? My comments are the only ones that aren’t slippery. Maybe
if you tried speaking plain English someone could respond. Who knows?
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.
And the answer to the question is complex and defeats most people's ideas on their fundamentals of reality and what they are - what this place is.
Which is already a complex enough statement to have someone come along and post a ridiculing stab in the back bit directed right at me. Just so their mind does not have to do anything that threatens their comforts in knowing who and what they are. Like I note you have already done, for whatever given reason, be it ignorance or determined act..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So, just to allow myself to be ridiculed and stabbed at again, for a few more posts or in some other thread I may contribute to...:
A simple way to discern the final answer on the objectivity front, is...: God, or the universe, if you will... can both prove and disprove it’s own existence and both conditions are scientifically valid and true. Simultaneously.
The data set is many thousands of pages deep, in it’s entirety, and many studies and a few meta studies deep. Then the emergent physics that says the same. The problem is not the data, is the complexity of the persons involved in it’s understanding... in their given ’life’.
It’s not something I came up with. Or that I promote openly... as too many people will run at it as if it is a windmill they need to charge and attack/kill.
It is forums that we are communicating on or via.. We’re dealing with individualized cases of crowd psychosis that tend to be applied in Machiavellian fashion. There’s no possible form a win for anyone, here.
"It’s not a concern for their* particular forms of use."
"Cable directionality" must have some physical manifestation, even if it's at quantum level. The "good" direction must be consistently more effective in energy/information transmission. Otherwise it's distortion which cannot be "good"(local entropy variable) . Energy/information transmission efficiencies mean lives can be lost or saved and money made. One would think this could be of concern.
*all technical civilization based on electricity, except : see below
@geoffkait [cable...]
"...directionality is sound related only"
So only some select audiophiles can measure with their ears local entropy of cables conducting electricity? This skill or knowledge is not available to anybody else and no instrument can match human ears?
I was merely providing a research pathway, as there is no simple answer, only complex ones that take time to discern.
As well, as you might and probably do know, there is no way to communicate a complex long form answer to a question..to another..that those individuals will have to put the work in themselves.
The end game is that entrenched positions of individuals as compared to a group....simply do not bring about change en masse. The given entrenched position changes one person at a time, like grains of sand on a beach.
Which is why any $25k challenge will be a waste of time, for both parties and for anyone else outside of a few given potential attendees.
for example beyond all the complexities of the quality of the test, and so on....there is something more problematic. Something a layer deeper in or down. Something that is most difficult to swallow, or deal with is that objectivity has been scientifically proven, through and by hundreds of vetted tests, to be a non existent thing. This is now coming at us, as a group, from multiple directions in finished works and cutting edge physics revelations.
Point being, that an ’objective test’ now has to be modified to deal with the new understandings of the fundamentals around the now falsified idea of objectivity. Otherwise the regimen as it stands ---is likely to be found as invalid.
Getting the people involved to understand that new emergent fundamental (objectivity being falsified), is going to be tough sledding at best. How does one get objectivity in science to reform itself? Fundamentally? It’s a human ego/emotions/hind-brain problem, not just a complex and deep question of logic and data. The problem has never been the logic or idea of logic, it has always been the human filter and carrier.
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.
It’s not a concern for their particular forms of use.
@Geoff
As for Randi’s lack of validity, that is easy to find on the interwebs. I cannot immediately find the web link for the ’scientific regimen’ test designing dude’s report on Randi’s test, but here’s quite the bit of damning evidence in just one article out of what is likely to be more than a few.
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. 😡
Here's a 1 cent challenge for all of you. Point to one business / professional area (science, communications, pro audio, IT, cryptology, military, medicine, power, space exploration, aviation, etc) where cable directionality is a technical standard. Link that standard, please.
Randi’s testing regimen was looked at by people who design scientific testing regimens.
It was found to be so badly built, that if it was applied in real science and real proofing procedures, that ... not one single drug or substance would ever be made available to humanity---- as all being tested would fail. All.
The test was not even remotely properly built. That’s what you find when you look under the hood of the challenge. Surprise!
It’s all this looking at the surface of things, combined with accepting the first answer, or deciding on the first formulated question, etc....such is the mindset that dooms the average person from ever reaching satisfaction in understanding the world.
’Good enough’ does not apply in researching any aspect of advanced understandings which might go beyond the common and mundane.
As for any $25k challenge: it would only apply to two people: those two who are involved. Outside of that, it would be a waste of time and money.
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.
Great. Then your suggestions/recommendations should be moot. Please note that we are speaking here of subjective listening impressions, not objective technical measurements.
All else can remain constant. Meaning all gear (amp, speakers, music, volume level, whatever). It could even be conducted in an environmentally controlled room, or not.
Let’s not over complicate matters.
The only thing we need to do with the belden speaker wire is disconnect it from the speakers binding posts, disconnect it from the amps binding post, physically orient the cable in the opposite direction, reconnect to speaker and amp binding posts, play the same music passage and then have clearthink state, “yes, you have reversed the cable” or “no, you have not reversed the cable” and compare that statement to what actually just occurred with the cable. Seems to me he/she should be able to do this 100% of the time, just like if you played Amy Winehouse, then played Bod Dylan and asked if the music changed. It should be that simple and recognizable, according to clearthink (and you, Geoff).
gdhalThe idea of meeting with your first via skype is so I can gain a sense as to whether or not we could ever attain an agreement.
I am increasingly developing the sense here that your proposal to discuss via skype now is in truth an attempt to escape from your $25K USD offer to test my ability to detect wire directionality in a scientifically controlled test. If the purpose is truly to determine whether we can ever actually agree on the protocols for the test then that is a conversation we can have here under the "protective umbrella " and watchful eye of all here on Audio and including Audiogon itself. We will each I am confident have specific requirements and preconditions for this test and it will be up for each forum participant here to conclude for theirselves whether such requirements are prudent and/or reasonable or an attempt to escape our committments as previously expressed here in the forum. As facts presently stand we have only your offer of $25,000 USD on the table and increasingly your adding additional preconditions onto your previously open offer. Everyone here should know that I am willing to travel to your country and accept your offer of $25,000 USD to detect this directionality but of course I will need assurances that the test will be conducted in a scientific way and in public so that others can witness what transpires.
I am currently testing the cable "loom" of Monoprice ($7 for two USB, and a pair of gold plated ICs) My hypothesis is that they will do what are asked of them. The data will travel from Computer to DAC, and the analog signal will go from the DAC to my receiver without error or coloration. I am willing to risk $7 for the sake of Science. I am sure that the Nordost Valhalla Reference speaker ribbons sound better than lamp cord. They were a gift, so I am not influenced by the $5600/meter pair price.
This is completely not true the next step is to design the means by which the test will be conducted the place the test will be conducted the associated equipment that will be used with the test to be conducted the proctors to the test that we will have conducted and how the public will both be able to participate in the test to be conducted and/or witness for themselves the test to be conducted those are some of the preliminary matters that remain to be resolved and these will be reviewed, discussed, negotiated and agreed upon here in public or otherwise your $25,000 USD offer is ovbiously not sincere and you have undertaken the means to extricate yourself so which is it. Do you want to discuss this plan here or move it into the shadows and darkness where you can "chicken" out and then blame the outcome on someone other than yourself?
@clearthink
The idea of meeting with your first via skype is so I can gain a sense as to whether or not we could ever attain an agreement. Essentially saving myself the time and effort of needing to endlessly respond to your posts. Also, keep in mind that even if we do agree to terms, our attorneys need to set it to legal language. And, if your in another country that in itself can be an arduous process as laws are different. But in absence of skype meeting, I of course remain interested in reading here on the forum whatever else you can propose.
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.
gdhal"I thought we already discussed the matter and were to proceed to the next step. My attorney will create the necessary protective umbrella for me, and presumably your attorney will create a protective umbrella for you." This is completely not true the next step is to design the means by which the test will be conducted the place the test will be conducted the associated equipment that will be used with the test to be conducted the proctors to the test that we will have conducted and how the public will both be able to participate in the test to be conducted and/or witness for themselves the test to be conducted those are some of the preliminary matters that remain to be resolved and these will be reviewed, discussed, negotiated and agreed upon here in public or otherwise your $25,000 USD offer is ovbiously not sincere and you have undertaken the means to extricate yourself so which is it. Do you want to discuss this plan here or move it into the shadows and darkness where you can "chicken" out and then blame the outcome on someone other than yourself?
All that you have to do to alter the sound of your cables is to disconnect them for a couple of minutes then plug them back in. Then you go aaahhh sounds better! And there is a good chance it WILL!!!! First you just cleaned your connection by some friction . 2nd you let any static charge bleed out. The 2nd one is a Direct TV trouble shooting protocol for 75 ohm cables.
But try hearing a difference disconnecting and reconnecting if that were performed blind :)
Seriously folks, I appreciate everyone's interest, whether you agree with my position, clearthink, or that of your own.
But the bottom line is the offer I've made herein this thread is that of my own, so it stands to reason that so too are the terms. Apparently it's too much to ask that I be contacted privately. I'll let you guys determine in the court of public opinion who means business and who is "just another winkly dinkler".
All that you have to do to alter the sound of your cables is to disconnect them for a couple of minutes then plug them back in. Then you go aaahhh sounds better! And there is a good chance it WILL!!!! First you just cleaned your connection by some friction . 2nd you let any static charge bleed out. The 2nd one is a Direct TV trouble shooting protocol for 75 ohm cables.
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.
