AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
301 - 320 of 537 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
802 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamZX11 /forum/post/18827408


I think it's called fantasy land. I haven't seen a dealer in over twenty years that stocks much. Usually the display model is all they have, they always claim they just put it on the shelf, and they want full retail, for used gear. Need to order something? No problem, full payment up front, and no returns on special orders. They always seem to have plenty of cables in stock though, probably because it cost next to nothing to stock them.


I know they can't afford to stock much equipment anymore, but it really makes them of no use. No need to worry about me wasting their time though, I got tired of them wasting mine many years ago, and now just order the items myself. And it's new, not some used demo gear! Audio stores are dying for a reason, it's an outdated business model.

Stores can't create customers from thin air. It stands to reason that if there was a customer base (lacking interference from tortious sources), there would be a reason to stock more, just like there was ten years ago. It's tough, given the fact that most dealers are taking a service-oriented approach, to worry about stocking equipment anyway. It's a different client than retail, but the fact remains that if a customer decides a dealer is good enough to leech time and resources, they're good enough to invest with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Keith,


See what the usual response is. The conversation is quickly routed to magicians, homeopathy, astrology, etc. Perhaps, they can suggest origami, too! 'Ya see, all these people are somehow hypnotized into thinking they hear something different. Each and every person who has determined that yes, a power cord or interconnect can change the sound of a system has been a victim of buyer's remorse or wishful thinking. Just think how powerful these cables are. They can completely take over a person's mind and make them hear strange things. OMG. What hoot!


The so-called scientists here all appear to believe in the same idea - that we now know everything there is to know about building stereo equipment. Wow, everything! And, this information hasn't changed for the last 40 or so years. Another WOW!. That sound very scientific, doesn't it. There is nothing new to learn. Hmmmm... I wonder how many other things that we know all there is to know about. Scientists, BAH, who needs them! Just tune in to this forum.


A9X-308,


Have you viewed this link?

http://audiofest.net/2010/video_play...248482c29691dc


I guess he just had a captive microphone that only 'thought' it heard something different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by theborg7of7 /forum/post/18874725



The so-called scientists here all appear to believe in the same idea - that we now know everything there is to know about building stereo equipment. Wow, everything! And, this information hasn't changed for the last 40 or so years. Another WOW!. That sound very scientific, doesn't it. There is nothing new to learn. Hmmmm... I wonder how many other things that we know all there is to know about. Scientists, BAH, who needs them! Just tune in to this forum...

If anyone here reading the posts on AVS in the various forums has any doubt on the orientation of this site, please re-read the name of the site:


AV Science Forum.


If you are not familiar with science, its methodology, and the like then you are invited to draw from the vast sources of science education. It has worked for me over a lifetime, as someone without a formal education in the sciences.


If you prefer a subjective, belief-oriented, "take-it-on-faith" approach to the world of audio then this not the site for you. There are many sites which offer you that approach. I'm confident that you'll find all your beliefs confirmed elsewhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,445 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpaik /forum/post/18865525


There are:


(1). sales and marketing demos to a captive audience at a show, and

(2). properly structured evaluations of claims.


The cable-makers are adept at #1, and less than eager to participate in #2.

I fail to see how you guys would structure your desired DBT at CES---have you ever gone to an audio show jpaik?


At the same time, why not test the claims of video projection while you are at it---the same guys who go after the cable guys never EVER go after the projection companies, where 99% of people could not tell two calibrated projectors with the same chip apart. or scalers, or dvd players, or...you get the idea.


Cheers,


KeithR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,445 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpaik /forum/post/18874955


If anyone here reading the posts on AVS in the various forums has any doubt on the orientation of this site, please re-read the name of the site:


AV Science Forum.


If you are not familiar with science, its methodology, and the like then you are invited to draw from the vast sources of science education. It has worked for me over a lifetime, as someone without a formal education in the sciences.


If you prefer a subjective, belief-oriented, "take-it-on-faith" approach to the world of audio then this not the site for you. There are many sites which offer you that approach. I'm confident that you'll find all your beliefs confirmed elsewhere.

btw, i like how 99% of your posts are about objective views---saving the world, one audiophile at a time eh? my you are so bold!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
802 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpaik /forum/post/18874955


If anyone here reading the posts on AVS in the various forums has any doubt on the orientation of this site, please re-read the name of the site:


AV Science Forum.

Amazing how a simple name that wasn't taken back at the inception of the site has somehow morphed into something literal.

Quote:
If you are not familiar with science, its methodology, and the like then you are invited to draw from the vast sources of science education. It has worked for me over a lifetime, as someone without a formal education in the sciences.

cool story bro

Quote:
If you prefer a subjective, belief-oriented, "take-it-on-faith" approach to the world of audio then this not the site for you.

Exploration of a topic, and the discussion of findings is not only true to the spirit of the scientific process, it's essential. Where it gets frustrating is the idea that these discoveries and discussions are dismissed, because they do not fit (allegedly) with a moving set of semi-standards. Well, that's what discovery is. If it fit perfectly somewhere else, would it be new? But that scares a few key vocal and ever-condescending types here...

Quote:
There are many sites which offer you that approach. I'm confident that you'll find all your beliefs confirmed elsewhere.

We're not discussing "beliefs", you secular stiff. We're discussing exploration of a topic far from being solved. The process is the fun part, not the destination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpaik /forum/post/18875331


I leave saving the world to the believers...they're always on one mission or another.

In search of improving things, yes. Try that yourself instead of accepting what is force-fed you. Remember that all science is is the study of God's work. Never forget that the day we solve it all is the day we don't need scientists anymore.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
802 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpaik /forum/post/18876323


Not a chance. You are truly deluded. Sorry.

...And this type of absolutist answer strikes at the core of why these discussions fail time and again. Some of us want to explore things further; the other side insists we're all done.


But I agree. You are very sorry indeed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18876361


Some of us want to explore things further; the other side insists we're all done.

So tell us, exactly what do you think remains to be explored?


The correlation between measurable parameters and the ability of the human ear to detect them is understood pretty well down to the molecular level (though some of the pathways and genetics leading to them are still open to question). Similarly, the ability of the human brain to fool itself into believing anything and everything is pretty well understood, including which areas of the brain are involved in processing real vs. non-real phenomena.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
There is no 'faith' or 'belief' here, only listening. If you are unable to actually hear such obvious changes in sound by exchanging power cords or interconnects, then get another hobby. And please, don't make the spin of 'well, there must be a way to measure it or it isn't so.' The only science here is a brick wall that refuses to let in any light. Science attempts to explain what we as humans gather with our senses. But, you first have to actually listen or gather information with your senses.


Another try - did anyone watch the video link I posted previously? All I've heard in the 'other' forum was that 'we shouldn't believe it' as if it were some creation that went against all the sacred electronic texts of the world.


As always, have fun.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
802 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest /forum/post/18876445


So tell us, exactly what do you think remains to be explored?

Exactly the answer I expected.



Nothing. There's nothing else to know.


Christ. No wonder you're here as opposed to doing something of scientific importance.


Here are a few ideas:


What happens in the time domain, and how are those things audible?

Why is it that cables that measure the same sound different?


There are many, but c'mon - the "scientests" here have that on their shoulders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theborg7of7 /forum/post/18876473


There is no 'faith' or 'belief' here, only listening. If you are unable to actually hear such obvious changes in sound by exchanging power cords or interconnects, then get another hobby. And please, don't make the spin of 'well, there must be a way to measure it or it isn't so.' The only science here is a brick wall that refuses to let in any light. Science attempts to explain what we as humans gather with our senses. But, you first have to actually listen or gather information with your senses.


Another try - did anyone watch the video link I posted previously? All I've heard in the 'other' forum was that 'we shouldn't believe it' as if it were some creation that went against all the sacred electronic texts of the world.


As always, have fun.

There's a subset on this forum and others that refuse to explore any options other than that which they've bought into. In that respect, they dishonor the scientific method they use as their debating crutch. Lacking any true intellect or vision, that's all they really have to cling to.


It's not that anyone's denying what is understood. What's up for discussion is that there are clearly things manifesting not explained by those things. Those are the very elements that apparently are nonexistent, since they don't fit into the framework of things unrelated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by theborg7of7 /forum/post/18874725


Have you viewed this link?

http://audiofest.net/2010/video_play...248482c29691dc


I guess he just had a captive microphone that only 'thought' it heard something different.

Have you actually viewed this and understood any of it? The video feed is horribly choppy and it's hard to get a coherent story line out of it, but a couple of observations from as far as I've been able to view the video so far:


1) No microphone is involved at any point in the measurement of these supposed "differences". This is irrelevant to the point they are attempting to make, but it makes me question whether you know what's going on here.


2) A baseline is established to an electrically noisy source (a PC) but this is then dismissed as not being important due to the delta in the comparisons of the two other sources relative to this signal. For this leap of faith to be valid, one must 1st establish that there is no variance in the noise signal between any two of the components in multiple runs before a third component is introduced. The entire hypothesis on which this video is based could be due to run to run variances but no evidence is established to determine this one way or the other. Any bets that at least half of the supposedly "large" (8% max) delta can be replicated without switching any of the devices under test?


3) The delta signals are initially described as being of "unknown nature", but suddenly morph into being "distortion" measurements. While this make for a fine piece of marketing literature I can seen no robust evidence that this is actually true. These are 2nd differential (rate of change of slope) measurements. I'll have to think on what that means, but I can't for the life of me see it as being significant in any real way. It almost certainly means the 8% number is exponentially large relative to what the real difference in signals is.


4) The ability of noise on the power line to alter the measurements of a device under test are well understood (which is why I earlier asked if JNeutron had appeared in this thread as of yet -- he'd dump the math on you if you'd like it). The correlation to audibility has never been shown (and is not done so here either).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,586 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18876525


Why is it that cables that measure the same sound different?

And of course you can absolutely prove this? Like you can pick them out even 75% of the time in a DBT.



Naaaaaa, I betting you can't!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
861 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by theborg7of7 /forum/post/18876473


If you are unable to actually hear such obvious changes in sound by exchanging power cords or interconnects, then get another hobby. And please, don't make the spin of 'well, there must be a way to measure it or it isn't so.' The only science here is a brick wall that refuses to let in any light. Science attempts to explain what we as humans gather with our senses. But, you first have to actually listen or gather information with your senses.


Another try - did anyone watch the video link I posted previously? All I've heard in the 'other' forum was that 'we shouldn't believe it' as if it were some creation that went against all the sacred electronic texts of the world.


As always, have fun.

Oh man, you owe me BIG time. Well, it was ok as a time waster I guess.


You must have lapped that up eh?


Alright, so what did I get out of it? Apart from quite a few belly chuckles it was an interesting look from the other side. Boy, am I glad I don't live there.


So lets chase you down a little first shall we? If you are unable to actually hear such obvious changes in sound by exchanging power cords or interconnects, then get another hobby.



Ahh, ok. Then you are a shoe in to pass a dbt. Excellent. I won't start holding my breath just yet, there no doubt will be many excuses to come why it will never happen.


So, we will just accept your opinion that there are obvious changes ok??




And please, don't make the spin of 'well, there must be a way to measure it or it isn't so.'


Now, this particular one is very interesting and amusing. Hmm, so you do NOT agree with *us* that if it is audible it must be measurable??


YET you keep asking us to watch the video where the cable guys are crowing about finding measurable differences?? You are an interesting package aren't you???




Science attempts to explain what we as humans gather with our senses. But, you first have to actually listen or gather information with your senses.


yep. We are waiting with baited breath (yawwnn) for the time when you put your balls on the line and show us you do, in fact, gather these differences with your sense of hearing only.


What's that?? Oh, you've been emasculated,....no balls. Gotcha. So back to the internet bluster for you then??





So as I said, I did watch the video. It was quite enjoyable really, a good enough way to waste fifty minutes of my life that can never be recovered.


I am willing to bet that thee and me got very different things from it!! Do you find that as fascinating as I do??


You being the obvious cable fanboy here, can you let us all know just how much the three level of improvement cost?? What was it, new power cord, stand and a quantum purifier??


So, just so we have a base comparison, how much did that package cost?? (please answer)


Did anyone else find it amusing that the improvements are in the 'sample' range?? Whatever it was, 20 microseconds.


Ok, fair enough. And, let's all agree for the sake of argument that it IS audible. (and now tie that in with their examples of group delay etc)


So, just HOW does that change anything *we* have ever said about what is important or not in audio??????


Tell me, what do you guess as the group delay produced by YOUR speakers?? Don't know?? Have not the foggiest??


Ok, what do you guess as the order of magnitude of the group delay produced by your speakers??? (remember, the improvements in the video were in micro..10*-6 seconds). What is the time difference between your woofer and tweeter at the crossover point?


What is the time difference of your woofer at 100 hz vs when it is at 1000 hz??


Oh, you don't know. That's right. Hint...at least ten times as great.


But hey!! Let's all get on forums and tell everybody (who cares about sound and so concentrates on the important things in audio...speakers and room...) just how *****ng amazing the improvements are when I changed the *****ng power cord!!!


Oh, and back away from actually showing that you can hear it. Let's not forget that eh?


Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18876525


Why is it that cables that measure the same sound different?

haha, kind of the response one would expect from an idiot.


If they measured the same they would sound the same.


Ohhh, sorry. We did not measure the right thing. Is that what you meant to say?? Ok cool. So if we measure the right thing, and are different, then it could be that they sound different no??


So why do you write the rubbish you do?? If they measure the same they WILL sound the same. (ps, that-evidently-was the whole point of the video I was made to wade thru, that they finally did find different measurements)


You and borg need to get your stories the same. He wants us to now know we can measure differences, you don't want us to,....look I am too confused to work you lot out.


just get your stories the same would ya?





Did anyone else have a little chuckle when they posted the graphs of the three different cdp's?? And related that back to the earlier improvements from cables, stand and purified quantums?


Heck, a 250 pound cdp did not look that much worse (esp considering the 'wow, amazing improvements' we were subjected to earlier in the presentation) than the bloody scarlatti!


Of course, THEY were trying to hint 'buy a 250 pound cdp and spend the money on our cables, stand and quantum purifiers than a 10 000 pound scarlatti'.


Hahaha, we say get a 250 pound cdp and spend the money on bettering the speakers!! At least an order of magnitude improvement.





THEN, have a look at what is an audiophile system. (man, no wonder I find them as boring as batshit).


Bloody expensive CDP (moon wasn't it??). Obviously expensive power cord, stands and quantum purifier. No data on the speaker cables used...would not have been radio shack tho would it..heck I did not even look, what amps were used??? (not that I would have recognised them mind)


So we had all that...and these tiny little speakers with what looks like a five inch woofer!!! LMFAO Larf My f*cking Arse off!!


Ding ding ding, your typical oh so bloody marvelous audiophile system hahaha.


And THAT rubbish is what is pushed by mags and whatnot as what to aspire to as a quality system?? haha, LMFAO.


So you see borg, I do reckon you and I got two very different things from that video you have been pushing.


Fascinating world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by theborg7of7 /forum/post/18876473


Another try - did anyone watch the video link I posted previously? All I've heard in the 'other' forum was that 'we shouldn't believe it' as if it were some creation that went against all the sacred electronic texts of the world.

I just went back and watched a bit of it again. I've already hit some of the basic issues, but let's go back and re-examine this step by step:


1) There are basically three signals involved here. A WAV file captured on a PC, the analogue output of a high end CD player, and the analogue output of the same player with some modified power cords, an isolation platform (I guess?) and some power conditioner (again I guess?).


2) The 1st comparison that is made is between the WAV file as recreated on the CD and the analogue output of the unmodified CD player. They skip over exactly how this comparisons is done, but presumably it is done in the PC by comparing the A to D captured output of the CD player (they do emphasis that it is the analogue out from the CD player). If so, we've got the A to D section of the PC involved here as a complete unknown, but they ignore that, so let us also ignore that.


3) The difference between the analogue output of the unmodified CD player and the reference PC WAV is shown, and looks somewhat dramatic. Personally, I think this is what one should expect; I would hope that the analogue output of some high end CD player is rather different than the analogue conversion I get from some PC based playback system.


4) We now look at the difference between the modified CD player and the same PC reference signal. This time the difference between the two signals is much smaller; "about half" according to the video. Now comes the surprising conclusion: this is touted as being a good thing! We have taken the analogue output of a high end CD player and made it look more like the analogue signal as recreated in the noisy electrical environment of a PC!


I realize it is only natural to take a reduction in difference measurements as a good thing, but think about this for a moment if you don't get my consternation. Why should convergence to the PC based analogue signal be considered desirable?


I could go on from here, but before I do I really need someone to explain what I am missing. As far as I can tell the rest of the video is a house of cards built upon this fundamentally flawed assumption...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,476 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18876277


Amazing how a simple name that wasn't taken back at the inception of the site has somehow morphed into something literal.

It has always been literal, its amuzing to me that you constantly want to sweep science under the carpet like Audio does not need it.


If you do not like the idea of science being in involved with audio then go somewhere elease.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18876361


...And this type of absolutist answer strikes at the core of why these discussions fail time and again.

Religion has NO PLACE in audio discussions, none at all!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,476 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by theborg7of7 /forum/post/18876473


There is no 'faith' or 'belief' here, only listening. If you are unable to actually hear such obvious changes in sound by exchanging power cords or interconnects, then get another hobby. And please, don't make the spin of 'well, there must be a way to measure it or it isn't so.' The only science here is a brick wall that refuses to let in any light. Science attempts to explain what we as humans gather with our senses. But, you first have to actually listen or gather information with your senses.


Another try - did anyone watch the video link I posted previously? All I've heard in the 'other' forum was that 'we shouldn't believe it' as if it were some creation that went against all the sacred electronic texts of the world.


As always, have fun.

You have a belief in your senses being accurate, you consistely post "believing" your brain does not alter conclusions based on many complex variables involved.


That is the belief! How hard is that to understand? Senses alone do not make any conclusions. Your brain does it all, it it was proved a long time ago that the brain has many variables that it uses to make conclusions. Its why magicians have very succesful careers.


I will try and dumb it down for those that still do not get it...Our eyes and ears can not control our beliefs and our imaginations.


The video is crap and others pointed out legitimite flaws with it. You can either ignore the logic behind those points or you can learn something. If someone can afford a quality system then they might afford better video tech??? Oh wait, they can not afford squat because they wasted money on silly audiophile crap!


As for "getting another hobby", I actually always thought if people are not educated on the science behind the hobby the maybe they should discuss it in an open forum.


The hobby here is audio science. NOT AUDIO LISTENING!! Audio listening does not require ONE post online. It can be done by all lonely, creepy audiophiles sitting in dark rooms
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
I guess the bottom line of all of this, and the saving grace of objectivists who try so hard to ignore the senses of so many, is that 'people don't know what they hear.' Plain and simple. It always comes back to that. It doesn't matter that any number of people can clearly hear a difference between different power cords, that is the quick reply. That's why I said this discussion was an seemingly easy victory for the objectivists. All they have to reply to someone who has heard a positive or 'negative' difference, even consistently over days of cable swapping is 'no 'ya didn't!' 'Did not!' And, also bring up homeopathy, faith, magic just for a few self-fulfilling belly chuckles.


What is truly amazing is that objectivists tend to avoid at all costs experimenting with power cords. 'I know it won't work,' is the usual reason. That, in other words, is called 'I'd better not ever go there just in case it does sound different. But then I could just convince myself that I was hearing things.'


As for listening tests, here is a clip from a diyaudio forum -


In the early nineties I challenged an audio writer who claimed that all amplifiers that measure the same sound the same to set up a double blind test that I would take. I guaranteed him that I'd be able to hear differences among the amplifiers. So he organized a double blind test at an AES convention (Audio Engineering Society) in Los Angeles.

I took the test, along with dozens of others attending, many of them recording engineers. When the results were announced, the organizers said that I'd gotten 5 of 5 identifications correct. My editor at Stereophile, John Atkinson, got 4 of 5 correct. But the overall result was statistically insignificant. Most test takers could not distinguish among the amplifiers. Guess what? I was declared a "lucky coin" and my result was "thrown out"!


Take the test and pass and they find a way to discredit you. When I relate this story on "objectivist" websites the response is always, "Not enough samples!" Well, I didn't design the test, I just took it. I jumped through their hoop and I guarantee you had I been 0 for 5 it would have been deemed a very well designed test.


...not statistically significant. Right. The scientific method has to be universally determined, not just by a few. The hook here is 'did YOU take a DBT?' The answer, most likely to 'yes I have,' would be 'well, you are also statistically insignificant.' The request for a DBT her is a pure scam. You can predict the comebacks from a mile away. Personally, I would take a DBT if I couldn't readily notice the difference between power cords, both postive and negative. I can also tell the difference between sardines and pizza.


It has been mentioned in this forum that even with a DBT, there would also be required measured results to back it up. A DBT is not enough. So yes, being an objectivist seems to include its own fluffy pillow. First, discredit any listening, discredit DBT tests that do not 'conform' as being lucky coins, and if DBT tests yield positive results, say they are useless unless data is also provided to back those results. I would suppose, after all of these have been met, the final smirk would be 'well, the data doesn't prove that these differences are audible.. so there! I win!' Great game.
 
301 - 320 of 537 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top