Well, you have an advantage over me. I failed tenth grade English and haven't had a course since then. I'll defer to your skills in that area.
yes, and obviously so.
there is NO claim. Not even in the opinion piece. The only thing that remotely comes close to a performance claim is that the interconnect does nothing.
The disclosure is as full as it could be - the quote on Steve's site is not unatributed, a link is given back to the full article. The only other thing I may want to know is whether the article was paid for in any way and whether the interconnects were bought or supplied.
From jkeny's website:
How do these modifications improve the sound?
By providing a clean, noise free supply to the clock & clock handling circuits we eliminate clock jitter caused by the power supply. This is a common cause of distortion in digital equipment. By doing this we can realise the full low jitter performance of the clocks & the sound improves greatly as a result.
se
Really, very interesting.
We have a cable on a web site that makes no outrageous claims what so ever, and people are digging for mud ???? Completely unbelievable! Pretty silly too.
People, the point is that when an advertisement makes a claim that implies a "secret" or wonder material so that it affects the current moving through a cable, that's when you begin looking for proof. That is the point where the advertiser should be expected to back up their claims. Clear evidence is normally expected, measurements being the preferred backup. Why measurements? Simple, they can be performed and duplicated by any other person competent enough who has access to the proper equipment.
Listening tests are also acceptable, but they are subject to more scrutiny. For an example, the NRC here in Canada has performed listening tests on loudspeakers and even arrived at a correlation between some measured parameters, and subjective responses from the listening panels. So, if the only proof and research that will be offered would be listening tests, it might be a really good idea to perform those tests in a scientifically acceptable manner. Looking at how these tests were run at the NRC would seem to be prudent.
I can't imagine anyone attempting to develop any product that makes a claim to be better in performance from all the other widgets out there to do so, without any basic research to convince them they are on the right track. Sure as heck a bank wouldn't float a business loan without something concrete to go on. They aren't that stupid.
Hi John (Keny),
Got caught throwing stones?
A person with an interest such as yours should think twice before criticizing anyone else's efforts.
After reading your web site a little, I was struck by the fact that your claims are things that can be measured. I see no valid measured information at all, and the 'scope shot you have showing the "ringing" may be caused by an improper 'scope set up. Attaching a diagram of how your equipment was set up for this test would really help assess how effective the attenuators are (or aren't). As for cable reflections, yes. I am aware of how that works.
I've also noticed that you are engaging in some personal attacks. That isn't allowed here, and that is why a recent post is no longer with us. You may address an idea or topic, but attacking a person is off limits. Not to mention that that activity is completely O.T. in this thread.
-Chris
We have a cable on a web site that makes no outrageous claims what so ever, and people are digging for mud ???? Completely unbelievable! Pretty silly too.
People, the point is that when an advertisement makes a claim that implies a "secret" or wonder material so that it affects the current moving through a cable, that's when you begin looking for proof. That is the point where the advertiser should be expected to back up their claims. Clear evidence is normally expected, measurements being the preferred backup. Why measurements? Simple, they can be performed and duplicated by any other person competent enough who has access to the proper equipment.
Listening tests are also acceptable, but they are subject to more scrutiny. For an example, the NRC here in Canada has performed listening tests on loudspeakers and even arrived at a correlation between some measured parameters, and subjective responses from the listening panels. So, if the only proof and research that will be offered would be listening tests, it might be a really good idea to perform those tests in a scientifically acceptable manner. Looking at how these tests were run at the NRC would seem to be prudent.
I can't imagine anyone attempting to develop any product that makes a claim to be better in performance from all the other widgets out there to do so, without any basic research to convince them they are on the right track. Sure as heck a bank wouldn't float a business loan without something concrete to go on. They aren't that stupid.
Hi John (Keny),
Got caught throwing stones?
A person with an interest such as yours should think twice before criticizing anyone else's efforts.
After reading your web site a little, I was struck by the fact that your claims are things that can be measured. I see no valid measured information at all, and the 'scope shot you have showing the "ringing" may be caused by an improper 'scope set up. Attaching a diagram of how your equipment was set up for this test would really help assess how effective the attenuators are (or aren't). As for cable reflections, yes. I am aware of how that works.
I've also noticed that you are engaging in some personal attacks. That isn't allowed here, and that is why a recent post is no longer with us. You may address an idea or topic, but attacking a person is off limits. Not to mention that that activity is completely O.T. in this thread.
-Chris
Last edited:
which bit of "not" eludes you?
All asked and answered. Suffice to say I'm not shelling out 400 American for Steve's cables (not my thing), but at least he makes no statements of opinion as fact, or statements of fact that are unsupported.
As a buyer you may like and buy the cables on looks, feel, sound in your set-up, price or eco-friendliness - its up to you. But you can't claim they were oversold on their technical prowess
Yeah, this is all riveting stuff, I agree.
Well let's investigate a little further. Who are the 'some people' here? The implication I get from the way that you write Chris is that jkeny's 'digging for mud'. Would that be a correct deduction? It does help to get into the details otherwise the 'mud' (that's only a claim here by you Chris, no evidence of 'mud' yet) might end up sticking to the wrong people.
Yeah, what goes for measurements goes for sound too. A person just needs to listen and find out if they hear it, or don't. Repeat the experiment where there are claims that are in respect of sound. I agree - the details are important so anyone who cares can run the experiment for themself.
You talk about the details but you don't say why they should be subject to more scrutiny. Have anything to offer in that regard?
Really Chris, you do need to get out more. Bankers are amongst some of the most stupid people on the planet - where have you been since the financial crisis of 2008? Just as one example - they created a whole industry based on MERS, which itself was contrary to the individual state laws on mortgages and property transfer. Wouldn't you say that's stupid - to create a whole business model that's illegal? That's not just one loan, that's millions of loans.
Yeah. Basically I'm being taken to task for nothing more than being honest with myself and with others.
If I were making a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and basically blowing smoke up peoples' *****, the same people would be defending me.
How perverse is that?
se
Hi Steve,
Hi Johnloudb,
Well, moderators are simply members who have extra work to do. They post as a member for the most part. You can expect some comments all over the map, and we certainly aren't always perfect!
Hi abraxalito,
One large problem with any test is to eliminate all variables except for what you are testing for. That is a major problem with all testing, no matter how done. There are (thankfully) established methods for testing whether it be by instrument or people. Either way, a test that does not control the variables is useless. At the very least, errors due to various variables should be quantified so there is some idea how these may affect the accuracy of the outcome.
One thing that must be remembered is that no one is a walking piece of test equipment. People make rotten instruments. There is no fixed reference in a human as exists inside test equipment. Humans are great at comparing things and recognizing patterns, but they can't reliably quantify anything without a great deal of training and constant "recalibration". On the other hand, a piece of test equipment can normally quantify whatever they are designed to measure. The results are repeatable within experimental error and the tolerance of the instrument. Just don't expect the thing to assess any intangibles and render an opinion as humans can. In either case, you have to direct the people or equipment properly or you'll end up with nothing useful.
This would be a long conversation. Human studies are more often poorly arranged, especially where audio is concerned. A test using test equipment is reasonably easily described with a few pictures of the test setup and equipment. A human experiment is generally not documented well as far as all possible factors that may come into play. Where an experiment using test equipment is normally easily repeated by someone else in a different lab setting, human experiments tend to leave out important controls. No matter how well someone may think they set an experiment up with people, most of the time the experiment has too many unrecognized uncontrolled variables.
Look at it this way. People who have bought and use test equipment on a regular basis have invested a great deal of time, effort and money. Ad hock listening sessions that are the most common report generators are none of these. I haven't seen too many human testing sessions that used a professional to set up and run said test. That's too expensive. So is properly documenting the test and all the statistics used to analyze the results. That is something that would make a listening test acceptable - and repeatable by any other group.
It's not more scrutiny. It's equal scrutiny that measured performance is subject to. Don't forget, if I were to fake some measurements, I'm going to be found out as soon as someone else repeats what I had reported on. That's a sobering thought. For a listening session, everything is vague enough to allow escape from being pinned down.
Canada didn't do as badly as some countries have. We were lucky .. or was it skill?
So, just because this activity was okay somewhere for a while, it's okay for everyone? I can't agree with you on that. How were things where you were holed up in 2008?
-Chris
I really do have to agree with you there. Welcome to life. Audio is a religion for some.
Hi Johnloudb,
Well, moderators are simply members who have extra work to do. They post as a member for the most part. You can expect some comments all over the map, and we certainly aren't always perfect!
Hi abraxalito,
Anyone who has a problem with SE's line of cables. Those posting and those who simply read and think along the same lines.
Not entirely, but I think it's extremely amusing when jkeny has a problem with SE's advertising after reading jkeny's site and claims. Who's going out on a limb here? Se certainly isn't!
By mud, I'm talking about trying to raise the idea of a problem such as what problems are being talked about now. There are any number of other descriptive phrases that I could have used. The one I picked seemed appropriate to me at the time.
Yup. I made that point as well. Oddly enough, it was about measurements produced on jkeny's site!
Well ... not so fast there!
One large problem with any test is to eliminate all variables except for what you are testing for. That is a major problem with all testing, no matter how done. There are (thankfully) established methods for testing whether it be by instrument or people. Either way, a test that does not control the variables is useless. At the very least, errors due to various variables should be quantified so there is some idea how these may affect the accuracy of the outcome.
One thing that must be remembered is that no one is a walking piece of test equipment. People make rotten instruments. There is no fixed reference in a human as exists inside test equipment. Humans are great at comparing things and recognizing patterns, but they can't reliably quantify anything without a great deal of training and constant "recalibration". On the other hand, a piece of test equipment can normally quantify whatever they are designed to measure. The results are repeatable within experimental error and the tolerance of the instrument. Just don't expect the thing to assess any intangibles and render an opinion as humans can. In either case, you have to direct the people or equipment properly or you'll end up with nothing useful.
See above.
This would be a long conversation. Human studies are more often poorly arranged, especially where audio is concerned. A test using test equipment is reasonably easily described with a few pictures of the test setup and equipment. A human experiment is generally not documented well as far as all possible factors that may come into play. Where an experiment using test equipment is normally easily repeated by someone else in a different lab setting, human experiments tend to leave out important controls. No matter how well someone may think they set an experiment up with people, most of the time the experiment has too many unrecognized uncontrolled variables.
Look at it this way. People who have bought and use test equipment on a regular basis have invested a great deal of time, effort and money. Ad hock listening sessions that are the most common report generators are none of these. I haven't seen too many human testing sessions that used a professional to set up and run said test. That's too expensive. So is properly documenting the test and all the statistics used to analyze the results. That is something that would make a listening test acceptable - and repeatable by any other group.
It's not more scrutiny. It's equal scrutiny that measured performance is subject to. Don't forget, if I were to fake some measurements, I'm going to be found out as soon as someone else repeats what I had reported on. That's a sobering thought. For a listening session, everything is vague enough to allow escape from being pinned down.
Try and get a loan in Canada. I think the banking industry here would be annoyed by your comments. True, some banking people can be pretty thick, but others who pay attention are more common in this neck of the woods.
Crisis? What crisis?
Canada didn't do as badly as some countries have. We were lucky .. or was it skill?
Well, you're not talking about Canada, and that's where I've been for years.
So, just because this activity was okay somewhere for a while, it's okay for everyone? I can't agree with you on that. How were things where you were holed up in 2008?
-Chris
Then I think you're tilting at windmills. As far I can see, jkeny doesn't have a problem with SE's line of cables. Why would he - they look honestly made and sold. So you've misunderstood where he's coming from - he's not having a problem with honesty, quite the opposite. Any problem he has is with apparent (to him) double standards on the forum. That's another matter entirely.
Then it looks as though the 'mud' exists only in your own mind.
Yes, I agree with you. Controls are normally done in science to address this. But marketing is not science.
I'm with you totally on this - I'm a teacher who's often asked to give a 'mark' or 'score' to correspond to a person's ability in English. Its very difficult.
Well, exactly, so when the standard is 'sound quality', why even talk about instruments and measurements?
<snipped out uncontentious stuff to keep the length down>
It might be called for in science where the standards of evidence and peer-review require it. That's because various other researchers come to rely on other published papers for their own work. Scientists build on other scientists' work. But yes, not only is it too expensive in audio, its also too boring.
And the result of any listening test arranged in that manner would be a set of figures pertaining to a situation not ever found in normal listening. So what use would it be for customers? I'm referring to the fact that customers do know what kit they listen to, and the test is founded on them not knowing that. So what you're suggesting is suitable grist to perceptual researchers who wish to understand the limits of human hearing, or even developers of perceptual coders. I can't see how this can apply to the high-end industry in general, which sells based on reviews not reports.
No, its only vague if you set it up to allow it to be vague. That's nonsense. If a person running a listening test asks for descriptions of sounds (no conferring), those descriptions can be compared amongst the whole group. Then a person not in that group can listen for themself and compare what they hear to what other listeners describe. Your use of the phrase 'escape from being pinned down' is rather telling here.
With descriptions, if a person doesn't hear what the first listener describes, he can ask for another person to listen. If enough people disagree then the original report is discredited.
Oh, I didn't realise that when you talked about a bank you were only restricting your comment to a Canadian bank. My misunderstanding.
If they're annoyed that would validate my thesis. That much is basic psychology - it would indicate they're in denial.
Sure, I've only been to Canada twice and for a total of a little more than 24hrs. So I'm not claiming any kind of knowledge about finance in Canada.
You've lost me here. What activity? The setting up of illegal business models? I'm not talking about whether something's OK, just responding to your claim that banks 'aren't that stupid' when they clearly are, in general. Canada may be exception that proves the rule, I don't know.
Ohh I'm sure Ron won't mind, quite the opposite! It's the AES bozos that would mind. Preprints sell for $5 for members and for $20 for non-members.
And yes, I paid for them.
jan didden
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.