cables
I suppose you culd say an ideal cable would make no difference. There ain't no such animal. There are only varying degrees of bad. What this means is you take your chances. I like simple no frills designs for the reason that they are less likely to do something bad, besides I'm cheap.
I suppose you culd say an ideal cable would make no difference. There ain't no such animal. There are only varying degrees of bad. What this means is you take your chances. I like simple no frills designs for the reason that they are less likely to do something bad, besides I'm cheap.
Hi,
Right on the money...money?Right, money.
I don't think money is the issue here, or is it?
Anyways, I agree I wouldn't overspend on that either...especially knowing that you can easily brew your own.
How does one measure the difference between the two pieces of sh*t anyway?
Thank you for leaving the door wide open...One reason I swear that solid core is better for audio apps is that I'm a strong believer in consistency/continuity.
In Europe at least every mains supply is wired with solid core.
Having had the difference demoed to me by the good people of the long defunct British Hi-Fi mag Hi-Fi Answers many years ago I tried solid core power cable at home and I was, once again bedazzled with the results.
Logically, I was quick off the mark to try out SC speaker cable and ICs as well...Lo and behold I once again I heard the same " cut of one cloth" sound again.
Later on I tried silver wire on request of a friend who was looking for a house designer.
I couldn't believe it... every time I replaced a piece a copper wire for silver it seemed I came a step closer to what seemed like a master tape recording.
No matter what or how I measured I couldn't see any reasonable explanation on the scopes...yet we knew it was there, repeatably so and it has been like that for years like this now.
I must say I'm desperate to measure and find a scientific explanation why this sounds so unorthodixically well.
In the meantime I enjoy the music knowing well enough that somehow, at some time, somebody is going to offer a very well measured solid proof that my ears haven't deceived me all along...
You know, I'm the same nutter that claims that no two caps sound exactly the same... nor do two resistor makes for that matter.
Mind you I also once claimed that no two chassis materials sound the same...
All that , plus a ton of other wild claims and hard work resulted in systems that are unblelievably neutral, image like you would fall off your chair and still manage not to reveal themselves explicably on a scope or FFT.
Mati Otalla must have hit a nerve at JAES too...
Mind you, it's easy enough to try out ...not that any of the tortizza throwers plan to of course.
Cheers,;
Right on the money...money?Right, money.
I don't think money is the issue here, or is it?
Anyways, I agree I wouldn't overspend on that either...especially knowing that you can easily brew your own.
How does one measure the difference between the two pieces of sh*t anyway?
Thank you for leaving the door wide open...One reason I swear that solid core is better for audio apps is that I'm a strong believer in consistency/continuity.
In Europe at least every mains supply is wired with solid core.
Having had the difference demoed to me by the good people of the long defunct British Hi-Fi mag Hi-Fi Answers many years ago I tried solid core power cable at home and I was, once again bedazzled with the results.
Logically, I was quick off the mark to try out SC speaker cable and ICs as well...Lo and behold I once again I heard the same " cut of one cloth" sound again.
Later on I tried silver wire on request of a friend who was looking for a house designer.
I couldn't believe it... every time I replaced a piece a copper wire for silver it seemed I came a step closer to what seemed like a master tape recording.
No matter what or how I measured I couldn't see any reasonable explanation on the scopes...yet we knew it was there, repeatably so and it has been like that for years like this now.
I must say I'm desperate to measure and find a scientific explanation why this sounds so unorthodixically well.
In the meantime I enjoy the music knowing well enough that somehow, at some time, somebody is going to offer a very well measured solid proof that my ears haven't deceived me all along...
You know, I'm the same nutter that claims that no two caps sound exactly the same... nor do two resistor makes for that matter.
Mind you I also once claimed that no two chassis materials sound the same...
All that , plus a ton of other wild claims and hard work resulted in systems that are unblelievably neutral, image like you would fall off your chair and still manage not to reveal themselves explicably on a scope or FFT.
Mati Otalla must have hit a nerve at JAES too...
Mind you, it's easy enough to try out ...not that any of the tortizza throwers plan to of course.
Cheers,;
I mentioned this much earlier.
I have a young friend who is studying film and sound production.
I gave him a couple of lengths of 10-pair telephone cable to use as speaker cable.
This cable has VERY low loop inductance.
George took these cables to his college and performed a blind AB test to his lecturers.
All the lecturers present heard the difference and preferred the 10-pair without having seen it beforehand, and this cable has now become standard equipment in the teaching studios.
I also have a professional guitarist muso fried who much prefers the sound of 10-pair on his Marshall JCM-900/dual quad boxes rig, and tells me that he is getting rather cleaner sounds and better articulation.
These are anecdotal examples of course, but three out of three listeners can hear the difference, and in this case prefer this difference.
That amplifiers can sound different according to conjugate loading is easily explained and ought not to be any surprise.
That some of you should keep arguing the audibility of the effects of differeing cables seem inexperinced to me.
Eric.
I have a young friend who is studying film and sound production.
I gave him a couple of lengths of 10-pair telephone cable to use as speaker cable.
This cable has VERY low loop inductance.
George took these cables to his college and performed a blind AB test to his lecturers.
All the lecturers present heard the difference and preferred the 10-pair without having seen it beforehand, and this cable has now become standard equipment in the teaching studios.
I also have a professional guitarist muso fried who much prefers the sound of 10-pair on his Marshall JCM-900/dual quad boxes rig, and tells me that he is getting rather cleaner sounds and better articulation.
These are anecdotal examples of course, but three out of three listeners can hear the difference, and in this case prefer this difference.
That amplifiers can sound different according to conjugate loading is easily explained and ought not to be any surprise.
That some of you should keep arguing the audibility of the effects of differeing cables seem inexperinced to me.
Eric.
Re: I don't beleive cables make a difference, any input?
You and me both....🙂
The Paulinator said:
You and me both....🙂
Jocko: A method is irrational if it has no correspondence to known theory AND (big logic sign warning!) there is no solid evidence to back it up.
Could I ask you a personal favor? Would you trust me to read your paper and give you an honest opinion before seeing the referees' comments (so as not to have a bias going in)? I'll stipulate that anything I read or say to you will not be disclosed to anyone without your express permission. If I think you've got something worth being published and the referees' comments are as ridiculous as you feel they are, I will jump firmly over to your side. Publically. Loudly. I have friends in high places, Elders, if you will.
Could I ask you a personal favor? Would you trust me to read your paper and give you an honest opinion before seeing the referees' comments (so as not to have a bias going in)? I'll stipulate that anything I read or say to you will not be disclosed to anyone without your express permission. If I think you've got something worth being published and the referees' comments are as ridiculous as you feel they are, I will jump firmly over to your side. Publically. Loudly. I have friends in high places, Elders, if you will.
Re: Now we're getting somewhere
Konnichwa,
First, the quoting system on this board sucks. Majorly. So I revert to old school.
> When you said quote:
>
> Well, for M we have Magneto-Striction (Relevant primarily for
> Speaker Cables).
I said this, yes. Literally this. No more and no less.
> I kinda thought you were saying that magnetostriction
> was relevant to speaker cables, and this was how it worked,
I did indeed say that Magnetostriction was applicable to speaker cables, primarily because we deal with material current levels.
Did I claim universal audibility for MS? Show me where I SAID IT!
What you thought is irelevant to me.
You can think anything you like (if you live in a truely democratic country you can even say so).
However, I am someone who (despite the fact that English is my third language and I'm predicatbly bad at it) takes a modicum of pride in using language to say EXACTLY what I wish to say.
If I want to be cryptic - I am. You can tell it in that what I write is not understandable as plain english without THE KEY.
Anything that does make sense in english is just what it says.
SIMPLY READ THE ****ING WORDS.
FULL STOP.
YOU CAN READ, CAN YOU?
> But to be fair, no where did you say it actually mattered,
I said it mattered in so far as it is a material, empirically observable effect.
Audible?
Do you care?
Go and find it out yourself!
> and only you know for sure whether or not
> you meant to infer it.
To be absolutely blunt. I say what I mean to say and what I say (write) is limited exactly and strictly to what I say (write). There is no meaning implied past that which is proposed. THere may be vistas beyound that - if you want to find them - go looking.
> So for clarity, since you have emphatically said that it only
> MAY effect the sound, we need only assess probability.
Do we? If so - how. I will also go on record saying that extensive ear wax buildup in your ears may or may not lead to audible and quatifiable differences. What has probability to do with it?
> I think Ian did a marvelous job of showing a basic 0 probability
Ian did a marevelous job of taking one specific example and calculating from it a very limited and specific set of results. Now I thought we already agreed in principle that in speaker cable the influence of the capacitance is relatively speaking minor, while inductance dominates.
I find it indeed marvelous that Ian choose to use the mostly irelevvant (in the very simple electrical sense of the word) parameter and ignored the material one in his analysis. Could it be that the wish was the father of the analysis?
> and a near 0 possibility
There are many NEAR ZERO possibilities which in reality and on an individual basis have fatal results. Despite a "near zero possibility".
> from a capacitive standpoint at least.
Did I ever claim capacitance (and it's parasitics) to be a material factor in speaker cables? I do not remember doing so, but you obviously do, so please provide the references to me say9ing so (my memory is notoriously abd).
> You don’t like his 3mm spacing
I did not like his fundamental approach of presenting a reasonable but single, islolated and already adjusted for showing a "minimum effect" case as fact.
Ian failed to present together with his analysis (ignoring the fact that he analysed [deliberatly] the wrong parameter) a statement of limitation of his thesis. Had he said that his analysis applies only to capacitance, which in speaker cables has little or no impact and if he had omited to then issue a general claim of QED on such limited and irelevant data, I would be tempted to simply take hsi "3mm spacing" as a proposed experiment.
> and the fact that his calculations should have been for L,
But hell, that is the KEY factor. Come on dude, do you know High School level Physics and at least EE101 Electrics?
> so again it appears that you still hold to the idea that
> magnetostriction can have an effect.
Of course magnetostriction has an effect. If the result of this effect is:
measurable/audible/relevant to my enjoyment of music
is a totally different topic.
It will just not do to argue that that fattness of a pig relates inversely to the designated hitter rule in green, which with all due disrespect is exactly the kind of utter tomfoolery you are regulary perpetrating.
Please stick to facts, not interpretations.
> Since Ian already did most of the hard work,
Actually, ignoring how hard or not the work was, he did all his work on a subject that failed to be relevant to the topic, which is his priviledge.
> I think you can plug in a more realistic spacing and solve for L.
Yes I CAN.
Can you?
> So, you have two options, show relevance for L,
> or admit that it cannot have any Real effect on the sound.
You see, you are again mixing the bowsprite with the rudder (which often happens to vessels in tropical climes that are so to speak "snarked" - to quote Lewis Caroll).
> 1) Cables make differences.
>
> I can’t answer that one for sure until you specify what
> differences.
See the following points. It is a basic blanket statement, not qualifying anything. It means exactly waht is written, namely:
1) Cables make differences.
Had I intended to say that cables make an audible difference, I would have typed:
"1) Cables make an audible difference. "
Except, I did not type (untill a few seconds ago and then only for illustration on semantics) that sentence, I typed what I typed.
> But I’ll assume (which is always dangerous with you) that
> you mean “audible” differences.
I repeat, restrict yourself to what I ahve typed/written. I am quite precise in what I write (but not with grammar or spelling). So if I did not write it there is no need for you to add what you think (wish) I would have meant, simnply stick to the facts.
> I think it is possible to design a cable that will make a
> difference,
Okay. So cables make a difference (audible, measurable with conventioanl methodes, both or neither).
DO YOU AGREE? If you do not agree please state why.
> > 2) These differences can be audible, measurable or neither
> > with current technology.
>
> I think you’re saying here that there are some audible
> differences that cannot be measured with current technology.
You think. Well, just stoip it and stick to what I have typed.
Namely:
2) These differences can be audible, measurable or neither with current technology.
Before Scanning Tunneling Electon Microscopes became "common place" (nless you try to find one to use in your 'hood) there where any number of phenomenae that where still fully real and present, despite the minor inconvenience of not being reliably quantifiable.
If you choose to refute my (arguably implied) point of:
can be [NOT] measurable with current technology
I would challenge you to prove that we can indeed quantify reliably all possible variable and that there is no new knowledge to be gained, in which case we may safely dicard any further research, something all those poor driven scientists trying to advance things will no doubt thank you for.
> Exactly why I think this is not true is because I have
> yet to see any real data that I could interpret to support this.
Ahhm. ARE you saying "I have not seen any data that would suggest effects exists in the universe that current technology cannot measure"? I mean if so, we should be told!
> I know of no principles where a sound could be detected
> by a human ear which could not be detected by a good
> microphone.
And because you know of non - nobody else knows. And hance using a microphone to record sounds allows acces to anything the huma ear/brain accomplishes. Ever tried to use speech recognitionsoftware?
You are digging a deep hole here for yourself. First opposing magnetic fields that have no effect now microphones that can do as well or better better (on all counts) that the ear/brain system. You would not possibly be willing to supply me with a (returnable) sampe of this mystical mike I could eveluate, would you?
>> 3)Some of these differences may be easy to measure using
>> conventional measurements but are inaudible.
>
> Sure thing
Okay. So when a claim I make happens to conicide with your demagogy you say "sure thing"....
>> 4)Some of these differences may be audible but are not
>> covered by conventional measurements.
>
> Repeat answer 2)
Sorry dude, in for a penny - in for a pound.
UNLESS you can proove, beyoud a reasonable doubt, that any possible effects are already covered by common and conventional measurements, you are plain and simple utterly wrong. Full stop. Basic logic, coherent and dependent on nothing than your statements.
If you did not mean to say what I read from your typed response, maybe you wish to consider to restrict yourself to say/type simply what you mean, instead of sandbagging and smokescreening.
>> 5) Many of the differences arise not from the direct (signal
>> transmission) but indirect facors (key factor "pin one
>> problem") in unbalanced interconnections between multiple,
>> mains powered pieces of equipment
>
> Well my understanding of the “pin 1 problem” was that it
> happened with balanced interconnections, as a typical
> unbalanced interconnect does not really have a pin 1.
Actually, unbalanced interconnections still retainthe "pin 1", however it is indivisibly (or almost so) to "pin 3". So, whereas balanced connections seperate the noise and signal return, unbalanced connections use the same path for both....
Again Watson, this is actually quite elementary.
<too much loblocks - continued in next post - 'cause > 10000>
Konnichwa,
First, the quoting system on this board sucks. Majorly. So I revert to old school.
> When you said quote:
>
> Well, for M we have Magneto-Striction (Relevant primarily for
> Speaker Cables).
I said this, yes. Literally this. No more and no less.
> I kinda thought you were saying that magnetostriction
> was relevant to speaker cables, and this was how it worked,
I did indeed say that Magnetostriction was applicable to speaker cables, primarily because we deal with material current levels.
Did I claim universal audibility for MS? Show me where I SAID IT!
What you thought is irelevant to me.
You can think anything you like (if you live in a truely democratic country you can even say so).
However, I am someone who (despite the fact that English is my third language and I'm predicatbly bad at it) takes a modicum of pride in using language to say EXACTLY what I wish to say.
If I want to be cryptic - I am. You can tell it in that what I write is not understandable as plain english without THE KEY.
Anything that does make sense in english is just what it says.
SIMPLY READ THE ****ING WORDS.
FULL STOP.
YOU CAN READ, CAN YOU?
> But to be fair, no where did you say it actually mattered,
I said it mattered in so far as it is a material, empirically observable effect.
Audible?
Do you care?
Go and find it out yourself!
> and only you know for sure whether or not
> you meant to infer it.
To be absolutely blunt. I say what I mean to say and what I say (write) is limited exactly and strictly to what I say (write). There is no meaning implied past that which is proposed. THere may be vistas beyound that - if you want to find them - go looking.
> So for clarity, since you have emphatically said that it only
> MAY effect the sound, we need only assess probability.
Do we? If so - how. I will also go on record saying that extensive ear wax buildup in your ears may or may not lead to audible and quatifiable differences. What has probability to do with it?
> I think Ian did a marvelous job of showing a basic 0 probability
Ian did a marevelous job of taking one specific example and calculating from it a very limited and specific set of results. Now I thought we already agreed in principle that in speaker cable the influence of the capacitance is relatively speaking minor, while inductance dominates.
I find it indeed marvelous that Ian choose to use the mostly irelevvant (in the very simple electrical sense of the word) parameter and ignored the material one in his analysis. Could it be that the wish was the father of the analysis?
> and a near 0 possibility
There are many NEAR ZERO possibilities which in reality and on an individual basis have fatal results. Despite a "near zero possibility".
> from a capacitive standpoint at least.
Did I ever claim capacitance (and it's parasitics) to be a material factor in speaker cables? I do not remember doing so, but you obviously do, so please provide the references to me say9ing so (my memory is notoriously abd).
> You don’t like his 3mm spacing
I did not like his fundamental approach of presenting a reasonable but single, islolated and already adjusted for showing a "minimum effect" case as fact.
Ian failed to present together with his analysis (ignoring the fact that he analysed [deliberatly] the wrong parameter) a statement of limitation of his thesis. Had he said that his analysis applies only to capacitance, which in speaker cables has little or no impact and if he had omited to then issue a general claim of QED on such limited and irelevant data, I would be tempted to simply take hsi "3mm spacing" as a proposed experiment.
> and the fact that his calculations should have been for L,
But hell, that is the KEY factor. Come on dude, do you know High School level Physics and at least EE101 Electrics?
> so again it appears that you still hold to the idea that
> magnetostriction can have an effect.
Of course magnetostriction has an effect. If the result of this effect is:
measurable/audible/relevant to my enjoyment of music
is a totally different topic.
It will just not do to argue that that fattness of a pig relates inversely to the designated hitter rule in green, which with all due disrespect is exactly the kind of utter tomfoolery you are regulary perpetrating.
Please stick to facts, not interpretations.
> Since Ian already did most of the hard work,
Actually, ignoring how hard or not the work was, he did all his work on a subject that failed to be relevant to the topic, which is his priviledge.
> I think you can plug in a more realistic spacing and solve for L.
Yes I CAN.
Can you?
> So, you have two options, show relevance for L,
> or admit that it cannot have any Real effect on the sound.
You see, you are again mixing the bowsprite with the rudder (which often happens to vessels in tropical climes that are so to speak "snarked" - to quote Lewis Caroll).
> 1) Cables make differences.
>
> I can’t answer that one for sure until you specify what
> differences.
See the following points. It is a basic blanket statement, not qualifying anything. It means exactly waht is written, namely:
1) Cables make differences.
Had I intended to say that cables make an audible difference, I would have typed:
"1) Cables make an audible difference. "
Except, I did not type (untill a few seconds ago and then only for illustration on semantics) that sentence, I typed what I typed.
> But I’ll assume (which is always dangerous with you) that
> you mean “audible” differences.
I repeat, restrict yourself to what I ahve typed/written. I am quite precise in what I write (but not with grammar or spelling). So if I did not write it there is no need for you to add what you think (wish) I would have meant, simnply stick to the facts.
> I think it is possible to design a cable that will make a
> difference,
Okay. So cables make a difference (audible, measurable with conventioanl methodes, both or neither).
DO YOU AGREE? If you do not agree please state why.
> > 2) These differences can be audible, measurable or neither
> > with current technology.
>
> I think you’re saying here that there are some audible
> differences that cannot be measured with current technology.
You think. Well, just stoip it and stick to what I have typed.
Namely:
2) These differences can be audible, measurable or neither with current technology.
Before Scanning Tunneling Electon Microscopes became "common place" (nless you try to find one to use in your 'hood) there where any number of phenomenae that where still fully real and present, despite the minor inconvenience of not being reliably quantifiable.
If you choose to refute my (arguably implied) point of:
can be [NOT] measurable with current technology
I would challenge you to prove that we can indeed quantify reliably all possible variable and that there is no new knowledge to be gained, in which case we may safely dicard any further research, something all those poor driven scientists trying to advance things will no doubt thank you for.
> Exactly why I think this is not true is because I have
> yet to see any real data that I could interpret to support this.
Ahhm. ARE you saying "I have not seen any data that would suggest effects exists in the universe that current technology cannot measure"? I mean if so, we should be told!
> I know of no principles where a sound could be detected
> by a human ear which could not be detected by a good
> microphone.
And because you know of non - nobody else knows. And hance using a microphone to record sounds allows acces to anything the huma ear/brain accomplishes. Ever tried to use speech recognitionsoftware?
You are digging a deep hole here for yourself. First opposing magnetic fields that have no effect now microphones that can do as well or better better (on all counts) that the ear/brain system. You would not possibly be willing to supply me with a (returnable) sampe of this mystical mike I could eveluate, would you?
>> 3)Some of these differences may be easy to measure using
>> conventional measurements but are inaudible.
>
> Sure thing
Okay. So when a claim I make happens to conicide with your demagogy you say "sure thing"....
>> 4)Some of these differences may be audible but are not
>> covered by conventional measurements.
>
> Repeat answer 2)
Sorry dude, in for a penny - in for a pound.
UNLESS you can proove, beyoud a reasonable doubt, that any possible effects are already covered by common and conventional measurements, you are plain and simple utterly wrong. Full stop. Basic logic, coherent and dependent on nothing than your statements.
If you did not mean to say what I read from your typed response, maybe you wish to consider to restrict yourself to say/type simply what you mean, instead of sandbagging and smokescreening.
>> 5) Many of the differences arise not from the direct (signal
>> transmission) but indirect facors (key factor "pin one
>> problem") in unbalanced interconnections between multiple,
>> mains powered pieces of equipment
>
> Well my understanding of the “pin 1 problem” was that it
> happened with balanced interconnections, as a typical
> unbalanced interconnect does not really have a pin 1.
Actually, unbalanced interconnections still retainthe "pin 1", however it is indivisibly (or almost so) to "pin 3". So, whereas balanced connections seperate the noise and signal return, unbalanced connections use the same path for both....
Again Watson, this is actually quite elementary.
<too much loblocks - continued in next post - 'cause > 10000>
Re: Now we're getting somewhere
<continued after the 10000 barier>
> But you’re the recording engineer, so I’ll take your word for it.
That is a first! But don't take my word. Better read Bill Withlocks AES papers....
> Regardless, I’d say that if we change all sorts of things within a
> basic shielded twisted pair such as shield material, insulation
> etc. it will have no measurable affect whatsoever on ground
> loop problems.
How about if we change the impedance of the return path? Will this cause a change? And as you not specifically wrote "... etc EXCLUDING common mode impedance" am I right to to say that your claim is:
"we [can] change all sorts of things within a basic shielded twisted pair [and] it will have no measurable affect whatsoever
on ground loop problems."
If this is not what you meant to say, can you please be more precise?
(BTW, "ground loops" are a fairly complex and wideband [into the GHz range] subject).
> Somehow I just know this doesn't meet your definition of exact,
No. It does not. It actually meets my definition of unjustified generalisation.
(But only if I'm being chariatble and give you the benefit of the doubt - accepting that you genuinely are interested in what happens in relaity - which I must say on evidenc eis a jolly long shot and highly improbable)
> but I'm really at a loss to figure out what does.
Simple. Say what you mean.
> Sorry, I guess I can't give you exactly what my objections
> are after all.
So, does that mean that you disagree but cannot concisely formulate your objetions?
Sounds like religion to me.
I STRONGLY recommend that you try to evaluate your own viewpoint as genuinely as you can from the outside, asking yourself "can I defend my own views against someone of equal caliber as myself"? Or more simple, play occasionally devils advocate and go looking real hard for arguments that may unseat your current position. Even if you fail to find any, you will be at least preperred for such anal retentetive Sons of a youknowwhat like myself.
Currently your score looks like the England Cricket team in a test match against ZA or NZ....
Sayonara
<continued after the 10000 barier>
> But you’re the recording engineer, so I’ll take your word for it.
That is a first! But don't take my word. Better read Bill Withlocks AES papers....
> Regardless, I’d say that if we change all sorts of things within a
> basic shielded twisted pair such as shield material, insulation
> etc. it will have no measurable affect whatsoever on ground
> loop problems.
How about if we change the impedance of the return path? Will this cause a change? And as you not specifically wrote "... etc EXCLUDING common mode impedance" am I right to to say that your claim is:
"we [can] change all sorts of things within a basic shielded twisted pair [and] it will have no measurable affect whatsoever
on ground loop problems."
If this is not what you meant to say, can you please be more precise?
(BTW, "ground loops" are a fairly complex and wideband [into the GHz range] subject).
> Somehow I just know this doesn't meet your definition of exact,
No. It does not. It actually meets my definition of unjustified generalisation.
(But only if I'm being chariatble and give you the benefit of the doubt - accepting that you genuinely are interested in what happens in relaity - which I must say on evidenc eis a jolly long shot and highly improbable)
> but I'm really at a loss to figure out what does.
Simple. Say what you mean.
> Sorry, I guess I can't give you exactly what my objections
> are after all.
So, does that mean that you disagree but cannot concisely formulate your objetions?
Sounds like religion to me.
I STRONGLY recommend that you try to evaluate your own viewpoint as genuinely as you can from the outside, asking yourself "can I defend my own views against someone of equal caliber as myself"? Or more simple, play occasionally devils advocate and go looking real hard for arguments that may unseat your current position. Even if you fail to find any, you will be at least preperred for such anal retentetive Sons of a youknowwhat like myself.
Currently your score looks like the England Cricket team in a test match against ZA or NZ....
Sayonara
Sigh......
It wasn't a paper. It was a letter, suggesting topics that I would like to read about.....stuff that I got tired of shelling out money for because those papers were never put into the Journal.
They could have said:
"Thanks for your input. As we are sure, you should be aware that we often face tough editotial descisions as to what papers presented at our conventions that we chose for inclusision in the Journal. We are always glad to hear from our members, as it is your society.
Thanks again, and make sure you keep your membership up to date."
No, instead they gave me the impression that is was their society, and my input was not welcome. Hell, I didn't even put my letter in the proper form. How incomsiderate of me.
Jocko
It wasn't a paper. It was a letter, suggesting topics that I would like to read about.....stuff that I got tired of shelling out money for because those papers were never put into the Journal.
They could have said:
"Thanks for your input. As we are sure, you should be aware that we often face tough editotial descisions as to what papers presented at our conventions that we chose for inclusision in the Journal. We are always glad to hear from our members, as it is your society.
Thanks again, and make sure you keep your membership up to date."
No, instead they gave me the impression that is was their society, and my input was not welcome. Hell, I didn't even put my letter in the proper form. How incomsiderate of me.
Jocko
Well, I posted this on page one of this thread -
I haven't checked back in because of what I have observed in _every_ cabling thread I have ever seen.
Here we are on page 29, just about where we were on page 1.
Somehow this reaffirms my faith in my fellow audiophile.
If the moderators never see fit to close this thread, I can imagine it going on and becoming famous in Audiophile lore. I can envision, saying to a grandson (that hasn't been born yet), Yessiree, Bob - if you look way, way back in the Old archives - I meant the _Old_ archives back in the 32 bit days, I made a post to the very first page of _the longest audio thread of all time_.
As nay-sayers and yay-sayers age and pass on, their children will step into their _slot_ in the thread, following in the footsteps of their forebears, carrying the standard on. And if anyone _ever_ dare change sides he/she will run the risk of being shunned and ostracized in certain quarters.
FWIW, I still agree with what Thorsten said (mostly), Thorsten seems to be saying roughly the same thing - as near as I can tell not much has changed in the intervening 27 pages.
Ah-h-h-h, what more could a man ask for than a hobby that has such diversity.
Later
Ken L
Ken L said:
I haven't checked back in because of what I have observed in _every_ cabling thread I have ever seen.
Here we are on page 29, just about where we were on page 1.
Somehow this reaffirms my faith in my fellow audiophile.
If the moderators never see fit to close this thread, I can imagine it going on and becoming famous in Audiophile lore. I can envision, saying to a grandson (that hasn't been born yet), Yessiree, Bob - if you look way, way back in the Old archives - I meant the _Old_ archives back in the 32 bit days, I made a post to the very first page of _the longest audio thread of all time_.
As nay-sayers and yay-sayers age and pass on, their children will step into their _slot_ in the thread, following in the footsteps of their forebears, carrying the standard on. And if anyone _ever_ dare change sides he/she will run the risk of being shunned and ostracized in certain quarters.
FWIW, I still agree with what Thorsten said (mostly), Thorsten seems to be saying roughly the same thing - as near as I can tell not much has changed in the intervening 27 pages.
Ah-h-h-h, what more could a man ask for than a hobby that has such diversity.
Later
Ken L
Thanks, Jocko. Let me add things up:
Thorsten is willing to make accusations of unethical behavior to a well-known professional organization. He is unwilling to back those accusations up with any specifics whatever.
Jocko thinks that they're trying to enforce some sort of unspecified dogma ("the party line") because they didn't give the response he wanted to a letter that he wrote. At least he was honest enough to tell me something specific. Good on ya, Jock! But why not try writing a paper on one of your suggested topics, and do the damn experiment. If you've got something interesting and the evidence to back it up, it ought to be published, and I bet it will be. That's how progress in understanding technology is made. If you're shaky on perceptual test methods and protocols, I'll be happy to consult gratis. I know that it's easier to say, "Oh, they're a bunch of tired old turds so why bother?" But you haven't even tried yet.
Geez, if I were a libel lawyer for AES and you guys had any money, I'd be having a field day. There's less than nothing, it would seem, to the stuff you're alleging.
Ian, I'll let you handle the inductance question, if you wish. Though from the wording of Thosten's post, I suspect that he'll deny ever saying that modulation of inductance was what he was talking about, either. But anyone not a True Believer benefitted greatly from your and tiroth's model analysis.
So many wild claims. So little evidence. You might want to get Uri Geller to do your cable treatments.
Thorsten is willing to make accusations of unethical behavior to a well-known professional organization. He is unwilling to back those accusations up with any specifics whatever.
Jocko thinks that they're trying to enforce some sort of unspecified dogma ("the party line") because they didn't give the response he wanted to a letter that he wrote. At least he was honest enough to tell me something specific. Good on ya, Jock! But why not try writing a paper on one of your suggested topics, and do the damn experiment. If you've got something interesting and the evidence to back it up, it ought to be published, and I bet it will be. That's how progress in understanding technology is made. If you're shaky on perceptual test methods and protocols, I'll be happy to consult gratis. I know that it's easier to say, "Oh, they're a bunch of tired old turds so why bother?" But you haven't even tried yet.
Geez, if I were a libel lawyer for AES and you guys had any money, I'd be having a field day. There's less than nothing, it would seem, to the stuff you're alleging.
Ian, I'll let you handle the inductance question, if you wish. Though from the wording of Thosten's post, I suspect that he'll deny ever saying that modulation of inductance was what he was talking about, either. But anyone not a True Believer benefitted greatly from your and tiroth's model analysis.
So many wild claims. So little evidence. You might want to get Uri Geller to do your cable treatments.
Ahem......
My complaints go beyond that. That was only one example, as you kept pressing for info that I don't want to drag out here. But in all fairness, in one instance.......I was able to speak directly to a well-known society member, who at least took the time to hear my position, and not disregard me as a looney. I think that he might have listened............judging by how one of their standards changed.
Of course, it is possible that they got their heads out of their butts when they realised that it wasn't right, and my complaining was a mere coincidence.
BTW.....I am not in the business of writing papers. If I want to see my name in print, so I can lie on my resume, I can easily write to Sterophile complaining about damn near anything, so they can reply telling me how stupid I am and "thanks for all the fish."
Don't laugh too hard, SY. We actually had a Ph.D. on staff, that in his 12 page resume with 2 1/2 pages of of publications, (many from the BSTJ) actually did list such an item as a "publication".
Jocko
My complaints go beyond that. That was only one example, as you kept pressing for info that I don't want to drag out here. But in all fairness, in one instance.......I was able to speak directly to a well-known society member, who at least took the time to hear my position, and not disregard me as a looney. I think that he might have listened............judging by how one of their standards changed.
Of course, it is possible that they got their heads out of their butts when they realised that it wasn't right, and my complaining was a mere coincidence.
BTW.....I am not in the business of writing papers. If I want to see my name in print, so I can lie on my resume, I can easily write to Sterophile complaining about damn near anything, so they can reply telling me how stupid I am and "thanks for all the fish."
Don't laugh too hard, SY. We actually had a Ph.D. on staff, that in his 12 page resume with 2 1/2 pages of of publications, (many from the BSTJ) actually did list such an item as a "publication".
Jocko
Konnichiwa,
Actually, lets stick top what I actually did say, not what you interpreted I had said, shall we?
"Actually, about the last thing I'd do is to write AES papers or worse JAES articles. It suffices to me to know WHO and WHAT kind of articles they routinely reject to know not to bother."
These where comments on the editorial policies of a certain Mag and on the policies what is actually tabled in conferences.
"Of course, this should not be surprising, as the AES is in effect a lobby of a certain group and the JAES the Lobbys "speech organ"."
There is no accusation of unethical behaviour here either, merely a comment on the actual purpose of the AES.
"If anyone truely believes the AES (as an organisation) is about fostering free, unfettered and detailed research into audio they may find themselves with a rude awakening. Since about the 1950's this has not been the case in many fields. Current research is almost exclusively in data compression and surround sound. "
The above are simple observations. No claism of unethical behaviour have been made here either. It is actually a commentary on the content of the JAES and the paperes tabled at conferences.
"All else is subject to scrutiny by the "comitee for un-aes activities", headed up by McCarthy (this a pun I might add, but the principles are the same)."
The above might be possibly conscrued as alledging unethical behaviour. It was however merely a pun (and indicated so) comparing the selection process for articles and papers to a form of cencorship.
Now as said before, the AES is an interrest group and lobby primarily and not a research organisation aiming at improving the understanding of mechanial recording and reproduction. If they choose to not provide a platform for views they don't like, that is their perogative. I would not call this unethical. It is called "It's our sandbox".
Sayonara
SY said:
Actually, lets stick top what I actually did say, not what you interpreted I had said, shall we?
"Actually, about the last thing I'd do is to write AES papers or worse JAES articles. It suffices to me to know WHO and WHAT kind of articles they routinely reject to know not to bother."
These where comments on the editorial policies of a certain Mag and on the policies what is actually tabled in conferences.
"Of course, this should not be surprising, as the AES is in effect a lobby of a certain group and the JAES the Lobbys "speech organ"."
There is no accusation of unethical behaviour here either, merely a comment on the actual purpose of the AES.
"If anyone truely believes the AES (as an organisation) is about fostering free, unfettered and detailed research into audio they may find themselves with a rude awakening. Since about the 1950's this has not been the case in many fields. Current research is almost exclusively in data compression and surround sound. "
The above are simple observations. No claism of unethical behaviour have been made here either. It is actually a commentary on the content of the JAES and the paperes tabled at conferences.
"All else is subject to scrutiny by the "comitee for un-aes activities", headed up by McCarthy (this a pun I might add, but the principles are the same)."
The above might be possibly conscrued as alledging unethical behaviour. It was however merely a pun (and indicated so) comparing the selection process for articles and papers to a form of cencorship.
Now as said before, the AES is an interrest group and lobby primarily and not a research organisation aiming at improving the understanding of mechanial recording and reproduction. If they choose to not provide a platform for views they don't like, that is their perogative. I would not call this unethical. It is called "It's our sandbox".
Sayonara
AES stuff
Well, I think you are quite harsh here. True, most published work in the AES journal has to do with data compression, digital sound issues etc. Why? because that is where the commercial interest is, so that's were to resources are going to. AES IS a club of companies trying to make money from audio. Is does not exist for the exclusive purpose to enlighten the audio fanatic. If you keep that in mind, they seem quite reasonable.
I had once the honor to give a talk at an AES convention. My paper was reviewed by a couple of people known to be experts in the field, and was accepted. During the presentation, I was gently told that it had a couple of serious flaws. Those had been missed by the review panel, so if anything they were too easy on me. As a result, I was told that they would not publish it. They were right, I wouldn't have done it in their place either.
If you resent the type of paper they routinely reject, maybe you are on the wrong track? BTW, do they routinely tell you what they routinely reject?
Jan Didden
Well, I think you are quite harsh here. True, most published work in the AES journal has to do with data compression, digital sound issues etc. Why? because that is where the commercial interest is, so that's were to resources are going to. AES IS a club of companies trying to make money from audio. Is does not exist for the exclusive purpose to enlighten the audio fanatic. If you keep that in mind, they seem quite reasonable.
I had once the honor to give a talk at an AES convention. My paper was reviewed by a couple of people known to be experts in the field, and was accepted. During the presentation, I was gently told that it had a couple of serious flaws. Those had been missed by the review panel, so if anything they were too easy on me. As a result, I was told that they would not publish it. They were right, I wouldn't have done it in their place either.
If you resent the type of paper they routinely reject, maybe you are on the wrong track? BTW, do they routinely tell you what they routinely reject?
Jan Didden
More dark implications with no details or backup. String 'em up before the trial, boys. I have in my briefcase a list of names of known Communists in the State Department.
And a voice with actual experience. Thanks, Jan.
And a voice with actual experience. Thanks, Jan.
Maybe it's a nice idea to make a new topic about the AES organisation ? I think that the cable topic is extensive enough on it's own ! Moderators, please !?
Excellent suggestion
Which is why I was hesistant to discuss it.
Yeah, let's start a new thread so I can tell SY why I hate them, the IEEE, the UN, the Supreme Court, the EU, all things French, olives that aren't from Italy or Greece..............etc....
And Microsoft.
And Hilary Clinton.
I do not think that it is libelous to state that they no longer represent the issues that I am interested in. Their perogative to do so, and mine to stop supporting them. At one time, there was content that I enjoyed reading. At one time, they took stands on technical issues that I felt were important. It has done good things.
But not much now. Period.
So SY.......we can start the next round by having you dig out your old stack of JAES and telling us how they almost let J. A. Pan, Inc. stick us with a 32 kHz sampling rate for CDs. Mine were discarded a few years back, so I'll have to wing it on memory.
Jocko
Which is why I was hesistant to discuss it.
Yeah, let's start a new thread so I can tell SY why I hate them, the IEEE, the UN, the Supreme Court, the EU, all things French, olives that aren't from Italy or Greece..............etc....
And Microsoft.
And Hilary Clinton.
I do not think that it is libelous to state that they no longer represent the issues that I am interested in. Their perogative to do so, and mine to stop supporting them. At one time, there was content that I enjoyed reading. At one time, they took stands on technical issues that I felt were important. It has done good things.
But not much now. Period.
So SY.......we can start the next round by having you dig out your old stack of JAES and telling us how they almost let J. A. Pan, Inc. stick us with a 32 kHz sampling rate for CDs. Mine were discarded a few years back, so I'll have to wing it on memory.
Jocko
I would recommend the superb extra-virgin olive il from Napa Olive Oil Manufactury in St. Helena; it will turn you around.
And the wonderful thing about professional journals is that they let points like the necessary sampling rate for audible transparency be debated by people with different points of view- as long as they have a cogent analysis and solid data.
The terrific work of Lipshitz and Vanderkooy ought to be gold plated and tatooed on every audio geeks butt cheeks. Same with Ashley, Small, Kaminsky. Toole....
And the wonderful thing about professional journals is that they let points like the necessary sampling rate for audible transparency be debated by people with different points of view- as long as they have a cogent analysis and solid data.
The terrific work of Lipshitz and Vanderkooy ought to be gold plated and tatooed on every audio geeks butt cheeks. Same with Ashley, Small, Kaminsky. Toole....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.