"> Forgive me, but, I don't normally associate "receiver" with something that offers the ability to pass that kind of info along. <

That will be our next test."

Interesting. So one chases their tails in circles. If the receiver is crap, which it is, then the test won't show any differences. If one then uses cheap cables to test the receiver, again no difference will be shown. And of course the test is flawed in many ways to begin with.

Quote:

Quote:
Listening for these little details and differences between A and B will require enough concentration as it is, especially with the pressure of getting 19/20 correct. On top of this, we have to randomly add comparing A to A where I'm trying to listen for differences when there are none? If this is how these tests are being done, it's no wonder people fail these tests.

Looks like you are beginning to comprehend, Jeff, that this is not a test where you are expected to score anything but chance results :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Hmmm, it's starting to sound like "Listener in the Rye" around here.

Instead of saying (excuse my British)

RG,

> I have sensed from your posts in this never ending beat the horse to death topic that you also believe one cannot distinguish differences in audio components. Is this a correct assumption on my part? <

Yes. This assumes a competent design and build quality of course. That is, a frequency response flat within 0.1 dB from 20 Hz to 20 KHz, and the sum of all distortion products and noise are less than, say, 0.01 percent below the peak signal level. This also assumes you're not driving the circuits into overload.

If two devices measure at least that good, which puts all artifacts 80 dB below the music, then how could there possibly be an audible difference? What, aside from acoustic comb filtering, would explain one device sounding different from the other?

--Ethan

Jeff,

> I like the idea of the meal best. <

Me too.

Okay, I have a much better idea. It may not be evident from my posts, but I am not at all a confrontational kind of guy. I can see how feeling you were on the spot could affect what you hear, or think you hear, in a way that would be unfair to you. So how about this instead:

Forget the blind test and let's just hang out and listen, without you having to feel pressured. My assistant lives in Brooklyn, and he's been wanting to come up here anyway to test some of this stuff in my "ideal" listening room. I still think we should try different cables, and play "stump the experts" with all three of us taking turns listening. And besides cables, any other tweaks you care to bring here and test will be welcome. But not in a way that anyone feels put upon or has to worry they might look bad under pressure.

I have a few ideas for other things we can take turns auditioning. For example, I have an interesting set of music files we can try to identify. I'm an old coot who grew up in the 50s - 70s, so a lot of the stuff I like is what you'd call "oldies." I have a collection of favorites on the Dell laptop in my living room that I've acquired from a number of sources. Some are Wave files extracted from CDs, some were recorded off cassette tapes, and others are MP3 files I bought online. Even I don't remember which came from where for all of them unless I look at the file names, so it's a good test for all three of us. I promise you'll be surprised by some of them.

And dinner is still on me.

--Ethan

Quote:
RG,

> I have sensed from your posts in this never ending beat the horse to death topic that you also believe one cannot distinguish differences in audio components. Is this a correct assumption on my part? <

Yes. This assumes a competent design and build quality of course. That is, a frequency response flat within 0.1 dB from 20 Hz to 20 KHz, and the sum of all distortion products and noise are less than, say, 0.01 percent below the peak signal level. This also assumes you're not driving the circuits into overload.

If two devices measure at least that good, which puts all artifacts 80 dB below the music, then how could there possibly be an audible difference? What, aside from acoustic comb filtering, would explain one device sounding different from the other?

--Ethan

Unfortunately, there are many problems with your assessment. Three quickies:

1) The problem of sonic bleedthrough occuring through a solid state device even when the device is in cutoff. So even though the FR measures great, and distortion measure low, one has a problem.

2) The internal capacitance of the device, which discharges through a semiconductor, thus fairly high ESR and DA. The result you can measure with a distortion analyzer as the products will not show up as HD or IMD.

3) The quality of a parts used. I can easily demonstrate that two coupling capacitors, although having measurably different internal structures producing different L, C, and R will produce the same frequency response. Even a capacitor with a series resonance of only 5khz, above which becomes inductive, the component will yield the same FR spec.

This is what some midfi components use, not in only one place or stage, but in multiple places and stages. Anyone want that kind of junk parts in their components?

This sounds like a far more pleasurable experience and even conducive to actual friend-making. I'm all for this more relaxed approach. I see too many stumbling blocks for a way to conduct a test with a minimum of variables that suits both sides. Our ideas of a resolving system might also be vastly different.

Using an A-B-A listening pattern at least provides a constant reference for comparisons and is useful in determining sonic qualities in real world situations (i.e., auditioning and buying.) While I understand the thinking behind the random ABBBBABABAAABABABBAB approach, I can't see how it would be useful if the real goal is to determine qualities of A & B. Too much energy might be spent looking for differences between A & A which is a waste. If you go by your assumption that A & B are no different, why should you care? But, if there is a difference, comparing A & A is nothing more than a distraction. This really does add undue stress and could easily lead to second guessing one's natural instincts or observations.

What would we be testing off the Dell? Are there various versions of the same cuts in different formats?

Quote:
RG,

> I have sensed from your posts in this never ending beat the horse to death topic that you also believe one cannot distinguish differences in audio components. Is this a correct assumption on my part? <

Yes. This assumes a competent design and build quality of course. That is, a frequency response flat within 0.1 dB from 20 Hz to 20 KHz, and the sum of all distortion products and noise are less than, say, 0.01 percent below the peak signal level. This also assumes you're not driving the circuits into overload.

If two devices measure at least that good, which puts all artifacts 80 dB below the music, then how could there possibly be an audible difference? What, aside from acoustic comb filtering, would explain one device sounding different from the other?

--Ethan

Never thought I would borrow from DUP!

RG

A reasonable amount of stress is beneficial as it allows us to more clearly focus. This is seen numerous times in various athletic competitions, games of concentration, and so forth. That is, if we have practiced and are sufficiently skilled in whatever it is we do. Tis a pity Ethan won't be in Brooklyn though. Out of the oven Spumoni Gardens pizza squares on a cold day is a spectacular treat!

Quote:
I still think we should try different cables, and play "stump the experts" with all three of us taking turns listening. And besides cables, any other tweaks you care to bring here and test will be welcome.
--Ethan

The language betrays an innate prejudice. Cables are an essential part of an audio system. They are not potentially dispensible tweaks.

jason victor serinus

Can I please ask that you do not go down the path being proposed.
The discussion is becoming too narrowed and circular - and, it appears, is now down to whether one person can hear the difference between two wires or not - under blind conditions!!
Nothing can be achieved by this approach. If the person agreeing to do the test does not hear any differences between two wires, that does not prove anything. That person - by the very nature of doing of the test - is under more than normal tension !! If the person CAN hear the difference by a significant amount, then again that does not prove anything because an explanation has then to be found as to why THEY can hear the difference when others might not be able to !!
In our experience the results of blind trials create more questions than they give answers.
Over 20 years ago, when we were considering the implications of doing more extensive blind trials on improving the sound of hearing aids, we sat down to think through what could happen and what then would be required.
Taking as read (for the results of any blind trials to be accepted) the necessity to have a significant number of hearing aid users taking part. Otherwise all the time and effort expended would come to nought if the trials could be dismissed as 'not enough people taking part'.
Taking as read the necessity to have the people conducting the trials as 'beyond reproach' as 'whiter than white' otherwise all the time and effort would come to nought if any of those people could be dismissed as "Jack Smith is a twithead, no one should believe anything he is involved with".
Taking as read the necessity to have the people evaluating the results of the trials as 'beyond reproach' as 'whiter than white' etc.
Let us look at what would be entailed after the results are known.
If the results were 50/50. 50 out of every hundred saying YES, they heard an improvement and 50 saying NO. This result would be regarded as no better than chance !!
But, that is not the end of the matter because the result raises more questions.
1) Why could not more of 50 NO's hear what the other 50 YES's heard ?
2) What more would we have to do (treatment wise) to get more of the 50 NO's to hear what the 50 YES's heard ?
3) If, after the trials, a large proportion of the 50 YES's wanted to know what they had to do to continue with the improvements they heard during the trials, then we knew that we would have to write some instructions.
4) So, if we were sitting thinking about all the implications in the January and knew that any of any trials would not be until at least the following July, and if we realised that we would need to write instructions in the July, then, LOGICALLY, why not write the instructions in the January and let everyone who was interested have them in the January ?????
If the results were 25 YES and 75 NO - then all the previous questions still apply !!!
If the results were 75 YES and 25 NO - then all the previous questions still apply !!!

This is exactly what happened with the freezing/slow defrost technique.
When we also knew that putting the strings of a guitar and double bass through the freezing/slow defrost procedure could give an improvement in the sound from those instruments, then the freezing/slow defrost procedure was given to all who might be interested. That is how, when we saw what Ed Meitner had discovered and saw Robert Harley, in 1990, repeat that freezing the strings of musical instruments could improve their sound, we knew that Ed Meitner had (quite independently from us) discovered what we had been discovering.

Of course Jeff Wong should be able to hear the difference between a cable covered in PVC and one covered in Teflon. I have repeated many times that when some engineers experience such things, what they do is to go through some sort of technical 'check list', looking for an explanation from conventional theories.
They ask themselves
"Is it anything to do with capacitance affecting the signal?"
"Is it anything to do with resistance affecting the signal ?"
"Is it anything to do with inductance affecting the signal?"
"Is it anything to do with the dielectric effect on the signal ?"
"Is it anything to do with static affecting the signal ?"
"Is it anything to do with vibrations affecting the signal ?"
"Is it anything to do with microphony affecting the signal ?"
"Is it anything to do with RF interference affecting the signal ?"

It looks as though Jeff has chosen the "It could be something to do with the dielectric effect." from the technical list.

What you do next is to carry out further experiments. To check to see if it is anything at all to do with the audio signal, then you do something to cables NOT associated with the audio signal. You change the PVC insulation on the table lamp cable to Teflon (PTFE). Or change the PVC insulation to PTFE on the cable going to the electric clock on the shelf, or change the PVC insulation to PTFE on the cable going to the electric fire in the room. If you do such experiments, you will find that you will get an identical improvement in the sound as you did when you changed the PVC insulation to PTFE on the audio cable !!!! So, the effect on the sound, of changing the insulation from PVC to PTFE, has nothing to do with the dielectric effect having any effect on the audio signal - because THERE IS NO AUDIO SIGNAL going through the cable to the table lamp, to the electric clock or to the electric fire.!!

So, now you look at the actual PVC and PTFE and look to see if there are any clues there. And, yes there are. They are both made from different mixes of chemicals. PVC (poly vinyl chloride and PTFE (poly tetra fluoro ethylene). Then bells begin to ring. Because you begin to see coincidences with other things which have been happening - things which you also had no explanations for but which you had previously found had changed the sound !! And, the one particular coincidence is the F of PTFE - Fluoride !! This is one chemical with remarkable properties !! Remarkable because human beings do not react so adversely to this particular chemical !!! Whereas the human being can react quite adversely to the chemicals involved in PVC.
So, all of a sudden, some pieces of the jigsaw begin to come together. It is not the audio signal being affected by the PVC insulation or the PTFE insulation - it is us (human beings). It is you Jeff !!!
That is why it does not make any difference whether the wire is carrying an analogue audio signal or a digital audio signal - the effect of the different insulation materials is not on the signal !!!
Regards,
May Belt.

>>> The point is that in a 2 meter long cable the total transmission time is too short to have any audible effect. That was the point of the math. Do the math for yourself........ However, we are concerned with Audio frequencies, NOT frequencies in the mega or giga hertz range. At Audio frequencies these treatments just do not have an audible effect. If you take the time to check with an expert, you'll find that my math was completely sound <<<

Part of the reply from Scooter123 illustrates the attitude and approach of so many engineers.

Scooter123 repeats conventional electronic theory saying conventionally 'that any changes to the signal which could occur along a piece of wire (say) half a metre (20 inches) long would be so infinitesimal that no one - no human beings - could possibly hear it - let alone describe the improvements that they do describe.'
This is exactly what thousands and thousands of engineers, all over the world, are and have been saying all these years.
What they do not seem to appreciate is that other engineers, starting with just a few in the late 1970s but increasing gradually since then - engineers who have been taught the SAME theories, from the SAME text books, taught by similar teachers, in similar universities and passed similar exams who know exactly the same conventional theories but who have and are experiencing changes in the sound from different wires - which conventional theories dictate SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING.
So, Scooter123 et al. Where you have to start from is at the end - at these engineers experiences and what they are telling you and then work backwards looking for an explanation. Not start from the text book theory and say "According to electronic theory, it cannot happen as you describe, therefore it did not happen. If you thought it happened, then you must have imagined it." Nor by telling people to "Do the Maths".

The quote from WTL illustrates beautifully what I mean and I am sure that there will be many engineers who can recognise and concur with his experiences.

>>> It appears obvious that several of us are well-trained in the sciences and try to do a reasonable job of testing our perceptions of differences as to whether those exist or are suggestive effects (biases)........ There are changes that I can hear and repeat. There are others that I cannot hear. Yet I can repeatedly hear the difference between a fuse and a wire in line with the speaker cable.
Of the tweaks I have tried, most have improved the sound, such that I can hear more into the music and are able to enjoy it much more, compared to what I heard for many years before - without those tweaks. <<<

I think the first person to publicly print of his experiences of hearing different wires sound different was Jean Hiraga, the Editor of the French audio magazine "Revue de Son" and, sure enough, he created an earthquake.

To paint a scenario of what happens to engineers in real life.
You have an engineer who produces audio equipment. Up until today, he has firmly believed that different wires, providing they are of a suitable build and quality, should not sound very different from each other. However, today he takes delivery of a new (and better) specification wire but, when trying it, he finds that it does not sound as good as the wire he has been using all along. He tries the new wire in different positions, but it still does not sound good in any position - even in positions requiring just a few inches !!!! He now has a predicament. He realises that he cannot use a wire (however good the specification) that does not sound good so he tells the factory that they must not use the new wire !! Yesterday he did not have any problems but now, today, he begins to have nightmares knowing that the sound of his equipment is dependent on using the best 'sounding' wire. That he can no longer use wire from ANY reel of wire on the shelf !! That he now has to be careful what wire he uses in his audio products.
He realises that he has to find an explanation as to why the new wire does not sound good but he cannot find an explanation from within conventional theories.

To quote from Julian Vereker Hi Fi News February 1995 describing his real life situation.
"When we were designing the Naim loudspeaker cable, we specified all the parameters that we thought were controllable in manufacture, but when we came to listen to some music on a system using the new cable, we were somewhat alarmed to note that the sound was rather 'phasey' - lacking in a coherent soundstage.
This was such an obvious characteristic, we felt sure that we would be able to measure something. But we looked from DC to 500kHz (down to - 140dBV) then up to 500MHz and down to -100dBV at low currents, high currents, low voltage and high voltage and we could not find anything different in any respect between this new cable and the old design or in fact the new cable and our current loudspeaker cable.
We also listen to mains cables of the same specification from different manufacturers for the same reasons. We know they make a difference but have not yet been able to measure anything of consequence. So, we specify exactly which mains cable the moulded lead manufacturers may use when supplying us".

And, when Julian Vereker further discovered that some of the cabling he was using was directional, he went to the trouble of having arrows printed on the outer insulation to show in what direction was the best way to connect the cable.
Do people really believe that such as Julian Vereker would go to all that trouble just to be able to have "marketing hype". I think not. I think, like some other engineers, he realised how significant and how much wires contributed to having good sound and yet, again like other engineers, he could not find an explanation from within conventional electronic theory.

If, when trying something one fully expects the sound to be better - and it's worse, then the explanation cannot possibly be because of 'auto-suggestion', 'the placebo effect', 'effective marketing' or 4season's 'audio faith healing' - because the expectation was the opposite to what actually happened.
If, when trying something one fully expects the sound to be worse - and it's better, then the explanation cannot possibly be because of 'auto-suggestion', 'the placebo effect', 'effective marketing' or 4season's 'audio faith healing' - because the expectation was the opposite to what actually happened.
If two pieces of equipment measure the same but sound different, then the explanation cannot possibly be because of 'auto-suggestion', 'the placebo effect', 'effective marketing' or 4season's 'audio faith healing' - because the expectation was for them to sound the same.
If two pieces of equipment sound the same but measure differently, then the explanation cannot possibly be because of 'auto-suggestion', 'the placebo effect', 'effective marketing' or 4season's 'audio faith healing' - because the expectation was for them to sound different.

I think Monty, in a recent posting, was saying much the same thing.
There comes a time when 'auto-suggestion', 'the placebo effect', 'effective marketing' or 4season's 'audio faith healing', CANNOT be the explanation. And, therefore, it is too simplistic to keep repeating those explanations, over and over again. Nothing moves any further forward.

Words such as "let us leave it to good engineers" have been banded about but they are far too simplistic.

I can give at least three hypothetical examples of "Good engineers"

Group One "Good engineers"
Such as the engineer I described earlier - the engineer who took delivery of some new specification wire, fully intending to wire all the audio equipment he manufactured with it but, on finding that it did not sound as good as the wire he had been using up till that time, suddenly realised that he would have to check all wires for how they sounded before he would be prepared to use any of them throughout his range of audio equipment.

Group Two "Good engineers".
We have the scenario of an audio equipment manufacturer who got into financial difficulties and this firm was bought by a group of business investment people. The accountant and the 'good engineer' sat down to go through all the costings and they realised that the previous owners had been using a special, very expensive wire throughout the range of audio equipment.
The accountant pointed out that Bill Brown (a rival manufacturer) used a good specification wire but which was a fraction of the cost and as did Jack Jones (another rival manufacturer).
The 'good engineer' decides to use the less expensive wire for most of the wiring but reserves the expensive wire for the very special small but crucial areas - still making good quality, well made and reliable audio equipment and making the best of the situation.

Group Three "Good engineers".
Such as the engineer who is 100% pro measurements. The very best measurements is his aim. He uses wire which gives him the best measurements so that the measurements of his final audio equipment will not be adversely affected by poorly measuring wire. The final measurements MUST BE the best measurements he can obtain.

ALL the 'good engineers' I have described know conventional electronic theory forwards, backwards, sideways and upside down !!! ALL would be described as 'good engineers'.

So, any sentence such as "Let us rely on "Good engineers"" is far too simplistic.

Your can end up with the situation such as Martin Colloms faced some years back when reviewing 5 different CD players.
After assessing the results of the measurement tests and the listening trials, he found that the CD player which had the best measurements (to use Martin's description "That any engineer would give their right arm for) was actually voted as the worst sounding by the listening panel and the CD player which had poor measurements was voted as the best sounding - as the listening panels favourite !!

If I wanted a Space Shuttle making, I would chose the 'Good engineer' from Group Three but, if I wanted a piece of audio equipment, one which I could rely on to 'sound good', then I would chose the 'Good engineer' from Group One - the Good engineer who was prepared to listen to each component to assess how it 'sounded' before using it in audio equipment.

Similarly, because we are talking about audio, music and listening for pleasure, I would chose a musical instrument (violin etc) made by a manufacturer who listened to it and made it in a certain way because of how it 'sounded' and not how it 'measured'.
Regards,
May Belt.

Verecker wasn't the most competent person when it came to making products.

Hello May

If an audio engineer calculates that the differences between two cables should make no significant difference in a design, backs this up with measurements and then chooses on the basis of say cost, is he or she then a

Give it up Martin. May believes and hears some remarkable things such as the positive effects of special foil or writing things using a pen which also affects the sound. This is all part of the new age science which is really old age mumbo jumbo that is not ammenable to critical scrutiny much in the same way that people who practice homeopathy or espouse the benefits of healing crystals and getting in touch with your chakra. The Belts have personally been offered a chance to demonstrate some of their remarkable abilities by James Randi, which if successful would garner them a very cool $1 million dollars.

Jeff,

> This sounds like a far more pleasurable experience and even conducive to actual friend-making. <

Exactly.

> I can't see how it would be useful if the real goal is to determine qualities of A & B. <

Again, my "belief," if you will, is that all digital cables and most other properly designed components sound exactly the same. So if that was established there's no need to go further and see if A sounds better than B. By then it would be proven that all differences are either comb filtering or the frailty of perception.

> What would we be testing off the Dell? Are there various versions of the same cuts in different formats? <

I guess I wasn't clear enough. Each tune is in a different format, with some MP3 and others from a CD and so forth. So the task would be to guess which is which. Anyway, it was just a thought.

Another thing that would be useful is to get your opinion on some acoustic treatment issues. This is one of the things my associate Scott wants to try. We plan to compare absorption versus diffusion at certain places in the room, and at different distances, to see which combinations sound better. This is purely subjective, so your experienced ears could provide welcome added input.

So when is good for you? December is mostly wide open for me on weekends, and Scott said he's glad to pick you up and drive here, as long as it's not too close to the Xmas holidays when he'll be away visiting his folks.

If you'd rather move this to email you can reach me through the Contact page of my company's site:

www.realtraps.com/contact.htm

--Ethan

RG,

> Never thought I would borrow from DUP! <

Not sure of your point here. In my posts I am careful to not just state an opinion, but also to explain in great detail why I came to a conclusion or what I think is the science behind whatever. In this case I explained exactly why two competent components should sound identical, and I asked you a very direct question:

Quote:
If two devices measure at least that good, which puts all artifacts 80 dB below the music, then how could there possibly be an audible difference? What, aside from acoustic comb filtering, would explain one device sounding different from the other?

So not to be combative or anything but do you have anything useful to offer? I ask the same question of Jason for the same reason. Do either of you guys have anything of substance, or just generic disagreement.

--Ethan

Quote:
So not to be combative or anything but do you have anything useful to offer? I ask the same question of Jason for the same reason. Do either of you guys have anything of substance, or just generic disagreement.
--Ethan

Continued combat on this issue does not interest me, Ethan, even when prettied up by cute little icons. If pointing out innate biases is not useful, so much for observation and learning.

As for other things useful, my ears and heart for starters. And, of equal value, at least for my peace of mind, allowing you boys to duke it out on your own.

jason victor serinus

Ethan - From what you wrote, I gathered the material was unique, without multiple formats for each track. But, it seemed that without a reference, it would be silly to guess which track was in what format, especially if these were cuts I've never heard before -- I'd have no idea what they were supposed to sound like!

I noted in my previous post that from your POV, comparing differences wouldn't matter: A=A=B

But, if I'm open to there being differences and am concentrating on comparing the qualities of A and B to determine what those attributes are, also being forced to compare A to A, where there are definitely no differences, is a complication/variable introduced to the test that only serves to muddy matters and is a waste of mental energy. This becomes more of a tactic to drive someone nuts by having him listen for differences when there are none, causing self doubt and undue stress; it amounts to trickery and dishonesty in this application. The random ABBBBABAAAB approach seems flawed because of this. Using an A-B-A (or B-A-B) pattern for each of the comparisons at least gives a reference for comparison, and reduces variables to allow for direct focus on the 2 products the listener is trying to get a handle on.

Quote:
So not to be combative or anything but do you have anything useful to offer? I ask the same question of Jason for the same reason. Do either of you guys have anything of substance, or just generic disagreement.

--Ethan

Ethan,

I was referring to DUPs

You ask the following question. "If two devices measure at least that good (sic), which puts all artifacts 80 db below the music, then how could there possibly be an audible difference?". Then you come up with your prefab answer -- only "comb filtering," which just so happens to be what you sell as a "solution" to all problem acoustic phenomena.

There is another answer. You are either measuring wrong or incompletely. You wouldn't be the only one. Better scientists than you have tried to correlate measurements with the whole of the thing measured, and better scientists than you have failed.

Your logic serves only to sell what you are peddling. I almost purchased these magical corner treatments, just to see if they could further improve my room. They are the same ones introduced recently by The Cable Company, right? But your bad logic (yes, bad logic, from one who claims to rely on it for the purposes of "objectivity" -- mistaking the part for the whole is bad logic) has frightened me off, and I have decided not to risk wasting my time or paying return shipping on the experiment. Jason is absolutely correct on this one. The phenomena out there to be measured are far more vast than our (ever evolving) capabilities to measure them, or there would be no possibility for progress. And there has been plenty of progress.

None of this is worth a damn, Ethan, until you can prove that all the possible methods of measuring acoustic phenomena have been exhausted and that you are the one who has exhausted them.

If Ethan is wrong, and he may be, then this would show up in a well designed listening test. At the risk of speaking for Ethan, he's simplified his position and am sure if pressed, he'd be able to expand more.

Now, Reverend. Have you noted the sheer number of words -- nay, pages -- Ethan has wasted on this thread? This needs expansion? If pressed he could "expand" more than he already has? If he expanded any more he would surely burst.

A "well-designed listening test." Designed by whom? A corner-diffusor salesman? Sorry. His "science" is far too narrow for my universe. Not even 37 cellos (or one cello 37 times) playing a bad imitation of Roccoco fudge can convince me he ever passed a course in logic. It is a neat trick, though -- sort of like spinning a plate on a broomstick while riding a unicycle. He should apply for an NEA grant. Cheers, and happy listening.

I didn't go through the entire thread. I'd think at the very least the test would be blind and level matched and I'd leave it up to the listener to decide what he wants to listen to and for how long.
Regarding the amp or receiver thing, I don't think Ethan is saying that all amps are the same when it comes to being able to drive any load to any particular volume. He is saying that there are certain fundamental things that define how an amp will perform and that he's not looking at evaluating amps outside of they're 'safe' and normal operating range. This might be more easily explained in a face to face meeting and if the two hook up, maybe a greater understanding will occur. Certainly a nice meal can be expected!

Amps? Who's talking about amps? Amps have to electronically interface with speakers. Winer's not arguing about amps sounding the same. Reverend, now, let me talk you down. The thread is, "why do so many buy into the 'cons' in high end Audio ( sic)?" Very quickly we moved into "science" vs. "listening." Then we went to "sighted" vs. "double blind" (an apt descriptor, that). Then May re-entered from orbit and offered an infinitely-stepped "path" to enlightenment, referring often to safety pins strung on bolts and trepidations of the spheres. Then Winer came on to sell his updated version of corner diffusors, claiming "comb filtering" was the cause of all sonic variances not explainable by his "science" of measurements. Then we moved to the audibility of differences among digital interconnects. Some of us can actually HEAR them, but only when listening to real music over sustained periods of time. Winer, of course, had "proof" that this was "scientifically" impossible because he couldn't measure said differences, calling those of us who disagree "afraid" (gasp) to undergo a blindfolded interlude, with him plugging and unplugging various wires, at micro-second intervals, thus proving no differences were possible. Then came the 76 trombones, er, 37 cellos, er, 1 cello 37 times. More derision. Invitations to dinner. Okay, caught up now?

Look, I read every interminable word of it. Why should you be spared the same punishment? What's your point? Are YOU wangling an invite to dinner? Do YOU have a magic filter to sell? Can I be saved if I join your club? Really, Reverend, how can you expect me to reply in a civilized manner if you don't say anything? Happy listening, anyway...

I'll tell ya one thing this EPIC has tested and proven, I need new GLASSES!!!!!!! Lotta reading, my glasses just ain't doing their thing correctly. And this CAN be measured with instruments. And yes, I did the cleaning of the lens, not with any magic fluids, just soap and water. Didn't see any difference. And I used a stabilizer, my hand under my chin as I read, no improvement.

DUP, I have to agree with you. And the goddam thing doesn't even rhyme or scan. A degradation of the noble tradition begun with Homer, that's what it is. Or was it Gilgamesh? Fuggit. Just a sea of bad prose, mine included. Hey, I have the music playing in the next room, so I'm outta here.

Since Ethan made a statement (to the effect) that if differences are 80 dB below the signal, then we should not hear any difference. But if we do hear a difference he ascibes it to at least comb filtering. Correct me Ethan if I'm incorrectly rephrasing your idea.

Sometime ago, Stereophile did the "Carver challenge", where two amplifiers were compared. Mr. Carver produced a difference between the two amplifiers that was called a -70 dB null between the two units. Stereophile listeners could not distinguish between the two amplifiers after one to two days of exhaustive listening. So therefore, the two units sounded the same.

My question is, where's the comb filter effect? As I understand, it is dependent on position of the listener in the room, among other things. If so, why didn't those listeners in the Carver challenge hear differences due to imprecise listening position comparing deeply nulled amplifiers?

Getting back to "cons", there are those that claim that magnets worn around your body will help improve your well-being (anecdote). Well, there happens to be someone that claims demagnitizing vinyl records will improve the sound. Neither of these make sense to scientists/engineers, based upon known scientific principles (of non-magnetic material being 'demagnetized'), at first look. Are there other things going on physically that we have not looked at? I don't know, but remain skeptical of either claim, until it's demonstrated/proved to my satisfaction.

I have not given this demagnitizing much thought. One thing that occurred to me is that static charges on a record are moving around in a circle as the LP plays. Those charges pass through magnetic fields (the motor, cartridge magnet, proximity of bearings, the tonearm tube, etc. Moving charges in magnetic fields experience force and can produce currents (we learned this in high school). Are there any audible effects due to these conditions? I don't know.

My reference to being able to discern repeatedly a fuse vs. a wire in its place in a speaker cable was based upon SBT with a musical teacher friend. He also could tell reliably, and as I remember is, with 100% accuracy.

Either way, happy listening.

Was that a blown fuse and a piece of wire? Anybody can hear that difference. Can you hear the difference between audio grade fuses and non audio grade fuses? Of course there really is no such thing, only in marketing world of audio cons. http://www.fatwyre.com/featuredprods.html

Ethan briefly mentioned receivers as being the next test so that's what I was referring to. I have no interest in wrangling an invitation to dinner nor a magic filter to sell. No, you can't be saved if you join my club Clifton but you may get nice little placards to place in your car. Don't justify your replies as being uncivilized. Just be a man and reply in an uncivilized manner if you want. It's not hard to get over.

So, Clifton, what approach would you suggest to verify the differences between cables is real and not due to something like slight changes in auditory focus along with subconcious perceptions? FWIW, I happen to think Ethan is overblowing the comb filtering aspect and one could also use headphones to test for that.

No, cus' then the excuse would be teh headphone wire itself, and it's connector!!!! And how tight teh headphones are on the listener, and on and on. For every TWEAK, there is an excuse as to why it don't work. There needs to be a tweak excuse forum here. But my stones alwyas sound better when placed on this side, not that side, I can't understand why you can't hear teh difference. Best tweak, more power, better speakers, what a simple concept. It's measurable, easly audible, and repeatable.

Reverend, are you a man, "a manly man, to be an Abbot able...," a la Chaucer's famous cleric? Or are you going to just remain content to hand out placards for the rest of your life?

What approach would I "...suggest to verify the differences between cables is ( sic )real and not due to something like slight changes in auditory focus along with subconscious perceptions?" Whew. Now, that's a mouthful. Did they teach you to avoid commas at your seminary? Since I have no problem with loss of "auditory focus" (whatever that means...) and my subconscious isn't a concern (it is, after all, er, subconscious), I'm not sure where to start, but I'll try. First, I put on one of my favorite LP's -- say, the Horenstein Mahler 2nd or 3rd, or perhaps the Walter reading of the Mahler 9th. Then I listen, enjoying the music. Then I put on some badly-recorded CD's that I keep because I love the music and the performances. Say, the Szell Schubert 9th, or some Chailly Elgar. Then I listen some more. Then I change the cable and repeat the above. If it sounds better, I keep the new cable in the system for a few days, playing a good sampling of music I love. Then I go back to the old cable, and listen to it again, repeating some of the same music I have been playing, as well as putting on some Haydn or Stravinsky for the sake of variety. By this time, I will have a pretty good handle on any differences. Then I'll put in the new cables again, to see if the improvements are still evident. If they are, I keep it. If not, I might try one more go-round, but by this time I'd be more likely to toss the differences off as musically insignificant and send the thing back for a refund. Of course, if it were a digital interconnect, I would omit the vinyl during the testing process.

A man has gotta be a man. It's a tough job, a lonely job, but destiny calls. Adios, Reverend.

Quote:
Reverend, are you a man, "a manly man, to be an Abbot able...," a la Chaucer's famous cleric? Or are you going to just remain content to hand out placards for the rest of your life?

If you want spiritual counseling don't look at me. If you want a placard, let me know. You should be able to find a collar where you are.

Quote:
Did they teach you to avoid commas at your seminary?

I'm sure a person like you never makes mistakes in grammar or takes liberties with creating coherent sentences, right?

Quote:
Since I have no problem with loss of "auditory focus" (whatever that means...)...

Maybe you should look it up or contact some professors at various universities. You do realize that hearing is a lossy process whereby information is rejected. How you hear is influenced by numerous things such as mood, health, intensity of concentration, and so forth. As a result, entirely the same presentation can result in a different assessment.

Quote:
...and my subconscious isn't a concern (it is, after all, er, subconscious)...

Well it should be a concern since what's in there can and does influence your decisions. If this is not obvious and you need examples I'll be happy to provide some.

How you do your own evaluations is entirely up to you. However, since they place no controls and allow for external influences including a priori knowledge, they're inherently flawed. Were I a manufacturer or vendor selling products of dubious benefit, you can be sure I'd recommend your approach, especially the use of complex musical pieces.

Quote:
A man has gotta be a man. It's a tough job, a lonely job, but destiny calls. Adios, Reverend.

Let me know what destiny has to say. Adios, Clifton.

If there is a test, I would be happy to help administer/design.

Here is why i think I'd be useful

1) I'm a firm beliver in the falibility of science

2) I don't make any money off of anything high-end, or any money at all for that matter

3) I am an enthusiast who has some basic understanding of the hobby and, i hope the sciences

4) I just finished my Masters in Clinical Evaluative Science, (Biostats and clinical/epidemiological trials) I also have helped in the disign of human clinical trials (DBT) now in progress.

5) Currently I'm not doing anything with said Masters, and would like to keep myself sharp this would be a really fun way to do it.

6) I sometimes visit my brothers in NYC anyway, so I could be around

7) I'm not the only one here with a science/mathmatics background, But i'm probably the only one who Is so AWSOME at statistics software* that they can make the program "sing" 99 bottles of beer on the wall.**

anyway, im just sayin, im down

Cheers

* my favorite is the rougue STATA, a close second is R open source
** no I didn't get my code from the 99 bottels of beer website, and mine is better.

Chu,

> he's simplified his position and am sure if pressed, he'd be able to expand more. <

You bet. Insufferable windbag that I am, I'm glad to comment further. But I can't do that until tomorrow because I have to run out a little early today. More soon...

Thanks.

--Ethan

Quote:
No, cus' then the excuse would be teh headphone wire itself, and it's connector!!!! And how tight teh headphones are on the listener, and on and on. For every TWEAK, there is an excuse as to why it don't work. There needs to be a tweak excuse forum here. But my stones alwyas sound better when placed on this side, not that side, I can't understand why you can't hear teh difference. Best tweak, more power, better speakers, what a simple concept. It's measurable, easly audible, and repeatable.

In the audiophile portion on the slimdevices forum in the thread"how to test linear power supply" there is an interesting post by ,i assume, a statistician re DBX in audio.
He ends with the conclusion "the lack of a positive result in BBX does not imply a negative result"
He presents a detailed explanation for why this is true. Check it out.

Quote:
Was that a blown fuse and a piece of wire? Anybody can hear that difference. Can you hear the difference between audio grade fuses and non audio grade fuses? Of course there really is no such thing, only in marketing world of audio cons.
http://www.fatwyre.com/featuredprods.html

I have never tried any fuses than what is available at the electronics store or the neighborhood Radio Shack. The fuse types are what the manufacturer of the speakers recommended for speaker protection. I did try different current ratings and normal vs. fast-blo fuses, because the manufacturer kept changing the recommended fuse types.

The specific test I referred to was written up in a post about DBT and why it's a hot button, somewhere around post #6161 (I don't remember which one it really is). I only compared a wire in place of the 3 or 4-amp fuse. It's interesting that someone else other than I can also repeatedly discern the difference and describe it, confirming my impressions without him knowing what kinds of differences he was to listen for. I can't make any statements about other fuses or other systems, only that the test applies to the system I was using at the time.

I don't know if the so-called audio-grade fuses are any different, and am not inclined to try at this time, because my new (since the test) speakers do not use any in-line fuses. I will say however, that the wire was better, in my judgement. You or someone else might have a different preference.

Quote:
I don't know if the so-called audio-grade fuses are any different

I have compared the standard fuses in my Theta Gen. VIII, APL-HiFi modified transport, and ExactPower with audiophile grade fuses from Hi-Fi Tuning and IsoClean. I consistently have found the IsoClean fuses superior. They transmit far more information, and are considerably more transparent.

They are also directional, and include a directional arrow. Pointing the arrow in the direction of current flow makes a major difference in sound quality. Direction is easy to determine when the fuse points into the component. When it points from side to side, however, and the direction of current flow is not obvious, experimentation is necessary. The difference in sound quality, at least in my system, is readily apparent.

jason victor serinus

Hmmm, what would make a fuse directional? If you where to jump the fuse out entirely, not a smart thing to do actually, but as a test and listen, you should then also hear a difference?

Quote:

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

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

When when you think DUP MAY have said something intelligible or pertinent, ask yourself this; has it ever happened before...?

The track record is clear.

Jeff,

> without a reference, it would be silly to guess which track was in what format, especially if these were cuts I've never heard before <

Many people denounce all MP3 files, or all 44.1 16 bit CDs, etc, as having a veil or sounding grainy or whatever. So I thought trying to guess which is which would be useful. Again, it was just an idea. If it doesn't make sense to you we don't have to spend time with that.

> being forced to compare A to A, where there are definitely no differences, is a complication/variable introduced to the test that only serves to muddy matters ... a tactic to drive someone nuts <

For at least the fifth time now the goal is to first see if there even is a difference between replacement signal and power cables. If no difference can be discerned, then that's the end of it. So ultimately this is less complicated and will "drive you nuts" less. Especially when you don't even have to decide which sounds better.

Let me ask in a different way: Do you agree that if no difference can be heard between Cable A and Cable B, then by extension neither cable can be said to sound better than the other?

--Ethan

RG,

> I

WTL,

> where's the comb filter effect? As I understand, it is dependent on position of the listener in the room, among other things. If so, why didn't those listeners in the Carver challenge hear differences due to imprecise listening position comparing deeply nulled amplifiers? <

I'm sure they were influenced by comb filtering, but with extended listening it can become averaged out of the equation. This thread is very long so I'm not sure if you saw my article, so just in case here's the link again:

www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html

> magnets ... demagnitizing vinyl ... remain skeptical of either claim, until it's demonstrated/proved to my satisfaction. <

That's the responsible position whenever someone claims "new" science.

> static charges on a record are moving around in a circle as the LP plays. Those charges pass through magnetic fields ... Are there any audible effects due to these conditions? <

If there were they'd be easily measurable. And discernible reliably in a DBT.

> My reference to being able to discern repeatedly a fuse vs. a wire in its place in a speaker cable was based upon SBT with a musical teacher friend. He also could tell reliably, and as I remember is, with 100% accuracy. <

Some fuses - notably the slow-blow type often used with loudspeakers - have a relatively high series resistance. So in that case an audible (and measurable) difference is certainly plausible.

--Ethan

Quote:
anyway, im just sayin, im down

If you're up for a drive to Connecticut, I'd be glad to have you.

--Ethan

"For that to be true requires redefining the laws of physics. Or at the minimum, a more compelling explanation than "I only have my two ears."

>>Really. Then I guess my two friends who use to do top level classified research are also nuts and you know more. And I would bet most engineers have not even met top level people like them.
And finally, how would you know if the laws of physics would be broken?

"Here's something else I hope you'll consider carefully: It is well known that the more educated someone is generally, the less likely they are to believe in astrology. It's exactly the same with audio. The more educated someone is in the science of audio, the less likely they are to believe that power cables can sound different."

>>Not true as expressed by my two friends mentioned above. Most engineers have little knowledge of deep level physics, at least like my two friends. Want to try again?

"This is why professional audio engineers - real engineers that went to college and learned how to design circuits and write computer DSP algorithms - are more likely to say that changing a power cable cannot change the sound in an audible way."

>>Problem is you are not an engineer AND there are many audio engineers in audio who say it does.

That and most engineers have never studies physics in great depth. I would venture to say it is difficult to find them with more than a minor in physics, if that. Hardly experts by any stretch of the imagination.

So your position is hardly credible.

Quote:

> without a reference, it would be silly to guess which track was in what format, especially if these were cuts I've never heard before <

Many people denounce all MP3 files, or all 44.1 16 bit CDs, etc, as having a veil or sounding grainy or whatever. So I thought trying to guess which is which would be useful. Again, it was just an idea. If it doesn't make sense to you we don't have to spend time with that.

I've certainly heard MP3s that sounded less than stellar and I don't care for them that much. I have issues with CDs, but, some sound great. Things have to be taken on an individual basis and evaluated accordingly. But, for me to try to identify the format of a recording I've never heard is folly. I have no way of knowing if its inherent quality is grainy, or veiled, or whatever. If we had 3 formats of the same, exact recording we'd have a better gauge.

Quote:
> being forced to compare A to A, where there are definitely no differences, is a complication/variable introduced to the test that only serves to muddy matters ... a tactic to drive someone nuts <

For at least the fifth time now the goal is to first see if there even is a difference between replacement signal and power cables. If no difference can be discerned, then that's the end of it. So ultimately this is less complicated and will "drive you nuts" less. Especially when you don't even have to decide which sounds better.

I'd be happy to bring along some aftermarket power cords. It would be interesting to me if I could open you up to the idea that they actually could result in a sonic change. In my system, they do, consistently and repeatedly over time, thus, convincing me that it is not comb filtering or self-delusion. The degree of benefit can vary, but, can often be more easily heard on a power amplifier (although, differences can be heard on a DAC or transport.) As long as you have gear with IEC jacks, that's something we could play with. I'd be willing to disturb my home setup to bring a couple of cords.

Quote:
Let me ask in a different way: Do you agree that if no difference can be heard between Cable A and Cable B, then by extension neither cable can be said to sound better than the other?

This question seems flawed to me in its wording. The word "extension" is the red flag for me. There is the implication that a small piece of information is being extrapolated and turned into something else. By extending the meaning of results instead of taking the results for what they are, could result in something else entirely.

If the test is a quick, blind, random one the way you suggested, and I find I cannot tell the difference between A and B, all it means is I couldn't tell them apart in that situation on that day under less than ideal conditions. One cable might still be better, but, I didn't detect it under these particular circumstances. Your statement might be true, but, in the same way a lawyer on TV cuts off the witness before the testimony can be qualified. I dislike the idea of something being taken out of context and being turned into some pronouncement of cold, hard, fact across the board by extension, or extrapolation, or omission. There might actually be a better sounding cable between the two, but, needed to be heard under better conditions.

Quote:

I've certainly heard MP3s that sounded less than stellar and I don't care for them that much. I have issues with CDs, but, some sound great. Things have to be taken on an individual basis and evaluated accordingly. But, for me to try to identify the format of a recording I've never heard is folly. I have no way of knowing if its inherent quality is grainy, or veiled, or whatever. If we had 3 formats of the same, exact recording we'd have a better gauge.

Man, are this fun all the time?

"Hey, I know! Let's play around with different formats and see if they sound different!"

"No, that would be folly."

"Well, how about if we drank while we did it?"

"That's less folly, but still too much folly."

"How about if we had some pizza, too?"

"Even less folly, but folly is like infinity, it can never be divided into enough pieces to be anything other than folly."

___________________________
___________________________

Ethan, it sounds fun. If I get to go to HE2007, I'll play and help you turn some full bottle into dead soldiers, too.

Quote:
I'd be happy to bring along some aftermarket power cords. It would be interesting to me if I could open you up to the idea that they actually could result in a sonic change. In my system, they do, consistently and repeatedly over time, thus, convincing me that it is not comb filtering or self-delusion. The degree of benefit can vary, but, can often be more easily heard on a power amplifier (although, differences can be heard on a DAC or transport.) As long as you have gear with IEC jacks, that's something we could play with. I'd be willing to disturb my home setup to bring a couple of cords.

That sounds fun, as well!

Quote:
If the test is a quick, blind, random one the way you suggested, and I find I cannot tell the difference between A and B, all it means is I couldn't tell them apart in that situation on that day under less than ideal conditions. One cable might still be better, but, I didn't detect it under these particular circumstances. Your statement might be true, but, in the same way a lawyer on TV cuts off the witness before the testimony can be qualified. I dislike the idea of something being taken out of context and being turned into some pronouncement of cold, hard, fact across the board by extension, or extrapolation, or omission. There might actually be a better sounding cable between the two, but, needed to be heard under better conditions.

Other than wanting to know what is so wrong with "quick, blind, and random," I don't understand the kind of fearful tone. We're idiot hobbyists, not genius politicians plotting the overthrow of Saddam and the re-introduction of democracy in the middle east after we snuffed it out in Iran in the 1950's.

The stakes are low.

Bummer, too, I thought we were about to step out of Plato's cave for minute or two.

I'll still volunteer to play. To me, this hobby is not some sort of dire epistemologic mine field. It's a toy filled extravagance. These objective and subjective camps need to hang out more together, break bread, appreciate the subjective beauty of shared food, music, and drink, and mess with each other's heads.

Time to start making some fuzzy wood or woody fuzz (although those terms sound vaguely dirty) and get to the fundamentals of audiophilia - a shared enjoyment of Hi Fi.

Tell ya what...

Big Mike and I will round up some cables or CD players, or power cords, or something and invent some drinks by those names for CES and see what people like listening to.

Quote:
I have compared the standard fuses in my Theta Gen. VIII, APL-HiFi modified transport, and ExactPower with audiophile grade fuses from Hi-Fi Tuning and IsoClean. I consistently have found the IsoClean fuses superior. They transmit far more information, and are considerably more transparent.

They are also directional, and include a directional arrow. Pointing the arrow in the direction of current flow makes a major difference in sound quality. Direction is easy to determine when the fuse points into the component. When it points from side to side, however, and the direction of current flow is not obvious, experimentation is necessary. The difference in sound quality, at least in my system, is readily apparent.

jason victor serinus

Sarcasim, right? Directional fuses? Analog audio is nondirectional (AC). So a directional fuse would be backwards 50% of the time. Can't be a good thing.
Has anyone expiermented with different gasses inside of fuses or even a vacuum to speed up the sound?
A resistive slo-blow fuse could have a detrimental effect on frequency response because of the interaction of source impedence with load impedence

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

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