Quote:
The magazine has also actively taken controversial issues head-on(cables, component break-in, etc.) - letting both sides have their say. It also publishes even the nastiest letters to the editor, as it should.

This is also something in which I differ from James Randi, who tends only to publish laudatory or self-serving comments. Following his late-2004 discussion of audio tomfoolery, which he incorrectly and lazily attributed to me and to Stereophile, I sent him a letter for publication politely correcting his misstatements. He refused to publish it on the grounds that his website's readers were "getting weary" of the subject and that he would not be publishing any more on audio.

His decision, of course, and I told him that I respected that decision. But imagine my surprise when the following week, he went back on what he had told me and continued to publish mistatements about me. This is an example of what I mean when I say Randi is dishonest.

Now we have further incorrect statements Randi has publicly made about me: see www.randi.org/joom/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=27#i5 . I sent him the following letter for publication, but he has refused to publish it, saying (in private email) that "it's hard to tell whether all Stereophile brass are woo-woo, or not... Perhaps just the top brass...?"

As I have said: if James Randi shows no integrity in a small matter such as this, why on Earth should I place any trust in him when a million dollars of his own money is at stake?

---------
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
For publication:

Dear Mr. Randi, I am sure you can imagine how gratified I was to read your apology to me on your website (http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=27#i5), as self-serving and juvenile as it was.

Unfortunately, while you wrote "I do apologize to THE John Atkinson," you went on to add "...and thank him for verifying his still-standing reluctance to prove his support of nonsense such as the 'Audiodharma Cable Cooker'

What an interesting post, Buddha.

I had never heard of James Randi before, and I'm not particularly interested in hearing more, but the general topic -- a surreal take on objectivists vs subjectivists as far as I can tell -- is a fascinating mini-drama. But even more so is the personal spin off of heightened interest in the hobby.

I originally came to the forum to seek clarification on a particular question. Liked the community, and this topic has me returning daily.

I particularly like that JA inserts links to previous articles, which provides inroads to the hobby (for example the Art Dudley article mentioned on this thread).

I was not a subscriber, but thanks to this thread, I just signed up for a subscription. .... even though I don't really read magazines, and would rather read on line.

Good work with the magazine and the forum

Quote:
Good work with the magazine and the forum

Wow, thanks so much, ttt. I hope you enjoy the magazine. To me, your response is worth infinitely more than Randi's millions.

BJ,

Quote:
a score of 59 or more (i.e. minimum 59 correct) meets the 95% confidence level

Well, you know what I meant - being able to identify which cable is which at a rate substantially more than chance.

I can identify the difference between a 100 Hz tone and a 1 KHz tone 1000 times out of 1000. Guaranteed. So when someone claims that this cable or that tweak makes a "profound audible difference," I don't think getting it right 100 percent is asking too much.

--Ethan

Quote:
BJ,

Quote:
a score of 59 or more (i.e. minimum 59 correct) meets the 95% confidence level

Well, you know what I meant - being able to identify which cable is which at a rate substantially more than chance.

--Ethan

Yes well that's precisely what meeting the requirement of the confidence level means, i.e. accepting that the number of correct identifications is more than our tolerance for what we allow by chance alone.

Now while the 95% confidence level is typical in theory one can set it arbitrarily high regardless how far fetched. So for example say you set the level to 99.998%, then one would require a minimum of 70 correct identifications out of 100 for the result to meet the confidence level requirement.

That's about as high as one can practically go mind you since the probability of getting 72 or more out of 100 by chance alone is damn near 0!

Another way of putting this is regardless the question of how subtle or obvious the difference between two cables were a listener to score 70 or more correct identifications out of 100 you could be damn near certain he didn't just fluke it!

Thank you John, for being here and saying this. You cannot believe the hits and crap I've been taking on the DIYAudio site and AVSForum for for attempting to point out that James Randi stoops to the point McCarthyism for financial and ego benefit - to a very serious degree.

He is disingenuous and a publicity brigand at the least. He has no scientific background whatsoever and only attacks people or situations he thinks he can win on. He hides behind a veil of acting as an 'objectivist', but in reality he is prejudiced and biased at best. He is not a man anyone should put their trust in. Lord knows he's the kind of 'job' that would sue me for saying such. Even though the correctness of my statements could be proven in court.

You'd swear he's in politics.

Since MF is teh one being challenged, how come he hasn't piped in? Since he has been teh one to state things about hearing things, that are seriously in question. ie. demagnetized plastics, that are cleary audible, by reducing the "glare". MF is probably one of teh biggest non scientific writer on teh crew when it comes to his observations and conclusions. As always JA brings it back to reality and either disproves or proves what some writer thinks or perceived he heard. Still can't forget that miswired $45K 3 pice CD ONLY player that I think it was MF who thought is marvelous, when in electrical terms was miswired, highly distorted, etc. Kinda going against teh term "hi fidelity" which is Greek or Latin for truth to the orgiinal or somehting. Yet MF gave high praises. Is there anything MF dosn't like, that costs more than mortals can deal with. Back to the challenge, if this Randi dude is for real, money in excrow, plain and simple, no money, then he is just a big zero. Who wouldn't want to win $1 million, ya can't win if ya don't play...oh, that's the other game of chance. If MF is so sure of his beleifs, that he can hear all these amazing differences, in all sorts of highly priced, kinda screwy stuff, $1 MILLION, it'll pay off teh loand for the $100,000 TT, he said he took to buy the TT. That he also said is so good, he just had to BUY it. Is that true, or just creative writers license? He did say in one writeup, he went into hock to buy this thing, which that in itself seems absurd!!! But does show a dedication to what he does, IF it's true....or is it? Hmmmmm,

Quote:
Who wouldn't want to win $1 million, ya can't win if ya don't play...

There's no point in playing if there is no chance of you winning, Carl. Randi has publicly declared that he will never have to pay out on the Challenge, hence, given his past behavior, it is not unreasonable to assume that he will take every measure to protect his cash. You might as well ask Michael why he doesn't stop to take part in a sidewalk shell game or game of "Find the Lady" -- after all, you can't win if you don't play.

Quote:
$1 MILLION, it'll pay off teh loand for the $100,000 TT, he said he took to buy the TT. That he also said is so good, he just had to BUY it. Is that true, or just creative writers license?

Michael did indeed purchase the Continuum LP player following his review, as he had the Wilson MAXX2 loudspeakers. Both products sound as good in Michael's system as he described in his reviews.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
one would require a minimum of 70 correct identifications out of 100 for the result to meet the confidence level requirement.

Again, I can identify 100 Hz versus 1 KHz every single time.

I was thinking further about this yesterday. Often when controversial things like demagnetizing plastic and clever clocks etc are discussed, the believers claim using the device is like "lifting a veil." Putting this into more scientific terms, to me a "veil" is equivalent to turning down a conventional treble control 3 to 6 dB or so. I'm confident I could identify that 100 percent of the time too, given familiar source material on my own system.

If the folks who claim to hear improvements from these tweak devices weren't so overtly glowing in their praise, I'd have less objection. If they occasionally acknowledged the contribution of room acoustics, or admitted the improvement was subtle, they'd be more believable. But claiming that changing out one competent speaker wire for another made a substantial improvement, or that demagnetizing plastic (DUP's favorite example) affected sheen or clarity, is hard to accept for people like me who "believe in" the scientific method.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
one would require a minimum of 70 correct identifications out of 100 for the result to meet the confidence level requirement.

Again, I can identify 100 Hz versus 1 KHz every single time.

I was thinking further about this yesterday. Often when controversial things like demagnetizing plastic and clever clocks etc are discussed, the believers claim using the device is like "lifting a veil." Putting this into more scientific terms, to me a "veil" is equivalent to turning down a conventional treble control 3 to 6 dB or so. I'm confident I could identify that 100 percent of the time too, given familiar source material on my own system.

If the folks who claim to hear improvements from these tweak devices weren't so overtly glowing in their praise, I'd have less objection. If they occasionally acknowledged the contribution of room acoustics, or admitted the improvement was subtle, they'd be more believable. But claiming that changing out one competent speaker wire for another made a substantial improvement, or that demagnetizing plastic (DUP's favorite example) affected sheen or clarity, is hard to accept for people like me who "believe in" the scientific method.

--Ethan

Beyond the obvious difference that you consistently spell your "the"s correctly you remind me of someone... hint hint, nudge nudge

Quote:
There's no point in playing if there is no chance of you winning...

Something that Pear Cable appears to understand: see www.randi.org/joom/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102&Itemid=27. But if Pear Cable never agreed to taking part in the Challenge in the first place, how can Randi say that they have now withdrawn?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Actually they sorta almost maybe did possibly accept teh challenge, then bailed, due to they then read teh requiremnts. BUT, if the differences are so audible, and as many reviewers do love to make seem, that the changes are so big, that it's so obvious, that is true as to what makes for them to seem so absurd. MF reviews stuff, and it's like it's such a dramatic change, how can life go on whithout it? Quash the exerated claims, maybe MF could get to be more truthful apearing. Every wire is liek another dramatic change, liek the planets changed orbits!!! http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95361

Quote:
Actually they sorta almost maybe did possibly accept teh challenge, then bailed, due to they then read teh requiremnts.

Zero Credibility Special Olympics

Qualifying Prerequisite:

Applicant must demonstrate the he/she/it can repeat above statement while standing in front of a mirror. Applicant must maintain straight face throughout. Applicants that break out laughing or stop to self flagellate (however brief the administration) will be disqualified.

Two DBT tests are performed.

A red and yellow card are placed in a dark room. No one can tell the difference. The DBT/ABX test results, the confidence level is high, no one can tell the difference.

The same red and yellow card is placed in a slightly brighter room, though still dark. Everyone can tell the difference. The DBT/ABX test results, the confidence level is high, everyone can tell the difference.

Quote:
Ethan, I'm a little surprised that you haven't pointed out the futility of carrying out this test in an untreated room, as comb filtering will make the test unperformable.

LOL, I can tell 100 Hz versus 1 KHz 100 times out of 100 in an untreated room too.

My point in the comb filter article is that the sound reaching your ears really does change even when nothing inside the electronics or speakers changed. So it's a good explanation for why people might think the sound changed when they swapped speaker wires etc even when it did not. However, I never said or implied that all audio comparisons are worthless because of comb filtering. It's just another data point that more people should be aware of and understand.

Quote:
what if he can identify the subtle differences between cables in an untreated room? Wouldn't that be a terrible result for comb filtering theorists?

Comb filtering is hardly a "theory" since I proved its significance beyond any doubt. If you disagree that I proved it beyond doubt, let's discuss why you disagree.

Quote:
If I were you, I'd be worried about him winning this challenge.

I'd love to see this test, and others like it, regardless of the outcome. If MF or anyone else really can discern a wire or component change when "science" says the differences should be inaudible, that would be extremely useful information for both sides, no? I have no personal stake in this one way or the other. I just want to know the truth, whichever way it turns out!

Quote:
Does that mean that your receiver and CD player sound different from other receivers and CD players?

Not likely unless the other CD players and receivers are broken or poorly designed. By "system" I meant mostly my speakers and room because those really do vary quite a lot.

--Ethan

Quote:
Beyond the obvious difference that you consistently spell your "the"s correctly you remind me of someone... hint hint, nudge nudge

No offense, but this is a perfect example of a post that disagrees and even insults, without contributing even one grain of usefulness.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
Beyond the obvious difference that you consistently spell your "the"s correctly you remind me of someone... hint hint, nudge nudge

No offense, but this is a perfect example of a post that disagrees and even insults, without contributing even one grain of usefulness.

--Ethan

No offence taken, after all I feel the same way about much of what you have to say, that was the point actually.

Hi Buddha,

I am sorry but I do not understand your comment.

"I guess your analogy holds for audio, too...if subjects/reviewers can see the difference, then they can identify a difference!"

Could you clarify it for me? Thanks Buddha.

My example was merely a comment to ponder.

Take care Buddha.

Quote:
No offence taken, after all I feel the same way about much of what you have to say, that was the point actually.

I think you're missing something key here. As I see it, the purpose of these forums is to discuss audio matters, and to help people who have questions. The common goal for all should be to further our own knowledge and the knowledge of others. I try very hard to always stay on topic, and make statements I see as fact along with evidence for why I think they're fact. I purposely stay away from the subjective stuff, like favorite singers and musicians, or preferring the sound of tubes and LPs versus solid state and CDs, or anything else that is by definition opinion rather than fact.

I also stay away from name calling, insinuation, and other things because they're not productive. There is nothing more exasperating than spending half an hour carefully crafting a post that explains a scientific point, only to have someone reply, "Yeah, well, if you believe that you're an idiot."

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
No offence taken, after all I feel the same way about much of what you have to say, that was the point actually.

I think you're missing something key here. As I see it, the purpose of these forums is to discuss audio matters, and to help people who have questions. The common goal for all should be to further our own knowledge and the knowledge of others. I try very hard to always stay on topic, and make statements I see as fact along with evidence for why I think they're fact. I purposely stay away from the subjective stuff, like favorite singers and musicians, or preferring the sound of tubes and LPs versus solid state and CDs, or anything else that is by definition opinion rather than fact.

I also stay away from name calling, insinuation, and other things because they're not productive. There is nothing more exasperating than spending half an hour carefully crafting a post that explains a scientific point, only to have someone reply, "Yeah, well, if you believe that you're an idiot."

--Ethan

Mr. Whiner,

Allow me to say that in the your initial (unsolicited) post directed at me I saw little evidence of your claim to objectivity. You said [in that initial post directed to me]:

Quote:
I can identify the difference between a 100 Hz tone and a 1 KHz tone 1000 times out of 1000. Guaranteed. So when someone claims that this cable or that tweak makes a "profound audible difference," I don't think getting it right 100 percent is asking too much.

I can only hope that in the equivalence (if only even partial) implied between you hearing a difference between a "100 Hz tone and a 1 KHz tone" and a person claiming a "profound audible difference" between cables or a tweak that you are aware of making an entirely subjective value judgement. To deny would be to suggest that there exists some well established objective standard that dictates the equivalence (if even partial).

Moreover the insistence on getting "it right 100 percent", perhaps influenced by your subjective opinion, for tests [of audibility] demonstrate a rather woeful knowledge of test design. Insisting on an unreasonably strict expectation of positive identifications (technically setting the level of significance unrealistic low) involves necessarily increasing the risk of Type 2 error; Type 2 error in the context of the tests of the sort discussed means the risk of mistakenly concluding that [real] audible differences are inaudible.

Consequently Mr. Whiner only when I see evidence of the objectivity and scientific acumen you claim of your "carefully crafting" posts will I take seriously your complaint of my deriding such .

Best,

bjh

55% differences that are heard won't sell the cable. or wire. And I agree, when the reveiwers make the claims that the sonic differences where so night and day, so veil lifting, they are making some incredible claims, like the difference between the light on or off. That's why they get paid to write stories, and make you beleive in whatever they are eluding too. Being they are pro writers, they have the abilty to imply something without being direct. That probably keeps lawyers happy on their side, and off thier backs from another side. There isn't an issue that MF doesn't write up soemthing that is truly a breakthrough, teh best, blah blah blah. That's the main job i think he has, it sells products, while enetertianing...but it also becomes useless, since he never heard a piece of wire he didn't hear a difference, let alone just say, how much? Nah, not worth it, didn't hear anything improved, skip it. This guy hears demagnetized plastics, and it again it night and day differences....I really wanna see his hearing test results printed in the magazine. He should be studied by the audiologist's group of hearing pros. What he claims to hear, is beyond mortal. combined with word play, he makes a living. It's not science or aduio, it creative writing. He really should take teh test, if he wants to keep any sense of reality in his writings. Right now, it's all fluff and imagination. He also never talks about live events of music as a comparison. At elast JA does measuremnts, does live recordings, is at LIVE events , which is the reference for it all. I'd also like to see MF hear a difference in what cables are used in teh recording of teh lvie events, if it effects playback as he claims, it certainly has to effect the original recording. so far between MF and Randi, they both appear to be full of crap, if Randi escrows the money that's half teh battle done, then he can call MF on it, without that Randi is blowing smoke, just like MF does in most of his writeups.

Holy Moly, both MF and Randi back and forth like two whining retards. What does it matter what pricey piece of magic wire, that is just wire, with no magic baoxes attached to it, to in fact alter teh signal, can be used in teh test, it don't have to be brand specific. Why wouldn't some magic cable maker wanna get in on this test, if the stuff they make and sell is so glorious, and so audibly significant. It would make them look good, when MF clearly hears these dramatic differences he esposes in his writings. It's like politicians bickering, for teh public and actually not saying or accomplishjing anything....do the test, who cares what magic wire is used, obvioulsy Pear has no confidence in their type of BS magic, so they dropped out, let's get some other magic involved...so many make claims of superiority, and none to take teh challenge? even 2 different sugar waters challenge each other, and natiaonlly advertise teh results, sugar is sugar ain't it, yet they claim it to be different, and it's BILLION$ not just cable money. Randi, did you setup that escrow account, enough of teh BS e-mails, bogus on both sides MF and Randi, MF sure has some moth in his typing, hardly the prose of a professional writer, acts like a nudnick with his words. A bit testy for such an audio ear pro, with years of writing experience. calm down MF, this is all about the SCIENCE of your ears, and making $1 Million. Pick another brand of "reference" wires. Versus SoundKing, cus' the Monster stuff is probably all green and tarnished from my expericene with that junk. SoundKing costs less, no green tarnish, no heavy marketing fees attached to it's non fancy packaging. Let's do teh test, and quit bickering online...he said no he said, then she said, about this other guy, what a bunch of loads...Randi and MF.

Quote:
"With repeated listening trials by avid audiophiles, this cable could be told apart from another cable 5% more often than chance would predict."

Great ad copy! Can you make it a little shorter and punch it up a bit however?

"Hi, SASAudio!

I was just saying that I liked your example wherein the same two items can be proven alike or dissimilar based on test conditions."

Thanks for the explanation Buddha. Much appreciated my friend.

Correct me, guys, if I am wrong, but it appears to me that the claim of ABT and ABX testing being accurate is based primarily on mathematics (and lack of sight).

If so, it would seem to me that my example demonstrates that other factors/variables can significantly skew the results.

Quote:
Mr. Whiner

Exactly my point. You can easily tell who knows what they're talking about and who is full of crap by seeing who resorts to name calling.

--Ethan

I will entertain this though:

Quote:
you are aware of making an entirely subjective value judgement.

How so? I didn't say 100 Hz sounds "better" than 1 KHz, only that I can tell the difference 100 percent of the time.

--Ethan

Quote:
I would think the Transparent Opus MM SC cables would be just fine with both parties.

Me too. I'd be pleased to see this tested using any overpriced (or not overpriced) "boutique" wires. The only thing I'd want ensured is that both wires measure the same. Some high-end wire actually intentionally (or not) colors the sound. And some speaker wires have large surfaces of parallel flat conductors that have substantially higher capacitance than normal wire such as zip cord. So it's possible that a boutique wire might in fact be different, and not in the good sense. This needs to be established first to ensure the wire really is not changing the sound in a measurable way.

Quote:
Ethan may expect a more powerful conclusion than the statistics proclaim.

From my perspective, the only thing worth testing is whether wires (or any components) that measure the same can be identified reliably. This is the "supernatural" intent of Randi's challenge.

--Ethan

Quote:
I will entertain this though:

Quote:
you are aware of making an entirely subjective value judgement.

How so? I didn't say 100 Hz sounds "better" than 1 KHz, only that I can tell the difference 100 percent of the time.

--Ethan

I thought I explaned this sufficiently when I said:

Quote:
I can only hope that in the equivalence (if only even partial) implied between you hearing a difference between a "100 Hz tone and a 1 KHz tone" and a person claiming a "profound audible difference" between cables or a tweak that you are aware of making an entirely subjective value judgement. To deny would be to suggest that there exists some well established objective standard that dictates the equivalence (if even partial).

The point is that you are equating the difference *you* hear between 100Hz and 1 kHz tones with the difference *some [rhetorical?... you never provided a source] listener* hears when he/she describes an audible difference between cables (or a tweak) as "profound". The *equating* of those two things is a subjective value judgment.

Now I seriously doubt that any listener describing differences between two cables would say something like, "a profound difference, as obvious as the difference between a 100Hz tone and 1kHz tone".

Nevertheless as regards the point of your equating these two items I will freely admit to being mistaken if you can inform me of the objective standard that dictates such equating.

...

Opps, I notice I essentially just repeated my earlier statement only using slightly different words. Consequently I must tell you in advance that should your reaction again be "How so?" I will be at a loss to explain further.

Quote:

Quote:
Mr. Whiner

Exactly my point. You can easily tell who knows what they're talking about and who is full of crap by seeing who resorts to name calling.

--Ethan

I see from your user Id that it's "Winer", I apologize for the error.

OH, on a related topic:

Quote:
BJ,

Quote:
a score of 59 or more (i.e. minimum 59 correct) meets the 95% confidence level

Well, you know what I meant - being able to identify which cable is which at a rate substantially more than chance.

I can identify the difference between a 100 Hz tone and a 1 KHz tone 1000 times out of 1000. Guaranteed. So when someone claims that this cable or that tweak makes a "profound audible difference," I don't think getting it right 100 percent is asking too much.

--Ethan

it's "bjh", not "BJ".

Cheers,

<~*sigh*~>

While it is not uncommon to encounter the claim that scientific knowledge (sometimes stated more conservatively as "current" scientific knowledge) disavows the possibility of cable differences of the type claimed by audiophiles the fact is the supporting research typically is based upon nothing more than an investigation of basic properties such as lumped LCR values; Roger Russell's Speaker Wire Paper is a representative example.

However just recently Jon Risch, an engineer (and also a moderator at the Audio Asylum, the AA) who has gained some notoriety in audiophile circles due to the popularity of his DIY cable designs, in a post on the AA brought to attention measurements produced by authors Philip Newell and Keith Holland that would appear to objectively demonstrate the effects of various speaker cable.

One can follow the links in Risch's post, Objective Measurement Results for Cables, but as I received permission to copy I have included the complete post below [only making the links easier to follow by adding hyperlinks]:

==================================

Audio Asylum *** Following content Copywrite of Audio Asylum, used with premission. ***

Objective Measurement Results for Cables
Posted by Jon Risch (B) on September 30, 2007 at 21:16:49

This is bound to be a popular thread, but I wanted to pass along the info, and let folks see what was out there.

At one of the online design sites related to one of the many electronics industry magazines that I get, a portion of a new book (one chapter?) has been posted in 6 parts, and several of the portions have measurement results showing diferences between cables, as well as input/output differences.

The series starts here:

Part 1
Part 1
OR AT
Part 1 (alt)

Part 2
OR AT
Part 2 (alt)

Part 3
OR AT
Part 3 (alt)

Part 4
OR AT
Part 4 (alt)

Part 5
OR AT
Part 5 (alt)

Part 6
OR AT
Part 6 (alt)

If you have any trouble with the exact URL's not getting you to the article, try using one of the author's names as a seach term at one site or the other, this should pull up the series in a list.
Authors: Philip Newell and Keith Holland

Book: "Loudspeakers: For Music Recording and Reproduction", Focal Press
The 6 part article appaears to be from Chapter 6 of the book, titled:
Effects of Amplifiers and Cables

They reference research by folks at Cerwin Vega, and BTW, none of the measurement graphs they show in part 5 (where the really interesting measurements are shown) are in the referenced AES papers, as I have copies of both of those, and they do not contain the cable measurement graphs.

I have been keeping an eye out for articles by Alexander Voishvillo, formerly with Cerwin Vega, now with JBL Professional, because he has been repeatedly referencing my AES paper on Multitones, and has done quite a bit of work on Multitones himself. The AES papers cited by Newell and Holland, "Multitone Testing of Sound System Components " Some Results and Conclusions, Part 1: History and Theory" and " .... Part 2: Modeling and Application" by the Cerwin Vega engineering staff (4 engineers are stated as authors, including CV founder, Eugene Czerwinski) are interesting reading, but do not contain the measurement graphs in the Newell and Holland article/book.

Apparently only the book does.

Anyway, I hope that folks will find this article interesting, if anyone gets a cleaner copy of the graphs, I would appreciate a set.

My own impresion of the work presented is that the multitones may not have been fully optimixzed to avoid distortion product cover-up, but rather, chosen for convenience and the generation of a known pattern of potential distortion products (see the referenced AES papers by the CV crew for more details). Thus, the amount and number of distortion products shown may actually be lower than those actually present, due to partial cover-up of some of them.

For instance one very simple choice could have reduced some of the covered-up tones by NOT chosing a simplistic range of ten-to-one for the start and end points of the logrithmically spaced test tones, this alone would avoid the 1 kHz and 10 kHz tones from generating a whole sequence of "covered-up" distortion products, while not stepping on as many of the other tones present. As I outline in my paper, if the upper bound had been chosen to be say, 11.618 kHz instead of 10 kHz even, then almost all of the unneccessary cover-up could have been avoided. Oh, well.

It also looks like it to me that the distortion is a result of an interaction between the amplifier and the cables and loudspeaker load.
Many folks have been for years advocating that amps and cables should be tested with real-world loudspeaker loads, myself included, so as to be as realistic as possible, and to insure that back-EMF issues were included. Newell and Holland have done so.

Finally, I want to point out that this article was primarilly written from the stand point of professional monitoring and use, where certain things are more valued than for home playback, and that this POV does skew the importance various things are given. Those concerned with SOTA home playback would undoubtedly place more emphasis on absolute quality and every last bit of sonic clarity, as opposed to as much on reliability or longevity issues.

Happy reading!

Jon Risch

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=28481&an=0&page=0#Post28481

Quote:
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=28481&an=0&page=0#Post28481

Well it seems most were not in the mood to affort poor sonicbaer any respect for bringing the article to attention, e.g. your own contribution for example:

Quote:
sonicbaer, I do hope you are not seriously considering this article to be light reading for those moments when when P.G. Wodehouse is just too dark. I agree there hasn't been any new ground covered with this article so far. But I don't remember a single laugh line either. Maybe things will pick up in the next chapter.

This is understandable I suppose since the first parts are mostly basic primer material (that happens when ya' got a book to fill I suppose ) with, as Risch put it, the "really interesting measurements" not appearing until Part 5.

As far as I'm aware the measurement shown in Part 5 that involve the usage of Multitone test signals is new ground; if I'm mistaken on that point I would appreciate being corrected.

Jon Risch can also hear wall outlets and whether teh wire is PTFE or PVC insulation, oh yeah, he's out there...anotehr fine reference for the wire thang. He also knows by listening if it's brass or steel screws on teh wall devices!! holy Moly, let's get him in on the Randi challenge, it'll be a room full of BATS!!!! Let JR and MF argue about which sounds better brass or steel screws!!! PVC or PTFE on teh wires..... JR is what kind of engineer? What are his credentials that allow him to hear things, outside of maybe this planet. Has Randi got that escrow account up yet?

DUP, this isn't addressed to you, particularly -- I'm just coming in at the end of the thread.

Can anyone out there hear the differences among RCA, Columbia, Phillips, and other branded recordings? I can, consistently. Columbia, for example, tends toward a bright, glassy coloration, while Phillips recordings are definitely darker, and can sound somewhat rolled off. I would love to prove that I have this paranormal ability, especially for a cool million...

Now, can anyone measure these obvious differences? In the case of CD's, particularly, woodies simply say, "bits is bits," and there are no differences. We won't even get into demagnetizing (I can sometimes, not always, mind you, hear improvements in demagnetized CD's).

The best analogy I can think of to explain my experiences with different-sounding cables (not nearly as vast as JA's, say, or MF's) is to compare them with the "house" sounds of different recording labels.

I don't think my hearing is measurably better than that of any other normal human being. But I AM a music-lover (as are Mikey and John Atkinson), and I thus listen very carefully to my music. And I can hear not only the differences between different recording labels, but the differences between different cables playing the music in my system. If you can't, you are either not trying, not a music-lover, or merely being stubborn. Test tones? Who gives a rat's ass?? Give me the music.

"Bring out number, weight, and measure in a year of dearth." William Blake.

Cheers, all.

Only 3 reasons why ya' can't hear cables? How bout' cus' wire doesn't have sound, it does have electrical propertys, that if they are all similar, you ain't hearing a difference, opposite of not trying, is trying and making yourself hear something that ain't. Not a music lover? opposite, i love it, which is why i listen to teh music, and not imaginary wire differences. I can hear teh differences between a Stratocaster, a Telecaster, and a Les Paul...cus' there are differences, and measurable, in it's electronics pickups and teh differetn wood densitys, cell sturcture. It's real And even different head angles, different fretwood it all matters...cables, meaurung teh same are teh same, PVC or PTFE ain't effecting what them electrons sound like. And back to differetn lables sounding different, of course, they use different RECORDING methods, different recording equipment, different LEVELS, all kinds of differences, that's a givine, ain't got nutin' realted to wires. Even teh studios or anywhere else they recorded is different, mics are different, teh guy turning teh knobs hears different..an don and on and on

How, pray tell, does one measure "cell structure" and its effect on the sound?

I understand "wood density." You throw two blocks into a tub of water, and the one that sinks is the most dense (while a teacher, I did some pioneering work in this field, measuring the comparative densities of some of my students...if only we had known each other then, DUP -- I could have made history).

Maybe you just don't know how to measure the wire, DUP.

A couple of months ago, I had to have my Sony SCD 777 ES SACD player fixed -- it wouldn't read many of my SACD's. In the process, the technician put in 22 new caps. This had nothing to do with the problem I took it in for (sled alignment and some new mechanical parts in the loading mechanism), but was recommended by SONY as an upgrade.

I couldn't hear any difference from my memory of the pre-repair unit. But the other repairs worked, so I was happy.

Yet, if I change interconnects, the differences become too obvious to ignore (which I often try to do, in listening to the music). Some cables sound congested, others sound bright, or dull (not grossly so, but certainly noticable). Yet, I can't hear 22 new caps dancing in the room, even when there are 76 trombones. Go figure.

My experience has led me to the conclusion that there are some measurable differences that you can't hear (like my new caps), and there are some non-measurable differences that you can hear. That is the difference between the test bench and the listening room.

What I meant, DUP, is can you measure the difference between the sound sourced from a Columbia recording, as it appears in your listening room, and the sound sourced from a Phillips recording? I doubt it. Yet, anyone who listens to a lot of music can hear these differences easily.

Differences have to be musically significant for me to reach for my wallet. This phrase ought to have at least as much "scientific" weight as Winer's "profound difference."

Changing cables changes a system's sound. Whether you can measure WHY or not.

Cheers.

Quote:
Jon Risch can also hear wall outlets and whether teh wire is PTFE or PVC insulation, oh yeah, he's out there...anotehr fine reference for the wire thang. He also knows by listening if it's brass or steel screws on teh wall devices!! holy Moly, let's get him in on the Randi challenge, it'll be a room full of BATS!!!! Let JR and MF argue about which sounds better brass or steel screws!!! PVC or PTFE on teh wires..... JR is what kind of engineer? What are his credentials that allow him to hear things, outside of maybe this planet. Has Randi got that escrow account up yet?

Jeez DUP might it be anxiety due to the prospect that objective measurements for demonstrating cable differences might not be long coming is responsibly for extra dose of hyperbole evident in that rant?

Be Scared. Be Very, Very, Very Scared

Clifton,

Please, I beg you, just don't use the word "profound" in the description of the sonic differences you've experienced (with cables). It has a profound effect upon the naysayers that we can all do without!

Thanks in advance.

It's okay, bjh -- I stole it from Winer, whose scientific profundities never cease to amaze. Of course, not even he can pin down the exact point where narrative demands take over the scientific accuracy of describing the original sensory event.

I always wanted to ask a professional reviewer whether he or she could ever "hear" a component (or a system containing reviewed components), after having written about it, in the same way as was the case before the writing. All communication is thus ironic, in the most profound ways, whether it be "scientific" or "subjective" (as if there were a difference!). Jacques Derrida, my old teacher at UC Irvine, used to have a lot of fun with this one...

Attempts to somehow "purify" the described event of the language used to describe it, in the name of "science," always make me chuckle. And, yes, "science" becomes language, once it attempts to communicate its findings, whether they be communicated in numbers or the grammar of conceptual verbal statements. Language creates reality, not the other way around.

Very profound, eh?

Well, back to the music...

Happy tunes, all.

Clifton, good to hear from you. I too am posting irregularly, due to my hectic schedule. So this will be my only post today.

Quote:
Yet, if I change interconnects, the differences become too obvious to ignore (which I often try to do, in listening to the music). Some cables sound congested, others sound bright, or dull (not grossly so, but certainly noticable). Yet, I can't hear 22 new caps dancing in the room, even when there are 76 trombones. Go figure.

I've had similar experiences with cables sounding different and clearly identifiable. Note that I didn't claim that the two were identical in measurement, and probably they are not. The issue is not whether I can hear the difference, but whether one is "better" sounding than the other.

I have upgraded the caps in my electronics, and have heard improvements with each session of upgrading. I was half-questioning myself on whether I really was hearing what I heard. After long and multiple listening sessions over a period of time, I had to concede that there was an improvement that I could identify, in the character of the sound in any given performance. This short description does not do justice to the many variables that could have caused the difference attributed to "changing caps". However, the sonic improvement resulted from the overall act of "changing caps."

Doing a audible comparison of two identically measured cables, as mentioned in this thread is the wrong experiment, in my opinion. The cables are measured electrically, mechanically, etc. The cables are heard sonically through loudspeakers and amplification electronics. We're not hearing the same "thing" that was measured.

The cables can interact with amplifiers differently from test equipment (effect may be minimized), and hearing interacts different with the listening room/amplifier/speakers.

This is a great post, WTL. It is clear and precise. Unlike my prolix wanderings. Yes. Many factors are always at work, once the sound hits the listening room. And the sound hitting the listening room is what counts. It seems to me that one can make things relatively simple, or relatively complex. The simple way is to try (not always successfully) to limit the variables and listen for the sheer pleasure of having music in your life. Dump the annoyances, court the sonic pleasures.

Everything in the chain affects sound. Fortunately, not everything matters, in terms of musical enjoyment. If it matters, change it. If it is a figment created by some abstract numerical equation, and you can't hear it in the music, then who gives a shit?

After all, isn't the gear a means to a greater end (musical enjoyment)?

I enjoy some cables more than others. I buy the ones I enjoy. And I am always open to potential improvements. But this endless bickering about abstract numerical "proofs" for what ought to be an enjoyable choice is just silly and naive, to my mind, given the fragility of the arguments and the egos spewing them forth.

It seems these debates always drift away from the music into the area of who gets to be right. Bah.

Happy tunes, WTL, and thanks for introducing a bit of sanity into the proceedings.

First of all, I would like to express my wholehearted support to Michael and his decision to defend his name risking his fame - and Stereophile's credibility. I would like to add some words of CAUTION though.

Randi is not a honest man. That can be proved by watching the way he treated Golden Sound's Intelligent Chip in his site.

Randi presented the chip on February 11 2005, labeling it as a "Major Swindle in Operation". (http://www.randi.org/jr/021105an.html#6)

Some months later, on December 9, 2005 (http://www.randi.org/jr/200512/12095intelligent.html#i1) he managed to "expose" the "fakery" and the "swindle" - how? A friend of him, some Roger S. Schlueter, from some "Center for Inquiry West", conducted a "test" of the chip, where the anonymous claimant, "failed to support her claim that the GSIC treated CD (a recording of "Peter & The Wolf" by the New York Philharmonic) improved the CD's sound quality even when she knew whether she was listening to the treated or untreated disc".

"After the test was complete, we decided to break open the GSIC device to see what was inside it. The device itself consists of two thin plastic "covers" that we were able to break apart with a pair of scissors. Here is a picture of the two covers and the interior "device." The coin is a US dime" reported Roger S. Schlueter in victory.

Our triumphants made a mistake though, for the caption under the photographs told the truth: They spoke of a GSIC-20, while there is NO SUCH A PRODUCT: The Intelligent Chip is available ONLY in two models - the GSIC-10 and GSIC-30!

MR RANDI IN HIS SITE, EXULTED FOR THE RESULTS OF A TEST OF A FALSE PRODUCT, BROUGHT BY A CLAIMANT WHOSE NAME WAS NOT MENTIONED.

Even if that was only a case of misprint, I wouldn't trust this kind of people to run a proper test honestly.

Michael must seek LEGAL ADVICE before he makes any step further. The Randis in this world are NOT to be trusted.

Andreas Makrides
Athens, Greece

Quote:
Jon Risch can also hear wall outlets and whether teh wire is PTFE or PVC insulation

That's what I would have said had you not beat me to it.

--Ethan