$10,000/ft Cable burn-in ! Wasted $500 a watt on an amp! Why the war?

[Samuel T Cogley]

In a way it is but if you pause for a moment and read between the lines, you would see the typical scenario.

 

I wonder whether we would have better equipment at lower price without Audiophiles.

 

At least, in PC world the audio card did improve at a fraction of a price of a typical high end DAC.

 

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. And we might have to agree to disagree vis-a-vis the performance of PCIe audio cards vs. standalone DACs.

[Samuel T Cogley]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]32578[/ATTACH]

 

I like the "flogging the dead horse" GIF much more. This one gives a slight whiff of intellectual superiority.

[christopher3393]

I like the "flogging the dead horse" GIF much more. This one gives a slight whiff of intellectual superiority.

 

Couldn't the preference for a very tired GIF might demonstrate a lack of imagination?.. or perhaps a kind of habitual social brittleness that is suggested by so many of your responses? Lighten up, trekkietechie.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Couldn't the preference for a very tired GIF might demonstrate a lack of imagination?.. or perhaps a kind of habitual social brittleness that is suggested by so many of your responses? Lighten up, trekkietechie.

 

I'm a little surprised by the hubris and ad hominem, but I certainly learned something.

 

And it looks like I have a fan?

[christopher3393]

I'm a little surprised by the hubris and ad hominem, but I certainly learned something.

 

And it looks like I have a fan?

 

No fan. Hubris? Seriously? If you read carefully, not ad hominem either, but an impression formed based on your speech patterns in many posts. Of course there are other possibilities than brittleness. Perhaps "barbed"? "caustic". I have no real idea who you are, other than by your posting language, which to me shows several patterns with some consistency. I am of the opinion that some of those patterns are rather negative and unhelpful, but this is too vague. You tell me. Why do you tend to be so snippy and critical toward others in a number of your responses? Why does it seem you take undue satisfaction in one-upping others? Or have I misread?

 

The snake, representing for me "The Eternal Recurrence of the Same Thread", is something I've discussed on this forum several times (once at length), after a number of years of avid reading of forum threads here. It is meant to be much broader and deeper than "this thread isn't going anywhere at this point". I'm claiming that some topics never go anywhere: the same or similar arguments based on the same or similar differences in perspective are repeated endlessly. If some new insight is expressed, it is often lost in the shuffle, so that, at best, one has to try to cull little bits of learning into a kind of makeshift patchwork, and then move on.

 

It ends up meaning that much effort is spent on accomplishing very little that helps the hobby, and some pretty unpleasant exchanges often sour the whole thing along the way. I'm against that.

 

You wrote that you "certainly learned something" from my previous post. I assume that would be something unflattering about me. Fine. I put up a simple symbol and you decided to read it as "giving off a whiff of superiority". Where the hell did that come from? Give it a rest.

[Samuel T Cogley]

No fan. Hubris? Seriously? If you read carefully, not ad hominem either, but an impression formed based on your speech patterns in many posts. Of course there are other possibilities than brittleness. Perhaps "barbed"? "caustic". I have no real idea who you are, other than by your posting language, which to me shows several patterns with some consistency. I am of the opinion that some of those patterns are rather negative and unhelpful, but this is too vague. You tell me. Why do you tend to be so snippy and critical toward others in a number of your responses? Why does it seem you take undue satisfaction in one-upping others? Or have I misread?

 

The snake, representing for me "The Eternal Recurrence of the Same Thread", is something I've discussed on this forum several times (once at length), after a number of years of avid reading of forum threads here. It is meant to be much broader and deeper than "this thread isn't going anywhere at this point". I'm claiming that some topics never go anywhere: the same or similar arguments based on the same or similar differences in perspective are repeated endlessly. If some new insight is expressed, it is often lost in the shuffle, so that, at best, one has to try to cull little bits of learning into a kind of makeshift patchwork, and then move on.

 

It ends up meaning that much effort is spent on accomplishing very little that helps the hobby, and some pretty unpleasant exchanges often sour the whole thing along the way. I'm against that.

 

You wrote that you "certainly learned something" from my previous post. I assume that would be something unflattering about me. Fine. I put up a simple symbol and you decided to read it as "giving off a whiff of superiority". Where the hell did that come from? Give it a rest.

 

Your comments regarding my posting style are valid. I've been in audio forums (both as lurker and poster) for over a decade, and I will readily admit to often leaping to conclusions about the dogmatic inclinations of other posters. I find it will often accomplish in 3 posts what "polite" back and forth can take 20-30 posts. But certainly at the risk of alienation. Anything to move the debate forward and avoid beating around the bush. But I get that most people prefer the 20-30 posts method. YMMV, of course.

 

 

My intent is never to alienate, but I admit to having little patience for blather that ignores the psychological aspects of this hobby. Consumerism is always the elephant in the room. While I freely admit my participation in consumerism, it's rare to see others willing to admit to it. And while I also freely admit this is a broad brush, I generally find those who most zealously advocate for the "high end" in this hobby are almost always those with the least amount of self awareness. Or the most narcissistic, if you will.

 

And I said, "a whiff of intellectual superiority". Significant difference.

 

I appreciate you taking the time to type that. I learned much more about where you're coming from. Thanks.

[gmgraves]

Poor gmgraves, he still thinks you have to pay more to get better SQ. Sorry to disappoint you but after extensive listening tests I have found that cables that cost less can sound better depending on the synergy with your system. I think you should try auditioning some more.

Poor sarcasm impaired "witchdoctor". Some fools will tell you that if you climb on to the roof of a barn, and flap your arms really fast while you jump , you can fly. Well, physics tells me that I can't. So, I'll take the word of the physics of flight and I won't try it. After all, it can only result in heartache (or worse!). I've hear enough cables over the years to know that any difference heard is illusory, and disappears when compared to other interconnects using a properly set up DBT. Electronics theory and the maths says that there is no difference and the DBT confirms it. Expectational bias, sonny boy, expectational bias.

[gmgraves]

I see have you moved on from ignorance to character assassination. Anything someone does in their personal life doesn't need to be broadcast in a chat room unless the person broadcasts it themselves.

You are a fool, Witchdoctor. John Curl's substance abuse problems are well known in the industry. I am not character assassinating him, merely relating the circumstances under which I knew him. I understand that he doesn't drink any more, and I'm glad to hear it. Who made you Social Arbiter of CA?

[jabbr]

Since none of those "losses" apply at audio frequencies, and in audio applications, I can't see what else to call a belief in the impossible other than mysticism!

 

 

I used to know John. We'd get together at CES shows in both Chicago and Las Vegas and hoist a few. I enjoyed his company, but those were the days when he was drinking heavily and he was usually somewhat in the trick bag, but I haven't seen him or spoken to him in many years. He's right as far as it goes. What makes two amplifiers of similar design sound so different from one another? It's not measurable. But I doubt seriously if was referring to wire with that comment. Cheers!

 

There is a difference between something that is not measured and something which is not measurable. For example, John Curl believes that TIM has a more significant role than is widely understood, but work needs to be done to more readily measure.

[Jud]

Some fools will tell you that if you climb on to the roof of a barn, and flap your arms really fast while you jump , you can fly. Well, physics tells me that I can't. So, I'll take the word of the physics of flight and I won't try it. After all, it can only result in heartache (or worse!). I've hear enough cables over the years to know that any difference heard is illusory, and disappears when compared to other interconnects using a properly set up DBT. Electronics theory and the maths says that there is no difference and the DBT confirms it. Expectational bias, sonny boy, expectational bias.

 

 

Guess whenever you get too wound up about electrical theory not allowing any differences between cables, George, I will have to quote again (as I did earlier in the thread) electrical engineer Bruno Putzeys. He was a wunderkind at Philips before going off on his own. He's quite famous for advancing the art of Class D amplifiers, as well as for designing one of the better analog-to-digital converters around. (Note I didn't mention cables - he doesn't push those.) He's also noted for being an advocate of thorough and careful measurements in the process of design. Here's what he said:

 

"Textbook theory” is very often just a shortcut. When people say something like “In theory, it should happen like this . . . ,” what they actually mean to say is, “In the very first approximation, on a basic level, this is how it should go.” That’s oversimplification, not theory. Real theory isn’t so simple. It is like you say: in theory, cables shouldn’t make any difference. Well, hang on. Does that imply that you’ve actually looked at all of the established textbook physics that explains exactly what happens within a cable? I don’t mean “new physics,” like microdiodes or what have you, because I do think that’s a load of crock -- but, really, all the things you know happen when you, for instance, intersperse two conductors with a dielectric between them. How will that behave, for instance, when you actually put it up in a listening room and subject it to the vibrations that are caused by the speakers -- the triboelectric effect? Or just ordinary electromagnetic noise pickup from nearby mains cables? All these things are entirely known by physics and fully understood by theory. But the people who say that “in theory” it shouldn’t matter, they just look at one small corner in one particular textbook, where it doesn’t mention all these other things. Usually, where theory and practice deviate, it just means that your theory hasn’t gotten into enough theoretical detail. So far, I have not yet bumped into anything in terms of audible differences that I, or anyone with me, could hear that did not at some point connect with established theory and known physics -- by which I mean ordinary street-level physics, none of your fancy quantum stuff. You really do not need to invent laws of physics from a parallel universe to explain things. And you don’t have to excuse yourself to say that theory does not connect with practice. If you look close enough, you will find [the connection]. If practice and theory seem to deviate, you better have a sharp look at your theory.

Now Bruno says he conducted measurements in which cables did show differences along the lines he describes in his quote above. And if I recall correctly, you say you did measurements that showed no differences. So instead of revolutionizing physics, we are just down to who ran the more thorough, careful, valid testing series. If we don't bother with evaluating credentials, that looks like a coin flip to me.

[Ralf11]

ver few people, if any, are saying "perceptions are not real because they currently can’t measure it."

 

one more time: there are mechanistic explanations of phenomena and there are also ways to make scientifically valid assessments that some effect exists, even if we cannot currently offer a mechanistic explanation of it

 

the earliest and most well known example is the plotting of locations of illnesses in London, which showed outbreaks clustering near sewer outfalls - this was key in IDing germ theories of disease and the modern flush toilet

 

EPA still examines geographic clusters today (cancer clusters) without knowing the mechanism

 

so, don't conflate the two

 

 

I have never seen a scientifically valid listening test that found SQ improvements in interconnects* -- it boils down to placebo effect, notwithstanding the sub-scientific feather scattering above

 

show me the data if you disagree

 

 

* as George pointed out, headphone and speaker cables are a different case mechanistically because of impedance variation with frequency

[Ralf11]

Cable Distortion and Dielectric Biasing Debunked | Audioholics

 

 

I like balanced too BTW

[Allan F]

I have never seen a scientifically valid listening test that found SQ improvements in interconnects* -- it boils down to placebo effect, notwithstanding the sub-scientific feather scattering above.

 

show me the data if you disagree

A classic case of "begging the question". You start with the assumption that all sonic differences can currently be measured and produce confirmatory data, when that is the matter in issue. Begging the Question : Department of Philosophy : Texas State University

[Ralf11]

no - and it is quite obvious you have no idea what you are talking about -- despite taking a partial quote out of context

 

now put up or shut up - show me the data

[gmgraves]

There is a difference between something that is not measured and something which is not measurable. For example, John Curl believes that TIM has a more significant role than is widely understood, but work needs to be done to more readily measure.[/quote

I'll buy that.

[jabbr]

Cable Distortion and Dielectric Biasing Debunked | Audioholics

 

I like balanced too BTW

 

Nice article. There's:

1) https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b3c0/a892a982ebde91f83f228905dac30186f827.pdf

2) http://jockohomo.net/data/7470.pdf

 

and:

3) https://www.ieee.li/pdf/essay/passive_imd.pdf

4) https://www.gore.com/resources/technical-information-passive-intermodulation-pim-tech-note

 

so "passive intermodulation distortion" is a viable mechanism whereby cables may have sonic signatures. The issue is complicated but takehome message is that although the most simple and widespread measurements may not show a difference, that doesn't mean a difference cannot exist.

[semente]

Teresa: You seem to think a lot of Telarc recordings (which I always thought imaged terribly because Jack Renner believed in slavishly following Bob Fine's three-spaced-omni microphone setup, which, while it worked OK with those old Telefunken omnis that Fine used, won't work with the modern calibration mikes that Renner liked to employ), what is your opinion of Reference Recordings? Now, Keith Johnson KNOWS how to record an orchestra and for my money, RR recordings sound more like the Mercury, RCA Victor and Everest Recordings of the "golden age of stereo" than do any other modern recordings. Your thoughts?

Not Teresa but I find RR orchestral music recordings overly "spectacular" and much prefer BIS or Dorian for their naturalness.

The old Mercury and RCA recordings are somewhat bright sounding and have weird imaging.

[Ralf11]

wow - check out Curl's 1970's photo!

 

jabbr's last 2 links relate to RF and microwave but it is heartening to know that distortion drops off rapidly above the 5th harmonic

 

of course, a valid listening test gets around this, as one does not need to know the mechanism

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak#Investigation_by_John_Snow

 

IIRC, the best treatment of this is in Tufte's Visual Display of Quantitative Information

[Jud]

I have never seen a scientifically valid listening test that found SQ improvements in interconnects* -- it boils down to placebo effect, notwithstanding the sub-scientific feather scattering above

show me the data if you disagree

 

 

Indeed, there are such tests showing no reliable differences found for amplifiers; for hi-res vs. RedBook (though other tests have, so it depends which you feel are more valid); for minimum phase vs. linear phase filtering; for Stradivari and Guarneri vs. newer wood or carbon fiber violins; and in another realm of the senses, for supposedly good wine vs. supposedly lesser wine. There was also the "Pepsi Challenge," where people consistently preferred the taste of Pepsi to Coke, causing Coke to bring out New Coke, which tasted much more like Pepsi. New Coke failed (those poor self-deluded Old Coke-drinking bastards).

 

So we may either conclude none of these things actually does differ (and in the case of Coke drinkers, that they actually would prefer to keep drinking New Coke or Pepsi); or that the tests were not effective to discern what they purported to test. I have some reasons for thinking the latter, but obviously many people think the opposite.

[NOMBEDES]

The issue is complicated but takehome message is that although the most simple and widespread measurements may not show a difference, that doesn't mean a difference cannot exist.

 

 

 

Got it, "simple and widespread measurements" may not show a difference.

 

Will, then, complex and narrow focus measurements detect what simple and widespread measurement cannot?

We have sensors that have recently detected organic material on Mars. I would submit that given our technology everything can be measured. I would guess that if you can not measure it with todays technology it may well NOT exist.

[Ralf11]

oh no! not everything can be measured

 

show me the dark energy

[Jud]

oh no! not everything can be measured

 

show me the dark energy

 

 

The effect's been measured; the question is whether dark energy is causing it.

 

The same is true of dark matter. Recent experiments have been claimed to support MOND as an alternative explanation.

[NOMBEDES]

oh no! not everything can be measuredshow me the dark energy

 

 

 

Thank you Sheldon Cooper!

 

Your point is well taken. But is there not a debate about the existence of Dark Energy and/or Dark Matter? Some are postulating that such like do not exist and, therefore, cannot be measured.

 

I submit that any audio component must be measurable, I will leave how it sounds to each individual since I believe that each human has developed his own preferences and hears a bit different. (IMO Only)

[Jud]

Some are postulating that such like do not exist....

 

 

Ooo, such like! Brings to mind Stephen Hawking played by EastEnders.

[jabbr]

Got it, "simple and widespread measurements" may not show a difference.

 

Will, then, complex and narrow focus measurements detect what simple and widespread measurement cannot?

We have sensors that have recently detected organic material on Mars. I would submit that given our technology everything can be measured. I would guess that if you can not measure it with todays technology it may well NOT exist.

 

For the purposes of our discussion here this is true.

 

I think the problem with any measuring differences because that's really straightforward, but knowing which differences are important is much more difficult.