Yes, ears-only testing is not helpful in moving merchandise where sonic parity is trivial. Fortunately, in areas of audio that are actually still active and where there are still unresolved problems, people like Toole, Geddes, Olive, Linkwitz, Johnson, Kantor, Voecks, Davis, Lipshitz, and so on are not stuck in 19th century thinking.
Yes John my world of electronics is limited, I work for a bureau and get sent on site or work in the office on very limited designs, mainly medical, aerospace or military or more top end/high speed or more difficult layouts, so yes very limited, most of the customers being top tier companies. An in none of them (including the ones where physicist are employed, for instance designing electron microscopes) has cable directivity or cable break in been considered anything but with a shrug and a frown. So maybe it is your world of electronics that is limited.
Where does cable break in by playing or sending a signal down the wire compare to other metallurgy processes, sorry the facts don't fit the un-reality of cable break-in, more myths...
KBK, got any pointers in fundamental physics that point to cable directivity, I'm pretty sure by now someone (apart from golden eared audiophiles) might have noticed, like with only say half an AC signal getting through.
KBK,
If in fact there is a difference in sound with turning cables around then this should be easily verified with a differential test methodology. If we can hear it we can measure some difference, if not then it is just a figment of our imagination. we do have sophistication enough in sonic measurements to find such an obvious difference in sound. When I see any proof that this can be measured then I will want to know the underlying science behind this, and that is science, which is the basis for all engineering. Dogma has little to do with it, dogma is only used as a set of standards that must be achieved or used in physical engineering as a safety factor by those taking peoples lives into their hands. I think that as a group many of us would like to see some new testing protocols that would answer some basic questions why one circuit sounds more natural to our ears than another, until then we only have what we have to test. Both accurate double blind testing and listening tests and measurable results. If one person out of 100 can hear a cable directionality and 99 can't is it that the others are deaf or that the one person is wrong, or perhaps has some hearing acuity that is way outside the norm? To throw engineering under the bus is crazy, it is easy to make up a theory, that happens every day. Many will tell you that the plane that is missing right now was taken by alien abductors, try as you might until we find that plane how would you disprove that theory? Physics will not answer that question without someone doubting the accuracy and beliefs of those so called physicist who say the plane just crashed or was highjacked to some unknown location.
If in fact there is a difference in sound with turning cables around then this should be easily verified with a differential test methodology. If we can hear it we can measure some difference, if not then it is just a figment of our imagination. we do have sophistication enough in sonic measurements to find such an obvious difference in sound. When I see any proof that this can be measured then I will want to know the underlying science behind this, and that is science, which is the basis for all engineering. Dogma has little to do with it, dogma is only used as a set of standards that must be achieved or used in physical engineering as a safety factor by those taking peoples lives into their hands. I think that as a group many of us would like to see some new testing protocols that would answer some basic questions why one circuit sounds more natural to our ears than another, until then we only have what we have to test. Both accurate double blind testing and listening tests and measurable results. If one person out of 100 can hear a cable directionality and 99 can't is it that the others are deaf or that the one person is wrong, or perhaps has some hearing acuity that is way outside the norm? To throw engineering under the bus is crazy, it is easy to make up a theory, that happens every day. Many will tell you that the plane that is missing right now was taken by alien abductors, try as you might until we find that plane how would you disprove that theory? Physics will not answer that question without someone doubting the accuracy and beliefs of those so called physicist who say the plane just crashed or was highjacked to some unknown location.
I can do that john, via the usual paths. Which is perfecting all the associated aspects that surround the ICs. It is a trifle unfair to do that way, as the perception will be that ICs trump discrete.
The reality is that, properly designed, neither one trumps the other. That would be a case of all things being equal, and we know they are not. Real worlds get messy.
Most in this thread are well aware of these things. The purpose of this thread, partially speaking, is to explore the why.
Kindhornman, please stick to the subject of cable directionality. Your differential test looks interesting. Yet, HOW do we get our test equipment to measure fine differences at very low levels? They all fall apart below 10mV or so. Do you know this, do you actually use advanced test equipment (like I do), or are you supposing that we can easily make truly adequate measurements that completely beat what the human ear can detect in every way?
Well KBK, the Parasound JC-3 phono preamp IS made with IC's as the primary gain component, but all the buffering, cap and resistor selection and layout is equivalent to a Vendetta Research phono stage. YET, the JC-3 does not sound as good as a Vendetta Research phono stage. Independent reviewers have noted this. If I could make an all IC preamp or power amp that worked as well as discrete, I would do it immediately.
I spoke on the idea of the unequal game, to surround a given IC with something superior, not the same. The unequal contest, which is not really a contest.
Those who do no know what is in the box, only that it is black and impervious, they would perceive, according to their casting and methodologies.. that box B (IC) is superior to box A (discrete). I'm sure you've all noted that effect before.
It's the "Follow the shoe! No! Follow the gourd!" syndrome, from 'Life of Brian' coming to life in the world of audio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9mfZbTFbk
The whole point, one might say, is neither IC nor discrete is actually perfected, otherwise they would reach a form of unity. For the vast majority of the buying public (humans in general), they reached unity a long time ago.
Last edited:
Not everyone is interested in being a con-man; some people are concerned with actual issues in audio. If that directs the conversation away from fantasy and toward reality, good for him!
The subject of cable directivity has had no real input apart from a bit (and hear I repeat myself) hearsay...
We could of course search the forum, but would find nothing but hearsay by the believers of cable directivity, no content just hearsay...
So lets discuss real issues, not fantasy problems.
We could of course search the forum, but would find nothing but hearsay by the believers of cable directivity, no content just hearsay...
So lets discuss real issues, not fantasy problems.
The mistake, is right in front of you. You closed a loop that has not been closed, and in that act, created a fact. You went mirrored and circular.
When you closed that loop, you issued the equivalent of a papal bull, which said: "kill observation that cannot be measured from the set of things that I know." Danger Will Robinson, Danger! Even harmonics, perfect mirroring.
In theory, which is physics, no facts exist, except for one, one which is a quandary.
Which is: The only fact that exists, is that there are none. Odd order, perpetuates growth and intellect..
You know SY, I kind of resent being called a 'con-man'. If you can find anything that I have said that I know is untrue or at least not included in my personal opinion, I wish for you to bring it out.
For the record, everyone, I rarely use listening tests today for anything serious. I have already created a formula for making very good audio equipment that I follow, and pretty good to excellent test equipment as well. This 'formula' is based on my experience primarily, with also adapting other people's experiences when I can, and when they seem to work. I do not market audio products, I just design them.
For the record, everyone, I rarely use listening tests today for anything serious. I have already created a formula for making very good audio equipment that I follow, and pretty good to excellent test equipment as well. This 'formula' is based on my experience primarily, with also adapting other people's experiences when I can, and when they seem to work. I do not market audio products, I just design them.
I have done so, repeatedly. So have many others. At one time, I thought you were sincere but wrong. You have, in recent weeks, convinced me otherwise.
Oh, just because Bybee used my name on a product that I partially designed (all engineering) without telling me first? I'm kind of embarrassed too, mostly because of the negative opinion of someone like you. You have known me for perhaps 10 years, you have seen my test set-up, I even shared some of it with you, as well as some of my parts, and you must have seen some of my schematics. How can you call me a 'con-man'?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.