[turkey]

I actually think you guys are delusional.

You just don't seem to want to have a discussion.

I am honestly puzzled as to what you expect here.

[Kevin Haskins]

I am difficult in real life too.      

There is a place to talk about subjective things.   This thread specifically is in The Lab and the conversation is specifically about scientific evidence or justification of the effects of power cables.    Within the context of that discussion, I think it is totally relevant to talk about measurements and what is and is not audible.  

Once you bring engineering and science into the debate, by definition you bring in debate over research.   If you can show AES research papers to support the audibility of power cables, RFI, jitter or anything else you want to discuss, that is how the game of science is played.   If you support your position's with articles from high-end magazines or cable companies, most engineers don't take them seriously.   That doesn't mean we are difficult.   It just means that the game of proof follows different rules than it does for the general public.   If you don't want to play by those rules, don't participate in a discussion of scientific proof.      

[JoshK]

There is a place to talk about subjective things.   This thread specifically is in The Lab and the conversation is specifically about scientific evidence or justification of the effects of power cables.    Within the context of that discussion, I think it is totally relevant to talk about measurements and what is and is not audible.  

Once you bring engineering and science into the debate, by definition you bring in debate over research.   If you can show AES research papers to support the audibility of power cables, RFI, jitter or anything else you want to discuss, that is how the game of science is played.   If you support your position's with articles from high-end magazines or cable companies, most engineers don't take them seriously.   That doesn't mean we are difficult.   It just means that the game of proof follows different rules than it does for the general public.   If you don't want to play by those rules, don't participate in a discussion of scientific proof.      

Thank you.  Well said.

[Ethan Winer]

Well said.

And nicely put too.

--Ethan

[Bill A]

Yes I have thoughts: Anything that happens at 100 MHz is irrelevant for audio. Especially in a power cable.

I tend to agree, but I really don't know for sure so I'm just trying to analyze the results to get a handle on what is going on with the measurements.  I guess I'm more interested in why the measurements look the way they do.

Yes the straight distance from connector to connector. This is something I find hard to visualise, the effect created by the crossovers, the non-receptive nature of the weave, the extra length of conductors and how resistance/inductance must change at these crossover points is making it hard for me to work out whats going on electrically.

I considered the length of the indiviual conductors verses the length of the finished cable, but it still seems resonable to believe that the longer cable would have the greater distance between frequency peaks if they are due to reflections, but the plot shows just the opposite.  And the peaks are at odd length intervals, too.

Bill

[Kevin Haskins]

One more point.   I alienate more customers by taking these positions than I attract.   If you think that taking this unpopular stand in some way helps my business your wrong.   I sell cables, but I don't promote much in the way of magic.   Want real irony?   I started my business by making and selling a power cable.      

In terms of preferential treatment.   I think you will find that we contribute so little to the site, that our couple hundred dollar a year sponsor fees carry little weight.   We don't get preferential treatment here.   For the most part, AC is a member run organization and I'd say most of those members fall closer to how you believe on the subject of audio than on how I believe.   





   

[Browntrout]

I was a child prodigy, my IQ measured 130 at three years old (as high as the test went) I was put on an Assisted Places scheme were the Government pays for you to go to the best schools in the country but I declined because I don't agree with having "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" carved on the organ in the assembly hall of my school (actually deliberatly failed the entrance exam (Royal Grammar School Newcastle) to avoid grief from my Mother, how stupid is that?).
 I was reading degree level Physics at fifteen years old then had a nervous breakdown but still managed to attend a good university to study Bsc Physics Hons with some really nice lecturers who did not mind me not attending Maths (boooring) one of whom was the international coordinator at CERN particle accelerator.
 We used to disscuss antimatter and God and things like that. I had a really good realisation in the library one evening whilst reading about an experiment which posses really difficult questions about the wave particle duality of light and there I was, I suddenly understood that God was the answer I had been looking for all my life and that it was obvious and undisputable but that it was something mankind did not want to be true so he ignored the beauty infront of him and carried on asking stupid questions and hypothesising about waves acting in mediums in parrallel dimensions as explanation for things that the logical mind cannot understand if it is wise enough to accept it cannot understand of course.
  And I played the violin for ten years from the age of seven being taught through my subconscious with the Susuki method by a blind teacher, I was quite good, played in two orchestras.
   AM I QUALIFIED TO CHAT HERE? (appologies for any spelling mistakes)

[*Scotty*]

It's probably time to post some links to an alternative test for audibility of jitter, bearing in mind that this is uncorrelated random jitter which is not representative of the jitter found in the real world.   http://hddaudio.net/?p=460
Scotty

[Kevin Haskins]

I was a child prodigy, my IQ measured 130 at three years old (as high as the test went) I was reading degree level Physics at fifteen years old then had a nervous breakdown but still managed to attend a good university to study Bsc Physics Hons with some really nice lecturers who did not mind me not attending Maths (boooring) one of whom was the international coordinator at CERN particle accelerator.
 We used to disscuss antimatter and God and things like that. I had a really good realisation in the library one evening whilst reading about an experiment which posses really difficult questions about the wave particle duality of light and there I was, I suddenly understood that God was the answer I had been looking for all my life and that it was obvious and undisputable but that it was something mankind did not want to be true so he ignored the beauty infront of him and carried on asking stupid questions and hypothesising about waves acting in mediums in parrallel dimensions as explanation for things that the logical mind cannot understand if it is wise enough to accept it cannot understand of course.
  And I played the violin for ten years from the age of seven being taught through my subconscious with the Susuki method by a blind teacher, I was quite good, played in two orchestras.
   AM I QUALIFIED TO CHAT HERE?

I don't care if you flunked out of 1st grade.   If you play by the rules, and argue your position right, you gain more credibility than does a Mensa candidate with a PhD in Physics.    It isn't about what you are, it is about how you argue your point. 

The problem with most people arguing about audio, is that all of their evidence is circumstantial.  It has to do with the number of other people who believe that way, or what some high-end audio magazine reports.    That isn't evidence by the rules of science.

In terms of God, hey.... I'm a believer.   That is a different debate though and one we cannot talk about on AC.       Your more than welcome to hold whatever beliefs you want but if you want to argue scientific proof, you have to use the rules inherent in science.   

[turkey]

   AM I QUALIFIED TO CHAT HERE? (appologies for any spelling mistakes)

You don't need to pass some kind of test to post here, nor present "qualifications" to do so.

[turkey]

It's probably time to post some links to an alternative test for audibility of jitter, bearing in mind that this is uncorrelated random jitter which is not representative of the jitter found in the real world.   http://hddaudio.net/?p=460
Scotty

The comment on that page is extremely amusing.

"Many couldn’t hear any difference between the files but it was suggest by one manufacturer that the song wasn’t appropriate, so we are running a second test with a track of his choice to establish whether this is anymore audible."



As for myself, I only listen to music that isn't appropriate.

[Niteshade]

This is quite interesting- cables, jitter and various other things...


It reminds me of this: If a computer's monitor (CRT type) is set to 60hz some people will see it flicker and others will not.

Some people will insist that placing an old chewing gum blob on their nose while listening makes all the difference in the world. Same with placing jars of marbles in so-called strategic places. The list goes on. (I made up the gum thing...)

The problem is we cannot call anybody a liar due to the subjective nature of these discussions. What if you hear something and all the scientific proof in the world says you shouldn't?

If I were to summarize what's been said in a non-technical nature it would be this:

1. Use good quality power cables capable of carrying the load's current demands. Extra heavy cabling is not an issue of course.
2. I never heard jitter, even from cheap CD players. Maybe someone else has? Was their CD player defective?
3. Poor power? Get a decent power conditioner/regulator or get a high quality UPS with a regulated pure sine wave output and active line filtering. Do some mods to it and make it run off the batteries full time if you want. Add filtration inside the effected equipment so it exactly matches the load.
4. A 44.1 Khz sampling rate has never let me down in reference to CD's. I believe it is just fine.

There's no sense getting technical since the fall back is subjective data to everything said thus far. There's no sense arguing about any of it.

The science behind what we purchase should NOT be disregarded! There has to be some kind of reference material to purchase by. I see zero room for subjectiveness when it comes down to figures which should be Black & White. Testing under real-life conditions after the lab tests is the way to go. We all went through this a few days ago...

When it comes to what is written in the back of the manual- you should never see under specifications, "I think, I feel, I heard...."  I want spec's written from data based on honest tests that are not slanted on the manufacturer's behalf.

[arthurs]

In the immortal words of Daniel von Recklinghausen, "if it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad.  If it measures bad and sounds good, you've measured the wrong things."

[rajacat]

In the immortal words of Daniel von Recklinghausen, "if it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad.  If it measures bad and sounds good, you've measured the wrong things."

Yes! That's it exactly.

[JoshK]

I was a child prodigy, my IQ measured 130 at three years old (as high as the test went) I was put on an Assisted Places scheme were the Government pays for you to go to the best schools in the country but I declined because I don't agree with having "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" carved on the organ in the assembly hall of my school (actually deliberatly failed the entrance exam (Royal Grammar School Newcastle) to avoid grief from my Mother, how stupid is that?).
 I was reading degree level Physics at fifteen years old then had a nervous breakdown but still managed to attend a good university to study Bsc Physics Hons with some really nice lecturers who did not mind me not attending Maths (boooring) one of whom was the international coordinator at CERN particle accelerator.
 We used to disscuss antimatter and God and things like that. I had a really good realisation in the library one evening whilst reading about an experiment which posses really difficult questions about the wave particle duality of light and there I was, I suddenly understood that God was the answer I had been looking for all my life and that it was obvious and undisputable but that it was something mankind did not want to be true so he ignored the beauty infront of him and carried on asking stupid questions and hypothesising about waves acting in mediums in parrallel dimensions as explanation for things that the logical mind cannot understand if it is wise enough to accept it cannot understand of course.
  And I played the violin for ten years from the age of seven being taught through my subconscious with the Susuki method by a blind teacher, I was quite good, played in two orchestras.
   AM I QUALIFIED TO CHAT HERE? (appologies for any spelling mistakes)

No particular background is needed to discuss here only a willingness to be open-minded and willing to engage in discourse, including technical and scientific discussions.   

I would refrain from trying to boast your C.V. as you might find your are more common place than an exception on these boards.  Its just a good rule of life in general I find.  In my work place nearly everyone on my team but myself has one or two PhD's.  That and $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee in NYC. 

One of my fellow research analysts has two PhDs, one in Math from Moscow State University (The MIT, Harvard, Princeton and Stanford of Russia).  He taught math at Berkeley for a few years before obtaining a PhD in Finance from U of California, Irvine.  He is also one of the most humble guys I've met.

By the way, I know it is pretty juvenile, but your moniker really makes me laugh.  I know what a Brown trout is, we catch German browns in the lake near my father's home.  But the more common use of term "brown trout" this side of the pond is slang for fecal matter.

[JoshK]

It's probably time to post some links to an alternative test for audibility of jitter, bearing in mind that this is uncorrelated random jitter which is not representative of the jitter found in the real world.   http://hddaudio.net/?p=460
Scotty

The comment on that page is extremely amusing.

"Many couldn’t hear any difference between the files but it was suggest by one manufacturer that the song wasn’t appropriate, so we are running a second test with a track of his choice to establish whether this is anymore audible."



As for myself, I only listen to music that isn't appropriate.

I found your comment amusing.   However, in all seriousness, I remember discussing with Dr. Geddes at his house about some research that he was doing or maybe he was reading, that suggested that there is some music that is much better at highlighting differences in audio tests than others.  He made reference to Tracy Chapman, saying her voice represented this idea.  (about how her voice had a unique quality that made things easier to detect). 

[Christof]

This has been a good read but I think this thread has gone way south....

By the way, I know it is pretty juvenile, but your moniker really makes me laugh.  I know what a Brown trout is, we catch German browns in the lake near my father's home.  But the more common use of term "brown trout" this side of the pond is slang for fecal matter.

I'm sure Browntrout had no intention of naming himself after an enormous strand of feces found in most public restrooms across North America.

[Browntrout]

Shall we discuss this data on mains cables?

Mains cables don't make a difference, the data is not data, it's lies, let's talk about something completely different,

You are wrong.

How dare you insult me, I know more than you, prove it, prove this, I can't hear it.

Explained it.

Ignored, moved on, claimed was talking about something else, you are stupid, where is the proof, no proof, you need to be an engineer, this is the Lab, yes this is the Lab, you can't spell ha ha stupid.

Not Stupid.

Stop boasting, I don't care, it does not matter, wasn't talking about that, make fun, make fun, I work with clever people, abuse position of power.

and finally,

you're not interested in having a discussion.

You are correct.

 

[jon_010101]

This thread turned out even worse than I expected 

FWIW, this experiment reminds me much of my 8th grade science fair project, where I got an A+ for failing to correctly verify Ohm's law for a transmission line, but nobody noticed my error because I wrote it up pretty well and (mis)used some cool-looking gear.  The experience still haunts me today.  In fairness, the author of this paper didn't completely blow his experiment - although it's clear he is being moderately disingenuous.  First, for testing a mostly irrelevant characteristic of power cords while proclaiming its supposed importance, second for completely hand-waving over any reasonable description of high frequency propagation characteristics in cables, and third for failing to compare the effects of a $10 line filter with the $$$$ power cable 

[Kevin Haskins]

Shall we discuss this data on mains cables?

Mains cables don't make a difference, the data is not data, it's lies, let's talk about something completely different,

You are wrong.

How dare you insult me, I know more than you, prove it, prove this, I can't hear it.

Explained it.

Ignored, moved on, claimed was talking about something else, you are stupid, where is the proof, no proof, you need to be an engineer, this is the Lab, yes this is the Lab, you can't spell ha ha stupid.

Not Stupid.

Stop boasting, I don't care, it does not matter, wasn't talking about that, make fun, make fun, I work with clever people, abuse position of power.

and finally,

you're not interested in having a discussion.

You are correct.

 

For the record, I didn't have any intention of insulting you.   If anything I've said has come off insulting, I apologize for being a jerk.   

I don't care if you spell wrong or not, and I agree with jon_010101.    He stated it succinctly.   The paper is disingenuous and obviously self-serving.   Its purpose is to convince people to buy expensive cable with the premise of it being scientifically proven.   It plays to what people want to believe with the purpose of giving them another reason to do so.     It has nothing to do with good science because it ignores the obvious questions that any critical thinker would ask.   

I don't apologize for being a critic.   Being constructively critical is genuinely a useful tool in evaluating what works and what doesn't.   If I where not critical of what I believed in relation to audio, there are a thousand false bunny-trails that lead nowhere.   

The last thing I'll say is that my criticism has nothing to do with you.   On a personal basis I have no animosity over the subject and I have no intention of belittling you.   I don't impugn your right to buy and use whatever products you feel meet your needs.   This is a hobby and it is done for the purpose of enjoyment.   Far be it for me to tell people what they should and should not like.    My only issue is with the premise of calling this good science.    It isn't, otherwise it would take into account the obvious questions.   It would show the effects of RFI on the output of various amplifiers and it would compare that with a simple line filter.   It would explain or at least correlate the subjective perceptions that people have in a way that jives with what is being measured.    All of those are simple questions that should be easily answered yet they are completely ignored.   Why would anyone go through the trouble of writing such a paper and totally ignore the obvious?   I can only come to the conclusion that the author knew the results of those questions and the answers wouldn't sell cables.