That´s true. CD is already dead. Linn for example stopped to make CD players. I have now my final CD transport and DA combination. The transport is a 15 year old Forsell Air Reference that is still unmatched and the DA converter has being build by a friend. I do not listen much to it because i am working on phonostages right now. Analogue will always be there. Did not Sony advertise many years ago that they tried to capture "the warm sound of analog" with SACD ?
it worked for them comercially big time. i was one of the biggest cases of mass psychosis in history.
Yeah this is how I see it as well. There will always be a way to improve your system and get it closer to the real live sound imo. There will always be some perceivable short coming in the coverage from some direction on XYZ. Well unless you work at some institute with a sphere of speakers or something. And even then I bet you could find some flaw if you looked really hard.
As much as i whould like to be proud of our Fraunhofer Institute their presentation of a multicannel wave synthesizing system on one of the German High End exhibitions was so seriously flawed it was pathetic.
It is really sad what is considered real, and what is considered phony.
Just this evening, quite by chance, I found a short article by a physicist on the Soliton wave, first discovered, by an engineer in 1834, quite by accident, in a canal that he was studying for quite a different reason. Even 50 years later, people did not believe in his discovery or observation. Yet, the other physicists of the day were proven wrong, and we just politely forget that they made this mistake. After all, they may have been useful contributors in another way.
It will prove the same with wires. Too much water has passed under the bridge, proving that it is not a mass psychosis, and there is some merit in it. Perhaps not in every case, but merit, nonetheless.
Just this evening, quite by chance, I found a short article by a physicist on the Soliton wave, first discovered, by an engineer in 1834, quite by accident, in a canal that he was studying for quite a different reason. Even 50 years later, people did not believe in his discovery or observation. Yet, the other physicists of the day were proven wrong, and we just politely forget that they made this mistake. After all, they may have been useful contributors in another way.
It will prove the same with wires. Too much water has passed under the bridge, proving that it is not a mass psychosis, and there is some merit in it. Perhaps not in every case, but merit, nonetheless.
It is not surprising given that we live in a world that is almost totally phony and where lies are the norm. Peoples scepticism is understandable.
I worked as a sound engineer, and I remember many years ago when I believed that the cable thing was bollocks - a common view in the the pro world. I also had friends in the hi-fi scene and used to work at the London hi-fi shows. I therefore got the opportunity to borrow a whole lot of hi-end cables and discover that there were differences.
I must however say that a lot of the cables sold are no better than what I can make myself, and that there is no justification for power cables or interconnects costing $10K.
I admire your persistence in discussing this topic, but I think that it it will likely be at least 50 years before there is a concensus.
Cheers
David
I had lunch with their CTO in 1986 and he said CD was considered a total financial risk, i.e. could have gone the way of RCA's CED video.
Difference is, Russell provided EVIDENCE. Where's your EVIDENCE of wire effects beyond the mundane (frequency response, stability, shielding)?
Your last statement is hilarious- does this mean that homeopathy, astrology, dowsing, psychokinesis, and faith healing have been "proved?"
I'm just as willing to come to Berkeley to let you put your beliefs to the tests. I'll even do coat-hanger versus whatever fancy wires you usually use and are accustomed to. Are you as confident as TG1954?
SY, as you know, I tested myself with a similar rig, 30 years ago, and realized that at least for me, the test was fundamentally flawed. I wrote this up in an LTE to Lipshitz et al, 30 years ago, in 'The Audio Amateur'. I was informed by professors with Ph'D's who taught the history of physics, at university, that I was on the right track, both in person and in print.
It is you, SY, who denies all evidence, not me.
It is the test that is flawed, and I predict that nobody will be likely to pass its inherent built-in hurdle, except by luck or exceptional skill, and this will be dismissed as only a lucky hit, if it happens.
Join the Carver 'Hear no difference' club if you want, but I want none of it.
It is you, SY, who denies all evidence, not me.
It is the test that is flawed, and I predict that nobody will be likely to pass its inherent built-in hurdle, except by luck or exceptional skill, and this will be dismissed as only a lucky hit, if it happens.
Join the Carver 'Hear no difference' club if you want, but I want none of it.
Where's the EVIDENCE? I'm even offering to let you prove your case at my expense; why are you not jumping at the opportunity, just coughing about some unspecified 'rig" that has noting to do with my cable test protocols? Are you that uncertain of your beliefs?
I am certain that your 'test' will cloud my listening ability. It has happened before. The same thing happened to John Atkinson, on several occasions, yet he did not keep his Quad 405, even so.
We saw similar tests made by the Japanese, 30+ years ago, PROVING that typical, non phase equalized multiple pole low pass filters, used in early CD's, were virtually perfect, and impossible to detect, with DB tests also. Anyone still believe their results?
We saw similar tests made by the Japanese, 30+ years ago, PROVING that typical, non phase equalized multiple pole low pass filters, used in early CD's, were virtually perfect, and impossible to detect, with DB tests also. Anyone still believe their results?
The witch doctor has his mojo taken away by mere things like photos, so it is well understood in some circles.
Just depends on which circle really.
Just depends on which circle really.
I repeat it again here: I can measure cables and the measured difference is audibe.
David Salz of Wire World said to me that my method is correct. There are unlinear effects in cables like low level noise moduation that escape simple mathematical treatment but i was able to isolate them, at that time with a 16bit system and i could try again today with 24bit. Anyway, i do not care any more how cables measure. Povided that they are designed decently (low enough ohmic impedance, low enough inductance and not to high capacitance) i just listen to them and choose the ones i like. I do the same with capacitors and resistors. I can measure defects but the measurement does not tell me how it sounds in my system. I am doing a survey of coils right now, the only component i have not researched in detail but i think the outcome will be the same.
The smal measured differences are out of proportion with the audible consequences. I am really sorry for people with such bad ears that they can not apreciate the differences. i mean that honest because i know how that feels. my eyes are not the best and i need special multizone glasses and solder in the nearfield without them.
David Salz of Wire World said to me that my method is correct. There are unlinear effects in cables like low level noise moduation that escape simple mathematical treatment but i was able to isolate them, at that time with a 16bit system and i could try again today with 24bit. Anyway, i do not care any more how cables measure. Povided that they are designed decently (low enough ohmic impedance, low enough inductance and not to high capacitance) i just listen to them and choose the ones i like. I do the same with capacitors and resistors. I can measure defects but the measurement does not tell me how it sounds in my system. I am doing a survey of coils right now, the only component i have not researched in detail but i think the outcome will be the same.
The smal measured differences are out of proportion with the audible consequences. I am really sorry for people with such bad ears that they can not apreciate the differences. i mean that honest because i know how that feels. my eyes are not the best and i need special multizone glasses and solder in the nearfield without them.
Joachim, they might be audible, but as long as the people who claim audibility chicken out of putting the assertions to the test, the claims are in the same category as homeopathy, astrology, and faith healing. If half of the creativity used for making excuses was put into audio development, we'd be a lot further ahead. Instead, all we have is closed-minded refusals to do actual experiments. It's a pity, it really is.
Just one last thing and then i have not much more to add:
The double blind, ABX test is not sensitive enough to resolve the diffence between wires.
Unfortunately this test is the only one to have credibility with a lot of professinals.
So people are faced with this situation: beleave the test and use radio shag zip wire or give it a damn and listen. I think that stupit idea to have a scientific explanation for everything holds progress back.
The double blind, ABX test is not sensitive enough to resolve the diffence between wires.
Unfortunately this test is the only one to have credibility with a lot of professinals.
So people are faced with this situation: beleave the test and use radio shag zip wire or give it a damn and listen. I think that stupit idea to have a scientific explanation for everything holds progress back.
Well, there is strong evidence (see for example Nousaines findings on this matter), that your proposed test protocol is flawed due to the discrimination method choosen.
But you refuse to change your test protocol.
The usage of a positive control is mandatory to ensure that the test is valid and gives useful results, but you refuse to do so, as it is a "red herring" .
Yes, it is hard to put one´s own beliefs to test, but why blaming others for something that you don´t want to do?
(Remember it´s just your belief that your test protocol is useful without changes)
Wishes
- Status
- Not open for further replies.