Hi,
Why do I start to think that no proof is ever going to be good enough. After all "proof" is in the eye of the beholder too, or is it?
Cheers, 😉 Once more....
Why do I start to think that no proof is ever going to be good enough. After all "proof" is in the eye of the beholder too, or is it?
Cheers, 😉 Once more....
Sorry John we have been here before, wire directionality IS an extraordinary claim. It violates several first principles like it or not. If your calculator randomly gave two different answers for the square root of two you would not like it. All proposed mechanisms for wire directionality are potential Nobel prizes.
Scott, just ask Ed Simon. He measured directionality in cables. This is your chance to prove him wrong, or his chance to get the Nobel prize. I hope for the latter Go, Simon, go!
These things are all measureable. Just because you don't know how to do it does not mean that it cannot be done.
There is a glaring error in many of these posts having to do with measurements. Not doing measurements that tell us anything about the product is not the same thing as "it's not being possible". Manufacturers have no interest in giving the customer "good data" or even in developing ways to describe their product that reflect the way it sounds. That would open them up to a whole range of problems - no, better that the consumer remain ignorant and believe that "measurements don't tell the story", only listening works. Listening - that test which has been shown to be completely unreliable!
Hi,
Scott, I don't think John is refering to wire directionality in his reply to SY.
While I don't think wire directionality is inaudible per se, I do think it's something that can be avoided in the first place and that disappears when the wire is run in.
Either way it's tricky and no, it wont show up on a Ohm meter let alone a calculator.
Having been too intimate with major wire manufacturers for too many years I do however know that "they" do not deny that the way the wire is drawn or even pushed through the die can have an effect on how the metal crystals are aligned.
Whether this is or isn't responsible for an audible effect remains to seen...
Naturally, or so I hope, the entire issue is moot when dealing with liquid conductors....
Cheers, 😉
Scott, I don't think John is refering to wire directionality in his reply to SY.
While I don't think wire directionality is inaudible per se, I do think it's something that can be avoided in the first place and that disappears when the wire is run in.
Either way it's tricky and no, it wont show up on a Ohm meter let alone a calculator.
Having been too intimate with major wire manufacturers for too many years I do however know that "they" do not deny that the way the wire is drawn or even pushed through the die can have an effect on how the metal crystals are aligned.
Whether this is or isn't responsible for an audible effect remains to seen...
Naturally, or so I hope, the entire issue is moot when dealing with liquid conductors....
Cheers, 😉
Selecting audio equipment, a survivor’s guide to DIY
You guys have really got a lot of stamina.
If you could bear a little criticism, this is all a trifle prolix. I mean wordy.
I have to be careful tho', it seems in my case the shorter the message the greater the likelihood I'll get an infraction. This is gonna be a doozy. Welcome to the monkey house.
This thread is not about cables, but about what people believe. We all know there is an underlying subtext about the perception of reality, and how it applies in the context of all kinds of audio equipment.
I noticed some excitement earlier over the use of the word 'gullible'.
On the one hand there are those who know what science is, and on the other there are those who do not.
There are theorists and there are believers.
No scientist can stay a believer without an unhealthy compartmentalization of their psyche. Look at the classic case of Charles Darwin. His observations and theories tore down his received beliefs at the cost of no little personal anguish, and the most significant of his theories were untestable in a lifetime.
Theorists want tests, they are not emotionally committed to their position. Believers eschew tests because of their emotional commitment to their existing world-view. Theorists are, however, emotionally committed to their method. Believers never succeed in understanding how what the theorists are doing differs from what they are doing. That is what creates so much heat in these discussions and why they cast so little light.
Believers fundamentally lack an essential ingredient in their intellectual toolkit, some critical faculty. They can't take the next evolutionary step. This is either due to a functional issue (hardware) or a gestalt (software).
Sometimes believers invent complex sophistries which plausibly permit them to masquerade as theorists, but only under superficial examination. Believers can change, but usually only in response to a traumatic or dramatic stimulus, such as war or disaster.
Beware also of those who parasitize believers. Sometimes they are believers themselves, sometimes they are cynics. No parasite relishes the extinction of their host.
It is very, very difficult to blind-test yourself reliably. It's a common believer sophistry to imagine that the protagonist is one of the lucky few with extraordinary sensitivity and self-control.
Where perceptions are concerned, statistical evidence is mandatory. The more data you have, the better.
Endless arguments about the nature of the test are another believer or believer parasite tactic, serving to obfuscate and delay.
In an earlier post I noticed someone said that consumers have only their ears to rely on when purchasing equipment.
This is not only untrue, your ears are the last thing you should be using when buying audio equipment. You should be using your intelligence.
Selecting which equipment to buy can be a daunting decision. The people selling it have an interest in persuading you to buy it. From this point of view the greater distance between you and them the better.
You should buy equipment sight unseen on the basis of what other purchasers subsequently regarded as good value for money in its class, if you can discover what that is. Once bought you should NOT modify it; you should simply try to enjoy it, secure in the knowledge that your guests will enjoy it and that you haven't been ripped off. No normal person buys a TV, computer, washing machine or other appliance and starts in to modify it.
Try not to buy things on the basis that they are more expensive, and it 'can't hurt'. (Vestigial alchemy) There is nothing 'base' about lead, there is nothing 'noble' about silver. Which is not as noble as gold, BTW.
If you modify equipment you definitely worsen the value for money and you run the risk of worsening the performance or leaving it unchanged. In the nature of the substitution, you won’t be able to make a side-by-side comparison and without instruments you won’t be able to tell the difference unless you make it radically worse.
This also applies to the large majority of published modifications.
I'm not saying don't DIY. Electronics is fun, and there's always objective measurement...
What I am saying is; all you guys who know what you're talking about are wasting your time talking to those who don't. You might as well go into a church and try convince everybody they're mistaken believing in God.
Seems I went from Heller to Pirsig via Fritz Perls and Kurt Vonnegut without noticing. Might be a bit of Drexler in there...
I’m in hospital tomorrow to have half my right lung removed, so I won’t be back for a couple of weeks. It's taken 6 months to get a concrete diagnosis. That makes me a lucky boy because 9 out of 10 people with adenocarcinoma are diagnosed too late for surgery. Shoulders of giants, huh?
I’ve also been suffering from hyperthyroidism, which makes one irritable, apparently. I don't feel any more irritable than usual though, but if I have crossed the line in the recent past, then I apologise.
I’ve written a lot, but not everything I wanted to. I just don’t have time. I’ve said some hard things from time to time, but the truth is I’d be a lot less determined to survive without you guys to argue with.
See you soon if I make it.
Love to everybody at DIY audio,
wakibaki
You guys have really got a lot of stamina.
If you could bear a little criticism, this is all a trifle prolix. I mean wordy.
I have to be careful tho', it seems in my case the shorter the message the greater the likelihood I'll get an infraction. This is gonna be a doozy. Welcome to the monkey house.
This thread is not about cables, but about what people believe. We all know there is an underlying subtext about the perception of reality, and how it applies in the context of all kinds of audio equipment.
I noticed some excitement earlier over the use of the word 'gullible'.
On the one hand there are those who know what science is, and on the other there are those who do not.
There are theorists and there are believers.
No scientist can stay a believer without an unhealthy compartmentalization of their psyche. Look at the classic case of Charles Darwin. His observations and theories tore down his received beliefs at the cost of no little personal anguish, and the most significant of his theories were untestable in a lifetime.
Theorists want tests, they are not emotionally committed to their position. Believers eschew tests because of their emotional commitment to their existing world-view. Theorists are, however, emotionally committed to their method. Believers never succeed in understanding how what the theorists are doing differs from what they are doing. That is what creates so much heat in these discussions and why they cast so little light.
Believers fundamentally lack an essential ingredient in their intellectual toolkit, some critical faculty. They can't take the next evolutionary step. This is either due to a functional issue (hardware) or a gestalt (software).
Sometimes believers invent complex sophistries which plausibly permit them to masquerade as theorists, but only under superficial examination. Believers can change, but usually only in response to a traumatic or dramatic stimulus, such as war or disaster.
Beware also of those who parasitize believers. Sometimes they are believers themselves, sometimes they are cynics. No parasite relishes the extinction of their host.
It is very, very difficult to blind-test yourself reliably. It's a common believer sophistry to imagine that the protagonist is one of the lucky few with extraordinary sensitivity and self-control.
Where perceptions are concerned, statistical evidence is mandatory. The more data you have, the better.
Endless arguments about the nature of the test are another believer or believer parasite tactic, serving to obfuscate and delay.
In an earlier post I noticed someone said that consumers have only their ears to rely on when purchasing equipment.
This is not only untrue, your ears are the last thing you should be using when buying audio equipment. You should be using your intelligence.
Selecting which equipment to buy can be a daunting decision. The people selling it have an interest in persuading you to buy it. From this point of view the greater distance between you and them the better.
You should buy equipment sight unseen on the basis of what other purchasers subsequently regarded as good value for money in its class, if you can discover what that is. Once bought you should NOT modify it; you should simply try to enjoy it, secure in the knowledge that your guests will enjoy it and that you haven't been ripped off. No normal person buys a TV, computer, washing machine or other appliance and starts in to modify it.
Try not to buy things on the basis that they are more expensive, and it 'can't hurt'. (Vestigial alchemy) There is nothing 'base' about lead, there is nothing 'noble' about silver. Which is not as noble as gold, BTW.
If you modify equipment you definitely worsen the value for money and you run the risk of worsening the performance or leaving it unchanged. In the nature of the substitution, you won’t be able to make a side-by-side comparison and without instruments you won’t be able to tell the difference unless you make it radically worse.
This also applies to the large majority of published modifications.
I'm not saying don't DIY. Electronics is fun, and there's always objective measurement...
What I am saying is; all you guys who know what you're talking about are wasting your time talking to those who don't. You might as well go into a church and try convince everybody they're mistaken believing in God.
Seems I went from Heller to Pirsig via Fritz Perls and Kurt Vonnegut without noticing. Might be a bit of Drexler in there...
I’m in hospital tomorrow to have half my right lung removed, so I won’t be back for a couple of weeks. It's taken 6 months to get a concrete diagnosis. That makes me a lucky boy because 9 out of 10 people with adenocarcinoma are diagnosed too late for surgery. Shoulders of giants, huh?
I’ve also been suffering from hyperthyroidism, which makes one irritable, apparently. I don't feel any more irritable than usual though, but if I have crossed the line in the recent past, then I apologise.
I’ve written a lot, but not everything I wanted to. I just don’t have time. I’ve said some hard things from time to time, but the truth is I’d be a lot less determined to survive without you guys to argue with.
See you soon if I make it.
Love to everybody at DIY audio,
wakibaki
Would like to see a fully programmable washing machine to let you optimize wash cycle effeciecy.🙂
There is no liquid that conducts better then silver. Finding that liquid whould win the Nobel Price too. At room temperature, that is.
The best liquid conductor at room temperature is mercury. Cables have been made like that in Germany many years ago. They disapeared from the market not only because they are potentially lethal but also because they did not advance the state of the art in audio. Ohno casting claims a single cristal cable. Bend it ones and the miracle is gone.
In fact an amalgam of silver with a little gold in it is more conductive then silver. It is called electrum. Mythology tells a tail that the egyptians used that metall 5000 years ago. For me copper is fine. We have a saying here " Silber und Gold habe ich nie gewollt, Kupfer und Stahl ist optimal".
The best liquid conductor at room temperature is mercury. Cables have been made like that in Germany many years ago. They disapeared from the market not only because they are potentially lethal but also because they did not advance the state of the art in audio. Ohno casting claims a single cristal cable. Bend it ones and the miracle is gone.
In fact an amalgam of silver with a little gold in it is more conductive then silver. It is called electrum. Mythology tells a tail that the egyptians used that metall 5000 years ago. For me copper is fine. We have a saying here " Silber und Gold habe ich nie gewollt, Kupfer und Stahl ist optimal".
Zaph:
Geddes:
Needs a new thread, but has anyone systematically addressed:
What to measure
How to measure it
How to interpret the measurement
What does it correlate with?
What matters anyway?
Geddes:
Needs a new thread, but has anyone systematically addressed:
What to measure
How to measure it
How to interpret the measurement
What does it correlate with?
What matters anyway?
Actually, it's his chance to prove himself correct.
What exactly did he do?? How did he baseline his equipment...what was his experimental design...
Cheers, John
Hello Earl
Well I am all ears. What measurements do we need to look at??? All I see you saying is that it is possible and manufacturer's don't want to show them or disclose what they are. So what are they?? You are not answering the question.
Can I do them with my CLIO set-up?? Do I need an Anechoic Chamber because of the loss of resolution doing gated measurements??
I am on the measurement side of the argument but it's not as simple as just purchasing a measurement set and having at it. There is no standardization and almost no one publishes anything worth a damn so at least we agree there.
Rob🙂
Last edited:
John, on the most part I found this to be quite well said!, and I don't often say that about your posts haha (nor you mine, of course🙂)
In post whatever number in this thread, we at last seem to be nearing a meeting point, and now more than a few 'cable guys' are admitting the minor role (at best) cables might play.
I think if this were more commonly stated (in other cable threads, ie ones that don't require over ten thousand posts to begin to get to the truth) by cable guys I at least would have far less problems with the cable debate.
Newb get's on and asks about cables they usually get the 'this cable made an awesome difference to my sound'. Now, this NOT being a ten thousand post thread he does not get the truth (at best a minor contribution to the sound), rather he get's the gushing audiophile blather that in effect does nothing but back up all the more spurious claims made by manufacturers about (finally) clean quantums into your speaker. (what exactly is a quantum?)
I think at the bottom that is the upset in the cable debate.
I liked the analogy about frosting. Frosting IS important for a cake however, so even tho it is a good first approximation of an analogy it still overstates the importance of cables for audio.
But, a few points on this para. First off you say this Cable differences, just like many other subtle differences in audio components, either as parts or assemblies, just get lost in a DB test, ie these differences cannot be detected by DBT, then you say and therefore all cable differences will be discredited by 'scientists and engineers' because of these results.
. Ie the results that cannot be obtained are discredited when obtained, which seems to be rather tortured.
BUT, that is another essential point! WHERE are the results of cable differences that have been obtained in DBTs?? (so the scientists and engineers can discredit them?? Those results you yourself believe are unobtainable??)
Quite frankly, I feel it is the other way around completely. Rather, it is YOU and others who feel your way that discredit the 'no difference' result. You attribute bias and blindness/unwillingness to the engineers and scientists.....
Now to your earlier question Then WHY is it that they are considered important to a great number of serious audiophiles?.
Ok, I am willing to accept that there can be actual differences between cables, and more so that in some circumstances they can be audible. If that is what is happening in any one circumstance, then one possible answer to your question is that minor difference is a worthwhile difference to that person.
I think that scenario is rare and extreme, I do remain firmly in the camp that cables are basically inaudible. So in MY 'camp', why do audiophiles think they are important??
Because a great number of audiophiles CRAVE a change, they are almost desperate to get ANY difference (even tho they then call it an improvement), they wonder about this and that, 'what if I have a different dac', 'a new pre', etc etc. It can become quite frantic!
Those set of circumstances that drives the urge for 'upgrade' (often just different, not better, not worse) also opens very wide indeed the door that can lead to 'false positives'...he is already preconditioned to find a difference (he has not heard the truth from you guys that, at best, it will only be minor) and so is very likely to heard a difference (as already stated ad nauseum). And, he then reports back how much improvement he gained...OMG, jaw dropping yada yada.
Now, here is the really funny thing. If anyone were to respond to his claims and say they seem to 'defy physics', it would be from the likes of *us*...why the HELL are YOU not also questioning him, or his set up??
For him to get MAJOR differences he must either have a pathological cable, or amp, or both would he not???? After all, they have little measured distortion (apparently), contribute little signal loss, and have relatively flat frequency response, they should be a minor contributor to the overall sound.
But we do not ever see you trying to correct the scene, you would rather allow the spreading of exaggerations and myths in audio.
At least we have the courage of OUR convictions, and shame on you.
But that is the $64 question. Do cables make a difference. (any input?😀😀)
You think they are magical phenomena therefore do NOT have measurements that illustrate it??
I like the way WE need to find these magical measurements 'that science does not yet know about'. Cable guys are the guys making the claim these unknown measurements exist, you do not nor even have the skills or knowledge to find them, and tell us (simply because you KNOW they exist...oh brother) it is our job to find them??? Why bother? you already do not accept all the measurements science already has, even if we DID come up with new magical measurements you'd ignore them if it did not correspond to your beliefs....so why would anyone expend THEIR effort for YOU due to your own laziness or inability..only to have you yet again reject it??
anyway, for measurements that might go a way to show those things how about on and off axis FR, smoothness of them, how about degrees of better phase response of speakers, how about the degree of accuracy of those between left and right (ie properly matched), how about first reflection times (as measured in the room)...basically, a lot of the stuff that Markus always seems to have his hand on!!
read up about what toole and olive have found..start reading up on the psychoacoustic studies that have been done.
You know, all the science that we already have (how else did we come up with terms like Haas effect etc, if the work had not already been done?)
Oh, that's right. You don't know it exists, which is why you 'demand' others find these mystical measurements cause you in your ignorance are unaware.
Ahh, sitting in my sweet spot and I SWEAR there are performers in front of me where no speaker exists..it's magical ain't it?!
Does NOT mean it is magic!! In fact, sorry to say, it is quite mundane and quite simple, and very well understood in the most part. That can be quite upsetting to some.
Some of the more computer literate can answer this question (and if halfway right maybe even do it). Can we not take analog out of the soundcard, pass it thru cable X (then Y etc) back to the input, record the input, then do a null test and see what the residual is??
That may be exactly the same thing as diffmaker, or not?
Depending on how far down they null (and the nature of the residual), that would go a long way of determining differences??
Maybe there is someting in the computer which makes that not feasible, then how about send the same signal out of the computer, once thru cable X and another time thru cable Y, adjusting for volume if needed, and try and null the two different recordings rather than the original vs a recording.
In post whatever number in this thread, we at last seem to be nearing a meeting point, and now more than a few 'cable guys' are admitting the minor role (at best) cables might play.
I think if this were more commonly stated (in other cable threads, ie ones that don't require over ten thousand posts to begin to get to the truth) by cable guys I at least would have far less problems with the cable debate.
Newb get's on and asks about cables they usually get the 'this cable made an awesome difference to my sound'. Now, this NOT being a ten thousand post thread he does not get the truth (at best a minor contribution to the sound), rather he get's the gushing audiophile blather that in effect does nothing but back up all the more spurious claims made by manufacturers about (finally) clean quantums into your speaker. (what exactly is a quantum?)
I think at the bottom that is the upset in the cable debate.
I liked the analogy about frosting. Frosting IS important for a cake however, so even tho it is a good first approximation of an analogy it still overstates the importance of cables for audio.
But, a few points on this para. First off you say this Cable differences, just like many other subtle differences in audio components, either as parts or assemblies, just get lost in a DB test, ie these differences cannot be detected by DBT, then you say and therefore all cable differences will be discredited by 'scientists and engineers' because of these results.
. Ie the results that cannot be obtained are discredited when obtained, which seems to be rather tortured.
BUT, that is another essential point! WHERE are the results of cable differences that have been obtained in DBTs?? (so the scientists and engineers can discredit them?? Those results you yourself believe are unobtainable??)
Quite frankly, I feel it is the other way around completely. Rather, it is YOU and others who feel your way that discredit the 'no difference' result. You attribute bias and blindness/unwillingness to the engineers and scientists.....
Now to your earlier question Then WHY is it that they are considered important to a great number of serious audiophiles?.
Ok, I am willing to accept that there can be actual differences between cables, and more so that in some circumstances they can be audible. If that is what is happening in any one circumstance, then one possible answer to your question is that minor difference is a worthwhile difference to that person.
I think that scenario is rare and extreme, I do remain firmly in the camp that cables are basically inaudible. So in MY 'camp', why do audiophiles think they are important??
Because a great number of audiophiles CRAVE a change, they are almost desperate to get ANY difference (even tho they then call it an improvement), they wonder about this and that, 'what if I have a different dac', 'a new pre', etc etc. It can become quite frantic!
Those set of circumstances that drives the urge for 'upgrade' (often just different, not better, not worse) also opens very wide indeed the door that can lead to 'false positives'...he is already preconditioned to find a difference (he has not heard the truth from you guys that, at best, it will only be minor) and so is very likely to heard a difference (as already stated ad nauseum). And, he then reports back how much improvement he gained...OMG, jaw dropping yada yada.
Now, here is the really funny thing. If anyone were to respond to his claims and say they seem to 'defy physics', it would be from the likes of *us*...why the HELL are YOU not also questioning him, or his set up??
For him to get MAJOR differences he must either have a pathological cable, or amp, or both would he not???? After all, they have little measured distortion (apparently), contribute little signal loss, and have relatively flat frequency response, they should be a minor contributor to the overall sound.
But we do not ever see you trying to correct the scene, you would rather allow the spreading of exaggerations and myths in audio.
At least we have the courage of OUR convictions, and shame on you.
But that is the $64 question. Do cables make a difference. (any input?😀😀)
You think they are magical phenomena therefore do NOT have measurements that illustrate it??
I like the way WE need to find these magical measurements 'that science does not yet know about'. Cable guys are the guys making the claim these unknown measurements exist, you do not nor even have the skills or knowledge to find them, and tell us (simply because you KNOW they exist...oh brother) it is our job to find them??? Why bother? you already do not accept all the measurements science already has, even if we DID come up with new magical measurements you'd ignore them if it did not correspond to your beliefs....so why would anyone expend THEIR effort for YOU due to your own laziness or inability..only to have you yet again reject it??
anyway, for measurements that might go a way to show those things how about on and off axis FR, smoothness of them, how about degrees of better phase response of speakers, how about the degree of accuracy of those between left and right (ie properly matched), how about first reflection times (as measured in the room)...basically, a lot of the stuff that Markus always seems to have his hand on!!
read up about what toole and olive have found..start reading up on the psychoacoustic studies that have been done.
You know, all the science that we already have (how else did we come up with terms like Haas effect etc, if the work had not already been done?)
Oh, that's right. You don't know it exists, which is why you 'demand' others find these mystical measurements cause you in your ignorance are unaware.
Ahh, sitting in my sweet spot and I SWEAR there are performers in front of me where no speaker exists..it's magical ain't it?!
Does NOT mean it is magic!! In fact, sorry to say, it is quite mundane and quite simple, and very well understood in the most part. That can be quite upsetting to some.
Some of the more computer literate can answer this question (and if halfway right maybe even do it). Can we not take analog out of the soundcard, pass it thru cable X (then Y etc) back to the input, record the input, then do a null test and see what the residual is??
That may be exactly the same thing as diffmaker, or not?
Depending on how far down they null (and the nature of the residual), that would go a long way of determining differences??
Maybe there is someting in the computer which makes that not feasible, then how about send the same signal out of the computer, once thru cable X and another time thru cable Y, adjusting for volume if needed, and try and null the two different recordings rather than the original vs a recording.
Last edited:
Waki, best of luck with that. I hope that we'll see you back with us soon, healthy, and full of **** and vinegar.
No not at all. I am waiting for the answer. What measurement set do I use to compare two speakers that will tell me which one has better soundstage and sounds more spacious. What do I look at?? The CSD?? ETC?? The Polars?? The on Axis Frequency Response?? The Power Response?? All of the Above?? None of the above?? Do I need to do the measurement's myself??
As far as I am concerned it's a scream that unless you DIY none of this is even available for you to look at.
The bottom line is unless you audition speakers you have no clue what they are going to sound like because no one will provide you with a meaningful set that you can compare from manufacturer to manufacturer. That said what constitutes a meaningful set of measurements??????????
Probably a new thread
Rob🙂
agree totally Rob (check your pms).
It is a common 'point' from the 'science does not it all crowd'.
Start that new thread!
It is a common 'point' from the 'science does not it all crowd'.
Start that new thread!
How can Intel put 1.17 billion transistors in to a six core processor clocking 3,300,000,000 Hz and yet there are undiscovered properties in cables in the range of 0 to 100,000 Hz?!? Just doesn't seem plausible.
(wakibaki read and liked your post!)
(wakibaki read and liked your post!)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.