>>> "I think Buddha is interpreting your question to mean that they were pulsating kinetically, thus the person switching cables were able to feel the pulse. He is answering that the person switching the cables could not feel any kinetic energy from the signal cables." <<<

I KNOW how Buddha must be interpreting the word 'pulsating' (meaning physically pulsating to the touch) so, I ask again, what word would be the best to use to illustrate a 'changing', 'fluctuating' audio signal or AC power energy travelling along a wire/cable ???????????

I was not meaning that a human being reacted to what was going on in the environment by being able to physically FEEL things (the cables) pulsating !!

Regards,
May Belt.

Hi Buddha,

I have a few more questions if I may. Was the audience moving around the room, sitting, stationary etc? Was there any static present as this would indicate a poor high resistance, unstable connection?

We have so far ruled out IC capacitance, inductance and resistance (assuming no static and no change in volume in one cable), as the first two are minimal as per my previous post/explanation. Unless a resistor were in series with the IC, high resistance would not be a factor as static, or sudden changes in volume would be present due to an unstable connection.

Reflections of any kind. including first reflections, any peaks/nulls etc, would also be non-factors, as DBTs use subjects in one position (unless they were moving around the room in your test).

In fact, if any type of reflections, peaks/nulls, comb filtering were factors then all professional dbt tests would be worthless as no one has a vice holding their heads in exactly the same position. We would have to throw out all the dbt tests ever performed because of head movement.

By the way, anyone can do a check for reflections and their consequences by simply moving their heads a few inches each way and seeing if the imaging, depth etc changes.

Take care and thanks Buddha.

Quote:
with no special treatment other than changing cables, the differences were apparent!

I believe you man. That just proves that one or more of the other cables were defective or poorly made. It's also possible there were some shenanigans involved with the wire that sounded different. Like a resistor and diode in the path etc. Did any of the wires have "snake lumps" in them possibly containing secret components?

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
Hi Buddha,

I have a few more questions if I may. Was the audience moving around the room, sitting, stationary etc? Was there any static present as this would indicate a poor high resistance, unstable connection?

We have so far ruled out IC capacitance, inductance and resistance (assuming no static and no change in volume in one cable), as the first two are minimal as per my previous post/explanation. Unless a resistor were in series with the IC, high resistance would not be a factor as static, or sudden changes in volume would be present due to an unstable connection.

Reflections of any kind. including first reflections, any peaks/nulls etc, would also be non-factors, as DBTs use subjects in one position (unless they were moving around the room in your test).

In fact, if any type of reflections, peaks/nulls, comb filtering were factors then all professional dbt tests would be worthless as no one has a vice holding their heads in exactly the same position. We would have to throw out all the dbt tests ever performed because of head movement.

By the way, anyone can do a check for reflections and their consequences by simply moving their heads a few inches each way and seeing if the imaging, depth etc changes.

Take care and thanks Buddha.

Hi, amigo.

Listeners were free to move about the cabin or even change place with one another.

The only rules were: Don

Quote:
I believe you man. That just proves that one or more of the other cables were defective or poorly made. It's also possible there were some shenanigans involved with the wire that sounded different. Like a resistor and diode in the path etc. Did any of the wires have "snake lumps" in them possibly containing secret components?

LOL!

Quote:
"He was so narrow minded he could see through a keyhole with both eyes."

Molly Ivins

Quote:
I will now step aside so Jan can keep berating you!

Quote:
This hobby is so freaking far from the ideal of live music, that I think we each make our own compromises based on what idiosyncratic ways we have of trying to bridge that vast gap in the least unpleasing manner.

Amen to that sentiment, Buddha.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

>>> "Thanks Buddha. Not surprising that different ICs sound different. I have worked with them for years and changes in wire (silver, copper, copper covered silver etc), terminations such as soldering materials used, composition of plugs (rhodium, gold plating etc) make a difference to the point that I had to change my crossover part values in my speakers. Quite interesting to hear the differences." <<<

I could not agree with you MORE. What is not now available to read (because it was too early for the internet and is therefore not available to read on line) is Martin Collom's "Cable Controversies" articles in the Hi Fi News March 1984 magazine - 24 years ago !!

In it Martin describes Peter's extensive investigations into the 'sound' of many different metals when used as conductors, into the 'sound' of many different insulation materials which are used to surround these metals - even to the point of different colours of those insulation materials 'affecting the sound'. Exactly as you have tried, sasaudio (and found similar results).

24 years ago, because there was no coherent pattern which showed WHY all those things affected the sound, one had to go with what 'sounded' the best - as in your description of having to change the crossover part values in your speakers. Join the club !!!!!! Add to that having to make the decision as to what material to use for the amplifier printed circuit board basic material (paxolin or fibre glass) - what material to use for heat sinks, soldering materials, and so on. Until, that is, we were FORCED to throw off the shackles of what was (or was not) in the conventional electronic and acoustic theory text books. Until, that is, the separate pieces of the jig saw began to fit into place !! I say "FORCED" because what we were experiencing could NOT be explained from within the conventional theories of electronics or acoustics.

Take the 'sound' of different materials as just one example.

The more listening experiments you are prepared to do, the more you will realise that we (human beings) are reacting differently to different materials, to different colours, to different component layouts, to different shapes, to different angles, and especially to different chemicals and chemical mixes - such as bextrene., P.V.C., polythene., polyethylene., polystyrene., polyurethane., polypropylene., polyalkene., P.T.F.E., Teflon., acrylic., nylon., perspex., BAF., adhesives., paints., lacquers and so on - the list is endless.

And, it is those reactions i.e reacting LESS adversely or reacting MORE adversely which causes the 'changes in the sound' because those LESS or MORE reactions affect how the working memory resolves the 'sound information' it receives.

I have followed the Cable Controversy for the past 30 years. As I mentioned in my own "Cable Controversy" paper (written quite a few years ago), I have not read EVERY review of EVERY cable made, but out of the many reviews of different cables I HAVE read, I listed the different explanations given by the different producers of those cables for why the sound of THEIR cable was different.
1) Solid single core copper. 2) Stranded copper. 3) multi fine stranded. 4) twisted.
5) plaited. 6) Litz wire. 7) shielded. 8) Low resistance. 9) High capacitance/Low inductance. 10) Low capacitance. 11) High inductance. 12) Low inductance.
13) directional. 14) Oxygen free copper. 15) single crystal copper. 16) Rectangular copper conductors. 17) Hollow, oval copper conductors. 18) Light filled. 19) Water filled.
20) Cryogenically frozen. 21) Carbon. 22) Silver. 23) Silver coated copper.
24) Cryogenically frozen silver wire. And so on, to the present day - with more to be added to that list.

Regards,
May Belt.

Hi May,

There is a point or two that we may differ. I have not tested for dielectric color changes affecting the sound.

There is an interesting article by PHD Karl Weber explaining the molecular activities that occur with different dielectrics used in capacitors and interconnect cables (capacitance).

http://www.audience-av.com/capacitors/a_chemistview.php

The activities Dr. Weber discusses include the C-Ci bonds, C-F bonds, steric methyl-methyl interactions, polarization, chains wrapping themselves etc. These activities all require energy, which means energy lost as per basic physics and is obtained from the signal itself.

Take care.

Quote:
the change was notable across two different systems, so I would hesitate to blame any given piece of electronic kit.

Sure, all I care about is 1) determining for certain if there really is an audible difference, and if so 2) identifying the cause. There's no need for magic as the vendors would have you believe, and there's no need to waste money on "audio jewelry."

Quote:
I think you should make some room for people having certain preferences.

I do, and I have my own preferences too! My preferences are for the most transparent signal path as possible. Some prefer intentionally colored. But whatever the cause for a difference, it can be easily identified and known. And it never needs to cost more than a coupla bucks per foot!

I stand by my contention that when cables do sound different, something in the signal path is not designed properly. This doesn't happen with pro-level gear, only audiophile stuff.

--Ethan

Quote:
Is he deluded, Ethan?

Not necessarily deluded, but surely mistaken as to the cause of what he perceives as higher quality.

There is a huge difference between having the talent to know what knobs to turn to make things sound good - mixing and mastering - and understanding the science of audio.

--Ethan

Quote:
I stand by my contention that when cables do sound different, something in the signal path is not designed properly. This doesn't happen with pro-level gear, only audiophile stuff.

You should take this show on the road. Really, really ROTFL!!!

I stop occasionally to bang my head on something to make sure I read that right.

Yep! Yep, I did!

ROTFLMAO

This just in ...

Quote:
There is a huge difference between having the talent to know what knobs to turn to make things sound good - mixing and mastering - and understanding the science of audio.

OMG!

Quote:
Interstingly, to me, anyway...

Steve Hoffman, whose work I appreciate, might disagree with you.

Here's a link to the gear he uses:

Steve Hoffman's Equipment List

Note the Modwright, the tubed gear, the cabling...even Monster Cable, for you haters.

Is he deluded, Ethan?

I'm going out on a limb here but Steve pays for none of that gear. It is all given to him outright, or on extended loan, if you get my drift.

Actually, no, I don't. You think someone loaned him a 7c? For what purpose?

More:

One of my customers is famous mastering engineer Alan Silverman in New York City. Alan is sort of on the fence when it comes to audio magic, and he has only really expensive gear because he believes it's better than cheap gear. He also has some very expensive wires, but I think they're all on loan because he reviews gear for a pro audio magazine. I don't think he's ever actually paid $1,000 for a piece of wire out of his own pocket.

But Alan is also very practical, and like me he wants to get to the bottom of this stuff. Versus believers who already know everything and don't want their beliefs challenged. I just spent an evening with him on Saturday at his place, and we talked about all of this. We plan to do some testing soon, for example, where I switch between his expensive D/A converters and he tries to determine which he's listening to. He told me he's sure he can distinguish one from the other, but when we talked about me giving him a blind test he agreed he might be in for a surprise.

Unlike most "believers," Alan understands how powerful the placebo effect and expectation bias are, and he also understands that moving your head even one inch changes everything. He's still slightly skeptical about DBT, though I think I'm starting to win him over.

--Ethan

Quote:
There is a huge difference between having the talent to know what knobs to turn to make things sound good - mixing and mastering - and understanding the science of audio.

Well, surely he knows the science of acoustic treatments, right?

Exactly my point!

"...and like me he wants to get to the bottom of this stuff. Versus believers who already know everything and don't want their beliefs challenged."

Things are a lot more convoluted around here than I thought.

Everyone who's sincerely skeptical and open-minded raise your hand.

Quote:
Is he deluded, Ethan?

Yet more:

In THIS thread at Gearslutz, it was proven that all "normal" (not linear phase) digital equalizers are exactly the same. Some of the guys there nulled very expensive EQ plug-ins against cheap and free models to prove the point. As the DSP experts explained, all EQs follow the same standard DSP cookbook algorithms. (Though some EQs add intentional distortion or noise to more closely emulate analog circuits.) Yet the believers were certain beyond doubt that their expensive EQs were vastly superior and worth every penny they paid.

This proves yet again the importance of the placebo effect and expectation bias, and also proves that people with good ears can be fooled when they don't understand the science.

--Ethan

Quote:
There is a huge difference between having the talent to know what knobs to turn to make things sound good - mixing and mastering - and understanding the science of audio.

Who knew?! Steve Hoffman is just a stupe with some talent for twiddling knobs.

Quote:
Versus believers who already know everything and don't want their beliefs challenged.

Quote:
Hell, I do know everything.

Ethan

Yep, it's them "know everything believers" what's dangerous. Give me someone who's not always sure but who's willing to listen and think anyday about any subject. They're my kind of people.

Quote:
He told me he's sure he can distinguish one from the other, but when we talked about me giving him a blind test he agreed he might be in for a surprise.

Unlike most "believers," Alan understands how powerful the placebo effect and expectation bias are, and he also understands that moving your head even one inch changes everything. He's still slightly skeptical about DBT, though I think I'm starting to win him over.

Yeah, if you told me the test wouldn't be worth sick armadillo squat if I sniffled, I'd say to hell with that kind of test too. I suppose this is what makes you think DBT's are indispensible, they always prove nothing.

Quote:
Everyone who's sincerely skeptical and open-minded raise your hand.

I bet you can't see that I have my hand up, can you?

Quote:
Yet the believers were certain beyond doubt that their expensive EQs were vastly superior and worth every penny they paid.

This proves yet again the importance of the placebo effect and expectation bias, and also proves that people with good ears can be fooled when they don't understand the science.

This again proves you don't know what to measure.

"This may be the culprit." Or not. Or perhaps. Ethan, you are so full of bullshit your eyes are brown. You claim to be a critical listener, yet you put more stock in graphic (that is, visual) representations of sound than in the sound itself. You pimp your own miracle solutions at the expense of all other possibilities for system improvement.

You completely ignore the problems of making judgments on the bases (ever-changing bases...) of 2000-unit CD and LP collections. If the tubes make a majority of one's available music collection sound "better," then they ARE "better." No amount of graphs and pseudo-scientific theorizing can change the sound that comes off the CD/LP, goes through the boxes and wires, and emerges from the speakers. Yes, stuffing pillows in the corners might help, or might not. But you won't get that from a graph or some hoked-up written pseudo-proof.

If your crap actually improves system sound, you will never be able to prove it with words and pictures. If you want others to actually TRY your stuff, you'll have to drop the "genius" act and actually be nice to those who disagree with you. But don't drop the pussy -- I am sure there are many pussy-lovers out there who might be potential customers...

You claim superiority in all your judgments, yet you play the cello like a second-year beginner, having advanced to the point where you only miss 15%-20% of the notes. I do believe your ears have become stuffed with cat-hair.

Not once can I remember your discussing specific software playing specific music, while discussing a live acoustic performance of the same music. In fact, I cannot remember your ever discussing music -- only abstract representations of it in pictures, graphs, and groundless pseudo-scientific postulations.

I can't remember who it was, but whoever posted the picture of the geek holding the half-menorah, sporting an idiot grin and raised thumb, just after you had exalted him as the be-all, end-all genius of sound mastering -- whoever it was has you NAILED.

People who love music and listen to it regularly, live and recorded, eyes open AND closed, know that you are a shameless pimp for your own wacked-out "solutions" to "dilemmas" only you can fabricate. You accuse others of ignorance, for disagreeing with your pseudo-scientific nonsense. Now, is THAT any way to sell a hoked-up wall/corner panel?

You can't prove any of your claims. All you can do is call those who see through you "ignorant."

Here's some advice from an old salesman. If you want suckers (from your perspective, since you peddle hogwash) to buy your crap, be NICE to them. Suckers like that. Apparently, so far, nobody on this forum has taken the bait.

Happy tunes. IF you ever actually listen to any...

I cannot believe that there are people here that equate Mr. Winer with some sort of hokus pushing pimp... speaks to the amount of ignorance here, really. Acoustic treatments(and not just Realtraps, but others) DO work. It is as accepted a fact as the sky is blue.

"so full of bullshit that your eyes are brown". Jesus, some of you people are clueless. Get out and learn something about acoustics and sound reproduction, will you? a lot of you guys act like some fat kid on the playground who has had their candy taken away..stuttering through the slobber, you latch on to any insult you can find, whether what you are saying is true or not is of no matter..just gotta *get him back*

Ive been on a lot of forums, but this place is the only one in which you have some sort of bizzaro/reverse world...the guys with real know how.. get dismissed and/or insulted as "pimps" but the snake oil salesmen, traveling cure all potion purveyors are allowed free reign.. incredible, really.

Quote:
"This may be the culprit." Or not. Or perhaps. Ethan, you are so full of bullshit your eyes are brown. You claim to be a critical listener, yet you put more stock in graphic (that is, visual) representations of sound than in the sound itself. You pimp your own miracle solutions at the expense of all other possibilities for system improvement.

You completely ignore the problems of making judgments on the bases (ever-changing bases...) of 2000-unit CD and LP collections. If the tubes make a majority of one's available music collection sound "better," then they ARE "better." No amount of graphs and pseudo-scientific theorizing can change the sound that comes off the CD/LP, goes through the boxes and wires, and emerges from the speakers. Yes, stuffing pillows in the corners might help, or might not. But you won't get that from a graph or some hoked-up written pseudo-proof.

If your crap actually improves system sound, you will never be able to prove it with words and pictures. If you want others to actually TRY your stuff, you'll have to drop the "genius" act and actually be nice to those who disagree with you. But don't drop the pussy -- I am sure there are many pussy-lovers out there who might be potential customers...

You claim superiority in all your judgments, yet you play the cello like a second-year beginner, having advanced to the point where you only miss 15%-20% of the notes. I do believe your ears have become stuffed with cat-hair.

Not once can I remember your discussing specific software playing specific music, while discussing a live acoustic performance of the same music. In fact, I cannot remember your ever discussing music -- only abstract representations of it in pictures, graphs, and groundless pseudo-scientific postulations.

I can't remember who it was, but whoever posted the picture of the geek holding the half-menorah, sporting an idiot grin and raised thumb, just after you had exalted him as the be-all, end-all genius of sound mastering -- whoever it was has you NAILED.

People who love music and listen to it regularly, live and recorded, eyes open AND closed, know that you are a shameless pimp for your own wacked-out "solutions" to "dilemmas" only you can fabricate. You accuse others of ignorance, for disagreeing with your pseudo-scientific nonsense. Now, is THAT any way to sell a hoked-up wall/corner panel?

You can't prove any of your claims. All you can do is call those who see through you "ignorant."

Here's some advice from an old salesman. If you want suckers (from your perspective, since you peddle hogwash) to buy your crap, be NICE to them. Suckers like that. Apparently, so far, nobody on this forum has taken the bait.

Happy tunes. IF you ever actually listen to any...

Quote:

You can't prove any of your claims. All you can do is call those who see through you "ignorant."

here are some books for you to read.
Digital Audio Explained
Sound Recording Handbook
Master Handbook of Acoustics
Behind The Glass
Total Recording
Tape Recorders
Sound recording practice
Professional Microphone Techniques
Principles of Digital Audio
The New Stereo Soundbook
The Microphone book
On Location Recording Techniques
Electroacoustical Reference Handbook
Audio Engineering
Handbook of Recording Engineering
Audio Dictionary
Handbook of Recording Engineering
From tinfoil to Stereo, a history of recording
Yamaha Sound Reinforcement Handbook
Mastering Audio
The Mixing Engineer's Handbook
This is your Brain on Music

>>> "Ive been on a lot of forums, but this place is the only one in which you have some sort of bizzaro/reverse world...the guys with real know how.. get dismissed and/or insulted..... but the snake oil salesmen, traveling cure all potion purveyors are allowed free reign.. incredible, really. Jesus, some of you people are clueless. Get out and learn something about acoustics and sound reproduction, will you?" <<<

Does a discussion really have to always come down to the most basic level of all - insults, attack and ridicule ????????????

Who, participating on this forum, ncdrawl, does NOT have real know how ??? Does NOT know something about acoustics and sound reproduction ???????

Surely it is how one applies the 'know how' one already has, how one applies the knowledge of acoustics and sound reproduction one already has, which is what advances any branch of science or discipline ?????

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
Ive been on a lot of forums, but this place is the only one in which you have some sort of bizzaro/reverse world...the guys with real know how.. get dismissed and/or insulted as "pimps" but the snake oil salesmen, traveling cure all potion purveyors are allowed free reign.. incredible, really.

ROTFLMAO

No, really ROTFLMAO

ncdrawl, you are unbelievable.

Quote:
Jesus, some of you people are clueless.

Quote:
I think you should make some room for people having certain preferences. This hobby is so freaking far from the ideal of live music, that I think we each make our own compromises based on what idiosyncratic ways we have of trying to bridge that vast gap in the least unpleasing manner.

Quote:

Quote:

You can't prove any of your claims. All you can do is call those who see through you "ignorant."

here are some books for you to read.
Digital Audio Explained
Sound Recording Handbook
Master Handbook of Acoustics
Behind The Glass
Total Recording
Tape Recorders
Sound recording practice
Professional Microphone Techniques
Principles of Digital Audio
The New Stereo Soundbook
The Microphone book
On Location Recording Techniques
Electroacoustical Reference Handbook
Audio Engineering
Handbook of Recording Engineering
Audio Dictionary
Handbook of Recording Engineering
From tinfoil to Stereo, a history of recording
Yamaha Sound Reinforcement Handbook
Mastering Audio
The Mixing Engineer's Handbook
This is your Brain on Music

Anyone can type a list of books, so your list means nothing. In fact I have already used scientific college textbook information (and the RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook written by 26 engineers) and equations/formulas many times to demonstrate quite clearly that your side either has not read those books, or did not understand even the basics. By the way, those /information/equations are still in use today when creating specs/designing etc. Of course you have tried calling scientific information "opinion", or simply accusing us of "bashing" your side. But real scientific college textbook evidence that is taught in classes is honest and true. What is interesting is that if you had known and used the science evidence, I would not have been able to present the information/equations to correct the obvious flaws your side uses and could not have "bashed", as you put it, your side as your side would have been on solid ground.

As one can see, many are getting sick of your side attacking the competition and promoting yourselves. I always thought the public was suppose to be number one.

Quote:
Ive been on a lot of forums, but this place is the only one in which you have some sort of bizzaro/reverse world...the guys with real know how.. get dismissed and/or insulted as "pimps" but the snake oil salesmen, traveling cure all potion purveyors are allowed free reign.. incredible, really.

My experience with audiophile forums is that all of them have the "bizarro factor" to some extent. For example, the cable forum on Audio Asylum has a policy in which it is not allowed to discuss DBTs. So it's a case of moderation being used to advance a particular POV. Of course, it's described as being this way to "ensure civility" - kind of like the DUP ban here. The "DBT discussion-free zone" concept always struck me as an amazingly bad policy. To my surprise, I later found another forum at Audio Circle that had the same policy. This forum, called "The Lab", is about the technical aspects of audio, as well as DIY. You'd think that a forum whose content is nominally technical would not disallow discussion of certain types of controlled experiments, but they do. The moderator of that forum who initiated the policy is no longer the moderator there, but the policy remains. That former moderator is now a cable vendor!

One benefit of this forum is the ignore feature. You just click on the poster's name on the left, and at the bottom of the page is an option to ignore the user. I have a lot of people on ignore. I end up seeing about 30 percent of the posts in this forum. Clifton is my most recent addition, added because of the post to which you're responding above.

Clifton,

I can understand people disagreeing about some of Ethan's marketing techniques . I can also understand people not agreeing with his emphasis on room treatment almost above all else. One could argue that is too skewed toward room treatment.

However I am surprised by your attack on the scientific validity of conventional room treatment ie: absorption and diffusion.
These are well known treatments that have a lot of scientific support.

Are you saying that companies like RPG, ASC, GIK and RealTraps are selling snake oil ?

Please excuse me in advance if I have misinterpreted your post.

Quote:
One benefit of this forum is the ignore feature. You just click on the poster's name on the left, and at the bottom of the page is an option to ignore the user. I have a lot of people on ignore.

It's a wonderful way to exist on a forum, you just ignore everyone who even slightly disagrees with your opinion. You don't have to hear or learn anything new and you're ideas are never challenged as far as you're concerned. Some people run their entire life this way, some even run an entire country this way.

Good job, guy!

X2 on the ignore button, Andy.
I suspect you use it the way I do: to ignore people who are rude and engage in personal attacks in the majority of their posts.

For example, I would never put May on ignore although I agree with little she posts. She is always polite in her posts.

Quote:
the cable forum on Audio Asylum has a policy in which it is not allowed to discuss DBTs....The "DBT discussion-free zone" concept always struck me as an amazingly bad policy. To my surprise, I later found another forum at Audio Circle that had the same policy.

This forum has the same policy. Discussion of DBTs is only allowed in threads specifically concerned with that subject. Otherwise, all meaningful discussion ends as a sub-set of posters answers every expression of opinion with a cry to "put it to a DBT."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Hydrogen audio would be an example of the opposite :
no opinions are to be posted w/o a blind test and they have a tutorial how to set up a proper blind test.

Needless to say , it is a very dry forum

Quote:

Hydrogen audio would be an example of the opposite :
no opinions are to be posted w/o a blind test and they have a tutorial how to set up a proper blind test.

Needless to say , it is a very dry forum

Hydrogen forum's "How to set up a proper blind test" does not really mention anything about variables that could influence a stastical results. Just one variable not accounted for could easily influence the outcome/test results. Sight is not the only variable.

I do like the mention of taking one's time, doing several tests over days. However, if for example, "habituation to stimuli" is not addressed, which almost all tests do not account for (no more than 3-4 back and forths per session), the tests will be heavily skewed to "no sonic" difference. The unsuspecting will not know of this flaw.

As an example, if two cars A and B were tested (100 times) for gas mileage and A got better mileage, the statics prove A got better mileage. However, if one variable were to be later demonstrated, such as the brakes "dragging" in car B, the statical result of this test becomes null and void.

As such I would have to conclude the explanation of how to do an abx test is quite incomplete as not all variables are accounted for in the explanation. In fact, all variables must be accounted for and proven not to skew the results in order for the results to be accurate and true. Otherwise, we are just kidding ourselves, and/or our neighbors.

Quote:
Clifton,

I can understand people disagreeing about some of Ethan's marketing techniques . I can also understand people not agreeing with his emphasis on room treatment almost above all else. One could argue that is too skewed toward room treatment.

However I am surprised by your attack on the scientific validity of conventional room treatment ie: absorption and diffusion.
These are well known treatments that have a lot of scientific support.

Are you saying that companies like RPG, ASC, GIK and RealTraps are selling snake oil ?

Please excuse me in advance if I have misinterpreted your post.

I think Clifton was on a rag that day. I noticed that it happens to him once in a while. At first, he said that all Ethan does is visual presentations such as charts and graphs when things concern things audio. Then, he turned around and said: "Prove something". Well, Ethan tried to prove something with charts and graphs. One proves stuff with numbers, which are then presented as charts and graphs. So, if those presentations are unacceptable, it's hard to fathom what would constitute proof.

I hope he took some Midol to help alleviate the pain and the bloating...

What I meant, Alex, was that he never describes specific selections of music. As inadequate as THAT can be, it beats hell out of throwing out book titles and posting graphs.

Hell, we don't even know what his reference system consists of.

Ethan attempts to exalt himself by calling those who disagree with his specious analyses "ignorant." We all should have Ethan's ears attached to Ethan's brain. Unfortunately, we all have to live with our own listening experiences. Ethan is no help.

I didn't say Ethan's room treatment systems are "snake oil." I said his lame-ass attempts to SELL them are snake oil.

I wasn't on "a" rag. I was on "THE" rag. Nobody is on "a" rag.

Other than that, Alex, happy tunes. Just make sure you don't put the rag in the wrong hole, or the music will sound, well, somewhat veiled...

Buddha, I don't give a menstrual fuck whether or not you "believe" ANYTHING I say.

I, at least, have the innate and nurtured sense of decorum not to post to the public my inane attempts to play anything.

Ethan? Can he stick a half-lob wedge close and make a 10-footer (you won't see ME trying to do that on the internet, either...)?

The point is, why embarrass yourself out of any ill-conceived desire to exalt yourself???

Ethan claims to be an audio expert. For me and a few others. His "proofs" are specious and circular.

I have no desire to convert anyone to anything. You all know what's in my systems, and I have attempted to describe WHY I made those particular choices. I have never told anyone that he or she ought to own what I own. Nor have I ever trotted out any pseudo-objective graphs or book titles as false proofs that my position is somehow superior. Nor, most importantly, have I called anyone "ignorant" for refusing to "believe" my pseudo-logic.

I repeat. If you are in love with Ethan's arguments and/or cello playing, then step right up and BUY his shit.

Suggestion. Make sure of the return policy...

Happy tunes -- whomever, however, and whatever you are listening to, I'm all for it, but don't try to sell me any of it...

Clifton,

go to Ethan's videos to get an idea of his system.

In one video he has pro studio monitors on chairs (as speaker stands) with the speakers on cardboard boxes on top of the chairs.

An eccentric setup from an audiophiles POV :-)

An AVR is the amp, I think.

I think he said he has 38 realtraps in that room.

Be careful, viewing that video might put you in a state of apoplexy.

Clearly I would not want to go to the extremes of room treatment he displays in that video.

I wouldn't go for the music stands either :-)

OTOH, I suspect that system sounds decent.

Quote:

Hell, we don't even know what his reference system consists of.

I visited Ethan and I saw his system. It consists of pro gear. He runs his computer into some sort of a pro DAC (not sure which one) and that goes into crown amp and JBL speakers. The system is incredibly revealing, but not particularly musical. I can see why he uses that system though - it's perfect for recording and analyzing one's recordings. It does what he needs it to do.

"The system is incredibly revealing, but not particularly musical." It is "...perfect for recording and analyzing one's recordings...It does what he needs it to do."

Alex, do you have ANY idea about the vastness of the term, "analyze"? Analyze what ? "...one's recordings."

How scientific. Look. I don't want get into the vagaries of personal taste. But that is the entire point. Ethan holds himself up as a paragon, a universal proxy for what personal taste ought to be.

Personally, I have been listening to JBL speakers for 35 years. Compared to what I hear in a concert hall (and, yes I prefer to be towards the front -- row 10, middle really gets my jollies hummin'...), JBL designs are one-half a decibal better than a needle through the brain.

From this, I deduce that Ethan belongs to the "pain" school -- if it doesn't hurt, it isn't, somehow, "true." Then, you hook up a Crown. Again, Ethan can indulge in whatever turns him on.

But this isn't Ethan's persona. Ethan's persona projects certainty that HIS way is the objective truth that ought to rule us all. That is the problem.

It serves his needs, even though it isn't musical.

I rest my case.

Happy tunes, sine-waves, screeches, howls, splashes, and sundry other pain-inducing samples of the "Truth" you all enjoy. Seriously. If you enjoy it, it's good.

But if this is the miracle wrought by "comb-filtering" .... well, I'll just keep bumbling along my way between the concert hall and my listening rooms, trying to get as close to the memory as I can, without the pain.

From my point of view, my systems are just as "revealing" as what you describe in Ethan's. But mine focus on the memory of live music, not "analyzing." If Ethan's "needs" are so different, perhaps he should drop his drawers and explain to us all what, exactly, they are, if they are not in service to the music.

Pain. Truth. Truth is pain. Pain is truth -- "...That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." Oops. Sorry, John, ol' boy.

Repeat. Ethan should not berate others who disagree with his personal "needs," in the name of some pseudo-scientific objectivism. He can postulate anything he wants. But labeling others who disagree with his aims in the reproduction of sound (not necessarily MUSIC, mind you...), as "ignorant" clearly steps over the line.

The above is as kind as I can make it.

Quote:
"The system is incredibly revealing, but not particularly musical." It is "...perfect for recording and analyzing one's recordings...It does what he needs it to do."

Alex, do you have ANY idea about the vastness of the term, "analyze"? Analyze what ? "...one's recordings."

How scientific. Look. I don't want get into the vagaries of personal taste. But that is the entire point. Ethan holds himself up as a paragon, a universal proxy for what personal taste ought to be.

It's really not up to me to defend Ethan's system. He would be much more apt to explain what he does in terms of recordings and what he needs from his system. This is how I see it: There is a tool for every need. A magazine photographer will shoot with one type of camera and a photojournalist will shoot with another. Both will produce images. Which one depicts reality? Your guess is as good as mine, but they're specific tools for specific purposes and the work reflects that.

Quote:

Personally, I have been listening to JBL speakers for 35 years. Compared to what I hear in a concert hall (and, yes I prefer to be towards the front -- row 10, middle really gets my jollies hummin'...), JBL designs are one-half a decibal better than a needle through the brain.

Well, if you hate them so much, why have you been enduring the pain for 35 years? That makes no sense.

Quote:

From this, I deduce that Ethan belongs to the "pain" school -- if it doesn't hurt, it isn't, somehow, "true." Then, you hook up a Crown. Again, Ethan can indulge in whatever turns him on.

But this isn't Ethan's persona. Ethan's persona projects certainty that HIS way is the objective truth that ought to rule us all. That is the problem.

I think that Ethan belongs to the school that feels that pro gear offers the best what current technology has to offer in music reproduction. I think that he feels that the hi-fi industry boutiques offer packaging at best and subpar equipment at worst at astronomical prices.

Quote:
Repeat. Ethan should not berate others who disagree with his personal "needs," in the name of some pseudo-scientific objectivism. He can postulate anything he wants. But labeling others who disagree with his aims in the reproduction of sound (not necessarily MUSIC, mind you...), as "ignorant" clearly steps over the line.

The above is as kind as I can make it.

In all fairness to Ethan, I think he tries to introduce a semblance of sanity in what otherwise turns into a discussion of magic potions and talismans.

I do agree with him in that if it can be heard, it can be measured. If we can agree with that, then the entire debate can have a foundation to which everyone can come back.

If you don't subscribe to that notion, than every discussion will become nothing more than a giant pissing match.

Quote:
Buddha, I don't give a menstrual fuck whether or not you "believe" ANYTHING I say.

I, at least, have the innate and nurtured sense of decorum

A definite ROTFLMAO!!!

I brought in a cup of coffee to read this?!

The discussion has AGAIN moved away from it's original posting - i.e that a group of people heard a different interconnect cable give a different sound.

What some people are doing is trying to analyse the ONE listening event as a 'one off', asking if any of the equipment used could have been defective or if the people taking part had moved their heads during their listening session. What these people are NOT doing is stepping back and looking at the whole panoramic scene. They are seeing it as ONE listening event, taking part in 2009, and NOT as multiple listening events taking part over a 30 YEAR period !!!!!!!!! Describing different cables sounding different for 30 years !!!!!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt.