• WARNING: Tube/Valve amplifiers use potentially LETHAL HIGH VOLTAGES.
    Building, troubleshooting and testing of these amplifiers should only be
    performed by someone who is thoroughly familiar with
    the safety precautions around high voltages.

Power cord replacement

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#501
It is a fact that people claim to hear a difference. The hypothesis is they actually do hear it, so there was nothing really to be fixed.

The JJ 12AT7 appears to be of frame grid construction. I would like to see more comprehensive and precise measurements to see how the characteristics compare to 12AT7s of more conventional construction.

John
 
#502
John, your premise assumed the conclusion. If someone can demonstrate that they hear something that falls outside of well-established engineering and audiology, then any hard-nosed skeptic will be highly interested in investigating the cause. But at the moment, it's all gas and aural superiority dance, no actual data. If someone hypothesizes that they hear a difference in an electronic device when the power cord is changed, absent a sound engineering reason, you of all people know certainly well that it's not up to the engineering community or any serious researchers to begin investigating a cause unless the hypothesis has some evidential backing.

The analogy of alien visitations comes to mind...
 
#503
Well, unfortunately the argument is rooted in what would be considered worthwhile evidence. The link submitted by dsavitsk in post #463 is a paper where the researchers compared the ability to hear tone and timbre between ordinary people, trained musicians, and people with learning disabilities. Now, why on earth would they choose trained musicians to use in the study without at some point making a leap of faith that musicians may actually hear differently than you and I? So then, why are serious researchers recalcitrant to make the same leap of faith in the case of an audiophile who has been comparing audio systems for upwards of 40 years?

John
 
#504
Maybe because those audiophiles avoid the tests like crazy and, when they are subject to them, show the same null results as the rest of the world?

I've suggested to "serious" audiophiles the ways to make controlled tests. Over and over. They say they're open-minded and want to do them. I'm still waiting for someone to actually do so...
 
#505
Has there ever been a serious attempt by researchers to organize and fund such a study? It's really not up to the audiophile to push forward with the study any more than the trained musicians in the study cited above had the onus on themselves to show they had a specific aural ability. To what point were you able to advance your own study before said audiophiles flaked out?

John
 
#506
Audiophiles have regularly been included in these experiments- Moran's was one (rdf's reservations notwithstanding). Same with Toole, Olive, Lipshitz, et al. Wasn't there another one with someone named Zipser? At this point, the onus is not on the researchers.

The analogy fails because musicians were not regularly claiming to be rewrting the laws of physics.
 
#507
making a leap of faith that musicians may actually hear differently than you and I?
Click to expand...

Its no leap of faith if you have ever been in a studio recording session or even a jam session. When I first started in studios I couldnt hear that the guiter player was behind or ahead of the drummer, or playing a sharp unless it was by a large amount. The producer and other musicians could, in time even non musicians can learn to hear this (some producers have never been serious musicians) and I did get better at it, but still not as good as a proffesional musician.

It's really not up to the audiophile to push forward with the study
Click to expand...

No but you would think the manufacturers would. There marketeing departments (who have the money) would love a real scientific test to show the public how special and worth the $k there cables are.
 
#508
It's really not up to the audiophile to push forward with the study any more than the trained musicians in the study cited above had the onus on themselves to show they had a specific aural ability.
Click to expand...

And I always thought it was those making any claims - or a hypothesis if you might call it that - to provide evidence.
I as a "hifi - phile", make no claims as to the special audible properties of any cable, so I have nothing to prove.

The logic of your argument is not apparent.
So then, why are serious researchers recalcitrant to make the same leap of faith in the case of an audiophile who has been comparing audio systems for upwards of 40 years?
Click to expand...

Those claims from authority remind me strongly of the claims of alt. med. All anecdotal, from "experience" - at best - with no solid, unbiased evidence to prove any efficacy.
 
#510
SY said:
...and aural superiority dance, no actual data. ....
Click to expand...

Nothing personal SY but the few times I do play with cables your opinion is the furthest thing from my mind. I do agree however the hypothesis a belief in the audibility of cables is automatically coupled with a burning desire for social status completely lacks actual data.
 
#511
The logic of your argument is not apparent.
Click to expand...

You'd have to go pretty far back in the debate to find who's was the original claim and who made a counter claim. It's not up to you or anyone else here to decide who owns the onus. I'm not sure if audiophiles claim to defy the laws of physics for the simple reason that I don't think they deny that cables may measure differently.

When a challenge (such as Randi's) starts off as a simple one (compare Cable A to Cable B) then evolves into an entirely different one by adding a condition that Cable A and Cable B must measure the same, then all bets are off. I doubt that Randi, with his limited knowledge of physics, understood at the outset that the Pear cable could in fact measure differently than the Monster cable. It was probably to his relief that he was informed of this before he conducted the challenge and Fremer or someone like him was able to pinpoint consistantly a difference and even a preference between the two because they did measure differently. Thus the conditions were changed and the challenge goes unchallenged. I want to clarify that I'm only making an educated guess.

John
 
#515
Yesterday my friend called me crying for help, he sounded completely frustrated like I never saw him, asking which cord to buy for his new wide screen camera and condenser microphone. It has to be shorter than 1 feet, with XLR plugs.
Do I need to tell you how his head was spinning around full of an audiofoolish ********, each of contradictory claims were well supported by names, theories, test results?
He is a famous senior software engineer that knows well hardware, develops for embedded systems!
Can you imagine what happens to an ordinary person, say doctor or lawyer, if that person starts reading recommendations in the Net?
 
#518
To clear up - hopefully:

When a challenge (such as Randi's) starts off as a simple one (compare Cable A to Cable B) then evolves into an entirely different one by adding a condition that Cable A and Cable B must measure the same, then all bets are off. I doubt that Randi, with his limited knowledge of physics, understood at the outset that the Pear cable could in fact measure differently than the Monster cable.
Click to expand...

See here:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/104-the-latest-on-pear-challenge-refusal.html

And, by the way, one such advisor is a person whose day-to-day work for the last 35 years has been in consumer and commercial electronics. He holds many patents, and his current position is as VP Marketing & Government Affairs for a billion-dollar plus electronic firm based in China. His position within the Consumer Electronics Association [CEA]: Currently he is the Co-Chairman of the Association – the "UN" of audio manufacturers and the sponsor of the Las Vegas Consumer Electronic Show – a technical working group setting audio wattage standards on amplification equipment, known as CEA R3 Working Group 8.

Among approximately 2200 Consumer Electronic Association members he’s one of about 12 who hold voting rights on the full CEA Audio Committee, and last week he was in San Diego attending sessions, including his activities as Co-Chair, for the technical standards sessions. He was one of about 25 in the Audio Committee and works closely with many of the elite in engineering in the industry. He is very well known on both the audio and video and digital imaging sides, having worked for Eastman Kodak, Panasonic (and both their consumer Technics audio company and their professional RAMSA audio company), Thomson (parent of RCA, Technicolor and professional Grass Valley equipment), and Prima Technology. He is also the Chairman of the CEA Public Alert Technology Alliance, and a voting member on the Video Committee and a member of the TV Manufacturers Caucus, the CEA Government Affairs Council, and the CEA Environmental Committee.

For more of this man’s qualifications, a '”Google” of “John Merrell CEA” would bring something up, I'm sure. Of course, these qualifications may make this person far too down-to-earth to meet the standards of the audio fanciers’ world, but that’s for you to decide, of course.

(6) James Randi now falsely claims that he has very clearly stated all along that the test is limited to 2 models of cable only (his email correspondence with Mr. Fremer disputes that). No. This is so very transparent, that it requires no attention. My correspondence with Fremer does not deny this, at all.

(7) Why is James Randi attempting to limit his thesis regarding audio cables to 2 specific models? Why? Because those are the cables I’m questioning, dodo! I’ve clearly stated that speaker cables can vary widely due to resistance, impedance, orientation, insulation, spacing, configuration, etc., etc. Are you now suggesting that Pear cables can’t qualify for his golden ears…?

(8) Could it be that he knows it is highly unlikely that ANY manufacturer will participate in a challenge given by someone who is dishonest? I would agree with such a decision. But, looking back over the foregoing 850+ words of this response, I’ll let the manufacturers – and everyone – decide who’s been “dishonest” here…

(9) Pear Cable stands behind the performance of its products and will continue to pursue its goal of building the most accurate audio cables available. But they won’t participate in a test, even for a million-dollar prize…? I find that strange indeed…! I could go on here, but I’ve not enough time to fritter away on juveniles. The rest, as the foregoing, is simply packed with misstatements and outright lies…
Click to expand...


That was the challenge, and I do not know where you get the notion from of cables measuring the same?

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/103-yet-another-snag-in-cable-challenge.html
to significantly differentiate between a set of $7,250 Pear Anjou cables and a good set of Monster cables, or between a set of $43,000 Transparent Opus MM SC cables and the same Monster cables – your choice of these two possible scenarios… This would have to be done to a statistically significant degree, that degree to be decided.
Click to expand...

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php...tml?ordering=newest&searchphrase=all&limit=20

here the rest...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom