I lightly requested you "better" your people skills, that oxymoron sentence being funny enough to me that I had to enjoin. I absolutely understand the hurdles you see with dialogue from others who are more the "meter reader type".
Having a really good understanding of the level of timing accuracy required for solid accurate imaging, as well as a good understanding of the interaction between cable impedance, speaker impedance, speaker reactive impedance modulation, and a really good feeling for "magnetic stuff", I have consistently discussed how the various factors you and others insist make audible differences might be a consequence of real factors..Yet, I understand that some of the concepts I discuss are quite beyond most others to understand. (unfortunately, that is my fault as I should be able to explain it so all understand). I have also discussed how impossible it is for current technology to measure such variables and effects as the technology is not there.
I too suffer "out of hand rejection" of ideas at work on occasion. Sometimes justified, sometimes it increases the level of performance 3 to 5 orders of magnitude for some obscure technology that helps valuable research.
But when I am rejected, I don't start arguing. I try to understand what the reasons are, they may be valid..
Obviously, too high a bar for forums.
John
Being into stained glass and having visited Falling Water and Kentuck Knob, I can understand the architectural passion. I'm starting to work some of his flavor into my stained glass designs.
John
edit: Frank LLoyd Wright to the un-initiated.
Very few on here have a reputation so I wouldn't worry about that. As for credibility you keep sinking it by yourself. Credibilty needs to be earned. I personally care not a jot for what people on here think of my opinions which is the healthy place to be.
He fought enough to have to be hand held on this forum and a special thread created for him where rules were more lax.
Do you have that from a credible source? It's as likely Walt wanted to enjoy his retirement so stepped away from DIY stuff.
At that point you just step away from the forum for 24 hours and do something more useful. It's far better for blood pressure and general health.
This is weird. You seem unsure that you and Rick hear things others don't - but surely that was the nub of your point?
Then you make a valid point about hearing being a function of brain processing, yet then connect that to an insult ("for the tone deaf") and fail to allow that it may be your brain processing creating things that are not there - which is just as likely (and is also a well documented phenomenon).
All this architectural talk about Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Frank Lloyd Wright is starting to give me flashbacks to my art classes at school.
Just waiting for the Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius and Bruno Taut parts... 😉
Just waiting for the Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius and Bruno Taut parts... 😉
First I would like to point out that it isn't Rick and myself that hear things some of the people here don't notice. Most of the other people like Rick and me get driven away after realizing there is no hope some of the people here in this thread will ever bother to learn how to listen. Other people who hear the same things I do simply keep a low profile and stay out of threads like this one. Again, they don't believe there is any hope of reconciliation.
For one example of a PhD EE student (don't know about graduate) forum member who hears the same sorts things Rick and I do, there is @marche. Here is a quote from one of his posts:
"After I started my PhD (in electronic science, I'm a data-driven rational guy), I went into an audio shop to look for new speakers. There was a demo with some "high-end" stuff, with a separate DA convertor. "What a nonsense, if your CD player is designed properly etc.:". The sound was nice and good, but there was some problem, so the DA converter was detached, and the CD player was directly connected. The difference was stunning, and when investigating in the background, the reported measurements all looked the same. My curiosity started. I wanted to explore and design my own DA converter.
Over the years. the world of EMC, PCB design and impedance matching, non-ideal components and jitter opened up. All of those things mattered, despite that for all of those the 20Hz-20kHz measurements were the same. I was blinded by a religious belief that a specific set of measurements would characterize the sound of a device. Don't get me wrong, measurements are a crucial and important tool to understand a device on certain aspects, and know what you are doing, but they are not defining."
The whole post by marche is thoughtful and well written. It is worth a careful read.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...c-using-ess-es9038pro-wow.388314/post-7153467
Beyond that there is existing 'proof' that I can hear low levels of distortion. Its just that the proof is ignored, and then forgotten. PMA used to put on 'listening tests' in this forum. He recording a set of non-inverting unity gain buffer opamp circuits that were identical except for the audio opamp used. I sorted them in order of distortion by ear before PMA released the opamps used in each file and their distortion measurement. And, yes, I quit before sorting the last one because it was hard and I figured someone else would nail it better than I could. Felt like I was wasting my time. Even if I had sorted that last one, the 'proof' by DBT would still be ignored and forgotten. Why? Psychologists are very familiar with the effects of bias and strongly held preexisting beliefs. A lot of people want absolute certainty. So what they do is to the effect of saying something like, "I don't need to consider that DBT result because I already know its impossible." The proof is rejected out of hand without serious thought or questioning of old preexisting beliefs.
In addition, Jakob2 used to post in this and other forums about sensory science and audibility. He recommended scientific papers to study, but nobody bothered. They ignored the evidence he offered, and then forgot all about it.
Then there is the case of Paul Frindle who wrote an AES paper on his experience with recording and mastering engineers who's brains learned out to recognize pseudo-random dither noise and then IIRC remove it to hear remaining quantizing noise. https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/paul-frindle-is-this-truth-or-myth.371790/#post-6968095
There are also more pieces to the puzzle out there that all considered should be more than enough for some here to question the certainty of their beliefs, but puzzle pieces are all conveniently ignored and then forgotten.
Having said that, I know the response is going to be anecdotes are not evidence. Actually they can be evidence just like the first written description of a soliton wave in a river was a type of observational evidence.
For one example of a PhD EE student (don't know about graduate) forum member who hears the same sorts things Rick and I do, there is @marche. Here is a quote from one of his posts:
"After I started my PhD (in electronic science, I'm a data-driven rational guy), I went into an audio shop to look for new speakers. There was a demo with some "high-end" stuff, with a separate DA convertor. "What a nonsense, if your CD player is designed properly etc.:". The sound was nice and good, but there was some problem, so the DA converter was detached, and the CD player was directly connected. The difference was stunning, and when investigating in the background, the reported measurements all looked the same. My curiosity started. I wanted to explore and design my own DA converter.
Over the years. the world of EMC, PCB design and impedance matching, non-ideal components and jitter opened up. All of those things mattered, despite that for all of those the 20Hz-20kHz measurements were the same. I was blinded by a religious belief that a specific set of measurements would characterize the sound of a device. Don't get me wrong, measurements are a crucial and important tool to understand a device on certain aspects, and know what you are doing, but they are not defining."
The whole post by marche is thoughtful and well written. It is worth a careful read.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...c-using-ess-es9038pro-wow.388314/post-7153467
Beyond that there is existing 'proof' that I can hear low levels of distortion. Its just that the proof is ignored, and then forgotten. PMA used to put on 'listening tests' in this forum. He recording a set of non-inverting unity gain buffer opamp circuits that were identical except for the audio opamp used. I sorted them in order of distortion by ear before PMA released the opamps used in each file and their distortion measurement. And, yes, I quit before sorting the last one because it was hard and I figured someone else would nail it better than I could. Felt like I was wasting my time. Even if I had sorted that last one, the 'proof' by DBT would still be ignored and forgotten. Why? Psychologists are very familiar with the effects of bias and strongly held preexisting beliefs. A lot of people want absolute certainty. So what they do is to the effect of saying something like, "I don't need to consider that DBT result because I already know its impossible." The proof is rejected out of hand without serious thought or questioning of old preexisting beliefs.
In addition, Jakob2 used to post in this and other forums about sensory science and audibility. He recommended scientific papers to study, but nobody bothered. They ignored the evidence he offered, and then forgot all about it.
Then there is the case of Paul Frindle who wrote an AES paper on his experience with recording and mastering engineers who's brains learned out to recognize pseudo-random dither noise and then IIRC remove it to hear remaining quantizing noise. https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/paul-frindle-is-this-truth-or-myth.371790/#post-6968095
There are also more pieces to the puzzle out there that all considered should be more than enough for some here to question the certainty of their beliefs, but puzzle pieces are all conveniently ignored and then forgotten.
Having said that, I know the response is going to be anecdotes are not evidence. Actually they can be evidence just like the first written description of a soliton wave in a river was a type of observational evidence.
Last edited:
As a philosophical matter I don't believe in absolute certainty. I do believe in probabilities, and in revising estimates of them in light of new evidence. Thus I may not appear to exhibit beliefs held with absolute certainty to the same extent others here may do.
Somewhere, I've got a sketch of a preamp that resembles a stylized transformer... form follows function.
One, very liberal, way to look this is:
If someone hears a difference and it's pleasing to them when they install a bit of snake oil junk why not let them just have at it? I don't think anyone really cares if they delude themselves and subjective/philosophically it sounds better to them, even if it's bias, nocebo or placebo. Did it not achieve the goal? Is cure by placebo still not a cure?
A hard line conservative view might be:
Allowing propagation of these non-senses could potentially dumb the masses even more and lead to conspiracy theories and the likes. Non-sense and snake oil should be called out anywhere it's seen! Further, allowing people to fool themselves long enough to give these charletons money for their snake oil and emperors new clothes will just fueling, funding and prolong the issue. We should seek them out and put them out of business.
A middle ground position:
Have at it. Knock yourself out. Just be careful with giving subjective reviews when another person may not share your delusion or your bias. It may not sound better for them.
Also, remember. "Extraordinary claims", like a power cord changes the sound, require extraordinary evidence. It would seem that very few of those torting these claims have the ability to produce such evidence or even know where to start looking for it or what constitutes evidence.
If someone hears a difference and it's pleasing to them when they install a bit of snake oil junk why not let them just have at it? I don't think anyone really cares if they delude themselves and subjective/philosophically it sounds better to them, even if it's bias, nocebo or placebo. Did it not achieve the goal? Is cure by placebo still not a cure?
A hard line conservative view might be:
Allowing propagation of these non-senses could potentially dumb the masses even more and lead to conspiracy theories and the likes. Non-sense and snake oil should be called out anywhere it's seen! Further, allowing people to fool themselves long enough to give these charletons money for their snake oil and emperors new clothes will just fueling, funding and prolong the issue. We should seek them out and put them out of business.
A middle ground position:
Have at it. Knock yourself out. Just be careful with giving subjective reviews when another person may not share your delusion or your bias. It may not sound better for them.
Also, remember. "Extraordinary claims", like a power cord changes the sound, require extraordinary evidence. It would seem that very few of those torting these claims have the ability to produce such evidence or even know where to start looking for it or what constitutes evidence.
Did you just classify yourself as one of the, "I don't need to consider that DBT (or other evidence) since I already know its impossible,' personality types?
Maybe if you lived back in 1834 it would have been, "I don't need to consider that solitary wave in the river story since I already know its impossible?"
Or maybe you remember Scott Wurcer's story about Stanley Lipshitz and AD797? IIRC apparently Stanley proved such an opamp was impossible. Then Scott designed AD797. Again IIRC when Scott's turn to came to give his AES talk on AD797, Stanley got up and walked out of the room. Didn't want to hear about it, you think?
Sigh. You quote Jakob being ignored and then pull up this one again. Note Jakob would have said that one sorting of the files was not statistically significant. You are pretending to be a victim now. None of which moves forward the discussion on whether expensive cables make any positive difference.
Another ‘me too’ experience will not help your point. You know the path to acceptance. However hard, it is the only one.
Not to mention that using ridiculous marketing videos and papers to support his point, completely ruined any credibility Rick Miller could have.
Don’t you wonder why any of those research ‘scientists’ at Shunyata, AudioQuest and alike, hasn’t yet received a couple of Nobel prizes for discoveries in physics?
The biggest problem, as I see it, is that those that hear changes with different power cords are not interested in discovering why there is a perceived difference. They are only interested in others confirming their experience (some to justify money spent, others to know they are not alone).
Bill, you are right about Jakob2. Also, there is no way in hell I would try to do that 100 times in row. Maybe for $10,000,000 or something, but not just to prove a point here. It was HARD enough to do once, given the very slight differences.
Getting back to power cords, its not about how expensive they are. Most are not very good anyway. Just like power conditioners with big inductors are not the good ones, which already was touched upon. Fact is some power cords affect some audio devices, particularly those produced before filtered IEC modules were the standard. Rob Watts reported fixing one such preamp by adding a power inlet filter. He found signal correlated noise which we know can be an intermodulation product of RF and audio when rectification takes place in an input stage. There should be no mystery about how that can happen. As usual, it has been discussed before, ignored, and then forgotten.
Getting back to power cords, its not about how expensive they are. Most are not very good anyway. Just like power conditioners with big inductors are not the good ones, which already was touched upon. Fact is some power cords affect some audio devices, particularly those produced before filtered IEC modules were the standard. Rob Watts reported fixing one such preamp by adding a power inlet filter. He found signal correlated noise which we know can be an intermodulation product of RF and audio when rectification takes place in an input stage. There should be no mystery about how that can happen. As usual, it has been discussed before, ignored, and then forgotten.
Last edited:
That was unwise and unfortunate, I would agree. IIUC he was advised by an offline friend to stop doing that.
What would you consider adequate proof? Not trolling or baiting - just wonder what an acceptable threshold of some measurement might be.
* A well defined, reproducible, experimental setup to test and characterise the system with and without the cable swap. Multiple captures of both.
* A double blind listening test of same with an test audience of at least 100.
EDIT: Would be nice to then add.....
- A hypothesis as to WHY it's changing and what is causing it.
- An experimental setup or prediction to test if the hypothesis is true
- It must be falsifiable
Although having spent time trying to help Flat Earthers... the later usually leads to MORE problems.
I won't address the second because that's not likely to happen soon and I certainly won't be doing that in my own living room or at my workbench!
Again, what is the threshold of acceptance for the first? A SINAD change of 26 dB? 1 dB? Fifth order harmonic distortion change of what? Noise floor change of what? If, for example, I wanted to try that experiment, what would people find acceptable?
That's not enough. To find out if something is audible at all, its necessary to train test subjects to recognize the effect until their accuracy stops improving and ability levels out. In the case of small effects it may be necessary to train and test with headphones, one test subject at a time. Then the trainer leaves the the test team comes in. The person working with the test subject does not know which cable is being used at any time. The cost of doing such as study with 100 more or less random people could easily top $10,000. Possibly it could cost several times that.
Moreover, trying to recruit a serious and impartial university researcher to make sure everything is done right might be difficult. It would be likely do little for an academic career today to publish on such a subject. Maybe someone in the Auditory Scene Analysis field would be willing take it on, don't know.
In any case, grant funding has largely dried up, corporate sponsored research is often kept proprietary, etc. So who wants to volunteer to pay? Want to make a donation? You are the one who wants to read the paper after all.
By train, you mean indoctrinate to audiophool? How to train your ears to subjectively hear whatever you want to hear.
I mean that is perfectly plausible. As has been discussed what your ears hear and what "you" hear are not the same thing. The later is mostly generated by the brain. It will happily mute things and amplify things it feels are important. Such as "Is that noise a threat?". Most of this is entirely sub-conscious. However with "training" you can hear whatever you want to hear or whatever the trainer wants you to hear.
As an example, just a brief one. I know for a fact it's not just me, but if you lie in bed in total silence, you can hear music. No it's not there, it's your brain looking for patterns of recognition in the pink/white noise around you. Once that music starts, it can take on a life of it's own and can even be quite hard to stop.
I would consider myself sane, but really it's a spectrum. Some people hear voices, some people see things, it's all just the mind doing it's thing.
On the grant funding for such tests. I think the point is, as I think more than me has stated... Audio is old hat. We've done audio. Nailed it. The human ear isn't changing and won't change on life span time scales. So the technology doesn't need to continue to progress. The failing and discrepancies in how faithful audio gear is at recording and reproducing are so buried in the noise floor or outside the range of human hearing that most people don't care and don't see any point in researching it. It's only audiophools flogging the horses skeleton.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.