Quote:
I don't understand why this is directed at me nor do I know if I am expected to respond.

It's simply Mr. Kait, trying again to pass himself off as a science defender who is against all of the dogmatists and quacks, which is what he insinuates that all of the real scientists (as far as audio is concerned) are.

It's his thing, intruding into discussions and derailling them with anti-Science and anti-Scientist nonsense.

Quote:
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.

All ya gotta do is say that scientists are the most energized, intensely curious, and non-dogmatic people you know and sure as shootin' some guy shows up and claims to be one. Coincidena?

Tip: You could have added, "They're the kindest, bravest, warmest, most
wonderful human beings I've ever known in my life."

"They love the unique, the fascinating, the outliers. They adore sharing, discussing, arguing."

We are talking about men here, right?

Quote:

Quote:
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.

All ya gotta do is say that scientists are the most energized, intensely curious, and non-dogmatic people you know and sure as shootin' some guy shows up and claims to be one. Coincidena?

Tip: You could have added, "They're the kindest, bravest, warmest, most
wonderful human beings I've ever known in my life."

"They love the unique, the fascinating, the outliers. They adore sharing, discussing, arguing."

We are talking about men here, right?

Shouldn't you be shilling a new tweek based on string theory instead of goofing around here? At least you make money off your satire that way.

Quote:
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.

However, there is another group of scientists who are the most decrepit (mentally and otherwise), the least curious, extremely dogmatic, who love the common, the mundane, the status quo. They adore chiding others, demanding people submit to their perceived authority, and troll discussion forums inhabited mainly by people who's views they are diametrically opposed, for the express purpose of doing battle with them, so that they can hope to save their heathen souls and convert them to their belief system.

J_J belongs to that group.

Quote:

Quote:
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.

However, there is another group of scientists who are the most decrepit (mentally and otherwise), the least curious, extremely dogmatic, who love the common, the mundane, the status quo. They adore chiding others, demanding people submit to their perceived authority, and troll discussion forums inhabited mainly by people who's views they are diametrically opposed, for the express purpose of doing battle with them, so that they can hope to save their heathen souls and convert them to their belief system.

J_J belongs to that group.

Right.

And Scott belongs to the group that's called trolls.

<sigh>

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
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.

However, there is another group of scientists who are the most decrepit (mentally and otherwise), the least curious, extremely dogmatic, who love the common, the mundane, the status quo. They adore chiding others, demanding people submit to their perceived authority, and troll discussion forums inhabited mainly by people who's views they are diametrically opposed, for the express purpose of doing battle with them, so that they can hope to save their heathen souls and convert them to their belief system.

J_J belongs to that group.

Right.

And Scott belongs to the group that's called trolls.

Your support for the defamation quoted above is hereby captured for the record.

Quote:
<sigh>

This is their goal, Elk, to deliberately destroy dialog by attacking individuals, poisoning the well, etc, rather than actually addressing their mistakes, misperceptions, and occasional delusions and/or misrepresentations.

It's sad.

The discussion should be on Buddha's experience of Teo Liquid cables, their characteristics, and what may or may not have occurred. Buddha is honest, perceptive and adept at describing what he heard. It's a worthy exercise to consider his experience.

What we perceive, how we perceive it and what affects perception is endlessly fascinating.

All of this reminds me of the experience all recording, mixing and mastering engineers have had: carefully tweaking EQ, a gate time, a compression ratio/threshold with utmost care until it is perfect - and then noticing that the track they have have been working on has been muted.

Been there, done that, too embarrassed to accept the t-shirt.

Elk, See Michael Fremer's piece on the Swiftboating of Audiophiles that appeared in Stereophile a while back. I realize you've been out of touch for a while, but remember - once they get a foothold in your house they can be very difficult to get rid of.

Swiftboating of Audiophiles

Test, hello Budda, great party.

Quote:
What we perceive, how we perceive it and what affects perception is endlessly fascinating.

Extremely interesting. The problem, of course, is when perception jumps the shark and becomes "reality" that is to be applied externally to the one doing the percieving.

Is it possible for the childish bickering and name calling to please stop so this discussion thread can get back to focusing on the original topic, which is of interest to me and a lot of other people? Or is it a lost cause?

Quote:
Is it possible for the childish bickering and name calling to please stop so this discussion thread can get back to focusing on the original topic, which is of interest to me and a lot of other people? Or is it a lost cause?

I share your sentiment. However this IS an audiophile forum so what do you expect

Brian, your first post here and it's not even funny. What's up with that? Did you get promoted to Mother Superior?

Quote:
Brian, your first post here and it's not even funny. What's up with that? Did you get promoted to Mother Superior?

No, Geoff, I save the funnies for Inmate Central. But since this thread is in dire need of rescuing, would you care to get back to contributing to a fruitful discussion, which is how it got started?

Quote:
Is it possible for the childish bickering and name calling to please stop so this discussion thread can get back to focusing on the original topic, which is of interest to me and a lot of other people? Or is it a lost cause?

Thank you, Brian.

>>> "Gosh May if you really knew bias effects and really have read the scientific literature you wouldn't get it this wrong." <<<

No wonder the arguments go on and on !! I, and everyone else are wrong, if we don't KNOW it must be 'bias effects' !!! Correction so as not to be accused of misquoting you. I and everyone else are wrong, if we don't know it MIGHT be "bias effects" !!

You Scott are telling me (and everyone else) that it is Bias effects and if only I had read the scientific literature I would not get it so wrong in believing it could be otherwise !!!!!

Quote by j j :-

>>> "the well-understood processes of human perception suffice for the observations.
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,
I mean EVERYTHING you assert can be due to simple, well-understood perceptual processes.
There is nothing here to discuss but the issue of placebo or nocebo, and that they still work, just like they always have." <<<

Now, I also have j j telling me (and everyone else) that everything I assert is due to simple well-understood perceptual processes, the placebo effect, with well established reports that are well documented in the literature !!!!!

At another time, on another page, during another link, there was someone else telling me that what people are experiencing is "auto-suggestion" - and that this phenomena is well documented and proven with numerous scientific studies !!

Ditto "imagination" !!!

Ditto "effective marketing" !!!

Will you all please get together, and each one of you try to convince the other, with your well documented proof, covered by scientific proof and let us have your definitive conclusion WHICH one is the explanation for what so many people are experiencing and reporting !!

Sorry to have violated my own code of conduct by resorting to sarcasm but every one of you CANNOT be 100% right. Every one of you CANNOT be even 50% right because there aren't enough percentages points in 100 to accommodate you all at the high percentage rate of importance for "frailty of perception", "bias", "autosuggestion", "the placebo effect", "imagination", "effective marketing" etc you all wish to convey !!

You see, I can do maths as well !!!

If you ARE all right, then why is John A producing an audio magazine at all if all the writers,
giving their subjective opinions on the 'sound' of something, can have their subjective opinions dismissed so readily by such well documented, scientific proof of 'whatever' (your choice) !!

I can also 'do' logic, Scott.

You, Scott, can't have 50% of the cake with your explanation of 'bias' because j j wants 100% (or thereabouts - based on his belief "thoughts, concious or not, can change a perception by an enormous amount,") of the cake for his "it's the placebo effect". Oh, and I was forgetting the person who gave me a lecture on how the well documented scientific literature proved just HOW MUCH was down to "auto-suggestion". Sorry, they also want a goodly percentage of the cake !! If you then include the people who claim that well documented literature and scientific trials prove that "effective marketing" is behind many people's claims of how some things can 'sound' better !!! Yet even more people wanting a percentage slice of the cake !!!

And, that is not including, at all, Ethan's "frailty of perception" and his "comb filtering"

Back to Buddha's cable listening experiments at this years and last years CES shows.

Sorry Buddha, it looks as though there isn't even a crumb of cake left for the people who took part in your listening experiments who would wish to believe (and are convinced) that they actually heard ACTUAL PHYSICAL improvements in the sound !! Come to think of it, not even any crumbs of cake are left for the thousands of similar and numerous experiences over the past 30 to 40 years !!

Even though, over these past 30 years, numerous people have been describing hearing some cables sound better than other cables, Buddha starts his 'posting' with the sentence "I'm going out on a limb and just giving pure, unadulterated subjective opinion". Why not give a subjective opinion ? Why is there, lurking in the background, a feeling that when people give a subjective opinion, that they are "going out on a limb" ?

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

May,

All those things are simply different ways of naming the same thing.
They are all part of the placebo effect.

Surely you get that.

BTW, I am not saying all unexplained differences heard are due to placebo.

I would say that placebo is one possible explanation that can only be ruled out with blind testing.

BTW, failing a blind test doesn't prove that differences don't exist per se.
It only says that those test subjects in that particular test heard no diff.
The reasons they heard no diff. could be numerous.

Some feel that a fail in a DBT gives sufficient evidence to presume that placebo is the likely factor, but the DBT can't prove that.

This could or should make everyone happy but since we are audiofools it only gives us more fuel to argue and flame

Quote:
>>> "Gosh May if you really knew bias effects and really have read the scientific literature you wouldn't get it this wrong." <<<

No wonder the arguments go on and on !! I, and everyone else are wrong,

You are wrong in your characterization of the nature of bias effects. I don't know about everyone else. everyone else didn't post ignorant mischaracterizations of the nature of bias effects.

Quote:
if we don't KNOW it must be 'bias effects' !!!

That isn't what I said at all is it May? I simply said that if you really knew bias effects you wouldn't say things about the nature of bias effects that are so plainly wrong. Nothing more nothing less.

Quote:
Correction so as not to be accused of misquoting you. I and everyone else are wrong, if we don't know it MIGHT be "bias effects" !!

You are officially corrected. I did not say that nor did I infer it. I simply pointed out that if you were as intimately familiar with the scientific literature on bias effects you wouldn't so grossly mischaracterize the nature of bias effects. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:
You Scott are telling me (and everyone else) that it is Bias effects and if only I had read the scientific literature I would not get it so wrong in believing it could be otherwise !!!!!

No that is not what I said at all. All I said was (sorry for being so redundant)if you really knew bias effects you wouldn't say things about the nature of bias effects that are so plainly wrong. Nothing more nothing less.

Quote:
Will you all please get together, and each one of you try to convince the other, with your well documented proof, covered by scientific proof and let us have your definitive conclusion WHICH one is the explanation for what so many people are experiencing and reporting !!

You are the one asserting a mechanism of cause May. For some reason you wish to assert a mysterious undiscovered force while choosing never to eliminate the possibility of a well known cause that fits quite nicely. the fact that it is common and a perfect fit does not prove bias effects are the mechanism but until you do bias controled tests you can't really make a legitimate claim that they are not the actual mechanism. That is unless you can offer some sort of varification of these mysterious forces that aren't anecdotal.

Quote:
Sorry to have violated my own code of conduct by resorting to sarcasm but every one of you CANNOT be 100% right. Every one of you CANNOT be even 50% right because there aren't enough percentages points in 100 to accommodate you all at the high percentage rate of importance for "frailty of perception", "bias", "autosuggestion", "the placebo effect", "imagination", "effective marketing" etc you all wish to convey !!

If you ever do bother with bias controled tests, I suggest you let some one else do the statistical analysis of the data. It appears you have no clue when talking about percentages of probability. But here is a hint. Sans any alternate varifiable evidence of your mysterious forces and sans any bias controled tests to eliminate bias effects as a *possible* mechanism of cause, you have simply not eliminated the very reasonable possibility of bias effects as the mechanism of cause. Again, nothing more nothing less. That is 100% true. do the math.

Quote:
You see, I can do maths as well !!!

ya think?

Quote:
If you ARE all right, then why is John A producing an audio magazine at all if all the writers,
giving their subjective opinions on the 'sound' of something, can have their subjective opinions dismissed so readily by such well documented, scientific proof of 'whatever' (your choice) !!

I have not nor ever dismissed any of their subjective opinions on the quality of the percieved performance of the many components they review. I thought I already covered this when I said such perceptrions were inarguable. they are what they are and they are the point of audio. I guess you will never get that right. The fact that I called you on your gross mischaracterization of the nature of bias effects in no way logically leads to the conclusion that John A. and his writers ought not to be publishing a subjective review periodical.

Quote:
I can also 'do' logic, Scott.

You are very good at disguising that fact May.

Quote:
You, Scott, can't have 50% of the cake with your explanation of 'bias' because j j wants 100% (or thereabouts - based on his belief "thoughts, concious or not, can change a perception by an enormous amount,") of the cake for his "it's the placebo effect".

OK that doesn't even make sense.

Quote:
Oh, and I was forgetting the person who gave me a lecture on how the well documented scientific literature proved just HOW MUCH was down to "auto-suggestion". Sorry, they also want a goodly percentage of the cake !! If you then include the people who claim that well documented literature and scientific trials prove that "effective marketing" is behind many people's claims of how some things can 'sound' better !!! Yet even more people wanting a percentage slice of the cake !!!

better stay away from the math May. You might want to do a little homework on the logic thing as well.

It's impossible to have a dialog with someone whose only tactic is the fallacy of "argument from personal incredulity".

It's also impossible to have a dialog with someone whose every lie is intended to cause real harm to a person's reputation, especially one (or two, given the chickens**t cowards who hide behind nom-de-plumes here) who has a record of repeated, intentional libels and slanders that pretty much cover the entire internet.

The original subject is indeed interesting, but we can not have a dialog until the malfeasant people learn that they are simply offensive and annoying, and the sincere but not particularly informed learn that personal incredulity is not a valid argument in science.

When that happens, then we can start to learn something new. Until then, science and learning are sacrificed at the altar of commercialism and ignorance.

Now, now, J_J we must stay calm.

QUOTE: "You are the one asserting a mechanism of cause May. For some reason you wish to assert a mysterious undiscovered force while choosing never to eliminate the possibility of a well known cause that fits quite nicely. the fact that it is common and a perfect fit does not prove bias effects are the mechanism but until you do bias controled tests you can't really make a legitimate claim that they are not the actual mechanism. That is unless you can offer some sort of varification of these mysterious forces that aren't anecdotal."

Actually, you are misstating May's position. She hasn't claimed that bias or placebo or imagination, etc. should *never* be considered in an experiment. She's simply saying bias, placebo, imagination cannot *always* be responsible for results. Is your position really that bias, placebo, imagination, etc. must *always* explain these "mysterious, undiscovered forces?"

NOTE: When are any of you naysayers ever going to get off your duffs and investigate these "mysterious, undiscovered forces" that seem to cause such angst and heartache? Isn't that really what science is all about?

Cheers

Tomjtx, You are shifting your position through your reply. You are saying that "ALL" those things I have mentioned are really the same thing :-

>>> "All those things are simply different ways of naming the same thing.
They are all part of the placebo effect.

Surely you get that." <<<

And THEN you go on to say that >>> "BTW, I am not saying all unexplained differences heard are due to placebo.

I would say that placebo is one possible explanation" <<<

Of course ONE explanation could be 'the placebo effect'. I don't know anyone who would say it could not be ONE explanation !!!
It could be that "bias" could be ONE explanation.
It could be that "auto-suggestion" could be ONE explanation.
It could be that "imagination" could be ONE explanation.
It could be that "audio faith healing" could be ONE explanation.
It could be that "effective marketing" could be ONE explanation.
It could be that "frailty of perception" could be ONE explanation and so on, and so on and so on !!!!

What I am challenging are people who tell me that I am NOT taking all those things into consideration when I am prepared to believe that some people ARE HEARING ACTUAL PHYSICAL changes in the sound when they do certain things !!!

Do YOU have to start every conversation you have with anyone in audio with the sentences "I HAVE taken into consideration this, that, that, that that, that, oh and that" ? Before you can go on to describe what you want to describe, everytime, before you describe your experiences ?

Does EVERY reviewer have to start their subjective review of a product with the sentence "I HAVE taken into consideration this, that, that, that that, that, oh and that" ? Before they can go on to describe what they want to describe ?

The people I refer to, Scott, j j and Ethan, are far more definite - insistent - in their replies that "the placebo effect" or "bias" or "frailty of perception" is far MORE that just ONE of many explanations.

Examples :-
"thoughts, concious or not, can change a perception by an enormous amount,"
"There is nothing here to discuss but the issue of placebo or nocebo, and that they still work, just like they always have."
"Gosh May if you really knew bias effects and really have read the scientific literature you wouldn't get it this wrong."

THAT is why I brought percentages of importance into it !!!!!!

The people I reacted to are NOT simply saying those things are MERELY a small percentage. They are not saying, as you have, "I would say that placebo is one possible explanation", they are far more insistent than that !!

It is like the other people who claim DBT trials will answer everything !!!

I would answer them in exactly the same way that you have just done :-

>>> "BTW, failing a blind test doesn't prove that differences don't exist per se.
It only says that those test subjects in that particular test heard no diff.
The reasons they heard no diff. could be numerous." <<<

But, when I do, I am immediately lectured that "If only I had read the well documented literature, if only I knew of the scientific findings, if only I was aware that that is how science works, if only I did not have some learning disability............!!!

THAT is why I have reacted !!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
It's impossible to have a dialog with someone whose only tactic is the fallacy of "argument from personal incredulity".

It's also impossible to have a dialog with someone whose every lie is intended to cause real harm to a person's reputation, especially one (or two, given the chickens**t cowards who hide behind nom-de-plumes here) who has a record of repeated, intentional libels and slanders that pretty much cover the entire internet.

The original subject is indeed interesting, but we can not have a dialog until the malfeasant people learn that they are simply offensive and annoying, and the sincere but not particularly informed learn that personal incredulity is not a valid argument in science.

When that happens, then we can start to learn something new. Until then, science and learning are sacrificed at the altar of commercialism and ignorance.

Cool!!

Quote:
QUOTE: "You are the one asserting a mechanism of cause May. For some reason you wish to assert a mysterious undiscovered force while choosing never to eliminate the possibility of a well known cause that fits quite nicely. the fact that it is common and a perfect fit does not prove bias effects are the mechanism but until you do bias controled tests you can't really make a legitimate claim that they are not the actual mechanism. That is unless you can offer some sort of varification of these mysterious forces that aren't anecdotal."

Actually, you are misstating May's position. She hasn't claimed that bias or placebo or imagination, etc. should *never* be considered in an experiment. She's simply saying bias, placebo, imagination cannot *always* be responsible for results. Is your position really that bias, placebo, imagination, etc. must *always* explain these "mysterious, undiscovered forces?"

NOTE: When are any of you naysayers ever going to get off your duffs and investigate these "mysterious, undiscovered forces" that seem to cause such angst and heartache? Isn't that really what science is all about?

Cheers

It is my position that under sighted conditions when one hears a difference it may because the sound changed, it may be because of bias and it may be because of both. May has claimed in the case of every audio tweek that it can not be because of bias effects due to the "thousands" of common reactions. May also claims to be educated on bias effects. Of course if May were educated on bias effects she would know that not only could thousands of people be affected the same way by bias but that it is actually quite normal. In fact it would be quite extraordinary for bias effects to be random rather than patterned.

I have to agree with those that have hinted that this thread have derailed completely.

To avoid it derailing any further, I will state that I did note that Buddha said his review were subjective - so ok you're off the hook for whats below. =)
_______________________________________________

So second a sidecomment to Geoff Kait.

Scott was referring to Occam's razor. A simple and well known scientific way of finding the right answer.
_____________________________________________________

But now for the thread itself, so I have to apologize for making this a meta-post.

So:

Sadly this is not the first time I seen this kind of crosstalk in a forum.
It has been a far from uncommon phenomena in later years.
The flawed idea of political correctness have brought us into a position where 'my view is as good as yours' ....even when that view is based on nothing but wishful thinking and a lot of gobbledygook.

Then enter the claim that so many (thousands?) people have said, experienced this or that for just so many years.

That is one nil argument, and have been so since the ancient Greeks and the advent of philosophy.
It is one ultimate fallacy to think you can have a "vote" on what are the actual facts!

To make it clearer, I can give some example.

Tens of thousands of people claimed that the little magical pyramid sharpened their razorblades.

So did those claims make it a truth? Of course not!
It didn't even need debunking and and I doubt it will even turn up on Mythbusters.

Now a number of you that posted in this thread have befuddled both the actual meaning of the word 'science' as well as used the term 'scientist' in the same way as it was a priesthood - separate from the rest of humanity.

So I guess that deep inside many of you wouldn't accept your cables or equipment undergoing a scientific scrutiny at all, due to the mistrust of 'them' set apart from the rest of the human race.
So now when "scientists" or "engineers" are out of the picture, lets instead hope that Mythbusters will tackle the Blackbody unit and certain cables instead!

Until then I have nothing further to state on this subject.

Buddha, great post!

- Yes, the cables require break-in, at least a few days' worth, which I think is needed for the dielectric. Ironically some thought they didn't benefit from putting them on a MOBIE (15V 1kHz square wave) but that they improved just by playing music through them. I'll have to look into this more.

- The liquid metal conductor material is drawn into PTFE (Teflon) tubing. This is a labor intensive process, and there cannot be any air bubbles! They put some kinds of barb fittings into the ends of the tubing, which I believe are then soldered to the appropriate connector (RCA, XLR, or spade). I don't know much about the rest of the construction process because it is proprietary.

- Yes, they are directional. I had a pair of their speaker cables on loan which didn't have the ends marked, so I had to determine directionality by listening. It wasn't very difficult to tell. If you think the interconnects are special, just wait till you try the speaker cables.

- The liquid metal conductors don't have grain boundaries as conventional cables have. The effect ranges from "nice!" to "OMG!" Of course they have terminations as described above, which introduces another interface. Teo assures me they examined every angle, every consideration about the terminations, including corrosion. Not gonna happen.

- The conductor material is a patented or patent-pending alloy of gallium, indium, and tin. Do a web search on Galinstan (name derived from their respective chemical symbols Ga, Li, and Sn) for a good idea of what it is.

- I'm sure they tried other materials to put the conductor in. Teo may be the only ones who could say how other insulation materials performed.

For the record and lest there be any doubt, I'm a Teo Audio dealer--and very stoked about it.

One last thing--Buddha, you guys rule! Your Apu shirt was a hoot! Check out the photos and captions of the Saturday night festivities I posted on Inmate Central. Thank you a ton!

Quote:
These cables do several things for the hobby:

1) They make me wish I had thought of that. It would have been a great experiment even if it weren't a product.

2) It gives us whole new things to consider about carrying signal.

Does it act like a minofilament?

There are obviously no strand-to-strand interactions within the interconnect.

Does it interact with its insulator differently? You'd think liquid would form a much more 'complete' interface with whatever 'tube' it was placed in. Good thing, bad thing?

Would the fluid interact more noticably with different insulators?

Would it be more, or less, sensitive to changes in temperature?

Does one need to 'burn in' a liquid conductor?

I guess this cable would not really be 'directional,' since it is so protean.

Since the conductive fluid and the terminations are of obviously different metals, would corrosion of the termination interface be a worry?

Even if one is of the 'they all sound alike' club, this cabling should at least make for some fascinating physics discussions.

3) Aside from the thermometer fluid connection, this also opens up new vistas in seeing which other conductive liquids may also work.

Pure gallium?

Liquid crystalline polythiophene?

1-[4-(9-decenyloxy)phenyl]-4-alkylpiperazines?

We read about ever higher copper purity, so how would that concept play with the metal mixtures in the new interconnect?

Again, sonics aside, it's a fascinating thing to discuss.

How about a donut of this stuff used as a transformer? (No idea if this is overly stupid or not, just chatting now.)

Quote:

Quote:
QUOTE: "You are the one asserting a mechanism of cause May. For some reason you wish to assert a mysterious undiscovered force while choosing never to eliminate the possibility of a well known cause that fits quite nicely. the fact that it is common and a perfect fit does not prove bias effects are the mechanism but until you do bias controled tests you can't really make a legitimate claim that they are not the actual mechanism. That is unless you can offer some sort of varification of these mysterious forces that aren't anecdotal."

Actually, you are misstating May's position. She hasn't claimed that bias or placebo or imagination, etc. should *never* be considered in an experiment. She's simply saying bias, placebo, imagination cannot *always* be responsible for results. Is your position really that bias, placebo, imagination, etc. must *always* explain these "mysterious, undiscovered forces?"

NOTE: When are any of you naysayers ever going to get off your duffs and investigate these "mysterious, undiscovered forces" that seem to cause such angst and heartache? Isn't that really what science is all about?

Cheers

It is my position that under sighted conditions when one hears a difference it may because the sound changed, it may be because of bias and it may be because of both. May has claimed in the case of every audio tweek that it can not be because of bias effects due to the "thousands" of common reactions. May also claims to be educated on bias effects. Of course if May were educated on bias effects she would know that not only could thousands of people be affected the same way by bias but that it is actually quite normal. In fact it would be quite extraordinary for bias effects to be random rather than patterned.

Who says all of those 1000 tests are sighted tests? A lot of folks who purchase tweaks, as well as some reviewers, are just as skeptical as the next guy (trust me on this one) and prefer to do some sort of blind testing. Or at a minimum, some A/B/A/B tests, you know, to be somewhat confident about the results. So, what do you do when any of the blind tests come up positive? Certainly, you would be careful about throwing those tests out... you would have to take them into account, maybe follow up with more tests, no?

So, I think that 1000 positive reports looks like an excellent "circumstantial case," one certainly worth following up by those who remain skeptical. Heck, you can even throw out 995 of the results for bias and/or placebo reasons. As long as there are 5 positive results that were shown not to have been influenced by bias and/or placebo I'm good.

I have not even read this thread, as I might get all quixotic and start tilting too hard at any given windmill.

I'm here to report what I ~knew~ (either you get what is going on, or you don't - kinda thing) would be the deal when someone attempted to measure the cables.

Cable capacitance:

These cables are and or just were in, shall we say, a state of the art facility. Someone who definitely has the qualifications, just tested them and found that the the 'actual' capacitance of any of them, 1m length, 2m length, etc..any design (there are three extant IC models out of some 200 variations I tried), is a full magnitude lower than...6 inches of soldered in place, air dielectric, untreated, clean, 99.99999% 28g copper wire. Just using a LCR meter won't show this. I repeatedly stated that the cable will simply show you the reflection of the meter's design, nothing more. You have to know how to work at getting true dissipation information. This is part of why it is stated that the cable will simply 'become' the impedance that is necessary for matching or bridging the given presented load(s).

I knew that would be the case, and I didn't bother to measure it as the whole point was to make standard calculations and usage of complex LCR.....Irrelevant.

Quote:
Does one need to 'burn in' a liquid conductor?

While I laughed, this is a great question.

Leaving aside the question of whether one accepts burn-in of a wire, do the typical reasons given for burn-in even apply?

Quote:
Even if one is of the 'they all sound alike' club, this cabling should at least make for some fascinating physics discussions.

Yes.

I also enjoy that they have a MSDS.

"For the record and lest there be any doubt, I'm a Teo Audio dealer--and very stoked about it."

Now, that part I understand. I see why you gave me the scolding to get the thread back on track.

QUOTE: So second a sidecomment to Geoff Kait.
Scott was referring to Occam's razor. A simple and well known scientific way of finding the right answer.

Actually, Occam's razor is a convenient way for people to pick an answer that they feel comfortable with or when they don't wish to contemplate the implications of the real answer, which may be more complicated or mysterious. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.

Didn't Occam's razor begin in the church?

Cheers

Quote:
I also enjoy that they have a MSDS.

Yes, because if your puppy chews thru your $20K cable and ingests some of the media, you're gonna want to save his life, right? Or do you push his nose in it and say "bad dog?"

Quote:
...befuddled both the actual meaning of the word 'science' as well as used the term 'scientist' in the same way as it was a priesthood - separate from the rest of humanity.

Well, I hope you conduct your science more accurately than your grasp of the priesthod. Other than rare cloistered and contemplative orders, which withdraw from society, priests are usually very involved in the thick of human endeavors.

On a different note and not to target you or specific posters, what is disturbing on these forums is the need for the opposites to May's way of thinking taking needless knee-jerk pot shots at her intellect and ability to reason.

May has at the worst accused others of being close-minded for their dogmatic insistence on mis-applying the rigors of empirical evidence to every audio experience and anecdote. She doesn't deserve the smug and smarmy ridicule she is receiving.

May states her position clearly and allows others to do the same without personal attack. If the objectivists (for lack of a better term) want to forward their cause and credibility, they should do the same.

Quote:
"For the record and lest there be any doubt, I'm a Teo Audio dealer--and very stoked about it."

Now, that part I understand. I see why you gave me the scolding to get the thread back on track.

Not really. It's just you've been a naughty boy, talking in class and pulling on Suzy's hair.

Quote:

Quote:
"For the record and lest there be any doubt, I'm a Teo Audio dealer--and very stoked about it."

Now, that part I understand. I see why you gave me the scolding to get the thread back on track.

Not really. It's just you've been a naughty boy, talking in class and pulling on Suzy's hair.

Well, I guess it proves you can't please everybody.

So, once again, back to the subject.

Does anyone know what make the cables purportedly directional? For example, are the connectors different on each end?

The single-ended cables I make are directional, but only because I lift the shield on the load end. My balanced cables are directional only in that XLRs are directional (if TRS they are not directional).

Another question: Ken reports they have very low capacitance (know what it is?) Any of the other basic electrical properties of the cables been measured?

My quote :-
>>> "You, Scott, can't have 50% of the cake with your explanation of 'bias' because j j wants 100% (or thereabouts - based on his belief "thoughts, concious or not, can change a perception by an enormous amount,") of the cake for his "it's the placebo effect"." <<<

Your reply Scott :-
>>> "OK that doesn't even make sense." <<<

Then let me spell it out if you don't understand it. J j's sentence contains the two words "thought" and "enormous" !!!!!! "Enormous" means just that - "ENORMOUS" !!! Meaning that if someone wants to claim "thoughts can change a perception by an ENORMOUS amount", then they are expecting a huge proportion of the "explanation cake" to cover the "thought process" - which, in my opinion, does not leave much of the cake left for other explanations - even an explanation that (in this particular instance) a different cable COULD actually, physically, provide "better sound" than another cable !!!

Your quote, Scott :-
>>> "May has claimed in the case of every audio tweek that it can not be because of bias effects due to the "thousands" of common reactions." <<<

By the way Scott, I have NEVER claimed that "in the case of EVERY audio tweek it cannot be because of bias" !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just to correct you !!!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

>>> "May has at the worst accused others of being close-minded for their dogmatic insistence on mis-applying the rigors of empirical evidence to every audio experience and anecdote. She doesn't deserve the smug and smarmy ridicule she is receiving.

May states her position clearly and allows others to do the same without personal attack." <<<

One of the problems, rvance, is that for quite a long time Scott (in particular) has had an agenda re "The Belts" !! Which, I think, might colour much of his reaction to me, personally!

Specific quote from Scott from nearly 3 years ago :-

>>> "The proof is in her own words over many many posts here on AA. Tell you what I've got a thousand dollars that says I'm right and that the Belts have neither done any meaningful scientific investigations into either theri "concept" or the possibility that bias effects are at work. Do you want to take that bet? I'm serious, I'll put up a thousand bucks..........

I cant leave it at that because the Belts cant leave it at that. They claim to have significant technicale knowledge. They talk about having been in the business for 40 years and they claim to have done extensive research. Yet after forty years of research they seem to have ignored the scientific research on psychoacoustics. When presented with the mere possibility that the results of their tweeks are caused by bias effects they attack science and scientists. Here is a quote from May Belt about that. "The dogmatic approach adopted by some engineers and scientists that a phenomenon can't be held to exist until it can be satisfactorily explained, is obviously unsound." <<<

I would actually repeat again that earlier quote of mine i.e "The dogmatic approach adopted by some engineers and scientists that a phenomenon can't be held to exist until it can be satisfactorily explained, is obviously unsound."

Very apt seeing as we are supposed to be (in this particular thread) discussing a cable (or people's experiences hearing that cable give an improvement in the sound) at the same time as trying to find a satisfactory explanation as to WHY, HOW it actually could, did !!.

That the cable gave an improvement in the sound EXISTS, even though we might not have, as yet, a SATISFACTORY explanation as to WHY, HOW. I used the word 'satisfactory' - meaning that an explanation has to 'satisfy' and it is obvious, if there is a controversy surrounding the issue of an explanation, that that position has not yet been achieved to some people's satisfaction!! Which means that we are still searching, which means that we are still discussing !! Or SHOULD be !!

So, to get back to the discussion. Let me bring in a few back comments :-

Elk :-
>>> "The discussion should be on Buddha's experience of Teo Liquid cables, their characteristics, and what may or may not have occurred. Buddha is honest, perceptive and adept at describing what he heard. It's a worthy exercise to consider his experience.
What we perceive, how we perceive it and what affects perception is endlessly fascinating." <<<

Yes, absolutely !!

Buddha :-
>>> "Even if one is of the 'they all sound alike' club, this cabling should at least make for some fascinating physics discussions." <<<

Yes, fascinating indeed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:
So, once again, back to the subject.

Does anyone know what make the cables purportedly directional? For example, are the connectors different on each end?

The single-ended cables I make are directional, but only because I lift the shield on the load end. My balanced cables are directional only in that XLRs are directional (if TRS they are not directional).

Another question: Ken reports they have very low capacitance (know what it is?) Any of the other basic electrical properties of the cables been measured?

IIk - But that isn't back to the subject. Instead of trolling for dollars, why not ask a more relevant question, such as, "Are the metal slurry cables directional?"

~ Cheerio

Quote:
Well, I guess it proves you can't please everybody.

Are you trying to please anybody besides yourself, while at the same time pissing off virtually everybody else? IOW, do you have anything substantive to contribute to this discussion (you did early on), or are you now here just to annoy, much like the kid at the beach kicking sand everywhere? Come on, Geoff, you purport to have an advanced background in physics, so how about putting it to use.

Quote:
My quote :-
>>> "You, Scott, can't have 50% of the cake with your explanation of 'bias' because j j wants 100% (or thereabouts - based on his belief "thoughts, concious or not, can change a perception by an enormous amount,") of the cake for his "it's the placebo effect"." <<<

Your reply Scott :-
>>> "OK that doesn't even make sense." <<<

Then let me spell it out if you don't understand it. J j's sentence contains the two words "thought" and "enormous" !!!!!! "Enormous" means just that - "ENORMOUS" !!! Meaning that if someone wants to claim "thoughts can change a perception by an ENORMOUS amount", then they are expecting a huge proportion of the "explanation cake" to cover the "thought process" - which, in my opinion, does not leave much of the cake left for other explanations - even an explanation that (in this particular instance) a different cable COULD actually, physically, provide "better sound" than another cable !!!

You still aren't making any sense.

Quote:
Your quote, Scott :-
>>> "May has claimed in the case of every audio tweek that it can not be because of bias effects due to the "thousands" of common reactions." <<<

By the way Scott, I have NEVER claimed that "in the case of EVERY audio tweek it cannot be because of bias" !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just to correct you !!!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

OK if that is so you should have no trouble naming the exceptions. So go for it May. Name the exceptions.

Quote:

>>> "The proof is in her own words over many many posts here on AA. Tell you what I've got a thousand dollars that says I'm right and that the Belts have neither done any meaningful scientific investigations into either theri "concept" or the possibility that bias effects are at work. Do you want to take that bet? I'm serious, I'll put up a thousand bucks..........

I cant leave it at that because the Belts cant leave it at that. They claim to have significant technicale knowledge. They talk about having been in the business for 40 years and they claim to have done extensive research. Yet after forty years of research they seem to have ignored the scientific research on psychoacoustics. When presented with the mere possibility that the results of their tweeks are caused by bias effects they attack science and scientists. Here is a quote from May Belt about that. "The dogmatic approach adopted by some engineers and scientists that a phenomenon can't be held to exist until it can be satisfactorily explained, is obviously unsound." <<<

Yep. It was true then and it is true now. I still have a thousand bucks that says so. Any takers?

Quote:
IIk - But that isn't back to the subject. Instead of trolling for dollars, why not ask a more relevant question, such as, "Are the metal slurry cables directional?"

~ Cheerio

Was the intentional misspelling of Elk's moniker supposed to be funny?

Back on topic (again): I think one of my recent posts addressed the directionality question a bit, but the person who probably can answer it best is Ken Hotte.

Quote:

Quote:
Well, I guess it proves you can't please everybody.

Are you trying to please anybody besides yourself, while at the same time pissing off virtually everybody else? IOW, do you have anything substantive to contribute to this discussion (you did early on), or are you now here just to annoy, much like the kid at the beach kicking sand everywhere? Come on, Geoff, you purport to have an advanced background in physics, so how about putting it to use.

Brian, now you're starting to worry me. Instead of trying to be the little policeman here, why not contribute something of substance yourself instead of trying to straighten me out at every turn. That way, it would make you seem less, uh, hypocritical. Love the blue text, by the way.

Quote:

Quote:
So, once again, back to the subject.

Does anyone know what make the cables purportedly directional? For example, are the connectors different on each end? . . .

IIk - But that isn't back to the subject. Instead of trolling for dollars, why not ask a more relevant question, such as, "Are the metal slurry cables directional?"

You will note that I just did. Moreover, my use of the term "purportedly" was intentional to indicate that I question the directionality, but am interested in both the claim and any proffered explanation.

Geoff, there is no reason for your continually insulting, dismissive posts.

If you have something substantive to add, let's see it. So far you have been the perfect mouthy urban cowboy; all hat, no cattle.

(BTW, you will find that if you read the rest of the Wikipedia post addressing Occam's Razor from which you quote (without attribution) the rest of your questions on the concept will be answered. Happy studying.)

Quote:
Brian, now you're starting to worry me. Instead of trying to be the little policeman here, why not contribute something of substance yourself instead of trying to straighten me out at every turn. That way, it would make you seem less, uh, hypocritical. Love the blue text, by the way.

No worries and no hypocrisy here. I have contributed, if you read my longer posts.