Funding is found with reputation. You think an audio or cable company wouldn't want to show a relationship with someone known for analyzing a newly found real effect -- rather than trotting out psuedo-science bull and made-up effects??
Look at how Curl and Ottala became known after the slew-induced distortion papers. Ottala even had a contract with Harmon Kardon to evaluate transistors for them (and for HK to promote that effort).
Look at how Curl and Ottala became known after the slew-induced distortion papers. Ottala even had a contract with Harmon Kardon to evaluate transistors for them (and for HK to promote that effort).
Last edited:
It's always been pseudo science bull and made up effects.
Engineering principles aren't very interesting to lay people, unless Vin Diesel is playing an engineer and talking all smart and stuff.
You live in the US. You know how stupid people have become here.
First and foremost scientists love to find funding. That sort of thing cannot raise any. Add to this some deeply ingrained scientific prejudice
Of course, scientists have held back progress for centuries for their pecuniary interests while farsighted power cable geniuses strive to carry progress forward for the good of mankind!
Only in the fairly hermetic audio community, full power BW and slew rate limitations were known since the 40's at least. In the end the worst culprit for sound was probably the practice of biasing close to class B and the low ft of affordable 1970's power devices.
Last edited:
Of course, scientists have held back progress for centuries for their pecuniary interests while farsighted power cable geniuses strive to carry progress forward for the good of mankind!
That's my job, every day of the week. (And by every day of the week I mean just that. Any long experiment that requires you some serious bench space will probably need to be done on Saturday or Sunday when no one else is around to schedule a meeting in the middle of it...)
The fancipants stuff around here uses plain jane IECs. Anyway, I digress.
One huge disadvantage of the IEC power cord, one that can make or break the sound - is that it's removable. Being removable means that it isn't going to be there when you get to the gig - because someone forgot to put in back in the case. I hate the damn things. If you never leave home with a piece of gear gear you won't understand the pain. You have to carry spares in your kit for that very purpose.
That's a cable quality that can be a show stopper.
I hate the damn things. If you never leave home with a piece of gear gear you won't understand the pain. You have to carry spares in your kit for that very purpose.That's a cable quality that can be a show stopper.
It´s imo everytime amazing to see that the posts in these discussion mainly reflect the (prior) beliefs of the posters.
If someone already believes that a mains cable _must_ not make a difference in sound quality these anecdotical evidence is sufficient to conclude "caught while cheating" , although is would assume that they themselves wouldn´t accept being condemned on basis of this still questionable data presented so far.
And according to this belief framework categorical assertions were posted about what these "fraudsters" never would do, what would never happen and so on.
Information that does not fit the prior belief will be blocked (inattentional selective reading? )
On anther forum asserted that no legal risk exists because those "fraudsters" would never risk to ...... because they know what they are doing.
I pointed to the fact that the last time Mark Waldrep already decided to withdraw his blog post because those "fraudsters" started to take legal action and send a "cease and desist" letter.
He wasn´t able to process this kind of contradictionary evidence and maintained his assertion, after i posted the links to the blogposts where the information was withdrawn, he only wants to talk about that such a letter doesn´t mean anything and that his laywer would advice him not to accept such letters if he was writing the truth.
Which is fine but a totally different topic not at least because there is a difference between being convinced to know the truth and being able to show proof.The latter seems to be much more important in courts.
If someone already believes that a mains cable _must_ not make a difference in sound quality these anecdotical evidence is sufficient to conclude "caught while cheating" , although is would assume that they themselves wouldn´t accept being condemned on basis of this still questionable data presented so far.
And according to this belief framework categorical assertions were posted about what these "fraudsters" never would do, what would never happen and so on.
Information that does not fit the prior belief will be blocked (inattentional selective reading?
) On anther forum asserted that no legal risk exists because those "fraudsters" would never risk to ...... because they know what they are doing.
I pointed to the fact that the last time Mark Waldrep already decided to withdraw his blog post because those "fraudsters" started to take legal action and send a "cease and desist" letter.
He wasn´t able to process this kind of contradictionary evidence and maintained his assertion, after i posted the links to the blogposts where the information was withdrawn, he only wants to talk about that such a letter doesn´t mean anything and that his laywer would advice him not to accept such letters if he was writing the truth.
Which is fine but a totally different topic not at least because there is a difference between being convinced to know the truth and being able to show proof.The latter seems to be much more important in courts.
Do you mean beliefs such as "A 6 foot power cord can not increase the output level by 2dB"? Yes, it is amazing to see people believe things like that - and to post that there must be some trick involved when it happens. Shocking!
I don't know about you, but I'm a man of science. I don't indulge in beliefs; I subscribe to facts.
So show me the evidence and I will accept it. You flowery apologetic drivel has zero influence on my "belief" regarding engineering topics.
Do you mean beliefs such as "A 6 foot power cord can not increase the output level by 2dB"? Yes, it is amazing to see people believe things like that - and to post that there must be some trick involved when it happens. Shocking!
Not meant offensive, but i think your answer reflects the underlying "cause" also that i tried to assess.
First of all, how could one know if there really was a level difference of 2 dB, introduced by (intenionally) fraud behaviour? Getting different readings in a nonreverberant space while playing music with different conditions (people moving around? Additional noise level? Placement of microphones etc.).
If you´re serious about that then we have something in common. So what about the facts in this story?
I don´t claim infallibillity so maybe i missed some facts.
So far, there is a guy claiming to have recorded (while keeping the recording equipment out of view) the music samples and to have seen in his (?later done?) analysis some level differences. His numbers so far reported are "2.5 dB" lower level for the "ordinary iec cord" compared to "the other" and the other precise reported number was "Nordost was substantially louder" than the two cords from the competitor.
An additional number (allegedly whispered by another guy) was "i saw 2dB" without anything further.
And now please tell me, in what field of science do we accept "that" as facts? No information about the conditions,no information about uncertainty?
So far you are obviously willing to believe in anecdotical description.
And btw "flowery apologetic drivel" is not vocabulary you´ll find in scientific evaluation of _facts_ but more in religious like discussions.
I have been waiting over 30 years for the cable believers to show any kind of testable, repeatable evidence so 'never' is not far fetched from within the framework of my lifetime.
That is exactly my point.
As far as the 2 dB difference- if your cable provides 2 dB attenuation, then it is the wrong cable. What were they comparing it to? Because if you use 50 feet of 22 gauge zip wire to deliver 1000 watts into 4 ohms, then you might experience 2 dB drop. But it isn't because you need $600 cables. It's because you're using the wrong cable.
Resistance, inductance, and stray capacitance are what matter. Everything else is marketing BS.
Don't hold your breath.
These tests need to be conducted by uninterested third parties. That does not include those stupid hi-fi magazines.
Sorry, but i raised the question if we really have facts or just anecdotical description of something and further asked
"And now please tell me, in what field of science do we accept "that" as facts? No information about the conditions, no information about uncertainty?"
Instead of answering the question and/or evaluating the evidence it seems that you were just changing the topic.
As said before, maybe i missed some facts but please then just post it.
I understand the frustration with the situation but isn´t that a different topic?
As an additional example, a few posts above a member wrote about the difficulties doing a scientific experiment about "power cables" (sensory evaluation is a complex matter and without expressing the precise objective most likely worthless), and Bwaslo wrote that nothing scientific would be needed just a demonstration without level differences (changing the volume at the preamplifier) but that would never happen as the manufacturers weren´t interested to do so.
I linked to a Stereophile report (including discussion in the comment section) that described nearly what Bwaslo had in mind.
It seems he isn´t interested anymore in the event (also just anecdotical as the other description we are discussing) that happened although it never could happen.
Last edited:
I see.
It does sound like an anecdotal observation. I'm skeptical of any claim so fantastic that is based on anecdotal observation.
I know that I could easily rig up a test that demonstrates the superiority of snake oil speaker cables. "Rig" is the key word; it would be a fraudulent test. But it would fool a lot of people; no doubt about it. I would wear my pocket protector while performing the test, which would certainly add an air of authority.
It's easy to be misunderstood. I'm an old guy losing his sight, so I'm basically the old guy yelling at you to get off my lawn. Obviously I still know a lot of stuff, but there's a few cobwebs in the fusebox, if you know what I mean. So take it in that context.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.