Ethan,
Thanks for your post about the averaging-out of the comb filter effect on long term listening. That brings up another question. If those effects are averaged out, and the listeners are therefore no longer 'influenced' by comb filter effect, then shouldn't they be able to discern differences in equipment by long-term listening, especially if the null between two typical stock amplifiers are not that deep? Then again, the article described to the effect that each time they thought they heard a difference, they also heard the same 'coloration' present in equal amounts in the other tested amplifier, thereby concluding they could not tell a difference. Does that imply some psychoacoustic effect is going on, possibly your comb filtering?

Anyway, I agree with you on being skeptical on outlandish claims until we know otherwise, and that the possible effects I mentioned (static charges on vinyl, etc.) should be measurable and repeatable. I still think that what we hear as differences is real and should be measurable, somehow. Yes, I saw your web link before, but that was a while ago.

Just for information sake, the speaker fuses I used were quick-blow instrument fuses, type GBB4 as per manufacturer recommendation. I later tried AGC3, a more normal type, a later recommendation by the manufacturer.

I have not heard of directional fuses (I forgot who posted that). But I do have cables where the signal wires are twisted pair with an outer shield connected to ground at one end only, and in that sense directional. I used this mainly for the shielding purpose so that the shield carries no current. Whether this is audible, I don't know, and I did no listening or measuring comparisons.

A slo blow fuse offers no protection for speakers, why would you be using such type. According to my amplifier's mfg. But then, it's probably not up to audiophlake ideas and perceptions. I'm sure there is a reason to use slo-blo types. Please explain. I'm just a big dummy. Get out the Buss or LittelFuse manuals, and look at their specs. How they handle over current . There are several types of fuses, all with different response and actions. Of course AUDIO GRADE fuses only exist in phlakedom of audio. Do those Audio grade gold/silver fuses have a spec sheet, on it's operational characteristics? so you could compare them to the mfgs. of non audio grade fuses. A directional fuse, now as ARNOLD says, DAT'S a GUD VON......and it's audible, DAT'S EVEN BETTER!

Quote:
Buddha - My issue with Ethan's question has to do with his potential use of extension as distillation to arrive at what would appear as a universal truth, when in fact, the situation being used is inherently flawed and has caveats no one is allowed to see after the answer has been pared down. This is why I likened it to a lawyer on a TV show that only asks up to the point he gets the answer required for his agenda, and cuts the witness off before he or she can clarify.

I don't think I want Ethan's wood in my fuzz, but, I'm still planning on breaking bread with him at some point.

You know, I'd say Ethan is the person most at risk with here.

If he "wins," the best that can be said is things are as you describe them in your posts: On that given day, with that given system, you (some guy on a small audiophile forum) didn't hear what you claimed you MIGHT be able to hear on his rig.

If you win, a manufacturer making claims of certainty about his way of thinking will have been bested by "some guy on a small audiphile forum."

If he wins, he's still at risk: A manufacturer makes a prodcut that screws up the listening environment and his own system so badly, that it becomes impossible to hear equipment differences. You would have turned Ethan into DUP.

This "contest" sounds like a no win situation not for you, but for Ethan!

If you "lose," you have free reign to say how unrevealing his receiver based system is, and how can he use such an unrevealing system to make the kinds of decisions manufacturers need to make, etc...If you win, you have golden ears that can hear differences even on an inferior rig.

I think Ethan is really at the mercy of your classy-ness and good will as far as how the outcome is relayed to the world.

Plus, it will change no ones mind, no matter how it's reported. It's like a Jew having a Muslim over for tea - nobody's gonna go home with a new religion.

Your emotionally open-minded approach is perfect, by the way: A chance to make a new friend and have new experiences. You are an admirable guy and I love your approach to the hobby in general.

*
*
P.S. I owe you feedback about the Argo. I wanted to do a few A/B's with the Shure before responding.

An IsoClean fuse costs $30. If it's within your budget, take a listen.

jason victor serinus

Do you really expect DUP to try a product that "pro" users don't use. If it doesn't come from AVA, Legacy or one of his approved "pro" suppliers he won't bother to try a fuse or anything else.

Jeff,

> I've certainly heard MP3s that sounded less than stellar and I don't care for them that much. I have issues with CDs, but, some sound great. <

Yes, some CDs do sound great, and that's very significant because it proves that the CD medium is capable of outstanding fidelity. So if you buy a new CD and it sounds crappy, you know the problem is the mixing or mastering or mike placement etc and not the medium itself.

> If we had 3 formats of the same, exact recording we'd have a better gauge. <

We could do that too. I have a pro quality MP3 encoder that offers more options and bit-rates than you can shake a stick at.

> In my system, they [aftermarket power cords] do, consistently and repeatedly over time, thus, convincing me that it is not comb filtering or self-delusion. <

Sure, except you've never actually measured a change between one cord and another cord to prove that it's not delusion. Were you to measure you'd know instantly if one cord really is better, versus flying blind trying to guess over an extended period of time.

> I'd be willing to disturb my home setup to bring a couple of cords. <

Okay, great.

> This question seems flawed to me in its wording. <

No, it's very clear! But I'll make it clearer still: If you can't hear a difference between power cords on, say, six different music tracks, do you then agree that one cord cannot be better than the other?

> If the test is a quick, blind, random one the way you suggested, and I find I cannot tell the difference between A and B, all it means is I couldn't tell them apart in that situation on that day under less than ideal conditions. <

Why do you think this test would be anything but the very best of conditions? I've never seen your setup, but I'm still confident that my system is more accurate and clear etc if only because of the acoustic treatment and absence of all early reflections.

--Ethan

Buddha,

> The stakes are low. <

ROFL. Indeed, nothing is at stake here at all!

--Ethan

WTL,

> If those effects are averaged out, and the listeners are therefore no longer 'influenced' by comb filter effect, then shouldn't they be able to discern differences in equipment by long-term listening <

Maybe, maybe not. At least when the gear measures the same. It depends on how bad the comb filtering is, and also how bad the acoustics are in the room generally. A typical untreated room impacts the audio negatively far more than any decent amp or preamp or CD player possibly could.

> especially if the null between two typical stock amplifiers are not that deep? <

I'd expect a null test on any pair of competent power amplifiers to be at least 80 dB down if not >100 dB.

> the article described to the effect that each time they thought they heard a difference, they also heard the same 'coloration' present in equal amounts in the other tested amplifier <

This is the key - "thought they heard a difference" explains it all!

> thereby concluding they could not tell a difference. Does that imply some psychoacoustic effect is going on, possibly your comb filtering? <

Sure, or the room's acoustics generally. Even well-treated rooms have some sonic signature, and that is far more significant than what any decent piece of gear could add. Loudspeakers have a signature too, of course. So the only thing remaining is the frailty of perception. This is why people often report a difference in an A/A test where nothing was changed at all. Had Jeff agreed to a blind test here, that was one of the things I'd planned to try - pretend to change a cable and see if he thought he heard a difference.

--Ethan

I'm sure your room is well treated (although, a concern would be high frequency smearing due to the large TV screen.) My issue with the wording in the initial question has to do with the subtle implications of the word "extension"... I'm wary of the way people can distort things through extension. Simply taken at face value, logic dictates the scenario described in the new question would be true. My concerns have to do with the flaw (in my opinion) of the random switching with no control reference, and drawing a conclusion that would be bandied about as an absolute and no reference to the conditions of the test or gear.

What components would we try the power cords on?

Buddha,

> If you win, a manufacturer making claims of certainty about his way of thinking will have been bested by "some guy on a small audiphile forum." <

Just to be clear, my participation in this thread is as a private citizen - and audiophile! - who happens to have strong convictions about audio science and consumerism.

> If he wins, he's still at risk: A manufacturer makes a prodcut that screws up the listening environment and his own system so badly, that it becomes impossible to hear equipment differences. You would have turned Ethan into DUP. <

ROFL. Stop it, you're killing me!

> I think Ethan is really at the mercy of your classy-ness and good will as far as how the outcome is relayed to the world. <

I have no doubt that Jeff is an upstanding classy guy who would never intentionally twist anything to his advantage or to my detriment. That's why I invited him into my home and not 301 or Clifton.

--Ethan

Jeff,

> a concern would be high frequency smearing due to the large TV screen. <

If you'd like we can put large absorption panels in front of the TV. However, I did exactly that recently and there was no difference. That test was repeated a few times by me and my associate Scott (who lives near you) and we took turns with one of us holding absorption in front of the TV while the other listened. I have also measured the impulse response of my room, and the worst direct reflection was more than 16 dB down. All others were much lower still. This makes sense because my speakers face forward and the TV is well behind them.

> logic dictates the scenario described in the new question would be true. <

Whew!

> What components would we try the power cords on? <

All the electronic gear in my living room system is consumer grade and has no IEC connectors. But my recording studio upstairs is all pro gear and everything there has IEC connectors. We'd need to change a lot of cords though! Between the mixers and active crossover and two Crown power amps there are five devices.

-Ethan

I actually have enough of the same power cord to outfit the 5 devices, but, it'll mean taking apart my entire system. I have almost enough of another brand that would mean just taking down the headphone system and part of the main system.

I've made a number of changes to my main room since moving and should measure things and tweak placement. I've got some peaks and dips that are probably more drastic than my old room that need addressing. Too much housecleaning to do. Ugh.

In every post, you refer to your "top level friends who do research".

I guess we are supposed to assume that they are experts on everything and that you agree with them absolutely on everything and so your opinions are not to be questioned by lesser mortals?

I don't think you have ever QUOTED any of them on a single specific thing, have you? Do they REALLY back you up as you claim on the specifics you are discussing, or is that just so much BS?

If you are going to constantly claim that you have these infallible experts backing up every statement you make, let's get very specific, shall we; it's time to end your little BS game.

If you are going to rely on your ever-present mysterious scientist friends to validate your every opinion could we at least get some relevant direct quotes on a specific subject and let's have the credentials of these "experts" in detail!

This "I know an expert and he says you are wrong" crap is getting real old! Either quote them on the specifics at hand or knock it off.

Quote:
> This question seems flawed to me in its wording. <

No, it's very clear! But I'll make it clearer still: If you can't hear a difference between power cords on, say, six different music tracks, do you then agree that one cord cannot be better than the other?
--Ethan

This is utterly ridiculous. As Jeff and other posters have said over and over, of course not. The logic is flawed, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence can clearly see. If Jeff were to "fail" such a test, all the results would demonstrate is that, using one particular system configuration and subjecting the listener to one particular set of blind parameters, the methodology is either inadequate for revealing differences, or serves to obscure those differences.

In such a game, logic matters not. Nor does rational discourse. The invites are repeated over and over, progressively more sugar coated, like the wicked witch welcoming Hansel & Gretel into her gingerbread house. It matters not that some powercords, once disconnected, can take up to four days to again sound their best. It mattered not that the engineer who constructed the protocol for the blind powercable test I naively went along with a year or two ago hung a huge piece of green felt between my speakers, totally damping the highs and sabotaging the test. Nothing matters except the continued repetition of false premises and false conclusions which no amount of logic, reasonable thinking, or evidence to the contrary will shake. We might as well be listening to George W. going on and on about weapons of mass destruction and terrists (sic). It's the same doo-doo, over and over and over and over again.

No amount of cheshire cat smilies and proclamations of comaraderie can mask the fact that, were Jeff to come over and fail this flawed test (as he inevitably would), false conclusions invoking countless self-proclaimed experts and professional cynics would be repeated over and over on this forum and others as proof that the cables and tweaks that bring many of us joy are nothing more than snake oil.

The saving grace in all this is to discover, in these 52 pages (and countless other similar threads) filled with constant repetition, continued obfuscation, goading, and vile personal attack, how few posters have actually involved themselves in this game. Thankfully, most readers of Stereophile are too busy enjoying the music.

jason victor serinus

You're not a Reverend? Now, where did I get the idea that you were?

Do I ever make mistakes in sentence coherence or puncutation? No, not if I want to be understood.

I should ask "some professors" at "various universities" about "auditory focus"? Now, there's some real focus, auditory, verbal, or otherwise. Too bad there's not a Reverend around to ask.

Music always improves my mood, so there's no variable in that sense, and I never listen when I have a cold, so my health is always good at concerts (at a live event or at home).

"Intensity of concentration" isn't an issue, because I'm not straining to hear differences. The music engages me, not the other way around. If differences important enough to matter are there, I will notice them in the music. If I have to intensely concentrate to hear differences, such differences are too insignificant to bother with. If listening is a "lossy process" for you, do not assume it is for others -- perhaps you should see a hearing specialist, a shrink, or "some professors" at "various universities."

If you know what's "in there," it can't truly be your subconscious, now, can it? If you are aware of this "in there," then you must be conscious of it, right? Are you sure you're not a reverend? I mean, knowing what is beyond human knowledge...isn't that a capability beyond human reach? Good heavens! You're (gasp!), you're not God, are you?

I shouldn't listen to "complex" music when evaluating equipment changes. Hmmm. You mean I should listen to "Mary had a Little Lamb," or "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star," to evaluate system changes via which I will later enjoy the Mahler Ninth, Bach's B-Minor Mass, or Britten's War Requiem?

Your ways are, indeed, strange, Reverend. Your mood affects your hearing, which was "lossy" to begin with, your health renders your hearing erratic, you are consciously aware of what (by definition) is hidden from your consciousness, and you frequently lose "auditory focus." And your handle is "Reverend," even though you aren't one. As a music lover, you seem, quite frankly, to be a mess. And you want me to take your advice? No, thanks.

Oh, no! Horrors! Anything but that! I didn't get invited to Ethan's house. Mierda. My one chance to experience enlightenment is gone, gone, forever. Boy, some salesman you are, Ethan. And your crusade against "consumerism" is intended solely for an audience limited to crusaders against consumerism, I presume? Actually, I couldn't have made it, anyway -- it is the concert season, and nothing keeps me out of the hall, not even the promise of pseudoscientific enlightenment.

"In every post, you refer to your "top level friends who do research."

>>I am not getting them involved so you can harrass them dimwit. They know nothing of this discussion. I hope you can appreciate their position. Of course, we know you are now trying to play games by discrediting my sources.

"I guess we are supposed to assume that they are experts on everything and that you agree with them absolutely on everything and so your opinions are not to be questioned by lesser mortals?"

>>Again playing deception are we comm? Try to apply a little more class than making wide, sweeping statements like "they are experts on everything " and "not to be questioned by lesser mortals". Try to be honest.

>>The fact is you are NOT an expert as you claim to be (see below for more info). So your course of action is to attempt to dismantle my friends. (See more below as to why he is attempting this.)

>>The simple truth is they are experts in physics and materials, and YOU are NOT. This is a typical objectivist response, to dismiss physics since it poops their adgenda. Notice in other places how they sidestepped my suggestion to read other material and study physics and medicine.

"Do they REALLY back you up as you claim on the specifics you are discussing, or is that just so much BS?"

>>The games keep coming, Comm? Ok, I will bite. Even if I did not use them (and I learned from them) you still have made a fool out of yourself by claiming you are an "expert" in a field you are not, in high fidelity audio. By your own admission, you worked in limited bandwidth, say 200-3khz, communications and measuring noise in engines. One could use a radio shack amp to do the job. So who are you trying to kid?

>>Have any of you, the viewers and readers here, ever flown on an airplane and listened to the captain via the intercom, or listened to Apollo flight communications on TV?

>>No high fidelity there, or even attempted. The frequency response is very limited. In fact, TV has better audio response than what comm was probably involved in. Yet comm claims he is an expert in high fidelity audio. How about that for stretching your "expertise".

>>He also states, because of his RF training, that RF cable is more difficult to make than high fidelity audio cable is. But this assumes comm already "understands high fidelity audio" and materials, because of his envolvement in frequency limited communicatons listed above.

>>Comm also states he has performed rigorous audio testing, by using measuring instruments. Hey, that is the same as ethan and others. This is one of the questions that is under discussion in this thread, whether measurements alone give the total answer. Yet Comm is using the question under discussion to claim he is an authority.

>>The truth is you are just like DUP and Ethan.

>>There is something that all should know. I cannot recall how many times I have read, over the years, of objectivists who claim to be experts who are this type engineer, have a business degree, accountants etc. None are experts in the field, but they claim to be. So watch their credentials. They will try to bloat themselves to appear very important.

"If you are going to constantly claim that you have these infallible experts backing up every statement you make, let's get very specific, shall we; it's time to end your little BS game."

>>See above. Playing little games again? With your attachment advising a few audio companies, I can understand you want to discredit others, and physics, as much as possible? Afterall, those companies are objectivist midfi companies. Maybe even giant companies.

>>Let's face it, you are the one who is claiming to be the infallible expert, with a big degree, whether it is in your field or not. I responded with my own experts, those I learned from years ago, and who know a hell of alot more than you do in their field of expertise.

"If you are going to rely on your ever-present mysterious scientist friends to validate your every opinion could we at least get some relevant direct quotes on a specific subject and let's have the credentials of these "experts" in detail!"

>>See above. It is also over the years, so "ever-present" is rather over the top, don't you think. (I love the way you distort and twist things. Kinda shows your real attitude.)

"This I know an expert and he says you are wrong" crap is getting real old! Either quote them on the specifics at hand or knock it off."

>>Look at your own first post two face.
See above. Your baiting is not going to work. And I believe I only stated it once, quite a while ago.

Well let's sum up what comm is really about.

1) You knock everybody by claiming materials all sound the same and other explanations are "BS".

2) Then you claim to be an expert in high fidelity audio by using severely curtailed bandwidth communications as your foundation.

3) You claim that RF cable is much tougher than audio cable to make. To "know" such, though, means you have to be an expert in high fidelity audio, which according to your own resume, is not on your resume.

So you made up that statement since you have no idea what is true. Seems like you make up alot of statements.

3) You claim my physics friends are ficticious, mysterious, and you know more. Yet you have no expertise in physics, so you trying to wing it? (By the way, you might check out the cable company that has 7 engineers and physicists from MIT. I believe three have PHDs as well. But you will have to look it up as I have no idea what the company name is.)

4) You have done some consulting work for audio companies. Of course those companies believe the same as you; so they are objectivist midfi companies. So you have a vested interest in those companies and your reputation with those and other midfi objectivist companies.

>>You really do not have much to back you up, and your credibility is about the same as DUPs or ethans.

Yes. The entire thread has become a sprawling, self-negating mess, hasn't it. Begging the question, setting up straw men, arguing the part for the whole, post hoc ergo propter hoc -- logic has been properly mugged, dismembered, and tossed into the nearest dumpster, that's for sure.

The thread was begun in the spirit of spleen and snide jeering -- "all of you who spend money improving your systems are misguided idiots," is the latent and overt gist of the thing, "and here is the 'scientific' proof -- we scientists cannot measure what you hear... ergo, you must be hearing things." The rationale or motive seems to be some vague campaign against "consumerism." We don't want you to buy what we can't hear, for your own good. Bah. On to better things, eh?

Now an AC line cord needs 4 days..for something to happen? Where does the BS come from? How creative. Why does a piece of wire take 4 days, to change something. I'm sure some great engineer can qualify this round of nonsense.

Why is there so many RULES and stipulations when doing a listening test? If a friggin' piece of wire is gonna make a difference, it should be plainly audible, whatever you use to decide. Ya hook it up and listen, not try and discect this or that absurd nuance, of dark, spatial,pace, blah blah blah. How does an AC line cord change something called PACE? HUH? & DUH? Who came up with all these absurd descriptions for whta a pice of wire magically does anyway. If ya hook up something and listen, to be worthwile, ya shoudl hear it, with no doubt about did ya or didn't ya. Ya gots this rule and that rule, do it 12 times, no 20, and on and on. If i cahnge this cord, it will take 4 days to come back to some other magic state, what a NUTJOB!!! 4 day line cords!! Does it have the same effect on my SawzAll? It cuts better if I let it rest for 4 days. Sawzalls come with cord-loc, removable cords, got any in cord-loc to do a use test?

I just use batteries.

Li-ion new series of Milwaukees?

Two 'AA'.

Theoretically, the boombox and portable CD player have the greatest chance of achieving sonic purity because of their inherently close systems. There's little chance of interference and no dependence on the vagaries of local power. I don't know of any dedicated research into this line of design outside of battery-powered headphone amps, but they are largely hobbled by an insistence on portability. Rechargeable batteries coupled with highly efficient small players would provide best sound, but this would make null and void hernia-inducing amps, speakers, etc. There's no money in making things that work.

This whole power cord argument seems moot when you diagram out with pencil and paper a system starting from the wall outlet to the speaker. Unless you build your own amps, sources and speakers you are dependent on the cabling and connections of your gear. These are bottlenecks that can't be avoided. A Valhalla speaker cable is indeed pretty, but it does terminate in the same connections as any other speaker cable. I'm sure the cable IS very fast and neutral, but to extract its potential would require a system from wall to speaker that made use of its multiple wire design. It would no doubt be a superior design, but as for Valhalla cables by themselves adding anything to a conventional, non-Valhalla optimized system...

The only meaningful solution to power-related improvements in audio is batteries.

Quote:
Why is there so many RULES and stipulations when doing a listening test?

Because when a difference is small or subtle, Carl, you need to be sure that the only variable in the test is the thing you are investigating. For an analogy, think about trying to detect small differences in two photographs' color balances while someone is shining a bright light in your eyes. There may be differences but they become irrelevant.

Now you might well ask that if the differences are small or subtle, doesn't that mean they are unimportant? It's a fair question, but no, they can be still important. I'll leave it to Clifton to explain why?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Okay, I'll bite. One man's "small" or "subtle" is another man's "large" or "obvious." The terms are relative to purpose. Measured differences, in a controlled laboratory environment, may or may not correlate with a serious (or casual)listening test. What I hear as a subtle grain, for instance, may not show up in a laboratory test, and what JA measures as an increase in the noise floor or 3rd harmonic spuriae may not be discernable in my listening room.

Most important to me, as I have said so many times, are the differences (among different components or "tweaks") that correlate with what I am trying to recapture from my memory of the live event. Software, of course, complicates the process enormously -- am I hearing the bad recording or the faulty equipment? Still, over time, you get to know the music you play at home, and you "listen around" the software, bracketing the bad and good extremes and working towards a middle ground. If I hear differences that improve a third of my software, say, but make another third of it sound worse, why spend a lot of money on a change of equipment or a tweak? I am still going to play the bad recordings, because I love the music and performance.

This is all a subjective process. What works for me may not work for you. JA doesn't have this luxury when wearing his lab coat, it seems to me, but may well go through a process similar to mine in his home listening room. I don't know.

I do resent being told by a so-called "scientist" that my system changes are the result of my being hoodwinked. They are studied and painstakingly realized, over time, and just as valid as those of anybody who brings the so-called proof of numbers to bear.

Does John Atkinson ever just, you know, flub the tests because the company in question is a sustaining advertiser?

I mean, hey, you'd have the kid's college educations on the line if you didn't, you know, go with the flow. There's got to be pressure, you know? I mean, hey, we're all grown-ups here. We know how it all works. And stuff.

All this truth and honesty and stuff just makes me glad to be, you know, an American.

What a great bunch of normal, over-compensating poseurs in their fifties populate these boards.

Hey, can I start a Metallica thread?

I notice from a quick check that you don't have a name, Zundelfan. Perhaps you could step out from behind that cloak of anonymity long enough for us to have a good look at you, perhaps more seriously entertain your intimations of venality.

The answer to your question is, "no." JA is a man of high integrity whose testing procedures are always open to public scrutiny. He is also a musician and a music lover, with a high reputation among professionals in the music industry -- no man with his credentials would compromise his personal honor in professional matters.

Of course, all this begs the question, just what are Zundelfan's qualifications as an accuser? Who is Zundelfan? Should I capitalize it? Or is it a "what"?

One final note. Many of us "over-compensating poseurs in their fifties" could buy and sell you without writing a check.

Sure, you can post all the Metallica you wanna over on the Rock and Pop section. As for me, I'm thinking of posting about Jerry Lee Lewis doing Led Zeppelin.

What's this world coming to? Ray Price does Alice Cooper?

I need a drink.

Quote:

What a great bunch of normal, over-compensating poseurs in their fifties populate these boards.

Hey, can I start a Metallica thread?

Sure! Start a Metallica thread! That way we can include a great bunch of normal, over-compensating poseurs in their fucking 40's!

Good one, dude!

Quote:

> especially if the null between two typical stock amplifiers are not that deep? <

I'd expect a null test on any pair of competent power amplifiers to be at least 80 dB down if not >100 dB.

Yes, the room has a much greater effect than the system itself. But, I have read and heard much discussion that the room effects are more so in the bass than other portions of the audio spectrum, i.e. room modes. Changing a carpet to a bare tile floor makes a huge difference in the reverberation time and impression of frequency balance.

About the Stereophile article, or my memory of it, it says that the null between two amplifiers are not expected to be that deep, and even mentions similar for two channels of the same amplifier. I'm sorry that I don't remember the exact null dB in the article. So with respect to that article, the 80 dB or 100 dB null you mention differs. I don't know which is right without trying the experiment.

I just had one, Monty. Then I had another...and we may be building to a fortissimo. Now, what would anyone want to write about Metallica? "It's cool, dude." Or, "Far out." How about, "Right on"? Or, "Groovin', numbnuts"? Please, please start a thread on Metallica. Give me the profundity of it all. Perhaps we could have a Retropostmodern Deconstruction of the implications Metallica's art has on the Neohistoricism of Lacan's Post-Freudian Mirror Analysis? Or Althusser's Post-Marxist critique of Imperialist Decadent Consumerism? Hey, I'm game, dudes and dudettes. Who could possibly plumb the depths of Contemporary Rock's Primitivistic Critique of Post-Structualist Decadence, without a Thread on Metallica? Let the good times roll! Go for it, Mr.(Ms.?) Z!! We are all salivating in anticipation!! Cool.

Wow; you have really got me this time! That page of bullshit is so vindictive, offensive, irrational, uninformed, and generally silly I wouldn't even know where to start if I tried to respond! It kind of makes one numb to be confronted with such a huge outpouring of nonsense all at once.

You claim I want to discredit your sources; well it is certain that I could never begin to do so, for the simple reason that they have never been named, quoted, or their credentials put forward. You just cite them as your backup without those 3 basic things taking place. When I write a paper for a graduate course those are the 3 most basic requirements to document any substantive reference. But then if everything one says is 100% bullshit, then I guess you only need 0% documentation or support anyway.

I guess I will just assume that anyone with any sense will see your diatribe for the nonsense that it is and let it go at that. You are illogical enough in the the first place, and when challenged to actually document or support anything you just go off the deep end and get even more illogical and vindictive to boot. It reminds me a whole lot of Joe McCarthy and his briefcase full of non-existent documentation on "all those communists"....

Quote:
I do resent being told by a so-called "scientist" that my system changes are the result of my being hoodwinked. They are studied and painstakingly realized, over time, and just as valid as those of anybody who brings the so-called proof of numbers to bear.

This is a point that needs to be stressed: that no amount of "testing" by third parties gainsays someone else's actual experience. That was the point of my retelling the tale of my Quad test at the HE2005 "debate." The blind test "proved" that my experience must have been illusory, yet over the long term, the test result was shown to be a false negative.

Thanks for jumpiing in, Clifton.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
Does John Atkinson ever just, you know, flub the tests because the company in question is a sustaining advertiser?

No.

Quote:
I mean, hey, you'd have the kid's college educations on the line if you didn't, you know, go with the flow. There's got to be pressure, you know? I mean, hey, we're all grown-ups here. We know how it all works. And stuff.

Actually, no. You don't appear to have a clue about "how it all works." Time to reach for the "TrollBGone" spray, I suspect. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
About the Stereophile article, or my memory of it, it says that the null between two amplifiers are not expected to be that deep, and even mentions similar for two channels of the same amplifier.

In the original 1985 test, with a handtweaked prototype Carver amplifier, the null reached 70dB between it and the Conrad-Johnson target, but only in the midrange. In the 1987 rematch between the production Carver and amplifier and the same Conrad-Johnson, the null was just 36dB, and much less at the frequency extremes. This is not nearly enough to ensure that the two amplifiers sound identical.

Note, BTW, that the 1985 listening tests, which produced a null result, only compared the Carver with the C-J when used for the midrange and treble of Infinity RS-1B loudspeakers. The 1987 tests, which showed audible differences, compared the amplifiers used fullrange.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
They are also directional, and include a directional arrow. Pointing the arrow in the direction of current flow

Errrr, directional? I take it these are fitted on the AC side? I always thought that AC current flowed in both directions? One half of the cycle positive and then the other half negative?
Perhaps these fuses have sullbhit circuitry and other off world wizardry built into them?

For those puzzled about audiophile grade fuses that include directional arrows on them, I offer the following from Brian Ackerman of Artistic Audio, who distributes IsoClean fuses:

"If you were to take an Ohm meter and put one lead on the fuse holder and the other on the corresponding pin of the IEC socket, then measure the other pin of the IEC socket, you will find a higher resistance on one side. You want the arrow of the fuse pointing towards the higher resistance (direction of AC into the unit).

As you know by listening the direction of the arrow is quite apparent, and when the fuse is correct it makes a big difference."

As reported on this forum and in my reviews for http://www.hometheaterhifi.com, I've heard a major difference in my APL-HiFi modified transport and Theta Gen. VIII DAC/preamp. Both transmit considerably more information using IsoClean fuses rather than stock fuses... as long as the IsoCleans are pointed in the right direction.

jason victor serinus

With my examples of 'good engineers' what I was meaning was that to use the expression (which someone used) "Let us leave it to the 'good engineers" is too simplistic an approach. ALL the engineers I referred to would be regarded as 'good engineers'.
But, the engineers I described are not making something technical as in making a computer or a photo copier- which purpose is not specifically for listening to music - which Hi Fi equipment IS !!
So, in the case of an engineer suddenly finding that a different wire made the sound worse - then that (audio) engineer would not use that particular wire for wiring up audio equipment whereas the same engineer might use it perfectly adequately for wiring up a computer or a photo copier !!

In exactly the same way that a designer and manufacturer of violins or guitars or cellos, when suddenly trying a new (polyurethane ???) Lacquer and finding that this lacquer made the sound of the violin/guitar/cello they were making much worse than when using their older traditional lacquer, then that manufacturer would not use the new lacquer - he would just not use a worse sounding lacquer.

Also, anyone wishing to buy a violin or a guitar or a cello would not buy that instrument on the basis of measurements nor would they buy it on the basis of double blind trials carried out by a group of unknown people (however musical those people were).
Nor would anyone buy a violin or guitar or cello solely from a reviewer saying that he thought Jack Smith's violins sounded much sweeter than Bill Brown's violins. They might make a special effort to seek out Jack Smith's violins to listen to them, on the basis of the reviewer's opinions, before making a final decision which violin to purchase but violins/guitars/cellos would always be listened to first, quite probably many times, before a final decision was made and the basis for the final purchase would ALWAYS be on how it sounded.

I also feel that to much emphasis is placed on and too much dismissal goes on by the use of the expression "It must be suggestion or the placebo effect etc". Everyone quotes medical trials and how there is always a percentage of people on the placebo drug/tablet/medicine experiencing similar improvements to the people taking the actual drug etc. This is far too simplistic an attitude when applied to audio and to listening to music.
If a musician described hearing a particular instrument sounding 'better', 'sweeter' than another, no one would dream of accusing them of 'suggestion', 'of the placebo effect' etc.
If a musician described hearing a particular instrument sounding worse (or better) after using a particular lacquer, no one would dream of accusing them of being affected by 'suggestion', 'the placebo effect', 'imagination', 'mood changes', 'effective marketing', or 4season's 'faith healing, so why adopt that dismissive attitude against people who say they can 'hear' differences with audio bits and pieces ?
Regards,
May Belt.

Now, following on regarding the subject of audio bits and pieces and the effect they have on the 'sound'.
Why cannot people listen to what others are telling them (and have been telling them for decades) ?

In an earlier posting WTL mentioned that he had tried marking the edge of CDs with the colour green but heard no improvements in the sound by so doing. I have no problems with WTL not hearing any differences - that was his personal experience. However we have John Atkinson stating that HE heard improvements in his sound by doing so as did Martin Colloms. But John ends his short article on the Green Pen by saying "As for how it works, don't ask."
John's stated attitude towards 'tweaks' is that if the tweak is inexpensive and confers some improvements, then it is acceptable to consider using. Again - putting the importance on the cost, not on what the 'tweak' should have been telling him. Scooter123 started this whole thread by placing the emphasis on the COST of a 'tweak' not on what the EFFECT on the sound of any individual 'tweak' was (should be) telling the audio industry.

For quite some time I had been aware that Nordost had a chemical which they recommended should be applied to the LABEL side of CDs and to the LABELS of LPs (something we have been recommending for over 20 years) but it was not until earlier this year (when a UK Hi Fi magazine attached a free paper tissue to their front cover impregnated with this chemical) that I realised that Nordost had also discovered something we had discovered 20 years ago - that applying a chemical to the outer insulation of a cable (any cable) would give an improvement in the sound !!! This recommendation by Nordost was not marketing hype - introduced by their sales department - because it was the President himself (Joe Reynolds) who stated in an interview with Hi Fi Choice that interconnects, loudspeaker cables, power cables, video cables, labels of CDs and labels of LPs could all be treated with (his) chemical to give improvements to the sound.

Explain all that from the conventional theory text books !!!

Whenever I put forward the concept that it is us (human beings) who are reading/sensing different chemicals and reacting to those chemicals and that is what is creating the changes in the sound, people react as though there is only one sense involved - the sense of smell !!
Why ?
The earliest of creatures must have been reading/sensing and reacting to different chemicals long before the sense of smell ever evolved.

How is it that Eric R. Kandel can say in his book "In Search of Memory - The Emergence of a New Science of Mind."
"Finally, these specific signaling molecules have been conserved - retained as it were - through millions of years of evolution. Some of them were present in the cells of our most ancient ancestors and can be found today in our most distant and primitive evolutionary relatives: single-celled organisms such as bacteria and yeast and simple multicellular organisms such as worms, flies and snails. These creatures use the same molecules to organise their maneuvering through their environment that we use to govern our daily lives and adjust to our environment. Thus, we gain from the new science of mind not only insights into ourselves - how we perceive, learn, remember, feel and act - but also a new perspective of ourselves in the context of biological evolution. It makes us appreciate that the human mind evolved from molecules used by our lowly ancestors and that the extraordinary conservation of the molecular mechanisms that regulate life's various processes also applies to our mental life."
When, at the same time, parallel to Kandel's outlook, the audio world's outlook on perception can be so narrow and blinkered.

Ethans quote below is absolutely typical of so many in the audio industry.
>>> Where I do object, if it isn't clear by now, is when someone says they are sure they can hear a difference even when no difference can be measured. For that to be true requires redefining the laws of physics. Or at the minimum, a more compelling explanation than "I only have my two ears." <<<

In other words, Ethan is saying that the effect which many people are hearing and describing (cables, interconnects, AC power cables, fuses etc) can ONLY be to do with an effect on the audio signal and should be able to be measured. If no changes to the audio signal can be measured, then no changes have taken place and the people describing what they have 'heard' MUST BE mistaken, must be suffering from delusion or the placebo effect or........

You DO NOT have to redefine the laws of physics Ethan, you just have to expand your knowledge outward (or inward in the case of the human being) - what Kandel describes as "insights into ourselves" and introduce the concept into your thinking that 'sound information' is more than the sum of the audio signal and the room acoustics. You do not have to redefine the laws of physics if a difference heard cannot measured !!!! You just have to accept that a difference has been heard and a measurement cannot be produced and work on from that point.

Quote from jason victor serinus

>>> I have compared the standard fuses in my Theta Gen. VIII, APL-HiFi modified transport, and ExactPower with audiophile grade fuses from Hi-Fi Tuning and IsoClean. I consistently have found the IsoClean fuses superior. They transmit far more information, and are considerably more transparent.
They are also directional, and include a directional arrow. Pointing the arrow in the direction of current flow makes a major difference in sound quality. Direction is easy to determine when the fuse points into the component. When it points from side to side, however, and the direction of current flow is not obvious, experimentation is necessary. The difference in sound quality, at least in my system, is readily apparent. <<<

I know that Jason Victor Serinus, if he was a manufacturer of audio equipment, would make sure that the fuses he used were connected in the direction which gave the best sound - irrespective of what he had been taught, irrespective of what the text books said, and irrespective of what other engineers were doing !! I know that from the way that he talks.
Let me refer again to the 'awareness' issue. PRIOR to finding out that a particular fuse sounded better one way round than another, Serinus would have believed exactly what others believed i.e. that it is not possible that a fuse could be directional (or could be heard to be directional) !! And would probably have used the same sentences. Now, however, Serinus is aware of something different and, I am sure, could no longer go back to using the old sentence "It is not possible !"

I know that Ed Meitner was on the right track when he described freezing cables and components and the strings of musical instruments improved the sound because we had also discovered something similar.
I know that the New York Times were on the right track when they did an article describing how many musicians were freezing their musical instruments and improving their sound because we had also discovered something similar.
I know that the people who advocated colouring the edge of CDs to improve the sound were on the right track because we had also discovered something similar.
I know that Nordost are on the right track when they recommend applying a certain chemical to the labels of CDs, LPs and to the outer insulation of cables to improve the sound because we had also discovered something similar.
Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
If a musician described hearing a particular instrument sounding 'better', 'sweeter' than another, no one would dream of accusing them of 'suggestion', 'of the placebo effect' etc.
If a musician described hearing a particular instrument sounding worse (or better) after using a particular lacquer, no one would dream of accusing them of being affected by 'suggestion', 'the placebo effect', 'imagination', 'mood changes', 'effective marketing', or 4season's 'faith healing, so why adopt that dismissive attitude against people who say they can 'hear' differences with audio bits and pieces ?

Wanna bet they haven't been and aren't accused of being fooled and having biases?

Folks,

I'm quoting Jeff's earlier post, but for expedience I'll address everyone in this one post making it clear who I'm addressing.

Jeff:

> I actually have enough of the same power cord to outfit the 5 devices, but, it'll mean taking apart my entire system. <

With all the other fun things we can play around with, there's no need for you to go to all that trouble. I already know the result anyway. But if you really do want to try different power cords with my pro gear, of course I don't object.

Commsysman:

> In every post, you refer to your "top level friends who do research" ... I don't think you have ever QUOTED any of them on a single specific thing <

Nor has he named them. Heck, he hasn't even named himself. I give little credibility to anonymous posters in the peanut gallery who have nothing to contribute but insults and accusations of commercial bias.

> That page of bullshit is so vindictive, offensive, irrational, uninformed, and generally silly I wouldn't even know where to start if I tried to respond! <

This is exactly why I stopped replying to those guys. It's pointless to have a dialog with someone who's only arguments are ad hominem attacks and faulty logic. What amazes me even more is the venomous tone of their posts. This is a hobby for crying out loud!

DUP:

> Now an AC line cord needs 4 days..for something to happen? ... If a friggin' piece of wire is gonna make a difference, it should be plainly audible, whatever you use to decide. <

Well stated. I haven't seen so much waffling since the last time I went to the local IHOP. Any excuse to avoid having to actually be able to hear a difference. These are the same guys who claim their ears are more reliable then $20,000 worth of test gear!

John:

> think about trying to detect small differences in two photographs' color balances while someone is shining a bright light in your eyes. <

That comment is disappointing and even disingenuous because I'm sure you realize that my two systems are as far as one can get from a "bright light in your eyes."

> The blind test "proved" that my experience must have been illusory, yet over the long term, the test result was shown to be a false negative. <

I'd say the blind test proved your experience was an illusion - period.

WTL:

> I have read and heard much discussion that the room effects are more so in the bass than other portions of the audio spectrum, i.e. room modes. <

In many cases this is true, but as you yourself pointed out with regard to mid and high frequencies:

> Changing a carpet to a bare tile floor makes a huge difference in the reverberation time and impression of frequency balance. <

So in truth, acoustic treatment can improve the entire range of frequencies. You choose the solution - bass traps, first reflection absorption, rear wall diffusion, and so forth - based on what the room needs.

> So with respect to that article, the 80 dB or 100 dB null you mention differs. I don't know which is right without trying the experiment. <

In that case I think you should try the experiment yourself! I can't imagine that two channels in any reasonably modern competent amplifier would null as little as 35 dB as John stated. Perhaps I'll try that with one of my pro-grade Crown amps and report back here. It's not a difficult test!

--Ethan

>>I have requested DUP and you, many times, to provide a subjective audio "dbt" study/test for evidence. Yet on every occasion you either refused, stalled, sidestepped, or simply did not reply to the request.

"Well stated. I haven't seen so much waffling since the last time I went to the local IHOP. Any excuse to avoid having to actually be able to hear a difference."

>>Turning on those who you invited for a meal and get together. One minute he is with them, and the next, he stabs them in the back.

>>Maybe they opted out because it has been shown at least twice (see previous posts) that subjective audio DBT tests are skewed and inaccurate? Remember, you provided a nail by your own findings and explanation. But you continue to do the two step.

>>Shouldn't you at least provide evidence to your interested parties? Why hide it if you are correct and honest?
Isn't a salesman required to tell the truth as to why his product works? But I guess you do not have too? We can just rely on your word.

>>Accuse me of vague? Look at your last post ethan. Seems the only reply you can give are vague. Here is just one:
"who's only arguments are .... and faulty logic".

>>If you understand the subject so well, why don't you explain it, not only to me, but to those interested, instead of the vague term "faulty logic"?

After all of comm's rhetoric and smoke and screens, it turns out he is nothing more than a meter reader, just like DUP and ethan.

Quote:
Time to reach for the "TrollBGone" spray, I suspect. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I just found this on another forum:

JVS Said...

Quote:
This is utterly ridiculous. As Jeff and other posters have said over and over, of course not. The logic is flawed, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence can clearly see. If Jeff were to "fail" such a test, all the results would demonstrate is that, using one particular system configuration and subjecting the listener to one particular set of blind parameters, the methodology is either inadequate for revealing differences, or serves to obscure those differences.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would realize those two reasons aren't the only ones. They might realize those same reasons pop up when discussing all sorts of dubious claims such as dowsing, homeopathy, feng shui, and you name it. It's of note that JVS' mindset embraces matters that are of dubious benefit or merit. Among those are a belief in astrology, reikii, and the amusing Lavender Network.

Quote:
In such a game, logic matters not. Nor does rational discourse. The invites are repeated over and over, progressively more sugar coated, like the wicked witch welcoming Hansel & Gretel into her gingerbread house.

The potential rewards for being able to demonstrate such claims have even gone to $1 million dollars. That's a lot of sugar, even in California.

Quote:
It matters not that some powercords, once disconnected, can take up to four days to again sound their best.

Oh, that's your schtick now?

Quote:
It mattered not that the engineer who constructed the protocol for the blind powercable test I naively went along with a year or two ago hung a huge piece of green felt between my speakers, totally damping the highs and sabotaging the test.

Well, the identity of the cords needed to be disguised, right? It became easier afterwards to identify the cords once you could see them, didn't it? You were an active participant in the design of the test Jason, let's not forget that.

Quote:
Nothing matters except the continued repetition of false premises and false conclusions which no amount of logic, reasonable thinking, or evidence to the contrary will shake.

Spoken like every other practitioner of dubious things. The old bring out the anecdotal evidence.

Quote:
We might as well be listening to George W. going on and on about weapons of mass destruction and terrists (sic).

So, like Kerry, you voted for the blind test before or after you voted against it?

Quote:
It's the same doo-doo, over and over and over and over again.

You're a marketer's delight Jason. Take a visit to the Museum of Questionable Medical Devices if you're ever up in Minneapolis.

Chu Gai. Your tactics never change. If you don't like the message, kill the messenger. Oh, and twist the facts in the process.

You seem to believe that the more accusations, put-downs, and attempts at character assasination you can possibly make, the more you may be able to convince someone that you actually have something to say.

Surprise. I live. And my perceptions and assertions remain sound.

jason victor serinus

Please forgive this brief intrusion.

To everyone: If people have personal issues to address with others, it seems to make the most sense to me that we should do so privately. I'd appreciate it if we could try to settle things that way, rather than subject the entire Forum to irrelevant outburts. I'll try to do the same from now on.

Thanks very much.

Ethan;

Thanks for stepping in with a rare word of sanity among what is rapidly becoming bedlam here in this little zoo; the funny thing, to me, is that 301 actually attacks DUP as someone who is totally without logic or reason, but cannot notice that his attack-mode approach is absolutely the same and adds the exact same value to the forum; less than zip.

I guess the philosopher was right when he said "it's a rare mirror that can show a man that his head is on backwards"....

And as for the jerks who are actually attacking JA's integrity...have you no shame...no decency? I do not know of anyone that has contributed with more integrity and honesty to the understanding of issues in high-end audio over the years, and to my mind anyone who takes cheap shots at him is revealing not only a small mind but an incredible ignorance of history; fools walk in...indeed!

Thank You Stephen!!!;

It would be really refreshing if I could state an opinion in this forum, based on my 40 years of experience in audio and electronics, just once without being told one of the following three things:

1) my opinions are invalid because I am obviously an idiot

2) My background and education are inadequate to comment on anything intelligently so I am obviously a fool who should keep his mouth shut (40 years as an audiophile, and 35 years as an instrumentation engineer and electronics professor is not enough to impress anyone these days, I guess...LOL)

3) How can you possibly say anything that is so obviously ridiculous?

It would be really nice if people could just state their own opinion without personal attacks on other persons and their opinions; if someone disagrees with what I say, fine, let them just SAY SO without the venom and petty attacks! It is not necessary to attempt to tear down the wisdom or integrity of others to validate one's own opinion, and these attempts only belttle one person in the end; the attacker.

If one's opinion has merit, it is not strengthened by a personal attack on those who disagree. It's validity is only advanced by evidence and reason which support it! There seems to be a shortage of evidence and reason in this forum and a surplus of everything else.

Commesyanneanea---

If its any console to you, I take everyone here's opinion as worth contemplating. Even some of the more repetitive posters, (and in this thread that's a good chunk) have something to say about my hobby. I resent the name calling and insults, but can understand how people get a little worked up about them.

Others (Ya'll)----

anyway I haven't read the whole thread in entirety, just monitored.

while eating cold leftover curry and pondering the potential Jeff/Ethan chord DBT I was wondering what Ethan would think if Jeff was incorrect 100% of the time. This is a very real possibility, Not because Jeff is a bad listener, but because of the task involved, and our lack of understanding for the higher level process involved that allows Jeff to make such a decision. (sorry if i left that logic open, i didn't want to get to involved,

involved
)
anyway, its a fun thought.

oh also, I think it is only fair if Jeff goes through two tests, one the chords, and the second, removal of only one diffuser/absorber/trap or room treatment (some triangular corner bass trap perhaps). at least that way we can get some DBT on Ethan's "tweaks" as well.

just cause it measures, doesn't mean you hear it.

Ethan (Winter)----

seriously Ethan, thanks for the invite, I'll give you the chance to rescind, because I just might end up in Connecticut some Saturday afternoon.

don't you think the spelling of power cord as chord is audiophilically clever?!

neither do i

Cheers!

Hello Jason

Quote:

If you were to take an Ohm meter and put one lead on the fuse holder and the other

Hello May

The first part of your argument I found a little vague. I asked you how an (audio) engineer might make a choice of components. You seem to suggest that it