| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
>>> "The proof is in her own words over many many posts here on AA. Tell you what I've got a thousand dollars that says I'm right and that the Belts have neither done any meaningful scientific investigations into either their "concept" or the possibility that bias effects are at work. Do you want to take that bet? I'm serious, I'll put up a thousand bucks..........
I can provide evidence that would refute that exact claim of yours above. So don't be goin' all James Randi on me either, whereby you reject any evidence that would cause you to lose $1,000 dollars, and game the bet. I know that trick, along with all the rhetorical manipulations you use to try to save face in debates. I will disprove what you've written above, not the conditions you hope to add after the fact, to save face and a G-note. Let's work out the details of how you're going to pay me, before I get to it.
"(BTW, you will find that if you read the rest of the Wikipedia post addressing Occam's Razor from which you quote (without attribution) the rest of your questions on the concept will be answered. Happy studying.)"
Yeah, right. Occam's razor worked great for folks back in the 14th century, back when life was relatively uncomplicated, but has little scientific worth these days in terms of proof. I guess it's just the ticket for anyone content with a nice, easy to digest explanation.
"It's placebo, not quantum physics! Case closed!"
Doesn't Corey Greenberg recommend those at www.shaveblog.com ?
No. That's why I'm not the idiot who said I would gladly put up $1,000 dollars for evidence that the Belts have endeavoured to do "meaningful scientific investigations into either their "concept" or the possibility that bias effects are at work". You
are. And you didn't say that was conditional on the other person putting up a thousand as well, idiot. So you're beholden to your word, as written. Not "as revised", sorry. I told you, don't try to game the bet, in an attempt to weasel out of it, like I knew you would try to. I clearly stated I will "disprove what you've written above, not the conditions you hope to add after the fact". Stating now that the evidence required to satisfy your original statement of "the Belts have neither done any meaningful scientific investigations into either their "concept" or the possibility that bias effects are at work" "will certainly involve publication in a peer review journal along with varification via follow up research from third parties" is adding additional conditions not in your original bet statement, a la "James Randi".
I have only to satisfy your original public statement and stated conditions of your bet. Which is to provide evidence that the Belts have done "meaningful scientific investigation" into the phenomenon they discovered. As opposed to "making no attempt to eliminate bias effects", which is exactly what you have been whining about incessantly to May for 5 years of your trolling life (claiming she has not attempted this, or even knows what "bias effects" are, in that snotty, annoying, dumb brat tone you always take). Let me make this clear: I don't care what you think is "meaningful scientific investigation", as you predictably attempt to backtrack on your phony bravado bet. Only what you stated for the record, matters. I can show evidence of a serious, large-scale investigation done by a neutral, respected third party in the scientific community, no less. That's more than I need to do, to prove your bet statement as made, is false.
So don't do your little weasel dance for me, don't think you're going to insult your way out of this, don't squawk to me about any newly added conditions where you say you will only honor the bet after seeing peer-reviewed articles in thirteen scientific journals and the Belts have won a Pulitzer Prize. ("Along with "varification" (sic) via follow up research from third parties in a peer-reviewed journal"?? What do you think "peer-reviewed" means, idiot? Have you ever even read a scientific journal? Didn't think so). Might as well mention that the investigation(s) that were made were not "hidden", but on public record, which is the evidence I will show. If you weren't so ignorant in who and what you're talking about, when you pretend to be an expert on the Belts or Beltism (like you're a "pretend expert" on everything else), you would know that. Which is great, because I don't mind making $1,000 bucks off of your idiocy and ignorance. Scott, you need to stop making sorry excuses for yourself, in an attempt to welch out of this bet you made with me, and get that check ready. I'm as serious as a heart attack.
p.s. Please learn how to quote properly, and don't quote an entire post when it's not necessary, so you can "try" not to look like a dork.
Finally something I can get behind 100%.
Guess you don't understand the basic idea of a bet. But that comes with being a moron. Moron. Anonymous neophytes with delusions of self importance like you are a dime a dozen on the internet. How does it feel to be so common and insignificant?
Oh yeah, will you walk the walk and take the bet?
I thought not.
Occam's Razor never was, and is not now, any sort of proof nor is it a hypothesis.
Once again an attempt to bring the thread back on topic:
So, do you have any information on the measurements or other physical characteristics of the cables at issue?
Any information as to how they could be directional given there is a liquid as a conductor?
Even any meaningful guesses?
Anything?
I'd opine that "liquid" - metal slurry - conductors would not be directional since the metal crystals are randomly distributed in the "liquid," as opposed to the case where physical forces distort the crystal structure of solid metal wire when drawn through a die.
How 'bout you, hot shot, any guesses?
Uh no, I understood what you said perfectly. The problem is, you're starting to realize what a moron you are for having said that, now. After you trolling audio groups for 15 years and still not understanding basic quoting form that everyone else seems to understand, why am I not surprised? That's too bad, Scott. You made an offer of a $1,000 dollars, to the first who could disprove your statement that the Belts had not ever made any attempt toward legitimate scientific inquiry into their phenomenon. Like I said, I don't mind taking advantage of idiots like you. And I quote:
Let me remind you that you are obligated to live up to your word, and not welch out of it, like your friend Ethan is always doing with his phony baloney offers. Your offer said nothing about "peer-reviewed publications" or anyone making a counter-offer, or any of this crap you're now trying to weasel out of the offer with. So don't talk to me about that. I have only to prove that "the Belts have done meaningful scientific investigations into their "concept"", which was the only condition required as stated, to win the offer of $1,000 dollars. I am ready to do that.
Before I do, I want to see you post a scanned cashier's check with my name on it (and make sure you spell it correctly - that's "Michigan J. Frog"), before I go ahead and prove again what an ignorant moron you are. Normally I wouldn't ask for proof of your sincerity, and your word would be good enough for me. But normally, I don't deal with ignorant trolling blowhards who are all mouth and well known to be walking bags of BS, and/or who have the maturity and intellect of a 13 year old with 'special needs'. Which makes that sort of evidence necessary, you understand. That plus the fact that I don't think you've ever seen $1,000 in your life, much less had $1,000 in your little piggy bank. If you did, you'd have tried a lot of these products you whine about, instead of spending your life's days, screaming and insulting people because they can afford products you can't.
I don't know. I'm guessing not as bad as it feels to be the lickspittle of one. Which seems to be your role in life, as long as James "I only LOOK like Jerry Garcia" Johnson is alive. (Scott: "Hey, what do I say now, James, I don't understand the question??"). Or is the reason you seem to be happy to be James' cheerleader, and follow behind him wherever he trolls from one audiophile forum to the next, is because he needs someone to do his make up?
I love that Texanism:"all hat and no cattle"
Here is another : "he is lower than a snakes belly in a wagon rut"
If only our speakers would go that low.
oops, this was supposed to be a reply to Elk.
I once toured a prominent interconnect factory, and the only reason this is interesting is because the terminations....RCA, spade lug,banana plug, etc...are all made the same. There is no difference between the one you use leading away from a component or at the receiving end.
These terminations are made in identical, but nondirectional fashion.
So, using an interconnect with an RCA plug at each end will be confounded by one of the plugs having to carry signal in the wrong direction. You'd be forced to choose having the leading plug running in the proper direction or the receiving plug running in the right direction, but not both.
Talk about a new paradox!
I won't even begin to wonder about the QC required to keep runs of wire properly idenitified as to their directionality in the custody chain between the extruder and when they are made into interconnects. Probably not as hard as trying to make terminations with opposite directionaliy, however.
The flaw in that idea, though, Buddha, is not everyone builds their cables that way. Direction of wire, shield connected at one or both ends, etc. vary.
There are those who find directional terminations?
I have never seen this.
Yes, some cable makers listen to the wire first before building the cables, to determine correct direction. Bob Crump was one. Image height is better in the correct direction.
I have not heard this before. Interesting.
I have seen some single ended cables made as I make them with the shield lifted at the load end.
I have heard of directionality regarding cable, but not something like RCA plugs - they all come from the same machines, made identically, yet have different tasks to perform, if you believe in directionality.
You're right about the connectors themselves - I've never heard of anyone checking them for directionality. You get what you get.
Oh, great.
Something else to consider.
Am pretty sure that sheet metal, like wire, is directional. Perhaps this directionality is placed on the metal when it is rolled out from the ingot. But if this is true, metal connectors that are stamped and formed from sheet metal most likely are ....drum roll, please...directional. Connectors might not be as strongly directional as wire, but direction could be audible, wouldn't surprise me too much.
In order to ensure "proper" directionality of all wire and connectors in the audio chain a massive QC program would have to be instituted, starting at the point the molten metal is first poured into ingots. I volunteer Brian Walsh for QC Manager.
Makes ya wonder about directional fuses and the QC there, too.
Right. Kind of begs the question about all the internal wiring in everything, no?
We've mentioned unit to unit variation in the past, and this doesn't seem to be a large scale thing people notice - I guess because the mish mash of all those things tends to randomize out inside a unit. But it could make for some examples of lemons and 'jewels' within a run of gear based on being bell curve outliers.
This calls for some DBT!
Thanks but no thanks. But Geoff, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands, so perhaps you'd like to volunteer.
It has been suggested that directionality such as in house wiring (dedicated lines and such) eventually gets corrected naturally by current flow. I can't say whether it's true but thought I'd throw it out there for discussion.
So, why doesn't this happen in speaker cables, too?
Why not in interconnects?
Why are these artifacts 160dB down when you try to measure them, if you can measure them at all?
Perhaps what's connected or not connected in the cables is related? It may also have something to do with the signal level, especially in interconnects, where annealing may or may not occur.
Maybe the ear is more sensitive to things that are difficult or impossible to measure. As Geoff alluded to earlier, John Curl has measured distortion, etc. in wire. Maybe he'll chime in and share a bit of what he found.
Maybe pigs fly, too. For the distortion level that has been measured to matter, you'd have to reduce the thermodynamic noise of the atmosphere by about 50dB.
Good luck with that.
Sorry to tell you, but there are some absolutes. One of them is the noise level due to the thermodynamics of air at the eardrum. It's approximately white noise at circa 6dB SPL in the 20-20K range.
The only way to get rid of that is to get rid of the air (which is, after all, the transmission medium) at the eardrum. Rumor has it a subjective test might cause objections from the subjec, too, but fortunately it hasn't been tried, except in 2001 - A Space Odessy.
When I talk about measurements, I mean all electrical changes due to the wire. If you're arguing about paraphysics, well, sorry, there you need some good evidence, but it is, in fact, trivial in the modern day to measure to lower levels of total noise plus distortion (and all other changes, to be clear) than the ear (or the eye) can detect. This is not speculation, the sensitivity of human hearing has been established over and over again, from Helmholtz, Fletcher, Zwicker, Stevens, etc, and the results are remarkably consistent.
What's more, you can't get much below the noise level of the atmosphere, with the 200 millisecond time or less time constant of the partial loudness memory in the human.
Look at the level of the distortions that have been measured. Please.
Having measured cables myself, and put up a reference to somebody else who was measuring total noise plus distortion in cables, well, I know the magnitudes.
FOR CLEAN CONNECTORS, that is. Always that condition has to be stated in large letters. Always.
In that regard, RCA plugs **** eggs.
I measure about -105 to -120 with many cables. Higher order is the problem.
jj, I've heard the directional effects, even with the Liquid Cables. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Sorry my karma ran over your dogma.
Cheap cables like Rat Shack stuff have lots of higher order harmonic distortion, as Curl will corroborate, and the ear is very sensitive to higher order harmonics. Loudness cues, ya know--turn down the distortion! Yes, there's a lot to be said for clean connections, but they alone won't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Gosh, you mean somebody can build a cable the wrong way?
I never knew that!
(Seriously, some crimped cables are simply "interesting". Now who was suggesting you use the cheapest cable out there?)
And it's not "loudness cues", it's simply "loudness", the psychophysical measure, rather than "intensity", the energy measure. Sorry to be pedantic about that, but the term "loudness" does have a very specific definition, and the word is misused more than it's used correctly. (and don't even ask me about the "loudness control". Please.)
"It has been suggested that directionality such as in house wiring (dedicated lines and such) eventually gets corrected naturally by current flow. I can't say whether it's true but thought I'd throw it out there for discussion."
That's an interesting point. The guy from Hi Fi Tuning who makes the audio grade ceramic fuses swore up and down for several years that his fuses did not need the little arrows, like the Isoclean fuses, to show proper direction since, according to him, all fuses become properly "aligned" by current flow over time. However, he recanted a couple years ago. Now his ceramic fuses come with little directional arrows just like the Isocleans. He also cryos them now. Imagine that! I have noticed that a 10-year old amp fuse retains its directionality, even after all that time. When it's not in the proper direction the sound is obviously overly bright. So chances are pretty good the same thing would be true for dedicated lines.
So maybe you could ask John Curl what was wrong with the amplifier's power supply, then?
That one made me laugh!
(Meant as a compliment.)
I'm quoting myself as this is actually very interesting. It shows that the standardized mathematical calculations and numerical transforms (software-hardware inside of equipment for measuring LCR) are not always relevant. In this case, the basics have changed. Which is what I claimed and stated in the first place.
I'll say a bit more about where they were tested. They were tested in what would/could be considered to be the 'skunkworks' of a $13B a year major player in high technology. One of their skunkworks guys brought the cables in for testing, due to the 'puzzle' they present. We agreed to allow this to happen, this testing. The puzzle -part of it, that is- is in the above quoted bit.
The capacitance found, according to how we generally understand and utilize capacitance, is ..for the larger part, impossible. The answer is very simple, but it takes years for most people to get there, if they had to try to figure it out on their own.
It's about your cables.
False humility is overrated.
Paramahansa Yogananda said the same thing to me in his Enlightenment 101 class.
LOL!
If the current is directional does that mean a wall cable with AC needs reversing 50 times a second ?
John
What does that mean in simple terms ?
What does the 105 dB refer to ?
Alan
I've only started reading it, and only the past two pages.
IF you want the full answer, it's about half a bil in gold bullion. The short answer is only a few mil. In bullion, of course. I'm not greedy. I'm putting the puzzle in front of you, which is far more than you had before - Take it for the gift that it is. If you think I have some sort of false humility that is more a reflection of your own thought processes and actions, not mine.
A reasonable answer, considering the amount of research and knowledge needed to recognize and solve the puzzle.
Magnetohydrodynamics have something to do with it. I haven't studied them nor Maxwell's equations, and the last time I dealt with a LaPlace transform was in college. But I gather that these are prerequisites for delving into the how and why.
This seems to be an assumptions, bear in mind when others do this you do become annoyed and post as such.
Just to add going back to those old discussions due to the measurements taken and their behaviour, Bruno and other engineers reached a different conclusion, although as I said earlier it could come back to transformer isolation, which is not anything wrong with the amps power supply.
Cheers
Orb
It is very difficult to disagree about human hearing as you point out.
What is interesting I find though is modern research into the ear and the actual mechanism/model.
I have not followed up on this further, and the research would need more scientific study but it does show from a mechanism/model that the ear is incredibly sensitive.
Conclusion:
Actual article:
Longitudinally propagating traveling waves of the mammalian tectorial membrane.
From the Speech and Hearing Bioscience and Technology Program, Harvard
>>> "Any information as to how they could be directional given there is a liquid as a conductor?
Even any meaningful guesses?
Anything?" <<<
Could I broaden out the thinking ? You DID say "any meaningful guesses, Anything "
You are looking at one thing for directionality - you have mentioned only the conductor !
I know the usual explanation for directionality in cables centres around the way the metal (eventually used as the conductor) was pulled through the reducing die. Brian says that in his experience the "Liquid Cable" is directional so, could the plastic insulation material be involved ? In the directionality aspect ?
If one can polarise a plastic material permanently, could a polarity be induced into a plastic insulation material 'faintly ?', 'temporarily ?', 'over time ?' Is this why some people can report improvements in the sound by applying a demagnetiser to particular cables ? (And, they also report applying the demagnetiser again every few months or so is beneficial !!!!)
Is applying one polarisation (a demagnetiser) over and altering another polarisation (not in the metal conductor but in the plastic insulation material) the reason for a change experienced in the sound ?
If the sound of a particular cable is directional and it 'sounds' better a certain way round (say) A > B = better., B > A = worse., I ask BOTH questions. Not only "Why does a cable 'sound' better positioned A > B" but "What is causing the 'sound' to be adverse when positioned B > A.?" If the directionality was induced into the metal conductor during the 'die metal reducing' process, then the directionality was already there (induced) when the cable was being made ! But, in this case (the Liquid Cable), there was no 'reducing the metal in a die' process !! So the directionality must be coming from somewhere.
Brian says that the cables require a 'break-in' time :-
>>> "Yes, the cables require break-in, at least a few days' worth, which I think is needed for the dielectric." <<<
I would ask the questions "Is the directionality present from the very beginning of listening to the cable? I.e. Before the 'break-in' period has taken place ?" "After the 'break-in' period has happened (a few days worth) is the directionality more pronounced or less pronounced or the same ?"
In other words, was the polarity (directionality) already there, in the insulation, as soon as the cable was tried (i.e listened to) or did the polarity (directionality) appear after a 'break-in time' ?
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Whew, that was a close call! For a second there I was afraid you were going to ask, "what about all the wire from the house to the electricity provider?"
Geoff
That would be naive, no hifi people have figured out that angle yet.
IN the real world where power has to be good for things like MRI machines etc people buy UPS systems to totally isolate and regenerate the power. In hifi we but expensive cable to do the same thing !!
alan
Not sure I agree with you that there's something wrong with the power, at least in the case of the amp fuse and the power cable. It appears there's something wrong with the "standard" fuse or cable, since a better fuse or better power cable improves the sound (without changing the power to the wall). Ah, sweet mystery of life.
I don't think we necessarily have to know the answers to all the questions. If directional cryo'd fuses, cryo'd and silver-plated wall outlets and fuse holders and demagnetizers/de-ionizers are what it takes, so be it. Better safe than sorry.
The area of the hearing which I find particularly interesting is the auditory nerve. It conveys the beautiful information of the music by electro-chemicals !!
What I always find disappointing is when a Hi Fi magazine carries a specific article describing the hearing mechanism but after pages and pages on the actual hearing mechanism, we are lucky to get a couple of lines, at the end, making reference to the auditory nerve !!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Well, call me ignorant, since you already have, but I don't see the point of the question, the answer seems obvious to me, all you have to do is look at the dL's for interaural time difference and the nearly 100 year old understanding of the precedence effect.
What happens in blind people is not that they capture more information with the ear (as you said, and that information is quite limited, but with particular nonlinear adaptations (which everyone has) that make it still very useful, precedence effect being one of them) but that they are very, very trained listeners.
The arguments here about the audiblity of distortions in cables, etc, are not of a level that the auditory periphery (meaning up to the auditory nerve) can capture, well, except for cables that I do say we can all call "just broken". I would hope it's clear to all of us that when you cheap out enough, and you make bad enough connections, something has to break.
A particularly relevant number is the level of noise due to thermodynamic noise at the eardrum, and it's very, very close to the absolute threshold of hearing. Physiological results show clearly that you can hear at most 5.5 dB down into such noise in one ERB (or critical band for this discussion), which sets an absolute lower limit of audibility that has never been challenged by test results.
Which is a part of the power supply. End of discussion, I'd think. Yes, electrostatic shielding adds cost and weight, but there are also such things as line filters, and you can get a pretty ()*& good one built into an IEC plug for very little money compared to the total cost of manufacture.
I am being talked about in reference to distortion in wire, etc, so I might try to clarify things. First, I have measured cable differences, especially at low operating levels, that I would not normally expect. While, statistically I might find that cheaper cables like RS measure worst, it is not ALWAYS the case, and some wires, that start badly, seem to break-in with time and signal, and measure better. I think that a fuse is so nonlinear in nature, that it would be almost impossible to measure fuse 'directionality' without laboratory conditions and a good deal of computer time.
Pages