 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Now what have I done wrong? posted by Jitter_by_Coffee on October 29, 2002 at 05:08:46:
While we're at it, no one has yet responded to Steve's question:Tell me, John, what else is there of any relevance to audio electronics beyond changes in voltage and current versus time? Name one thing from quantum mechanics which has any consequence to audio electronics which does not ultimately manifest itself as changes in voltage and current versus time?
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/61472.html
Follow Ups:
Phil, I promise to back off, then you 'challenge' me with this SE 'question' Yesterday, I purchased a special FFT based HP3563 that cost me real money, just to please the likes of Steve Eddy. Phil, I CAN measure the result of quantum mechanical effects in wire.
This has been my interest for the last 5 years. I am apparently measuring the effects of 'dislocations, single and overlapping stacking faults, stacking-fault bends and partial and complete stacking-fault tetrahedra' p. 313 Forward. These faults appear to store energy and then release it when a specific voltage level is present, in the form of pulses. This appears to me as higher order harmonic distortion which is the 'window' that I can easily measure. Of course, I am measuring the changes of voltage (or current) with time. SE should know this, but he ignores my measured input. That's the problem.
(NT)
John:Despite the way it appeared, my intent was not to challenge you. Steve's question got raised at the end of one thread, I tried to bring it up in a second thread, and it just kind of got lost in the mix. That's why I said "nobody" had answered it.
It's just a question I've been wondering about. It also relates to some points John Escallier raised about decimal points in measurements.
I wasn't sure where anyone stood on this issue. Perhaps I had not seen a statement from you before clearly stating that you could measure the quantum effects.
Also, remember, I've been perceiving differences in cables for decades. As I recall, the earliest cables where I can recall hearing such differences were the early FMS Blue cables, Bruce Brisson's early MIT cables, early offerings from Audioquest, and, of course, how could I forget to mention Monster (and if I'm not mistaken, Brisson may have gotten his start with Monster and designed their earlier offerings).
In any event, it certainly wouldn't bother me at all if you could demonstrate that I haven't just been hallucinating all these years (please all you naysayers, I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek here - I realize that you're not necessarily claiming "hallucination" but rather "placebo", etc.).
You are still not clear my position which I believe you adhere to the general naysayer belief.To be frank (even though I'm Mike), I do not believe you are experiencing hallucinations. Even the placebo effect is one of many possibilities and perhaps not the correct one. I believe you when you say you heard something, since I have no reason to think you are lying, or even exaggerating.
The problem I am having is tying what you heard to actual cable differences, and cable differences alone. It is understandable given that differences are heard when you actually change cables. It is understandable how such a conclusion can be reached. However, I cannot yet accept the leap to that conclusion, regardless of your reported experiences (or others).
To properly reach such a conclusion (in my estimation), all other possibilities would have to be systematically eliminated. And the process to eliminate the possibilities would have to be repeatable. Unfortunately, the real rub is that such a process would likely be expensive and time-consuming. I don't see the motivation for anybody to undertake such task, especially on the consumer/audiophile level. Someone with suffucient resources would have to have a compelling reason to attempt it. And to top it off, if the results were unfavourable, people might be inclined to ignore them and carry on as usual.
As a further spiral into this abyss, we cannot even agree what potential differences might be attributed to as far as the physical properties of a cable. Was is it due to inductance, capacitance, skin effect, etc.?
So where does that leave us? Right here and right now....
I would kindly ask that you desist presenting a naysayer point of view as someone who laughs and accuses others of hallucinations. That's not the case at all. We simply have a scientific slant on this issue an do not feel the any conclusion can be made at this time since there is not sufficient data.
First of all, but for the fact that I do not write as well as you, I could have written most of what you just wrote, myself. But, let me focus on the most important parts.The problem I am having is tying what you heard to actual cable differences, and cable differences alone. It is understandable given that differences are heard when you actually change cables. It is understandable how such a conclusion can be reached. However, I cannot yet accept the leap to that conclusion, regardless of your reported experiences (or others).
I am not asking you to tie what I heard to actual differences. How could I? I’m not even prepared to make that connection myself. Usually, when I describe my own personal experiences, I try to use the word “perceive” rather than “hear.” For example, I might say that I perceived a difference between cable X and cable Y. By that I mean only that it was my experience that there was a sonic difference between the two cables. If I substitute the word “heard”, that becomes too strong a statement, as I have no way of knowing whether I heard actual sonic differences, or simply “perceived” differences due to some factor or factors other than actual audible, sonic differences.
You cannot make the leap to believing that two different cables actually produce true, audible sonic differences because of what I heard. That puts you and me on the very same side of the fence, because I’m not willing to make that leap either.
To properly reach such a conclusion (in my estimation), all other possibilities would have to be systematically eliminated. And the process to eliminate the possibilities would have to be repeatable. Unfortunately, the real rub is that such a process would likely be expensive and time-consuming. I don't see the motivation for anybody to undertake such task, especially on the consumer/audiophile level. Someone with suffucient resources would have to have a compelling reason to attempt it. And to top it off, if the results were unfavourable, people might be inclined to ignore them and carry on as usual.
I unqualifiedly agree with that statement.
As a further spiral into this abyss, we cannot even agree what potential differences might be attributed to as far as the physical properties of a cable. Was is it due to inductance, capacitance, skin effect, etc.?
At this point, I’m going to excuse myself from the conversation and leave this part to you and the other technically competent people who are willing to consider these issues.
Oh, hell, forget that last sentence. I’m a lawyer, so I can talk about something even if I don’t know what I’m talking about. And here I’m willing to let the naysayer side of my schizoid personality show even more. As you know, mtrycrafts frequently posts a massive bibliography of different scholarly and lay articles which he maintains demonstrate pretty clearly that the typical electronic variations the yeasayers either talk about measuring, or theorize about, would result in differences in sonic effects far below what is currently believed to be the threshold of human hearing (the “JNDs” stuff). This is a subject that doesn’t get discussed much over here at AA.
Some of the articles on mtrycrafts list are available by mail order or download from the AES, and I have read some of these articles. Most though are only accessible by a trip, or perhaps several trips, to the library, which is more than I’m willing to do. I wish he could just post them all on a website, but I guess there would be copyright problems with doing that. However, while I have seen some express general disagreement with what he purports those references demonstrate about the threshold of human hearing, I have never seen anyone go through those references and refute them point by point. All of which means to me that there may very well be an extremely powerful argument that the level of electronic differences in wires that the yeasayers normally discuss could not possibly be responsible for actual, audible differences between cables.
As you know, I went to great lengths at AR to separate my (admittedly uneducated) scientific view of all this, which is decidedly on the naysayer side of the fence, from my own personal experiences in the privacy of my sound room – a distinction I might say that many of the full-blooded naysayers at AR never seemed to be capable of tolerating.
I may never know the scientific answers to all this. In the meantime, if I “perceive” a significant improvement results in my system by substituting in a new cable or component, and that “perceived” improvement is personally worth the dollar cost to me, I’m going to conclude that life is too short to wait around for the Great Cable Debate or Great Component Debate to be settled, and I will choose to go for the “gusto” while I can and buy the damn cable or component.
Has this particular approach to the subject caused me problems both here and at AR? It certainly has.
Now for what I assume was the cause of all this confusion just now, and that was my use of the word “hallucination”. That was just me being silly, and I tried to point out that I recognized that no one was accusing me of actually hallucinating. But rather than go through the painfully detailed explanation I just did, I chose to use the word “placebo”, because, as I hope the above illustrates, I have absolutely no scientific proof that my perceptions of differences over the past 30 years are anything but “placebo” caused.
I would like to say, however, that if I were permitted to speculate and offer some of the reasons I personally have some problems, from the standpoint of logic, concluding that all of my “perceptions” have been the result of “placebo”, I can go on at length with that conversation. I tried that several times over at AR and repeatedly was taken to task for being “unscientific”. I don’t know if I would get the same reaction here, but I know that this evening I don’t have the energy to start down that road.
Finally, Mike, please keep in mind that even though I have gotten as involved in anyone in this whole naysayer vs. yeasayer debate (which has been raging for well over 30 years now), the most interesting part of it to me is the humor I see in the whole thing. Accordingly, my writing is frequently intended to be sarcastic or cast as caricature. Unfortunately, I'm not particularly skilled at expressing my humorous take on a lot of this, and I end up frequently being misunderstood. In hopes of avoiding such confusion, I have tried in this post to outline as clearly as I can where I truly stand on these issues. Moreover, in what may have some meaning to you, I have attempted to do so without regard to the particular website I am currently posting on.
Actually, I am not really kidding around here right now. You know, as well as I do, how the propegation of stereotypes is counter-productive and wrong. It may seem funny and unimportant when we take mild jabs at each other, but your very words, if repeated often enough, might entrench a negative stereotype about a typical naysayer. It would be undesirable to have my thoughts and opinions diminished due to a pre-conceived perception of who I may be and how I may think.And as I have always said, or intimated, please let me know if I have engaged in activity I personally do not condone. I am a big enough person to admit fault. My goal is consistency. For through consistency, I am able to criticize with a modicum of credibility.
First, the only personal issue I have with you is the one involving the two links at the very bottom of this post. Second, I just can’t always take this stuff seriously. I have to be able to at least laugh at myself, because I can’t believe I spend as much time talking about wires as I do. I know your career is wires, but you deal with serious wires. Here, were just talking about part of what goes into a stereo system.But, since you want to get serious, let me share with you some things that do bother me. For purposes of this discussion, I’ll be referring to AR, but my intent is not to bash that site, but rather refer to examples of a specific point of view I have problems with.
A recent visitor to AR asked the following question:
Can anyone recommend cables for Harman Kardon AVR 7000, Dinaudio 52, Dinaudio SUB 20-A and CD Ah! Njoe Tjoeb 4000?
I like warmth, with soft highs and deep, tight and controlled bass.
I would spend max. around 600$.
Thanks everybody.The following post is typical of the kind of advice newcomers are given at AR:
"re: Cables for H K AVR 7000, Dinaudio 52 & Ah! Njoe 4000"
You don't need to spend anywhere that amount on cables unless you are wiring an auditorium.
No special cables are needed. The sources that was mentioned, Radio Shack, Target, Home Depot, WalMart, or a local electronics parts store will have what you need.And, most important, don't attribute things to cables that it cannot deliver
"I like warmth, with soft highs and deep, tight and controlled bass."
These are speaker and room functions.
One more item: audio is full of bs, urban legends, voodoo, mythology and imagined events.
To me that is an unqualified claim that all cables sound the same. Do you see it the same way I do? Do you feel that, without appropriate qualification, that is appropriate advice to give a newcomer? Do you feel that post is “scientifically valid”?
Here is another responsive post, which unfortunately is far less representative of the type of advice that is usually given out at AR:
...there has been no defintive proof that wiring changes(> > > OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER: wiring of like properties, length etc., volume matched and all the rest...so don't start bustin' 'em < < <)have any effect on sound...and, I if I might hazard a guess, nearly no one would dispute the fact that room treatments etc., will yield far more results than wires ever will(that's, of course, assuming wiring actually has any effect whatsoever and the percieved results, as postulated by some, are any thing more than wishful thinking or the results of any other factors...psychological or otherwise).
As suggested, try some different speaker placement schemes; perhaps you will discover some improvement. Personally, since you seem satisified, I'd just enjoy the music(after all THAT'S what it's all about...whether it comes out of a cheap transistor radio or the "best" money can buy). Room equalization is also a viable approach.If the notion of wire changes really plays heavily on your mind(as it does to some), find a place that will allow you to audition them on approval. Be really careful for what I and many others view as outlandish claims and wishful thinking. The phrase "caveat emptor" seems eminently suited for this market.
If you are handy, have the time, tools, patience and don't mind spending a few bucks, there are DIY schemes that some swear by; only YOU can decide what sounds good to YOU. Do keep in mind, accurate sound and pleasing(some would say "colored") sound, are not necessarily the same thing.
Would you agree that this is far better advice to give a newcomer, than was given in the first post?
Sprinkled through out that same thread, one of the typical pissing matches erupted between a yeasayer and a naysayer, during which the naysayer said the following:
Now, your money is your money, but you do not need to spend megabucks in buying well constructed cables. And used in their proper applications, they will not change the sound of your system by any objective standard. Of course, its kinda like feng shui, if you believe it makes a difference, then by all means sink a few hundred dollars into cables rather than a high quality equalizer or room treatments. But then, if you believe in feng shui, you could probably get by with cheap cables and simply arrange them properly. ;-)
To me, there was a very slight hedging of bets in this quote because of the use of the term “objective standard”, but this to me appears to be pretty close to an unqualified claim that all cables sound the same. How do you see this quote?
Next, I do have a serious concern with the fixation at AR on the relative merits of AR and AA. I have sensed recently at AR that without a strong “loyal opposition” present, the naysayers are really stretching to find excuses to hammer yeasayers. Your daily AA quote is one example. Another regular there has gone on a campaign to convince the relatively few people who even bother to visit the AR cable forum that it is clearly superior to AA.
Following are some typical posts of that one individual and others who have followed his lead:
I posted on AA a long time ago. Suddenly one day I realized that you cannot discuss DBTs or ABX testing, very important concepts in evaluating the differences between products. But I believe that this restriction only applies to wire and cable. This immediately biases the entrire forum by skewing it in favor of those who believe in the value of these products. Considering how controversial this entire subject is, it is intellectually disingenuous for the moderators of that board to claim that they have an open forum when they have in a sense censored one entire point of view. Therefore, the forum is heavily skewed and it is hardly any wonder that those whose personal financial interests are served by having a free advertising platform to communicate on, disguised as an open discussion find it so attractive and post there so frequently. Perhaps that's why I'm so suspicious of the entire arguement. That's also why I left and would never post there again. Well that's my opinion.
"The anti-DBT rule, BTW, was imposed for the sole purpose of preventing rabid, naysayer extremeists from destroying that forum the way they destroyed this forum, and preventing them from dragging participation down to just a precious few in numbers, as is the case here." [MY QUOTE; WHAT FOLLOWS IS HIS RESPONSE]
Whatever it's purpose or intent was, it has in effect stifled open debate and made it an advertizer friendly forum. I'm not going to name names but at least one manufacturer regularly posts there and is considered a "friend" to many of the other "contributors." When I posted criticisms of his products there a long time ago under another handle, it came out that many of his contributor cheerleaders were also his employees.
It is shocking that an attorney trained in the United States of America would defend censorship of material not injurious except to those who wish to propound a dogmatic appproach to an idea which is supposed to be under free and open debate, the exact opposite of free speech. This is the very essence of tyranny and a hallmark of the 20th century totalitarian state including Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Viet Naam, and now apparantly AA Cable Assylum. Absolutely contrary to all of the basic underpinnings of modern western civilization from Voltaire and Rousseau to Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Payne. A true disappointment. A disgrace and a letdown.
As an open forum it is a sham. Even in this forum, there are shills, sometimes unwittingly so. It was only about a year ago that someone who regularly posts here admitted that he had a personal working relationship if not a financial interest with the owner of a cable manufacturing company whose products he praised extensively.
One can imagine the so called intelectual knowledgeable discourse in the Vatican during the inquisition in which cloistered cardinals argued how many angels could dance on the head of a pin while those on the outside who voiced opposition were put to the rack. You may call it "knowledgeable intelligent dialogue" but when its basic assumptions are not open to debate, or when discussion of valid scientific tests challenging it are not permitted, it carries no weight as far as I am concerned. I do not go there and I do criticize it as a fraud and a sham because of its censorship. No professional society in the scientific community would tolerate such a rule of restriction and any member who proposed such a rule would be laughed out if he wasn't thrown out. Rules like that are anti-science mind control. I also criticize anyone who would defend it as a traitor to intellectual freedom and whose arguements can no longer carry any weight with me. Reprehensible is the only word to describe it.
When I used to follow AA, it seemed more like a religious cult to me than an objective forum to discuss anything on. The manufacturers were the gods, engineers with arcane theories that no one not among their lofty group could understand are the high priests, and then there was the crowd of the faithful, some of whom turned out to be employees of the manufacturers who posted there. And heaven help anyone who disagreed or challenged the whole thing. Yes democracy is noisy, messy, riotous at times. That's its nature and people are free to make asses of themselves. That's the price we pay for it in our forums and in our government. I for one wouldn't have it any other way. And hopefully for those who accept this forum for what it is and like it, it won't change. BTW, some of the so called engineers who post there post here too but there ideas are not automatically unchallenged and taken as gospel.
As I said, AA is clearly an inferior forum. Whatever the elctrical arguements are, and they are usually arcane and few and far between as far as I can tell, they have no significance unless they can be correlated to audible differences which make them of value to the end user and therefore justify their cost.
My personal view is that a forum that "censors one entire point of view" is really not open and not worth reading or responding in. That point alone makes this forum superior, or even worth reading.
I suppose some people, who have ill-founded ideas and need to protect them while expounding them for the "benefit" of others, need a place like AA. Or maybe they just like to hear themselves expound? I think it highlights the fact that these people are not interested in reality; fantasy is more fun.
At least they are saved from some of the idiocy I've seen on AA. Some of the nitwits who post there are know-it-alls who get themselves or could get themselves into a lot of trouble especially with their do it yourself experimentation.
Some people were a little irate that I didn't feel one bit sorry for the guy who knitted a gigantic capacitor out of telephone wire woven together to make home made speaker wire and blew his amplifier up with it. Some of the proponents of this design swore it was due to a short circuit but we never found out.
Then there was the guy who was buying ferrite beads and putting them in the ground circuit of his home made power cord creating (unknown to him) a dangerous high impedence ground path that defeated the very purpose of the safety ground. That prompted me to write a letter to UL.
But the worst was the idiot who made his home made power cord out of coaxial cable. Some of the "brains" over at AA will try anything. Intellectually gifted? No, just intellectually bankrupt without one shred of common sense.
Being of a suspicious nature (I was born and raised in New York City which I thought was the scam capital of the world until I lived in California) I always wonder what people's motives are when things don't seem right to me. I looked at AA's home page for the first time today (it's true) and surprise, surprise, who puts up the money fot THAT board. Well you can draw your own conclusions, I've already drawn mine.
As for this board, I haven't experienced being censored. So I'll say it...Target, Target, Target....no need to spend all of that extra money at Target....the one that came in the box with the equipment is every bit as good and you've already paid for it. Let's see if this gets censored by the AA thought police. (Big Brother is watching YOU!)You’ve been spending a fair amount of time over here at AA lately. Do you thing those are fair comments and fairly represent what is really going on here? I assume you do because you have not challenged one of those statements at AR.
Finally, since you want to get serious, what, if any, comments do you have regarding these two links:
http://forums14.consumerreview.com/crforum?14@121.7tFeaxBSeco^897011@.ef9268e/28
http://forums14.consumerreview.com/crforum?14@121.7tFeaxBSeco^897012@.ef9268e/29
I would assume, based on the following language of yours recently posted at AR:I cannot imagine going to AA and having a different Internet "personality". I mean fer chrissakes, I'm using the same moniker!
It's natural human instinct to devalue the opinion and words of the duplicitous. I do not think that can be avoided. I personally pity the fool who is perceived as duplicitous, real or imagined. Please tell me if I am even approaching this state of mind because I detest it
and based on your two posts regarding me, mentioned in the last two links of my post directly above, that you consisder yourself as non-duplicitous and that you consider me as duplicitous.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2013, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Take5 ]