The JREF cable challenge test. - Page 3 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > General Interest > Everything Else

Everything Else Anything related to audio / video / electronics etc) BUT remember- we have many new forums where your thread may now fit! .... Parts, Equipment & Tools, Construction Tips, Software Tools......

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 2nd November 2006, 05:09 PM   #21
diyAudio Member
Panicos K's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
macgyver10,you said I can hear things that are not there,not me.What I said is that you might not hear things that are there.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2006, 05:31 PM   #22
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Originally posted by Panicos K
macgyver10,you said I can hear things that are not there,not me.What I said is that you might not hear things that are there.
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2006, 05:51 PM   #23
KBK is offline KBK  Canada
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wilds Of Canada
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 (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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2006, 07:04 PM   #24
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
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 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?
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2006, 11:24 PM   #25
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Originally posted by KBK

Judgement is the sole providence of fools, it anchors one in the self-lies of one's own past.

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2006, 11:54 PM   #26
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
Pano's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kona, Hawaii
Blog Entries: 4
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.
Take the Speaker Voltage Test!
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2006, 11:59 PM   #27
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
SY's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
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.
“The short explanation is always dull. It generally includes the word ‘just.’ The explanation only becomes beautiful when you immerse yourself in every nuance.”
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd November 2006, 12:10 AM   #28
KBK is offline KBK  Canada
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wilds Of Canada
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd November 2006, 01:44 AM   #29
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
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?
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd November 2006, 02:21 AM   #30
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Originally posted by KBK
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.
You do realize that if this was being said on the street from your cardboard box and amongst your collection of empty bottles, you'd be elligible for enrollment at the local mental institution?

I understand, now, your choice of hero. The internet is a wonderful place.
  Reply With Quote


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Here is a Challenge latala Solid State 41 12th May 2011 01:13 AM
$1,000,000 audiophile cable test! impsick Everything Else 5 2nd October 2007 09:12 PM
The under $100 challenge cotdt Multi-Way 60 13th March 2006 06:11 PM
a challenge --or I need help lawrence99 Car Audio 0 9th March 2005 04:44 AM
The challenge ! thylantyr Solid State 51 24th July 2003 08:41 PM

New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:19 PM.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2015 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2015 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2