or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Seeking education about those ultra-expensive interconnects
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Seeking education about those ultra-expensive interconnects - Page 8

post #211 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post
So, once again, show me your examination of the validity of the matrix test. We note that you too (along with Oxy) 'forgot' to answer.

You have accused amir many times of shilling for his store, how many amps do YOU think amir will sell here?? If the answer (correctly) is none, then what of your claim?
You are following amirm's (dance) steps. Deflect, redirect... 1, 2... Don't forget steps 3 and 4.

Quote:
I don't have a bias for AMIR,
Yes you do. -> "First off, how about you show me where, exactly, he dances around when asked for evidence"
Bias operated in subconscious level. It's not something you can be aware of consciously no matter how many times you say it.
Quote:
I asked YOU to give me examples of amir avoiding the question, can you do so please?
I already told you where to look. It seems that you haven't been reading the threads he and I were involved in or you are unable to understand what someone posts. Both are required to carry on a meaningful debate but you've got neither, in which case there is nothing more I can do to help you. You are on your own.
post #212 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gizmologist View Post

The really funny thing about the back and forth and the audiophile concepts of sonic purity and all the other verbal picture painting is that the front end of the system that RECORDS all the material you listen to is such a massive lop-de-loop of gain, volume, frequency shelving, delays, autotune, choral effects, cheap direct boxes, miles of off the shelf cabling, patch panels, A/D converters, effects, etc and somehow all that gets completely forgotten in amplifier debates.

While that is true in many cases, it is not in all. First, there are a ton of audiophile recordings that are not digital and not cooked as you say.

Second, some recording engineers do cater to similar things we are discussing here:

http://www.mitcables.com/reference-l...timonials.html

" ...Bruce Brisson and MIT cable technology. Bruce worked with our engineers to arrive at a line and speaker level wire system that allowed us to minimize phase errors through the system. The resulting clarity has been a pleasure to all that use that room."

Tim McGovern
Director of Engineering , Skywalker Sound"

http://www.avguide.com/blog/the-best...rhaps-anywhere

"when I visited one of the studios of Paul Stubblebine Mastering and Michael Romanowski Mastering and was treated to perhaps the best system I've heard anywhere.



From there the signal went into ultra-modified Meyer parametric filter sets to the prodigious VTL Siegfried Reference Monoblocks, connected by Siltech Emperor Crown speaker cables to the majestic Focal Grande Utopia EM loudspeakers. MIT interconnects and power centers were also used quite effectively."

http://www.transparentcable.com/news...teway_news.pdf

"Gateway Mastering Studio Upgrades Include Transparent

In June 2003, Gateway Mastering and DVD completed
a major renovation of Bob Ludwig's mastering
studio. This state of the art facility opened in 1993.
The centerpiece of the upgrades is a custom
designed analog 8-channel mastering console and
insert switcher from SPL. To handle new high resolution
digital formats like DVD-A and SACD,
Gateway Mastering also added a brand new digital
routing and storage system. The new components
required thousands of feet of additional cable.

When we built the studio in 1993, we used the
best cables from Transparent, but over the years
they have made some significant improvements. In
2000, I got their new OPUS MM cables and was
completely blown away! Since that day, I've wanted
to upgrade the rest of my cables to Transparent MM
Technology, said Bob Ludwig about the renovation
plans."

http://www.mitcables.com/excellence/michaelbishop.html

"Profile of Excellence: Michael Bishop, Five/Four Productions

Michael Bishop is a Recording Engineer and Producer for Five/Four Productions, the former Chief Recording Engineer for Telarc Records, a multiple Grammy Award winner, and long time MIT Cables user. Over the past 30 plus years, Michael has worked with some of the world's finest recording artists including Dizzy Gillespie, Ray Charles, Bonnie Raitt, Liza Minelli, Rosemary Clooney, Carlos Santana, Dave Brubeck, Diana Krall, and scores of others.

Michael has been interfacing with MIT Cables products for many years. Speaking of one of his recent projects during which he utilized seven pairs of Oracle MA-X Rev.2 Interconnects, Michael wrote:

Dear MIT Cables,

I had the chance to use the new Oracle MA-X Rev. 2 Interconnects in-session at my latest sessions with jazz pianist Hiromi, bassist Anthony Jackson, and drummer Simon Phillips. The session took place at Water Music Recorders in Hoboken, NJ. The release is titled, "Voice" and will be on Telarc with a June 2011 US release. I believe the CD will be released February 2011 in Japan.

I employed the Oracle Interconnects at every critical signal junction, but particularly between microphones and preamplifiers. I also employed the Oracle Interconnects in the subsequent mix session for the same project, this time at the new Clonick Hall Studio of Oberlin Conservatory of Music.

The Oracle interconnects made a significant contribution to the outstanding audio results we achieved on these sessions - once again!!!"

"Professor" Johnson won the well deserved Grammy award this year for his wonderful recordings. He is the designer behind Spectral high-end audio equipment:



I know Keith personally. I am telling, he knows analog like there is no tomorrow.

And last but not least, our very own Bruce Brown who does a ton of work for companies offering high-resolution digital downloads from digitizing tapes to SACDs:http://pugetsoundstudios.com/

[The text is an image so I have to post the whole thing]


http://mixonline.com/recording/maste...ering_studios/

"The house is on Cougar Mountain, just outside of Seattle, and Brown says his is the only studio in Washington state that can record, edit and master multichannel DSD/DXD material. The post room features a Pro Tools HD4 Accel system and the first Neve Masterpiece II from Legendary Audio.

Cobaltt Mastering owner/chief engineer Bruce MaddocksPhoto: David Goggin
The mastering room centers around a Pyramix DSD workstation with EMM Labs converters; monitoring is via Wilson Audio WATT/Puppy speakers. This has been a dream of mine bringing the Pacific Northwest a mastering room it can be proud of.

This is why I say if you want to provide proof of inaudibility between equipment, it better be true for all people, all equipment and all content. 'cause otherwise, your claim doesn't apply to all people, all equipment and all content .

We are not talking about what mass market hears who might predominantly buy the content produced as you say. We are talking about people who really love music, and spend more time researching well recorded music than the gear. They buy records that go for $400. Tapes that go for even more.

What you say, does apply to average Joe. For them, none of this matters. They should shop based on features and be done with it. But that is not the group we are talking about here. The group who buys an audiophile grade am is likely very anal about where his music came from.

The analogy here is you saying that you always drive in traffic so I should not get a quiet highway car even though that is the road to my workplace.

Quote:


In addition, even if someone designed an amp that was as purely transparent as physics will allow and the gain is as linear as possible, once the speaker is connected to the amp all bets are off.

Let's hope the amp designer did measure the amp with a real speaker or two.

Quote:


he room acoustics as well as all the environmental variables for a given listening location are also just as important.

Very true. Ironically in this conversation that area gets far more attention from audiphiles than not. My partner in crime in the other forum spent $30K on acoustics of his (large) room. One of the most talked about topics on WBF is acoustics. We have almost every acoustic expert in US either posting frequently or some of the time. Art Noxon and Todd Welti have permanent forums dedicated to them.

It is the casual music listener who forgets such things. Not the people who are intensely in the hobby.

Quote:


At the most, all that can be achieved is an AVERAGE of performance at a given point in time and that will change with the listening environment.

I think that is a too pessimistic view. We can do better with a better system. No, it will not fee like we are in a live venue. But we can do better than not.
post #213 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

While that is true in many cases, it is not in all. First, there are a ton of audiophile recordings that are not digital and not cooked as you say.

Second, some recording engineers do cater to similar things we are discussing here:

http://www.mitcables.com/reference-l...timonials.html

" ...Bruce Brisson and MIT cable technology. Bruce worked with our engineers to arrive at a line and speaker level wire system that allowed us to minimize phase errors through the system. The resulting clarity has been a pleasure to all that use that room."

Tim McGovern
Director of Engineering , Skywalker Sound"

http://www.avguide.com/blog/the-best...rhaps-anywhere

"when I visited one of the studios of Paul Stubblebine Mastering and Michael Romanowski Mastering and was treated to perhaps the best system I’ve heard anywhere.

And as usual not one stich of technical data to prove the subjective claims being made. the only difference is they managed to pay some studio engineer to say it. The MIT test results are not comparative to generic cables so what's to say the characteristics are in fact unique?

If these MIT cables do what that say they do, let's see some certified lab test results.
Quote:


On the Tmax Digital Coaxial Interconnect Cable:
"This is the best digital interconnect on the market... I was not only able to hear a difference in sound, I was able to measure it on my SPL meter."

'jckrhodes'
Lincoln, NE

Yeah, explain this one? Even the old jitter argument will not hold up here!

And there is another explination as to why these studios and the technical staff who know better will still publicly back up the cable companies.

In the mid 1990s Crest Digital in Hollywood opened up an SCAD mastering room along with a reference listening room. They used all the "best" cables and power conditioning products one could ever find. Now I knew the CE for many years and he was quite competent. I had to ask why someone with his technical background would buy into this hype. His answer was quite realistic. "The clients that will use the facilities all believe in this stuff. If we don't have it, then we are perceived as not good enough to master SCAD" So here we have a competent engineer being driven by sales marketing departments. A very common tale as you should well know.
post #214 of 2598
MIT Cables? uh oh. true train wreck time ahead.
post #215 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post

And as usual not one stich of technical data to prove the subjective claims being made.

There was no subjective claims being made [by me]. I post that in response to saying upstream production uses non-audiophile equipment so we should too.

Quote:


the only difference is they managed to pay some studio engineer to say it.

Yeh, yeh, yeh. When the logic runs out, the conspiracy theories start. You could be right of course. But you better be *damn* sure before you soil someone's reputation that way.

Quote:


Yeah, explain this one? Even the old jitter argument will not hold up here!

Explain what? How much reading comprehension problems are there in this thread? I have said in no uncertain terms that my personal measurements of cables shows NO difference. Now you challenge me to show otherwise? I don't use or advocate MIT cables.

What I am telling you is that factually, it is not all "pro gear" that is used in product as the popular card being played against audiophiles says.

Quote:


In the mid 1990s Crest Digital in Hollywood opened up an SCAD mastering room along with a reference listening room. They used all the "best" cables and power conditioning products one could ever find. Now I knew the CE for many years and he was quite competent. I had to ask why someone with his technical background would buy into this hype. His answer was quite realistic. "The clients that will use the facilities all believe in this stuff. If we don't have it, then we are perceived as not good enough to master SCAD" So here we have a competent engineer being driven by sales marketing departments. A very common tale as you should well know.

I do and it is a very fair thing. But nothing to do with what I just showed. Those people didn't say they put the cables there for looks.
post #216 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Explain what? How much reading comprehension problems are there in this thread? I have said in no uncertain terms that my personal measurements of cables shows NO difference. Now you challenge me to show otherwise? I don't use or advocate MIT cables.

Perhaps I was not specific enough, I did not specifically challenge you. I am challenging the pro cables group, who ever that may be here.

Quote:


Those people didn't say they put the cables there for looks.

And neither did my example - at least to customers and reviewers. But to his engineering piers, he spoke a far more truthful tale about these products.
post #217 of 2598
Geez Louise, Amir. MIT? Transparent? Let's throw in Shunyata too! I've tried contacting these companies for additional info and got nothing as a reply. There was a guy who used to post here, Speco2007 or something like that. He works in the industry and has said these are basically spifs and it happens all the time. Trotting out these testimonials proves nothing other than we all have a price. Herbie Hancock likes Bose. Derek Jeter has the edge. The Kardshians and Paris will pimp anything for the money. Budweiser ia the official beer for a number of sports. I'm verklempt!
post #218 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Geez Louise, Amir. MIT? Transparent? Let's throw in Shunyata too! I've tried contacting these companies for additional info and got nothing as a reply. There was a guy who used to post here, Speco2007 or something like that. He works in the industry and has said these are basically spifs and it happens all the time. Trotting out these testimonials proves nothing other than we all have a price. Herbie Hancock likes Bose. Derek Jeter has the edge. The Kardshians and Paris will pimp anything for the money. Budweiser ia the official beer for a number of sports. I'm verklempt!

Once more... that was not the point.

Nothing I provided was meant to prove cables improve sound. It was to get rid of the claim that since upstream products use something different than audiophile products, downstream ones can't have any value. On that point, to the extent anything comes out of those outfits, that claim holds no water.

Do you agree with the above logic? If so, we are done.
post #219 of 2598
Upsream, downstream...we fishing?
post #220 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

(((Originally Posted by terry j View Post
So, once again, show me your examination of the validity of the matrix test. We note that you too (along with Oxy) 'forgot' to answer

You have accused amir many times of shilling for his store, how many amps do YOU think amir will sell here?? If the answer (correctly) is none, then what of your claim?.)))


You are following amirm's (dance) steps. Deflect, redirect... 1, 2... Don't forget steps 3 and 4.

(you are in bold)

I am deflecting am I? Which question did you ask me that I refused to answer?

None. If I did, sorry, ask again and I will do so.

Which questions I asked you did YOU answer?

Again none. Who is dancing??

How many amps will amir sell to this audience? If none, then what of your claim that he posts here to raise sales. Please don't dance, please don't deflect,please don't brush it off with such a razor wit retort as this last one. Don't think I can recover as quickly again.

Quote:


(((I don't have a bias for AMIR, ))))
Yes you do. -> "First off, how about you show me where, exactly, he dances around when asked for evidence"
Bias operated in subconscious level. It's not something you can be aware of consciously no matter how many times you say it.

What IS it with you guys? Everyone note exactly WHICH selected part of my post he chooses to respond to. And see how by that hehhmm (clearing throat) 'scientific and honest' method the meaning of my post is changed.

Before I answer, I will restore my meaning. Only fair no? I don't have a bias for amir nor his audio position. I DID make the point I was only referring to the way he has conducted himself. An example I used was that he answers questions posed to him time and time again.

Contrast to poor old mania's continual refusal to answer questions to him (deflecting as he goes, sigh, another hypocrite for science. Some sort of religious order?? The Sacred Hypocrites for Science??)

Quote:


I already told you where to look. It seems that you haven't been reading the threads he and I were involved in or you are unable to understand what someone posts. Both are required to carry on a meaningful debate but you've got neither, in which case there is nothing more I can do to help you. You are on your own.

No worries, I'll look ONLY in THIS thread then. That fair enough?

We have already seen that you did not answer the questions, agreed?

We have already seen Oxy completely avoided my questions to him, indeed ever since he has studiously avoided even mentioning me. What a coward.

You would agree with this from Oxy would you not mania?? (post 210)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post


(((Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I have none.)))

Finally. Whew, took a while.
That's right Amir, you have no blind tests, not HDMI, not SPDIF nor amplifiers. None. The hand has been empty all along, but now we can see the bluff cards.


AJ

This is right up your alley eh mania? Is THIS the scientific debate you crave?

Looks for all the world don't it that the caped crusader of honesty Oxy has FINALLY, thru his magnificence and persistence, gotten Amir to admit that anir did not run any blind tests of his own on amps. Could we (possibly) also conclude that amir, in the midst of the laser precise and bulldog like tenacity of the caped crusader for truth have been dancing and deflecting?

For sure, after all that IS what you conclude, and conversely, I am completely unable to see due to my inherent and unconscious bias for Amir.

So let's examine this marvellous piece of cross examination shall we. Let's see the dancing and deflecting from amir IN THIS THREAD on the question of whether he has conducted blind tests on amplifiers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I have not blind tested amplifiers.


Note! A DIRECT answer to Oxy himself back in the thread


Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

AJ, once more, you are having serious comprehension problems or are your usual self, using empty words hoping to get ahead. So you don't play that ball game again, here it is for you in black and white:

Originally Posted by amirm View Post
I have not blind tested amplifiers.



What part of that is hard for you to understand? I then said I have independent data of blind tests. If I had run them, I would have said it that way and not said the above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

* I said I had done many blind tests and since you don't accept them, I won't accept yours. I did NOT tell you I had run blind amplifier tests. Indeed, I have said that I have not.
* I said that I have shared *independent* blind testing of amps with you before. You said later that never happened. I quoted it here and the fact that not only had you seen it, but replied to it.


Per above, I never said the test was done by me.

When asked by arny (IIRC) if he had DBT data on amplifiers of his own

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I have none. This is not a race to see who has more tests. You made a claim that most if not all pro amps are like wires. So far, you have produced zero data -- yours or someone else's -- that pro amps act like wire. I have shown independently run blind test data using a clever scheme to find out if an amp is like a wire.

Well there you go. That is what you call dancing around? That is what you call an fearless investigation into the truth by your objective super hero? Or is that the objective detective super hero.

Huh, if so then it must be one of those 'mysteries' on TV where at the end the guy says, 'wow, it was under my nose the whole time but didn't see it'.

Or, to find the simplest answer, it was just another example of Oxy lying and cheating as is his usual method of debate.

Have you managed to rustle up your workings on the matrix test for me yet? You are rejecting other purported blind tests because they *seemed* to find evidence of amplifier aiudibilty, I'd like to see the comparative investigations YOU have made into the validity of these two conflicting findings. To find out WHY you choose one set of findings over the other.
post #221 of 2598
Glimmie's example of the recording engineer's claim as to why they purchased cables for the studio other than the norm was simply his individual understanding of the situation at that time. The studio's clients obviously sought higher performance cables for what was to be the highest resolution format for music, and it only makes sense the studio would follow suit. Their clients (those creating the content) felt it was important to the end results.

In 1995 the value added of high performance cables in recording was in it's infancy. One question would be what this same engineer, now with 15+ years of experience in using such cables, thinks of this today. This as opposed to the opinion of those who have zero experience in how they may or may not affect the end product or results.

Chu you'll get nothing as a reply and like it. If I worked for a world famous studio I would not reply to some geek from an online forum either.
post #222 of 2598
I'm growing a beard here waiting to see a single scientific, conclusive proof that expensive interconnects can make audible differences...
post #223 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

What IS it with you guys?

If you notice your questions being ignored, the reason is because they (us guys) realized that you just don't get it. I can go on and explain line by line but I already see that it will be a waste of my time. If you don't like some people's post, just use "ignore" function.
post #224 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

You wrote it Terry, not I.

It is a fabrication of your mind.

Seems a little paranoid to me, but maybe that is just me. ;-)

Firstly, I want to thank you for responding. I note that YOU always respond even when we disagree. I DO appreciate it.

Yes, hose words you quoted WERE my words. It was my summary, my paraphrase, what I took your statement to mean.

If you prefer, I will restore your written words exactly.

You wrote in response to glimmies BOLDED words All I am trying to do here is to try and provide a scientific explination to what some people claim to hear. I personally have not had SPDIF problems either. (ie glimmie bolded them, not me) the following

Providing scientific explanation for what they claim to hear is almost like co-dependent behavior.Claiming to hear non-existent things is a pathology, and providing the scientific explanation helps them justify their pathological behavior. .

I hope you now agree I am not distorting your words.

As you did not like my paraphrase, would you like to clear your statement up or expand on it?

(ps, still trying to work out what you mean by it being my paranoia....it does not compute with my understanding of the word)

Quote:


Here's the real truth:

Show me something true and scientific, and I am compelled by a sense of honesty and honor to give it its due.

So, where is this thing that is true and scientific that I need to give honor to?

Thank you. This is not sarcasm, maybe we can agree that if the evidence points a certain way we need to embrace it?

Personally (as I have made clear) I can't point you in the correct direction. All I can re-state is that two links have been provided to what seems to be DBTs that have shown audible differences between amps.

I have made it clear that I for one have never understood how the swedish test was run. I have no problems saying i do not understand something.

That claim seems to have been rejected under sweeping comments like it was done wrongly. I personally am unable to critique that test, I do not understand it. Hence, I have many times asked people to explain these flaws, show how the test was wrong and therefore (presumably) why the conclusions do not apply.

No-one has yet done that. You must have seen me ask that question more than once?? have you??

The other was from harmon. that test has been brushed aside because it is marketing. I do not yet know whether those people think the test was even done. I do not know if those people think the test was done yet it was flawed in the same or different way than the swedish test. I do not know if those people feel the test was done, yet was null (it cannot be that it was a poorer sound, as that would still imply audibility). Because no matter how many times I have asked I have yet to receive an answer.

Strangely enough, it is ME that is dancing around, deflecting and avoiding questions.

Quote:


Is it trying to pass off yet another schematic of an amplifier simulator as a DBT of "dozens of amplifiers"?

Is that what you call truth and honor?

How?

I clicked on the quoted part in your answer, it led back to amir posting about the swedish test. If you are still unsure where I stand on that I will res-tate it for you. I am unable to comment on it, I do not understand it and never have since the first time I came across it. I therefore cannot say if it is an example of 'scientific data you need to accept'.

Are YOU able to help me get the answers I am after?? Can you tell me what flaws you see in the swedish test please? are they the same flaws others are claiming?

Can you give me your thoughts about whether harmon is lying in their claims of having done dbt's on their amps?
post #225 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Skubinski View Post

In 1995 the value added of high performance cables in recording was in it's infancy. One question would be what this same engineer, now with 15+ years of experience in using such cables, thinks of this today. This as opposed to the opinion of those who have zero experience in how they may or may not affect the end product or results.

Good news to all except for those who sell expensive cables, is that high performance cables are less than a dollar per foot these days.
post #226 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Here's what was actually said:



There seems to be a big gap between what was actually said and what you claimed was said, Terry. Care to explain this big difference?

missed this response first time around. Thanks.

arrgghh, what you quoted did not come up, so from memory about what you were responding to.

(You were referring to the swedish test.) So your main problem is that it was single blind not double blind?? Or was the quote more a clarification that someone claimed a single blind test was a double blind test, ie a falsification of what test it was.? In other words were you disputing the test itself or the claim that it was double blind when it was in fact single blind?

Where on the scale of acceptablility do you put a single blind test? Is it equally as worthless as a non controlled test, or is it better than that but not as good as a true dbt?

Let's say it was s single blind test, and found differences. What do you personally do with that? Do yu say 'useless, no valid data therefore ignore'? r do you say 'hmm, interesting, no definitive 'proof' but worthy of further investigation'?

I mean at the least, would it not be a useful way to weed out things? If no difference was found in the less rigorous (but way easier to perform) single blind then we also know no need to go onto the more valid (but harder to perform) double blind test. Yet, if a difference WAS heard then let's move onto the next test as it indicates maybe something to study?

Can you give me your take on that, are you able to give me the problems you have found with the swedish test??

Thanks arny.
post #227 of 2598
Canare L4E6S .38/ft in 1,000ft spools.

This cable is the most widely used portable cable in the entire audio industry- field AND studio. Mogami is #2 but just as good electrically. The only major difference is the outer jacketing. Canare's jacketing is extremely durable yet very flexible.

Acoustically, it provides excellent performance in the entire AUDIO spectrum. The AUDIO spectrum is what we are talking about.

As I have mentioned before, the cabling and connectors used in the studios and installed on the various audio components in the signal chain in the studios are off the shelf and are generally less than a couple bucks each.

I have installed, modified and repaired these units and there is NOTHING even remotely in the mega buck range as far as components in any of these devices.

Personally, I have retained enough of my sanity and common sense so as to NEVER even consider paying 400.00 for an LP. I doubt I would pay 400.00 to see the performer(s) in person with front row seats.

IMO, the more important concern is reproducing the MUSICAL performance as accurately as possible while maintaining practicality. You can rapidly reach the point of seriously diminishing returns while sacrificing the enjoyment that the MUSIC is supposed to provide in order to claim bragging rights for the most outrageous system components at excessive cost.

BTW, actual tech specs AND performance graphs are available on ALL the system components in any studio. The reputable manufacturers of AV gear have no issue providing said data to prospective buyers and existing customers.

McIntosh used to do this as well during the Mac clinics. The total performance of the component was accurately graphed for you and free of charge.
post #228 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Skubinski View Post

Glimmie's example of the recording engineer's claim as to why they purchased cables for the studio other than the norm was simply his individual understanding of the situation at that time. The studio's clients obviously sought higher performance cables for what was to be the highest resolution format for music, and it only makes sense the studio would follow suit. Their clients (those creating the content) felt it was important to the end results.

Got to keep the customer satisfied. "Will somebody please get Willie Nelson a fresh blunt?"

Quote:


In 1995 the value added of high performance cables in recording was in it's infancy. One question would be what this same engineer, now with 15+ years of experience in using such cables, thinks of this today. This as opposed to the opinion of those who have zero experience in how they may or may not affect the end product or results.

Monster was doing just fine. People move around a lot so he's probably looking for a new sugar daddy.

Quote:


Chu you'll get nothing as a reply and like it. If I worked for a world famous studio I would not reply to some geek from an online forum either.

I contacted the companies directly, Joe. If I were a world famous studio & I found out an employee was getting freebies in exchange for the supplier using that person's name and my company's their days would be numbered. Google up those names and compare the dates they left the company with the dates of the testimonial.
post #229 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

If you notice your questions being ignored, the reason is because they (us guys) realized that you just don't get it. I can go on and explain line by line but I already see that it will be a waste of my time.

For sure.

Or, I could use my reading skills, see what is written, and conclude for myself that (in your terms 'you guys') are unable to back up their claims.

Your claim. Amir only posts to get sales.

When pushed, you are unable to back up that claim. My conclusions, he only said it to deflect from the argument, to raise confusion and make trouble. You know, what Oxy always talks about, strawmen.

Your claim. the matrix test is definitive, the ones produced here are flawed or the results of the marketing department.

When pushed, you are unable to back up your claim. My conclusion. Intellectual dishonesty and tacit admission of the feebleness of your argument.

Your claim. I and amir dance around and avoid questions. As I have shown, amir answers them. I too answer them. you don't.

My conclusion, you are as much a hypocrite for truth as Oxy.

Oxy claims that it took a long time for amir to finally admit he has never done a dbt on amplifiers. i just now showed how false Oxy's claim was. I asked you your opinion on Oxy's false claim. you came back with this. The evidence was right in front of your eyes how false his claim was. My conclusion. You are as happy as oxy to introduce, and have introduced, false claims and lies to supprot your argument.

Go back and re-read my take o the debating tactics used by *us* to defend our 'scientific' opinions on audio.

You are a sham, and a shame. Along with others here.

The subjectivist will at least say 'I will not, and do not, accept the dbt as a valid investigation tool on audio.' He will then go on to deny the validity of any result coming from the use of dbt in audio.

You will think him a fool and a coward. I will think him a fool and a coward.

But he is at least being true to his colours.

YOU. How will YOU conduct yourself in a scientific debate? YOU will be a hypocrite. YOU will deny evidence that does not hold to your notions. YOU will throw out dbt's that come to a conclusion you do not like.

YOU are worse than the subjectivist. YOU come and de-value everything *we* stand for. YOU give more ammunition to the subjectivists, they can use YOU as an example of how the oh-so holy scientific types are as, if not more, hypocrtical than anyone.

YOU do more harm to *our* cause than anything else. If you do not have the intellectual honesty to go where the results take you then you are of no worth here.

At least arny has says he will go where the results take him, you continually deny and refuse to see what I have shown you has been stated in this thread.

How does that make YOU any different from the priests who refused to look into the telescope?They simply would not take two steps and LOOK. Why? Because it would be dangerous to do so, they could not admit *one* *tiny* *thing*.

That, to them, would open the door (or so they thought). They FEARED looking into that tiny eyepiece.

Same with YOU.

Now, instead of handwaving away those two results we are discussing, how about contributing and showing us how they were flawed?

Conversely, show us how the matrix tests pass the checkboxes you are applying to these two tests.

(wanna have a bet on what I think your response will be? The odds I think I have of getting a direct answer to anything?)
post #230 of 2598
I still don't see your point on this. Let's say I call Apple, manage to find someone who knows something about what I'm asking, and ask them about an internal part on their product. I would think they would ask me a question in return- Who are you?

Google does not work for the company, it's an index of available online info, not internal info. My kids think if it's not online it does not exist, not sure if the opposite is true.

All I'm saying man is your speculating.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

I contacted the companies directly, Joe. If I were a world famous studio & I found out an employee was getting freebies in exchange for the supplier using that person's name and my company's their days would be numbered. Google up those names and compare the dates they left the company with the dates of the testimonial.
post #231 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Skubinski View Post

Glimmie's example of the recording engineer's claim as to why they purchased cables for the studio other than the norm was simply his individual understanding of the situation at that time. The studio's clients obviously sought higher performance cables for what was to be the highest resolution format for music, and it only makes sense the studio would follow suit. Their clients (those creating the content) felt it was important to the end results.

In 1995 the value added of high performance cables in recording was in it's infancy. One question would be what this same engineer, now with 15+ years of experience in using such cables, thinks of this today. This as opposed to the opinion of those who have zero experience in how they may or may not affect the end product or results.

Chu you'll get nothing as a reply and like it. If I worked for a world famous studio I would not reply to some geek from an online forum either.

No Joe, don't read into it what you want to hear.

First of all he was not a "recording engineer". Those guys are also called "mixers" He was the chief engineer of the facility which also did home video mastering and one of the first DVD authoring facilities. IOW, he was an electrical engineer, not a music major like most recording engineers are. Furthermore, this facility was not a studio or mixing facility. They just formatted the audio data to a data tape and pressed the CDs at another location in Orange County CA. But they did have a QC room to let clients verify the stamped product. The SCAD clients are all audiophiles with very little engineering background if any. However they paid the bills - so when in Rome.....

Roger Russell follows a similar track. He uses Cardas hookup wire in the Tower speakers he sells. Here is what he says about that:
Quote:


If I don’t believe that expensive speaker wire makes an audible difference, why is it used inside the IDS-25 speaker system? The answer is very simple. IDS is out to sell speakers and not everyone believes in ordinary wire. The explanation is the same as what McIntosh found at shows and is described in the section above. Cardas wire does not sound any better but it may help to sell speakers to those who are concerned about wire and are not convinced that ordinary wire is just as good. The increase in cost is negligible compared to the drivers, enclosures and equalizer.

P.S. this cable crap started in the mid 1980s, not the mid 90s
post #232 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

Your claim. Amir only posts to get sales.

I claimed that? Quote please.

Quote:


Your claim. the matrix test is definitive, the ones produced here are flawed or the results of the marketing department.

I claimed that? Quote please.

Quote:


Your claim. I and amir dance around and avoid questions. As I have shown, amir answers them. I too answer them. you don't.

I did state that and it's true that you two dance around the questions. You don't seem to understand what dancing around is.

Quote:


My conclusion,

Is based on your opinion. Can you base it on facts? I'll bet you can't.
post #233 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Another point well taken. The test load has an unuusual combination of low impedance and high reactance in the same frequency range.

I studied every loudpseker review I could find that had both impedance curves and found no instances of that. There were regions of low impedance, but the speakers were reasonably resistive in them. There were regions of high reactance, but the impdeance was also high.


As I understand it, the load is not that far from the load John use at Stereophiles. It is hard but there are speakers that have "worse" load.

I feel the need to point out these things and how they do the test, just because amirm use the Bryston test, not really knowing what they do and don't, as far as I know, have read more reviews that they have done. Its just serve his purpose and he will use it without really knowing what behind it.
post #234 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

I claimed that? Quote please.

Yep, no worries. Good to see that you are trying to make sure that what is quoted is true. I agree with you that things should not be misrepresented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

The difference is, while Ethan posts about real appreciable sonic benefits of products he designed and backs it up with evidence, amirm posts bunch of outrageous claims about the products his store carries and dances around when asked for evidence. Don't get that already? Guess not...

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

amirm, people wouldn't have problem with your posts if you don't shill for snake oil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

This just shows your bias for amirm. But why? Do you have stock invested in amirm's store?

Go back and have a look. Oh, wait, you have a bias...

You see, amirm can only dance around because he doesn't have the evidence to back up his claims like Ethan does for his acoustic treatment products.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

When? Quote please.

What kind of difference?

If you really do, then your attempted assertion that the higher cost of a product directly relates to different (higher quality) parts was misleading and you did that intentionally because... (see following).

You are here to shill for the products you sell.


Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

People will go extra mile when money making opportunity is involved.

That last one does not quote amir, it is in response to Oxy 'replying' to amir. Ie, it refers to amir.





Quote:


I claimed that? Quote please.

(note, referring to the matrix tests.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post


So did they.
Link

More here.


Quote:


Is based on your opinion. Can you base it on facts? I'll bet you can't.

Yep, stated it quite clearly that it was my conclusion, did you miss it? I listed examples of where YOU claimed amir was here to shill his products. I said you had failed to prove that accusation. I gave my conclusions, and what data that conclusion was based on. It was listed just a few posts above, go back and look if you are still unclear.

You danced and came back with 'oh, I said that did I? Give me a link'.

so I did, it is just above, this very post.

Can you now back up those claims? If not, again, what of your accusation?



Oh, BTW, I am introducing a new 'method'. I will call it the 'Opt In Question', OIQ. Seein as how both you and Oxy have the pathological inability to answer questions, I will rarely bother asking you a direct question again. So, I will adopt the OIQ.

As you showed in your last post that you ARE indeed a 'warrior for truth', you challenge what you perceive as an untruth. Excellent, we do not want false accusations flying around do we. So, in the future, I will be relying on your inbuilt sense of 'correctness' when I make a statement. IF that statement is wrong, incomplete or out of context, I have faith in you that you will get in and correct it.

The converse of course is that if you do NOT correct it, the statement as I have given it is accepted as true by you.

Understood?


Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

If you notice your questions being ignored, the reason is because they (us guys) realized that you just don't get it. I can go on and explain line by line but I already see that it will be a waste of my time. If you don't like some people's post, just use "ignore" function.

If it is OK with you, I'd like to revisit this post of yours.

(remember to correct untrue statements/inferences)

Can I say that you regard this is some sort of fundamental 'forum right'? You know, I can fully agree with that.

However, here is where I suspect we depart.

If that is a forum right, then logically it would apply to each and all would it not? (oops, a question. I MAY ask questions, but I should really just use the OIQ as you cannot answer questions)

So, it is a fundamental forum right to not answer questions. That right applies to thee and me.

And Amir.

If that right applies to you and your cohort (it does, see above. It is why you do not answer my questions) then why do YOU not apply it equally to others? YOU are the one making this claim, you wish to adopt it for yourself, why do you deny it to others?

Because, given your 'principles' on this point, I am intensely curious why I have seen posts like the following.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Deflect, redirect... 1, 2...

What happened to 3 and 4?

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

amirm posts bunch of outrageous claims about the products his store carries and dances around when asked for evidence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

LOL! Yeah, he sure dances well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post


You see, amirm can only dance around because he doesn't have the evidence to back up his claims like Ethan does for his acoustic treatment products.

My conclusion? You are as much a hypocrite as Oxy. (If you come back and say it my conclusion, I'll agree with you.)

Above is what I am basing my conclusion on, YOU are claiming the right to not answer, the putative reason being that 'you don't think others would understand'. The cynic might think it's rather that you CANNOT answer, but no matter.

your stance is that they do not have to if they think the other will not understand. YOU claim that 'right'.

However, as I have just shown, you do NOT extend that same right to others. How else to interpret your constant belittling of amir and myself for 'dancing around?''(ignore that we have answered, ok?)

So, either claim that right for yourself and extend it to others, OR if you do not extend it to others then take it away from you.

Which is it to be?

You are a hypocrite, and someone who is hiding behind this false 'right' of yours and is using it as a smokescreen because you are unable to back up your claims.

(remember the OIQ)
post #235 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIN74 View Post

I feel the need to point out these things and how they do the test, just because amirm use the Bryston test, not really knowing what they do and don't, as far as I know, have read more reviews that they have done.

I said already that I had thoroughly researched his work. I read every article I could find. I read every page on then LTS site. Sadly, a lot of the articles are gone. I have also gone though countless forum postings from him on Swedish sites faktiskt.se and sweetspotforum.com.

As to you enlightening us, you have said nothing that is not in his web site I linked to or what I have already explained. The simulated load is there and his comment about people saying it might be a challenging load. Wiki is also very clear. There could be real data you could add but of course, you are choosing not to. See below.

Quote:


Its just serve his purpose and he will use it without really knowing what behind it.

Oh really. Weren't you the one praising him for being model of objective testing and lecturing me left and right on how I should follow his work? Where is that praise now?

Do you remember refusing time and time again to disclose to us how we could read about his objective testing after telling us how good he was at it? Do you remember how many times I asked, and how many times you refused? It wasn't until I had someone else ask you that you finally gave us enough of a clue so that I could chase down the information. You make what Mr. Mania does in this thread look innocent in comparison.

Why the reluctance? Maybe because you wanted to cherry pick the results that served your point of view, and hope people don't find out about the ones you don't like? One of your Swedish colleagues once called you a militant objectivist. That description surely fits the behavior of someone who uses the man when it serves his purpose, and damns him with faint praise when it doesn't.

Did you not worship Ing as the most gifted speaker designer in the world and hence the reason you own his speakers? And yet you sit back having me defend his reputation? That he LTS is not a hobby club that meets in his basement? That he has only tested one amp according to AJ? Has he tested more? How many more?

You are a native speaker. Yet, you sit back and force me use machine translation of his work. No praise is coming from you about how great he is this time around since the data doesn't agree with your stance. Good news is that google translation is worlds better than it was in 2009 when I first analyzed his work. So by all means, sit quiet. I am happy to represent your countryman and make sure he gets the credit that he is due.
post #236 of 2598
Got a few minutes before the rugby, so why not kill it?

This post from earlier in the thread, what he is referring to is my earlier statement that the thrust of the argument in this thread is 'all amps sound the same'. Ie, why it cannot be true that the dbt's referenced in this thread has shown differences in amps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

What detestable individual or group says that? Seems like a pretty outrageous position. It's in quotes, so please provide a direct link to the statement.
Thanks Du....Terry .

Was a bit pressed for time the last I answered you Oxy, so will just quickly wrap this up before the games.

Before, I simply linked to posts in THIS thread which went on about amps sounding the same, taking advantage of a few free minutes to be a tad more complete.

You did Oxy! Surely you remember one of your standard mantras??:

Here is what I said a few days ago, I'm sure you have 'forgotten'

Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

Here's an interesting one for you. Did not use blind testing haha. I put a 'new' (different) amp into the system recently, sounded absolute crap!

Suspected it was this 'new' amp (one of the few changes I'd made), replaced it, sounds great again!

So there ya go. Who'd have thought it eh? And i can tell you, did not need no blind test to tell the difference either.

have fun! (hint, you should be able to work it out if you are logical, and not go off on your usual attack. But I am hoping you do!)

Geez louise, how clear can someone be? I TOLD him it was a trap! I TOLD him to watch out. Heck, I even knew he would not be able to help himself, I even hinted that I *hoped* he would react just as I knew he would.

He did of course. What do you expect from a typing stimulus response mechanism,?

Big red flashing sign 'Watch out, Rat trap below'. Get up in the morning, whaddya know, there's a rat trapped in it. Oh well, you give 'em a fighting chance, if they go and get caught then simply chalk it up to darwinian selection at work.

Maybe they're colour blind? Or can't read?

So WHAT did the typing stimulus response mechanism say?

Let's take a look!

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post


Terrific! So not only is your self assessed hearing ability/vanity unlike the subjectivists you detest, but you system awesomeness/revealingness and your ability to circumvent biases that affect all other humans and usually require blind tests...is also!! Very cool mate!

AJ

Oh well, you just gotta ring the bell eh? Hit 'enter', and away the program churns until it hits 'stop' and waits the next command.

Anyways, here is the essential point. WHY would he deny the validity of the test if it was not blind? (forget I gave him hints he could work it out if he could circumvent the mental program, we'll just look at the implications of his response)

Because, as we all know (except when he wears the hypocritical self righteous tunic) when done blind I would not be able to tell the amps apart. In other words, it IS his assertion that amps sound the same therefore I need to test it blind.

I didn't need to test it blind, he can STILL work it out if he wishes. (All of the rest of you have gotten it by now, don't tell him, see how long it takes.)

Is that a reasonable conclusion to draw?? (that was for the others, else for laurel and hardy I'd have to use the OIQ)

Times up, off to the game. Once again note the complete hypocrisy of poor old Oxy.
post #237 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I said already that I had thoroughly researched his work. I read every article I could find. I read every page on then LTS site. Sadly, a lot of the articles are gone. I have also gone though countless forum postings from him on Swedish sites faktiskt.se and sweetspotforum.com.


How many F/E tests articles have you read?



Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

As to you enlightening us, you have said nothing that is not in his web site I linked to or what I have already explained.


Well, your enormous research was not really that good, because it is not his website. So why do you claim this?



Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The simulated load is there and his comment about people saying it might be a challenging load. Wiki is also very clear. There could be real data you could add but of course, you are choosing not to.


Like I already said, the load is rather difficule. I'm not saying otherwise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Oh really. Weren't you the one praising him for being model of objective testing and lecturing me left and right on how I should follow his work? Where is that praise now?


I did not praise him, stop making stuff up. I have and still say that the work LTS does is very good and I really like it. If you see that as "praise", well that is your distorted view.
But the difference is that I have read many of the test and you don't.



Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Do you remember refusing time and time again to disclose to us how we could read about his objective testing after telling us how good he was at it?


Not true. I did tell you that you have to read the papers because the tests are NOT published online.


Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Do you remember how many times I asked, and how many times you refused?


Not true. As I said before, LTS is a member paper that do not publish their findings online. But, according to you, "if its not on the internet it could not be true".



Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Why the reluctance? Maybe because you wanted to cherry pick the results that served your point of view, and hope people don't find out about the ones you don't like?


Sorry, I'm nothing like you.
So please, tell me what F/E articles you have read and the results?



Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Did you not worship Ing as the most gifted speaker designer in the world and hence the reason you own his speakers? And yet you sit back having me defend his reputation?


Why would I need to defend something you have distorted the truth about?
Again, how many F/E tests articles have you read?
post #238 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Skubinski View Post

I still don't see your point on this. Let's say I call Apple, manage to find someone who knows something about what I'm asking, and ask them about an internal part on their product. I would think they would ask me a question in return- Who are you?

Google does not work for the company, it's an index of available online info, not internal info. My kids think if it's not online it does not exist, not sure if the opposite is true.

All I'm saying man is your speculating.

I'm not asking about an internal part though. Joe, I see these all as testimonials where someone got something in exchange for use of both their name and their place of employment. Play for pay.
post #239 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

http://www.transparentcable.com/news...teway_news.pdf

"Gateway Mastering Studio Upgrades Include Transparent

In June 2003, Gateway Mastering and DVD completed
a major renovation of Bob Ludwig's mastering
studio. This state of the art facility opened in 1993.
The centerpiece of the upgrades is a custom
designed analog 8-channel mastering console and
insert switcher from SPL. To handle new high resolution
digital formats like DVD-A and SACD,
Gateway Mastering also added a brand new digital
routing and storage system. The new components
required thousands of feet of additional cable.

When we built the studio in 1993, we used the
best cables from Transparent, but over the years
they have made some significant improvements. In
2000, I got their new OPUS MM cables and was
completely blown away! Since that day, I've wanted
to upgrade the rest of my cables to Transparent MM
Technology, said Bob Ludwig about the renovation
plans."


ahh, nothing like some transparent cables when we compress and destroy the sound of the music.
post #240 of 2598
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

As you see below, they find such coloration in every amp they have tested, sans this one Byrston: http://bryston.com/pdfs/07/Swedish14BSSTReview.pdf


My own personal thoughts about the difference between the before/after test and regular A/B test and why LTS finds coloration to most amplifiers:

1. The load is rather difficult and probably more "revealing" than most speakers that is used in other A/B blindtests.
2. The knowledge what material to use to really get a result.
3. As I understand it, they (LTS) have many times found coloration in the really low bass region, where many amplifiers have dropped too early. That they use a system that have -1dB@14hz and the possiblity to play at 140 dB from 17-50 hz can maybe make a difference in the possibilty to find this coloration that maybe would not be an issue in a normal room/speakers.
4. The possibility to "stress" the amplifier and still listen to it at normal levels can also maybe make a difference.
5. A good room and system.

This is maybe some of the reason why they find colorations in so many amplifiers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Seeking education about those ultra-expensive interconnects