Sorry about my confusion Tom, I saw you telling SY that the Arpeggios would be entry level vs the Sachikos judged by what you saw and Terry being and F & an I for judging based on what he saw. Clearly that's not what you meant and I apologize for any misunderstanding.
Actually Tom that wasn't so much directed at you as it was a general statement. I see JC and others frantically grasping at metal "purity", "grain alignment" and other desperation esotericism while missing (evading?) the fact that the binding posts (on his Wilsons) are anything but. Right smack in the middle of the ecstatic electrons path. Strange eh?
The truth of the matter is Tom, the breakup of the driver is intrinsic and completely unrelated to the enclosure. The enclosure will determine the response around and below the baffle step. That is why the Arpeggio guy is using filters, to correct these response deficiencies. Measurements will show the sound waves. What you hear (and like) after that is purely subjective.
If I attend the ATL DIY I will ask again. Pretty sure they were custom and intended as a SOTA fullrange commercial product.
Absolutely. Yes, it makes perfect sense to put a security deposit on a pair of wires. Can't say I've done so myself (funds tied up in a silly down payment on another house), but if you're not sure about how those wires will sound, it makes perfect sense to try them first.
Ah, didn't know that about the neighborhood and parking. Yup, can see that via Google maps. Even at the (pool) clubhouse eh? No problem. It would have been nice to have been there and met SY, heard your system, listened, measured,maybe even compared against some small bookshelves...but alas.
No hard feelings at all. It will happen eventually.
Btw, I thought the MasterSound wan an integrated with a multiple (analog) inputs switch in the signal path. No AUX, tape, etc. that I could plug into?
I'll ask next time I see him.
How do they compare to Mogami?
cheers.
AJ
Last edited:
nonsensical prose
You DO realize that the silver and gold plating applied to these "monocrystalblahblahBS" structuresis NOT single crystal... can't be, the electroplating process doesn't work that way (you wouldn't want it anyway; nor should you want single cryatal anything in a cable.
Get me two sets and I will prove it to you.
You DO realize that the silver and gold plating applied to these "monocrystalblahblahBS" structuresis NOT single crystal... can't be, the electroplating process doesn't work that way (you wouldn't want it anyway; nor should you want single cryatal anything in a cable.
1) Concocted, meaningless terminology.
2) Verifiable false
3) Yes, that's sorta of what added mass does
4) See 1) & 2)
That is a verfiably false objective claim. Do you have a scintilla of objective data to support this objective claim?
Bud, it's one thing that the forum has become your billboard (with tacit approval) for your product. However it's an entirely different thing to false advertise with fabricated objective claims. I sincerely hope that if I'm banned that someone else challenges this.
Saying it "sounds great" and "measures like this" are two entirely different things.
Argumentum ad populum
How about sticking with try it/buy it, it looks/sounds great?
cheers,
AJ
Hey, it's good enough for both Andre and I (though only one of us is aware of this
).
I don't know if it is the same idea,but Spendor (and maybe others) were coating their polypropylene coned drivers with that sticky "paint" 25-30 years ago,when others who were using polypropylene cones wern't.
Is it something similar?
The additional gear is the ABX switch box.
So, it´s up to the experimenter to show, that the ABX switch box will not influence the results.
(As usual it depends on the objective of the test, but the discussion in this point war quite general)
A typical example for the usual way to deal with it would be again the Meyer/Moran test; (words to that effect) we added the ABX switch, listen and all thought that it didn´t not alter the sound. (Of course no blind test needed, so it might remind janneman to our discussion about the different treatment for claims).
Wishes
The latest attempt was to avoid any "unnormal" test protocol, so it was totally up to the unknowing (not knowing that they were part of a test) participants to do whatever they usually do to find out if they would prefer one unit over another.
They got just two identical looking cases with preamplifier electronics and should tell which they prefer. Marks were "a" and "alpha" (as single greek letter); the marks were switched randomly.
As we are only looking (usually) for unintentional/unconscious influence by experimenters/switchers, it is in most cases sufficient to shield the switching person from the participant (do the switching in a seperate room).
Another solution is to use the electronics (if it´s suitable for the test) for the random switching, by modification of the control circuits.
Wishes
Might be. Adding mass/stiffness/damping to a driver is nothing new. Just like people being influenced by the sight of dots.
So you have somehow evaded the fact that there will be no ABX box in TG's test?
That the adversarial SY (or someone else?) will be manually hooking and unhooking the cables? Just like you did when avoiding an ABX box in your tests.
Now, if a disinterested person isn't an unknowing person, what exactly were your methods of blinding the hooker
? Can you reveal this secret while maintaining privacy of the results? Thanks Jakob.
Oh yeah, since a rational administrator is adversarial, how did you circumvent this also?
cheers,
AJ
I'm talking about the person switching the cables. How do you get them to not know they are switching cables?
So even if the switcher knows what is being tested, but is physically separated from the perceptions of those under test, this is ok?
But them being "disinterested" and switching under the same conditions...is not?
Sturm did a double blind test on cables as part of his master thesis. It was done during the High End Fair in Munich with ~120 participants in at least 12 flights during 3-5 days. One of the objectives of this test was to show, that the more expensive (and technically better) interconnect would be preferred.
It was a paired preference test with a forced choice answering scheme. "A better than B" "B better than A" and "no difference" .
As a control an only pretended switch was used in one trial in each run, so that the participants were in fact listening the same cable twice in a row.
This control trial was the only one, that had a nearly balanced distribution of preference for "A" and "B", in all other trials a more or less pronounced preference for A or B was shown.
The less expensive cable was preferred in a some trials, so no clear preference for the more expensive interconnect was shown.
Wishes
P.S. The cable manufacturer produced for this test two identical looking cables, so the switching person did not know about the cables, so regarding the hypothesis it was a double blind test.
In the control trial the switch was only pretended (assumed as it was not clearly described in the documentation), so the double blind condition wasn´t fullfilled in this trial.
Was Sturm interrogated (via cauldron?) as to his cable beliefs prior to administrating this test?
I wish to point out something here that AJ does not appear aware of. First, my Wilson speakers have 'Superior' (brand name) banana connectors, and these were specifically chosen for their tight fit, even usable with a Torque Wrench tightening. These were selected for the original Wilson speakers by Dave Wilson, himself, and Parasound uses the SAME connectors on the JC-1 power amp, at our insistence. My speaker connecting wire is Cardas, and not especially pure. It is more 'geometry' than purity in this case that separates it from typical wires.
Also, I was asking here about CONNECTING wire differences, not speaker wire differences in my previous question.
Also, I was asking here about CONNECTING wire differences, not speaker wire differences in my previous question.
Last edited:
<snip>
So you have somehow evaded the fact that there will be no ABX box in TG's test?
No, as stated before, this thread is not exclusively devoted to the SY/TG test, so we are quite often discussing issues related to other tests or testing in general; so it was in the case of the ABX-switch box.
See above.
Now, if a disinterested person isn't an unknowing person, what exactly were your methods of blinding the hooker
Can you reveal this secret while maintaining privacy of the results? Thanks Jakob.
Oh yeah, since a rational administrator is adversarial, how did you circumvent this also?
It doesn´t matter if the "switchers" were unknowing or disinterested, as long as it is excluded that they influence the results.
AFAIR it was planned that the persons leave the room while the others act.
Wishes
Last edited:
I simply don´t understand the goal of your question. In a paired preference test it doesn´t matter if they know or not, as it will be switched between the different DUT every time.
If the switcher is separated, than you don´t need a disinterested switcher because it doesn´t matter.
Wishes
Hi Panicos, i think you'll find is was being applied to "Bextrene" cones as they weren't particularly well damped. I think Polypropylene generally doesn't need the stuff as it's has inherently better internal damping
No idea on your question though
Bests
Mark.
Hi Panicos, i think you'll find is was being applied to "Bextrene" cones as they weren't particularly well damped. I think Polypropylene generally doesn't need the stuff as it's has inherently better internal damping
No idea on your question though
Bests
Mark.
Hi Mark,I used to have a pair of Spendor SP2/2 many years ago,and their polyprop mid/bass drivers were treated with the sticky layer.Rogers on the other hand,were not treating their PP cones.I used a Rogers LS6 for some time as well as Studio 1a.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.