James Randi’s attack on high performance audio - Page 54  

Bob you are talking to a guy in John who thinks he knows it all and engineers know nothing. Yet he will not present any of his awesome work for peer review because he says no one can understand it. He it seems is the only one who can according to him. So either he is a really hopped up troll, or he has delusions of lil green men and other wack job things. Rest safe Bob in knowing that those of us who subscribe to real world audio and science know that guys like you are the ones with the brains not this nut job.

No, you don't know at all. Why should WE have to listen when you are saying faulty stuff and just shout up?
Many people have seen bigfoot, loch ness monster, ghosts, Elvis after 77, Aliens, etc. Should we also believe in those "truths" also?

Do you also go by the name KBK?

Speco, i think you are way off here. I am guessing that Jneutron is a real engineer with a tremendous amount of knowledge.

Is this information being presented in an incredibly detailed fashion that very well goes beyond what is needed in cable selection? i think so.

Would this not be about the same as moving both super tweeters about 1/4 inch farther away?
Or on second thought, is it the same as moving the entire speaker about 1/4 inch father away?

In dry air @ 21C, I calculate 0.027" (1/37") in 2uSec...

Dave

So now High-End Audio is in the realm of bigfoot, the loch ness monster, ghosts, Elvis after 77, and Aliens?

And to think Mike, these guys are supposed to be practical ones.

I have presented the equations, the analysis, the results, the test methods, the predictions which come out of the model....everything. The fact that you cannot understand it is more a testament to your abilities (or lack thereof). Sorry to bear this bad news to you. And lets' be honest for a change, shall we?? I stated that I have not found a member of the AES who has understood what I speak of, so do not believe it worth publishing in an AES venue. That would be akin to publishing quantum mechanics at a taxidriver convention, eh? (not that there's anything wrong with taxidrivers..) Yet, most of my peers understand...Certainly a conundrum for me, eh? Where to publish, where to publish...


Hmmm...running wires made by others, from mikes made by others, to a sound board made by others, to amps and signal processors made by others, through more wires made by others, to speakers made by others...please explain to us exactly what value you add???? Is it boring, turning on the same equipment day to day, not using any engineering skills for the most part, even though you profess to be one? Granted, putting the system together initially must have been a real challenge, and something to be proud of....but once it's up and running, what next?? Tweak knobs? Where's the challenge?

Please, provide us an example of your own origional work, as opposed to simply parroting and using the work of others... I've presented my origional work, but yet you fail to understand it..



For the 2 uSec number??? Are you kidding? That's not my number.. I backed off the actual number..perhaps you should look up some research, here's the earliest I have..

Binaural Time Discrimination, Jan O. Nordmark, J. Acoust. Soc. Am, Vol 60, No 4, October 1976, pages 870 to 879. (please accept my apologies for not providing the reference in the correct format)

Specifically, Figure 6 on page 875...it shows MEASURED discrimination thresholds for interaural delays from 100 hz to 4 Khz, and provides MEASURED human abilities down to 1.5 uSec at 2Khz and zero degrees.

There are certainly more studies available if your interested. (David Griesinger comes to mind, but his is not complete either..)

I will be honest...I was absolutely shocked when I first read of it, but after further analysis of localization theory, I understood it better. It does seem ridiculous, as the 1/T bandwidth implied is roughly 500 Khz...clearly we can't hear that high, but apparently we have the ability to localize at that level..


I'm not so sure. See the above info on binaural hearing discrimination thresholds to realize what level of timing we are sensitive to. Honestly, I'm not sure how we'd measure the interchannel timing to that level, especially with music... But we do hear stuff to that level regardless of our measuring capability.


Um, I think it's less. Scarily, the numbers based on speed of sound, fall well into the Xmax limits for most drivers. So the research indicates that for a single driver speaker, the bass signal will indeed jitter the hf stuff. From Nordmark's research, that would indicate that the presence of the bass content will HELP focus our ability to localize an image in space.


Bingo.

And we're sensitive to that level of interaural delay...boggles the imagination, don't it??

Gents: (yah even speco)...I'm not making this audio stuff up, I'm just the messenger.

Don't you guys ever wonder how we image a soundstage???? The math is rather easy to do.

Why, oh why, would anybody confuse the accurate reproduction of sound in a large venue where the concerns of audience perception does NOT include the creation of an artificial soundstage???? Accurate reproduction on the stage has several VERY DIFFERENT concerns, but interchannel delays in the 1 to 2 uSec regime is certainly not one of them..but it is at home..

Cheers, John

ps...I knew I had one of Nordmarks graphs somewhere, here it is...sorry it's figure 3 and not 6, but you get the gist...

i'm taking a break; this has become too polarized for me. attack mode has ground me down.

yes......i'm a weak suck.

last week when i ordered the screw on spades for the Monster cables they were 'in-stock' and shipping Monday for arrival Tuesday. Tuesday night i was informed that thier 'inventory info' was wrong and they won't ship until next week.

i'm just so frustrated by that (since i am not able to determine exactly how the Monster's compare) and i'm tired of defending myself......while i wait.

when i am able to listen i will then relate my experiences.....till then you guys have fun. you can still use me as a target to attack while i'm gone.......i understand.

I am not happy with your decision...but can understand it.

Even though they are tossing marshmallows in your face, eventually one tires of that..

Hey, it's only audio, it's only a forum...relax..listen to some music..good luck with the lugs...

Cheers, John

Mike thank you for your objectivity and I look forward to your follow up. I applaud your resilience and I believe you will report your evidence regardless its result.

Has been for quite some time now..around the time the first cable woo started appearing (I think that would be the 1970s). Or have you not read The Absolute Sound in like, oh, ever?

Or seen this place?

http://www.machinadynamica.com/

and if you think machinedynamica is 'out there' -- on AudioAsylum several 'names' swear that things like the 'Intelligent Chip' work. Why? Because *they hear it*, of course.




I'm afraid the bulk of silliness is largely on 'your' side, sir.

Oh for christ's sake , Mike, just strip the ends of the monsters and use the bare wire. No one on the 'objectivist' side will say you've degraded their sound. You can always add spades later

John, having followed some of your posting, I don't doubt your scientific integrity or acumen, but you and I know that pure tone results don't necessarily mean a much with music, they just set a lower 'best case' boundary. Yes, we are sensitive to that level of delay, under ideal conditions, but the threshold for musical imagining discrimination may well be (and likely is) higher. So again, the relevance to cables in particular, in real-world situation of home wiring for listening to music, is tenuous at this point. Btw, since I can't get my hands on the paper, can you describe the test setup in Nordmark's?

actually i can't.....the Monster Lock pins are soldered on......so if i cut them off i cannot later use the spades. and i'm not going to purchase another set.

Headphones, with some kind of computer controlled delay and jitter algorithms. The paper doesn't go very deep in that respect.

He details pure tones a bit, and it does what we expect, folding over at +/- 180 degrees.

I wouldn't worry bout the pure tones...but the imaging of the soundstage. Those numbers are still rather small. What concerns me is that the people who should worry about the small scale of localization parameters don't.

It doesn't do anybody any good to simply say "it's not possible", when the person stating such has absolutely no idea what they are speaking of. That doesn't mean by default that it is possible of course...just that stating it's not, is not based on factual information.

My take on cables is this: I understand a tad more about the physics of cables, about the localization capability of humans, about the measurements and their limitations... so have accumulated enough evidence to suggest that "cable audibility is impossible" is not really a justifiable stance on my part. I've learned far too much to ignore the science and where it is leading me.

They may be audible, they may not. I've no stake either way. I refuse to form an opinion based on what I know, as what I know is not anywhere near complete.

Cheers, John

This to me is a rational and scientific stance. I have no vested interest in the matter either and frankly, I have found the explanations of cable manufacturers laughable and their pricing insane... My personal experience with cables suggest that there is more to these than I and many others understand. They make differences in my system and it is not just about the price, mine are not cheap, but I have heard in my system cables of similar or even higher prices and they were not to my liking. Some here would claim "placebo" or the likes and it could be a plausible, reasonable explanation or it could be something else. Many things we do not yet understand.
I will leave it at that, the back and forth is of no interest to me...


Frantz

Would you please post the name and model of this cable. Thanks in advance

Nordost Valhalla

Those puppies have some interesting specs...96 nH per foot and 12 pf per foot. The effective dielectric constant was 1.09, the prop speed is 95.7% lightspeed. To duplicate this coaxially requires some major foamed insulation..

I duplicated them a while back using 1/2 inch wide copper foils and packing tape.. 4 strips, side by side, 3 mil thick copper (nordost spec would require 10 mil, I didn't have any floatin around.. Sent em free of charge to a guy for eval, he did nuttin..

But you're right, the cost is waaaaay too much. And the manu verbage, well the less said the better..

Cheers, John

EXACTLY the same thing. People stating something they cannot EVER, EVER prove in any way.

But of course, no one has ever said 'cable audibility is impossible'. What you are proposing is an addition to factors known to make cables 'audible'.


The language of 'likelihood' can and has been used. From what little I understand of your imaging effect, it does not seem particularly likely to me, to account for the many, many reports of 'cable difference' offered in the audiophile press and manufacturer literature. Especially since we have another possible cause for those reports -- psychological bias -- whose existence and effects are not at all uncommon. These possible reasons for reports of difference, are not all equally likely.

Give or take, I guess.

What I am proposing is a model of human hearing which is consistent with what is already known. We can localize sounds with just the two ears, and we try to do that with a stereo. But to date, we really do not apply localization theory at the mixing console, that is in fact, where the localization parameter ITD is decimated, never to be recovered. Pan pots do not alter ear to ear delay, so using pan to move the image is an attempt to fool the ears with half the information.

What cables can do to the localization information (to screw up the imaging) has not been researched. It's been nothing but haphazard, random, attempts.

Engineers like speco and Bob Lee reject "cable sound" because they have not been taught anything which could logically cause a change. And, from dialogues I've been part of or witnessed, they either will not learn or cannot learn about localization. Honestly, in their jobs, they have no need of it anyway. And, just as honestly, if they did start spoutin "cables make a difference", they'd be booted off the job, as they probably couldn't provide technical support for the proposition anyway. They feel much safer toeing the line, and I cannot blame them nor expect them to change without adequate proof.

They historically have seen truly wonderful explanations like "prop speed near light for less smearing", or quantum dots, or magic rocks, or green pens..no wonder they reject everything they do not understand..Unfortunately, they no longer show a passion for learning as a result of the jading..and appear to be unreceptive to the unknown.

Expectation bias is certainly something to worry about. No doubt.

Imaging: have somebody ten feet away, with two bells, one in the right hand, one in the left. Close your eyes. They ring one, you say left or right. You determined direction based on the intensity difference and the time of flight difference between your ears. Localization.

Simple in principle. But characterization requires much more that what has been done in the past.

I have to laugh everytime speco says he's gonna buy a cable and test it...test it for what?? btw, hasn't he promised to do that twice now? What were the results?

Cheers, John

So John, your ability to poke fun at some here is getting tiresome. please do not forget that while they are the vocal ones right now, we also have a Physics PhD from MIT here who (while not vocal about it) does not subscribe to any of this mumbo jumbo. also another Stanford PhD, and many others with plenty of knowledge and willingness to learn and open up.

YOu are talking like the cables add these mystical qualities and have not yet shown anything that they can do. (although you have a good out with "no research has been done")


Here is the thing that always happens. those who are proponents of the "mystical pseudo science cables make a difference" like to do anything but accept that in a blind situation, you can no longer tell. throw around science... (oh wait, that got shot down) throw around some mumbo jumbo (shoot, now we got laughed at) then try the old standby "we do not know enough about hearing." or thank you for now adding "no research has been done in the field.

DO you not think that if all this wonderful BS ever really happened that some PhD student somewhere would have jumped on it in order to have an amazing PhD thesis that totally opens up the area of theoretical line transmission theory?

Speco said he was going to analyze it with state of the art audio test measurement gear. and i can also tell you that there is no point, he will either find no differences from some good heavy duty belden, or he will find differences so minute or so far off the audible hearing band that they are irrelevant to any discussion at hand.

localization cannot be done very well (really) using conventional recording techniques. if we had latched onto an LCR standard ears ago, we would be far better off though. Personally the only time i have ever heard reproduction that approximated real life was listening to headphones of binaural recordings.

Jimmy Neutron, meet Dr Morbius...

We should create an ad_nauseam_debate_tag_team with
Alimental + KBK on one side
and
Jneutron + Morbius
on the other.

Surely it would be worth at least the price of Nordost Valhalla to watch those boys fight.

Well, you can't dun people for using imprecise language, and then go do it yerself!




AFAICT, neither of them rejects cable sound. They 'reject' -- or maintain a healthy skepticism towards -- unlikely explanations for it, particularly when a quite likely explanation -- psychological bias -- has not been ruled out.

Ah, I see. The next time somebody posts ""So either he is a really hopped up troll, or he has delusions of lil green men and other wack job things......... not this nut job"", I guess I'll, what.....ask you permission to speak up for myself???

It doesn't work that way..sorry. As I've said, give nice, get same..


You'll have to clarify "mumbo jumbo". If you mean quantum dots and felt tip pens and cable lifters and vinyl demagnetizers, then fine...I happen to agree on that being mumbo jumbo.

If you mean localization theory, or e/m field theory or transmission line theory, then you are not speaking for them..that stuff is tried and true.

They are welcome to join in.


Incorrect. I am using e/m theory and t-line theory..it is not mystical at all.
I am talking as if the cables may be capable of altering parametrics which humans use to discern the location of a sound.

As for no research..can you point to research that considers localization theory and stereo reproduction? I'd love to read some current research on it, I'm getting tired being the only one who thinks about it..(well, it seems that way) Greisinger was a wonderful paper, but he was more concerned with the transformation from 2 to 5.1. Some really cool parts, however. Bernstein had some really good papers, as did Schnupp, Banks, Fergesun, etc... But honestly, they are more concerned with modelling the internal process, and not so much the external one and the stimulus issues. Honestly, I personally HATE the "no research has been done" blurb also, but alas, I've not found much regarding high end stereo and localization..

Do you think that I have not approached researchers at several prominent universities and medical facilities, proposing research at the PhD level on this very topic??? Wanna know what the initial gut level response has always been??? CABLE GUYS???? Aren't they the ones with magic rocks and felt tip pens and quantum dots???

I know. I never expected him to find any difference. Nor did I expect him to actually purchase anything and go through the "chinese fire drill"...so why even bother saying it in the first place?? I concur there is no point in using the SMAART system to make the attempt..


Actually, it can. But it requires standardization on the end user speaker placement.. And it requires as of yet unknown transformation algorithms to help the brain ignore the other three images that result from the speaker setup, as we really can't live life with a septum in front of our face to block the crosstalk. Oh, and it also requires adding time delay panning to the mixdown consoles.

Unfortunately, as JJ and I discussed, adding ITD (interchannel delay) bolluxes big time any monophonic compatability, combing the heck outta the signal.


But that would mean there was a reason for that standardization...while I believe resistance should be about 1% of the load, and L/C should match the load Z, and the prop velocity should be very high (energy storage, not smearing), my recommendations are built on theory and measurement (not on audibility), so taking my recommendation is also a path of "belief" so far.


While I also do a lot of 'phone listening, the artists really don't reside inside the head (lateralization). Sides, my soundcard has an output mux, so the left channel is delayed 11 uSec after the right, and the imaging doesn't come across very well. Balance control is not good at compensating that.

Cheers, John

Dizz

We can latch onto particulars and ad hominem but not understanding is not an object for embarrassment.. Only now do I remember that while I was in College for a MS I was studying the fact that Lump Analysis were an approximation. It does work under most conditions but not all the time and these "not all the times" are what could be at stake here... I do not know enough to venture further...
The point we ought to make is the use of science. The fact that current science can explain most of what we hear does not stop us from investigating further. You have heard OB's system and frankly on a pure objective viewpoint, that Lamm amp does not make sense and in term of measurement it is trampled by any japanese receiver from any of the manufacturer out there.. Do you honestly believe it does not add to the "magic" of OB's system? Do you honestly believe the system would sound the same with any other amp or preamp...

Same with cable... I think their effect is very subtle but at the highest end of anything we deal with subtleties and they are not necessarily easy to perceive...My niece is capable of picking up her violin blindfolded. She knows its sound within the big sound of a symphonic orchestra. For 99.99% of the population including myself all violins sound, well , like violins, with some training and teaching, I was able to distinguish some of the differences. IN High End I beleive there is an amount of learning of discerning. Measurements can only go so far. I was amused when I saw people discussing how flat their response was.. The question of why does in the home some non-flat components (SET come to mind) sound so satisfyin is an important one and not currently researched without prejudice.. Telling me that it is because I like distortion is not a good answer for ilustration few amps can reproduce the female voice s well as a SET. I know of NO SS amps that does it including my beloved Burmester.. WHY? DO not just tell me it is in my mind DO isten and study WHY?! TO me that is scientific... not the other way around... Obeserve first then find a way to measure do not imply measurement BEFORE You observe.

What has happened here in this forum is the complete rejection of these subtle differences. It is as if they simply CANNOT exist...Don't you think it is a bit preposterous to think we know it all?

Jneutron has come with some valid scientific facts that are not easy to dismiss. One of them is the scientific fact that localization is more minute than most objectivists on this board thought or knew.. 2 microsecond is quite impressive... Don't you think? I do see his tomes as condescending but we must also admit that it sems that there is more to cable than any of us includinng the subjectivists thought. I am certain the vcables manufacturers are not aware of these studies.. well maybe Nordost... The others go into the BS explanations but they may have empirically stumble unto something ... Some of them anyway.. I am a little tired I will post later if I feel like i

John, that is laughable. Downright laughable.

I'm soooooo glad I didn't get caught up in this thread!