Well, he's already reintroduced that gibbering twaddle about fuses. A[nother] repeated idiom seems modest enough tedium in the scheme of things. 😉
As for that dribbling fuse 'test' [read: 'advert'] which has the square root of jack relevance to biwiring, I'll quote what I said the first time, since nothing has changed:
As for that dribbling fuse 'test' [read: 'advert'] which has the square root of jack relevance to biwiring, I'll quote what I said the first time, since nothing has changed:
Last edited:
Yes, it’s true the differences are small in the data sheet measurements but they are consistent, repeatable, transferable nd predictable. In fact the differences are smaller than they reported. Also note that listening tests confirmed the measurements. You have to read more closely. Still don’t get the connection between biwiring and wire directionality? That’s a shame. Note to self - Why are UK dudes always so angry? 😡
Last edited:
The differences are small, that’s true, but if you pay attention to the entire report the differences are consistent with the conclusions. The small differences in conductivity are consistent with the theory that wire is asymmetrical both electrically and physically, it’s only a fuse wire, who on earth would expect big differences? Nobody. The differences are consistent with listening tests, they are repeatable, transferrable, predictable. I’m also fairly certain the company that performed these fuse measurements has much better measuring equipment than you have. I recommend adding bi wires to the long list of cables and wire in the audio system that should be controlled for directionality.
Last edited:
You have evidence of this? As noted, they are [well] within typical measurement tolerances for the mOhm level outside most places like a National Lab.
You can supply the evidence for this?
Really? It says 'listening test'. I see nothing to say how this 'test' was conducted, what equipment was used, what the conditions and control mechanisms in place were, or anything else. I'm afraid that isn't 'confirmation': it's a throwaway remark in a 6 page pdf file of advertising copy masquerading as a 'test'.
This thread is about biwiring, not fuses. Wire directionality in an[y] AC circuit would also be a mite tricky, since by definition AC has no 'direction'.
Who's 'angry'? You sound like you're getting stressed trying to keep up with all your inversions. Relax -try some light reading. I'd recommend a book on basic physics and electrical engineering. 😉
Well, you think it does anyway, which amounts to the same thing. How long it's maintained is another matter. OTOH, a lot of commercial hi-fi fans these days seem pretty miserable, given that they seem to spend most of their time either changing their gear, or looking for things to change. 😉
^ You may continue to have an incorrect understanding of the placebo effect, or you're willingly continuing to use the incorrect definition/application of the term; even after it's been explained a number of times. I'm not sure why.
If there is a placebo effect; it WOULD sound better to that person over randomness in a statistically controlled study. It's not that they "think" it sounds better. It DOES. Now, if you're saying it's the same as if they "think" there is sound when they turn on the system, and that they "think" there is no sound when they turn it off; then yes, they "think" it sounds different. Then we're agreed, and it's just semantics.
If there is a placebo effect for a drug... The placebo effect would not be an "effect" if there was not a statistically relevant change in the ACTUAL illness being studied. If a person's illness were "cured" by a placebo => the placebo effect in action; you wouldn't tell them, sorry, you'd better take some other medication too b/c the lab work showing your illness is "gone" was incorrect. Sure, the brain "causes" the change in the body, but the change in the body is REAL. It's not (using my definition and not be surreal) imagined.
Let's say that a hypothesis could be that "better sound" correlates to increased dopamine release in some subjects. If the subject in question had an increased dopamine release associated with their perception of improved sound... would you still use the term that they "think" it sounds better? OR is it something more akin to "anything that we can't measure up to the eardrum and in the physical domain must be associated with "thinking""? I'm not challenging you, I'm really trying to understand your POV.
As I've said previously, (and quite possibly in my very first post in this thread) no one as yet has shown any evidence (to me) that the placebo effect exists/is relevant in this area of study. My original argument (in the polite way) is that Gene misused the term. However, even as a thought exercise in this one thread, can we try to at least agree on what the placebo effect is and is not? I think it will reduce confusion. Once again, I'll also state that I may not have it all correct either, and I welcome thought.
I'll willingly adapt to some other "common" non-medical preferred usage / definition, if you can explain it or point me to a document explaining it. If we look at the same color and you say purple, while I think it's green... I'll say purple (for this discussion). I just would like to be on the same page for whatever it is we're calling the "placebo effect" in this thread.
If there is a placebo effect; it WOULD sound better to that person over randomness in a statistically controlled study. It's not that they "think" it sounds better. It DOES. Now, if you're saying it's the same as if they "think" there is sound when they turn on the system, and that they "think" there is no sound when they turn it off; then yes, they "think" it sounds different. Then we're agreed, and it's just semantics.
If there is a placebo effect for a drug... The placebo effect would not be an "effect" if there was not a statistically relevant change in the ACTUAL illness being studied. If a person's illness were "cured" by a placebo => the placebo effect in action; you wouldn't tell them, sorry, you'd better take some other medication too b/c the lab work showing your illness is "gone" was incorrect. Sure, the brain "causes" the change in the body, but the change in the body is REAL. It's not (using my definition and not be surreal) imagined.
Let's say that a hypothesis could be that "better sound" correlates to increased dopamine release in some subjects. If the subject in question had an increased dopamine release associated with their perception of improved sound... would you still use the term that they "think" it sounds better? OR is it something more akin to "anything that we can't measure up to the eardrum and in the physical domain must be associated with "thinking""? I'm not challenging you, I'm really trying to understand your POV.
As I've said previously, (and quite possibly in my very first post in this thread) no one as yet has shown any evidence (to me) that the placebo effect exists/is relevant in this area of study. My original argument (in the polite way) is that Gene misused the term. However, even as a thought exercise in this one thread, can we try to at least agree on what the placebo effect is and is not? I think it will reduce confusion. Once again, I'll also state that I may not have it all correct either, and I welcome thought.
I'll willingly adapt to some other "common" non-medical preferred usage / definition, if you can explain it or point me to a document explaining it. If we look at the same color and you say purple, while I think it's green... I'll say purple (for this discussion). I just would like to be on the same page for whatever it is we're calling the "placebo effect" in this thread.
Last edited:
Well, Gene starts badly in the video, when he says "our audio files". I don't have any audio file, I occasionally listen to a Cd which originally had songs in PCM digital format, but for me that's still a song, not a file. So i'm not really bugged by semantycs of Placebo Effect, I'm afraid that a song is called a file.
Maybe it all derives from that ( I'm sure, but I put it in doubt)...
Maybe it all derives from that ( I'm sure, but I put it in doubt)...
For some guys women become more beautiful after alcohol.
For some people the sounds become more beautiful after snake-oil.
It is a matter of changed perception of the same stimuli.
Science analyzes these phenomena using MRI and EEG, not o'scopes or spectrum analyzers.
My stronger painkillers also change my sound experience. It's repetitive and completely real for me. And sometimes pleasant (sometimes no).
Belief in miraculous cables made of carefully selected copper atoms, with veins braided under the full moon by fair-haired virgins (or belief in other snake-oil things) may change the perception of some people more powerfully than drugs. And this change may be real.
Maybe they hear something great that we will never hear?
For some people the sounds become more beautiful after snake-oil.
It is a matter of changed perception of the same stimuli.
Science analyzes these phenomena using MRI and EEG, not o'scopes or spectrum analyzers.
My stronger painkillers also change my sound experience. It's repetitive and completely real for me. And sometimes pleasant (sometimes no).
Belief in miraculous cables made of carefully selected copper atoms, with veins braided under the full moon by fair-haired virgins (or belief in other snake-oil things) may change the perception of some people more powerfully than drugs. And this change may be real.
Maybe they hear something great that we will never hear?
Back to the topic, I haven't heard any benefit to bi-wiring or super fat speaker cables. Quality cables yes but, honestly back in the 50's and 60's people used thin speaker wire and it seemed to work fine powering all kinds of speakers driven by tube amps. Doubling the number of wires might make a difference but I haven't heard any. Bi-amping however can give tremendous benefits in lower distortion; by using a big class AB amplifier for the bass and a tube amp for the rest you can have some great sound. I currently run a class D for the subs and an AB for the rest, it works well and doesn't stress my main amps or drive them into clipping. There is a noticeable reduction in distortion on louder passages.
FWIW - Neither have I (with the two pair of speakers that I own designed for bi-wiring or single wiring). Now, admittedly, I'm also one of those that can't likely repeatable and reliably tell if one of my speakers has been moved an inch... so... may not be relevant.
It's always fun when folks claim they can hear things... or when people claim that there is no way under the sun that they possibly could. I'm just enjoying the part about the placebo effect (since it's literally in the title). Other than that, it's just another objectivists vs. subjectivists discussion.
Cheers!
As I have tried to politely point out multiple times above, I am deliberately using the term in the manner Gene intended, and I don't give a trajectory copulation about anything else, which is out of context for the purpose he had in mind. End of. I don't require anything to be 'explained', ta muchly. 😉
Last edited:
+1, since once you get to a certain point, voltage drop / loop resistance & losses from the wire itself are so low there's nothing left beyond the LC characteristics, & providing they are kept in reasonable limits, there's nothing left.
Sure -but the powers were low, efficiency typically very high for that reason, & the higher the output impedance / lower the damping factor of the amplifier, the more it's acting like a current source & the wire's own electrical characteristics, within fairly broad limits, get completely swamped out / nullified.
I have, but only when the gauge was insufficient to start with, or if I went extreme with the geometry, like using widely separated +/- (not really, but we'll call it that for convenience) leads -no mysteries about the causes there of course. 😉
That can be quite effective. 👍
If that was directed at me...
Quite the opposite. I prefer for people to think for themselves. No one that reads this forum likely needs my "protection", and it's not offered. I don't have a horse in the race. People are free to spend their money however they wish, and I hope it brings them joy.
If you'd like something explained, just ask. I'm an open book, you don't need to guess. I admit that I don't get my intended point across well sometimes.
@picowallspeaker I have audio files or recordings on my media server all saved in FLAC. Some of the audio files are spoken words, not songs at all. Actually, most of my music is not songs but musical pieces where no one sings. My computers (including my phone) see these as files so that they can be organized, the same as my photographs and movies. They are files very much like how people would file and index their record collections back in the olden days when TV was black and white. Those aren't songs unless they are physically sung, it's data organized in files whether it's analog or digital makes no difference. Technically they are digital sound recordings. What is sheet music? It's a software file.
Yes I know what a file is. I know the difference between a song and a some other musical expression, it's just that I'm lazy in describing things.
Ok, they are what they are. Let's call 'em tracks?! No tracks..!? No grooves? No magnetized particles on tape? Neither a stupid FM radio that transmits stupid songs? Switch to Classic FM ? Radio is broken?
Ok, they are what they are. Let's call 'em tracks?! No tracks..!? No grooves? No magnetized particles on tape? Neither a stupid FM radio that transmits stupid songs? Switch to Classic FM ? Radio is broken?
"Of course I hear a difference! I use the finest CAT5 for my speakers, one twisted pair for the low end, another for the highs..."
Who am I to argue?
I posted this link recently and the only response I got was some sort of put-down insult. Here goes again.
https://www.susanblackmore.uk/chapters/why-i-have-given-up/
ETA: Okay, I'm a glutton for punishment, I also post that link as a comment in the video.
Who am I to argue?
I posted this link recently and the only response I got was some sort of put-down insult. Here goes again.
https://www.susanblackmore.uk/chapters/why-i-have-given-up/
ETA: Okay, I'm a glutton for punishment, I also post that link as a comment in the video.
Radio is, for all intents and purposes, dead. Everyone uses the internets now to, ummm, download "songs". I don't think anyone under 30 years old even has a radio. Just the one in their car, and they don't use it.
I happen to believe in the essence of that paper, in the sense there is definitely something going on. I suspect some things I’ve observed can probably be explained by one or more of the following. This opinion is based on much research in my magnetics lab lo these past 12 months especially but also over the last 25 years. My research involves many experiments, all of which have to do with sensory perception of sound and video, mostly sound. Video is a way to help verify what I hear in listening tests. When I use the term perception of sound I mean the same thing as hearing.
Mind-matter interaction
Quantum teleportation, short- and long-distance
Extrasensory perception
Programmable matter
Mind over matter
Morphic resonance
Evolution of human survival mechanisms in the brain
Something’s going on but you don’t know what it is, do you Mr. Jones. Someone asked Dylan in a press conference one time who Mr. Jones in the sing was supposed to be. Dylan replied he’s a pinboy.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.