audio-kraut said:
Shielding technique. Not saying it's significant but choosing to sink RF at source or load is one way a cable can theoretically be described as directional without diodes.
I am familiar with that one.
But that is usually not what a manufacturer claims when writing about directionality.
They usually refer to properties of the wire in the cable itself.
They mean/claim both as you and RDF said.Most "prefer"shielding at the source end but I have seen some with shield connected at the load end,even connected at both ends.Balanced cable with rca's I mean.
At least if we are talking about twisted pair interconnects with a shield connected only to one side, then a difference can exist depending which way the cable is connected to signal source and receiver.
@ SY,
if i remember it right, MF was indeed challenged to participate in a dbt on amplifier sound.
There were 3 amplifiers in the test, ?one? tube amplifier and ?two? transistor amplifiers.
It was a discrimination test and MF got the answer right or different correct 5 times out of 5 trials, which gives a probability of guessing of roughly 0.03.
Further did he name the amplifier which was playing in each trial (not asked for, but he did it anyway) and got it right 4 times out of 5 trials. Probability of guessing that is roughly 0.03 too.
As no other participant supplied this identification one could argue that the "lucky coin argument" is a bit weaker than before.
I´ve never seen the raw data nor a detailed statistical analysis of the results, so if somebody has a citation i would appreciate it much.
Afair David Clark was involved and wanted to eq the tube amplifier, an idea that was rejected by the manufacturer (just to remember, David Clark has a challenge running that nobody can discern two amplifiers after any frequency response difference was corrected by equalization below 0.1dB difference).
So, if David Clark thought indeed that equalization should have been done, the assumption is justified that the frequency response difference was above the detection threshold rule that Clark usually applied.
But still no other participant was able to detect it?
Arises the question what the number of trials for each amplifiers was.
Anyway if MF was challenged indeed, then it was a bad idea (or a very clever one 🙂 ) to invite many others to participate and evaluate the results for the whole group.
@ SY,
if i remember it right, MF was indeed challenged to participate in a dbt on amplifier sound.
There were 3 amplifiers in the test, ?one? tube amplifier and ?two? transistor amplifiers.
It was a discrimination test and MF got the answer right or different correct 5 times out of 5 trials, which gives a probability of guessing of roughly 0.03.
Further did he name the amplifier which was playing in each trial (not asked for, but he did it anyway) and got it right 4 times out of 5 trials. Probability of guessing that is roughly 0.03 too.
As no other participant supplied this identification one could argue that the "lucky coin argument" is a bit weaker than before.
I´ve never seen the raw data nor a detailed statistical analysis of the results, so if somebody has a citation i would appreciate it much.
Afair David Clark was involved and wanted to eq the tube amplifier, an idea that was rejected by the manufacturer (just to remember, David Clark has a challenge running that nobody can discern two amplifiers after any frequency response difference was corrected by equalization below 0.1dB difference).
So, if David Clark thought indeed that equalization should have been done, the assumption is justified that the frequency response difference was above the detection threshold rule that Clark usually applied.
But still no other participant was able to detect it?
Arises the question what the number of trials for each amplifiers was.
Anyway if MF was challenged indeed, then it was a bad idea (or a very clever one 🙂 ) to invite many others to participate and evaluate the results for the whole group.
audio-kraut said:
A friend got bi-wire speaker cable that were made with a single set of connectors on one side, (normally used on the amp side). He bought Martin Logan speakers with single inputs, so after a while he decided to turn the cables around, using the double set of connectors on the amp side (the amp have double output connectors). He said the system took a few days to sound the same as it used to, he was quite surprised by it. I did not try it myself yet, mainly because it make no sense but also I have no reason not to believe him. Will have to try sometime.
Hi,
So, who decides on that?
All in all I'm having a hard time with those self-aclaimed socalled scientists thinking they just know it all.
Time and again history shows that science only advances by the courage of rebels having the balls to dispute what was common;y known as "the truth".
Looking back, in the early Seventies every scientist would tell you all caps should behave the same. A resistor was just that, a resistor.
Nowadays we know better and science has caught up. Sort of.
Most scientists are people in need of a straw to cling to.
In order to advance science you need to be able to let go of your education.
Think out of the box and eventually science will catch up with you.
For all the pre-conditioned, brainwashed scientists I have a little test:
Have a listen to multi-core versus single core cables that have measured exact same LCR values.
Listen to copper versus silver or gold cables having again exact same measured LCR values.
No difference?
It's not that the difference isn't there or that it isn't audible it's just that some prefer to not hear it when it can't be measured or so it seems.
Cowards I say.
You only take the easy road and don't have the balls to keep an open mind and live by it. Cowards, cowards.
Ask yourself why you don't hear/ any differences. Have you really been preconditionned or brainwashed by your so called "education"?
Cheers, 😉
So, who decides on that?
All in all I'm having a hard time with those self-aclaimed socalled scientists thinking they just know it all.
Time and again history shows that science only advances by the courage of rebels having the balls to dispute what was common;y known as "the truth".
Looking back, in the early Seventies every scientist would tell you all caps should behave the same. A resistor was just that, a resistor.
Nowadays we know better and science has caught up. Sort of.
Most scientists are people in need of a straw to cling to.
In order to advance science you need to be able to let go of your education.
Think out of the box and eventually science will catch up with you.
For all the pre-conditioned, brainwashed scientists I have a little test:
Have a listen to multi-core versus single core cables that have measured exact same LCR values.
Listen to copper versus silver or gold cables having again exact same measured LCR values.
No difference?
It's not that the difference isn't there or that it isn't audible it's just that some prefer to not hear it when it can't be measured or so it seems.
Cowards I say.
You only take the easy road and don't have the balls to keep an open mind and live by it. Cowards, cowards.
Ask yourself why you don't hear/ any differences. Have you really been preconditionned or brainwashed by your so called "education"?
Cheers, 😉
What a load of rubbish.
Having worked in research labs, it is trying to push forward and validate by testing your own ideas, that makes you a name as scientist.
Repeating what others have mouthed before: gets you a job in the industry, but not as a research scientist.
Your blubbering clearly shows you are absolutely clueless as to how science works.
You seem to get your clues from the popular press like the "bild" zeitung or whatever is the equivalent in belgium.
fdegrove said:
lol, you clearly do not have a clue what scientists do 😱
For over 20 years I have been doing the tests and having fun with engineering friends. I put up money for anyone to prove they can hear a difference in any VALID test. No one has won the $100 bill I put on the table in EVERY test.
I offer $1000 online to anyone that can prove they hear a difference in a VALID test between two cables that the specs and builds are known before hand (Verification obviously is needed).
I have seen $10K systems vs $500 systems (same speakers) in a test where less the 50% of the people picked the $10K system as having the better sound.
I have done 10AWG vs 18AWG (3 foot length) speaker wire tests with a friend that had zero science background but thought because he was an audiophile he knew something about audio. He hated giving me the money.
The only question I have for all those who think science is not important (because it goes against them). Why have NONE of you ever won money ??
If its so easy, win the money 😀
No one in this thread has yet to prove their is an audible difference, no one has even done a DBT and posted those results (if they did I missed it) but people can post subjective crazy stuff all day and all night......its an amazing world.
fdegrove said:
Maybe, maybe not. Is it implied that there will be a preference to copper, silver, gold in that order? Gold welding cable now there's a concept $$$$$$. I have no reason to believe gold cables sound "better" anymore than lead ones sound "dull" or mercury filled tubes sound "liquid". Platinum or osmium are other possibilities.
I guess everyone just wants to ignore the Carver/Fremmer story. Doing this stuff right is a LOT of work and I don't know if anyone is actually up for repeating this with cables.
doug20 said:
I think you and most scientists wouldn't be very happy if this post of yours was to be read/used in order for someone to understand what scientists do.......for over 20 years.
doug20 said:
Somehow 'putting money on the result' and 'valid test' aren't jiving as good science to me. Satisfying perhaps, methodologically pristine not so much.
And it only advances when beautiful hypotheses are abandoned when repeated experiments don't support them. Time to move on, Frank.
Of course cables make a difference!!! Without them the electrons would just fall out of the connectors and then they would have to crawl across the floor to the speakers by themselves! That's why!!!😀
Peace,
Dave
Peace,
Dave
1954, muchas gracias for detailing your work. Could you clarify how the scoring was recorded? How were the presentation orders determined?
Again, many thanks for taking the trouble to respond.
Again, many thanks for taking the trouble to respond.
rdf said:
rdf your avatar keeps saying Maynard G. Krebs to me.
EDIT - I found the original, some things you don't forget even after 40yr.
In any product line one will usually find the essential, followed by the full featured and finally the esoteric. Usually above full featured you are dealing with diminishing returns.
I do not doubt that somewhere, somehow a test will be devised to difinitively prove that $1000 or even $10000 in cables has a return on nvestment. However is something like this really helping? Why stop at cables? If you are blessed with the ability to stroke the check, don't. Do, however realize where the biggest assets of your system are and before condemning a set of cables, define what is missing and share that information.
Another thing - to prove objectively that cables matter, equipment is needed. If that equipment quality falls short of what you are testing, how accurate is the test? Remember here that we are not looking for that which is easy to find so this may matter more than you would think.
I do not doubt that somewhere, somehow a test will be devised to difinitively prove that $1000 or even $10000 in cables has a return on nvestment. However is something like this really helping? Why stop at cables? If you are blessed with the ability to stroke the check, don't. Do, however realize where the biggest assets of your system are and before condemning a set of cables, define what is missing and share that information.
Another thing - to prove objectively that cables matter, equipment is needed. If that equipment quality falls short of what you are testing, how accurate is the test? Remember here that we are not looking for that which is easy to find so this may matter more than you would think.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.