Seriously, that will work for their protocol as long as the test can be set up to be truly blind.
The '64 is still the best Dom ever. You'll thank me for that.
The '64 is still the best Dom ever. You'll thank me for that.
I respect your opinion but I still think that simple change is more correct because:1. By adding ANYTHING between cables you no longer have the cables but a hybrid that will degrade both cables.2. I make my claims so anyone is welcomed to my place which I consider part of my system's performance,and in my system because it is in this system in my place that I made my choice for all of my components.I make excellent souvlaki,which with local beer and ouzo,we can hear anything we want(after the test ofcource).If you can make it SY,I'm sure you'll change your mind.Just a simple change of two Interconnects.After me,you make the test.
I do travel a lot, so be careful what you ask for!😉
There's no need for inserting anything extra; a proper controlled test can be done manually, with the operator out of sight and other extraneous clues (e.g., timing between changes, clicks on changes...) controlled for.
There's no need for inserting anything extra; a proper controlled test can be done manually, with the operator out of sight and other extraneous clues (e.g., timing between changes, clicks on changes...) controlled for.
Panicos K said:
I could say "cables sound", but I could not say cables sound.
Did you get a difference?
Quoting my post especially for you, please read carefully:
So, where did I confirm that cables really sound?
Wavebourn said:
So, where did I confirm that cables really sound?
tomtt said:
I am a very serious listener.
I can hear the annoying 11uSec time lag the left channel of my cd player has w/r to the right one. This shifting of ITD localization cues cannot be corrected by adjusting the level, and leaves the image somewhat disjoint..clearly not correct, and not correctable using modern electronics (unless one delays the other channel).
I can hear the stetching of the virtual image as a result of phase anomolies between the tweets and the mids, this most apparent with female vocals sibilance.
I can hear the shift off center of the highs as a result of 5% tolerance crossover components. This also is impossible to correct using any form of analog equilizer, so I do not try.
I can detect the image shift as a result of side movement with respect to the sweetspot, and can easily spot when the speakers are not designed to enhance image stability, but rather, cause image instability as a result of the driver pattern differences.
I can state confidently that most do not know what to "look for" on these items, do not understand the ramifications, do not know how to describe these in engineering terms, so cannot provide engineering expertise to help audio experts understand and correct these things.
Did you, somehow, believe that all my discussion about ITD, IID, localization, differential localization, image stability, was simply a theoretical construct??? It is not. It is from experience. As is my understanding of e/m theory, semiconductors, soldering, epoxies..things I do for work.
I do not sit in the sweetspot, playing the same passage over and over again, tweak something, then play over and over again the same passage, looking for small subtle differences that I can only hear if I am glued to one spot within a room.
There are far more important things to do with one's life.
But, in answer to your question, I listen far more seriously than most to details most do not understand. And, I will not allow such deviations from perfection in the reproduction equipment to spoil what the intended application of that equipment is..listening to music.
My understanding of e/m stuff, silicon, I offer to others on forum so that they may better understand how to create.
I also learn from these forums..one thing I learned is that there will always be those who would judge another's merit not on what they understand or speak of, but what equipment they possess. A gang mentality.
Cheers, John
ps..if my assessment of your demeanor is incorrect, I apologize. If not, you would be wise to re-assess your worldview.
wavebourn I was refering to your post 706 which I find unacceptable,and not 702 you are refering.Back in page 25,post 248 you will see that I said ''cables have no sound of thrir own...''We all have to read posts carefully.When someone speaks about cable sound and not ''sound''I think does this for convinience and not because he means that cables have sound.They dont have sound,they effect system sound.Happy?
audiophile36 said:
Obviously nobody is claiming that. What's the point of your post, other than to be sarcastic?
jneutron said:
Hi John. Is that an older machine? I thought that was dealt with in the chipsets long ago.
Edit: Sorry for the off-topic!
Hi John,
You mean to say you still have a single channel DAC type player that still works! Bravo! So do I, but then I have some new ones too. I even have a nice 14 bit dual DAC machine.
-Chris
You mean to say you still have a single channel DAC type player that still works! Bravo! So do I, but then I have some new ones too. I even have a nice 14 bit dual DAC machine.
-Chris
jneutron said:
so have you ever tried to improve, by modifying, or building
equipment, not at work , your own, at home?
SY said:
Well... maybe. I'm not sure the Foundation would agree carbon meets the engineering criteria without a bit work.
Nice mug shot BTW.
We'd make a cute couple.
As long as the cable resistance is low enough not to cause an audible level difference, I can't see how the JREF could object.
As long as the cable resistance is low enough not to cause an audible level difference, I can't see how the JREF could object.
I'm flattered but mom warned me off ex-cons.
I'm not as sure carbon interconnects would pass the criterion. Some off-the-cuff effects possibly working against it:
- The high resistivity being more prone to RF pickup and ground leakage currents, which admittedly depends on the model chosen
- The high resistivity acting to stabilize electronics. Think metre-long grid stopper.
- This one is unsure but do carbon interconnects distort like carbon resistors?
It raises the very interesting question of effect threshold. Let's say Panicos K takes the challenge and wows the Randi Foundation by picking out carbon 90% of the time when used between the Gojira Lightspeed C preamp and the Gamera 1000 amp. Afterwards it's discovered the carbon interconnects stopped a VHF low-level oscillation in the amp's front end, one causing the noise floor to rise wide band though at a still low level, or the ~40 ohm loop impedance (characteristic of the top Van Den Hul carbon) raised the hum from 80 dB below one watt to 65. Does Panicos K still go home with the money to dual-mono the Gamera 1000's or did he just pay for Randi's staff trip to Cyprus? When a million dollars is at stake the question of scientific limits of audibility would become a major sticking point.
I'm not as sure carbon interconnects would pass the criterion. Some off-the-cuff effects possibly working against it:
- The high resistivity being more prone to RF pickup and ground leakage currents, which admittedly depends on the model chosen
- The high resistivity acting to stabilize electronics. Think metre-long grid stopper.
- This one is unsure but do carbon interconnects distort like carbon resistors?
It raises the very interesting question of effect threshold. Let's say Panicos K takes the challenge and wows the Randi Foundation by picking out carbon 90% of the time when used between the Gojira Lightspeed C preamp and the Gamera 1000 amp. Afterwards it's discovered the carbon interconnects stopped a VHF low-level oscillation in the amp's front end, one causing the noise floor to rise wide band though at a still low level, or the ~40 ohm loop impedance (characteristic of the top Van Den Hul carbon) raised the hum from 80 dB below one watt to 65. Does Panicos K still go home with the money to dual-mono the Gamera 1000's or did he just pay for Randi's staff trip to Cyprus? When a million dollars is at stake the question of scientific limits of audibility would become a major sticking point.
rdf said:
Old? I wrestled it from a velociraptor...
It has since been retired to the basement. But I do still find portable ones with the same problem as well as some soundcards, the one in my office being a constant reminder. I just shift the balance to put the majority of the center image in the center, and ignore the artifacts. I'd say half my playlist doesn't care about the ITD/IID fiasco that is my soundcard...Dave Clark Five, Iron Butterfly, B-52's, Manu Dibango..It's the Chick Corea, Stephanie Mills, Cheryl Lynn type stuff that can be annoying w/r to imaging if I were to concentrate on it. So I just enjoy the artists..Cheryl Lynn's bassist is so good, never mind her vocal talents...
What boggled me initially was the fact that 11uSec made a difference at all. As an EE, my understanding of audio was such that this should not have made a difference. Now I would just recommend either a second stage s/h block or double up on d/a channel. I prefer the latter just from symmetry, but chip real estate is not cheap.
anatech said:
It's fun. But alas, functionality typically wins out in the long run, as well as MTBF.
Cheers, John
The tests are structured to eliminate those sort of variables in the preliminary rounds. If something is discovered ex post facto the real test, Randi is out the mil. That's why he has real experts involved in these things, not just himself (who professes expertise in nothing other than conjuring).
Sure have..tomtt said:
I have built and modded (some heavily, others small mods)
8 SWTPC Tiger 250's and still own two.
6 SWTPC plastic tigers, all have left the nest.
1 dynaco 400, still own
1 dynaco 120, still own
10 LM 3876 amps, still have 10 chips remaining
5 standalone riaa preamps, from '741 based (yuck) back in '78, to LM394 input pair low noise current set.
1 aaron gavin 11 band stereo graphic from '78, opamp swap and slider replacement.
4 two channel ttable mixers from scratch
Coupla two and three way active xovers.
Speakers:
8 Complete K horn systems, speakerlab plans
7 additional reflex or sealed systems, nuttin under a 12"woof/300wrms.
And a coupla trivial 8" and 10" two way systems for in the living room.
And 4 embedded home installs.
When the current round of home reno's is complete, I'll be buildin 3 18" folded horns (Rog type 186), 4 billF's 12" horns (either the DR300 or 12a using my eminence delta 12's), and a complex array of 120 4 inch drivers with 200 3/4 inch domes for my playtime. (It's a pita working around the driver boxes..)
I gotta tell ya, I'm chompin at the bit to do the next round..
Cheers, John
ps...does this mean I can be part of the gang??😉
- Status
- Not open for further replies.