Joshua_G, I don't know why it has come to this. Perhaps it is because you have so much energy left to actually state your opinion. I was beaten down, years ago. Perhaps, like religion, very different beliefs and opinions on wire differences are too riddled with prejudice to be discussed openly here.
Here is my dilemma. Right now I have finished up a new MC phono stage in the $6,000 range. The case now cost us only $1500 a set, compared to $3,000, like the Blowtorch, but our standards are the same, as it is just slightly smaller.
Now I have a hookup wire dilemma. Do I use VDH linear xtal as I did with the very successful Vendetta SCP-2, linear Xtal super silver cable from Bear, or super quality copper cable from Audiowolf? Right now, Audiowolf's cable is used for the audio path and VDH is used for the power supply hookup, but I am nagged by not having enough of Bear's cable to allow an independent evaluation. My Blowtorch is ALL Bear silver, and I love it. It has a slightly forward quality that can 'rip your ears off' if the silver cable is not pre-broken in, and then burned in for 30 days after installation. What a hassle, but like a spirited stallion to a hero, worth the time and effort.
I have made 7 Blowtorches with VDH quality copper hookup wire. The first unit, now residing in Hamburg Germany, that we made this way, I directly A-B evaluated with my own personal Bear silver wire to see if 'I could get away with it. The Blowtorch became more like a spirited mare, smooth and pliant. My business partner owns one like this.
However my 14 foot balanced drive cable from the Blowtorch to my power amp was made by Audiowolf and it works just fine.
Now, I have used single strands of the Audiowolf cable to wire my prototype. Is this the best of all possible worlds, or at least as good as I can get away with, or am I going to pay a subjective price to my high end clients, who know what the Bear wire sounds like?
I really don't know, but this is MY reality, and is as far away from SY's cynicism, as if I were a high priest and he were an 'objective' scientist, and he chose to attack my belief system.
Here is my dilemma. Right now I have finished up a new MC phono stage in the $6,000 range. The case now cost us only $1500 a set, compared to $3,000, like the Blowtorch, but our standards are the same, as it is just slightly smaller.
Now I have a hookup wire dilemma. Do I use VDH linear xtal as I did with the very successful Vendetta SCP-2, linear Xtal super silver cable from Bear, or super quality copper cable from Audiowolf? Right now, Audiowolf's cable is used for the audio path and VDH is used for the power supply hookup, but I am nagged by not having enough of Bear's cable to allow an independent evaluation. My Blowtorch is ALL Bear silver, and I love it. It has a slightly forward quality that can 'rip your ears off' if the silver cable is not pre-broken in, and then burned in for 30 days after installation. What a hassle, but like a spirited stallion to a hero, worth the time and effort.
I have made 7 Blowtorches with VDH quality copper hookup wire. The first unit, now residing in Hamburg Germany, that we made this way, I directly A-B evaluated with my own personal Bear silver wire to see if 'I could get away with it. The Blowtorch became more like a spirited mare, smooth and pliant. My business partner owns one like this.
However my 14 foot balanced drive cable from the Blowtorch to my power amp was made by Audiowolf and it works just fine.
Now, I have used single strands of the Audiowolf cable to wire my prototype. Is this the best of all possible worlds, or at least as good as I can get away with, or am I going to pay a subjective price to my high end clients, who know what the Bear wire sounds like?
I really don't know, but this is MY reality, and is as far away from SY's cynicism, as if I were a high priest and he were an 'objective' scientist, and he chose to attack my belief system.
syn08 said:
I suppose the acceptance would be much higher, if it were shown that a sufficient level of sensitivity was reached in double blind test devoted to something like "cables, amplifers or cd-players".
I still don´t understand why controls are so often omitted in audio tests.
There were a lot of people debating the results of double blind test from the beginning; sometimes for statistical reasons like in the case of Les Leventhal back in the eigthies, sometimes for methodology reasons- so why not taking these points into account and trying to enhance the test routines?
BTW, as the history of science tells us, it happens quite often, that not the inventor of a new theory finds the proof .
And sometimes nearly completely false theories led to really new and interesting insights.
In the thread you´ve mentioned i gave an example of two other studies in the field of high resolution recording with diverging results. (Theile-IRT, Detmold).
It seems that Meyer/Moran were not aware of this previous work from the others, otherwise they should have tried to replicate some of the results from the previous studies.
Of course there is a possibility that each result is reliable but only for the specific test condition of each study.
@ SY,
are you aware of a double blind test regarding differences in cables or amplifiers that showed a terrific level of sensitivity and does not lack in methodology?
I´d be glad if you could cite one.
Wishes
Fred Davis and Richard Greiner's papers, for example. Unless by "sensitivity," you mean "tests which show claimed differences not explainable by easily measured levels of frequency response, damping factor, instability in driving electronics, and microphonics," in which case you're out of luck. There's really no mysteries, other than why so many intelligent people refuse to put their beliefs to the test and accept the results.
Lipshitz and Vanderkooy have done quite a bit of excellent DBT work on polarity, phase response, frequency response, and level detection, all applicable to amplifiers. Again, a few minutes at the library with JAES will be educational. I've cited them here on several occasions.
Lipshitz and Vanderkooy have done quite a bit of excellent DBT work on polarity, phase response, frequency response, and level detection, all applicable to amplifiers. Again, a few minutes at the library with JAES will be educational. I've cited them here on several occasions.
john curl said:
Thank you, John.
I don't fear and don't hesitate to state my views openly and clearly, be it on audio gear or spiritual healing.
I know where I stand and I'm well aware of some others prejudices concerning almost any aspect and notion on the face of the earth.
Since my entire adult life I'm on the quest after the factual truth – that is, discerning known facts from beliefs, views, opinions and ideas – I have a clear and firm stand on things I tried, tested and verified, while I neutralize my opinions about everything I haven't verified.
Also, since my stands are to serve me only, not attempting to convince anyone about anything – I see nothing I can possibly be bitten in. Whatever I verified, I did it by myself – not following views of anyone else. Thus, it's unlikely that others' views are going to make me doubt my findings.
I know that there are people who don't hear differences between interconnects and even CD and SACD players. All they may say on the matter will not change the fact that I hear differences. Also, I know that no one can proof that I don't hear what I actually hear.
So, I don't mind much, neither cynicism nor pseudo-scientific debates. Indeed, I don't have a degree, neither in science nor in engineering, however, I know enough science and electronics by ongoing self-study not to be swayed by pseudo-scientific talk.
Joshua_G, SY has a PhD in physics, look where it got him?
Personally, I don't think that any of these papers will get you anywhere but slightly better informed.
Lipshitz could not tell the difference between the worst tantalum cap that Walt Jung could find and any other cap, in his ABX testing. Is this what you need statistics for?
Greiner is a smart guy, like SY, but his hi fi is a loud joke. I have a PhD golden ear witness to this. I have one of his early textbooks on solid state theory, and his original paper that launched TIM from back in 1966. That is MORE worthwhile than any db test paper.
Personally, I don't think that any of these papers will get you anywhere but slightly better informed.
Lipshitz could not tell the difference between the worst tantalum cap that Walt Jung could find and any other cap, in his ABX testing. Is this what you need statistics for?
Greiner is a smart guy, like SY, but his hi fi is a loud joke. I have a PhD golden ear witness to this. I have one of his early textbooks on solid state theory, and his original paper that launched TIM from back in 1966. That is MORE worthwhile than any db test paper.
Leventhal had a valid point if one claimed that a particular (or even a set of) tests could "prove" that A and B could not universally be distinguished. However, that was something of a strawman in that such a claim was generally not made in the relevant papers. Any competent researcher is well aware of the impossibility of proving a negative; I cannot definitively prove that there's no Sata Claus or Tooth Fairy. But using Popper's terminology, one still awaits the hypotheses of Lipshitz et al to be falsified.
Interested people should look up "Type 1 and Type 2 errors." And the Black Swan.
Interested people should look up "Type 1 and Type 2 errors." And the Black Swan.
janneman said:
The fact that I can decide that a certain good looking amp doesn't sound good shows that the decision was based on sound quality, thus invalidating the generalisation you made that suggest that we can't trust our ears. Although I agree with what you say, it doesn't mean that it is applicable to everybody, it is good to know these possible influences, but it is possible to learn to work around it.
janneman said:
It is wrong to assume that what we 'hear' is an exact copy of the air vibrations, I believe our ears/brain perceive much more than we are normally aware of. With concentrating on these 'inaudible' sounds, it is possible to learn to perceive more information. Take for example the hearing abilities of a blind person, why can't we train to do the same?
john curl said:
The issues Les Leventhal raised were not with the ABX protocol itself, but with some faulty implementations of it that had been published. Specifically, the number of trials was too small in these particular tests. This had to do with Type 1 and Type 2 errors, roughly described as below.
Type 1 error: Concluding that inaudible differences are audible
Type 2 error: Concluding that audible differences are inaudible
For the fairest possible test, the probability of Type 1 and Type 2 errors should be equal. But for the tests Leventhal took issue with, the small number of trials made the probability of Type 2 errors much higher than that for Type 1, biasing these particular tests toward not finding differences. He did not have any beef with ABX per se. Instead, he identified the implementation problems and their solutions.
Some discussion on this can be found on these Stereophile letters to the editor (along with an overreaction by David Clark and some P.T. Barnum-like commentary from John Atkinson). Also, Leventhal has an AES paper on the subject, which I'd be glad to provide via email. For folks such as myself that aren't well-versed in statistics, it helps to read the Stereophile discussion first before diving into the AES paper.
I agree that Leventhal was a very bright and fair guy, and I think highly of his work.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.