PARLEZ-VOUS FRANCAIS?
Hi,
You're lightyears behind my friend...(kidding).
Roddy,
I'm seriously considering translating our work into English...
Those reports where published in the early Seventies in France and god knows when in Japan...
Every, and I mean every single thing that was as unscientific a suggestion as you could imagine way back than has stood the test of time (about 30 years).
This, by no means, indicates any disrespect to Walt Jung and whomever was involved in that memorable and groundbreaking article.
Cheers,😉
Hi,
You're lightyears behind my friend...(kidding).
Roddy,
I'm seriously considering translating our work into English...
Those reports where published in the early Seventies in France and god knows when in Japan...
Every, and I mean every single thing that was as unscientific a suggestion as you could imagine way back than has stood the test of time (about 30 years).
This, by no means, indicates any disrespect to Walt Jung and whomever was involved in that memorable and groundbreaking article.
Cheers,😉
fdegrove said:
"Audible? Yes"? When was this established except by way of dogmatic belief?
How is their difficulty accepting that a PC may make a difference any different than your difficulty accepting that a PC might not make a difference? Why the one-way street?
With regard to high-end audio, my observation has been the other way around. It often takes years, decades even for high-end audio to catch up to science. That's if it catches up at all. It often ignores real science preferring instead to just make stuff up, throw it into some "white paper" and mislead people to believe that they have a clue what they're talking about.
Elsewhere, we usually just call this sort of thing what it is: Marketing.
se
roddyama said:
The debate has been on-going for decades because none of the objective claims made with regard to actual audibility has yet to have been demonstrated objectively and repeatably.
I think what a lot of people fail to recognize (or refuse to) is the power of the brain to overdetect and perceive differences even when none exist. A fact that has been proved again and again.
Which isn't to say that this is the cause of all perceived differences. Only to say that being in denial of very real limitations of the ear/brain system and overstating its capabilities is no different than being in denial of very real capabilities of the ear/brain system and underestimating its capabilities.
If the information is there, and we're capable of perceiving it, then you don't need any other instruments than the one you mentioned above, the ear/brain system.
You go on with this red herring speculating about what we can or cannot measure yet it hasn't even been demonstrated yet that there's anything there to measure even if we could.
You don't need any fancy instruments which equal or exceed the ear/brain system's capabilities in order to demonstrate that there's something there to measure.
Just show that someone, anyone, is able to perceive differences based purely on sound and not any other influences.
Once that's established, then we can move on to measuring and quantifying it.
Jeeeez. We've been able to prove objectively that the ear is sensitive enough to respond to the air molecules banging up against our eardrums but so far no one has been able to prove objectively that anyone is capable of hearing the difference between giveaway spaghetti wire and the finest interconnects available?
se
A lot of good points.Steve Eddy said:
So what is your acceptable definition of "objective proof"?
BTW, My buisness for the past 20 years has been the application of measuring systems, so I've got your "red herring speculating" right here.
roddyama said:
Well, something other than sighted listening and amusing anecdotes. 🙂
At its most basic, it would simply involve demonstrating someone (and it wouldn't require any more than one individual) being capable of reliably detecting differences based on sound alone with a reasonably high level of confidence. And that at its most basic simply means that the listener (and preferably anyone else involved) doesn't know the identity of the items being compared.
With sighted listening, we can't really know whether the perceived differences were due to one cable being made out of 99.95% ETP copper and the other being made out of 99.999999% pure oxygen free copper or if they were due to the listener simply knowing which was which.
Hehehe. Ah. A bit biased there then, eh? Sorry 'bout that. 🙂
The reason I brought it up is because too often I see the argument made that the reason differences haven't yet been proved is because we either don't know what to measure or don't have the technology to measure it.
But to simply objectively prove audible differences, the listener themself is the instrument. And their task is simple. They just have to be able to detect a difference. They don't have to measure it or quantify it. Just detect it.
People talk about how our ear/brain system is the most amazing, most sensitive, most accurate instrument on the planet. Far better than any measurement device devised by humans. And if that's the case, the issues being debated here should have been resolved long ago.
So why are we still here?
se
roddyama said:
Hehehe. True.
But there wouldn't be a debate if it weren't for people making objective claims without any objective substantiation. It's as if for some people, "I don't really know" isn't an option so they need to take a leap of faith into one foxhole or the other and start lobbing grenades at each other.
se
Debate is as good a reason as any to be here, perhaps the best reason... but when others disagree with your stated perceptions or point out the vacuous void where your evidence should lie, you really don't have the right or moral high ground to refer to those others as "morons" or give them your "middle finger", Frank... or is your argument so tenuous in your mind that you have to resort to gutter replies?
I have seen pieces written and measurement comparisons of different caps and speaker cables where there seemed to be some correlation between audible and measured differences. I will try to dig up my old literature. Steve can probably teach us all a thing or two about interconnects.
But... is there ANYBODY here (Mr Curl included) who has ANYTHING more than say-so, wanna-hear, has-to-be or science-hasn't-caught-up evidence that power cord A sounds any different to power-cord B? Anybody? Frank? John? Peter? Any of the other 10 disciples?
I have seen pieces written and measurement comparisons of different caps and speaker cables where there seemed to be some correlation between audible and measured differences. I will try to dig up my old literature. Steve can probably teach us all a thing or two about interconnects.
But... is there ANYBODY here (Mr Curl included) who has ANYTHING more than say-so, wanna-hear, has-to-be or science-hasn't-caught-up evidence that power cord A sounds any different to power-cord B? Anybody? Frank? John? Peter? Any of the other 10 disciples?
FYI, There Are No Kaffas Around Here........
Eric.
Frank, from experience I believe this is a common, but not universal white South African trait.fdegrove said:
Eric.
Steve Eddy said:
that's clearly far superior to making baseless claims and resorting to middle fingers to defend those claims, 🙂
Seriously, SE proposed a very fair test. With all the substantial improvements we are told that superior cables can make, and the scientific reasons why they work, and the amazing hearings some of us possess, you would have thought that the differences between PC A and PC B have been detected decades ago, and some of the golden ears here wouldn't be this afriad of trying out an ABX to show us how good their hearings are.
Yet, no one seems to be brave enough to take one, and has resort to name calling or middle fingers.
The fact that this debate has continued for decades gives credibility to the argument that cables of all sorts do make a difference. If they didn't this argument would have gone away before now.
I don’t see anyone in the pro difference group suggesting people should buy expensive cables, but that is the main argument for the anti difference group.
It's very easy to tell who makes good points here and who is just saying "if I can't hear it then you can't".
By nature I am a skeptic, but audio has shown me that you just can‘t hold on to preconceived notions.
I'm in the NH area. Anyone who wants to set up a test I'll be glad to round up some people to take it.
I have a friend who runs sound for live theaters. He has been trained to hear and identify (+-) .5 db differences in a specific frequency in either pink noise, or music he's familiar with I am sure he would take part.
I don’t see anyone in the pro difference group suggesting people should buy expensive cables, but that is the main argument for the anti difference group.
It's very easy to tell who makes good points here and who is just saying "if I can't hear it then you can't".
By nature I am a skeptic, but audio has shown me that you just can‘t hold on to preconceived notions.
I'm in the NH area. Anyone who wants to set up a test I'll be glad to round up some people to take it.
I have a friend who runs sound for live theaters. He has been trained to hear and identify (+-) .5 db differences in a specific frequency in either pink noise, or music he's familiar with I am sure he would take part.
tom1356 said:
the debate about fortune telling has gone far longer than the debate on cables. Does that lend any credibilit to fortune tellers?
or any of those urban legends?
Well it's obvious that there have been several replies and at least one post deletion in my absence.
Frank, was it not you who referred to others on this forum as "morons" and stated they deserved your "middle finger"? Let me refresh your memory...
And mrfeedback, while your reply seems defensive of South Africans (?) I have absolutely no idea of it's context. You probably know many South Africans since Australia has an open immigration policy and is a popular destination for emigrating South Africans. But I think I'd prefer to defend myself. Thanks anyway.
Frank, was it not you who referred to others on this forum as "morons" and stated they deserved your "middle finger"? Let me refresh your memory...
And you feel OK referring to me as rude and uneducated... now there's the pot calling the kettle black. And speaking of which, it seems there must have been a lot of slurring and racist (?) innuendo judging by the bits quoted from posts that have obviously been deleted. I've no idea where this came from, but feel free to include me OUT of anything with that flavour.
And mrfeedback, while your reply seems defensive of South Africans (?) I have absolutely no idea of it's context. You probably know many South Africans since Australia has an open immigration policy and is a popular destination for emigrating South Africans. But I think I'd prefer to defend myself. Thanks anyway.
tom1356 said:
There are perhaps as many or more fortune tellers out there today as ever. As well as those who use their services and swear by them. So why is there nothing to debate about fortune tellers?
se
Please, Dr. G: I cannot prove 'anything' about power cords to your satisfaction, BUT I have listened to them with quality electrostatic headphones and have heard the difference to my satisfaction. Interestingly, a cheap thin commercial cord sounded better than an expensive model in my test, but there was a consistent difference. I also tried common mode chokes, and Bybee devices in the same set-up. I found that my STAX Lambda headphone amp is very sensitive to line cords. I learned something, you should try something too, before criticizing the rest of us.
most of the disagreements happen when someone claims that an "expensive" cord sounded better....and here you say it need not be....
your article about capacitors made a lot of sense because you were able to qualify and quantify capacitor characteristics, in a setup that can be repeated and verified.....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.