If you can find anywhere that I have called you a liar, I'll apologize, resign my position as a moderator, and donate $500 to the charity of your choice.
What I have said (and will continue to say until you do a properly controlled experiment demonstrating the contrary) is that you are most likely mistaken.
What I have said (and will continue to say until you do a properly controlled experiment demonstrating the contrary) is that you are most likely mistaken.
I didn't say you called me a liar.I said it is almost like.......in response to your comment "...most likely..."I believe I am just as careful in my comment as you are in yours.No need for apologies.But if you can spare $250,I will spare another $250 and we make a donation for children with cancer.I have a good reason to ask you this.Agreed?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the cost of doing any legitimate study on the matter that will provide usable results is far too high and even then, said results will be unacceptable to many. As much money as research institutes throw away on worthless trials, you'd still be hard-pressed to find one that will take up the matter of audiophile cables.
Maybe this argument should have its own thread, because these hypotheses on how the human brain has evolved is open to endless debate. In the interest of automatic gainsaying, I'm going to ask from what predator was an ancient hominoid able to successfully run away? I have always been under the impression that the success of homo sapiens was due to development of a brain that was capable of analyzing a situation and avoiding a negative outcome. Ask anyone who had served in Vietnam in what acting on impulse could result. I have a good friend who was a LRRP and he told me that the last words usually spoken by a G.I. just before being killed were "I see 'em, I see 'em!".
John
Maybe this argument should have its own thread, because these hypotheses on how the human brain has evolved is open to endless debate. In the interest of automatic gainsaying, I'm going to ask from what predator was an ancient hominoid able to successfully run away? I have always been under the impression that the success of homo sapiens was due to development of a brain that was capable of analyzing a situation and avoiding a negative outcome. Ask anyone who had served in Vietnam in what acting on impulse could result. I have a good friend who was a LRRP and he told me that the last words usually spoken by a G.I. just before being killed were "I see 'em, I see 'em!".
John
False restriction. Try "elude" and the range of answers is pretty wide. Presumably, the number one killer of early hominids was other hominids.
Agreed, unless someone like Monster was funding them; an academic is generally too busy to deal with stuff this trivial and this unlikely. The fact that verifiable, academically-sound work has NEVER been funded by cable companies, despite the huge marketing advantage that positive, independent results would give, is certainly suggestive.
Not really. It was only a reply to the statement where you used running away and lion in the same sentence. Presumably, you implied that someone who ran from ghosts on occasion could survive running from a lion as well. Avoiding is a better strategy than eluding. It seems that if you hear the lion before it sees you, you can make some intelligent decision. If it sees you before you hear it, you're dead - regardless of how good you were at running from "ghosts".
Sort of like R. J. Reynolds funding a study on the connection between lung cancer and cigarette smoking...🙂
John
jlsem said:
Lions don't attack people such a way. They attack when:
1. The human being is on their territory,
2. When the human being shows a treat, especially to lion's children, or can steal a food.
I think that it's a pretty safe bet that if you stumble upon a lion, you're in its territory. Even at the zoo.
If a pedophile were trying to lure my children away, I'd kill him, too.😀
John
Hi Panicos K ,
After all that was said on this thread , I want to , effusevely , congratulate you for the idea about this “ blind test “, and the HONESTY to write here on the thread the results that you and your friends could get , despite all controversy and polemic that this kind of subject can generate (and has generated ... wow !!! ).
IMO , based on your description , the test was well done and well conducted , and was simple enough , like all blind test has to be .
With my respect to both sides of the debate , there is no reasons to call in doubt the methodology , the results , the local , or even the cables that were used , neither your honesty to describe the results . After all , all of us listen our musics in our rooms , not in a laboratory room , not into an anechoic chamber or even not in “ controlled environment “ .
The point is : “ Panicos K could listen minor differences between cables “
Even so , some people will agree and some people will disagree , as we could see , after more than 360 posts .
And I will say again , that I respect both sides , BUT I am with the first ones , as you can see in my post # 86 at the thread’s beginning :
To the skeptics that only believe in things that you can measure or express mathematically , I beg your pardon , but I will transcribe here two excellent phrases :
“ Since mathematicians invade my Relativity’s Theory , even I , can no longer understand it “
“ It is possible that everything can be described scientifically or by any scientific way , but it makes no sense . It is like to describe a Beethoven’s Simphony as a “ preassure variation of sound’s waves “ . How could be described the feeling of a kiss or even one “ I love you “ , when said by a child ? “
The author : ALBERT EINSTEIN
Listen the musics , enjoy your drink and be happy
Regards for all
Carlos
After all that was said on this thread , I want to , effusevely , congratulate you for the idea about this “ blind test “, and the HONESTY to write here on the thread the results that you and your friends could get , despite all controversy and polemic that this kind of subject can generate (and has generated ... wow !!! ).
IMO , based on your description , the test was well done and well conducted , and was simple enough , like all blind test has to be .
With my respect to both sides of the debate , there is no reasons to call in doubt the methodology , the results , the local , or even the cables that were used , neither your honesty to describe the results . After all , all of us listen our musics in our rooms , not in a laboratory room , not into an anechoic chamber or even not in “ controlled environment “ .
The point is : “ Panicos K could listen minor differences between cables “
Even so , some people will agree and some people will disagree , as we could see , after more than 360 posts .
And I will say again , that I respect both sides , BUT I am with the first ones , as you can see in my post # 86 at the thread’s beginning :
refference said:
To the skeptics that only believe in things that you can measure or express mathematically , I beg your pardon , but I will transcribe here two excellent phrases :
“ Since mathematicians invade my Relativity’s Theory , even I , can no longer understand it “
“ It is possible that everything can be described scientifically or by any scientific way , but it makes no sense . It is like to describe a Beethoven’s Simphony as a “ preassure variation of sound’s waves “ . How could be described the feeling of a kiss or even one “ I love you “ , when said by a child ? “
The author : ALBERT EINSTEIN
Listen the musics , enjoy your drink and be happy
Regards for all
Carlos
jlsem said:
But. But! The lion warns before attacking humans.
Once in South Africa my friend and his wife went to a Kruger National Park. They brought some films, and when they were developed they shares pictures. Including one, when she stepped in savanna out of the truck, to take a picture with a giraffe in background. She got shocked seeing a lioness in couple of meters in the yellow grass, looking at her...
So, according to Darwin ancestors of survivers heard lions' warnings well.
Wavebourn said:
I'ld be delighted if the sound of a frantic bicycle bell ten feet away penetrated the consciousness of tourists in this area. Sometimes awareness of the foibles of cognition don't require a post-doctorate.
rdf said:
Do you mean you still observe Darvin's theory in the real life, training future generations to hear the bell? 😀
Last Monday I saw a completely electrical new Nissan vehicle on freeway. I wonder, does it produce any sound when move?
As an aside, perhaps a little light relief, to catch the breath ....
Lion (like many other animals) also have their own respective territories, and should one venture into the area of another, he is as afraid as you and I would be.
Once when tagging lion in our Kruger National Park, we could observe 'other' lion stalking the 'lure' (some meat tied to a tree) while we were waiting for the 'owner' to arrive. The game ranger explained the above to me and dared me to go chase them away. I got up with a loud cry of "Voertsek!!" (get-out!) It gave me no end of satisfaction to watch them falling over one another trying to get out of there!
But like others, I really fail to see why the problem here cannot be understood! I would have thought that by now it would have been abundantly clear that our 'CPU' (the brain) does NOT process any of our senses with repeated exactitude like a voltmeter.
At the danger of irritating some, let me yet again mention my pet experiment of the three bowls of water. You have one filled with chilled water, a second with water at room temperature and a third with quite hot water. Immerse one hand in the cold and the other in the hot water for say 20s, then quickly move both hands to the room temperature water. The 'cold' hand will inform the brain that that water is warm; the 'hot' hand will say that the same water is cold.
Do we then have to be rushed to the shrink to get an explanation? And if the above is not unnatural for us, as well as taste and sight 'deception', then why the dickens is it so difficult to understand that hearing would react in similar fashion? Please, this has been researched to death for all our senses.
Panikos reported his experiences concerning himself and friends (I cannot pick up that he has made any claims of superiority - let us dispense with personal comments). We might not have experienced that had we been there.... and tomorrow the situation may be reversed. Why is it at all necessary to come up with inferences of superior/inferior hearing?? Insisting on that line of thought, folks might just spare a thought as to what degree of ignorance of the brain/senses interface it reveals on their side ...
And as long as the said 'hearing advanced' does not exude an air of superiority over proven science in their turns! What is good for one is good for the other...
---------------------------------------------------------------
Panikos,
You asked about where to read in this connection. I also do not recall the sources where I read up some time ago, but you might wish to go to www.tinnitus.org and follow up on Prof. Jastrapoff's findings. Do not be put off by the initial title and subject, pursue onwards - there are also further references, etc.
jlsem said:
Lion (like many other animals) also have their own respective territories, and should one venture into the area of another, he is as afraid as you and I would be.
Once when tagging lion in our Kruger National Park, we could observe 'other' lion stalking the 'lure' (some meat tied to a tree) while we were waiting for the 'owner' to arrive. The game ranger explained the above to me and dared me to go chase them away. I got up with a loud cry of "Voertsek!!" (get-out!) It gave me no end of satisfaction to watch them falling over one another trying to get out of there!
But like others, I really fail to see why the problem here cannot be understood! I would have thought that by now it would have been abundantly clear that our 'CPU' (the brain) does NOT process any of our senses with repeated exactitude like a voltmeter.
At the danger of irritating some, let me yet again mention my pet experiment of the three bowls of water. You have one filled with chilled water, a second with water at room temperature and a third with quite hot water. Immerse one hand in the cold and the other in the hot water for say 20s, then quickly move both hands to the room temperature water. The 'cold' hand will inform the brain that that water is warm; the 'hot' hand will say that the same water is cold.
Do we then have to be rushed to the shrink to get an explanation? And if the above is not unnatural for us, as well as taste and sight 'deception', then why the dickens is it so difficult to understand that hearing would react in similar fashion? Please, this has been researched to death for all our senses.
Panikos reported his experiences concerning himself and friends (I cannot pick up that he has made any claims of superiority - let us dispense with personal comments). We might not have experienced that had we been there.... and tomorrow the situation may be reversed. Why is it at all necessary to come up with inferences of superior/inferior hearing?? Insisting on that line of thought, folks might just spare a thought as to what degree of ignorance of the brain/senses interface it reveals on their side ...
And as long as the said 'hearing advanced' does not exude an air of superiority over proven science in their turns! What is good for one is good for the other...
---------------------------------------------------------------
Panikos,
You asked about where to read in this connection. I also do not recall the sources where I read up some time ago, but you might wish to go to www.tinnitus.org and follow up on Prof. Jastrapoff's findings. Do not be put off by the initial title and subject, pursue onwards - there are also further references, etc.
Carlos,
Good post your #369. But ....
you are confusing new/original matters with reproduced or reproducable things. Einstein was talking of dealing with empirical things, not whether or not 3+5=8 can (and should!) be repeatable.
Example: I cannot define/measure a kiss. But I can sure as h*ll tell you whether it is the same woman as before!
Good post your #369. But ....
you are confusing new/original matters with reproduced or reproducable things. Einstein was talking of dealing with empirical things, not whether or not 3+5=8 can (and should!) be repeatable.
Example: I cannot define/measure a kiss. But I can sure as h*ll tell you whether it is the same woman as before!
Wavebourn said:
To see just how far off topic we can go, if I recall an association for the blind is lobbying for acoustic generators of one sort or another for electrical vehicles on that basis. A statistically significant number of trials tells me bells won't be effective. 🙂
dognut said:
I'll answer exactly this question. In a tube amp the transformer is producing all of about 100 to 200 milliamps but at 300 to 500 volts. This current charges a large capacitor and or a large choke.
The tube amp is exactly 180 degree backwards from the way a solid state amp works Solid state amps use lots of current and low voltage.
A transformer reflects the input impedance shown at the primary to the secondary, via the square of the turns ratio. Because of this squarring the impedance rations of tube and SS transformers are different by a factor of roughly 1,000.
So,.... any advice from owners for solid state amps. Well it just would not apply. The input transformers are very different. In fact you could almost (not not really) wire the PT from tube amp backwared
Basicaly the impedence of the power cord make no difference on a tube amp and I doubt it matter in an SS amp unless you are replacing a very poor cord with a decent one.
One more thing, What about the miles and miles of wire inside you walls and out in the street that lead all the way back to the power plant?
Re: Re: Power cord replacement
Miles and miles (including that 2 wires in the power cord) don't matter.
What really matters, a decent grounding of outlets, by thick short wires to the ground. There are several grounds in my home; some for lighting, some for outlets. All equipment is connected to the same outlet, through the decent power strip I rewired for myself.
If some parts of gear are powered from different outlets no power cord can help; what can help -- signal level balancing transformers. Decent transformers are cheaper than crazy cables, and they really improve sound quality.
ChrisA said:
Miles and miles (including that 2 wires in the power cord) don't matter.
What really matters, a decent grounding of outlets, by thick short wires to the ground. There are several grounds in my home; some for lighting, some for outlets. All equipment is connected to the same outlet, through the decent power strip I rewired for myself.
If some parts of gear are powered from different outlets no power cord can help; what can help -- signal level balancing transformers. Decent transformers are cheaper than crazy cables, and they really improve sound quality.
Hi Johan ,
Even if you are not knowing that , I am a fan of your posts ,
always full of good sense , good explanations and very
reasonable technical and / or empirical justifications ,
based in your own professional life experience .
I am a mid old electronic engineer ( 53 years old )
and I like to give the correct worth to those things .
BUT , please do not do that , do not put the words into
the ALBERT EINSTEN ‘s mouth , he did want to say exactly
what he said : some things in our life can not be traduced
only in mathematical equations .
Some posts ago , George ( tubelab ) said that perhaps in the
future ( near or far ) we can build measurement equipments
that can measure the sensation (s) , that now we only can feel
( or listen ) , and can not be ( at least by now ) confirmed
mathematically .
A Beethoven’s Simphony can be written as a sequence of
numbers and mathematical equations , and in being so can
be reproduced many , many times in the same way . But each
time the sensation and the feeling will be different from each
others ( ask to the musicians ). May be in the future we can
measure why these things happen , and quantify all the stuff
in measurement units or mathematical expressions , so they
would be reproduceable indefinitely . But right now .......
Go ahead fellow , offering to us your good posts , here .
Regards ,
Carlos
Even if you are not knowing that , I am a fan of your posts ,
always full of good sense , good explanations and very
reasonable technical and / or empirical justifications ,
based in your own professional life experience .
I am a mid old electronic engineer ( 53 years old )
and I like to give the correct worth to those things .
BUT , please do not do that , do not put the words into
the ALBERT EINSTEN ‘s mouth , he did want to say exactly
what he said : some things in our life can not be traduced
only in mathematical equations .
Some posts ago , George ( tubelab ) said that perhaps in the
future ( near or far ) we can build measurement equipments
that can measure the sensation (s) , that now we only can feel
( or listen ) , and can not be ( at least by now ) confirmed
mathematically .
A Beethoven’s Simphony can be written as a sequence of
numbers and mathematical equations , and in being so can
be reproduced many , many times in the same way . But each
time the sensation and the feeling will be different from each
others ( ask to the musicians ). May be in the future we can
measure why these things happen , and quantify all the stuff
in measurement units or mathematical expressions , so they
would be reproduceable indefinitely . But right now .......
Go ahead fellow , offering to us your good posts , here .
Regards ,
Carlos
refference said:
The addition of maths didn't significantly change the theory of relativity.
As to the second point, in my opinion this goes to the heart of the argument. All of the physical actions suggested could be digitised and described mathematically/scientifically - possibly even artifically reproduced. However, your emotional reaction to them could not (I don't think...).
Similarly with music - it can be measured and described mathematically - digital formats prove that. But my emotional reaction is different depending on whether I hear music live, off vinyl, from a CD, or off an MP3 player.
The degree of difference in emotion is different person to person. Some will rationalise the internal and external differences, others will accept them, others will battle against them, and still others will tell me thier differernce has greater meaning and relevance than mine.
Thats not rational, but I accept it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.