0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 32919 times.
How about a nice watch....
Quote from: lonewolfny42 on 27 Aug 2007, 01:50 amHow about a nice watch.... At least it's jewell encrusted...
I'm curious as to what either side is actually getting out of this discussion. Maybe a representative from each side of the issue could explain what they've learned from the other sides viewpoints that have been expressed in this thread.
You know, what kind of greater understanding has been achieved. It would be helpful I think then one could actually see that there is a point to all of this and the ones who would like to shut it down and perhaps even ban cable discussions altogether would maybe understand that it's not as pointless as it seems.
But reasonable discussions can still be pointless and personally, I'm not sure what is being gained by this except honing arguing skills. I could be wrong though as I may have missed some important points in the 20 plus pages of discussion.
Hey Double:Even if we dont listen to music, if Im in Fla. can I stop by forpie? Now that sounds like a lot of fun to me!
Please be forwarned this is a VERY long detailed thread. It looks like I need to reclarify my original $1,000 bet. As far as I am concerned NO ONE has 'taken' my bet yet. If anyone here truly believes that cable differences cannot be identified they are welcome to put THEIR OWN MONEY on the line and meet my wager. I am not willing to fly someone else "they read about" to my house, on MY bill Third person wagers do NOT apply here . It should be very obvious that I am very confident of the sonic differences that I can identify, at my residence, in my particlar sound system, with my ears (already been done here in more than a few TRUE blind tests over the years mind you, this is not a first for me). Others have also been able to do the same here, in a true controlled 'blind test' environment. It is actually possible do this sort of test with fool proof results in more than just a handfull of the sound systems I have heard over the years (there are quite a few systems though...well, I guess I just should'nt go there). What is so sad about this in going arguement is how few posters here remember their audio history with these sorts of arguments. Case in point: Through the early 1980's there were many scientific papers, ABX tests and other logical arguements saying that cd players cannot be sounding different from one another! From engineers, from niches of people who let "their education get in the way of learning", from very respected industry people too . Unfortunatley it later became obvious that everyone on this side of the arguement were just plain wrong and should have been using their ears to guide them to THE FACT that all cd players do not sound the same and there are actual audiable differences (WHAT? THE "SCIENCE" WAS WRONG?). Now we are almost 15 years away from all of those "proofs" and the many ABX tests and almost no one today would agree with those "scientific" based findings. What changed? More knowledege. More open minds. Bigger sonic differences between later generation digital front ends that were just to easy to hear. These historic parralels with THIS PARTICULAR CABLE THREAD has me scratching my head to why we just can't remember those exhaustive "scientific" arguements that just wouldn't stop for years From that history alone it seems that we are doomed to repeat the same lame brained process alive on this topic too Well, what about the ABX comparator and it's undeniable results? I answer with this counterproof -Why didn't it work in the original digital tests? Why did it seem to "prove" that cd players all sound the same? In those early years of my entry into this hobby, I myself was an avid audio "reader" and whole heartedly agreed that "the science of the ABX cannot be incorrect". Yep, in those early days I voracously read every single science based audio paper that was produced (at least every one I could find). Especially with measurements! I just never even considered the potential obvious, that "those others" might actually be right about a sonic difference. "My science" was correct. They were biased, big money spending fools, nothing more. Nutjobs that heard things that just weren't there. The people that believed in the ABX were without the bias, they were the brilliant ones. Thankfully somewhere along the line my ears and hearing somehow prevailed above my engineering "education" that I too also started to notice sonic differences where "the science" said and proved it couldn't be. Thankfully, I was right. "The Others" were right all along. In a nutshell, all of the ears were right! In my mind (an others) the science was obviously missing something Back to some more questions about the ABX.. Peter "the Axe" at The Audio Critic magazine to this day uses it as "an absolute proof" that if you take any two amplifiers with excellent measurments they will NOT sound any different He's "proved" it again and again with the exhaulted ABX comparitor . Enough said, case closed! Everybody who hears differences between good measuring amplifers are just nutjobs! Biased crazy people that have too much money and no common sense. The ABX proves them dead wrong! Really? How many today actually beleive that amps sound the same? Do we believe the science of the ABX here? Or how about a more objective approach? It is pretty obvious that the vast majority of audiophiles agree that amps do sound different. The ABX doesn't seem to bear that out. Can we come up with another "blind test" methodology that proves amps sound different. YES we can Therefore, since there are other ways to perform "true" blind tests that bear out these sonic differences we now are enabled (without an arguement form either camp) to believe the science AND believe the ears. They both have the same results We just needed to refine our scientific methodology and NOT assume our first methodology was fool proof without fault. Finally it is time to give readers here who seem bent on throwing out links, papers toward "scientific" knowledge that meets "their criterea" for proof of cable differences cannot exist. In the December 1995 Stereophile issue Ben Duncan provided a 10 page overview of wire measurments comparing 8 different cables and showed ABSOLUTE CONCLUSIVE MEASUREMENTS WITH GRAPHS AND EASY TO SEE DIFFERENCES! Yes you read that right, It's been almost 12 years since something scientific was presented that showed without doubt something actually measurable. It was much more than just a meager frequency response comparitive. These tests showed varying degrees of energy storage and release after the cables were hit with a tone burst. Not enough science to make you a believer yet "Mr. Science"? In the October '95 Stereophile there was an overview from Professor Macolm Omar Hawkford using Maxwell's equations developing mathematical models describing the behavior of cables. Again, this was done over a decade ago people. The science has also vidicated the "ears". It has all lined up where both "the engineers" and "the ears" have actually been able to agree for over a decade What about a "true blind" test of cables that's been published? Well here's one I know of off the top of my head. HI-Fi+ magazine did a true blind test between six cables. They all grouped the "best sounding" cable at the top of their findings and the worst at the bottom, blindly, repeatedly, scientifically. Issue 34 - Title: "Blind listening to cables - can we hear the differences, if so does it tell us anything?"Some answers to other's questions; I live in West Bloomfield Michigan, I am 45 years old (can still hear up to 18khz the last time it was measured ). Oh, and I really need to make some quick money this month, the economy here in Michigan could use some serious cash infusion.
Maybe somebody should nominate Tom Nouisane for a Nobel Prize then. Cheers
It should be very obvious that I am very confident of the sonic differences that I can identify, at my residence, in my particlar sound system, with my ears (already been done here in more than a few TRUE blind tests over the years mind you, this is not a first for me). Others have also been able to do the same here, in a true controlled 'blind test' environment.
It is actually possible do this sort of test with fool proof results in more than just a handfull of the sound systems I have heard over the years (there are quite a few systems though...well, I guess I just should'nt go there).
What is so sad about this in going arguement is how few posters here remember their audio history with these sorts of arguments. Case in point: Through the early 1980's there were many scientific papers, ABX tests and other logical arguements saying that cd players cannot be sounding different from one another!
From engineers, from niches of people who let "their education get in the way of learning", from very respected industry people too . Unfortunatley it later became obvious that everyone on this side of the arguement were just plain wrong and should have been using their ears to guide them to THE FACT that all cd players do not sound the same and there are actual audiable differences (WHAT? THE "SCIENCE" WAS WRONG?). Now we are almost 15 years away from all of those "proofs" and the many ABX tests and almost no one today would agree with those "scientific" based findings.
Well, what about the ABX comparator and it's undeniable results?
I answer with this counterproof -Why didn't it work in the original digital tests? Why did it seem to "prove" that cd players all sound the same? In those early years of my entry into this hobby, I myself was an avid audio "reader" and whole heartedly agreed that "the science of the ABX cannot be incorrect". Yep, in those early days I voracously read every single science based audio paper that was produced (at least every one I could find). Especially with measurements! I just never even considered the potential obvious, that "those others" might actually be right about a sonic difference. "My science" was correct. They were biased, big money spending fools, nothing more. Nutjobs that heard things that just weren't there. The people that believed in the ABX were without the bias, they were the brilliant ones. Thankfully somewhere along the line my ears and hearing somehow prevailed above my engineering "education" that I too also started to notice sonic differences where "the science" said and proved it couldn't be. Thankfully, I was right. "The Others" were right all along. In a nutshell, all of the ears were right! In my mind (an others) the science was obviously missing something
Back to some more questions about the ABX.. Peter "the Axe" at The Audio Critic magazine to this day uses it as "an absolute proof" that if you take any two amplifiers with excellent measurments they will NOT sound any different He's "proved" it again and again with the exhaulted ABX comparitor . Enough said, case closed! Everybody who hears differences between good measuring amplifers are just nutjobs! Biased crazy people that have too much money and no common sense. The ABX proves them dead wrong! Really? How many today actually beleive that amps sound the same? Do we believe the science of the ABX here? Or how about a more objective approach? It is pretty obvious that the vast majority of audiophiles agree that amps do sound different. The ABX doesn't seem to bear that out. Can we come up with another "blind test" methodology that proves amps sound different. YES we can Therefore, since there are other ways to perform "true" blind tests that bear out these sonic differences we now are enabled (without an arguement form either camp) to believe the science AND believe the ears. They both have the same results We just needed to refine our scientific methodology and NOT assume our first methodology was fool proof without fault.
Finally it is time to give readers here who seem bent on throwing out links, papers toward "scientific" knowledge that meets "their criterea" for proof of cable differences cannot exist. In the December 1995 Stereophile issue Ben Duncan provided a 10 page overview of wire measurments comparing 8 different cables and showed ABSOLUTE CONCLUSIVE MEASUREMENTS WITH GRAPHS AND EASY TO SEE DIFFERENCES! Yes you read that right, It's been almost 12 years since something scientific was presented that showed without doubt something actually measurable. It was much more than just a meager frequency response comparitive. These tests showed varying degrees of energy storage and release after the cables were hit with a tone burst.
Not enough science to make you a believer yet "Mr. Science"? In the October '95 Stereophile there was an overview from Professor Macolm Omar Hawkford using Maxwell's equations developing mathematical models describing the behavior of cables. Again, this was done over a decade ago people.
The science has also vidicated the "ears". It has all lined up where both "the engineers" and "the ears" have actually been able to agree for over a decade
What about a "true blind" test of cables that's been published? Well here's one I know of off the top of my head. HI-Fi+ magazine did a true blind test between six cables. They all grouped the "best sounding" cable at the top of their findings and the worst at the bottom, blindly, repeatedly, scientifically. Issue 34 - Title: "Blind listening to cables - can we hear the differences, if so does it tell us anything?"
I gave an example of how to build a cheap DIY IC cable. Isn't that interesting?
My personal take-away is the interesting psychological reasonings by Steve Eddy. The relationships between belief, faith, impression and perception is a very curious topic indeed.
Steve, why would anyone buy your cables if they can get the same "sound" from MUCH less expensive ones?
Quote from: Marbles on 27 Aug 2007, 02:26 pmSteve, why would anyone buy your cables if they can get the same "sound" from MUCH less expensive ones?I don't know. Why?And why do you have "sound" in quotes?se
I don't know why either.
I have the word sound in quotes as sound comes from the speakers not the wires, but wanted to convey they might have a signature is imparted on the sound that comes from the speaker that would be similar to lesser costing alternatives. I did not want to have to type out this explanation in my original post.....
Here's a shot of that 1M room (turns out it was $1.6M...)
