nun, I don't know how many times this needs to be restated, but apparently at least once more:
Audible differences between cables or wires can be and have been established via blind testing.
All blind tests that have shown positive results are those where the cables caused an easily measurable change in amplifier stability and/or frequency response.
To date, there are NO blind tests of cables or wires which show differences not due to simple considerations of L, C, and R. There are NO blind tests published to date showing that (for example) copper and silver can be distinguished by ear.
I don't know how to be more "objective" than that.
Audible differences between cables or wires can be and have been established via blind testing.
All blind tests that have shown positive results are those where the cables caused an easily measurable change in amplifier stability and/or frequency response.
To date, there are NO blind tests of cables or wires which show differences not due to simple considerations of L, C, and R. There are NO blind tests published to date showing that (for example) copper and silver can be distinguished by ear.
I don't know how to be more "objective" than that.
And as a follow-on, the cables and wires in my reasonably high-end system are all very non-exotic.
SY said:
I wander what kind of an amplifier that was, that craps out at the sight of a cable.
Single ended triode perhaps?
fredex said:
fredex, what you say is true although I don't think it is correct to generalise. Who said listening is the subjectivist's only truth? I've said I believe in measurements, I just don't think that the normal measurements are sufficient.
As I've said, I don't believe in magic, there must be explanations. If it happen between the ears, why is it possible to hear the same differences between cables and components even in blind tests? I've said earlier also that I don't have any preference for the outcome of any comparative test, I'm searching for what sounds best to me.
André
Claiming I don't understand does not make it true.
Claiming that a test you have never actually performed will prove something does not make it true.
Claiming that I am being aggressive does not make it true, and I would argue that you are being aggressive. You are attacking me while I am only stating the irrelevance of your test.
We are not talking about localization, if we were I might engage you on your test idea, I don't think it is scientifically complete but a good start. We are talking about cables, so if you want to recommend a test that will prove or disprove the audibility of cables then I will gladly work with you, and you will hear nothing but constructive criticism, or praise-whichever is appropriate. I am not a prick! You guys are making claims that we feel are unsubstantiated, you think we should just agree with you? Take your word for it? What knowledge or data have you shown us that would make us abandon all of our knowledge, data and experiences and believe you?
When you repeatedly avoid the cable discussion and use distractions about localization testing, you are feeding the stereotype that subjectivists avoid fact by changing the topic.
If you honestly feel that your test can further the topic of the audibility of cables then please explain to us how. What part of you test protocol tests cables?
Don't think you can rattle me by calling me dumb and saying I should reread your posts and ask questions of you about your expertise.
Wait a minute, who are you? What is your expertise? Are you an engineer or physicist or something? And why the assumption that you are the only one who can create a test?
You can't logically prove a negative beyond all doubt, but you can certainly collect overwhelming amounts of evidence that reduce the doubt to negligible levels. So, as a practical matter, in many cases you can prove a negative quite well enough.
If there ever was a Santa Claus, he's dead now.
If there ever was a Santa Claus, he's dead now.
Sy I Apologise
Sy, I apologise. I do want to say that nunayfb started this by first twisted everything I said 180 degrees and then making comments based on these twisted words as if that was "supposedly" what I said. Second nunayfb also first implied I was a liar by stating I lied through my teeth. So when it appeared that the moderators weren't going to step in and curtail his actions, I defended myself and my POV. You'll propably notice nunayfb also twisted what Jneutron said as well! Heck even when you finally called both nunayfb and myself to the carpet instead of apologising for his actions he's attempting to defend this behavior.
Like I told nunayfb my POV is the audio hobby and the discussing of differing audio POVs is supposed to be fun, not a win at any cost war! Sadly for some it's the other way around. Therefore I have chosen to refrain from any futher communications with nunayfb. That said, again I apologise for my behavior and I thank you for allowing me to continue posting.
SY said:
Sy, I apologise. I do want to say that nunayfb started this by first twisted everything I said 180 degrees and then making comments based on these twisted words as if that was "supposedly" what I said. Second nunayfb also first implied I was a liar by stating I lied through my teeth. So when it appeared that the moderators weren't going to step in and curtail his actions, I defended myself and my POV. You'll propably notice nunayfb also twisted what Jneutron said as well! Heck even when you finally called both nunayfb and myself to the carpet instead of apologising for his actions he's attempting to defend this behavior.
Like I told nunayfb my POV is the audio hobby and the discussing of differing audio POVs is supposed to be fun, not a win at any cost war! Sadly for some it's the other way around. Therefore I have chosen to refrain from any futher communications with nunayfb. That said, again I apologise for my behavior and I thank you for allowing me to continue posting.
Another twisted argument
SY, not one objectivist has made a claim that a cable with a significant measurable flaw would not be audible in any type of test controlled or not. Why? We believe if it is measurable it is possible that it is audible, audibility is debatable.
If I wanted to be sarcastic maybe I could word it this way:
The argument about the audibility of cables only includes quality cables where the LCR impacts are negligible in the audible range, as we have stated several times.
As a moderator who warned me and 1954 about our tactics you should probably use caution with smart aleck comments, you know lead by example and all...
AJinFLA said:
Hi Strawman, for sure science know something, who said they don't?
I use the science of high quality components and good design topologies, confirmed by measurements AND lots of listening, in my equipment. No magic, only lots of effort and willingness to learn.
The "good cable" scientists make use of high purity copper or silver of the correct diameter etc. and the use of good dielectric material to minimise losses in the cable. No magic. Ask them I'm only using them. 😉
André
Jakob2 said:
A very valid point, the brain (mine at least) can only concentrate on one thing at a time and for those with no DBT experience it is very easy to concentrate on the "test" only.
So you can defend yourself but I can't?
If your argument and statements had merit then why apologize?
I have yet to hear any statements from the subjectivists that are provable, if you want this to be a fun discussion then why are you all digging your heels in? If you make accurate and fair statements that are relative to the discussion at hand I will respond politely, as will everyone else. I was not trying to attack you guys any more than you were attacking me, I was attacking your statements. I felt, and still feel that your statements lacked credibility, that they were intended to be distractive, I still stand by this.
If you feel that you can't respond to my, or anyones technical arguments then say so, don't use our knowledge that your arguments lack merit as an excuse to "not play anymore"
I gave you guys the opportunity to pick a topic that we could focus on, you declined. Any reason? I could speculate as to your motives but you guys think that is rude so I will wait for an answer.
You all have avoided my theory on why you are hearing differences between cables or whatever (where no significant measurable differences exist).
Why?
If you want everyone to learn and have fun then why dismiss a theory that can be easily proven? People who dismiss things are usually the ones trying to win the "war" regardless of the truth. Your lack of response to a common phenomenon is rather suspect.
Hello John!
You stated the copper tracks on the PC board can play a significant role in the amplifiers ability to be accurate.
Show me any audio amplifier pc board design layout, and I will explain exactly where the poor design is, and why there is no control over where the current goes, why there is lots of mag field splaying about within the design. Coupled with wiring layout off the board, and you have the spaghetti syndrome..
============================================
I agree with you 100% the copper tracks and the layout of the parts is extremely critical to a components final sound! So much so in fact that when John Curl ---{who I believe is an outstanding audio component designer}--- set out to make the world's "best" preamp, after he created the circuit design he decided to give the task of component layout to Carl Thompson.
John believed that circuit layout was crucial to obtaining the best sound from his circuit design. Mr Curl didn't even stop there giving the task of final assembly/burnin/voicing to Bob Crump. It amazes me when I see many people proclaiming if it was a "fact" that properly-designed amps, preamps, etc have no sound of their own. Yet when a highly trained engineer was seeking the very best from the circuit he designed he gave component layout to someone else! I may be mistaken but it appears that just component layout itself can greatly influence the sound of an audio component, no?
You stated the copper tracks on the PC board can play a significant role in the amplifiers ability to be accurate.
Show me any audio amplifier pc board design layout, and I will explain exactly where the poor design is, and why there is no control over where the current goes, why there is lots of mag field splaying about within the design. Coupled with wiring layout off the board, and you have the spaghetti syndrome..
============================================
I agree with you 100% the copper tracks and the layout of the parts is extremely critical to a components final sound! So much so in fact that when John Curl ---{who I believe is an outstanding audio component designer}--- set out to make the world's "best" preamp, after he created the circuit design he decided to give the task of component layout to Carl Thompson.
John believed that circuit layout was crucial to obtaining the best sound from his circuit design. Mr Curl didn't even stop there giving the task of final assembly/burnin/voicing to Bob Crump. It amazes me when I see many people proclaiming if it was a "fact" that properly-designed amps, preamps, etc have no sound of their own. Yet when a highly trained engineer was seeking the very best from the circuit he designed he gave component layout to someone else! I may be mistaken but it appears that just component layout itself can greatly influence the sound of an audio component, no?
Sometimes when my dog leaves me one 
Though I believe enough of any of the effects talked about here will be audible, there are an awful lot of things like skin effect, conductor material, magnetic induction, dissipation factor, dielectric absorption, RF, stray capacitance, and such, that aren't always the large factors they're made out to be. Design needs to be done well, RF controlled, and all those factors thought about, but once the spectrum is clean, the amp stable, and the wires conductive enough to get power to the speaker, there isn't much left. DBTs do work as intended, and when you get a null result, it's likely a null result. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Though I believe enough of any of the effects talked about here will be audible, there are an awful lot of things like skin effect, conductor material, magnetic induction, dissipation factor, dielectric absorption, RF, stray capacitance, and such, that aren't always the large factors they're made out to be. Design needs to be done well, RF controlled, and all those factors thought about, but once the spectrum is clean, the amp stable, and the wires conductive enough to get power to the speaker, there isn't much left. DBTs do work as intended, and when you get a null result, it's likely a null result. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
R-Carpenter said:
Quite the opposite, an SET will generally have a high enough output impedance to damp out the effect of mere cables.
You're probably too young to remember the Discwasher and Polk cables, but they regularly caused many high feedback solid-state amps of their time to scream and die. To a lesser extent, there were amps that would merely do low-level oscillations, then fuzz the sound up beautifully. Clip them and all hell would break loose.
Andre Visser said:
Ok, while you continue to wave you hands about, I will ask, specifically, what technical and scientific parameters constitute "high quality" components and "good" design topologies? You intentional vagueness and continuing obfuscation betrays your true position.
Andre, remember me stating previously that there is no shame in you answering "I don't know"?
Andre Visser said:
Confirm? Confirm what parameters? What is being measured? What method of "lot's of listening" is being used to "confirm" what?
No magic? So now it is known, measurable parameters? But you still cannot state them. Just "good" this and "high quality" that waving about.
Andre Visser said:
Ask them? You just stated that copper/silver purity, "correct" diameter and "good" dielectric are being used. Are you withholding knowledge, or bluffing? How do you know that this makes the cable "good" to use? Relying on your biases, preconceived notions and uncontrolled listening tests again?
thetubeguy1954 said:
The OP was clearly pointing out the material - copper, which some psychogenic listeners believe is inferior to silver, etc. rather than anything with the layout. Not sure what John saw other than this in his post.
thetubeguy1954 said:
The worlds best preamp? As defined by????
We have irrefutable proof of something because John Curl gave things to Bob Crump and Carl Thompson?
Subjectivist don't require much do they...
BTW, your whole blurb above is also known as appeal to authority.
cheers,
AJ
Here's an ABX
If you were a biologist worried about a certain quiet critter that people thought might be having "numbers" issues. This critter was usually found in a certain swampy area.
How would you go about finding out if this critter was still about.
A. Set up a test at the local community centre?
B. Set up a microphone or 2 in the swamp in the hope of recording the critter among all the frogs.
X. Go searching in the swampy area.
just a simple A, B or X will do.
If you were a biologist worried about a certain quiet critter that people thought might be having "numbers" issues. This critter was usually found in a certain swampy area.
How would you go about finding out if this critter was still about.
A. Set up a test at the local community centre?
B. Set up a microphone or 2 in the swamp in the hope of recording the critter among all the frogs.
X. Go searching in the swampy area.
just a simple A, B or X will do.
And another one.
A "listener" reports that they can tell the difference between two cables in their system. but you want confirmation..
What do you do
A. Set up a test in the local community centre..
B. order the "listener" to provide measurements so you too can hear the difference.
A "listener" reports that they can tell the difference between two cables in their system. but you want confirmation..
What do you do
A. Set up a test in the local community centre..
B. order the "listener" to provide measurements so you too can hear the difference.
Andy,
In the second one I'll pick C.
C) Have him invite me over for a listen. If I don't hear a difference, I ask him to keep feeding me beer until I do.
In the second one I'll pick C.
C) Have him invite me over for a listen. If I don't hear a difference, I ask him to keep feeding me beer until I do.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.