isn't hiding/omitting any description of the cable, load also trying to spin the result/significance?
if someone claimed they could AB/X 20' of 28 AWG from 14 gage with mOhm output Z amp and 4 ohm, >2:1 "lumpy" impedance speakers - would that be "interesting"?
if someone claimed they could AB/X 20' of 28 AWG from 14 gage with mOhm output Z amp and 4 ohm, >2:1 "lumpy" impedance speakers - would that be "interesting"?
Last edited:
I'm not going to dwell on the cable question, we don't need another cable thread!!! 😉
Something to ponder on the original question though.
For all those of the opinion that there is nothing that current measurements can't explain/detect. Can you prove that?
I would postulate that you can not, and on the contrary that the only thing that you could prove is that there were things that we did not know to measure (by discovering them).
So to take the position that anyone that claims that they can hear something that does not show up in measurements, is mistaken or deluded, is simply blind faith in ones own belief system. Sure they might be imagining it or deluded, but that should not be taken as fact. They could well be able to hear a difference.
Me personally? I couldn't hear any difference between my amp being fed through three cmos switches, multiple 5534 opamps and multiple bipolar caps, compared to a direct feed straight into the amp and that was sighted!! But I generally don't outright discount anybody else who may have experiences different to mine (except in very specific circumstances, probably ln cases where I firmly believe that I *know* better).
Tony.
Something to ponder on the original question though.
For all those of the opinion that there is nothing that current measurements can't explain/detect. Can you prove that?
I would postulate that you can not, and on the contrary that the only thing that you could prove is that there were things that we did not know to measure (by discovering them).
So to take the position that anyone that claims that they can hear something that does not show up in measurements, is mistaken or deluded, is simply blind faith in ones own belief system. Sure they might be imagining it or deluded, but that should not be taken as fact. They could well be able to hear a difference.
Me personally? I couldn't hear any difference between my amp being fed through three cmos switches, multiple 5534 opamps and multiple bipolar caps, compared to a direct feed straight into the amp and that was sighted!! But I generally don't outright discount anybody else who may have experiences different to mine (except in very specific circumstances, probably ln cases where I firmly believe that I *know* better).
Tony.
Last edited:
In the same sense that one can "prove" that all electrons have the same charge or that all humans need air to live.
There is NO demonstrated audible difference that wasn't easily measurable. None. Could there ever be one? Sure, but that's a philosophical question, not a technical one. Google "proving a negative."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWJTUAezxAI
Start in at 1:44. Funny as hell.
Perhaps you can give an example of a demonstrated audible difference that wasn't measurable? Thanks.
It is interesting that you need to hide behind some sort of wall upon being challenged. Thin skin or small mind?
🙂
Most people treat this as a hobby, so they get enthusiastic about positive outcomes - it's one of the foibles of being human!
A lot of the effects being noted is a lowering of the level of relatively low amplitude distortion components: subjectively easy to pick, objectively difficult to measure. Plus, these distortion effects come and go depending upon just about everything - it's part of what makes this hobby so "hard", why it's such a rat's nest ...
Frank
Everything depends upon how you look at at it: a piece of wire can be also be an RF antenna, which only requires some diodic properties somewhere, and gain to cause mischief. Two pieces of metal in contact, supposedly a good connection, with a little bit of corrosion gains some significant rectifying qualities ... and the fun begins ...
Just because we call something "simple speaker wire" doesn't mean that electrons always see it that way ...
Frank
I believe Doug Self built a sub nV noise preamp and looked for these supposed poor connector interface diodes - added a rusty nail to the mix without finding any distortion evidence
Last edited:
All quite amusing, really, in terms of timing ... another member queried for suggestions to raise the bar of his system. Then, in an email exchange I suggested investigating the connections between components again - he was partly hardwired, partly plugged in with contact enhancer. Yesterday, he bit the bullet, and went for full hardwiring -- and fell off his chair! As he says, he now has a whole new system, has to "relearn" what his CD collection is all about -- this is how dramatic the change can be, if the system is already working to a very high standard ...
Frank
just addressing the diode/rectification claim - dirty contacts can increase R, have barrier layers that punch thru at random low V - but there's precious little evidence for these spontaneous diodes, rectifcation
its actually not trivial to intentionaly make a metal oxide diode with decent rectifiying ability
its actually not trivial to intentionaly make a metal oxide diode with decent rectifiying ability
Last edited:
It's simply a case of the "proof's in the pudding"; I "learnt" over 25 years ago, by trial and error, that every non-airtight metal to metal contact counts: hardwire, sounds better; go back to conventional connector setups, sound deteriorates very significantly in areas that matter to me. I may not have the thoroughly researched "proof", or understood the precise mechanisms to the last degree underlying this, but I do know that I don't have keeping touching a red hot element to confirm that it's not good to do this ... 😛, 😀
Frank
Frank
Spot on it was a philosophical question. How can you know what it is you don't know? Perhaps I have been too obtuse.
I just find it amusing that there are certain parallels between believing that we know everything there is to know about measuring audio, and believing that there are things that certain people can hear that we can't measure 🙂
That is they are both beliefs, and neither can be held up as an absolute truth.
Now if someone were to reliably identify differences (of any DUT) under strictly controlled test conditions, and no measureable differences could be found, then that would be something truly amazing.
In reality, the chances of there not being any measureable differences between two different DUT's is very very small. But finding a consensus as to what measurable difference accounts for the hypothetical listeners ability to detect a difference would be I suspect very difficult! 😉
back in post 18 I said this
I think that this is much more likely than there being things that matter that we can't measure.
Tony.
It was to me.
Especially if someone is making claims that simply doesn't make sense. Which is more likely.
1) He has an ability which people have consistently failed to demonstrate in correctly set up and administered DBTs.
2) Someone made an error, mistake or there was some flaw or defect in the equipment/setup. All things that happen regularly and have plausible demonstrated mechanisms.
wolf_teeth[/B said:
He really isn't clear with his use of "progressions" which seems to imply multiple tests per trial. If it is as you state 6 singular test, that's well within the realm of simple random chance, if it was a six or seven sets of 6 tests, or some similarly large number, that is probably not. Though it is always possible for it to be random chance.
The later is a pretty extraordinary claim, IMHO.
There's two conversations going on in there mixed up to a certain extent, since they cover similar territory.
The "Test" how ever it was conducted and the "cables have audible effects" people, which he clearly belongs to.
I was insufficiently clear on that, but people on your side of the camp, do seem to have a penchant for addressing narrow semantic issues rather than the gist of the point, but if you wish to be pedantic about things. Being able to correctly chose something a large number of times in a row certainly implies to me some significant and measurable difference.
I've explained why I hold my point of view several times and why, yes, I am extremely skeptical of any such claims. Since there are far more likely explanations.
If you still can't understand why I hold my position or even what it is... Shrug.
Last edited:
Basically all that falls under the heading of "Defective set up/equipment". If something is broken, hey you'll get noticeable effects.
However, they're all explainable, have measure that can be taken to eliminate them and all have well understood mechanisms.
Was this unclear for some reason? I always figured that "Defective equipment can cause audible issues" was obvious.
Yeah, I know about the difference between real world and ideal behavior. But we're not talking about 22nm traces on a microchip. Audio output, particularly if we are talking wires to the speakers carrying up to several hundred volts and a significant number of amps, is very much macro scale.
Last edited:
See my post immediately before yours that I am quoting here. You are making assumptions about me 🙂
edit: and to be 100% clear this
should really have read
That is I think with any two manufactured items, the resolution of test equipment available should mean that any two similar devices should show differences under measurement albeit they may be extremely small.
Tony.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.