Just curious who here owns a cable burn-in in device ?

The 2 that I am aware of are the AudioDharma Cable Cooker:
http://www.audioexcellenceaz.com/audiodharmacablecooker.htm

and the Nordost VIDAR:
http://www.upscaleaudio.com/updates/vidar.htm

For those that have such a device, do you use it only on new cables, or do you periodically ( every 3 months ? ) re-cook your cables ?

Am I allowed to say "pleeeease, no smart-ass remarks" ? :)

- Andy

I want to state that Andy is a fantastic guy and he is not a TROLL!

I wonder how long before Chu and Speco post here?????

(I apologize for the smart ass remarks, Andy. But I wanted to beat them to the punch).
____________________

i have the predicessor to the Nordost VIDAR, the Nordost CBID1 (cable break-in device); which i have used for 6 years.

i use it on new cables and during the time i was doing lots of cable comparisons i did use it quite a bit. it's placebo effect worked well.:D

once every year i do 're-cook' the cables. it seems to have more effect on interconnects than speaker cables. i can guess why but the 'mouth-breathers' are already rolling their eyes so i'll leave it at that.

have a nice day everyone.

I use System Enhancer by Jim Auld at Purist Audio Design

Ditto the good day everyone

I was going to keep my mouth shut but suddenly I discovered I couldn't breathe.

I was going to keep my mouth shut but suddenly I discovered I couldn't breathe.

:D:D:D

I use System Enhancer by Jim Auld at Purist Audio Design

Ditto the good day everyone

Me, too.

My wife comes in my home theater room once a month and we cook
(not food).

I wonder how long before Chu and Speco post here?????

to be fair; since the 'state of the forum' thread and likely a bit prior to that, i must say that Chu has been a gentleman without exception. i'm not saying he has changed his opinions or wit. but sometimes i can't tell his posts and Mr. Grant's apart until i read the name. he'll still nail me when he deems it appropriate but in a different way than before.

i should have acknowedged this sooner....your post reminded me to do it.

thanks Chu.

i'm sure speco's breakthru is immenent.:D

the reality is that there are things that can provide debate...

"how does a cable cooker work?" (that one would be fun)

And things that should be left alone...

"who has a cable cooker?"

Because there is no debate on the physics of whether you own it or not

to be fair; since the 'state of the forum' thread and likely a bit prior to that, i must say that Chu has been a gentleman without exception. i'm not saying he has changed his opinions or wit. but sometimes i can't tell his posts and Mr. Grant's apart until i read the name. he'll still nail me when he deems it appropriate but in a different way than before.

i should have acknowedged this sooner....your post reminded me to do it.

thanks Chu.

i'm sure speco's breakthru is immenent.:D


I am getting very scared cause I am starting to like both Michael Grant and Chu!!!@@@

Thank you for the kind words Mr. Lavigne. The aspiring Honorable Steve B. was looking to stir up trouble because being Jewish and living in the Phoenix area, he is jealous of my ability to get good kosher deli meats at the snap of a finger, while he is still wandering about. Someday, I'll have to send him a salami from Katz and pickles from Orchard Street.

Thank you for the kind words Mr. Lavigne. The aspiring Honorable Steve B. was looking to stir up trouble because being Jewish and living in the Phoenix area, he is jealous of my ability to get good kosher deli meats at the snap of a finger, while he is still wandering about. Someday, I'll have to send him a salami from Katz and pickles from Orchard Street.

I grew up on Kosher Salami sandwiches. I am indeed jealous!!!

Brisket, corned beef, pastrami, and good, garlicky, crispy knocks along with a good knish are really much better. 'Specially on good Jewish rye with mustard.

the reality is that there are things that can provide debate...

"how does a cable cooker work?" (that one would be fun)

And things that should be left alone...

"who has a cable cooker?"

Because there is no debate on the physics of whether you own it or not

Dizz

You took the bait..... :D

I was going to keep my mouth shut but suddenly I discovered I couldn't breathe.
Mike,

I know the feeling too.

:D The replies here are a great smile to start my day, thanks guys!

Guess who eats together at the Carnegie Deli?

Guess who eats together at the Carnegie Deli?

Fremer and Randi?

Hillary and Cheney?

OK, i give up....who?

Just curious who here owns a cable burn-in in device ?

The 2 that I am aware of are the AudioDharma Cable Cooker:
http://www.audioexcellenceaz.com/audiodharmacablecooker.htm

and the Nordost VIDAR:
http://www.upscaleaudio.com/updates/vidar.htm

For those that have such a device, do you use it only on new cables, or do you periodically ( every 3 months ? ) re-cook your cables ?

Am I allowed to say "pleeeease, no smart-ass remarks" ? :)

- Andy

I may well have seen everything now. ;)

Guess who eats together at the Carnegie Deli?


Woody Allen frequents the place often

I was going to say something but I discovered that I can't breathe and talk at the same time...

This is where science goes to die.

If you gents believe in all this crap, next time try bringing your cables and interconnects to the church/mosque/synagogue to have them blessed... :rolleyes:

I'm an internet reverend. I can bless them.

I was going to say something but I discovered that I can't breathe and talk at the same time...

This is where science goes to die.

If you gents believe in all this crap, next time try bringing your cables and interconnects to the church/mosque/synagogue to have them blessed... :rolleyes:


They do think it is real, and it is useless for you or I or Bob or anyone to show them the science and reality of why it is pure horse ****.

They do think it is real, and it is useless for you or I or Bob or anyone to show them the science and reality of why it is pure horse ****.

Science and reality? I have a pretty good idea that you have no real understanding of what either actually are.

The only horse crap here, is your constant evil spew.

Nor does anyone have the time or patience to drag you vehement naysayers through the whole area of endeavor you would have to go through to be able to 'get it'.

Andy: You can make a cable burner yourself, by putting a dummy loading resistor of about 20 watts and 8 ohms across a set of speaker terminals on a old pioneer receiver or the like. In line (series) with that resistor, you put the interconnects.

You need a set of 4 female RCA jacks, a few feet of basic 18g wire,and a 10W or so 8-20 ohm resistor. Wire two of the female RCA's with raw wire, so you can put them into the speaker jacks on the amp, and on the other two female RCA's put the dummy resistor across their terminals. You will need two resistors to burn a pair of cables at one time. The amplifier's load is the two resistors..using the RCA cables as the speaker wiring.

The Receiver should have a set of power meters (which is why I said 'old Pioneer'), and then run the receiver on the tuner, and then run it to about 2-3 watts peak. Let it sit for a day, and the cables should be largely burned in. Do not run it too hard to attempt to speed up the burn-in.

This cable burner is simple, effective, and it takes about $50-100, max, to put it together.

I'm an internet reverend. I can bless them.

OT. Chu, do you know the person who does the paper art? They are definitely talented.

This cable burner is simple, effective, and it takes about $50-100, max, to put it together.

Effective at what?

lets be fair... all that was asked was who has one!

We must be good AVS citizens and not touch what they do....

Dizz, I prefer to be bad.... but you already know that..;)

If there's ever been an objectivist here that should be ALLOWED to ask questions, it would be an applications engineer from a pro audio amplifier company. Who better to ask than someone like Bob?

Dizz, I prefer to be bad.... but you already know that..;)

If there's ever been an objectivist here that should be ALLOWED to ask questions, it would be an applications engineer from a pro audio amplifier company. Who better to ask than someone like Bob?



Except the audiofools NEVER want to hear truth. They would rather fall for the lies told by the cable cookers themselves.

look, i am all for sniggering at silliness when i see it, but in order for the fun of this forum to continue, we need both sides. otherwise it would be a bunch of guys sitting aroudn saying... "what a stupid ad." "Yeah" "wow, that guys has too much money" "Yeah"...

So if a thread starts asking a specific question, by all means, lurk and wait to pounce when the inevitable question you are able to answer comes up. however if nobody has been asked a question that they have any basis to answer... then back the F off. there is no need to continually piss on other peoples parades.

There are more than enough silly threads where we do have something to contribute to the question asked.

I didn't pay one extra cent for my cable cooker. I just found that I can set my laptop web to this particular internet page, while I'm at work leave the laptop on the page in my home theater room, and when I get back from work, it all sounds and looks better. Apparently all the objectivist white noise makes a big difference. Thanks, guys.

If you go to the daily KOS, you'll be able to experiment with pink noise.

The cable burners work at creating 'pathways' of conduction through the frozen crystal matrix of the molecular structure. This goes result in a slightly less harsh sound to the cable, and allows one to quickly understand (in days instead of weeks) what a given cable is going to sound like, when fully 'burned in'. Most of the slight 'diode' like effect of the frozen matrix (re electron transfer) is alleviated through this burn process.

It doesn't matter all that much how it is done, but that it be done.

The fact that you guys are not familiar with such things, only show that you've ever spent the time or effort of going through this process, on an audio system that is put together well enough to allow you to hear it.

Being that I'm a bit too close to one of the contributors in this thread (via distribution) I will refrain from letting loose. As others should. Thank you for your unsolicited crap.

To all detractors, which can be counted on the fingers of one hand:
Your lack of understanding in these areas is quite obvious. It is a known and normal psychological point that those who are confused and not fully aware of, or..(trying to find a nice way to put it....ok. got it...) working hard to wrap their head around something that is eluding them..those folks, many times..will strike out with ridicule and anger. This is basic psychology 101.

Kinda like what we see here.

The cable burners work at creating 'pathways' of conduction through the frozen crystal matrix of the molecular structure.

Are you talking about Eutectic states?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutectic_point

Guess what happens when the cable cools back down to room temp? Exactly.

If you're talking about annealing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annealing_%28metallurgy%29
You don't heat the metal enough to make this happen.

What are you doing to the cable, Ken, that is not already common knowledge to a metallurgical engineer?

Mr. Blue Shift strikes again!

So why would anyone expect a cable to conduct differently after a supposed "burn-in" or "break-in"?

And how would the cable know to conduct differently in a euphonious way?

Why don't these supposed altered conduction properties show up in other more sensitive applications that use wire, instead of only in sighted listening tests?

The cable burners work at creating 'pathways' of conduction through the frozen crystal matrix of the molecular structure. This goes result in a slightly less harsh sound to the cable, and allows one to quickly understand (in days instead of weeks) what a given cable is going to sound like, when fully 'burned in'. Most of the slight 'diode' like effect of the frozen matrix (re electron transfer) is alleviated through this burn process.

It doesn't matter all that much how it is done, but that it be done.


Game on!

The cable burners work at creating 'pathways' of conduction through the frozen crystal matrix of the molecular structure.
KBK,

Not by any science that I'm familiar with.

Come on now Greg... what do they really know at MIT? And honestly when talking about cable conduction... what expertise do you folks at Lawrence Livermore have?

Come on now Greg... what do they really know at MIT? And
honestly when talking about cable conduction... what expertise do you folks at Lawrence
Livermore have?
Dizzman,

Yeah - you're right - LLNL has very little experience with cables; as the following picture
demonstrates:

http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/PhotoLibrary/nf2192.jpg

Well I think they know more than they let on. All of those cables are black in color, so they absorb more heat than clear or white colored cables.

That means in the California sun they have a daily cable burner built in.

Ever notice how high speed internet has varying transfer speeds throughout the day? Hmmmmmmm.....

Dizzman,

Yeah - you're right - LLNL has very little experience with cables; as the following picture
demonstrates:

http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/PhotoLibrary/nf2192.jpg

Greg...if memory serves me correctly I believe that you have posted the same photo several years ago or at least one very similar

Greg...if memory serves me correctly I believe that you have posted the same photo several years ago or at least one very similar
OB,

Good memory - in fact, I forgot where that photo is hosted - so I used the AVS search
function to find my previous post.

When the labs did a test; they wrung every bit of information they could out of a test;
lots and lots of detectors, and each needed a cable to transmit the information to the
surface to recorders in a gaggle of trailers surrounding the emplacement.

http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/PhotoLibrary/NF2125.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/facility/doe_nts.htm

Well I think they know more than they let on. All of those cables are black in color, so they absorb more heat than clear or white colored cables.

That means in the California sun they have a daily cable burner built in.
Curt,

Actually that picture is from the Nevada desert north of Las Vegas. It's even hotter
there than in northern California.

i knew that photo would be pulled out. it was a classic setup for Greg to Spike

The cable burners work at creating 'pathways' of conduction through the frozen crystal matrix of the molecular structure. This goes result in a slightly less harsh sound to the cable, and allows one to quickly understand (in days instead of weeks) what a given cable is going to sound like, when fully 'burned in'. Most of the slight 'diode' like effect of the frozen matrix (re electron transfer) is alleviated through this burn process.

It doesn't matter all that much how it is done, but that it be done.

The fact that you guys are not familiar with such things, only show that you've ever spent the time or effort of going through this process, on an audio system that is put together well enough to allow you to hear it.

Being that I'm a bit too close to one of the contributors in this thread (via distribution) I will refrain from letting loose. As others should. Thank you for your unsolicited crap.

To all detractors, which can be counted on the fingers of one hand:
Your lack of understanding in these areas is quite obvious. It is a known and normal psychological point that those who are confused and not fully aware of, or..(trying to find a nice way to put it....ok. got it...) working hard to wrap their head around something that is eluding them..those folks, many times..will strike out with ridicule and anger. This is basic psychology 101.

Kinda like what we see here.


Pure nonsens, from start to finnish.

These discussions always make me giggle... it's like a mid day comic relief. :D

if you cannot find any science you like... make some up!

Or take inane esoteric details that MAY possibly apply in some minutely measurable level in radar frequencies... and extend it out to analog audio...

aww man,

and here I was happy that someone would just answer the initial OP :) But somone (KBK looking at you) had to come in and state "benefits"....

bummer :)

btw nice to see Bob in here too :D

We had the Nordost CBID1 and now have the Nordost VIDAR (http://www.audiofederation.com/blog/archives/63) (we are Nordost dealers).

The VIDAR works noticeably (audibly) better than the CBID1, burning in the cables in faster and deeper, and is rumored to put a century's worth of use on a cable in about a week.

As to your question, we only burn them in once when they are new, though we hear from reliable sources, like Mike, that burning them in periodically does increase the performance slightly. The problem is ... who wants to take a system down for a week while the cables are getting a refresher course?

And then there is that mysterious "laziness factor" ... :-)

Enjoy!
Mike

We had the Nordost CBID1 and now have the Nordost VIDAR (http://www.audiofederation.com/blog/archives/63) (we are Nordost dealers).

The VIDAR works noticeably (audibly) better than the CBID1, burning in the cables in faster and deeper, and is rumored to put a century's worth of use on a cable in about a week.

As to your question, we only burn them in once when they are new, though we hear from reliable sources, like Mike, that burning them in periodically does increase the performance slightly. The problem is ... who wants to take a system down for a week while the cables are getting a refresher course?

And then there is that mysterious "laziness factor" ... :-)

Enjoy!
Mike



Excellent you are a dealer. So please take the time to provide the science behind how these work. Please refrain from reposting website info from the makers lets hear your understanding and the FACTS behind it.

The cable burners work at creating 'pathways' of conduction through the frozen crystal matrix of the molecular structure.
I've been asking KBK for years when he says things like the above which episode of Star Trek he heard such a line from, but he never answers. I personally don't believe the asylum doctors should be allowing patients such as him to watch Star Trek, and I have voiced my concerns to them.

I've been asking KBK for years when he says things like the above which episode of Star Trek he heard such a line from, but he never answers. I personally don't believe the asylum doctors should be allowing patients such as him to watch Star Trek, and I have voiced my concerns to them.

SO its all your fault, degrading Star Trek, that its been so many years now without a Star Trek movie and several years without a Star Trek TV show?
Blame the burn-in phenomena on Star Trek.But KBK never watched Star Trek - he's been too busy "cookin" all these years and he doesn't have a little TV in his kitchen.:D

Just curious who here owns a cable burn-in in device ?

The 2 that I am aware of are the AudioDharma Cable Cooker:
http://www.audioexcellenceaz.com/audiodharmacablecooker.htm

and the Nordost VIDAR:
http://www.upscaleaudio.com/updates/vidar.htm

For those that have such a device, do you use it only on new cables, or do you periodically ( every 3 months ? ) re-cook your cables ?



Is a cable cooker the same thing as a crock pot?

Do you need to "re-cook" your cables, or just "re-heat" them?

What happens if you cook a cyrogenically frozen cable?

Do you need to thaw them first or are they like frozen dinners and they go right from freezer to oven?

SM

I use a holy oven to cook and bless my cables at the same time. That is before we do the dance to the cable God's which I will post a picture of later if I have the time. Sometimes I also cook in the holy oven and some amazing things have happened.

http://www.blacktable.com/images/0412pics/jesus/oven.jpg

Sometimes the cooking stains from the cables show Jesus or the Blessed Mother.

http://www.thedisplaced.us/content/images/jesus_EAG_CMYK_070309.jpg

Valhalla PC also sends his cables to me for cooking.

SO its all your fault, degrading Star Trek, that its been so many years now without a Star Trek movie and several years without a Star Trek TV show?
Steve,

Hang on - there's a new Star Trek movie due out in 2008.

Steve,

Hang on - there's a new Star Trek movie due out in 2008.''all the still alive old crew invited back except William Shatner

all the still alive old crew invited back except William ShatnerShatner is supposedly pissed about it, but how can he be back when his character died four movies ago. Nimoy is back because the story is supposed to be told in flashback (and his character can live for hundreds of years).

Sanjay

''all the still alive old crew invited back except William Shatner

I thought only Nimoy was going to be in it. Walter Koenig told me he wasn't going to be in it either. But then he also said that young Kirk was going to be played by Matt Damon (in which I hope he was mistaken!).

The cable burners work at creating 'pathways' of conduction through the frozen crystal matrix of the molecular structure. This goes result in a slightly less harsh sound to the cable, and allows one to quickly understand (in days instead of weeks) what a given cable is going to sound like, when fully 'burned in'. Most of the slight 'diode' like effect of the frozen matrix (re electron transfer) is alleviated through this burn process.

It doesn't matter all that much how it is done, but that it be done.

The fact that you guys are not familiar with such things, only show that you've ever spent the time or effort of going through this process, on an audio system that is put together well enough to allow you to hear it.

Being that I'm a bit too close to one of the contributors in this thread (via distribution) I will refrain from letting loose. As others should. Thank you for your unsolicited crap.

To all detractors, which can be counted on the fingers of one hand:
Your lack of understanding in these areas is quite obvious. It is a known and normal psychological point that those who are confused and not fully aware of, or..(trying to find a nice way to put it....ok. got it...) working hard to wrap their head around something that is eluding them..those folks, many times..will strike out with ridicule and anger. This is basic psychology 101.

Kinda like what we see here.



rotflmao!!

That is the best BS post I have read in awhile. Please tell me where you went the school and what your degree is? I would love to send this back to your school and see what your "peers" would say about it. Better yet, What are you smoking Im looking for a new reality too :D :D

frozen crystal matrix of the molecular structure

wtf?? We have wires kept at a sub zero state now?

Shatner won't show because there's an intergallactic restraining order against him as well as interstellar child support subpoenas for all the alien babes he boned while a Captain and Admiral.

Chu,

Doesn't the subject of a cable burn-in machine somehow deserve the posting of some pictures ;).

http://www.beccacarter.com/images/kirkawesome.jpg

Have you ever heard Shatner sing "Lucy in The Sky with Diamonds" ?
( it does indeed exist )

- Andy

They're showing the two-hour 'Menagerie' episode in HD in select movie theaters this week. Seems to be a publicity stunt to announce and HD boxed set of the entire first series.

Either way, I am so there.

Chu,

Doesn't the subject of a cable burn-in machine somehow deserve the posting of some pictures ;).

Indeed. Eat your veggies.

http://www.usachoff.com/prikol/1/3.jpg

Do the PETA folks realize that this poster is entirely counterproductive to their efforts? I mean, if cows looked that good I'd eat more of them. I mean, yeah, they'll be hot looking, but they'll still be cows.

PETA = People for the Eating of Tasty Animals

Chu, personally I'd like to see one of the Pink Floyd women on the Dark Side of theMoon
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51T5HFDPSNL._AA280_.jpg

Carrie, from Maxim online, says her favorite song is Money.

http://www.maximonline.com/hotties/images/2006/12604_L1.jpg

Do cable burners burn cables more effectively if (burn, Baby burn) Disco Inferno is used as a music selection?

frozen crystal matrix of the molecular structure

wtf?? We have wires kept at a sub zero state now?
penngray,

Actually that's the ONE part that DOES make sense.

Metals are crystals - and they are indeed frozen. In this case, the term
frozen doesn't mean frozen with respect to water - in which case frozen
means "cold" - but it means frozen with respect to the melting point of
the metal.

The metal in your wires are indeed in a frozen state; and they are
crystals. The crystal structure of copper is Face Centered Cubic
or "fcc". Courtesy of Michigan Technological University:

http://www.museum.mtu.edu/Gallery/Copper/crystals.html

Indeed. Eat your veggies.

http://www.usachoff.com/prikol/1/3.jpg

Chu, where do u get these pics? You must reveal your source.

Nice....can we cook with her?

Metals are crystals - and they are indeed frozen. In this case, the term
frozen doesn't mean frozen with respect to water - in which case frozen
means "cold" - but it means frozen with respect to the melting point of
the metal.

The metal in your wires are indeed in a frozen state; and they are
crystals. The crystal structure of copper is Face Centered Cubic
or "fcc". Courtesy of Michigan Technological University:

Yeah, I slept through that in EE 20 years ago :eek: I know why too :D

Rachel Ray can cook up some cables and polish the knobs on your amps in about 30 minutes.

http://static.flickr.com/88/236180591_b9b2d3c13c.jpg

dunno about Rachel, but looks like someone (not saying it's you) cooked up an image with photoshop...

:p

Two questions:

1. Does anyone here own a cable freezer?

2. With an ass shot like the one above, would anyone care to wager how long it is before Art shows up in the thread?

dunno about Rachel, but looks like someone (not saying it's you) cooked up an image with photoshop...

:p
I was focusing so intently on here beautiful face ;), I didn't even notice it doesn't quite fit properly on the body.

Thank you for the kind words Mr. Lavigne. The aspiring Honorable Steve B. was looking to stir up trouble because being Jewish and living in the Phoenix area, he is jealous of my ability to get good kosher deli meats at the snap of a finger, while he is still wandering about. Someday, I'll have to send him a salami from Katz and pickles from Orchard Street.

Katz isn't kosher... And 2nd Avenue Deli is closed. :(

Katz, is very, very good.

I'm sure it's Photoshop'd. Rachel isn't as well endowed on top but ought to be.

Katz, is very, very good.

The best pastrami I've ever had... I miss living nearby. :(

It's always worth it to give a healthy tip too. The rewards are...well rewards.

Katz, is very, very good.


You are a real Salami!

But Kosher soft salami, a good Kosher dill pickle and caraway bread make a big difference. You go eat one, and take a picture of the sandwich and post it, and I'll believe you.

Otherwise you're all talk!!@@@

Another Steve B. on topic thread. At least this time he is talking about the kind of salamis you can purchase in a deli. italian and other foreign nation salamis are a whole other thing. There are threads out there on the subject. Google. I doubt they ever discuss audio stuff in them.

Can a cable be cooked such that it becomes 'over done'? How much better is medium-well than, say, cable tartare?

Actually it could be over cooked but not permanently. There used to be a XLO CD out there with cable burn in and demagnetising tracks. After burn in one would run the demagnetising track. Demagnetised the speaker cross over parts too. Definetyely made things sound better. Cleaner.

Actually it could be over cooked but not permanently. There used to be a XLO CD out there with cable burn in and demagnetising tracks. After burn in one would run the demagnetising track. Demagnetised the speaker cross over parts too. Definetyely made things sound better. Cleaner.

I've got that CD, too. Got some nice stereo tracks, too, as well as other test tracks like in phase and out of phase.

Why didn't it demagnetize the magnets in the drivers?

Can I cook food with cable cookers?

Can I cook food with cable cookers?

yes, only once though. :D

Actually it could be over cooked but not permanently. There used to be a XLO CD out there with cable burn in and demagnetising tracks. After burn in one would run the demagnetising track. Demagnetised the speaker cross over parts too. Definetyely made things sound better. Cleaner.
Mark, just for sh*ts and giggles, would you relate to us how spraying your cables with something out of an aerosol can make them sound better? I recall you relating that in the CRT forum once. I'd like to try it ;).

QQQ. Send me a PM with your name and address and I'll have Nordoost drop ship you a bottle. I'll trust you to report your findings honestly. Use it on the back of CDs and on your wires. A/B between two of the same CDs, one sprayed, one no. Spray it on a cloth, and wipe the outside insulation of your wires down. If you find it beneficial, you can reimburse my costs on it.

You can't lose but your rationale brain may inhibit your whatever ing when it works but you can't explain it.

While you're at it QQQ, dash off a phone call to Peter Popoff, who will send you is larger size Miracle Water. You can put it on anything and be guaranteed improvements.

http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/popoff9.jpg

Also, for a period of about a couple of months, you'll receive regular communication from him where he'll send you more water, Miracle Oil, gloves that you can write on, etc. After that it stops. Unless you send him some money. Then more stuff comes. Oh, in case you're curious, I've done it.

I accidentally played a magnetizing track on a calibration cd, and when I subsequentally tried to play Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells I didn't get ANY sound because the bells stuck together. Playing the demagnetizing track fixed it, but that was a scary A/V moment for me and my family. Magentize/demagnetize tracks are POWERFULL tools!

Your belief systems, I suppose. How scared are you guys to try something which you know, based on your ignorance, can't work. You are pathetic. But here challenged inhibited morons can stick ogether and laugh. The world is flat. Look at the idiot that said it was pear shaped. Its a no risker and QQQ doesn't have the balls to take the challenge. Pathetic.

If you put a one pound block of Tillamook Extra Sharp Cheddar on top of your CD transport, you will reduce its jitter transmission audibly. It has to be a one pound block, not a different size, and not shredded; and it has to be Tillamook. There's something different about their milk, but I don't know enough about dairy to understand it.

If you don't try it out before you tell me I'm full of it, you're pathetic. Who here has the balls to step up?

In all seriousness (OK, half seriousness), a spray mist bottle full of distilled water would be a good stand-in if you want to test the effect of static electricity suppression on sound quality without spending the dough on a proprietary product.

Your belief systems, I suppose. How scared are you guys to try something which you know, based on your ignorance, can't work. You are pathetic. But here challenged inhibited morons can stick ogether and laugh. The world is flat. Look at the idiot that said it was pear shaped.

um.. the Earth's neither *pear shaped* nor flat. It's an oblate spheroid.

It's a no risker and QQQ doesn't have the balls to take the challenge. Pathetic.

right back atcha, champ.

Who here has the balls to step up?

I know of only one creature that has the balls.

http://www.funnyhub.com/pictures/img/squirrel-nuts.jpg

A couple of other real options:
http://www.supplyhero.com/_FileLibrary/Product/24790/GMMM1456.JPG (http://www.supplyhero.com/Antistatic-Cleaner.405.24790.3.htm)http://www.supplyhero.com/_FileLibrary/Product/13446/ZEND7087.JPG (http://www.supplyhero.com/Endust-For-Electronics-Antistatic-Cleaning-And-Dusting-Aerosol-Spray-for-Electronics.405.13446.3.htm)
Or in handy wipe form:
http://www.supplyhero.com/_FileLibrary/Product/13447/ZEND7088.JPG (http://www.supplyhero.com/Endust-For-Electronics-Antistatic-Premoistened-Wipes-for-Electronics.405.13447.3.htm)http://www.supplyhero.com/_FileLibrary/ProductGroup/2464/WKCC1046.JPG (http://www.supplyhero.com/Kimwipes-ExL-Delicate-Task-Wipes.632.2464.4.htm)
I don't know how much Eco-3 costs but something tells me you might save yourself some dough by clicking on these links, that is if you really think you have an audible static electricity problem.

EDIT: Ahh, the high-end market at work. Eco-3 retails for $40 for an 8-ounce bottle. For $12 you can get four times as much Staticide, an industrial solution safe for PC boards and other components:
http://www.newark.com/productimages/nio/standard/4087380.jpg (http://www.newark.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?sku=95B5051)
You can get it cheaper by the gallon or by the drum but I suspect you may not need that much. I know audiophiles frown on "pro" gear though!

Your belief systems, I suppose. How scared are you guys to try something which you know, based on your ignorance, can't work. You are pathetic. But here challenged inhibited morons can stick ogether and laugh. The world is flat. Look at the idiot that said it was pear shaped. Its a no risker and QQQ doesn't have the balls to take the challenge. Pathetic.

OK Mark please explain the science behind the product. I would be glad to take up the challenge.

Grant. When did you become such an ass? Getting less sleep at night I suppose.

The issue isn't what it is or what it cost. It is whether whatever Eco is works, I am willing to supply it to testers for free. People have made fun of me because I claim it really works, I am not trying to sell it. Can't work, blah blah blah. I am not saying it might be available cheaper. Trust me Grant. Whatever you do for a living, somebody else out there does it far better than you do and for less money.

That's not the point. Does it work and make the sound out of a two channel system sound a lot better. I've heard what it does. None of you have and you don't want to try it because it would destroy your pathetic egoes if it worsk. Unfortunatelt you can't risk hearing the truth. Too bad. You all really know how dumb you really are. You are just lucky you can fool some people. EH. Fess up. Me too. I might even be dumber than you and THAT is down right scary!

Unless you are willing try something you will never know.
Reinforce each others ignorance in the aura of intelligence,. Please.

So, if I were to spray or apply it on a power cord or cable...rub it in or whatever and had an otherwise identical set laying around, you could reliably tell the difference if I were to place them in the system without your knowing their identity, mark?

Do you have the MSDS for ECO-3, mark?

Grant. When did you become such an ass?About the time you called us skeptics pathetic!

Mark, you're just rehashing tired old lines we objectivists have heard a million times. They are no more valid now than they ever have been. I reject the silly notion that I have to hear for myself every single tweak that some subjectivist tried before I dismiss it as poppycock. For every tweak out there------whether it is this anti static treatment or some special wall outlet cover (http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina44.htm) or a volume dial made out of a particular type of wood---there are people who have tried it and heard a difference, now give it glowing reviews, and sputter angrily when some of us doubt them.

I'm gonna get a few of them wrong, I suspect. Who knows, maybe that wooden knob really does make a difference. But I'm confident enough in my batting average. My ego sleeps fine at night.

I actually agree with you though that if it works cost doesn't matter. But, if it does work, and it does so for the very reasons Nordost claims, then any one of those products I've linked to are going to achieve the same result for much, much less money. Surely even a subjectivist can accept saving a few bucks to get the same bang, right?

Mark, do you know for sure that it works?

Not trying to be argumentative. but this is the whole point. if you sent it to Q and He said that there was no difference whatsoever, you would blame it on his pea sized brain.

We say that there are plenty of things that do the same darn thing for substantially less. And we say that NONE OF THEM WILL DO SQUAT. of course it is possible that some things need a de-static treatment from time to time... like Records. Other than that, other than extreme case (possibly i guess) static is not an issue. Systems have says of dissipating static.

So, after we look at how a system performs and determine (possibly erroneously) that there is no way that this will make any visible treatment on anything other than ones wallet. What was that goop that was going around a while ago that you were supposed to treat your electrical contacts with?

So at the end of the day, how do you know it works? Have you tried a test with moderate controls in place to ensure that it is actually doing what you think it is doing?

Michael: Get your Tillamook cheese right here. (Taken this summer when I toured the place.) Yummy!

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/curtpalme/HPIM1372.jpg

Oh yeah baby! Cheese.

Unless you are willing try something you will never know.
Reinforce each others ignorance in the aura of intelligence,. Please.


Willing to try I am. Also asking for what the science is behind it as well.

Owning an audio store I do have identical wires. The simplist test is with two of the same CDs. A use a Shirly Horn dsc. A few instruments and here voice. We sit in a chair and somebody plys the same cut fom both he treated and untreated Everyone consustntl picks the treated one as sounding appreciably better.Pick A orb in say 5 repitions randonmly eith A andthen B or the other way. The plyer keeps tract. One is marked T and the other UT.It isn't close. Now we just listn to T. Then rub a cloth spayed with he tuff on the interconnect from the CD to the Pre. Then the int rom thePre to the Amp then the speaker wires. Evry time it gts better. Not different, better. I don't know the science. I am too stupid. I just know what I hear. nd everyone present hears thesamething. Try it. Buy two of he same CDs. Use it on two of he same int. And chnge them out. Then you tell the rest. What's the big deal. I'l send you a bottle and you can pass it on.

Grant. I don't care about your intellect or your batting average. Just this tweak and whether you agree or disagree based on you listening, simple. Not argumentative. No risk. Anybody PM me and I will get it to you. No more rsposes from me here unil someone accepts and posts the results.

Sounds like you have a volunteer one post up, Mark.

Speco, the claim is that this stuff eliminates static electricity. No idea how they expect that to translate to better sound from a CD. For that you'll have to make up your own, Nordost isn't telling.

I've made my point about these tweaks. When an even tiny fraction of them gets the proper scrutiny and passes, I'll start believing the anecdotes like yours. Otherwise I'll believe the Floyd Tooles of the world.

Owning an audio store I do have identical wires. The simplist test is with two of the same CDs. A use a Shirly Horn dsc. A few instruments and here voice. We sit in a chair and somebody plys the same cut fom both he treated and untreated Everyone consustntl picks the treated one as sounding appreciably better.Pick A orb in say 5 repitions randonmly eith A andthen B or the other way. The plyer keeps tract. One is marked T and the other UT.It isn't close. Now we just listn to T. Then rub a cloth spayed with he tuff on the interconnect from the CD to the Pre. Then the int rom thePre to the Amp then the speaker wires. Evry time it gts better. Not different, better. I don't know the science. I am too stupid. I just know what I hear. nd everyone present hears thesamething. Try it. Buy two of he same CDs. Use it on two of he same int. And chnge them out. Then you tell the rest. What's the big deal. I'l send you a bottle and you can pass it on.


And this you do DBT?

I set forth the test method. Like it or not, that's what I did.

So, it was a sighted test where all the participants knew in advance what was being played.

Mark,

You are a person who loves music, and therefore loves High-end audio equipment with which to reproduce the music as faithfully as possible, yes? I'm the same way, but from the skeptical perspective. I would have NO problem spending $12000 on a pair of B&W 802D's. I would also have no problem paying top dollar for Simaudio products. I'd love to have a Bryston/Revel setup in my bedroom!

Despite your love of audio equipment, do you believe in diminishing returns on dollars spent? Do you think there is a point at which spending more simply doesn't yield enough of an improvement to warrant the extra money. Does spending $4000 on speaker cables give one a $3000 improvement from a $1000 pair? When one starts worrying about squeezing the last tidbit of quality out of a system doesn't one start to forget what it's all about in the first place, which is the love of LISTENING to music?

Here is the problem with cooking cables. It's an attempt to squeeze juice from
an open orange which has dried up in the sun for weeks. I understand the desire to get the best from a system, but reaching the point where 'cooking cables' is important has taken one beyond the realm of simply enjoying the music. At this point you have to sit there with source material playing wondering, is this the best it can get? Should I purchase some new type of isolator to put under my DIGITAL transport which in reality does absolutely nothing to a digital signal?

The problem is if you think you have to cook cables to enjoy music, you've lost touch with the love. It's become an obsession in perfection which can never be attained. There will always be a new product to improve your system, and you'll always want it. You can never satisfy the hunger of the audio perfection beast. Until you let go of woo side of audio, you won't be able to just sit back and enjoy music for what it is. The purity of it.

HERE IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF:

Were the recordings that you are playing back on your system mixed and/or recorded with components connected using cables which were cooked? If the answer is no, then what improvement are you making to the sound by cooking your cables?

James, as you may know I am definitely on the objectivist side here. I think cable cookers are nonsense. I think antistatic treatments on CDs are nonsense. I think they impart absolutely zero genuine sonic benefit whatsoever.

Nevertheless I think that there are a couple of aspects of your argument that are unpersuasive. I'm going to start from the back:Were the recordings that you are playing back on your system mixed and/or recorded with components connected using cables which were cooked? If the answer is no, then what improvement are you making to the sound by cooking your cables?Audio playback equipment is not, and ought not be, about improving the sound at all. Rather it should be to reproduce it with as little degradation as possible. What is more, most genuine degradation is irreversible and cumulative. So even if the mastering process is somehow flawed, that does not excuse the use of inferior playback equipment to further degrade the sound. So, if one believes that cable cookers impart a genuine (i.e., not imaginary) sonic benefit in the playback chain, it is immaterial whether or not they are used during recording.

Now, let's address your economic argument:Does spending $4000 on speaker cables give one a $3000 improvement from a $1000 pair?This is the high-end form. People can and will spend gobs of money on this forum on audio and video equipment. Anyone who is willing to spend $12000 on a single pair of speakers, as you are, is on the "long tail" of A/V purchasing power. In a statistical since, you are far more closely linked to someone who would spend ten times that much than you are with someone who goes to Best Buy and spends ten times less than you.

So you have already demonstrated a willingness to spend what many consider to be an exorbitant amount of money for what you personally consider to be something of significant value. You are, in effect, an object lesson in the rebuttal of your argument. If we temporarily grant that exotic speaker cables do impart a genuine sonic benefit, then yes, the benefit of a $4000 pair of cables over $1000 cables can be measured at $3000 to someone. Maybe not to you, because you blew your entire $12K on speakers (and I don't think that's bad thing, I'm just sayin'). But presumably that is exactly the judgement made by the actual purchaser. Who are we to argue that, on those grounds? Do $12K B&W speakers impart $11000 more enjoyment than $1000 speakers?

Again, I think that so much of what the high-end audio industry peddles is utter nonsense and borderline fraud. But arguments about value really don't effectively counter that, either. There really are three options:
--- they are worth something because the have genuine sonic benefit, in which case the value is market determined;
--- they are worth nothing at all because they do nothing; or
--- something in between: they are worth considerably less than claimed because a competitive product achieves the exact same benefit for far less. (Emphasis on exact same; tradeoffs bring you back to the subjective market-driven argument.)
Those last two options are what I offered above for the anti-static spray. I think there is exactly zero benefit to spraying that stuff on the back of a CD. And yet if I'm wrong, and if Nordost has it correct that the benefits are due to the liquid's antistatic properties, then there are considerably cheaper ways to achieve that benefit.

Michael,

I understand what you're saying.

I wasn't clear enough because I was speaking emotionally instead of logically. My point is simply that the point of diminishing returns is reached more quickly with certain components in a system; those components being cables (especially power cables), and the treatment of said cables.

Speakers, amplifiers, and electronics have a much higher point of diminishing return than the those objects mentioned above. That's all.

However, the real question is this: Is there really ANY benefit to cooking cables at all?

How many cable chefs out their have green green edges on their CDs? :)

However, the real question is this: Is there really ANY benefit to cooking cables at all?

Of course there is a benefit to cable cookers... The people selling them are making money off of their sales. That is a benefit to anyone who sells one of the cable cooking devices.

I've made my point about these tweaks. When an even tiny fraction of them gets the proper scrutiny and passes, I'll start believing the anecdotes like yours. Otherwise I'll believe the Floyd Tooles of the world.

Same here. ;)

This has probably already been said/asked. But, if we're spending hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of dollars on cables, wouldn't it be to the manufacturers, and consumers advantage for the cables to already be cooked by a professional to the appropriate level? Especially with all the different raw materials used and processes in preparation each different brand of cable should have different requirements, shouldn't it?
I know I don't cook steak and fish the same way, at the same temperature.
Just a thought.

Buy them from a reputable dealer and they will cook them to perfection for you. That's why Nordost sells dealers the cooker although the cooker CD does the same job.

Nobody took the Eco Spray challenge. I guess the costs (free) were too high. THere is such safety in numbers, stick together and remain in the dark. You'll be safe instead of being ridiculed by the masses when I am right on as to how it improves things. Its sometimes better to live in ignorance.

Bah! Your puny insults, bad spelling and all, do not penetrate my thick skull! I'm a Knight Elf Mohawk, fool! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqJE5TH5jhc)

But them from a reputable dealer and they will cook them to perfection for you. That's why Nordost sells dealers the cooker although the cooker CD does the same job.

Nobody took the Eco Spray challenge. I guess the costs (free) were too high. THere is such safety in numbers, stick together and remain in the dark. You'll be safe instead of being rediculed by the masses when I am right on as to how it improves things. Its sometimes better to live in ignorance.

Is there any difference between Nordost Eco Spray and a much cheaper PC anti-static spray that you can get at Radio Shack or Fry's Electronics???
If the stuff is sold for use with PCs, what benefit is it to provide besides stopping you from shocking yourself to death? And wouldn't that same benefit apply to AV equipment?

That's why Nordost sells dealers the cooker although the cooker CD does the same job.

In Wooville only, or everywhere?

Virtually all antistatic sprays belong to the class of organics known as Quaternary Ammonium compounds. In a sense, they're like fabric softeners. You can test this at home by making a dilute solution of something like Tide (not the one that contains fabric softener!) in water (a couple of drops in a glass will do). Then carefully add a drop or two of the antistatic solution to the surface and observe if a momentary cloudiness results.

Grant. Sorry I hit you so hard. Obviously it takes very very little to penetrate your thick skull. :)


My point isn't to push any brand. I happen to have some Eco Spray and it works wonders. I haven't tried Grant Piss or Gai fecal, maybe either of those might work better.

I wonder how long it will be before cables with water-filled outer sheaths will be available. Water is a great moderator for nuclear power plants. Maybe a water-filled outer sheath would shield the cable from all sorts of nasties, and work well to keep the goodies in the cable!

Plus, it would help equalize temperatures when cooking the cable. Could be the greatest advancement for audio equipment since the 8 track!

Such cables were indeed sold. No joke. Probably about 20 years agp by a company from Tenn, I believe. I don't remember the brand.

No worries Mark. I'm not bothered, I'm just making fun of you :) We've been having these kinds of arguments for years now and your particular approach is all too common... and ineffective. You're welcome to conclude that makes me intellectually weak. I know better.

Such cables were indeed sold. No joke. Probably about 20 years agp by a company from Tenn, I believe. I don't remember the brand.


indeed they were

I owned them. They were made by Jim Auld of Purist Audio Design and were called Colossus. Short of that I am nicely going to sneak out of this thread ;)

Oops. Too late to the party! Wonder why they're not made any longer?

Yep. I sold many of them. I believe Jim went to using lights on the cable jacket. I never sold those.

Grant. We have been internet friends for many years. You are not intellectually weak IMNSHO and a fine person. Feel the love baby, its genuine.

My approach is to try it. Its the only way to find some thing out. Some things are dangerous. Drugs. You shouldn't try them. But some free spray, you might be surprised. I use it and my system sounds so much better. Its night and day and not subjective. If things are close then one could be biased into hearing something. but dramatic improvements even the close to audiophilism deaf can hear?

Its intellectualism and lack of a sientific explanation that blocks many from trying what I am offering for free. I don't have an explanation either. But I don't understand the unwillingless to try unless there is some sort an underlying fear and I am attempting to rationalize that.

In college I had octoclock phobia-a fear of 8 AM classes. I was so afraid of them I never attempted to attend one.

So it's like green Magic Marker for your CD edges, only in a spray to applied anywhere? Cool.

I like the Placebo spray the best. They also make the best cables. ;)

Mark---we see eye to eye on the personal side. Good. You're a good egg.

I think where we differ is that I see this as just another one of countless tweaks with no solid evidence behind them. We're not singling yours out, we reject everything of this stripe. Like the green pen or the CD mat or the intelligent chip etc. etc. this kind of thing is going to be met with immediate and strong skepticism by objectivists. I think the track record justifies this approach.

I know, I know... But you heard it for yourself... It was clear, it was obvious, many people agreed. I believe you, truly... Just like I believe Mike Lavigne when he says the same. And yet are you reading the thread of his cable test experience? He was sure of what he was hearing... right up to the point the test moderator told him he was failing. This is how it has worked far too often.

So I am content to set the bar high before I give even a "free" tweak a try.

Why take the spray and be selective. Chu Industries, in conjunction with the esteemed law firm of Cheatem, Robem, and Screwem, is offering the following product guaranteed to make everything just peachy.

http://www.chemistryland.com/CHM107/Introduction/Audience/placebo..jpg

My point isn't to push any brand. I happen to have some Eco Spray and it works wonders. I haven't tried Grant Piss or Gai fecal, maybe either of those might work better.

Aren't you happy with your own brand of ********? I'm certainly finding it funny, and the price is right.

Please give me an address and your FedEx account number and I'll be pleased to send you a load of my finest Gai fecal material, mark.

Only if you genuinely think it will improve the sound of my system. I wouldn't try to foster something on you that I didn't think would work especially if it were a bio hazard.

Prudent of you, Mark. I know music sounds better after I've let a big one go. That's a tweak we can all do privately however.

Only you can make that decision, mark. You need a revealing system that you're intimately familiar with listening in a relaxed fashion. I don't know if it's a bio hazard but I'll give you lots to experiment with.

I could be really mean and let you package it, ship it, and then refuse the shipment. But I don't want to mess with you or your mess. Just the kinda nice guy I am.

I could be really mean and let you package it, ship it, and then refuse the shipment.

You can't refuse a burning paper bag. There is only one possible response … ;)

Its funny how engineers (my undergraduate degree was in the science side of engineering and I practiced engineering for several years as well as taught physics at the colllege level) can differ in their approaches and attitudes. I always questioned what was taught. Engineers tend to be taught laws, thats the way it is, and how to apply them. And observed anomolies from these are explainable by whatever that is consistent with the law.

A PH D science candidate often will examine several abnormalies and sometimes will hit a home run by coming up with a new law or modification to the inviolate law. No Bob . Energy always doesn't equal mass times the speed of light squared. But you always thought it did. Right? I always thought it didn't because there is nothing special about the speed of light, Our observations used to depend on light. Many so called engineers and clear thinkers here poo pah everything and laugh because their training keeps them in the dark. Engineers tend to fool a lot of people but deep inside they know they are mostly frauds and simple law followers, right or wrong. Scientist experiment and come up with laws for the idiot engineers to follow. I was both and became a lawyer, I just love lawsI guess. :) Bob's an audio engineer. Trust me boys, its a placebo. Cool Bob. Your the big audio engineer. Take the challenge and be honest. Scared?

Be honest mark -- had you been drinking when your wrote that last post? Or maybe suffering a hangover? Because it reads like you had. It's a little, how shall I say, *discombobulated*.

No. I probably average one drink a week. Currently Woodford Reserve. No drugs either. I did take my usual insulin this morning. my blood sugar isn't low. I am smoking my breakfast cigar. There are a lot of thoughts in the post I will admit and it does ramble. But So what? Why don't you take the challenge?

Prattling on about how scientists don't know as much as they think they do, and puffing out your chest to offer challenges, and accusing those who turn you down of being cowards---it's been done. Many many times. And it doesn't work. And it doesn't make you look like a winner, either.

But I'll make you a deal, Mark, if you take Chu Gai's challenge I'll take yours. Both have about as much of a chance of succeeding.

Here's a real challenge, Mark. Do a proper double-blinded test with this stuff, like Mike Lavigne did with his speaker cables recently. You know, the Mike Lavigne who has often ridiculed us for not listening. You know, the Mike Lavigne who until recently was unwilling to bother with controlled testing because the audible differences were so obvious he just didn't see the need. The Mike Lavigne who, to his considerable credit, finally stepped up and did a controlled test, and was absolutely sure he was 100% right... until he found out he wasn't.

When you pass, then you can shove it down our throats. How hard could it be? You already have the stuff. You're sure it makes a difference. Or are you scared?

There you go again Grant. Forcing someone to rely only on their hearing.

Grant. I was attacking engineers, not scientists. That would be obvious to the most casual of readers of the post.

Are you trying to be cleaver re fecal material? Even though you in the past years had to deal with baby fecal, like most of us dads had to, I really wouldn't condition doing something non offensive upon doing something offensive that even the offeror offered as a joke. i assume you too are joking as to your requirement to try my challenge.

I have done this double blind. Two identical CDs, one treated, one not. Played by someone who didn't know which was which and keeping tract of A or B marked and randomly presented as one or two. I have repeated the listening ten times and in ten out of ten identified which was which. I'll send you 2 of the same CDs. One treated and one not. Marlked A and B and you can have your wife play them randomly for you. Keeping track of what she played each time and you keeping track of what you heard. Fair? I also did this years ago with the green pen. Whatever.

Grant. I was attacking engineers, not scientists. That would be obvious to the most casual of readers of the post.

Are you trying to be cleaver re fecal material?

someone's gotta cut through your crap. Btw the the green pen thing was a *spoof* started on an audio mailing list back at the tail end of the 80's. Some doofus took it seriously and the rest is history.

Whether I am puffing or not, there can be no real reason for not trying what I have offered.

Grant. I was attacking engineers, not scientists. That would be obvious to the most casual of readers of the post.Well that would make for an interesting debate on the differences between the two, frankly. I personally don't draw a strong distinction. In my view everything you attributed to engineers can apply to scientists and vice versa.I have done this double blind.Are you sure? You didn't seem to be so willing to confirm it when NIN74 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12242506#post12242506) asked you.

In all seriousness, yes I am willing to listen to those CDs as described if you send them to me. However, I don't have a good sound system right now due to my recent move and my impending next move. So I'd likely be doing this via headphone on my Onkyo desktop system. If that's cool with you, then yes, send them along. I guess it depends on how obvious you think the differences are.

Whether I am puffing or not, there can be no real reason for not trying what I have offered.Then did you follow up with speco2003? He was the first to volunteer.

PM me your address. I'll keep it confidntial and won't misuse it. I don't know how it would sound using what I suspect but don't know is a low resolution system but there would be nothing to lose in trying. I have to go out and purchase the two CDs. So it might be a few days. But I'll do it.

You da brave man!

Specco never sent me a mailing address. I did ask him for it. Perhaps he forgot.

No, not brave. Just confident. Address on the way soon.

Ah Michael. One must be open minded. Be a scientist conducting an experiment. Disregard your biases and then reach a conclusion. Fair?

Mark, like I said I will be honest. However, you cannot discount exepectation bias on either side. It cannot be willed away; the experiment must be designed to be immune to it. That's actually one serious reason I think these tests need to be somewhat adversarial, with the person claiming the differences doing the listening. But you made it easy to take my own test, I'm taking you up on it.

PM me your address. I'll keep it confidntial and won't misuse it. I don't know how it would sound using what I suspect but don't know is a low resolution system but there would be nothing to lose in trying. I have to go out and purchase the two CDs. So it might be a few days. But I'll do it.

Why not just copy a CD twice to CDR? No need to even burn the whole CD. Pick a track that shows the 'effect' (snicker) especially well. Copy it to two CDRs. Treat one, leave the other alone.

Why not just copy a CD twice to CDR? No need to even burn the whole CD. Pick a track that shows the 'effect' (snicker) especially well. Copy it to two CDRs. Treat one, leave the other alone.
Or, take a new CD and copy it to a CDR. Then treat the CD and copy it to a second CDR.

Attacking engineers for what? Not conforming to your beliefs?

Good ideas, but not the copying of the treated. I think the anti static treatment might have a beneficial effect on how the lazer tracts. I don't know.

The simplest thing for me is to buy 2 cds and treat one. Keep the variables manageable.


The engineering stick, remember I was one. I still do a lot of engineering.

I'll post some stories later, you will be amused Bob by the narrow mindedness of engineers when presented with a novel problem a child could solve.

One of the many criticisms often levelled at DBT's etc is that the 'non-believer', even if he does hear a difference can always (to prove his prejudice) simply say 'I don't hear a difference'.

To say that of course has to assume a level of duplicity on behalf of the person doing the test, but nonetheless it could be true.

For that reason alone, the onus has always been (and should be) on the person claiming to hear the difference showing they hear a difference in a properly setup test procedure.

In this case, if Michael does hear a difference and is honest (and I have NO reason to suspect he won't be) then we may start to get somewhere.

If he reports he hears no difference (whatever the facts of the matter) then we have gotten absolutely no where, those who already feel there will be no difference (and there are many) will take it as vindication of their position, those who feel there could be a difference (all the cable/cable cookers/extreme tweaks) can easily dispute the findings based (minimally) on points like above, let alone 'insufficient resolving power' etc , and the debate will go on.

The simplest way to do this is that Mark shows he can pick it ten/ten in a proper test administered by others.

Mike Lavigne (I'm still 'in awe' of his guts to do what he did) has shown the way, but he could only do it with the help of others who shared his desire to know and others he was comfortable with (no need to make the test any harder than needed).

I have no real grasp of the geography involved, but surely it needs to be approached in a similar scientific manner (as best we can for the 'preliminary trial') in a case like this? granted, the stakes are no where near as important as in Mikes case (a special spray???) so the desire to have this tested might not warrant the work involved......

As it stands I see this proving nothing, but it does have an upside.

It can make this thread go on for another thirty pages heh heh, every cloud has a silver lining.

Why aren't the cookers and sprays used in scientific disciplines that probe the smallest of small and seek to detect ever infinitesimal amounts of whatever? Generally, good ideas in one area have a way of spilling over into other areas. What happened here?

I'll post some stories later, you will be amused Bob by the narrow mindedness of engineers when presented with a novel problem a child could solve.

As opposed to the broad-mindedness and excellent problem-solving capabilities of everyone else? That should be interesting.

Some people think that those who try to be open-minded are not truly open-minded if they're not open-minded enough to give closed-mindedness a try.

If closed-mindedness means demanding real evidence before I believe in perpetual motion machines, free energy, and audiophile quackery, then I wear that moniker with pride, thanks. And I dare say that the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in "science" would feel exactly the same way. When it matters we're really not all that different.

Why aren't the cookers and sprays used in scientific disciplines that probe the smallest of small and seek to detect ever infinitesimal amounts of whatever? Generally, good ideas in one area have a way of spilling over into other areas. What happened here?In fact, the same folks who make Staticide make a version approved for Class 100 clean rooms. Of course in that case the purpose has nothing to do with finer resolution sensing or detection, but rather protection against damaging ESD. I'm not aware of any reason to use this stuff in measuring equipment; after all, static charge doesn't build on such equipment, it is attracted to it.

The simplest way to do this is that Mark shows he can pick it ten/ten in a proper test administered by others.



>13/16 would be more convincing, statistically.

As opposed to the broad-mindedness and excellent problem-solving capabilities of everyone else? That should be interesting.

Some people think that those who try to be open-minded are not truly open-minded if they're not open-minded enough to give closed-mindedness a try.

What do you expect from a supposed 'former engineer' that spells laser 'lazer'?

What do you expect from a supposed 'former engineer' that spells laser 'lazer'?

lazy??

Not a great keyboard stroker?

Supposed former engineer?

I have a BS in Environmental Engineering from RPI, 1967. I graduated number one in my department but the department was very small with respect to the number of under graduate students in it. Mostly it was a graduate program. Every class in the department I took from my sophmore year on was a graduate level class with graduate students mostly. One one test, I had to answer one less question. That was the only difference between what the I did in class different to earn my BS and them their masters. In non departmental classes my course were undergraduate in level.

I recently had to fire one of my AV installation techs. He was an OK guy, could runs wires and hang a plasma and hook up basic AV equiment, but he couldn't solve the simplest math, spoke with double negatives, really did like tryting to remember or understand something he read, and always wanted the title of Project Engineer. He printed up his own business cards after he left and guess what title he gave himself.

RPI is a good school. The experience you had is not uncommon in a small department like that... Stanford is trying to expand the undergrad petroleum engineering department, and the biggest hurdle is building an undergrad class schedule.

What do you expect from a supposed 'former engineer' that spells laser 'lazer'?
krabapple,

Yes - LASER is an acronym - it stands for:

Light Amplified by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.

There is a physical effect called "stimulated emission". Consider an electron
in an excited state with respect to another energy level, eventually that electron will
de-excite by "spontaneous emission" and transition to a lower energy level and emitting
a photon whose energy is the difference in energy between the two electron states.

However, if while the electon is in the excited state, it encounters a photon whose
energy is also the difference between the two electron states - that photon can
STIMULATE the electron to make the transition - hence "stimulated emission".

If that happens, not only does the new photon have the same energy as the photon
that stimulated the transition - it will also be in phase with the triggering photon.

That's why the light in a laser is "coherent" - it's monochromatic since all the photons
have essentially the same energy - and all the photons are in phase with each other.

So the word stimulated is very important in describing the operation of a laser,
and one should not use a "z" merely because of phonetics. I would think an engineer
would be cognizant of that.

He printed up his own business cards after he left and guess what title he gave himself.Audiophile?

One of the many criticisms often levelled at DBT's etc is that the 'non-believer', even if he does hear a difference can always (to prove his prejudice) simply say 'I don't hear a difference'.

Actually, that is not the biggest concern, Mike already alluded to the major one. Just like expectancy bias can dramatically colour perception for those who believe in effect (when there is no difference), it can also can colour the perception of those who don't believe in effect (when there is a difference). The latter is even more prevalent when differences being introduced are minor. Expectation is a powerful variable affecting experience, and it is this variable that far too often is being ignored. A more complete discussion would involve the Hawthorne effect, and info is readily available in the Internet.

Not a great keyboard stroker?

Supposed former engineer?

I have a BS in Environmental Engineering from RPI, 1967. I graduated number one in my department but the department was very small with respect to the number of under graduate students in it. Mostly it was a graduate program. Every class in the department I took from my sophmore year on was a graduate level class with graduate students mostly. One one test, I had to answer one less question. That was the only difference between what the I did in class different to earn my BS and them their masters. In non departmental classes my course were undergraduate in level.


Environmental engineering chops from circa the mid-1960s -- ok, got it.
I can see how that would inform your knowledge of audio and listening test best practices. Forgive me for ever questioning it. :rolleyes:

Audiophile?


"SUPER genius"

Actually, that is not the biggest concern, Mike already alluded to the major one. Just like expectancy bias can dramatically colour perception for those who believe in effect (when there is no difference), it can also can colour the perception of those who don't believe in effect (when there is a difference). The latter is even more prevalent when differences being introduced are minor. Expectation is a powerful variable affecting experience, and it is this variable that far too often is being ignored. A more complete discussion would involve the Hawthorne effect, and info is readily available in the Internet.

According to Jim Johnston, people who report perceiving no difference may on occasion be revealed to have likely heard a difference, in a blind test. It's all in the stats.

Awaiting the inevitable 'your system was not revealing enough' from Haflich when Mike Grant fails the DBT. It's always something.

Would it be in any manufacturer's best financial interests to conclusively prove that their cables can be reliably identified?

All i am looking for is some sharks with frickin laser beams on their heads!

In the 60s there were slide rules and main frames. I had tons of engineering and science courses. My average load after freshman year was 2 semester at 23 credit hours each per year. Though I did usually take an extra humanities course so 6 hours of those were very easy hours compared to some of the enginnering and science courses especially those with labs. I had three or four semesters of organic chem, lots of analytical chem, numerical analysis,all the calc and then advanced math courses, statistics, probably about 20 in departmental envoronmental engineering core classes such as unit operations. Lots of biology. Thermo, mechanics, P chem, fluid dynamics. All this fun stuff. Yea right. I designed waste processing plants and air pollution treatment devices, ran pilot plants, incinerators, went out on rivers to gather downstream from plant water samples. Did the lab testing work. Yada. Yada. I weas the inventor of the bubble concept for purposes of air pollution control which I did with respect to the implementation of NSPS and when a plant would be considered modified for purposes of Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

I learned a lot of science and engineering. Engineering approaches to problem solving.

I had enough of you morons.

And Dr Greeenman, who I have respected over the years and learned from, I am surprised you would question my engineering and scientific training and professionalism because of a typo or mispelling. BTW I also taught physics for two years at the university level while I went to law school. I wasn't a professor, just a lecturer.

I don't want to be part of this group anymore. Goodbye.

I had enough of you morons.

It's "I've had enough of you morons".

A few more humanities courses couldn't have hurt.

Btw, the more you tout your engineering chops, the less explicable your belief in audio woo becomes.

In the 60s there were slide rules and main frames. I had tons of engineering and science courses. My average load after freshman year was 2 semester at 23 credit hours each per year. Though I did usually take an extra humanities course so 6 hours of those were very easy hours compared to some of the enginnering and science courses especially those with labs. I had three or four semesters of organic chem, lots of analytical chem, numerical analysis,all the calc and then advanced math courses, statistics, probably about 20 in departmental envoronmental engineering core classes such as unit operations. Lots of biology. Thermo, mechanics, P chem, fluid dynamics. All this fun stuff. Yea right. I designed waste processing plants and air pollution treatment devices, ran pilot plants, incinerators, went out on rivers to gather downstream from plant water samples. Did the lab testing work. Yada. Yada. I weas the inventor of the bubble concept for purposes of air pollution control which I did with respect to the implementation of NSPS and when a plant would be considered modified for purposes of Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

I learned a lot of science and engineering. Engineering approaches to problem solving.

I had enough of you morons.

And Dr Greeenman, who I have respected over the years and learned from, I am surprised you would question my engineering and scientific training and professionalism because of a typo or mispelling. BTW I also taught physics for two years at the university level while I went to law school. I wasn't a professor, just a lecturer.

I don't want to be part of this group anymore. Goodbye.

IMO it is all too unfortunate and sad that you Objectivists can drive away a very genuine and apparently good person from this forum. But then again go ahead and have at me:rolleyes:

Actually, that is not the biggest concern, Mike already alluded to the major one. Just like expectancy bias can dramatically colour perception for those who believe in effect (when there is no difference), it can also can colour the perception of those who don't believe in effect (when there is a difference). The latter is even more prevalent when differences being introduced are minor. Expectation is a powerful variable affecting experience, and it is this variable that far too often is being ignored. A more complete discussion would involve the Hawthorne effect, and info is readily available in the Internet.

How do we incorporate safeguards against this in a test then?? Even if we went to the extent of not knowing even the identity of the cables (say) being tested, we at least know a cable test is underway...or do we..is that how we might get around it. Hmmm

It does seem like a good time to let this thread die, certainly---but if Mark does send me those CD's I'll do the test and report my results.

How do we incorporate safeguards against this in a test then?? Even if we went to the extent of not knowing even the identity of the cables (say) being tested, we at least know a cable test is underway...or do we..is that how we might get around it. Hmmm
To address expectancy bias of a person who believes there is no difference when there is, that can be addressed with a control group, or you could introduce differences that you know are audible, or you can tell them that at times you will introduce audible differences (that way you mitigate their expectancy bias because they don't know when audible differences are actually being introduced). There are other ways, my point is it can be addressed. Now with regards to people who believe they can hear differences that are beyond the threshold of human hearing, ABX is a fairly useful methodology and not too difficult to implement. There are also a number of other DBT methodologies that could be used; basically you want to maintain a DBT protocol. For those who think that single blind is sufficient, science experiments would say otherwise, since people can unwittingly inform a change to the second party at a subconscious (I don't mean telepathy, think poker) level.

Edit: typo

I asked yesterday to end it. You probably have more clout than me Michael

IMO it is all too unfortunate and sad that you Objectivists can drive away a very genuine and apparently good person from this forum. But then again go ahead and have at me:rolleyes:
I think you might want to read the thread again instead of your kneejerk defensive reaction about Mark. In one of his first posts Mark set the tone:
You are pathetic. But here challenged inhibited morons can stick together...
in another...
Grant. When did you become such an ass?
And so on. And now he ends with:
I had enough of you morons.

I don't want to be part of this group anymore.
And we "drove him away"? I think not. Mark is being a drama queen. No one drove him away.

By 'this group', did he really mean all of AVSforum? Good gracious. There's dozens of threads on AVS Forum. Surely Haflich can find one that's 'moron-free'.

I think you might want to read the thread again instead of your kneejerk defensive reaction about Mark. In one of his first posts Mark set the tone:

in another...

And so on. And now he ends with:

And we "drove him away"? I think not. Mark is being a drama queen. No one drove him away.

Perhaps, and I agree that his means of posting was less than sterling however my best refute is to take a look at that by Krabapple one up and ask your selves who is the "moron":(

One of the many criticisms often levelled at DBT's etc is that the 'non-believer', even if he does hear a difference can always (to prove his prejudice) simply say 'I don't hear a difference'.

To say that of course has to assume a level of duplicity on behalf of the person doing the test, but nonetheless it could be true.



I hear this often and it still don't make it true. Why? Because:

1. Someone that take the time to do a seroius DBT are not stupid enough to mess it up.

2. Most "objective" people are intrested in the TRUTH. They are not interesting in boosting their own egos and stuff like that. They WANT to hear the difference.

I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

Perhaps, and I agree that his means of posting was less than sterling however my best refute is to take a look at that by Krabapple one up and ask your selves who is the "moron":(

The answeration is obvious to my self. :p

The answeration is obvious to my self. :p


Correct

Just can't find any dictionary that has the English word "answerartion". Were you the one who was commenting on the misspelling of "lazer"?

moderator hits pause button