Risch has claimed to have passed DBTs identifying dielectric materials. He says this:
"The original audio cable listening tests with witnesses and/or participants occurred approx. 30-28 years ago. I did not, and do not, name any of them per their requests, so they will not be annoyed by kooks such as yourself bothering them with phone calls or e-mails, etc. As for any of them posting in my support anonymously, actually, one of them did post once if I recall correctly, but I did not save or document the post (on the newsgroups), because it didn't seem to be something that I would need a record of, for any conceivable reason. The reaction to that post, and other similar posts by others, as well as reactions to my own posts, merely reinforced and confirmed the fact that none of those people would want to be involved with the character assassination and virtual lynching that would have ensued. I think their choice was, and is, a wise one given the sheer nastiness that occurs from so many of the objectionists."
That post can be found here. My reply is here.
Last edited:
I see nothing wrong with the article that TG posted, in fact I can't believe such a 'test'
is accepted at all, unless one want to 'prove' his preconceived ideas. Hopefully we can learn something from that.
Did I mention that I've been banging several Hollywood stars? I won't mention their names or give any details other than that they were all gorgeous, famous, and under 25. Trust me. They were great.
And no, Glen, it wasn't Rin Tin Tin.
Yes agree, although I found a hair to split
If we accept that ANY 'truth' is by definition subjective (and this is a serious proposition by many heavy thinkers), maybe we should define objective test not as a test finding the truth, but as a test that, when repeated under the same conditions, the same way etc etc will lead to the same results. IOW, predictable results.
jd
Leaving aside general questions regarding constructivism, the reason for my using of quotation marks around truth were statistics. The results of any test of this sort are just probabilities for the given hypothesises (if done properly
). But you´re absolutely right; this is the reason for the basic rules of testing- a test has to be valid, objective and reliable.
The fulfillment of these requirements leads automatically to repeatability.
Furthermore the goal of testing is usually not only to get reliable results, but results which allow, due to the carefully done operationalization and execution, generalization of the results for a somewhat broader application.
Unfortunately in audio tests quite often none of the requirements is fulfilled, but nevertheless the results will be widely generalized.
Wishes
Skin effect......an interesting chart.
I was looking for a cable size/current capacity table and came across an interesting chart which listed the frequency limit for 100% skin depth ( conduction). It's interesting because it covers the audio range.
American Wire Gauge table and AWG Electrical Current Load Limits with skin depth frequencies
So fat speaker cables are not so great after all ! Of course other factors like resistance and inductance also come into the picture . Makes the end result even more complex I guess , considering the speaker itself is also a complex load.
Based on this and the fact that there are different methods of braiding cables , different speaker cables should sound different with complex loads . Looks logical ?
Cheers
I was looking for a cable size/current capacity table and came across an interesting chart which listed the frequency limit for 100% skin depth ( conduction). It's interesting because it covers the audio range.
American Wire Gauge table and AWG Electrical Current Load Limits with skin depth frequencies
So fat speaker cables are not so great after all ! Of course other factors like resistance and inductance also come into the picture . Makes the end result even more complex I guess , considering the speaker itself is also a complex load.
Based on this and the fact that there are different methods of braiding cables , different speaker cables should sound different with complex loads . Looks logical ?
Cheers
Last edited:
Hello SY!
I've just asked Jon Risch if I have his permission or should I have the post removed. As soon as Jon responds I'll let you know, ok? I imagine it will be within a day.
1) The statement that: "In 20/25/30 years of testing, no one has being able to prove audio components sound different, under controled conditions, when nothing is broken", etc. may indeed be true as you say, but the time frame of 20/25/30 years begins to look foolish when one looks at the quality of audio components & wires from that time frame! Heck even I'll admit I don't believe I can hear a sonic difference between Wal-Mart and Home Depot's zip cord and that's what was being used for speaker wires back 30 years ago.
I have my beliefs about why others cannot hear differences under controlled DBTs. Most of my beliefs mirror Jon's mentioned in Part I of his article. I believe "performance anxiety" plays a part and I also believe that listening for pleasure and listening for sonic differences are two completely different things that MUST be done two completely different ways! As for why others cannot pass a test I believe I can how can I possibly answer for others?
2) It's true Jon monitors a cable forum that doesn't allow posts on DBTs. However I believe that's the rule of Audio Asylum and not Jon's restriction of the cable forum. Either way I don't see how it diminishes what was written in the article. I still think it makes many good points and makes for interesting reading.
In any event it wasn't meant to offend anyone but, rather it was meant just present points of view on DBT/ABX testing that I think should be read. Nothing more & nothing less...
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Actually, it was easier to discern between wires then as the "high end" wire peddlers put out cables that were notorious amp-killers. If memory serves, many amps died with the Polk cables, and I think there was at least one other ultra-high capacitance cable out there (Discwasher, maybe?).
These days, amps are built to be more stable and the wires tend to have specs closer to my gold standard (10AWG extension cord).
These days, amps are built to be more stable and the wires tend to have specs closer to my gold standard (10AWG extension cord).
hello again TG. I would imagine that as long as you provide a link to the actual post it should be OK to duplicate it here. Why not?
I wanna call shenanigans on the other point. Can you admit the smallest possibility that maybe that is simply more audiophile beliefs??
I have (at least twice?, but then again it is a long thread so maybe more) given my account of a 'dbt' a few of us undertook.
Very quick recap....a constant pair of speakers fed by two completely different source chains.
One we deliberately hobbled as much as we could (from an audiophile perspective). tHE CDP WAS THE first (grrr caps lock)..try again, the FIRST generation cdp from the late 80's..cannot even remember the brand now (can look it up if it is needed) so of course it must have been from the mainstream guys, none of this boutique crap! I would need to check, we even had the manuals and AFAIR it was a sales pitch that it was fourteen bit!! (or something like that)
Using the crappy interconnects from tandy etc (I'm sure you know the ones I mean) we hooked that up to an 80's integrated amp, again can look up brand etc if needed, then using house wiring from home here (am renovating, so just grabbed offcuts) we hooked up the speakers.
The other chain was a 10k cdp (shanling) using a couple of grand interconnects to twin xindak class A monoblocks, thru a 6k pre (again cannot recall the name) and again expensive name speaker cables to the same set of speakers.
Who knows the value of the first set, the second was at least twenty grands worth.
I am NOT going to say the sound was identical, it wasn't. BUT, there WERE some that could NOT tell them apart even after an hours audition, and most others needed at least twenty min to half an hour before they could even begin to distinguish differences.
Obviously this was not each persons own system, so they were evaluating with a new sound etc etc.
But the essential point still stands...the sonic difference was minor at best, and to some non existant.
Yet, all the audiophiles know that 'the first generation cdps were atrocious', all audiophiles know that..., oh heck I cannot be bothered wasting any more time typing audiophile illusions.
So as I said, am not saying they all sound the same, but I am saying that the differences are NOT to the degree that audiophiles think they are.
Even tho it will be latched on as in your quotes.
Re your listening habits when doing the test...just do the test exactly as you normally would when you change cables! Sheesh.
You are able to tell cables apart are you not? Then do it exactly as you normally would. No one here wants you to do it differently, after all we do not want another litany of reasons why your abilities just happened to leave you the same day you did the test
The only thing we want is that you do not know which cable is which. Everything else you do exactly as normal.
Hello Again SY!
I well remember the POLK amp-killer. I ran a pair of those between a Harman Kardon Citation 16a and a set of Infinity RS 2.5's. I listened for less than a minute and it sounded so wrong I took them out immediately!!!! Thank GOD there really are sonic differences in wires!!!!!!! IIRC, those were Polk wires were highly capacitive. All I know is they sounded terrible and when I went to remove them from the Citation 16a I burnt my hand touching the amp because it was running so hot!
I'm trying to remember, didn't the Polk wires look something like Kimber's, only deadly to amps?
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
terry j
Tests are good,but allow me to say that not all "expensive" and "low cost" systems compare exactly the same as the two you have used in your test.Synergy is a word hated by many in the forum,but when you know what equipment you'll put together,it can work wonders.We all have heard expensive systems that just could not justify their cost or reputation,and also low cost systems that sounded really good.Personally,I have never heard a well set up low cost system to better or even come so close as you described to a well set up expensive system.I do not doubt what you say,but I know that what I'm saying is correct.It is one of Curly's and John's comments about system synergy that many of you here paid no proper attention to.My system has made many friends with systems costing 3-5 times more very unhappy when they passed by for a cup of coffee
Tests are good,but allow me to say that not all "expensive" and "low cost" systems compare exactly the same as the two you have used in your test.Synergy is a word hated by many in the forum,but when you know what equipment you'll put together,it can work wonders.We all have heard expensive systems that just could not justify their cost or reputation,and also low cost systems that sounded really good.Personally,I have never heard a well set up low cost system to better or even come so close as you described to a well set up expensive system.I do not doubt what you say,but I know that what I'm saying is correct.It is one of Curly's and John's comments about system synergy that many of you here paid no proper attention to.My system has made many friends with systems costing 3-5 times more very unhappy when they passed by for a cup of coffee
How many of your personal comparisons were with controls/blind, like Terry's?
I think this is a pointless generalization of what at that time were only one or two "nasty" speaker cables,that not many used anyway because of the problems they caused.True however is that you could easily tell the dfference between Polk cable compared to most others,especially after some time when the system simply had no sound at all
I don't know if there are nasty cables like Polk today,but if there are,most will not also use them today.
Last edited:
Similar, though finer wires and more of them. Kimber did a demo for our little club in Salt Lake back then (1979 or so)- the trick was apparently to get an amp which needed some capacitance to be stable. The comparison between his wire (which made the amp stable) and zip cord (which didn't) was hilarious. Well, that's one way to sell wire.
The differences were such that no controls/blind were needed,for anyone.Lets just not make controls/blind...a joke.That is exactly what my point was in my post to Terry.That is,the systems they had tested maybe sounded similar,despite the price difference.That cannot in any way become a rule that all expensive systems sound close to all cheap systems.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.