| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Well, one way a measurement can be incorrect is due to measuring the wrong thing. In this case, let's assume for the sake of argument that the source of the discrepancy is entirely due to this ground loop issue, as Bruno seems to be assuming. This ground loop is within the test setup itself. But the idea of a test is to measure the device under test, not errors of the test equipment itself. Therefore, the test is in error because it's unduly influenced by errors within the test equipment. However, as Bruno points out, such ground loops also exist within real audio systems too as a rule, rather than the exception. So if we assume the ground loop is the cause of the distortion discrepancy (I seriously doubt this BTW), then the measurement that's unduly influenced by the ground loop is not useless because it demonstrates that the same phenomenon can occur in real audio systems, which are subject to the same kinds of ground loops. I can see where he's coming from, but this conclusion is based on assuming the ground loop really is the cause - and we don't know that because there has been no controlled experiment demonstrating this. It is, as you say, a "plausible cause", but it hasn't been demonstrated to be the actual cause.
I'm going by his measurements, not by his hypothesis of why the measurements might be different.
Well, they should have the same results, but they do not. Therein lies the problem.
As mentioned, a necessary condition for getting a correct measurement is to get the same answer with two different test setups, within the accuracy of the instruments involved (which is established by calibration). What Bruno's calling the "environment" is really the test equipment itself. But one does not want to be measuring errors in the test equipment, but errors in the device under test. What Bruno is saying is true, but if errors in the "environment" (the test equipment) are dominating the results, that's a problem with the measurement. It's an error.
To cover a bit about transformer isolation that hopefully some find interesting anyway, rane covered this quite awhile ago and at AES (I think but different presentation) in the past.
http://www.rane.com/note110.html
The 2nd section; The Next Best Right Way To Do It, covers transformer isolation in audio.
This is why the conclusion by the engineers involved in the JC measurements discussion state the interesting differences between AP and real world audio.
Although to stress this is only a plausible explanation that needed further testing.
What would be interesting is if someone has access to an audio pre/amp product that does transformer isolation.
http://www.nagraaudio.com/highend/pages/faq.php
The only ones I can think of at moment is Nagra (but this may only be balanced I do not know).
So ideally if this could be RCA connected then in it would be interesting to see if cables are audibly different, in theory they should be near identical or very close in this setup (ensured connector is unplugged and re-inserted before each listen).
Or ideally any other pre and amp that utilises transformer isolation.
I thought Stereophile reviewed one of the Nagra amps but I cannot find it.
Still if this is not possible, anyone know of external transformer isolation products to connect preamp and amp?
The difficulty is that ideally we would want RCA and not balanced so listening to various cables for differences may be easier, however I bet any products are RCA to XLR and possibly directional.
The solution would rely on 3 sets of cables, but the cable between transformer to audio box (pre and amp) would not be changed.
Something to consider trying if you really are interested and usually feel you can tell RCA cables apart.
Cheers
Orb
At a certain level the attempt to measure distortion in cables is rather moot. First, without correlating the sound of the cables under test with the measured distortion, the measurements are fairly meaningless. Unless we are to subscribe to the notion that exceedingly low distortion figures guarantee superior sound. Unfortunately, that guarantee was annihilated back in the 80s when relatively high Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) tube amps were frequently judged to be superior to the very low THD solid state amps. The differences in THD was not minor, around 0.1% for high end tube amps and 0.001% or less for the solid state amps. This discrepancy between perceived performance and measured distortion should make us cautious in putting much stock in measured distortion of cables.
Another big problem for the distortion measurement coalition is that we know from experience that distortion alone probably can't account for a number of audible differences in cables such as treble extension and air, bass definition and slam, microdynamics, ambience information, and the like. I.e., many sonic characteristics of cables appear to be related to bandwidth, "efficiency" of signal transmission, perceived "speed" of the signal transmission, rejection of EMI/RFI and other parameters -- but not distortion.
Maybe you do hear a difference, but maybe you only think you do:
A common-sense explanation of audiophile beliefs
AES Audio Myths Workshop
Indeed.
--Ethan
Ah, but Geoff doesn't have to post proof. All he has to do is accuse you of making a straw man argument, and then in his mind he has proven everything necessary.
--Ethan
This brings up an important point. Even if a difference can be measured, that doesn't mean the difference is audible. Wire capacitance can easily vary by several pF per foot, which is easily measured, but that doesn't mean the sound is different. Same for distortion. We can measure 0.001 percent versus 0.002 percent, but nobody will ever hear the difference.
--Ethan
Not so, I've talked about this many times, if not in that specific thread:
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...=true#Post66193
If the forum software allowed searching more than one year back, I'm pretty sure I'd find even older posts by me. Look, I can't mention every possible thing in every possible post. And of course, related to frailty there's also Comb Filtering.
Yep, that too.
I like audio shows, but I find them mostly boring. Been there done that, heard enough demos in crappy sounding rooms. I've seen enough lame presentations trying to sell speaker and AC wire using talk about quantum physics and energy fields etc.
We did one of those a few years ago with Rives. I agree, that sort of demo is much more telling than the usual fare.
--Ethan
Ah, the meeting of the minds.
Geoff and Ethan have been in the same room!
>>> "That there can be differences in sound between cables continues to make no sense to me (nor to any EE with whom I have discussed this), but I accept the observation." <<<
>>> "It still bugs me when I can hear the difference between cables." <<<
>>> "I don't discount the possibility that there is something there that we do not yet know how to measure. This is the nature of science; we observe and then we learn what causes what we are observing." <<<
Those quotes of yours, Elk, put in a nutshell what I have been trying to convey.
The cable controversy has been rumbling on for the past 30 years !! Over these 30 years, skilled engineers after skilled engineers after skilled engineers have been saying "We KNOW it does not make sense that a metre of cable (or even a half metre) should SOUND different to another metre of cable if they both satisfy similar important criteria - but it HAPPENS, because WE have Heard it happen !!!" And, they are prepared to accept other skilled engineers similar observations because of their own experiences.
You say you accept 'the observation' Elk but such as Scott states that he does not even wish to discuss what HE calls "people's perceptions", what you call 'people's observations' and what I call 'people's listening experiences'. THIS is why the controversy has lasted 30 years !! And looks to continue for even longer.
You say "It still bugs you when you can hear the difference between cables". And so it SHOULD !!! So, why doesn't it bug others ????????? How is it that they (others) can accept simplistic explanations such as 'frailty of perception', 'it must be the cleaning of contacts', it must be "bias", "autosuggestion", "the placebo effect", "imagination", "audio faith healing", "effective marketing" etc, etc.
After these past 30 years of people (many of them skilled audio engineers) hearing differences in different cables Ethan still insists that :-
>>> "everything that affects audio can be expressed using the following four parameters:
* Frequency response
* Noise
* Distortion
* Time-based errors" <<<
That static (rigid) stance reminds me how, really, not much has changed in the past 30 years !! It reminds me of what Peter Baxendall said in his talk to the British section of the Audio Engineering Society in 1985.
>>> "I believe that any well-designed amplifier (when not allowed to over load in any manner and when the comparison is made in a fair basis), it will sound exactly the same as any other well-designed high quality amplifier "
I do not believe that the use of expensive, special loudspeaker cable - with or without Lead tubes, no matter which way round they are connected - confers any sonic benefit whatever.
I do believe that all this recent business about single-crystal, high purity, oxygen-free, connecting cable is just a load of absolute hogwash." <<<
John Atkinson, who reported on this talk for Hi Fi News commented :-
>>> "I left the AES meeting saddened that he (Peter Baxendall) apparently is not interested in building bridges. I can but conclude this month's column with two apposite quotes from Arthur C Clarke's 1962 book, "Profiles of the Future" -
>>> "It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong" <<<
Quote by Ethan:-
>>> "Man, I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I'm sure I have explained this to you half a dozen times so far. The most likely explanation for believing one competent wire sounds different than another is the frailty of perception." <<<
If the belief is that the differences in the sound of different cables is because of frailty of perception (which is Ethan's and Scott's standpoint) or because of constantly removing and inserting plugs into sockets, therefore removing any built up contamination (which is j j's standpoint) and THAT is how they explain people's listening experiences, then that means that they believe that over the past 30 years different people (many of them skilled engineers) in different countries, hearing different cables change the sound, using different audio equipment, listening to different music have ALL been infected with a GLOBAL pandemic infection of "frailty of perception", "bias", "autosuggestion", "the placebo effect", "imagination", "audio faith healing", "effective marketing" etc, etc.
Your quote Elk :-
>>> "I don't discount the possibility that there is something there that we do not yet know how to measure. This is the nature of science; we observe and then we learn what causes what we are observing." <<<
Yet, by comparison, such as Fresh Clip's opinion on science is within the following :-
>>> "yes I concur that many scientific discoveries have been ridiculed and attacked by the establishment. This side of herd mentality is unavoidable when you ask people to shift their thinking in giant steps. However, many of those giant steps have been painfully researched and proven to be fact. Many of these discoveries have changed the world and enabled massive leaps of understanding beyond the original idea." <<<
He talks as though nothing else (particularly in audio) needs 'painfully researching' - that all is known - has already been researched and proven to be fact !!
He does not seem to appreciate or fully acknowledge that so much of science (and the history of science and discoveries) actually started with and is peppered with "clues", "tiny clues after tiny clues", maybe leading to forming a tiny part of the jigsaw, maybe not. Maybe needing a further four or five or more "tiny clues" to form a single 'tiny piece of the jigsaw' !!!!! Maybe the "tiny clues" were in another discipline, from a different part of science !!
Surely one has to start with the "clues" - and in the case of different cables sounding different the "clues" - from the past 30 years - are that it is NOT "frailty of perception" "bias", "autosuggestion", "the placebo effect", "imagination", "audio faith healing", "effective marketing" etc, etc causing the difference !!!!!!!!!!
Ethan states :-
>>> "The point isn't that all cables sound the same, though most do, but that differences are easily measured and proven. As soon as a vendor uses the words "quantum" or "cryogenic" in their ad copy, hang onto your wallet and run away as fast as you can." <<<
The "clues" are that "cryogenic" treatments are NOT "just ad copy" i.e "effective marketing" !! Or, is Ethan suggesting that over the past 30 years different people (many of them skilled engineers) in different countries, hearing different cables which have been through the 'cryogenic' process change the sound, using different audio equipment, listening to different music have ALL been infected with a global pandemic infection of "frailty of perception", "bias", "autosuggestion", "the placebo effect", "imagination", "audio faith healing", "effective marketing" etc, etc, ???
I particularly like your reply to KBK from way back, Elk :-
>>> "Observe!
Become curious.
Investigate.
Try to quantify.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat, until the explanation and the measurements correlate with the observations.
Some observations are even contradictory - photons are both waves and particulate. While hard to wrap one's mind around, this is just the way it is.
Additionally, we are still doing it and still learning! We do not know everything. We are not done in any field, including electrical circuits.
I am with you, KBK, in not understanding why this basic point is so difficult for many to comprehend." <<<
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Buddha, I would be interested in knowing where your viewpoint - on the subject of different cables sounding different - actually is.
In which category would you place the experiences of the people who took part in the 'listening to different cables' experiments you conducted this year (at the CES 2010) and last year (at the CES 2009).
1) "Frailty of perception' - which is Ethan's viewpoint.?
2) "Bias", "autosuggestion", "the placebo effect", "imagination", "audio faith healing", "effective marketing" etc, etc, ???
3) Something actually physically happening to the sound to create the differences heard ?
4) One of the cables being 'faulty' thereby creating the difference in the sound being heard ? - which again is Ethan's viewpoint.
5) Differences in the sound caused by repeatedly removing and inserting the plugs into the sockets thereby 'cleaning accumulated contamination' ?
And, whichever you choose, could it explain what took place on both different occasions with different people in both of the years ?
You say :-
>>> "I'm going out on a limb and just giving pure, unadulterated subjective opinion next - the Liquid cable did a fabulous job in the department of delineating multiple singers singing harmony. It was kind of a thrill to hear the small timing and timbral differences of singers singing together to make a unified sound.
Examples would include Wille and Bonnie Raitt on "Getting Over You" from Across the Borderline, the entire Cash Brothers "How Was Tomorrow" disc, just about any Bruce Cockburn cut from "Breakfast in New Orleans, Dinner in Timbuktu," and others that are escaping my mind right now.
They also did a good job with solo vocals - Bob Dylan's superior version of "Mississippi" from disc one of Telltale Signs and Bryan Ferry on both "Avalon" and "Positively Fourth Street."
All had that evanescent vocal feel you get when all is right with the world of audio.
Actually, there is more to say about the TEO's - we played The Beatles FLAC files via those babies and it was the level best I have ever heard The Beatles. I won't name names, but there was not a soul who was not knocked out by the sound of these files
Geoff is the good looking one, but I'm the smart one.
The word "frailty" is perhaps not the right word, but if you said "results of well-understood, documented human perceptions not resulting from actual changes in audio stimulii" the answer is yes.
If you had the whole of my talk in Ethan's workshop, you'd even know why.
Not sure why the deck for that is not at the pnw site, I'll ask someone to put it up.
"Geoff and Ethan have been in the same room!"
I'm the one who wasn't sanpaku.
May, I know without any doubt that the various claims made by tweak vendors will never be "painfully researched" in the same way that other scientific discoveries have been. The main reason for this is that the audiophile and tweak vendor universally reject double blind testing as a STANDARD procedure.
When we are dealing with the frailty of human perception, we have to have a leveller that can be scientifically (statistically) tested. If the person auditioning the tweak is aware of its presence or absence, the test cannot be said to be valid. Knowing the attitude to DBT on this forum, I will brace myself for the inevitable wave of objections and rejections but that just reinforces my belief in it. Those that make unverifiable claims do not want anything as terminal as a statistic applied to their product. A negative test might impact on sales and maybe cast a shadow over the other products in the vendors line-up. Tragic!
I'm safe, I have a home made stereo setup, my speaker cables are lengths of two core mains lead and I no longer own a turntable that is operational and my interconnects (ha) are a collection of co-ax RCA cables I've picked up along the way. Tweak makers can shout "quantum inter-matrix tunnelling" as much as they like and I will only think to myself "wow, what a load of tripe!" The fact is, that none of these makers have the slightest clue what they're claiming. The same buzz words keep coming up and the threat of gigantic mathematical equations loom. This is the old "don't blind them with science, baffle them with bullsh!t" approach that people outside the audiophile game find so laughable. Also the fact that those vendors claiming "quantum" effects have only their perceptions as test outcomes is further proof of their completely invalid status.
As I understand it, quantum physics is a branch of science that relies on formulas and calculations to explore/prove certain phenomena. The outcomes of these phenomena are observable but the mechanisms are not understood completely. Quantum physics attempts to explain the unknowns on a purely theoretical basis as many of the phenomena are atomic or sub-atomic in nature and cannot be directly observed. However, scientists engaged in this area of physics are perfectly candid about the work and that the theories they develop may or may not be the correct ones. How can tweak manufacturers be so sure that their "quantum" theories are so accurate?
Interestingly, I made a point earlier in this thread proposing that the significantly higher resistance of the Teo cables may be having some effect on the perceptible music reproduction. Nobody on this thread is interested in that. They're more interested in the characters involved in the testing. Maybe if I'd said that my research had shown that there was "quantum resistance" involved, they would have all pricked up their ears....
Still, maybe not.
>>> "not resulting from actual changes in audio stimulii" <<<
It is your "NO actual changes to audio stimulii" which causes me a problem. With your sentence are you meaning NO actual changes to the audio signal reaching the ear drum from the loudspeakers or are you meaning NO actual changes to the audio information reaching the working memory ? Because BOTH concern audio information !!!
Or, are you saying that the audio information coming from the loudspeakers to the ear drums is the ONLY audio stimulii that we should be considering and that changes to this audio information CANNOT then happen along it's journey to the working memory ?
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
"May, I know without any doubt that the various claims made by tweak vendors will never be "painfully researched" in the same way that other scientific discoveries have been. The main reason for this is that the audiophile and tweak vendor universally reject double blind testing as a STANDARD procedure."
That's the funniest thing I've heard all week. Of course audiophile and tweak vendors DO NOT reject double blind testing. I encourage anyone to test any of my products (or anyone else's for that matter) using any method they wish, double blind testing included. Now that you mention it, why don't any of you, uh, skeptics ever step up to the plate and actually investigate these products you bemoan, including double blind testing, if that is your cup of tea? I'm only guessing here, but whining and grousing is more fun and requires less effort. Am I close?
"As I understand it, quantum physics is a branch of science that relies on formulas and calculations to explore/prove certain phenomena. The outcomes of these phenomena are observable but the mechanisms are not understood completely. Quantum physics attempts to explain the unknowns on a purely theoretical basis as many of the phenomena are atomic or sub-atomic in nature and cannot be directly observed. However, scientists engaged in this area of physics are perfectly candid about the work and that the theories they develop may or may not be the correct ones. How can tweak manufacturers be so sure that their "quantum" theories are so accurate?"
Quantum dots, to name one area of quantum physics, are no longer strictly theoretical, have been studied for many years as replacement for MRI (illumination of human tissue). The super bright fluorescent light emitted by quantum dots is very visible, observable, making quantum dots an execellent example of a quantum physics phenomenon that is observable -- the fluorescing of intense, coherent light - AND well understood.
Would you believe you can buy quantum dot light strings on line? Peach, aqua, raspberry?
Quantum dot light strings
~ Cheerio
Hi, May!
I am delighted to see you are still here after my long absence.
I'm still on he fence when it comes to cables. I try to keep an open mind but it makes no sense whatsoever that two competent cables could sound different.
To me, most don't. I have tried quite a few, especially after reading rave reviews. Nothing happens one way or the other.
I do have a set however that appeared to make a difference. Ethan may well be right that frailty of perception (very real), comb filtering (also real) and other such factors cause the difference.
But since I have experienced a difference, and the improvement was worth the relatively small expense, I bought the cables and accept that at least in my system they sound better.
Of course, simply because I believe they sound better makes it worth the expense.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be terribly surprised that everything sounds the same after swapping them out.
Given that they are like wrestling with anacondas however this isn't going to happen soon.
>>> "I do have a set however that appeared to make a difference. Ethan may well be right that frailty of perception (very real), comb filtering (also real) and other such factors cause the difference." <<<
I am presuming, Elk, that you will have read quite a few of other people's experiences with different cables sounding different over these past 30 years, even though you might have been extremely sceptical at how they have described the improvements they have heard.
Think about it, Elk. Can ALL their experiences (and over 30 years there have been numerous !!) be put into the categories of 'frailty of perception', 'comb filtering', 'bias', 'autosuggestion', 'the placebo effect', 'imagination', 'audio faith healing', effective marketing' ???? For everyone to be affected so, (as I have said) there would have to have occurred a global pandemic, affecting complete strangers, over a period of 30 years !!
OR, could something else be happening that these people are experiencing ?
If one stays within Ethan's thinking, then one does not think further, one stays narrow and blinkered !!
Logically, even if SOME of the numerous people, many of them skilled audio engineers, over a 30 year period, COULD have their experiences explained as 'frailty of perception', 'comb filtering', 'bias', 'autosuggestion', 'the placebo effect', 'imagination', 'audio faith healing', effective marketing' ???? What about the rest ?? How is one to explain THEIR experiences because you STILL have to explain THEIR experiences ? Surely, at some time, one should be asking "What else might be happening ?"
Ethan does not even say the sentence YOU say :-
>>> "I don't discount the possibility that there is something there that we do not yet know how to measure. This is the nature of science; we observe and then we learn what causes what we are observing." <<<
Which shows that he is not even considering that there MIGHT be 'something causing what we are observing' - 'something there' which we don't yet know how to measure !!!!!!!
That IS the nature of science !!!!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
"As I understand it, quantum physics is a branch of science that relies on formulas and calculations to explore/prove certain phenomena. The outcomes of these phenomena are observable but the mechanisms are not understood completely. Quantum physics attempts to explain the unknowns on a purely theoretical basis as many of the phenomena are atomic or sub-atomic in nature and cannot be directly observed. However, scientists engaged in this area of physics are perfectly candid about the work and that the theories they develop may or may not be the correct ones. How can tweak manufacturers be so sure that their "quantum" theories are so accurate?"
Answer, Part 2
A more common example of quantum theory that has a real application is the ubiquitous CD laser. The CD laser is actually a "quantum well," invented back in the 70s and very useful in a number of applications (e.g., CD, SACD, DVD, Blu Ray) because the wavelength of the emitted laser light is simply a function of the thickness of the (nanoscale) layer that contains and confines the electron-hole pairs.
The "quantum confinement" of the electron-hole pairs in the extremely thin wafer of the quantum well is what causes the emitted photons to be quantized. The confinement of the electron-hole pairs in the one-dimensional "wafer" thinner than the de Broglie wavelength ensures that the emitted photons can only be waves. (By contrast the quantum dot confines the electron-hole pairs in all three dimensions, each of which is smaller than the de Broglie wavelength.)
This example of the "quantum well" demonstrates that the theory and equations have been successfully applied to real applications and real products - CD player lasers, DVD player lasers, and Blu Ray player lasers for example.
As to whether all quantum tweak manufacturers completely and accurately describe their products, that is a good question, mosy likely the answer varies by manufacturer and product. The answer would also depend on who you pick as the final arbiter of whether the technical explanation is complete and accurate. Is it you? Or would you pick your EE buddy, an audio magazine, AES, NASA, an audio forum?
Easily.
If a thousand believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
There are many examples of entire cultures believing things later learned to be entirely false as scientific knowledge advances.
This isn't my position when it comes to cables however.
I accept the possibility that there can be meaningful differences between cables that influence sound reproduction. I believe I have experienced such a difference.
However all currently scientific evidence is to the contrary, with the apparent possibility of the JC experiment - which is inconclusive.
Thus I simultaneously admit the possibility of listener bias in my own experience, and the possibility that there actually is a meaningful physical difference between cables.
I can do this as I am a Gemini.
May, didn't your parents teach you not to tell lies?
Scott, it is highly unlikely May is deliberately mischaracterizing something you said.
While I often do not agree with her, she is fair and very open to discussion.
My experience has been that if she summarizes my writing in a fashion different than I intended it is only because she didn't understand what I meant (which can easily be my fault).
If you explain what you think she has misstated I am certain she will clarify.
If it isn't deliberate it is AMAZINGLY moronic. I have explained my position to her multiple times. The horse won't drink. There comes a point where it becomes pretty obvious that it is by choice.
I am late to the discussion. You may be right.
However it took me some time to understand that May draws a distinction between the physical characteristics of sound and a listener's perception of sound.
She also believes that each can be influenced/changed by various means and independently of each other. For example, perception can be positively influenced even though the physical sound is not changed.
As a result, it is common for there to be a disconnect between what May states and what others are saying.
You probably know this, but if not it perhaps helps.
Of course, the alternative is that May is completely demonic.
(May, I apologize if I summarized your thinking incorrectly, but I believe I have the basics right).
Here is the exchange between May and myself that has lead to May's current gross misrepresentation of my position. MAY: "Scott states that he does not even wish to discuss what HE calls "people's perceptions",
MAY: "So, at a stroke of the pen (or keyboard) are dismissed numerous people's experiences (see the link given by Corodia (Guiseppe) and the quite extensive list of people's experiences with such as the Blackbody devices)"
SCOT: "The "experiences" are not up for debate IMO. OTOH the cause is."
MAY: "
If Scott's position is that people's "experiences" are NOT up for debate then I don't really understand why he ever participated in the Audio Asylum pages or why he is now participating in the Stereophile pages !!! I would have thought that people's listening "experiences" are 'part and parcel' of listening to audio (i e listening to MUSIC) !!!"
SCOTT: "So one needs to debate other peoples' experiences May? In order to legitimately participate in either forum I should argue with others about *their* perceptions?"
From this exchange May now states *my position as "that he does not even wish to discuss what HE calls "people's perceptions"
Now if one were to look at the thread on "Vinyl not just alive but thriving" one would find me "discussing" peoples' perceptions. Go figure.
Now if anyone actively participating on these boards doesn't understand the basic logic that dictates "debates" are a subset of discussions then they are AMAZINGLY moronic. Since this is just the last of a series of these sorts of gross misrepresentations of my positions on audio by May it looks to me to be deliberate choice.
You be the judge.
Indeed, several of us have attempted to show May how human perception is extremely faulty, and how thoughts, concious or not, can change a perception by an enormous amount, without requiring any nonsensical stuff like "Morphic fields", and without recourse to QM.
A variety of responses of the sort quoted above are what results.
There is nothing here to discuss but the issue of placebo or nocebo, and that they still work, just like they always have.
This has, of course, been complicated by others than May, who wish to inject fantastical ideas, as they usually do, apparently in order to hide the actual science from the casual listener.
Perceptions vary. It's a fact. This says nothing about any part of the actual sound, and requires no supernatural or unknown physics or property of human perception.
My impression is that the two of you are writing at cross purposes.
I think you are indicating that you are not going to question others' report of their experiences; it is what it is.
It appears May took this to mean that you will not consider the possibility of changing the experience without changing the physical properties of the sound; that is, perception is not worth discussing.
Again, I may be wrong on both counts.
I find fascinating that there are so many that agree with May that changing the environment in some fashion unrelated to physical sound will permanently change one's perception of reproduced sound to the better.
I think this is absolutely nutty, but have tried a number of free tweaks - to no avail. That is, I agree with j_j but I enjoy playing. It's a hobby after all.
But if these things work for others and they think they are getting their money's worth I have no objection even if it is placebos in action.
I would even be happy if the placebo worked for me.
Especially if it was cheap.
Well *you* understood me. Am I wrong in asserting it wasn't all that challenging? As for May's interpretation of my words, maybe you are correct. I don't know at this point. But really, given the fact that I frequently "discuss" my and other peoples' perceptions in audio and given that I have stated my position that aesthetic perceptions are inarguable because they are the ultimate arbitrator of enjoyment, that they can't be "wrong" because they are what they are regardless of the underlying mechanisms....
I stand by my assertion that May is either deliberately misrepresenting my positions or has some learning disability.
I had problems understanding May initially as she was approaching the question of how to improve sound in a very different way, but using language similar to how we discuss physical changes.
I don't think May would argue with this.
Her position however - as I understand it - is that these perceptions can be made "better" by use of certain tweaks.
I hope May chimes in. My guess is that if you are interested in discussing her ideas further she would be happy to do so.
And yet she has. not just in the one example I gave you but in numerous other occasions. so far you have understood what I am saying every time. I'm sure you are a smart guy but has it been challenging? Have i been cryptic? I have stated this position at least a dozen different ways on various threads only to have May completely twist it on a consistant basis into something completely wrong. Like I said, there comes a point where it lloks blatently intentional. I hope May chimes in too. I bet she will make the same basic misrepresentation in some other thread within the month regardless of how clearly I state this simple position or how many times I correct her when she makes such misrepresentations. It has simply gotten old and I cut to the chase when calling her on it.
We have discussed her ideas. We get nowhere. She wishes to invoke mysterious forces at work while never bothering to eliminate very reasonable possible explinations such as bias effects. I find that postion to be irrational. I too have no problem with audiophiles enjoying tweeks even if they are purely working on bias effects. Listening enjoyment is listening enjoyment. But when May or others want to talk about causalities they are stepping beyond the world of personal perception (which I will state again is inarguable, what one percieves is what one percieves) into the measurable objective world. Once May chooses to step into that world she is held accountable for what I believe to be irrational axioms.
>>> "It appears May took this to mean that you will not consider the possibility of changing the experience without changing the physical properties of the sound; that is, perception is not worth discussing" <<<
You are correct, Elk. That "perception was not worth discussing" was exactly my interpretation of Scott's "The "experiences" are not up for debate IMO."
>>> "I find fascinating that there are so many that agree with May that changing the environment in some fashion unrelated to physical sound will permanently change one's perception of reproduced sound to the better." <<<
First of all, it is BECAUSE there are so many who have had similar experiences gaining improvement in their sound that I challenge simplistic explanations such as auto-suggestion, the placebo effect etc etc.
Secondly the major problem are the two following words - physical and perception.
Most people (particularly engineers) see the physical sound as the audio information extracted from the disc, carried through the audio equipment and presented into the room by the loudspeakers. Which then becomes acoustic information but still seen as physical. This takes place within what is regarded as "the environment".
But as soon as this acoustic information reaches the ear drum to continue it's journey it is then seen, by them, as perception !!
I understand it as physical information ALL the way through to the working memory where the working memory interprets what it receives, in order to then present a 'sound picture' to the brain !! It is here where people's interpretation may vary - depending upon what is already in their memory, how the information just received compares with what is already in their memory, the emotion (sad or joyous content of the music) and so on. This is what I would call 'perception'. So, in my understanding, (and I might add, from our's and other's experiences) you CAN change something in the environment which might not physically change the audio signal travelling through the equipment, which might not physically change the acoustics of the room but which could physically change the information which is still travelling through the hearing mechanism, along the auditory nerve to the working memory !!
To me, the information is still physical until it is interpreted by the working memory. And it is prone to be changed anywhere along it's journey.
Sorry, Elk, Scott is not one of the people I would wish to continue discussing my ideas with. From past lengthy 'bouts' with him, I have found him arguing for arguing sake. His main theme is yes, people's perceptions are people's perceptions - i.e. Their own interpretation of the music and therefore pointless as a debating theme - particularly as Scott places much emphasis that much of people's perception of changes in the sound must be because of 'bias'. I.e Nothing physical happening causing any changes once the audio information has reached the ear drum !!!!
J J has just continued with a similar theme :-
>>> "thoughts, concious or not, can change a perception by an enormous amount," <<<
In other words (or as I am interpreting him) he is saying that THOUGHTS can change perception (the resulting sound) by an ENORMOUS amount !!!
Is he really saying that THOUGHTS can produce the improvements in the sound which so many people describe (after carrying out some 'tweaks' in the environment) ????
Improvements such as notably better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, not to mention bass improvements.
If he is, then I would like to know exactly HOW and WHERE he suggests that these changes can take place which can affect the audio information to provide such improvements in the sound that people describe. If you think some of MY concepts are outrageous, the concept that THOUGHTS can create the improvements in the sound - improvements such as notably better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, not to mention bass improvements - is surely even more outrageous ????
At least I have an explanation - however tentative - which can explain those improvements listed. An explanation which includes the word physical !!
That some of the audio information can reach the working memory 'in a physically messed up form' - because of what is going on in a modern environment and that this 'physically messed up' information can be physically corrected before it reaches the working memory - again by 'treating' things in the adverse environment - but, you have to bring the human being into the equation. But, as soon as I say 'you have to bring the human being into the equation', the discussion immediately reverts back to the usual "Oh it's down to perception".
You can affect the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment with such as electricity and magnetism but not with acoustics. You can affect the acoustic information with acoustics but not with electricity or magnetism. And THIS is where audio engineers stay - at that point. The rest, to them, is 'perception'. That the audio information can still be affected after it has reached the ear drum and before it reaches the working memory does not seem to come under their consideration and certainly (in their opinion) could not be affected by anything happening on the environment !!
You see my problem ? Engineers are engineers and want to think as engineers and are happy to debate engineering things. However, they then wish to describe what they can HEAR, to debate 'sound' which then brings in other, non engineers, who have as valid a reason for entering the discussion on 'sound' and how things sound as the 'engineers'. Not only as valid a reason but can join with equality of experiences !!!!!!! AND, many of these people have BOTH - engineering expertise AND listening expertise !!!!!
Quote by Scott :-
>>> "I stand by my assertion that May is either deliberately misrepresenting my positions or has some learning disability." <<<
I certainly do not have some learning disability !!! That was a most ungracious remark !!
>>> "She wishes to invoke mysterious forces at work while never bothering to eliminate very reasonable possible explinations such as bias effects." <<<
Nature at work is not mysterious and ALL reasonable possible explanations are ALWAYS taken into account before progressing with any thought process.
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Hey, Scott, you sound bitter and angry. More than usual.
Didn't I see you sitting at the table with T-Bone at the Golden Globes? Keep your head up, remember, there's always next year. 
Do you have anything to add to the discussion, or are you simply trying to derail?
That is, after all, the definition of "sound" as opposed to the percieved experience resulting from that sound.
Yes, because that's what the words mean. Language is only useful if we all stick to the definitions in order to communicate.
If you're talking some special code-language of your own, then, it's going to be very hard to communicate.
No, this is wrong, May, it would appear that there are at least 3 stages in auditory perception, that of partial loudness as a function of time (i.e. at the auditory nerve), then that of auditory features, and then auditory objects, aka perceptions.
Once the sound is reduced to partial loudnesses, which is a MOSTLY fixed process (not meaning it's not time-varying, but that the process description does not change), both the features and the objects CAN BE GUIDED CONCIOUSLY OR SUBCONCIOUSLY.
So there is a difference, due only to the internal state of the human being, at this time. Siuce both of the proceses of reduction to auditory features and then objects are lossy, it is trivial for two different people to experience different results based on the exact same auditory stimulii, i.e. sound.
This is why things like blind testing are absolutely obligatory, and why anything that is not blind testing does not address sound.
I hope this is enough to make it clear.
Unless you're ascribing thought to dualism or spiritualism, or something paranormal, the process is physical, period.
Yes. Period.
There is, also, a great deal of publication on the subject.
In this light, proposing fantastical reasons is simply superfluous, the well-understood processes of human perception suffice for the observations.
Nothing anti-physical, metaphysical, etc, is called for, we can easily understand the results purely by the results of the perceptual process.
I've told you (and others here) several times how the process works. Each time, you have failed to acknowlege well-established reports of cognative phenomina that are well documented in the literature, and instead propose fantastical tommyrot in its place.
Please be accurate, it is absolutely FALSE when you say I haven't explained this. It is irrelevant if you like my explaination, because I have given it to you, and you have simply refused to admit that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING you assert can be due to simple, well-understood perceptual processes.
Your demand for "EXACTLY HOW AND WHERE" is a pure appeal to the fallacy of ignorance, wherein as we can show that we know something, but not everything, to which someone else responds, incorrectly, that we know nothing. Your demand for "exactly" is precisely this kind of quacked, pseudoscientific attempt at dissembling.
It is this kind of unprofessional, insulting dialog from you, furthermore, that repeatedly poisons the well, and helps set the experts in the field in direct opposition to your words.
The pages of your Zen and the Art of Debunkery must be getting all stuck together.
To wit....
1. Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that
suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and
credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as
"ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full
force of scientific authority.
2. Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which
are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are
"stated."
3. Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say
with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such
ridiculous claims!"
4. Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with
*all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and
critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition,
inspiration, exploration and integration.
5. If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant
further investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that
"evidence alone proves nothing!"
6. Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all
phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their
proponents and researchers speak with a single voice.
7. Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots.
Suggest that in order to investigate the existence of something one
must first believe in it absolutely. Then demand that all such "true
believers" know all the answers to their most puzzling questions in
complete detail ahead of time. Convince people of your own sincerity
by reassuring them that you yourself would "love to believe in these
fantastic phenomena."
Cheers
Fair enough.
There is obviously a lot of history of which I was unaware.
I don't find either of you terribly difficult to understand.
Wow I said inside of a month you would do this and it took you one day and one post. Well done May. Yet another gross misrepresentation of my views on audio. So I have to ask again, didn't your parents teach not to tell lies?
So, Mr. Kait, when will you be taking your accusation of professional misconduct on my part to standards and practices boards?
Do you have anything to add, beyond professional defamation and spite directed against science and scientists?
There is indeed a history here, one that shows that May refuses to listen to well-understood, well-established knowlege, and would prefer to offer in its place unsupported counter-physical theories that are not even testable.
Mr. Kait simply defames anyone who does not accept his preposterious quantum woowoo. He adds nothing to a discussion, and appears only to derail and deride.
It is unfortunate that this thread has devolved into arguing about arguing.
Gee whiz, the trolls sure are restless. Is it a full moon or something?
You took my last comments to heart, I see, Mr. B. Nice to see I'm getting thru.... Hrummmph, hrummmph
Sorry, but there are a couple here who just live to pick fights, and you can't practically speaking ignore them, since they are willing to use the propaganda technique of "s**t sticks" when the start slinging.
Their method is the same old "repetition is the linchpin of propaganda" manouever.
>>> "There is indeed a history here, one that shows that May refuses to listen to well-understood, well-established knowlege," <<<
I KNOW about well-understood and well established knowledge. I KNOW about so many of the studies concerning 'the placebo effect', I KNOW about the suggestion being put forward that differences in the sound from different cables could be because the plugs have been removed from and re-inserted into the sockets many times and could therefore have cleaned accumulated contamination !! I Know !! I KNOW about bias, auto-suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, audio faith healing, effective marketing !!
I agree with Elk's "It is unfortunate that this thread has devolved into arguing about arguing"
So, to get back to the original 'thread' I will quote Buddha's experience listening to different cables at CES again :-
>>> "I'm going out on a limb and just giving pure, unadulterated subjective opinion next - the Liquid cable did a fabulous job in the department of delineating multiple singers singing harmony. It was kind of a thrill to hear the small timing and timbral differences of singers singing together to make a unified sound.
Examples would include Wille and Bonnie Raitt on "Getting Over You" from Across the Borderline, the entire Cash Brothers "How Was Tomorrow" disc, just about any Bruce Cockburn cut from "Breakfast in New Orleans, Dinner in Timbuktu," and others that are escaping my mind right now.
They also did a good job with solo vocals - Bob Dylan's superior version of "Mississippi" from disc one of Telltale Signs and Bryan Ferry on both "Avalon" and "Positively Fourth Street."
All had that evanescent vocal feel you get when all is right with the world of audio.
Actually, there is more to say about the TEO's - we played The Beatles FLAC files via those babies and it was the level best I have ever heard The Beatles. I won't name names, but there was not a soul who was not knocked out by the sound of these files
j_j, absolutely no need for you to apologize. In fact you have made many excellent posts here (and elsewhere).
Elk, for your eyes only:
Intro to Zen and the Art of Debunkery
Like all systems of truth seeking, science, properly conducted,
has a profoundly expansive, spiritual impulse at its core. This "Zen"
in the heart of science is revealed when the practitioner sets aside
arbitrary beliefs and cultural preconceptions, and approaches the
nature of things with "beginner's mind." When this is done, reality
can speak freshly and freely, and can be heard more clearly.
Appropriate testing and objective validation can--indeed, *must*--
come later.
Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the
main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the
scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation,
institutionalization, hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has
increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a
spiritual, psychological, social and ecological vacuum. Virtually
gone from the scene is the philosopherscientist, to whom meaning
and context were once the very fabric of a multi-level universe.
Today's mainstream science tends, instead, to deny or disregard
entire domains of reality, and satisfies itself with reducing all of
life and consciousness to a dead physics.
As we approach the end of the millennium (sic), science seems in
many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it
presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned,
emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized
"scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial,
defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-
righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with
provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their materialist
philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of
skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the
absoluteness of the familiar.
Cheers
I don't understand why this is directed at me nor do I know if I am expected to respond.
However, I deal with scientists on a regular basis. This post does not describe a modern scientist, particularly a research scientist.
As a group scientists are probably the most energized, intensely curious and non-dogmatic people I know. They love the unique, the fascinating, the outliers. They adore sharing, discussing, arguing.
They relish how the cutting edge dissolves into the unknown, and the unknown may just be discoverable tomorrow.
However, the use of science has been politicized. This is a tragedy, wholly apart from science itself.
Pages