A couple of random comments for the record. Fulton (of Fulton J Modular fame) was the first. Carried them around in a steamer trunk, they were huge. Next I know of was Polk, (forgotten who designed them), the Polk Cobras. Noted for having enough capacitance to induce oscillation in conditionally stable amplifiers.
Monster chimed in then, with their super-zip. So they were early, but not first.
Science certainly tries to align theory with observation, but because they don't align yet does not make it nonscientific. Theory of relativity existed some years before any part was tested/observed (Schumpeter, light bending by star) and quite a bit longer before other parts had matching observations. And conversely, poor old Wegener's observations of continents having once been joined were entirely valid, but it took quite a while before a theory could be devised that explained those observations. I guess I'm dogmatically meandering, but the point I feel strongly about, is that good observations are valid, whether or not any theory exists to explain them. And especially the lack of a theory does not render them invalid. I also cheerfully recognize that some question whether the observations under discussion are valid, but am I gonna believe them or my own ears? 😉
Monster chimed in then, with their super-zip. So they were early, but not first.
Science certainly tries to align theory with observation, but because they don't align yet does not make it nonscientific. Theory of relativity existed some years before any part was tested/observed (Schumpeter, light bending by star) and quite a bit longer before other parts had matching observations. And conversely, poor old Wegener's observations of continents having once been joined were entirely valid, but it took quite a while before a theory could be devised that explained those observations. I guess I'm dogmatically meandering, but the point I feel strongly about, is that good observations are valid, whether or not any theory exists to explain them. And especially the lack of a theory does not render them invalid. I also cheerfully recognize that some question whether the observations under discussion are valid, but am I gonna believe them or my own ears? 😉
Curmudgeon said:
Agreed. Except that with these cable things, there are no yet observations which we could try to match to theories. Observations, as in repeatable, reliable versus widely varying 'opinions'. Once we have those reliable, repeatable observations, I predict we have the matching theory in no time flat.
The reason why with these cable things we are running around in circles for many years now, is that we have widely varyng 'observations' (opinions really) and there is (predictably) not a theory that can explain them all. There is nothing to explain, yet.
As soon as anyone has the guts to try to set up a reliable, repeatable test to get reliable, repeatable observations (read: blind tests) everybody with a vested interest cries wolf and comes with the most bizarre reasons why those reliable, repeatable tests fail to uncover the expected observations. Like: " the stress from a blind test precludes a good listening result". Or, 'the statistical theory for this test is wrong'. As if those ad-hoc, uncontrolled tests with completely different equipment setups, with completely different rooms, with 'critical listeners' flogging there personal pet cable, have any statistical relevance at all!
Go figure.
So, it is pretty pointless to try to match theory to observation as long as there are no observations worthy of that term.
Jan Didden
Couldn't have said it better Jan!
The observation that stars bend light was made before the theory of relativity.
And quite unlike audio, this observation belonged to no one... it could seen by all, in the same way, over and over. This would sure help us now.
Objective observation was the first step in that process. We are, sadly, before the "first step" in this process.
The observation that stars bend light was made before the theory of relativity.
And quite unlike audio, this observation belonged to no one... it could seen by all, in the same way, over and over. This would sure help us now.
Objective observation was the first step in that process. We are, sadly, before the "first step" in this process.
Jan, those are matters for discussion less interesting than Curmudgeon's. Could agree more. But don't take my observations personally, they don't meet your criteria. Win-win.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
I will never post on a cable thread again.
Good points Jan
Utter nonsense, which diverts the point from a science based argument to one of "can hear, can't hear".
From the theory/observation position, I would be happy enough just tracking correlation of measurements vs anecdotal accounts.
So far, there are no takers..Has anybody here tried to measure in the way I depicted, or is everyone here happy to just argue?
Cheers, John
I would say, the reason for running around in circles is the veritable wealth of garbage explanations couched in very technical sounding "white papers" and guru based explanations.janneman said:
Utter nonsense, which diverts the point from a science based argument to one of "can hear, can't hear".
janneman said:
From the theory/observation position, I would be happy enough just tracking correlation of measurements vs anecdotal accounts.
So far, there are no takers..Has anybody here tried to measure in the way I depicted, or is everyone here happy to just argue?
Cheers, John
janneman said:
Links and references! Please please please please please! So far all I've seen here is Gow's ridiculous and obviously biased 'switchbox' demo.
Re: Good points Jan
John,
I would agree with that, but that makes it even worse. You have what you stated above with the aim to convince people that because of those garbage explanations etc they MUST hear a big improvement if only they would shell out a couple of grand....
Edit: Anyone saw those ads for connectors and binding posts from 89.xx % copper? There is a graph showing the % of copper in a number of well-regarded parts (Cardas, WBT, etc), all (much) less than 89.xx %! Conclusion: These new super plugs will conduct much better than the others for (and now comes the clincher🙂 more clear, unaltered, whole audio! (I may have quoted not exactly correctly, but the point IS correct). For me this is either pure ignorance from the manufacturer, and therefore he has no place in audio, or pure misleading, and ditto. This is the same with cables. Hitch on to a physical issue and then try to link it to better sound, and bingo! your ship comes in!
Jan Didden
jneutron said:
John,
I would agree with that, but that makes it even worse. You have what you stated above with the aim to convince people that because of those garbage explanations etc they MUST hear a big improvement if only they would shell out a couple of grand....
Edit: Anyone saw those ads for connectors and binding posts from 89.xx % copper? There is a graph showing the % of copper in a number of well-regarded parts (Cardas, WBT, etc), all (much) less than 89.xx %! Conclusion: These new super plugs will conduct much better than the others for (and now comes the clincher🙂 more clear, unaltered, whole audio! (I may have quoted not exactly correctly, but the point IS correct). For me this is either pure ignorance from the manufacturer, and therefore he has no place in audio, or pure misleading, and ditto. This is the same with cables. Hitch on to a physical issue and then try to link it to better sound, and bingo! your ship comes in!
Jan Didden
The market gets exactly what it wants
Hey Jan: you picked a good one this time. Those RCA connectors that you were making fun of actually sound excellent. I don't really care why as long as they do. That is the long and short of it.
If people do not have a storey to tell about thier product the consumer will not buy it. Audio is no different to the rest of the retail world. All wine is just made of plain old grapes why would I want to spend $XX.XX on your bottle? Same old thing. Rather than tell people who have heard differences that they do not exist or that they are fools to think those differences exist why not find the right tests to measure and explain what is accounting for the obvious differences that people do hear. That's what I want for Christmas. Please santa Jan!!!
The very best to all and a very happy Christmas. Regards Moray James.
Hey Jan: you picked a good one this time. Those RCA connectors that you were making fun of actually sound excellent. I don't really care why as long as they do. That is the long and short of it.
If people do not have a storey to tell about thier product the consumer will not buy it. Audio is no different to the rest of the retail world. All wine is just made of plain old grapes why would I want to spend $XX.XX on your bottle? Same old thing. Rather than tell people who have heard differences that they do not exist or that they are fools to think those differences exist why not find the right tests to measure and explain what is accounting for the obvious differences that people do hear. That's what I want for Christmas. Please santa Jan!!!
The very best to all and a very happy Christmas. Regards Moray James.
Re: Good points Jan
In which post did you depict the measurement technique? Was it the "car driving" one?
Corelation between measurements and what is heard really is an art itself, the main difficulty is that if what you hear is correct technically but the designer does not like it, then the design gets changed.
jneutron said:
In which post did you depict the measurement technique? Was it the "car driving" one?
Corelation between measurements and what is heard really is an art itself, the main difficulty is that if what you hear is correct technically but the designer does not like it, then the design gets changed.
Jan,
Do you know of any material, even liquid for that matter, that is water clear with the approximate bulk resistivity of copper... I just got a killer idea. I want a piece of this action!
Do you know of any material, even liquid for that matter, that is water clear with the approximate bulk resistivity of copper... I just got a killer idea. I want a piece of this action!
Transparent conductors are generally transparent only in thin films and have a considerably lower bulk conductivity than copper. But you could probably use them for interconnects. Deposit a pair of indium tin oxide tracks on a long polyester film, then encapsulate it in a water-clear elastomeric resin.
Actually SY,
As I thought about it more I'd like to use a conductive liquid. Cables would consist of a clear hose, filled with the jus, and appropriate electrodes at each end. The idea behind the liquid is; a. about transparency and fluid sound, b. the opportunity for follow on sales to replace the fluid once it is worn out.
I would screw up the marketing though... there would be all kinds of experts with aftermarket (non-factory approved) holophonic fluid, and better magazine reviews, for the Poobah cable.
As I thought about it more I'd like to use a conductive liquid. Cables would consist of a clear hose, filled with the jus, and appropriate electrodes at each end. The idea behind the liquid is; a. about transparency and fluid sound, b. the opportunity for follow on sales to replace the fluid once it is worn out.
I would screw up the marketing though... there would be all kinds of experts with aftermarket (non-factory approved) holophonic fluid, and better magazine reviews, for the Poobah cable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.