speaker cables and jumpers vs bi-wiring - Page 5

Well if you measure them connected together then you would see no change. But Arthur is correct. If you were to measure the high and low side seperatly you would basically see little to no current in the opposite cable. Now it won't be absolute zero because that would imply a perfect filter which cannot be built.

You measure the current electrically in series resistance or by galvonic coupling from a wire. Either way it doesn't matter if you measure it at the speaker side or the amp side. The current is flowing in a loop.

that is EXACTLY where the meters will be! not sure it can be any clearer...where else WOULD they be?
in each lead FROM the amp to the speakers, one in the high pass, one in the low pass wires
in this case the sig gen is the amp or current source...


and the current will be as follows:
1A output

40hz
low pass wires ~1A
high pass wires ~0A

10k hz
low pass wires ~0A
high pass wires ~1A

and somewhere in between ~ at the cross-over
0.5A each

Glimmie is correct, it won't be absolute, because the filter is not perfect, but I would bet the 40 hz would be down (attenuated) 30 db or more in the high pass...
so maybe 0.88 to 0.12 or so... probably more...

Then run a single cable and take measurements at the -/+ on the cross overs. All you are changing is where you take your measurements.

How has the topology changed?

All that tells me is that the xover is doing it's job...

A simple question: Why haven't there been any studies on the difference in audibility?

To each their own. This is a hobby and an enthusiast one at that. If you want to do it right then you want
to go active on your x-over and multi-amp your setup.

If you want to try bi-wire try it for the $30-$40 bucks it will take. Nothing that I have ever read nor experimented with gives me any datum to say that bi-wire makes an audible difference.

Nobody here with a technical background said it made an audiable difference. all that was pointed out is the current flow through the two cables will be different.

You need to consider that the crossover is a tuned AC circuit. That involves much more complicated theory than simple DC circuits. Electronics training is fairly easy until those damn capacitors show up about mid term in the first year. Then onto the inductors!

that is correct, who knows if it can be heard...
by the common 'ear' in a switched A/B test, I bet not
by a trained ear, musician or pro-audio guy, perhaps, but unlikely, imO..

lol, yep, V = IR is pretty straight forward, but when R becomes Z, and f goes from 0 to n, then all bets are off!

but it gets real messy when you go to the frequency/digital domain, then filters are code, not components, and instead of thinking in terms of temporal/time, you think in terms of freq and FFT's...

I recently took a grad course in digital signals from this guy http://www.engr.pitt.edu/Electrical/.../boston_j.html and it showed me how little I know! the math is staggering, and without it you can't grasp the concepts...I struggled

Audio seems to be the only place that this kind of voodoo signal processing happens. If I designed a 20-20hkz power transfer system running two set of wires to the same spot for termination to keep high and low freqency signals pure because of filter networks on the far side, I'd be on the street looking for a new job. The RLC equations for audio range signals and wiring at such a small scale seems trival when up against the powers of the mind to alter perception at will.

I ran across this thread while doing research on speaker jumpers. I would like to further elaborate on the points made by ArthurPE (always nice to run across a fellow EE PE). Arthur's circuit diagram can be simplified as follows:



On the surface, it might appear that the "Jumper At Speaker" and "Jumper At Amplifier" circuits are electrically equivalent, since all that has been done is moving the connection point (jumper) for the high frequency and low frequency crossover circuits.

It is a common fallacy of those not knowledgeable about audio circuit engineering to assume that everything can be explained with applications of Ohm's law. One of the most commonly overlooked performance parameters is the effect of noise on audio circuit performance. The location of parts on a circuit board relative to other noise inducing parts, and the location of a circuit board relative to other noise inducing audio equipment, can have measurable and audible effects on the signal to noise ratio of the output signal.

Pushing the jumper point farther back to the amplifier provides a higher degree of isolation from the amplifier's electrical noise and it provides each crossover section a higher degree of separation from the electrical noise in the other section.

The simplified diagram I provided could be extended to a highway analogy where the speaker wire is a major highway leading all the way to a neighborhood (the speaker) and the high frequency and low frequency loops represent driveways to two individual homes.

In "Jumper At Speaker" picture, each "home" (crossover section) is at the end of a short driveway that is right off the "main highway".

In the "Jumper At Amplifier" picture, each "home" (crossover section) is at the end of a very long driveway (dedicated speaker wire). Each crossover section primarily only "hears" the noise profile of an electrically smaller and dedicated "driveway", rather than hearing the aggregate noise of a nearby highway.

The effect of noise reduction due to moving the jumper point further back is measurable with an oscilloscope having a Fast Fourier Transform (noise spectrum) function. Whether such noise reduction will be audible will depend on the noise characteristics of the amplifier and other audio system components, the amount of electrical interaction between the crossover sections and the listener's hearing capabilities.

Biwiring is analogous to providing dedicated AC circuits for an audio system. The concept of electrical noise isolation is the main factor contributing to increased sound quality when audio systems, and particularly when audio amplifiers, are placed on a dedicated AC circuit. A dedicated AC circuit provides more isolation from the electrical noise generated by other appliances and electrical components in the home, even though everything in the home is fed by a common utility company electrical service. Many parallel branches off the main electrical service "dilute" the electrical noise delivered to the home by the utility company. Similarly, having separate parallel circuit branches from the amplifier (AC source) to each crossover section dilutes the electrical noise from the amplifier and from other crossover sections.

An even more common fallacy of those not knowledgeable about audio, is to claim audibility without a single shred of supporting evidence.
Offering "proof" more something along the lines of: "I heard it, I said so".
Followed by esoteric measurement possibilities, as somehow a direct correlation and cause.
Dr Smith?

cheers,

AJ

I agree. But it is unrealistic to hold the members of an audio forum or the writers of an audio magazine to the same levels of scientific proof that is required of a scientific journal. If a forum member or an audio magazine reviewer says that a certain piece of equipment provided certain audible benefits, I would not demand "proof". If I were interested in the equipment, I would go and listen for myself. The only relevant "proof" is what the individual hears in their own listening room. Even if a person could "prove" that they heard certain audible benefits, it does not guarantee than others will hear the same benefits, or if they do, hear them to the same degree.

If one of your friends had sex with a woman and he declared that it was the best sex he ever had and he described in intimate detail the events that occurred, would you demand proof that he actually felt what he said he felt? I would not. If the woman were available to me I might go and "investigate" myself. What was fantastic to him might only be mediocre, or lackluster, to me.


There is nothing esoteric about noise spectrum measurements with an oscilloscope. This is something that I learned to do in third year electronics lab courses as an EE undergraduate.

Threshold of audibility for signal levels is well documented in the peer-reviewed literature of the Audio Engineering Society and the peer-reviewed literature of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Here is a link to the abstract of one example where trained listeners were able to discern distortion as low as 0.003%:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=4002

If a change in noise measurement falls within the experimentally proven range of audibility, then we can reasonably assume that it is possible that the change is audible, at least for some people.

No comment on the biwiring subject?
Edited by DarqueKnight - 7/1/12 at 5:15pm

Oh boy, here we go. When I wire all my x-over components it is all point to point with care taken to inductor placement and orientation. Additionally for speakers like my Statements each circuit is on it's own peg board and spaced in the cabinet with probably about 2.5 feet (for woofers and mids) of a home run to their connection points on respective circuit and home run to the terminal place. Now on my Statements I did put in a dual binding plate. It was a lot of connections to make to a single tab.

Pay attention to your crossover layout.

A function of a crossover is to appear to be an open circuit to undesired frequencies. My first reply speaks to how to do this properly and not worry about the rest.

You can measure differences in 50 foot of cable vs 20 foot of cable with an O-Scope. Doesn't mean you could snag a $100 bill out of my hand by listening for it. But we've been down this path already haven't we?

I can't help but think you are attempting to draw a parallel to where ground gets referenced from in a house. I'm not arguing that you can measure this stuff with an O-Scope. And I understood where the other poster was coming from. But it's a point of voodoo to trot out a scope. Again you can scope the difference in 50 vs 20 ft of cable for pete's sake.

No. I plainly stated that I was drawing a parallel between noise dilution by using multiple parallel AC circuits from a home's breaker box and noise dilution using multiple parallel AC circuits from an audio amplifier using biwiring.

Why is using a standard electrical measurement tool voodoo? Do you insist that noise measurements have no relevancy to audio? Are you insisting that signal-to-noise ratio is a meaningless performance parameter?

First you said that there is no electrical difference between putting the jumper either at the amp or at the speaker. I offered that there will be a measurable difference in circuit loop noise levels depending on where the jumper is located. Now you are saying that the scope will show a difference between different lengths of cable.

So, are you still insisting that the location of the jumper is irrelevant and that the noise, impedance and other performance parameters of the circuit will remain the same regardless of where the jumper is located?

Using a measurement tool isn't voodoo what so ever. Using a scope and saying you can measure the difference between 12 foot of cable and in the context of the thread attempt to tie it into a necklace and hang about the neck of audibility is quite another.

What are you talking about and where did that question come from? You must be thinking of something another poster said.

I never said there wasn't an electrical difference. I maintain two points: Topology has stayed the same and two you aren't going to hear the difference. I base the second part on the fact I have as of yet, to date, see anyone prove this in a rigorous SBT or otherwise accepted discriminative testing methodology. As a point of fact I even posted a quick piece of math showing that there WOULD be a change in electrical characteristics. But others want to play picking fly crap out of pepper.

I would love to see you at the Parts Express GTG July 14th for your demonstration of picking out a speaker with a bi-wire arrangement and single wire arrangement. It would be a hoot.

I agree with that, to the extent that the hearing process is comprised of (hopefully) a sound source that generates soundwaves and a soundfield, which then impinge upon the pinna. That is the physical portion. Then comes the brain processing which is the psychological portion. If a member of an audio forum or the writers of an audio magazine state that the scientific reasons X,Y & Z is why they "hear" something, due to the psychological component of hearing (which includes the imagination, delusion, etc.), inside their brain, then we are in full agreement. No proof is needed. They heard a ghost because they have a 3 Axis AC Gaussmeter, they heard apparitions in their stereo because they inserted a fuse of 100% copper purity, etc, etc...i.e. knowledge of the "scientific reason" causes the heard effect. Now if that same audio forum member or the writers of an audio magazine is insistent that the cause of them "hearing" something is a physical manifestation in the soundwaves within the soundfield, then absolutely yes, proof can and must be demanded, or else their claim can be summarily dismissed as purely speculation at best, mere delusion at worst.
This is true from both a physical and psychological standpoint. If the "sound" is physically real, not all will hear it...and obviously if it resides purely in the imagination, ditto.
Different hearing and imaginative capabilities across the human populace, for sure. Not everyone can divine water (dowse) either, agreed?
And as a scientist, we also agree there are scientific methods to determine whether a person can (physically) hear what they purport, yes?
Irrelevant analogies are logical fallacies meant only to redirect.
Paradoxical, because logic is also taught at the EE level, so the strawman argument should be obvious.
Otala already? Wow, you waste no time. I thought that was reserved for audiophile moments of true desperation. Ok, pray tell, what would that have to do with buywiring...and audibility. Wait, let me guess, it means you don't actually have to perform a buywiring audibility test. You say see, by inference to Otala, I have proven that it is audible, thus no test is required. Brilliant! Circular logic at it's finest.
Like audiophiles never grew out of hearing monsters under their beds and Santa Cause on the roof, I'm sure that they can hear buywiring too. For scientific reasons, as inferred. Except in a controlled (physical) listening test of course....which will never happen .

cheers,

AJ
Edited by AJinFLA - 7/1/12 at 7:26pm

I wired my Quad 11L2 in Bi-Wire configuration. I heard it makes everything sound better, more detail, bass, etc. To be honest, I don't know if I can tell a difference, but I already have the wire and plugs... so I'm not really going to go back to single wiring.... I'm using Canare 4S11 wire, so no real price impact to go bi-wire for me.

Can you read? What I actually said was:

Therefore, what I and others have said is that the effects of biwiring may or may not be audible. You might be much happier if you weren't so addicted to thinking in absolute terms.

For reference, here is a link to a biwiring experiment I did back in 2003 where I didn't like the results:

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?9914-My-SDA-Bi-Wire-Bi-Amp-Adventure&s=e5f4281714cddf15bfcc332cf0b87f37

Here is a link to a horizontal biamping experiment that I did back in 2003. I had mixed results.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?10191-My-SDA-SRS-1.2TL-Bi-Amp-Adventure-(Long)

However, just because my experimental results weren't entirely favorable, I don't assume that everyone else's will be similarly unfavorable...favorable...or inaudible.

Question:
Answer:
Guess you forgot about these comments:

Perhaps I am not clear on what you meant by "electrically the SAME EXACT CIRCUIT". Could you clarify? I don't want to seem as if I am nitpicking or picking fly crap out of pepper.


So why would you say they are "electrically the SAME EXACT CIRCUIT" and then post a quick piece of math showing that there WOULD be a change in electrical characteristics. I seem to have overlooked that quick piece of math. Could you point me to the specific post? If you are going to flip-flop like this you should probably be in politics.

Why is it so important to you that someone else "prove" they can hear the effects of biwiring? Why can't you just do your own experiment and post your results?

I'm flattered that you miss me. I don't often visit other audio forums, but you can always visit me at Club Polk. Also, if you are ever in my area, you have a standing invitation to bring some of your cables over and we can do some blind tests.

XOXOXO

Do you understand that stereo is a psycho-acoustic phenomenon? In other words, it occurs entirely in the mind of the listener.

Do you have a properly setup stereo system?

Have you ever heard (and felt) sound coming from the space between two stereo speakers?

Can you prove that the phantom image you heard between the speakers is "real"?

Agreed. Just make sure you use a method appropriate to what you are testing, yes?

Hmmmmm....I am not clear on why referencing the Petri-Larmi et al paper would be a sign of desperation. What are you assuming I am desperate about?

Well, I don't know why you would think I would say there is no need to experiment with biwiring since I posted a link to one of my biwiring experiments in a previous post.

For an EE (especially a professor of) when you change any aspect (like increasing the total gauge of wire) according to the physical world you have altered something but the circuit has stayed the same.

When I go from 12VDC + to power supply to powered device to 12VDC - and the only thing I have changed is the thread count (and gauge) it is the SAME EXACT CIRCUIT. This is taking into account some common precepts that the correct gauge is being used initially for the application. You could measure voltage drop but the question is: Is it perceptible to the application at hand. If the application calls for 24 AWG at 328ft and you switch to 22 or even 20 AWG you haven't netted yourself anything. SAME EXACT CIRCUIT. Topology hasn't changed. Maybe I should say 'path'. Keep trying to nitpick it apart however. If you want to really split hairs I will agree that while the circuit path has remained the SAME the electrical PROPERTIES have changed if I use 18AWG vs 8AWG

You will need to explain how the circuit layout has changed..

I'm not the one making claims. I simply casting a doubt. A doubt that I have cast before on other such voodoo like 'Cable burn in' just to see everyone clear the room when I put a measly $100 down on the table (and for charity ta boot). Excuses flew almost as quick as the proponents.

Yes. Due to soundwaves from 2 sources and our binaural system.
Do you understand that people hear ghosts? Is that due to sound waves?
Do you understand people hear the wonders of analog when they are actually listening to digital? That people "hear" different wires when in reality they were only told so, but nothing was switched.
Do you understand that concept Raife? That believing is hearing....and why there is such a thing a controlled testing?
Bingo. Now we're getting somewhere. What is the proposed method for hearing buywiring Raife? What does the EE suggest as an appropriate method? Referencing Otala?
Relevant proof. For the audibility of audiophile belief X. Like buywiring.
First, I didn't say that. If a person can "hear" buywiring, cable lifters, fuses, green pens, teleportation tweaks, whatever...and it increases their subjective enjoyment, by all means, do so. Enjoy. What is to argue there?
The only possibility of conflict, is if they attempt to attach objective reasoning for these psychogenic effects. Then proof becomes a requirement.
And calling tinkering or mucking about an "experiment"...well .
You posted a link to some fooling around. Not sure if it even qualifies as an ad hoc experiment, but if you want me to be kind, I'll grant you that much.
As an EE, you ought to know what a real experiment for cabling (or a number of audiophile beliefs) would consist of. Do you?

cheers,

AJ

Love that part. Raife, why did the EE put 4 "Tiptoes" under each power amp?
Links to any Otala or other papers as to "proof" why this may be relevant...and be heard by someone, somewhere?

We are not discussing ghosts. We are discussing biwiring. Please stay on topic.

Are you insisting, or suggesting, that such examples represent all people who claim to hear differences?

What is your problem with Otala? Has he done you some harm?

Why do you keep refering to biwiring as "buywiring"? We are not discussing buying wire we are discussing using two cable sets. Please stay on topic.

Since you do not believe that I am capable of implementing a valid experimental procedure, I am not sure why you would be interested in my thoughts on listening tests.

We are discussing hearing, which includes, as you noted, both the psycho and acoustic processes, of which apparitions, buywiring, stereo, etc are all included. To preclude all possibilities is not science.
Nope.
Are you precluding the imagination, sensory perceptual error, etc. as possibilities for some people in a buywiring investigation or discussion?
Nope, supposedly a nice guy. In audiophile context, its an alarm bell, a precursor for large amounts of BS to follow. I've been in the game for a while. Seen it often.
Wires aren't free or grow on trees round here.
I didn't state any such belief. You linked to some fooling around you did on 2003. Do you consider this a valid psycho-acoustic "experimental procedure" as an EE? Please explain.
They are very relevant to your case for audibility, wouldn't you say? The 2003 link thing doesn't bode well for what would comprise a "listening test" for you.
I see. So there is a physical acoustic change in the soundfield wrought by tiptoes under you amps, not just purely a psychological one...and this can be found in esoteric inferences to IEEE literature, but never, ever, ever any actual controlled listening tests of tiptoes/vibe control widgets under amplifiers, or preamps, or. etc...of course. Do I have that correct? Or should I stand by for the Otala or turntable link?
Edited by AJinFLA - 7/1/12 at 9:29pm

I notice that you left out the key word "electrically". Furthermore, we are not discussing changing power supplies. The subject of discussion is moving the jumper point from the speaker to the amp, in which you said moving the jumper to the amp resulted "electrically the SAME EXACT CIRCUIT". Now, you expect us to belive that you weren't talking about electrical equivalency. Now you want to say that you were talking about topolpogy.

Again, you left out that pesky word "electrically". The omission drastically changes the meaning of the phrase. This is not nitpicking. I have modified many speaker crossovers where I left the circuit in exactly the same arrangement (circuit topology). However, using better quality parts resulted in different electrical performance.

Why are you bouncing around from voltage sources, to topology to wire gauge? I never mentioned any of those things.

You can try to spin this however you want. The fact remains that your responses to ArthurPE clearly indicate that you did not understand how moving the jumper point to the amp resulted in different electrical performance.

Ummmmmm....nice try....but no, I do not need to explain how the circuit layout has changed since I explicitly said the electrical properties changed when he jumper point was moved. I never engaged in a discussion of circuit topology because it is irrelevant to the subject of the thread. I never made the point that moving a connection point further back in a circuit changes circuit topology. My point was that moving a connection point from a high impedance load (loudspeaker) to a low impedance source (amplifier output) changes electrical properties.

Let me ask you, were you talking about circuit topology or circuit electrical properties when you said this?:

The phrase "both cables carry the same signal" is a problem. You need to explain how two cables can have the same signal if they are connected to circuits with different impedances.

Nothing wrong with being skeptical.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it was you who was cleared from the room. Don't you remember?

I offered to take you "cable challenge" here, with some modifications for better accuracy. You may have forgotten, so here is a link to my offer (posts 64 and 67):

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?111056-Further-Thoughts-On-ABX-Testing-Of-Stereophonic-Audio-Systems&p=1486590&viewfull=1#post1486590

You did not respond until three weeks later with this:

No. I realize that imagination, placebo effect and personal bias can lead to experimental error. That is why I advocate a listening methodology based on training in stereophonic perception.

I see. Thanks for the clarification.


Really? I wasn't aware that they were free or grew on trees anywhere.


Well, I am an EE and it worked for me. It is not a point of contention to me if a stranger on the Internet does not accept it. It was a posting on an audio forum. Take it or leave it.

My listening evaluation methods are discussed in detail here:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2010.00306.x/abstract

I don't know that there are any specific references to Tiptoes in the scientific literature. There are references to mechanical isolation for electronic devices.

As I mentioned previously, if someone mentions that they received a particular benefit from an audio device and it appeals to me. I will try it for myself. Sometimes things work and sometimes they do not. If they don't work I simply return the merchandise to the dealer or resell the merchandise if I bought it on the used market. It's part of my learning experience as an audiophile.

The Tiptoes worked under the Adcom GFA-5802. The Tiptoes, as well as other acoustic damping devices I have tried, made no audible or measureable difference under my Parasound Halo JC 1 monoblocks. However, the JC 1's are built to much higher construction standards.

I don't have any further links for you at this time. Good luck with your studies.

I have the paper before me. It seems to describe a single-blind listening test. To the best of my knowledge, there is no confirming or supporting test that was done using proper double blind conditions.

There are any number of more recent papers supporting the idea that the actual threshold of audibility for nonlinear distortion is at least 100 times more the the lowest levels claimed in this singular and obviously flawed paper.

One of the odder parts of the paper is its reliance on LPs as program material. Given the audible and technically egregious levels of nonlinear distortion and noise that are inherent in the recording and playback of LPs, it is hard to comprehend how the detection of such exceptionally low levels of distortion could be accomplished using them.

Since people around here seem to want to invoke ghosts, I will invoke the ghost of "Clever Hans, The Talking Horse." ;-)

This is a obscure reference to the ideas of RAIFE F. SMITH II, which are available in a more accessible form:

http://www.affordableaudio.org/aa2010-09.pdf

His rather odd beliefs are described therein:

"The application of blind and double-blind tests is thought by a small, but vocal, minority in the audio community to be
the supreme evaluation standard for detecting audible differences in audio systems. It is true that some types of audio
systems are well suited for blind and double-blind A/B or A/B/X type tests. A/B and A/B/X tests are useful in scenarios
when the two audio signals being compared are simple in nature. For example, telephone company engineers have
routinely used, and continue to use, A/B and A/B/X tests to evaluate improvements in voice circuit quality. [1] [2] [3] [4]
However, we must realize and understand that a test that is suitable for one type of audio system might not be suitable
for another. It is worth noting that the same company (the Bell Telephone System) that was responsible for the invention
and implementation of telephone service was the same company that was responsible for the invention and implementation
of home stereophonic audio systems. [5] [6] [7] It is even more interesting to note that while A/B and A/B/X tests
were found to be appropriate for evaluating voice quality improvements on bandwidth-limited telephone circuits, subjective,
non-blind listening tests based on careful listening, evaluator training and realistic home listening
conditions were the scientific standards for the evaluation of stereophonic audio systems.

It should not be too difficult to understand that a testing methodology that is appropriate for evaluating simple
bandlimited monophonic signals would most probably not be appropriate for evaluating complex stereophonic signals that
cover the full range of human hearing and which are designed to convey aural, spatial and tactile information.
Telephone systems are audio systems, but they are audio systems which are primarily designed to convey clear voice
communication. Stereophonic systems are audio systems, but they are audio systems which are designed to convey a
weighty, complex, realistic illusion of a three-dimensional music concert performance."

The above is completely false in both its spirit and the details. The Bell system had absolutely nothing to do with the development of ABX. ABX was not developed for the purpose of "...evaluating simple bandlimited monophonic signals". All but one of the papers cited as support for the above paragaphs predate the JAES article that is generally considered to be the paper that introduced ABC by a decade or more. The paper later on cites that paper, so the author cannot claim ignorance.

What truth can come out of so many false claims?
Edited by arnyk - 7/2/12 at 8:41am

But we are talking about audible performance here. The electrical performance would change if you moved to 8AWG instead of 14AWG. Again what point are you trying to make with this red herring?

So are minute electrical properties by virtue of changing the point of the jumper and the by doing so the gauge of cable in the chain.

Really? You can't figure it out? I was speaking to the fact that at some point the circuit splits. In the case of my Statements they split at the terminal cup and have ~2.5 feet of separation.

I was? I don't remember being locked out of that thread. I remember making a bunch of people look like buffoons. To the point that Bob Lee at QSC audio likened me to Copernicus walking through an astrologers convention.

No you offered to totally change the cable challenge. It isn't what I was offering therefore declined. Again, I made my point quite succinctly. A point that still gets traction to this day of showing that when people faith based beliefs are challenged in a way that takes away any possible argument they could bring up about the 'duress' of testing that they quickly wilt.

Yep and your post was 10 weeks after my initial offer. Two and a half months was more than ample time. Heck four weeks was more than ample time.

You and I are talking about audible performance, but I'm unsure that our correspondent is talking about anything but measurable performance.

Excellent. Then we are on the same page Raife. Cognizance of these facts is essential when dealing with these subjects, rejection of them would be symptomatic of Audiophile disorder or similar afflictions.
Which of course accounts for the above factors. Great, I'll look into your newly proposed methods. Obviously new, since they were no where to be found in that 2003 link. Have you been consulting with psycho-acousticians being that you are an EE?
Hmmm, then why are you asking why I call it buywiring? That seems paradoxical.
Of course it did! Being an EE or MD or whatever, doesn't exempt one whatsoever. "It" being the very same imagination, placebo effect and personal bias you acknowledge, which is why I pondered why you would call it an "experiment" earlier. I mistakenly thought you meant an audibility experiment, but I'm clear now you wanted to show how easy it is demonstrate imagination, placebo effect and personal bias leading to experimental error. Bravo, you did well. Very amusing commentary too as to how the imagination can run wild during these causal listening/viewing/knowing events.
Contention? I'm a bit confused here Raife. I thought we both agree and accept that you were posting an example of imagination, placebo effect and personal bias can lead to experimental error? Take or leave what??
I'll take a look, but what a bizarre place to put it. Why do you cite IEEE literature for Otala, TIM, isolation effects etc, the use some sort of cooking site for your work? Does it make the IEEE type papers, like Otala, suspect? Was Otalas TIM listening methods valid and consistent with your methods? If not, why are you citing them...or any IEEE "audio system" related papers?
But that doesn't stop you from implying that Tiptoes "audibility" are anything but an example of imagination, placebo effect and personal bias can lead to experimental error? Hmmm, there is another EE here who you remind me of greatly.
Absolutely! That is the exact nature of imagination, placebo effect products. Sometimes they work on some, other times not. I suspect susceptibility and imaginative capabilities are key factors with these effects. That and a lack of common sense. Unlike real audibility (physical) artifacts, these are far more illusory.
I see. Do you think these imagination, placebo effect and personal bias artifacts you "heard" with the Adcom are tied to the price? Or strictly the "construction standards", whatever than means?
Thanks. They are always ongoing.

cheers,

AJ