It has been done by Andre, already. The rest would not believe a controlled test, even if you could hear the differences. Andre used a positive control, an already broken-in copper connecting cable, made with the same care as the silver one. He compared before and after break-in. He heard the difference, and if he were me, probably slightly disappointed that he might have to factor more money into his hi fi system to get the best resolution he can, now that he heard the difference. This is how we grow and learn.
Actually, it's an easy test to do without supervision. Choose a cable that is claimed to have a long break-in under use. Code ten of them with numbers. For each cable, flip a coin- if it's heads, that cable gets broken in. There may or may not be 5 of each. Keep a key sheet or give it to a third party. Then send the cables to the person who claims there's a difference and give them a reasonable time (long enough to detect the differences but short compared to claimed break-in time under use) to separate the cables into two groups: burned in and not burned in.
Steve Eddy tried something like this for wire directionality, and the supremely confident fellow who predicted that he'd separate them with no problem suddenly stopped responding and disappeared from the forum.
Steve Eddy tried something like this for wire directionality, and the supremely confident fellow who predicted that he'd separate them with no problem suddenly stopped responding and disappeared from the forum.
John, you seem to be unclear about the meaning of the words "control" and "controlled." So is Andre, but I expect more of you.
I can think of no better person to be sent cables than John Curl, if he agrees to the test.
BUT, I would like the test to be changed thus: the person who claims who can hear the difference does the burn-in of one out of X cables. He sends them to one of us with the burned-in cable clearly identified. The cable labels then get shuffled and the cables get sent back to the person who will have to identify which of the numbers is the burned-in cable. How about this?
BUT, I would like the test to be changed thus: the person who claims who can hear the difference does the burn-in of one out of X cables. He sends them to one of us with the burned-in cable clearly identified. The cable labels then get shuffled and the cables get sent back to the person who will have to identify which of the numbers is the burned-in cable. How about this?
Last edited:
SY could take 10 IC's and burn in five John could then separate them into two groups. Seems a simple non-threatening test.
That's sort of how we were to do the directionality test.
However the way that was going to be arranged was that I randomly determined the direction of the wires, labeled them A, B, C, etc. and wrote down which were which. Then I would send them to SY who, without knowing which were which, would randomly label them 1, 2, 3, etc. and write down which were which.
We would then each send our keys to a neutral third party.
That way neither myself nor SY would know which cables were which that the person being tested would use.
se
The reason why I think the tester should also do the burn-in is because then he could never claim that the burn-in wasn't done correctly.
The hard part is getting someone to donate the ten sets of cables! Things like agreed-on break-in are pretty easy to sort out.
True that we can all agree on a break-in procedure, but you see the bickering and distrust here. I was trying to make do away with distrust in one's break-in procedure by letting the tester break-in the cables until he can hear the difference he claim he can. Just my 2c.
No, the person being tested shouldn't also do the burn-in. You'd never be able to make two or more cables that were perfectly identical visually.
The way to get around the issue you bring up here is to send the person being tested a known pair of cables, one burned in, the other not, so that they could determine their confidence in being able to tell the two apart.
Once they're confident of being able to do so, the same burn in procedure would be used for the test cables.
se
I was going to paint them all after shuffling and sending them back to the tester. 🙂
But I agree with your solution as well. In fact your solution is better. Let's see if anyone here, hopefully John, agrees to the test.
But I agree with your solution as well. In fact your solution is better. Let's see if anyone here, hopefully John, agrees to the test.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2002
Guys, I don't have to bother, I know enough, already. It is the rest of you who remain in the dark, so do the test, yourselves. AND of course, you will not be able to tell a difference. 'The thinker thinks and and prover proves.'
GK, I did a mini research on Bertrand Russell and the turtle theory. It is ascribed to him by someone else, and it might have just as well been William James where the story first started. I recommend that you use Google too, to answer these questions. There are several pages, and many footnotes.
GK, I did a mini research on Bertrand Russell and the turtle theory. It is ascribed to him by someone else, and it might have just as well been William James where the story first started. I recommend that you use Google too, to answer these questions. There are several pages, and many footnotes.
I know stereophile has measured digital cables and they found diffent amounts and types of jitter. I hope i can find the file.
Sorry John, the turtle stuff far predates Bertrand, he is in this case irrelevant. The West trying to usurp 1000's of years of Eastern tradition is boring and offensive. The best strategy is to just shut up and listen.
Well this allows anyone to gauge how confident you are in you beliefs. The test isn't even set up yet and you're running for the hills.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.