If the stated intention of a test is to determine whether a combination of wire, solder and connector materials have an impact on sound, how can anyone justify interposing that 'rat's nest' of wires, connectors, switches and solders in a plastic box into the circuit? It's a perfect example of assuming from the beginning the hypothesis you're setting out to examine is false and building a test protocol around it.
Ageed on room treatment/speaker placement, the #1 neglected component.
Ageed on room treatment/speaker placement, the #1 neglected component.
Dumbass said:
I don't disagree that using line level active crossovers with multiple amps is in many ways a superior setup.
In the context of my letter, however, this wasn't what I was referring to. I was simply referring to the practice of doubling up speaker cables and amplifiers to feed the individual filter sections of a passive loudspeaker crossover.
The drawback of posting this email, is that it was the culmination of several back and forth discussions on the subject, and not meant to be my "manifesto".
Also, in the spirit of the email, I was trying to re-focus the person's concentration on issues that matter. Effectively giving him guidance on how to prioritize his efforts. Especially when on a budget!
rdf said:
This is a common complaint of the test procedure, but also doesn't hold water.
If the only VARIABLE is the DUT (in this case the speaker wires), then I don't see why the "rat's nest" matters?
If anything I'd suggest that this tips the balance in favour of the believer. You're suggesting that the signal paths will be significantly different due to the ABX equipment. That should make it easier to detect when you are actually listening to a different cable, shouldn't it?
Panicos K said:
Actually I address this directly in post 512, please read it again. We might have a bit of a language barrier muddying up the water here.
I'm saying that you're not Galileo. The test that is proposed is very simple, either you can hear a difference or you can't. Science can't change that result, no matter how much time you give it.
Panicos K said:
Win the million and spread it yourself.
I'm curious why non-skeptics can be so passionate about their irrational beliefs, but when asked to prove them they suddenly become so "skeptical"?
Also, the protocol that you design with the JREF won't allow for you to simply state "I don't hear a difference". The results of the testing will speak for itself.
Panicos K said:
Actually you just illustrated beautifully how they're mutually exclusive. Thanks!
Hi All!
This is skirting home base, as I mentioned earlier that I will be on holiday until the end of the week. Thanks for good wishes, Jneatron! I promise not to think about audio, and do not do so now, but then this post is very removed from audio.
I could not help but notice the various, some plainly derogatory remarks and backhand little jabs at Religion and the followers thereof, whatever the denomination, direction, call it what you will. I wonder if one can respectfully refer to rule no 6 of the Forum's conditions. Many of us are believers in something, including some Religion or other (by definiton those who do not, then have that as their faith, etc.) And let us not degrade this forum by quibbling about the difference between Religion and religion as intended by those who referred to it here.The way I interpreted rule 6 is that Religion is a right to be respected, as is politics and the rest, but hardly relevant here.
I wonder, can we skip those little back-bites? It has as much to do with this thread (which I believe is still loudspeaker cables) as has Ohm's Law with a cumulus cloud. I am not playing moderator, just requesting a mite more respect in this respect, with respect.
Respectfully.
Edit: J-n-e-u-t-r-o-n. There, I got it right!
This is skirting home base, as I mentioned earlier that I will be on holiday until the end of the week. Thanks for good wishes, Jneatron! I promise not to think about audio, and do not do so now, but then this post is very removed from audio.
I could not help but notice the various, some plainly derogatory remarks and backhand little jabs at Religion and the followers thereof, whatever the denomination, direction, call it what you will. I wonder if one can respectfully refer to rule no 6 of the Forum's conditions. Many of us are believers in something, including some Religion or other (by definiton those who do not, then have that as their faith, etc.) And let us not degrade this forum by quibbling about the difference between Religion and religion as intended by those who referred to it here.The way I interpreted rule 6 is that Religion is a right to be respected, as is politics and the rest, but hardly relevant here.
I wonder, can we skip those little back-bites? It has as much to do with this thread (which I believe is still loudspeaker cables) as has Ohm's Law with a cumulus cloud. I am not playing moderator, just requesting a mite more respect in this respect, with respect.
Respectfully.
Edit: J-n-e-u-t-r-o-n. There, I got it right!
macgyver10,my posts 313 and 360 are for some very easy tests.Can you comment on those or you don't consider them worthy.Sorry about my English.If you wrote in Greek then perhaps I would have the luxury to choose what and how to understand it.I am not a skeptic because I don't see things your way?Also I sometimes use the word ''believe'' because most of you ''skeptics''do.Just for the record I have no doubt that I hear what I say I hear.
Johan Potgieter said:
I take it slightly differently.
all of us believe in religions of some form, by definition: those "non-believers" believe in a religion called "non-religion".
The unique thing about religion is that it is a faith that cannot be proved nor does it need to be proved. you either believe it or you don't and that's why we have so many of them and each of us preaching a slightly different version of it and we don't impose it onto others. and few sane believers attempt to rationalize their believes on science.
the cable crowd is quite different. most of them state adamently that we would hear a difference, or they can prove a difference in a test (but none would show up for that test of their own). and they try to find every scientic theory in the universe to justify the audiability of such a difference. But none of them have the guts to go to a test and win a million dollar reward!
The religion's equivalent of it would be I go to your house and tell you that I can make the sun rise from the west, and insist that you have to believe me. I would also tell you that I can demonstrate that for you and when you take me on that, i would chicken out and blame it on your request being unfair. and I still insist of my ability to do that and tell you how inferior you are for not being able to believe me.
Wouldn't that be frustrating to any one who is considering to convert?
rdf said:
Thanks for recognizing your error.
If I was recommending that people strap a lump capacitance of 700 pF across the output of their amp, then you would have a valid point.
However, this is not just capacitance, but also significant series inductance, ultimately resulting in a transmission line characteristic impedance of 100ohms at 100Mhz. Even at 100Mhz I'm not concerned that this would cause significant feedback to the amplifier using four pairs (25ohms).
However, this is not 100Mhz...it's 100Khz or less (in most cases), and my test results show an impedance RISE at frequencies above 20Khz that's relatively similar to zip-cord. However, the added capacitance appears to help push that rise further out above 20Khz compared to other cables.
Others have already discussed that the impedance characteristics of all these cables are not significant at these frequencies.
Do you have other concerns that are not related to potential HF feedback? I'm not married to the idea of using Cat5, I just haven't heard any really good reason not to use it. I don't "believe" in it's magical properties, I'm just frugal, and it's worked very well for me so far.
fokker said:I know you to be wrong, laughably so.
There in lies the problem. We can tell stories until we're blue in the face; it is unlikely to convince anyone.
How do you I'm not a liar? You simply can't know. I do know what I've heard, over and over. For example many amps sound so much alike I can't tell the difference, other are so different that it has made all the people in the test laugh.
But there is simply no way to "prove" this if you were not there to hear it. As long as you're reading just my stories, or anyone else's, on the web you have no way of knowing. It could be true, a lie, or simply a mistake.
Amen to that! It becomes too easy to pontificate on either side. Just because a skeptic says it isn't true, doesn't meant that it isn't! The burden of proof is on both sides. I applaud a skeptic like Randi who wants to design a good test to prove that something "odd" works. He has opened the door to anyone who believes that the phenomenon can be proven.
But again, alas, just because no one has proven that dowsing, ESP, and audible cables do exist, does not mean that they don't. I hate myself for saying that, it goes against the grain, but it's an honest position.
However, for practical reasons, we can proceed under the belief that if the thing has not been proved to exist, we need not worry about it. If I'm going camping in the North West woods, I won't worry about being attacked by Big Foot. I might worry about bears. Pretty sure those exist.
All we are doing is talking. Blah, blah, blah. Nobody is doing any testing. Talking, not testing.
macgyver10 please contact me offline. I am interested in the Randi test. I do believe there is a very good test that can establish if there is an audible difference, or not. I have no opinion on which way the test will go, only in the test itself.
macgyver10,sorry to send some of my posts in pieces but sometimes I have to take a look in my dictionary.So,if I got it right,I think I would be IRRATIONAL if I called you that way because you have your opinion.Now about that protocol(thank God here's a Greek word),I know it won't allow me to just say''I don't hear a difference''.The problem is that it will allow others to say I don't,and they don't even have a way to hear through my ears.
Dumbass said:
I'm not even going to try... it was not me that proved that. but i do remember enuff statistics (i have an unused honours degree in statistical mathmathics) to follow the proof (i first saw it presented by a statitician from Australia and another from Montreal -- and i've tried many times to find it buried in 8-10 year old mail archives) and know it is not BS.
Believing in an ABX test is just like believing anecdotal evidence -- ie like trying to fill a strainer up with water.
I would love to see a valid blind test developed. It will probably require portable & unobtrusive MRI or CATscan-like technology so that we can actually read the direct effect of the DUT on the brain of the subjects.
dave
Johan Potgieter said:
I respect you, but I certainly don't think religion has a right to be respected.
I don't think I'm being derogatory when I state that religious belief is irrational. That's simply a fact.
The comparison between religion and irrational audiophile beliefs is a good one, because they are both irrational yet passionately held belief systems.
I can still respect you if we disagree, but irrational is irrational. As we all are from time to time!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.