Bear, if the effect was not subtle (and I do not doubt you heard something change) then it would absolutely be measurable.
Either that, or . . . the power of suggestion and inference is much more powerful that we believe - which I actually think is true.
I agree!
Of course without that time machine, it's in the shop for repairs, we'd have to rig a new "experiment" and see.
I have no problems with doing measurements, including on things like this.
SO, has anyone EVER heard the change in an SPDIF cable appear to alter the sonic presentation?? Curious.
Yeah, Pasteur and Salk (hey, I'm at UCSD and Salk Institute is across the street) were the two that immediately came to mind.
And a half dozen incredibly baller Greek scientist/philosophers. I've lately had something of a man-crush on Eratosthenes. Could you, with little a priori knowledge devise one of the most efficient prime identifiers AND predict the diameter of the earth to within 10% using wildly crude tools? Yeah, me neither.
Holy mackeral...relying on a blinking light??? What happens if the bulb burns out?? (nevermind screening employees for epilepy) Sigh, we're getting old, aren't we?
which for some reason reminds me of:
“Arthur Dent: What happens if I press this button?
Ford Prefect: I wouldn't-
Arthur Dent: Oh.
Ford Prefect: What happened?
Arthur Dent: A sign lit up, saying 'Please do not press this button again.”
Let me tell you guys about Bear. I don't know him well, we have only met on occasion at CES, (as I recall), but Bear was first contributing to hi end design decades ago.
When I worked with Bob Crump to make the CTC Blowtorch in the late 90's, we used Bear's power amp with it at CES. This was Bob's personal unit (none of my Parasound amps at the time compared to it in quality, so Bear's amp was the best way we could present the CTC Blowtorch at CES, to give it an accurate listen. We did this for several years, until we finally used a highly modified Parasound amp that evolved into the JC-1 at the shows. This is quite a commendation for Bear's skill in making a good product great partially from using his ears.
The very idea that we NEED double-blind tests to support our hearing is absurd.
The ABX test that trapped Ivor T. about 30 years ago (as I recall) is STILL brought up, because it was a DEFECTIVE test that had audible problems that the people who wanted to show up Ivor (who was known for his strong listening opinions) where they knew what to listen for, and Ivor did not. Ivor should not have been lured to doing this test. I resist SY for the same reason. These tests are usually intrinsically flawed to preventing hearing any differences, and if differences are consistently heard, it is mostly because of flaws in the switching equipment. For SY to bring this 30 year old test with Ivor up on this thread recently shows how once trapped into one, a subjective listener will always be subject to harassment for decades after.
When I worked with Bob Crump to make the CTC Blowtorch in the late 90's, we used Bear's power amp with it at CES. This was Bob's personal unit (none of my Parasound amps at the time compared to it in quality, so Bear's amp was the best way we could present the CTC Blowtorch at CES, to give it an accurate listen. We did this for several years, until we finally used a highly modified Parasound amp that evolved into the JC-1 at the shows. This is quite a commendation for Bear's skill in making a good product great partially from using his ears.
The very idea that we NEED double-blind tests to support our hearing is absurd.
The ABX test that trapped Ivor T. about 30 years ago (as I recall) is STILL brought up, because it was a DEFECTIVE test that had audible problems that the people who wanted to show up Ivor (who was known for his strong listening opinions) where they knew what to listen for, and Ivor did not. Ivor should not have been lured to doing this test. I resist SY for the same reason. These tests are usually intrinsically flawed to preventing hearing any differences, and if differences are consistently heard, it is mostly because of flaws in the switching equipment. For SY to bring this 30 year old test with Ivor up on this thread recently shows how once trapped into one, a subjective listener will always be subject to harassment for decades after.
In which way is that a contradiction?
1.) as you have read the emails, you know that Fremer accepted the challenge provided that the protocol would be scientific and Fremer would choose the "high - end cable" and Randi would choose the "cheap cable". Randi answered with the assertion that the protocol would be of course scientific and the cable selection would be "mine" (Randis) and "yours" (Fremer)
2.) the challenge has to be done by a specific person who claims to be able. It is not a challenge for a company
3.) Randi offered two "high end cables" the pear anjou (from the manufacturer who first wanted to provide a set to Fremer and later withdraw "backed out" ) or the most expensive one that is mentioned in your link
4.) Fremer offered his own cable set for the test as he was already confident with the sound
5.) Randi accepted this last (No. 4) as the most convenient solution, but under the provision to first ask his advisors
6.) Randi´s advisors voted against Fremer´s cable (for undisclosed reasons). Randi was asked by gizmodo about the reasons and gave a quite .. err... surprising answer (Fremer might have modified his cable in a way, surely he himself (Randi) knew how to do that and so forth....)
7.) Randi withdraw his other cable offer (the expensive) one, because those were not just cables (due to maybe attached network boxes) and pretended all of a sudden that it was from the beginning just the pear anjou cable and nothing else...
8.) Randi was asked by gizmodo about the end and answerered that Fremer could of course make another attempt (even with his own cables, sic! ) after the usual waiting time of one year
Do you really think "they could not agree on the protocol" is a correct description ?
I have deliberately not brought up Bybee, because of the spit-back. But that is what I am working on this last couple of weeks. Jack Bybee visited me about a week ago, to follow up on some parts that he sent me last month that he had recently developed. These new parts seem to be a virtual short or about 10 times less resistance than the typical Bybee part, and are said by Jack Bybee to be based on a completely different premise from the quantum filters. Jack does not know if he is going to bring these parts out for general sale, he is just making them for friends and serious associates. However, they do seem to make the sound better and I don't want to remove them. This is MY reality, you are welcome to your own.
You seem to want to have your reality, and at the same time, to find acceptance here among engineers and scientists. You don't seem to be having much luck so far with the combination. If you are happy with things as they are now, fine. Your choice.
Well, Markw4, I am world famous for making extremely successful audio products. I was considered a senior electronics design engineer, by a company that I worked for more than 30 years ago, and have been VP of engineering of another company later, and finally ran my own company (Vendetta Research) for several years and am still getting awards for my efforts. It takes more than just engineering skills to make great audio products. Maybe you don't know this yet, too bad. All I mostly see is a bunch of frustrated (relatively well educated) guys who want to throw their weight around, not serious audio designers here.
Well, I deny making anything worthwhile, amps included.
There is no factual reason that I ought to be able to do such a thing.
So, I deny it.
The area that interests me about this, is where the threshold(s) lie in terms of "hearing a difference".
My personal opinion is that it is likely possible to devise an ABX or other DBT experiment that does reveal, or should I say "illuminate" the sort of "differences" hypothesized or presumed, or conjectured that exist. The big question is IF the experiments thus far done are properly controlled, and how it is determined that the supposed "differences" sought are scientifically and physically able to be revealed? The related question is replicablity - thus far I've not personally seen published tests that I could merely go and replicate based on what is printed. At least not and reliable be certain that there were no substantive differences that might or would be confounding in terms of results.
I'm not bringing up the Bybee stuff or the ferrites because of some ideological or mystical predisposition. I'm interested in why things appear to sound different, and why no measurements appear to correspond to (at least for myself) what I am hearing in terms of sound - the quality, the nature, the space, etc...
As has been noted before it is pretty easy to measure "a difference", but what does that do for us??
There is no factual reason that I ought to be able to do such a thing.
So, I deny it.
The area that interests me about this, is where the threshold(s) lie in terms of "hearing a difference".
My personal opinion is that it is likely possible to devise an ABX or other DBT experiment that does reveal, or should I say "illuminate" the sort of "differences" hypothesized or presumed, or conjectured that exist. The big question is IF the experiments thus far done are properly controlled, and how it is determined that the supposed "differences" sought are scientifically and physically able to be revealed? The related question is replicablity - thus far I've not personally seen published tests that I could merely go and replicate based on what is printed. At least not and reliable be certain that there were no substantive differences that might or would be confounding in terms of results.
I'm not bringing up the Bybee stuff or the ferrites because of some ideological or mystical predisposition. I'm interested in why things appear to sound different, and why no measurements appear to correspond to (at least for myself) what I am hearing in terms of sound - the quality, the nature, the space, etc...
As has been noted before it is pretty easy to measure "a difference", but what does that do for us??
John, I mean this with a decent amount of respect, but there's a reason we've moved past bloodletting and other wildly arcane (although anti-science still is obnoxiously present in terms of alt-medicine) modalities in health and have made a lot of progress.
Okay, so you hear something, that's great. Can you validate to any degree? That's how progress is made. Serendipity is great (and usually necessary) to build the hypothesis, but it needs testing before it can be asserted with any sort of confidence.
Again, with all this experience here, and expertise, has no one ever heard an SPDIF cable change also change the subjective sonic presentation enough so as to be noticed??
Step up, and share your experiences?
Let me add it is fine with me IF this was due to a known or presumed engineering reason - just IF it has ever happened to you??
(seems like the room got very quiet suddenly? How many dBA are we measuring now? )
Step up, and share your experiences?
Let me add it is fine with me IF this was due to a known or presumed engineering reason - just IF it has ever happened to you??
(seems like the room got very quiet suddenly? How many dBA are we measuring now?
)
As he should have been advised in the first place, cables at the extremes of L and C can and will cause easily audible frequency response deviations. IIRC narrow band equalization to better than .1dB was not part of the challenge.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.