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

[semente]

And that's fine. But not a superior way towards any other approach of the hobby.

I agree that each one of us gets their enjoyment from different ways of practicing audio.

But I don't think that a blind trial and error methodology is superior, not in terms of effectiveness nor in economical terms.

Knowledge gives you the power to choose.

 

Yesterday I had octopus with sweet potato, onions and tomatoes at a regional restaurant.

I told my wife that the tomatoes were a mistake when I saw the tray, my wife agreed but only after tasting.

I am the cook at our place...

 

R

[witchdoctor]

Why worry about stuff like right or wrong in audio? It is a subjective hobby. I do not deny that measurements can help. Like measuring room acoustics and treating a room accordingly. There are some other measurements that might help as well. However when someone buys cables, amps etc there are not rights or wrongs as long as he enjoys his hobby all is fine.I have spoken with someone who's USB cable is more expensive then his DAC. He tested a more expensive DAC with cheaper cables. But he preferred it the other way around. While I do spend money on cables I wouldn't go that far I think. But who knows. That Ansuz power cable sound pretty good.

 

I learned my lesson about facts with a digital cable. The "facts" were that a digital signal was 1 and 0, all cables will sound the same. Then I audition a $1000 digital cable, YOWZA! I kept it. My next "fact", a cable that costs 80% less than my new reference could not be better. YOWZA, it was better and I kept it.

Now, how do you interpret "facts" if you are not a physicist or engineer? For example, who can deny the "facts" of quantum physist Jack Bybee? I use his purifiers between my wall socket and PLC. I like them, but do I "get" the facts? Hell no. If anyone can explain the facts in laymans terms please help me out. I would like to but bottom line is I could hear the improvement, and thats a fact .

 

Bybee Technologies | Our Technology

[mansr]

For example, who can deny the "facts" of quantum physist Jack Bybee?

 

Any honest physicist.

[witchdoctor]

Any honest physicist.

 

That is just it, who can say who has the right facts? Jack's product worked for me more than that I cannot say.

[Speedskater]

If the facts are in fact, facts then they can be tested in several different ways.

In the case of audio electronic equipment, some tests would be:

a] Using text book principals and formulas.

b] Computer simulation (like SPICE).

c] Real world measurements.

d] Real world blind listening tests.

 

For any difference great enough to spend money on, testing should be a piece of cake.

[gmgraves]

Why worry about stuff like right or wrong in audio? It is a subjective hobby. I do not deny that measurements can help. Like measuring room acoustics and treating a room accordingly. There are some other measurements that might help as well. However when someone buys cables, amps etc there are not rights or wrongs as long as he enjoys his hobby all is fine.

 

Would you have that same attitude if you bought what was advertised as an expensive 4K big screen TV only find out, when you got it home, that it wasn't even really even full HD? Or if you bought a car because it advertised having over 400 BHP, only to find out that it only had 200?

 

 

Then why would you not care that, for instance, that $500 interconnect you bought, was, in reality, no different than a $5 Radio Shack Cable? Apparently you see it differently from me. Do you see that the first two examples are unacceptable, but the third is OK? Because I see people getting ripped-off in all three cases and the last giving the high-end audio hobby a bad reputation at the same time.

I have spoken with someone who's USB cable is more expensive then his DAC. He tested a more expensive DAC with cheaper cables. But he preferred it the other way around. While I do spend money on cables I wouldn't go that far I think. But who knows. That Ansuz power cable sound pretty good.

 

The Ansuz power cable has no sound at all. It can't have any sound, it's physically impossible! If you think it does, then you've been seduced by expectational bias. The manufacturer has sold you snake oil. And it's no different than the above examples of manufacturers making false claims in order to sell performance that isn't there!

[witchdoctor]

If the facts are in fact, facts then they can be tested in several different ways.

In the case of audio electronic equipment, some tests would be:

a] Using text book principals and formulas.

b] Computer simulation (like SPICE).

c] Real world measurements.

d] Real world blind listening tests.

 

For any difference great enough to spend money on, testing should be a piece of cake.

 

This is why I like Harman products. When you buy higher end JBL, Infinity, Revel, etc you know they do all of the above, and then some.

[mordante]

Would you have that same attitude if you bought what was advertised as an expensive 4K big screen TV only find out, when you got it home, that it wasn't even really even full HD? Or if you bought a car because it advertised having over 400 BHP, only to find out that it only had 200?

 

Then why would you not care that, for instance, that $500 interconnect you bought, was, in reality, no different than a $5 Radio Shack Cable? Apparently you see it differently from me. Do you see that the first two examples are unacceptable, but the third is OK? Because I see people getting ripped-off in all three cases and the last giving the high-end audio hobby a bad reputation at the same time.

 

Your analogy is false. As far as I know cable manufacturers do not give any specific numbers on how good or bad their cables are. Maybe your analogy is true when a brand says my amp delivers 500watts but only delivers 300watts. But I do not see cable brands claiming any numbers.

 

I have no idea how many watts my amp can deliver and neither does the manufacturer specifies it, and that fine by. I like that sound I have no idea what the THD number other and frankly I don't care. If I like it, want it and can afford it I'll buy it.

 

The Ansuz power cable has no sound at all. It can't have any sound, it's physically impossible! If you think it does, then you've been seduced by expectational bias. The manufacturer has sold you snake oil. And it's no different than the above examples of manufacturers making false claims in order to sell performance that isn't there!

 

If number are so important all of us would drive a Toyota or something like it. Many things that are commercially available are snake oil, most food supplements, sports/energy drinks, expensive tools, even the most expensive watches are less accurate compared to a cheap quarts watch still I'd like to buy a nice IWC or Maurice Lacrois cannot afford them but still I'd like to own a couple.

 

22

[semente]

22

For most people, any wrist watch is accurate enough and they choose the one they like best for looks, workmanship, pride of ownership, status, etc.

 

But for a DAC, most (reasonable) people will prefer the highest performance word clock.

Because accuracy is la raison d'etre of high fidelity reproduction of recorded music.

[Speedskater]

But for a DAC, most (reasonable) people will prefer the highest performance word clock. Because accuracy is la raison d'etre of high fidelity reproduction of recorded music.

Those would be the same people that prefer the more expensive less accurate wrist watch.

But it seems like opposite logic reasoning.

[semente]

Those would be the same people that prefer the more expensive less accurate wrist watch.

But it seems like opposite logic reasoning.

OK, bad example but you understand my point.

If you want to listen to the recording you need better performance not workmanship or design or snake-oil...

[Ralf11]

"who can say who has the right facts"

 

in science we simply look at the Methods section of a journal article

 

I always tell graduate students to do that first. If the methods are inadequate, then it is a waste of time to read the Results or Discussion.

 

 

audiophility is bedeviled by speculative hoo-ha - some of it is plausible, but you need to be careful as not all plausible factors can be heard or even exist

 

Just repeat this mantra:

 

"A lot of Hoo-Ha is just Woo-Woo"

 

after a lengthy session of meditation on that mantra you will obtain enlightenment.

 

 

 

 

especially if you meditate until day break...

[witchdoctor]

"who can say who has the right facts"

 

in science we simply look at the Methods section of a journal article

 

I always tell graduate students to do that first. If the methods are inadequate, then it is a waste of time to read the Results or Discussion.

 

 

audiophility is bedeviled by speculative hoo-ha - some of it is plausible, but you need to be careful as not all plausible factors can be heard or even exist

 

Just repeat this mantra:

 

"A lot of Hoo-Ha is just Woo-Woo"

 

after a lengthy session of meditation on that mantra you will obtain enlightenment.

especially if you meditate until day break...

 

OK, if looking at methods work, what are the "facts" about climate change? How can you substantiate whatever "facts" you believe?

If you can't answer that is OK, I just wanted to point out that the same type of conflicts exist in audio.

[Ralf11]

I can answer but that doesn't mean you can understand.

[gmgraves]

George Posted: Would you have that same attitude if you bought what was advertised as an expensive 4K big screen TV only find out, when you got it home, that it wasn't even really even full HD? Or if you bought a car because it advertised having over 400 BHP, only to find out that it only had 200?

 

George Posted: Then why would you not care that, for instance, that $500 interconnect you bought, was, in reality, no different than a $5 Radio Shack Cable? Apparently you see it differently from me. Do you see that the first two examples are unacceptable, but the third is OK? Because I see people getting ripped-off in all three cases and the last giving the high-end audio hobby a bad reputation at the same time.

 

Your analogy is false. As far as I know cable manufacturers do not give any specific numbers on how good or bad their cables are. Maybe your analogy is true when a brand says my amp delivers 500watts but only delivers 300watts. But I do not see cable brands claiming any numbers.

 

I have no idea how many watts my amp can deliver and neither does the manufacturer specifies it, and that fine by. I like that sound I have no idea what the THD number other and frankly I don't care. If I like it, want it and can afford it I'll buy it.

 

No, it is not false. While I did use numbers as an illustration, the point is about people advertising something that they can't deliver. If you advertise your product does something (such as having certain specifications or, in the case of cables make your audio system sound better), that's a promise between the seller and the buyer. If the product doesn't deliver on that advertised performance, then they have lied and cheated you. It doesn't matter if they promised certain specification numbers, or just promised increased performance. If it doesn't deliver, you have been duped.

 

George Posted: The Ansuz power cable has no sound at all. It can't have any sound, it's physically impossible! If you think it does, then you've been seduced by expectational bias. The manufacturer has sold you snake oil. And it's no different than the above examples of manufacturers making false claims in order to sell performance that isn't there!

 

If number are so important all of us would drive a Toyota or something like it. Many things that are commercially available are snake oil, most food supplements, sports/energy drinks, expensive tools, even the most expensive watches are less accurate compared to a cheap quarts watch still I'd like to buy a nice IWC or Maurice Lacrois cannot afford them but still I'd like to own a couple.

 

Numbers are irrelevant except as an example. If I sold you an elixir that I promised would cure cancer (no numbers, there) and it doesn't, then I'm selling snake oil and there are some very good laws against that. A lot of these High-end audio tweak vendors are selling expensive cables, and do-dads that they advertise will improve the sound of your stereo system. They don't. They only give the illusion that they have improved the sound of your system because you, the buyer, bought them expecting to hear an improvement. So, your expectational bias supplied said improvement, when there actually is no change at all. Unfortunately there are no federal laws against selling that kind of "snake oil" but I'll guarantee you that if there were, you would see one or more of several things happening: 1) you would see advertisements for these items stop proclaiming improved sound, 2) these products would likely quickly leave the marketplace and/or 3) the company selling them would either go out of business or start selling other things, the value of which could be proven. This is my point and my only point here.

[gmgraves]

OK, if looking at methods work, what are the "facts" about climate change? How can you substantiate whatever "facts" you believe?

If you can't answer that is OK, I just wanted to point out that the same type of conflicts exist in audio.

 

No they don't. Climate change is fact. It has been researched by climatologists all over the world, it has been computer modeled and extrapolated accurately out to at least the next 50 years. We know the variables, we know the outcomes of the likely scenarios. Only those people who don't realize that "denial" is not just a river in Africa, deny climate change. Likewise, audio engineers who have a sound grounding in electrical and acoustical engineering KNOW that most of these "tweak" products sold to audiophiles are phony and don't do anything (except maybe look impressive). So again, the only controversy is that between those who don't know what they are talking about and those who do.

[semente]

"who can say who has the right facts"

 

in science we simply look at the Methods section of a journal article

 

I always tell graduate students to do that first. If the methods are inadequate, then it is a waste of time to read the Results or Discussion.

 

 

audiophility is bedeviled by speculative hoo-ha - some of it is plausible, but you need to be careful as not all plausible factors can be heard or even exist

 

Just repeat this mantra:

 

"A lot of Hoo-Ha is just Woo-Woo"

 

after a lengthy session of meditation on that mantra you will obtain enlightenment.

 

 

 

 

especially if you meditate until day break...

 

My guess is that most people evaluate Sound by how much enjoyment it produces but not in terms of performance.

 

If they did, they'd understand the importance of Facts and Measurements.

 

Audio is Science, Music is Art; and even if there are limits to our knowledge high-fidelity is not achieved by accident or through voicing...

 

R

[mansr]

My guess is that most people evaluate Sound by how much enjoyment it produces but not in terms of performance.

 

If they did, they'd understand the importance of Facts and Measurements.

 

Audio is Science, Music is Art; and even if there are limits to our knowledge high-fidelity is not achieved by accident or through voicing...

 

R

 

Music is art. Music reproduction is science and engineering.

[witchdoctor]

I can answer but that doesn't mean you can understand.

 

Try me:)

[witchdoctor]

No they don't. Climate change is fact. It has been researched by climatologists all over the world, it has been computer modeled and extrapolated accurately out to at least the next 50 years. We know the variables, we know the outcomes of the likely scenarios. Only those people who don't realize that "denial" is not just a river in Africa, deny climate change. Likewise, audio engineers who have a sound grounding in electrical and acoustical engineering KNOW that most of these "tweak" products sold to audiophiles are phony and don't do anything (except maybe look impressive). So again, the only controversy is that between those who don't know what they are talking about and those who do.

 

Well you are certainly welcome to your "beliefs", but what about the "facts" that disrupt your "beliefs"?

 

Scientists Debunk White House Global Warming Report | The Daily Caller

 

I am not wise eough to say what the state of the world will be in 100 years. But in audio all i have to do is hit the play button to know the "facts" about which audio product/format sounds right to me. You just can't rely on having the "right facts", too much conflict.

[witchdoctor]

For anyone interested in the "facts" about climate change read this

 

This book examines the claims of human induced global warming made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) using proper journalistic and investigative techniques. It explains how it was a premeditated, orchestrated deception, using science to impose a political agenda. It fooled a majority including most scientists.

https://www.amazon.com/Human-Caused-Global-Warming-Ball-ebook/dp/B01LP5K0XK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1475175918&sr=1-1&keywords=human+caused+global+warming

 

For anyone interested in the "facts" about sound reproduction read this

 

Floyd Toole, a leading expert in the field of sound reproduction, explains how to design the best possible listening experience for recording control rooms and home entertainment systems.

https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers-Engineering/dp/0240520092/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482590018&sr=1-1&keywords=floyd+toole

[Samuel T Cogley]

I learned my lesson about facts with a digital cable. The "facts" were that a digital signal was 1 and 0, all cables will sound the same. Then I audition a $1000 digital cable, YOWZA! I kept it. My next "fact", a cable that costs 80% less than my new reference could not be better. YOWZA, it was better and I kept it.

Now, how do you interpret "facts" if you are not a physicist or engineer? For example, who can deny the "facts" of quantum physist Jack Bybee? I use his purifiers between my wall socket and PLC. I like them, but do I "get" the facts? Hell no. If anyone can explain the facts in laymans terms please help me out. I would like to but bottom line is I could hear the improvement, and thats a fact .

 

No facts here. This is testimony, not facts.

[witchdoctor]

No facts here. This is testimony, not facts.

 

OK, I did include one "fact" a digital signal is a 1 and 0. I thought another fact was any digital cable could carry those 1 and 0 without changing the sound coming out of my speaker. Some members here may still believe this.

That fact was proven wrong to my ears using different cables.

[Ralf11]

Try me:)

 

I no longer teach graduate level courses in microclimate analysis, or physiology for that matter, so it would be difficult for you to enroll. I'm sure there are universities near you and all are staffed with competent faculty, may world renowned.

 

People have posted a variety of sources for you to read but I suggest you start with an undergraduate text. If you will post your background in physics, chemistry and biology I will be glad to suggest one for you at the appropriate level. If your question was really about hearing and not climate change then I already started a thread on that to which numerous people have contributed. I can also suggest a text on cognitive psychology if you want to pursue perception and hearing further.

 

HOWEVER, from your posts, it appears your main problem is you are unable to distinguish between science and snake oil. The only cure for that is a healthy dose of reality.

[Ralf11]

OK, I did include one "fact" a digital signal is a 1 and 0. I thought another fact was any digital cable could carry those 1 and 0 without changing the sound coming out of my speaker. Some members here may still believe this.

That fact was proven wrong to my ears using different cables.

 

Was it a double blind test? Did you control for other factors like electrical isolation?