Good video. Pretty much sums up what I had thought. Couldn't see you there Jan, can you see yourself?
You added the preface NOT small -- i spoke only of existance, not magnitude. I agree that it is not small.
I have Toole's guide to setting up blind tests "bookmarked" in my hardcopy (and access to a couple practicing statiticians, my own statistics background has eroded beyond my trusting it when it comes to details)
dave
This is exactly the positive controls that Jakob2 has been hammering away for the last 10,000 posts.
When Kunchur was preparing his ABX testing regime, he found that the quality of the switch (and other bits) in the experiment was very critical to detect/not detect.
dave
poor Tom, at least try to get it right??
You only get a larf out of objectivists with highly eq'd multi way systems and not the subjectivists with the same?
You only get a larf out of objectivists with a highly eq'd multi way system and not the ones with a lightly eq'd multi way system?
Or did you just happen to exagerrate to make your point.
Man, I'm never gonna live it down am I? I just had to commit the worst sin possible on an audio forum. AJ can and did make lewd sexual innuendos about your wifes sexuality and the el pipo subwoofer...but hey mates can work THAT out and patch it up.
Me? pseesh...I happened to say something critical about an audiophiles system. How frickin stupid of me. I committed the mortal sin.
That can NEVER be patched up. Why? Cause deep down we know an audiophiles IS his system, any comment on it is a personal comment on the manhood and virility of the owner.
Grow up Tom, stop being a pathetic hurt audiophile.
I gave you the benefit and left your last few posts on the subject alone, including all your contradictions and hypocrisy.
Just so's you know, I did not ever say it would sound bad, for all I know it could sound wonderful. But I DID say that with a freakish frequency response that they have they cannot be called accurate (and therefore true to the live event).
Accept that Tom. It is an objective fact (the FR that is). It is a subjective fact that you find them best for your ears and tastes.
The two can co-exist you know.
Rather than listening to highly eq'd multi ways blah blah (define those terms, or did you just use them to back up your position) vs yours, how about simply hearing yours raw versus yours 'properly equalized'???
I have done that demo many times. It is startling. You (no doubt) have never done that experiment.
After all, my only comment about yours was the FR no??? Why don't you find out if that native FR is a blessing or a curse??
Then let us know if it moves closer or further away from the 'live unamplified sound'.
You are more than welcome to hear my heavily eq'd system with steep crossovers up against a single range driver with expensive electronics, it has been done.
I think Brett heard the comparison.
You only get a larf out of objectivists with highly eq'd multi way systems and not the subjectivists with the same?
You only get a larf out of objectivists with a highly eq'd multi way system and not the ones with a lightly eq'd multi way system?
Or did you just happen to exagerrate to make your point.
Man, I'm never gonna live it down am I? I just had to commit the worst sin possible on an audio forum. AJ can and did make lewd sexual innuendos about your wifes sexuality and the el pipo subwoofer...but hey mates can work THAT out and patch it up.
Me? pseesh...I happened to say something critical about an audiophiles system. How frickin stupid of me. I committed the mortal sin.
That can NEVER be patched up. Why? Cause deep down we know an audiophiles IS his system, any comment on it is a personal comment on the manhood and virility of the owner.
Grow up Tom, stop being a pathetic hurt audiophile.
I gave you the benefit and left your last few posts on the subject alone, including all your contradictions and hypocrisy.
Just so's you know, I did not ever say it would sound bad, for all I know it could sound wonderful. But I DID say that with a freakish frequency response that they have they cannot be called accurate (and therefore true to the live event).
Accept that Tom. It is an objective fact (the FR that is). It is a subjective fact that you find them best for your ears and tastes.
The two can co-exist you know.
Rather than listening to highly eq'd multi ways blah blah (define those terms, or did you just use them to back up your position) vs yours, how about simply hearing yours raw versus yours 'properly equalized'???
I have done that demo many times. It is startling. You (no doubt) have never done that experiment.
After all, my only comment about yours was the FR no??? Why don't you find out if that native FR is a blessing or a curse??
Then let us know if it moves closer or further away from the 'live unamplified sound'.
You are more than welcome to hear my heavily eq'd system with steep crossovers up against a single range driver with expensive electronics, it has been done.
I think Brett heard the comparison.
No, in fact he's been very vague about what "positive controls" would be appropriate for non-mundane cable issues, where the claimant is NOT arguing about frequency response, stability, or noise.
He brought up the notion that people weren't checking the ABX boxes' audibility. This indicated that he hasn't actually read the literature. For example, from Lipshitz (in his test of Ivor Tiefenbrun's claims):
Positive controls have nothing whatever to do with statistics. Nothing whatever. Do you actually understand what a positive control is?
Sure they do. A positive control is a test to make sure that your test can detect anything.
dave
dave
No. A positive control is a control used to make sure that the test is capable of distinguishing a stimulus above the known threshold of the specific variable being tested. For example, in my day to day work examining estrogenic activity in plastics, the positive control is E2, a chemical which is known to cause estrogenic activity. Using a dose of cyanide to see if the cells die would not be an appropriate control, despite fitting your definition.
When asked (repeatedly) what the threshold and appropriate positive control for non-mundane wire differences was, I got no answer. Perhaps you'd like to take a swing at it?
Would a positive control in our instance be a known "pathologically poorly constructed "cable, to use one of your delightful categories?
Bud
Bud
Wow, can't believe you would slam SY and especially Tom like that. Poor setup/equipment and no training? Yikes.
(Btw, SY was committed? To what institution?)
Andre, if you can really hear (not just imagine) the difference, how come you couldn't hear the dirt "cheap" Mogami cable in the Holly Cole cd...you recommended?
Until I told you.
Can you hear it now? 😀
Uhh, Tom, that wasn't my definition, it's the definition. Do you disagree from a logic perspective?
Sorry Tom, this is a big, fast moving thread, so which statement? Could you please quote it directly so that there is no subjective interpretation of what I stated vs what was actually stated? Thanks.
Why is that Tom? I thought you said only a F and I would comment on a speaker/system they had never heard?
I thought you said you had not heard the Orions (which fit your above criteria exactly)? Or are you referring to something else?
You are most welcome Tom. See, we do share a love of music. Glad you also like the recording quality (though I detect a tiny hint of siblance - that may not be present or heard on either of your systems). Acoustic music like this is definately recommended for the test.
I should add that Andre Visser also deserves your thanks, as it was his very specific (which he now regrets) and only recommendation (or supplied rope, depending on your viewpoint 😉) for him "hearing" wires! Tom, at this point I'll have to admit that I've come to know quite a bit about how that recording was made, including equipment....and cables🙂. If you are like Andre and I...that is, love surprises (I guess dbe and Alan didn't🙁), let me know, I'll oblige.
Earl, I can't believe you've allowed yourself to be drawn into the madness of this thread. That said....welcome. Enjoy the laughs with (some of) us 🙂.
Fantastic Dave! So, what do you make of all these online anecdotal testimonials/reports/tests about EnABL?
Or how about this Fred?
"In all things audiophile, the eyes/knowledge and oh yeah...ear, is the final arbiter."
😛
cheers,
AJ
Last edited:
No. The claims are that cables have differing sounds that are NOT attributable to noise, frequency response, or stability. One needs a positive control that has none of those, but rather, whatever factor is theorized to make the cables sound different AND has a demonstrated threshold.
Sy, you're spoiling the fun
This is a key point; probably why Jakob2 was evasive in what exactly he proposed as a positive control that he pounded the table about.
IOW, until someone defines what exactly causes the proposed difference in units that can be quantified, a positive control may be elusive.
This is a key point; probably why Jakob2 was evasive in what exactly he proposed as a positive control that he pounded the table about.
IOW, until someone defines what exactly causes the proposed difference in units that can be quantified, a positive control may be elusive.
AJ, do us all a favour and have a listen for yourself would you? You make it obvious you haven't done an A-B comparison. You're getting tiring discussing this in a cable thread.
To what Cal? An added mass/damping/stifness driver?
On what basis do you make such a claim, given the above?
OK, I can provide some very neutral sounding cables, Litz wire type 1 lay up using 140 strands of #40 AWG, four nines copper coil winding wire as the cable, slipped into cotton tubes. These could be measured by Simon and sent on to Tom for audition fairly quickly. Or, we could ask Steve Eddy to make some of his Milliot woven cables, again Litz and cotton. Free of charge on my part.
Bud
Bud
"Neutral sounding" as determined how Bud?
Why not just some 25 cents/ft Mogami? Like what is used in the majority of your music media collection?
Not "neutral" enough??😕
cheers,
AJ
- Status
- Not open for further replies.