Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

Propeller Head Plaza

Scientific evidence of power cables reducing signal distortion

71.49.244.108

In the July 2009 Stereophile (pg.11) Paul Messenger reports of Russ Andrew's measurements of how his powercables cut audio signal distortion by reducing RFI. Although the vast majority of audiophiles can hear the differences cables make, this may at least open the minds of critics who do not possess such highly trained ears.

www.russandrews.com/downloads/cabletestpremres.pdf

Follow Ups:

RE: Scientific evidence of power cables reducing signal distortion - philhansen 02:42:31 09/09/09 (0)
I met with Russ a couple of days ago and he thought that, as well as the white papers, you might be interested in reading the original research papers. If you click on the link below you can read them in all their glory - enjoy!

Also, just for the record (as there has been some mis-reporting on this issue in various places on the web), the testing was done to provide the evidence that the UK's Advertising Standards Authority said was lacking when it considered the company's claims about the RFI reduction capabilities of its mains cables. The ASA did not at any time say the cables didn't work, they just wanted to see more in-depth evidence. And, there has been no court case, no legal dispute, no fine and definitely no gaol time!
- http://www.russandrews.com/research (Open in New Window)
RE: Scientific evidence of power cables reducing signal distortion - philhansen 10:38:21 09/04/09 (0)
In my capacity as Russ Andrews Accessories' PR guy I have been asked to help you all with this discussion.
First of all though, I have to confess that I haven't read all 22,242 words that make up this thread - frankly I just don't have time to do that. What is clear is though, is that there appears to be some difficulty in accessing the full research papers, as a few of you having commented on the early results version of the report e.g. "I recall reading a post alluding to a long form version of the report, but without a link."
Visit this link (also available directly from the home page of the Russ Andrews website at www.russandrews.com) and you'll be able to download pdfs of the two white papers http://bit.ly/i3JIb

As with most serious scientific papers, it is protocol to have them independently reviewed and there is no exception here. Both papers were submitted to Dr Craig Sawyers, who holds a BSc (1st class Honours) in Electronics Science and a PhD in Laser Physics from Southampton University, before being published.
- http://bit.ly/i3JIb (Open in New Window)
RE: Scientific evidence of power cables reducing signal distortion - Peter H-son 09:01:58 06/30/09 (0)
And the creationists have "science" to prove the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old.
Stereophile also published this discredited "scientific" paper.
There is no difference whatsoever between the Creationist Museum and Stereophile. You just need to be on the outside to see it.
- Electrical Signal Propagation & Cable Theory (Open in New Window)
Edits: 06/30/09
Measuring properties or changing operation? - tomservo 11:04:59 06/24/09 (29)
One point that will surely be objected to as it fly’s in opposition to popular folk lore is that high end audio gear is usually well designed.
There are examples of good engineering but low cost and high looks are obviously very important and some problems show incomplete design. Not surprising in this day of fewer and fewer analogue and low RF designers I suppose.

In another area, that of test equipment or any industrial electronics really, the job of the power supply is to deliver a steady DC voltage, filtering out the hum and remnant AC, steady enough so that the operation of the circuitry doesn’t change with varying input line voltages.
Test equipment may be used right next to a transmitter or comparatively huge noise source as part of it’s job, it CAN’T be effected by that stuff or it will give erroneous reading.
Want to see some examples, examine any analyzer or Voltmeter from Hewlett Packard from the 1980’s to see excellent design.
I designed and built sections of experimental hardware flown on STS-7 and STS-51a, part of the acceptance testing was confirming it would all work normally with a horrendous DC supply and that the 100 Amp furnace controller didn’t radiate more than a small amount in air or by conduction.
The point I guess is that if in the home environment, a piece of electronics is effected by RF noise on its AC cord which is changed by a “better cord” than one is certainly by the very concept of proper engineering, dealing with a poor or incomplete power supply design, regardless of what it looks like or costs.
- RE: Measuring properties or changing operation? - Dan Banquer 11:10:02 06/26/09 (0)
  What if your power cords are designed to increase the magnetic field enough to change the phase of the current through them? What if that phase change is enough to seriously alter the charge cycle of the supply?
  Is that also a design fault of the power supply?
  d.b.
- RE: Measuring properties or changing operation? - bjh 11:40:54 06/24/09 (27)
  I see that sort of testimonial as a typical example of why it shouldn't matter , or if it matters it's poor design , often, as in this case, with analogies from other fields of electronics.
  Yet acknowledging that even though much "... high end audio gear is usually well designed" things like power line conditioning and power cords *do* often still make a difference.
  It's just some can't wrap their brains around the fact, and despite all the noise, it is indeed fact.
  
  Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
  
  Edits: 06/24/09
  - RE: Measuring properties or changing operation? - rick_m 06:35:16 06/25/09 (20)
    Um... If I may butt in and dispense with the double negatives I would paraphrase what Tom said thusly: 'If high-end audio equipment was really well designed, cables and environment wouldn't matter'. Since they do, it isn't. You guys are barking right up my tree so I'd like to hop up on my soap box and throw in my two cents worth.
    
    While I largely agree with him, cables themselves are actually the source of some problems, especially triboelectric noise. Anybody that's stepped on a cheap microphone cable has heard that one...
    
    It isn't just the competence, or lack thereof of the designers. Home audio is one of those pathological cases which superficially seems trivial, and yet isn't. While almost anything thrown together by almost anyone will work, designing a product that really works well, i.e. to the point that it is effectively transparent to the ear, is another matter. Here are a few reasons that come to mind..
    
    1. The lack of systems engineering.
    -The home audio system topology wasn't designed, it just happened.
    
    2. The lack of meaningful standards.
    -To put it bluntly, it's not important enough to governments or industry.
    
    3. Unusually wide bandwidth.
    - Three to four decades of signal bandwidth is huge.
    
    4. In-band power.
    - Having the 60Hz power supply and it's main harmonics where we hear is bad.
    
    5. Extreme user sensitivity.
    - Reducing distortion to where you really CAN'T be aware of it is tough.
    
    6. Conflicting design approaches.
    - Nowadays this is less of a problem due to switchers and mixed-signal designs, but traditionally audio guys were clueless about RF and the major rules of thumb are in conflict. It's hard to both star ground and maintain a Faraday shield.
    
    Enough of that. It isn't trivial, there is no agreement on how good is good enough, what factors are important and how they are to be measured and weighted, or what the worst-case environment is that must be accommodated. The latter includes vibration, equipment interface, power supply, EMC and operators both deliberate and inadvertent. I'm trying to think if I know of anybody whose toddler HASN'T put a PB&J sandwich into the VCR.
    
    But... I'm with Tom. The obvious goal is to design gear where all of these variables become, as much as possible, 'don't-cares'.
    
    Rick
    - RE: Measuring properties or changing operation? - Todd Krieger 12:05:34 06/25/09 (1)
      "It isn't just the competence, or lack thereof of the designers. Home audio is one of those pathological cases which superficially seems trivial, and yet isn't. "
      I don't think it's just home audio..... It's **all** audio....... If you think the stuff designed for the studio is of more competence, I'd kindly but strongly disagree. (I personally think Pro Tools is the single biggest monstrosity of a design ever conceived.) Just look at the horrible recordings that have been put out in recent time.
      "While almost anything thrown together by almost anyone will work, designing a product that really works well, i.e. to the point that it is effectively transparent to the ear, is another matter. Here are a few reasons that come to mind..
      1. The lack of systems engineering.
      -The home audio system topology wasn't designed, it just happened."
      Systems engineering would force a home audio system to be of a "all in one" type design..... Unless every designer agrees upon what the system ought to be, this "lack" will go on indefinitely......
      I personally don't think this facet of engineering is any more of a problem than other facets of engineering.
      "2. The lack of meaningful standards.
      -To put it bluntly, it's not important enough to governments or industry."
      It shouldn't be important to government, unless public safety is an issue...... (This is why we have UL standards, by the way.)
      I do agree in regard to industry...... But it would require an across-the-board agreement amongst many backgrounds, so even if such objective is sought, the chances for successful implementation would be very slim.
      "3. Unusually wide bandwidth.
      - Three to four decades of signal bandwidth is huge."
      Not since digital audio has hit the scene. Bandwidth is limited to 22.05 kHz. And because of that, bandwidth in line and power amplification is no longer so important. So I strongly disagree here.
      I also disagree in regard to bandwidth being a problem, unless it's so wide, it becomes susceptible to RF interference.
      "4. In-band power.
      - Having the 60Hz power supply and it's main harmonics where we hear is bad."
      The only solution to this is battery power..... Jeff Rowland, a so-called "home audio" manufacturer, has undertaken such approach.
      "5. Extreme user sensitivity.
      - Reducing distortion to where you really CAN'T be aware of it is tough."
      The user sensitivity has always been "extreme." The problem is too many in the design community are trying to convince the masses that associated discomforts should be tolerated to a degree or that the sensitivity is overrated. This is a big reason why audio design has been disappointing, in my humble opinion.
      "6. Conflicting design approaches.
      - Nowadays this is less of a problem due to switchers and mixed-signal designs, but traditionally audio guys were clueless about RF and the major rules of thumb are in conflict. It's hard to both star ground and maintain a Faraday shield."
      It's not difficult to make a star ground and Faraday shield...... It's that the latter has been deemed unimportant. Whether it is or not is subject to debate, but I will say the internal RFI generated from digital devices has rendered the Faraday shield ineffective. Although it should still be used on purely analog components like phono stages.
      In regard to "clueless about RF", this is a problem for most designers across the board, not just home audio. The RFI generated by digital devices has changed everything.
      Conflicting designs in itself is not an issue. The might both be competent, they might both be incompetent, and anything in between.
      "Enough of that. It isn't trivial, there is no agreement on how good is good enough,"
      Now here you hit on an issue. When in doubt, raise the bar, not go the easy route and think a lesser design might still fly. This IMO is a big problem in modern audio design. The bar simply hasn't been set high.
      "what factors are important and how they are to be measured and weighted, or what the worst-case environment is that must be accommodated. The latter includes vibration, equipment interface, power supply, EMC and operators both deliberate and inadvertent. I'm trying to think if I know of anybody whose toddler HASN'T put a PB&J sandwich into the VCR."
      Or oatmeal.
      "But... I'm with Tom. The obvious goal is to design gear where all of these variables become, as much as possible, 'don't-cares'."
      If the bar is set low, the variables do become "don't cares"..... The problem is there will be someone who will think the design is inadequate.
      If the bar is set high, the variables becoming "don't cares" is next to impossible, in my humble opinion. This is why I think listener feedback is paramount to a good audio design. Until we can attain a more-complete picture from a measurements and specs standpoint, the best yardstick for performance will indefinitely be the collective satisfaction of the end users.
      
      Edits: 06/25/09
      - RE: Measuring properties or changing operation? - rick_m 15:41:52 06/25/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Measuring properties or changing operation? posted by Todd Krieger on June 25, 2009 at 12:05:34
        
        "It isn't just the competence, or lack thereof of the designers. Home audio is one of those pathological cases which superficially seems trivial, and yet isn't. "
        I don't think it's just home audio..... It's **all** audio....... If you think the stuff designed for the studio is of more competence, I'd kindly but strongly disagree. (I personally think Pro Tools is the single biggest monstrosity of a design ever conceived.) Just look at the horrible recordings that have been put out in recent time.
        > Well, I don't have much exposure to that field but I think it's better, at least they are using balanced cables! The main reason I usually say 'home audio' is that that's what I'm familiar with.
        
        "While almost anything thrown together by almost anyone will work, designing a product that really works well, i.e. to the point that it is effectively transparent to the ear, is another matter. Here are a few reasons that come to mind..
        1. The lack of systems engineering.
        -The home audio system topology wasn't designed, it just happened."
        Systems engineering would force a home audio system to be of a "all in one" type design..... Unless every designer agrees upon what the system ought to be, this "lack" will go on indefinitely......
        > Nah, I don't think so. The main thing that's wrong is the interfaces are poorly specified especially with respect to impedance and susceptibility.
        I personally don't think this facet of engineering is any more of a problem than other facets of engineering.
        > Boy I do, look at the stuff people hang onto their systems trying to get them to play well together.
        
        "2. The lack of meaningful standards.
        -To put it bluntly, it's not important enough to governments or industry."
        It shouldn't be important to government, unless public safety is an issue...... (This is why we have UL standards, by the way.)
        > It depends upon your view of government. Ours does have some such as FCC part 15, Europe has more. I've come to view some of the CE requirements as a good thing. It makes my job harder but really does result in a sturdier design.
        I do agree in regard to industry...... But it would require an across-the-board agreement amongst many backgrounds, so even if such objective is sought, the chances for successful implementation would be very slim.
        "3. Unusually wide bandwidth.
        - Three to four decades of signal bandwidth is huge."
        Not since digital audio has hit the scene. Bandwidth is limited to 22.05 kHz. And because of that, bandwidth in line and power amplification is no longer so important. So I strongly disagree here.
        > On the outside that limitation reduces the bandwidth by less than an octave.
        I also disagree in regard to bandwidth being a problem, unless it's so wide, it becomes susceptible to RF interference.
        > The wide bandwidth makes the signal more susceptible to problems, especially due to passives such as skin effect and core saturation.
        
        "4. In-band power.
        - Having the 60Hz power supply and it's main harmonics where we hear is bad."
        The only solution to this is battery power..... Jeff Rowland, a so-called "home audio" manufacturer, has undertaken such approach.
        "5. Extreme user sensitivity.
        - Reducing distortion to where you really CAN'T be aware of it is tough."
        The user sensitivity has always been "extreme." The problem is too many in the design community are trying to convince the masses that associated discomforts should be tolerated to a degree or that the sensitivity is overrated. This is a big reason why audio design has been disappointing, in my humble opinion.
        > Agreed.
        
        "6. Conflicting design approaches.
        - Nowadays this is less of a problem due to switchers and mixed-signal designs, but traditionally audio guys were clueless about RF and the major rules of thumb are in conflict. It's hard to both star ground and maintain a Faraday shield."
        It's not difficult to make a star ground and Faraday shield...... It's that the latter has been deemed unimportant. Whether it is or not is subject to debate, but I will say the internal RFI generated from digital devices has rendered the Faraday shield ineffective. Although it should still be used on purely analog components like phono stages.
        > I think it is. Basically you want the shield to ground to the box for RF but to the board for audio so if you do a good job you end up with a little of each but don't get the best of either
        In regard to "clueless about RF", this is a problem for most designers across the board, not just home audio. The RFI generated by digital devices has changed everything.
        Conflicting designs in itself is not an issue. The might both be competent, they might both be incompetent, and anything in between.
        "Enough of that. It isn't trivial, there is no agreement on how good is good enough,"
        Now here you hit on an issue. When in doubt, raise the bar, not go the easy route and think a lesser design might still fly. This IMO is a big problem in modern audio design. The bar simply hasn't been set high.
        "what factors are important and how they are to be measured and weighted, or what the worst-case environment is that must be accommodated. The latter includes vibration, equipment interface, power supply, EMC and operators both deliberate and inadvertent. I'm trying to think if I know of anybody whose toddler HASN'T put a PB&J sandwich into the VCR."
        Or oatmeal.
        "But... I'm with Tom. The obvious goal is to design gear where all of these variables become, as much as possible, 'don't-cares'."
        If the bar is set low, the variables do become "don't cares"..... The problem is there will be someone who will think the design is inadequate.
        If the bar is set high, the variables becoming "don't cares" is next to impossible, in my humble opinion. This is why I think listener feedback is paramount to a good audio design. Until we can attain a more-complete picture from a measurements and specs standpoint, the best yardstick for performance will indefinitely be the collective satisfaction of the end users.
        > Well, it just takes too long to consider every possible aspect of every design. At some point you have to develop a good feel for what you can get by with. Sometimes you are wrong which adds to your knowledge of what's important.
        
        I don't know if this format will work Todd, I'm using a WP that I'm not familiar with so I apologize in advance if this is confusing.
        
        Still using CDex? I'm really pleased that you tried it and that it worked for you, it does for me. Now there's something. You are a SW guy aren't you? Why does it sound so good?
        
        Rick
    - Another engineer pipes in ... - bjh 08:01:25 06/25/09 (17)
      Recently I witnessed an improvement in sound with usage of an aftermarket power cord on a SS power amplifier (replacing yet another aftermarket power cord) that rather shocked me.
      The main reason for the shock was largely due to the fact that the effect ran counter to my experience, that power cords seem to make the least impact on SS power amplifiers vs. source/preamp/low power gear; regardless of how counterintuitive that may seem.
      The second reason for the shock was due to the particular SS amplifier, a Bryston 4BST, an amplifier which along with its SST sibling has long ranked in my most hated list. The ills associated with the 4BST/SST, what I would call electronic sheen (a subjective description) seemed to me to have vanished!
      Now do we have an engineer present who would like to step up to the podium and propose that the power supply design of a Bryston 4BST is inadequate? I rather doubt we'll witness such at thing. The point is that one can lean on one's engineering principles/background, bring in ideas from other fields and what-not, but the rubber hitting the tarmac is a different story altogether.
      ---
      OH, having had a peek inside a Bryston 4BST ... the one I had on a home trial, that incidentally embarrassed itself against the Kenwood L-07M monoblocks (late 70's production) I was then using ... I was a bit surprised by what I thought was relatively modest sizing of the capacitor banks. Certainly many other current designs provide a heck of a lot more for the power rating. Still from an engineering perspective no doubt the sizing is more than adequate; it's true that (per side) storage *was* greater than what was in the much older L-07M.
      (The L-07Ms had had their captive zipcord replaced with garden variety outdoor (orange) extenstion cord (that's how they were when I got them) and IIRC I used the stock power cord provided with the Bryston. At that time I likely wouldn't have had anything much better lying around to try on the 4BST).
      
      Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
      
      Edits: 06/25/09
      - Bryston, Aftermarket Cables, and "Proper Design"...... - Todd Krieger 12:40:54 06/25/09 (11)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Another engineer pipes in ... posted by bjh on June 25, 2009 at 08:01:25
        
        Your findings raise a more-important point.......
        
        Bryston amplifiers have often been deemed "properly designed" by the so-called "scientific" audio community, in regard to how little effect audio cabling should have on sound if interfaced to such designs.
        
        But based on your findings, even this respected amp line is apparently affected sonically by cabling. (I've always suspected this would be the case. I've never come across an amplifier that was immune to cabling.)
        
        So the term "properly designed" is nothing more than an ideal that seems to **never** exist in reality. Yet this idealistic term is often mentioned as factual basis for why audio cables don't or shouldn't impact sound.
        
        Agreed... - bjh 15:14:32 06/25/09 (8)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Bryston, Aftermarket Cables, and "Proper Design"...... posted by Todd Krieger on June 25, 2009 at 12:40:54
        
        It does seem to be mostly semantics doesn't it. In fact as best as I can tell at least one of our resident "engineers" (Don Till) seems to have taken it to a declarative/definition level by essentially stating that if an amplifier's performance varies with usage of power cords then by definition its power supply is not "well designed"... and it seems he's more than willing to include Bryston in the poorly designed group (assuming there's any truth to my report of course!).
        
        So isn't that so very clever! Power cord are hence allowed to effect performance along with a nice tidy reason for why this is the case... our engineer sleeps well at night and all in the universe is in order!
        
        LOL
        
        Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
        
        RE: Agreed... - Don Till 22:26:25 06/25/09 (7)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Agreed... posted by bjh on June 25, 2009 at 15:14:32
        
        "So isn't that so very clever! Power cord are hence allowed to effect performance along with a nice tidy reason for why this is the case... our engineer sleeps well at night and all in the universe is in order!"
        
        And are you suggesting things are somehow different? As if there aren't tradeoffs made in every component design at every price point. Some of us might immediately condemn a slight high frequency roll off or minor transient shaping at the same time ignore, or even worse claim higher resolution from components displaying problems protecting itself from being influenced by external factors.
        
        I note you didn't - bjh 00:02:58 06/26/09 (6)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Agreed... posted by Don Till on June 25, 2009 at 22:26:25
        
        deny my call on your definition/declaration!
        
        LOL
        
        Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
        
        RE: I note you didn't - Don Till 05:54:37 06/26/09 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I note you didn't posted by bjh on June 26, 2009 at 00:02:58
        
        Why should I deny it? If I establish the level of acceptable performance for a well designed component as being not audibly effected by external influences in normal operating conditions it's not like I'm setting a high bar. Or am I?
        
        And just to clarify this. I don't believe the Bryston as you describe it is working to spec (as advertised), just like my Raysonic CDP that greatly benefits from an "better" power cord. It's not like I think the sound of these things get betters than advertised when external power cords or conditioners are applied. I think only then do they deliver on the promise of the original purchase.
        
        RE: I note you didn't - Tony Lauck 10:33:18 06/26/09 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I note you didn't posted by Don Till on June 26, 2009 at 05:54:37
        
        It may be that the particular instance of the amplifier was defective. This could be the result of a component or wiring failure. Or perhaps a batch of instances were defective. This could be the result of Manufacturing performing some "value engineering".
        
        A company that sold audio kits many years ago used to do this kind of "value engineering". The purchasing agent would make "minor" substitutions of component values or tolerances to reduce parts cost. I heard this from the purchasing agent's son.
        
        Tony Lauck
        
        "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
        
        I'm sure Don T. is serious - I just hope you are not. - carcass93 10:42:41 06/26/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I note you didn't posted by Tony Lauck on June 26, 2009 at 10:33:18
        
        Of course, there's always a possibility of amplifier being defective - it's just that being affected by power cord change is in no way or shape the sign of "defectiveness".
        
        More experience with resolving equipment, and less preconceived notions in the head - that's best possible cure against such "defects" in amplifiers.
        
        I was. - Tony Lauck 11:12:33 06/26/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I'm sure Don T. is serious - I just hope you are not. posted by carcass93 on June 26, 2009 at 10:42:41
        
        Actually I was quite serious.
        
        I have had a defective amplifier, and it was in the power supply, no less. As it turned out, the defect wasn't at all subtle—it resulted in a moderately loud hum in one channel. The amplifier had separate output filter capacitors for each channel and one of the four had gone bad. The manufacturer had gone out of business and there was no direct replacement available at "You-do-it Electronics" so I substituted four new capacitors of slightly larger size, which fit only when held in by duct tape. Interestingly enough, the result was a significant improvement in sound over what it had been prior to the failure. I presume that the original capacitors either lacked sufficient energy storage capacity when new, or perhaps had gradually lost their capacity over time.
        
        Had the failure been in the input power line filter then I might not have noticed it, at least not until I moved into an environment with lots of EMI. At that point, I might have effected a sonic improvement by replacing the defective internal components or by attaching an external power cord that provides rejection.
        
        Tony Lauck
        
        "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
        
        RE: I was. - Don Till 14:14:42 06/26/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I was. posted by Tony Lauck on June 26, 2009 at 11:12:33
        
        In this instance I have to rely on the veracity of bjh's observations - ie. they are presented in such a way that indicates it's not a one time observation and have been repeatable in a variety of different situations. At least that was my take on the wording of his opinion of Bryston equipment.
        
        In my normal work environment when issues come up the first thing I like to do is to witness them. Whether this occurs in the lab or I reproduce them at my desk kind of depends on the importance and severity of the issue.
        
        I agree with your take it could be a defective unit and the defect could be for one of any number of reasons. However and again - the comments I'm relying upon indicate this is the normal performance one achieves from the Bryston amplifiers in question.
        
        Often when I get to the lab or reproduce the issues as described by a customer, technician, marketeer or even other engineer the issue is actually quite different than the description. I'm giving bjh the benefit of the doubt for the purposes of this conversation.
        
        Confirmation acknowledged. nt - bjh 07:43:31 06/26/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I note you didn't posted by Don Till on June 26, 2009 at 05:54:37
        
        .
        
        Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
        
        Exactly. I highly suspect they've never been tested neither by manufacturer, nor... - carcass93 13:51:30 06/25/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Bryston, Aftermarket Cables, and "Proper Design"...... posted by Todd Krieger on June 25, 2009 at 12:40:54
        
        by members of self-proclaimed "scientific" community, for effects of substituting different power cords. The same as with, for instance, Van Alstine DAC, that according to manufacturer, was supposed to be immune to differences between transports - but wasn't.
        
        Tested??? For cable sonics??? - kerr 16:22:45 06/25/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Exactly. I highly suspect they've never been tested neither by manufacturer, nor... posted by carcass93 on June 25, 2009 at 13:51:30
        
        Why would the pseudo-scientific community test for a foregone conclusion??? They might discover the world isn't flat!!! How can you remain an audio regressionist if you test things all the time???? :)
      - RE: Another engineer pipes in ... - Don Till 10:22:03 06/25/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Another engineer pipes in ... posted by bjh on June 25, 2009 at 08:01:25
        
        "Now do we have an engineer present who would like to step up to the podium and propose that the power supply design of a Bryston 4BST is inadequate? I rather doubt we'll witness such at thing.
        
        Given that the amplifier as supplied merits the following comment when an after market power cord is installed -
        
        " The second reason for the shock was due to the particular SS amplifier, a Bryston 4BST, an amplifier which along with its SST sibling has long ranked in my most hated list. The ills associated with the 4BST/SST, what I would call electronic sheen (a subjective description) seemed to me to have vanished!"
        
        I would say yes the amplifier power supply filtering is inadequete, based on your comments for the environment in which you made your observations. I can't believe the designers of this amplifier intended the "electronic sheen" and I hardly doubt it takes an experienced golden eared trained listener to hear it.
        
        But alas if one can buy a Bryston power line conditioner or any number of after market power cords to solve the problem who's to complain?
        
        Personally this is the kind of crapola that long ago turned me against the marketing vehicles posing as audiophile magazines willing to tolerate such performance deficiencies to further their vested interests in growing the industry.
        
        Sure power cords and conditioners can and do often make a tremendous difference and most anyone should be able to hear it.
        
        Communications and test equipment owner's wouldn't tolerate for an instant such haphazardly designed products. Funny how audiophiles and the industry in general seems to tolerate it at the same time marketing spending for the work arounds as ways of bringing home improved performance.
        
        Well had I given it any thought ... - bjh 10:26:03 06/25/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Another engineer pipes in ... posted by Don Till on June 25, 2009 at 10:22:03
        
        I would have added an exception for you.
        
        Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
      - RE: Another engineer pipes in ... - rick_m 10:17:23 06/25/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Another engineer pipes in ... posted by bjh on June 25, 2009 at 08:01:25
        
        "The point is that one can lean on one's engineering principles/background, bring in ideas from other fields and what-not, but the rubber hitting the tarmac is a different story altogether."
        
        No it's not a different thing, not at all. Whether possibilities jump out at you or need to be sought after does somewhat depend upon what 'other fields' you have been plowing.
        
        So, the power cord changes the sound, what does that mean and to whom does it mean it? Does the product no longer meet it's specifications? Probably not. Does it mean that the specifications are inadequate? Maybe.
        
        Most likely if there is an error it's that in the internal product requirements. Either what you are experiencing was regarded as insignificant or whatever is causing it was missed completely. You can usually rely upon products meeting their production specifications, what's a lot iffier is relying upon those specifications to predict the outcome for all users.
        
        "I was a bit surprised by what I thought was relatively modest sizing of the capacitor banks."
        
        Physical size? Capacitance? ESR? Net energy storage? Capacitors have come a long way the last decade, especially in terms of HF ESR. How much capacitance you need depends upon the headroom and PSRR of the amplifier.
        
        One of the things that's fun about this hobby is all of the counter-intuitive things you find that can affect the sound. I've had rum luck predicting whether I'll like the sound of something without listening to it. Size, color, cost, weight, brand et al are poor predictors. How can you tell a "better" power cord without trying it in a particular application?
        
        Rick
        
        RE: Another engineer pipes in ... - bjh 12:06:44 06/25/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Another engineer pipes in ... posted by rick_m on June 25, 2009 at 10:17:23
        
        > > "The point is that one can lean on one's engineering
        > > principles/background, bring in ideas from other fields and what-not,
        > > but the rubber hitting the tarmac is a different story altogether."
        
        > No it's not a different thing, not at all. Whether possibilities jump
        > out at you or need to be sought after does somewhat depend upon
        > what 'other fields' you have been plowing.
        
        If the exposure to 'other fields' merely informs to discount anecdotal evidence (power supplies are adequate, hence reports are fictions), or dissuades investigation (power supplies are obviously ill-designed, not worth bothering with), which seems to me to be just barely concealed (intentional or otherwise) message(s) in tomservo's post, then I would maintain the 'other fields' applicability is null.
        
        I won't bother with the other points as they seems to me more than a little argumentative oriented.
        
        Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
        
        RE: Another engineer pipes in ... - rick_m 13:42:47 06/25/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Another engineer pipes in ... posted by bjh on June 25, 2009 at 12:06:44
        
        I don't understand where you are coming from. This is a discussion, not an argument. I didn't see Tom discounting the issue as much as advocating that it can be fixed. I'm essentially on the same page but in trying to address your question of whether hearing a difference due to changing a cord meant a defective power supply tried to broaden it out to examine reasons both social and technical that they might especially at the system level even if the individual components were within spec.
        
        Sorry if I waxed too philosophic, no harm intended.
        
        Rick
  - RE: Measuring properties or changing operation? - tomservo 12:35:59 06/24/09 (5)
    "things like power line conditioning and power cords *do* often still make a difference. "
    
    Yes, it's true perhaps but when it's true then also it is evidence that the power supply design is incomplete.
    
    Noise "can" be a problem if your design doesn't deal with it, then an external bandaid can help beyond decoration.
    
    Since it is possible to make power supplies which are extremly immune to huge line noise, possible to make radio transmitters with sensitive audio circuitry, even possible to make sensitive electronics operate in close proximity to an xenon arc lamp, what would be the reason (other than cost or knowledge) not to design for noise immunity like that in modern hifi gear?
    
    This problem is not new either, one couldn't design a tube amplifier in the old days without addressing RF and noise.
    Most output tubes and all small signal tubes would work perfectly happily up to Citizen's band (27 MHz) if allowed to, not like transistors which have vastly lower open bandwidth.
    In the old days there were mare severe sources of noise too, in the last 20 years these sources were replaced to permit the cell phone and wireless era high up in frequency.
    
    My point is as a designer, one is left thinking the job is not done if an external shield / AC cord etc actually changes the operation.
    
    Think about it this way, It is "foolish engineering" to leave the proper operation of a circuit or system to depend on having "the right" kind of AC, especially since one can remove that issue at least over some range with proper design.
    Testing the actual operating voltage range and tolerance / immunity to input distortion / noise is normal stuff, at least when making test equipment.
    
    Possible reasons for the way it is;
    
    Audio design, especially power analogue circuitry, is a much much smaller business than "test equipment", fewer Ham's and DIY'rs now in the field, who are good self taught designers and perhaps the very presence of the "mystery of the magic cord" and such enhances part of the industry's image and romance among the buyers
    
    Just a wild guess.
    - Would you be so kind to point toward one piece of aduio equipment with PROPERLY... - carcass93 08:05:58 06/25/09 (2)
      ..., in your opinion, designed power supply, that is immune to power cords.
      
      Of course, with details of the system this piece of equipment was tested in.
      
      Forgive my scepticism - but I've never faced one since my system became more or less resolving. However, I can see that to be the case in the context of cheap receiver and CD changer, connected to $100 speakers - but the reason, obviously, would be quite different from power supply being designed "properly".
      - RE: Would you be so kind to point toward one piece of aduio equipment with PROPERLY... - tomservo 10:06:17 06/25/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Would you be so kind to point toward one piece of aduio equipment with PROPERLY... posted by carcass93 on June 25, 2009 at 08:05:58
        
        Sure, here are two, old and new, A Xilica 4080 speaker controller / processor operates over a wide range of input voltages, has no sound, or audible pickup when used near xenon and old florescent lighting or next to switching power supplies and amplifiers.
        It’s balanced inputs make concerns about exotic cables irrelevant and the market and sales of exotic cables is vastly smaller by percentage in pro.
        
        A McIntosh mx110 tube pre-amp / tuner also had a huge tolerance to RFI and EMI noise and could be used next to the room with an RF induction heater.
        In general tube gear, including the tube amplifiers from Grommes where I worked in the 70’s, were very tolerant of line and radiated noise but much less so on the range of line Voltages.
        
        Lastly an example of a sort of audio situation I had to resolve personally.
        I was given the task of re-designing and then building and testing the control electronics for an Acoustic levitation system which was to be flown on the shuttle but first on sounding rockets.
        The science problem driving this being that there were many materials which reacted with the container when melted or required such a high temperature that there were no containers available.
        The solution was to use high intensity sound to position a sample in the middle of a really hot furnace, to melt and cool the sample without contact.
        The existing sound source had a capacitive pickup, like a condenser microphone, which was charged to 200Vdc.
        The sound source was a resonant bar of titanium, the pickup’s job was to pick up the tiny signal from the vibration at 16KHz and use the pll circuit I designed to lock on to the resonance, keeping it in tune and at a constant amplitude.
        
        This had to be done on shuttle power, which could vary from 24 to 42Volts (28VDC nominal) with a boat load of noise spectrum up to low RF.
        Our experiment power was set to 100Amps so the furnace modulator (4 phase pwm) had to monitor a current shunt to regulate at no more than 100 Amps while heating.
        
        Here is a link to that stuff, now 20 years ago.
        http://www.springerlink.com/content/42375j4148345603/
        
        Anyway my point was that even when dealing with the most sensitive signals like a “naked” condenser microphone, buried within an extraordinarily electronically noisy environment, you can still engineer around it, if doing that is part of the task.
        Unless there are unusual circumstances, the level of conducted and radiated noise in the home is certainly much less than in industrial and many commercial uses of electronics, including audio.
        
        Lastly, keep in mind that in addition to any real change electronically or not, other things can also effect ones perception of a given event.
        A simple test which may be useful to help in seperating these.
        
        Sit down and listen back and forth between the two cables which show the largest difference. Pick music that makes the difference obvious as possible and go back and forth.
        When you feel it’s the right time un plug them, have a friend come in and have them pick one of the two and plug it in and you listen again, now not knowing which cable it was.
        Have the friend switch back and forth making sure you can’t see and he doesn’t tell you which one is in use.
        
        The results of these fall one of two ways generally.
        Most often, the audible difference is smaller to much smaller or even gone when you don’t know which is which and you only use your ears.
        
        If there is a difference even if small this way, without prior knowledge, then you are on to something in the engineering side that can be tracked down to a source, ideally before it is sold as a product.
        
        If not, don't feel bad, in fact your in good company.
        In the recording and mixing community there is a story told to remind themselves they are not infallible even if they do it for a living.
        It goes like this, the engineer spends 10 min doing minute tweaks on an eq or processor strip getting the sound "just right".
        Then when sitting back to enjoy, notices the "bypass" button is / was pressed the whole time.
        To a very real degree, we hear what we want to hear and only part of that is related to electrons etc.
        
        In regards to the MX-110 - unclestu52 11:30:26 06/25/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Would you be so kind to point toward one piece of aduio equipment with PROPERLY... posted by tomservo on June 25, 2009 at 10:06:17
        
        You're right, but it was not a great sounding piece of gear. Rolled off on the top end with a most definite lack of detail and information.
        
        Therein lies a major issue with audio gear. While test gear is often oriented to optimize one or maybe two specific parameters, audio gear has a range of parameters to satisfy. The goal is not to meet a standard but to surpass those standards. Considering the wide bandwidth, the dynamic range desired, the great mix of frequencies and levels involved in any mix, that is a pretty tall order. Then couple that with the various range of human tastes.
        
        Audio gear is geared to extreme sensitivity. Very often our test gear is not even designed to measure such parameters which can be detected by the human ear. As an example there is the rather groundbreaking work done by Matti Otala concerning TIM distortion, which was relatively unknown until he published his works. If test gear exists it is often astronomically priced. I recall a Rhode and Schwartz real time analyzer used by one company to measure a particular parameter in wire construction which cost them at the time $100K and of which only five units in the world had been manufactured.
        
        In many pieces of audio gear you sacrifice one aspect of music to optimize another. In many instances what is theoretically negligible can be audible, despite engineering theory.
        
        I recall one manufacturer displaying a prototype of a preamp and commented that his new design using the identical layout and parts should sound better than his original which had multiple individual phono sections. His reply that from a theoretical point of view there should be absolutely no difference as the power supply was sufficiently large to exclude any current draw differences even if all the sections were running (they were not at the time). Yet a direct comparison revealed, obviously, that there was a sonic difference.
        
        Declaring that human perceptions can vary, while very true, ignores the basic fact that some listeners can hear certain changes. You can cater to the lowest common denominator or you can cater to the extremely discriminating.
        
        You can be happy with the relatively lossy mp-3 player or you can demand the very high end piece of audio gear. Both can offer great satisfaction to many users. But just because the listener with the poorer component is happy does not necessarily mean that anything "better" is a figment of the user's imagination.
        
        Let's face it: there are huge ranges in human perception and that is simply part of the challenge. I once placed five different types of hook up wire in my preamp's five inputs. There was enough differences so that even the two inch length made a difference, however, subtle you may believe it to be. In a system I was familiar with I could consistently identify each input even in a blind test. I do not claim "golden ear" status, but I have spent an inordinate amount of time actually listening to music, critically.
        
        While I barely made it through aural training classes at the local university, continued listening in the manner I was taught can reveal certain aspects which many others do not hear. It has nothing to do with the condition of your ears, but more to do with the mind-ear connection. In doing research on hearing, I am consistently struck by the fact that any of the senses can be trained if you embark on a program to do so.
        
        Think of it in terms of the aficionados of wines and how much practice they have to go through in order to become an expert. If you're into video games, think of how much time you need on a particular game in order to excel at it. Still in music, it is the subtleties which define the a great performance or a great virtuoso. A great performer can make even a student model instrument sound decent, but he will do much better with a a great one. The pursuit of the subtleties in music is what drives many to "better" audio gear. If not, the world would be happy with a transistor radio.
        
        Stu
    - RE: Measuring properties or changing operation? - bjh 15:47:58 06/24/09 (1)
      You basically said the same all over again... got it the first time, doesn't change the situation for me anyway.
      
      Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
      - RE: Measuring properties or changing operation? - tomservo 16:02:24 06/24/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Measuring properties or changing operation? posted by bjh on June 24, 2009 at 15:47:58
        
        Ok, just wanted to be clear on how that works technically.
Non-believers get excommunicated from the cable asylum - JimOfOakCreek 12:05:02 06/23/09 (28)
(This is my last post on this subject.)

If you were to go into "Amp-Preamp" and say something like, 'I think high end amps are crap. NAD and Jolida sound better than Krell and Conrad Johnson'.

Many would disagree but your post would not be deleted and re-posted soomewhere else.

If you were to go into the Cable Asylum and say 'I think high-end expensive cables are unnecesary. Zip cord sounds just as good as Nordost.'

Your post would be deleted and sent to Siberia. This Cable Asylum thread is just another example of that policy.

Why? What are they afraid of?

I think that in itself speaks volumes of the bias and iron handed intollerance of the moderator of that group. Fortunately for me I don't lose sleep over the policies of the Cable Asylum. Simply put, I don't care enough.

But the policies in Cable Asylum are not healthy for the audio hobby in my opinion. Opinions given openly but in a civilized maner are what's healthy.
- I agree that opinions formed by different sources of experience - E-Stat 19:28:11 06/24/09 (0)
  can indeed be useful and helpful. Regardless of your conclusion, how did you conduct your comparison? Frequently, however, experience is replaced with speculation and declarations of "codswallop". I've yet to find any use for speculative codswallop.
  
  rw
- However, you are free to spew your minority anti-audiophile 'open opinions' here...(nt) - mkuller 15:21:58 06/24/09 (0)
  (nt)
- RE: Non-believers get excommunicated from the cable asylum - andy19191 01:01:03 06/24/09 (9)
  > But the policies in Cable Asylum are not healthy for the audio hobby in my opinion. Opinions
  > given openly but in a civilized maner are what's healthy.
  
  I would disagree. If you want to create a forum where a group of believers in something want to chat to each other in a comfortable environment then it is quite sensible to adopt rules to keep out nonbelievers. Even more so when those beliefs cannot be supported by rational arguments which would inevitably lead to unresolvable conflict and discomfort.
  
  Open debate really only works if people either sign up for the same set of beliefs or recognise they hold different sets of beliefs.
  - Are They "Non-Believers?" Or Are They Bullies?? - Todd Krieger 10:02:12 06/24/09 (8)
    "If you want to create a forum where a group of believers in something want to chat to each other in a comfortable environment then it is quite sensible to adopt rules to keep out nonbelievers."
    
    The problem isn't belief or non-belief..... The problem is instigating flames, accompanied by a zero-tolerance policy. (I personally don't agree with the "zero-tolerance policy", but for another discussion.) For if you notice, the so-called "non-believers" almost **never** exchange ideas that are totally removed from denigrating the so-called "believers."
    
    "Even more so when those beliefs cannot be supported by rational arguments which would inevitably lead to unresolvable conflict and discomfort."
    
    This is why the problem is instigating flames. If someone wants to believe the presence of UFOs improves turntable performance, who cares!!! (The worst anybody should do is respond with kind disagreement.)
    
    "Open debate really only works if people either sign up for the same set of beliefs or recognise they hold different sets of beliefs."
    
    The real litmus test is the so-called "non-believers" stating a valid point in regard to **why** audiophile behavior ought be questioned. I've yet to see one stated, and I don't expect to see one stated. For bullying audiophiles, and that alone, is the sole motivation, in my humble opinion. (I only go along with it at times because the bullying doesn't bother me personally. But I do find such activity troubling because it does create a false and damaging perception of high-end audio from the mainstream. It has also enabled the marketing of products of questionable design, because audiophile feedback is no longer taken seriously.)
    - RE: Are They "Non-Believers?" Or Are They Bullies?? - andy19191 04:35:26 06/25/09 (7)
      > The problem isn't belief or non-belief.....
      
      Almost all the problems audiophiles have in dealing with nonaudiophiles derives from their belief that expensive audiophile hardware possesses magical properties.
      
      > The problem is instigating flames, accompanied by a zero-tolerance
      > policy.
      
      It isn't possible to instigate flames in the cable forum because the posts are removed that oppose the interests of the moderators.
      
      > For if you notice, the so-called "non-believers" almost **never**
      > exchange ideas that are totally removed from denigrating the so-called
      > "believers."
      
      You need some context here because posts from nonbelievers are removed in the cable forum. AudioAsylum is clearly a site for audiophile believers and I would agree that the motives for posts from nonbelievers are often, although not always, unhealthy.
      
      > If someone wants to believe the presence of UFOs improves turntable
      > performance, who cares!!! (The worst anybody should do is respond with
      > kind disagreement.)
      
      This depends on people interests. If they benefit from turntable owners believing in UFOs then they will encourage the believers and seek to drive off the nonbelievers. The reverse is rare because it is very difficult to benefit from people not believing UFOs improve turntable performance. Note the disproportionate funding in favour of believers over nonbelievers in home audio.
      
      > The real litmus test is the so-called "non-believers" stating a valid
      > point in regard to **why** audiophile behavior ought be questioned.
      > I've yet to see one stated, and I don't expect to see one stated. For
      > bullying audiophiles, and that alone, is the sole motivation, in my
      > humble opinion.
      
      Audiophiles are purchasing expensive poorly performing equipment because they believe it possesses magical properties. They are encouraged in this belief by other believers and those that benefit from these beliefs. If one can see this then an easy option is to use this knowledge directly for personal benefit by teaching, taking the p*ss, challenging the suppliers, or whatever gets the juices going. It takes a bit more tolerance to recognise that there is both good and bad in the situation particularly as audiophiles are generally fairly unattractive as individuals because of what it takes to pick up and hold audiophile beliefs.
      
      Bullying may often have a role but not always. Is Tom bullying in the branch above in his interaction with bjh?
      
      > But I do find such activity troubling because it does create a false
      > and damaging perception of high-end audio from the mainstream.
      
      In my experience, audiophiles have little idea how they (and the objects they desire) are viewed by the "audio literate" mainstream or even simply those with a bit of common sense like, I suspect, many of their wives. If you believe something and are closed minded in the way audiophiles have to be in order to maintain their beliefs then it is not so much a question of not seeing an alternative viewpoint as not understanding that an alternative viewpoint could exist.
      
      > It has also enabled the marketing of products of questionable design,
      > because audiophile feedback is no longer taken seriously.
      
      Audiophile feedback into the mainstream outside the audiophile marketing sector does not exist now and has never existed since the sector first became of significance in the 70s. Again, the reason is those audiophile beliefs which are in conflict with the scientific beliefs held by the mainstream. The mainstream is only going to accept audiophile input on their scientific terms in the same way that audiophile believers only accept input on their terms.
      - RE: Are They "Non-Believers?" Or Are They Bullies?? - Todd Krieger 11:03:04 06/25/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Are They "Non-Believers?" Or Are They Bullies?? posted by andy19191 on June 25, 2009 at 04:35:26
        
        "Almost all the problems audiophiles have in dealing with nonaudiophiles derives from their belief that expensive audiophile hardware possesses magical properties."
        
        By this definition of an "audiophile", I'd be a "non-audiophile"......
        
        Can you cite some examples of this on AA? I think you'd be hard pressed to find such examples. (I've seen such stereotypical activity on Stereophile, but not on AA.)
        
        "> The problem is instigating flames, accompanied by a zero-tolerance
        > policy.
        
        It isn't possible to instigate flames in the cable forum because the posts are removed that oppose the interests of the moderators."
        
        So you condone instigating flames??
        
        "> For if you notice, the so-called 'non-believers' almost **never**
        > exchange ideas that are totally removed from denigrating the so-called
        > 'believers.'
        
        You need some context here because posts from nonbelievers are removed in the cable forum."
        
        I don't see, for example, so-called "non-believers" (aside from Soundmind) discussing subject matters aside from "audiophile myths"......
        
        "AudioAsylum is clearly a site for audiophile believers and I would agree that the motives for posts from nonbelievers are often, although not always, unhealthy."
        
        Is this an admission of guilt??
        
        "> If someone wants to believe the presence of UFOs improves turntable
        > performance, who cares!!! (The worst anybody should do is respond with
        > kind disagreement.)
        
        This depends on people interests. If they benefit from turntable owners believing in UFOs then they will encourage the believers and seek to drive off the nonbelievers."
        
        I really think had the responses mostly been kind disagreement, rather than denigration, such urge to "drive off the non-believers" would wane, if not cease altogether.
        
        "The reverse is rare because it is very difficult to benefit from people not believing UFOs improve turntable performance. Note the disproportionate funding in favour of believers over nonbelievers in home audio."
        
        I'm not sure what you mean by "funding"................
        
        "> The real litmus test is the so-called "non-believers" stating a valid
        > point in regard to **why** audiophile behavior ought be questioned.
        > I've yet to see one stated, and I don't expect to see one stated. For
        > bullying audiophiles, and that alone, is the sole motivation, in my
        > humble opinion.
        
        Audiophiles are purchasing expensive poorly performing equipment because they believe it possesses magical properties."
        
        Whenever audiophiles purchase expensive products, based on the sales pitch from manufacturers (provided there was no audition, which would IMO be a big mistake), they'd expect performance to improve. And in some cases, they might even be in denial over purchasing expensive equipment that happens to perform poorly. The problem is not everybody is a technical guru, and that there is a **TON** of deceiving advertising of audio products.
        
        But unlike the so-called "non-believers", I think the problem with the advertising is not in cable products (which might be deceiving, but cannot be proven unequivocally so), but in digital audio sources and processors. Most so-called "non-believers", for example, don't even see the blatant sophistry in the sales pitches for asynchronous sample-rate conversion ("24/96" or "24/192 upsampling"), which unlike audio cable claims, can be proven as misleading. But since most audiophiles are *not* DSP experts, they fall prey to such advertising. So even there, it would be ignorant to blame the end users, who are often audiophiles.
        
        Audiophiles behave the way they do not because they're in some sort of dream world, but because a lot of false technologies have been beset upon them, and then the lack of satisfaction in performance. (And even if they were in some sort of dream world, why should you care??) There is so much crap being passed on as "advanced technology" (in both the high-end and mainstream audio markets), it is natural for desperate consumers to buy into it hook, line, and sinker.
        
        "They are encouraged in this belief by other believers and those that benefit from these beliefs. If one can see this then an easy option is to use this knowledge directly for personal benefit by teaching, taking the p*ss, challenging the suppliers, or whatever gets the juices going. It takes a bit more tolerance to recognise that there is both good and bad in the situation particularly as audiophiles are generally fairly unattractive as individuals because of what it takes to pick up and hold audiophile beliefs."
        
        I don't think these "beliefs" are what you think they are. There are two sides to this story. (If I had to criticize audiophiles for anything, it's that a small portion of them let sales claims and reviews override their aural perceptions. But for another discussion.)
        
        "Bullying may often have a role but not always. Is Tom bullying in the branch above in his interaction with bjh?"
        
        I'm not an advocate of bullying. It should be pointed out, but not intervened upon.
        
        "> But I do find such activity troubling because it does create a false
        > and damaging perception of high-end audio from the mainstream.
        
        In my experience, audiophiles have little idea how they (and the objects they desire) are viewed by the 'audio literate' mainstream or even simply those with a bit of common sense like, I suspect, many of their wives."
        
        I'd trust the wives more than those in the mainstream. By a mile. But again, for another discussion.
        
        In regard to the mainstream being "audio literate" (or even "music literate"), IMO, it's anything but. And the minds at Bose realize this better than anyone. (There are a lot of audiophiles that like to slam Bose, but I'm not one of them.)
        
        "If you believe something and are closed minded in the way audiophiles have to be in order to maintain their beliefs then it is not so much a question of not seeing an alternative viewpoint as not understanding that an alternative viewpoint could exist."
        
        I don't know if it's really "closed-minded"..... Whenever I see the accusation of "closed-minded", the accuser is more-often-than-not the one that's closed-minded, not the accused.
        
        If audiophiles are anything, they're disillusioned. The bliss of recreating the live event is so hard to attain nowadays, many have actually given up.
        
        "> It has also enabled the marketing of products of questionable design,
        > because audiophile feedback is no longer taken seriously.
        
        Audiophile feedback into the mainstream outside the audiophile marketing sector does not exist now and has never existed since the sector first became of significance in the 70s."
        
        Agreed, but the issue is **why**......
        
        "Again, the reason is those audiophile beliefs which are in conflict with the scientific beliefs held by the mainstream."
        
        You really think someone at Best Buy thinks about the scientific aspects of sound reproduction more than someone at a high-end audio store?
        
        "The mainstream is only going to accept audiophile input on their scientific terms in the same way that audiophile believers only accept input on their terms."
        
        The mainstream doesn't really care about the scientific aspects of sound reproduction. And if you think otherwise, that belief is more looney than anything audiophiles have been accused of believing in.
        
        RE: Are They "Non-Believers?" Or Are They Bullies?? - andy19191 15:46:10 06/25/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Are They "Non-Believers?" Or Are They Bullies?? posted by Todd Krieger on June 25, 2009 at 11:03:04
        
        > > "Almost all the problems audiophiles have in dealing with nonaudiophiles
        > > derives from their belief that expensive audiophile hardware possesses
        > > magical properties."
        >
        > By this definition of an "audiophile", I'd be a "non-audiophile"......
        
        Not if we disagreed on what was a magic and what was not.
        
        > So you condone instigating flames??
        
        It depends on context and what you consider to be flames. I suspect that the majority of people that continually repeat an adopted postion over a long period of time consider themselves to be making a positive contribution even though many non-contributors or only occassional contributors would disagree.
        
        > > "AudioAsylum is clearly a site for audiophile believers and I would agree
        > > that the motives for posts from nonbelievers are often, although not always,
        > > unhealthy."
        >
        > Is this an admission of guilt??
        
        My interest has been in how and why audiophiles hold their beliefs. This has largely been satisfied and I now take much less of an interest. However, I have caught myself teasing audiophiles once or twice because it can be difficult to resist.
        
        > I really think had the responses mostly been kind disagreement, rather than
        > denigration, such urge to "drive off the non-believers" would wane, if not
        > cease altogether.
        
        Not at all. The supply of people that would ridicule a belief in UFOs improving turntable performance is endless. The moderators would have to implement something to bring it under control.
        
        > I'm not sure what you mean by "funding"................
        
        Like belief, funding is important in understanding why the home audio world is in such an extraordinary state. This site has to be funded as does all the other online sources of home audio information and the paper publications and the hardware suppliers, etc... At the expensive end of home audio, the audiophile view is successful and the scientific view unsuccessful primarily because it is difficult to get the latter to make money.
        
        > So even there, it would be ignorant to blame the end users, who are often
        > audiophiles.
        
        The choice of what to buy and where to look for guidance lies wholly with audiophiles. They can choose to follow the free advice thrust upon them or seek out and possibly pay for more reliable advice. Not sure blame has much to do with it.
        
        > There is so much crap being passed on as "advanced technology" (in both the
        > high-end and mainstream audio markets), it is natural for desperate consumers
        > to buy into it hook, line, and sinker.
        
        It is hard to see anything desperate about deciding which expensive luxury goods to purchase.
        
        > I don't know if it's really "closed-minded"..... Whenever I see the accusation
        > of "closed-minded", the accuser is more-often-than-not the one that's closed-
        > minded, not the accused.
        
        Indeed but this is not always the case. Sometimes people are simply stating the blindingly obvious.
        
        > The bliss of recreating the live event is so hard to attain nowadays, many
        > have actually given up.
        
        What is required to recreate the sound of a live event is straightforward and has been fully understood for a very long time because sound is linear. Also, anyone with even the slightest understanding of the information contained in a stereo signal knows it is insufficient to recreate the sound field of a live event.
        
        > The mainstream doesn't really care about the scientific aspects of sound
        > reproduction.
        
        The mainstream cares about the results of the application of science to sound which is why consumer audio and pro audio deliver sound good enough to do the job so cheaply.
      - RE: Are They "Non-Believers?" Or Are They Bullies?? - Tony Lauck 10:35:34 06/25/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Are They "Non-Believers?" Or Are They Bullies?? posted by andy19191 on June 25, 2009 at 04:35:26
        
        "Almost all the problems audiophiles have in dealing with nonaudiophiles derives from their belief that expensive audiophile hardware possesses magical properties."
        
        I do not use any expensive audiophile hardware, nor do I believe that it has magical properties. It has been over a decade since I have purchased any expensive audiophile hardware and I am not presently using a single such component.
        
        How do you account for the fact that I have problems dealing with nonaudiophiles, such as those to be found in many of the active threads on this forum?
        
        Tony Lauck
        
        "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
        
        RE: Are They "Non-Believers?" Or Are They Bullies?? - andy19191 11:57:36 06/25/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Are They "Non-Believers?" Or Are They Bullies?? posted by Tony Lauck on June 25, 2009 at 10:35:34
        
        > I do not use any expensive audiophile hardware, nor do I believe that it
        > has magical properties.
        
        It would be rather unusual in this day and age if an audiophile considered themselves to believe in magic given it's poor status. Possibly one or two of Geoff or May's customers?
        
        > How do you account for the fact that I have problems dealing with
        > nonaudiophiles, such as those to be found in many of the active threads
        > on this forum?
        
        You would have to be more specific.
        
        If it is any comfort, nonaudiophile forums can also suffer from problems with anti-audiophile posts. The Hydrogen Audio site is currently suffering from an epidemic of this and the moderators and regulars have so far taken little action to deal with it apart from a few posts of complaint. The effect of these on people as full of themselves as JJ and Arnold B. Krueger is probably not difficult to imagine for the posters here. It will be interesting to see how it pans out because if this type of post is not held down to a low level it will drive nonaudiophiles away in the same way Peter Aczel's excessive anti-audiophile posts drove nonaudiophiles away.
      - What a beautiful self-parody. - rick_m 06:45:41 06/25/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Are They "Non-Believers?" Or Are They Bullies?? posted by andy19191 on June 25, 2009 at 04:35:26
        
        You have demonstrated all of Todd's points with great aplomb.
        
        Good job!
        
        Rick
        
        I've laughed a lot on this forum, but... - kerr 09:04:47 06/30/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What a beautiful self-parody. posted by rick_m on June 25, 2009 at 06:45:41
        
        > ...audiophiles are generally fairly unattractive as individuals... <
        
        THIS was the absolute funniest thing I've ever read here! This from a self-proclaimed uberintelligent... smarter than anyone here... who knows it all and blindly pushes his own POV in the face of everyone who has more experience and a guy who believes "good enough" is the ultimate because that's what "the mainstream" believes!
        
        Yeah, that's exactly the kind of guy the chicks all dig and the whole world wants to party with. ROTFLMAO! I shall never again fail to read his posts. Who says a grown man can't cry? I was wiping away tears of laughter! Oh, my word... can't stop laughing! I got grapefruit juice all over my keyboard! Andy, the comedian... LMAO! :)
        
        LOL ... he certainly delivered! nt - bjh 09:16:23 06/25/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What a beautiful self-parody. posted by rick_m on June 25, 2009 at 06:45:41
        
        .
        
        Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
- RE: Non-believers get excommunicated from the cable asylum - Todd Krieger 20:41:09 06/23/09 (10)
  "Why? What are they afraid of?"
  
  What do you think they're afraid of? (Don't worry about your "last post" comment.)
  
  I don't agree with the policy personally, but the reason isn't so much intolerance as it is keeping flame wars to a minimum. This is why I've been advocating a "flame" forum board over the past five years. I'd rather see such discussion moved to another board than deleted altogether.
  - "flame" forum - bjh 20:46:37 06/23/09 (9)
    WTF do you think this place is?
    
    LOL
    
    Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
    - RE: "flame" forum - Todd Krieger 20:50:28 06/23/09 (8)
      "WTF do you think this place is?"
      
      They don't move flame threads from other boards here. It's just that flame threads started on this board are tolerated more than elsewhere.
      - This post was moved from cable -nt - E-Stat 19:20:56 06/24/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: "flame" forum posted by Todd Krieger on June 23, 2009 at 20:50:28
        
        rw
        
        RE: This post was moved from cable -nt - Todd Krieger 01:40:51 06/25/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: This post was moved from cable -nt posted by E-Stat on June 24, 2009 at 19:20:56
        
        I think that was fine, given the rules on Cable. (Once again, I don't agree with the rules, but they are the rules.)
        
        In regard to my suggested "flame" forum, only the "flame" activity should be moved to the proposed board, not the entire thread.
        
        The reason for this is to avoid personal exchanges from diverting the attention and wasting the time for those who are mainly interested in the discussion of the actual subject matter. I think a "flame" board was never implemented because "drawing the line" in regard to what constitutes a "flame" in itself could put heat on the moderators. Because such judgment is very subjective.
      - RE: "flame" forum - bjh 20:53:26 06/23/09 (5)
        
        In Reply to: RE: "flame" forum posted by Todd Krieger on June 23, 2009 at 20:50:28
        
        Your dumb idea would lead to greater stupidty than we already witness and turn the moderators into babysitters ... don't hold your breath.
        
        Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
        
        RE: "flame" forum - Todd Krieger 21:13:40 06/23/09 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: "flame" forum posted by bjh on June 23, 2009 at 20:53:26
        
        "Your dumb idea would lead to greater stupidty than we already witness and turn the moderators into babysitters ... don't hold your breath."
        
        In the five years I've advocated such a board, you've been the very first person I've seen to explicitly state it's a bad idea.....
        
        I also disagree about the "babysitters"..... Once the thread is moved to a "flame" board, unless such clashes elevate to personal threats, the moderators don't have to really do much of anything..... It would be just like Outside Asylum, in this regard.
        
        You been advocating for 5 years... - bjh 21:19:11 06/23/09 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: "flame" forum posted by Todd Krieger on June 23, 2009 at 21:13:40
        
        and you need someone to explicitly tell you the idea is dumb!
        
        Jesus that sort of speaks for itself.
        
        Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
        
        Actually, It Was Almost Seven Years...... - Todd Krieger 21:35:57 06/23/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: You been advocating for 5 years... posted by bjh on June 23, 2009 at 21:19:11
        
        I first brought it up here......
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=outside&n=99383 (Open in New Window)
        
        I wonder who will give up first ... - bjh 21:47:29 06/23/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Actually, It Was Almost Seven Years...... posted by Todd Krieger on June 23, 2009 at 21:35:57
        
        you or RBNG?
        
        LOL
        
        Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
        
        RE: I wonder who will give up first ... - Todd Krieger 21:49:03 06/23/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: I wonder who will give up first ... posted by bjh on June 23, 2009 at 21:47:29
        
        "you or RBNG?"
        
        WGAF............
- There's a Whiners forum ya' know! ... go post there Loser. nt - bjh 19:53:24 06/23/09 (0)
  .
  
  Everything matters, don't forget to tweak your placebos!
- Absolutely not true. - carcass93 12:24:15 06/23/09 (3)
  You can say "Zip cord sounds just as good as Nordost" at Cable Asylum all you want - nobody will delete your posts and send them to Siberia.
  
  It's only when you (I don't mean personally) start screaming something to the extent "Give me proof that Nordost sounds better than zip cord" or "You can't hear differences between Nordost and zip cord, because you didn't provide evidence of that", that your posts get deleted. And rightfully so - how many places to set up traveling circus' tent do we need here, besides Prop Head?
  - RE: Absolutely not true. - rick_m 06:32:14 06/24/09 (1)
    "(if you say) that all one needs is zip cord and/or dimestore coax, may be deleted, re-directed or other actions taken at the sole discretion of the moderators or the Bored. If you post more than one such post, you may be banned from the Cable Asylum.
    
    Just how does the stated dogma above from their 'mission statement' support your contention that...
    
    "You can say "Zip cord sounds just as good as Nordost" at Cable Asylum all you want - nobody will delete your posts and send them to Siberia."
    
    My take on it is that the cable asylum is only for endlessly discussing empirical implementations, preferably ones anointed by the head shaman. Anyone that might bother their pretty little heads wondering WHY they make a difference, how to know what's optimum or, god forbid, applies engineering and scientific practices will be banned (shunned) and exiled to PropHeads where such heretical behavior is theoretically tolerated.
    
    Tolerated perhaps, but seldom practiced.
    
    Rick
    - RE: Absolutely not true. - kerr 10:18:41 06/24/09 (0)
      > ...wondering WHY they make a difference <
      
      That's exactly why I first came to PropHead - for answers as to why cables sounded different. The problem is that too many people are stuck on IF, and it's hard to progress to WHY. If some of these so-called "scientists" could posit something reasonable and rational (and scientific) as to why, I'd be all ears. But the "it all sounds the same" and "it's all in your imagination" is old and boring. But it is why rational audio enthusiasts rattle their cages from time to time, which is admittedly somewhat enjoyable. :)
  - RE: Absolutely not true. - kerr 04:42:51 06/24/09 (0)
    Agreed. They have Hydrogen Audio for the "Audio Regressionists" that proclaim everything sounds the same. It works for them just as Cable Asylum works for more rational audio enthusiasts... because any disagreements are not of the fundamental variety.
RE: Scientific evidence of power cables reducing signal distortion - Todd Krieger 10:04:49 06/23/09 (0)
I personally would not put too much stock in this article. It has nothing to do with whether audiophiles can discern differences or whether scientific data exists proving cable differences. This is an advertisement for an audio cable product, and it's not the first such ad with claims of improved measured performance. And it won't be the last.
The bigger issue is whether the measurements of the "other" cable product is representative of better audio cables or just any cable. (Who's to say the other cable wasn't selected expressly for its poor measured performance?) There might be cables out there whose measured performance is even better. Who knows......
Measurements are best at pointing out flaws in audio products. The key with any cable product is not so much which is better, but which is most-satisfying to a particular consumer. Now the measured improvement *might* indicate a higher probability of satisfaction, but it is no guarantee.

Edits: 06/23/09
RE: Scientific evidence of power cables reducing signal distortion - theaudiohobby 07:48:09 06/23/09 (15)
The correct wording is "Although the vast majority of audiophiles think they can hear the differences cables make", as there is no available evidence to back up their claim.

So far none of these "Highly trained ears" has been able to demonstrate their superior hearing in formal controlled tests and that's what's required to sway the critics.

Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
- RE: Scientific evidence of power cables reducing signal distortion - Todd Krieger 17:43:10 06/23/09 (0)
  "So far none of these 'Highly trained ears' has been able to demonstrate their superior hearing in formal controlled tests and that's what's required to sway the critics."
  
  What is the point about being critical over one's ear training and ability to discern various items in audio playback?
- Sway WHICH critics? - Tony Lauck 08:40:01 06/23/09 (3)
  "So far none of these "Highly trained ears" has been able to demonstrate their superior hearing in formal controlled tests and that's what's required to sway the critics."
  
  Which critics? Until I know who they are, I have no reason to care what they think.
  
  Tony Lauck
  
  "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
  - RE: Sway WHICH critics? - theaudiohobby 09:55:10 06/23/09 (1)
    Which critics? Until I know who they are, I have no reason to care what they think.
    
    You sure get defensive when audiophile claims are challenged.
    
    Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
    - There are no claims that should concern you - and, subsequently, nobody cares about your challenges. - carcass93 11:07:21 06/23/09 (0)
      The only claims that you could possibly challenge would be something like this:
      
      - "theaudiohobby hears differences between cables"
      or
      - "theaudiohobby can't hear squat"
      
      Any other audiophile claim has nothing to do with you - so you can keep your challenge to yourself. Or better yet, why don't you challenge the quality of your audio system, or condition of your hearing - that could yield some unexpected benefits. To all of us.
      
      "It all about what you belief"
      
      - avid objectivist and DBT proponent
  - I think you know who they are... all 5 of them. - carcass93 08:46:36 06/23/09 (0)
    Here's my best shot:
    
    theaudiohobby
    Pat D
    R "BS Nut" G
    Andy19191
    
    Hmmm... that was 4, actually!
- Scientific evidence? Riiiiiiiight - Analog Scott 07:57:23 06/23/09 (9)
  That is true so long as one is willing to cherry pick the "evidence' to suit your prejudice that cables make no audible difference. There is no "scientific" evidence either way on the subject of cable sound. One can't draw any meaningful conclusions on a scientific level in such an utter and complete absence of "scientific" evidence. Any such conclusions are more of an indication of that person's prejudice than anything having to do with science.
  - RE: Scientific evidence? Riiiiiiiight - theaudiohobby 08:19:24 06/23/09 (8)
    You are waffling.... the evidence with respect to cable sound is non-existent rather than inconclusive.
    
    Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
    - RE: Scientific evidence? Riiiiiiiight - Todd Krieger 15:24:04 06/23/09 (0)
      "the evidence with respect to cable sound is non-existent rather than inconclusive."
      
      Since when has a negative test for a difference construed as "non-existent?" Or several negative tests?
      
      If what you stated above were true, you can have someone wear a set of earplugs, then play audio tracks of a violin and a kazoo, and because he couldn't hear a difference (because he couldn't hear either instrument at all), you can conclude that the violin and kazoo sound exactly the same.
    - Um, if it is non existant it is by default inconclusive - Analog Scott 08:37:14 06/23/09 (6)
      unless you know of some conclusive non existant evidence.
      - RE: Um, if it is non existant it is by default inconclusive - Todd Krieger 15:36:39 06/23/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Um, if it is non existant it is by default inconclusive posted by Analog Scott on June 23, 2009 at 08:37:14
        
        "unless you know of some conclusive non existant evidence."
        
        There is no such thing as conclusive non-existent evidence.
        
        It's like at one time, people believed the world was flat, because there was "conclusive non-existent evidence" to the world being anything else.
        
        One may have walked outside hundreds of times, and has never seen a bald eagle. He can conclude that they don't exist, but that does not mean they don't exist.
        
        Nobody with half an understnading of science will ever conclude that any phenomena does not exist, unless he can scientifically prove that such existence is not possible. And nobody has ever proven that discerning differences in audio cable is not possible.
      - RE: No, there is formal evidence and it's all negative. - theaudiohobby 10:06:01 06/23/09 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Um, if it is non existant it is by default inconclusive posted by Analog Scott on June 23, 2009 at 08:37:14
        
        unless you know of some conclusive non existant evidence
        
        No, all the formal evidence that exists is negative so much so that there are a number of "bounty prizes" available to anyone who can provide evidence to the contrary.
        
        Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
        
        RE: No, there is formal evidence and it's all negative. - Todd Krieger 17:51:09 06/23/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: No, there is formal evidence and it's all negative. posted by theaudiohobby on June 23, 2009 at 10:06:01
        
        "No, all the formal evidence that exists is negative so much so that there are a number of 'bounty prizes' available to anyone who can provide evidence to the contrary."
        That's because there are always conditions applied to where such "evidence to the contrary" would *never* be accepted. Such conditions make such challenges deceitful, in my humble opinion.
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=37696 (Open in New Window)
        
        Edits: 06/23/09
        
        There are a number of "bounty prizes" awaiting YOU in Vegas and Atlantic City. N/T - carcass93 11:31:26 06/23/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: No, there is formal evidence and it's all negative. posted by theaudiohobby on June 23, 2009 at 10:06:01
        
        N/T
        
        "It all about what you belief"
        
        - avid objectivist and DBT proponent
        
        Edits: 06/23/09
        
        "Formal" evidence? Is that evidence dressed in a night gown or tux? - Analog Scott 11:18:45 06/23/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: No, there is formal evidence and it's all negative. posted by theaudiohobby on June 23, 2009 at 10:06:01
        
        You either have anecdotal evidence or scientific evidence. If you have scientific evidence then show me the peer reviewed published studies that contain the report of that evidence.
        
        "show me the peer reviewed published studies that contain the report of that evidence. " - Richard BassNut Greene 09:12:54 06/24/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: "Formal" evidence? Is that evidence dressed in a night gown or tux? posted by Analog Scott on June 23, 2009 at 11:18:45
        
        I don't need no stinkin' studies to know your post was funny.
        
        I may not agree with anything you write about audio,
        because you are always wrong, and I am always right,
        but I can appreciate a good joke when I read one.
        The key to universally accepted jokes is self-deprecating humor
        -- never take a risk by insulting another person.
        Well, I'm still working on that.
        
        I think you meant to write "Evening Gown", not "night gown",
        but I made the correction in my mind and your joke was still
        very funny.
        
        Really
        .
        .
        .
        .
        
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
There is no proof anyone can hear power cord differences or differences among any other wires - Richard BassNut Greene 07:25:05 06/23/09 (17)
A consensus on any subject means nothing.
Consensus doesn't mean correct.
There was a strong consensus the Earth was flat!
There was a stromng consensus the Sun rotated around the earth!

"Upgrading" A/C cords is just the usual high-end audiophile silly fairy tale myths and unproven beliefs.
Not once in over three decades of controlled listening tests has even one audiophile scored 75% correct, or better, when identifying different wires of normal lengths intended for audio use while brand names were hidden.
Believing wires sound different means nothing.
Proving wires sound different means something.
Hearing small SPL differences among wires means nothing too.
The vast makority of audiophiles think everything sounds different, while not even one can demonstrate such fine listening skills to witnesses.
It's three decades past the right time to throw away all the audiophile fairy tales and build the hobby based on knowledge gained from repeatable controlled listening tests.
Without objective audio knowledge, you get gullible audiophiles buying very expensive, very high profit margin, A/C cords that make no audible improvement at all for the dollars spent, except in the overactive imaginations of the purchasers.
.
.
.

Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"

Edits: 06/23/09
- cherry picking again. - Analog Scott 07:59:42 06/23/09 (1)
  sad
  - I'm way too old for that (nt) - Richard BassNut Greene 09:14:12 06/24/09 (0)
    nt
    Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
    The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
    and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
- There's no proof you don't re-type the same mindless nonsense over and over again. - carcass93 07:41:36 06/23/09 (14)
  In fact, there's proof to the contrary. The only question here is why you're doing that - and my guess would be that you have nothing better to do.
  - You must read every post I make ... - Richard BassNut Greene 07:46:38 06/23/09 (13)
    ... because every time I see a character attack post in reply
    that exhibits no sign of audio knowledge
    and no sign of intelligent life.
    Have your head examined.
    
    "I know what I hear" is proof of nothing.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    
    Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
    The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
    and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
    - Why not stop trolling then? - Sordidman 08:57:11 06/23/09 (12)
      You haven't spoken about anything of substance or logic in audio in years; you can't even accurately report what REAL testers have done.
      
      So, you can be a hypocrite and not talk about audio: double standard?
      
      Clearly you're here to bait and provoke and fight on the internet, - these audio forums are just a vehicle that you crash and burn.
      
      Most other trolls just go away; you don't, so everyone slaps you.
      
      Both sides of the river, there is bacteria; there must be meaning behind the moaning, is this living?
      - Honesty about audio is never "trolling". "Everything sounds different" is both silly and sad - Richard BassNut Greene 11:05:38 06/23/09 (8)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Why not stop trolling then? posted by Sordidman on June 23, 2009 at 08:57:11
        
        Silly because demonstrations of listening skills to witnesses clearly show no one comes close to having the mythical golden ears.
        Sad because high-end audiophiles cling to their "I have superior ears because I say so" myths, like children cling to their blankies.
        I've watched high-end audiophiles for over 40 years -- long enough to observe very little progress when the "I know what I hear" old timers cling to the toys of their youth: Currently vinyl records, tube amplifiers and two-channels of sound ... just like their parents held on to their mono 78's "Because that new fangled two-channel stereo is NO GOOD".
        Same behaviors.
        Different era.
        "I know what I hear, and I couldn't be wrong"
        Passed down from generation to generation.
        No curiousity.
        No questioning beliefs.
        No questioning anyone's claims.
        Knows all the answers (implanted at birth?)
        Couldn't be wrong!
        No thinking required.
        No tests required.
        Just repeat the old myths again and again!
        Attack anyone who questions them!
        
        .
        .
        
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
        
        Edits: 06/23/09
        
        RE: Honesty about audio is never "trolling". "Everything sounds different" is both silly and sad - morricab 00:43:25 06/25/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Honesty about audio is never "trolling". "Everything sounds different" is both silly and sad posted by Richard BassNut Greene on June 23, 2009 at 11:05:38
        
        "I have superior ears because I say so""
        
        Its sad that you think hearing has all so much to do with the actual hearing mechanism when in reality hearing subtle differences is all about mental discrimination, ie. its your brain that has been trained to understand small things most people not trained do not notice.
        
        Its just like guys who are trained with their sense of smell to use it as a detector in gas chromatography. This is used heavily in the food and fragrance industry because it turns out the nose is very sensitive to certain smells but it takes a trained BRAIN attached to this nose to make any sense out of what is coming off the GC. It is even quantitative! Hearing in fact uses a much large portion of the brain than vision or smell, thus underlining the actual complexity of hearing and why it is probably one of the least developed senses.
        
        Its funny that you can't hear in what ways some older technologies really were superior to current ways. For example, ever hear a direct to disk LP? They are hands down the most lifelike sounding recordings that I know of when compared to what one hears LIVE. Better than mastertape, better than any digital recording...just plain better. Often times the old way is a superior but more cumbersome technology. Subsequent "innovation" is usually directed at make things more convenient, smaller, cheaper and generally more user friendly but not necessarily better.
        
        The best recording I ever heard of my own voice was when I cut a record into fresh lacquer right on the spot at a demo. It was an old record cutter driven by a tube amp and I spoke into a microphone that was hooked up to the amp and was directly driving the cutter. We played it back on a cheap record player and it sounded very much like me...much more so than any tape recording. But as you would say its old, obsolete and besides you wouldn't hear the difference.
        
        BTW, the list you make about audiophiles doesn't fit my experience at all. They are often very curious and experimental people, willing to have an open mind to try new things. It is YOU with the closed mind, closed to the POSSIBILITY that cables DO sound different and that amps DO sound different. You know that these things CAN'T POSSIBLY sound different, right? It is you with the same dogmatic mantra day in and day out on this forum. Pull the plank out of your eye buddy before you try to help me with my splinter, ok?
        
        hearing "subtle" differences is mainly about overactive imaginations and minor SPL differences - Richard BassNut Greene 15:19:57 06/26/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Honesty about audio is never "trolling". "Everything sounds different" is both silly and sad posted by morricab on June 25, 2009 at 00:43:25
        
        It's so easy to get half or more of any group of audiophiles to say they prefer A or prefer B when in fact there was only one component in use with an unconnected A-B switch ... that it is obvious we audiophiles grossly overestimate sound quality differences among components.
        Since public demonstrations of audiophile listening skills are almost always closer to 'everything sounds the same' than 'everything sounds different', those audiophiles who still claim everything sounds different, other than speakers are gullible, or fools, or in your case, a gullible fool.
        If listening skills are as good as many audiophiles claim for themselves, then at least one audiophile in the world ought to be able to demonstrate such skills to witnesses. I've been waiting for such a demonstration for three decades. But then, I'm not gullible. If people tell me they are an expert on something, I search for proof of the claimed expertise.
        With alleged Golden Ear audiophiles the listening skills are mainly fantasy, not reality.
        I don't make up conclusions about audio -- I just sum up the objective data and report what conclusion they best support. Three decades of uindependently collected data do not lead to "everything sounds different" -- not by a countrty mile!
        The "Trained Listener" who can easily ddifferentiate among audio components is a mere fantasy -- no one even comes close (except with speakers, of course).
        .
        .
        .
        ,
        .
        .
        
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
        
        Edits: 06/26/09
        
        RE: hearing "subtle" differences is mainly about overactive imaginations and minor SPL differences - robert young 17:04:34 06/27/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: hearing "subtle" differences is mainly about overactive imaginations and minor SPL differences posted by Richard BassNut Greene on June 26, 2009 at 15:19:57
        
        "It's so easy to get half or more of any group of audiophiles to say they prefer A or prefer B when in fact there was only one component in use with an unconnected A-B switch ... that it is obvious we audiophiles grossly overestimate sound quality differences among components."
        
        Which ought to prove to you that the "tests" of which you are so fond are meaningless, as the "device" used to determine if audible differences exist, i.e., those darned "audiophiles," is completely unreliable.
        
        "I don't make up conclusions about audio -- I just sum up the objective data and report what conclusion they best support. Three decades of uindependently collected data do not lead to "everything sounds different" -- not by a countrty mile!"
        
        That's a laugh. Apart from completely misunderstanding probability and statistics, and egregiously claiming to have proven the null hypothesis, you are the only one who claims that the expression "everything sounds different" has been uttered in reference to equipment comparisons. (I believe Dr. Philosophy has approached the idea from a metaphysical position.) And where are those three decades of tests? You've only referenced 2 when asked: the questionable Stereophile amp test, and that ludicrous cd vs. sacd from BAS. Got any more to fill up your 30 years?
        
        Everything is different. - Tony Lauck 12:24:03 06/24/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Honesty about audio is never "trolling". "Everything sounds different" is both silly and sad posted by Richard BassNut Greene on June 23, 2009 at 11:05:38
        
        Everything is different. This includes two playbacks of the identical recording on identical equipment ten minutes apart. Sometimes the playbacks will sound the same. Sometimes not. The result will depend on internal factors (physical and mental) and external factors (recording, equipment and environment).
        
        It is not possible to conclude anything about audio (or any other subject, for that matter) without some prior beliefs. Like it or not, different inmates come with different prior beliefs. Some inmates have very dogmatic beliefs. Others are more open minded.
        
        I will confess. I categorize posters by how dogmatic they are. I read their posts. "I know what I read and I couldn't be wrong."
        
        Tony Lauck
        
        "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
        
        How can you be honest when everything you think you know is wrong...(nt) - mkuller 11:43:49 06/24/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Honesty about audio is never "trolling". "Everything sounds different" is both silly and sad posted by Richard BassNut Greene on June 23, 2009 at 11:05:38
        
        (nt)
        
        He's honest - in a way. That's exactly the same way ... - carcass93 12:19:37 06/24/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: How can you be honest when everything you think you know is wrong...(nt) posted by mkuller on June 24, 2009 at 11:43:49
        
        ... oligophrene would be honest, when he wets his pants in public - you can't say it was done on purpose. In most cases anyway, I guess...
        
        "I know what I hear." - Dave Mester 12:05:31 06/23/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Honesty about audio is never "trolling". "Everything sounds different" is both silly and sad posted by Richard BassNut Greene on June 23, 2009 at 11:05:38
        
        You bet I do! There's no proof either way. It's possible that we will see proof, but we don't have it yet. Until then, I will be self-serving, subjective, and make myself content, just like you :-). Maybe you don't trust what you hear.
        
        Thanks for proving my point: more trolling will not convince anyone - Sordidman 11:25:19 06/23/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Honesty about audio is never "trolling". "Everything sounds different" is both silly and sad posted by Richard BassNut Greene on June 23, 2009 at 11:05:38
        
        that your bullying and boringly repetitive posts will achieve their purpose: crammed down everyone's throat with anger and bitterness.
        Outside reason and the foundation of logic; no one can support you, just one reason why you receive continual criticisms of your invalid assumptions.
        Look within
        
        Both sides of the river, there is bacteria; there must be meaning behind the moaning, is this living?
        
        Edits: 06/23/09
      - What would he post if he stops? No experience with quality systems, hearing gone south - ... - carcass93 10:59:05 06/23/09 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Why not stop trolling then? posted by Sordidman on June 23, 2009 at 08:57:11
        
        The only remaining asset would be his usual half-assed jokes - and even he probably realizes that increasing the dosage of that is not a good idea.
        
        Throwing "sticks and stones" may break my bones ... - Richard BassNut Greene 09:07:17 06/24/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: What would he post if he stops? No experience with quality systems, hearing gone south - ... posted by carcass93 on June 23, 2009 at 10:59:05
        
        ... but one hostile character attack post after another,
        just makes you look like a bitter old audiophile,
        desperately defending the "everything sounds different"
        myth with the only "tool" you have:
        --- Attack the character of anyone who does not accept unproven myths without question.
        The more hostility you post,
        the worse you look.
        Are you complaining about my "half-assed jokes"
        because they are not appropriate
        for a complete ass like you?
        .
        .
        .
        .
        
        Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
        The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
        and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
        
        Edits: 06/25/09
        
        Nobody's throwing "sticks and stones" - it's just you tripping over yourself,... - carcass93 12:15:49 06/24/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Throwing "sticks and stones" may break my bones ... posted by Richard BassNut Greene on June 24, 2009 at 09:07:17
        
        ... and landing on your face, as usual.
        
        Regarding complete ass - I suggest you look in the mirror more often. Alternatively, it's also a hole from where you usually do your talking.
Adding to tony Lauck's comments ... - Dr. Philosophy 01:41:53 06/23/09 (1)
As far as I can tell the graphs *do* provide information about absolute vs. relative 'risk' (waffling on that point is a sure-fire way of selling cosmetics, foods, 'medicine' and so on), because a standard cable provides in effect a baseline, since every hi-fi component has to get its power somehow. That's not perfect, but in effect it tells you what you want to know. BUT: Again as far as I can make out, the information does NOT tell us what happens in a normal set-up, but only with an ac signal that was zapped with huge amounts of spikes. What is the relation between that artificial scenario and the standard home situation? Nothing in the paper tell us this (again, again, I may be missing something; do tell if you spot a flaw in my account). ALSO: in graph 1 (the power cords), the most sigificant improvement claimed concerned a region of the frequency band well beyond the limits of human hearing; this makes it all the more doubtful what the ultimate audible effect is. He says (more than once) that "everybody knows this", but this is in effect the very point at issue.
Also, I'm wondering about something about which I confess ignorance: He says that the results will come out in a 'peer-reviewed white paper'; who are the peers? What does a 'white paper' mean? Normally it means an official policy statement by the government or a political party.

Edits: 06/23/09
- RE: Adding to tony Lauck's comments ... - Tony Lauck 06:16:19 06/23/09 (0)
  The problem with graphs like those presented is that they are subject to misinterpretation. Relative numbers are adequate for comparison purposes, but without the missing information one can not tell if the differences are relevant and one can not repeat the tests to achieve independent validation.
  
  In short, when one sees graphs like these it isn't even necessary to read the report. One can deduce that the author is either incompetent, lazy or deceptive. However, there are times when deception may have its place.
  
  Tony Lauck
  
  "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
The report is somewhat weak - Tony Lauck 18:21:39 06/22/09 (4)
As "scientific evidence" the report is somewhat weak. In particular, the first four graphs show reduction in relative terms and don't provide information as to the absolute levels involved. Without this extra information it is almost impossible to replicate the experiments, or should different results be obtained to isolate the causes of any differences to the equipment under test, the test setup, the test environment or the test procedures.

I base these comments on a certain amount of experience. Whenever I have been asked to review a scientific report or technical paper with graphs labeled like these, I have suggested that the graphs be properly labeled. In other cases, typically when reading scientific papers that are really marketing white-papers in disguise (sometimes even in refereed journals), when I come across graphs like this I circular file the report and make a note to be suspicious of other reports from the same author. (My field is computer networking, and I have a specific individual in mind.)

With graph 5, at least there are absolute numbers. But distortion figures with a tuner? This may be important to Russ Andrews' legal dispute, but it is of little relevance to audiophiles who have given up on obtaining high-end sound from radio reception.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
- http://www.russandrews.com/downloads/cabletestpremres.pdf (Open in New Window)
- RE: The report is somewhat weak - morricab 01:15:09 06/25/09 (1)
  Sorry Tony I don't exactly see what is wrong in displaying the results in db attenuation. You want to see how much the RFI is suppressed and in terms of db attenuation is just fine to display this, IMO. I have used a Network analyzer before to look at impedance mismatch that we had in a detection system in grad school. The problem was that we had ringing from our mass spectral peaks and the timing of ringing was a function of the cable length, thus indicating a signal bouncing up and down the cable. We then optimized our circuitry to maximize the return loss in terms of db attenuation. Our goal was 30db of attenuation up to 1 GHz, which we achieved by altering the geometry and layout of our circuits.
  
  I would say attenuation of 15 db or more is indicating a product that is doing something positive to reject RFI interference. I know for a fact how difficult it is to suppress this from lab experience. We used to wrap all of our BNC cables in the lab with Aluminum foil and try elaborate grounding schemes to eliminate RFI that we were generating from our pulsed laser systems. These lasers had high voltage, high current, ultra high speed switches that simply made TONS of RFI. It was everywhere and not always possible to eliminate. Worse everything in metal and with corners in the room acted as an antennae and/or transmitter.
  
  Whether in absolute terms the orignial cables and without clamps is high or low doesn't matter as much IMO as seeing that the product makes a clearly measureable impact on the starting point.
  - RE: The report is somewhat weak - Tony Lauck 08:36:50 06/25/09 (0)
    There are three reasons why the absolute values are important. (And they have to have existed at some point in the experimental process, so it took a deliberate action to suppress them in the published results.)
    
    1. RELEVANCE. While 15 dB suppression isn't a bad thing in itself, if the noise being suppressed is already far below the signal than a further suppression is immaterial. Conversely, if the noise being suppressed is far above the signal it may be necessary to reduce it by much more than 15 dB. If only relative numbers are presented, then the reader doesn't have sufficient information to reach his own conclusions as to either of these possibilities.
    
    2. ACCURACY. All measurements are subject to various forms of experimental error. These can remain hidden when results are presented in relative terms. A cricital reader needs to know the actual measurements so they can be related to background information, such as environmental factors, limitations of the measurement equipment, etc.
    
    3. REPLICATION. If someone tries to repeat the experiment it will be almost impossible to do so without hard numbers. If the repeat experiment fails to achieve the desired suppression there will be no way to properly diagnose how the two experiments differed, which is essential, because if a different experiment has been performed and fails then there will be no way of knowing whether the different result was due to different conditions or to experimental error and in this case, which experimenter made the error.
    
    Note that a claim that attenuation takes place is going to be a relative matter by definition. Note that a claim that this attenuation is relevant will require absolute numbers. The audio system in question is non-linear and hence its response will not scale proportionally, which is all that attenuation measures. (Of course if the audio system were linear, then the interference would be completely harmless.)
    
    Note also that the cable measurements related to a hard science, namely physics. In other scientific fields (and some "scientific" fields as well) concepts are used that admit only relative and often statistical measurements. In my opinion, results in these sciences need to be treated with a much higher degree of skepticism than the harder sciences. So, for example, in audio there are electrical engineering measurements that relate to physics, and psychoacoustic measurements that relate to experimental psychology, a very soft science indeed.
    
    I recall reading a post alluding to a long form version of the report, but without a link. Perhaps in this version there is additional information that would overcome my objections to this material. The author has my sympathy, because he is only defending himself against a completely unwarranted government attack, which comes with physical force behind it—not just words on a computer screen.
    
    Tony Lauck
    
    "Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
- RE: The report is somewhat weak - Don Till 20:51:16 06/22/09 (0)
  Well graph 5 does show something but unfortunately it doesn't show the benefits of the products he is selling. I guess, like he says, we are supposed to imagine it.
  
  Graph 4 makes more sense but I wonder if in practice there would or could be an additional filter or two after requlation especially close to circuitry that generates noise itself.
- RE: The report is somewhat weak - rick_m 20:17:41 06/22/09 (0)
  I've read the full report, but I now can't find it. It's either on my dead computer or I never actually saved a copy. I bet someone here has it though. You really need to read that, it's um 'interesting'
  
  The testing premises and techniques struck me as poor and the analysis and conclusions even more so. I kept saying to myself "why the hell are they testing it like THAT?"
  
  The graph 1 in the report linked was, if I recall correctly, S12 done with a network analyzer and it mostly shows that regular power cords are a better match to 50 ohms than the Kimber cable. Despite a lot of arm waving just just how this applies to real gear plugged into the wall was never quite pinned down. Of course all they had to show was ANY difference and they were probably off the hook. Not saying that it might not be a good approach, just saying that in my estimation one would never know from the tests.
  
  In marketing I trust.
  
  Rick
Highly trained ears? Fetch! No, really - oldmkvi 08:56:15 06/19/09 (16)
there is so much Voodoo-Tweeko Cult -Mumbo-Jumbo in Cables, and Tweeks. Too much noise? Buy better equipment. Hash? Buy better equipment. RFI? Put tiny disks in the corners of the room, tie a bag of rocks to the cords and cables. Jitter? Tape a bag of sand to the Clock. Please.
- RE: Highly trained ears? Fetch! No, really - Todd Krieger 20:48:05 06/23/09 (0)
  "there is so much Voodoo-Tweeko Cult -Mumbo-Jumbo in Cables, and Tweeks. Too much noise? Buy better equipment. Hash? Buy better equipment. RFI? Put tiny disks in the corners of the room, tie a bag of rocks to the cords and cables. Jitter? Tape a bag of sand to the Clock. Please."
  
  What's your point?
- "there is so much Voodoo-Tweeko Cult -Mumbo-Jumbo in Cables, and Tweeks" - Richard BassNut Greene 07:43:27 06/23/09 (0)
  No one knows voodoo like high-end audiophiles do!
  
  They are an endless source of amusement when they refuse to question any claim.
  
  The most bizarre claim, by an ALERT MODERATOR at this website, was that his ears were so perfect that they could hear differences among one dozen different speaker wire insulation materials under double-blind conditions, with high scores! .... Well enough to rank-order the insulation materials by sound quality on his website! ... But when asked where he got one dozen different speaker wires that were identical EXCEPT FOR insulation materisls, he refused to answer. ... And when anyone else posts results of wire double blind tests where no one had golden ears, and he notices the post, he is likely to attack the blind test methodology, without even knowing what it was (of course the test methodology used for his alleged double-blind tests has never been revealed = government secret?).
  
  If that is the behavior of a MODERATOR here, then you should not be surprised by the behavior of some of the inmates here!
  
  You should realize that any comment other than "everything sounds different" is likely to lead to character attacks on you.
  
  It doesn't matter if you are correct, and you are.
  
  This high-end audiophile "religion" has its beliefs that are never questioned, because unquestioned beliefs must be right ... as no one ever ever questions them, and everyone attacks people who do!
  
  The audio "knowledge" of a few people who have invested a lot of money in audio components is nothing more than "I know what I hear, and couldn't be wrong".
  
  Sometimes it seems like a Big Ego + Big Budget = No time to learn anything useful about audio!
  
  Oh, by the way, what kind of rocks should I tape to my wires?
  My wife collects rocks, for her rock and shell garden,
  so I could "relocate" a few inside my living room at no cost.
  .
  .
  .
  
  Richard BassNut Greene.....................................................................
  The "Cliff Claven" of Audio
  and the "Floyd R. Turbo of Bingham Farms Michigan"
- RE: Highly trained ears? Fetch! No, really - JimOfOakCreek 11:22:03 06/20/09 (7)
  You cannot disprove conspiracy theories.
  
  You cannot disprove that someone is hearing something that cannot be measured, even though the testing equipment has far more sensitivity than human hearing.
  
  Dealers and manufacturers and their shills understand this principle well.
  
  If people claim to hear a difference using shakti stones then, by George, let them buy shakti stones to silence cosmic radiation. Lord knows there will always be a dealer willing to sell them shakti stones.
  - RE: Highly trained ears? Fetch! No, really - Todd Krieger 21:22:24 06/23/09 (0)
    "You cannot disprove conspiracy theories."
    
    That's why there are conspiracy theories......
    
    "You cannot disprove that someone is hearing something that cannot be measured, even though the testing equipment has far more sensitivity than human hearing."
    
    This is a false premise. If there is a device that can distinguish a Steinway piano from a Yamaha, I'd like to see it.
    
    "Dealers and manufacturers and their shills understand this principle well."
    
    You might believe that, but unless you can demonstrate it, such claim is nothing but hot air.......
    
    "If people claim to hear a difference using shakti stones then, by George, let them buy shakti stones to silence cosmic radiation."
    
    If people want to believe a Magic 8-Ball improves sound, what's the point in complaining about it??
    
    "Lord knows there will always be a dealer willing to sell them shakti stones."
    
    I don't think Shakti stones do much either, but if someone else thinks otherwise, it's not your or my business..... As long as he's happy with what this tweak does, that's all what matters.
  - Pure codswallop. - alan m. kafton 12:49:33 06/20/09 (5)
    This is my new mantra.
    - It's the balderdash of the 21st Century!...N/T - musetap 18:10:04 06/22/09 (0)
      N/T
      
      “ Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination. ” -Michael McClure
    - Pure codswallop - JimOfOakCreek 14:39:33 06/20/09 (0)
      Always been my mantra
    - You just like the girl ;-) /t - Cpk 13:09:07 06/20/09 (2)
      z
      - Hey, Chris.... - alan m. kafton 13:15:19 06/20/09 (1)
        
        In Reply to: RE: You just like the girl ;-) /t posted by Cpk on June 20, 2009 at 13:09:07
        
        ....she was stunning. I forgot how to spell my name.
        
        Now what were we talking about?
        
        RE: Hey, Alan.... - Cpk 13:28:33 06/20/09 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Hey, Chris.... posted by alan m. kafton on June 20, 2009 at 13:15:19
        
        yes very easy on the eyes.....
        
        hmmm...I have no idea what we were talking about.
- Hey Guy's - chris_w 23:51:26 06/19/09 (0)
  Take it easy on old mkvi.
  After a certain age your ears deteroate, he may not be able to hear any differances these days. And dont forget his "a Professional", in the music business so that makes him RIGHT !
  
  just like my (now ex) "proffesional" plumber who removed my anti water hammer device ("cos ive seen that sota rubbish before and they dont work"). Guess what ? i now have water ...
- Highly trained ears? You betcha! Yes, really... - Duster 21:18:02 06/19/09 (0)
  The Audiophile Hobby: Connoisseur Evaluations vs. Consumer Electronics Values
  
  Audiophilia is about hearing; as transferred to listening; as translated by cognition; as interpreted within evaluation; as enjoyed/not enjoyed/as an ambivalent reaction towards an existential sensory aesthetic experience -- perhaps even a spiritual event of sorts, at times: "I hear (then think), therefore I am...".
  
  The notion of a highly trained ear is as valid a notion as a premium microbrew, Reinheitsgebot, Campaign for Real Ale or such beer advocate who may spew a massive list of descriptors about what simply spills out of a bottle or tap into a glass, then into the gullet — just down the hatch to some folk, eh? More than a few fine beer enthusiasts have found that Bud Lite and the like of other such drab drizzle not only tastes like p*ss (not beer), it also gives the consumer of such a horrid muck a fuzzy buzz in the noggin nearing sheer stupidity rather than what a good snog of grog should provide to the soul...
  
  Life is too short *not to enjoy* better audio (by those in the know) via “Voodoo-Tweeko Cult -Mumbo-Jumbo in Cables, and Tw(ea)ks” and other junk you may think to be pure bunk.
  
  Cheers
  - http://beeradvocate.com/ (Open in New Window)
- "Voodoo-Tweeko Cult -Mumbo-Jumbo".... - alan m. kafton 11:35:14 06/19/09 (0)
  ....that's a good one. Clearly you've missed your calling in the marketing profession.
  
  With all your other disclaimers, you've also clearly not experimented with good ideas to reduce noise, RFI, and tame room resonances. And those are measurable. Oh well.
  
  Cow piddle or codswallop indeed!
- and you might want to read this - Cpk 10:03:35 06/19/09 (0)
  see link
  - http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/d.mpl?audio/cables.html (Open in New Window)
- ear training - Cpk 10:01:11 06/19/09 (1)
  when I was at Berklee, there was a group of people who differentiated 6 (or more) pitches between a semitone, so yes some people's hearing is 'highly trained'.
  
  And yes the cable industry is fraught with manufacturers making up terms for the ordinary whether it be a process or material. But I have always found better equipment to lay bare differences between cables to a greater relief then not.
  
  Unfortunately your tenor is a typical closed minded position of someone in your field...
  - RE: ear training - Todd Krieger 21:03:23 06/23/09 (0)
    "when I was at Berklee, there was a group of people who differentiated 6 (or more) pitches between a semitone, so yes some people's hearing is 'highly trained'."
    
    Ear training is an acquired skill. Taking someone off the street and finding out they have acuity to certain stimuli does not constitute ear training.
    
    Differences that might not be obvious to an untrained ear can be made obvious with learning what to listen for, and becoming familiar with sonic characteristics. And once such conditions can be discerned by the listener on a consistent basis, only then have his ears been trained.
    
    Ear training can enable one to, for example, have perfect pitch, discern artifacts in signal conversions, discern pitch-corrected vocals and instrumentals, distinguish MP3 from CD playback, distinguish unique types of musical instruments, pick out a Steinway from other pianos, etc. .... But such discernment is not something one can attain overnight.
RE: Scientific evidence of power cables reducing signal distortion - oldmkvi 17:40:58 06/18/09 (2)
Just get McIntosh power cords. I doubt anyone makes equipment with less distortion.
- "Just get McIntosh power cords" - Metralla 07:54:37 06/19/09 (1)
  Are you being serious?
  - Yes. Their distortion measurements are extreme low, reviews are very positive, and - oldmkvi 08:05:27 06/19/09 (0)
    for every person who says power cords make a difference, another says they don't. Of course, if you tie a bag of rocks to the cord, it will be fab. I learned that in ISO.

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.