AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
341 - 360 of 537 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
802 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania /forum/post/18881594


What he meant was, heavy ga. vs. very light ga. speaker cables both measuring same 10 ft. length can sound different.



You owe me one for saving your arse, jp-er.

Thanks, but you didn't need to comment on the obvious.


It's an interesting thing that so many here want guys like me to step and fetch information that either should be obvious, or has been already covered ad-nauseam as to not even require a supporting link. Especially curious when one is aware of posts counts and the threads that the skeptics participate in.


I'm less "making claims" as attempting to force the discussion past the pure objective barrier. Tough task, but the number seems to be evening out on both sides; more people frustrated at the arrogance and presumptuousness.


Some complain about "more subjectivity" on a board like this. Well, good science includes observation of potentially new findings. My frustration is the pre-ordaining of those observations as the sightings of the deluded or dishonest. Typical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania /forum/post/18881594


What he meant was, heavy ga. vs. very light ga. speaker cables both measuring same 10 ft. length can sound different.



You owe me one for saving your arse, jp-er.

I realize you're not being serious, but just for the record, in general two cables differing considerably in gauge wouldn't measure the same in all respects. The most obvious, of course, being current carrying ability...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18881893


It's an interesting thing that so many here want guys like me to step and fetch information that either should be obvious, or has been already covered ad-nauseam as to not even require a supporting link. Especially curious when one is aware of posts counts and the threads that the skeptics participate in.

This works both ways JP, I could write the exact same about your approach to this thread.... Now consider, if I go grab some random post making some wildly subjective claims (perhaps like the Nordrost post earlier in this thread) and then show you all the evidence that the claims in the post are wrong will that satisfy you? Of course not, you'll accuse me of cherry picking a crazy post on purpose and you'll tell me I picked the wrong set of posts to comment on. I have no idea what _you_ consider a valid claim of audible phenomenon that cannot not be backed up by measurements. If you can't even give us a single example I'm going to have to conclude that you simply don't have any.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
802 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest /forum/post/18882665


This works both ways JP, I could write the exact same about your approach to this thread.... Now consider, if I go grab some random post making some wildly subjective claims (perhaps like the Nordrost post earlier in this thread) and then show you all the evidence that the claims in the post are wrong will that satisfy you? Of course not, you'll accuse me of cherry picking a crazy post on purpose and you'll tell me I picked the wrong set of posts to comment on. I have no idea what _you_ consider a valid claim of audible phenomenon that cannot not be backed up by measurements. If you can't even give us a single example I'm going to have to conclude that you simply don't have any.

I think that we agree here! I also think that it makes no sense to place 90% of the evidence weighting on one side of the equation.


See, I believe in science and the validity of pre-proof observation. I don't presume all things to be guilty until proven innocent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnla /forum/post/18876875


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

I've done better than that on a DBT for cables.


I'll let you stew on that seeming impossibility for awhile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,247 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnla

And of course you can absolutely prove this? Like you can pick them out even 75% of the time in a DBT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber

i've done better than that on a dbt for cables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnla /forum/post/18893446


That's a load of BS!

Well, it's at odds with what was written earlier, but I'd welcome further insight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai /forum/post/18776298


Thanks for answering. I guess you used that for speaker wires and maybe interconnects. What device did you use to do this? Also, if you could get discuss the procedure after the wires were connected it would be of interest as well as the number of trials and 'successes' (depends on the procedure I guess). Thanks once again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18779798


Thank you for actually asking pointed and reasonable questions. Others should take a clue.


As I recall, the switcher was an Audio Authority device, but I do not recall the piece. Realize this was maybe 6-7 years ago or so, might have been more.


Since I didn't do the switching, I'm not sure of the actual procedure. I do know of course that the point was to "fool" the listeners, so that we would have no clue what was playing.


In terms of trials and successes, I would say that success was maybe at about 33% (1 out of 3 trials succeeded). Overall, I believe the amount of testing was in the neighborhood of 5-6 per week over year's time; it became this fun thing we would do.


Realize I don't expect that level of success with everyone. Harman's guys will tell you that it helps to have a degree of training in terms of listening, and of course having heard better (and far worse) equipment over time from that we were comparing made things a little easier. Frame of reference (this elusive "experience" thing I keep mentioning that so many here feel is unimportant) means a ton.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18890852


I think that we agree here! I also think that it makes no sense to place 90% of the evidence weighting on one side of the equation.


See, I believe in science and the validity of pre-proof observation. I don't presume all things to be guilty until proven innocent.

Then you'll have no problem pointing us at the evidence for you next statement?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18890852


I've done better than that on a DBT for cables.


I'll let you stew on that seeming impossibility for awhile.

It's pretty easy to pick out a cable 100% of the time in a DBT. You just have to arrange for one to attenuate the overall output a couple of dB...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
802 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai /forum/post/18893605


Well, it's at odds with what was written earlier, but I'd welcome further insight.

Different test. Protocols IMO were not as stringent, but I never felt the fix was in. I've done plenty of these types of things with former colleagues, and found interesting things both ways. There was (admittedly) only one where I got 9/10 right, so in truth, I felt myself it may have been a slight abberation *shrug*.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest /forum/post/18894113


Then you'll have no problem pointing us at the evidence for you next statement?

My statement is the evidence.

Quote:
It's pretty easy to pick out a cable 100% of the time in a DBT. You just have to arrange for one to attenuate the overall output a couple of dB...

Here we go again. You can do this, you just have to:


A: Fix the results or

B: Do the test wrong.


People need to understand that some posters here have absolutely no idea what tests are conducted, have been conducted, and will be. They will never admit when results counter their small-vision POV, nor will they admit that cables and components can sound different without being broken. Get used to it; I have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts

My statement is the evidence.
No, it's not. Your statement is a random piece of noise that someone wrote on the Internet. Unless it is backed up by some evidence it is worthless to anyone but you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18896001


Here we go again. You can do this, you just have to:


A: Fix the results or

B: Do the test wrong.

It's _very_ easy to do the tests wrong. That's why we'd like to see some evidence of what you did...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18896001


People need to understand that some posters here have absolutely no idea what tests are conducted, have been conducted, and will be. They will never admit when results counter their small-vision POV, nor will they admit that cables and components can sound different without being broken. Get used to it; I have.

People need to understand that some posters here have an extremely good understanding of the fields of physics, audio and brain function. Other people, will never admit when results counter their small-vision POV, nor will they admit that they have no idea if a listening test was properly performed or not. If you can't get used to that; please just leave the rest of alone. We really don't care what random listening experiences you wish to try and pass off as "science" without any validation that they in fact qualify as such.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
802 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest /forum/post/18896067



No, it's not. Your statement is a random piece of noise that someone wrote on the Internet. Unless it is backed up by some evidence it is worthless to anyone but you.

Experts don't require validation from people pressed against the glass.

Quote:
It's _very_ easy to do the tests wrong. That's why we'd like to see some evidence of what you did...

Yes, but we know "wrong" = positive result. It's only when people cannot tell differences that tests are deemed valid. Don't deny it; we've read all this before and know what the responses will be like psychics predicting rain after it storms.

Quote:
People need to understand that some posters here have an extremely good understanding of the fields of physics, audio and brain function.

Where are these people, and why don't they post on this forum?

Quote:
Other people, will never admit when results counter their small-vision POV, nor will they admit that they have no idea if a listening test was properly performed or not.

Right. Fortunately, you're not talking to one of them.

Quote:
If you can't get used to that; please just leave the rest of alone. We really don't care what random listening experiences you wish to try and pass off as "science" without any validation that they in fact qualify as such.

I wouldn't mind leaving folks like you alone, but you can't seem to help but chime in when I'm trying to help someone enjoy the audio journey.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
802 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest /forum/post/18897272


Basically, yada yada yada once more. You like to make noise and pretend you have a point of view we should consider for some reason or other but when asked to give us any real evidence as to why we should look at your view point you duck the question and try to put the onus on the people questioning your viewpoint. Enough of this, I shall ignore you from now on...

Evidence for this topic does not orbit simple test results. If it did you would find an excuse for why the test was invalid. We know this. Let's move past that paper-thin defense and look deeper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
jp,


You are wasting your time. If you did do an 'acceptable' test, according to the objectivists here, your results would be dismissed as a 'luck penny.' If you got ten people to pass, the humidity of the room would come into question, because AS WE ALL KNOW, humidity can change the sound and lead to tainted results! Or, hmm...all the participants must have moved their head 1 cm to the left, becuase AS WE ALL KNOW...


When you ask who here has tried higher-end power cords, the only answer you will get is, 'No. because I know better. Would you like me to experience homeopathy and astrology too? Do you try every gimmick that comes on the market...LOL...pity you little fool.'


Did you notice that one of the first responses to your passing of a DBT was, 'That's a load of BS!' That's the mentality here. The trick to this game is that you can never supply evidence that will be accepted. I don't even know why you would want to try. The only final comment you will ever get, even if you jump through all the hoops, is, 'Well, you just arranged the test to yield these results...ha, ha, ha. What PROOF do you have to support these results?'
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
802 Posts
This is a good post, but needs addressing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest /forum/post/18876656


The video feed is horribly choppy and it's hard to get a coherent story line out of it...

not really

Quote:
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.

It doesn't really matter what it is. Anything other than the original signal is distortion. Also, if a power cord makes a positive difference, it's a bit of a stretch to assume that it won't make a difference anywhere else. Either they do or they don't. End users will determine the proper applications for their own needs.


You need to make one point and stick with it. Either the testers are such good sheisters that understand the science well enough to know what devices and methods to cherry-pick to create graphs they want to show, or they're conducting reasonable tests using methods they like and power cords are making a positive difference. Which is it? I don't think #1 is something you would buy, since of course these are all a bunch of clueless salesmen just looking for a buck. Science according to those like yourself is unknown to these folks. #2 of course is wholly unacceptable to your position and, I would assume based on your showing here, outlook on the world.

Quote:
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).

At least someone's taking a look at the issue however, other than people attempting to debunk the idea.


And I can't agree that noise on a power line is inaudible. Ground loops are a good example, but I'm sure there's better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,247 Posts
Can you recount the methodology and 'scores' for any of the wire DBT's that you did, jabber?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,445 Posts

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


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

still avoiding my video DBT question eh? maybe cables do or don't make a difference---i don't really care. but the holier than thou attitude is just tiring and trite. saving a life is much more interesting to me than hundreds of posts regarding cabling on an internet forum.


but i tell you what---i am happy to set up a DBT in my house up on my system. bring up to 10 AVS'rs over, that's the kind of large room i have. you guys setup the test, not me. speaker cables, power cords, whatever. then you guys can't complain that i did the test wrong. i live in Los Angeles, fyi. that would be me and 10 other AVS'rs who are curious about cabling and how we would do in a DBT.


i use 100db speakers with a SET amp---this should be high end enough for all to tell differences or not.


cheers,


KeithR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts
Came back to see what Chu Gai had posted and since you had finally taken the time to comment on something of relevance to the thread I'll take the time to reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18905180


It doesn't really matter what it is. Anything other than the original signal is distortion.

Problems is, the way this test is arranged you can't tell what the original signal is and which signal, is the distortion. Additionally, there is no control done to establish whether any of the signals are valid in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18905180


Also, if a power cord makes a positive difference

There is no evidence that the power cord is making a positive difference. The evidence they present suggests that the power cord, et al, manage to take the signal from a high end CD player and make it match up closer with what can be produced from a run of the mill PC and it's sound card where as previous to adding the power cord etc. the signal was more obviously different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18905180


Either the testers are such good sheisters that understand the science well enough to know what devices and methods to cherry-pick to create graphs they want to show, or they're conducting reasonable tests using methods they like and power cords are making a positive difference. Which is it?

It's not hard to take some equipment and produce graphs from it. It's not hard to modify some parameters or conditions enough to get different graphs. That hardly requires much knowledge of science; I was doing similar things on my Dad's work bench by the time I hit high school.


However, I'd be willing to go with a third option: there are many players involved in the production of the story line presented in the video. Some of them know enough science to perform some interesting (but apparently poorly controlled) experiments on the equipment at hand. The other people involved are good sheisters and take this evidence, stand it's on head, and twist it into a marketing line that has little to do with science but still manages to give the appearance of being based on science.


If you want to take the video at face value you're welcome to do so. If you're willing to spend money on cables based on the video, I'll be happy to prepare a similar video for you and sell you some cables that I can demonstrate to support the story line: back in my audiophile days I built both my own interconnects and speaker cables and I'm "sure" you'll be able to hear a difference when they are connected to your equipment...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
802 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest /forum/post/18905968


However, I'd be willing to go with a third option: there are many players involved in the production of the story line presented in the video. Some of them know enough science to perform some interesting (but apparently poorly controlled) experiments on the equipment at hand. The other people involved are good sheisters and take this evidence, stand it's on head, and twist it into a marketing line that has little to do with science but still manages to give the appearance of being based on science.

That requires its own leap of faith.

Quote:
If you want to take the video at face value you're welcome to do so. If you're willing to spend money on cables based on the video, I'll be happy to prepare a similar video for you and sell you some cables that I can demonstrate to support the story line: back in my audiophile days I built both my own interconnects and speaker cables and I'm "sure" you'll be able to hear a difference when they are connected to your equipment...

Not willing to take anything at face. What I'm also not willing to do is dismiss possible evidence based solely on bias regarding the presenter. They all said there's more to be done; let's see where that takes us and revisit the Nordost issue specifically at that time. If it's bunk, it's bunk, but again, they're appearing to be making some degree of effort to discover what's going on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,247 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18906581


Not willing to take anything at face. What I'm also not willing to do is dismiss possible evidence based solely on bias regarding the presenter. They all said there's more to be done; let's see where that takes us and revisit the Nordost issue specifically at that time. If it's bunk, it's bunk, but again, they're appearing to be making some degree of effort to discover what's going on.

Well before you can start looking for evidence, you first have to establish whether the phenomenon is real. That's something Nordost could look to do if they were so inclined. Then maybe we could look at that little experiment they did and figure out if there's correlation or causation.


I know you dislike it when folks bring in things like the paranormal. Unless you subscribe to the notion paranormal reports have merit, mentioning it in the same breath as Nordost is looked upon as trying to tar and discredit them. I guess it works both ways because if you subscribe to paranormal reports as being real but are of the opinion that cable claims are nutso, then you'd be offended by Nordost!

Quote:
Why Brian Josephson Embraced ESP

October 16th, 2006 by John Horgan


Several respondents to Who Believes in ESP? have mentioned that Brian Josephson, like Freeman Dyson, is a prominent physicist who believes in paranormal phenomena. I met and interviewed Josephson in Tucson, Arizona, in 1994 at Toward a Scientific Basis of Consciousness. Below is a slightly modified version of my write-up of Josephson for The Undiscovered Mind. Over the years, many readers have complained to me that scientists' personalities have no bearing on their work. That is true in some cases but not in othersand especially those involving fringe science. It is useful to know, for example, that Freeman Dyson, whom I profiled in The End of Science, is a contrarian who loves to provoke his colleagues, and that Brian Josephsonwell, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Quote:
In 1962, when he was just 22, Brian Josephson discovered the quantum property now known as the Josephson effect. After he won a Nobel prize in 1973, Josephson, already a tenured professor at the University of Cambridge, renounced conventional physics and dedicated himself to the study of psychic and mystical phenomena and other forbidden matters. For years, I had heard physicists trade rumors about Josephson's metamorphosis. What happened? How could someone with so much scientific talent defect to the dark side? I had an opportunity to find out on the second day of the Tucson consciousness conference, when Josephson agreed to have lunch with me at a Taco Bell (Josephson chose the restaurant, which he had heard offered very good Mexican food).


Sitting in the restaurant, Josephson looked as though he was trying to conceal his identity. His face was almost entirely concealed by his floppy white hat, thick black spectacles, shaggy hair and sideburns. He wore a black t-shirt bearing the digitized likeness of Alan Turing, another British prodigy whose relations with the scientific establishment were troubled (although for very different reasons). He spoke haltingly, between bites of his burrito, shunning all but the most fleeting eye contact. Born in Cardiff, Wales, in 1940, he grew up as a strict scientific materialist. "I was pretty well turned off religion by the rituals," he said. "I was exposed to the idea that you could explain everything on the basis of science."


By the mid-1960s, however, he had begun to turn away from conventional physics. Like many other physicists, he became entranced by the seemingly crucial role of the observer in quantum mechanics and by the strange "nonlocal" correlations linking inhabitants of the quantum realm. He was drawn to the works of sages such as Krishnamurti, an Indian mystic whose books cast a spell over many western intellectuals in the 1960s. In 1966, moreover, he befriended George Owens, a mathematician with a strong interest in the paranormal.


After some hemming and hawing, Josephson revealed that his transformation also sprang from changes "within." I asked him to elaborate: Did he have psychic or mystical experiences himself? "Well, in some ways, but not" He paused. "I've had some strange experiences" He prodded his burrito. Eventually he told me that in the late 1960s he began having "hallucinatory states" as a result of working too hard on a physics problem. "My experiences were basically a result of a long period of having very little sleep," he said. He took "major tranquillizers" for several years before managing to quell his inner turmoil through transcendental meditation. "Meditation provided enough stability where I didn't need" tranquillizers, he said.


Winning the Nobel prize gave him the confidence to discuss publicly his interests in the paranormal and to scold the scientific community for its skepticism. He insisted to me that the data supporting telekinesis and extra-sensory perception are "fairly convincingly." Quantum mechanics could help to account for ESP, he said, but only if it is overhauled. The current theory "doesn't allow the language of process or intention and so on. So I think we're going to have to extend quantum theory so we take that into account as well."


Josephson had no regrets about having abandoned conventional physics. I consider what I'm doing now to be more important." He believed that meditation could help scientists enhance their abilities and insights. Ordinary consciousness, he explains, is egoic. The ego "dominates everything" and one is no longer open to the influences and intuitions available to a "pre-egoic" child. Through meditation one can achieve a "trans-egoic" stage, in which "you gain the benefits of the processes that you were influenced by before the ego became dominant, while retaining some of the organizing ability of the ego."


Meditation had also given Josephson deep insights into music. He came to believe that music stems, to some extent, not from superficial cultural influences but from timeless, universal "structures" of the mind. By studying the human response to music, Josephson suggested, scientists could probe these structures. "So my intuition is that may have great significance for our understanding of mind," he said.


Josephson's own tastes in music included both classical and rock and roll. "Some of that has considerable merit," he said of rock. "Something that may appear quite noisy, sometimes you get the feeling there is something quite deep to it." Any personal favorites? After pursing his lips for a moment, he revealed that he liked Simon and Garfunkel's Bridge Over Troubled Water . "I don't know if that's particularly deep, but"


In the background, Whitney Houston was shrieking, "I'll always love youuuuuu!" The Taco Bell lunch throng had come and gone. Having consumed his burrito, Josephson was keen to get back to the conference to hear a lecture on "information physics, neuromolecular computing and consciousness" by a scientist from Yugoslavia. We dumped our garbage in a wastebasket, placed our trays on a stack and headed back out into the blinding day.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
802 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai /forum/post/18908977


Well before you can start looking for evidence, you first have to establish whether the phenomenon is real.

To me, that POV is like saying that we have to determine if someone is guilty prior to examining evidence. Cart before the horse and such.

Quote:
That's something Nordost could look to do if they were so inclined. Then maybe we could look at that little experiment they did and figure out if there's correlation or causation.

If we accept the veracity of Nordost, we should let their process conclude prior to judging.

Quote:
I know you dislike it when folks bring in things like the paranormal. Unless you subscribe to the notion paranormal reports have merit, mentioning it in the same breath as Nordost is looked upon as trying to tar and discredit them.

I look at certain paranormal items (ghosts, ET, cryptozoology) as potentially having merit. I further think that many things viewed as "paranormal" are simply normal but not yet understood. That is not to say that all claims have validity, since we can all agree on the fact that a certain degree of the population is totally delusional. The comparisons to certain types of bunkery are designed though to place this study in the same class, which is not only lazy, but IMO selling the topic short.

Quote:
I guess it works both ways because if you subscribe to paranormal reports as being real but are of the opinion that cable claims are nutso, then you'd be offended by Nordost!

I'm more than happy to finally have an exact set of parameters lain out in front of us. Wild claims from either side cramp the debate.
 
341 - 360 of 537 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top