Panicos K said:
Agreed. I'm sure there are things that are there that I can't hear.
However, I'm not claiming that I can hear "everthing". In fact we're in complete agreement with your statement, because I've been saying the exact same thing this whole time. I've said that there are differences so small that they can be measured, but not have any "audible" impact. This is where others will disagree with me, and that's fine too. If you claim to hear such smalll differences you may very well be right. The only way I'll be convinced, however, is through double blind testing.
However, that's not the same as saying you can hear something that can't be measured.
That statement (not necessarily made by you, but definitely made by many) needs to be proven.
Firstly, I apologize if this sesms like a rant. YOu think I would know better by now. After 0ver 7000 posts on the AVS forum, I won't go back there and or post. That wagon is full. Sometimes, I think the same is happening here.
~~~~~~~~~
It is the absolute fooishness of man to think that the limit of his senses are the limits of existence. And one man's limits are NOT anothers. We are NOT all created equal.
Too bad, so sad.
I can hear the differnce in the direction of a cable's connection, but depending on the cable and other issues, it can be swamped. It is a subtle thing.
Once again, your ideas on reason are not the limits of reality.
So stop kidding youself, McGuyver. I'm not willing to agure the point.
New things start when people pull things out of the darkness, and run them up against the 'established facts' ...and then run up against people who think that the limits of science are established by known quanta. Only a fool would believe that. Science is an ever evolving, ever changing, ever growing --work in motion.
As new points come along, we have to figure out how to devise new tests, not refute the claim if newness. Any scientist worth a damn knows this, and shouts it from the rooftotps and browbeats anyone who tries to say different.
Tesla was a GOD in science. An absolute GENIUS. How did he fall down?
Just before he started generating power on his 'world grid' he was hoping to establish (using gravity waves), he spoke of the 'intelligent' signals he was recieving from space. He was working for Morgan, who found he wasn't going to beat Marconi, so Morgan dropped him. Morgan wanted the 'first' in wireless. Tesla was and already had been first, but he was actually doing other stuff with Morgan's money. While working with the anomolies recieveing system at Wardencliffe, He came out with the pronouncement of 'signals from space' and was completely ridiculed by the 'accepted' press,and lost his incredible staure, overnight.
Penniless and reputation shot, all in one single year. And he was 100% right, on all counts. One of Tesla's 'faults', was he did not keep records, and did not investigate or 'invent' in known or accepted ways. He simply did it. (I am of a similar bent-I don't have the time or inclination to polarize and shape what I know, just so I can beat my self sensless..against a wall built in someone..who will refuse to listen or understand - no matter how I may couch the given thing)
Tesla was right - there WERE signals from space. We call them Pulsars. Tesla rarely made mistakes, of ANY kind. There are many things that he did, that even today...science (ie, animalistic-emotional 'sceintific establishment'-a bunch of pedantic and bent engineers with zero capacity for imagination) will not accept, true and factual as they may be. (Look at the current political and socio-economic situation in the US right now, for an obvious clue as to humanity's overall incapacity to see basic truths).
Just goes to show you that the ignorance of one, or many, can ruin the accuracy, correctness of statement, or position of another, all due to the emtotional stance of a ignorant person. Down to killing them (killing the messenger), so the respondent can keep his emotional comfort. A psychotically sad state of affairs.
For when we venture into areas we don't know, we bring our emotions into play FIRST. Logic does not rule-at all, no matter how much we may desire such. Realizing that, is the first step in 'going clear'.
And for someone who is purporting to say 'logic' and stating 'without emotion', your postion is -flatly- wrong.
Judgement is the sole providence of fools, it anchors one in the self-lies of one's own past.
~~~~~~~~~
It is the absolute fooishness of man to think that the limit of his senses are the limits of existence. And one man's limits are NOT anothers. We are NOT all created equal.
Too bad, so sad.
I can hear the differnce in the direction of a cable's connection, but depending on the cable and other issues, it can be swamped. It is a subtle thing.
Once again, your ideas on reason are not the limits of reality.
So stop kidding youself, McGuyver. I'm not willing to agure the point.
New things start when people pull things out of the darkness, and run them up against the 'established facts'
...and then run up against people who think that the limits of science are established by known quanta. Only a fool would believe that. Science is an ever evolving, ever changing, ever growing --work in motion.As new points come along, we have to figure out how to devise new tests, not refute the claim if newness. Any scientist worth a damn knows this, and shouts it from the rooftotps and browbeats anyone who tries to say different.
Tesla was a GOD in science. An absolute GENIUS. How did he fall down?
Just before he started generating power on his 'world grid' he was hoping to establish (using gravity waves), he spoke of the 'intelligent' signals he was recieving from space. He was working for Morgan, who found he wasn't going to beat Marconi, so Morgan dropped him. Morgan wanted the 'first' in wireless. Tesla was and already had been first, but he was actually doing other stuff with Morgan's money. While working with the anomolies recieveing system at Wardencliffe, He came out with the pronouncement of 'signals from space' and was completely ridiculed by the 'accepted' press,and lost his incredible staure, overnight.
Penniless and reputation shot, all in one single year. And he was 100% right, on all counts. One of Tesla's 'faults', was he did not keep records, and did not investigate or 'invent' in known or accepted ways. He simply did it. (I am of a similar bent-I don't have the time or inclination to polarize and shape what I know, just so I can beat my self sensless..against a wall built in someone..who will refuse to listen or understand - no matter how I may couch the given thing)
Tesla was right - there WERE signals from space. We call them Pulsars. Tesla rarely made mistakes, of ANY kind. There are many things that he did, that even today...science (ie, animalistic-emotional 'sceintific establishment'-a bunch of pedantic and bent engineers with zero capacity for imagination) will not accept, true and factual as they may be. (Look at the current political and socio-economic situation in the US right now, for an obvious clue as to humanity's overall incapacity to see basic truths).
Just goes to show you that the ignorance of one, or many, can ruin the accuracy, correctness of statement, or position of another, all due to the emtotional stance of a ignorant person. Down to killing them (killing the messenger), so the respondent can keep his emotional comfort. A psychotically sad state of affairs.
For when we venture into areas we don't know, we bring our emotions into play FIRST. Logic does not rule-at all, no matter how much we may desire such. Realizing that, is the first step in 'going clear'.
And for someone who is purporting to say 'logic' and stating 'without emotion', your postion is -flatly- wrong.
Judgement is the sole providence of fools, it anchors one in the self-lies of one's own past.
Ranting, rambling and really not relevant. I could go one by one through your post with rebuttals, but to what end? The emotion is quite evident in your post. It surprises me, how emotion plays on this issue. Quite honestly, I don't really see why emotion is involved. I don't have an emotional involvement in this, except when ad hominem attacks are used to advance weak arguments. Too bad, so sad.
I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you said, but it doesn't apply to what I'm stating.
Do people stumble on ideas that ultimately result in advancement of human knowledge? Sure! no argument. When do we actually know the difference between that idea being madness or having some scientific validity? After we devise a test and prove it. Again, no argument.
That's all I'm stating....you make a claim that you can hear the difference when your speaker cable "direction" is reversed. I say "okay, I don't believe you, but I'm willing to be proven wrong, so prove it" What's your response then?
I have no reason to believe in ghosts, psychics, directionality of speaker cables, Zeus or Santa Claus amongst a whole host of other "ideas". When the evidence proves otherwise, I have no trouble in adopting that as fact. Until then, however, I only have your say-so. That's simply not enough.
My one line rebuttal to your entire post is this: I am more than willing to be proven wrong -- are you?
I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you said, but it doesn't apply to what I'm stating.
Do people stumble on ideas that ultimately result in advancement of human knowledge? Sure! no argument. When do we actually know the difference between that idea being madness or having some scientific validity? After we devise a test and prove it. Again, no argument.
That's all I'm stating....you make a claim that you can hear the difference when your speaker cable "direction" is reversed. I say "okay, I don't believe you, but I'm willing to be proven wrong, so prove it" What's your response then?
I have no reason to believe in ghosts, psychics, directionality of speaker cables, Zeus or Santa Claus amongst a whole host of other "ideas". When the evidence proves otherwise, I have no trouble in adopting that as fact. Until then, however, I only have your say-so. That's simply not enough.
My one line rebuttal to your entire post is this: I am more than willing to be proven wrong -- are you?
KBK said:
Overlooking the hypocrisy of this statement in the context of your post, it brings up another point that I'm having trouble understanding.
I'm suggesting that while folks like yourself claim to hear things that are not measurable, those things may be constructs of your own mind. In other words, you did "hear" them but there was nothing necessarily external to you causing that.
Why is my theory so easily ignored? How is it any different than your theory that there is something inherent to the cable that is creating something external for you to hear?
I'm being considered a close minded rationalist because my opinion of the origin of what you heard is different than yours?
It seems to me that the conceit lies in the person who can't accept that they, like everyone else, is subject to the same psychoacoustic "phantoms" created in our own minds.
To try and remove the mind from this audio chain, and externalize all sources of "distortion" is akin to an alcoholic blaming the destruction of his life on the alcohol, rather than his uncontrolled desire to drink.
I think you guys are still too hung up on the poor listener. Let's give him, his ears and his brain a rest.
With the balanced bridge test we are not doing ABX. We will hear ONLY the difference. That makes it sooo much easier because it is so much more obvious.
The web is a visual medium, so let me give you a visual test. Click on the link below. It will take you to a little page I set up with a visual test.
The test shows the same image twice but the bottom image has been altered. There are about 15 alterations. Can you find them? Some are easy, some are very subtle. Some are things that have been removed, others are altered colors.
See what you can find, then click on the bottom image. Voila! Nothing but the difference. Can you see them now? Sure you can! And now it's much easier to spot the differences in the 2 images, because you know what to look for.
Difference Test
The point is, when I show you ONLY the differences, they are obvious. No problem finding them.
If you think it was hard to find the differences in the 2 images, imagine how hard it would be on a video. And you don't get to see both videos at the same time. That's what you are trying to do with an audio ABX test.
I'll make a little audio difference test and post it here later.
With the balanced bridge test we are not doing ABX. We will hear ONLY the difference. That makes it sooo much easier because it is so much more obvious.
The web is a visual medium, so let me give you a visual test. Click on the link below. It will take you to a little page I set up with a visual test.
The test shows the same image twice but the bottom image has been altered. There are about 15 alterations. Can you find them? Some are easy, some are very subtle. Some are things that have been removed, others are altered colors.
See what you can find, then click on the bottom image. Voila! Nothing but the difference. Can you see them now? Sure you can! And now it's much easier to spot the differences in the 2 images, because you know what to look for.
Difference Test
The point is, when I show you ONLY the differences, they are obvious. No problem finding them.
If you think it was hard to find the differences in the 2 images, imagine how hard it would be on a video. And you don't get to see both videos at the same time.
That's what you are trying to do with an audio ABX test.I'll make a little audio difference test and post it here later.
Well, that's the test that proved that the Hafler XL280 was the best amp in the world and that the rest of us ought to just pack it in. You might be enlightened by reading some of the reviews of and articles about the XL280; Gordon Holt's was excellent. His summation of the shortcomings of that test method were devastating.
My excuse was that I was having a weird afternoon.
I was getting phone calls from the oddest people. Perhaps It was time to make people feel the same about me. Such is life.
But I review the post and I still find it, er, my usual over the top and a touch ranty..and possibly to be interpreted as personal and directed in nature....but...accurate enough.
You should see the posts I've made that I'm embarrased about. They leave even me confused.
How's your day going MacGyver? Good I hope.
For me, personally, I wonder why I marched in here, and nailed my proclimation to the door. I've done that one already, more times than I can remember. And somewhere on the AVS forum, they are missing their idiot. They call me up every now and then ask me why they haven't heard from me on the forum. They enjoyed watching the sparks fly. I've had multiple people tell me how they've ruined monitors and keyboards when they choke and spit their food and beer out all over it. I had fun entertaining them, but gladiator sports eventually wear one out.
getting back to the subject at hand, I've been making my own cables and such, for oh, nigh on 25 years. I watched Tara Labs patent or utilize an idea I had for conductor design and geometry -a solid 10 years before they did. But they still don't have my final 'secret weapon!'
I was arguing the efficacy of nyquist applied to human hearing ('spacial and harmonic realization' considerations of human hearing require a CLEAN 100khz accurate reconstruction), requiring at least a 225k/20 bit sample rate/depth, in 1991(1993?)..on the 'alt.highend', via bulliten boards. And, arguing cable design and geometry at that time, as well. You would not believe that flack I was taking back then. I came up with a cable design/geometry that is so wicked, it suffers from zero reflection issues. I realized that it had application in space based (or ground based) pulse weapons (and similars), and I have zero desire to aid those ********, so I left it in the dirt. I since came up with a superior design to that one, but I'm thinking of leaving it in the dirt as well.
I find it quite gratifying that SOMEONE was listening, and Sony used that number as a minimum for their archival work-when the technology became viable.
I was getting phone calls from the oddest people. Perhaps It was time to make people feel the same about me. Such is life.
But I review the post and I still find it, er, my usual over the top and a touch ranty..and possibly to be interpreted as personal and directed in nature....but...accurate enough.
You should see the posts I've made that I'm embarrased about. They leave even me confused.
How's your day going MacGyver? Good I hope.
For me, personally, I wonder why I marched in here, and nailed my proclimation to the door. I've done that one already, more times than I can remember. And somewhere on the AVS forum, they are missing their idiot. They call me up every now and then ask me why they haven't heard from me on the forum. They enjoyed watching the sparks fly. I've had multiple people tell me how they've ruined monitors and keyboards when they choke and spit their food and beer out all over it. I had fun entertaining them, but gladiator sports eventually wear one out.
getting back to the subject at hand, I've been making my own cables and such, for oh, nigh on 25 years. I watched Tara Labs patent or utilize an idea I had for conductor design and geometry -a solid 10 years before they did. But they still don't have my final 'secret weapon!'
I was arguing the efficacy of nyquist applied to human hearing ('spacial and harmonic realization' considerations of human hearing require a CLEAN 100khz accurate reconstruction), requiring at least a 225k/20 bit sample rate/depth, in 1991(1993?)..on the 'alt.highend', via bulliten boards. And, arguing cable design and geometry at that time, as well. You would not believe that flack I was taking back then. I came up with a cable design/geometry that is so wicked, it suffers from zero reflection issues. I realized that it had application in space based (or ground based) pulse weapons (and similars), and I have zero desire to aid those ********, so I left it in the dirt. I since came up with a superior design to that one, but I'm thinking of leaving it in the dirt as well.
I find it quite gratifying that SOMEONE was listening, and Sony used that number as a minimum for their archival work-when the technology became viable.
Hey panomaniac,
Your "difference test" is nothing new, and "common mode rejection" is an often used technique used to eliminate distortions in long transmission cables (ie balanced vs. unbalanced). Similar idea at the root. So is the differential input of a standard op-amp.
Even the "isobarik" method of driver loading benefits from reducing non-linearities in a single driver implementation.
The idea is that you can eliminate what is "different" if you mirror the incident signal. In your case, you're using the same basic principle to result in just the difference signal.
However, this has nothing to do with the JREF, and nothing to do with finding out if measured aspects of a cable can be "heard" or not.
You are essential magnifying the differences so that they become noticeable. Much like using an electron microscope allows you to look at dust mites that you can't see with the naked eye.
The question still remains; "what can we hear with the naked ear?"
Before anybody gets all upset that I'm somehow married to a slide rule, and only interested in testing theories that I "believe in", because I have no imagination, or don't think Tesla was the "Jesus" of modern science, I'll just say this one more time:
The test is simple. If you can hear it and claim to do so, then lets devise a test that proves you can. Same equipment you heard it on in the first place, but this time you won't know what the device you're listening to is. I only want to remove the knowledge of what cable you're listening to. It doesn't need to be ABX. Somebody suggest a "better" protocol, if that one is a pariah.
Why is that unreasonable?
Your "difference test" is nothing new, and "common mode rejection" is an often used technique used to eliminate distortions in long transmission cables (ie balanced vs. unbalanced). Similar idea at the root. So is the differential input of a standard op-amp.
Even the "isobarik" method of driver loading benefits from reducing non-linearities in a single driver implementation.
The idea is that you can eliminate what is "different" if you mirror the incident signal. In your case, you're using the same basic principle to result in just the difference signal.
However, this has nothing to do with the JREF, and nothing to do with finding out if measured aspects of a cable can be "heard" or not.
You are essential magnifying the differences so that they become noticeable. Much like using an electron microscope allows you to look at dust mites that you can't see with the naked eye.
The question still remains; "what can we hear with the naked ear?"
Before anybody gets all upset that I'm somehow married to a slide rule, and only interested in testing theories that I "believe in", because I have no imagination, or don't think Tesla was the "Jesus" of modern science, I'll just say this one more time:
The test is simple. If you can hear it and claim to do so, then lets devise a test that proves you can. Same equipment you heard it on in the first place, but this time you won't know what the device you're listening to is. I only want to remove the knowledge of what cable you're listening to. It doesn't need to be ABX. Somebody suggest a "better" protocol, if that one is a pariah.
Why is that unreasonable?
SY said:
Hey Sy.
So someone used a balanced bridge test on amps? That would be tricky, but I can imagine how it could be done, maybe. Would love to read the critique of the test. Got links?
macgyver10 said:
No, never said it was. In fact I said it's been around since the 1830s. That's pretty old as electrical circuits go.
Precisely
Huh? What do you think I'm proposing if not to hear the differences? (if they exist)
No, sorry. Completely disagree. Not magnifying at all. Only removing everything BUT the difference, so that you can hear the difference without a doubt. No electron microscope needed. But if you painted those dust mites with phosphorescent paint, then turn out the light and shine a black light on them - we would sure see them! No microscopes needed.
Haven't you ever seen all the lint on your shirt that shows up under ultraviolet light? You're claiming the lint isn't there, or that no one can see it in normal light? There are a lot of women who would argue with you over that one.
Did you look at my visual test? Are the difference so tiny that you needed a microscope to see them? No. Did I enlarge the differences? No. Just showed you the differences that actually exist.
This test will tell you. If you can hear it in the bridge speaker, then you will be able to hear it in the regular signal - because you can hear it. The difference won't be as easy to spot in the normal set-up, but it has to be there. Is it masked by other sounds? Maybe. But many audiophiles claim they can hear past the mask. This test will at least tell us if there really is something to hear, or not. That's the point, gentlemen. Take another look at the ladies in their underwear.
Ummm.... I HAVE.
Why is that unreasonable?
But you guys seem much more interested in psychology and parapsychology than in audio tests. That's OK, if that's what floats you boat., no wories
panomaniac said:
But you guys seem much more interested in psychology and parapsychology than in audio tests. That's OK, if that's what floats you boat., no wories
Um...sorry, but isn't the title of this thread "the JREF cable challenge test"?
I'm not putting down your test, I agree with you that it will lay bare the differences.
But the JREF, and myself (in the context of this thread), aren't interested in ACTUAL differences that can be measured. That's science. Both the JREF and I agree that your test will test for that.
That's why I said that we could use your test to help set up a JREF paranormal challenge test. If we could use a measurement system like yours to perfectly match two different cables (perhaps one cable in the "correct" direction and one installed "backwards") then we could test the claims that people can hear what can't be measured.
I'm only interested in proving THAT claim. I don't take issue with claims that have copious amounts of evidence to support them.
KBK said:
See my siggie fer edification. Specifically the last quote.
So what fish are you swimming with? That remains unclear.
Judging by the popularity of shows like Coast to Coast AM, I'd say there's a very large herd for self proclaimed "outside thinkers".
Actually your position is an easy one to assume, and defend. It's not, perhaps, as unique as you think.
Entertaining is perhaps it's most redeeming feature
You might poke around Stereophile's site to see if they've put up the old articles. At the time this was written, a PDP11 was exotic.
Basically, once the null gets to better than -60dB, just breathing near the circuit changes it and degrades the null. You get different optimum points for nulls at different frequencies- which is the right one? The amplified difference signal didn't sound very distorted except in extreme cases. And so on and so on.
macgyver10 said:
It is, it is. But I suppose I wasn't clear enough when I said:
Sorry to be misleading. The JREF thing is a only a starting point. I did ask readers to forget about the paranormal thing. I'm more interested in the cable test then in the JREF. Should have given the thread another name. Too late now.
Yep! That's what I hope to do. Paranormal or not. The directional cable is a good one. How on earth could that work? Don't answer, please!!
But my test could easily show if it makes a difference or not. Or any other "strange" claim. Yes, even voodoo. As long as the claim is that the difference lies in the cable. Differences outside the cable, like voodoo that works on the mind of the listener, or the air in the room, well, I can't test for that.
SY said:
Will do.
Fair criticism. There are a number of obvious technical difficulties in this test, I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned them. But I hold out hope. =)
As the least educated person in this discussion in physics,I think I have the right to make this question:If it was possible(I don't know if it is)to adopt the famous ABX test with all necessary ''adjustments''and''tuning''using the magic box,for a speaker test ,does the engineer side believe also that they couldn't tell the difference between a WAMM and say a LS3/5a?Please don't take this as a bad joke,I really want your opinion.
Panicos K said:
How did you manage to come up with the idea that the "engineer side" would not be able to hear a difference between two obviously different loudspeakers?
Not only would the difference be heard as obvious, but the difference could easly be measured acoustically and be equally obvious.
That wouldn't be the case with something like reversing a so-called "directional" speaker cable.
I'm just wondering.In your post 779(do sp. cables make any...)you said to soongs I think ''...I would make sure all measurable differences were matched..''.So,if we could do the same with these speakers could you teell any difference?To my mind ''matched''actually mens .---- up both cables in order to ''sound''identical,that's why I wonder what would happen if you tried the same with dpeakers.Perhaps here some ''smart'' eq would help.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.