angel said:
Agreed. Many closed minds on both sides of the fence.
Eric and I aren't friends of any sort. His shin-kicking is purely for insult.
My weakness is that when someone kicks me in the shins, I tend to kick back.
Anyway, I've decided to just go ahead and put him on ignore so I won't even have the temptation. Something I probably should have done long ago.
So, with that out of the way...
It's a fish. Really big in Norway. Don't know what you call it there but it's what you folks typically make lutefisk with.
As noted, I'm not a native speaker. And, in case I mucked up the tone of my reply, offense obviously not taken.
Good. None was intended. Just some good-natured ribbing.
Understood. Though until actual audibility of the various possible effects can be established, such an exercise won't really advance anything along objective lines.
By 'examining' them, I am referring to people coming up with theses (or at least rudimentary ideas) pertaining to the potential effects of some aspect of the cable that can be reasoned about, and then having others pick their thesis to bits with a blowtorch, er,, I mean, constructively debate the merits of said thesis.
Hopefully, such debate could culminate in at least some light being shed on the topic, and maybe even some consensus being reached on some of the mechanisms are involved; whether they are real, how significant they are, and possibly even what their mechanics are, and how these relate to the perceived sound.
Mmmmm. Ok. But if you're just relating them to the perceived sound, we're still ultimately left in the dark as to whether they have any actual audible effect.
Yes. Some people have trouble coming to grips with their being mortal beings and subject to the same mortal weaknesses as others. They seem to think if their egos are large enough they can somehow overcome their own mortality.
I don't have any problem discussing these issues in their own right, outside the context of whether or not they may or may not actually be audible.
Well the problem with that is that not everyone necessarily has the same subjective experience of a given objective situation.
John Atkinson has been doing a routine suite of measurements in Stereophile for years now and even in cases where there are gross errors or nonlinearities, there doesn't seem to be much correlation to the reviewer's subjective experience.
So even if those things which produce gross and trivially measureable differences don't seem to correlate with any consistency, I don't know that there's much hope with regard to these much more microscopic issues you mention in your list.
But as I said, I'd be happy to discuss them on their own.
Not at all. You seem to be honest, respectful, open-minded, fair and have a desire to try and get at the truth wherever it may lay. I never find such things boring.
se
Eric and I aren't friends of any sort. His shin-kicking is purely for insult.
My weakness is that when someone kicks me in the shins, I tend to kick back.
Anyway, I've decided to just go ahead and put him on ignore so I won't even have the temptation. Something I probably should have done long ago.
While I realize the two of you may have a history, I would point out that, unless I misread your post about recognizing anecdotes, you were making a sarcastic comment at his expense. That would be the first such entry in this thread. I see the second one, which I don't remember who posted, the one where it started going downhill, was deleted. Anyway, I'm not partial, and the ignore will hopefully assure that things don't go downhill again.
Just remember that returning kicks tends to be counterproductive. While I enjoy roasting someone thoroughly just as much as the next person, I do my utmost not to indulge in the practice. Dealing with the topic at hand in a factual manner does more to discredit a verbal assailant than any nonfactual response.
Oh, by the way, the Elvis bit might be a bit off track, but yours was the smallest contribution to that diversion.
It's a fish. Really big in Norway. Don't know what you call it there but it's what you folks typically make lutefisk with.
Ah. Right. I don't particularly enjoy the idea of jelly that used to be fish before being bathed in lye for an extended period of time, so it's not very big with me, but now I at least know the fish you were referring to.
Understood. Though until actual audibility of the various possible effects can be established, such an exercise won't really advance anything along objective lines.
The idea is to start off with discussing the potential mechanisms on their own merits, and then progress to trying to establish audibility, once certain clues are in place, and people have gotten used to thinking about it, rather than arguing over it. At that point, egoes are usually subdued, curiosity aroused, and people are more ready to put their money where their mouth has been, and actually start doing tests based on sound methodology.
Yes. Some people have trouble coming to grips with their being mortal beings and subject to the same mortal weaknesses as others. They seem to think if their egos are large enough they can somehow overcome their own mortality.
I would substitute the word "mortal" with "fallible" or, better yet, "human". Audio is, contrary to popular belief, not a matter that is intrinsically concerned with death, flaming or otherwise
I don't have any problem discussing these issues in their own right, outside the context of whether or not they may or may not actually be audible.
I would find that an interesting exercise by itself, too. My point was, though, that such an 'interesting exercise' can lead to stuff that people actually try, and, hence, real discovery as to whether particular issues audibly impact the sound.
Well the problem with that is that not everyone necessarily has the same subjective experience of a given objective situation.
That is correct. This is why methodology is important, and why having sound theories upfront is critical. The combination allows you to adapt facts to theory, er, I mean, verify or disprove a theory and/or its audibility.
John Atkinson has been doing a routine suite of measurements in Stereophile for years now and even in cases where there are gross errors or nonlinearities, there doesn't seem to be much correlation to the reviewer's subjective experience.
I would point out that the human mind is more sensitive to some things than others. The greater the complexity of an anomaly, the higher level of consciousness tends to process it. Thus, complex anomalies tend to end up where the enjoyable experience was supposed to be.
As one radical example with regards to sensitivity, I would point out that the Martin Logan Statement system, an electrostatic panel with dynamic bass and subwoofer (price is in the six digits USD range), which most consider excellent in pretty much all disciplines, has a frequency response which has peak-to-peak deviations of as much as 20dB. This is effectively inaudible. While I have no personal experience with the Statement, I have been an avid user of electrostatic headphones for some years, and both the Stax systems I have used, had gross anomalies in their frequency response curves (though the Signature 4040 is getting better), but in neither case could I detect any significant tonal imbalance, compared to dynamic speakers with a relatively flat curve. At least not without searching for the flaw, and doing so in the middle of a listening experience where you do not detect anything right off, is arguably stupid. Our ears are quite simply not very sensitive to anomalies in the frequency-amplitude domain. They are a lot more sensitive to anomalies in the time domain. Especially as far as stereo goes, where we vainly try to fool the binaural system.
consistency, I don't know that there's much hope with regard to these much more microscopic issues you mention in your list.
From experience, I would say that, at the very least, contact quality and microphonics, are very real, and not particularly microscopic, though I tend to agree on many of the other points. However, my experience counts for naught as far as objective proof goes. Hence, trying to work out a theory that might explain these experiences would seem a sensible place to start.
Not at all. You seem to be honest, respectful, open-minded, fair and have a desire to try and get at the truth wherever it may lay. I never find such things boring.
Thank you. I do try. Besides, my sensei would probably pound me if I were to discard the proper posture of heart in a public forum.
My weakness is that when someone kicks me in the shins, I tend to kick back.
Anyway, I've decided to just go ahead and put him on ignore so I won't even have the temptation. Something I probably should have done long ago.
While I realize the two of you may have a history, I would point out that, unless I misread your post about recognizing anecdotes, you were making a sarcastic comment at his expense. That would be the first such entry in this thread. I see the second one, which I don't remember who posted, the one where it started going downhill, was deleted. Anyway, I'm not partial, and the ignore will hopefully assure that things don't go downhill again.
Just remember that returning kicks tends to be counterproductive. While I enjoy roasting someone thoroughly just as much as the next person, I do my utmost not to indulge in the practice. Dealing with the topic at hand in a factual manner does more to discredit a verbal assailant than any nonfactual response.
Oh, by the way, the Elvis bit might be a bit off track, but yours was the smallest contribution to that diversion.
It's a fish. Really big in Norway. Don't know what you call it there but it's what you folks typically make lutefisk with.
Ah. Right. I don't particularly enjoy the idea of jelly that used to be fish before being bathed in lye for an extended period of time, so it's not very big with me, but now I at least know the fish you were referring to.
Understood. Though until actual audibility of the various possible effects can be established, such an exercise won't really advance anything along objective lines.
The idea is to start off with discussing the potential mechanisms on their own merits, and then progress to trying to establish audibility, once certain clues are in place, and people have gotten used to thinking about it, rather than arguing over it. At that point, egoes are usually subdued, curiosity aroused, and people are more ready to put their money where their mouth has been, and actually start doing tests based on sound methodology.
Yes. Some people have trouble coming to grips with their being mortal beings and subject to the same mortal weaknesses as others. They seem to think if their egos are large enough they can somehow overcome their own mortality.
I would substitute the word "mortal" with "fallible" or, better yet, "human". Audio is, contrary to popular belief, not a matter that is intrinsically concerned with death, flaming or otherwise
I don't have any problem discussing these issues in their own right, outside the context of whether or not they may or may not actually be audible.
I would find that an interesting exercise by itself, too. My point was, though, that such an 'interesting exercise' can lead to stuff that people actually try, and, hence, real discovery as to whether particular issues audibly impact the sound.
Well the problem with that is that not everyone necessarily has the same subjective experience of a given objective situation.
That is correct. This is why methodology is important, and why having sound theories upfront is critical. The combination allows you to adapt facts to theory, er, I mean, verify or disprove a theory and/or its audibility.
John Atkinson has been doing a routine suite of measurements in Stereophile for years now and even in cases where there are gross errors or nonlinearities, there doesn't seem to be much correlation to the reviewer's subjective experience.
I would point out that the human mind is more sensitive to some things than others. The greater the complexity of an anomaly, the higher level of consciousness tends to process it. Thus, complex anomalies tend to end up where the enjoyable experience was supposed to be.
As one radical example with regards to sensitivity, I would point out that the Martin Logan Statement system, an electrostatic panel with dynamic bass and subwoofer (price is in the six digits USD range), which most consider excellent in pretty much all disciplines, has a frequency response which has peak-to-peak deviations of as much as 20dB. This is effectively inaudible. While I have no personal experience with the Statement, I have been an avid user of electrostatic headphones for some years, and both the Stax systems I have used, had gross anomalies in their frequency response curves (though the Signature 4040 is getting better), but in neither case could I detect any significant tonal imbalance, compared to dynamic speakers with a relatively flat curve. At least not without searching for the flaw, and doing so in the middle of a listening experience where you do not detect anything right off, is arguably stupid.
Our ears are quite simply not very sensitive to anomalies in the frequency-amplitude domain. They are a lot more sensitive to anomalies in the time domain. Especially as far as stereo goes, where we vainly try to fool the binaural system.consistency, I don't know that there's much hope with regard to these much more microscopic issues you mention in your list.
From experience, I would say that, at the very least, contact quality and microphonics, are very real, and not particularly microscopic, though I tend to agree on many of the other points. However, my experience counts for naught as far as objective proof goes. Hence, trying to work out a theory that might explain these experiences would seem a sensible place to start.
Not at all. You seem to be honest, respectful, open-minded, fair and have a desire to try and get at the truth wherever it may lay. I never find such things boring.
Thank you. I do try. Besides, my sensei would probably pound me if I were to discard the proper posture of heart in a public forum.
Re: Re: Re: Factual And Constructive Should Be The Vibe..........
Disregard the audio band. I'm largely convinced that, apart from termination and microphonics, the majority of potentially audible effects, are second order (id est those who result from interaction with other components, mainly the amplifier).
It is well known that airborne noise can cause amplifiers to clip or distort. Especially if there is any flaw in the grounding scheme. High frequencies, outside the audio band, can cause the circuit to hit slew limits, or in some cases, modulate the audio signal, with the attendant result that the transistors end up reproducing the audio signal while constantly varying their effective operating point, and not necessarily near their linear region.
True. I'm the lights-on kind of guy myself, anyway, though.
Steve Eddy said:
Disregard the audio band. I'm largely convinced that, apart from termination and microphonics, the majority of potentially audible effects, are second order (id est those who result from interaction with other components, mainly the amplifier).
It is well known that airborne noise can cause amplifiers to clip or distort. Especially if there is any flaw in the grounding scheme. High frequencies, outside the audio band, can cause the circuit to hit slew limits, or in some cases, modulate the audio signal, with the attendant result that the transistors end up reproducing the audio signal while constantly varying their effective operating point, and not necessarily near their linear region.
That all depends on who you're fumbling in the dark with.
True. I'm the lights-on kind of guy myself, anyway, though.
Steve Eddy said:
http://www.acr-muenchen.de/html/groove.htm
Although completely off-topic, this is my favourite one:
Attachments
Some Of My Observations.........
Angel,
Glad to have sensible discussion here.
My mention of input and output stages not being perfect was to illistrate that a particular cable can have different magnitude and nature of effect according to the equipment used.
Sure, I have struck equipment where different cables make relatively little sonic difference, but difference they do make.
Likewise, I have met equipment where cables can make a very strong sonic difference.
Presumably balanced systems should exhibit less sensitivity to cables than unbalanced systems, but nevertheless I do hear differences in balanced system line level cables.
You mention a list of possible factors -
Connectors - No arguments from me - cable connector connections need to good (clean etc) or they will sonically reveal themselves.
Microphonics - Yes most cerainly this is a factor.
This manifests as a form of acoustic feedback effect in my experience.
Dielectric absorption/memory - I think there are multiple sonic effects here.
I think there is a zero-crossing hysterisis causing a crossover distortion effect with some insulators.
Also a delayed return of energy that changes the nature of envelope decay
Add to this a further sort of spectral filtering characteristic on both attacks and delays that may be different.
Linear capacitance - sort of mixed in with the above observations in that, ime/imo insulators have a characteristic sonic fingerprint, reasonably regardless of the cable construction.
Less dielectric caused capacitance magnification is better I suppose, but insulators still have an audible footprint/signature.
Nonlinear capacitance - In speaker cables I would not discount the motor action modulation effect quite so quickly.
This combined with the mechanical resiliance of the insulation and you may have a mechanically/electrically resonant cable, excited by speaker currents, acoustic feedback and NFB resonances.
Inductance - Inductance implies loop areas and lack of cancelling.
These non cancelled stray fields are ripe to react with other nearby objects or materials, each with their own set of characteristics causing further modulations.
Resistance - Yeah on an ideal system, but on lesser setups may start to change stage/stage interactions (lowering Q of resonances etc).
Reasonably safe to say that the effect is minor in most circumstances at the typical source and load resistances used - shield/neutral wire resistance can become significant in unbalanced systems.
Harmonic or intermodulation distortion - I understand the explanation for resistor distortion is modulation of the resistance according to the instantaneous current.
Presumably heating effects are not relevant here with typical wire guages.
However all the above related factors may conspire to cause harmonic and im distortions that vary according to signal level and frequency and the attached equipment.
Shielding - Yeah, keeps junk out but also causes a 'loading' and a character according to the metal shield conductor used.
Geometry - I reckon a transmission line is still the most correct solution - braided etc cables can add a 'confusion', but also 'averaging' and 'emphasis' functions
The best interconnects that I have ever had were dead straight with the connectors soldered at right angles, and air-spaced.
Reflections - Should not be a problem to audio signals, but RF out of cdp's and from external sources may well cause this to be of concern.
Velocity of propagation - Yes, different dielectrics cause differing propagation velocities.
This ought to change spectrums of resonances including NFB induced resonances.
Skin effect - Perhaps not intrinsically damaging, but it does mean that the conductance of a wire is changed according to frequency.
Amplifier feedback loop and other unintended signal paths - Yes, a loop NFB amplifier can become a reverb generator according to loading, and cables are part of this loading.
Interactions with crossover network - Amplifier/cable/speaker is a system full of possible interactions and resonances.
Yes class-a is a good way of dealing with this.
These are some of my thoughts and observations without going into further depth for now.
Given the reactiveness of typical amplifier and line stages, I fully expect them to sound different according to cable type, and this is what I find.
Well regarded and reviewed equipment intentionally or accidentally adresses at least some types of dependency issues.
With good equipment the degree of change is usually less than that on 'bad' equipment, but interestingly the nature of change can be even more evident.
Ideally cables should not significantly influence, but in my experience cables can be very effective 'tone controls'.
Eric.
Angel,
Glad to have sensible discussion here.
My mention of input and output stages not being perfect was to illistrate that a particular cable can have different magnitude and nature of effect according to the equipment used.
Sure, I have struck equipment where different cables make relatively little sonic difference, but difference they do make.
Likewise, I have met equipment where cables can make a very strong sonic difference.
Presumably balanced systems should exhibit less sensitivity to cables than unbalanced systems, but nevertheless I do hear differences in balanced system line level cables.
You mention a list of possible factors -
Connectors - No arguments from me - cable connector connections need to good (clean etc) or they will sonically reveal themselves.
Microphonics - Yes most cerainly this is a factor.
This manifests as a form of acoustic feedback effect in my experience.
Dielectric absorption/memory - I think there are multiple sonic effects here.
I think there is a zero-crossing hysterisis causing a crossover distortion effect with some insulators.
Also a delayed return of energy that changes the nature of envelope decay
Add to this a further sort of spectral filtering characteristic on both attacks and delays that may be different.
Linear capacitance - sort of mixed in with the above observations in that, ime/imo insulators have a characteristic sonic fingerprint, reasonably regardless of the cable construction.
Less dielectric caused capacitance magnification is better I suppose, but insulators still have an audible footprint/signature.
Nonlinear capacitance - In speaker cables I would not discount the motor action modulation effect quite so quickly.
This combined with the mechanical resiliance of the insulation and you may have a mechanically/electrically resonant cable, excited by speaker currents, acoustic feedback and NFB resonances.
Inductance - Inductance implies loop areas and lack of cancelling.
These non cancelled stray fields are ripe to react with other nearby objects or materials, each with their own set of characteristics causing further modulations.
Resistance - Yeah on an ideal system, but on lesser setups may start to change stage/stage interactions (lowering Q of resonances etc).
Reasonably safe to say that the effect is minor in most circumstances at the typical source and load resistances used - shield/neutral wire resistance can become significant in unbalanced systems.
Harmonic or intermodulation distortion - I understand the explanation for resistor distortion is modulation of the resistance according to the instantaneous current.
Presumably heating effects are not relevant here with typical wire guages.
However all the above related factors may conspire to cause harmonic and im distortions that vary according to signal level and frequency and the attached equipment.
Shielding - Yeah, keeps junk out but also causes a 'loading' and a character according to the metal shield conductor used.
Geometry - I reckon a transmission line is still the most correct solution - braided etc cables can add a 'confusion', but also 'averaging' and 'emphasis' functions
The best interconnects that I have ever had were dead straight with the connectors soldered at right angles, and air-spaced.
Reflections - Should not be a problem to audio signals, but RF out of cdp's and from external sources may well cause this to be of concern.
Velocity of propagation - Yes, different dielectrics cause differing propagation velocities.
This ought to change spectrums of resonances including NFB induced resonances.
Skin effect - Perhaps not intrinsically damaging, but it does mean that the conductance of a wire is changed according to frequency.
Amplifier feedback loop and other unintended signal paths - Yes, a loop NFB amplifier can become a reverb generator according to loading, and cables are part of this loading.
Interactions with crossover network - Amplifier/cable/speaker is a system full of possible interactions and resonances.
Yes class-a is a good way of dealing with this.
These are some of my thoughts and observations without going into further depth for now.
Given the reactiveness of typical amplifier and line stages, I fully expect them to sound different according to cable type, and this is what I find.
Well regarded and reviewed equipment intentionally or accidentally adresses at least some types of dependency issues.
With good equipment the degree of change is usually less than that on 'bad' equipment, but interestingly the nature of change can be even more evident.
Ideally cables should not significantly influence, but in my experience cables can be very effective 'tone controls'.
Eric.
Flammable cables
Couldn't resist posting this after all the discussion on how
flammable this topic is.
There is an alloy (I have forgot its name, and I think there
are several ones) that melts just slightly above room
temperature. I read once over at AA about someone who had
a dream of doing a practical joke, making a pair of speaker
cables out of this alloy. He would then lend them to a friend
and ask him to try out his new fantastic cables (not saying
what they were) and then wait to hear this friend raving about
how he could now play so loud that the cables melted.
Couldn't resist posting this after all the discussion on how
flammable this topic is.
There is an alloy (I have forgot its name, and I think there
are several ones) that melts just slightly above room
temperature. I read once over at AA about someone who had
a dream of doing a practical joke, making a pair of speaker
cables out of this alloy. He would then lend them to a friend
and ask him to try out his new fantastic cables (not saying
what they were) and then wait to hear this friend raving about
how he could now play so loud that the cables melted.
Cod and lutefisk
Sorry for another diversion, but I just realized Steve is probably
misinformed and thus made angel misinformed.
Unless norwegian lutefisk is different from swedish lutfisk, it
is not made from cod. Cod is what we in sweden call
torsk. I don't remember if you have the same name in norway,
but I think it is close enough to understand. Lutfisk (at least
the swedish one) is made from ling or coalfish, although I
suppose you could just as well make it from cod or haddock or
whatever similar fish. I do share angels aversion against
this type of "food" although it is very popular for Christmas
here in Sweden. Now please don't bring up the swedish
surströmming.
Sorry for another diversion, but I just realized Steve is probably
misinformed and thus made angel misinformed.
Unless norwegian lutefisk is different from swedish lutfisk, it
is not made from cod. Cod is what we in sweden call
torsk. I don't remember if you have the same name in norway,
but I think it is close enough to understand. Lutfisk (at least
the swedish one) is made from ling or coalfish, although I
suppose you could just as well make it from cod or haddock or
whatever similar fish. I do share angels aversion against
this type of "food" although it is very popular for Christmas
here in Sweden. Now please don't bring up the swedish
surströmming.
SE Playing The Slippery Eel................
"While I realize the two of you may have a history, I would point out that, unless I misread your post about recognizing anecdotes, you were making a sarcastic comment at his expense."
Angel, you have read correctly.
I have no issue with SE , but he has taken it upon himself to seemingly take sarcastic pleasure at making issue with myself, and many other members who should dare to make subjective comments.
Se makes no comment about his own subjective observations except to say that he is not sure if he is hearing them or imagining them, but still is careful in not stating what he is not sure of.
Whenever a subjective concept is attempted to be discussed, out come his intrusive and derailling comments about negative blind test results, photographs in freezers and others including blatantly rude communication modes.
Indeed soon after joining this forum he attacked me for NO reason by private email in disgusting language that is not allowed on this forum or in any polite company.
There is a long history of SE badgering and hounding members of at least two internet audio forums, and this has beeen discussed and complained about numerous times.
I really do wish that he would adopt a more co-operative and productive approach, and a more socially friendly tone, and his involvement, and this forum would be all the better for it.
Eric.
"While I realize the two of you may have a history, I would point out that, unless I misread your post about recognizing anecdotes, you were making a sarcastic comment at his expense."
Angel, you have read correctly.
I have no issue with SE , but he has taken it upon himself to seemingly take sarcastic pleasure at making issue with myself, and many other members who should dare to make subjective comments.
Se makes no comment about his own subjective observations except to say that he is not sure if he is hearing them or imagining them, but still is careful in not stating what he is not sure of.
Whenever a subjective concept is attempted to be discussed, out come his intrusive and derailling comments about negative blind test results, photographs in freezers and others including blatantly rude communication modes.
Indeed soon after joining this forum he attacked me for NO reason by private email in disgusting language that is not allowed on this forum or in any polite company.
There is a long history of SE badgering and hounding members of at least two internet audio forums, and this has beeen discussed and complained about numerous times.
I really do wish that he would adopt a more co-operative and productive approach, and a more socially friendly tone, and his involvement, and this forum would be all the better for it.
Eric.
Re: SE Playing The Slippery Eel................
from my vintage point of view, it is more with your approaches (or lack of) than with you the person.
a lot of the times, people do want to think in a logic fashion and get upset if their views are challenged and take it personally.
No need for that, I would suggest. We are talking about your lack of a scientific and consistent approach and not you Eric being a bad person.
hope you take it in that perspecive.
mrfeedback said:
from my vintage point of view, it is more with your approaches (or lack of) than with you the person.
a lot of the times, people do want to think in a logic fashion and get upset if their views are challenged and take it personally.
No need for that, I would suggest. We are talking about your lack of a scientific and consistent approach and not you Eric being a bad person.
hope you take it in that perspecive.
Expanding The Mind..........
Millwood, perhaps you misunderstand me also.
My outlook is actually completely scientific even if I do relate subjective observations and without providing measurements and blind test etc results.
You can be completely sure when I say that for example inserting only a power extension lead into a system caused widows to rattle, that this is true and correct and experimentally proven (in this particular case 8 trials were conducted).
I know that statements that I have made like the above are anecdotes, but this does not make them untrue, and know well that I never relate such findings if measures have not been taken to confirm such a result as the one above.
My anecdotes are expression of real occurrences, and to my mind food for thought, and inspiration for investigation, and certainly not for automatic discrediting.
Please be patient and in time I will be able to show you formal blind test results and measurement results of some interesting things.
Trust me, I do adhere to science, and my questions are born of real experiences and are actually seeking scientific explanations.
I am also practised at and careful to eliminate psychological factors, and you can easily learn this too if you don't have it already.
Remember psychological factors includes beliefs and preconceptions, and to truly listen these beliefs have to be set aside.
You can learn this skill too if you have not done so already.
Regards, Eric.
Millwood, perhaps you misunderstand me also.
My outlook is actually completely scientific even if I do relate subjective observations and without providing measurements and blind test etc results.
You can be completely sure when I say that for example inserting only a power extension lead into a system caused widows to rattle, that this is true and correct and experimentally proven (in this particular case 8 trials were conducted).
I know that statements that I have made like the above are anecdotes, but this does not make them untrue, and know well that I never relate such findings if measures have not been taken to confirm such a result as the one above.
My anecdotes are expression of real occurrences, and to my mind food for thought, and inspiration for investigation, and certainly not for automatic discrediting.
Please be patient and in time I will be able to show you formal blind test results and measurement results of some interesting things.
Trust me, I do adhere to science, and my questions are born of real experiences and are actually seeking scientific explanations.
I am also practised at and careful to eliminate psychological factors, and you can easily learn this too if you don't have it already.
Remember psychological factors includes beliefs and preconceptions, and to truly listen these beliefs have to be set aside.
You can learn this skill too if you have not done so already.
Regards, Eric.
Re: Expanding The Mind..........
no one ever said that statements like the above are untrue: I am sure you did what you did. The question is on what you can conclude from those statements.
To me, it is unscientific to establish the conclusion based on those statements alone. Otherwise, we should just throw science out and say that "I heard it" and it must be true.
I am not saying you are lying. Instead, I am objecting the way you had concluded based on the anecdotes.
Is that clear?
mrfeedback said:
no one ever said that statements like the above are untrue: I am sure you did what you did. The question is on what you can conclude from those statements.
To me, it is unscientific to establish the conclusion based on those statements alone. Otherwise, we should just throw science out and say that "I heard it" and it must be true.
I am not saying you are lying. Instead, I am objecting the way you had concluded based on the anecdotes.
Is that clear?
And at the same time, there is no scientific validity in the NYT stating: "experts are in agreement that most cables that claim to improve the sound of audio equipment don't. Even cables costing thousands of dollars per foot are often little more than sonic snake oil, experts say. " The "experts" could all be wrong...again.
And yet, you (Millwood) found value in posting this. Sure, it's kind of interesting, and I'm glad that it started another thread with now some new ideas (at least to me) from Angel, but still what of substance do you find in the NYT article? And, of course, I think we are all trying to find something of substance here (though perhaps some people have given up).
JF
And yet, you (Millwood) found value in posting this. Sure, it's kind of interesting, and I'm glad that it started another thread with now some new ideas (at least to me) from Angel, but still what of substance do you find in the NYT article? And, of course, I think we are all trying to find something of substance here (though perhaps some people have given up).
JF
The Windows Were Also Clear..............
Originally posted by millwood
no one ever said that statements like the above are untrue: I am sure you did what you did. The question is on what you can conclude from those statements.
The conclusion is that there is some kind of change in electrical interactions going on that will have some kind of physics explanation, even if this explanation is not immediately apparent that is changing acoustic output of the particular system.
To me, it is unscientific to establish the conclusion based on those statements alone. Otherwise, we should just throw science out and say that "I heard it" and it must be true.
Very clearly I was speaking of a specific case, and I also perfectly clearly stated that the fact of the window rattling loudly or not ratttling was unequivocally apparent, and related 100% occurence of windows rattling with the lead in place, and 100% occurence of windows not rattling without the lead in place over 8 trials, and involving two listeners and both of us 'truly' heard it.
I am not saying you are lying. Instead, I am objecting the way you had concluded based on the anecdotes.
Ok, I formed a conclusion from 8 trials in this experiment.
Sure, I could do this experiment 100 times and come to the exact same results of 100% correlation.
My conclusion would be that inserting the power lead into a particular system causes changes in the acoustic output of the system of sufficient nature and magnitude to cause perfectly audible excitation of windows that does not occur when the lead is not in circuit for a particular musical passage.
Also, I made no claims or theories regarding the mechanisms involved.
So, if these were your test results what could be your conclusion ?
Is that clear?
Is that clear?
Eric.
Originally posted by millwood
no one ever said that statements like the above are untrue: I am sure you did what you did. The question is on what you can conclude from those statements.
The conclusion is that there is some kind of change in electrical interactions going on that will have some kind of physics explanation, even if this explanation is not immediately apparent that is changing acoustic output of the particular system.
To me, it is unscientific to establish the conclusion based on those statements alone. Otherwise, we should just throw science out and say that "I heard it" and it must be true.
Very clearly I was speaking of a specific case, and I also perfectly clearly stated that the fact of the window rattling loudly or not ratttling was unequivocally apparent, and related 100% occurence of windows rattling with the lead in place, and 100% occurence of windows not rattling without the lead in place over 8 trials, and involving two listeners and both of us 'truly' heard it.
I am not saying you are lying. Instead, I am objecting the way you had concluded based on the anecdotes.
Ok, I formed a conclusion from 8 trials in this experiment.
Sure, I could do this experiment 100 times and come to the exact same results of 100% correlation.
My conclusion would be that inserting the power lead into a particular system causes changes in the acoustic output of the system of sufficient nature and magnitude to cause perfectly audible excitation of windows that does not occur when the lead is not in circuit for a particular musical passage.
Also, I made no claims or theories regarding the mechanisms involved.
So, if these were your test results what could be your conclusion ?
Is that clear?
Is that clear?
Eric.
Re: Cod and lutefisk
If I was misinformed, I was misinformed by the numerous references I found when I Googled it.
For example, the Vesterheim Norwegian-American Museum sells a book titled "The Last Word on Lutefisk: Tales of Cod and Tradition" by Gary Legwold.
Some more quotes:
"The Scandinavian delicacy known as lutefisk - which means, literally, "cod soaked in plutonium"- dates to the Viking era."
"Many readers wrote in to share their hopes and fears about lutefisk, the appalling lye-soaked cod I have often warned against, most recently in a column..."
"The easiest way to make lutefisk is from fresh cod, which is easily available in most seafood markets. If you want to be a purist, you also can make it from dried cod, which can be difficult to find."
"David Danubio slices through some of the 1,600 pounds of cod used to make lutefisk at the Sons of Norway Lodge in Bothell."
"Lutefisk is instead pretty much what you'd expect of jellied cod; it is a foul and odiferous goo, whose gelatinous texture and rancid oily taste are locked in..."
"Lye-ing Sack of Cod. If memory serves - next Saturday should
be the big Christmas lutefisk dinner at the Sons of Norway Hall in Ballard."
"THE COD: Dry cod, or stockfish, from which lutefisk is processed, is as rich in history as it is flavorful and nutritious."
"Lutefisk, originally cod caught in the cold waters off northern Norway, is dry-preserved in rock-hard slabs called stock fish."
"But it was lutefisk that set this bet apart. Even by PETA's standards the protest letter seemed weird. Lutefisk may be cruelty to humans. But to cod?"
"Lutefisk starts out as plain old cod, swimming in the cold waters off Norway."
"In much of Norway, it's an "acquired taste" thing called Lutefisk,
described by some as "gelatinous white-lyed cod"."
"lutefisk; lutfisk [LOO-tuh-FIHSK] A Scandinavian specialty made with unsalted dried COD."
"Lutefisk. Traditional dish. Lye-soaked cod, dried first. Served with
potatoes, bacon, stewed peas, mustard etc. etc."
se
Christer said:Sorry for another diversion, but I just realized Steve is probably
misinformed and thus made angel misinformed.
Unless norwegian lutefisk is different from swedish lutfisk, it
is not made from cod. Cod is what we in sweden call
torsk. I don't remember if you have the same name in norway,
but I think it is close enough to understand. Lutfisk (at least
the swedish one) is made from ling or coalfish, although I
suppose you could just as well make it from cod or haddock or
whatever similar fish. I do share angels aversion against
this type of "food" although it is very popular for Christmas
here in Sweden. Now please don't bring up the swedish
surströmming.
If I was misinformed, I was misinformed by the numerous references I found when I Googled it.
For example, the Vesterheim Norwegian-American Museum sells a book titled "The Last Word on Lutefisk: Tales of Cod and Tradition" by Gary Legwold.
Some more quotes:
"The Scandinavian delicacy known as lutefisk - which means, literally, "cod soaked in plutonium"- dates to the Viking era."
"Many readers wrote in to share their hopes and fears about lutefisk, the appalling lye-soaked cod I have often warned against, most recently in a column..."
"The easiest way to make lutefisk is from fresh cod, which is easily available in most seafood markets. If you want to be a purist, you also can make it from dried cod, which can be difficult to find."
"David Danubio slices through some of the 1,600 pounds of cod used to make lutefisk at the Sons of Norway Lodge in Bothell."
"Lutefisk is instead pretty much what you'd expect of jellied cod; it is a foul and odiferous goo, whose gelatinous texture and rancid oily taste are locked in..."
"Lye-ing Sack of Cod. If memory serves - next Saturday should
be the big Christmas lutefisk dinner at the Sons of Norway Hall in Ballard."
"THE COD: Dry cod, or stockfish, from which lutefisk is processed, is as rich in history as it is flavorful and nutritious."
"Lutefisk, originally cod caught in the cold waters off northern Norway, is dry-preserved in rock-hard slabs called stock fish."
"But it was lutefisk that set this bet apart. Even by PETA's standards the protest letter seemed weird. Lutefisk may be cruelty to humans. But to cod?"
"Lutefisk starts out as plain old cod, swimming in the cold waters off Norway."
"In much of Norway, it's an "acquired taste" thing called Lutefisk,
described by some as "gelatinous white-lyed cod"."
"lutefisk; lutfisk [LOO-tuh-FIHSK] A Scandinavian specialty made with unsalted dried COD."
"Lutefisk. Traditional dish. Lye-soaked cod, dried first. Served with
potatoes, bacon, stewed peas, mustard etc. etc."
se
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.