cbdb said:
Listening room as well. 😉
I've found that the best sounding speakers are made of bricks or concrete. Like fireplaces and walls.
I visited a house in Italy about 15 years ago. It was a vast building complex with I think from memory 11 full systems of the highest level of expenditure. (Wilson Whamms in the hall, driven by Spectral, another room had big Duntechs etc etc. Everything was the 'fav rave' of the previous five years or less.)
Although many of the systems were quite impressive in hi-fi terms only a couple were to my taste, i.e. musical.
Every system had several power conditioners, power cables were only just becoming the new money spinner - but there was every available variety.
What I felt most concerned about was that the cables throughout the house came in at a cool UK£300,000!!! He even had a pair of Linn Sara speakers and small Naim amps in his Porsch😎
He did have a real treat for my taste though -1964 Bruchladdich Malt. I was far more envious of his drink collection than of his audio. 😀
Although many of the systems were quite impressive in hi-fi terms only a couple were to my taste, i.e. musical.
Every system had several power conditioners, power cables were only just becoming the new money spinner - but there was every available variety.
What I felt most concerned about was that the cables throughout the house came in at a cool UK£300,000!!! He even had a pair of Linn Sara speakers and small Naim amps in his Porsch😎
He did have a real treat for my taste though -1964 Bruchladdich Malt. I was far more envious of his drink collection than of his audio. 😀
Exactly two results, one of which is the quoted commentary. Neither here nor there, just found it ironic.
I don't understand this one. Unless Fremer asked to substitute something pathological - very high capacitance or resistance, 'shaping' networks, etc. - what was the objection? 'dodo' isn't very edifying.
Before getting to more serious business - very serious indeed:
Rdf and Anatech,
Hey, you youngsters - stop 'time-dropping' to impress that you are the only old (elderly or senior please, where's ya respects..) lads around.
😀 😀 😀 🙂
- almost 
(oops!)
but yes, we were pretty good, wern't we - had to make do without all these learned instruments around making the world easy nowadays. And do you think they appreciate us ... naw!
Rdf and Anatech,
Hey, you youngsters - stop 'time-dropping' to impress that you are the only old (elderly or senior please, where's ya respects..) lads around.
😀 😀 😀 🙂
- almost (oops!)but yes, we were pretty good, wern't we - had to make do without all these learned instruments around making the world easy nowadays. And do you think they appreciate us ... naw!
Now for said very serious business:
JOHN!
Sorry to shout at you. Consider yourself being apologised to!
Can't recall why I apparently mixed 'proof' and 'truth' - dog wanting to get out in the middle of; nature calling; middle-of-the-night ..... So yes, I would need to change my statement involving why I considered a definition of 'proof' to be required. The lines of thought would remain largely the same, and with the necessary adaptations (which I am not now going to make - darn, we had enough of hair-splitting - and am sure you as an intelligent being would be able to insert), hopefully you would see my problem in that the terms truth, proof, scientific fact lie at the same goal post, as opposed to the opposite (hell, that is a whale of a 'well-defined' statement!)
OK.
Again, as much of our posts here are, perhaps not expressed complete. May I alter the word 'deceived', so as not to be taken as a short-coming. Rather, based on results of tests that it is normal for our senses not to be accurate to the extent that we occasionally make them to be. That is relevant to everybody, and it is a mistake not to realise that such is the case. In the sense that that has been demonstrated multitudes of times, my statement then rests on what has been amply proved, not still needs to be proven - if you will accept it in that context.
Aaargh! You are being difficult! 🙂
But in this case and sense, no, I will not do that.
This time it is my turn to say that I did not say that! 🙂
I did say that I believe the two should arrive at the same destination if all is kosher. Perhaps one could say it is reassuring if they do ... not suggesting that proof of one by the other is a necessary or likely element of the situation.
Thanks!
jlsem said:
JOHN!
Sorry to shout at you. Consider yourself being apologised to!
Can't recall why I apparently mixed 'proof' and 'truth' - dog wanting to get out in the middle of; nature calling; middle-of-the-night ..... So yes, I would need to change my statement involving why I considered a definition of 'proof' to be required. The lines of thought would remain largely the same, and with the necessary adaptations (which I am not now going to make - darn, we had enough of hair-splitting - and am sure you as an intelligent being would be able to insert), hopefully you would see my problem in that the terms truth, proof, scientific fact lie at the same goal post, as opposed to the opposite (hell, that is a whale of a 'well-defined' statement!)
OK.
Again, as much of our posts here are, perhaps not expressed complete. May I alter the word 'deceived', so as not to be taken as a short-coming. Rather, based on results of tests that it is normal for our senses not to be accurate to the extent that we occasionally make them to be. That is relevant to everybody, and it is a mistake not to realise that such is the case. In the sense that that has been demonstrated multitudes of times, my statement then rests on what has been amply proved, not still needs to be proven - if you will accept it in that context.
Aaargh! You are being difficult! 🙂
But in this case and sense, no, I will not do that.
This time it is my turn to say that I did not say that! 🙂
I did say that I believe the two should arrive at the same destination if all is kosher. Perhaps one could say it is reassuring if they do ... not suggesting that proof of one by the other is a necessary or likely element of the situation.
Thanks!
brianco said:
It does get down to the Islay malts sometimes, Lagavulin here nothing like the peat reek.
jlsem said:
Jeepers, John - no!
Even if I try to read more carefully this time (the dog is out), I think that there is ample proof (that word again) that musicians generally do hear music more acutely than ordinary folk (do I need to qualify?). This is verifiable during their training, etc. etc.
On the other hand the audiophile comparing systems for decades - with respect, has it been verified that he did not have the same bias all this time? He did use the same ears! And if it is accepted that hearing is not scientifically accurate (and I do hope I do not need to qualify this yet again ...), perhaps there is no case of a 'leap of faith' in either case! - since we have the proof/truth, at least in the sense that is acceptable to present-day science. Not to start yet another argument, but is not faith and proof mutually exclusive here, if not generally?
[PS: To the extent that said audiophile is also a keen listener/analyser of (real live) music - even a musician himself? - my take does, of course, not apply. But how often is that the case? I know of lots of cases (the majority in my small world) where this is not so.]
SY, I found your post.
Your comparative sample Unspecified Mullard (2 tubes), GE6201 (2 tubes), Genelex (B739), Unspecified Sylvania (3 tubes) and RSD (4 tubes) is hardly comprehensive, and certainly not broad enough to warrant your definitive conclusion quoted in the next paragraph. There was also no mention as whether the tubes were NOS, used or whether they were emission tested prior to THD testing.
Moreover, your test only refers to THD measurements, which were taken at a single operating point at a single frequency at a single level. To imply the absolute superiority of the JJ variant over all others ever made based on these data is misleading. Your second part of your claim ‘ECC81 is cheap and readily available; the current-production JJs are easily the best ones ever made’ would not withstand peer scrutiny in a refereed journal if supported by this dataset. Period.
It would be great if you applied the same high standards of proof you insist on with respect to cable testing to your own published assertions.
Your comparative sample Unspecified Mullard (2 tubes), GE6201 (2 tubes), Genelex (B739), Unspecified Sylvania (3 tubes) and RSD (4 tubes) is hardly comprehensive, and certainly not broad enough to warrant your definitive conclusion quoted in the next paragraph. There was also no mention as whether the tubes were NOS, used or whether they were emission tested prior to THD testing.
Moreover, your test only refers to THD measurements, which were taken at a single operating point at a single frequency at a single level. To imply the absolute superiority of the JJ variant over all others ever made based on these data is misleading. Your second part of your claim ‘ECC81 is cheap and readily available; the current-production JJs are easily the best ones ever made’ would not withstand peer scrutiny in a refereed journal if supported by this dataset. Period.
It would be great if you applied the same high standards of proof you insist on with respect to cable testing to your own published assertions.
Peer reviewed and refereed journals aren't publishing tube measurements. 😀
Seriously, it's up to you whether or not to use the data I gather and publish. Some have and have found it replicable. Others are quite happy to spend their time relishing the chocolate midrange of the smooth plate Telefunkens compared to the refulgent mid treble of the 1957 Amperex or whatever and aren't really concerned with the nuts and bolts of amplifier design. I'm not claiming to have data supporting the rewriting of physical laws of the universe, just some good tube measurements with a range of specimens. I've done quite a few more since then, with pretty much the same results, but that's nothing remarkable.
FWIW, the operating point I chose was the one where I found the linearity to be the best. In fact, it was quite excellent with any but the RSDs.
Seriously, it's up to you whether or not to use the data I gather and publish. Some have and have found it replicable. Others are quite happy to spend their time relishing the chocolate midrange of the smooth plate Telefunkens compared to the refulgent mid treble of the 1957 Amperex or whatever and aren't really concerned with the nuts and bolts of amplifier design. I'm not claiming to have data supporting the rewriting of physical laws of the universe, just some good tube measurements with a range of specimens. I've done quite a few more since then, with pretty much the same results, but that's nothing remarkable.
FWIW, the operating point I chose was the one where I found the linearity to be the best. In fact, it was quite excellent with any but the RSDs.
mach1 said:
This is what I was getting at in my post yesterday that went by almost without comment. The act of choosing which measurements to take is entirely subjective. Why that frequency, why that level, why that operating point? If they are arbitrary they can't be objectively chosen.
And this says nothing of the fact that there is evidence THD does not correlate to perceived sound quality. See Earl Geddes' recent work in this area.
@rdf
Your google skills leave much to be desired:
Results 11 - 20 of about 4,950 for John Merrell, CEA. (0.31 seconds)
I leave it to you to check out the other 4948 links...
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-merrell/b/b37/557
http://www.iscram.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=624&Itemid=2
Are you actually trying to mislead, or are you lacking competence?
So, there was a condition of three cables, to which Fremer had agreed upon.
The cable that fremer might have introduced might well have been a "pathological" cable, giving him the chance with parametres falling way out of the normal range of a typical audio cable to skew the result in his favour, violating the already agreed upon parameters of the test.
Your google skills leave much to be desired:
Results 11 - 20 of about 4,950 for John Merrell, CEA. (0.31 seconds)
I leave it to you to check out the other 4948 links...
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-merrell/b/b37/557
http://www.iscram.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=624&Itemid=2
Are you actually trying to mislead, or are you lacking competence?
So, there was a condition of three cables, to which Fremer had agreed upon.
The cable that fremer might have introduced might well have been a "pathological" cable, giving him the chance with parametres falling way out of the normal range of a typical audio cable to skew the result in his favour, violating the already agreed upon parameters of the test.
jeff mai said:
Frequency does not matter. The point was, they are as linear from 2 mA current as standard ones from 5 mA current, if I remember right.
any of the parametres measurable in cables...including noise rejection through shielding.
The parametres could also be changed by a "designer" cable including a network affecting the linearity of the frequency response.
In order to prove a point - or win a million$ - I would not put it past anybody to try such a stunt.
I may well be prejudiced against Fremer, having read his "contributions" for a long time (since the early 90's) in stereophile and following some of his arrogant and foulmouthed responses to people disagreeing with him on some forums.
If such a cable would be allowed - a difference could likely be detected - or at least the chances of an audible difference be improved.
The parametres could also be changed by a "designer" cable including a network affecting the linearity of the frequency response.
In order to prove a point - or win a million$ - I would not put it past anybody to try such a stunt.
I may well be prejudiced against Fremer, having read his "contributions" for a long time (since the early 90's) in stereophile and following some of his arrogant and foulmouthed responses to people disagreeing with him on some forums.
If such a cable would be allowed - a difference could likely be detected - or at least the chances of an audible difference be improved.
audio-kraut said:
Nice try but Randi placed a specific string in quotes - “John Merrell CEA” . Quotations have a function in Google searches, try the string Randi actually suggested instead of the one you substituted. The 'for sure' came across both funny and sloppy.
Competent enough to enter strings correctly into Google, and to see at a glance you miss the point entirely. If Randi's assertion is that all cables within a defined set of normal parameters sound alike, what possible difference does it make if one of the cables meeting those criteria isn't a Pear or Transparent? It's not a difficult concept unless your motive is 'winning' instead of scientific discovery. The former unfortunately describes many here claiming to defend science. (SY I don't consider part of that group.)
I agree with your reply to Wavebourn re: pathological cables however.
audio-kraut said:
Noise rejection through shilding of a power cord?
You know, the difference between engineers and humanitarians is, engineers can estimate measurements, and can calculate impact of measured parameters on the equipment.
Johan, you are indeed a fun guy and a gentleman. I wish I could share dinner and drinks with you sometime.
John
1. Learn to spell right - I wrote "shielding" - I know, I am petty here.
2. Learn to read the post, and you will find that the topic discussed is about interconnects, not power cords - a deviation for sure, but a response to a previous post re the Fremer/Randi dispute.
After you have done that you can comment about engineering qualifications and accuse me of being an idiot.
At least get the topic right my comment referred to.
You are trying too hard - can't you be flexible enough to put a comma in behind the name to get the intended result? At least what I interpret as the intended search result.
It looks to me you are searching for the splinter in someone else's eye.
And that the quote was "specific" - that again is your interpretation. He might just have forgotten the comma.
Rather petty of you, it seems.
Again - I am not interested in the cable dispute. I did tests for myself and found that I am unable to discern such differences.
I am however interested when information that I see as incorrect - as in the Fremer/Randi dispute - gets propagated.
In Randi's case: I can see that Fremers insistence on "his" reference cable, which undoubtedly could have been prepared - rings an alarm bell similar to the insistence of some "psychics" insisting on bringing their props to the test lab.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.