It appears obvious that several of us are well-trained in the sciences and try to do a reasonable job of testing our perceptions of differences as to whether those exist or are suggestive effects (biases). The "cons" in High-End Audio are too often associated with grandiose, wide-sweeping claims of night and day difference (improvements).

I have also tried a few speaker cables. I do hear a difference, but in my opinion, and under non-controlled conditions, the differences were subtle. You might be interested in what I found in DBT/SBT in posts #6161, 6259, and 6640 under the topic of why DBT is such a hot button (started by JA).

There are changes that I can hear and repeat. There are others that I cannot hear. Of the latter, I found the green edge on CDs do not make it sound any different to me on my system. Yet I can repeatedly hear the difference between a fuse and a wire in line with the speaker cable.

Of the tweaks I have tried, most have improved the sound, such that I can hear more into the music and are able to enjoy it much more, compared to what I heard for many years before - without those tweaks. (To go into detail would be a very long post.)

One example is the substitution of film capacitors for electrolytics in the signal path. I tried this and it works in my equipment. I tried to see if there was any difference in square waves on a scope, before and after the tweak. I could not discern any difference at higher and lower signal levels. Yet the difference is plain to me, from my musical experience. The engineer part is still wondering what the change actually is.

Hope you can try some controlled tests and report what you find.

I am an occasional visitor to these forums, so don't hold your breath for a quick reply from me. Good luck and happy listening.

Welcome to the forum, WTL. In my opinion, this is a great post. You can hear differences when you try new tweaks. The question is, are they musically significant differences -- do they get you closer to the reference you want to hear? I don't know about the criteria you use for "controlled" listening. I suspect you want some standard to separate significant from insignificant differences, and you want some sort of consensus from a second (or third, or fourth, etc.) party. This is where we differ, but you are you and I am I. Or you may mean "measured" versus "heard" differences, the measurements being a sort of guide for your "second self," available to somehow critique the primary listener in you -- "The engineer part is still wondering what the change really is."

My own rule is simple, but earned over a long period of time. "Is it musically significant or merely different"? It is a sea of relativity out there if you are not grounded in a firm concept of what you want the music to do. I have learned to discard many system changes merely by waiting for next week's concert. If it is not definite -- if it's "maybe, maybe not," -- I simply stick with what I have. Very few system changes pass this simple test.

Clifton, you are saying that every time someone claims to hear the "vast improvements" wrought by this year's new interconnects, there is no possible placebo effect?

Happens all the time. Not to you, of course, but to others...

Your keeping your cables for nine years is an example of something I would say is not a placebo effect.

However, perhaps you have been temporarily taken in by speakers in the past?

Dynaudios, maybe?

My point was, that if we watch a listener's habits over time, that observation will be telling with regard to exposing what is placebo, and what is not.

You use myrtlewood blocks right now - for you, the effect is "real," but the 'real' answer will be whether or not they are in your system for Thanksgiving 2008.

Clifton, if you think you've never been fooled by a piece of gear or a tweak, then I can take you to a place where you'll think all the women really do love the true you.

Happy holiday tomorrow, buddy.

If you're bored, take a three hour drive and join us for dinner!

No. I'm saying that, after 30+ years of chasing the rainbow, it is easy to evaluate whether changes are musically significant.

The Dynaudios were a mistake. I bought them because they were the first speakers I had ever heard that measured flat, 20 Hz to 30 kHz. A terrible mistake. As I have said so many times, "Bring out number, weight, and measure in a year of dearth." I corrected the mistake, and it didn't take a year or a half-year. I sold them to someone who loved them more than I did. This is what I do with my mistakes -- I sell them or send them back. I learn from each one.

Over time? How much time? I guess I'll always have problems with measurable reality. I prefer the straight shots.

Thanks so much for the invite, but I'll probably be able to cadge a free round of golf by hopping the fence at one of the courses that close for the major holidays. Then I will complain to the Course Superintendant if the greens are too slow. I hope you all have a wonderful dinner, and that none of the victuals have been molecularly reorganized by prior freezing.

The myrtlewood blocks? They stay 'til I hear something better. Since I don't try these things all that often, it may be quite awhile. A non-measurable interlude, let us say.

I already know a place where all the women love me. But none of 'em can carry a tune. Sigh.

Clifton,

I admire your convictions. It must be nice to be so sure of one's personal observations.

I have no intention of being drawn into a name calling diatribe.

The advantage of digital is that when equipment performs to specification then the original digital signal information is totally preserved. Scientists and engineers would all have great difficulty in accepting that one digital cable sounds better than another; unless one cable or one of the components was actually faulty and out of specifications. Two different digital cables should both preserve the signal information perfectly.

I appreciate the appeal of trusting one's feelings (as OB1 says to Luke) but if this really worked in practice then why do scientists/engineers use such huge arsenals of instruments and laboratories to test technical improvements?

...may the force be with you.

Quote:
The advantage of digital is that when equipment performs to specification then the original digital signal information is totally preserved ... unless one cable or one of the components was actually faulty and out of specifications.

You nailed it, and that proves beyond all doubt that any perceived changes in the sound after swapping a digital cable are due entirely to placebo affect and/or self-delusion. Which brings us to Scooter's very appropriate comment:

Quote:
Just because you don't like the results does not mean that they are incorrect.

I wish one of the believers here would explain exactly what they have against a proper blind test, and why they're not willing to let me swap between two digital cables while they listen ten times in a row and report which is which. This would settle the matter for once and for all.

So what are they afraid of?

--Ethan

Personally, I find informal blind tests kind of fun. There's no real pressure when you do it amongst friends when auditioning some stuff and it's fun to test your listening acuity. I would think a proper DBT would be impractical time-wise: I would be concerned about variables introduced by disturbing a formed dielectric, the scraping of oxidation swapping cables, and having a 2nd person disturbing my room and not being in the same place twice. I'm not sure I'd be patient enough to wait around a few hundred hours for each swap to wait for the dielectric to settle in again after being disturbed (a problem according to some theorists -- not something I concern myself with in practical terms because I leave my gear on 24/7 and don't usually disturb the gear.) 10 swaps could take 4 or 5 months. Are you a great conversationalist and do you do windows?

More semantic slipslop. I don't have to trust my feelings --I have my ears. Science and pseudoscience have always tried to separate something called "feeling" out of the sense data matrix, and then try to measure what is left.

Scientists have "huge arsenals of instruments and laboratories" (an interesting mixed metaphor, that, eh?) because they find the abstract world of data manipulation comforting. That is their bent. Sometimes such manipulation leads to progress, sometimes it leads to regress. The best scientists realize that much of our apprehension of the great outer is unmeasurable. These tend to be capable of great self-irony, when walking the tightrope between usable and irrelevant data. Einstein comes to mind immediately.The best understand their limitations. The worst believe that their abstractions define the limits of reality -- "If I can't measure it, it doesn't exist."

"Digital" is a sampling technology. It is useful, and its manipulations of "reality" allow for the kinds of symbolical (i.e. synechdochic) explorations that can lead to progress. But it is a sampling technology. Things get left out. To successfully manipulate reality, you must take it in small bits, understanding full well that incomplete sampling may have to somehow be filled in later. Sort of like the continuous revisions of the monthly unemployment data. You are wrong when you state that "scientists and engineers would all (italics mine) have great difficulty in accepting that one digital cable sounds better than another." Only an incompetent scientist would have difficulty accepting anything beyond his hypothetical purview of the moment. There are many variables among different cable designs -- dialectics, conducting materials, and the all-important connecting mechanism. Any component that has more than one design variable will produce myriad different behaviors as individual approaches to individual designs multiply. If such were not the case, there would be no possibility for progress.

One sarcasm for another. I admire your ability to shut out any aspect of reality that doesn't fit your abstract schema. How comforting it must be to live in a data-limited cave.

Yes, I am confident in the information I process via my ears. They are the only ones I have. Or do you have a machine in mind that I could substitute?

I have a buddy who's the most avid computer game player, techno-nut, ever, and he says that in the forums he hangs out in, there is no talk of different digital cables making for better graphics or enhancing the quality of the bits as they fly from one place to another.

In fact, most of his computer wires are TINY compared to what we use, and he says he is confident that all the digital bits get to the right place at the right time.

A quick look at the guts of even the most outrageously souped-up computer shows no sign of connoisseur grade cables, interconnects, special feet, etc.

Are they missing out on gorier gore and bloodier blood?

One of the paradoxes with digital cable is that it seems relatively meaningless in other digital enthusiasts' environments, but suddenly develops the ability to make bass bits or treble bits sound "better" in audioland.

Then, on the other hand, I certainly recall articles that pointed out the difference in jitter or correction rates with different TYPES of digital connection, i.e. I2S, Coax, optical, etc...

I think a great thing to measure with digital cable would be to look at how well it keeps the digital data intact. Maybe we could measure how well myrtlewood bloacks affect the digital stream, too.

Before Clifton starts waving his arms and spitting as he types - I like the idea of trying to measure things out of curiosity and an interest; not as a definitive way of examining a piece of gear. I already know you have perfect ears and "don't need no stinkin' measurements."

If something sounds better than another, then I'm fascinated with the "why" part of the equation.

Quote:
I don't have to trust my feelings --I have my ears. Science and pseudoscience have always tried to separate something called "feeling" out of the sense data matrix, and then try to measure what is left.

Scientists have "huge arsenals of instruments and laboratories" (an interesting mixed metaphor, that, eh?) because they find the abstract world of data manipulation comforting. That is their bent. Sometimes such manipulation leads to progress, sometimes it leads to regress. The best scientists realize that much of our apprehension of the great outer is unmeasurable. These tend to be capable of great self-irony, when walking the tightrope between usable and irrelevant data. Einstein comes to mind immediately.The best understand their limitations. The worst believe that their abstractions define the limits of reality -- "If I can't measure it, it doesn't exist."

Clifton. This post is so eloquent. It says it all. Thank you.

jason victor serinus

I am afraid that, once you got to swapping, I could never get you to stop (short of violence -- murder by demagnetization?). How could you possibly figure out when to stop? I am afraid that, once I let you into the room, I could never get you to leave. After all, I'd have to be blindfolded, right? You might lash me to my chair and subject me to endless blather about comb filtering. No thanks.

Quote:
I have a buddy who's the most avid computer game player, techno-nut, ever, and he says that in the forums he hangs out in, there is no talk of different digital cables making for better graphics or enhancing the quality of the bits as they fly from one place to another.

In fact, most of his computer wires are TINY compared to what we use, and he says he is confident that all the digital bits get to the right place at the right time.

Buddha. Your presumption is that all the data and bits that are ever needed to faithfully reproduce music digitally are there to begin with. But video games and music are two different things. As has been mentioned countless times, all the data is NOT there when it comes to digital reproduction of music. Your analogy is flawed.

Furthermore, you are trying to absolutely quantify music as a data stream. You can do all the mathematical analysis you wish on the music of J.S. Bach, but you will never explain by data analysis alone why his music impacts many of us the way it does, let alone why we favor one interpreter's playing over another's.

The mystery of music is that its impact transcends the combinations of pitches, rhythm, pace, colors (etc.) through which it speaks. Therefore, attempts to judge the ability of gear to communicate musically by only analyzing data are inherently limited and incomplete.

jason victor serinus

Just a general reply to the thread...and boy, what a thread!

With regards to the placebo discussion, there is the anti-placebo effect. As often as I have noticed an improvement in swapping a component or cable with a more expensive example, I've swapped with a considerably less expensive component or cable and liked it better. So, if I prefer a more expensive cable then I'm suffering a delusional placebo effect AND if I prefer a much less expensive cable then I'm suffering from a reverse placebo effect? If I swap cables and notice no difference at all then I'm suffering from placebo recognition disorder?

Computer screens ape in two dimensions. And badly, at that. Stiff-jointed line drawings stomping around, waving in simian gestures bad mechanical similitudes of clubs and other crude weaponry. Would anyone for the briefest nanosecond confuse one of these monoplanar caricatures for a being in real space and time? Yet, musical reproduction requires us to do just that. Bits may be bits, Buddha, but, in the stickville world of digital sampling, the simpler the task the fewer the possibilities for error. Are you telling me the reproduction of a solo oboe (much less that of a 100+ player symphony orchestra) makes no greater demands than a cartoon gangsta wrecking a two-dimensional truck? Are you seriously arguing there is no more that can go wrong when simulating a musical fabric than can go wrong simulating a two-dimensional axe-murder? Of course your friend needs only the tiniest snip of wire to dive into his particular fantasy -- what could possibly go wrong if the wire weren't sufficiently capable of faithful transmission? Now, don't try to tell me you have never heard bad digital reproduction of music. What went wrong? What was lacking (or spuriously present) in the transmission? C'mon. Simple tasks for simple minds, Buddha -- that's the ticket.

Thank you , Jason. You beat me to the punch. And, Buddha, neither of us even had to spit.

I sincerely hope you both have a great holiday. I purchased a turkey thigh (now, dammit Buddha, DON'T YOU DARE...), which will probably more closely resemble the jawbone of an ass by the time I've done with its reassembly for the table. I'm sure y'all will have better luck...but I DID find a nice Pomerol, so all will be well here, as I listen to KUSC's annual playing of Hansel and Gretel while stuffing my face. Cheers, all.

Jeff, let me see if I can clarify things a bit more.
In an earlier posting I described putting people in groups. In the first Group were people who just used their equipment as purchased - did no 'tweaks'. In the second group were people who had done some 'tweaks' on the equipment and in the third group were people who had done both 'tweaks' on their equipment and in the room.

You replied that you thought I had presumed that you had only done 'tweaks' on your equipment and was therefore in Group Two because I had been concentrating on you using the Shakti Stone on your equipment and you replied that, as you had also done room treatments, you wondered if you should be in Group Three.
It was because you mentioned that you had done room treatments also that I concentrated my latest reply to you based on room treatments !!
So, can we not be sidestepped into the topic of 'tweaking' equipment because, as soon as we get into that area, the issue of time, energy, price (replacing components etc) comes into the equation (concentrating on equipment) and then the discussion centres on whether it is cost effective (time and price) to 'tweak' existing equipment or to get newer equipment !!

I would like to stay in the area of the room - and what information is in the room.
I would like to take people through a logical thought process.

I gave descriptions from different people as well as some of Martin Collom's descriptions as to what he heard after applying the Harmonic Discs around his room. I find Martin's descriptions equate and correspond extremely well with how other people describe THEIR experiences of doing various 'tweaks' in their room.
So, will anyone who recognises how Martin describes what he heard as very similar to their own experiences please put their hand up and say "Aye". (I do not mean their experiences with Harmonic Discs, I mean their experiences with doing any room treatments.) We can then use it as a basis for a standard (i.e. a description of improvements in the sound) we can all agree on.

Martin was taken by surprise by the additional information he heard after applying the Harmonic Discs around the room.
Logic. If he had heard exactly the same information before applying the Harmonic Discs, then he would not have been taken by surprise !!
If Martin was hearing additional information, then logically, that additional information must have been in the room prior to him applying the Harmonic Discs.
Logic. This means that Martin had not been aware beforehand that there was this additional information in the room.
If this additional information had been in the room, then this means that it had been presented into the room by the speakers.
Logic. That means that the equipment which he had been using had been perfectly capable of handling this additional information beautifully, but Martin had not been aware of just how much.

This now starts the speculation as to what percentage of additional information is present in the room which we (human beings) are not resolving correctly.
The point I have been trying to make for quite some time is that the traditional audio magazines, which rely on advertising revenue for their very survival, cannot hold a serious discussion on this aspect !!
Because if you use a hypothetical percentage of 20% as the percentage of additional information, in the room, which we (human beings) are not resolving correctly, then, logically, the audio magazines should be allocating 20% of their pages to discussions on how to achieve better sound with room treatments !! The more you increase the percentage, the greater the problem facing the magazines, because you cannot have pages and pages in the audio magazines devoted to discussions on how to apply (and what is the most effective) room treatments so that people can hear/resolve more of the information from their EXISTING equipment, whilst at the same time have pages and pages advising people on which new equipment to purchase - when other pages are telling prospective customers that they will not be able to resolve the information from the new equipment thoroughly without doing some room treatments !!
In a situation like this, the only place one can hold a discussion around room treatments is on the Internet.
Now Jeff,
You suggest that my using the example of the Harmonic Discs was a poor example as, the Harmonic Discs may have been ADDING harmonics to the information in the room. So, are you actually suggesting that these ADDED harmonics resulted in Martin describing
"a wider dynamic range and allowing for darker, deeper silences between musical notes".
"The decay structure of individual notes was cleaner and clearer"......
"Moreover, stereo focus and image uniformity were surprisingly improved."
"Singing voice became more natural and articulate, with a surprising improvement in intimacy and presence."
"Complex material was definitely clearer, while massed choir showed better definition and clarity...."

My interpretation from Martin's description of what he heard and from my own experiences is that what he was hearing was far more 'correct' (better resolved) musical information - not added on harmonics !!

What you have to do now is look at your OWN experiences and ask the question "Which is the most sensible, which is the most realistic, which is the most acceptable explanation ?"
1) That the Harmonic Discs have ADDED harmonics to the information already in the room (from the equipment) and Martin's working memory has interpreted these added harmonics as
"a wider dynamic range and allowing for darker, deeper silences between musical notes".
"The decay structure of individual notes was cleaner and clearer"......
"Moreover, stereo focus and image uniformity were surprisingly improved."
"Singing voice became more natural and articulate, with a surprising improvement in intimacy and presence."
"Complex material was definitely clearer, while massed choir showed better definition and clarity...."

Or,
2) That the Harmonic Discs have REDUCED adverse effects, present in the room, which has allowed Martin to be under less tension, so that his working memory has been able to resolve the information (which has been available in the room) much more effectively and is now able to create a better 'sound picture'.
Which explanation better fits your own experiences ?
Or,
3) Are people still dismissing such as Martin's experiences as 'audio faith healing', 'suggestion', 'placebo effect', 'imagination', 'mood changes', 'effective marketing'. etc.?
Regards,
May Belt.

>>> I am distressed that you make claims of expertise, but cannot discern between what a home freezer does vs. treatment at 320 degrees below zero, and I am further dis-May-ed that you think that carte blanche freezing of final assemblies is the same as treated component parts before assembly. <<<

Of course I can discern the difference in temperature between a home freezer temperature and cryogenic temperatures !!!

What I am saying is that if EITHER technique can give an improvement in the sound, then the audio industry should be looking at what is going on.

Nor do I say that freezing at final assembly is the same as freezing individual components before assembly. Why I couple them together in a general way is because, again, if EITHER method gives an improvement in the sound, then the audio industry should be looking at what is going on.
I do not want to nor do I intend to get into a 'shoot out' discussion between the effectiveness of freezing at cryogenic temperatures versus freezing at domestic deep freezer temperatures. The reason why we described the freezing/slow defrost technique using a domestic deep freezer over 20 years ago was so that people could try, for themselves, without going into any expense, a technique which was providing improvement in the sound for the few people (at that time) who had been using cryogenic freezing methods.

Regards,
May Belt.

Clifton,

What does this have to do with Einstein? Do you mean to imply you have an affinity with Einstein, presumably because he understood what many others were too dumb to grasp?

I am sorry but my limited scientific measurement-based blinkered brain got completely lost in the deeper meaning of your last lengthy tirade.

Clearly, I am not on the same intellectual level as you. I think I'll stop there. Peace.

Thanks Clifton. I agree with the 'listening' as to whether it makes a musical difference. Some of the tweaks did little to the music (green edge on CDs). Others really enhanced it, such that friends remark how clear the sound is (compared to what they are accustomed to listening music on) without us even being on the topic of audio. What a surprise to them when I tell them how I got there! Actually, a friend who was formerly into computers a lot, heard my system. We discussed this before he met his 'computer demise' and he went into audio, with tweaks.

Each time I post, I seem to forget to include some relevant stuff to make things clearer. Here goes.

My reference to the speaker fuse vs. a wire illustrates the clearly-audible and repeatable change. However, I prefer the sound of the wire to that of the fuse (biased opinion - I did the switching). I never got to ask my friend, the music teacher, as to which condition sounded more real to him, as he underwent the SBT.

Second part: The capacitor mods' were also clearly audible to me. I heard much less interference between instruments; I could hear the drums/cymbals continue its beat regardless of whether the singer blasted out or softened the voice, or whether the guitar blasted chords or played rhythms. This effect was not as apparent before the mods. I discussed this with the manufacturer of the pre-amp. He suggested that maybe the intermodulation distortion was reduced but really did not think there was any change in performance, because the design spec for I.M. distortion was already very low. My power amp was also modded, but the improvement was slight (compared to the pre-amp) perhaps due to largely direct-coupled circuit, with only one capacitor and a pot in the signal path at the input.

The link: I could not discern much difference between the speaker fuse and the wire BEFORE the capacitor mods. After the mods, I could. I must conclude that the capacitor mods are effective. Dielectric absorption has been mentioned in the audio literature as one factor in choosing better capacitors. I then asked knowledgeable friend about capcaitors. All he would say is that modeling a capacitor on the computer is very complicated, and goes beyond simple capacitance, reactance, resistance, absorption,..., such that any conclusions from those simpler models do not tell the whole story. What the story is, I don't have the time to find out, yet.

I'm off to relatives for Turkey, Prime Rib, and mucho desserts. Have a good day to all.

Quote:

Quote:
I have a buddy who's the most avid computer game player, techno-nut, ever, and he says that in the forums he hangs out in, there is no talk of different digital cables making for better graphics or enhancing the quality of the bits as they fly from one place to another.

In fact, most of his computer wires are TINY compared to what we use, and he says he is confident that all the digital bits get to the right place at the right time.

Buddha. Your presumption is that all the data and bits that are ever needed to faithfully reproduce music digitally are there to begin with. But video games and music are two different things. As has been mentioned countless times, all the data is NOT there when it comes to digital reproduction of music. Your analogy is flawed.

Furthermore, you are trying to absolutely quantify music as a data stream. You can do all the mathematical analysis you wish on the music of J.S. Bach, but you will never explain by data analysis alone why his music impacts many of us the way it does, let alone why we favor one interpreter's playing over another's.

The mystery of music is that its impact transcends the combinations of pitches, rhythm, pace, colors (etc.) through which it speaks. Therefore, attempts to judge the ability of gear to communicate musically by only analyzing data are inherently limited and incomplete.

jason victor serinus

Well, we agree more than you think. I was replying to someone about a digital cable.

I am no fan of digital, so I agree that the data it carries is incomplete. I was really trying to reconcile how different groups of people can vary in their opinion on what digital cables can do.

I'm not interested in absolutely quantifying anything, everyone here knows that cannot be done.

Just talking digital cable.

You raise an interesting point when you say, "...attempts to judge the ability of gear to communicate musically by only analyzing data are inherently limited and incomplete."

Dead right, no one here does that, but if we were to not show the intellectual curiosity to try and quantify things, then we'd all be listening to broken Zanden CD players thinking we have it as good as it can get.

I think objective measurement can give us hints about why we hear what we do; and maybe tell us where we can expect it to do better, which, over time raises the performance bar for both the subjective and objective camps.

Quote:
Computer screens ape in two dimensions. And badly, at that. Stiff-jointed line drawings stomping around, waving in simian gestures bad mechanical similitudes of clubs and other crude weaponry. Would anyone for the briefest nanosecond confuse one of these monoplanar caricatures for a being in real space and time? Yet, musical reproduction requires us to do just that. Bits may be bits, Buddha, but, in the stickville world of digital sampling, the simpler the task the fewer the possibilities for error. Are you telling me the reproduction of a solo oboe (much less that of a 100+ player symphony orchestra) makes no greater demands than a cartoon gangsta wrecking a two-dimensional truck? Are you seriously arguing there is no more that can go wrong when simulating a musical fabric than can go wrong simulating a two-dimensional axe-murder? Of course your friend needs only the tiniest snip of wire to dive into his particular fantasy -- what could possibly go wrong if the wire weren't sufficiently capable of faithful transmission? Now, don't try to tell me you have never heard bad digital reproduction of music. What went wrong? What was lacking (or spuriously present) in the transmission? C'mon. Simple tasks for simple minds, Buddha -- that's the ticket.

Clifton, all the more reason that some esoteric digital cable should be embraced by those people.

If they are using a medium that is even more primitive than our musical systems, then they should stand to gain proportionatley more with a "good" digital cable than we do.

But they don't seem to think that happens.

By definition, a digital cable does not carry musical signal, just digital bits. It strikes me as odd that we somehow talk about music bits as somehow being superior to graphic bits. If the differences were as "obvious" as we pretend, this cable phenomenon should exist in other data intense pursuits.

I found it intersting that other data-intense pursuits show no predilection to improvement by using different digital cables, yet we give these DIGITAL cables almost anthropomorphic skills when we try them.

That doesn't strike you as intriguing?

It does to me, it makes me wanna start trying to sell "Enthusiast" and "Conniseur" level digital interconnects to a new market!

I know, you just care "how it sounds, I don't care about physics, blah blah blah" which is a little too dismissive. Part of the fun for many of is learning why. Learning why is a great source for generating, "I wonder..." Which is the basis for really cool things to start happening.

You can be the DUP of "My ears are never mistaken. End of discussion."

I hope you and your eternally infallible ears are enjoying that Pomerol!

Quote:
How could you possibly figure out when to stop?

Oh, that's easy! After about 10 swaps, your guesses will have been proven to be statistically insignificant. So then you'll finally have no choice but to agree with me.

Also, a decent test doesn't have to be double blind. That's needed only when a regular test confirms an ability to discern a difference. I'm confident enough in my "poker face" to be able to swap cables without you knowing which is which.

So you up for it, or chicken? You can't hide behind the usual audiophile anti-test excuse that "a DBT kills the mood" because, as you said:

Quote:
I don't have to trust my feelings --I have my ears.

--Ethan

"I noticed that you only took excepton to my making some assumptions. There is nothing wrong in making these types of assumptions as long as they are somewhat valid, revealed, and the mathematics employed is valid. Here's one result that I found using "speed of light in copper" in a google search."

>>BS and you know it. Speed of transmission has nothing to do with the sound, so all your calculations and comments are worthless. But it is good for deflecting what is really involved and attempting to make yourself look good.

The truth is that you need to do much more extensive education in Physics, Medicine, and Chemistry before you, and your cohorts, try making dogmatic claims as you guys have no idea of what you are talking about.

>>Funny that it seems all the objectivist/PR guys have not done a lick of work in the disciplines necessary to understand, or refuse too. Instead, they all seem to be of other disciplines, or with limited education. Of course, some are PR people.

"Soooo, maybe my assumptions were in the range of the true value."

>>You, along with others, continue to demonstrate you have not a clue of what is involved. Read the above suggested disciplines of study.

"BTW, I asked for input regarding capacitance and inductance for a very simple reason. That is so that the only remaining possible effects be examined in a similar manner so that any claim for cryogenic treatment of cabeling can be proven insignificant."

>>Since you admit not knowing much about physics, you must be a liar or complete idiot to state "That is so that the only remaining possible effects". What kind of baffoon makes a bold statement like that and has admitted he hasn't studied the subject much.

"Too often claims are made in Audio that , while true, may be so misleading in nature as to border on fraud."

>>And, imo, you are part of the fraud, but from the other direction. You sit there and make statements that you know nothing about and profess it as fact. Isn't that the definition of fraud?

"On the face of it a claim of a 33% improvement in transmission speed sounds like to would be extremely beneficial. For someone concerned with bit rate and bandwidth for computer data transmission it would actually be a real significant improvement. However, we are concerned with Audio frequencies, NOT frequencies in the mega or giga hertz range."

>>Who has stated that speed of transmission is a problem? No one from what I have seen, except for you making it an issue.

"At Audio frequencies these treatments just do not have an audible effect."

>>You do not even understand the problems, you are not an expert, so your comment is irrevelant at best and imo, fraudulent at worst.

"You'll also note that I DID NOT dispute the claim that cryogenic treatment of copper changes the crystalline structure. Since I routinely use cryogenically treated tooling in my designs, I am well aware that these changes do take place."

>>That is about the first factual statement you have made.

"My point is that even though the crystalline structure has been changed, that change will NOT have any audible effect."

>>You have no idea what is involved, as you have mentioned earlier, so stop trying to claim you do.

By posting irresponsible comments, you are not helping the audiophile community. But then, I guess your adgenda is to eliminate high end audio.

"The fact that a slight skin depth effect occurs at audio frequencies should not worry anyone at all. Hearing often stops somewhere between 15 and 20 Khz anyway...furthermore 1% in volume level is generally inaudible."

>>Even a basic understanding of what you stated reveals the problem is NOT volume related, but harmonic structual related. So why didn't you mention the problem with harmonic structure change and timbrel change.

"Oh, that's easy! After about 10 swaps, your guesses will have been proven to be statistically insignificant. So then you'll finally have no choice but to agree with me."

<<Well, either you are an idiot who does not understand what you are talking about, or trying to scam/con the public.

You have already admitted that no individual will hear either "A" or "B" the same after the initial listening experience (similar specs on X and Y); and by your own words ALL the responses will be guesses. So no matter how many swaps, the responses will be guesses, so a 50/50 chance of of being correct, by your own words. So one will never arrive at 90% accurate responses, unless a certain threshold of sonic difference is reached. And we do not know what that threshold is. So the test skews the results.

Here is what is actually being inferred. Since everybody has to guess (ethan's own response) because of comb filtering (similar specs X and Y), and ALL their guesses have a 50/50 chance of being correct and incorrect (by Ethan's own words); 90% accuracy will never occur (unless by some random chance), no matter how many swaps or tests. In fact, there are other mechanisms that will actually skew the results even more as the number of swaps increases. So the "correct" answer will always be no sonic difference. This is what he refers to as proof.

Obviously not true ethan and proves nothing.

And if one were to study the diciplines of medicine, physics, chemistry etc, one would find other reasons why subjective audio blind testing is so obviously flawed beyond recognition.

Again, Ethan, can you provide one study, besides your friends at Audioholics, that backs up your claims that subject audio dbt is accurate? So far, you have not been able to.
_________

Have a great Thanksgiving.

The title of this thread is, "Why do so many buy into the 'cons' in high end Audio." My answer, in serial form, has been, "Because, while some are indeed foolish, some system changes are mistakenly labeled 'cons' and actually work." Such mistaken labels, from my listening perspective, usually are tagged thus by scientific or pseudo-scientific posters (and imposters) because they have been unable to find abstract measured data to support claims made be listeners.

The "perfection" of my "infallible ears" is not at issue. They are the only ones I have, and they may be "perfect" or flawed, but I will never know, because science hasn't devised a way for me to hear through someone else's. What is at issue is the fact that I take the same pair to the concert hall that I use in my listening chair at home. Thus, I can easily discern whether an advertised tweak, scientifically measurable or not, is capable of bringing the sound I hear in my living room closer to the sound I hear at the concert hall. Software is a complicating factor, and the effects a tweak or new component have on differently recorded music have to be interpreted. A tweak or component that makes a muddy recording sound clearer might also make a tipped-up recording shrill. Fortunately, I have been able to navigate these treacherous waters simply by attending a live music event at least once a week and using some Kentucky Windage, based on how often different types of software appear on my transport deck or turntable -- usually a call based on how much I love the particular piece of music. It is an ongoing process.

I don't need perfect ears, Buddha. I just need to use the ones I have. I have no idea why the $500 Harmonic Tech (which I got on sale for $275) digital interconnect sounds better than the $70 DiMarzio (thrown in when I bought the DAC) it now replaces. I have switched back and forth a few times, for about a day per trial, and the differences persist. Maybe it is the termination, maybe something else. I don't have to know. I feel no need to move from the immediate sense experience of listening to music to the abstract numbers provided by data. You need the comfort of measurements, I do not. DUP bases his opinions on phenomena he cannot hear, I base mine on phenomena I can hear. I do not claim superiority in my ownership of the positive side of this difference, although I do enjoy pointing out the obvious fallacy in arguing for the non-existence of phenomena simply because one cannot sensuously apprehend it.

10 switches would require at least 30 days, with hours of listening to different software each day. The extra 10 days would be necessary for visits to live musical events. Ethan, you would have to undergo some very dramatic, er,changes in your basic physiognomy (judging from the picture that adorns each of your posts) before I'd give you 30 seconds in my abode, much less 30 days. Jeff noted these problems. You conveniently ignore them. As 301 noted, the statistical probabilities involving simply standing behind a console and plugging and unplugging different cables would invalidate any possibilities for hard conclusions.

Apparently, you don't listen to much music -- I don't know of many one-minute Sonatas. Or would we listen to test-tones? Or, better yet, we could watch an oscilloscope and get the job done in 30 minutes -- who cares about the music, anyway?

How did that particular piece of wire change the sound, of digital pulses? Read som PRO audio manuals. they bring up "audiophile" nonsense, about how a piece of wire, can improve the sound of SP/DIF signals. Pro audio books have a lot of PRACTICAL, real issue stuff, it's saved me money, and made things better. One real good one of many I have is Mastering Audio The art and SCIENCE by Bob Katz They mostly call it a joke. since it can't. A piece of properly made coax with solid connections, is gonna sound like any overpirced wire, only difference is the fancy ads, and verbage attacehed to a particular brand. Cardas, Kimber, Aq, Shunyata,Harmonix, Zen, Fatwyre, Monster,Siltec,Tara, Crystal they all claim some improvement over some imaginary issue. How can all these different methods, one makes it twists, one is air, one vac, twist this way, bend that way..there are more brands of wire than anything else. All fixing some issue that don't exist, except in teh minds of ad copy writers. How come Belden or Canare, or Carol, or some other WIRE makers, ain't solving all these PROBLEMS. They make wire for a purpose, and certain enviorment. It does the job, without claiming some kind of mystical zen,or other nonsense. How come no pro wire maker puts a battery on their wires?

Einstein is an example of the best science has to offer. Fully aware that his abstract formulae gained access to only the tiniest fraction of what James called "...booming, buzzing confusion, the endless hurrying of matter...," of the universe, Einstein always viewed his own conclusions with skepticism and an eagerness to proceed further. Bad science always wants to stop and rest when the abstract data temporarily seems to make sense.

"I am not on the same intellectual level as you are." Just keep growing, Reverb, read a good book now and then, and listen actively to good music (I find Bach, Mozart, Bob Dylan, and Count Basie particularly stimulating...), and you'll eventually get there. As Blake said, "Expect poison from the standing water." Peace will kill your progress. Check in once in awhile, so we can see how you're doing.

http://www.cablecentric.com/shop/cables/speaker-cable-how-to-buy.cfm

I already knew this, DUP. So what's the point? They say bigger is better, and decide to call their most expensive cable "fat." Now, who could have predicted that? Why do you always want us to visit somebody else's website? Do you shill for these folks? Or is this supposed to be some sort of proof...of what? Are these the cables you use with the Wurlitzers? I don't know, DUP, $185 seems like an awful lot of money, to me...are you sure you're not falling for the hype?

I am sure you are going to tell us about it hotshot.

Since you are so righteous, why don't you tell us what specifically companies should go out of business.

I tell you what, DOPE. If you won't even try to learn, as has been suggested many times; I submit you are nothing more than a liar and a thief yourself, just as you accuse others of. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

"Damping factor over 200 will add no appreciable performance to the system. Note: the damping factors noted above in red are acceptable for use at the stated length and impedance (in ohms), but they are in no way optimized for reduction in power loss."

>>So where is his proof less than 20 and over 200 is not good, or better? Power loss of what, milliwats? Laughable.

>>So why weld rather than solder? The resistance is not changed that much. Is this a scam as well? And why need as little as possible resistance. All we need is damping between 20 and 200. By the way, with a speaker cone of 4- 8 ohms, 20 to 200 is ridiculous anyway.

Clifton, quit being so dense.

"You need the comfort of measurements, I do not."

I said no such thing.

I'm curious about how these things work.

On my secondary digital rig, I use a Straightwire

Sorry. I misunderstood you -- I thought you were arguing that you did want components that not only sound up to your personal standards, but also measured well. There has been so much ink spilled on this thread, with so much of it off the subject, that it has been difficult to tie down all the details under the same general umbrella.

I am actually quite curious about the issue of how sound quality relates to measurements. It is just that measurements seem the narrower of the 2 approaches, and once removed from the actual listening experience. This could well be grounded in my background studies of the battle royal between scientific and aesthetic theories of truth waged around the 18th Century, betweeen the likes of Blake and Vico, on the one hand, and Bacon, Locke, and Newton, on the other. Locke's arguments about "primary" and "secondary" qualities of experience seem particularly weak, yet so much contemporary science assumes these distinctions are still operative. I just hate that. The argument continues, of course, with Kant, Yeats, and Cassirer continuing the war against "bad" (my perjorative) science. I just hate the assumption that experience can be chopped up into neat sectors, sorted out in bits, and analyzed synechdochically. You can get from the whole to the part, analytically, but you can't conveniently discard some of the parts as you work back to the whole.

My experience with the Dynaudios, in hindsight, was the indulgence of a guilty pleasure. I always wanted to own something that sounded musical and measured well, so I bit when the used Evidence Master's came floating down the stream. Further scrutiny in my own room, with my own software, soon revealed the folly of that decision, and I was fortunately able to sell the frigid brutes for about what I paid for them.

I will never base a buying decision on abstract data, especially when it comes to speakers (and phono pick-ups). Fremer has been flamed for praising the Zander sound, while the piece falls on its ass in the lab, but I know exactly where he is coming from, and I come down on his side of the issue. Cheers.

Quote:
>>Even a basic understanding of what you stated reveals the problem is NOT volume related, but harmonic structual related. So why didn't you mention the problem with harmonic structure change and timbrel change.

"harmonic structural related [problem]" give me a break....I never heard anybody worried about a speaker with a gentle roll off or worry about a tone control to temper a reflective room or worry about a slight boost in the treble ...at least I never heard them voice basic concerns about "harmonic structural related [problems]"...maybe I never met anyone with a basic understanding until now...

I agree with your comments....some posters are totally inconsistent from one day to the next and yet every day new posts, self contradictory in nature, appear. All posts given with total absolute conviction . Will it be Jekyl or Hyde tomorrow, who knows, who cares, does it really matter? If one is trying to have a serious discussion then it is best to save your energy; it is pretty obvious to me that some are just having an amusing ride here, rambling on, sticking their oar in , and mostly making things up as they go, IMHO.

Quote:

Quote:
>>Even a basic understanding of what you stated reveals the problem is NOT volume related, but harmonic structual related. So why didn't you mention the problem with harmonic structure change and timbrel change.

"harmonic structural related [problem]" give me a break....I never heard anybody worried about a speaker with a gentle roll off or worry about a tone control to temper a reflective room or worry about a slight boost in the treble ...at least I never heard them voice basic concerns about "harmonic structural related [problems]"...maybe I never met anyone with a basic understanding until now...

"

>>I love the way you guys try to sidestep your initial response. I simply replied that volume was not the issue to begin with. The main problem is timbrel change, attack changes down to the mids. Big difference between what you conveyed to us and my reply.

By the way (this is just basic stuff) when one lowers the highs, instruments become a little fuller. This is because the harmonic structure of the reproduced instrument has been changed, which is what I posted. Wait till one changes some of the other harmonics of an instrument. The natural sound really becomes weird.

Your reply is certainly different than your previous post on page 38, with portions copied below.

"On the face of it a claim of a 33% improvement in transmission speed sounds like to would be extremely beneficial. For someone concerned with bit rate and bandwidth for computer data transmission it would actually be a real significant improvement. However, we are concerned with Audio frequencies, NOT frequencies in the mega or giga hertz range."

"At Audio frequencies these treatments just do not have an audible effect."

"My point is that even though the crystalline structure has been changed, that change will NOT have any audible effect."

>>Sure is a different response this time. The point that your explanation that speed of transmission is not an issue at audio frequencies is correct; it is not an issue. However, to make a dogmatic conclusion that wire cannot sound different because of just one point, speed of transmission, cannot be made.

>>I do not care what equipment costs, even if it is extravagant. If it is too expensive I do not purchase it. If somethng has to be specially made by a manufacturing plant, setup costs, minimum production, all costs alot of money. What about additional social security taxes a business might have to pay? 15% is quite a bit. I know one person who actually takes each $1500.00 driver apart and rebuilds it, including working with the cone.

I have heard some jack up the prices to limit purchases, so fewer consumers to deal with, and fewer headaches.

If the rich want to spend alot of money, let them.

> Frankly, I don't think that reviewer heard anything except his
> expectation that the 2000 dollar power cord "had" to sound better simply
> because it cost so much.

There may well be something in this for consumers but is this a likely explanation for an experienced reviewer? Are the cues continually present to stimulate perceiving improvements? I would suggest that another explanation may well be that it is in the cable reviewers interest to perceive differences between cables. What prospects as a reviewer of cables does someone have if they state they cannot hear any differences?

> What amazes me is the reviewers who seem to be perfectly reasonable and
> intellegent will buy into stuff that any good engineer will tell them is
> completely bogus.

I think you need to be careful to distinguish between those that supply and those that consume. Reviewers tend to be somewhere between the two and it is not always clear to what degree they are serving what when they publish. Many lack even a cursory technical knowledge about sound, sound perception and how the equipment they review functions which is perhaps wise to recall when you read what they have to say and try to sort out what is reliable and what is not.

>>Nice comments Andy. Here is another indiscretion by scooter.

"What amazes me is the reviewers who seem to be perfectly reasonable and intellegent will buy into stuff that any good engineer will tell them is completely bogus."

>>There are several problems with this statement.

1) Who decides who is a good engineer and who is not? Well, of course, Scooter.

2) More important is keeping up with the constant incoming stream of new data and research. If one does not, does that make him/her a bad engineer? Not necessarily, but then his expertise could become outdated very easily.

However, just as in medicine, one has to keep up or one gets left behind. A doctor has to continually update his knowledge base, and so an engineer has to as well.

In fact, a graduate from medical school has to specialize his area of expertise in a residency program because the field is so large. So likewise does an engineer.

Quote:
either you are an idiot who does not understand what you are talking about, or trying to scam/con the public

You can always tell who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't by watching who sticks to the facts and who resorts to insults.

> You have already admitted that no individual will hear either "A" or "B" the same after the initial listening experience <

Hey, you're the one who claimed to be able to discern one digital cable from another reliably! Since you are unwilling to be put to the test, I'll take that as your admission that deep down you know you really cannot.

I love the way you try to take both sides at the same time. On one hand you claim to be able to tell one digital cable from the other. But then you claim nobody can tell one component from another because of comb filtering. Then you go back to disputing the significance of comb filtering. You are obviously very confused!

--Ethan

Clifton,

Quote:
10 switches would require at least 30 days

Say what? Ten switches can be done in about two or three minutes! I mean, is the difference between cables readily apparent or not? Or maybe like Mr. 301 you too now are beginning to doubt your own ability to hear the difference?

> Ethan, you would have to undergo some very dramatic, er, changes in your basic physiognomy (judging from the picture that adorns each of your posts) before I'd give you 30 seconds in my abode, much less 30 days. <

Yet more insults, yet again proving my point above.

> the statistical probabilities involving simply standing behind a console and plugging and unplugging different cables would invalidate any possibilities for hard conclusions. <

Okay, I get it completely now. Any testing of your precious ears is verboten because it might reveal what you fear the most - that all digital cables etc sound exactly the same. So now the question is why do you need to believe that all components sound different?

--Ethan

Mr. Winer, there is more to this DBT problem than you make it seem.

I have done many blind sessions with digital interconnects.

My transport has AES/EBU, coaxial, and optic outputs.

So, with the flick of a switch, I can readily do instantaneous A/B testing and keep score.

I have preferences, too, but there's a difference between being able to quickly say that there is a "difference" vs. which sounds better.

Ten swithches in two minutes cannot show "better," only "different." There are too many things we listen to and for for an instantaneous switch to show "betterness."

"Betterness" takes a little more time, there are lots of things to listen for in music.

Just like with women, I can quickly tell you there are differences but it takes longer to figure out which ones are "better."

Heck, even with longer listening times between switches, "better" can be elusive. Sometimes, and I think this is the root of auiophilia nervosa, better is an almost subliminal thing that is demonstrated by the owner taking longer listening sessions because he doesn't get listening fatigue, or remains happy with his system in a sometimes ineffable way that is hard to pick out in an instantaneous test.

I know too many people who have been fooled by an instantaneous "better" demo and ended up not listening to their systems as much after buying the "better" component.

Just like in my chick analogy, "different" can be seductive, but it doesn't always lead to long term happiness.

So, before I tell you which digital cable I prefer, are you OK with my means of testing?

Same transport going to the same DAC, with instantaneous switching easily and blindly between digital cables.

It's as you say Buddha. Difference doesn't matter, better does. When I make a change in a cable I note how much time I spend listening over a couple of weeks. If I've spent more time in those weeks than previously, then I'll usually leave in the new "whatever". If I clock my normal amount it may or may not stay. If I clock less time or just don't feel like listening, it gets replaced with whatever was there first. DBT has it's place but long term satisfaction doesn't reveal itself in a DBT.

I don't disagree with you about changing harmonic content...my point is that this is not audible and a very small difference compared to other factors, like room reflections, speaker roll-off and moving your head side to side.

You don't seem to understand the relative importance of imperfections in audio reproduction. My point is that tiny differences are inaudible or secondary to many other factors. Diffences of the order of 1% in SPL level above 15 KHz are rather irrelevant....certainly not worth spending a fortune on cables for. I am not twisting anything. I agree with your point about harmonic content ...it is just another irrelevant point, just like a slight SPL roll-off is irrelevant at frequencies above which many people do not hear, just like the Essex paper you referenced.....yes these differences exist ....but they just aren't relevant.

Sorry to inform you but I never commented on digital cable. You obviously got the wrong guy.

I see you also play games with Clifton's comments.

2 minutes? Wow and you call yourself an expert?

Secondly, since you don't know what you are talking about, why do you consciously continue to misinform the consumers, while at the same time evading questions we ask?

Quote:
I don't disagree with you about changing harmonic content...my point is that this is not audible and a very small difference compared to other factors, like room reflections, speaker roll-off and moving your head side to side.

You don't seem to understand the relative importance of imperfections in audio reproduction. My point is that tiny differences are inaudible or secondary to many other factors. Diffences of the order of 1% in SPL level above 15 KHz are rather irrelevant....certainly not worth spending a fortune on cables for. I am not twisting anything. I agree with your point about harmonic content ...it is just another irrelevant point, just like a slight SPL roll-off is irrelevant at frequencies above which many people do not hear, just like the Essex paper you referenced.....yes these differences exist ....but they just aren't relevant.

>>I do and believe me, 1db difference at 15khz is quite noticeable on a good system. And I just use the typical rugs, furniture etc. I think most know there can easily be 15db peaks and valleys in a room. The hardest problems to deal with are at the lower frequencies. At high, though, these are easily treatable.

>>Unfortunately, that is not what you initially stated, but at least you came around.

But 1db is not inconsequencial by any means. It affects the way the mids are received and more. Quite noticeable in good systems, even with 10db peaks like I have actually measured in other rooms. My room's response is basically flat.