That's as funny as the bogus interconnect *test* found on his website here.
Scroll down a bit for a good laugh!
The really hilarious part comes when you actually measure what's going on as I have (and previously linked pics of my findings earlier in this thread).
He describes what he means by 'well-designed'. Therefore the claim is falsifiable.abraxalito said:
The only part of that page which I would question is his claim that they can achieve both low inductance and low capacitance. Maybe they can get a bit lower than some others, but basic physics limits how low you can simultaneously go as any cable must have a velocity factor which is less than 1.
He says some characteristics of what he considers to be 'well designed' but no, not to a level of scientific rigour to be falsifiable. For example he claims it needs to be 'low impedance' - to be falsifiable he'd need to specify how low it needs to be to qualify for his created 'well designed' category.
Those claiming to require 'scientific rigour' should pause to consider that elementary circuit theory provides an answer to questions about audio cables. You can't be selective, and require 'science' from people you disagree with while ignoring 'science' yourself.
Most people know what 'well-designed' means when it comes to cables. If it sounds different then it is not well-designed! That is the thing with near-enough-perfect reproductions (e.g. of music, via cables): all near-enough-perfect reproductions will necessarily be near-enough identical. Differences indicate errors.
Most people know what 'well-designed' means when it comes to cables. If it sounds different then it is not well-designed! That is the thing with near-enough-perfect reproductions (e.g. of music, via cables): all near-enough-perfect reproductions will necessarily be near-enough identical. Differences indicate errors.
See your posts 122 and 125. You appear to require sufficient scientific rigour for a claim (which you appear to dispute, if not ridicule) to be falsifiable. My point is that sufficient scientific information to make the claim strictly falsifiable would also demonstrate that the claim is true; an inconvenient truth?abraxalito said:
I looked at both cited posts and saw no requirement from me that Roger Sanders employ falsifiability in his claims. So then requiring something for falsifiability (which I agree I do, its conditional) is the same as requiring something (unconditionally)?
An analogy here - I might say 'You're required to unzip your fly before urinating to avoid discomfort.'. Is that me requiring unzipping ?
Also why has this topic moved on to being about me ? Put another way, why the deflection from the topic of falsifiability? This enquiring mind would like to know the reason for the personalization. Surely reasoned debate doesn't require it?
An analogy here - I might say 'You're required to unzip your fly before urinating to avoid discomfort.'. Is that me requiring unzipping ?
Also why has this topic moved on to being about me ? Put another way, why the deflection from the topic of falsifiability? This enquiring mind would like to know the reason for the personalization. Surely reasoned debate doesn't require it?
I didn't personalise it. My comment was about people requiring something - you just happened to be one such person. You now appear to deflecting the technical discussion into a semantic discussion.
You appeared to be criticising the author of that webpage for making allegedly non-falsifiable claims. Hence I assume you would like him to make falsifiable claims, if he makes claims? If not, can I take it you are happy with his allegedly non-falsifiable claims and your post 122 was issued in error?
For the avoidance of doubt, I will make a claim: all well-engineered interconnects will be indistinguishable in an ears-only test, provided only that their function is to transport a signal (and not, for example, form part of a ground loop). 'Well-engineered' involves aspects of circuit theory and materials, which if understood would make the claim self-evidently true.
You appeared to be criticising the author of that webpage for making allegedly non-falsifiable claims. Hence I assume you would like him to make falsifiable claims, if he makes claims? If not, can I take it you are happy with his allegedly non-falsifiable claims and your post 122 was issued in error?
For the avoidance of doubt, I will make a claim: all well-engineered interconnects will be indistinguishable in an ears-only test, provided only that their function is to transport a signal (and not, for example, form part of a ground loop). 'Well-engineered' involves aspects of circuit theory and materials, which if understood would make the claim self-evidently true.
However you've produced no evidence that I did indeed require something. So this remains just an unsupported claim.
The deflection is entirely your own.
Yep, I'm perfectly happy with him making religious claims - no skin off my nose whatsoever. Why would there be any error in my post no. 122? Do please elucidate as it seems you may well have misconstrued and it would be cool to tidy this apparent misappehension up.
How about the fact there is no actual comparison at all? The test procedure using a Y-adapter ends up combining the cable metrics as seen at either end. You end up switching between both cables to both cables.
Everything is relative. There are some cables that do approach the ideal effective dielectric constant of one. Many do not. A couple, for example. that do come from Nordost and JPS Labs.
Last edited:
I will take SY's wise advice and not try to argue with someone who enjoys argument about argument, while avoiding the substantive issue which he himself raised.
That is true, provided you assume that all an audio cable can do is apply a shunt load to the source. If a cable does more than this, then the comparison may still be useful although I accept that there are better ways to do the comparison. If this is all a cable does, then you agree with those who say that circuit theory says that all a cable does is apply a shunt load (almost entirely capacitive). So in criticising the test, you are implicitly accepting what cable fans usually seek to deny.Estat said:
The electrical load of an interconnect in the manner in which they are used in a system immediately differs from the contrived basis of the test methodology.
Such requires an explicit (unproven) assumption that it does not affect the results. Which is anything but scientific in nature.
I don't know that either Nordost or JPS get there but this does come close. And you still get a prop velocity of .83 RG62:
Attachments
Valhalla gets to about 87%. I prefer a balanced LC strategy as opposed to cables like Goerz which exhibit very low L at the expense of C.
BTW, I've enjoyed using your power conditioners in a couple systems for many a year.
Years ago, I made up some audio cables with Belden 9454 cable, which had low capacitance per foot and foam polyethylene, which I like very much for dielectric. The finished cables had a rather hard, grainy brightness which I finally traced to the STEEL copper plated conductor. I never made that mistake again.
Yeah, there's more to the equation than just the LCR (and derived) metrics.
I use 1505 for the run from my server to the in house system. While it has slightly higher C (17 pF/ft vs. 12 pF/ft), it uses copper conductors and has relatively low L for an 80% prop.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.