RIP Peter Aczel

RE: RIP Peter Aczel, posted on June 25, 2017 at 07:35:20
SpotcheckBilly12345	Dead? He still owes me money for an unfulfilled subscription, dammit!!!!! Oh well, I never thought that I'd collect anyway;-) Cheers, SB

The one reviewer..., posted on June 25, 2017 at 11:00:34

mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 38130
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003

...everyone loved to hate.

He started off as an ad copy writer (maybe for Ohm speakers) and then founded TAC in about 1977.

I saw his ad in Audio magazine and became a charter subscriber.

His first issue carried definitive reviews of about 20 different preamplifiers available at the time which was quite a feat. He put Rappaport on the map calling it better than the highly touted Levinson JC-2.

A few years later he stumbled with his rave Fourier speaker review when it turned out he owned the company.

It was downhill from there - he stopped publishing, leaving his paid subscribers with nothing, to sell his speakers. Eventually the speaker company failed and went bankrupt.

He began publishing again but this time with a different attitude - he was angry, bitter and seemed out to get revenge on audiophiles and the industry with his DBT-driven objectivist views.

RIP

"revenge on audiophiles and the industry with his DBT-driven objectivist views."... , posted on June 25, 2017 at 12:05:26
musetap Audiophile Posts: 31874 Location: San Francisco Joined: July 8, 2003 Contributor Since: January 28, 2004	Are we even sure he's dead? Has there been independent supporting confirmation? "Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure

RE: RIP Peter Aczel, posted on June 25, 2017 at 12:37:59
John Atkinson Reviewer Posts: 4045 Location: New York Joined: November 24, 2003	Peter was always exceptionally unpleasant to me in person, yet the irony is that along with Gordon Holt and Harry Pearson, it was Peter's writings in the early issues of The Audio Critic that set me on the path that led to my joining Stereophile. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile

I got his number..., posted on June 25, 2017 at 15:32:47
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	...from directory assistance back in about 1981 after he had stopped publishing and was pushing the Fourier speaker. I called and he answered - he was a real ass on the phone. Of course I asked him if it was the TAC subscription money that was funding his loudspeaker and when we would get a refund. As a charter subscriber I felt entitled :-)

Nice summary, posted on June 25, 2017 at 15:52:13

Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 6984
Joined: August 1, 2001

Seems to match my experience as well. Like JA, I was strongly influenced by many of his early writings for The Audio Critic. I can only speculate, but my impression was that he felt he had figured out the "holy grail" of making great loudspeakers for reasonable prices, and became personally offended when the world didn't agree with either the results (ie, sound of the speakers) or the methods (using magazine subscription money to finance the loudspeaker company, then giving the Fourier an over-the-top "review" without disclosing the obvious conflict of interest).

As always, my personal opinion only and not necessarily that of my employer or favorite reviewers.

Master of invective, posted on June 25, 2017 at 16:18:38
hesson11 Audiophile Posts: 2280 Location: Florida Joined: December 8, 2005	I always admired his mastery of invective, inflammatory rhetoric. Something of a lost art. His viewpoint, although I didn't always agree with it, was a refreshing alternative to the sometimes mystic writing of his contemporaries. Not sure I'd ever want to sit down and have a beer with him. -Bob

More I read about this guy...., posted on June 25, 2017 at 17:01:06
musetap Audiophile Posts: 31874 Location: San Francisco Joined: July 8, 2003 Contributor Since: January 28, 2004	more I'm reminded of this... View YouTube Video "Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure

I was strongly influenced by him as well..., posted on June 25, 2017 at 17:22:27

mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 38130
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003

...although I hate to admit it.

I had just discovered high end audio and bought a pair Dahlquist DQ-10s when his first issue came out - they were his reference loudspeakers along with the electronic crossover and woofers.

Of course I bought those, too.

Then he rated the Rappaport PRE-1 as the best preamp. I was talking to a salesperson at Jonah Millers in downtown LA who said he wanted to sell his so I bought it.

Aczel said the best amps he had heard with his DQ-10s were the Quatre Gain Cells.

Quatre was located in the San Fernando Valley about an hour away and I saw an ad in the LA Times Audio Section for a sale they were having - I drove up and bought two of them.

So I was using Aczel's bi-amped Dahlquist reference system until the next issue of TAC came out when he traded in the DQ-10s for LS3-5as.

RE: RIP Peter Aczel, posted on June 25, 2017 at 17:45:56
MikeCh Audiophile Posts: 1113 Joined: November 16, 2002	I had several personal interactions with Peter over the past decade. He was always kind to me. RIP. http://www.crstrunk.com/notices/Peter-ACZEL

RE: RIP Peter Aczel, posted on June 25, 2017 at 21:29:29
fantja Audiophile Posts: 15518 Location: Alabama Joined: September 11, 2010	R.I.P.

RE: I was strongly influenced by him as well..., posted on June 25, 2017 at 23:34:30

Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 6984
Joined: August 1, 2001

>> So I was using Aczel's bi-amped Dahlquist reference system until the next issue of TAC came out when he traded in the DQ-10s for LS3-5as <<

Great story, thanks for sharing! The funny thing to me is that the DQ-10's were overall much better than the (admittedly good for the day) LS-3/5a'a. The worst problem of the DQ-10 was the horrible piezo-electric "super-tweeter". Simply disconnecting it solved a lot of problems. More gains could be had by mirror-imaging the upper-frequency drivers and replacing the stock wiring and capacitors, but that kind of tweaking was just a glimmer on the horizon back then.

I never had a chance to hear the Rappaport or the Quattre, but I bet the system sounded a far sight better than just about anything else for back then, with the possible exception of tubed electronics from Audio Research, Marantz, or McIntosh, and ESLs from KLH or Quad.

As always, strictly my personal opinions, prone to error and not necessarily those of my employer or favorite reviewer.

RE: I was strongly influenced by him as well..., posted on June 26, 2017 at 01:39:24
morricab Distributor or Rep Posts: 9178 Location: switzerland Joined: April 1, 2005	Strongly influenced? Man, you drank the kool-aid! Just out of curiosity, how long did you stick with that system?

Kool-aid?, posted on June 26, 2017 at 08:20:03

mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 38130
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003

...I was looking for new speakers and had probably heard a half dozen that didn't do anything for me - then I heard the DQ-10s and I had to have them.

Looking for the electronic crossover, I ventured into to a high end shop in Huntington Beach called Haven and Hardesty.

Dick Hardesty, who later became the Audio Perfectionist and wrote an ezine, showed me an issue of TAS and introduced me to the underground audio publications. I was hooked, kool-aid and all.

I kept the speakers for about 5 year but I highly modified the them subbing a KEF T-27 for the two tweeters among other things.

After about 3 years I bought a pair of real subwoofers and traded the Quatre amps for a Threshold 400A on top and a Bryston 4B on the subs. The Rappaport went for a Threshold NS-10 (not one of Nelson's finest) and later and ARC SP-6B.

Ahh, the good old days.

DQ-10s..., posted on June 26, 2017 at 08:24:01
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	...I mirror-imaged mine, subbed better caps and and did a bunch of other stuff including using a KEF T-27 tweeter in place of the two stock ones. I wrote an article about my mods and sent it to HP and he published in TAS in about 1980. I went out and listened to the LS3-5as and thought they were pretty amazing in the way they threw an image but the DQ-10s sounded much better.

But where did he stand on MQA? (n/t), posted on June 26, 2017 at 09:45:35
Jeffrey Lee Audiophile Posts: 708 Location: Louisville Joined: September 24, 2002	.

An even bigger influence..., posted on June 26, 2017 at 09:49:07

Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 6984
Joined: August 1, 2001

For me an even bigger influence than Peter Aczel was J. Peter Moncrieff of "International Audio Review". It's a bit ironic as his story arc was somewhat similar to Peter Aczel's - both lost credibility when they began selling their own products.

The very first person to write about tweaking was Enid Lumley in TAS. At the time what she was saying seemed so far-fetched that she was largely dismissed in an abusive way. However virtually everything she wrote is now an accepted part of high-end audio. J. Peter Moncrieff picked up the torch on this and was the only guy to really explore this in depth. Like Aczel, Moncrieff eventually decided that he knew more about equipment (capacitors in this case) than anyone else and started having them made to his specifications and reselling them for a handsome profit. After that there seemed to be a clear trend whereby equipment that used his parts received noticeably more positive reviews than equipment that didn't. It would seem that the results of that editorial strategy is fairly self-evident.

As always, strictly my personal opinion and not necessarily that of my employer or favorite magazine publisher.

RE: RIP Peter Aczel, posted on June 26, 2017 at 12:09:09

Peter Breuninger
Reviewer

Posts: 601
Joined: August 28, 2002

I was a friend of Peter and his wife, Bodil Aczel. He never ceased to amaze me with his sharp pen and soft heart. His best comment to me was "what are you doing in this industry? you seem so normal to me".

I met Peter in 1987 and visited his beautiful home on several occasions. We rarely listened to audio. Friendship was king and talking was queen.

Bless you ole friend, I'll have a listening session in your honor tonight!

Peter Breuninger

RE: "revenge on audiophiles and the industry with his DBT-driven objectivist views."... , posted on June 26, 2017 at 14:06:50
kerr Audiophile Posts: 4376 Location: Central Indiana Joined: November 10, 2003	Now THAT'S funny! I discovered his writing long after the Fourier incident and found his views humorous. I guess he was trying to be serious. Either way, I read as much of his stuff as I could find, knowing that the polar opposite of his views was usually the right path. It's not easy finding someone that you can count on with that level of regularity.

Rogers, posted on June 26, 2017 at 15:33:13

Bill the K
Audiophile

Posts: 8384
Joined: June 3, 2006

I loved the first issues of TAC. Hard hitting editorials, cryptic reviews. I was impressed by his review of the Rogers LS3/5A and I got a pair of the 15 ohm models imported from England. I also got the Advent receiver and a Kenwood turntable. I loved the Cizek speaker but did not care much for the DCM Time Window. Enjoyed the group discussions with Rappaport and Carver. It was a great joy to read TAC, even the leaflet like issues.RIP.

Bill

I knew J. Peter..., posted on June 26, 2017 at 19:07:29

mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 38130
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003

...I was a cofounder of the Norrthern California Audio Society in 1979.

J. Peter lived in Berkeley and used to come to our meetings.

He was a real character.

I think he managed the apartment building he lived in on Telegraph Ave. at the time. A buddy and I went to visit him once and saw his listening room with the walls lined with records in racks made from 2 X 4s.

There were a pair of Acoustats near the wall and and old beat up red listening chair across from it.

I used to see the big guy riding his 10-speed bicycle around town with a t-shirt, shorts and earmuffs on, no doubt to protect his hearing so he could hear the trebles.

Ironically he was the only audio writer to criticize Aczel in print for his lack of ethics in reviewing the Fourier loudspeaker. And then he was reviewing equipment with his capacitors, solder and wire in it.

I met Enid once, too, in about 1981 at a party at Art Ferris' (Modulus preamp) house. She was 6 feet tall and very personable.

RE: RIP Peter Aczel, posted on June 26, 2017 at 21:37:45
4everyoung	Thanks for sharing the softer side of Peter Aczel. Like many. I only knew him through his writing. Sorry to hear you also lost a good friend. RIP Peter. Sue Kraft

The shop where I worked in college, posted on June 27, 2017 at 06:25:22
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37596 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	sold DQ-10s along with Magnepan. And Quatre Gain Cells because Dahlquist recommended them!

+1 /n, posted on June 27, 2017 at 07:57:30
Ivan303 Audiophile Posts: 48887 Location: Cadiere d'azur FRANCE - Santa Fe, NM Joined: February 26, 2001	n First they came for the dumb-asses And I did not speak out Because I was not a dumb-ass

RE: An even bigger influence..., posted on June 27, 2017 at 08:07:36

Rob Doorack
Audiophile

Posts: 5378
Joined: May 26, 2000

Do you remember when Moncrieff came up with the idea that he could thoroughly test phono cartridges by dropping the stylus on a sheet of glass and then doing an FFT of the output? As I recall he thought this methodology was so conclusive that he didn't even need to audition the cartridge.

Then there was time Moncrieff pronounced the Oracle turntable as precisely 634 times better than the LP-12.

RE: An even bigger influence..., posted on June 27, 2017 at 14:03:44
morricab Distributor or Rep Posts: 9178 Location: switzerland Joined: April 1, 2005	I liked his reviews as well. Particularly the one on the Rockport Sirius III and the VAC Phi 70. Very well reasoned and logical reviews. Don't really know about his conflicts of interest but the thoroughness of the explanations was inspiring.

And a CD player..., posted on June 27, 2017 at 19:25:11

mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 38130
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003

...so good, all the others are boat anchors.

Remember in the early 1980s when he printed his newsletter on red paper so people wouldn't photocopy them? You also could barely read them/

He wrote reviews like ad copy.

I could never figure out who he was writing them for - his readers, the manufacturers who also paid him to consult and buy his parts, or himself and his ego.

IAR - looks like it stopped in 2015

RE: An even bigger influence..., posted on June 28, 2017 at 10:39:54

John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 4045
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003

>Do you remember when Moncrieff came up with the idea that he could
>thoroughly test phono cartridges by dropping the stylus on a sheet of glass
>and then doing an FFT of the output?

It's not a bad idea, except that it doesn't account for the effect of the vinyl
groove walls on the behavior. Years ago, Russ Andrews in the UK pointed
out to me that the "plop" sound when you drop the stylus in the groove
does characterize the phono cartridge's performance, though in a somewhat
uncontrolled way. I have analyzed a lot of these over the years.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

Disrespectful., posted on June 28, 2017 at 13:55:03
MikeCh Audiophile Posts: 1113 Joined: November 16, 2002	I apologize for the actions of others, and for the lack of moderation to this thread. R.I.P. Mr. Aczel.

RE: RIP Peter Aczel, posted on June 28, 2017 at 14:23:04
bjh Audiophile Posts: 18614 Location: Ontario Joined: November 22, 2003	"Peter was always exceptionally unpleasant to me in person ..." Well then it would appear character judgement wasn't one of his faults. ;)

Honest, not disrespectful, posted on June 28, 2017 at 18:04:48
Rob Doorack Audiophile Posts: 5378 Joined: May 26, 2000	Aczel was a con man who perpetrated by far the worst ethical violation in the history of audio magazines, and he burned "Audio Critic" subscribers by suspending the magazine for years at a time and never delivering the promised number of issues. His death doesn't mean that the facts of his life must be forgiven or forgotten.

*This thread should* be a memorial to his life., posted on June 28, 2017 at 19:16:00**
MikeCh Audiophile Posts: 1113 Joined: November 16, 2002	Not a critical hate fest after his death. If you don't have anything to say that's respectful, STFU. IMO. p.s. His E-zine was offered free to anyone to read for the past six or more years. He even provided new content over those years.

What does any of this have to do with Peter Aczel?, posted on June 28, 2017 at 19:28:17
MikeCh Audiophile Posts: 1113 Joined: November 16, 2002	And why do you (all) feel it's necessary to dilute his death thread with it? Perhaps my rant should be directed at AA moderation, which doesn't seem to care.

*This thread should* be a memorial to his life..., posted on June 28, 2017 at 20:34:23**
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	...in your opinion. This is not his funeral. It is about his life, both the good and the not so good. Please don't be disrespectful to us who had unfortunate dealings with him.

What does any of this have to do with Peter Aczel?, posted on June 28, 2017 at 20:39:42

mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 38130
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003

...I don't believe it is realistic to have some kind of a solemn memorial on Critic's Corner on an internet audio newsgroup when the person involved was an unpleasant huckster critic who took advantage of many of the people here.

Actually some people here have said nicer things about him than I would have thought.

"Actually some people here have said nicer things about him than I would have thought.", posted on June 28, 2017 at 21:21:20
MikeCh Audiophile Posts: 1113 Joined: November 16, 2002	Get a hint.

Two...(nt), posted on June 28, 2017 at 21:55:21
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	(nt)

RE: This thread *should* be a memorial to his life..., posted on June 29, 2017 at 07:32:37

John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 4045
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003

>Please don't be disrespectful to us who had unfortunate dealings with him.

Agreed. This is a man who, after he attacked me groundlessly in the pages of
his magazine, reported me to the INS as possibly having dubious immigration
status. There was nothing wrong with my work visa, but that didn't mean it
was not a stressful situation. Taking a vendetta in "mind space" into "meat
space" like that is not something that can be readily forgotten or forgiven.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

RE: What does any of this have to do with Peter Aczel?, posted on June 29, 2017 at 07:36:33
John Atkinson Reviewer Posts: 4045 Location: New York Joined: November 24, 2003	I was responding to a post in a sub-thread about J. Peter Moncrieff, an audio reviewer who, like Peter Aczel, was/is a superb writer but who also shared some behavioral patterns with him. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile

RE: What does any of this have to do with Peter Aczel?, posted on June 29, 2017 at 09:26:30

FSonicSmith
Audiophile

Posts: 528
Location: Midwest
Joined: February 18, 2009

Geez Louise-each and every time anyone dies-a fate we shall all share-and the person is discussed, someone has to spout the ubiquitous "let's not talk badly of the dead" bit like a school teacher correcting an evil student without a hall pass. It's as silly as it is predictable. It brings to mind news of Glen Frey's death on JA's website and the brew ha-ha over the merit of The Eagles' book of work. I happen to side with The Dude on that one btw.

RE: RIP Peter Aczel, posted on June 29, 2017 at 11:11:36

jsusky
Audiophile

Posts: 181
Joined: May 17, 2000

Like Mr. Atkinson, I too read TAS and TAC side by side as a young audiophile ca. 1979-1983. IIRC, the last TAC that I received - quite "late" - showed the skeptical, unvarnished Aczel "for the first time".

(but maybe I hadn't noticed in his earlier issues)

(I, and audio friends, were unaware of Stereophile until about 1986-87. We liked it and subscribed)

I recall that he compared a rebuilt Citation 1 preamp to the then-current Audio Research flagship (the SP-10?) - essentially he said they were indistingusihable. Harry Pearson snorted at that in TAS.

Before that, he was high on the RGR-something-or-other preamp.

And, oh yeah, a loudspeaker by "Fourier" - which has been commented on here.

Much later, ten years (more?), I received an issue in which he was a full-on objective/DBT observer, complete with ridicule for open-testing and open testers.

(and now I see it was Issue 14, 1991, available for download)

So, I'll indulge in some pop-psychology - what "triggered" that objective stance, along with the ridicule?

PS - Apparently I'd forgotten that Aczel "stiffed" me by not producing those TAC issues.

PPS - I also recall that Aczel frequently had useful observations about loudspeakers, in addition to the rock-solid, measurable aspects of other audio gear (FWIW, I think Stereophiles's listen-and-measure approach is superior to only one or the other).

At some point Aczel seems to have stopped "trusting his ears". Others have suggested this was out of "spite" over head-space/literary (and meat-space)*** wars. But it seems psychologically untenable for all that to be motivated by spite - since it seemed he remained a fan of matters-audio, so I'll say that he "gave-in" to the "rationalist" in him.

***Damn, JA, that is some kind of nasty!! Unforgivable, really. As if he were his J Edgar Hoover to your John Lennon - thankfully without J Edgar's power.

*RE: This thread should* be a memorial to his life..., posted on June 29, 2017 at 11:12:11**
jsusky Audiophile Posts: 181 Joined: May 17, 2000	Damn, JA, that is some kind of nasty!! Unforgivable, really. As if he were his J Edgar Hoover to your John Lennon - thankfully without J Edgar's power.

Stereophile eulogy for Aczel??, posted on June 29, 2017 at 11:21:59
jsusky Audiophile Posts: 181 Joined: May 17, 2000	Mr. Atkinson, Is is too soon to "turn over your hole cards" for the Peter Aczel poker pot? Shall we expect a Sterophile eulogy - by you, by Olsher, by any of the "old guard" still writing for your rag? (did JGH ever comment on the Aczel phenomenon - publically or privately - or Larry Archibald?)

I bet John Atkinson has all the old, early Audio Critics in a file somewhere, posted on June 29, 2017 at 11:31:14

jsusky
Audiophile

Posts: 181
Joined: May 17, 2000

Anyone here care to recall, reminisce further about the iconoclastic Aczel?

I'll toss out two shining examples of his work from the early days:

1) His "revealing" of the Baerwald alignment.

2) He once published a free-wheeling, many-page (10,000-word?) panel discussion by amplifier designers that is unrivaled in my experience - Cotter, Rappaport, Curl (?), Marsh (?), and others whose names escape.

RE: RIP Peter Aczel, posted on June 29, 2017 at 11:58:45
Norm Reviewer Posts: 31024 Joined: September 6, 2000	I read him most of the time, but as I recall I never bought much that he had to say. Of course, that was also true of HP also.

RE: Stereophile eulogy for Aczel??, posted on June 29, 2017 at 12:04:59
John Atkinson Reviewer Posts: 4045 Location: New York Joined: November 24, 2003	>Shall we expect a Stereophile eulogy? No, other than what I posted on Stereophile's Facebook page on June 25. >did JGH ever comment on the Aczel phenomenon - publicly or privately - or >Larry Archibald? Yes, in private, but it would not be appropriate to repeat what was said in a public forum. John Atkinson Technical Editor, Stereophile

I thoroughly enjoyed reading, posted on June 29, 2017 at 15:41:46
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37596 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	his "Ten Biggest Lies" article. I hadn't laughed that hard in quite a while!

RE: The one reviewer..., posted on June 29, 2017 at 17:41:12
A.Wayne Audiophile Posts: 2527 Location: Front row center Joined: November 30, 2011	Pretty good synopsis ... RIP Peter ....

I might still have them, posted on June 29, 2017 at 17:48:28
4everyoung	I'm a bit of a hoarder when it comes to old magazines. I know I kept them for years but don't remember if I finally tossed them out last year when I could no longer close the doors on the closet in my office. I'll take a look see and let you know.

RE: RIP Peter Aczel, posted on June 29, 2017 at 17:54:28
A.Wayne Audiophile Posts: 2527 Location: Front row center Joined: November 30, 2011	Was that during your Bozak days ...??

HP did the same in TAS later...(nt), posted on June 29, 2017 at 18:58:33
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	(nt)

Me too..., posted on June 29, 2017 at 19:00:10
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	...time to toss them all out soon. All the Audio Critics, some IARs, Fi's, Sounds Like, many TAS' and few obscure others.

wow.. reality forgotten! only fluff allowed? just wow..., posted on June 30, 2017 at 09:54:48
3+4=5	I guess you want to live in a unicorn dream reality, not the actual reality. Sorry. warts and all.

Wow!, posted on June 30, 2017 at 19:48:09
JoshT Audiophile Posts: 6622 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Joined: July 4, 2000	Say what you will about the guy, that was a FUN read! He's a good writer. ___ "If you are the owner of a new stereophonic system, this record will play with even more brilliant true-to-life fidelity. In short, you can purchase this record with no fear of its becoming obsolete in the future."

RE: RIP Peter Aczel, posted on June 30, 2017 at 19:55:57

Pat D
Audiophile

Posts: 12506
Location: Fredericton NB
Joined: June 20, 2000

You said: "At some point Aczel seems to have stopped "trusting his ears"."

This is a very strange supposition since Peter Aczel used blind tests. Like many audio writers, after some of the audio clubs began hosting blind auditions, he began to consider sighted listening to be unreliable for detecting small differences and forming preferences based on the sound alone. With blind auditioning, especially double blind auditioning, preferences are formed from the sound alone.

There is nothing wrong with choosing equipment based on sighted auditioning (after all, you look at the equipment when you have it at home), but you can never be sure that your preferences are solely based on the sound. But many will maintain that the music sounded better with a different amplifier, or with different cables, etc. OK, but since one knows what equipment is being used, that will influence the preferences.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser

Huh?, posted on June 30, 2017 at 20:51:18

DAP
Audiophile

Posts: 668
Location: Toronto
Joined: January 1, 2010

You prefer Aczel's plain writing style to, for instance, the soaring prose of Jacob Heilbrunn? "The improvement rendered by the [Transparent Reference XL Digital Link] was not subtle or minor or difficult to detect [but] proved to be one of the most flabbergasting experiences I have ever had in the high end. The Reference line did not improve the sound [of the dCs Vivaldi]; it took it into another realm ... [it] makes an immense improvement by banishing any lingering digital artifacts, opening up the treble, sending the bass plunging down another octave, fleshing out the midbass, and noticeably increasing the articulation and weight of instruments and voice." (One of the commentators expressed skepticism that Heilbrunn could hear another octave underneath the frequency response claimed by dCS, down to 10Hz plus or minus .5db, but nevermind.)

And Aczel talks about double-blind listening tests, while the reputed critics dismiss them, because how could anyone detect immense improvements and flabbergasting experiences without long term listening sessions with familiar gear?

And where are the formulaic phrases that the reader expects in audio text? The dropped jaws? The blown off socks?

Daniel

RE: RIP Peter Aczel, posted on June 30, 2017 at 21:10:15

RGA
Reviewer

Posts: 15177
Location: Hong Kong
Joined: August 8, 2001

"Was that during your Bozak days ...??"

Wow what a horrible little slime of a person you are. Is this really necessary?

Your good ole trumpanzee values and ethics at work I see.

Who's to say it isn't?..., posted on June 30, 2017 at 21:58:21
musetap Audiophile Posts: 31874 Location: San Francisco Joined: July 8, 2003 Contributor Since: January 28, 2004	The esteem you hold him in is so high you feel a thread on Audio Asylum should be a memorial to his life!?!? Oh well, grief has strong effects on people. "Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure

Aczel, viewing this, couldn't be more delighted ..., posted on July 1, 2017 at 09:46:56
bjh Audiophile Posts: 18614 Location: Ontario Joined: November 22, 2003	glimpse of Heaven perhaps?

He wrote my favorite non-technical audio article of all time., posted on July 2, 2017 at 18:32:48
andy_c Audiophile Posts: 1470 Joined: June 2, 2007	The article is titled The 91st Audio Engineering Society Convention; or, The Invasion of the Credibility Snatchers, and it's from issue 17 of The Audio Critic (PDF).

RE: He wrote my favorite non-technical audio article of all time., posted on July 3, 2017 at 04:23:02

John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 4045
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003

>The article is titled The 91st Audio Engineering Society Convention; or,
>The Invasion of the Credibility Snatchers, and it's from issue 17 of The
>Audio Critic (PDF).

For another report on what we called "Audio McCarthyism," see the article
linked below, which includes a large number of letters in response that we
published.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/107/index.html

Same bogus test assumption:, posted on July 3, 2017 at 05:56:28

E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37596
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
Since: April 5, 2002

"The amplifier thus saw both cables' capacitance at all times."

As you find with the equally amusing non-test found here. Scroll down for the Interconnect section about the Y-adapter test.

I even tested the test apparatus with my trusty capacitance meter. Yes, Virginia you are comparing the capacitance of A+B+Y adapter at either end. One bright soul here told me effectively "well if you assume the devices have zero impedance, then that is correct. " Yes, if you begin your circular reasoning with there's no difference, then the test confirms it! :)

RE: He wrote my favorite non-technical audio article of all time., posted on July 3, 2017 at 08:08:31

andy_c
Audiophile

Posts: 1470
Joined: June 2, 2007

John Atkinson wrote:

"For another report on what we called "AuioMcCartyim," see the article linked below, which includes a large number of letters in response that we published."

I didn't consider the mention of cables in the article to be its central theme, nor is it the reason I like the article so much. What I like is its colorful depiction of the clash of cultures that played out at the convention. It is a kind of unintentional allegory, representing a broader conflict within the audio industry.

But this was the guy...., posted on July 3, 2017 at 08:29:03
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	...who clearly heard the differences he described between nearly 20 preamps he reviewed in his first issue. What changed - his hearing acuity or his attitude toward audiophiles and the audio industry?

RE: But this was the guy...., posted on July 3, 2017 at 09:44:25
andy_c Audiophile Posts: 1470 Joined: June 2, 2007	It wasn't my intent to revive the cable debate. As I mentioned in my reply to John, I liked the article because of its colorful description of the culture clash that occurred: the clapping, whistling and stomping of feet etc.

Interesting take on the meeting..., posted on July 3, 2017 at 11:12:26
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	...written by a charlatan.

RE: "revenge on audiophiles and the industry with his DBT-driven objectivist views."... , posted on July 3, 2017 at 15:46:46

andy_c
Audiophile

Posts: 1470
Joined: June 2, 2007

kerr wrote:

"Either way, I read as much of his stuff as I could find, knowing that the polar opposite of his views was usually the right path."

Ah, the right path, insha'Allah.

Did you ever end up selling any of your prized guitars so you could buy a pair of Linkwitz Orions (Aczel's favorite speakers)? :-)

Your religion was just different..., posted on July 3, 2017 at 16:21:21
mkuller Audiophile Posts: 38130 Location: SF Bay Area Joined: April 22, 2003	...pseudoscience.

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez..., posted on July 4, 2017 at 20:37:18
musetap Audiophile Posts: 31874 Location: San Francisco Joined: July 8, 2003 Contributor Since: January 28, 2004	you posted a thread with a heap of Richard BassNut Greene posts in it. Bad form. "Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure

RE: Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez..., posted on July 4, 2017 at 21:44:56

andy_c
Audiophile

Posts: 1470
Joined: June 2, 2007

I wasn't paying attention to that, as you can probably guess.

I'm kind of bummed that kerr didn't respond, as we go way back, both being fans of Paul Butterfield and Clackers cereal. We exchanged CDs a decade ago.

We used to rib each other about this sort of stuff all the time.

Devil's Advocate or a True Believer, posted on July 5, 2017 at 11:11:28
Frank Sol Audiophile Posts: 420 Location: SoCal Joined: October 6, 2008	Leaning towards a True Believer RIP Frank .... Kind of Blue

But for sure a good writer, posted on July 5, 2017 at 11:57:06
DAP Audiophile Posts: 668 Location: Toronto Joined: January 1, 2010	In a world of audio text that borders on the formulaic - jaws drop, socks get blown off, veils lift, cables flabbergast, the palpability is palpable, and endings are mostly happy - good writing stands out.

RE: Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez..., posted on July 5, 2017 at 21:16:59

andy_c
Audiophile

Posts: 1470
Joined: June 2, 2007

musetap wrote:

"you posted a thread with a heap of Richard BassNut Greene posts in it.

Bad form."

I should clarify. I make zero apologies for providing a link to a post whose thread contains posts by someone you don't like.

Although I was ribbing kerr, there's also some really good observations in his post. Among other things, he's completely aware of his own shifting perceptions with time (AKA "break-in"). As such, he's much more self-aware than the majority of the subjectivist camp, who assert their subjective experiences as objective reality.

RE: Same bogus test assumption:, posted on July 6, 2017 at 07:29:46
Davey	Same misunderstanding. You still can't grasp the concept and appear to have a complete block on this one. :) Maybe a different example might tweak your understanding. Consider a standard crossover in a two-way speaker system. Both filter sections are "Y"ed to the same source, yet the woofer and tweeter receive completely different signals. How is that possible? :) Dave.

You're welcome to believe whatever you please, posted on July 6, 2017 at 08:37:28
E-Stat Audiophile Posts: 37596 Joined: May 12, 2000 Contributor Since: April 5, 2002	The context is interconnects and if you would like to assume that an 80 pF one is identical in performance to one measuring 600 pF, that continues to be fine with me. :) Sorry, but my experience has demonstrtated otherwise with the components they connect.

RE: You're welcome to believe whatever you please, posted on July 6, 2017 at 08:51:51

Davey

Some things are true whether we believe them or not.

Yes, the context of my example is different, but the concept is identical. Maybe the fact that you can't see that is the issue.

Forget me for a second...your position puts you at odds with some knowledgeable engineers. And you appear to have zero intellectual curiosity to try and understand your misunderstanding. That's unfortunate.

Oh well.

Dave.

'death thread" like wow. death thread.. that is funny as hell. nt, posted on July 6, 2017 at 13:15:19
3+4=5	.

RE: Same bogus test assumption:, posted on July 6, 2017 at 16:16:52

Bob Rex
Audiophile

Posts: 632
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Joined: July 28, 2000

Well, if you want to get pedantic about it, they do see the same signal. Up to the point where the reactive components start attenuating the signal differently. And by the way, the woofer's inductive behavior, does interact with the tweeter's capacitive behavior. The only way to truly isolate the contributions of each is eliminate the crossover from the driving part of the circuit and bi-amp.

Now regarding the Y splitter and 2 differing cables. The impedance characteristics of both cables will combine, and the complex impedance will be a function of both cables, as well as the splitter.

RE: Same bogus test assumption:, posted on July 6, 2017 at 16:52:40

Davey

They do see the same signal? Are you sure about that?? :)
I think you'll find that only at one single frequency do the woofer and tweeter receive exactly the same signal.

Yet another person who doesn't understand the concept. My goodness.

I suggest to read up on voltage sources.
Also read up on the specific requirements for this test called out by the engineers who have advocated it. You do need to satisfy some requirements for it to be valid.

The primary requirement is: for this "separation" of networks to occur and a valid A/B comparison to result, you do need to have a real-world source that is pretty close to a theoretical voltage source. For interconnect testing something like a zero ohm headphone amplifier would work well. For power amplifier testing, a solid-state amp with very low output impedance. If you satisfy that requirement in the conventional two-way speaker system example I mentioned, you'll find that disconnecting either the woofer/network or the tweeter/network individually will not alter the operation of the other in a significant way. When both are connected, the two legs will have minimal/no interaction with each other.

In either case, the characteristics will lump.....but only as seen by the source....which should be a voltage source. In that case, regards the loads, the networks will operate as if the other were not connected.

This is basic stuff fellas.

Dave.

Zen in memoriam Peter Aczel.., posted on July 6, 2017 at 18:21:40
3+4=5	He was an old fart He did not die young He wrote stuff Usually about listening to music usually lots of opinionated stuff Some good, some drivel He was a 'character' Some folks liked him Some folks did not like him Some folks certainly wished he was dead He is now dead. Amen

Not bad, but, posted on July 7, 2017 at 05:33:11
DAP Audiophile Posts: 668 Location: Toronto Joined: January 1, 2010	Taking inspiration from another poster, you might want to insert the refrain "But where did he stand on MQA?" a couple of times in the text.

Of course they are the same, posted on July 7, 2017 at 09:52:31

E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37596
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
Since: April 5, 2002

I've measured it. For some reason Mr. Circular Reasoning believes two far-fetched concepts:

1. The DAC, preamp, amplifier somehow "know" that the capacitive load is composed of multiple components and will *exempt* the contribution on the far side of a Y-adapter. Right.

2. For a "valid comparision", one needs a perfect voltage source. Well, if you live in a theoretical world, maybe that works. As for me, I live in the real world of real devices that don't have the knowledge nor care how the load is built and react to the load presented via - one cable, multiple cables attached via adapters, multiple cables with parasitic ones attached via Y-adapters, one with a capacitor attached across leads, etc.

Raise your hand if any, much less all of the components in your system exhibit zero output impedance. Certainly not mine. Not the phono cartridge. Not the DAC. Not the preamp.

I find his theoretical ramblings quite humorous indeed.

touche' nt, posted on July 8, 2017 at 07:04:38
3+4=5	.

RE: Of course they are the same, posted on July 8, 2017 at 09:21:17

Davey

I raise my hand. I have a couple of different headphone amplifiers that have less than 0.25 ohm output impedance. Real world (not theoretical) devices that are appropriate for said interconnect A/B comparison.

Regards, the speaker-level example.....I hope you're not suggesting that a woofer and tweeter receive the same signal. If that's the case you'd have a crossover that doesn't cross over. Fantastic! Contact the AES!

Dave.

I don't use headphones or headphone amplifiers, but..., posted on July 8, 2017 at 10:40:13

E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37596
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
Since: April 5, 2002

I raise my hand. I have a couple of different headphone amplifiers that have less than 0.25 ohm output impedance. <

I hereby award you a gold star!

Regards, the speaker-level example.....

The context of my comments about Roger's laughable and measureably false interconnect *test* has always been about that subject and I certainly don't use them to drive speakers. You're welcome to start a new thread about your focus of interest.

I revisited your text book example of circular reasoning and still shake my head and smile. :)

The capacitance is not significant IF the driving source is not affected by it.

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass!

RE: I don't use headphones or headphone amplifiers, but..., posted on July 8, 2017 at 12:02:47

Davey

You should have continued to read in that thread. Long after you ran out of gas/understanding I elaborated on the situation more fully with Satie.
I never said the published Sanders scheme was without some possible pitfalls/variables. (I highlighted them in fact.)
But, if those variables are removed the concept is sound and you will have a valid A/B comparison between two interconnect cables.

The speaker-level example is a more real-world scheme that I thought (incorrectly) you could grasp. Take a simple, two-way speaker crossover and attach two identical full-range drivers to both outputs. The resultant output from the two drivers will be different. That should be obvious since you have a low-pass and high-pass filter driving them.

The two interconnect example is the same thing. You again have a common source coupled via two LCR filters (in this case they're both low-pass filters) to identical loads. If the LCR characteristics of those two interconnects are different enough you will hear (and measure) a difference. The reason you won't expect to hear much (if any) difference between two interconnect cables is not because the scheme is flawed...it's because there simply isn't that much difference the interconnect cables could contribute.

Hopefully you've read this far..... This is very straightforward real-world methodology. There's nothing circular about it.
I realize the ship has sailed, but more attempts at real understanding and less silly knee-jerking audiophilia would do you well.

Dave.

Sorry, but I'm not going to waste much more time..., posted on July 8, 2017 at 15:17:40

E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37596
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
Since: April 5, 2002

observing more ways you demonstrate a lack of awareness. :)

You should have continued to read in that thread.

I did. Let's review the continuation, shall we?

Mr. Circular Reasoning: "The voltage source will supply exactly the same current to cable A regardless of whether the Y-connector and cable B is attached or not."

Another voice of logic (Satie): "That is not correct, which is what I am saying and which is what I don't understand why you don't see it. "

The speaker-level example is a more real-world scheme

The topic remains around interconnects. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? I'll repeat what I said in the previous post: if you want to talk about speaker level issue, then create a new post. Comprende? Do you understand Engrish?

If the LCR characteristics of those two interconnects are different enough you will hear (and measure) a difference.

No $hit Sherlock! I've asked the question before and I'll ask it again even if you remain incapable of responding another time!

"Do you believe 74, 510 and 626 represent the same value? "

Maybe I need to ask the question again if you missed it.

"Do you believe 74, 510 and 626 represent the same value? "

Do try to wrap your head around this simple notion this time. Is it beyond your scope of awareness? Sheesh!

The reason you won't expect to hear much (if any) difference between two interconnect cables is not because the scheme is flawed..

That is just too funny! The idea behind a cable comparison is to.. well compare different cables (presumably by themselves)! When one forces each to share the combined characteristics of both, there is no longer a comparison - other than A+B vs A+B. What does any (intelligent) person expect? Apparently, present company excepted!

it's because there simply isn't that much difference the interconnect cables could contribute.

Opinion so noted. And contrary to my experience.

I realize the ship has sailed

I wish you the best of luck convincing anyone of your bizarre lack of understanding. :)

Me: Fail
Satie: Fail
Bob R: Fail

RE: Sorry, but I'm not going to waste much more time..., posted on July 8, 2017 at 15:45:01

Davey

If not interested in learning, then obviously you're wasting your time. :)

You still can't get past the A+B vs A+B premise/comparison? My goodness.
The voltage source removes the "+" from that comparison. So, you do actually have an A OR B comparison even though connected to a common source. I'm not sure how much simpler I can explain it to your feeble brain. The voltage source becomes the buffer between the two (A or B) interconnect evaluations.

This really is BASIC electronic stuff. :) I've been working in the electronic instrumentation world for many years and this is bread and butter.

Dave.

Really?, posted on July 8, 2017 at 16:33:33

E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37596
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
Since: April 5, 2002

I confess that I'm not surprised you remain incapable of answering simple questions. Multiple times.

This really is BASIC electronic stuff.

Second logic fallacy: appeal to authority

Obviously, with zero content to support it - because there is none.

I've been working in the electronic instrumentation world for many years and this is bread and butter.

Hopefully I never purchase any electronic device where the designer doesn't understand the difference between 74 and 626.

"I've just wired your new home! Don't mind that you'll find 74 volts at some outlets and 626 at others. It's because there simply isn't that much difference" :)

We're loving the humor!

RE: Really?, posted on July 8, 2017 at 16:39:58
Davey	Hang in there. One of these years this subject will illuminate for you and you'll think back and say......"Aha, that's what he was talking about." Dave.

Just the same ol', posted on July 8, 2017 at 18:26:40

E-Stat
Audiophile

Posts: 37596
Joined: May 12, 2000
Contributor
Since: April 5, 2002

non-responses to simple questions. Sorry to go over your head with them. Clearly, no one is surprised with your lack of any content to support the farce.

Aha, that's what he was talking about."

You're not only clueless but don't pay any attention to my previous comments. Interconnects have already made a substantial audible difference in my system. Is anyone home?

So, what hallucinatory drugs do you take to derive your point of view?

edit: I'm aware you make DSP crossovers for Siggy's speakers. That's enough for me to never consider them for purchase.

I don't think you understand the concept as much as you think you do, posted on July 10, 2017 at 06:50:40

Dave_K

They do see the same signal? Are you sure about that?? :)
I think you'll find that only at one single frequency do the woofer and tweeter receive exactly the same signal.

Yet another person who doesn't understand the concept. My goodness.

They never receive the same signal at any frequency. At the frequency where the amplitudes are equal, the phase is different.

And I don't know why you insist on pushing the crossover analogy in this thread. It really is irrelevant. Your point seems to be that two interconnects hanging off a switch box makes two parallel LCR networks, and hey, a crossover has two parallel LCR networks too! Therefore they must be comparable. Well, no they are not. The crossover is designed to be a frequency dividing network with cutoffs in the middle of the audio band. The interconnects are not. Neither is the switch box. And the source impedances are vastly different, and the loads are vastly different too. There is literally nothing comparable in your analogy.

I suggest to read up on voltage sources.
Also read up on the specific requirements for this test called out by the engineers who have advocated it. You do need to satisfy some requirements for it to be valid.

The primary requirement is: for this "separation" of networks to occur and a valid A/B comparison to result, you do need to have a real-world source that is pretty close to a theoretical voltage source. For interconnect testing something like a zero ohm headphone amplifier would work well. For power amplifier testing, a solid-state amp with very low output impedance. If you satisfy that requirement in the conventional two-way speaker system example I mentioned, you'll find that disconnecting either the woofer/network or the tweeter/network individually will not alter the operation of the other in a significant way. When both are connected, the two legs will have minimal/no interaction with each other.

In either case, the characteristics will lump.....but only as seen by the source....which should be a voltage source. In that case, regards the loads, the networks will operate as if the other were not connected.

This is basic stuff fellas.

That's totally irrelevant because the output stage of a source component or pre-amp is far, far from an ideal voltage source. Typical output impedance values for components with solid state output stages vary from a few 10s of ohms to a few hundred ohms. For tube gear it's typically a few hundred up to a few thousand. And these impedances are reactive too, with output transformers and/or caps around the output for isolation, DC blocking, and filtering.

Let's go back to basics. An ABX test is a statistical hypothesis test. The hypothesis is that two different line level interconnects produce audibly different results during music playback from an audio system. A valid ABX test of the hypothesis can only be performed if the design of the experiment preserves or duplicates the conditions under which the hypothesis could be true. If your experiment depends on using a source that behaves as an ideal voltage source and isn't representative of a typical audio source component or pre-amp, then you aren't testing the hypothesis.

Using a typical audio pre-amp driving a typical audio power amp, you can't hand wave away the fact that this particular test setup makes the parallel capacitance of A the same as the parallel capacitance of B which equals the sum of the two interconnects. The open-circuited interconnect hanging off the switchbox may also be conducting RFI into the circuit under test. Even the switchbox itself is a problem. The mere presence of the switchbox in the circuit could invalidate the test unless its impedance is a couple orders of magnitude less than the cables under test. And you would have to be sure that the switchbox doesn't introduce a path for RFI or EMI to enter the circuit, and the switchbox has to preserve the relationship between the grounds of the source and sink components.

The QSC and AVA ABX comparators, for example, are essentially passive pre-amps. When you put one of those things in the circuit, you are not testing the original hypothesis.

RE: I don't think you understand the concept as much as you think you do, posted on July 10, 2017 at 07:39:10

Davey

Dave,

You've highlighted some valid qualifiers of the Sanders test in question. (I noted those as well three years ago when this was mentioned by "E-Stat" on the other forum.)
Yes indeed there are some issues with the A/B testing as Sanders as outlined it, but what I was trying to do then (as now) is give Roger the benefit of the doubt regarding his thinking on the basic validity of the concept. I'm not the originator of this, but I do understand what Roger is getting at.
I was then elaborating on his scheme with things that would make it much more valid. But by this time, the heels were well dug in by other posters. :)

The speaker crossover analogy was not the best, but I was trying to highlight a similar scheme that might be more understandable for E-Stat. He had suggested awhile back that for any common source split path network configuration all the characteristics would lump and yield identical signals at both destinations. (This is the basic premise of his whole rejection of the Sanders scheme.)

In the speaker analogy, yes indeed, even at the one frequency where the low-pass and high-pass filters are exactly the same amplitude there 'may' be a phase difference. But the "they do see the same signal" statement posited by Bob Rex is clearly incorrect.

I will stipulate this whole concept is tricky for some to get their heads wrapped around. Circuit analysis here and how some parameters lump is more complicated than it might seem.

The rest of your post regarding ABX testing clouds the issue, a bit. Typical audio sources not being theoretical voltage sources...non-used open-circuited interconnects...switchbox concerns, etc, etc, are all qualifiers that may invalidate the scheme. All of these (and others) I already noted three years ago.
Let me reiterate again....I have NEVER said there aren't some possible issues with the Sanders interconnect testing scheme. :) But unlike others, I don't completely reject it out of hand because of a few issues.

If you haven't already, check out the original paper from Roger Sanders and you decide how misguided his thinking is on this topic.
http://sanderssoundsystems.com/technical-white-papers/54-cables-white-paper

Cheers,

Dave.

RE: I don't think you understand the concept as much as you think you do, posted on July 10, 2017 at 08:15:18

mkuller
Audiophile

Posts: 38130
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: April 22, 2003

>I have NEVER said there aren't some possible issues with the Sanders interconnect testing scheme. :) But unlike others, I don't completely reject it out of hand because of a few issues.>

Not possible issues - ISSUES.

You don't reject it, even though it is flawed, because it fits your biases.

So if you don't control ALL of the variables in a scientific test, how is it a valid scientific test?

Do you understand the scientific method?

Your test is pseudoscience - a parlor trick to make audible differences disappear.

RE: I don't think you understand the concept as much as you think you do, posted on July 10, 2017 at 08:27:19

Davey

So it's MY test now?? :)
I'm not the one that came up with this scheme.....let's not lose sight of that.

AND you've identified by biases too. Excellent! :)

Dave.

RE: I don't think you understand the concept as much as you think you do, posted on July 10, 2017 at 08:54:09

Dave_K

Thank you for the reasonable response.

My point of view on this topic is that when it comes to ABX'ing audio cables, the only way to make sure you're not introducing other variables into the audio system is to swap the cables, which is tedious and makes it impossible for the listener to utilize short term auditory memory to make the comparison. I can't think of any easy way to allow quick switching without introducing something into the circuit whose effect on the circuit performance is on the order of the cables themselves, if not greater.

Some time ago, I recall reading the comments of Frank van Alstine who insisted his second generation ABX comparator was completely transparent and suitable for cable comparisons because it had no active components or capacitors in the signal path, just a network of relays for switching and attenuators for volume control (he had gotten rid of the cap coupling in the second gen). The box contained a power supply, and digital control and display circuitry, and his single ended circuitry introduced a whole new ground path. It was essentially a digitally controlled passive pre-amp.

The underlying basis of the hypothesis is that differences in the relatively small impedances of audio cables and connectors, possibly combined with differences in shielding, or other construction details, is enough to make them audibly different to certain individuals in certain systems. Regardless of whether or not you believe this hypothesis to be true or false, in order to test it you have to preserve the details under which the hypothesis could be true. That is something that Frank and many other ABX proponents seem to have a mental block about.

In the case of Sanders, it could be that he just didn't think through the details of his proposal. Or it could be that he assumed a-priori that the cable capacitance couldn't matter, and therefore he didn't have to control for it.

RE: I don't think you understand the concept as much as you think you do, posted on July 10, 2017 at 09:39:15

Davey

Dave.

Good points. Obviously you are correct that to 100%, absolutely, fully, maximize, etc, etc, control an A/B test like this, you would not parallel the interconnects onto a single source....without some facility to completely switch out the unused one.
I have talked with Roger a few times, but not regarding this interconnect cable test scheme. So, I'm not really sure what his specific thinking was/is.

Regards lumping of characteristics: If we really want to get down into the weeds on this, the capacitances of two, simultaneously connected interconnect cables do not strictly appear in parallel with each other. Even a simplified equivalent circuit would illustrate this. There are multiple series and shunting elements to consider.

Regards possible ABX testing and gadgets to achieve it, it really is a can of worms with numerous potential pitfalls. I'm well aware. :)

Dave.

DQ10s, posted on July 11, 2017 at 20:23:54
hifitommy Audiophile Posts: 15387 Location: canyon country califiornia, orig from buffalo ny Joined: June 9, 2000	i had found were best driven by the hafler 500. ...regards...tr

i also met Enid..., posted on July 11, 2017 at 20:41:24
hifitommy Audiophile Posts: 15387 Location: canyon country califiornia, orig from buffalo ny Joined: June 9, 2000	a couple of times and BOY was she outspoken. she made Mel Schilling quite nervous when she visited Music and Sound on Ventura Blvd across from Woodland Stereo with a leather case of LPs. it came up in the discussion that she soldered her speaker wires directly to her Maggies. ...regards...tr

RE: "revenge on audiophiles and the industry with his DBT-driven objectivist views."... , posted on July 17, 2017 at 07:51:14

kerr
Audiophile

Posts: 4376
Location: Central Indiana
Joined: November 10, 2003

I thought his favorite speakers were the Fourier! :)

Nope, still have the guitars. My audiophile-dom has gone bye-bye, for the last 3-4 years or so. I'd rather have the guitars and new music than the next great preamp.

Clackers... there is no substitute! And speaking of Butterfield, I just ordered the "Got a mind to give up living" live CD. Try playing THAT on an audiophile rig! But that's a case in point - my music search is leading me to more bootleggy recordings, and my excellent recordings sound just excellent on my current system. ;)

Page:

[ 1 ] [ 2 ]