I should quit this thread, but I dare say the change of one milliohm (and with a 1 miliohm resolution, the actual change could be from 0.1 to 1.9 milliohm) in an circuit driving an 8-ohm speaker is inaudible. It's certainly a very small fraction of a dB change.
Sorry, I already pointed out the very small difference in resistance is not the reason for directionality of wire OR even proof of directionality. It’s evidence that the wire is not symmetrical physically or electrically. We haven’t yet got to why it’s audible, we’re saving that for later. 😳
'It was a bright, cold day in April and the clocks were striking thirteen.' [Orwell, G. 1984]
Soþ hit sylf acyþeð (truth will make itself known). [traditional Anglo-Saxon proverb]
'The drought had lasted now for ten million years, and the regin of the terrible lizards had long since ended.' [Clarke, A. C. 2001: A Space Odyssey]
Of course there are very wide error bars when the the values differ only by one in the last digit, but it's the existence of a difference at all here that's the issue, not its magnitude.
That's part of my point. We have no idea if GECOM had issues like this, as there is no detail in the PDF at all. Assuming the numbers are honest, the difference could be due to any number of things; given that they say they used a current of 3A, and "Direction2" is almost always higher than "Direction1" makes me think they have merely measured the temeprature coefficient of fuse wire.
It’s seems reasonable to assume the GECOM testing was for brand new fuses. The reason I believe Direction 1 is always or almost always higher is because that’s how they tabulated the results, Direction 1 IS THE HIGHEST NUMBER. I do have a problem with their statement that differences in resistance were generally about 5 %, however.
Last edited:
You managed to cite two of my prefered authors in one message ( Aldous Huxley and Philip K. Dick are missing though)!
Respect Scott! 👍
What’s the matter with William Burroughs? Is he chopped liver? I also quoted Arthur C. Clarke.
Big things have small beginnings. - Lawrence of Arabia and David in Prometheus
Because it’s what I choose to believe. - Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, Prometheus
Big things have small beginnings. - Lawrence of Arabia and David in Prometheus
Because it’s what I choose to believe. - Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, Prometheus
Last edited:
I liked Burroughs collaboration with Al. Jourgensen and Genesis P. Orridge / Cevin Key, not this much 'The Naked Lunch'. 😉
I'm faint hearted little thing. 🙂
I'm faint hearted little thing. 🙂
Do you imply that your ‘achievements’, “Super Intelligent Chip” or “Clever Little Clock” are advanced science indistinguishable from magic? As are surely all other products at your website. 🤣
Terry Pratchett understood magic very well:
“And that's what I don't like about magic, Captain. 'cos it's magic. You can't ask questions, it's magic. It doesn't explain anything, it's magic. You don't know where it comes from, it's magic! That's what I don't like about magic, it does everything by magic!”
Just to understand geoffkait’s grip on
"The time signals that are captured on the recording back when it was made are out of synch with the time signals when the recording is played. Those Past Time signals are reproduced through the speakers along with the acoustic information and become entangled, integrated with Present Time signals the listener uses to time-sequence sounds and images in memory. The alien time signals from the past are perceived subconsciously by the listener as a threat, producing fear, anxiety and confusion: the fight-or-flight response inherited from his Prehistoric ancestors. That fear, anxiety and confusion reduce or distort the listener's hearing and visual acuity. The Clever Little Clock counteracts the perceived threat produced by the Past Time signals, improving the listener's hearing and vision acuity by disentangling, dis-integrating the Past Time signals from the Present Time signals in his subconscious mind."
Nobel prize worthy knowledge indeed. 👍
As far as I am aware, a double blind test is the closest we can come to scientific subjective testing of many different stimuli on homo sapiens. Why is it not 'good evidence' and what is 'ugly' about it when applied to psychoacoustics? I cannot help but feel it is vehemently disliked mainly by those who know deep down that they would not have a chance of identifying so called dramatic differences in, say, audio cables when actually put to the test. Ivor Tiefenbrun springs immediately to mind...
(No insult intended to geoffkat by suggesting that you fall into this category).
HiFi tastes are by their nature personal, just like the choice of partner/cars/food etc. and what's good for the goose might not necessarily be good for the gander. I do feel, however, that given the woeful absence of quantitative subjective testing in the audio industry, that DB or ABX testing remain key to data gathering unless I am missing something.
Apologies -will get those in the next batch of quotations from the shelf. 😉
Tombo56 wrote,
“Do you imply that your ‘achievements’, “Super Intelligent Chip” or “Clever Little Clock” are advanced science indistinguishable from magic? As are surely all other products at your website.”
No, but I appreciate the thought.
”If I could explain it to the average person they wouldn‘t have given me the Nobel prize.“ - Richard Feynman
“Do you imply that your ‘achievements’, “Super Intelligent Chip” or “Clever Little Clock” are advanced science indistinguishable from magic? As are surely all other products at your website.”
No, but I appreciate the thought.
”If I could explain it to the average person they wouldn‘t have given me the Nobel prize.“ - Richard Feynman
Last edited:
MrKlinky wrote,
“As far as I am aware, a double blind test is the closest we can come to scientific subjective testing of many different stimuli on homo sapiens. Why is it not 'good evidence' and what is 'ugly' about it when applied to psychoacoustics?”
The reason why negative results of a controlled double blind test have no meaning is because too many things can and do go wrong with the tests. Thus it is unscientific to assume anything about negative results.
What can possibly go wrong with a controlled DBT? Or any test.
1. There can be an error in the system.
2. The listener‘s hearing might be impaired or his skill in hearing Differences may be in question.
3. The test system might be of mediocre quality and unable to resolve differences.
4. The test system was not broken in or warmed up properly.
5. The test conductor didn’t following instructions.
“As far as I am aware, a double blind test is the closest we can come to scientific subjective testing of many different stimuli on homo sapiens. Why is it not 'good evidence' and what is 'ugly' about it when applied to psychoacoustics?”
The reason why negative results of a controlled double blind test have no meaning is because too many things can and do go wrong with the tests. Thus it is unscientific to assume anything about negative results.
What can possibly go wrong with a controlled DBT? Or any test.
1. There can be an error in the system.
2. The listener‘s hearing might be impaired or his skill in hearing Differences may be in question.
3. The test system might be of mediocre quality and unable to resolve differences.
4. The test system was not broken in or warmed up properly.
5. The test conductor didn’t following instructions.
Last edited:
As we continue to go round in circles yet again, the Moderation team has decided to do you all a favour and close this thread, thereby allowing you to move onto...
...well it doesn't matter does it? As long as we are moving on.
Have a nice day everyone and don't even think of sending the Mods a PM or, heaven forbid, starting another cable thread.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.