So you think there's a chance that Geoff tapping on a pie tin over the phone to tweak someone's system might just work?
se
oh ffs John - are you LOOKING for a credibility downgrade or what? Doesn't your use of the word CRAZY in describing the "stuff" clue you in?
I have always assumed that the Machina Dynamica was a gigantic p1ss-take. The fact that independent credence - ANY credence - could be given to the purported functionality of the products just fills me with wonder.
The fact that such support, however tentatively or conditionally given, should come from a doyen of the audio community (albeit it a doyen with an insufferable level of self importance...) is cause to reconsider my assumptions of that person's capability.
Tell me it isn't so...
I have always assumed that the Machina Dynamica was a gigantic p1ss-take. The fact that independent credence - ANY credence - could be given to the purported functionality of the products just fills me with wonder.
The fact that such support, however tentatively or conditionally given, should come from a doyen of the audio community (albeit it a doyen with an insufferable level of self importance...) is cause to reconsider my assumptions of that person's capability.
Tell me it isn't so...
Most of you know very little about Geoff Kait. I know him fairly well. Very well educated aerospace engineer. Works for the government, mostly. He is reckless with his claims for his inventions, and I cannot defend them further.
However, given the attitude toward ALL audio people here on this thread, I can't lose much telling the rest of you what I think.
However, given the attitude toward ALL audio people here on this thread, I can't lose much telling the rest of you what I think.
I think that asking someone to question their perception isn't exactly as bad of an offense as some people seem to take it as. And that's usually where people start to get offended ime. And then things get elevated and a little preachy on both sides.
The charlatan comment is something I think a lot of people see all around them in this audio game. And I have to agree that something is going on in this business where it can be more profitable to confuse the customer base so that it's harder to match components *cough* amp specs *cough*.
Sure it's great for business to have a business model where everyone is supposed to just swap out parts endlessly with no clear end it sight but do you really think that is the way it should be? Do you ever think that the audio community as a whole could come together and actually figure out some standards that are simple and work? And disregard this small stuff that really doesn't matter.
geoff kait hardly comes off looking good on forums either. let alone his website and products.
cable differences are positively sane compared to his shtick.
cable differences are positively sane compared to his shtick.
With some cables it is possible to hear differences quite easilly and quickly, with others it may take a lot of cable swapping to identify the difference, after identifying the difference it become much easier to tell which cable is used.
I can't see that it will be easy (or possible) to hear these smaller (meaning harder to find) differences on an unknown system (probably listening to unknown music), even if it is a good system set up correctly, without being able to get used to it for a while. So I believe training on both are needed before doing the actual test. Not something that can be achieved with unexperienced listeners in a short period of time.
That sounds like differences exist for those who can hear them,and not exist for tose who cannot hear them.Does this lead anywhere?
Last edited:
The Advanced Audiophile http://www.theadvancedaudiophile.com/index-2.html
Quote:
"Alternative audio, "advanced audio", can be most easily defined as products or techniques that purport to improve audio or video without any demonstrable effect on the signal chain or air pressure waves coming from the loudspeakers."
These people have obviously moved on from, claiming that the strange devices like they sell do actually affect the audio signal (although un-measureable), to claiming that although the devices do not affect the audio signal they still make the system sound better.
So far in this cable discussion, some subjectivists assume that there must be some alteration of the signal for the system to sound different. (but is un-measureable at the moment)
Unless all the feedback is faked, there are people who hear a difference with the above products, and their descriptions sound exactly like the subjective comments made here on the sound of cables, by just going on what is reported, why should I give more credence to one group over the other?
If these devices don't affect the signal, they must work by affecting the listener and/or the enviroment. Similar to a humidifier or neg ion generator altering the perceived sound.
Sy earlier made an interesting comment in regards to cables to the effect that, "why think it is the metal, maybe it is the dielectric."
There could be a valid scientific reason why cables make a system sound different even though it doesn't affect the signal. It may be the fumes from the plastic dielectric affecting the listener through handling the cable, and this is why when someone else handles the cables as in a DBT the differences just magically disappear.
No offense intended to good people with good ears.
Quote:
"Alternative audio, "advanced audio", can be most easily defined as products or techniques that purport to improve audio or video without any demonstrable effect on the signal chain or air pressure waves coming from the loudspeakers."
These people have obviously moved on from, claiming that the strange devices like they sell do actually affect the audio signal (although un-measureable), to claiming that although the devices do not affect the audio signal they still make the system sound better.
So far in this cable discussion, some subjectivists assume that there must be some alteration of the signal for the system to sound different. (but is un-measureable at the moment)
Unless all the feedback is faked, there are people who hear a difference with the above products, and their descriptions sound exactly like the subjective comments made here on the sound of cables, by just going on what is reported, why should I give more credence to one group over the other?
If these devices don't affect the signal, they must work by affecting the listener and/or the enviroment. Similar to a humidifier or neg ion generator altering the perceived sound.
Sy earlier made an interesting comment in regards to cables to the effect that, "why think it is the metal, maybe it is the dielectric."
There could be a valid scientific reason why cables make a system sound different even though it doesn't affect the signal. It may be the fumes from the plastic dielectric affecting the listener through handling the cable, and this is why when someone else handles the cables as in a DBT the differences just magically disappear.
No offense intended to good people with good ears.
An Bud is saying it is (mostly) the dielectric.
That is one of the reasons why black cables often sound different than the same cable with the "same" dielectric but not black.
dave
So what, if anything, does the left/right brain scenario have to do with these types of tests?
I was talking about tests done by professors in white coats. 🙂
Did we, last time when I got irritated enough by all the @#$% and decided to do a "proper DBT", the "cables that measure the same" card got played, not that I can understand how two different cables will ever measure the same. I've tried to measure some different cables that I got here, asked if they were close enough, then my measurements seems to be not good enough. I came to the conclusion that nothing I can do will ever be good enough, thus only a waste of time.
As said I was talking about the clever guys in white coats, but I guess you are right, they must be in YOUR camp. 🙂 I can only hope they want to find real results and consider what the OTHER side has to say.[/QUOTE]
Sorry terry, it's just that I'm convinced there are differences between cables, ask Janneman also. 😀
I'm glad you realise that, then consider I hate work, I really don't want to go through all that effort for nothing. 🙂
I have now had an opportunity to relook at Toole’s book. It turns out that he makes a number of comments concerning subjective and objective measurements that are relevant to this debate. Even though the book is about loudspeakers, he makes some very strong and pointed comments about subjective listening tests.
For instance, in Chapter 17 Loudspeakers I: Subjective Evaluations he has this to say concerning bias in sighted listening tests (page 345) “It is not a mystery that knowledge of the products being evaluated is a powerful source of psychological bias. In comparison tests of many kinds, especially in wine tasting and drug testing, considerable effort is expended to ensure the anonymity of the devices or substances being evaluated. If the mind thinks that something is real, the appropriate perceptions or bodily reactions can follow. In audio, many otherwise serious people persist in the belief that they can ignore such non-auditory factors as price, size, brand, and so on." And again on the same page: “In controlled listening tests and in measurements, electronic devices in general, speaker wire, and audio-frequency interconnection cables are found to exhibit small to non-existent differences.” And again: “ This is a segment of the audio industry that is aptly described as ‘faith-based’. If you believe something, there is a possibility that you will hear it, and if you hear it, nothing can persuade you that, in a fully sighted evaluation, you might have been mistaken.”
After describing some experiments which sought to control the physical and psychological variables involving listening tests with loudspeakers, Toole summarises what was learnt from his research as follows (page 361) “…it is clear that knowing the identities of loudspeakers under tests can change subjective ratings. They can change the ratings to correspond to presumed capabilities of the product, based on price, size, or reputation. So strong is that attachment of ‘perceived’ sound quality to the identity of the product that in sighted tests, listeners substantially ignored easily audible problems associated with loudspeaker location in the room and interactions with different programs." Further: “These findings mean that if one wishes to obtain candid opinions about how a loudspeaker sounds, the tests must (his italics) be done blind.”
In another chapter, Chapter 18: Loudspeakers II: Objective Evaluations, Toole describes research linking the results of objective measurements with those from controlled listening tests. After noting that better measurements have helped loudspeaker manufacturers create better products, he makes these further observations about subjective, uncontrolled listening (page 393): “Reviewers continue to ignore the scientific method, and a few even disparage those who follow it. Listening tests continue to be of the ‘take it home and listen to it’ kind, so many important variables are not controlled, and adaption and bias are both factors.”
Toole, BTW, is highly respected and qualified in audio. He received his PhD in England in stereo localization, and conducted experiments over a period of 25 years at the Canadian National Research Council, beginning in the 1970s. In his search for an accurate speaker with which to conduct his experiments, he discovered wild inconsistencies in speaker design and measurement, and an absence of controlled scientific research. Toole gathered the results of tests of frequency-response measurements and controlled listening tests by listeners with normal hearing and wrote scientific papers that were published in Audio Engineering Society (AES) Journals. The papers, "Listening Tests: Turning Opinion into Fact" and "Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listener Preferences," were unprecedented. Toole is also a Fellow and Past President of the Audio Engineering Society.
This sort of thing is regarded by Toole's faith-based admirers much as the miracle of Cana is by the teetotalers. "Yes, he turned the water into wine, but I don't think he really meant it."
BTW, I had no idea that Toole had used "faith-based" in this context. My apologies to him for inadvertently expropriating his phrase.
Actually, I meant 'answers' given in this thread. Many of the tests you use as proof of no difference are similar to claiming a ruler is a precision measuring instrument.
I'm very aware of the influences you are talking about, I've openly agreed to that several times. I do however belief that with training and the correct mindset (regarding what is important to you when testing and realising there are no advantage in trying to fool yourself) these influences can be minimised. As said earlier, the blind tests I've done only confirmed my sighted tests, so I really fail to see why I must go through all the effort each time I want to make comparisons.
I really don't care what a cable look like, what brand it is, ridicilous cost may rather count against it anyway, all that interest me is the influence it have on the SQ of my system. Thus far I have not tested two cables that sounded the same, some are very close but in these cases they were very similar in construction also.
Just a suggestion, don't believe everything you read.
Also be carefull on who's shoulders you stand, I've listened to some equipment designed and manufactured by "giants" that were quite disappointing. 😉
Last edited:
Has anyone tried to Enabl cables? Does it work the same for speakers? All my friends swear by it.
Yes, as I noted earlier in my question to Curly, I found it rather bizarre that the faithful would be referencing, of all things, a book by Dr Toole. Funny stuff 🙂.
Well, I disagree on that point. You have to have experience the particular sound. How we respond to a sound is really complex, and we respond much more strongly to sounds we're familiar with. Some sounds just aren't immediately apparent in a short listening test.
Differences we are trying to hear are pretty small, and every cable I'm familiar with has it's own character. Are these differences real? I think they are, but only way to know for sure is an extended listening DBT.
Even reviewers in audio magazines need time to evaluate each component they review. Got to learn the sound, no way around that IMO.
The Jastreboff model for hearing explains why: Tinnitus Retraining Therapy (TRT). The definitive site for
I think once a person becomes familiar with the sound and can identify the differences, it shouldn't be hard to pick up these differences in a blind test.
This is my biggest issue with DBT. The time it would take. I would need at a least a week to determine the influences, as I do not trust myself to make or hear differences in a short amount of time easily. If I hear anything exaggerated in a short time, I know there is a real problem with something.
I often spend up to a month going to make a final determination as to what if any changes have happened and then which is preferred in my system.
I am not against the "concept" of DBT, it is the way in which they always seem to be done that concerns me. Another of my big concerns is just how transparent is the hardware that is doing the level matching of the pieces under review?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.