panomaniac said:
I know you to be wrong, laughably so.
Listen, when a discussion degenerates into one where we have to buy into blind faith of one person (either yours or your opponents), it has become a discussion of religion.
On a second thought, who says that the cable believers aren't that different from religion believers?
The ones that do generally are the dowsers. Randi is kind in print to them because unlike spoon-benders, faith healers, and sightless readers, they're almost 100% honest and sincerely believe in their ability. They agree on a fair protocol and they truly think that they did well, being crushed when revealing the key sheet shows they haven't. His book "Flim-Flam" is a wonderfully entertaining read.
Randi has said that the million dollar prize would apply to any audio device that is claimed to operate outside the bounds of engineering. So to qualify distinguishing between two cables, the levels and frequency responses must be matched. Even a hard-core sceptic like me can completely accept cable differences when they're acting as equalizers or networks to stabilize (or destabilize!) amplifiers.
I'd suggest you look more closely at the data, rather than jumping to the conclusion that the experiments were faulty.rdf said:
The tests reject H0 (i.e. find significant difference) for the V15 vs Sonus Blue and V15 vs M70B. I believe the Sonus Blue is a high-end cart, and the M70B a lower-end Shure.
The tests fail to reject V15 vs AT-20 SLA and V15 vs AKG PE8S, but the second comparison involves only a single listener and 16 trials -- and he actually gets it right 11 times. So the test of V15 vs AKG PE8S obviously suffers from a lack of power.
The test of Shure V-15III vs. AT-20 SLA, however, has 11 listeners and a total of 155 trials, and therefore can not be so casually tossed aside.
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_phca.htm
we can all argue to death how good our listening abilities are; and how unique and sensitive an instrument the human ears are. Not to mention the mile long list of factors and engineering theories, all of which are 100% valid by the way, that help explain why cables make a difference - and I am a strong believer of that myself.
End of the day, if we cannot hear the difference, does it really matter?
and so far, no one person in this long thread has proven, statistically, his / her godly ability to hear such a difference. And we have plenty of cable believers who are adament about their ability to tell cables apart, but not adament enough to use that ability to easily make a million USD or so.
Isn't that telling?
End of the day, if we cannot hear the difference, does it really matter?
and so far, no one person in this long thread has proven, statistically, his / her godly ability to hear such a difference. And we have plenty of cable believers who are adament about their ability to tell cables apart, but not adament enough to use that ability to easily make a million USD or so.
Isn't that telling?
rdf said:
Ummm, small world. That letter posted on Randi's site was mine.
The challenge to prove that you can tell the difference between speaker cables stands. Write to Randi and ask him yourself!
randi@randi.org
fokker said:
The gullability gene in the human brain that allows the successful propagation of religion is being exploited by charletain snake oil audio product dealers selling rediculously high priced products. The damage done by these audio crooks is small however and the practise does not spill blood. I cannot think of a higher priced product in human terms than religion. The continuing costs are as old as history and are undeniably obscene.
rdf said:
Interestingly (to me at least) I became involved with the randi.org forum because there was a significant amount of uproar about my email on that week's SWIFT.
I had to defend my position, much the same as I have on this forum.
If you read the letter, the context of it is important. I was asked specifically what interconnects and speaker cables "were the best", and I responded in a nutshell; "that should be the LAST thing you worry about". My emphasis was on improving your listening conditions. Does anybody disagree with that?
Also, I do NOT claim that a "single run" of Cat5 is the best, check your facts.
However, my claim that Cat5 is the best speaker wire was based on testing that I'd done (and has been discussed on this forum) and the fact that it's very inexpensive when compared to brand name cables.
rcavictim said:
AGREED!
Totally off topic, perhaps, but check out this site for more discussion of this issue:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/
In my experience, there was an improvement and there is a clear diffirence between using innadequate cables and using something up to the job... regardless of price... I do not see how an expensive superconductor cable would realy make an iprovement from that point where you have adequate cableing..
As for a more scientific method.. you would need to establish which sound components are diffirent... i.e. is it a measurable phenomena.... i.e. I can look at a scope and see aaah theres the sound or nada... regardless of whether I can hear anything...
Remember half of the people on earth have beter than average hearing...
As for a more scientific method.. you would need to establish which sound components are diffirent... i.e. is it a measurable phenomena.... i.e. I can look at a scope and see aaah theres the sound or nada... regardless of whether I can hear anything...
Remember half of the people on earth have beter than average hearing...
macgyver10,if we suppose that my hearing(forget about intelligence)is like the majority of the planet's population,and this is considered paranormal,then I think it is not the majority of the planet's population that should be worrying about hearing tests.More soon as I've been out all day and if I don't take my dog for a walk he will bite me.I can hear him calling(!!!!!!!!!!)
fokker said:
Of course it's religion.
"Of course, you can choose not to believe, but you'd be missing out on so much."--Alasdair Patrick of Audioquest.
The cable believers usually tell us non-believers that we cannot hear any difference between cables because we have already made up our minds. That just doesn't hold up. I cannot stop world hunger by not believing in it. I cannot change fact by not believing in it. Fact is fact regardless if you believe in it or not.
All belief is based on a want. You believe because you want to believe. I have no problem with people's beliefs. What I do have a problem with is when the believers, like Stereophile, try to bend the truth to fit their beliefs. I can see no difference between Stereophile and the creationists. While not as dangerous as the creationists, Stereophile is dangerous enough. It is an authority. And it still plants and nurtures that seed of superstitious belief. It's as much anti-science, anti-truth, anti-enlightenment as the creationists.
macgyver10 said:
I recently saw an interview with Richard Dawkins on BBC. They presented him as "controversial." Since when did the truth become controversial? If the truth is controversial, lie must be uncontroversial! God help us all.
macgyver10,I,m surprised that now you remembered about Galileo's belief-not just theory to him-you feel my comment makes even less sense.You chose to base your comment on three lines of TerryO's quote but you seem o ignore TerryO,s post:500 where he also says that History vindicated Galileo's belief.That his belief was proven by scientists later should have told much to the sceptic.Mind you,I'm sceptic too.About Mr.Randis prize,if he spreads his million to people in need,I will state(I wonder who cares)that I don't hear any difference between cables or whatever you want me to say.See that belief and skepticism can go together?
Belief and scepticism do not go together.
Galileo in forcefully promulgating a hypothesis that he had not the techniques to verify is just that, but not a belief. In so forcefully advancing the keplerian view as the only correct one without experimental proof he violated his own - and not only his own - principles of experimental research.
This has absolutely nothing to do with belief - except with the belief in his being correct in espousing his/keplers hypothesis.
Einstein did the same by advancing his idea of relativity, which after all was only a thought experiment backed by some calculations. Not einstein, but subsequent experimental researchers verified his hypothesis and advanced it to a state of theory that permits predictions to be made that can be falsified by experiment.
macgyver10 said:
That's an easy challenge. Verbatim:
I stand 'corrected', a single run unless the requirements call for larger gauges (than the typically recommended 18 guage zip for short runs I presume - 6 ohms /1000 feet, the equivilant of 4 strands of CAT5 24 gauge.) Feel free to clear that up if I'm wrong again. By my calculations based on the AWG standard of 24 ohms per 1000 feet a typical install of a single ten foot run per channel of CAT5 would limit the system's damping factor into 8 ohms to ~70. On the other hand, at ~17.5pf /foot between pairs, we've just tacked 4 x 17.5 x 10 = 700 pF across the amp's output. If DF = 70 is considered audibly limiting (a difficult stance scientifically) you can double up and strap 1.4 nf+ across your amp's output. How, from a purely skeptical engineering perspective, does best-case quadrupling the capacitance of 18 gauge zip's nominal 17.5 pf/foot make CAT5 the best speaker cable? What's the engineering rationalization?
Which was my original point, Randi took a recommendation outside of his specific expertise on faith because of the source. If a skeptic claims it in rebuttal to the 'loonies' it must be true. Many here will take statements on faith when presented as anti-"audiophoolery", all the while claiming to represent the voice of science. It's more often social interaction and jockeying for group status than scientific analysis. Which is fine, this is an informal forum, unless of course those are the standards you demand of others.
Dumbass said:
The 'not same' symbol is used in the tests for the V15 Type 3 vs. the Sonus and M70B, indicating a reliable difference was heard, not surprising considering a 1979 (!) Audio magazine review found the Blue is +5 dB hotter than the Shure up top. None was heard between the V15 Type 3 vs. the AKG or the AT (all cartridges from the Seventies BTW.) If what I wrote was sloppy Internet shorthand I accept that, three cartridges were compared but two to a single reference. See below. It's possible a comparison of the AT and AKG would have resulted in a positive. However, regarding the Shure vs. AT and AKG, a null result doesn't validate the test protocol. I can play all three over the phone a thousand times to a thousand listeners and guarantee a null result. By your own analysis ("So the test of V15 vs AKG PE8S obviously suffers from a lack of power.") the fourth test was marginal science. That was my point, a test done with proper care, impartiality, equipment and music selection should reasonably have been able to differentiate between three different models of rock dragged through plastic. AR-5 speakers and a home made TL employing '70's KEF drivers isn't in my mind a serious attempt at a valid test protocol. SY comes closer when he states equalized and within their operating limits cartridges sound very alike (though I'll quibble Britten's "Rejoice in the Lamb" which combines youth choir with heavy organ pedal stands a good chance of revealing compliance/mass issues before mistracking.) The ABX cited had none of the limitations SY mentions.
A bit of background, the late Seventies through the Eighties saw the rise of magazines like The Absolute Sound and Stereophile in their original incarnations. On one side you had those espousing Dynavectors, Supex, Sonus, Grace and dozens more forgotten names, on the other Shure and Stanton. My suspicion is this phono test had its roots in that debate since all cartidges are compared to the Shure V15. Once again, this test has all the smell of puditry and not one of impartial scientific investigation. Which is fine, until you claim to represent the latter.
If you need one more example, check the abosulte phase test. In this one the protocol was much better, employing the wide-range original Quads almost universally praised for their resolving power. Sure enough, a statistically valid difference was heard on artificial training signals. However, when it came to 'the point', audibility on music, no words on if the source material used was phase coherent (all mics positive voltage for positive pressure) or if the sub-woofer was in phase with the Quads. These are all critical details if the intent is to discover whether absolute phase is audible.
I liked that letter and think you are spot on w.r.t. room treatments.macgyver10 said:
One quibble: I don't like your statement on bi-wiring and bi-amping. The two are vastly different, and there are sensible reasons why active crossovers are superior (in most cases) to passive crossovers. Rod Elliott is a great proponent of common sense in this hobby and consistently rails against audio voodoo, but makes a very persuasive and coherent case for bi-amping:
http://sound.westhost.com/bi-amp.htm
One cool thing (among many) about Elliott's site is that he includes two different plans for a DIY ABX comparator. I have considered building the simpler one, but when I look at the rat's nest:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I just get tired and put a record on the turntable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.