|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: I am not saying cables don't make a difference. posted by Jon Risch on June 17, 2003 at 20:28:31:
Your words, not mine....and is one of the few things that is about as universal as can be possible...
Scientists and engineers only speak like this about things like Newton's Law of Gravity and Maxwell's Equations. So saying this about twisted pair cables is about as non-scientific as you can get. Unless, of course, I missed that article titled: "Risch's Twisted Law".
Define sufficient.
Well a simple definition would be a cable that passes an audio signal without audible degradation.
A physicist is not automatically an expert on high end audio components, or audio cables either. Unless of course, you are concrned that one of your cables might cause a black hole to form, and need to know about this.
You are attacking an authority before anything has even been presented or discussed. Suspicion of authority is one of the signs of uncompromising belief systems. You have demonstrated this on many occasions. The need to continually discredit authority is strong indication of a weak position.
You have even dismissed Stephen Hawking as another non-audio physicist who knows "diddly" about high end audio design. You don't think perhaps he has the intelligence to assess this situation in a New York minute? Of course not, he has no "real world experience". Well since he hasn't been to the edge of the galaxy, I suppose we should take his astronomical musings with a grain of salt.
Besides, you must know, your freinds truck is the exception, not the rule.
Well, no actually I don't "must know". I could go into a multitude of wheeled vehicles that have a high top speed but a slow acceleration time compared to other vehicles. You, must know that. Well, maybe not, you might be the exception.
We have seen the establishment accepted levels of audible THD creep down from several percent in the 50's (3-5% was commonly accepted as being inaudible), down to 1% in the 60-70's, then down to 0.5 to 0.3% in the 90's. Back in the 50's, they thought they knew for sure too.
When you say "establishment accepted levels of audible THD", who was this established by? Audiophiles or otolaryngologists? I'll bet if it was audiophiles there are no records of testing and if it was otolaryngologists, there is documented evidence.
I don't mean to be rude or abrasive, just back up what you say.
Follow Ups:
Mike:You said:
"Scientists and engineers only speak like this about things like Newton's Law of Gravity and Maxwell's Equations. So saying this about twisted pair cables is about as non-scientific as you can get. Unless, of course, I missed that article titled: "Risch's Twisted Law".
I think you just provided the perfect example of the opposite argument to your own. Newton's view of the universe was accepted as truth for several hundred years. It was the first part of my training in Physics.
But guess what? Newton was wrong! For example, his equations of motion are an approximation that works well at low speeds, not as you approach the speed of light.
As the total body of knowledge increased, others like Einstein modified Newton's work. Should the scientific community have ex-communicated these new guys because they dared to suggest that traditional thinking was flawed?
There are many examples over history of closed-minded people stating that "we already know everything" and denying that any new discoveries are relevant. I don't recall any of them being proven right....
Peter
You are elevating cable phsyics theory to be mathematical equivalent with the General Theory of Relativity?Do you seriously think someone with the mental acuteness of Einstein or Newton is going to come along and develop new theories that explain sonic differences in cables?
Maybe someday we will be saying Risch and Einstein in the same sentence. Thanks, you just made my day. LOL....
Einstein does not consider string theory, cosmic foam, alternate universes, quark-gluon plasma...Maxwell doesn't consider those either..As well as vacuum fluctuations, and other stuff..Eventually, both will be proven as partially correct, as was Newton..with what, who knows?
""As the total body of knowledge increased, others like Einstein modified Newton's work. Should the scientific community have ex-communicated these new guys because they dared to suggest that traditional thinking was flawed?""Peter
Funny you use the word ex-communicated...Seems the church used that tool in the past..
""There are many examples over history of closed-minded people stating that "we already know everything"""Peter
And as I believe, Mike is alluding to the fact that JR is indeed showing that behavior here...with respect to one particular cable type, twisted pairs..
I personally believe everything we know as right will eventually be embellished or modified..
Cheers, John
John:"And as I believe, Mike is alluding to the fact that JR is indeed showing that behavior here...with respect to one particular cable type, twisted pairs.."
That's not my read of Jon's posts at all. I don't hear him saying that the science is perfect and that there is nothing to discover.
Actually, I took exception to Mike's statements like:
"This statement is incorrect. There is a large body of work in the medical field that has determined the frequency range we can hear, the minimum SPL we can detect, the minimum change in SPL we can detect, the loudest sounds before damage is done, our sensitivity to harmonics, and the list goes on. We know the capabilities of the ear."
THIS sounds remarkably like declaring an end to an avenue of science, and setting up the premise that anyone who finds evidence to contradict the established wisdom is a heretic.
BTW, I used the religious connotation deliberately -- this sort of thinking smacks of dogma and belief, not open-minded exploration.
At least Einstein knew that he would eventually be proven wrong....
Peter
""That's not my read of Jon's posts at all. I don't hear him saying that the science is perfect and that there is nothing to discover""peter..Although I do not agree, I respect your opinion..You've been quite nice about it..
Jon's post:what Mike was talking about:
""In point of fact, it provides an improvement in nearly ALL cases, and is one of the few things that is about as universal as can be possible for audio cables.""JR
In this case, the traditional thought being "about as universal as can be possible", and Mike being the one to question that traditional thought..and being ostrasized for his beliefs..
""There is a large body of work in the medical field that has determined the frequency range we can hear, the minimum SPL we can detect, the minimum change in SPL we can detect, the loudest sounds before damage is done, our sensitivity to harmonics, and the list goes on. We know the capabilities of the ear."mm
I would tend to agree with him..however, what was not covered is how we interpret a soundstage binaurally..That is way open right now.. The tests Mike talks of have been beat to death.. But, notice that no distortion, either harmonic, or temporal, is in that list..
""BTW, I used the religious connotation deliberately -- this sort of thinking smacks of dogma and belief, not open-minded exploration.""peter
The people who believe cables sound differently must beware of falling into that trap as well..
""At least Einstein knew that he would eventually be proven wrong....""peter..
Yup
Cheers, John
Taken out of context, what you used as your title sounded quite odd.
Of course, you intended it that way.Isn't straight ahead argument enough, why do you feel the need to TRY and use simple minded tricks? Perhaps not enough substance to your arguments?
[ I don't mean to be rude or abrasive, just back up what you say. ]Yes you do, and just as soon as you backup one of your claims.
[ You are attacking an authority before anything has even been presented or discussed. ]
If you are trying to present Stephen Hawkings as an authority on audio cables, then I would need to see the evidence that he is an experienced audiophile, as I have not heard that he is.
If you are trying to make an appeal to authority, and this is based on the further false premise that any authority will do, then you are now two BS levels deep into the muck, instead of just one.
[ When you say "establishment accepted levels of audible THD", who was this established by? ]
The mainstream engineers, psychoacousticians of the time. This info can be found in any number of sources, such as the various editions of The Audio Cyclopedia (Tremaine), as well as various AES articles, and other sources.
However, I am not going to do your homework for you, as it is not too hard to find this kind of info on your own.
Me:
Define sufficient.MM: Well a simple definition would be a cable that passes an audio signal without audible degradation.
Sorry, no such beast exists yet. You only get flavors of more or less accurate. No perfection.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: