Meitner may be a nice guy, but what he is saying about cry'oed cables is very suspicious.
For one, he never actually gets around to mentioning any specific chemical or physical change in the cables. This is probably deliberate, so that it is harder to pin him down on what the difference actually is, especially since it is so very likely that there is no change whatsoever.
He cites all sorts of valid cryo and heat treatment techniques on other materials, while conveniently failing to mention the important fact that for each of these examples, the treated item was at an elevated temperature before being rapidly cooled.
The most obvious giveaway that this is utter pseudoscience (or just plain unadulterated BS) is the mention of airiness of sound. This is the favorite word of the golden ears, but is ever so meaningless.
I prefer my sound more velvety in any case. Or how about milky, or spicy? It is just as meaningful.
You would think that if he had managed to get this effect past an ABX test that would really confirm his results we would have heard all about it. So all we have is his assertion that it sound better.
Does he have a financial interest in this strange opinion BTW? I just think he is running a good con.
For one, he never actually gets around to mentioning any specific chemical or physical change in the cables. This is probably deliberate, so that it is harder to pin him down on what the difference actually is, especially since it is so very likely that there is no change whatsoever.
He cites all sorts of valid cryo and heat treatment techniques on other materials, while conveniently failing to mention the important fact that for each of these examples, the treated item was at an elevated temperature before being rapidly cooled.
The most obvious giveaway that this is utter pseudoscience (or just plain unadulterated BS) is the mention of airiness of sound. This is the favorite word of the golden ears, but is ever so meaningless.
I prefer my sound more velvety in any case. Or how about milky, or spicy? It is just as meaningful.
You would think that if he had managed to get this effect past an ABX test that would really confirm his results we would have heard all about it. So all we have is his assertion that it sound better.
Does he have a financial interest in this strange opinion BTW? I just think he is running a good con.
I don't know about the square wave stuff. But I see no need to ovenize a crystal in a CD player. The temperature of the crystal is reasonably constant within 30 degrees F, and even if it isn't perfectly constant it is is unlikely that it can change temperature fast enough to cause an audible problem, especially since the effect of temperature is very slight in the first place. This drift would be worrisome in long term timekeeping, but not in a CD player. So you would have a very, very slight pitch error when the CD player was warmer or colder than ideal, but no jitter going on.
john curl said:
John,
What did he do to be immune to criticism?
Maybe it is precisely the fact that we can only by necessity judge people like Meitner on his arguments, reasoning etc that he is criticised. WE have never met him, he has never had a chance to do us in with a charming smile or an arm around our shoulders or a fancy lunch.
This is something like an ABX test of Mr Meitner: without all the muddling influences of his personality, we ONLY can look at his arguments etc. And these are found wanting. Isn't this the way it should be, in the interest of furthering our understanding?
Jan Didden
You bet..ever see what a single Oto Melara 76 firing a round does to a ships analog circuitry? (If the ship is relatively small like a Reshef class attack craft) If you put a scope on any of the equipment the scope just becomes green for a split second...nothing works 🙂 .
If you don't have flat response, you have distortion. You have some frequencies that are not reproduced at a level that matches the original. This distortion can be very audible. A rather modest midrange rise shows up as glare, whereas a midrange dip sounds lifeless. A rolloff in the treble at least sounds pleasant, even if you lose some sparkle in the sound. A peak in the treble is really annoying and very fatiguing to listen to.
Frequency response isn't the only criteria for good reproduction, but it is very important. I tend to like speakers with good frequency response characteristics myself. All of the speakers I have selected over others in the past generally had smoother frequency response graphs than their competition, but I was not looking at them.
But if you get focused on one thing at the expense of other considerations, you can end up with something that has good frequency response graphs, but still has other problems that are clearly audible.
[QUOTE: JOhn Curl ] Unfortunately, I find only negative, sophomoric, opinion here. It is pointless.
But for the record, I consider the prerequisites of education, experience, innovation, and success as important factors in understanding someone and their opinions on a subject. Meitner for example, fulfills these catagories successfully, yet even he has been criticized on this thread. What did he do to deserve this? Think about and improve audio products? Is that a valid criticism?
Meitner may be a really smart guy, there are lots of really smart guys who say and do things that defy explanation.
When somebody, no matter how many degrees makes a pronouncement that a something is so, it is valid to question how and why they beleive it to be be so and offer up proof.
One needn't be as qualified as you think they need to be in order to ask valid questions.
One who chides people who ask such questions by in effect saying, they are to stupid to criticiize is IMO not only pompous, but probably has something to hide.
Surely you're not opposed to a bit of Socratic method in a place that is supposed to inform.
But for the record, I consider the prerequisites of education, experience, innovation, and success as important factors in understanding someone and their opinions on a subject. Meitner for example, fulfills these catagories successfully, yet even he has been criticized on this thread. What did he do to deserve this? Think about and improve audio products? Is that a valid criticism?
Meitner may be a really smart guy, there are lots of really smart guys who say and do things that defy explanation.
When somebody, no matter how many degrees makes a pronouncement that a something is so, it is valid to question how and why they beleive it to be be so and offer up proof.
One needn't be as qualified as you think they need to be in order to ask valid questions.
One who chides people who ask such questions by in effect saying, they are to stupid to criticiize is IMO not only pompous, but probably has something to hide.
Surely you're not opposed to a bit of Socratic method in a place that is supposed to inform.
I agree with arthur. To simply say that because someone doesn't have a degree or doesn't do what you do commercially invalidates their questions is asinine.
I don't claim to understand 1/100th of what many of the folks on here do about electronics and audio. I am a humble lurker that likes to glean information off of here to apply to my system and further my knowledge.
Here is where I think may of us "plebeians" are coming from: Many of us have a hard time believing that pointy feet will stop a CD Player from having read errors due to vibrations, or an amplifier from generating distortion. Many of us do not believe the claims of the folks who make the Shakti Stones or Mpingo (Shun Mook) discs. I laugh when I read about C37 lacquer.
We believe this because they are the audio equivelent of the Psychic Friends Network. Nobody can explain or prove why they will improve the sound of a system, but we're all supposed to believe because a few folks claim to hear a difference, and cheerily pay a lot of money "just beacuse."
My favorite part is when someone questions these devices, folks like KYW and John Curl try to throw the "We're in the field," "We have degrees," "You guys are a bunch of pelicanists," and the "you don't know because you haven't tried it," arguments towards them.
All we are asking for is the logical explanation and/or working principal behind these devices, and substantiative proof that they actually do something. Why is this so damn hard for the defenders of these devices to come up with it? The whole "You don't know because you haven't tried it" argument has worn so thin in audio, particularly in this forum, it's not even funny. Everyone has asked for evidence, and thus far all of the "Folks in the know" have produced NONE. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
As I write this, the thread is up to 710 posts. This thread is turning out the same way that all of these questionable "audio devices" threads do: finger pointing and insults. I hope that if it continues on, one of the defenders of these products will post some sort of meaningful measurement or statistic as to why these devices "improve" a sound system, or better yet an explanation as to how it will improve your system. In the meantime, I'll go back to lurking.
I don't claim to understand 1/100th of what many of the folks on here do about electronics and audio. I am a humble lurker that likes to glean information off of here to apply to my system and further my knowledge.
Here is where I think may of us "plebeians" are coming from: Many of us have a hard time believing that pointy feet will stop a CD Player from having read errors due to vibrations, or an amplifier from generating distortion. Many of us do not believe the claims of the folks who make the Shakti Stones or Mpingo (Shun Mook) discs. I laugh when I read about C37 lacquer.
We believe this because they are the audio equivelent of the Psychic Friends Network. Nobody can explain or prove why they will improve the sound of a system, but we're all supposed to believe because a few folks claim to hear a difference, and cheerily pay a lot of money "just beacuse."
My favorite part is when someone questions these devices, folks like KYW and John Curl try to throw the "We're in the field," "We have degrees," "You guys are a bunch of pelicanists," and the "you don't know because you haven't tried it," arguments towards them.
All we are asking for is the logical explanation and/or working principal behind these devices, and substantiative proof that they actually do something. Why is this so damn hard for the defenders of these devices to come up with it? The whole "You don't know because you haven't tried it" argument has worn so thin in audio, particularly in this forum, it's not even funny. Everyone has asked for evidence, and thus far all of the "Folks in the know" have produced NONE. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
As I write this, the thread is up to 710 posts. This thread is turning out the same way that all of these questionable "audio devices" threads do: finger pointing and insults. I hope that if it continues on, one of the defenders of these products will post some sort of meaningful measurement or statistic as to why these devices "improve" a sound system, or better yet an explanation as to how it will improve your system. In the meantime, I'll go back to lurking.
Gee... I simply don't get this.
Maybe we don't have this technical explanation. Maybe noone has. Yet. So what? Still, we hear a difference, due to some unknown reason. Why do we have to prove? You're free not to believe, but don't claim we don't hear anything. Only I know what I hear.
Are you telling us that we do not hear this difference until someone gives you a satisfying technical explanation for this phenomenon?
Wouldn't this mean an aircraft won't fly until you have a fundamental understanding of aerodynamics, jet engines, navigational aids, flight management systems...?
Maybe we don't have this technical explanation. Maybe noone has. Yet. So what? Still, we hear a difference, due to some unknown reason. Why do we have to prove? You're free not to believe, but don't claim we don't hear anything. Only I know what I hear.
Are you telling us that we do not hear this difference until someone gives you a satisfying technical explanation for this phenomenon?
Wouldn't this mean an aircraft won't fly until you have a fundamental understanding of aerodynamics, jet engines, navigational aids, flight management systems...?
That's twice as much as I'm asking. Or Randi, for that matter. Frankly, I'd just be happy with some evidence that any of these things do what they claim. After that, the mechanisms can be teased out by the normal processes of experimental science.
Hey, Randi's very high maintenance. He asks for more than anyone can supply. Eat your heart out, J-Lo.
The problem with what is going on here is that the Psychic Friends Network doesn't even have to actually win any of their arguments. They just have to continue bluffing and blowing steam and appearing to win. That is the reason why every time one of the science behind one of their claims is refuted, they go back to some other claim that has already been refuted and the process starts all over.
All they have to do is recite the same ol' litany of preposterous claims over and over, and the unquestioning schmucks that buy the products that they promote will continue to believe them and waste their money.
The Psychics often don't care about the science in the first place. Many abuse scientific terminology without actually understanding it. Even worse, some of these Psychic Friends actually know science very well but are actually deliberately dissembling.
They don't do ABX testing, because some of them know full well that what they are promoting is just expensive placebo-effect hardware for rich audio nuts.
I still think that some of us terribly ignorant plebes need to speak up against this from time to time or this is going to make any good advice really, really hard to find on DIYAudio wading thru all of this chit.
The emperor is not wearing any clothes and it doesn't take an advanced degree to see this.
All they have to do is recite the same ol' litany of preposterous claims over and over, and the unquestioning schmucks that buy the products that they promote will continue to believe them and waste their money.
The Psychics often don't care about the science in the first place. Many abuse scientific terminology without actually understanding it. Even worse, some of these Psychic Friends actually know science very well but are actually deliberately dissembling.
They don't do ABX testing, because some of them know full well that what they are promoting is just expensive placebo-effect hardware for rich audio nuts.
I still think that some of us terribly ignorant plebes need to speak up against this from time to time or this is going to make any good advice really, really hard to find on DIYAudio wading thru all of this chit.
The emperor is not wearing any clothes and it doesn't take an advanced degree to see this.
You're so sharp i'm beginning to lose hope we'll con you into buying some Shakti stones.
Eh, well, you win some you lose some.
Yeah, my Emm Labs gear is sounding pretty preposterous. I could swear it makes a .... coughing sound at low levels. Really.
Actually, someone should tell Meitner he's too unscientific.
On the other hand, who am I to say? Maybe he was abducted by .... (drum roll) .... aliens. 😱
Yawn.
Actually, someone should tell Meitner he's too unscientific.
On the other hand, who am I to say? Maybe he was abducted by .... (drum roll) .... aliens. 😱
Yawn.
Hi,
I hear a lot of littany coming from that same old corner over and over....And it ain't mine.
An unquestioning schmuck will always be just that.
Do you actually think that eveyone has deep pockets but you?
I'd hope not.
Being just a questioning schmuck, I think that over the past 30 years of occasionally buying the odd, off the wall, audio accessory, I never happened to regret any of them...
Does that imply we all buy anything without at least having a listen to it? Find out what others have to say about it?
I don't think so.
Sure enough I like to understand why something does what is claimed about it or what I actually hear...
Sometimes it takes time to find out, sometimes I really couldn't care less.
Not having at least tried is where you always end up losing out on something.
Cheers,😉
I hear a lot of littany coming from that same old corner over and over....And it ain't mine.
An unquestioning schmuck will always be just that.
Do you actually think that eveyone has deep pockets but you?
I'd hope not.
Being just a questioning schmuck, I think that over the past 30 years of occasionally buying the odd, off the wall, audio accessory, I never happened to regret any of them...
Does that imply we all buy anything without at least having a listen to it? Find out what others have to say about it?
I don't think so.
Sure enough I like to understand why something does what is claimed about it or what I actually hear...
Sometimes it takes time to find out, sometimes I really couldn't care less.
Not having at least tried is where you always end up losing out on something.
Cheers,😉
Coming from someone who's made plenty of technical errors in his posts just in this thread, that's rich 😉
Most DO care, but it isn't always possible to prove things easily. As Oliver points out, whether you can prove or understand what you hear doesn't make it exist or not. Engineering is pragmatic, just because you cannot fully understand the science behind something doesn't mean it doesn't work or isn't true. Engineering is pragmatic, if it works, it works. Engineering history is full of people who've built stuff they didn't fully understand, but it didn't mean for one second what they did was wrong or didn't work.
Tell you what, if you're so concerned about it all, you disprove it.
In fact why has no-one else disproved this stuff?
I know the answer to that, but I'll let you work it out for yourself.
Meanwhile have you worked out how DAC's convert jitter into amplitude errors yet, by their very function?
Andy.
cryo?
Yeah I saw, somewhere, that a bunch of orchestra brass players take there horns to get frozen.....It's supposed to sound better. Some acoustician booted up his Laptop in a studio and tried the same player with the same model of trumpet and found absolutely no differece what so ever. While electricity does behave differently at different temperatures I would find it hard to believe that cables that were once frozen would have an audible effect on the signal passing through them...............but then again what do I know. I have done no such research so my oppinion is not really justified.
Oh yeah....I realize that this is the everything else forum but I did not realize that this was the everything else all on one thread forum. From the first post to the last there are probably about a zillion topics going one in here. It is especially interesting when several are going on at one time. Theory overload! You guys keep going and there won't be anything left to talk about.
Yeah I saw, somewhere, that a bunch of orchestra brass players take there horns to get frozen.....It's supposed to sound better. Some acoustician booted up his Laptop in a studio and tried the same player with the same model of trumpet and found absolutely no differece what so ever. While electricity does behave differently at different temperatures I would find it hard to believe that cables that were once frozen would have an audible effect on the signal passing through them...............but then again what do I know. I have done no such research so my oppinion is not really justified.
Oh yeah....I realize that this is the everything else forum but I did not realize that this was the everything else all on one thread forum. From the first post to the last there are probably about a zillion topics going one in here. It is especially interesting when several are going on at one time. Theory overload! You guys keep going and there won't be anything left to talk about.
I have not made any significant technical errors. Most of the people on my side have backed up my points.
When I have made a mistake, I have admitted it.
You still haven't abandoned a totally preposterous claim that CD error correction doesn't fix 100% of the errors. We have shown VERY CLEARLY that you are wrong about that.
Now, you have accused me of making mistakes, but that does not mean it is so, especially since one of your basic premises is shown to be wrong.
When I have made a mistake, I have admitted it.
You still haven't abandoned a totally preposterous claim that CD error correction doesn't fix 100% of the errors. We have shown VERY CLEARLY that you are wrong about that.
Now, you have accused me of making mistakes, but that does not mean it is so, especially since one of your basic premises is shown to be wrong.
Can't be done. See Popper. For a popular explanation, see Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World," especially his parable about the dragon in the garage.
I also can't prove that there aren't fractionally charged electrons around somewhere. Or magnetic monopoles. See Weber.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.