Arthur-itis said:
Arthur, is it possible to show who posted what, as the posters do? It's very difficult to keep track of what you state and what the other guy said.
Jan Didden
Using quotes
Yes, I agree. I gave up trying to follow the thread because Arthur doesn't understand how to use the quote function.
To return to the original dispute between John Curl and Steve Eddy, I would add that the issue is not who's right about the measurability/audibilty of -120dB distortion, or whether it comes form the cables or the test equipment. It's whether the average Joe Hi-Fi (and that includes me) can hear this, and whether this kind of extreme low-level information has, or will have, any meaningful impact on our stereo systems.
I made the decision long ago not to go chasing after these kinds of phantoms. For me and my system, standard interconnects do just fine--and I happen to think that I have a rather high-resolution system. Plus, as a trained classical musician, I think I can hear all the nuances that any "golded-eared" audiophile can.
Of course, if I were independently wealthy, I suppose I might get interested in expensive interconnects and all the "theory" connected with them, out of sheer boredom. But on a restricted budget, it makes sense for me to concentrate on the weakest links in the chain--the loudspeakers, and possibly the DAC and turntable/tonearm/cartridge.
Of course, YYMV, <i>chacun à son gout</> and <i>dem Jeden das Seine</i>.
Yes, I agree. I gave up trying to follow the thread because Arthur doesn't understand how to use the quote function.
To return to the original dispute between John Curl and Steve Eddy, I would add that the issue is not who's right about the measurability/audibilty of -120dB distortion, or whether it comes form the cables or the test equipment. It's whether the average Joe Hi-Fi (and that includes me) can hear this, and whether this kind of extreme low-level information has, or will have, any meaningful impact on our stereo systems.
I made the decision long ago not to go chasing after these kinds of phantoms. For me and my system, standard interconnects do just fine--and I happen to think that I have a rather high-resolution system. Plus, as a trained classical musician, I think I can hear all the nuances that any "golded-eared" audiophile can.
Of course, if I were independently wealthy, I suppose I might get interested in expensive interconnects and all the "theory" connected with them, out of sheer boredom. But on a restricted budget, it makes sense for me to concentrate on the weakest links in the chain--the loudspeakers, and possibly the DAC and turntable/tonearm/cartridge.
Of course, YYMV, <i>chacun à son gout</> and <i>dem Jeden das Seine</i>.
ABX testing is NOT the standard for serious evaluation of small audio differences.
JJ is a bright guy, BUT he never told us how he did his BLIND TESTS, as it was a company secret, AND he made derisive comments about the ABX tests as they are typically done, over the years.
Our own efforts in evaluating ABX testing showed that it was worthless, like the test of New Coke and Old Coke on the guy who invested 10's of thousands of dollars in a campaign to get 'Old Coke' back to the public. He failed it, even though they brought 'Old Coke' back as 'Coke Classic'. This was just a different disguise of the fact that many people preferred the older formulation, over the newer formulation, even if 'double blind' testing showed that they could NOT tell the difference. Go figure!
JJ is a bright guy, BUT he never told us how he did his BLIND TESTS, as it was a company secret, AND he made derisive comments about the ABX tests as they are typically done, over the years.
Our own efforts in evaluating ABX testing showed that it was worthless, like the test of New Coke and Old Coke on the guy who invested 10's of thousands of dollars in a campaign to get 'Old Coke' back to the public. He failed it, even though they brought 'Old Coke' back as 'Coke Classic'. This was just a different disguise of the fact that many people preferred the older formulation, over the newer formulation, even if 'double blind' testing showed that they could NOT tell the difference. Go figure!
john curl said:
Easy. Just fill both types of bottles from the same tap, thereby realising increased sales PLUS economies of scale. ABX worthless??
Like selling the same cable with a different jacket and double (or triple, you have to be bold) the price. Go figure, indeed.
Jan Didden
Jan, I am not supporting phoney cable manufacturers or phoney cable claims by people who want to confuse the issue still further, or as a practical joke. I have some opinions of what some cables sound like. Some are 'bright', some are 'dirty' and still others are dull, or too smooth. I have enough cables in my lab stock to last a lifetime, IF I could believe that my opinions are imaginary. Convince me! ;-)
john curl said:
Well, I was looking to it from a commercial pov. Think it through. If people readily report large audible differences (check this forum!) while DBT fails to back it up, then it must be clear that the perceived differences are not related to sound reproduction but other factors. That means that if you concentrate on those other factors, you can make a killing! And the 'victims' back you up, they report audible differences!
Actually, it is a surprise that there are not many, many more snake oil salesmen in audio..
The problem for the serious audiophile then becomes to figure out who is the bona fide innovator and who has done his commercial homework and is out for a quick buck.
In the last analysis, that was what the whole shakti discussion was all about, wasn't it?
Jan Didden
PS For Thorsten: yes I know that DBT is not accepted by everybody, but not all users of ABX are frauds and many have done an honest trial and came up empty handed. Over to you.
PPS For John C: What are you doing behind a PC on a sunny CA Sunday morning??
Hi,
Of course...That would work...For a while, not for 20 years though.
With all due respect to the Dutch National Audio Pride but wasn't the first VDH cable a rejacketed industrial cable??
I can still tell the exact reference and know where it was bought etc...
Nothing against it per se, it was a good cable and sure made a killing while the best was getting better....Go figure.
What if I told you that 83% of the high-end specialty audio wire is sourced from one and the same company?
Would that mean that all those cables inevitably sound the same?
Now if anyone would tell me that the bulk of audio wires are ridiculously overpriced, I sure wouldn't argue with that but so are most specialty products anyway.
Cheers,😉
Of course...That would work...For a while, not for 20 years though.
With all due respect to the Dutch National Audio Pride but wasn't the first VDH cable a rejacketed industrial cable??
I can still tell the exact reference and know where it was bought etc...
Nothing against it per se, it was a good cable and sure made a killing while the best was getting better....Go figure.
What if I told you that 83% of the high-end specialty audio wire is sourced from one and the same company?
Would that mean that all those cables inevitably sound the same?
Now if anyone would tell me that the bulk of audio wires are ridiculously overpriced, I sure wouldn't argue with that but so are most specialty products anyway.
Cheers,😉
janneman said:
Why "empty handed" ? Maybe there not any differences between a lot of gear. I think that result is as interesting as if a difference was proven. I don't have the luxury of having soemone re-convisning me that my 10000€ speaker wire ARE the best every week. (not that I own any).
There have been a lot of statistical theory in this tread. You who doubt the ABX testing, how can You be so shure that it is not You who are actually wrong. Maybe You are hearing things that does not actually exists because You are so involved in what You are doing, and want's so much to have made yet an improvment that You have entered a state of self-suggestion?
Things that can't be detected in ABX should carry a warning stick like cigarette packages (in sweden they say: Smoking kills You.) "The impact of sound by the contained equipment can not be detected in a blind test. It may however give You satisfaction and percived improvement for other resons".
/
fdegrove said:
Frank,
What made you think that I thought that the Dutch were a specific sub-species of the general run of humanity??😱
Jan Didden
TNT said:
I was using empty-handed in the sense that no audible differences were found in DBT although they were claimed. I thought that was clear from the context, but is was a bit short, sorry.
TNT said:
Are you addressing me? I don't doubt ABX testing, or generally DBT if correctly executed. And I fully agree with you that many, many of the claimed 'audible differences' are the result of other perception factors then the sound in itself. I thought we were past that station?
Jan Didden
fdegrove said:
Touche! Although I doubt that many will get the subtlety in that response of yours.
Jan Didden
No - sorry, I understand I could be interpreted like that. "You" was used in an broad, non spceific manner. Sorry for the confusion.
/
/
janneman said:
quote:
Originally posted by Arthur-itis
I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to grasp, ABX is the standard for detecting small differences in audio
Some people have an aversion to being classified as just a data point. The old quote from the 60's surreal TV series "The Prisoner" comes to mind- "I am not a number, I am a free man!"
I don't think of ABX comparisons as being that impersonal, in fact I find the opposite. There's nothing more personal than using one's own personal ears to see if they can detect differences that are alleged to be present.
That these comparisons have validity is without question in my mind, otherwise I doubt hearing aid technology would be where it is today.
As a general question to the group: How many are aware of the facilities at the Harman campus for doing DBT's? They are used in teh development of the products made by the various companies under the Harman umbrella.
Originally posted by Arthur-itis
I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to grasp, ABX is the standard for detecting small differences in audio
Some people have an aversion to being classified as just a data point. The old quote from the 60's surreal TV series "The Prisoner" comes to mind- "I am not a number, I am a free man!"
I don't think of ABX comparisons as being that impersonal, in fact I find the opposite. There's nothing more personal than using one's own personal ears to see if they can detect differences that are alleged to be present.
That these comparisons have validity is without question in my mind, otherwise I doubt hearing aid technology would be where it is today.
As a general question to the group: How many are aware of the facilities at the Harman campus for doing DBT's? They are used in teh development of the products made by the various companies under the Harman umbrella.
Arthur, you really DON'T KNOW what the ABX test is, what its problems are, or why we chose to ignore it. We have been dealing this for more than 25 years, where is your contribution?
A note of apology for my ignorance of the proper way to show quoted text.
I promise to try and learn it before I respond to anything else.
I promise to try and learn it before I respond to anything else.
john curl said:
John,
Mumetal is good as DC magnetic field shield while copper and aluminum are good as EMI shield and have none or very little shielding capability against DC magnetic field.
Why did you use Mumetal?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.