[sfraser]

Two points. "From an Engineering perspective" is just that, it has nothing to do with from an audiophile perspective. to the Engineer, the rules they have are all that exists, they have no interest or need to go beyond the mindset they have. Which is if it cannot be measured in the ways they measure now, it DOES NOT EXIST.
Secondly the red herring of claiming (by leaving out any other possibility) that it is all fantasy.  There can be other possibilities. The number one is that engineers just do not care,or are currently at a loss how to.. about finding HOW to measure the differences plenty of folks can hear.

Actually my above statement regarding Engineering is refering the Scientific method that has proven to be  successful,  accurate  and most importantly  accepted in every other area imaginable  except to some in the  audio community .  Also I would not refer to these experiences as  red herring(s) as "fantasy", they are very real to those who are experiencing them, and EVERYONE can/does experience them. No one is picking on anyone here. These percieved differences just don't standup to  well  executed double blind listening tests. There is a great You Tube floating around where they discuss a perception  test that was performed with a non functioning A/B switch and a tube and solid state amp. The test subjects were Engineering students and Audiophiles. The subjects witnessed the  flipping  back and forth between amps and they were asked which one sounded better. All the Audiophiles picked the tube amp and all the Engineers picked the solid state amp even though the switch was completely out of the cirucit, and the speakers were powered by a thrid non disclosed amp the entire time.

[Elizabeth]

So your description of 'The scientific' precludes all future discoveries. Since you seem to be saying as I previously wrote: your notion: "If it does not exist as understood NOW, it cannot exist." Which IS what you are writing. That is your claim? LOL.
I am pretty sure the folks living in 100bc felt the same way you do.

[sfraser]

So your description of 'The scientific' precludes all future discoveries. Since you seem to be saying as I previously wrote: your notion: "If it does not exist as understood NOW, it cannot exist." Which IS what you are writing. That is your claim? LOL.
I am pretty sure the folks living in 100bc felt the same way you do.

Nope, it never has precluded anything. I think it is well understood now. Just not accepted by all, and that's ok.

[Elizabeth]

Nope, it never has precluded anything. I think it is well understood now. Just not accepted by all, and that's ok.

Exact same words would have applied to the Earth being Flat, and everyone knows it. At least back in 1300's. (though maybe not to the Persians..)

My rebuttal is a rather famous quote, by Einstein. God doesn't play dice'.
Clearly Einstein was having none of the ideas of quantum physics. Einstein KNEW the rules. I guess folks like you would have just said nope, god does not play dice, all the quantum stuff is fantasy. And left it at that.

My take is.. say you took a two dimensional cross section of a wire with some sort of current. Using some quantum measuring tool. you watched as each bit of electrical what ever passed through each part of your flat surface.. My guess is the resultant picture through time would look like the quantum clouds of electron shells not one single way, but a PATTERN. and my theory is that pattern is changed by the ways we do stuff like aftermarket power cords, duplex etc. So the patterns could be 'thick(er)'. 'thin(ner)' and vary in amazing ways we have no notion of now.
And when we discover the rules (similar as electron shells have rules) then we will have answers.
And why not discovered already? NO money in it. No genius' interested in it. Maybe someday someone will get interested in it. If I am right, they better mention me when they get the Nobel Prize
(since EE are notorious for having no sense of humor, that last sentence was a JOKE, and not my enormous ego. Well maybe...!)

[sfraser]

Exact same words would have applied to the Earth being Flat, and everyone knows it. At least back in 1300's. (though maybe not to the Persians..)

My rebuttal is a rather famous quote, by Einstein. God doesn't play dice'.
Clearly Einstein was having none of the ideas of quantum physics. Einstein KNEW the rules. I guess folks like you would have just said nope, god does not play dice, all the quantum stuff is fantasy. And left it at that.

My take is.. say you took a two dimensional cross section of a wire with some sort of current. Using some quantum measuring tool. you watched as each bit of electrical what ever passed through each part of your flat surface.. My guess is the resultant picture through time would look like the quantum clouds of electron shells not one single way, but a PATTERN. and my theory is that pattern is changed by the ways we do stuff like aftermarket power cords, duplex etc. So the patterns could be 'thick(er)'. 'thin(ner)' and vary in amazing ways we have no notion of now.
And when we discover the rules (similar as electron shells have rules) then we will have answers.
And why not discovered already? NO money in it. No genius' interested in it. Maybe someday someone will get interested in it. If I am right, they better mention me when they get the Nobel Prize

Well I wish you well, I like the sound of the "Liz Theory" no pun intended!

[Photon46]

IMO, the larger issue sfraser raises is whether blind testing is an accurate or meaningful arbiter for these type of debates. Rather than trying to summarize a complex scientific review of the matter, I'll link to a discussion which summarizes the results of two French researcher's conclusions:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/

In all manner of blind tests, we are confronted with conclusions which confound our perceptions of reality. Examples such as;

Gordon Ramsey blind testing other chefs with pureed apples and pears (or similar sorts of comparisons) to see if they can tell the difference under the stress of testing. They fail often.

Professional violinists have been blind tested to see if they can discern between a Stradivarius and a modern violin. They couldn't.

Dr. N. Ramanjaneyalu and research assistants conducted a carefully controlled, peer reviewed blind testing in 2013 to see if consumers can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi. They can't.

Non professional wine consumers are tested to see if they can discern cheap from expensive wine. They can't. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomaspellechia/2019/02/05/a-new-study-asks-answers-the-question-does-blind-wine-tasting-work/#4aa5fb442eab

Now the last one regarding wine discrimination is very interesting. Researchers have studied the differences in the abilities of professional sommeliers and amateur consumers and found marked differences in the accuracy of their discernment abilities. Different parts of the brain are activated during testing conducted with pros and amateurs. Is there a possibility that non-trained listeners could be subject to similar limitations in similar test conditions?

No one would suggest there are no differences between apples and pears, different wines, coke and pepsi, and violins. There are obvious, objectively measurable differences, we just fail to discern them in testing situations.

The take away for me in all of this is that blind testing is very difficult to do correctly and results can be hard to interpret meaningfully. While it is a very useful tool in science, I suspect limitations when used to determine if listeners accurately discern differences during test conditions as they are usually constructed.



 

[Elizabeth]

The blind testing  thing I often mention the apparent fact that different parts of the brain are used for actual use vs 'testing'. As mentioned. pro wine tasters use totally different parts of the brain than non pros use. I would think a few reviewers could have developed such ability to judge and listen properly.
In testing the part of the brain used to making executive yes no right left up down on off decisions is the part in use. and not the part that actually is usually listening to music.
Why many say immediate 'switching' comparisons, even when in private at home, are not nearly as good as spending awhile with the mod or equipment and forming a long term judgement.

[Tomy2Tone]

Good point Photon46. I've seen chef's who have been in the food industry for 30 plus years not be able to discern the difference between chicken and ham in blind testing...

[Ola_S]

As an analogy to a high performance sport car running on the Nürburgring.. IF changing the tire pressure 1psi makes a difference between record track times and crashing.. "You could also argue": Car manufactures say they make cars which you can change the psi fro 15psi to 40 psi and the car runs just fine! So that 'sport car' must be DEFECTIVE of it needs such fine tuning..
And I am sure 'top notch' engineers at that car company as just as certain they are correct.

So if all you want is what some guy decided you should be satisfied with? Then by all means go for it.

The problem with this analogy is that it could (and is) scientific proven that a psi pressure difference in the tires affects the handling (I actually live in Germany were we have the Nürnburgring and I own a Porsche). I have seen no such evidence for power cables (expect for shielded ones that could in theory do some difference). So do you have some real evidence? 

[Calypte]

I call BS. If you had the science would you spend $$$ on a power cord? Would you even understand it? If you really buy based on "science" please share the research you have on your current speakers.

Speakers vary by known and measurable quantities.  Since no speaker provides flat response, and in fact the measurable differences are considerable (simply look at the measured frequency response in any test report), selection among the many choices of speakers becomes a matter of preference.  Each of us will weigh speakers' deficiencies differently.  Many of us will try to select speakers that bring us closer to what we perceive to be a "live" experience (the "absolute sound," if you will), but even our understanding of a live experience will vary.  The same considerations apply to phono cartridges.  But if, in fact, I saw a response curve for a speaker or cartridge that showed a sharply rising high end, or a bulging midrange, I would probably not include such a speaker on my short list of products to consider.

My request for "science" to support the alleged differences between power cords isn't so much for tests of electrical properties.  I'm skeptical that any competent electronics manufacture would select a power cord that is inadequate for passing the required current.  But it should be possible to conduct double-blind tests, or even single-blind tests, that demonstrate audible differences.  Can audiophiles hear, to a scientifically significant degree, the differences between power cords when neither they nor the person(s) administering the tests know which cord is being used?  Such a test has not come to my attention.

There's another vendor's forum on AudioCircle where the vendor (a veteran of hi-end audio who produces well-reviewed and generally well-regarded products) explained that he gave up using captive power cords for his amplifiers, not because there was anything wrong with the stock cords, but because he perceived that maybe he was losing sales with audiophiles who wanted to use magic cords.  The change added to the cost of his gear.  It turned out that the change had no effect on sales.  In one of his older posts, he also describes how he hosted a listening session with the designers of some expensive speaker cables where the guests claimed a huge improvement in the sound when their product was substituted into the circuit.  They were not happy when he told them that he never changed the cables at all, that he simply pretended to substitute their cables for the "inferior" brand.

I've said what I have to say.

[Elizabeth]

The problem with this analogy is that it could (and is) scientific proven that a psi pressure difference in the tires affects the handling (I actually live in Germany were we have the Nürnburgring and I own a Porsche). I have seen no such evidence for power cables (expect for shielded ones that could in theory do some difference). So do you have some real evidence?

Asked and answered: "So if all you want is what some guy decided you should be satisfied with? Then by all means go for it"

[witchdoctor]

IMO, the larger issue sfraser raises is whether blind testing is an accurate or meaningful arbiter for these type of debates. Rather than trying to summarize a complex scientific review of the matter, I'll link to a discussion which summarizes the results of two French researcher's conclusions:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/

In all manner of blind tests, we are confronted with conclusions which confound our perceptions of reality. Examples such as;

Gordon Ramsey blind testing other chefs with pureed apples and pears (or similar sorts of comparisons) to see if they can tell the difference under the stress of testing. They fail often.

Professional violinists have been blind tested to see if they can discern between a Stradivarius and a modern violin. They couldn't.

Dr. N. Ramanjaneyalu and research assistants conducted a carefully controlled, peer reviewed blind testing in 2013 to see if consumers can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi. They can't.

Non professional wine consumers are tested to see if they can discern cheap from expensive wine. They can't. https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomaspellechia/2019/02/05/a-new-study-asks-answers-the-question-does-blind-wine-tasting-work/#4aa5fb442eab

Now the last one regarding wine discrimination is very interesting. Researchers have studied the differences in the abilities of professional sommeliers and amateur consumers and found marked differences in the accuracy of their discernment abilities. Different parts of the brain are activated during testing conducted with pros and amateurs. Is there a possibility that non-trained listeners could be subject to similar limitations in similar test conditions?

No one would suggest there are no differences between apples and pears, different wines, coke and pepsi, and violins. There are obvious, objectively measurable differences, we just fail to discern them in testing situations.

The take away for me in all of this is that blind testing is very difficult to do correctly and results can be hard to interpret meaningfully. While it is a very useful tool in science, I suspect limitations when used to determine if listeners accurately discern differences during test conditions as they are usually constructed.

Dude, if you can't tell the difference between a real stradivarius and a cheapo in a live setting why are you even bothering listening to recordings. Put your gear on Ebay, head up to best buy and get a JBL or Sony Boombox and spend what you have left on your spouse.

[witchdoctor]

Speakers vary by known and measurable quantities.  Since no speaker provides flat response, and in fact the measurable differences are considerable (simply look at the measured frequency response in any test report), selection among the many choices of speakers becomes a matter of preference.  Each of us will weigh speakers' deficiencies differently.  Many of us will try to select speakers that bring us closer to what we perceive to be a "live" experience (the "absolute sound," if you will), but even our understanding of a live experience will vary.  The same considerations apply to phono cartridges.  But if, in fact, I saw a response curve for a speaker or cartridge that showed a sharply rising high end, or a bulging midrange, I would probably not include such a speaker on my short list of products to consider.

My request for "science" to support the alleged differences between power cords isn't so much for tests of electrical properties.  I'm skeptical that any competent electronics manufacture would select a power cord that is inadequate for passing the required current.  But it should be possible to conduct double-blind tests, or even single-blind tests, that demonstrate audible differences.  Can audiophiles hear, to a scientifically significant degree, the differences between power cords when neither they nor the person(s) administering the tests know which cord is being used?  Such a test has not come to my attention.

There's another vendor's forum on AudioCircle where the vendor (a veteran of hi-end audio who produces well-reviewed and generally well-regarded products) explained that he gave up using captive power cords for his amplifiers, not because there was anything wrong with the stock cords, but because he perceived that maybe he was losing sales with audiophiles who wanted to use magic cords.  The change added to the cost of his gear.  It turned out that the change had no effect on sales.  In one of his older posts, he also describes how he hosted a listening session with the designers of some expensive speaker cables where the guests claimed a huge improvement in the sound when their product was substituted into the circuit.  They were not happy when he told them that he never changed the cables at all, that he simply pretended to substitute their cables for the "inferior" brand.

I've said what I have to say.

Hmmm, I don't get why it is so important to you what everyone else is doing, you seem kinda lazy. You should just try it yourself.

[witchdoctor]

Good point Photon46. I've seen chef's who have been in the food industry for 30 plus years not be able to discern the difference between chicken and ham in blind testing...

Great, just what we need, professional chef's that can't taste, let alone cook. Makes sense to me.

[witchdoctor]

The problem with this analogy is that it could (and is) scientific proven that a psi pressure difference in the tires affects the handling (I actually live in Germany were we have the Nürnburgring and I own a Porsche). I have seen no such evidence for power cables (expect for shielded ones that could in theory do some difference). So do you have some real evidence?

Congrats on the porshe, I have some GREAT power cords, wanna trade? 

[Pundamilia]

Speakers vary by known and measurable quantities.  Since no speaker provides flat response, and in fact the measurable differences are considerable (simply look at the measured frequency response in any test report), selection among the many choices of speakers becomes a matter of preference.

Has anyone ever considered that there may be equipment differences that we aren't currently measuring? I am a firm believer in objective measurement and a scientific approach. Yet, the glaring discrepancies that sometimes occur between what people hear and the measurements lead me to believe that perhaps we are not measuring the right things. Could it be that there is some factor which affects the sonics for which we have not yet discovered the appropriate measurement and therefore are not currently testing?

[witchdoctor]

Has anyone ever considered that there may be equipment differences that we aren't currently measuring? I am a firm believer in objective measurement and a scientific approach. Yet, the glaring discrepancies that sometimes occur between what people hear and the measurements lead me to believe that perhaps we are not measuring the right things. Could it be that there is some factor which affects the sonics for which we have not yet discovered the appropriate measurement and therefore are not currently testing?

Can you measure the "fun factor"? James, what do you guys feel is important to measure for Bryston components?

Article on speaker measurements 101 for those interested:

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/speaker-measurements-101

[Freo-1]

Here is a follow up to the previous link regarding power cables:


http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6507


High end audio too often suffers from this type of marketing.

[James Tanner]

Can you measure the "fun factor"? James, what do you guys feel is important to measure for Bryston components?

Article on speaker measurements 101 for those interested:

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/speaker-measurements-101

Hi

Good article on speaker measurement and I am proud to say that we are one of the few companies that has a quality Anechoic chamber in our speaker factory and it is the ONLY way you can truly measure Sound Power.

james

[dminches]

Here is a follow up to the previous link regarding power cables:


http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=6507


High end audio too often suffers from this type of marketing.

I am not sure which part of the article you are referring to but I really don't think local dealers are tricking their customers using slight of hand techniques so they can sell them something new.  If one really thinks that they need to find a new dealer.

Sure, dealers may over-boast about something but they are trying to sell things.  Often times they will let you borrow something like a power cable to use in your own system.  If you buy stuff like without trying it at home then you are guilty, not the dealer.