As will I, assuming I can avoid family duties. I'm always willing to listen. Especially since it is a rare event that anybody in this market is willing to host something like this.
All these years of shill posting online on various forums, haven't you ever seen any links to blind test for audio cables?
How would you know if it is well planned and executed or not?
You should update your knowledge base 😉 , ever heard ofPsuchoAcoustics, Statistics, Lab Experiments, double blind,etc?
Looks like you have a lot you need to update.
You claim so but then post in a Public Forum trying to convince Forum members of your ideas.
What gives?
Lacking arguments, you kick the ball outside the field speaking of love in a Tech based Forum.
Nice try.
Verified source or he did NOT say that. 😀
(Hint: he didn´t)
Pity you are so pessimistic.
Yet you insist on sharing your "opinions" with us 😕
If they were to go back and actually measure everything. No information derived from literature, calculations or computer models. Including info on all test equipment and power amplifier model.
The measurements:
cables | actual length, resistance, capacitance and inductance for each Cable Under Test.
dummy load | actual impedance curve.
then using traditional methods, the frequency response for each cable measured first across the amp's terminals then across the dummy load's terminals.
If they did all that the zoom meeting would be a walk in the park.
The measurements:
cables | actual length, resistance, capacitance and inductance for each Cable Under Test.
dummy load | actual impedance curve.
then using traditional methods, the frequency response for each cable measured first across the amp's terminals then across the dummy load's terminals.
If they did all that the zoom meeting would be a walk in the park.
I don't recall that happening.
Attack the idea, not the person. Or you might get labelled in the 'troll' bucket.
The difference between us is that you obviously unconditionally believe what others say, whereas I only trust my own ears, after all I’m the only one listening to my audio system.
But I find it interesting to read experiences from others, that’s the reason for me to follow this thread.
If you don’t want to understand that liking or disliking something is happening between your ears and not in blind listening panels, we are from different planets.
Hans
Did you inadvertently hit on the fact that you can only trust your ears whilst you are actually listening?
cbdb…
There will always be that concern when the person doing the tests also sells the product.
Most of his tests in his paper seem reasonable, it was the first one I did not like as it was a bad design for what was being measured.
I already understand the E and E/M stuff, so I suspect that content will not be out in space.
But in a zoom call, the audibility of two cables will not likely be convincing. All he could do is measurements...data.
Luckily though, the host of a zoom call has the ability to mute offensive people.
As long as the feature is not used to censure a different opinion... that I would see as bad.
What would be far more interesting is measurement of a speaker impedance at mid frequency while it is being driven through the gap. But I don't see anybody knowing how to do that cleanly.
jn
There will always be that concern when the person doing the tests also sells the product.
Most of his tests in his paper seem reasonable, it was the first one I did not like as it was a bad design for what was being measured.
I already understand the E and E/M stuff, so I suspect that content will not be out in space.
But in a zoom call, the audibility of two cables will not likely be convincing. All he could do is measurements...data.
Luckily though, the host of a zoom call has the ability to mute offensive people.
As long as the feature is not used to censure a different opinion... that I would see as bad.
What would be far more interesting is measurement of a speaker impedance at mid frequency while it is being driven through the gap. But I don't see anybody knowing how to do that cleanly.
jn
You know it will be totally censored. He will act like he does here. Any questions he can't answer will be ignored or glossed over with the same nonsense (transmission line theory he doesn't understand) and then that person will be ejected (muted) from the call. And the recording will probably be edited "to make it a reasonable lenght" by removing any negative comments. Cant wait.
Did I miss something? Has he posted anything else in this thread? This seems to be what Scottmoose might call an infomercial. He spoke in the third person which is sort of weird.
Over at audioscience review there having the same discussion.
Heres a list of questions audio2design came up with to ask at the zoom call:
"Please come prepared to discuss the following questions, as a start.
1) Why does your speaker electrical model does not match impedance curve shown.
2) Why are you using an electroacoustic speaker model that is not accurate for electrical transmission line effects.
3) Why are you not incorporating parasitic capacitance which is essential for proper transmission line modelling.
4) What are the scales on the oscilloscope plots.
5) Why do you use the wrong formula for impedance? The formula you use only works at high frequencies, not audio frequencies.
6) Why do you use an incorrect method of measuring characteristic impedance in your paper.
7) Why do you insist that a 10KHz square wave is "audio" frequencies, when only the fundamental 10KHz sine wave in that square wave is in the audible band.
8) Why are you passing off a simulation that is obviously not incorporating properly, characteristic impedance in a transmission line, as a simulation of characteristic impedance in a transmission line circumstance.
9) Why are you passing off a simulation as accurate that does not take into account the very significant change in characteristic impedance of cables at audio frequencies.
10) Why have you ignored skin effect.
11) You have shown no CAUSATION between characteristic impedance and cable voltage drop. You have only shown at best some correlation, but no causation. Why do you feel, given the lack of proven causation, that you can say definitively it is due to transmission line effects?
12) Given the posted impedance curve of your simulated load, why do the cable voltage drops NOT follow the impedance mismatching that must occur as the impedance of the load changes with frequency. Given your hypothesis, the voltage drop w.r.t. frequency MUST follow the cable impedance / load impedance graph. It does not.
13) You have completely ignored inductance as a causation. Why?
14) Why does your table of wires and their characteristic values does not correlate to the graph and confuses readers.
15) Why did you label a graph the frequency response of the cable when it is clearly not. It is the cable voltage drop versus frequency which is not the same thing. This is deceptive to an uneducated reader.
16) Why is there a 2db measurement drop at high frequencies which without knowing why puts unbounded error on the measurements at high frequencies.
17) What is the scale of the spectrum graph is not listed, only db and this is a near meaningless term without the required scale.
18) What are the settings for the spectrum analyzer as they are not listed so we don’t know if it is average, RMS average, peak, etc"
How far do you think they will get? Will they even let him in?
Heres the link. Townsend Isolda cable | Page 25 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
Heres a list of questions audio2design came up with to ask at the zoom call:
"Please come prepared to discuss the following questions, as a start.
1) Why does your speaker electrical model does not match impedance curve shown.
2) Why are you using an electroacoustic speaker model that is not accurate for electrical transmission line effects.
3) Why are you not incorporating parasitic capacitance which is essential for proper transmission line modelling.
4) What are the scales on the oscilloscope plots.
5) Why do you use the wrong formula for impedance? The formula you use only works at high frequencies, not audio frequencies.
6) Why do you use an incorrect method of measuring characteristic impedance in your paper.
7) Why do you insist that a 10KHz square wave is "audio" frequencies, when only the fundamental 10KHz sine wave in that square wave is in the audible band.
8) Why are you passing off a simulation that is obviously not incorporating properly, characteristic impedance in a transmission line, as a simulation of characteristic impedance in a transmission line circumstance.
9) Why are you passing off a simulation as accurate that does not take into account the very significant change in characteristic impedance of cables at audio frequencies.
10) Why have you ignored skin effect.
11) You have shown no CAUSATION between characteristic impedance and cable voltage drop. You have only shown at best some correlation, but no causation. Why do you feel, given the lack of proven causation, that you can say definitively it is due to transmission line effects?
12) Given the posted impedance curve of your simulated load, why do the cable voltage drops NOT follow the impedance mismatching that must occur as the impedance of the load changes with frequency. Given your hypothesis, the voltage drop w.r.t. frequency MUST follow the cable impedance / load impedance graph. It does not.
13) You have completely ignored inductance as a causation. Why?
14) Why does your table of wires and their characteristic values does not correlate to the graph and confuses readers.
15) Why did you label a graph the frequency response of the cable when it is clearly not. It is the cable voltage drop versus frequency which is not the same thing. This is deceptive to an uneducated reader.
16) Why is there a 2db measurement drop at high frequencies which without knowing why puts unbounded error on the measurements at high frequencies.
17) What is the scale of the spectrum graph is not listed, only db and this is a near meaningless term without the required scale.
18) What are the settings for the spectrum analyzer as they are not listed so we don’t know if it is average, RMS average, peak, etc"
How far do you think they will get? Will they even let him in?
Heres the link. Townsend Isolda cable | Page 25 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum
Last edited:
You do that while your sight is also involved, right?
I've seen challenges / questioning those who post claims of superior sound quality or hearing difference when component/s are switched. I haven't seen anyone who challenged those who liked or disliked something. I would appreciate it if you can quote couple of those posts in case I missed.
cbdb...Perused the link, thanks. That list of questions, quite a few misguided ones.
From the postings, the few I saw, he too does not have a strong handle on the topic.
jn
From the postings, the few I saw, he too does not have a strong handle on the topic.
jn
cbdb
I have no doubt that these questions are well thought out and will shed some light on the subject. The tone smells of an ambush. Are we to see what he has to say or just execute the snake oil salesman at high noon before the trial? 😀
He asked to make his presentation and welcomed questions. Seems to me like awkward ones are fair game
- Status
- Not open for further replies.