James Randi’s attack on high performance audio - Page 55  

I count you as one of the few clever ones that occasionally shows up in these debates. You're sort of like a scientist who manages to graduate from Harvard and then takes on the cause of Creation "Science", managing to make it sound feasible to the unknowing, and use terms like "the science and where it leads me".

Your points above all sound very logical until one skims beneath the surface and sees the absurdity inherent in them. First of all, EVERY cable measures differently. We routinely use a WireScope for Cat 6 and fiber certification. This is about a $7500 instrument which as you know is NOTHING compared to the tools in advanced labs. And even with this instrument no two cables EVER measure identically any more than two people have identical fingerprints. So let us ASSUME for a moment that as you say:

A. "measurements have their limitations (and I have no idea what significance that is supposed to have in the context of this discussion, but regardless...)

B. Humans have greater "localization capabilities" than we give them credit for.

This is all irrelevant for the very simple reason that we ALREADY have the capability to measure differences between ALL cables, which by deduction means we can THEN determine the thresholds for audibility of said measurements with blind tests, which we know are SO FAR below the capabilities of the instruments it's not even close. Your points would ONLY be valid if it were reversed, and humans could detect differences between cables in blind tests that instruments cannot measure.

Since that has never been done, while I also do not think that what I know is anywhere near complete (another clever line you used to increase the perception that your position is "open minded"), we do possess all the facts we need to conclude that there is overwhelming evidence that the ear cannot detect differences between properly designed cables.

Why would you want to? What fun would it be for you if you couldn't get Morbius involved and drive him nuts . Then again, you never know, a carefully placed post by you here...a carefully placed post there...and "SHAZAM", you suck him in. It might not be too late.

QQQ killed it again!

Rather than imagination boggling' or quite impressive', INCREDULOUS is the word that came to my mind

Dave

I'm glad I've been traveling all day and have missed the B.S.!

Except something as "crude as SMAART" , can tell me if a cable is causing me to hear more hi or lo end. Thats what these snake oilers sell. Read some of the ad slicks John. They promise and promote this horse ****. And if it is true that someone hears more hi end or mids or lows etc, NOT SOUNDSTAGE, then it can be measured very easily.


And John since you are such a mind reader and just know I didnt purchase anything, I am waiting on the Pear cables to arrive.I have proven in the past when challenged and bought the product to test myself and have done so again this time.

For the Record... my reference to LCR was to do a recording technique (and playback) with a Left Center Right channel. now we can do soundstage localization without tricks. in fact, for live events where we want to do effects where sound is more localized, this is done.

My reference to mumbo jumbo was not to the very real science you are digging up, it is to the marketing and pseudo science and pure BS attached to a pair of 5K cables. you can dig up whatever you want and talk about the discoveries yet to occur, but you will likely be wrong. and as far as stopping learning... go to h e double hockey sticks.

I and many others here go to great lengths every day to continue to learn and build real knowledge. Not think about some esoteric theories (that as i have mentioned MIGHT have a MINISCULE effect at radar frequencies) that could affect something that HAS NEVER EVER EVER been proven IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM other than some guys saying "i heard it so it is real" (talk about areas needing research) I spent ten years teaching every day about how to apply real knowledge in the real world to make AV systems better. and every time we heard about or thought about some wacky crap that may or may not have been real, we would do testing, then demonstrate it being real or not. like take skin effect, we would show it, and then show how irrelevant it was for certain things and how it was relevant for others.

What is funny is how you hold up a guy at a very respected amp company and point out how he does not really know how stuff works... funny stuff that!

I am sure by reading your posts that you are extremely well educated and knowledgeable in the field. But just like some of the Alimental/Morbius stuff, you are getting really hung up in details that are far below threshold.

Here is a test, see if you can add relevance now?

John since you’re so impressed with the Nordost specs, please attempt to validate the (quoted) following technical assertions regarding inductive and capacitive reactance, skin effect, ect. Thanks in advance!

Waitttaminute...wasn't somebody accusing me of being kbk??? Mebbe we needs a program...can't tell the players witout da program...


Um, dinna I splian afta dose woids???

Cheers, John

I promise I will attempt to rectify that issue of mine. I do try, but find it difficult at times to maintain it in the face of idiotic postings from engineers who should know better but don't.

I'll try..

Cheers, John

I am happy you find it funny. Humor is certainly needed here, even very subtle ones like that...

Now, back to business. Why do you feel the lumped element approximation of a transmission line is valid, even though it will model the line to load interface inaccurately? You stated (along the lines of) LCR is the only important set of parameters for a wireset...but yet modelling using lumped elements is not accurate.

We agree wholeheartedly that the systems can be accurately modelled, we disagree only on what parameters to use..you wish lumped, I wish the more accurate t-line model.

I do certainly agree that the t-line model is also not something that should be used all the time, as the level of calculation needed will hinder the typical engineer's ability to perform useful work..much the way the use of bessels to calculate skin effect for cylindrical wires is a hindrance.

Cheers, John

While you are trying to be very creative in trying to bend the discussion, I'm not buying it.

What we have here are learned, well respected engineers (yes, I respect both Bob and Speco) who are discounting something with inaccurate or incomplete facts.

Engineering and science is not about trashing another's explanation with fiction that sounds plausible.(that is what speco is always railing about, and I happen to concur). It is about modelling, measuring, prediction.

When it comes to reproduction of images via stereo, where is the model? Where is the measure? Where are the predictions?

Why would we wish to accept as gospel, engineering designed to produce excellent sound in a THOUSAND seat venue to trash what is necessary for accurate (or inaccurate) soundstage creation in a small room? Where is the sweetspot in a thousand seat venue??? Is there one? When I run a 450 seat venue with my piddling little system, there are maybe a dozen seats that have a sweetspot for a stereo image.




Calling them absurd certainly doesn't make them so. It is necessary to learn it well before one can discount it.

If you were to follow the discussion a little more closely, you would have noticed that we do not have the capability of measuring ITD or IID at the level of human thresholds, with complex signals such as music.

Measuring sines or noise for spectra or phase shift is well understood and can be done quite accurately on a channel by channel basis...Unfortunately, that is not a test of localization parameters.



You may be happy with the "facts" you command, but knowing more about the physics of cables and localization research, I do not have that luxury.

As for DBT's never producing valid identification of various cables, what was the stimulus?? Recorded material which does not contain half the localization stimulus?? (remember, it was decimated by the mixdown process).

How was the human's ability to re-adjust to the altered localization parameters controlled for?

Hmmm..what exactly was being tested??

You do not even have a clue as to what my take is on cable audibility, yet you argue. Why?

Cheers, John

Well, yah..that too.

When I first read those numbers, I didn't believe it at all, even though it was some high falutin peer reviewed journal..so I started mathematical modelling.

Using a foot per millisecond, ears 6 inches apart, I mathed out what we need to discern a location in space with the ear detectors. The base assumption being we triangulate using delta time and delta intensity.

First, I had to choose source parameters...I used a point source, so the intensity falls as the square of the distance (line falls off as the distance, planar doesn't fall off at all). And simple geometry for time of flight.

Needless to say, I have a somewhat better appreciation for how we localize.

Cheers, John

When I said there is no point in using the SMAART system, I meant that there will most likely be no appreciable difference in measure. That did not mean the system was crude.

I read the ads, and I agree with you on the horse****. sheesh, how many times will it be necessary to state that??

My point to you, is that your affect is such that the people who NEED to hear you, ignore you. They have good reason to do so, especially when you go off on the person, not the topic.


I did not claim to be a mind reader. My belief is that your test results will show no difference, that your venue can never show any difference, I consider it to be a waste of your time and somebody's money to do so, and asked the general forum population what the story was...recall you claimed I was on your ignore list, so I did not expect a response from you.

Sheesh, I coulda simply made an anjou clone for you to test, you'll get the exact same results. Making a 14.8 ohm impedance cable is trivial.

Cheers, John

OH, ok...I thout induct-cap-resis..

Honestly, from your post, I couldn't figure out what you were referring to as mumbo jumbo..and hey, I'm wrong half the time..apparently, that is what is supposed to happen when you push the R+D envelope (some famous guy said that)..so I apologize to you..


Wrong, dude. I hold up a well respected guy...at a well respected amp company...and really, all I'm doing is pointing out how the lumped element model is only an approximation, and is off by a factor of about two for a 20 foot cable of 100 ohms feeding a 4 ohm load. That well respected guy claimed LCR is important, but yet the lumped model is 50% off for the case I detailed..


Hmmm..below a 2 uSec threshold? Below 5uSec? As you have seen, ITD thresholds are far below what you have ever considered.

Again, stating something is below threshold does not make it so. Can you provide evidence that we are NOT capable of discrimination at the 2 or 5 uSec level?

Cheers, John

And why do you think that the transmission line approximation of a speaker cable is valid? Shouldn't we be doing a full numerical integration of the field equations? Shouldn't we be taking into account the shape the cable assumes when it lays on the floor? Shouldn't we taking into account the differing effect of the air, the floor, and the subfloor on the electric and magnetic fields?
Exactly (emphasis mine). Which is why lumped parameter models are absolutely fine in certain contexts, and why transmission line models are absolutely fine in others, and why neither are appropriate in others. The mark of a good engineer is not only to know when to use the more complex model, but also when not to bother. Bob's a good egg.

Perhaps a Quantum Monte Carlo simulation is in order.

Of course, how careless of me. I must not be a good engineer!

I'm impressed with the electrical specs...but not that verbage. I highlighted the aspects that I would consider either pseduoscience, unfounded, or just balderdash..

Cheers, John

Valid valid valid valid...


Valid questions..

It provided different results, ones which include the physical length as well as the distributed capacitance.

As the model gets better and better, the difference in results will certainly fall into negligable. At the present, the discord is over where that line is.


One of my friends here can do exactly that. (and I don't understand his equations at all..)



I speak of a factor of two difference in system model response using tried and true theory, and you counter that with silly stuff?? You know better than that.



Yup, yup, yup. total agreement. I consider a factor of two as something to bother with..



Who said he wasn't?

Cheers, John

You have not established a factor of two difference in system model response. You've claimed it, and that's it. You'll have to excuse Bob and I if we remain skeptical! I do hope of course by "system" you are including the full amplifier/cable/speaker loop.

You see, if you're going to accuse a respected engineer of making "idiotic postings" I think I'm going to expect a little more evidence from you to back it up.

Exactly correct. And my expectation is that a discussion of the physics of the claim will indeed show it to be correct. But of course, that would require discussion, now wouldn't it??


Actually, I both expect and demand skepticism.. I accept nothing less.


Speaker is an ideal 4 ohm load for now. Amp is an ideal voltage source for now. Cable is an ideal LC line with no resistance, for now. Understanding of the ideal is first required before putting confounders in.

The same things that apply to the biwire dissipation problem I outlined to you.

No. That is not required... Idiotic postings are just that. They, by their existance, are enough proof.

Stating lack of belief of an assertion is not an idiotic post.
Asking proof of an assertion is not an idiotic post.
This is an idiotic post:


It serves no useful purpose, other that as an attack on an individual.

Cheers, John

Michael,

A good engineer would never suggest a Quantum Monte Carlo simulation.

They're much too smart for that.

You need a physicist to suggest the Quantum Monte Carlo.

John---fair enough, I thought that Bob was the one you were accusing of making an idiotic post, not speco! As much as I am disagreeing with your approach here I'm not fond of speco's caustic approach, either. I have made that known.

An engineer, a mathematician, and a physicist are staying in three
adjoining cabins at a decrepit old motel.

First the engineer's coffee maker catches fire on the bathroom vanity.
He smells the smoke, wakes up, unplugs it, throws it out the window,
and goes back to sleep.

Later that night the physicist smells smoke too. He wakes up and sees
that a cigarette butt has set the trash can on fire. He says to
himself, "Hmm. How does one put out a fire? One can reduce the
temperature of the fuel below the flash point, isolate the burning
material from oxygen, or both. This could be accomplished by applying
water." So he picks up the trash can, puts it in the shower stall,
turns on the water, and, when the fire is out, goes back to sleep.

The mathematician, of course, has been watching all this out the
window. So later, when he finds that his pipe ashes have set the
bedsheet on fire, he is not in the least taken aback. He immediately
sees that the problem reduces to one that has already been solved and
goes back to sleep.

Uh oh..."cat dragged in" alarm....red alert.


figgered that. Bob's been professional and a gentleman throughout.

Quite honestly, you do not understand my approach. (not the math or science stuff, the people stuff)


Good one.

Hey, get back to that problem...will ya?? It's not that difficult, once the conceptual understanding is there, the algebra is the hardest part..

The problems that should have been the most obvious...are the problems that are the most fun to resolve. I look forward to your discussion..

Cheers, John

ps...ooops, ya did...I'll look it over, get back to ya...

Hey, You know, we can discuss it on forum if you wish, new thread and all..

Speaking of the resident Dr.'s...

On another note
A farmer who is near a university calls them about a problem with his cows.

The university is not sure who to send so they send out a botanist, a chemist and a Physicist.

Once the farmer shows them to the cow, the Botanist and the chemist start arguing about nitrate levels in the soil, and pesticides the cow may be ingesting and so on... meanwhile the physicist is standing back just observing the cow.

the other two break from their discourse and ask the physicist what he thinks it might be.

The physicist pauses for a moment and then says

"Well, assuming a cow is a perfect sphere"

Dizzman,

Well THAT'S intuitively obvious!!

The above is simply more reason NOT to spend ridiculous amounts of money on cables. What you're listening to through your system is already decimated, right? Even if there were a difference in cables, you'd only be making crap better crap, right? A pint of Ben and Jerry's would be money better spent.

James,

Yes - but that logic could be applied to EVERY component in the audio playback system.

The whole hobby would be decimated.