I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Burden of proof rests on claimant. Burden of proof especially rests on claimant when making extraordinary claims. Contra Jakob, it is not the responsibility of physicists to spend time testing perpetual motion machines when the guys peddling them won't provide data nor details on experimental design. Likewise, when fabulous claims of non-mundane audibility are put forth, it is the responsibility of claimants to present evidence, not of the engineering community to spend time and effort debunking them.

I find little for disagreement. Surprised? I also agree with softening 'pathological' to 'non-mundane'. More consistency in weighing deviations from idea is desperately needed. It makes no sense to call the response deviations from 25 feet of 18 gauge speaker cable innocuous and lambaste an amplifier for having a damping factor of 15.
John might disagree but I've never maintained that, say, my preference for silver mica tube couplers has scientific authority. I've also stated often the field of electronic audibility stopped being sexy to the core scientific community shortly after the basics of feedback were well understood. It might be time to have another look in light of new research into lossy compression but I understand why it holds no appeal.
How does any of this absolve the unfounded accusations and matchbook psychology hurled every time someone claims to like silver?
 
Last edited:
Hi John!
Ok, this is only for you. The objectivist, please do not listen.
The best hookup cable i found is Allen Perkins tonearmwire. It´s an extremely fine litzcable. Literally hundreds of small seperately insulated wires. There is a company in Germany called Pack Feindrähte that do something similiar. This wire is used for RF coils for very high frequency. Another cable i use is from a company in Cologne called Wedemayer. It is called Tefzel wire. It is a solid core copper wire that is tin plated. The isolation is a foamed Teflon that is easiers to work with then hard teflon. I use different diameters for different purpose, for example AWG24 as signal wire and thicker for PSU duty. This wire is also used for samples in the high tech industry. We used wire wrapping instead of PCB for rapid prototyping.
 
Photographic proof that anyone can be fooled. "It was behind your ear!"
 

Attachments

  • tellersurprised.jpg
    tellersurprised.jpg
    79.2 KB · Views: 117
So you don't/can't measure, but you know FR is not altered by your magic wires............AJ

If you believe that all high end audio cable manufacturers's cables alter the sound then you have no idea about high end cables.Don't tell us again of 4-5 cases that we all know...............
In fact I have measured what comes out of my speakers and you'd be surprised.But as I said experimenting is I believe productive,despite what you may say.

What makes you think that at least 10-15 live shows/concerts a year for the last 35 years make me unable to have a live reference?Or our own recordings for many years now?What makes you think some of us still live in caves?

Hi-fi magazines?I bet you read and maybe buy more magazines than I do.In fact I have not touched one for the last 20 years.

But yes,I can accept that you and others know everything and I and others know nothing.I bet you can tell how I like my coffee?

As for your comment about the small speaker I am using,just to let you know, I still have my 2x10'' woofer/6'' midrange Focals,just in case.Or are these not good for your standards either?
 
Last edited:
<snip>
Contra Jakob, it is not the responsibility of physicists to spend time testing perpetual motion machines when the guys peddling them won't provide data nor details on experimental design. Likewise, when fabulous claims of non-mundane audibility are put forth, it is the responsibility of claimants to present evidence, not of the engineering community to spend time and effort debunking them.
<snip>

"Contra Jakob" ?

Could you cite only one sentence from me, where i stated something in contrary to your statement above?

Wishes


P.S. Shouldn´t you at least sometimes try a post without the obvious strawmen? :)
 
No, I was referring to the Intons-Peterson paper you cited vis a vis the proposed tests that we're doing with TG, and why that citation is totally inapt.
.

Oh, a little editing took place. ;)

I did not cite the Intons-Petersen paper, i only linked to a page where the demand characteristics was a bit explained. I could have linked to numerous other psychological lexika sites, where a similar explanation could be found.

Please remember the story behind this; rdf cited Meyer with his text about an influence of experimenters expectation on test results (intelligence test).
You insisted that this was just anecdotal, even after i was asking if that (or something similar) wasn´t a long established thing in science and afair that similar experiment really were done.

You kept on joking about "mind control" necessary, talked about "fourth hand anecdote" and therefore i (related to the fourth hand anecdote - expressis verbis) provided a link that shows that this possible influence is indeed a known fact.
Nothing more nothing less; and i said that this is more a problem in tests like the Meyer/Moran.

Wishes
 
"Contra Jakob" ?

Could you cite only one sentence from me, where i stated something in contrary to your statement above?

Wishes

"Please try sometimes to follow an argument; everything is fine, if you insisted that the burden of proof is on the shoulder of the claimant (whatever claim he´s made), but if somebody present the _claim_ that the didn´t hear something than he has to show that it wasn´t only due to the fact that he doesn´t want to hear something. (a bit exaggerated for clearness, more unintentionally it would be just the well known expectation bias of )"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.