Funny how you keep bringing up that test up in the last couple years. But at the time...not so much. So I call BS. If it actually happened, it would have been widely known and discussed THEN. And yet on here and PETT and elsewhere, it only came up quite recently.
Must have something to do with the fact that now you get boutique cap product to give you their wares, and praise their sonic on public fora before disclosing your relationship with the company involved.
I certainly would like to see that i.e. two short files one of which sounds like "nothing but noise and distortion " that look similar when examined. I would be happy with visual examination of the time domain waveforms.
Pallas- I told you why you are not finding proof on the internet. PE updated it's software and servers and cutoff the posts in Sept of 2005. So- this means the posts about it precede the foum's archive. It was discussed a lot back then, and also on the old Madisound Board- guess what- it died in 2005 for a stint of about 4 months and then Mad brought it back fresh with no archive and new software. I only participated in those 2 forums and didn't join DIYaudio until 2006. Bob Cordell (aka audiohead7) is the one who performed the test. You know, the guy that worked with Crest and just published a how to build an amp book a short time ago? He knows his stuff! I guess since you joined PETT in 2011 you never would have known or seen the conversations.
You really think I would put myself out there if it weren't true then you really don't know me as a person. I'm just relaying my experiences. The test was performed at Dayton DIY 2003, and I was apparently the only person taking the test, and didn't really even know what test I was taking since this was a new thing to me. I was told to hold the relay box and switch to the point where I was comfortable in discerning the differences, and I didn't even know what the differences were supposed to be for- just that there might be some. Then someone else had the box way behind me. They flipped the switch like Russian Roulette so I would not know where it stopped. And it was 6 or 7 trials that I got correct, not just 3 as proposed by George.
And another thing- I have no benefit to my trials of differing capacitors as I'm doing that for me alone, and just think that some might like to know my opinion so I report it. I have not had caps sent my way for advertising or any other profit to a manufacturer. I gain nothing except my own experience. If I see a thread asking for opinions, I also post them there- wow, what a concept! Someone actually being honest in what he posts. What will they think of next... The fact that you think I'm a shrew for a cap manufacturer actually makes me laugh! I have no stock in ANY capacitor manufacturer's wares. This is a hobby, and I do it for fun.
I really get tired of having to repeat myself about this matter, but it's because people doubt that it even happened. I am not a liar. Bob was thorough in his tests, and always was. The wire test was likely more thorough than when I did my cap ABX test for others at Iowa 2010, but that was not to appease 'those that only believe ABX tests and not their own ears', but to show others and let them decide for themselves...
David- I'll bring it up as often as the subject matter allows for it. I suppose it could have been a fluke as I was the only person taking the test. BUT- I still identified it however many times it was done. It was 6 or 7 progressions of test, and I got them all correct. They weren't even my wires!! I have no idea if they measured differently, but they were supposedly a set of Kimber Kable, and a set of SoundKing (now Dayton High-Def Speaker Cable). I don't even know if the results were published by Bob in a paper or anything, but it was thoroughly discussed back then- WITH WITNESSES!!! Dennis Murphy, Bob Cordell, Peter Smith, Darren Kuzma, Jim Holtz, my friend Steve, and others.
Feel free to denounce my results all you want, but to know that it happened as I stated it should be enough for you to know that it did indeed happen, whether statistically sound or not. One person, one group of tests, all answers correct.
Later,
Wolf
You really think I would put myself out there if it weren't true then you really don't know me as a person. I'm just relaying my experiences. The test was performed at Dayton DIY 2003, and I was apparently the only person taking the test, and didn't really even know what test I was taking since this was a new thing to me. I was told to hold the relay box and switch to the point where I was comfortable in discerning the differences, and I didn't even know what the differences were supposed to be for- just that there might be some. Then someone else had the box way behind me. They flipped the switch like Russian Roulette so I would not know where it stopped. And it was 6 or 7 trials that I got correct, not just 3 as proposed by George.
And another thing- I have no benefit to my trials of differing capacitors as I'm doing that for me alone, and just think that some might like to know my opinion so I report it. I have not had caps sent my way for advertising or any other profit to a manufacturer. I gain nothing except my own experience. If I see a thread asking for opinions, I also post them there- wow, what a concept! Someone actually being honest in what he posts. What will they think of next... The fact that you think I'm a shrew for a cap manufacturer actually makes me laugh! I have no stock in ANY capacitor manufacturer's wares. This is a hobby, and I do it for fun.
I really get tired of having to repeat myself about this matter, but it's because people doubt that it even happened. I am not a liar. Bob was thorough in his tests, and always was. The wire test was likely more thorough than when I did my cap ABX test for others at Iowa 2010, but that was not to appease 'those that only believe ABX tests and not their own ears', but to show others and let them decide for themselves...
David- I'll bring it up as often as the subject matter allows for it. I suppose it could have been a fluke as I was the only person taking the test. BUT- I still identified it however many times it was done. It was 6 or 7 progressions of test, and I got them all correct. They weren't even my wires!! I have no idea if they measured differently, but they were supposedly a set of Kimber Kable, and a set of SoundKing (now Dayton High-Def Speaker Cable). I don't even know if the results were published by Bob in a paper or anything, but it was thoroughly discussed back then- WITH WITNESSES!!! Dennis Murphy, Bob Cordell, Peter Smith, Darren Kuzma, Jim Holtz, my friend Steve, and others.
Feel free to denounce my results all you want, but to know that it happened as I stated it should be enough for you to know that it did indeed happen, whether statistically sound or not. One person, one group of tests, all answers correct.
Later,
Wolf
These were the speakers used in the wire test:
Pjay's "Ballon":
Later,
Wolf
Pjay's "Ballon":
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Later,
Wolf
This is not surprising at all, it is well known that speaker/wire combinations can have frequency response differences that are easily measurable and known to be within accepted audibility criterion. Did the witnesses participate i.e. hear nothing?
The question is if the same response is achieved with ordinary off the shelf wire is there any difference. For all we know you might be bragging about "someone rolled everyting above 12kHz off by 2dB and I could hear it".
Last edited:
I'm not necessarily saying that it didn't go down as you said. I'm just pretty sure there are some material and relevant confounding details that make it meaningless.[/quote]
We've learned all we need to know about your ethics from this series of posts on PETT:
"*** Plastic Capacitors LQ I'm listening to right now are really nice. more detail than I've heard from much else, and content that is not of the recorded music pieces of songs (ie- between the notes) is very well damped and not artificial; these stomp the Uber-Jantzens. Jantzen Silvers or Superiors are very nice, even though they are pricey- Very open and detailed.:" 01-20-2013, 02:26 AM
"***these are currently on loan." 01-20-2013, 05:15 AM
You should have disclosed the relationship BEFORE opining about the alleged "sound" of whatever those stupid baubles are. Not in the next sentence, let alone a couple hours later. Any alleged hobbyist discussing a part for that hobby that one did not purchase on the open market at a publicly available price should disclose that the conditions under which one acquired such part ahead of time. Basic human decency.
Last edited:
Pallas, please dial it back a few notches and keep to the topic. Do not drag fights from other forums here.
wolf_teeth;3404721 David- I'll bring it up as often as the subject matter allows for it. I suppose it could have been a fluke as I was the only person taking the test. BUT- I still identified it however many times it was done. It was 6 or 7 progressions of test said:
Sorry but without any controls in the testing such as measuring the wires in question, then as I stated earlier, the results are moot. As Scott Wurcer said, you could have been hearing a big flaw in the frequency response but then again who knows. Your say so is not proof you should know better than to bring that up.
gerbils are more commonly used in audio research than guinea pigs
http://asadl.org/jasa/resource/1/jasman/v110/i4/p1729_s1?isAuthorized=no
http://asadl.org/jasa/resource/1/jasman/v110/i4/p1729_s1?isAuthorized=no
While its not new to anyone, I am sure, I am on the complete other side of this. I believe that measurements tell all and that they alone are reliable judges of sound quality. Everything else is contaminated by the human brain, which is anything but a reliable judge of much of anything. Human judgment is so flawed that it is a wonder that we, as a species, has gotten anywhere. But then again, it was not until the advent - and use - of the scientific method that we did get anywhere. As long as human judgment ruled the day we stayed in the dark ages.
I would say that human judgement and measurement should work hand in hand: if subjectively something is heard and normal measurements don't show anything then the measurement regime needs to be improved. And on the other hand some measurements are of little relevance because the human hearing system can compensate for severe anomalies when it is so inclined: it has a fantastic signal processing mechanism as part of the package ...
Frank
Frank
TERRIFIC! You can win a million dollars easily then.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&es...=CD08JEjcGrbhFKW4K9Wzvg&bvm=bv.43287494,d.dmQ
Just contact http://www.randi.org/
Let us know what you do with the money once you've won it.
Remember I get a 10% finders fee.
Funny how the expensive speaker wire guys never put their money where their mouth in.
Anyone but Curious George can see its rigged.
I'd feel much more comfortable with a level matched blind test.
This is just plain bad science..So you are saying that no matter what some one hears, that if the measurements don't show "why" then the measurements are defective?
That's just bogus, sorry. The human mind is very good at supplying false info, like you inferred in the last part of your example. Ignoring what is really there. So we should "hear" what isn't also?
Why start at insults by calling George "curious"? Do you have nothing to contribute other than inferring that he's a monkey? I find his posts very relevant and insightful. Have you partaken in any DBT or SBT? If so please post them. Also explain why the major audio magazines do not bother with blind tests. They should IMHO but they always come up with excuses. Too difficult, not relevant, flawed, etc. An easy way out to avoid finding the truth hmmmmm?
Also explain how the $1 million offer is rigged.
Last edited:
No, that they are not comprehensive enough. To take an "extreme" example, if measurements of THD at full level are excellent, but a low level distortion is "heard": then it is determined that a part has a faulty internal connection such that above a certain current level the connection works fine -- the problem is that distortion measurements weren't also done at very low signal levels in this case. Part of the "problem" with measurements is that often all misbehaviour is assumed to be linear, so to speak: take measurements at one or two points and then extrapolate in all directions. Well, sometimes real components don't misbehave as "nicely" as this ...This is just plain bad science..So you are saying that no matter what some one hears, that if the measurements don't show "why" then the measurements are defective?
Frank
Oh absolutely it's rigged.
Rigged to exclude random guessing, rigged to exclude clues, rigged to exclude human bias...
Oh wait, that's right, we call that a competently set up DBT.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.