# $1 Million Cable Challenge Is On



## bigshot

According to Gizmodo, the famed subjectivist Stereophile audiophile reviewer Michael Fremer has accepted James Randi's challenge to discern the difference between Monster speaker cables and $7K Pear speaker cables.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/calling-*...not-311034.php

 This should be interesting.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## nick20

Good read..


----------



## Brian_the_King

Unless I'm wrong, the challenge was put up 2.5 weeks ago, but no one had accepted until now.

 I am quite excited to see the end result myself.


----------



## Jon118

Yep, the old thread had no one who had agreed to take the challenge, that had been accepted at least. I still think Randi is going to have some way to where he won't have to pay up, even if he truly would loose. I still think it's just a publicity stunt and not a serious challenge.


----------



## vcoheda

this is all BS. there's no way this thing will ever happen (at least in a fair manner). the guy will devise some test that is patently unfair - it said in the article that no method had been stipulated - and then when the writer balks, claim victory.

 i'm still interested to see what happens, but regardless, it will not change my opinion about the things i have personally experienced. and as stated in previous posts - and this is not a novel idea - differences in most audio equipment cannot easily be detected through quick A/B comparisons, but only over time.


----------



## bigshot

If you have followed any of James Randi's earlier $1 million challenges, you'll know that it will be totally fair and totally impossible for the test subject to weasel around on the results. Whether or not that's enough for you to change your mind depends more on your personality than it does on the facts of whether a high end cable makes a difference to sound.

 If you don't know much about James Randi, you should see the first box set of Penn & Teller's BS TV program. There's an interview with him where he talks about debunking that TV evangelist with the radio in his ear. It's fascinating.

 I don't know how anyone could hear a difference between speaker wire. The speakers are much more likely to color the sound than anything earlier in the chain.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Patrick82

Skeptics think that 5 second switching between cables is a fair test...


----------



## splodinjoe

Edit: removed my post because of the rule against discussing DBT. I will only say that I look forward to the results 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## Fitz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Skeptics think that 5 second switching between cables is a fair test..._

 

Skeptics think that using only one container of basil is a fair way to judge a tweak.


----------



## xnothingpoetic

Quote:


 Pear Cable has offered to loan Mr. Fremer any Pear cables necessary to conduct the test if he desires to use them. 
 

Interesting.

 If I were a cable manufacture, I wouldn't touch this thing with a 20 foot poll because if he can't prove it (for what ever reasons), you can bet sales will drop!


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This should be interesting._

 

Like sports for audio nerds. I'm pumped - regardless of the outcome I get to laugh at somebody.


----------



## Dept_of_Alchemy

Finally, a cable thread that will end with a conclusion.

 42, anyone?


----------



## Konig

i believe randi is going to win this. He dared to put up this challenge because he 
 concluded it is statistically impossible. He probably got 100 guys to do the test already and found out those number of people who got it right is exactly the number generated through statistical means.

 but what interests me most is the kind of speaker they will use. It will definitely generate positive publicity if randi loses and the speakers will start advertising abt their transparency. clarity blah blah


----------



## mofonyx

Place your bets..


----------



## Pibborando

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_differences in most audio equipment cannot easily be detected through quick A/B comparisons, but only over time._

 

If you had any idea how the human brain worked you'd realize this is monumentally dumb.

 This should be interesting indeed.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ differences in most audio equipment cannot easily be detected through quick A/B comparisons, but only over time._

 

To put it a little nicer, why is hearing different from the other senses? I agree 5 seconds may be a little soon to hear a difference, but why would it take more time, unless the difference is very small?


----------



## Sarchi

I loved the one comment "Wow did my ****** detector go off when I saw the Pear CEO." 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Someone please wake me up when this is over.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Pibborando* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you had any idea how the human brain worked you'd realize this is monumentally dumb._

 

then myself and the vast majority of people who call themselves audiophiles are "monumentally dumb."





 [size=xx-small]*post 4000* (great. i wasted it responding to this jerk.)[/size]


----------



## Sarchi

BTW, Fremer is no stranger to controversy. It must irk him to no end that a Google search on his name still brings this up as the #2 and #3 hits.

http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-FREMER.html


----------



## Pibborando

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_then myself and the vast majority of people who call themselves audiophiles are "monumentally dumb."_

 

One of the few things you've said that I don't disagree with.

 zzzzing!

 Haha. All joking aside, I'm more inclined to call "the vast majority of people who call themselves audiophiles" rather gullible than rather dumb. The concept you stated is dumb and the people that believe it and tout it's infallibility are merely ignorant, which isn't really related to intelligence.

 4000th post on an internet forum? What a glorious day for you. Sorry I ruined your jubilation.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_then myself and the vast majority of people who call themselves audiophiles are "monumentally dumb."





 [size=xx-small]*post 4000* (great. i wasted it responding to this jerk.)[/size]_

 

Well, people that believe in cables like these, burn-in, etc... Do they make up the majority of audiophiles? Who knows.


----------



## uraflit

o plz.

 i cant tell the difference between -v0 and -v5 LAME mp3 encoding.

 why would i care about $xxxx cables?


----------



## Chu

I'm cautiously optimistic. They still haven't agreed to terms, which means there's plenty of time for a pullout


----------



## jp11801

I really hope this is done with high quality amps and speakers and is given a fair shake. It would be nice to see this go either way and I'd be willing to kick in a few bucks just to lessen the dog chasin it's tail back and forths lately around here .

 I'd love to see the challenge on youtube


----------



## Corbet

The fact that Head-fi doesn't allow DBT proves that audiophiles are scared of the truth.


----------



## akwok

Yay. $40 cables in my speaker setup -- yeah!

 Go Randi.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I really hope this is done with high quality amps and speakers and is given a fair shake. It would be nice to see this go either way and I'd be willing to kick in a few bucks just to lessen the dog chasin it's tail back and forths lately around here .

 I'd love to see the challenge on youtube_

 

If you read the Randi's site, basically the conditions of the test is negotiated to the satisfaction of both parties. If the test does actually go through it means Michael is satisfied with the testing system's resolution.

 I wouldn't be shocked if much more then the cables were from Michael's own system if they reach a final agreement. Considering the claims tested it shouldn't effect the results in any way.

 I actually still wouldn't be holding my breath. Even if you were supremely confident in your own abilities there is a _lot_ on the line here and I would have to give Michael a lot of credit for accepting the challenge no matter what the final result ends up being.


----------



## stewtheking

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you read the Randi's site, basically the conditions of the test is negotiated to the satisfaction of both parties. If the test does actually go through it means Michael is satisfied with the testing system's resolution.

 I wouldn't be shocked if much more then the cables were from Michael's own system if they reach a final agreement. Considering the claims tested it shouldn't effect the results in any way.

 I actually still wouldn't be holding my breath. Even if you were supremely confident in your own abilities there is a lot on the line here and I would have to give Michael a lot of credit for accepting the challenge no matter what the final result ends up being._

 

I agree fully with you here, on all points. I think some well constructed DBT, agreed to by both parties is a great test, and the fact that there is a lot of money (and reputation) on the line means that both parties will make damn sure that they get it as right as possible. 

 The other problem is, I'm afraid, that if the test is failed, it won't change the views of people who believe (rightly or wrongly, I am *not *speculating myself) that they can hear differences between cables. It won't, therefore, "prove" anything. However, I am very hopeful this will go ahead, and eagerly await results.


----------



## Riboge

Yeah, it's really great. The hype and commotion of a high purse prize fight is just the perfect way to resolve this issue.


----------



## riffer

Fremer is a smart guy. I bet he pushed the numbers and figured out that his chances of a Type 1 error resulting in him getting the $1million are a lot greater than the odds of winning the lottery


----------



## VicAjax

some people see the dancer spinning clockwise, some see it spinning counter-clockwise.

 however, perception doesn't change the reality.

 just sayin'.


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Corbet* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The fact that Head-fi doesn't allow DBT proves that audiophiles are scared of the truth._

 

actually what it proves is that prior to the restriction there were wars between the two camps due to DBT and Headfi got tired of it.

 Rather than come out spitting maybe a question like "hey I can't figure out why don't we allow dbt" . manners my friend manners.
 Since you did not click the sticky here is the reason as stated

 Since we've seemingly been inundated lately with these discussions, I find it necessary to spell it out clearly and explicitly:

 We do not engage in the discussion of double-blind testing (DBT) of cables on this site.

 "We do this not because DBT is or is not an legitimate means for decision-making. Rather, in our experience we find that these discussions repeatedly break down rather quickly into nasty circular arguments by competing camps of true believers. We've come to the conclusion that there's no particularly worthwhile end to be served by this line of discussion, and as such we're asking that the membership not engage in it."


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *riffer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Fremer is a smart guy. I bet he pushed the numbers and figured out that his chances of a Type 1 error resulting in him getting the $1million are a lot greater than the odds of winning the lottery _

 

Actually Michael Fremmer's rep as a reviewer would be tarnished if he fails the test. This is particularly true if he fails the test using some or all of his own gear. While 1 mill is alot of cash he risks not being seen as a leading "expert" in his field.


----------



## jsaliga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, it's really great. The hype and commotion of a high purse prize fight is just the perfect way to resolve this issue._

 

There will always be critics on both sides of the fence no matter what sort of testing is done. It would not make one bit of difference if it was a bona-fide independent research study done by MIT.

 Most people arguing over this subject, in spite of their proclamations to the contrary, are here for the verbal melee and are much less interested in a search for "the truth," whatever that is.

 --Jerome


----------



## luidge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually Michael Fremmer's rep as a reviewer would be tarnished if he fails the test. This is particularly true if he fails the test using some or all of his own gear. While 1 mill is alot of cash he risks not being seen as a leading "expert" in his field._

 

Well that might send him back to reviewing gears other than cable and making him spend more time on other part of the setup, who know. But to me it is the cable manufacturer that might get pummel down if it fail down the test.


----------



## Sarchi

This thing is so fraught with potential problems. For one thing, I assume the same (physical) amp and speakers will be used. This means that for quick A/B they will have to hook it up to a switchbox. Which I doubt will happen, because that means _another_ run of cable from amp to switchbox. And the question of the switchbox itself, effect on capacitance, etc. If they don't use a switchbox, it means they'll have to disconnect the amp and speakers every time a switchover happens. Which means powering the whole system off. Which means several minutes delay, associated warmup and more doubts.

 I just don't see this going smoothly at all....plenty of room for either party to cry "foul" afterwards. Meantime, they'll both get tons of publicity for their web sites....maybe that's all either of them wanted. It bugs me that the guy who took the challenge is one of the big 'celebrities' in high end audio.


----------



## bigshot

Randi said that he intended to have someone physically switching the cables according to a random pattern, I assume behind some sort of barrier to not be seen.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sarchi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This thing is so fraught with potential problems . . . It bugs me that the guy who took the challenge is one of the big 'celebrities' in high end audio._

 

One of the reasons this test is so closely watched is that both parties design the test to meet both their specifications. If he truly is a 'celebrity' of high end audio I would assume that the community thinks he has the credentials to design a test that isn't shooting himself in the foot.

 Really, let's hold off on all these types of posts until we see what (and if) the test they agree upon looks like.


----------



## Sarchi

I hear you Chu, but let's face it...the audio industry has consistently underestimated the intelligence of its' customer base. $7000 cables aren't meant for everyone, but while they exist there should be _some_ kind of a technical pretext to justify them them.

 I think we reserve the right to remain cynical about the business as a whole. And especially after the cables/magazine brouhaha of earlier this year.

 I suppose Fremer does have the credentials to represent the subjectivists.


----------



## OverlordXenu

No matter the outcome, people will still believe in cables. If this reviewer fails the test, newbies who know nothing of the great cable debate will hopefully be swayed away from wasting their money on snake oil.

 As Vonnegut said (through Newt), "See the cat? See the cradle?"


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No matter the outcome, people will still believe in cables. If this reviewer fails the test, newbies who know nothing of the great cable debate will hopefully be swayed away from wasting their money on snake oil._

 

If what's his face _does _pass the test will you concede that one cable can sound perceivably different from another, or will you chalk it up to some flaw in the test?

 In the spirit of fun I designed a T-shirt for you:


----------



## OverlordXenu

I'm pretty sure the test specifies better, and not different.






 There's a t-shirt I made for you.


----------



## Konig

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *riffer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Fremer is a smart guy. I bet he pushed the numbers and figured out that his chances of a Type 1 error resulting in him getting the $1million are a lot greater than the odds of winning the lottery _

 

dont u think his reputation actually costs more?

 If im Fremer i would have accepted the challenge but ultimately disagreed with randi on test conditions to salvage some pride. 

 Frankly i dont see the issue with test location and equipment. Shouldnt the test be carried out at the same place where Fremer carried out his review of the product?


----------



## goldenratiophi

Speaker cable? I thought the original was a digital cable. Oh well, if it is indeed speaker cable, I'm even more interested!


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm pretty sure the test specifies better, and not different.






 There's a t-shirt I made for you._

 

I'm pretty sure you need to:

 1. Read the article in the op
 2. Read more about double blind tests in general

 before you keep posting in this thread


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Konig* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_dont u think his reputation actually costs more?

 If im Fremer i would have accepted the challenge but ultimately disagreed with randi on test conditions to salvage some pride. 

 Frankly i dont see the issue with test location and equipment. Shouldnt the test be carried out at the same place where Fremer carried out his review of the product?_

 

It would be extremely hard to blind your average listening room, especially considering that most these days proudly display their cables instead of trying to hide them as in ages past. Most things like dampening curtains would definitely change the acoustics of the room, and it would be extremely hard to obscufate the cables themselves because of the obvious aftermarket terminators used.

 It'll be interesting to see what they agree to, and what the sticking points are if they do not.

 Really though, if the sticking point is that to properly conduct the test it needs to done one ones own system because of the subtle acclimation of one to their own system, I hope I never see a cable review from a trade show again.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm pretty sure you need to:

 1. Read the article in the op
 2. Read more about double blind tests in general

 before you keep posting in this thread 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

I was trying to say he was a blind believer.

 I want Randi to succeed.


----------



## RedLeader

and this is why we don't like DBT here at headfi, people get angry at each other. Now lets all calm down and go listen to some music.


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was trying to say he was a blind believer._

 

I thought of using the T-shirt image you did, but I believe I found a better one. The blindfold must be helping my imagination and creativity. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I want Randi to succeed._

 

I just want to laugh at someone in the end, or perhaps see a YouTube video of Randi biting Michael Fremer's ear off.


----------



## goldenratiophi

Hmm, in some ways it would be cool for Fremer to win just because of all the people that don't even believe that different amps/speakers/headphones matter get totally owned by Fremer winning. But then again, if Fremer lost that would mean that I could happily go on with old Radioshack and Monster cables.


----------



## markl

It's funny, but I've long been a big supporter/fan of Randi. I was a subscriber to Skeptical Enquirer when I was a lad of 16. As an atheist and believer in science, I'm inclined to side with those guys more often than not. 

 The chief difference between the things the skeptics usually target and audio cables is that everything else they oppose is basically untestable. Ghosts? UFOs? God?

 But the differences audio cables can make can be experienced by anyone-- just swap them in and out. Try that with a "ghost". 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Still I predict this test will solve or prove nothing. On the one hand, Fremer is about as good a choice for "golden ears" as you could expect at least in terms of prestige within the industry. I would prefer we were testing a pair of audio cables he specifically endorsed as being superior to his ears. IMHO, Randi should give Fremer every possible chance to get it right, rather than imposing rules or restrictions that would make it impossible for anyone to discern a difference and muddy the waters.

 Ideal test bed would be Fremer's own system, in his house, without any additional "black boxes" added if possible. Putting him in some unfamiliar room with unfamiliar gear that may be absolutely awful will not prove anything.

 In any case, even the most hard-boiled skeptics will have to admit that even if Fremer "fails" in the test, this is hardly conclusive proof that cables make no difference. Assemble a team of 30+ Michael Fremer's who are acknowledged esteemed "golden ears" in the field and then run the same test on them. That's what you need to begin to achieve statistical significance.


----------



## riffer

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *goldenratiophi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hmm, in some ways it would be cool for Fremer to win just because of all the people that don't even believe that different amps/speakers/headphones matter get totally owned by Fremer winning. But then again, if Fremer lost that would mean that I could happily go on with old Radioshack and Monster cables._

 

Don't worry, if Fremer loses, the true believers will just claim that he has a tin ear and go on buying $$$$ cables 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Me, I wouldn't care either way, except that two people I respect will be going head to head and one will come out a loser


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ences audio cables can make can be experienced by anyone-- just swap them in and out._

 

That's exactly what the test is going to do. I'm not so sure it is going to be as easy as you make it sound.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *riffer* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Don't worry, if Fremer loses, the true believers will just claim that he has a tin ear and go on buying $$$$ cables_

 

Well, there's another side to that too... Assuming Fremer wins, everyone will have to admit that there is a difference. But the question of whether the difference is an improvement or whether it is worth the cost will still remain.

 I've got my bet on Randi. Fremer hasn't impressed me. I think he's in the pocket of the high end audio manufacturers. If he is smart, he'll realize that Randi is setting him up so he can't cheat the results. He'll scream bloody murder that he couldn't have the test conducted just his way. If he's dumb, he'll agree to the controls and he'll realize after it's all over that he is a chump. Then he'll scream bloody murder that the test wasn't conducted just his way.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Superpredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, there's another side to that too... Assuming Fremer wins, everyone will have to admit that there is a difference. But the question of whether the difference is an improvement or whether it is worth the cost will still remain._

 

That's what I was getting at above. When Fremer "wins" or "loses" I think people whose beliefs (or experience) are challenged will cite whatever they can to continue believing what they want. Hopefully the methods are fair and the test transparent enough that no one can find a specific reason to doubt its result beyond the lack of statistical significance markl mentioned.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Putting him in some unfamiliar room with unfamiliar gear that may be absolutely awful will not prove anything._

 

Why wouldn't it? Some of the claims made regarding cables are _extremely_ bold.

 First thing that comes to mind (admittedly thanks to Patrick) are the Odin vs. Valhalla comparisons made at the Hong Kong trade show where people were literally blown away. On completely alien systems and listening environments. 

 I would have to dig a bit, but I know I've read other trade show reports and factory tours on 6moons and positive-feedback with similar claims -- immediate differences on foreign systems. If stereophile's search was a little more capable (or I had more time to dig) I'm sure I could find similar there as well.

 On a smaller scale, at Head-Fi meets people who try cable swapping on the HD600/650 notice immediate difference. On other people's systems.

 Also, I highly doubt the gear is going to be "absolutely awful." The test is agreed and negotiated by both parties. Fremer will know full well what he's listening to beforehand, and considering the claims being tested there is no reason for Randi to not let him use his own gear (albeit for testing reasons maybe in a foreign environment).


----------



## Chu

Really though in the end this might all just be a brilliant advertising campaign for Pear Audio 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Even if he doesn't go through with the test the name is probably embedded in a _lot_ of heads now. I know I never heard of them before this.


----------



## Sarchi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really though in the end this might all just be a brilliant advertising campaign for Pear Audio 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Even if he doesn't go through with the test the name is probably embedded in a lot of heads now. I know I never heard of them before this._

 

I agree, and it'll be great publicity for Stereophile also. I expect John Atkinson will jump in soon, and this is all you'll be reading about in magazines, blogs and forums for the next 8 months. Lord, please let it end.


----------



## riffer

I wonder if they will publish the brand of cable that they use in the test?


----------



## Chu

Something that went right over my head . . .

  Quote:


 Fremer has also asked that interconnects be tested in addition to loudspeaker cables unless James Randi will concede that they affect sound quality. 
 

That's a really interesting assertion, because blinding ICs is something that could be done with some work in Fremer's own listening room.


----------



## Khanate

Why such a simple test though?

 There must be some way to send a pre-determined signal through a cable, plot the output and compare it to the other one. This would show a difference in signal output which would result in a difference in sound output... or not show a difference.

 A folded test plays with the brain and can make you focus too much on the wrong detail. I think even if the guy gets all inversed it should still make him a winner.


----------



## da_bradler

I don't understand how this is any different then how people SWEAR that spending 1000+ dollars on a cable replacement for there sen650s makes a difference? headphones are just little speakers so in theory since there smaller speakers carrying less current then the cable should be even less important then it is for full size speakers.

 Honestly I don't know because I've never done a cable replacement or comparing before.


----------



## ph0rk

This will be interesting. I lean one way (as I'm sure most of us do, one way or the other).

 Fremer seems to be risking his rep for this contest.

 for comedy, see: http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-FREMER.html


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Khanate* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Why such a simple test though?

 There must be some way to send a pre-determined signal through a cable, plot the output and compare it to the other one. This would show a difference in signal output which would result in a difference in sound output... or not show a difference._

 

Indeed, however there is a difference between measurable and audible. For instance the difference between a SNR of 96db and an SNR of 95db is measurable (easy) but is it audible ? 

 In any case I would hope that the cable responses are measured (as well) - i.e if a cable is tweaked to cause a 3db roll off at 14k then that may very well be audible. Cable cannot add, it can only take away.

 When Monster demo their cables against vanilla cables they use 100 ft runs of cable and compare their 12 gauge against generic 18 or 24 gauge which easily shows the signal loss due to significantly higher resistance...

 My point, eventually, is that you could very easily create audibly different cables with a bit of legerdemain, but you would be making a technically worse cable.


----------



## Sarchi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Indeed, however there is a difference between measurable and audible. For instance the difference between a SNR of 96db and an SNR of 95db is measurable (easy) but is it audible ? 

 In any case I would hope that the cable responses are measured (as well) - i.e if a cable is tweaked to cause a 3db roll off at 14k then that may very well be audible. Cable cannot add, it can only take away.

 When Monster demo their cables against vanilla cables they use 100 ft runs of cable and compare their 12 gauge against generic 18 or 24 gauge which easily shows the signal loss due to significantly higher resistance...

 My point, eventually, is that you could very easily create audibly different cables with a bit of legerdemain, but you would be making a technically worse cable._

 

Reading your post carefully I find both sides of the cable argument represented. One side says signal loss is the only (potential) difference-- and this should be measurable. The other side suggests cables can add tonal 'improvements' by playing with frequency response, which is probably pretty hard to measure, and room-specific.

 This combined with the egos involved, is what gives this challenge very little chance of coming off without a hitch....the 'results' will be argued ad nauseum until meaningless. IMO
 (that is, if it ever even gets off the ground)


----------



## Konig

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's funny, but I've long been a big supporter/fan of Randi. I was a subscriber to Skeptical Enquirer when I was a lad of 16. As an atheist and believer in science, I'm inclined to side with those guys more often than not. 

 The chief difference between the things the skeptics usually target and audio cables is that everything else they oppose is basically untestable. Ghosts? UFOs? God?

 But the differences audio cables can make can be experienced by anyone-- just swap them in and out. Try that with a "ghost". 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Still I predict this test will solve or prove nothing. On the one hand, Fremer is about as good a choice for "golden ears" as you could expect at least in terms of prestige within the industry. I would prefer we were testing a pair of audio cables he specifically endorsed as being superior to his ears. IMHO, Randi should give Fremer every possible chance to get it right, rather than imposing rules or restrictions that would make it impossible for anyone to discern a difference and muddy the waters.

 Ideal test bed would be Fremer's own system, in his house, without any additional "black boxes" added if possible. Putting him in some unfamiliar room with unfamiliar gear that may be absolutely awful will not prove anything.

 In any case, even the most hard-boiled skeptics will have to admit that even if Fremer "fails" in the test, this is hardly conclusive proof that cables make no difference. Assemble a team of 30+ Michael Fremer's who are acknowledged esteemed "golden ears" in the field and then run the same test on them. That's what you need to begin to achieve statistical significance._

 

maybe randi just wants to prove that fremer is not a golden ear


----------



## Khanate

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Indeed, however there is a difference between measurable and audible. For instance the difference between a SNR of 96db and an SNR of 95db is measurable (easy) but is it audible ? 

 In any case I would hope that the cable responses are measured (as well) - i.e if a cable is tweaked to cause a 3db roll off at 14k then that may very well be audible. Cable cannot add, it can only take away._

 

Well even if it isn't audible it would show one cable is better than the other.

 At the end of the line its how much loss you get through plugs, amps, source, cables... If you take a 400$ ipod setup and a 1250000$ setup there might not be that much difference in each individual item, but there might be at the end.

 I can't think of the blind folded test as a accurate test to measure anything and is far from being scientific in any case... This is just ego vs ego.

 PS: notice the might as my setup is not even worth 400$ at the moment hehe.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Khanate* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well even if it isn't audible it would show one cable is better than the other._

 

If the difference isn't audible, one can't be better than the other. It can only MEASURE better. The numbers that matter are the ones you can hear.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Khanate* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can't think of the blind folded test as a accurate test to measure anything and is far from being scientific in any case... This is just ego vs ego._

 

It is a "double-blind test," not a "blind folded test." You really should do some reading and develop some understanding of what this means before you comment further.


----------



## earwicker7

"We'll beat anyone's advertised price or your mattress is FREE!"

 That's what this reminds me of. It's very easy to come up with an attention-grabbing headline like this. Only problem is, since mattress production companies only make specific models for specific showrooms (ie, there's no crossover between different showroom companies), there is no chance you're ever going to get a free mattress. What you'll hear instead is "Well, we don't stock that mattress that the other place sells for $500, so you can't say they beat our prices, even though our cheapest mattress is $1,000." And the law will side with them when they say no free mattress.

 This event will never take place... Randi probably has hundreds of "But that's not the same mattress!" escape clauses.

 Remember, the last time someone challenged Fremer to a similar test (the laughable claim that nobody can hear the difference between amps as they all sound the same) Fremer was able to pick the correct amp 5 out of 5 times. The challenger said it was a fluke and backed out.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_According to Gizmodo, the famed subjectivist Stereophile audiophile reviewer Michael Fremer has accepted James Randi's challenge to discern the difference between Monster speaker cables and $7K Pear speaker cables._

 

So, if he fails we know that the difference between Monster speaker cables and Pear speaker cables is negligible or nonexistent. It still doesn't prove that all cables are equal. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This will be interesting to see, but it is not going to convince a 'skeptic' if Fremer comes out on top or convince a 'believer' if Randi wins.


----------



## earwicker7

Wow, I'm looking over this guy's website... you all should check this out http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43.

 He has a team of people who look over all of the applicants. Of course, many of them are nuts, but the fact is (as will be apparent if you follow the above link) that anyone who gets close to the "challenge" is summarily dismissed. 

 There will be no challenge, this guy is as big of a fake as the people he purports to expose.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_He has a team of people who look over all of the applicants. Of course, many of them are nuts, but the fact is (as will be apparent if you follow the above link) that anyone who gets close to the "challenge" is summarily dismissed._

 

Do you have a specific example?


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This will be interesting to see, but it is not going to convince a 'skeptic' if Fremer comes out on top or convince a 'believer' if Randi wins._

 

I don't think this is necessarily true. This is obviously not going to convince any believer simply because they do not believe in DBT testing, or they can simply take the narrowest possible interpretations ranging from "Pear cables are bunk" to "Fremer is a fraud." That doesn't make them necessary false interpretations mind you 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Skeptics are a bit different. Right now the burden of proof is on the believers. If Fremer passes then the burden passes, and the "skeptics" need to figure out exactly what happened or cede their claim.

 The nature of the debate changes significantly. Considering how well documented this will be the wiggle room is going to be very very small.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, I'm looking over this guy's website... you all should check this out http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43.

 He has a team of people who look over all of the applicants. Of course, many of them are nuts, but the fact is (as will be apparent if you follow the above link) that anyone who gets close to the "challenge" is summarily dismissed. 

 There will be no challenge, this guy is as big of a fake as the people he purports to expose._

 

If you read through those, you will find out when it comes time to actual start setting up the test, often the applicant fails to respond. the JREF then tries to contact them several times for 1 year, after which their file is closed.

 There is already even a test scheduled for the beginning of November.

 So there goes that claim of yours.


----------



## philodox

For those who decided not to read the article:

To date, James Randi has provided no scientific evidence of any kind to support his accusations. No test protocol for the challenge was stipulated in the original accusation, however James Randi reserves the right to change test protocol in any way he personally desires.

 Official rules for the James Randi Educational Foundation challenge state that $1 Million will be paid to "any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability." Michael Fremer has expressly stated as a condition of his challenge acceptance that he does not possess any psychic, supernatural, or paranormal abilities, and that he does not believe he has above average hearing. Fremer has also asked that interconnects be tested in addition to loudspeaker cables unless James Randi will concede that they affect sound quality.

 --------------------

 Given those two paragraphs, I don't see there being much of a chance that anything is going to come of this. This Randi guy really comes off as a condescending jackass. Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think this is necessarily true. This is obviously not going to convince any believer simply because they do not believe in DBT testing, or they can simply take the narrowest possible interpretations ranging from "Pear cables are bunk" to "Fremer is a fraud." That doesn't make them necessary false interpretations mind you 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Skeptics are a bit different. Right now the burden of proof is on the believers. If Fremer passes then the burden passes, and the "skeptics" need to figure out exactly what happened or cede their claim.

 The nature of the debate changes significantly. Considering how well documented this will be the wiggle room is going to be very very small._

 

So, if Fremer passes, we win... but if he fails, we don't loose?

 Sounds good to me. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 [j/k]


----------



## Dept_of_Alchemy

I'm rooting for Fremer.

 I've heard differences in cables and I want to know that I'm not crazy or gullible.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow, I'm looking over this guy's website... you all should check this out http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43.

 He has a team of people who look over all of the applicants. Of course, many of them are nuts, but the fact is (as will be apparent if you follow the above link) that anyone who gets close to the "challenge" is summarily dismissed. 

 There will be no challenge, this guy is as big of a fake as the people he purports to expose._

 

I only read a couple of them, but here is one that has not been "summarily dismissed." The challenge is apparently scheduled for November 12: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89877


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you have a specific example?_

 

Follow the link
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Follow the link
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




._

 

I did. You linked to an entire forum.


----------



## spraggih

I guess no one addresses *different* versus *better*. I think I can hear differences from cables and other items but the difference is not one is better but different. 

 Not more resolution or higher highs or more details or anything of that nature-- one cable just sounds different than the other and I look to find the one more pleasing to me. I do find the differences to be minimal. 

 The big *differences* were in headphones (very big-- like the difference between the details heard on a W11JPN and a CD3000)

 and in amps (believe it or not-- right now the biggest differences of all)

 and in sources (in sources, the differences are more like weight, imagining-- like the difference between a Lavry DA10 and a Stello DA220)

 In any resolve, I wonder though if I say I hear a difference does that mean one is better than another or does it mean it could be tested scientifically?


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *spraggih* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I guess no one addresses *different* versus *better*. I think I can hear differences from cables and other items but the difference is not one is better but different._

 

I think it's understood that we're talking about "different," not "better."


----------



## Sarchi

If Fremer pulls it off he should be forced to spend half the winnings on Pear cables. Yeah, let's see how he likes them apples. I mean pears.


----------



## spraggih

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think it's understood that we're talking about "different," not "better."_

 

OK. I think the test will be easy then.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Remember, the last time someone challenged Fremer to a similar test (the laughable claim that nobody can hear the difference between amps as they all sound the same) Fremer was able to pick the correct amp 5 out of 5 times. The challenger said it was a fluke and backed out._

 

1) Its not laughable - read the Masters and Clark article " Do all amplifiers sound the same" guess what to their listeners under controlled tests amps that were several $1000s were indistinguishable from $200/$300 receivers. 
 The key is properly designed and driven below clipping.

 2) Do you have a citation for this test you mention, I would be interested to read it.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, if he fails we know that the difference between Monster speaker cables and Pear speaker cables is negligible or nonexistent. It still doesn't prove that all cables are equal. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This will be interesting to see, but it is not going to convince a 'skeptic' if Fremer comes out on top or convince a 'believer' if Randi wins._

 

If Fremer is able to correctly detect the differnce between the two cables to a statistically reliable level , which presumably Randi will set to 5% I will not hesitate to admit that there can be audible differences between cables.

 Monster themself can prove big differences between their cables and generic cables, they just do it by comparing 12 gauge vs 24 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 - the signal losss is easily measurable and audible

 What I want to know is will Randi insist on level matching the speaker outputs ?, i.e even if the Pear are near perfectly transparent with almost no signal loss level matching will remove that particular difference.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *spraggih* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_OK. I think the test will be easy then._

 

If it ever happens I will wager you $10 that Fremer fails 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That isnt a dig at Fremer but whenever audiophiles do these kinds of tests double blind it is extremely rare that they succeed, has been known but there are far more null results on DBTs.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I did. You linked to an entire forum._

 


 You can't link to fabrications in your mind. Geeze you're silly!


----------



## spraggih

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If it ever happens I will wager you $10 that Fremer fails 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That isnt a dig at Fremer but whenever audiophiles do these kinds of tests double blind it is extremely rare that they succeed, has been known but there are far more null results on DBTs._

 

Really you think so? I don't know- my head tells me someone could at least memorize the sound signature of a cable and then tell there was a difference-- not necessarily better but a difference-- especially if the tests were done days apart-- I think days apart because a sound signature gets into your head.


----------



## bigshot

The human brain has a very short term auditory memory. Within seconds, it becomes impossible to discern the difference between two very similar sounds. It's the same with color, even though visual memory is much longer than auditory memory. If you have two very slightly different colors, it's a lot easier to tell the difference by holding paint chips side by side than it would be to tell the difference between houses on opposite sides of the city painted those two colors.

 I seriously doubt that cables *have* a sound signature. I think hciman77 is going to get to keep his ten spot.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## spraggih

I don't know. Then maybe I am crazy. I think I hear a difference-- AGAIN not better but a difference. 

 After thinking about it and becoming specific about terms I would not call what I hear through cables as a "sound signature" but a "sound essence".

 Like I said -- maybe I am crazy.


----------



## vcoheda

i can tell the difference between my cables. no question about it. cables have sound signatures. if you spend enough time with them, you will be able to distinguish them. that's why A/B tests are BS. a quick A/B is useless and i doubt anyone (or at least most) could pick out any differences between not just cables but most headphones and amps - and we know that they sound different.


----------



## OverlordXenu

If the DBT article I read a while ago was correct, our auditory memory is around 5 seconds.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i can tell the difference between my cables. no question about it. cables have sound signatures. if you spend enough time with them, you will be able to distinguish them. that's why A/B tests are BS. a quick A/B is useless and i doubt anyone (or at least most) could pick out any differences between not just cables but most headphones and amps - and we know that they sound different._

 

I completely agree. Sometimes the difference is hard to describe in words, but you know categorically what sounds good to you. 

 I often ask my wife to be a 'reasonable person'. I will ask her to listen to couple songs she likes with one cable and then switch the cable. I am only trying to see if she can hear a difference and not what sounds good to her 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			











 My wife can care less about my stereo and hi-fi in general.


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i can tell the difference between my cables. no question about it. cables have sound signatures. if you spend enough time with them, you will be able to distinguish them. that's why A/B tests are BS. a quick A/B is useless and i doubt anyone (or at least most) could pick out any differences between not just cables but most headphones and amps - and we know that they sound different._

 

you could easily flash back and forth and hear differences with headphones. Cables are a much much much smaller difference but I do not agree with this I can memorize a sonic signature thing, no way. But I do agree that subtle changes are apparent if you place them in your system then live with them for a week and then take them out you'd notice.

 The failure as a community is our hyperbole everything is wham shazzaam blammo huge difference when most things are shading and texure. 
 I mean come on I had a guy recommend a recable of a k1000 over a better amp and thought that would make a bigger difference. We have to get past the BS. 
 I am clearly a middle ground person yeah I think they make a difference and I have heard cables make a system none more so than a mini to mini on a portable rig but the headphones were the bigger change.

 It would be cool if each side showed a bit of interest in the others side.
 Overlord guy can you link to the article or at least give us a source.


----------



## Sarchi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *spraggih* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really you think so? I don't know- my head tells me someone could at least memorize the sound signature of a cable and then tell there was a difference-- not necessarily better but a difference-- especially if the tests were done days apart-- I think days apart because a sound signature gets into your head._

 

Too many other factors; ambient temperature/humidity, listener mood, non-identical warmup of all components, not to mention imperfect memory. It could never work this way. The only meaningful test has to be A/B or DBT in a controlled setting.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_you could easily flash back and forth and hear differences with headphones. Cables are a much much much smaller difference but I do not agree with this I can memorize a sonic signature thing, no way. But I do agree that subtle changes are apparent if you place them in your system then live with them for a week and then take them out you'd notice.

 The failure as a community is our hyperbole everything is wham shazzaam blammo huge difference when most things are shading and texure. 
 I mean come on I had a guy recommend a recable of a k1000 over a better amp and thought that would make a bigger difference. We have to get past the BS. 
 I am clearly a middle ground person yeah I think they make a difference and I have heard cables make a system none more so than a mini to mini on a portable rig but the headphones were the bigger change.

 It would be cool if each side showed a bit of interest in the others side.
 Overlord guy can you link to the article or at least give us a source._

 


 You hit on exactly what a lot of people from the other side of the fence take issue with.

 People recommending others drop hundreds on cables, when the cables would cost more than the persons amp/source.


----------



## Sarchi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am clearly a middle ground person yeah I think they make a difference and I have heard cables make a system none more so than a mini to mini on a portable rig but the headphones were the bigger change._

 

Right on.. Cables do make differences, but it's a lot more fun and rewarding to roll tubes, or capacitors for example. I lump cables in with most tweaks, as long as it's decent quality it's not going to be a crucial component in the system. Ymmv

 So for me Randi (who may be nuts) is at least exposing the ridiculous pricing audiophiles are conditioned to accept, for wire.


----------



## Dept_of_Alchemy

Do we all agree that cables do make a difference? It seems to me that Randi is saying all cables sound identical, which I think is contrary to the common wisdom here and is contrary to my experience as well.

 If the $1M is for telling a 'difference', then I think Fremer is going to win. At least I hope so. That'll show 'em.


----------



## cosmopragma

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I often ask my wife to be a 'reasonable person'. I will ask her to listen to couple songs she likes with one cable and then switch the cable. I am only trying to see if she can hear a difference and not what sounds good to her 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	










 My wife can care less about my stereo and hi-fi in general._

 

Seems you don't get why DBTs were invented and are necessary.It doesn't matter if your wife cares about sound quality.She's influenced by your opinion on a subconscious level, and you don't have to voice your opinion.It's easily conveyed by nonverbal communication.


----------



## cosmopragma

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dept_of_Alchemy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do we all agree that cables do make a difference?_

 

Obviously not.
 In fact all the studio guys I'm aquainted with don't believe in differences between reasonably constructed cables.That's their common wisdom.They never blow money for expensive cables.
 This was the original motivation to perform my first DBT.
 Funny is although I know I've failed to tell my my favorite >$300 TMR ICs apart from <$30 Tech&Link ICs the more expensive cables still do sound "better".
 The whole affair did teach me a lot about the human mind.


----------



## cosmopragma

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 The failure as a community is our hyperbole everything is wham shazzaam blammo huge difference when most things are shading and texure. _

 

That's the main point for us sceptics, too.
 Admittedly me failing in a DBT doesn't mean that there are no differences.
 Naturally there are other listeners blessed with better hearing just as there are others that run faster than me.
 It's the total BS that makes me upset.
 Whenever a newbie complains about a disappointing experience with for instance a Senn HD650 you don't have to wait long for a clown recommending a $200 cable that will make a "night and day" difference.
 That's expensive nonsense.If you don't like the basic sonic signature no cable will change this since it will make a subtle difference at best.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But I do agree that subtle changes are apparent if you place them in your system then live with them for a week and then take them out you'd notice._

 

Yes, but more than a week is needed to know how the cable sounds when mixed with other tweaks. It takes a lifetime to know it all.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I mean come on I had a guy recommend a recable of a k1000 over a better amp and thought that would make a bigger difference. We have to get past the BS._

 

When I replaced the Stefan AudioArt Hardwired K1000 cable with Nordost Valkyrja there was an improvement in soundstage size and bass texture because of the air dielectric, everything was smoother, more detailed and revealing. With amps I haven't heard any significant improvements, only different flavors. T-Amp had no bass which emphasized the detail. Krell power amp had only bass which made the details get lost in the background. Those two amps make bigger differences than cables but they don't give overall improvements. ICEpower amp is both of them combined but it has a shorter signal path which makes it sound cleaner and more revealing. The only real improvements I have heard with amps are from using vibration isolation, power conditioning and ERS Paper shielding. For me, amps sound the same when doing all those tweaks. It seems like amps have a different combination of those variables (EMI, vibration, AC noise, signal path), and that's why they sound so different.

 It is better to remove a problem from the amp than to change one problem for another.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The human brain has a very short term auditory memory. Within seconds, it becomes impossible to discern the difference between two very similar sounds. It's the same with color, even though visual memory is much longer than auditory memory. If you have two very slightly different colors, it's a lot easier to tell the difference by holding paint chips side by side than it would be to tell the difference between houses on opposite sides of the city painted those two colors.

 I seriously doubt that cables *have* a sound signature. I think hciman77 is going to get to keep his ten spot.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

If you put two different monkeys beside each other they look the same to me. But once I live with them for a few years they start looking different and I notice which is which even when they aren't beside each other.


 Edit: Also if you put two identical monkeys beside each other, they look the same even with measurement devices. But once they start dancing around you notice they have a different style of dancing and the video cameras don't have high enough frame rates to capture the subtle differences.

 Edit2: Also if you dress them up, they behave differently with different dresses.


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dept_of_Alchemy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm rooting for Fremer.

 I've heard differences in cables and I want to know that I'm not crazy or gullible._

 

The fact that the outcome of the test still matters to you should give you pause.


 I wonder how many people went down the "better cables matter" road -before- they read or were told about how certain cables mattered. That is - completely from their own ears, not from social cues.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you put two different monkeys beside each other they look the same to me. But once I live with them for a few years they start looking different and I notice which is which even when they aren't beside each other.


 Edit: Also if you put two identical monkeys beside each other, they look the same even with measurement devices. But once they start dancing around you notice they have a different style of dancing and the video cameras don't have high enough frame rates to capture the subtle differences.

 Edit2: Also if you dress them up, they behave differently with different dresses._

 



 ..........


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wonder how many people went down the "better cables matter" road -before- they read or were told about how certain cables mattered. That is - completely from their own ears, not from social cues._

 

Thanks to Monster, Inc. this is pretty much impossible now 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The "cables make a difference" is now ingrained in the average consumer's psyche thanks to a hyper aggressive marketing campaign.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dept_of_Alchemy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do we all agree that cables do make a difference? It seems to me that Randi is saying all cables sound identical, which I think is contrary to the common wisdom here and is contrary to my experience as well._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cosmopragma* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Obviously not.
 In fact all the studio guys I'm aquainted with don't believe in differences between reasonably constructed cables.That's their common wisdom.They never blow money for expensive cables._

 

I think that we could probably all agree that _at some point_ cables make a difference. To use an extreme example that has been used elsewhere on Head-Fi recently, we would probably all agree that a cable made of wood sounds different from a cable made of copper. The cable advocates believe that one can extrapolate from that to the proposition that there are audible differences even between highly conductive materials like silver and copper. The more skeptical folks believe that whatever differences there may be are well below the threshold of audibility and/or relate to inaudible frequencies. I think that everyone (well, almost everyone) also recognizes that at some point, the claims of cable manufacturers can become unsupportable and are, even for the cable advocates, snake oil. 

 The problem is that while we can all probably agree on the two far extremes, there is so much ground in the middle that is hotly disputed.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cosmopragma* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Admittedly me failing in a DBT doesn't mean that there are no differences.
 Naturally there are other listeners blessed with better hearing just as there are others that run faster than me.
 It's the total BS that makes me upset._

 

Well said.


----------



## Patrick82

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_..........
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

The monkeys are the cables, the dresses are the ERS Paper, and the dancing is the jitter.


----------



## badmonkey

Electric monkeys in paper dresses doing the jitter bug eh?

 Don't insult us monkeys man!


----------



## LeChuck

The test is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't allow the objectivist to win. Even in the likely event that Randi wins, cable advocates are still going to claim that the test is flawed, and that Fremer's ears are not on par with their own, which _can_ hear the differences between cables.

 I find it interesting that the onus is on non-believers to show demonstrable proof, and not the other way around.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LeChuck* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The test is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't allow the objectivist to win. Even in the likely event that Randi wins, cable advocates are still going to claim that the test is flawed, and that Fremer's ears are not on par with their own, which can hear the differences between cables._

 

And you don't think the opposite will happen when Fremer wins? I don't say "if", I think it's a forgone conclusion that he will, he's done very similar things in the past and humiliated the skeptics. The skeptics will find "holes" in the methodology, and we'll be back to square one as far as learning goes.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LeChuck* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The test is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't allow the objectivist to win. Even in the likely event that Randi wins, cable advocates are still going to claim that the test is flawed, and that Fremer's ears are not on par with their own, which can hear the differences between cables._

 

I really, really, absolutely hate this line of reasoning. You're the 4th or 5th person to use it.

 There is no such thing as a perfect test. If science had to be perfect to advance we'd still be in caves.

_Any properly conducted experiment produces useful results_. Not necessarily the intended results, but useful results.

 Let's say Randi and Fremer agree on a protocol, and the test proceeds. The fact they agree on a protocol suggests:

 (1) Fremer has found a system that he considers to have a high enough resolution s.t. the difference between cables is audible.
 (2) Fremer has chosen cables which he believes have an audible difference over Monster cables.

 So what happens if Fremer fails? What are possible conclusions?

 (1) Monster cables are an unbelievable value. They achieve a level ordinarily associated with cables an order of magnitude or more of their price.
 (2) Fremer is a fraud.
 (3) Company X's cables are a fraud.
 (4) The claimed differences between high end cables is horribly exaggerated, to be polite.
 (5) Night and day differences between cables are bunk.

 Even if you don't accept (4)-(5), it's extremely hard to dismiss outright all of (1)-(3). Those are still useful results.

 Also, we're essentially trying to prove a negative. It can't be done. All you can do is reduce the domain of the negative statement to the point it's useless. Even if that means going one brand at a time.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If the DBT article I read a while ago was correct, our auditory memory is around 5 seconds._

 

When bigshot and now you assert this, it is also a kind of hyperbole! What is exaggerated is using the sounds which are used to get this test result--short and meaningless sound samples--to represent all of sound even though they are at one extreme of the range of things we hear. We here are interested in the type of sound that falls toward the other end of the continuum called music. That only comes in much longer and meaning-laden portions. These qualities give (the sounds comprised as) music much greater memorability.


----------



## philodox

I didn't expect myself to fall into the trend of putting Patrick82 quotes in my signature, but that one was just too good to pass up. Bravo Patrick, Bravo!


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cosmopragma* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's the total BS that makes me upset.
 Whenever a newbie complains about a disappointing experience with for instance a Senn HD650 you don't have to wait long for a clown recommending a $200 cable that will make a "night and day" difference.
 That's expensive nonsense.If you don't like the basic sonic signature no cable will change this since it will make a subtle difference at best._

 

And you base this on your personal experience, I'm assuming?

 A lot of the cables out there are subtle, but recabling a Sennheiser is not. Sennheiser's stock cable is crap, pure and simple. 

 Will it change the Sennheisers to Grados? No, but it sounds like that is what you're expecting. It will, however, address the fact that, out of the box, the HD650s sound a bit dark and muffled. A good cable will change this. Again, it doesn't make the Sennheiser sound like a different brand, just a better model, if that makes sense. My feeling is that if one were to test the frequency response curve before and after recabling, they would still look similar (same peaks and valleys), but a lot smoother with the new cables. To get a completely different signature, you would have to change the drivers, IMO.

 I do agree with you to an extent... if a noob says "I hate the HD650", the first answer should be "You should try a different brand", not "Just recable it." However, if a noob says "I like the HD650, but it has a few faults" then at that point I would recommend not using the stock cable.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_... when Fremer wins? I don't say "if", I think it's a forgone conclusion that he will..._

 

Do you want to wager $10 on that ?


----------



## ph0rk

I find it interesting how rarely audiologists are consulted in these matters. 

 I'd love to know what an audiologist thinks of Mr. Fremer's hearing.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_And you base this on your personal experience, I'm assuming?

 A lot of the cables out there are subtle, but recabling a Sennheiser is not. Sennheiser's stock cable is crap, pure and simple. 

 Will it change the Sennheisers to Grados? No, but it sounds like that is what you're expecting. It will, however, address the fact that, out of the box, the HD650s sound a bit dark and muffled. A good cable will change this. Again, it doesn't make the Sennheiser sound like a different brand, just a better model, if that makes sense. My feeling is that if one were to test the frequency response curve before and after recabling, they would still look similar (same peaks and valleys), but a lot smoother with the new cables. To get a completely different signature, you would have to change the drivers, IMO.

 I do agree with you to an extent... if a noob says "I hate the HD650", the first answer should be "You should try a different brand", not "Just recable it." However, if a noob says "I like the HD650, but it has a few faults" then at that point I would recommend not using the stock cable._

 

Posts like this are exactly why I hope Fremer doesn't back out. If the difference between cables in certain cases are not subtle, Fremer has no excuses for failing this test unless his hearing is exceptionally poor.


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Posts like this are exactly why I hope Fremer doesn't back out. If the difference between cables in certain cases are not subtle, Fremer has no excuses for failing this test unless his hearing is exceptionally poor._

 

However the difference in question is between a decently-made (if overpriced) speaker cable and another decently-made (hugely overpriced) speaker cable - personally I'd like a third option of thick gauge lamp cord in there too, but that's just me.

 If Fremer just had bad ears (and picked bad components that could easily be recognized as such), wouldn't stereophile have been inundated with complaints about the quality of his reviews? 

 If, however, his ears are largely irrelevant and the purchasers are constrained by an emperor's-new-clothes effect, we would expect few if any complaints to the magazine.


 If I had my druthers I'd have every "pro" reviewer have their hearing checked, and the results either tacked as an appendix to the reviews or made otherwise freely available - I can't count how many near-deaf audiophiles or high end audio salesmen I've encountered.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If Fremer just had bad ears (and picked bad components that could easily be recognized as such), wouldn't stereophile have been inundated with complaints about the quality of his reviews?_

 

If you're trying to say that Fremer does have good ears, well, if he fails the test you're essentially ceeding that most of the cable industry is bunk.

 These are the sorts of results that make the test so interesting.


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*If you're trying to say that Fremer does have good ears*, well, if he fails the test you're essentially ceeding that most of the cable industry is bunk.

 These are the sorts of results that make the test so interesting._

 

While I don't think it was your intention, I do *-not-* wish to be on record as implying anything of the sort 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The next line was a direct counterpoint:

  Quote:


 If, however, his ears are largely irrelevant and the purchasers are constrained by an emperor's-new-clothes effect, we would expect few if any complaints to the magazine. 
 


 I agree that if Fremer fails the test there will be... issues (assuming there is no easy-out). What of all the products he has reviewed? What of the people that, until now, claimed to like them?

 At this point I'd like to add to my audiologist assessment, reviewers should have their financials made public too. It really isn't any different than a bias statement such as physicians are required (usually) to publish with their research papers - you'd want to know if the makers of drux_X fully funded the research of the doc that claims it has benefit_Y, right?

 I'd want to know if the makers of audio_thing_Z made any "donations" to a reviewer that gushes about it.


----------



## rb67

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dept_of_Alchemy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do we all agree that cables do make a difference? It seems to me that Randi is saying all cables sound identical, which I think is contrary to the common wisdom here and is contrary to my experience as well._

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say that we agree on the impact of cables on a sound system. It's still a major point of contention, and a good portion of members believe that there are no detectable differences between cables assuming good construction. 

 Anyways, it will be interesting how this will all turn out. If he is unable to detect differences, cable supporters will likely not change their opinions. If he is able to detect differences, it may convince some non-believers to consider cables.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you want to wager $10 on that ?_

 

Sure, why not! As long as the bet is void if either side walks out, of course. I love friendly wagers
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Patrick82* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you put two different monkeys beside each other they look the same to me._

 

These two monkeys are ready for their DBT!


----------



## LeChuck

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I really, really, absolutely hate this line of reasoning. You're the 4th or 5th person to use it.

 There is no such thing as a perfect test. If science had to be perfect to advance we'd still be in caves.

Any properly conducted experiment produces useful results. Not necessarily the intended results, but useful results.

 Let's say Randi and Fremer agree on a protocol, and the test proceeds. The fact they agree on a protocol suggests:

 (1) Fremer has found a system that he considers to have a high enough resolution s.t. the difference between cables is audible.
 (2) Fremer has chosen cables which he believes have an audible difference over Monster cables.

 So what happens if Fremer fails? What are possible conclusions?

 (1) Monster cables are an unbelievable value. They achieve a level ordinarily associated with cables an order of magnitude or more of their price.
 (2) Fremer is a fraud.
 (3) Company X's cables are a fraud.
 (4) The claimed differences between high end cables is horribly exaggerated, to be polite.
 (5) Night and day differences between cables are bunk.

 Even if you don't accept (4)-(5), it's extremely hard to dismiss outright all of (1)-(3). Those are still useful results.

 Also, we're essentially trying to prove a negative. It can't be done. All you can do is reduce the domain of the negative statement to the point it's useless. Even if that means going one brand at a time._

 

That's fair.

 I think, however, for most of us the results of this test represent more of a conversation piece than anything else. I for one, have already determined that I cannot distinguish any audible difference between cables I have tried, maybe at the $7000+ level there is something left for me to hear, but there is a lot of things I would to do my system before even thinking about looking in that direction.

 For me, it doesn't matter if Fremer can hear the difference, because I can't. Likewise, even if he can't, there are a ton of people here who claim that they can hear the difference, and will likewise be unaffected by his test results.

 Life goes on.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_When bigshot and now you assert this, it is also a kind of hyperbole! What is exaggerated is using the sounds which are used to get this test result--short and meaningless sound samples--to represent all of sound even though they are at one extreme of the range of things we hear. We here are interested in the type of sound that falls toward the other end of the continuum called music. That only comes in much longer and meaning-laden portions. These qualities give (the sounds comprised as) music much greater memorability._

 

The context of the sound makes it even more difficult to discern tiny differences. If the music is something you enjoy, you can begin having an emotional reaction to it that colors your perception of the objective sound quality.

 Our memory is symbolic. We remember concepts much longer than we remember specifics. Humans can remember music for a long period of time. Memory for sound quality is very transitory.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A lot of the cables out there are subtle, but recabling a Sennheiser is not. Sennheiser's stock cable is crap, pure and simple._

 

The cable on my Senns is great. It's lightweight, it doesn't make acoustic noise when I brush against it, and it carries the signal as well as any other well made cable.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_At this point I'd like to add to my audiologist assessment, reviewers should have their financials made public too._

 

Don't they have advertiser's indexes in magazines any more?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The cable on my Senns is great. It's lightweight, it doesn't make acoustic noise when I brush against it, and it carries the signal as well as any other well made cable._

 

Says the man who has never tried an aftermarket cable on his Senns. Hell, I don't even LIKE most Sennheiser headphones, but have heard the differences myself at a small sized meet last year. We had two or three HD650's and a half dozen or so cables. No DBT, so I don't expect you to take my word for it, but still... it's not like you are offering anything but an opinion either.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Says the man who has never tried an aftermarket cable on his Senns._

 

Are you honestly surprised about this? 90% of the people on this website who scream "snake oil" have never tried the equipment that they are so knowledgeable about. I completely respect those who have and don't notice a difference, but it is laughable that so many people who swear by the scientific method have no interest whatsoever in actual testing; it's easier to just cut and paste the opinions of their Luddite friends and call this "science"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you honestly surprised about this? 90% of the people on this website who scream "snake oil" have never tried the equipment that they are so knowledgeable about. I completely respect those who have and don't notice a difference, but it is laughable that so many people who swear by the scientific method have no interest whatsoever in actual testing; it's easier to just cut and paste the opinions of their Luddite friends and call this "science"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




._

 

I haven't ever heard a difference between any two decent quality cables. I have heard differences with very low quality cables, though this is usually either because the cable fails completely or develops shorts that cause noticeable problems. I'm actually looking forward to the Philadelphia area meet tomorrow, as I understand that there will be some aftermarket Sennheiser cables available for me to try with my HD580.

 Nevertheless, even if I had heard differences, I would still question whether what I heard was caused by the cable or some other factor, like the shortcomings of my own perception or differences in volume. I have personally experienced situations with audio codecs where I thought that I heard differences that, upon blind testing, turned out to be non-existent. I recognize that my own perception is fallible, and so I don't expect the perception of others to be infallible.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sure, why not! As long as the bet is void if either side walks out, of course. I love friendly wagers
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




._

 

Agreed, should be interesting and $10 is small enough to be friendly, lets give this some social value as well. If Fremer loses you can give my $10 to Oxfam America or your preferred charity (excluding political organizations please).


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I haven't ever heard a difference between any two decent quality cables. I have heard differences with very low quality cables, though this is usually either because the cable fails completely or develops shorts that cause noticeable problems. I'm actually looking forward to the Philadelphia area meet tomorrow, as I understand that there will be some aftermarket Sennheiser cables available for me to try with my HD580.

 Nevertheless, even if I had heard differences, I would still question whether what I heard was caused by the cable or some other factor, like the shortcomings of my own perception or differences in volume. I have personally experienced situations with audio codecs where I thought that I heard differences that, upon blind testing, turned out to be non-existent. I recognize that my own perception is fallible, and so I don't expect the perception of others to be infallible._

 

And this is the type of view I can respect. You're thinking and experiencing, not just parroting.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you honestly surprised about this? 90% of the people on this website who scream "snake oil" have never tried the equipment that they are so knowledgeable about._

 

i agree.

 and that's why i really have no respect for and cannot in any degree take seriously the vast majority of non-cable believer's opinions, as their conclusions are based on graphs, links, and other incomplete science and not actual experience - which in the sum of things is the only thing that matters and is of any value. one of these trolls recently posted in a K1000 thread inquiring about cable options that the stock cable was fine and no difference would be heard with another. he was quickly admonished (unfortunately they were being polite), as many experienced K1000 users chimed in saying that a better cable in their experience clearly made a noticeable difference and an improvement to the sound. everyone asked him what cables he had tried that led him to this conclusion. of course, he never posted again in that thread. and he doesn't even own (or has ever owned) a K1000. just spewing crap, as is usual per the standard MO of the anti-cable brigade.


----------



## Sarchi

I posted a skeptical note on my blog about this whole thing (that the entire premise is flawed), and MF posted this comment:

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Michael Fremer* 
_We’ll see. We’re still at the negotiating stage of this. Since I will be footing the bill, I am insisting it takes place in my listening room. And since I don’t wish to be auditioning A/B/X boxes, which introduced their own impedance issues and switches and wires and connectors, this will have to be a “hard wired” test….Will it happen? Not sure. Do I want it to? Yes. And if I can’t hear a difference? Well we should all question our orthodoxies, and that includes the “amazing” Randi._


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I haven't ever heard a difference between any two decent quality cables. I have heard differences with very low quality cables, though this is usually either because the cable fails completely or develops shorts that cause noticeable problems. I'm actually looking forward to the Philadelphia area meet tomorrow, as I understand that there will be some aftermarket Sennheiser cables available for me to try with my HD580.

 Nevertheless, even if I had heard differences, I would still question whether what I heard was caused by the cable or some other factor, like the shortcomings of my own perception or differences in volume. I have personally experienced situations with audio codecs where I thought that I heard differences that, upon blind testing, turned out to be non-existent. I recognize that my own perception is fallible, and so I don't expect the perception of others to be infallible._

 

That is what I'm talking about. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Enjoy the meet.


----------



## Chu

@vchodea/earwicker

 I'd wager 80% of the discussion on this site involves hearsay. As a quick example, I comment in a lot of the 'gaming' headphone threads, and there are people who constantly bring up the pros and cons of the A900/V-6/HD280/RP-21/D1000/Beyers. There are very, _very_ few people who have seriously used all six of those in a gaming environment. I wouldn't hesitate too much to say none.

 I've seen the same in a lot of Grado threads. While there are quite a few of us who have heard every Grado model, there are some people which based on their equipment and responses I can guess haven't; yet they can comment on the differences between the RS-2/RS-1/225/HF-1/325i side by side.

 A lot of opinions on this site are based on trust, for better or worse. There are plenty of people who have heard the differences between cables, and there are plenty of people who haven't. It should be no surprise that people are picking sides without experience in this matter just like any other.

 For the record, I've been able to demo some high end cables and they don't sound different to me. Admittedly not on my own equipment. The only cables I've ever heard differences between are with my Little Dot II++ because for some reason one of my cables picks up radio and the other one doesn't. I hope it still does that at Chiunifi because I'm honestly a little puzzled at why. Both cables are fine on other amps.


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i agree.

 and that's why i really have no respect for and cannot in any degree take seriously the vast majority of non-cable believer's opinions, as their conclusions are based on graphs, links, and other incomplete science and not actual experience - which in the sum of things is the only thing that matters and is of any value._

 

That is a logical trap though, as you can always argue that unless they've tried the specific brand cable you have tried with the same cans, amp, etc. It eventually boils down to the actual cable in your possession.

 I have tried numerous grades of speaker wire. gauge beats snake oil every time (granted, in the >$100 range, but isn't that where the greatest change would be anyway what with diminishing returns?).

 I've also tried interconnects from hosa to overpriced AR/Monster/similar, and other than cable that is inadequately shielded or fails, I detected not much.

 I haven't listened to everything, and I haven't DBT'd it, but if you don't hear a difference DBT isn't necessary (as you've already accepted the null). 


 that said, as Chu points out, this site (and it is not alone) has a high speculation content. However, what would be an acceptable amount, in your mind, of cable exploration before one could take a position in the "as long as they're made well they don't matter" camp?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Michael Fremer* 
_And since I don’t wish to be auditioning A/B/X boxes, which introduced their own impedance issues and switches and wires and connectors, *this will have to be a “hard wired” test*…_

 

If that is the case, I doubt the test will have any merit. If it cannot be done with the proper scientific rigor, there is no point in performing any test at all.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'd wager 80% of the discussion on this site involves hearsay._

 

to be honest, i think it is the exact opposite. or maybe that is just the threads that i browse. it seems to me that in the vast majority of threads that i read, the people have owned or auditioned the equipment being discussed. and if they only heard it at a meet or a friend's, or their views are based on reviews they read, then they usually qualify their opinion as such. so i really have to disagree with this. i personally only comment on gear that i have owned or listened to enough to make some sort of evaluation. any other statements, i always try to qualify.

  Quote:


 A lot of opinions on this site are based on trust, for better or worse. 
 

100 percent agree. and while i generally read all posts on topics that i am interested in, after a while, you learn to figure out who has an even approach to things. these are generally the more senior members who have personally experienced tons and tons of gear. as mentioned before, those are the only opinions that i value - those based on experience. and the more experience you have, the better your judgment will be.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is a logical trap though, as you can always argue that unless they've tried the specific brand cable you have tried with the same cans, amp, etc. It eventually boils down to the actual cable in your possession._

 

no. that's not reasonable. what i would say is that a person on a respectable setup - and i use this term broadly in the sense of resolving enough - should use a sufficient number of cables of various brands and price points (within reason) before they decide whether cables do or do not sound different and whether some sound better than others. it doesn't have to be my exact setup. that's not reasonable. but they must have some experience with different types of gear before commenting. and that to me is the biggest problem here. people don't. yet they comment anyway as though they do.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_to be honest, i think it is the exact opposite. or maybe that is just the threads that i browse. it seems to me that in the vast majority of threads that i read, the people have owned or auditioned the equipment being discussed. and if they only heard it at a meet or a friend's, or their views are based on reviews they read, then they usually qualify their opinion as such. so i really have to disagree with this. i personally only comment on gear that i have owned or listened to enough to make some sort of evaluation. any only statements, i always try to qualify._

 

I disagree. Unfortunately, there can be a high "echo" factor here. I've seen many instances of people commenting on gear based solely on hearsay reports from others.


----------



## Sarchi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If that is the case, I doubt the test will have any merit. If it cannot be done with the proper scientific rigor, there is no point in performing any test at all._

 

I disagree. I think if Fremer insists on 'no switchbox', he's only making it harder on himself. It's still DBT, but with a delay between switchovers. That makes it tougher on Fremer's auditory memory.


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sarchi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I disagree. I think if Fremer insists on 'no switchbox', he's only making it harder on himself. It's still DBT, but with a delay between switchovers. That makes it tougher on Fremer's auditory memory._

 

Ah, I suppose that would work, though it would require someone present to handle the mucking about, and preferably cables somehow disguised/sheathed with banana clips of some sort (Fremer could pick these, if they bother him).

 I won't trust it unless the cables remain in some third party's sight during the entirety of the testing though. Some sort of arbiter is needed.


----------



## Sarchi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ah, I suppose that would work, though it would require someone present to handle the mucking about, and preferably cables somehow disguised/sheathed with banana clips of some sort (Fremer could pick these, if they bother him).

 I won't trust it unless the cables remain in some third party's sight during the entirety of the testing though. Some sort of arbiter is needed._

 

No doubt there will have to be at least two other people in the room monitoring the proceedings.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ah, I suppose that would work, though it would require someone present to handle the mucking about, and preferably cables somehow disguised/sheathed with banana clips of some sort (Fremer could pick these, if they bother him).

 I won't trust it unless the cables remain in some third party's sight during the entirety of the testing though. Some sort of arbiter is needed._

 

This really isn't that hard. Use a true RNG to choose which cable is up next and have a third party do the switch. Videotape the whole thing so it can be verified post-experiment. Have Fremer and the experiment coordinator leave the room during the switch. Have some sort of obfuscation by the speakers and power amp so you can't visually tell what cable is in use.


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This really isn't that hard. Use a true RNG to choose which cable is up next and have a third party do the switch. Videotape the whole thing so it can be verified post-experiment. Have Fremer and the experiment coordinator leave the room during the switch. Have some sort of obfuscation by the speakers and power amp so you can't visually tell what cable is in use._

 

I had assumed something faster as I envision 100 or 200 trials, which would take far too long with that much time between listenings.

 if 200 trials sounds like a lot, it -is- a million dollars, after all.


----------



## spraggih

wow. I have not checked this thread for 24 hours-- back then it was 5 pages long-- now it is 8 pages long.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The context of the sound makes it even more difficult to discern tiny differences. If the music is something you enjoy, you can begin having an emotional reaction to it that colors your perception of the objective sound quality.

 Our memory is symbolic. We remember concepts much longer than we remember specifics. Humans can remember music for a long period of time. Memory for sound quality is very transitory.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

The emotions or sensations evoked is part of what is memorable, and differences in this between hearing the same music played one way versus another is one thing that may indicate a difference in what affects this, e.g., different cable, less jitter, moreso what headphones, etc. People can become disciplined about monitoring their emotional reaction to phenomena and thus use it as an, in fact quite sensitive, instrument of differentiation or diagnosis. It is a cornerstone of the practice of psychotherapy. Don't try to claim you have knowledge about this you in fact don't have, as you just did about memory being symbolic, when there are all kinds of memory, e.g., of pictures, of concepts (which is probably what you meant), of experiences--which is highly related to sensations and emotions to such an extent that some have theorized that emotions are the filing system of experiential memory, etc.

 Context and pre-existing mood and emotions can color and distort this of course, but the emotions caused by the listening are closely tied to the perception and perhaps should be considered part of the perception as opposed to a distraction or distortion.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Does anyone know about the capatiance of the (various) monster-cables?

 For what i know, it should be quite possible to generate a treble roll off with a cable with high capatiance and an improperly high output impedance of the amp.

 Modern mainstream gear should take care of that, but if Fremer chooses some ailing, exotic tubeamp he may be able to cause an effect (anticipating the monster-cables had an unreasonable high capatiance).

 James Randy has to demand that the compared cables should have similar and reasonable R/L/C-values.

 Arithmetics, anyone?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The emotions or sensations evoked is part of what is memorable, and differences in this between hearing the same music played one way versus another is one thing that may indicate a difference in what affects this_

 

The difference between cables is so subtle (if it exists at all) no amount of familiarity is going to help you remember. You aren't going to memorize whether the sheen on the top of the cymbals has a 1dB boost at 12kHz or not.

 Even performance style or balance isn't totally memorable. Remember the Joyce Hatto affair? Well respected reviewers gushed over her performances, only to find out afterwards that they were direct ripoffs of other pianists' recordings- ones that received tepid reviews from the same critics. In rec.arts.music.classical-recordings, people are always putting up mp3s and inviting people to guess the conductor and orchestra. There are a lot of people there who really know their recordings, and even they often aren't able to name them without clues.

 I think a little bit of DBT would confirm what I say is true. Perhaps the Randi challenge will convince you.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The difference between cables is so subtle (if it exists at all) no amount of familiarity is going to help you remember. You aren't going to memorize whether the sheen on the top of the cymbals has a 1dB boost at 12kHz or not.

 Even performance style or balance isn't totally memorable. Remember the Joyce Hatto affair? Well respected reviewers gushed over her performances, only to find out afterwards that they were direct ripoffs of other pianists' recordings- ones that received tepid reviews from the same critics. In rec.arts.music.classical-recordings, people are always putting up mp3s and inviting people to guess the conductor and orchestra. There are a lot of people there who really know their recordings, and even they often aren't able to name them without clues.

 I think a little bit of DBT would confirm what I say is true. Perhaps the Randi challenge will convince you.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

What you say is not hard to accept as what happens a lot of the time under random circumstances and with different sets and emotional states. That's the problem with the Randi thing. The glare and stress of a very public, sporting contest-like listening situation makes what happens quite exceptional EITHER WAY. If Fremer cannot differentiate it could be what many have reported elsewhere about anxiety dulling perception. On the other hand, some thrill to the contest and the adrenaline heightens perception so if Fremer wins, we don't know how that extrapolates to a more usual listening situation--though it would say that it can be done in at least one situation.

 The identifying of recordings via broadcast or online airing of compressed recordings has many technical, situational and mental set differences from comparing one thing to another in one's usual setting with ones own equipment. Only the most talented, disciplined pros can do this sort of thing. I once witnessed a world-class wine expert at THE largest and most prestigious international wine event be challenged blind to identify 10 wines of different types and nationalities while on stage before an audience of 1000. He identified the country of origin and the type of all 10 and for most was right on more specific identification including identifying a wine from his own vineyards in Australia naming the particular vineyard the grapes came from and vintage. There may be only a handful that can perform on this level, but it is possible. I say it is the same with fine discriminations in audio.


----------



## Chu

. . . and now we've come full circle and are starting to get into territory that the test really is needed to answer convincingly!

 I really hope that they work out a protocol. I can't wait to see the results.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ I once witnessed a world-class wine expert at THE largest and most prestigious international wine event be challenged blind to identify 10 wines of different types and nationalities while on stage before an audience of 1000. He identified the country of origin and the type of all 10 and for most was right on more specific identification including identifying a wine from his own vineyards in Australia naming the particular vineyard the grapes came from and vintage. There may be only a handful that can perform on this level, but it is possible. I say it is the same with fine discriminations in audio._

 

There was once a study about Scotch focusing on whether it was possible to differentiate cheap Scotch from expensive Scotch. The results were extremely interesting. They went to a snooty country club where everyone talked about this superior Scotch vs that superior Scotch. The members of the club were given numerous brands of Scotch ranging from bargain basement to extremely expensive. With one exception, the members were unable to score any better than chance. The interesting thing is that the one person who performed well was able to nail the brand with consistency in the high 90s percentage-wise. He rarely made a mistake. 

 Just kind of makes you wonder about the golden ears thing. 

 On a similar note, I once astonished a room full of people when I saw a "subliminal" message in a movie. The movie was "The Ring"... during one part, I said "Wow, that was really cool how they threw the Ring in between the scenes." I got a roomful of puzzled looks. I hit rewind and replayed the scene. People were starting to think I was imagining things. I played the part three more times and finally got frustrated and hit pause and played it frame by frame. There was indeed one frame with this image... ONE FRAME. The image was on the screen for 1/24 of a second, but it was clear as day to me. To the best of my knowledge, this isn't "possible", and nobody else was able to notice it; I'm wondering if I have "golden eyes"...


----------



## vcoheda

i don't think you need golden ears to distinguish between or among cables. i certainly don't have perfect hearing and clearly can distinguish my cables from one another.

 another thing people go on about is the briefness of auditory memory. this may be true but is irrelevant in my opinion, as the memory at work is your long term (and not short term) memory. after spending a good while with a piece of equipment, you develop a general impression of its character and it is this that i use for comparison purposes. taking two pieces of foreign equipment and trying to point out their differences with a quick A/B is useless and i suspect that most people regardless of their hearing are able to do this.

 it is for this reason, among others, that A/B tests are pointless and not the best or even a remotely suitable way to determine differences between things which by their nature are very similar in character.


----------



## OverlordXenu

There is no such thing as a person with golden ears. Unless there is something wrong with our hearing (due to damage, genetics, etc.) we all pretty much hear the same, and any differences are so minute, they just don't matter.

 Like me, I assume most of you aren't teenagers anymore. Well guess what, we already have a dwindling freq. in which we can hear. It still amazes me how some of the biggest audiophiles are well past their 40s, even 50s.

 There is no "long term" auditory memory. It is 5 seconds.

 And earwicker, the Scotch would be the music, not the audio reproduction equipment.

 The point of this test is to see if the Pear cables are any better than the monster cables.


----------



## Penchum

I have been reading about this cable dispute since the days of the “Audio Basics” underground magazines back in the early 1980’s. Even back then, it was heavily disputed. The one variable that can’t be dismissed even by time, IMHO, is that reviewers in magazines are subject to the policies and politics of their owning company and they are not going to be allowed to bite the hand that feeds them. To do so would be an automatic dismissal and smearing of whatever reputation has been built up over time. Why do I believe this? The all mighty dollar wins every time.

 What I think is important here is whether or not we will walk away from the results of this test, felling compelled to change our personal views on how we put together our beloved systems. I believe that majority of audiophiles (new or old) will continue just as they have been. I’m pretty sure I will.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Penchum* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have been reading about this cable dispute since the days of the “Audio Basics” underground magazines back in the early 1980’s. Even back then, it was heavily disputed. The one variable that can’t be dismissed even by time, IMHO, is that reviewers in magazines are subject to the policies and politics of their owning company and they are not going to be allowed to bite the hand that feeds them. To do so would be an automatic dismissal and smearing of whatever reputation has been built up over time. Why do I believe this? The all mighty dollar wins every time.

 What I think is important here is whether or not we will walk away from the results of this test, felling compelled to change our personal views on how we put together our beloved systems. I believe that majority of audiophiles (new or old) will continue just as they have been. I’m pretty sure I will._

 

Good point. The only reviews sites that can be anywhere-near balanced, neutral, and helpful are places like Consumer Reports, where they don't accept demos and the like, and pay for all the items themselves. Someone should make an audio review site like that. Although I doubt people would be willing to pay for reviews on audio equipment.


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Good point. The only reviews sites that can be anywhere-near balanced, neutral, and helpful are places like Consumer Reports, where they don't accept demos and the like, and pay for all the items themselves. Someone should make an audio review site like that. Although I doubt people would be willing to pay for reviews on audio equipment._

 

We have very nearly reached the point in western society where news/information has merged completely with advertisement/marketing. To be honest, I suppose I can't blame the cable believers for believing what they've read.

 As a dedicated empiricist, I find the whole phenomenon disheartening, though. (Vinyl demagnetizers? come on!)


----------



## Penchum

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We have very nearly reached the point in western society where news/information has merged completely with advertisement/marketing. To be honest, I suppose I can't blame the cable believers for believing what they've read.

 As a dedicated empiricist, I find the whole phenomenon disheartening, though. (Vinyl demagnetizers? come on!)_

 

My eyelid aways starts to twitch when I read reviews with wording like:

 "The differences concentrated on low-level retrieval which gave the treated disc both a slighty sharper, crisper mien and, reliably confirmed after multiple A/Bs, better definition of secondary or tertiary motifs embedded deeper into the musical fabric - like the synth burbling...."

 Most of the time I can't decide if I should laugh, or cry.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is no such thing as a person with golden ears. Unless there is something wrong with our hearing (due to damage, genetics, etc.) we all pretty much hear the same, and any differences are so minute, they just don't matter._

 

Um, no, that's not true at all. I recently had custom sleeves made for my Shure IEMs and, since I was already there, asked the audiologist about this. She said that the idea that everyone's ears are the same is nonsense. She said that something as simple as the shape of the ear can have a major effect on the sound that people can hear. Some people are born able to hear a larger frequency range than others. Also, there are other psychological factors that effect the way people hear; a person who is by nature stressed tends to clench the jaw, which closes the eustachian tube and drastically lowers the amount of sound that comes to your eardrum.

 Use science, not internet myths, please.


----------



## bigshot

There are variations between what people *can't* hear. Some people have hearing loss. But there isn't a super race of humans with ability to hear things that only bats can hear. When someone says, "No one has golden ears." They're referring to people with no hearing loss, and their point is that no one can hear the unhearable.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Um, no, that's not true at all. I recently had custom sleeves made for my Shure IEMs and, since I was already there, asked the audiologist about this. She said that the idea that everyone's ears are the same is nonsense. She said that something as simple as the shape of the ear can have a major effect on the sound that people can hear. Some people are born able to hear a larger frequency range than others. Also, there are other psychological factors that effect the way people hear; a person who is by nature stressed tends to clench the jaw, which closes the eustachian tube and drastically lowers the amount of sound that comes to your eardrum.

 Use science, not internet myths, please._

 

"Pretty much" might be the keyword here. We do all hear pretty much the same, compared to, say, a bat which can pick up ultrasonics or a whale who are confused by ELF signals.


----------



## spraggih

audiologist? where do you find one of those folks? if you have a quick answer please let me know. I plan to search through switchboard.com for local audiologists.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *spraggih* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_audiologist? where do you find one of those folks? if you have a quick answer please let me know. I plan to search through switchboard.com for local audiologists._

 

Just call up your local hospital. When I was young I had problems with water getting trapped in my ears (the tube between your ears and nose) and had to visit "the vault" several times so they could gauge my hearing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The vault would be an interesting place to carry out listening tests. I wonder if they exist out of hospitals.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *spraggih* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_audiologist? where do you find one of those folks? if you have a quick answer please let me know. I plan to search through switchboard.com for local audiologists._

 

I got mine through the people Shure recommend for doing their custom IEM sleeves.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There are variations between what people *can't* hear. Some people have hearing loss. But there isn't a super race of humans with ability to hear things that only bats can hear. When someone says, "No one has golden ears." They're referring to people with no hearing loss, and their point is that no one can hear the unhearable.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Once again you have _a_ point but miss _the_ point. Hearing especially hearing of complex structured sounds like music is not just a matter of the most basic parameters that are measured in a hearing test. There are many levels of processing involved even within the dedicated auditory parts of the brain culminating in the auditory cortex. Then there are the interactions of these at each level with other brain function centers and the rest of the cortical functions. There is a great deal of effect of learning and training above and beyond raw inner ear capability. You can hear a lot of things you formerly couldn't with the right instruction and practice. 

 This goes on regularly and intentionally when med students work to be able to hear faint heart murmurs and distinguish among them, etc. And as to super capable people, how about one of my professors at med school who was nearly deaf but could usually match what we heard with a stethoscope by looking at the patient's chest from across the room. If he laid his hand on the patient's chest he could outdo us by a great deal and keep up with EKGs pretty well in making diagnoses this way. There's just a lot more to hearing than the basic elements you want to confine your and our consideration to. 

 There are still many things about what people can do that science has not been able to explain satisfactorily even though it of course should be able to and may eventually. The better and more intelligent the scientist is the more likely he or she is to have no problem acknowledging this without feeling it threatens the scientific endeavor--or means necessarily that those who report them are magical thinkers.


----------



## minktoast

Looks like Blake has withdrawn from the challenge! Another nail in the coffin for expensive cables?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Once again you have a point but miss the point. Hearing especially hearing of complex structured sounds like music is not just a matter of the most basic parameters that are measured in a hearing test._

 

We aren't talking about listening to music and remembering its complex structured sound. We're talking about listening to music and remembering *the subtle (or non existent) difference between one cable and another*. The non-structured sound of a slight difference in sound quality definitely *is* the sort of thing that directly relates to tests measuring auditory memory.

 Anyone who is intellectually honest would have to admit that it isn't likely that they would remember minute differences in sound quality for hours or days at a time. The only thing that long stretches of time does is give time for the mind to construct a presumed difference for itself. If you strain long enough to hear a difference, you'll start to hear differences that don't exist.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *minktoast* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Looks like Blake has withdrawn from the challenge! Another nail in the coffin for expensive cables?_

 

SNAKE OIL!

 Next Fremer will weasel out of it.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *minktoast* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Looks like Blake has withdrawn from the challenge! Another nail in the coffin for expensive cables?_

 

That is a shame, anyone got $7250 to lend Mr Fremer to buy the cables himself ? - I can pitch in $5 - we could start a fund.

 Does anyone here have a pair they could lend him ?


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"Pretty much" might be the keyword here. We do all hear pretty much the same, compared to, say, a bat which can pick up ultrasonics or a whale who are confused by ELF signals._

 

What is the point of a statement like this? Yes, from the point of view of a paleontologist or anthropologist this is true from his very zoomed-out perspective. But we--OBVIOUSLY--are zoomed in on the fine points of human hearing, so what is subsumed under "pretty much" is the whole ballgame. From our perspective as audiophiles we definitely do not "all hear the same thing".


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We aren't talking about listening to music and remembering its complex structured sound. We're talking about listening to music and remembering *the subtle (or non existent) difference between one cable and another*. The non-structured sound of a slight difference in sound quality definitely *is* the sort of thing that directly relates to tests measuring auditory memory.

 Anyone who is intellectually honest would have to admit that it isn't likely that they would remember minute differences in sound quality for hours or days at a time. The only thing that long stretches of time does is give time for the mind to construct a presumed difference for itself. If you strain long enough to hear a difference, you'll start to hear differences that don't exist.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Of course you can't remember minute differences in what _you_ mean by sound quality for extended times. Remembering the influence of same on what one hears--in the full, correct meaning of the term-- of a reproduced musical passage is another thing altogether. Such passages take a "long stretch" to play as does the analysis of what is heard at the upper register of hearing in the auditory cortex and informed by accompanying emotions and sensations, past reference points, etc. Yes, this analysis can sharpen this full hearing or can cloud it with confabulation, prejudice, campaigns against audio magazines and ads, ego, mood, etc. That's where the training and discipline come in or don't if it's lacking.

 We are just going round and round about this because you stick with the lowest level involved in hearing and many wish to stick with the full extent of what is involved in hearing what we actually listen to.


----------



## minktoast

There's an interesting discussion on their forums.

 Here's a quote from a guy who knows Fremer. 

  Quote:


 I've just gotten off the phone with Michael Fremer.

 I was reading about this story on Gizmodo and was absolutely shocked to see Fremer's name up there - I grew up about 5 minutes from his house and he's very close with my dad. I've been to his home on many occasions. Many times have I marveled at his record collection; more than once have I sat in front of his enormous speaker system and been amazed at the magic it worked on music that I thought sounded good on my paltry 5.1 computer speakers.

 So naturally, when I saw the Gizmodo article I called him up right away. He had a few choice words to say about Randi that I won't repeat here.

 But everything I know about Fremer tells me that he's right man for the job. He doesn't do astrology, ESP, or the paranormal; he's as atheist and skeptic as your average forum-goer here.

 Music is his life and he has invested literally hundreds of thousands of dollars into his sound system. He certainly thinks that audio cables make a difference in audio quality. I can't say I'm anything of an audiophile myself, but I'll believe it if he says it. If you ever had the chance to hear his system, I think you'd agree.

 Suffice it to say that I'll be very interested in what happens with this challenge. 
 

Surely some Head-fi folks could get together to help him out and encourage him to take the challenge. (I don't believe for one minute that he'd pass but that's just my opinion!)


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Blake is such a wuss.

 He's already chickening out, and they didn't even yet define the procedure.
 I didn't expect the declaration of bankruptcy this soon.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *minktoast* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Looks like Blake has withdrawn from the challenge!_

 

makes sense for him to use his own cables, since those are the ones he is most familiar with.


  Quote:


 Another nail in the coffin for expensive cables? 
 

i don't follow.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Remembering the influence of same on what one hears--in the full, correct meaning of the term-- of a reproduced musical passage is another thing altogether. Such passages take a "long stretch" to play as does the analysis of what is heard at the upper register of hearing in the auditory cortex and informed by accompanying emotions and sensations, past reference points, etc. Yes, this analysis can sharpen this full hearing or can cloud it with confabulation, prejudice, campaigns against audio magazines and ads, ego, mood, etc. That's where the training and discipline come in or don't if it's lacking._

 

The point is , is there an audible difference between speaker cables, it matters not one jot what the underlying mechanisms for auditory perception are. What is at question is can a person detect a difference due to different cable, anatomy , physiology, philosophy and so forth are simply not relevant to the test. No wishing to give any kudos to Skinner but in this case it is a black box, there are inputs and outputs and we just dont care what is in the box.


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What is the point of a statement like this? Yes, from the point of view of a paleontologist or anthropologist this is true from his very zoomed-out perspective. But we--OBVIOUSLY--are zoomed in on the fine points of human hearing, so what is subsumed under "pretty much" is the whole ballgame. From our perspective as audiophiles we definitely do not "all hear the same thing"._

 

I don't think it's obvious. I believe the assumption that audiophiles have better hearing then the average person is one of the biggest myths in hi-fi. That's a whole different topic though . . .

 By the way, what is the source of this "auditory memory is only 6 seconds" quote I see all the time? I know certain facets of my auditory memory can be measured in years -- I've gotten a call from a college roomate before and knew instantly who he was even though we haven't spoken in a _long_ time.

 I know that I'm probably not the only person who can tell when someone is calling them from their cell or their landline based purely on sound.

 I am not claming that the differences between ordinary cables is anywhere within orders of magnitudes of the differences between voices or phones, but that quote really needs some context.


----------



## madman91

I didn't really read all of the responses. But I don't think this test proves anything. If everyone in the world can hear the difference, and you can't, will you buy the 7000$ cables? No. Who cares about sample groups and ceo's and editors and whatnot. Its only YOU that matters.


----------



## Puppysmith

The outcome will be like $2 Chuck winning first place among the Chardonnays of California.

Two-Buck Chuck Wins


----------



## JadeEast

Well I'm going to boycott Pear cables for pulling out of the challenge.


----------



## markl

Quote:


 Another nail in the coffin for expensive cables? 
 

 Nail in what coffin? You see a collapse in the aftermarket cable market? Must have missed this. Which brands have gone under so far?


----------



## Puppysmith

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JadeEast* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well I'm going to boycott Pear cables for pulling out of the challenge._

 

Maybe they did not think their cables would produce enough of a difference to win and by not winning, their company would be trying to explain how Monster Cables beat out a $7K cable in a test where a certified expert decided the outcome.


----------



## Puppysmith

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nail in what coffin? You see a collapse in the aftermarket cable market? Must have missed this. Which brands have gone under so far?_

 

Another reason to not purchase expensive cables if a company that produces $7K cables does not think they can beat a $29 cable.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think it's obvious. I believe the assumption that audiophiles have better hearing then the average person is one of the biggest myths in hi-fi. That's a whole different topic though . . ._

 

What does this have to do with it's being obvious that in the species comparative sense we all hear pretty much the same, but that among humans some people can hear significantly more than others without that meaning they have better hearing. These two uses of "hear" have different though related meanings which are tendentiously muddled in these discussions.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_By the way, what is the source of this "auditory memory is only 6 seconds" quote I see all the time? I know certain facets of my auditory memory can be measured in years -- I've gotten a call from a college roomate before and knew instantly who he was even though we haven't spoken in a long time.

 I know that I'm probably not the only person who can tell when someone is calling them from their cell or their landline based purely on sound.

 I am not claming that the differences between ordinary cables is anywhere within orders of magnitudes of the differences between voices or phones, but that quote really needs some context._

 

Thanks for echoing this about a friend's voice which I cited months ago in one of these cable discussions. I don't know the reference for the memory study, but I do know the samples for testing were brief meaningless sounds, which are far further removed from the difference cables make than a friend's voice.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The point is , is there an audible difference between speaker cables, it matters not one jot what the underlying mechanisms for auditory perception are. What is at question is can a person detect a difference due to different cable, anatomy , physiology, philosophy and so forth are simply not relevant to the test. No wishing to give any kudos to Skinner but in this case it is a black box, there are inputs and outputs and we just dont care what is in the box._

 

If you perform a given test, yes, the result are the results, BUT...It makes a big difference in relation to those that insist it CAN NOT be done, that people are incapable of learning to hear such differences and that therefore any test result seeming to demonstrate that a difference has been heard can not be due to a difference in the cables and that therefore there is some flaw in the test whether evident or not. And it makes a difference if the test conditions interfere with or minimize the factors that make it possible for a trained listener to make such delicate differentiations.

 You make it sound as if there is any agreement about what "an audible difference between speaker cables" means in practice (operationally) as opposed to in the abstract. How could it be more evident that we don't.


----------



## Sovkiller

Guys stop arguing about the same. Please understand for a good darn time, that we have been arguing for decades like that, wanna know why? It is very simple, because nobody had supplied the evidences needed to disprove either one of the sides, and until this happen just believe what you want and try to be happy...
 Just please be considerate with the other field, and do not offend the others, same way we respect politics and religion, we should respect the cables issue, as IMO it is based in the same approach more or less: faith. No evidence, and to me it is a faith, believe and argue all you want, and you are only defending or detracting some kind of a faith...period...

 You will see a few of those guys, planning to go for the challenge, and later on at the last minute, any accident will happen and they can not go, (including maybe secret arrangements with the manufacturers, that at the end are the ones that will be more affected, if all result in being a farse...)

 Now my question: if all the ones that will go to the test fail miserably, and there is no way to determine that the differences exist by them (or by you) in that test, my question is: will the believers stop??? Of course not, they will still be arguing that maybe there was a flaw, or maybe the person involved was not up to the task, or was drunk, or that the setup has this or that, or that they were not familiar with the setup, them usic played was not good enough, etc...any reason for absurd that it looks will be used to keep on the debate, so what is the point then??? 

 There was one test in which a member *here* sent out three cables to be tested in the comfort of your home, using the setup you are familiar with, so no excuses...the results were totally random...and evne though they found excuses to that!!!

 OK, I know that even while the test was supposed to determine which was the silver, cooper, and RS wire, and that IMO is totally personal as to believe which is the better sounding cable, but the fact was that the results was all mixed, therei sn o way that ap errson could conmsider the best sounding cable the RS, other the Silver and other the Canare, being all audiophiles as they claim ot be, there was only one guy who guessed correctly!!! the rest did not hear a **** in the test, were all guessing!!!!


----------



## Chu

As long as people keep recommending cables that cost an arm and a leg, people will keep bringing the topic up. I don't see the recommendations stopping, so the debate will go on.

 This forum is rare in that I'm betting the majority of people who sign up are _not_ into high-fi audio as we know it, this is their gateway drug so to speak. As such a lot of the time the cable debate comes around again it's because someone _genuinely_ is asking about information that goes into its realm, an the whole debate starts anew.


----------



## markl

Quote:


 As long as people keep recommending cables that cost an arm and a leg, people will keep bringing the topic up. 
 

 Wrong. As long as folks continue to butt into threads where the poster is requesting specific cable recomendations, then yeah, this crap will go on and on. Bringing in the whole cables are bunk arguments is OT in a thread like that, or threads where the poster wants to share opinions of this or that cable he's trying, or this or that tweak. I don't see them re-starting the debate, it's the nay-sayers who butt in and bring it up again and again.

 It's like walking up to a few people you don't even know, engrossed in a conversation about how much they like the Chicago Bears, and then un-invited, un-asked, butting in to tell them how much you think the Bears suck. It's rude, and uncalled for, and its only purpose is to piss people off and start yet another fight.


----------



## spraggih

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I got mine through the people Shure recommend for doing their custom IEM sleeves._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Just call up your local hospital. When I was young I had problems with water getting trapped in my ears (the tube between your ears and nose) and had to visit "the vault" several times so they could gauge my hearing 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The vault would be an interesting place to carry out listening tests. I wonder if they exist out of hospitals._

 

Thanks and thanks! And for the 1st time I used multi-quote and did not know how it worked. (I kept clicking multi and nothing happened so then I clicked quote and it worked!)


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Guys stop arguing about the same. Please understand for a good darn time, that we have been arguing for decades like that, wanna know why? It is very simple, because nobody had supplied the evidences needed to disprove either one of the sides, and until this happen just believe what you want and try to be happy...
 Just please be considerate with the other field, and do not offend the others, same way we respect politics and religion, we should respect the cables issue, as IMO it is based in the same approach more or less: faith. No evidence, and to me it is a faith, believe and argue all you want, and you are only defending or detracting some kind of a faith...period..._

 

While the balance and benevolence of this admonition is well taken, it is ruined by the one-sidedness and misrepresentation that follows. Both 'faiths' have ways of dismissing unwelcome results not just one of them, and there have been a good number of reports of people passing dbt-type tests of cable differences in Head Fi forums just as there have been reports of failures.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Both 'faiths' have ways of dismissing unwelcome results not just one of them, and there have been a good number of reports of people passing dbt-type tests of cable differences in Head Fi forums just as there have been reports of failures._

 

Have there really? I can't off the top of my head think of any instances of people passing cable DBT tests--but I also can't off the top of my head think of any instances of people _conducting_ cable DBT tests.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *markl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wrong. As long as folks continue to butt into threads where the poster is requesting specific cable recomendations, then yeah, this crap will go on and on. Bringing in the whole cables are bunk arguments is OT in a thread like that, or threads where the poster wants to share opinions of this or that cable he's trying, or this or that tweak. I don't see them re-starting the debate, it's the nay-sayers who butt in and bring it up again and again.

 It's like walking up to a few people you don't even know, engrossed in a conversation about how much they like the Chicago Bears, and then un-invited, un-asked, butting in to tell them how much you think the Bears suck. It's rude, and uncalled for, and its only purpose is to piss people off and start yet another fight._

 

Seconded. Your analogy may be understated. It may even be like the butinsky intruding to say that football doesn't really exist and is all just magical thinking. That is why I suggest establishing a skeptic-free forum or some such for those who wish to indulge the scandalous folly of discussing what they hear and don't hear and how they evaluate this without being assaulted...even with some folks version of revealed truth.


----------



## vcoheda

i think a lot of this discussion and even this challenge (regardless of its outcome - and if it even happens, which i doubt) will not change anything. if you really want to know whether there are differences between cables or whether more expensive cables sound better, then buy (borrow) a pair and find out for yourself - for in the end, since it's your system and your ears and your money that is the only thing that matters.

 i personally have heard differences among my cables (and often improvements) and will continue to experiment/move up the chain until i can no longer find any differences or until those differences do not warrant the expense.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have there really? I can't off the top of my head think of any instances of people passing cable DBT tests--but I also can't off the top of my head think of any instances of people conducting cable DBT tests._

 

What I said was dbt-*type* tests. What I recall are reports of what I guess are blind abx tests and of some hifi groups conducting that sort of thing among themselves and getting well better than guessing results for the group. The limits of the method are not hard to identify, especially the second blind, but they are good indications that people may well have heard differences over multiple trials and with pretty good control and monitoring. Not proof, certainly, but fairly persuasive to one with an open mind *I* think.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_While the balance and benevolence of this admonition is well taken, it is ruined by the one-sidedness and misrepresentation that follows. Both 'faiths' have ways of dismissing unwelcome results not just one of them, and there have been a good number of reports of people passing dbt-type tests of cable differences in Head Fi forums just as there have been reports of failures._

 

Even while I consider both as faiths, and I have not misrepresented any of the two, as I'm not even firmly supporter of any of those extreme cases, I have to admit that one has less way of being proved than the other, as you can not prove a negative, at least not in this case....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 About the passing of the DBT, sorry but I do not recall any neither, sorry, all what i have read is ridiculous failures, maybe that is why Raine is so consistent in his claims, and so solid in his position...


----------



## budburma

Hey now....Cables are components. Period. Unfortunately a lot of it lay in the elusive lightning in a bottle concept of synergy. I just placed a pricey power cord on my first headphone amp ([AK]zip modded maxxed ppa 1.1.b or something....ok s i am a neophyte) and wowee zowee. I use Gabriel Gold throughout my system and, after trying dozens of I,S, and P/cables, I will never change. That being said, never under estimate the influence of the conduit of your tunes....even digital cables are an electrical representation of the information. no such thing as 0's and 1's.....


----------



## budburma

Oh yeah. Get over it! And enjoy the tunes!


----------



## budburma

Oh yeah. Get over it! And enjoy the tunes!


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *budburma* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh yeah. Get over it! And enjoy the tunes!_

 

Could you please use the quote feature? Otherwise, it looks like you are replying to yourself, and this post doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Um, no, that's not true at all. I recently had custom sleeves made for my Shure IEMs and, since I was already there, asked the audiologist about this. She said that the idea that everyone's ears are the same is nonsense. She said that something as simple as the shape of the ear can have a major effect on the sound that people can hear. Some people are born able to hear a larger frequency range than others. Also, there are other psychological factors that effect the way people hear; a person who is by nature stressed tends to clench the jaw, which closes the eustachian tube and drastically lowers the amount of sound that comes to your eardrum.

 Use science, not internet myths, please._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is no such thing as a person with golden ears. Unless there is something wrong with our hearing (due to damage, *genetics*, etc.) we all pretty much hear the same, and any differences are so minute, they just don't matter._

 

I addressed that. If your ear is shaped normally, you are not going to hear better than someone else with a normally shaped ear.


----------



## spraggih

thread lock coming


----------



## OverlordXenu

Sovkiller, these cables aren't a faith, they are fraud. For the most part, the maker claims they sound better. If they don't, I'm pretty sure that is fraud under US law. Correct me if I'm wrong...


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sovkiller, these cables aren't a faith, they are fraud. For the most part, the maker claims they sound better. If they don't, I'm pretty sure that is fraud under US law. Correct me if I'm wrong..._

 

You didn't ask me but let me answer anyway. No that's not fraud, which requires intent to profit from knowing deceit. If they believe as many do that some cables can be better than others and that theirs are among them then there's no knowing falsehood. One the other hand, what you have just said is libelous. Saying "they are a fraud" without any proof or even clear evidence of this in a deliberate attempt to harm their business, which is clearly your intent, is a crime. 

 Now I don't really care about that, but what I care about and what I wish were a illegal is your interference in reasonable discourse with repeated unfounded assertions based on nothing but intense 'faith' and in complete disregard of what others say. For instance, earwicker7 quoted an audiologist about the effect of ubiquitous variations in the shape of the outer ear, i.e., the range of normality, and how that makes what each person hears a bit different. You either don't read carefully or deliberately distort this into something about abnormalities of the ear and then refute that strawman. I point out that while everyone hears similarly in the most basic physical sense of performance of the inner ear but how that is a different meaning of "hearing" and issue than what they can hear in the way of more subtle analysis at higher yet still auditory levels of differences in what comes in that way. You just ignore this or can't understand what I said and just repeat the dogma you said before that fails to distinguish these two meanings.

 Please at least think about what others actually say or please go away.


----------



## vcoheda

^ try the ignore feature ... really. 

 some people have thoroughly proved that their posts are not worth reading. he is one of them.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You didn't ask me but let me answer anyway. No that's not fraud, which requires intent to profit from knowing deceit. If they believe as many do that some cables can be better than others and that theirs are among them then there's no knowing falsehood. One the other hand, what you have just said is libelous. Saying "they are a fraud" without any proof or even clear evidence of this in a deliberate attempt to harm their business, which is clearly your intent, is a crime. 

 Now I don't really care about that, but what I care about and what I wish were a illegal is your interference in reasonable discourse with repeated unfounded assertions based on nothing but intense 'faith' and in complete disregard of what others say. For instance, earwicker7 quoted an audiologist about the effect of ubiquitous variations in the shape of the outer ear, i.e., the range of normality, and how that makes what each person hears a bit different. You either don't read carefully or deliberately distort this into something about abnormalities of the ear and then refute that strawman. I point out that while everyone hears similarly in the most basic physical sense of performance of the inner ear but how that is a different meaning of "hearing" and issue than what they can hear in the way of more subtle analysis at higher yet still auditory levels of differences in what comes in that way. You just ignore this or can't understand what I said and just repeat the dogma you said before that fails to distinguish these two meanings.

 Please at least think about what others actually say or please go away._

 

It isn't fraud if a cable maker claims their cables are better (whether they believe it or not), when they actually aren't?

 So anyone who commits fraud can just say they believe in it and get away with it?

 Those people that sold gas additives that were supposed to increase MPG but didn't, can say they believed in it, and get off without a hitch?

 I doubt that...

 And also, I can say that I asked Bill Gates about differences concerning the outer ear affecting our hearing ability, and he could say the same thing that earwicker's audiologist supposedly said.

 Second hand information is not reputable. Does he have a link to a report, news article, section of medical book, etc. that supports his claim? How do we know his audiologist actually said that, or he's just making it up? What if he's just twisting his or her words?

 Simply put, "my friend's uncles' aunt's sister's niece's friend's teacher's brother's audiologist said that if you clean out your ears every day, your music will sound better," is just as reputable as "my audiologist said that the outer ear can change the way people hear in noticeable ways," ie. they aren't reputable at all.

 So, prove that our outer ear makes as big a difference in what we hear as much as he says it does. I tend to doubt it makes that much of a difference. And even then, you're not going to hear more than anyone else with normal ears if your ear is normal.

 The thing with audiophiles is that we listen to the music more closely, and that is not matters. It's not that we somehow have better hearing than normal people, people who call themselves golden ears are just trying to feel superior to those around them, like someone driving a Ferrari for the status, or someone with a trophy spouse.

 We listen and care about the music more than the average person, that is what differentiates us. We aren't better than the average person.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sovkiller, these cables aren't a faith, they are fraud. For the most part, the maker claims they sound better. If they don't, I'm pretty sure that is fraud under US law. Correct me if I'm wrong..._

 


 As mentioned above, you're pushing into libel territory here
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## budburma

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_^ try the ignore feature ... really. 

 some people have thoroughly proved that their posts are not worth reading. he is one of them._

 

petty and puerile. shame on you. personal attacks? especially on a thread of tired retread arguments. maybe you're having a bad night, no worries.

 i'm sure i don't have enough posts on this site to have thoroughly proved my words, experience and observations to be not worth noting. but i suppose, with time, that could come to pass. 

 maybe sleep on it, come back with something more encouraging and enlightening from your venerable perch.... 'perchance to dream-ay, there's the rub.'


----------



## oicdn

I don't think you can yell fraud on a subjective item. That's like saying "my hamburger tastes better". Sure, companies say that in commercials, but if you ever look at the little asterisk, it usually says in some taste test, x amount of people preferred it over the other brand. 

 It's not necessarily TRUTH, but it's subjective...it's not "fraud". Granted I haven't read the whole thread...he's stupid if he didn't make some sort of "listening test" before making that statement...


----------



## vcoheda

nothing personal. and not an attack. but some people have shown that they have nothing constructive to add to the conversation except misinformation, wild speculation, or worse. so it is easier to bypass these posts than read them.


----------



## budburma

ok, and again, no worries.

 i think we all know that there are differences between cables. and, of course, those differences are on some level born of personal preference. but, some cables are just better at articulation, detail, extension, etc. michael fremer must have a great ear. outer pinna, inner pinna, tragus, canal, stapes, hammer, whatever.

 i am new here and was ready to hang up cans completely, but put a stealth m-5000 on the maxxed ppa i bought here and loved it. i will be delving much more deeply into this arm of this hobby. i once again found that using the other audiophile run shootout recommended cables (black sand violet) was problematic at best.

 no need to bang our heads on any others' opinions beyond listening closely and finding fellow enthusiasts with similar ears. good luck. later.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *oicdn* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't think you can yell fraud on a subjective item. That's like saying "my hamburger tastes better". Sure, companies say that in commercials, but if you ever look at the little asterisk, it usually says in some taste test, x amount of people preferred it over the other brand. 

 It's not necessarily TRUTH, but it's subjective...it's not "fraud". Granted I haven't read the whole thread...he's stupid if he didn't make some sort of "listening test" before making that statement..._

 

The thing is, whether a cable is better or not is objective, and can be determined through DBT. I'm not saying cables can't exhibit different sound, and I personally doubt they do to the extent that people say they do, but for the most part, cable makers usually say their cables are better. That's what this challenge is all about, whether the $8k or $43k cables are better than Monster cables.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you perform a given test, yes, the result are the results, BUT...It makes a big difference in relation to those that insist it CAN NOT be done, that people are incapable of learning to hear such differences and that therefore any test result seeming to demonstrate that a difference has been heard can not be due to a difference in the cables and that therefore there is some flaw in the test whether evident or not. _

 

Can you point to any DBTs of speaker cables that showed that anyone could tell the difference between different cables ?

  Quote:


 And it makes a difference if the test conditions interfere with or minimize the factors that make it possible for a trained listener to make such delicate differentiations. 
 

These sound like the standard excuses rolled out whenever someone who is totally convinced they can tell the difference fails to do so, such as Ivor Tiefenbrun or when they wimp out of these challenges such as Jack Sumner (Transparent Audio) or (now) Adam Blake (Pear).


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You make it sound as if there is any agreement about what "an audible difference between speaker cables" means in practice (operationally) as opposed to in the abstract. How could it be more evident that we don't._

 

Er, you listen to the same system with different speaker cables and you tell the investigator which set you think you are listening too, where is the problem?. You can level match if you want , you can devise all sorts of ways of randomising the order but it isnt difficult. Tom Nousaine has done a load of these tests back in the 90s - pretty straightforward really.

 The JAES has published papers on the electrical differences between speaker cables - in one paper

http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/...teractions.pdf

 cables with different gauges are tested - the measurable differences in FR are slight even when comparing 3ga to 18ga the biggest difference is 0.3db and that at 20K. Between "decent" cables the biggest difference found between cables was ~ 0.1db at 20K. At lower frequencies the differences are even smaller.

 I am not saying that it is impossible for someone to be able to detect such differences , and I would really like to see someone try and do it. If Pear really believed their cables were empirically superior it is puzzling why they chickened out.


----------



## DSlayerZX

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *spraggih* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_thread lock coming 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

I fully agree with that, like the many other cable thread that involved the same type of argument and same... well.. "person"


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sovkiller, these cables aren't a faith, they are fraud. For the most part, the maker claims they sound better. If they don't, I'm pretty sure that is fraud under US law. Correct me if I'm wrong..._

 

Well first of all, nobody had proved yet that they don't, nor that they do, that is the first thing to prove IMO. let's wait at least for that result, to make our conclusions....OTOH if someone believes it sound better than others, and that there are differences, even with no way of proving it, due to maybe some perceived differences, or maybe not perceived, and just for placebo, it is IMO faith. to believe in what you can not scientifically prove is IMO a sort kind of faith.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No that's not fraud, which requires intent to profit from knowing deceit. If they believe as many do that some cables can be better than others and that theirs are among them then there's no knowing falsehood...._

 

Well first, don't be so sure of that, of course that they will never accept publicly that they are deceiving, there are a lot of unscrupulous manufacturers out there (not saying that they are one of them, but I do not know them to assure the opposite neither). But who will know for sure if they are at least really convinced of that claims, or if they know they will, or not, make any difference, or if it is just a marketing bluff as they know that there is no way of *proving it*...till now...so...


----------



## earwicker7

Look, I'm as disappointed as anyone that Pear backed out, but let's be honest, was there any good reason from a strict business point of view for them to do this?

 I'm not trying to make excuses, but I've personally seen business decisions that looked horrible from a PR stance (which this does) but made total sense when it came down to dollars and cents.

 Look at it this way; here's what Pear was probably thinking...

 A--We win. Now many of the people who've never had any chance of affording our products (let's be honest, where you fall on the cable debate has a huge correlation with your budget) are on our side. This translates to zero sales, as they still can't afford our product. A large amount of the anti-cable people wouldn't change their mind if god himself told them designer cables are gold, so they will find a way to decimate the methodology, more than likely by abandoning "The Amazing Randi". So the test has no effect on them.

 B--We lose. This shouldn't require much explanation.

 Again, I wanted to see this happen, and I think it's a PR misfire (if Pear wasn't ready, they should have never offered in the first place), but from a business standpoint I understand why they dropped out.

 Let's hope Fremer stays in. He has a reputation to lose, but I don't think Stereophile will fold if he screws up, so IMO there's not as much at stake with him.


----------



## Sovkiller

Well in the first instance, Randi never asked them to lend the cables for free, I do not recall have read that in any place...the methodology will include to use thier cables, of course, but there was never a mention on how to get them...they could be purchased as well...


----------



## Jon118

Still, it could be a big hindrance to have to get one's own cables. This might kill the challenge, or may not. Of course, I still think it is an un-winnable challenge not because no one can actually tell a difference (certainly there is a difference between pure silver with nice terminations and cheap copper with poorly done nickel termination) but I don't believe Randi will let someone actually win.


----------



## badmonkey

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As mentioned above, you're pushing into libel territory here
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




._

 

Well in the US the plaintiff is obliged to prove that the alleged defamation was untruthful (amongst others), rather than the defendant having to demonstrate the truthfulness of their claims which is the norm in other countries.

 So, that should be interesting.

 Hey Pears, you're all FRAUDS!

 C'mon, SUE ME!


----------



## badmonkey

Riboge, like a few others, is an idiot. Apart from his quack legal advice, his arguments look more and more like a devout Christian trying all the usual tricks against the unbelievers. Smearing the atheist, even the agnostic, as "faithful" in their own right, and challenging the skeptics to support their "unfounded assertations". Oh dear.

 As to the butting in on those "reasonable discussions", I think you'll find the majority of reasonable persons are appalled by the nonsense they see being covered in such genuinely serious discourse - and the preaching of it to the innocent newbies. Response? Your bunk gets challenged on this public forum as the thoughtful attempt to counter it.


----------



## 003

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Saying "they are a fraud" without any proof or even clear evidence of this in a deliberate attempt to harm their business, which is clearly your intent, is a crime._

 

 What if the judge dosen't believe in cables?


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 As to the butting in on those "reasonable discussions", I think you'll find the majority of reasonable persons are appalled by the nonsense they see being covered in such genuinely serious discourse - and the preaching of it to the innocent newbies. Response? Your bunk gets challenged on this public forum as the thoughtful attempt to counter it._

 

Exactly - one would think the good samaritan thing to do is to ward off large purchases of snake oil. If you don't believe that cables are snake oil, we do. 

 Let "alternative theories of cabling" be heard


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...Saying "they are a fraud" without any proof or even clear evidence of this in a deliberate attempt to harm their business, which is clearly your intent, is a crime...._

 

IMO to make "a claim like that" with no evidence, or any clear proof and charge the customers that amount of money is IMO a deliverate attembpt of ruining our home finances, which maybe is not their intent, but is also in my book another crime, they are not being considerate with the wallet of others at all.....


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Riboge, like a few others, is an idiot. Apart from his quack legal advice, his arguments look more and more like a devout Christian trying all the usual tricks against the unbelievers. Smearing the atheist, even the agnostic, as "faithful" in their own right, and challenging the skeptics to support their "unfounded assertations". Oh dear.

 As to the butting in on those "reasonable discussions", I think you'll find the majority of reasonable persons are appalled by the nonsense they see being covered in such genuinely serious discourse - and the preaching of it to the innocent newbies. Response? Your bunk gets challenged on this public forum as the thoughtful attempt to counter it._

 

Wonderful job of elevating the level of discourse!

 If you get around to reading what I've actually written you will see I described both sides as believers and agreed with Sovkiller's and others' description of the stalemate between two extreme positions.

 Perhaps you would care to actually say something on an adult level about ideas and arguments I have presented. Namecalling, especially unaccompanied by any facts or reasons or ideas, is just pitiful.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Can you point to any DBTs of speaker cables that showed that anyone could tell the difference between different cables ?_

 

I was not confining myself to a particular kind of cables, and I have indicated already that I said DBT-*type* tests, meaning reasonable approximations like single blind. If someone had reported a rigorous DBT test acceptable to all we wouldn't be having a discussion like this.



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_These sound like the standard excuses rolled out whenever someone who is totally convinced they can tell the difference fails to do so, such as Ivor Tiefenbrun or when they wimp out of these challenges such as Jack Sumner (Transparent Audio) or (now) Adam Blake (Pear).

 Er, you listen to the same system with different speaker cables and you tell the investigator which set you think you are listening too, where is the problem?. You can level match if you want , you can devise all sorts of ways of randomising the order but it isnt difficult. Tom Nousaine has done a load of these tests back in the 90s - pretty straightforward really.
_

 

You are someone whose comments I have valued, skeptic or not, but here you don't bother to show any thought about what I've written. These things are excuses only if you don't acknowledge that hearing in the full sense is a perceptual activity influenced by many other brain functions concurrently and by learning(history and nature of listening, instruction, etc). You just can't factor out such things as which equipment, where, under what conditions, what stakes, etc? This seems readily apparent to skeptics when explaining away reports of heard differences as the effect of all these other things, which include motivation, suggestion, imagination, etc. But there is some kind of weird inability to accept that the same things, e.g., learning, can improve perceptiveness about what comes into the ear canal just as they can distort it or decrease it.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is a shame, anyone got $7250 to lend Mr Fremer to buy the cables himself ? - I can pitch in $5 - we could start a fund.

 Does anyone here have a pair they could lend him ?_

 

I emailed Pear Cables and received a reply from the president of the company. I doubt if he would agree to the test under any conditions. I think he's scared.

 Fremer is apparently willing to go on with the test. But no one is willing to plunk down the cash for the Pear Cables. I think that pretty much sums up the value of those particular wires.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## PeeeMeS

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There is no such thing as a person with golden ears. Unless there is something wrong with our hearing (due to damage, genetics, etc.) we all pretty much hear the same, and any differences are so minute, they just don't matter.

 Like me, I assume most of you aren't teenagers anymore. Well guess what, we already have a dwindling freq. in which we can hear. It still amazes me how some of the biggest audiophiles are well past their 40s, even 50s.
_

 

You're right in some sense... especially the part about the age. 
 However, studies have shown that in many cases, the blind are significantly better than sighted people at hearing faint sounds and pinpointing from which direction sounds originate. 
 It gets ever better... Early-blind human subjects also reap the same benefits from becoming blind.

 These differences are not just minute and they do matter. There is a group of people with significantly better hearing... but they arn't audiophiles.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You didn't ask me but let me answer anyway. No that's not fraud, which requires intent to profit from knowing deceit._

 

If they agreed to participate in a scientific test and the cables didn't perform as claimed, then they wouldn't be able to make those claims any more without knowing that what they are saying is false. What does that tell you about Pear Cables' willingness to submit their product for testing?

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_nothing personal. and not an attack. but some people have shown that they have nothing constructive to add to the conversation except misinformation, wild speculation, or worse. so it is easier to bypass these posts than read them._

 

The problem is, if you insist on providing capsule summations of the knowledge and experience of particular posters, someone might do the same for *you*.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Look at it this way; here's what Pear was probably thinking...

 A--We win. Now many of the people who've never had any chance of affording our products (let's be honest, where you fall on the cable debate has a huge correlation with your budget) are on our side. This translates to zero sales, as they still can't afford our product. A large amount of the anti-cable people wouldn't change their mind if god himself told them designer cables are gold, so they will find a way to decimate the methodology, more than likely by abandoning "The Amazing Randi". So the test has no effect on them.

 B--We lose. This shouldn't require much explanation._

 

You left out that with option A, Pear Cables walks away with a cool million. A million bucks soothes all kinds of potential loss of potential customers who weren't even potential customers in the first place!

 I seriously doubt that Pear Cables ever thought a bit about option A. They were only worrying about B.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## earwicker7

I'm curious... although this is politically incorrect, I think it has to be asked. 

 Are there any Audio Luddites who have a complete system valued at over $2,000? I honestly think the cable debate is really a budget debate. IE, those that can't afford them hate them with a passion.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Guys stop arguing about the same. Please understand for a good darn time, that we have been arguing for decades like that, wanna know why? It is very simple, because nobody had supplied the evidences needed to disprove either one of the sides_

 

That isn't true. In post 212, hciman77 posts a link to a study on speaker cables that proves that the differences are minute- inaudible. The problem isn't that evidence isn't supplied, it's that the obvious isn't acknowledged.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are there any Audio Luddites who have a complete system valued at over $2,000?_

 

What is an "Audio Luddite"?

 If you're curious about how much money I've spent on my interest in music, don't ask! It accounts for a huge chunk of my income.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You are someone whose comments I have valued, skeptic or not, but here you don't bother to show any thought about what I've written. _

 

That is not the case I have read and mulled over your comments very carefully, however my responses are based on my interpretation that many of them are somewhat tangential to the issue at hand. Interesting as discussion points but a bit off-topic.

  Quote:


 These things are excuses only if you don't acknowledge that hearing in the full sense is a perceptual activity influenced by many other brain functions concurrently and by learning(history and nature of listening, instruction, etc). 
 

In this contetx it doesnt really matter how hearing works at a neurological level. A subject is given a specific task, can they do it or not. 

 By all means get trained listeners (Fremer should be a good candidate) , also the AES has been doing these kinds of tests on professional listeners (engineers, musicians, studio professionals) since the early days of CD development when they wanted to examine the effect of brickwall filters at different frequencies. Also training materials are available on the web, Arny Kruger hosts some files that allow listeners to train themselves to hear different levels and sorts of distortion. DBT testing often starts with prolonged periods where the subject gets to listen sighted to different configurations to get used to the sound of a system. Several DBTs take place with the listeners own systems anyway (i.e Ashihara's and 'Meyer and Moran's' studies) thus removing the "unfamiliarity" effect.

 [quote
 You just can't factor out such things as which equipment, where, under what conditions, what stakes, etc? This seems readily apparent to skeptics when explaining away reports of heard differences as the effect of all these other things, which include motivation, suggestion, imagination, etc. [/quote]

 Can you give me some specifc exemplars I would be interested in seeing them. I have never said that all DBTs produce negative results, just most of them.

 I will grant you that skeptics do sometimes refuse to accept a demonstrated positive result, I have seen some positive DBT tests where a subject has demonstrated statistically that they can hear the difference between say FLAC and MP3 so I accept that it does happen.

 What I have seen from skeptics is typically along the lines of 

 the test was invalid because...

 1) It wasnt properly controlled 
 2) There was a clear artifact (uncorrelated from the sound) introduced in one condition that was not there in the other
 3) the levels were not properly matched
 4) The volume was set to an insanely high level(*)
 5) The things you are comparing are not fundamentally the same i.e CD vs SACD where the mastering is different

 * - This I will admit is a bit of a dodge

  Quote:


 But there is some kind of weird inability to accept that the same things, e.g., learning, can improve perceptiveness about what comes into the ear canal just as they can distort it or decrease it. 
 

As mentioned before, many of these tests done before do use highly motivated and trained listeners. By all means use trained listeners or train listeners, with $1M at stake that would be a rational approach.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If they agreed to participate in a scientific test and the cables didn't perform as claimed, then they wouldn't be able to make those claims any more without knowing that what they are saying is false. What does that tell you about Pear Cables' willingness to submit their product for testing?

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I agree with the first sentence, which is why the answer to the question is that they are smart to avoid putting themselves in that position because, aside from the possible misinterpretation that failure under those conditions necessarily means failure under any conditions, none of their competition is in that position. If they did involve themselves in the first place, that was foolish. On top of that, the attitude of those like you whose intention is to debunk them one way or the other not to do science magnifies the inevitable risk of putting their stuff to any public test to the point of it being insanely risky. That's right, I believe the people who most want a DBT are actually making it less likely to happen by their way of pursuing it.

 I would like to see such a test done under the best possible conditions for being able to hear differences if they are to be heard, not a circus like this. The putative expert should listen with his own equipment in his own setting without anyone beyond the least number of people involved in performing the test knowing about it in advance. Music familiar to the expert should be used just as in reviews where favorite passages for picking up certain things are used and compared using one and then the other cable. The expert should be able to practice with the cables that will be used in the test. All about how the test will be conducted should be worked out in advance. This way what is tested is whether a difference can be heard in the best conditions by at least one person, which is all that is needed to prove there is a difference and to prevent difference believers from being able to dismiss a negative result or skeptics a positive one. This expert will either have or have not been able to hear a difference in these cables indisputably.

 One more thing to add: To get the cables to be tested a small nuimber of believers in difference should pick a cable they believe is particularly and distinctly to them different from another cheaper cable that is well thought of. The brands involved should be kept confidential before, during and after the test so that no company is singled out for possible harm and that beliefs about brands are eliminated as factors.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That isn't true. In post 212, hciman77 posts a link to a study on speaker cables that proves that the differences are minute- inaudible. The problem isn't that evidence isn't supplied, it's that the obvious isn't acknowledged.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

That isnt quite correct. The differences were measured and they were very small. It doesnt *prove* that they are inaudible since some claim to be able to hear level differences of < 0.1db and if you really crank up the volume you can improve sensitivity.

 I would say that it would make it more _likely_ that they are inaudible in normal use since the biggest differences in the cables tested occurred at a frequency (20K) where our hearing has been empirically shown to be much less sensitive, personally I cant hear 20K anyway but maybe some of our younger members can.

 Of course 18ga lamp cord vs 3ga cable gave a 0.3db difference at 20K.


----------



## Riboge

hciman77, thanks for your response which does make you point of view clearer to me and also seem not that far from my own. Please the reply to bigshot just above for more.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That isn't true. In post 212, hciman77 posts a link to a study on speaker cables that proves that the differences are minute- inaudible. The problem isn't that evidence isn't supplied, it's that the obvious isn't acknowledged.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

No Steve, this study only proves that the cables measure slightly different, and that the curves measured are slightly different, we all know that, but that study does not quantify for example the minimal amount in those parameters to actually hear a difference or not. So we are on the same point, we all know that different topologies and geometries measure different, now to what extend those differences are actually audible, is what needs to be proved, that study fails in that regard IMO...stating that they are small enough, does not prove neither they are not audible by someone with privileged ears (of course not by the huge mass we have hear stating they do)


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I would like to see such a test done under the best possible conditions for being able to hear differences if they are to be heard, not a circus like this. The putative expert should listen with his own equipment in his own setting without anyone beyond the least number of people involved in performing the test knowing about it in advance. Music familiar to the expert should be used just as in reviews where favorite passages for picking up certain things are used and compared using one and then the other cable. The expert should be able to practice with the cables that will be used in the test. All about how the test will be conducted should be worked out in advance. This way what is tested is whether a difference can be heard in the best conditions by at least one person, which is all that is needed to prove there is a difference and to prevent difference believers from being able to dismiss a negative result or skeptics a positive one. This expert will either have or have not been able to hear a difference in these cables indisputably._

 

That seems perfectly reasonable.


----------



## mojo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm curious... although this is politically incorrect, I think it has to be asked. 

 Are there any Audio Luddites who have a complete system valued at over $2,000? I honestly think the cable debate is really a budget debate. IE, those that can't afford them hate them with a passion._

 

My system is worth more than that. C.E.C. DA53, HA5000 and W5000s alone come in at well over £1000 ($2000).

 I could, if I wanted, spend money on cables. I could buy £50-100 interconnects. I don't because I have never been able to hear any difference between cables. A few times I thought I did, but on further listening I couldn't and had to put it down to other factors (amp temperature/burn-in, the way the phones sat on my head etc). We are talking minute differences that were not reproducible.

 Honestly, it could have been my cat farting for all I can tell.

 I must say I have been tempted by some expensive cables, because they look cool. Vanity was not enough to make me spend the money though. I like making my own cables anyway. If I really thought better cables would help, I'd be willing to spend money on them.

 PS. I think my ears are fairly good. I can ABX lame --alt-preset-extreme vs. FLAC on some tracks. Can tell the difference between CD players, amps etc.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That seems perfectly reasonable._

 

I have added a paragraph to what you quoted. I hope you still find it reasonable [and maybe even why my earlier statements may not have been so tangential].


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That isnt quite correct. The differences were measured and they were very small. It doesnt *prove* that they are inaudible since some claim to be able to hear level differences of < 0.1db and if you really crank up the volume you can improve sensitivity._

 

.1dB at 20kHz is just about as inaudible as you're ever going to find. By the time you cranked up the volume high enough to increase sensitivity to be able to hear that, you would be stone deaf.

 The people who claim to hear .1dB differences are probably the same ones who claim to hear the difference between speaker cables.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Rise To The Top

This shall be interesting... no offers yet?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sovkiller* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No Steve, this study only proves that the cables measure slightly different, and that the curves measured are slightly different, we all know that, but that study does not quantify for example the minimal amount in those parameters to actually hear a difference or not._

 

.1dB at 20kHz is completely inaudible. If someone wants to say that there is something audible that isn't being measured, the burden of proof is on them to prove it through objective testing; and if the objective testing shows results, research to discover what's missing. I think it's pretty obvious that if wires really made a difference, scientists would have been all over it by now.

 If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. There's too much circular thinking in this world already. No need to add to it. When people come to a forum to get advice on how to put together a home stereo, they don't want a lesson in philosophy or the scientific method. They want practical advice they can use.

 The best practical advice on cables they will recieve is... don't sweat it. Put your energy and money to work on the things that matter.

 1) The music
 2) The recording/mixing/mastering quality
 3) The speakers or headphones
 4) Equalization / Room
 5) The amp
 6) The source...

 Quite frankly, if a system gets that far, the owner should go back to 1 and just focus on that.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The JAES has published papers on the electrical differences between speaker cables - in one paper

http://www.bruce.coppola.name/audio/...teractions.pdf

 cables with different gauges are tested - the measurable differences in FR are slight even when comparing 3ga to 18ga the biggest difference is 0.3db and that at 20K. Between "decent" cables the biggest difference found between cables was ~ 0.1db at 20K. At lower frequencies the differences are even smaller._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_.1dB at 20kHz is just about as inaudible as you're ever going to find. By the time you cranked up the volume high enough to increase sensitivity to be able to hear that, you would be stone deaf._

 

Note that the results presented in the paper are in dBV, _*not*_ dB SPL. dBV is ratio of voltages, and *not *a measurement of sound pressure levels.


----------



## hciman77

Update

http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?...d=103&Itemid=2

 Sigh, nobody is behaving very well on this. I would say let Fremer use his own reference cables...if cable is all BS Randi should let Fremer use his own...


----------



## jsaliga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Put your energy and money to work on the things that matter.

 1) The music
 2) The recording/mixing/mastering quality
 3) The speakers or headphones
 4) Equalization / Room
 5) The amp
 6) The source...

 Quite frankly, if a system gets that far, the owner should go back to 1 and just focus on that._

 

Well said!

 --Jerome


----------



## Sarchi

I'd propose a scorecarded test along the lines of what Riboge suggested. But with a panel of experts and with more pressure on finding conclusive answers.

My cable challenge.


----------



## Pibborando

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are there any Audio Luddites who have a complete system valued at over $2,000? I honestly think the cable debate is really a budget debate. IE, those that can't afford them hate them with a passion._

 

The retail value of my audio system is probably somewhere around $5,000, although I did not spend nearly that much as it's almost all second hand. The only reason I spent $70 on my speaker cables (Audioquest GBC) is because they looked nice (attractive) and durable, and because I calculated that making my own in a similar fashion with canare star-quad would have been around $60 anyway for all materials. I went from cheap 18awg lamp cord to that, and I will admit that I perceived differences. Of course, I was expecting there to be, so I'm perfectly willing to believe that placebo was involved. I did not A/B them.

 A funny thing happened the other day. I was looking through some of my settings in foobar2000 and saw that I had the equalizer on. I have a custom setting I use when listening to my DT 880s to flatten their response a bit, but I hadn't used them in over a week. I guess I had forgotten to remove it after I'd last used my headphones. So, I'd been listening to my speakers for a week with this EQ on and never realized it until happening upon it by accident. It's not exactly subtle either with one of the bands at -6dB. When I took it off, the difference was quite apparent.

 So basically, to those saying that A/Bs aren't an effective method and that you need a long period of time to really start picking up on the sound of things like cables: what the hell? You're brain is a subjective computer. It can only compare. It can't measure objectively, and not at all without other references fresh in its banks.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What is an "Audio Luddite"?_

 

All cd players sound the same, all power cords sound the same, all interconnects sound the same, all amps sound the same, etc. Only the headphone/speaker has any effect on the sound.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm curious... although this is politically incorrect, I think it has to be asked. 

 Are there any Audio Luddites who have a complete system valued at over $2,000? I honestly think the cable debate is really a budget debate. IE, those that can't afford them hate them with a passion._

 

And yet again, a proponent of cables is condescending to others.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All cd players sound the same, all power cords sound the same, all interconnects sound the same, all amps sound the same, etc. Only the headphone/speaker has any effect on the sound._

 

Power cords don't have a sound...They are power cords.

 My computer uses much higher frequencies, and processes much more data than the average piece of audio equipment. And yet, it functions perfectly with the black, unknown, cheap, power cord that came with it.

 There was also a DBT involving power cords, and its outcome was that they do not make an audible difference. But, it was only one, and there is never enough data, there are never enough tests...


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Power cords don't have a sound...They are power cords.

 My computer_

 

You just proved my point that most people who are clueless about cables are running low-fi systems.


----------



## poo

Well... Pear has pulled out... losers!

 From Gizmodo:

 According to the James Randi foundation, Pear Cable's (chickens!) CEO Adam Blake (chicken!) has withdrawn his help to Michael Fremer, the Stereophile Magazine writer who accepted Randi's $1,000,000 challenge, and was ready to prove that he can blindly detect the difference between $7,250 Pear (chickens!) Anjou cables and their Monster Cable equivalent:

 At the request of Michael Fremer, with whom we have been communicating regarding his challenging of your assertions regarding high-end audio cables, we would like to inform you directly of Pear Cable's [chickens!] decision to not participate in your claimed challenge. While we support Mr. Fremer's efforts, and believe firmly in the performance of our products, we [chickens!] prefer that he simply use his own reference cables in his proposed test.

 That email was received by the James Randi Educational Foundation and basically says that Pear Cables (chickens!) is not going to provide a set of $7,250 Pear (chickens!) Anjou cables:

 While we [chickens!] had initially planned to loan cable to Mr. Fremer for the test, upon consideration of your communications with him, as well as our doubts about the legitimacy of your misleading challenge (including the fact that you now personally claim that almost anyone can tell the difference between Monster cables and zip-cord), we [chickens!] do not wish to be involved. We [chickens!] do not expect this to hamper Mr. Fremer's efforts in any way.

 The foundation's reply is that they are not going to provide with a set of cables for the test themselves, so Fremer will have to come with his own set for test. According to Randi's organization, there are "others who have expressed interest in taking the challenge in regard to regular-vs-ridiculous speaker cables" and they will be taking those in chronological order.


----------



## Jon118

Real quality writing there. I love how blogs take things so casually and then get mad when they're dismissed as not being true journalists. Some aren't this bad, but Gizmodo definitely is rather low quality as far as writing goes for a blog their size. It is sometimes entertaining, but pretty childish. That said at least it gives some specifics to what happened and what will still hopefully happen.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You just proved my point that most people who are clueless about cables are running low-fi systems._

 

I think that you just set a record for the number of logical fallacies in a single sentence.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think that you just set a record for the number of logical fallacies in a single sentence._

 

Interesting, as a good deal of my minor in college involved symbolic logic.

 To elaborate... I made a point that the majority of the people who don't believe in cables run low-fi systems. This doesn't mean they are correct or incorrect in their beliefs, but I'd be willing to bet that any survey would bear this trait out as far as demographics go. He started to talk about how "My computer..."

 At this point, he had, IMO, displayed what I was talking about. A low-fi system (sorry, but as someone with an iPod, a very high-end PC, and a very high-end stereo setup, I can say from experience that the first two are not viable as hi-fi) usually tends to correlate with a disbelief in the effects of cables.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_.1dB at 20kHz is completely inaudible. If someone wants to say that there is something audible that isn't being measured, the burden of proof is on them to prove it through objective testing; and if the objective testing shows results, research to discover what's missing. I think it's pretty obvious that if wires really made a difference, scientists would have been all over it by now.

 If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. There's too much circular thinking in this world already. No need to add to it. When people come to a forum to get advice on how to put together a home stereo, they don't want a lesson in philosophy or the scientific method. They want practical advice they can use.

 The best practical advice on cables they will recieve is... don't sweat it. Put your energy and money to work on the things that matter.

 1) The music
 2) The recording/mixing/mastering quality
 3) The speakers or headphones
 4) Equalization / Room
 5) The amp
 6) The source...

 Quite frankly, if a system gets that far, the owner should go back to 1 and just focus on that.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

I agree with you, do not misunderstood me, but the problem is that if any margin exists, people will claim that they hear differences, unless you prove them wrong, by other means, we need to prove that they can not hear any difference in the tenth of dB, and prove that, then we can conclude the rest, I personally do not beleive I could hear those differences, but you can find some that claim they do...


----------



## Pibborando

Saying a computer based audio system *can't* be "hi-fi" is a much more misguided accusation than just about anything else I've seen in this thread. How is what a dedicated media PC does, when used as a transport, any different than a CD player? I mean, besides being able to store countless songs and generally be much more convenient.


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All cd players sound the same, *all power cords sound the same,* all interconnects sound the same, all amps sound the same, etc. Only the headphone/speaker has any effect on the sound._

 

Well indeed the power cables *do not sound*, how they could if there is no sound passing through them? In that last case if you want to believe they have any impact, it will be more accurate to say that they will let the system sound this or that, OK?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To elaborate... I made a point that the majority of the people who don't believe in cables run low-fi systems. This doesn't mean they are correct or incorrect in their beliefs, but I'd be willing to bet that any survey would bear this trait out as far as demographics go. He started to talk about how "My computer..."

 At this point, he had, IMO, displayed what I was talking about. A low-fi system (sorry, but as someone with an iPod, a very high-end PC, and a very high-end stereo setup, I can say from experience that the first two are not viable as hi-fi) usually tends to correlate with a disbelief in the effects of cables._

 

People who claim differences in cables run as absurd as claiming difference in a re-cable in a portapros or even worst headphones, to listen the ipods straight out of the jack, or sometimes 3 inches of a cable to hook it to a ipod to an amp, so IMO that is not true at all...we get believers in all ranges of wallets, and with all setups...Also to determine differences if they exist, you do not need an expensive setup, there are budget setups that sound very very good.. and revealing enough to let you hear that, some studio setups are sometimes far worst sounding that many we have home.


----------



## jsaliga

Dammit! I _know_ what good audio sounds like. I have the receipts to prove it!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 --Jerome


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Note that the results presented in the paper are in dBV, *not* dB SPL. dBV is ratio of voltages, and *not *a measurement of sound pressure levels._

 

Is there a way to relate this particular dBV reading to sound pressure?

 I'm guessing it doesn't matter though, because I imagine we're talking about a very slight difference at a frequency (20kHz) that not everyone can hear and doesn't make much of a difference to the appreciation of music.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All cd players sound the same, all power cords sound the same, all interconnects sound the same, all amps sound the same, etc. Only the headphone/speaker has any effect on the sound._

 

First sentence, yes. Second one, no. And yes, I could afford fancy wires if I saw any tangible benefit for them. But I'm not into audio for prestige or bling bling. I'm in it for the music.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You just proved my point that most people who are clueless about cables are running low-fi systems._

 

Besides the fact that there is nothing wrong with computer-based systems, and you (yet again) being condescending, and the fact that I wasn't even talking about computer-based audio, the average computer sends much more data through much cheaper wires to little ill effect.

 And I don't think you are one to be commenting on computers, considering you spent $10,000 on a computer (what was it, VooDoo? Commodore?) that could be built for around $2,000. It just goes to show the kind of mentality you have when it comes to expensive things. The more expensive, the better.

 You're a snob.

 Edit: I just re-read your post, and as far as I can see, you didn't even bother to read the point I was trying to make about computers.


----------



## sacd lover

Why dont you guys let them conduct the test ..... and then argue about the results?


----------



## Konig

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_.1dB at 20kHz is completely inaudible. If someone wants to say that there is something audible that isn't being measured, the burden of proof is on them to prove it through objective testing; and if the objective testing shows results, research to discover what's missing. I think it's pretty obvious that if wires really made a difference, scientists would have been all over it by now.

 If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. There's too much circular thinking in this world already. No need to add to it. When people come to a forum to get advice on how to put together a home stereo, they don't want a lesson in philosophy or the scientific method. They want practical advice they can use.

 The best practical advice on cables they will recieve is... don't sweat it. Put your energy and money to work on the things that matter.

 1) The music
 2) The recording/mixing/mastering quality
 3) The speakers or headphones
 4) Equalization / Room
 5) The amp
 6) The source...

 Quite frankly, if a system gets that far, the owner should go back to 1 and just focus on that.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

what can u do about #2? Do u suggest investing in a world class recording studio and get those singers to sing again?


----------



## gotchaforce

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You just proved my point that most people who are clueless about cables are running low-fi systems._

 

This would be like saying "you just proved everyone else's point that most cable believers are idiots."


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Konig* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_what can u do about #2 (recording/mixing/mastering quality)?_

 

"Rekkid collectors" are always trading notes on how to identify the best quality pressings of particular recordings. It's the same with CDs. Ask around and you'll find that there are folks who have bought and compared all of the masterings and remasterings and re-remasterings and can point you to the one that sounds the best. It isn't always the most recent release.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## cosmopragma

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Interesting, as a good deal of my minor in college involved symbolic logic._

 

Interesting, indeed.
 I'm tempted to join the little pissing contest you've provoked but unfortunately I'm paralyzed by what seems to be a unique hysteron proteron style.
 That's probably a misunderstanding.Your logic is probably based on one of those ultra modern logical systems and has nothing in common with my old fashioned european aristotelian crap.


----------



## bigshot

Around here, there's "wham shazzaam blammo huge difference" even when there's no difference at all!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All cd players sound the same, all power cords sound the same, all interconnects sound the same, all amps sound the same, etc. Only the headphone/speaker has any effect on the sound._

 

That isn't a luddite. An audio luddite wouldn't even use a cd player/amp/speaker. They might play a guitar, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

 Luddite does not mean "denier", it can mean "opponent of technological progress", however. I don't think it really applies here - these are cables, not sewing/weaving machines.

 ----

 Using system cost as the yardstick by which the chosen are measured is fallacious: the very argument is that certain high-dollar parts of said equipment are a rip-off. It is not unlike claiming an atheist cannot state that a god does not exist because the Christian god is unknowable, and thus the atheist cannot know whether s/he exists or not! Or worse, it is an ad hominem argument. Shouldn't you know better?

 As if any of these cables would significantly alter something like a Robert Johnson or a Pablo Casals recording, anyway.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That isn't a luddite. An audio luddite wouldn't even use a cd player/amp/speaker. They might play a guitar, though._

 

Well I do play a guitar! But I have cd players, amps and speakers too...

 I'm getting the feeling the question was asked rhetorically. He wasn't really wanting any sort of reply. The truth is, the cost of a system isn't the biggest determiner of how it sounds. How the equipment is applied makes a much bigger difference.

 That said, I'm embarassed to admit how much I've spent on this stuff over the past thirty years. Thankfully, a lot of my purchases have been wise ones, so I haven't had to replace some of the key pieces in my rigs.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Besides the fact that there is nothing wrong with computer-based systems, and you (yet again) being condescending, and the fact that I wasn't even talking about computer-based audio, the average computer sends much more data through much cheaper wires to little ill effect.

 And I don't think you are one to be commenting on computers, considering you spent $10,000 on a computer (what was it, VooDoo? Commodore?) that could be built for around $2,000. It just goes to show the kind of mentality you have when it comes to expensive things. The more expensive, the better.

 You're a snob.

 Edit: I just re-read your post, and as far as I can see, you didn't even bother to read the point I was trying to make about computers._

 

Call me a snob if you want; to be honest, I am when it comes to music. I think if you knew me you'd find me to be very down to earth in almost every other facet of my life, but yes, let it ring out--

 I am an audio snob, and damn proud of it.

 With that out of the way, do you think you could address the fact that I am criticizing stuff that I actually own and use? You criticize stuff you haven't owned and may not have ever heard. I own an iPod. I own a PC with a Sound Blaster X-FI. And I own a hi-fi system. Owning ALL THREE, I think I have a right to criticize them. There is no, read this, NO COMPARISON between the computer-as-source and the other setup.

 You, on the other hand, own only a PC yet feel free to criticize stuff that is light years beyond this in musical reproduction.

 Do I think you need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get good sound? No, but I do think that there is a minimum level of investment needed to get beyond the B- level into the A+ level. That level can be debated, but I think it's foolish to believe that by skimping on price you're doing yourself any favors.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cosmopragma* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Interesting, indeed.
 I'm tempted to join the little pissing contest you've provoked but unfortunately I'm paralyzed by what seems to be a unique hysteron proteron style.
 That's probably a misunderstanding.Your logic is probably based on one of those ultra modern logical systems and has nothing in common with my old fashioned european aristotelian crap._

 

Cheers! You're right on target with the latter half, although hysteron proteron hurts my feelings
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Luddite does not mean "denier", it can mean "opponent of technological progress", however. I don't think it really_

 

Yes, and my point would be that moving beyond zip cords was technological progress. Some of these people claim that there is no difference between a $100 cable and a coat hanger. JRR Tolkien (of whom I am a huge fan, ironically) would be proud of them.


----------



## bigshot

Yikes! Don't get me started on Lord of the Rings!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Around here, there's "wham shazzaam blammo huge difference" even when there's no difference at all!

 See ya
 Steve_

 

hey that's my line


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Owning ALL THREE, I think I have a right to criticize them. There is no, read this, NO COMPARISON between the computer-as-source and the other setup.

 You, on the other hand, own only a PC yet feel free to criticize stuff that is light years beyond this in musical reproduction.(edited)_

 

actually my computer based source has me more satisfied than either of my many cd player based systems. Please compare apples to apples
 mac mine running apple lossles to a good dac will sound as good as a cdp any day. I ran a mac mini to an apogee and to a wavelenght cosecant and they both wound great. FWIW I owned a wadia 302, exemplar 2900 and alesis masterlink and the computer based source bested all of them and was significantly more user friendly. Oh also the Slim Devices Transporte was a gem as well. 
 sorry to be way off topic here
 JP


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Call me a snob if you want; to be honest, I am when it comes to music. I think if you knew me you'd find me to be very down to earth in almost every other facet of my life, but yes, let it ring out--

 I am an audio snob, and damn proud of it.

 With that out of the way, do you think you could address the fact that I am criticizing stuff that I actually own and use? You criticize stuff you haven't owned and may not have ever heard. I own an iPod. I own a PC with a Sound Blaster X-FI. And I own a hi-fi system. Owning ALL THREE, I think I have a right to criticize them. There is no, read this, NO COMPARISON between the computer-as-source and the other setup.

 You, on the other hand, own only a PC yet feel free to criticize stuff that is light years beyond this in musical reproduction.

 Do I think you need to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get good sound? No, but I do think that there is a minimum level of investment needed to get beyond the B- level into the A+ level. That level can be debated, but I think it's foolish to believe that by skimping on price you're doing yourself any favors._

 

I agree with that....I tried alot stuff with my PC and the sound is better without the PC - that does include SB3 feeding the outboard DAC. PC can get close...but still some distance off from an all-in-one CDP. Transport/DAC works only if there is a master clock to drive both; and I have not seen a commercial solution for the PC end.


----------



## badmonkey

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Update

http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?...d=103&Itemid=2

 Sigh, nobody is behaving very well on this. I would say let Fremer use his own reference cables...if cable is all BS Randi should let Fremer use his own..._

 






 LOL!

 Read the comments and bickering from Fremer and Pear themselves down the page in the comments...


----------



## badmonkey

Another update:
http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?...d=104&Itemid=2


----------



## badmonkey

Wow huh. No wonder these tests never get done. What a circus.

 Don't these guys offer money back guarantees? Why not buy the damn cables, let Fremer use them for a while to get used to 'em as he wants, then take 'em back when finished...


----------



## LawnGnome

Somebody has to teach Fremer that TYPING LIKE THIS ALL THE TIME IS DAMN ANNOYING. 

 He seriously types like a child.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You just proved my point that most people who are clueless about cables are running low-fi systems._

 

Fi is short for fidelity. Fi isnt short for price. Hi Fi means reproduction of sound that is very faithful to the original master recording. High fidelity equipment has "minimal or unnoticeable levels of noise and distortion and an accurate frequency response" as set out by the 1973 DIN 45500 (Deutsches Institut für Normung) standard . 

 You may believe that price is a strong determinant of fidelity. I can point to numerous [1,2 as examples] blind tests that provide evidence that two items of vastly different prices may be indistinguishable sonically. 

 1.Masters and Clark "Do All Amplifiers sound the same ?"

 2.WWW.matrixhifi.com

 When blind tests have been done with loudspeakers and where visual and price clues are removed the evaluatons of high price speakers were lower than when folks knew what they were and how much they cost. 

http://www.mastersonaudio.com/features/20010115.htm

 An iPod has been used to demonstrate $20K speakers to audiophiles and nobody twigged it wasnt a $20K CD player. 

http://stereophile.com/news/011004ces/

 In conclusion I posit that FI <> Price


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To elaborate... I made a point that the majority of the people who don't believe in cables run low-fi systems. This doesn't mean they are correct or incorrect in their beliefs, but I'd be willing to bet that any survey would bear this trait out as far as demographics go. He started to talk about how "My computer..."_

 

You do not know how fi anybody elses system is so that paragraph is redundant.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_At this point, he had, IMO, displayed what I was talking about. A low-fi system (sorry, but as someone with an iPod, a very high-end PC, and a very high-end stereo setup, I can say from experience that the first two are not viable as hi-fi) usually tends to correlate with a disbelief in the effects of cables._

 

Sorry , but CES 2004 audience members would disagree with you as they heard the iPod in a speaker system demo and were not disappointed. 

 Also Stereophile tested the iPod and it is most definitely Hi Fi , it measures better than many stand-alone CD players.

http://stereophile.com/mediaservers/934/index5.html

 If you would care to post the measurements for your high-end source (according to Wikipedia this means expensive not High Fidelity) I can let you know whether it complies with DIN 45500 i.e qualifies for the term Hi Fi. Did you know for instance that the Wadia 860i has a 3db roll off at 20K I think this means that it is not actually HiFi as such.

 EDIT: I jus checked the Wadia is Hi Fi (just) as it does manage 20 - 16,000 +/- 1.5db but it is a close run thing...

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 You, on the other hand, own only a PC yet feel free to criticize stuff that is light years beyond this in musical reproduction.
_

 

Colourful metaphors aside there are several members here including Steve Nugent (empirical audio) who contend that a PC is a fundamentally superior source to a CD since it has far superior (measurably) CD data handling, a CD player can correct most errors and make others unnoticeable but the errors are still there. A CD-Rom drive that doesnt read data perfectly is worthless. Also there is a school of opinion that PC sources can have less jitter. Actually jitter is a non issue but I drop it in for illustration.

 I just mention this to suggest that you cannot say that your (fine no doubt) system is actually any better (in Fi terms) than any other (lower cost) system.


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, and my point would be that moving beyond zip cords was technological progress. Some of these people claim that there is no difference between a $100 cable and a coat hanger. JRR Tolkien (of whom I am a huge fan, ironically) would be proud of them._

 

That is a trap though, because it isn't _demonstrable_ progress. It also isn't a qualitative shift, merely a (supposed) difference in quantity (quantity of quality, of course). Those that stick to records (qualitatively different than CD's) could be considered luddites, but not those that stick with <$100 interconnects. 

 You may wish to call them pragmatists, perhaps.


 Bragging about system cost is perhaps the last refuge of the wire believer. 
 Does income (or credit) determine auditory acuity?


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jp11801* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_mac mine running apple lossles to a good dac will sound as good as a cdp any day._

 

I'm happy to verify that. I have a Macbook that I use in my A/V system to play back both CDs and DVDs. It has bitperfect output and I'm able to resolve Dolby 5:1 and DTS no problem. It also plays just about anything I throw at it. I've had a terrible time finding a DVD player that will consistently play PAL, DVD-Rs, etc. At one point, I had three DVD players to cover all the different kinds of DVDs I played. The Macbook has replaced all three.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Fi is short for fidelity. Fi isnt short for price._

 

Good post and great references. The proof is there. Now, watch it get totally ignored by the people who keep clamoring for "proof".

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Sarchi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Somebody has to teach Fremer that TYPING LIKE THIS ALL THE TIME IS DAMN ANNOYING. 

 He seriously types like a child._

 

It was Blake typing in caps, not Fremer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 If anything's changed in this process, I've gained more respect for Fremer and lost most of what I had for Randi. MF seems to be sincere in wanting to accept this challenge, even with the risks involved.

 BTW, MF has left another comment on my blog.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sarchi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It was Blake typing in caps, not Fremer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If anything's changed in this process, I've gained more respect for Fremer and lost most of what I had for Randi. MF seems to be sincere in wanting to accept this challenge, even with the risks involved.

 BTW, MF has left another comment on my blog._

 

I have to say Randi could be more flexible on this one. If Fremer is willing to risk his reputation Randi should allow a "new" challenge. While I was not surprised that Pear backed out it does look like Randi used that (very quickly) to say _its over I win_. 

 It looks like Randi thinks that Fremer could not win with the Pear cables but could win with his own. Well he could easily get his tech folks to check out any supplied cable beforehand to make sure it isnt electrically absurd.

 Randi should negotiate a new challenge with Fremer. I tried to post a message on his site to that effect, but even though I am registered the system wont let me 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I reckon if enough folks here did that Randi would be shamed into taking the challenge.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Sarchi* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It was Blake typing in caps, not Fremer. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 If anything's changed in this process, I've gained more respect for Fremer and lost most of what I had for Randi. MF seems to be sincere in wanting to accept this challenge, even with the risks involved.

 BTW, MF has left another comment on my blog._

 


 I was talking about this article and it's comments. Before Fremer changed from his account named "grooves" to "Michael Fremer"

http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?...d=103&Itemid=2


----------



## Sarchi

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have to say Randi could be more flexible on this one. If Fremer is willing to risk his reputation Randi should allow a "new" challenge. While I was not surprised that Pear backed out it does look like Randi used that (very quickly) to say its over I win. _

 

Exactly. Plus, he starts to taunt and call them names, which only makes Randi himself look somewhat disingenuous.

 This is a complex issue, and both "sides" need to be mature enough to work together collaboratively if there's any hope of gleaning anything useful from such a challenge.


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have to say Randi could be more flexible on this one. If Fremer is willing to risk his reputation Randi should allow a "new" challenge. While I was not surprised that Pear backed out it does look like Randi used that (very quickly) to say its over I win. 

 It looks like Randi thinks that Fremer could not win with the Pear cables but could win with his own. Well he could easily get his tech folks to check out any supplied cable beforehand to make sure it isnt electrically absurd._

 


 At the least, more information about Fremer's reference cables needs to be in the discussion. I think that Randi is more interested in new out of the box cables that he can test for defects - for all we know Fremer's cables have abnormally (absurdly) high capacitance or inductance.

 If I were a betting man I'd wager that Randi tested the three cables in his challenge and found them to have satisfactorily similar inductance and capacitance, and to do the test with another cable he'd need to find its values to find an appropriate <$100 match. I'm not saying that it would necessarily matter a great deal, but if it were -my- million dollars I'd cover my bases (and it makes it a stronger test - he's testing the snake oil; not the inductance or capacitance).

 If specific values of inductance and capacitance are found to be the sum total of perceivable differences in speaker cables, they can be achieved for much less than $7k.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Bragging about system cost is perhaps the last refuge of the wire believer. 
 Does income (or credit) determine auditory acuity?_

 

Actually, it has nothing to do with either. I make less than $30,000 a year and I'm not gullible enough to use "credit"--I'm not about ready to pay someone 25% interest so I can temporarily "afford" something. I happened to make some good investments and also don't waste money on cars and houses and things other people consider important, so I'm able to spend some extra money on audio equipment, which is a priority.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, it has nothing to do with either. I make less than $30,000 a year and I'm not gullible enough to use "credit"--I'm not about ready to pay someone 25% interest so I can temporarily "afford" something. I happened to make some good investments and also don't waste money on cars and houses and things other people consider important, so I'm able to spend some extra money on audio equipment, which is a priority._

 


 Made good investments but don't bother buying a house?

 Renting is throwing money away.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have to say Randi could be more flexible on this one. If Fremer is willing to risk his reputation Randi should allow a "new" challenge. While I was not surprised that Pear backed out it does look like Randi used that (very quickly) to say its over I win._

 

But remember what Randi's original challenge was... He was looking for someone who could tell the difference between Pear cables and regular monster cables. The Pear cables were the target of his test, not Fremer. Someone who honestly thinks he can hear what he can't isn't a snake oil peddler. Someone who sells a $7,000 wire definitely is.

 As for the name calling... I suspect that Randi has been down this road enough times to see the weasely double talking coming. That guy from Pear Cables is a real doozy. The email he sent me makes absolutely no sense and it's full of pathetic attempts to obfuscate. The first two sentences even directly contradict each other! I would NOT buy a used car from him. And based on his behavior I would NOT trust his return policy if I was Randi.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, it has nothing to do with either. I make less than $30,000 a year and I'm not gullible enough to use "credit"--I'm not about ready to pay someone 25% interest so I can temporarily "afford" something. I happened to make some good investments and also don't waste money on cars and houses and things other people consider important, so I'm able to spend some extra money on audio equipment, which is a priority._

 

I could give you some good advice on how to achieve great sound without spending a lot of money if you were interested.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Sovkiller

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm happy to verify that. I have a Macbook that I use in my A/V system to play back both CDs and DVDs. It has bitperfect output and I'm able to resolve Dolby 5:1 and DTS no problem. It also plays just about anything I throw at it. I've had a terrible time finding a DVD player that will consistently play PAL, DVD-Rs, etc. At one point, I had three DVD players to cover all the different kinds of DVDs I played. The Macbook has replaced all three.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

The HD980 from OPPO will play all what you can posibly imagine, cost only 169.00


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, it has nothing to do with either. I make less than $30,000 a year and I'm not gullible enough to use "credit"--I'm not about ready to pay someone 25% interest so I can temporarily "afford" something. I happened to make some good investments and also don't waste money on cars and houses and things other people consider important, so I'm able to spend some extra money on audio equipment, which is a priority._

 

That dodges the issue. You are still attempting to argue that legitimacy is somehow determined by money invested. If it is a priority to you, thats fabulous. It doesn't make you a better ear than someone else - if anything your financial situation would make you more likely to defend high-dollar wire purchases (had you made them) as they represent a large percentage of your disposable income and you wouldn't wish to appear a fool.


 In short: you claim that a large portion of the wires-don't-matter position consists of sour grapes. They can't afford it, it doesn't work.

 I'll counter with a large portion of the wires-do-matter position consists of the emperor's-new-clothes effect combined with a desire to defend the wisdom of their purchasing decisions.


----------



## vcoheda

same old boring story - everything sounds the same.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That dodges the issue. You are still attempting to argue that legitimacy is somehow determined by money invested._

 

Yes, I am arguing this. I don't think that it's possible for a $100 CD player to sound like a $10,000 CD player. Why? Because in a $100 CD player, the manufacturer is using the cheapest parts they can find; quality is not an issue.

 Does this mean a $10,000 CD player automatically sounds better than a $5,000 CD player? No, but there is a pretty darn good chance that it does. Too many people here are paranoid about this... they assume every price mark-up is just trickery by "The evil corporations". No thought is given to the fact that maybe that extra $5,000 per CD player was used for research and development, better parts, and most importantly (and most often ignored) quality control. Assembly line products are exactly that... they get taken off the assembly line and thrown in a box. Any problems with the $100 CD player are handled by returns after the buyer listens to it. If 20% of the buyers return their CD Players, the company doesn't care. They aren't worried in the least about people who are only willing to spend $100 on their equipment. Contrast this to high-end companies, where the practice is usually to have someone listen to the player for at least a day to make sure it meets their standards. The higher the price, in general, the longer the listening period; some companies have a week long listening period before they box it up. High-end companies live or die by the quality of their product; they are NEVER going to ship a half-assed version of their flagship product to someone because of production quotas, "limited time only" sales at Best Buy, etc.

 What gets me is that nobody would argue that you get a better car for the money you spend; no one would argue that you get a better house for the money you spend; nobody would argue that you get a better guitar for the money you spend. But somehow audio exists in a vacuum where everything that isn't at Best Buy prices is "snake oil".


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 I happened to make some good investments and also don't waste money on cars and houses and things other people consider important, so I'm able to spend some extra money on audio equipment, which is a priority. 
 

A $10,000 computer is not the best investment


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A $10,000 computer is not the best investment 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

It is if you're a gaming fanatic
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.

 It cuts through graphic intensive programs like butter. Sweet, sweet butter...


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, I am arguing this. I don't think that it's possible for a $100 CD player to sound like a $10,000 CD player. Why? Because in a $100 CD player, the manufacturer is using the cheapest parts they can find; quality is not an issue._

 

The price of electronic parts doesn't relate to their quality. Most consumer CD players all use basically the same parts, which are manufactured in mass quantities to the same high specifications. The differences between CD players are how those parts are incorporated into a *design*, which balances sound quality, features and user interface issues.

 There are super bargain basement discount brands that don't perform to spec or don't hold up under normal use, but that has more to do with the shortcuts taken in the way they're put together, not the quality of the electronic parts.

 Cost is not a determiner of quality. Design is.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What gets me is that nobody would argue that you get a better car for the money you spend; no one would argue that you get a better house for the money you spend; nobody would argue that you get a better guitar for the money you spend. But somehow audio exists in a vacuum where everything that isn't at Best Buy prices is "snake oil"._

 

You've forced me to dredge up Marx.

 Cost does not == value. Market value (or Exchange-Value) does not directly derive from Use-Value. The Status boost for owning a product is essentially a specific type of Use-value (or can be argued as such), but is completely unrelated to the audio use-value.

 Exchange-value, or what the going rate for an item may be on the market, has -nothing- to do with the labor-value involved in producing the product, and may also bear little relation to the use-value of the item.

 A $10,000 cd player costs $10,000 primarily *because people will pay it*. This may *or may not* have anything to do with the extent to which it performs its primary task better than a $100 cd player.

 This also leaves completely aside the issue of diminishing returns. What if in your comparison there was a $100 player, a $5000 player, a $10,000 player, and then a $200 player, $300, $400, $500... etc? Assuming all manufacturers are striving for neutrality, any differences will become increasingly difficult to discern as you climb the price chain (assuming there isn't any Exchange-value inflation through Use-value not directly tied to sound quality. Sexy casings or funky displays, for example).

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, I am arguing this. 
 ...
 High-end companies live or die by the quality of their product; they are NEVER going to ship a half-assed version of their flagship product to someone because of production quotas, "limited time only" sales at Best Buy, etc._

 

They live or die based on the *perception* of their product's quality. The actual quality of their product is irrelevant beyond this aspect. If purchasers feel like fools for admitting that after several months time (conveniently, after most return windows) they cannot determine a difference in sound quality then of course they will be reluctant to admit so.


 Chuckle-inducing tidbit:

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Pear Cable's website* 
_
 At Pear Cable Audio Cables we stand firmly behind the products that we offer. *We are so confident in our audio cables that we encourage you to compare us to any of our competitors.* A comprehensive list of cable companies is provided for your convenience. Feel free to look around; we’re sure you will be back._

 

Under the list of competitors, they mention Monster Cable.


 This gear snobbery mirrors the music creation world so well it is sadly humorous. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does this mean a $10,000 CD player automatically sounds better than a $5,000 CD player? No, but there is a pretty darn good chance that it does. Too many people here are paranoid about this... they assume every price mark-up is just trickery by "The evil corporations". No thought is given to the fact that maybe that extra $5,000 per CD player was used for research and development, better parts, and most importantly (and most often ignored) quality control._

 

Or the bulk of the difference could be spent on marketing and _blinkenlights_ - essentially things that have nothing to do with the audio use-value of the product (but may have a great deal to do with the status use-value).


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Cost is not a determiner of quality. Design is._

 

Sure, but good designs are expensive.


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sure, but good designs are expensive._

 

I'm sure that was the mentality behind the committee-driven Space Shuttle design.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You've forced me to dredge up Marx._

 

Yeah, how's that working out
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





?

 PS--Have you tried any high-end players, or do you just criticize them based on Communist philosophy?


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, how's that working out
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




?

 PS--Have you tried any high-end players, or do you just criticize them based on Communist philosophy?_

 

he doesn't have to try one because they, like cables, all sound the same. bits are bits. wire is wire.


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, how's that working out
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




?

 PS--Have you tried any high-end players, or do you just criticize them based on Communist philosophy?_

 

Would you have preferred Weber?

 Marx's predictions were bunk (whose aren't?) but his analysis of political economy was superb. 

 But really, if the best you can come up with is to call me a communist, you'd best close the wikipedia window and call it a day. If, however, you'd like to address the _substantive_ portions of my argument - I'll get to you eventually.

 I have listened to many consumer grade pieces of audio gear, but tend to prefer pro audio equipment generally. I see no reason to purchase (or keep, anyway) a separate set of equipment solely to listen. The shiny bits just don't matter.


----------



## chesebert

Are most arguing 'cable makes no difference' because their systems are actually pretty low-fi, or mid-fi at best? 

 Its rare to see someone stating 'he can't hear a difference in cable' when he is using his $10k speaker connected with another $10k worth of electronics.

 There is really nothing wrong with using low-fi equipment and not being able to hear a difference in cable. IMO folks using low-end systems shouldn't concern themselves with cables, instead they should concentrate on getting better 'sound making' equipments.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But really, if the best you can come up with is to call me a communist, you'd best close the wikipedia window and call it a day._

 

What??? You brought up Marx, the author of "THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO" in a discussion of equipment; I then asked if you based your impressions of equipment on Communist philosophy. Can you please explain what this has to do with wikipedia? If you are implying that I didn't know who Karl Marx is without consulting wikipedia, well... you are the one who cut and pasted his statements (possibly from wiki or some similar site) into your reply. Projection, anyone


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sure, but good designs are expensive._

 

This mentality is what drives the consumer culture 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Very often in engineering the simplest and cheapest design is best. First example off the top of my head is the CFS integrated in Linux 2.6.23. It's incredibly simple compared to heuristic based schedulers, yet somehow manages to outperform most of them even though it has access to less information.


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Very often in engineering the simplest and cheapest design is best._

 

This is a very popular thing to say lately, but based on the simple/cheap designs I've heard, it is rarely true.


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What??? You brought up Marx, the author of "THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO" in a discussion of equipment; I then asked if you based your impressions of equipment on Communist philosophy. Can you please explain what this has to do with wikipedia? If you are implying that I didn't know who Karl Marx is without consulting wikipedia, well... you are the one who cut and pasted his statements (possibly from wiki or some similar site) into your reply. Projection, anyone
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I brought up terms he introduced in _Das Kapital_, because it was easier than re-defining them. My mention that the ideas were originally Marx's was a courtesy. You are _still_ ignoring my points by making another ad hominem argument.

 That point is: retail price is not necessarily connected to audio quality. 

 Whether or not Marx is the devil himself has nothing to do with this. *Why are you focusing on it? *My mention of wikipedia was to imply that if the best response to my argument was to call me a communist that you know little more about what Marx said other than that he (with Engels) penned the manifesto. Your continued refusal to address those points seems to confirm this.

 ---------

 Where, pray tell, did you first get the idea that cables in excess of $100 mattered? Did you read about it and then seek good-sounding cables, -or- come at the issue skeptically and come to your position after collecting sense data (as an empiricist - by testing cables)?


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This mentality is what drives the consumer culture 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Very often in engineering the simplest and cheapest design is best. First example off the top of my head is the CFS integrated in Linux 2.6.23. It's incredibly simple compared to heuristic based schedulers, yet somehow manages to outperform most of them even though it has access to less information._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is a very popular thing to say lately, but based on the simple/cheap designs I've heard, it is rarely true._

 

I adhere to the principle of simpler is better for audio. BUT simple != cheap!! Many simple designs, e.g. SET, can get insanely expensive if the goal is to make the best sounding amplifier. 

 Opamp is very complex by nature; when was the last you looked at a opamp schematic? complex isn't it?? but its dirt cheap!


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am criticizing stuff that I actually own and use? You criticize stuff you haven't owned and may not have ever heard._

 

and this is why debate with these people is pointless.

  Quote:


 I own an iPod. I own a PC with a Sound Blaster X-FI. And I own a hi-fi system. Owning ALL THREE, I think I have a right to criticize them. There is no, read this, NO COMPARISON between the computer-as-source and the other setup. 
 

this statement is obvious - a given - to anyone i have met who has experienced even an average amount of decent gear. from the ground up, no audiophile with a decent budget would ever consider constructing an audio setup using a computer as source. the idea is laughable.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are most arguing 'cable makes no difference' because their systems are actually pretty low-fi, or mid-fi at best? 

 Its rare to see someone stating 'he can't hear a difference in cable' when he is using his $10k speaker connected with another $10k worth of electronics.

 There is really nothing wrong with using low-fi equipment and not being able to hear a difference in cable. IMO folks using low-end systems shouldn't concern themselves with cables, instead they should concentrate on getting better 'sound making' equipments._

 

FI <> Price

 High End = Expensive, not High Fidelity

 High Fidelity is definable based on faithfulness to the original. For example when they tested the iPod Stereophile's measurements clearly indicate that it is at least as High Fidelity as many expensive CD players.

 Several folks on this thread have already noted how with their relatively expensive systems they cannot detect a difference in speaker cables. 

 Low cost <> Low Fi. Perhaps you should read "Masters and Clark: Do All amplifiers sound the same ? " - some boutique amps were indistinguishable from $200 receivers.

 Fi is Fi cost is cost.

 Here is an interesting report of a blind test between a $3000 Transport/DAC player and a $600 all-in-one unit. The upshot was that the listener consistently preferred the cheaper unit. 

http://www.goodsound.com/home.shtml

 Or this low cost system vs high cost system...

http://www.matrixhifi.com/contenedor_ppec_eng.htm


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_and this is why debate with these people is pointless.
_

 

So, if someone auditions items and decides they aren't worth their purchase price, they have a bad ear? 

 Speakers matter
 DACs matter
 preamps matter

 Cables? *Not that I have heard, if they aren't faulty.*

 Granted, -all- of my cable listening has been under $100. Places that let you return cables are few and far between. (It has also all been in the realm of pro audio. I'm pretty confident in the quality of MOTU and DIGI gear, though.)

 I can tell the difference between an instrument cable and a speaker cable between a PA amplifier and a loudspeaker. But between well-made speaker cables, I haven't heard one.

 -----

_Assuming_ I was prevented from collecting my own sense data: I'd go with the opinions of accomplished sound engineers over self-styled audiophiles. No contest. Those I have spoken to don't hold ultra-expensive cables in high regard.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_from the ground up, no audiophile with a decent budget would ever consider constructing an audio setup using a computer as source. the idea is laughable._

 

Only to gear snobs.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You are still ignoring my points by making another ad hominem argument.

 That point is: retail price is not necessarily connected to audio quality._

 

If you read my post carefully, what I am saying is that retail price is not necessarily connected to audio quality, but is coincidentally related to audio quality. It's a fine distinction, but any student of Marx should have no problem understanding it
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Only to gear snobs._

 

No, he makes a very good point. He said nobody with a good budget would consider PC-as-source; are you honestly saying that someone with a $20,000 budget would go to a computer as their first choice? I'm sorry, but this is flat out wrong.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, he makes a very good point. He said nobody with a good budget would consider PC-as-source; are you honestly saying that someone with a $20,000 budget would go to a computer as their first choice?_

 

Absolutely.

 And given the fact that many of the recordings that one might listen to on a $20,000 system are recorded, mixed, and mastered on a computer, this is not nearly so far-fetched as you make it out to be.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you read my post carefully, what I am saying is that retail price is not necessarily connected to audio quality, but is coincidentally related to audio quality. It's a fine distinction, but any student of Marx should have no problem understanding it
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




._

 

"Coincidentally related"? Isn't that an oxymoron?


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you read my post carefully, what I am saying is that retail price is not necessarily connected to audio quality, but is coincidentally related to audio quality. It's a fine distinction, but any student of Marx should have no problem understanding it
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




._

 

If it is merely coincidence, then price isn't a valid measure of quality.

 Apparently, too fine a distinction for yourself.

 Perhaps you want correlated?

 -----


 At any rate, I think this has quite plainly become an...


----------



## Chu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, he makes a very good point. He said nobody with a good budget would consider PC-as-source; are you honestly saying that someone with a $20,000 budget would go to a computer as their first choice? I'm sorry, but this is flat out wrong._

 

This is a fairly short sighted opinion. Music distribution is moving digital, and there are plenty of people under 21 who don't own a single physical album. If the audiophile world insists on physical sources through peer pressure the are going to vanish in a generation.

 The first company that markets a digital distribution system correctly towards the audiophile community is going to make a fortune.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, he makes a very good point. He said nobody with a good budget would consider PC-as-source; are you honestly saying that someone with a $20,000 budget would go to a computer as their first choice? I'm sorry, but this is flat out wrong._

 

I really very reluctant to enter this embarrassing discussion, but I think facts can only help. I have, in fact, done this very thing almost twice now having two locations. The budget of one isn't quite that much. I haven't abx'd to a very high end cd player so can can't venture a comparison from my own experience. And I really don't care about it because I do know that what I listen to sounds very very good. I have had many high quality systems over decades of being an audiophile.

 The things some of you will assert or dismiss with such colossal combined certainty and ignorance!


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Absolutely.

 And given the fact that many of the recordings that one might listen to on a $20,000 system are recorded, mixed, and mastered on a computer, this is not nearly so far-fetched as you make it out to be.



 "Coincidentally related"? Isn't that an oxymoron?_

 

As to the first point, I don't disagree with this at all, although, as someone who did a fair amount of recording in bygone days, I think there is a pretty open debate as to whether or not this is a good thing. Computers have made it easier for people to record, there is no doubt about it, and I believe this in and of itself is good; the more people making music, the better. But many engineers flat out think that digital recording has led to a decrease in sound quality. Whether this is because of the fact that any housewife or twelve year old boy can now throw together an album, or inherent defects in digital quality, is beyond me.

 As to "coincidentally related"... well, in purely philosophical terms, you can differentiate between something being "necessary" for A to occur and something being "sufficient" for A to occur. I don't think what I am saying falls perfectly into the latter, but it is closer to this than the former. I say it isn't perfect because, from a standpoint of symbolic logic, it doesn't really hold up, as there are certainly instances of high priced equipment that is of poor quality. But I think that this is the rare exception, so 95% of the time, IMO, costing $10,000 is sufficient for incredible sound. 

 Sorry if that is somewhat rambling... philosophy was my minor in college, and it's been almost 15 years. Hopefully what I'm saying is clear.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If it is merely coincidence, then price isn't a valid measure of quality.

 Apparently, too fine a distinction for yourself.

 Perhaps you want correlated?_

 

I hate to break it to you, but correlation implies a strong possibily of coincidence unless it is a correlation of 1 or -1, which is not what I'm saying. I'm not implying a correlation between price and quality, as I'm not going to pin myself down to saying that a 50% raise in price results in 50% better quality, or even 25%. I believe in diminishing returns, and a simple correlation isn't going to allow for this.

 I think everyone knows what I'm getting at but is tapdancing around it because to do otherwise would be to concede a point.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Chu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is a fairly short sighted opinion. Music distribution is moving digital, and there are plenty of people under 21 who don't own a single physical album. If the audiophile world insists on physical sources through peer pressure the are going to vanish in a generation.

 The first company that markets a digital distribution system correctly towards the audiophile community is going to make a fortune._

 

I'm not even going to start on what kids and their iPods have done to the audiophile world
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. You're correct in a sense; quality music is disappearing with the new generation as quickly as courtesy and the ability to communicate in written English--u know, ur hedfons r rlly kul


----------



## ph0rk

From the dichotomy you presented, either an item must cost a lot to sound good, or an expensive item must sound good.

 It is possible that neither is true: an expensive item can sound bad, and an inexpensive item can sound good.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I hate to break it to you, but correlation implies a strong possibily of coincidence unless it is a correlation of 1 or -1, which is not what I'm saying. I'm not implying a correlation between price and quality, as I'm not going to pin myself down to saying that a 50% raise in price results in 50% better quality, or even 25%. I believe in diminishing returns, and a simple correlation isn't going to allow for this._

 

Then we are arguing the same thing, with the "minor" difference that I feel that the point that cables become imperceptibly different occurs earlier in the DR curve than you do. Actually, it is possible that a model could be made to fit this curve quite well, we only need data to test it.

 ----

 Correlation implies nothing. Any substantive meaning of a correlation must be _argued_.


----------



## LeChuck

Quote:


 quality music is disappearing with the new generation as quickly as courtesy and the ability to communicate in written English 
 

Every generation says this. "Classic" rock used to be the new music of the devil. Hell, Beethoven's late works pushed the bounds of what was considered acceptable.


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LeChuck* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Every generation says this. "Classic" rock used to be the new music of the devil. Hell, Beethoven's late works pushed the bounds of what was considered acceptable._

 

While I don't argue this point, the "compression war" and/or "volume wars" have ruined the fidelity of many of the recordings in recent times.

 As often as not though, the music most affected by it isn't that interesting, but that is merely my opinion. I'm sure someone can come up with examples of a good song or album that has been compressed all to hell and back.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The things some of you will assert or dismiss with such colossal combined certainty and ignorance!_

 

Well, I do think I'm asserting the former, but not the latter. I don't know how you can claim I'm ignorant, because, as I've pointed out 100 times before, I own all of the systems I criticize. I have never posted so much as a hint of an opinion about stuff I don't use. I think owning an iPod, a PC, and a hi-fi gives me permission to criticize the first two as not being up to snuff sonically. If a guy owned a Ford Escort, a late 90s BMW, and a new Ferrari, does he not have the right to say that the Ferrari blows the other two out of the water? (For what it's worth, I drive a crappy Ford Focus).

 Also, please note that my soundcard (Creative X-Fi) is the very one that most people who slam me are using. It's running on 4 gigs of RAM and with a quad core processor; it's being fed into a NICE dac, the HeadRoom Balanced Desktop. Apparently, the other people who use this sound card have "golden ears", because they're hearing something I don't
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It is if you're a gaming fanatic
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.

 It cuts through graphic intensive programs like butter. Sweet, sweet butter..._

 

What's funny is I could probably build your computer for around $2,000, and you could probably get it prebuilt for under $4,000.

 Quad-core and more than 2 gigs of ram is complete and utter marketing to consumers. SMP doesn't work on desktop Windows OS's, and 64-bit Vista is the only MS desktop os that can handle more than 3 gigs of ram.

 Based off earwicker's computer buying habits, he is obviously the type that thinks expense == quality. I wouldn't be surprised if the same held true for his audio equipment buying habits.


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Also, please note that my soundcard (Creative X-Fi) is the very one that most people who slam me are using. It's running on 4 gigs of RAM and with a quad core processor; it's being fed into a NICE dac, the HeadRoom Balanced Desktop. Apparently, the other people who use this sound card have "golden ears", because they're hearing something I don't
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




._

 

I don't use the x-fi, (generally not a fan of creative's products, though the stuff they absorbed like emu isn't bad) - however, comparing while rigs isn't really a good test - you want to change one variable at a time. Try the computer into the DAC of your main hi-fi rig (though doing this double-blind alone is next to impossible).


----------



## philodox

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I adhere to the principle of simpler is better for audio. BUT simple != cheap!! Many simple designs, e.g. SET, can get insanely expensive if the goal is to make the best sounding amplifier. 

 Opamp is very complex by nature; when was the last you looked at a opamp schematic? complex isn't it?? but its dirt cheap!_

 

True enough. Lumping simple and cheap together was a poor way of wording it. Some simple designs are good, but simple done just for the sake of being simple is where I see a problem. A certain 'purist' [simple] tube amp design that I once built taught me this.

 Cheap parts can sometimes be good, but in many cases, spending more on a part will get you an audible improvement. A cheap piece of retail stereo equipment has one goal, to work. An expensive piece of retail stereo equipment has to live up to its price. Generally more money is put into the design, and the company will try to produce the best sound that they can. Nobody is saying that all expensive equipment is great, just that most of the really great equipment is expensive.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_From the dichotomy you presented, either an item must cost a lot to sound good, or an expensive item must sound good._

 

A--sort of; I do believe you have to spend a large (subjective) amount of money to get TOP quality. You can get GOOD quality with a much lower price, such as my iPod routed through a HeadRoom Micro amp.

 B--I never claimed this, you're either misunderstanding me or deliberately trying to simplify my argument.


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A--sort of; I do believe you have to spend a large (subjective) amount of money to get TOP quality. You can get GOOD quality with a much lower price, such as my iPod routed through a HeadRoom Micro amp.

 B--I never claimed this, you're either misunderstanding me or deliberately trying to simplify my argument._

 

The second was high cost as a necessary condition for good sound. You phrased cost as either necessary or sufficient for good sound, and I don't think it has to be either.

 As for "top" quality - given the nature of the beast, I don't think it exists in any objectively measurable form.

 edit:
 correction, you phrased it as somewhere between necessary and sufficient, but as I understand those terms something is either one, the other, or neither. No in-between.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I do believe you have to spend a large (subjective) amount of money to get TOP quality._

 

yes. this unfortunately has been my uniform experience thus far in the area of audio - source, headphones, amps, cables. every one of these items has sounded better as things got more expensive. now, i am quite sure - if not positive - that you do reach a certain price point where things do not get better but only different. however, i can safely say that i have not reached that point yet.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What's funny is I could probably build your computer for around $2,000, and you could probably get it prebuilt for under $4,000.

 Quad-core and more than 2 gigs of ram is complete and utter marketing to consumers. SMP doesn't work on desktop Windows OS's, and 64-bit Vista is the only MS desktop os that can handle more than 3 gigs of ram.

 Based off earwicker's computer buying habits, he is obviously the type that thinks expense == quality. I wouldn't be surprised if the same held true for his audio equipment buying habits._

 

As usual, you're peddling in internet gossip. 32 bit Vista can't handle over 4 gigs of RAM (that's F-O-U-R); although many people misinterpret this because they see less than 4 gigs assigned when they look at the performance marks under task manager. This is because of the way Vista uses the memory in concert with the hardware; here's a better explanation--

  Quote:


 Remember that in the absence of the /PAE switch, the Windows memory manager is limited to a 4GB physical address space. Most of that address space is filled with RAM, but not all of it. Memory-mapped devices (such as your video card) will use some of that physical address space, as will the BIOS ROMs. After all the non-memory devices have had their say, there will be less than 4GB of address space available for RAM below the 4GB physical address boundary. 
 

Dude, you just showed your true colors as a cut-and-paste clueless interloper, and I assume you'll be laughed off this site. I guess everyone should save money and have their computer built by someone who doesn't know jack-s**t about computers


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_and this is why debate with these people is pointless._

 

This is the third time I remind you to defend your position through supporting arguments. Don't attack the individual. You are clearly young and you're enthusiastic about the subject. That's great and commendable. But if you close your mind to different viewpoints presented by people with more knowledge and experience than you have, you're never going to have the knowledge and experience you need to back up that "expert" status you're aiming at for yourself.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Fi is Fi cost is cost._

 

That is the most accurate advice you can give someone starting out. If they think things out and plan carefully, they will be able to put together a great sounding inexpensive system that rivals the ones of the people who just buy what the salesman recommends and randomly replace equipment with more expensive equipment.

 Being an audiophile isn't doing things more expensively. It's doing it smarter.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't use the x-fi, (generally not a fan of creative's products, though the stuff they absorbed like emu isn't bad) - however, comparing while rigs isn't really a good test - you want to change one variable at a time. Try the computer into the DAC of your main hi-fi rig (though doing this double-blind alone is next to impossible)._

 

Already done; although not in the exact same way as you described, since my main rig doesn't have (or need) an outboard DAC.

 Here's what I did to compare.

 PC-->HeadRoom Desktop
 CD Player-->HeadRoom Desktop

 No comparison. Day and night, night and day


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Already done; although not in the exact same way as you described, since my main rig doesn't have (or need) an outboard DAC.

 Here's what I did to compare.

 PC-->HeadRoom Desktop
 CD Player-->HeadRoom Desktop

 No comparison. Day and night, night and day
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Using the headroom desktop's dac (if you got that option)?

 Otherwise you are comparing dacs as well as transports (I assume you know this).

 That said, if you -did- use the same source material (at the same bitrate) and the headroom dac both times... I'm making a clear squinty face right now. You can't see it, but it is there.


----------



## bigshot

I have about a year's worth of music in pure digital form. Every bit of it is instantly accessible using external drives and my laptop. That is a LOT better than I can say for my collection of over 8,000 CDs and over 30,000 records. My computer is the most useful piece of audio equipment I've ever bought. I can record, restore and play back audio that sounds every bit as good as my best CD/SACD player. If I had unlimited funds to put together a system from scratch, a computer would be the source at the heart of it.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As usual, you're peddling in internet gossip. 32 bit Vista can't handle over 4 gigs of RAM (that's F-O-U-R); although many people misinterpret this because they see less than 4 gigs assigned when they look at the performance marks under task manager. This is because of the way Vista uses the memory in concert with the hardware; here's a better explanation--



 Dude, you just showed your true colors as a cut-and-paste clueless interloper, and I assume you'll be laughed off this site. I guess everyone should save money and have their computer built by someone who doesn't know jack-s**t about computers
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	











_

 

So some random, unsoruced quote knows better than nearly every tech site on the internet, and an ex-Microsoft programmer who I am an aquantince of, and a current MS programmer I am friends with?

 You're the one who knows nothing about computers, if you spent $10,000 on one.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Already done; although not in the exact same way as you described, since my main rig doesn't have (or need) an outboard DAC.

 Here's what I did to compare.

 PC-->HeadRoom Desktop
 CD Player-->HeadRoom Desktop

 No comparison. Day and night, night and day
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Commendable. How did you do the blind switching ?, that is the one that I always find most difficult, well and precise level matching as well, my old NAD was a devil to compare against my Marantz as it was about 0.5V hotter and my external DAC also runs about 0.5V more than my current Cd player...


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_you phrased it as somewhere between necessary and sufficient, but as I understand those terms something is either one, the other, or neither. No in-between._

 

Nope, something can be both necessary and sufficient, biconditional, "If and only if", etc... 

 Please, please don't make me rehash the ins and outs of symbolic logic, it makes my brain hurt
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## FaLLeNAn9eL

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As usual, you're peddling in internet gossip. *32 bit Vista can't handle over 4 gigs of RAM (that's F-O-U-R)*; although many people misinterpret this because they see less than 4 gigs assigned when they look at the performance marks under task manager. This is because of the way Vista uses the memory in concert with the hardware; here's a better explanation--_

 

Says who? 
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...AE/PAEdrv.mspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

 EDIT: Decided to post links instead.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So some random, unsoruced quote knows better than nearly every tech site on the internet, and an ex-Microsoft programmer who I am an aquantince of, and a current MS programmer I am friends with?_

 

Yes, I have better things to do than spend all day educating you. And I hate to tell you this, but, well, I think you're only 12 or so, so consider it fatherly advice... quoting a "friend" on the internet is the equivalent of admitting defeat
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.

 Will someone else who knows PCs chime in and get this guy off my back?


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FaLLeNAn9eL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Says who? 
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...AE/PAEdrv.mspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

 EDIT: Decided to post links instead._

 


 No, I'm not having problems, but Overlord Xenu is trying to tell me I am


----------



## FaLLeNAn9eL

Question: Do you build your own computers or are you the type that buys them pre-built?


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_quoting a "friend" on the internet is the equivalent of admitting defeat
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




._

 

Whereas masters of symbolic logic quote unattributed sources.


----------



## chesebert

you can do the math to determine theoretical limit of 32bit addressing. 2^32+2^31...2^0 you will arrive somewhere around 4096MB. 

 Yes other stuff needs to address part of that physical address, although IIRC MS is all virtual memory and rely on TLB to do the translation....if I am wrong...please correct me.


----------



## ph0rk

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Nope, something can be both necessary and sufficient, biconditional, "If and only if", etc... 

 Please, please don't make me rehash the ins and outs of symbolic logic, it makes my brain hurt
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




._

 

Well yes, but something either is one (or both) or not:

 Necessary y/n
 Sufficient y/n


 I don't think high cost is a necessary condition for good quality
 (If I don't pay alot, it won't sound good!)

 I don't think high cost is a sufficient condition for good quality
 (If I paid alot, it must sound good!)

 I use these terms when making causal arguments, and I suppose that isn't a bad way to think about it here. High cost does not _cause_ high quality.

 I don't disagree there is -often- a positive correlational relationship between cost and quality at the <$500 component/$2k speaker/$200 headphone level. It isn't necessarily linear, and beyond those price points it is touch and go/case by case, imho.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, I have better things to do than spend all day educating you. And I hate to tell you this, but, well, I think you're only 12 or so, so consider it fatherly advice... quoting a "friend" on the internet is the equivalent of admitting defeat
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.

 Will someone else who knows PCs chime in and get this guy off my back?_

 

You quoted your "audiologist" just as I referenced two friends, I figured since you could do it, so could I.

 And it's funny you go down low to age insults. I'm probably older than you, and I own a house and make investments that aren't in audio.

 You're the one that needs to grow up.

 Why don't you PM me the specifications of your $10,000 computer, and I'll see if I can match/beat them for less, and I'm willing to be that I can.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 Question: Do you build your own computers or are you the type that buys them pre-built? 
 

He owns a Voodoo brand computer I believe.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_He owns a Voodoo brand computer I believe._

 

I think you are right. not the cheapest way to buy a PC, but def the way to make a statement. I think the new HP/voodoo machine is very very slick as well; highly recommended if price is not an issue.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well yes, but something either is one (or both) or not:

 Necessary y/n
 Sufficient y/n


 I don't think high cost is a necessary condition for good quality
 (If I don't pay alot, it won't sound good!)

 I don't think high cost is a sufficient condition for good quality
 (If I paid alot, it must sound good!)_

 

If {
 (I do think high cost is necessary condition for good quality)
 ==(If it is good quality, it must be expensive)}
 then {
 (I don't think high cost is necessary condition for good quality) ==
 (If it is good quality, it may not be expensive)}

 if {
 (I do think high cost is sufficient condition for good quality) 
 == (If it is expensive, then it must be good quality)}
 then {
 (I don't think high cost is sufficient condition for good quality)
 == (null)
 }

 LMK if I am getting anything wrong


----------



## Marzie

Oops, wrong thread, post deleted


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think you are right. not the cheapest way to buy a PC, but def the way to make a statement. I think the new HP/voodoo machine is very very slick as well; highly recommended if price is not an issue._

 

Voodoo, Commodore, Alienware, and etc. are all horribly overpriced, how could anyone recommend them?


----------



## jsaliga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Will someone else who knows PCs chime in and get this guy off my back?_

 

Ok, I'm a certified systems engineer with 20 years of industry experience. You, sir, are flat out wrong.

 Hopefully that guy won't pester you any longer.

 --Jerome


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jsaliga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ok, I'm a certified systems engineer with 20 years of industry experience. You, sir, are flat out wrong.

 Hopefully that guy won't pester you any longer.

 --Jerome_

 

what did _earwicker_ say that was wrong?... just curious...


----------



## bigshot

I don't see the point in arguing over symbolic logic and the limitations of PCs.

 I read Michael Fremer's response at Gizmodo, and I have to say, he sounds like just about the most disingenuous person I have ever read. He used the same sorts of spurious arguments relating quality to price that others here have used. He shrugged his shoulders and asked, why am I to be the one to say $7,000 cables aren't worth the money...

 Well chump, I'll answer that... BECAUSE YOU ARE AN EQUIPMENT REVIEWER. It's your JOB to point people in the right direction so they spend their money wisely. For a writer for an audio magazine to make comments like that is shocking to me. Who is he working for? The readers or the advertisers?

 Wait... don't bother to answer that. It's painfully clear.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ph0rk* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Using the headroom desktop's dac (if you got that option)?

 Otherwise you are comparing dacs as well as transports (I assume you know this).

 That said, if you -did- use the same source material (at the same bitrate) and the headroom dac both times... I'm making a clear squinty face right now. You can't see it, but it is there. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

No, I didn't do it that way. I see your point, but I have a different way of viewing it. I view it holistically, either your digital source is--

 A--PC
 B--PC + DAC
 C--Standalone CD Player

 So, I'm comparing B and C through my HeadRoom. I guess it would be possible to run the CD player through the DAC and therefor create a category D, but from my point of view, I'm paying (dearly) for the DAC that's in my CD player. However, when I recently switched to a universal CD player, I did get the ability to do this (prior one didn't have a digital out) so it's certainly something I'd be willing to entertain.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *FaLLeNAn9eL* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Question: Do you build your own computers or are you the type that buys them pre-built?_

 

Pre-built. For some reason I just don't trust my building skills; I'm not much of a DIY person. I think my understanding of how they work is pretty good, though.


----------



## jp11801

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Pre-built. For some reason I just don't trust my building skills; I'm not much of a DIY person. I think my understanding of how they work is pretty good, though._

 

while I moved to macs a year ago I built my own pc a few times and if you can assemble legos you can assemble a modern pc


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You quoted your "audiologist" just as I referenced two friends, I figured since you could do it, so could I._

 

Because if I publically posted her name, you (or other internet psychos like yourself) would probably send her harrassing emails like the personal message you sent me earlier today. I'm not asking for the name of your imaginary "friend" because it's an established fact that you're wrong about the Vista's memory capabilities, and I know that nobody who works for Microsoft in any capacity other than a janitor would be that clueless.

 Anyone with a SERIOUS interest in an audiologist is more than welcome to send me a non-threatening PM, and I'd happily refer them to her; I'd like to give her the business, she's a good gal.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_what did earwicker say that was wrong?... just curious..._

 

I think he was talking to Overlord...


----------



## gotchaforce

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually, it has nothing to do with either. I make less than $30,000 a year and I'm not gullible enough to use "credit"--I'm not about ready to pay someone 25% interest so I can temporarily "afford" something. I happened to make some good investments and also don't waste money on cars and houses and things other people consider important, so I'm able to spend some extra money on audio equipment, which is a priority._

 

wow is this for real? Less than $30,000 and you are spending it on things like cables and voodoo PCs?

 No one really needs to argue with ear wicker anymore because he has no money sense.


----------



## monolith

This whole expensive prebuilt computer ridiculousness suddenly reminded me of this excellent commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luvJfDnBMiY


----------



## n4k33n

Quote:


 vcoheda - i can tell the difference between my cables. no question about it. cables have sound signatures. if you spend enough time with them, you will be able to distinguish them. that's why A/B tests are BS. a quick A/B is useless and i doubt anyone (or at least most) could pick out any differences between not just cables but most headphones and amps - and we know that they sound different. 
 

I suggest you read this, or sign up for a logic class.

 "In logic, begging the question describes a type of logical fallacy, petitio principii, in which the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises.[1] Stephen Barker explains the fallacy in The Elements of Logic: "If the premises are related to the conclusion in such an intimate way that the speaker and listeners could not have less reason to doubt the premise than they have to doubt the conclusion, then the argument is worthless as a proof, even though the link between premises and conclusion may have the most cast-iron rigor".[1] In other words, the argument fails to prove anything because it takes for granted what it is supposed to prove.

 Begging the question is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando, vicious circle or circular reasoning. As a concept in logic the first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 B.C., in the Prior Analytics.

 Outside of logic, "begs the question" is commonly used to mean "raises the question," i.e., "begs the question be asked"—using a more common sense of the word beg, rather than the rarer sense "assume without proof" that the technical term uses.[1]"

Link


----------



## badmonkey

Get on topic eh folk?

 Latest:
http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?...d=105&Itemid=2


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Get on topic eh folk?

 Latest:
http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?...d=105&Itemid=2_

 

In this exchange of views one comment seemed interesting in stating a more moderate variant of skepticism that I think many more of use would find plausible:





> The real point of this test is to show that you can only make cable "so good" before you can't tell the difference anymore. Let them send their absolute best cable, that's kind of the point. Just don't let them supply the Monster cable.


Even if there _are_ audible differences between some cables and even if some are worth paying more for than others, it still might be the case that there can only be so much difference which can be worth only so much nore even to those who find it worth it to pay disproportionately for any increment in quality.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *n4k33n* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I suggest you read this, or sign up for a logic class.

 "In logic, begging the question describes a type of logical fallacy, petitio principii, in which the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises._

 

This is a good point. I want to point out that this also applies to much of the skeptical comments along the lines of 'nothing matters about higher auditory processing and prior experience, situational factors, choice of equipment, length of sound samples, etc, because all that matters is did you hear a difference or didn't you'. This comes from the premise that there is no difference to hear and hence these considerations are "tangential", i.e, you aren't going to hear any regardless. If your premise is that there might or might not be a difference (what any valid test would have to take as premise), then you would have to concern yourself with what factors might make it more or less possible that this difference could be heard if present.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In this exchange of views one comment seemed interesting in stating a more moderate variant of skepticism that I think many more of use would find plausible:






			The real point of this test is to show that you can only make cable "so good" before you can't tell the difference anymore. Let them send their absolute best cable, that's kind of the point. Just don't let them supply the Monster cable.
		
Click to expand...

Even if there are audible differences between some cables and even if some are worth paying more for than others, it still might be the case that there can only be so much difference which can be worth only so much nore even to those who find it worth it to pay disproportionately for any increment in quality._

 

This basically summarizes my feelings on the matter. I think that this is another statement (perhaps a more articulate phrasing) of what I said here:

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think that we could probably all agree that at some point cables make a difference. To use an extreme example that has been used elsewhere on Head-Fi recently, we would probably all agree that a cable made of wood sounds different from a cable made of copper. The cable advocates believe that one can extrapolate from that to the proposition that there are audible differences even between highly conductive materials like silver and copper. The more skeptical folks believe that whatever differences there may be are well below the threshold of audibility and/or relate to inaudible frequencies. I think that everyone (well, almost everyone) also recognizes that at some point, the claims of cable manufacturers can become unsupportable and are, even for the cable advocates, snake oil._


----------



## Riboge

Febs, you know I didn't get that from your earlier statement but reading it in this context I am glad to see that's what you meant. I think proceeding from this view would lead to a more fruitful line of inquiry like what are the differences, how do you describe them in proper proportion, where/what is the limit of improvement and at what price, what differences make a cable better and the related question of what this amount of improvement is worth, which cables are for real as better and which are not despite equal or higher price.

 It's would be much more acceptable for me to read that someone feels the limit comes at a lower cost than I might think or that the price/improvement ratio is too high above a certain point or is just too much greater than that from other system upgrades, etc, than to contend with an utterly unprovable absolute assertion of no difference no how regardless which cables. All the good advice of the skeptics apply without this anyway.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gotchaforce* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_wow is this for real? Less than $30,000 and you are spending it on things like cables and voodoo PCs?

 No one really needs to argue with ear wicker anymore because he has no money sense._

 

I said I made some good investments; there were times when I made substantially more than this per year, and I got "lucky stock syndrome". My bank account at the time runs around $400,000. My point about only making $30,000 a year is that I'm not some filthy rich person who can just throw money around left and right. Most people who had $400,000 would buy a house; I can not do this, because in Los Angeles, that would leave my bank account dry and I would LITERALLY be living on $30,000 a year, which is untenable in Los Angeles.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Voodoo, Commodore, Alienware, and etc. are all horribly overpriced, how could anyone recommend them?_

 

In all defense of Falcon Northwest though, if you have the money they offer some of the nicest paint jobs around . . . shame they won't offer services to those that don't buy their PCs :|

 Oh, buy the way . . . your "I can build it for $2000" statement is probably misguided. A $10,000 voodoo, will probably put one back $3500, you're talking water cooling, quad core, Raid 0 HDDs, but more importantly SLI 8800 Ultras's which will be more expensive than you probably expect ($1300 or so). Also, if you try to use the exact same CPU it could be more expensive as they lean towards the silly "extreme" editions or something of the sort.

 Regardless, this whole PC debate thing seems to be pointless so it would probably be worth dropping it.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Get on topic eh folk?

 Latest:
http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?...d=105&Itemid=2_

 

Those two guys are so transparent. If they really felt secure in their position, they wouldn't do so much crying and yelling. They'd put up and make Randi shut up. But instead, they do the same thing all snake oil salesmen do... try to muddy the waters and argue about everything except the topic at hand. I can't believe that Fremer guy is actually highly regarded as a writer!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## philodox

Fremer's posts are pretty ridiculous, but then again, so are Randi's.


----------



## bigshot

The difference is that Randi isn't the expert. He's just issuing the challenge. Fremer is supposed to know what he's talking about. The fact that a respected (?) magazine would employ a clown like that is amazing. I wonder if his editor is following his posts?

 I think Randi realizes that with snake oil salesmen like this, if you don't call them out and taunt them publicly, they'll just hide and pretend they didn't hear you. Once you engage them, they have to step into the spotlight and show what they've got.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In all defense of Falcon Northwest though, if you have the money they offer some of the nicest paint jobs around . . . shame they won't offer services to those that don't buy their PCs :|

 Oh, buy the way . . . your "I can build it for $2000" statement is probably misguided. A $10,000 voodoo, will probably put one back $3500, you're talking water cooling, quad core, Raid 0 HDDs, but more importantly SLI 8800 Ultras's which will be more expensive than you probably expect ($1300 or so). Also, if you try to use the exact same CPU it could be more expensive as they lean towards the silly "extreme" editions or something of the sort.

 Regardless, this whole PC debate thing seems to be pointless so it would probably be worth dropping it._

 

I actually went to VooDoo's site, and priced out a PC with max options, which was around $12,000. I then made a _better_ computer for around $8,000, but that computer was such complete overkill, it was rediculous. The only thing it really lacked was the cost that someone would charge to put it together, and a case like the VooDoo's, but I chose the top Lian-Li, which I think is one of the best cases around.

 On topic, I 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 @ Pear.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I actually went to VooDoo's site, and priced out a PC with max options, which was around $12,000. I then made a better computer for around $8,000, but that computer was such complete overkill, it was rediculous. The only thing it really lacked was the cost that someone would charge to put it together, and a case like the VooDoo's, but I chose the top Lian-Li, which I think is one of the best cases around.

 On topic, I 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 @ Pear._

 

wow..you got waay to much time on your hand.

 if money is no issue, why don't you think voodoo PC is a great option for a great enthusiast personal PC?

 I build my own just to OC. I do it every year just because its so damn fun. But I realize most people don't need to oc and voodoo is a perfect alternative. It's awe-inspiring just to peak inside a voodoo or Alien - they are cable management masters.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I actually went to VooDoo's site, and priced out a PC with max options, which was around $12,000. I then made a better computer for around $8,000, but that computer was such complete overkill, it was rediculous. The only thing it really lacked was the cost that someone would charge to put it together, and a case like the VooDoo's, but I chose the top Lian-Li, which I think is one of the best cases around.

 On topic, I 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 @ Pear._

 

I don't know how someone who doesn't understand BASIC info about operating systems ("32 bit Vista can't use any more than 2 gigs of memory") is going to build a better system than my 7 year old daughter.

 Dude, give it up, you're just making yourself look more and more foolish as you drag this on.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's awe-inspiring just to peak inside a voodoo or Alien - they are cable management masters. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I've owned both; Alienware do a great job but Voodoo turns it into an artform.

 If only they could do the same with their customer service
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




...


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_wow..you got waay to much time on your hand.

 if money is no issue, why don't you think voodoo PC is a great option for a great enthusiast personal PC?_

 

I didn't realize 10 minutes was a huge amount of time.

 Because it is a complete waste of $5,000/$4,000?
  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't know how someone who doesn't understand BASIC info about operating systems ("32 bit Vista can't use any more than 2 gigs of memory") is going to build a better system than my 7 year old daughter.

 Dude, give it up, you're just making yourself look more and more foolish as you drag this on._

 

You're making yourself look like an idiot. First, I said all MS desktop OS's, and 3 gigs of ram. Second, I've been building computers since I was at least 6 or 7, I don't see why your daughter couldn't build a nice PC. The hardest thing is wire management, which I suck at. I've seen some systems, and I do not know how these people do it. I once asked someone, and they said they hid all the wires under their mobo, I wouldn't know.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're making yourself look like an idiot. First, I said all MS desktop OS's, and 3 gigs of ram._

 

This is your exact quote--
  Quote:


 Quad-core and more than 2 gigs of ram is complete and utter marketing to consumers. SMP doesn't work on desktop Windows OS's, and 64-bit Vista is the only MS desktop os that can handle more than 3 gigs of ram. 
 

 (My underline added)

 It was dead wrong then, and it's dead wrong now, and all of the harrassing private messages in the world aren't going to change the fact that you're digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole by doing this; everyone here knows how to hit the previous page key and look at your post.

 I understand why you'd be worried if you actually were someone who builds computers professionally, as this kind of quote getting out onto the net would dry up your business in a week. However, you're obviously not a professional, so this just makes you look insanely insecure. Normal people don't send harrassing private messages to people when they make a huge public mistake; instead, they admit they were wrong and move on.


----------



## OverlordXenu

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. Desktop MS OS's can handle up to 3 gigs of ram (including 3 gigs of ram), but only 64-bit Vista can handle more than 3 gigs of ram.

 Any desktop OS besides 64-bit Vista < 3 gigs of ram < 64-bit Vista

 When have I been wrong? And no, I don't build computers as a business. However, I do for myself, family, and friends. And the PM I sent you just compared a $12,000 VooDoo PC to one you could build yourself, I wanted to show what an utter waste of money it was.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I actually went to VooDoo's site, and priced out a PC with max options, which was around $12,000. I then made a better computer for around $8,000, but that computer was such complete overkill, it was rediculous. The only thing it really lacked was the cost that someone would charge to put it together, and a case like the VooDoo's, but I chose the top Lian-Li, which I think is one of the best cases around.

 On topic, I 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 @ Pear._

 

I could build a better PC than a maxed out Voodoo for about $5000 or less, so even for $8000 you're probably overdoing it.

 Also, I'm going to agree with earwicker on this . . . you seem to have a very gross misunderstanding of computers with the RAM statement you made. It's best to just say you made a mistake and get on with it already rather than make a larger fool of yourself IMO.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* 
_I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. Desktop MS OS's can handle up to 3 gigs of ram (including 3 gigs of ram), but only 64-bit Vista can handle more than 3 gigs of ram.

 Any desktop OS besides 64-bit Vista < 3 gigs of ram < 64-bit Vista

 When have I been wrong? And no, I don't build computers as a business. However, I do for myself, family, and friends. And the PM I sent you just compared a $12,000 VooDoo PC to one you could build yourself, I wanted to show what an utter waste of money it was._

 

Oh dear you're a bloody idiot. First, 64bit Vista is not the only MS OS that can address more than *4GB* of RAM. Next, the traditional MS 32bit OS will address UP TO 4GB of RAM. Of course, this includes memory on the graphics card(s) and the like. This is assuming you aren't using PAE too.

 Plain and simple, YOU_ARE_WRONG.

 Now seriously, could dumb and dumber contribute something a tad bit more useful? It's sad when I have to dip out of lurking into debates like these.


----------



## marvin

earwicker7:

 Actually, you're wrong on the memory issue.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

 MS capped system RAM to 3.12 GB limit on 32-bit operating systems for compatibility reasons. Theoretical maximum of ~ 4 GB addressable memory space, meaning that high RAM video cards, say, SLI GeForce 8800 Ultra, can easily cut your system RAM down to well below the 3.12 GB mark.

 While PAE can be used to exceed that, it's a dumb hack and MS has disabled it in the Vista and the latest XP service pack. Server 2003 still has PAE support though.

 Even on Vista x64, you're still going to lose the upper part of the 4 GB addressable range due to video card memory mapping unless your hardware supports memory remapping.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I could build a better PC than a maxed out Voodoo for about $5000 or less, so even for $8000 you're probably overdoing it.

 Also, I'm going to agree with earwicker on this . . . you seem to have a very gross misunderstanding of computers with the RAM statement you made. It's best to just say you made a mistake and get on with it already rather than make a larger fool of yourself IMO.



 Oh dear you're a bloody idiot. First, 64bit Vista is not the only MS OS that can address more than *4GB* of RAM. Next, the traditional MS 32bit OS will address UP TO 4GB of RAM. Of course, this includes memory on the graphics card(s) and the like. This is assuming you aren't using PAE too.

 Plain and simple, YOU_ARE_WRONG.

 Now seriously, could dumb and dumber contribute something a tad bit more useful. It's sad when I have to dip out of lurking into debates like these._

 

I know, I really went all out with useless stuff. Like a server NIC and a hardware RAID card.

 And as per the ram issue, I am just going with that two friends that worked/work at MS said to me when I asked them about ram, at least a year or two ago. I do not know, and I do not care, as I just use Server 2003 or Linux most of the time.


----------



## vcoheda

i'm not surprised.

 this would not be the first time that overlord whatever his name is has made completely uninformed statements, further solidifying his reputation as, to put it politely, an idiot.


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *marvin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_earwicker7:

 Actually, you're wrong on the memory issue.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605

 MS capped system RAM to 3.12 GB limit on 32-bit operating systems for compatibility reasons. Theoretical maximum of ~ 4 GB addressable memory space, meaning that high RAM video cards, say, SLI GeForce 8800 Ultra, can easily cut your system RAM down to well below the 3.12 GB mark.

 While PAE can be used to exceed that, it's a dumb hack and MS has disabled it in the Vista and the latest XP service pack. Server 2003 still has PAE support though.

 Even on Vista x64, you're still going to lose the upper part of the 4 GB addressable range due to video card memory mapping unless your hardware supports memory remapping._

 

You need to read a bit closer, as I believe that only pertains to *Vista* and not all MS 32bit OS's.

 Still, this is all getting pretty damn silly. Friends are not accurate references, and even professionals can be doubted (do they practice their profession WELL?)


----------



## marvin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You need to read a bit closer, as I believe that only pertains to *Vista* and not all MS 32bit OS's.

 Still, this is all getting pretty damn silly. Friends are not accurate references, and even professionals can be doubted (do they practice their profession WELL?)_

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137/en-us

 What do you know, same thing, Windows XP now...


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Still, this is all getting pretty damn silly._

 

Amen. Unfortunately, UnderwearXenu likes to troll posts that I'm on and take potshots at my PC rig; this happens no matter what the thread is about. The thread could be about apple pies and he could find a way to make it about my computer.


----------



## bigshot

If anyone wants to know what to get me for Christmas, I'll take a Mac Pro with a dual 3.0GHz Quad Core and 16 GB of RAM. You can put a 750 Gb drive in each of the four bays, add a NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 graphics card and a 30 inch Cinema HD Apple Display too... wait... Make that TWO 30 inch Apple Cinema displays!

 Thanks
 Steve


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If anyone wants to know what to get me for Christmas, I'll take a Mac Pro with a dual 3.0GHz Quad Core and 16 GB of RAM. You can put a 750 Gb drive in each of the four bays, add a NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 graphics card and a 30 inch Cinema HD Apple Display too... wait... Make that TWO 30 inch Apple Cinema displays!

 Thanks
 Steve_

 

Wadda you know! He doesn't believe in cables but he believes in Santa Claus!


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *marvin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137/en-us

 What do you know, same thing, Windows XP now..._

 

Once again, you're failing and grabbing for evidence pretty hard. That was only after the SP2 update, and it seems rather recently in OS terms that the 3.12GB limit was imposed. This was also only done due to changes in how PAE is done.

 Regardless, it still stands that not *every* MS 32bit OS is hit with a 3GB limit, which is what was said.

 Nice try though, you winnar in effort! [/sarcasm]


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I know, I really went all out with useless stuff. Like a server NIC and a hardware RAID card.

 And as per the ram issue, I am just going with that two friends that worked/work at MS said to me when I asked them about ram, at least a year or two ago. I do not know, and I do not care, as I just use Server 2003 or Linux most of the time._

 

uh..my old classmates are on the vista team..they would probably be out of a job if they answered 3GB as the maximum addressable physical memory on a 32bit system 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 yeah..the sucker is CPU limited....although you can address more than 4GB memory via virtual memory via TLB. 

 BUT the answer to that is easy enough, anyone with 200 level EE class knows or should known or can just do the damn math and figure it out


----------



## marvin

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Shike* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Once again, you're failing and grabbing for evidence pretty hard. That was only after the SP2 update, and it seems rather recently in OS terms that the 3.12GB limit was imposed. This was also only done due to changes in how PAE is done.

 Regardless, it still stands that not *every* MS 32bit OS is hit with a 3GB limit, which is what was said.

 Nice try though, you winnar in effort! [/sarcasm]_

 

¿No comprende mucho ingles? Or are you just being difficult on purpose?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Me* 
_MS capped system RAM to 3.12 GB limit on 32-bit operating systems for compatibility reasons.

 ...

 While PAE can be used to exceed that, it's a dumb hack and MS has disabled it in the Vista and the latest XP service pack. Server 2003 still has PAE support though._

 

I was explaining _why_ MS capped system RAM on 32-bit systems. Nowhere did I claim that they capped it for *all* of their 32-bit systems. In fact, I later give an example of a 32-bit operating system (Server 2003) that uses PAE and can access more than 3.12 GB of memory.

 As for my admittedly snarky "What do you know, same thing, Windows XP now..." line, that was in reference to the below, not to "all MS OS limited to 3.12 GB" claim you thought I made.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *shrike* 
_You need to read a bit closer, as I believe that only pertains to Vista..._


----------



## meat01

http://www.brianmadden.com/content/a...t-really-mean-


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You're making yourself look like an idiot._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dude, give it up, you're just making yourself look more and more foolish as you drag this on._

 

This little pissing contest is making you BOTH look like idiots.


----------



## OverlordXenu

So earwicker gets to make sourceless statements, but I don't? Nice double-standard.


----------



## Febs

I didn't say that. I said that you are BOTH making fools of yourselves.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This little pissing contest is making you BOTH look like idiots._

 

To quote the immortal Bobby Brady, "But mom, Greg started it!"


----------



## Shike

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *marvin* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_¿No comprende mucho ingles? Or are you just being difficult on purpose?_

 

Hm? I fail to see your point here?

  Quote:


 I was explaining _why_ MS capped system RAM on 32-bit systems. 
 

If you WERE explaing "WHY" MS put a cap on it, you sure as hell were doing a poor job of it. Linking to an article is hardly an attempt at explaining, well, anything really.

  Quote:


 Nowhere did I claim that they capped it for *all* of their 32-bit systems. In fact, I later give an example of a 32-bit operating system (Server 2003) that uses PAE and can access more than 3.12 GB of memory. 
 

Never said you did claim it, it was directed at Xenu's comments really. Also note, we've primarily left PAE out of the conversation. Then again, you inherently DID say that "earwicker was wrong", when he was telling Xenu that he was "dead wrong" in regards to the memory issue, inherently seeming to support Xenu in his memory argument. Guilty by proxy anyone?

 Hell, what do you make of this quote?

  Quote:


 MS capped system RAM to 3.12 GB limit on 32-bit operating systems 
 

Sure, it has SOME, but that isn't exactly what you said either is it? For someone accusing me of an English comprehension deficiency, you sure as hell make a sad attempt of relaying your thoughts coherently in English.

  Quote:


 As for my admittedly snarky "What do you know, same thing, Windows XP now..." line, that was in reference to the below, not to "all MS OS limited to 3.12 GB" claim you thought I made. 
 

Wow, assuming like a genuine arse are you? I said the article only said Vista, nothing more nothing less. In other words "Oh, this article pertains to Vista". However, we are debating Xenu on the fact that he claimed "every MS desktop OS" is limited.

 Try to keep up now, will ya? Geez, act like the conversation as a whole only pertains to you


----------



## philodox

Really though, who the hell cares. All that we are discovering here is that Microsoft designs terrible operating systems... nothing new here. Who *really* needs more than 2GB of memory anyways? But maybe that is a topic for a different thread?


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...But maybe that is a topic for a different thread? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

You think?!!


----------



## cosmopragma

I wonder why I'm subscribed to a thread semingly dedicated to boring details of MS operating systems.
 Maybe a mod could turn this into a poll and we could elect winners.
 The winners would get a custom title instead of the ordinary "headphoneus supremus".
 First prize is "complete idiot".
 Second prize is "village fool".
 Third prize is "dumbo".
 And so on.The english language isn't lacking synonyms and head-fi is certainly not lacking candidates either.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really though, who the hell cares. All that we are discovering here is that Microsoft designs terrible operating systems... nothing new here. *Who *really* needs more than 2GB of memory anyways?* But maybe that is a topic for a different thread? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 


 Me!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Gaming+IM+Foobar+Azureus=


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *philodox* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really though, who the hell cares. All that we are discovering here is that Microsoft designs terrible operating systems... nothing new here. Who *really* needs more than 2GB of memory anyways? But maybe that is a topic for a different thread? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

No one designs good operating systems. Every single last one has something glaringly wrong with it.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No one designs good operating systems. Every single last one has something glaringly wrong with it._

 


 NOT WINDOWS 3.1!


----------



## monolith

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Me!
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Gaming+IM+Foobar+Azureus=
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Azureus? That's silly of you.


----------



## Pibborando

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *monolith* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Azureus? That's silly of you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Seriously. All the cool kids use uTorrent.

 What was this thread about again?


----------



## badmonkey

Will you morons **** about computers already?


----------



## mbriant

Please keep this thread on topic. It's very annoying for someone interested in the original topic to have to wade through pages of off topic chit chat. If you don't have something productive to say about *this thread's topic*, then don't post.


----------



## fordgtlover

So.......

 $1 Million Cable Challenge Is On

 Where is that up to? 

 Or have I interrupted some thread jacking.


----------



## badmonkey

Latest news on the Randi site as linked to above.

http://www.randi.org/joom/index.php?...d=105&Itemid=2

 including continued puffing from Pear and Fremer in the comments.

 I don't think it's up to anything else... here's suspecting it'll go sideways from here on out.


----------



## mojo

I really hope this does go ahead.

 Having said that, I doubt it will change anything.


----------



## fordgtlover

Sure does seem that it has turned into the standard believer versus non-believer slanging match.


----------



## jay.money

Haven't had a chance to read this whole thread, but here's an update I found from another audio site. 

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/exclusive...ers-315250.php

 May not happen after all. 

 Sorry everyone if this is old news.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mojo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I really hope this does go ahead.

 Having said that, I doubt it will change anything._

 

Seems unlikely given that the "cable" (Transparent Opus MM) Fremer wants to use is not apparently just a simple cable, it has some kind of gizmo embedded in it and Randi has already ruled it out for that reason, despite tentatively saying that Fremer could use it earlier.


----------



## zotjen

Rather than a challenge between Pear cables and Monster cables, I'd like to see a challenge between Monster cables and something like the cheapest Radio Shack cables. That way the average sucker - whoops! - I mean the average Joe would see what a rip off Monster Cables are. It's sad to see stores like Best Buy continue to push Monster on unsuspecting customers who think they're getting cables of substantial quality. In some ways this is even a bigger fraud than Pear cables which may or may not be better than Monster.


----------



## vcoheda

i don't understand why people just don't buy or borrow a "high-end" cable and see for themselves if there is a difference.


----------



## cosmopragma

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Pear Cable on their website* 
_Speaker cables will affect the sound quality of a system just as much as interconnects (RCA cables)_

 

A point of view both camps can easily agree with ........


----------



## cosmopragma

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i don't understand why people just don't buy or borrow a "high-end" cable and see for themselves if there is a difference._

 

I don't understand why people just don't perform a DBT and see for themselves if there is a difference.


----------



## vcoheda

i hear differences among my cables. i have already stated that and huge numbers of people have said the same. each cable - just like headphones and amps - have sound signatures. it's amazing that people can't grasp this simple concept.


----------



## cosmopragma

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i hear differences among my cables. i have already stated that and huge numbers of people have said the same._

 

Nobody questions that.I'm hearing differences among my cables as well - as long as I don't try to prove it in a DBT.As far as I know no one has ever passed a DBT regarding differences among reasonably well constructed cables.
 Huge numbers of people have talked to fairies,angels, demons or teddy bears, but that doesn't prove their existence as entities outside the head.


----------



## vcoheda

have you ever wondered why no senior members of the forum EVER take part in these threads.

 i know the answer.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 huge numbers of people have said the same. 
 






  Quote:


 As far as I know no one has ever passed a DBT regarding differences among reasonably well constructed cables.
 Huge numbers of people have talked to fairies,angels, demons or teddy bears, but that doesn't prove their existence as entities outside the head. 
 

exactly.

  Quote:


 That way the average sucker - whoops! - I mean the average Joe would see what a rip off Monster Cables are. It's sad to see stores like Best Buy continue to push Monster on unsuspecting customers who think they're getting cables of substantial quality. 
 

I don't know why everyone uses Monster as an example for expensive cables, when they are cheap compared to most of the other high end cables out there like Kimber, Audioquest, Nordist, and others. They are build just as well. The connectors may be tight.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_have you ever wondered why no senior members of the forum EVER take part in these threads.

 i know the answer._

 

Me too. The answer is just to the right of your post.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I don't know why everyone uses Monster as an example for expensive cables, when they are cheap compared to most of the other high end cables out there like Kimber, Audioquest, Nordist, and others._

 

I'd like to see a test between the standard grade Radio Shack and high end cables.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## royalcrown

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *meat01* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 I don't know why everyone uses Monster as an example for expensive cables, when they are cheap compared to most of the other high end cables out there like Kimber, Audioquest, Nordist, and others. They are build just as well. The connectors may be tight._

 

That's mainly because those brands you mentioned go after the fringe audiophiles, whereas Monster targets the mainstream; thus, using the proposition that Monster is the same as a generic cable (not going to attest to the validity of the claim, but that is the claim being made), Monster is ripping off on a much greater scale, even if audioquest etc. margins of rip-off are much larger.


----------



## meat01

Quote:


 Monster is ripping off on a much greater scale, even if audioquest etc. margins of rip-off are much larger. 
 

Fair enough. Best Buy and Circuit City do not even sell the cheap HDMI and component cables that you can get at Monoprice. This is sad, because a lot of people that buy new HDTVs, think all HDMI cables are $50+, so they pay it.


----------



## jsaliga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i don't understand why people just don't buy or borrow a "high-end" cable and see for themselves if there is a difference._

 

That makes no sense to me whatsoever. If these cable companies really stood behind their products then they would have no fear whatsoever in offering customers a no risk in-home trial.

 I just bought a pair of Omega Max Hemp speakers with a matching Deep Hemp sub, and Louis Chochos is so confident in his products that he offers a 30-day in home trial. Now, I live close enough to his shop and Louis had me over for an audition, but the fact that he stands behind his products made me comfortable with the purchase. Let's see some of these high-end interconnect and speaker cable manufacturers do that.

 To my knoweldge companies like Cardass Audio and Pear Cable do not back their products with a customer satisfaction guarantee.

 --Jerome


----------



## zotjen

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *royalcrown* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's mainly because those brands you mentioned go after the fringe audiophiles, whereas Monster targets the mainstream; thus, using the proposition that Monster is the same as a generic cable (not going to attest to the validity of the claim, but that is the claim being made), Monster is ripping off on a much greater scale, even if audioquest etc. margins of rip-off are much larger._

 

This was exactly the point I was trying to make. Maybe Monster is better than your average generic cable. I've never done a comparison. But if not, imho this is a more grievous offense than the whole Pear vs. Monster thing since Monster is targeted at your average consumer.

 Edit: FWIW, I do believe there is a difference in cables. How much I'm I'm willing to pay for that difference though is another story.


----------



## cosmopragma

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jsaliga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That makes no sense to me whatsoever._

 

Why not?
 Where I live you can borrow expensive cables from the local audio dealers for a few days (they demand a deposit or your CC number).It works for the dealers since most "audiophiles" are easily blended by the price tag and don't perform DBTs anyway.


----------



## Icarium

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Seems unlikely given that the "cable" (Transparent Opus MM) Fremer wants to use is not apparently just a simple cable, it has some kind of gizmo embedded in it and Randi has already ruled it out for that reason, despite tentatively saying that Fremer could use it earlier._

 

That's ridiculous and totally wussy of Randi. I remember seeing a thread which linked to a site that opened one of those oval gizmos and it was like just plastic and maybe some cotton or maybe even nothing surrounding the cable. That that gizmo is performance enhancing is no less ridiculous than the original claim.... 

 Mad waffling.


----------



## bigshot

Well the original challenge was against Pear, not Fremer. Pear seems to have blinked... big time.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Icarium

That's true. But being a believer in cables myself. I am willing to believe that Pear may make crappy cables while other cables may fare better (Transparent wouldn't be my first choice though ;p). 

 I had my friend who is a relative neophyte to audiophile mysticisms (Ex-Phd candidate in physics. Got his masters and switched to pursuing a masters in Civ. Eng.) listen to my various Qualia cables. He was intensely skeptical regarding cables and if he believed in anything.. it would be that gauge might slightly matter (Though whether a human could hear the difference) certainly more than copper versus silver at the rate each can transmit a signal.

 This was hardly double blind, but personally I expected him to say they all sounded the same. We basically just used my rig + the track "Lost in Space" from the MFSL version of that album by Aimee Mann. I didn't tell him what each cable was composed of or any information at all really. All my balanced cables we used through a balanced -> single ended adapter. 

 Result? He said Black Dragon/[AK]Zip v2/Silver Dragon all sound basically the same to him. But the Blue Dragon he thought sounded more cramped with weirdness happening in the lows and highs. My personal results are something like [AK]Zip v2 sounds closest to Black Dragon in that they both are stellar with v2 being a bit weaker in mids but stronger in everything else. Silver Dragon being brighter and too forward and Blue Dragon basically sounds like muddled/dark crap. 

 What does this prove? Obviously not a lot since its not DBT. But still the result was surprising to me and not what I expected.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jsaliga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That makes no sense to me whatsoever. If these cable companies really stood behind their products then they would have no fear whatsoever in offering customers a no risk in-home trial.

 I just bought a pair of Omega Max Hemp speakers with a matching Deep Hemp sub, and Louis Chochos is so confident in his products that he offers a 30-day in home trial. Now, I live close enough to his shop and Louis had me over for an audition, but the fact that he stands behind his products made me comfortable with the purchase. Let's see some of these high-end interconnect and speaker cable manufacturers do that.

 To my knoweldge companies like Cardass Audio and Pear Cable do not back their products with a customer satisfaction guarantee.

 --Jerome_

 

Virtual Dynamics, for one, does--from their website:





> We've got you covered with a 45 Day Money-Back Guarantee.
> 
> Your Virtual Dynamics cable purchase is risk-free! Our thinking is - sound is personal. If our cables are not giving you the sound experience you desire then let us know and we will gladly take them back. You have my word. We give you 45 days to settle in and listen to the Virtual Dynamic difference.
> Rick Schultz


So if you would keep it if satisfied with hearing an improvement, then try it and let others do a comparison or admit you'd rather maintain an unfounded belief than find out about it first hand. [I am in no way affiliated with them though I have some of their cables and think well of them so know what's on their website.]


----------



## jsaliga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So if you would keep it if satisfied with hearing an improvement, then try it and let others do a comparison or admit you'd rather maintain an unfounded belief than find out about it first hand. [I am in no way affiliated with them though I have some of their cables and think well of them so know what's on their website._

 

You seem to excel at making wild assumptions about everyone else's motives for posting here.

 It's great that you managed to find one cable manufacturer that stands behind its products. I checked with 6 different high-end cable manufacturer web sites, and none of them have a publicly-stated customer satisfaction guarantee or offer a risk free in-home trial. I'm not making it up; that, sir, is a fact. You are free to draw whatever conclusions you care to from those facts. I think if more high end cable manufacturers stood behind their products they way Louis Chochos stands behind his speakers, then more people might be willing to give those cable products a fair shot.

 But some have suggested several times in this and other threads that one needs to put hundreds or even thousands of dollars at risk just for the privilege of trying the products in their own system. To me that position is indefensible and is beyond what any rational, sensible person would deem reasonable.

 --Jerome


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jsaliga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You seem to excel at making wild assumptions about everyone else's motives for posting here.

 It's great that you managed to find one cable manufacturer that stands behind its products. I checked with 6 different high-end cable manufacturer web sites, and none of them have a publicly-stated customer satisfaction guarantee or offer a risk free in-home trial. I'm not making it up; that, sir, is a fact. You are free to draw whatever conclusions you care to from those facts. I think if more high end cable manufacturers stood behind their products they way Louis Chochos stands behind his speakers, then more people might be willing to give those cable products a fair shot.

 But some have suggested several times in this and other threads that one needs to put hundreds or even thousands of dollars at risk just for the privilege of trying the products in their own system. To me that position is indefensible and is beyond what any rational, sensible person would deem reasonable.

 --Jerome_

 

I don't know what assumptions you are making about my assumptions, but I agree with you generally. The problem is speaking of cable makers or any large group as if they were a monolith. I was trying to point out that they are not all the same and that people who doubt cable differences could avail themselves of the VD guarantee offer in order to hear that some cables are better, since I believe you very well might hear that they are better than other cables. Worth the price? That's where I can't predict how you would size that up.

 Of course, it is silly to "suggested... that one needs to put hundreds or even thousands of dollars at risk just for the privilege of trying the products in their own system". That is why I offered you knowledge of this opportunity to try without such risk cables highly regarded by a lot of Head-Fi folk.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Icarium* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Result? He said Black Dragon/[AK]Zip v2/Silver Dragon all sound basically the same to him. But the Blue Dragon he thought sounded more cramped with weirdness happening in the lows and highs._

 

That makes complete sense. I can imagine that a cable can be designed to alter the sound like that. But if it is designed for efficient transmission of the signal and the run isn't ungodly long, a Radio Shack cable and a high end audiophile cable will all sound the same.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## gotchaforce

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cosmopragma* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Huge numbers of people have talked to fairies,angels, demons or teddy bears, but that doesn't prove their existence as entities outside the head._

 

this analogy works really well

 but.. you forgot seeing aliens!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So if you would keep it if satisfied with hearing an improvement, then try it and let others do a comparison or admit you'd rather maintain an unfounded belief than find out about it first hand._

 

Are you suggesting that in order for anyone to offer any kind of advice on any kind of product, they need to purchase it, try it and return it? I'll tell you what... You put it on YOUR credit card, arrange to have it shipped to me and I'll try them for a month. Then you arrange to have them picked up from me at my office and returned for credit back to your credit card. Until you do that, you can't complain about me not buying something I see no need to buy.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gotchaforce* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_but.. you forgot seeing aliens!_

 

No! No! Aliens REALLY exist! My brother's wife's hairdresser's cousin was abducted by aliens!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you suggesting that in order for anyone to offer any kind of advice on any kind of product, they need to purchase it, try it and return it? I'll tell you what... You put it on YOUR credit card, arrange to have it shipped to me and I'll try them for a month. Then you arrange to have them picked up from me at my office and returned for credit back to your credit card. Until you do that, you can't complain about me not buying something I see no need to buy.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Oh, you can offer _some_ kind of advice without first hand experience of the product, it just can't be fair or reliable advice. And your just being ridiculous characterizing what I said as about your needing to buy every product you see no need to buy. It's just that if you don't buy it or try it, then you have no basis for speaking about how it is. You can only go on magically thinking that your prediction of how it is is the same as how it actually is.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jsaliga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That makes no sense to me whatsoever. If these cable companies really stood behind their products then they would have no fear whatsoever in offering customers a no risk in-home trial.

 I just bought a pair of Omega Max Hemp speakers with a matching Deep Hemp sub, and Louis Chochos is so confident in his products that he offers a 30-day in home trial. Now, I live close enough to his shop and Louis had me over for an audition, but the fact that he stands behind his products made me comfortable with the purchase. Let's see some of these high-end interconnect and speaker cable manufacturers do that.

 To my knoweldge companies like Cardass Audio and Pear Cable do not back their products with a customer satisfaction guarantee.

 --Jerome_

 

A lot of them actually do. It's very easy to get 30 day trials of many of these cables--for example, I recently 30 day'd (and kept) a Shunyata Anaconda power cord... much, much more expensive than anything Cardas offers.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you suggesting that in order for anyone to offer any kind of advice on any kind of product, they need to purchase it, try it and return it? I'll tell you what... You put it on YOUR credit card, arrange to have it shipped to me and I'll try them for a month. Then you arrange to have them picked up from me at my office and returned for credit back to your credit card. Until you do that, you can't complain about me not buying something I see no need to buy.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Fine. I'm going to (hopefully) end this right here.

 You're local; I probably live 5 miles from where you are. I'm going to put my money where the Amazing Randi's mouth wishes he could be.

 If (and these will be the ONLY conditions, I won't change them like the Amazing Randi) you have a traditional system that would benefit from a power cable (ie, traditional in the sense that it's not an iPod or a PC, it has to be a genuine stereo), and you can prove to me that, if you so choose, you can afford to pay me back if you decide to keep it (ie, there has to be about $20,000 in the bank, I figure 10% of your savings isn't too much to put on the line) I will purchase a Shunyata Anaconda power cord of your choice at up to $2,000 for you to demo.

 There are no other conditions. Period.

 I'm that sure.

 Spread the word, boys, I think we have a real cable challenge.


----------



## badmonkey

Earwicker, explain to me in really short words why you feel a power cable that costs in the order of $1000/foot is going to help the system it's powering when it's simply an extension of hundreds of feet of power cable which costs in the order of 10c/foot...?

 Please?

 Why don't you make your challenge concerning ICs, which appears to me at least to be where there is some cause for debate? (I would suggest speaker cables as per the topic, but then this is a head-phone site).


----------



## gotchaforce

whoops


----------



## fordgtlover

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Earwicker, explain to me in really short words why you feel a power cable that costs in the order of $1000/foot is going to help the system it's powering when it's simply an extension of hundreds of feet of power cable which costs in the order of 10c/foot...?

 Please?

 Why don't you make your challenge concerning ICs, which appears to me at least to be where there is some cause for debate? (I would suggest speaker cables as per the topic, but then this is a head-phone site)._

 

This is a question that I have been asking for quite some time. The 10c/foot cable must take something out that the $1000/foot cable can put it back in. So it seems.

 Power in the US must be rubbish if it needs an expensive cable to travel from the wall socket to your audio system.


----------



## monolith

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fordgtlover* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is a question that I have been asking for quite some time. The 10c/foot cable must take something out that the $1000/foot cable can put it back in. So it seems.

 Power in the US must be rubbish if it needs an expensive cable to travel from the wall socket to your audio system._

 

My guess is that it harnesses *zero point energy*. Just goes to show you that selling expensive power cords is more lucrative than winning Nobel prizes.

 Seems to me like the best idea is to tear open your wall, figure out what kind of wire runs to your socket, get more of that wire, get rid of that socket and hardwire a plug to the wire. I mean, anything between the wall and whatever needs power can only take away, not add, so why not remove any possibility of that by using exactly what's in the wall without any middlemen?


----------



## DSlayerZX

not sure if that is a wise decision.... since I like to unplug most of my expensive gear when a storm hits. 
 yes, cable seems less important when compare to the cord use by the plant. but what if someone has a power conditioner,
 perhaps a UPS, now, does that might have some impact on the power source?


----------



## monolith

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DSlayerZX* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_not sure if that is a wise decision.... since I like to unplug most of my expensive gear when a storm hits. _

 

I didn't say hardwire the power right to the equipment, I meant basically cut out the box in the wall, extend the wire from the wall and stick a plug on the end of that that can plug straight into the equipment. You can still unplug it, but it should act like just an extension of your house's wiring, and no cable can do better than that.


----------



## Brian_the_King

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *monolith* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...I meant basically cut out the box in the wall, extend the wire from the wall and stick a plug on the end of that that can plug straight into the equipment. You can still unplug it, but it should act like just an extension of your house's wiring, and no cable can do better than that._

 

That is good thinking.


----------



## vcoheda

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Fine. I'm going to (hopefully) end this right here.

 You're local; I probably live 5 miles from where you are. I'm going to put my money where the Amazing Randi's mouth wishes he could be.

 If (and these will be the ONLY conditions, I won't change them like the Amazing Randi) you have a traditional system that would benefit from a power cable (ie, traditional in the sense that it's not an iPod or a PC, it has to be a genuine stereo), and you can prove to me that, if you so choose, you can afford to pay me back if you decide to keep it (ie, there has to be about $20,000 in the bank, I figure 10% of your savings isn't too much to put on the line) I will purchase a Shunyata Anaconda power cord of your choice at up to $2,000 for you to demo.

 There are no other conditions. Period.

 I'm that sure.

 Spread the word, boys, I think we have a real cable challenge._

 


*looks like bigshot has been called out. i would like to see this challenge.*


----------



## badmonkey

I don't get it. How's he been called out? The idea is for the magical mystic believers to prove their point. Sending bigshot a cable that he will almost certainly denounce as being no different to the rest of his home's power cabling 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





... the criticism will just be that "he's not good enough to hear the difference".

 Rather earwicker needs to have bigshot give _him_ a DBT with said cable.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Earwicker, explain to me in really short words why you feel a power cable that costs in the order of $1000/foot is going to help the system it's powering when it's simply an extension of hundreds of feet of power cable which costs in the order of 10c/foot...?

 Please?

 Why don't you make your challenge concerning ICs, which appears to me at least to be where there is some cause for debate? (I would suggest speaker cables as per the topic, but then this is a head-phone site)._

 

Well, I'm no electrician, but most people who are on my side of the camp take the view that the power cord coming out of the wall is not the last 6 feet of the power chain but the first 6 feet; in other words, the stereo starts at the interface in the wall.

 And I'm making this challenge with power cords because, to me, they were more of a night and day difference than ICs. Interconnects make a difference, but it's (usually) more subtle. Power cords are anything but subtle.


----------



## mojo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I'm no electrician, but most people who are on my side of the camp take the view that the power cord coming out of the wall is not the last 6 feet of the power chain but the first 6 feet; in other words, the stereo starts at the interface in the wall._

 

That statement makes no sense. In terms of physics, it's wrong, and from a logical point of view it makes no sense either.

 Let's say you made the perfect power cable. 100% immune to all forms of noise and interference. What goes in at the wall socket is exactly the same as what comes out the other end. Even with this theoretically perfect cable, the mains electricity you are getting from the socket (and hence into your equipment) contains all of the noise gathered from the kilometres of cheap copper connecting your socket to the power station. Not to mention all the other appliances in your house contributing to the noise.

 I wish I could take up your challenge. In fact, I'd offer £1000 if you could ABX the $2000 cable from a kettle lead.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, I'm no electrician, but most people who are on my side of the camp take the view that the power cord coming out of the wall is not the last 6 feet of the power chain but the first 6 feet;_

 

It's a circuit. The entire length is relevant.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's just that if you don't buy it or try it, then you have no basis for speaking about how it is._

 

That's totally absurd.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I will purchase a Shunyata Anaconda power cord of your choice at up to $2,000 for you to demo._

 

I'm afraid my amp doesn't have a replaceable power cord.

 Thanks though.
 Steve


----------



## fishski13

bigshot,
 out of curiosity, could you give details about what electronics/speakers/HP you use.

 PACE


----------



## vcoheda

that's a real cop op there bigshot.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh, you can offer some kind of advice without first hand experience of the product, it just can't be fair or reliable advice. And your just being ridiculous characterizing what I said as about your needing to buy every product you see no need to buy. *It's just that if you don't buy it or try it, then you have no basis for speaking about how it is.* You can only go on magically thinking that your prediction of how it is is the same as how it actually is._

 

No, that quite irrational. 

 Think if we applied that to everyday situations.

 even worse...

 "if you haven't tried murder you have no basis for speaking about how it is."


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That's totally absurd.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

This seems to be the heart of the matter, your claim to revealed omniscience. Somehow you claim to know how something sounds without listening to it. That is truly magical thinking! Of course you can go on what someone else, like a reviewer for instance, says about how it sounds because he has listened to it, but then you should say that. That is just listening second hand. That is still consistent with saying that if you aren't going on someone's listening to it, you have no valid opinion to offer about the quality of the sound, though you may know all of its specs. And when you do that you are offerng their opinion, really, not yours.Also just think what you have said about how unreliable and biased reviewers are. I guess I didn't consider that you might actually base your opinion on what one of them said.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, that quite irrational. 

 Think if we applied that to everyday situations.

 even worse...

 "if you haven't tried murder you have no basis for speaking about how it is."





_

 

That quite flawed thinking and analogizing.

 If you haven't murdered someone then you do not know what it is like to murder someone. That is the correct analogy and it is just as true.

 If people applied this logic more often to everyday situations things would go a whole lot better.


----------



## jsaliga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Somehow you claim to know how something sounds without listening to it. That is truly magical thinking!_

 

Is it really magical thinking? If I may play devil's advocate for a minute, using your brand of logic would practically invalidate several branches of mathematics and engineering (speaking as an engineer). I can calculate unknown values in a circuit, given certain known values and an understanding of the laws that govern all electrical and electronic circuits. For example, I don't need to actually measure the current in series DC circuit if I know the total resistance of the circuit and the applied voltage to that circuit.

 All I'm suggesting is that I don't think bigshot is being necessarily unreasonable if he can build a logical argument to support his position. At the very least I think he is being no less reasonable than those of you who are making arguments to the effect that human perception is somehow infallible and conclusive (I hear it, therefore it must be...).

 I'm not taking sides here, just observing that some of you are trying to have it both ways.

 --Jerome


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, that quite irrational. 

 Think if we applied that to everyday situations.

 even worse...

 "if you haven't tried murder you have no basis for speaking about how it is."




_

 

wrt to experience, its sad but true, you do have to experience 'it' to speak about it. e.g. you probably can't tell me what it feels like to murder someone cuz you haven't done it. (as an extreme example). 

 Please always temper your arguments with reasonableness and whether the benefit out weights the cost. In your murder example, the benefit of learning 'what it feels like to murder someone' is infinitely lower than the cost of a person's life; that's why most choose not to do it.

 It's amazing there are folks out there arguing for the argument's sake.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jsaliga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is it really magical thinking? If I may play devil's advocate for a minute, using your brand of logic would practically invalidate several branches of mathematics and engineering (speaking as an engineer). I can calculate unknown values in a circuit, given certain known values and an understanding of the laws that govern all electrical and electronic circuits. For example, I don't need to actually measure the current in series DC circuit if I know the total resistance of the circuit and the applied voltage to that circuit.

 All I'm suggesting is that I don't think bigshot is being necessarily unreasonable if he can build a logical argument to support his position. At the very least I think he is being no less reasonable than those of you who are making arguments to the effect that human perception is somehow infallible and conclusive (I hear it, therefore it must be...).

 I'm not taking sides here, just observing that some of you are trying to have it both ways.

 --Jerome_

 

You would be 100% correct if everyone experiences everything in exactly the same way and everyone is 100% certain their experience mirrors the experiences of everyone else; much like the unknown value that can be calculated with 100% certainty under steady state no matter who is doing the calculation.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It's amazing there are folks out there arguing for the argument's sake._

 


 Hey, it is Sunday and there isnt anything on the Telly


----------



## fishski13

yes, the mental gymnastics are just silly - burden of proof, logical fallicies et al blah blah. it's really this simple: audition some wire in your own rig, buy it if you like it, or return it if you don't. if you can't trust your ears, maybe you shouldn't be playing with expensive wires.

 PACE


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fishski13* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_if you can't trust your ears, maybe you shouldn't be playing with expensive wires._

 

You've missed the point of this entire discussion.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jsaliga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is it really magical thinking? If I may play devil's advocate for a minute, using your brand of logic would practically invalidate several branches of mathematics and engineering (speaking as an engineer). I can calculate unknown values in a circuit, given certain known values and an understanding of the laws that govern all electrical and electronic circuits. For example, I don't need to actually measure the current in series DC circuit if I know the total resistance of the circuit and the applied voltage to that circuit.

 All I'm suggesting is that I don't think bigshot is being necessarily unreasonable if he can build a logical argument to support his position. At the very least I think he is being no less reasonable than those of you who are making arguments to the effect that human perception is somehow infallible and conclusive (I hear it, therefore it must be...).

 I'm not taking sides here, just observing that some of you are trying to have it both ways.

 --Jerome_

 

Your analogy does not hold. You can construct a model of the greatest sophistication, etc, but it will never tell you how something sounds to an audiophile listener. That's our bottom line, not how it can be modelled, explained or not, etc. And it has nothing to do with your distortion of a subjectivist view as saying If I hear it, it must be true. They say, rather, if I hear it, I hear it. If you have not even listened, then you are in no position to say how it sounded, however much brilliant physics and electronics things you can say about it.


----------



## fishski13

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You've missed the point of this entire discussion._

 

it's pointless?


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fishski13* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_it's pointless?_

 

No. The point is that *can't* simply "trust your ears" because everything you hear is processed by your brain, and your brain does some interesting and sometimes deceptive things when it is processing the input that it receives from your ears (and your eyes, etc.).

 For example, in the diagram below, which square is darker, A or B?


----------



## jsaliga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Your analogy does not hold._

 

We must agree to disagree then.

 How do you think cable products get made in the first place? Manufacturers make educated guesses about what makes for a good cable and then they sit around and listen to them until they hit on the "right" formula? I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt they are as haphazard about their approach to product development as most audiophiles seem to be about choosing equipment.

 You keep trying to make this an argument about "subjectivist" versus "objectivist" and you just don't seem to get it. You are not being any more reasoned in your approach to the subject than bigshot.

 --Jerome


----------



## fishski13

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No. The point is that *can't* simply "trust your ears" because everything you hear is processed by your brain, and your brain does some interesting and sometimes deceptive things when it is processing the input that it receives from your ears (and your eyes, etc.).

 For example, in the diagram below, which square is darker, A or B?




_

 

yes, but my reality is dependent on those sensory processing organs. if i perceive a difference, then it's real, to me. hence, this argument is pointless.

 square A looks darker, so therfore it is darker to my eyes and brain.

 PACE


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fishski13* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_square A looks darker, so therfore it is darker to my eyes and brain._

 

A and B are exactly the same shade of grey. 

 If you were to cover every part of the diagram except for squares A and B, you would see that they are identical. (Last time I used this diagram as an example, someone cut out both of those squares in an image editor and showed that they were in fact the same.) In fact, your statement that A "is darker *to my eyes* and brain" is factually wrong. Square A is *not* darker to your eyes. Your eyes perceive the same shade of grey of both A and B. Your brain, however, takes the contextual information (the shadow) and perceives that A is darker because of the way that it processes the image.

 Now, I understand that you perceive A and B to be different because you are looking at them in the context of this diagram. But let's say that I wanted to paint my room grey and I want to know whether it is worth while to buy Paint B rather than Paint A. Paint A costs $10 per gallon. Paint B costs $2000 per gallon. In that context, it would be very important for me to know that even though you perceive Paint A and Paint B differently, they are in fact exactly the same.

 That's the way I view this cable debate. Because hearing is subject to some of the same types of perception issues as sight, purely subjective impressions can be unreliable, especially when we are talking about differences that, to the extent they exist, are subtle at best. I have no doubt that people perceive differences between certain cables. However, in instances where there is no good scientific explanation that would account for those differences, I don't know whether those differences actually exist, and purely subjective, anecdotal evidence is not particularly useful to me. Controlled tests, such as the challenge that is the subject of this thread (or will be, if the parties involved can stop acting like children), can be constructed to eliminate external factors that might impact a listeners' perception of what he or she is hearing.


----------



## mojo

All this arguing is pointless. There is only one way to settle the argument, and that is ABX testing. Randi has the right idea.

 My offer still stands. £1000 if you can ABX an expensive power cable from a kettle lead. Even if it's only a £50 cable.


----------



## budburma

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_then myself and the vast majority of people who call themselves audiophiles are "monumentally dumb."





 [size=xx-small]*post 4000* (great. i wasted it responding to this jerk.)[/size]_

 

too bad, but congrats anyway!


----------



## budburma

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mojo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All this arguing is pointless. There is only one way to settle the argument, and that is ABX testing. Randi has the right idea.

 My offer still stands. £1000 if you can ABX an expensive power cable from a kettle lead. Even if it's only a £50 cable._

 

Rats, and I live on the on the other side of the big pond...even my nonaudiophile friends commented on the difference in sound when i made a simple change of a power cord on my power conditioner....you are folderol and balderdash if you are doing anything more than purposefully stirring the pond to see which fish will surface.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jsaliga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_We must agree to disagree then.

 How do you think cable products get made in the first place? Manufacturers make educated guesses about what makes for a good cable and then they sit around and listen to them until they hit on the "right" formula? I'm sorry, but I seriously doubt they are as haphazard about their approach to product development as most audiophiles seem to be about choosing equipment.

 You keep trying to make this an argument about "subjectivist" versus "objectivist" and you just don't seem to get it. You are not being any more reasoned in your approach to the subject than bigshot.

 --Jerome_

 

I wish I knew how you think the way cable makers go about it is relevant. Please explain. I assume you mean they work from models and theories about cables. I certainly presume that many do, but do I think that means there isn't a lot of hit and miss even so, no. Besides a model might predict that a certain kind of change in sound will come from some a specified change in the cable, but the final criterion will still be how it actually sounds and there will be no way to know that besides listening to it. You can do without the model but you can't do without listening.

 Saying I am not reasoned is sheer and literal nonsense. I make my reasoning quite explicit and you have not referred to any fault of reasoning in particular. You must mean you don't like my reasons. Surely you can say something more articulate than the completely pejorative and reasonless "you don't get it". For instance, what is "it"?


----------



## mojo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *budburma* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Rats, and I live on the on the other side of the big pond...even my nonaudiophile friends commented on the difference in sound when i made a simple change of a power cord on my power conditioner....you are folderol and balderdash if you are doing anything more than purposefully stirring the pond to see which fish will surface._

 

You can call me all the names you want but the fact remains that until you can ABX your power cables the onus is on you to prove your position. Just saying "I can hear it" is not good enough, you must provide scientific proof.

 If you cannot provide proof, you must accept that your views will be met with extreme scepticism and should not state them as fact.

 My challenge stands. Any power cord. To be specific, the challenger must be able to differentiate power cords to a statistically significant degree. Only pure power cords are allowed (no built in electronics, just wire). The test will be against a standard kettle/computer lead, costing no more than £1.


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A and B are exactly the same shade of grey. 

 If you were to cover every part of the diagram except for squares A and B, you would see that they are identical. (Last time I used this diagram as an example, someone cut out both of those squares in an image editor and showed that they were in fact the same.) In fact, your statement that A "is darker *to my eyes* and brain" is factually wrong. Square A is *not* darker to your eyes. Your eyes perceive the same shade of grey of both A and B. Your brain, however, takes the contextual information (the shadow) and perceives that A is darker because of the way that it processes the image.

 Now, I understand that you perceive A and B to be different because you are looking at them in the context of this diagram. But let's say that I wanted to paint my room grey and I want to know whether it is worth while to buy Paint B rather than Paint A. Paint A costs $10 per gallon. Paint B costs $2000 per gallon. In that context, it would be very important for me to know that even though you perceive Paint A and Paint B differently, they are in fact exactly the same.

 That's the way I view this cable debate. Because hearing is subject to some of the same types of perception issues as sight, purely subjective impressions can be unreliable, especially when we are talking about differences that, to the extent they exist, are subtle at best. I have no doubt that people perceive differences between certain cables. However, in instances where there is no good scientific explanation that would account for those differences, I don't know whether those differences actually exist, and purely subjective, anecdotal evidence is not particularly useful to me. Controlled tests, such as the challenge that is the subject of this thread (or will be, if the parties involved can stop acting like children), can be constructed to eliminate external factors that might impact a listeners' perception of what he or she is hearing._

 

Whatever wrong impression some get, I have nothing against a well-designed DBT of cables. I have offered such a design earlier in this thread. I don't think the Randi thing can possible qualify, in ways I have explained ad nauseum. However, I still think, Febs, that you are making a wrong analogy. The analogy to what a cable sounds like is what this picture looks like, not what one square looks like removed from it or on your house. It is not the difference to your eye but to your seeing (the whole perception) that matters to the analogue of audiophiles. And the difference in an important sense is inherent in the picture. Everyone sees it that way, or nearly everyone to be safe (need a dbt about that?). It is even the case that it was *designed to look that way*! Most other pictures don't do this, after all. If a cable somehow creates an analogous illusion for a lot of listeners, is that not a difference the cable makes in how it sounds--even though to measurements of the cochlear response, let's say, it doesn't? Please, this is not about what I think is actually different in the cables I have heard to be different. I am just--jsaliga take note--reasoning here.

 Yes if you want to use the cable in a critical part of a nuclear reactor I wouldn't go on this, but how is that analogous to listening to an audiophile system to music for pleasure?


----------



## fishski13

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A and B are exactly the same shade of grey. 

 If you were to cover every part of the diagram except for squares A and B, you would see that they are identical. (Last time I used this diagram as an example, someone cut out both of those squares in an image editor and showed that they were in fact the same.) In fact, your statement that A "is darker *to my eyes* and brain" is factually wrong. Square A is *not* darker to your eyes. Your eyes perceive the same shade of grey of both A and B. Your brain, however, takes the contextual information (the shadow) and perceives that A is darker because of the way that it processes the image.

 Now, I understand that you perceive A and B to be different because you are looking at them in the context of this diagram. But let's say that I wanted to paint my room grey and I want to know whether it is worth while to buy Paint B rather than Paint A. Paint A costs $10 per gallon. Paint B costs $2000 per gallon. In that context, it would be very important for me to know that even though you perceive Paint A and Paint B differently, they are in fact exactly the same.

 That's the way I view this cable debate. Because hearing is subject to some of the same types of perception issues as sight, purely subjective impressions can be unreliable, especially when we are talking about differences that, to the extent they exist, are subtle at best. I have no doubt that people perceive differences between certain cables. However, in instances where there is no good scientific explanation that would account for those differences, I don't know whether those differences actually exist, and purely subjective, anecdotal evidence is not particularly useful to me. Controlled tests, such as the challenge that is the subject of this thread (or will be, if the parties involved can stop acting like children), can be constructed to eliminate external factors that might impact a listeners' perception of what he or she is hearing._

 

i still see a difference in the shade of the boxes in the link you provided. go figure, i knew i was going to get it "wrong" in the first place. i understand where you are coming from and the point of the optical puzzle you posted, but the fact is, without the connection between the the squares, it exists as it is - an illusion yes, but nonetheless, a difference in shade exists. connecting the boxes creates a _different_ picture, one that doesn't exist in the original, hence you're going to perceive it differently. i contend that this is comparing apples to oranges.

 i bought a Stereovox XV2 digital IC ($150) for my BM DAC1 to compare with the BM digital IC ($30). trust me, i didn't want to hear a difference. i could have sold it off losing some cash and chalked it up to experience with no real dent in my wallet. but i heard a real difference from the get go and reinserted the BM IC a couple of weeks down the road for comparison. guess what, i still have the Stereovox in the the chain. am i delusional? maybe, but i perceive a real difference that is worth the money. however, if the cable cost $4000, or even $400, no effing way.

 i really hope this DBT challenge takes place. i think Randi will lose his money, but in the mean time he's living up to his former identity as an illusionist.

 PACE


----------



## mojo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fishski13* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_but i heard a real difference_

 

How do you know that? Did you ABX test? If not, the simple fact is you don't know that you heard a difference. You think you did, but you don't know for sure.

 Put it another way, you could have saved yourself a lot of money if you had ABX tested and proven that the more expensive cable made no difference. Afterwards, you would know there was no difference and wouldn't hear any, so could return the cable.


----------



## Vul Kuolun

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I wish I knew how you think the way cable makers go about it is relevant. Please explain. I assume you mean they work from models and theories about cables. I certainly presume that many do, but do I think that means there isn't a lot of hit and miss even so, no. Besides a model might predict that a certain kind of change in sound will come from some a specified change in the cable, but the final criterion will still be how it actually sounds and there will be no way to know that besides listening to it. You can do without the model but you can't do without listening._

 

The point is, how can a manufacturer develop a product based on knowledge and theory, when there's no knowledge and theory to explain the claimed behaviour of the "sounding" cable (presumed it isn't explained by R/C/L-effects, which would in no case justify any of the prices called for in "high end"-audio).

 Scientificly explaining the phenomen in question here might be worth a nobel price. 
 I wonder how dozens of little rat shops can have a knowledge that would be a sensation, and a secret to the big ones in the business like Yamaha, Sony, etc.


----------



## fishski13

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mojo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How do you know that? Did you ABX test? If not, the simple fact is you don't know that you heard a difference. You think you did, but you don't know for sure.

 Put it another way, you could have saved yourself a lot of money if you had ABX tested and proven that the more expensive cable made no difference. Afterwards, you would know there was no difference and wouldn't hear any, so could return the cable._

 

the simple fact is that i heard a difference because i heard a difference. i had the BM IC in for a couple of months before i purchased the Stereovox. i left the Stereovox in for a couple of weeks and then switched back to the BM. i have a few sample cds that i use and difference was positive enough to warrant a keeper.

 i trust my ears. 

 PACE


----------



## cosmopragma

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *budburma* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_even my nonaudiophile friends commented on the difference in sound when i made a simple change of a power cord on my power conditioner....._

 

Your naivety is cute.
 You haven't got yet what a DBT is and why it is necessary.
 You are influencing your nonaudiophile friends on a subconscious level.
 This phenomenon is well known for 100 years now but obviously still no common knowledge.
 It does even work for animals.
 For beginners here's a wikipedia link to the story of a horse called "kluger Hans (clever Hans" )  and the conclusions that led in the end to DBTs.
 Just in case you are interested in what we are talking about.


----------



## mojo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fishski13* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i trust my ears._

 

I trust my eyes. Those two shades of grey were different. It makes no difference that the computer sent the same signal to the monitor for both of them, or that a colourometer says they are the same, or that they are scientifically provable to be the same. I trust my eyes.

 Your belief in cables is similar to a religion. Both are based on belief rather than proven scientific fact, and as such it's hard to argue with either since believers are so heavily invested in their delusion.

 Can you answer me one question, please. If you were to do a statistically valid ABX test, and were to fail to distinguish between cables, would you be able to accept you were wrong? That you could not trust your ears? Because if not, it is impossible to reason with you. For my part, if you passed the test, I would be willing to accept that I was wrong.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_A and B are exactly the same shade of grey. 

 If you were to cover every part of the diagram except for squares A and B, you would see that they are identical. (Last time I used this diagram as an example, someone cut out both of those squares in an image editor and showed that they were in fact the same.) In fact, your statement that A "is darker *to my eyes* and brain" is factually wrong. Square A is *not* darker to your eyes. Your eyes perceive the same shade of grey of both A and B. Your brain, however, takes the contextual information (the shadow) and perceives that A is darker because of the way that it processes the image.

 Now, I understand that you perceive A and B to be different because you are looking at them in the context of this diagram. But let's say that I wanted to paint my room grey and I want to know whether it is worth while to buy Paint B rather than Paint A. Paint A costs $10 per gallon. Paint B costs $2000 per gallon. In that context, it would be very important for me to know that even though you perceive Paint A and Paint B differently, they are in fact exactly the same.

 That's the way I view this cable debate. Because hearing is subject to some of the same types of perception issues as sight, purely subjective impressions can be unreliable, especially when we are talking about differences that, to the extent they exist, are subtle at best. I have no doubt that people perceive differences between certain cables. However, in instances where there is no good scientific explanation that would account for those differences, I don't know whether those differences actually exist, and purely subjective, anecdotal evidence is not particularly useful to me. Controlled tests, such as the challenge that is the subject of this thread (or will be, if the parties involved can stop acting like children), can be constructed to eliminate external factors that might impact a listeners' perception of what he or she is hearing._

 

I love stuff about visual quirks, I actually recognize the illusion from my psych classes, but I don't think the analogy holds.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mojo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All this arguing is pointless. There is only one way to settle the argument, and that is ABX testing. Randi has the right idea.

 My offer still stands. £1000 if you can ABX an expensive power cable from a kettle lead. Even if it's only a £50 cable._

 

Is this a genuine offer, like the one I made to BigShot, or is this a fictitious internet fart like the Amazing Randi's parlor trick?


----------



## budburma

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cosmopragma* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Your naivety is cute.
 You haven't got yet what a DBT is and why it is necessary.
 You are influencing your nonaudiophile friends on a subconscious level.
 This phenomenon is well known for 100 years now but obviously still no common knowledge.
 It does even work for animals.
 For beginners here's a wikipedia link to the story of a horse called "kluger Hans (clever Hans" )  and the conclusions that led in the end to DBTs.
 Just in case you are interested in what we are talking about._

 

having been a research medicinal chemist with an international pharmaceutical firm for years, i am very familiar with double blind tests. i make a living by that gauntlet and also know the foibles of human interaction. on the other hand, the arguments presented here are tired, tiresome and boring. the passion with which it is argued is evidence of a true beginner's naivety. i have read and am acutely aware of what this thread is addressing and will happily bow out of its absurdity. BUT, thank you for calling me cute!


----------



## budburma

fwiw, what a strange, chiding and righteous forum and site this seems to be. i am disappointed, but not completely dissuaded as there are reasonable, educated, encouraging and generous members who will hopefully win the day.....


----------



## monolith

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is this a genuine offer, like the one I made to BigShot, or is this a fictitious internet fart like the Amazing Randi's parlor trick?_

 

You should probably lay off Randi until there's at least some reason to think that's remotely true.


----------



## badmonkey

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I love stuff about visual quirks, I actually recognize the illusion from my psych classes, but I don't think the analogy holds._

 

It holds well. The analogy is not between imagery and music. The point rather is to illustrate to these folk that they cannot trust what they "think" they hear. The analogy is directly between eyes and ears (see this? hear this? no, actually you don't).

 Saying that they hear a difference and therefore there is a difference, which makes them happy and justifies the cost of the <whatever>, is bunk because of the fundamental that it is not possible to explicitly trust their own senses. (Hence countering the typical claim "I trust my ears"). Fooling oneself into thinking that it sounds better is no benefit, it's just delusional.

 Optical illusions are a nice way to demonstrate this.

 Careful testing, as with the optical illusion above (which even I took a look at with a color picker to check it was actually correct; the contrast between the lettering and the square fill looks so different), destroys the illusion.

  Quote:


 Your belief in cables is similar to a religion. Both are based on belief rather than proven scientific fact, and as such it's hard to argue with either since believers are so heavily invested in their delusion. 
 

I'm not sure _that_ analogy holds. We cannot prove the negative that God does not exist, no more than we can the fact that there is no orbiting teapot between Earth and Mars. However we _can _prove by statistical analysis that no difference can be identified, by any given subject, between cables.


----------



## badmonkey

Yeah there you go Earwicker. £1000 will pay for your travel costs and allow you a nice vacation. Go prove us all wrong.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It holds well. The analogy is not between imagery and music. The point rather is to illustrate to these folk that they cannot trust what they "think" they hear. The analogy is directly between eyes and ears (see this? hear this? no, actually you don't).

 Saying that they hear a difference and therefore there is a difference, which makes them happy and justifies the cost of the <whatever>, is bunk because of the fundamental that it is not possible to explicitly trust their own senses. (Hence countering the typical claim "I trust my ears"). Fooling oneself into thinking that it sounds better is no benefit, it's just delusional.

 Optical illusions are a nice way to demonstrate this.

 Careful testing, as with the optical illusion above (which even I took a look at with a color picker to check it was actually correct; the contrast between the lettering and the square fill looks so different), destroys the illusion.


 I'm not sure that analogy holds. We cannot prove the negative that God does not exist, no more than we can the fact that there is no orbiting teapot between Earth and Mars. However we can prove by statistical analysis that no difference can be identified, by any given subject, between cables._

 

If the analogy is supposed to be direct, which is a fair assumption unless otherwise noted, it would mean that there is an analogous situation in audio; in other words, that someone could hear a 100Hz tone and mistake it for a 10,000Hz tone in the presence of a certain effect (the effect in the visual instance being the fact that the eye often favors contrast over wavelength).


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah there you go Earwicker. £1000 will pay for your travel costs and allow you a nice vacation. Go prove us all wrong._

 

Well, in my instance, I offered to pay for the cable that SOMEONE ELSE was to demo, a significant ($2,000) offer on my behalf. If this guy is offering to pay for my flight on the assumption that I'll pony up if I'm wrong (which was my offer to Bigshot) my ears are open.

 I'm not expecting this to occur


----------



## badmonkey

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If the analogy is supposed to be direct, which is a fair assumption unless otherwise noted, it would mean that there is an analogous situation in audio; in other words, that someone could hear a 100Hz tone and mistake it for a 10,000Hz tone in the presence of a certain effect (the effect in the visual instance being the fact that the eye often favors contrast over wavelength)._

 

You can't "directly" compare sight and sound. The "direct" nature of it is an illustration of the nature of sense. Apparently that escapes you.

 I was fearing someone may try to use the example of surround sound in headphones as being a comparable illusion which would be held up as proof that such fooling-the-brain is a good thing.

 The context is limited to the thread topic and the optical illusion merely illustrates that you can't trust your ears... otherwise known as the placebo effect.


----------



## badmonkey

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, in my instance, I offered to pay for the cable that SOMEONE ELSE was to demo, a significant ($2,000) offer on my behalf. If this guy is offering to pay for my flight on the assumption that I'll pony up if I'm wrong (which was my offer to Bigshot) my ears are open.

 I'm not expecting this to occur
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

No. It is YOUR burden of proof. If you're so sure that you can demonstrate this difference, you now have a zero risk zero expense avenue open to you which will allow you to do so.

 On the other hand, there is an imminent considerable expense if you are full of you-know-what.

 Only you truly know which it is. We may only know by way of inspection of your actions at this point.

 In other words, as with Pear Cables, either put up or shut up.

 Should you back down, you don't get to continue talking BS about the night-and-day differences between power cables, okay?


----------



## monolith

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If the analogy is supposed to be direct, which is a fair assumption unless otherwise noted, it would mean that there is an analogous situation in audio; in other words, that someone could hear a 100Hz tone and mistake it for a 10,000Hz tone in the presence of a certain effect (the effect in the visual instance being the fact that the eye often favors contrast over wavelength)._

 

It's direct in the sense that it was explained. Eyes to ears. Colour to sound (ie. not colour to pitch).

 EDIT: Damn it, Badmonkey is quick.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *monolith* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You should probably lay off Randi until there's at least some reason to think that's remotely true._

 

You should check out his own website for the proof, it's all there. Here's his modus operandi (I can't believe people are this shocked that a MAGICIAN is fooling them
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)...

 1. Make a boisterous claim ("Beat our advertised price or your mattress is FREEEEEEEE", er... oops, wrong scam. "$1mil if you can blah blah blah") that keeps you in C-list celebrity status.

 2. Wait for someone to take the bait.

 3. Take advantage of your C-list celebrity status to publically deride anyone who takes said bait.

 4. Have staff quietly weed out anyone who is not completely insane (ie, the woman who swears she can make you urinate just by looking at you makes the cut).

 5. IT'S THE AMAZING RANDI!!!

 6. Knowing that Americans have the recollection of a horsefly, distract them with the next person who takes the bait. Sure, a few people who were paying attention to the last mark will remember (the Head-Fi people), but 99.9% of the population will hear "$1mil if you can blah blah blah", and the scam begins again.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *badmonkey* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No. It is YOUR burden of proof._

 

Dude, I offered to pay up to $2,000 for a cable for a skeptic to test. That is my burden of proof. Everything else is internet hot air. Walk the talk, I did. Your side still hasn't.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If the analogy is supposed to be direct, which is a fair assumption unless otherwise noted, it would mean that there is an analogous situation in audio; in other words, that someone could hear a 100Hz tone and mistake it for a 10,000Hz tone in the presence of a certain effect (the effect in the visual instance being the fact that the eye often favors contrast over wavelength)._

 


 You mean situations like These?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_fundamental
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave_illusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch%27s_scale_illusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glissando_illusion


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dude, I offered to pay up to $2,000 for a cable for a skeptic to test. That is my burden of proof. Everything else is internet hot air. Walk the talk, I did. Your side still hasn't._

 

OK, Buy me the cable, and I will blind test it.


----------



## badmonkey

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Dude, I offered to pay up to $2,000 for a cable for a skeptic to test. That is my burden of proof. Everything else is internet hot air. Walk the talk, I did. Your side still hasn't._

 

The skeptic has nothing to test other than your delusion. YOU are the one making the claim. *YOU.* Such a test will almost certainly result in a negative result, and you will simply either accuse him of deliberately sabotaging the test, which is of course possible, or that he simply doesn't have ears golden enough.

 You are the one who must take the test. If you're willing to have Bigshot oversee it, and that is more convenient for you, then no problem... but if I was you I'd prefer the 2000 quid. Money for jam, no?

 Oh that's right you just backed down and you're full of you-know-what.


----------



## monolith

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You should check out his own website for the proof, it's all there. Here's his modus operandi (I can't believe people are this shocked that a MAGICIAN is fooling them
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)...

 1. Make a boisterous claim ("Beat our advertised price or your mattress is FREEEEEEEE", er... oops, wrong scam. "$1mil if you can blah blah blah") that keeps you in C-list celebrity status.

 2. Wait for someone to take the bait.

 3. Take advantage of your C-list celebrity status to publically deride anyone who takes said bait.

 4. Have staff quietly weed out anyone who is not completely insane (ie, the woman who swears she can make you urinate just by looking at you makes the cut).

 5. IT'S THE AMAZING RANDI!!!

 6. Knowing that Americans have the recollection of a horsefly, distract them with the next person who takes the bait. Sure, a few people who were paying attention to the last mark will remember (the Head-Fi people), but 99.9% of the population will hear "$1mil if you can blah blah blah", and the scam begins again._

 

1. He's responding to a boisterous claim, not making one.

 2. He specifically aimed at person (see above), he didn't wait for someone to take the bait.

 3. He didn't take advantage of anything. He posted some majorly childish things the participants told him on his site. He's not shoving it down your throat or anything. He was snide about it, but he's snide about everything. Being snide doesn't make him a liar or a fraud.

 4. Again, the person in question here made a target of themselves. Calling a cable "danceable" is about as insane as saying you can make someone pee by looking at them in my and evidently his book. Fremer got pretty hot and bothered when his ability was referred to as paranormal, so that was even taken out.

 5. IT'S THE GOVERNATOR! That was his stage name. Big deal.

 6. Irrelevant to this discussion.

 Seriously now, this should be free money for these people.


----------



## monolith

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *LawnGnome* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You mean situations like These?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_fundamental
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave_illusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch%27s_scale_illusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glissando_illusion_

 

Interesting stuff. Thanks for those.


----------



## cosmopragma

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *budburma* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_having been a research medicinal chemist with an international pharmaceutical firm for years, i am very familiar with double blind tests. i make a living by that gauntlet and also know the foibles of human interaction._

 

A sophisticated man.Has been there and done everything.I'm impressed.
 I'd be even more impressed though if you'd post the results of your DBTs regarding audio cables.Or even better a test under the control of someone else, e.g. Randi since in the end that's what this thread is about.
 You know, the old "hic Rhodus, hic salta" thing. Quote:


 fwiw, what a strange, chiding and righteous forum and site this seems to be. i am disappointed, but not completely dissuaded as there are reasonable, educated, encouraging and generous members who will hopefully win the day..... 
 

Don't worry, head-fi is the most voodoo happy audio related website I'm aware of and in fact infamous for it.For every sceptic comment you will encounter 20 guys that rave about night and day differences .....


----------



## fishski13

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mojo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I trust my eyes. Those two shades of grey were different. It makes no difference that the computer sent the same signal to the monitor for both of them, or that a colourometer says they are the same, or that they are scientifically provable to be the same. I trust my eyes.

 Your belief in cables is similar to a religion. Both are based on belief rather than proven scientific fact, and as such it's hard to argue with either since believers are so heavily invested in their delusion.

 Can you answer me one question, please. If you were to do a statistically valid ABX test, and were to fail to distinguish between cables, would you be able to accept you were wrong? That you could not trust your ears? Because if not, it is impossible to reason with you. For my part, if you passed the test, I would be willing to accept that I was wrong._

 

since i don't listen to music in a statistically valid ABX manner, i don't see the relevance of the results and how it translates to the manner in which i experience music playback in my home. besides, the effects of cables on the sound are more subtle than lets say loudspeakers/HP or amplification. these more subtle differences would be harder to differentiate with statistical ABX testing. from my experience, you need to listen to them in home over an extended period of time before switching to another cable for comparison to appreciate the differences. 

 sorry if that's too unreasonable.

 PACE


----------



## badmonkey

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fishski13* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_since i don't listen to music in a statistically valid ABX manner, i don't see the relevance of the results and how it translates to the manner in which i experience music playback in my home. besides, the effects of cables on the sound are more subtle than lets say loudspeakers/HP or amplification._

 

You simply assume that there are in fact differences when it is these differences which you must PROVE to exist if you are to have any credibility in this discussion.

 In the absence of any valid proof that there is any discernable difference at all between cables, and the repeated failure of so-called golden ears to differentiate, not to mention this Pear Anjou vs Randi monkey business, a claim that there _is_ a difference is rightly challenged as likely delusional.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fishski13* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_these more subtle differences would be harder to differentiate with statistical ABX testing. from my experience, you need to listen to them in home over an extended period of time before switching to another cable for comparison to appreciate the differences._

 

So, do the ABX over time. That can be part of the protocol of the test which you negotiate. Nobody said you had a time restriction.

 In any case I call BS: as Bigshot likes to point out, aural memory is very short term and the best way to differentiate two things is very quick comparisons of short samples. That's the best way to ABX poor quality MP3 against lossless, for instance. Find a representative sample that highlights the difference, loop that, and give yourself a break between rounds. Your long term nonsense is merely about giving yourself enough time to convince yourself...


----------



## badmonkey

Re your discourse with Mojo, if you maintain that failing to tell the difference when you claim that there is a difference is not a relevent result, I suspect that he will now conclude that you are indeed impossible to reason with.


----------



## fishski13

groan...

 i think i have rabies.


----------



## budburma

me, too....


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *budburma* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i have read and am acutely aware of what this thread is addressing and will happily bow out of its absurdity._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fishski13* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_groan...

 i think i have rabies._

 

 Quote:


  Originally Posted by *budburma* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_me, too...._

 

If you want to participate in this thread, by all means participate. But if you don't, please stop thread-crapping.


----------



## mojo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is this a genuine offer, like the one I made to BigShot, or is this a fictitious internet fart like the Amazing Randi's parlor trick?_

 

Yes, this is genuine.

 You may choose any expensive power cord you want, as long as it is just a pure set of wires and doesn't have any electronics. I will supply a kettle lead.

 The ABX tests must be conducted fairly, to rigorous scientific standards, and for you to win there must be a statistically valid result showing you could differentiate between cables.

 You may use your own HiFi system, with components of your choice (as long as they could in no way affect the power cord, although I can't see how anything would). Setting of your choice, as long as it is possible to conduct the ABX testing there. You may listen to your system with both cables for as long as you like (months, years) if you feel it will help.

 ABX tests will use at least one CD of your choice and one CD of my choice (which again you may listen to before hand for as long as you like). There should probably be at least three different samples used in the test.

 I wouldn't have to be at the test itself (although I wouldn't mind being there), but obviously it must be fully documented and agreed upon by all parties and at least one independent adjudicator.

 Does that seem like a fair and reasonable test likely to produce reliable results to you?


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *monolith* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Seriously now, this should be free money for these people._

 

It should be, but Randi backs out of everything that isn't "bag lady" crazy. It's typical magician stuff--"Look, over there! A new challenge! Forget the old one..."


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mojo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, this is genuine.

 You may choose any expensive power cord you want, as long as it is just a pure set of wires and doesn't have any electronics. I will supply a kettle lead.

 The ABX tests must be conducted fairly, to rigorous scientific standards, and for you to win there must be a statistically valid result showing you could differentiate between cables.

 You may use your own HiFi system, with components of your choice (as long as they could in no way affect the power cord, although I can't see how anything would). Setting of your choice, as long as it is possible to conduct the ABX testing there. You may listen to your system with both cables for as long as you like (months, years) if you feel it will help.

 ABX tests will use at least one CD of your choice and one CD of my choice (which again you may listen to before hand for as long as you like). There should probably be at least three different samples used in the test.

 I wouldn't have to be at the test itself (although I wouldn't mind being there), but obviously it must be fully documented and agreed upon by all parties and at least one independent adjudicator.

 Does that seem like a fair and reasonable test likely to produce reliable results to you?_

 

I think you're missing my point. When I asked BigShot to participate in my test, I knew he didn't have an expensive power cord, so I offered to buy him one (not loan one of my own) on the assumption that he'd like it so much that he'd end up paying me back when he kept it.

 I'm asking this--are you willing to pay for my plane ticket on the assumption that I will lose and pay you back for the flight? I'm sorry, but this is, as mentioned before, related to burden of proof. You are the creator of the test, therefor it is your burden to make it happen. This is what I did, and I'm asking if you are willing to do the same.

 Reason being, I'm not paying to fly to England to meet some internet phantom. Don't take it personally, when someone buys something from me on the net, I don't mail it until I have payment. I'd be an idiot to do otherwise.


----------



## monolith

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It should be, but Randi backs out of everything that isn't "bag lady" crazy. It's typical magician stuff--"Look, over there! A new challenge! Forget the old one..."_

 

Again, he hasn't done this yet, and I doubt he will. This one is a really safe bet on his part. People have copped out, but not Randi.


----------



## mojo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think you're missing my point. When I asked BigShot to participate in my test, I knew he didn't have an expensive power cord, so I offered to buy him one (not loan one of my own) on the assumption that he'd like it so much that he'd end up paying me back when he kept it.

 I'm asking this--are you willing to pay for my plane ticket on the assumption that I will lose and pay you back for the flight? I'm sorry, but this is, as mentioned before, related to burden of proof. You are the creator of the test, therefor it is your burden to make it happen. This is what I did, and I'm asking if you are willing to do the same._

 

I am not willing to pay for that. The reasons are various. I could just about stand to loose £1000, but not a return flight (what, £500 odd?) on top. I am confident I would win, but I am also open minded and not a fool. I would not offer more money than I can afford to loose on any wager, no matter how sure I am of winning.

 Please do not take that to mean I am not confident I would win, because I am.

 I would also point out that I am simply offering this challenge to anyone who cares to take it. The burden of proof is always with the proponent of the hypothesis, in this case believers in power cords. This is standard scientific method, the burden is always on positive proof - a paper claiming pixies must exist because no-one has been able to disprove their existence would not be taken seriously.

 As for buying the power cord, I would prefer to challenge someone who already has a cord they are "familiar" with and which they themselves are confident they can hear a difference in.

 I can appreciate that you would not risk flying to the UK to take up this challenge, and do not take it to mean you are backing out.

 The challenge is open to anyone. As I said, I would not have to be present if the trail could be properly documented and overseen. It could be conducted in the US, as long as it was rigorous.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mojo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I am not willing to pay for that. The reasons are various. I could just about stand to loose £1000, but not a return flight (what, £500 odd?) on top. I am confident I would win, but I am also open minded and not a fool. I would not offer more money than I can afford to loose on any wager, no matter how sure I am of winning.

 Please do not take that to mean I am not confident I would win, because I am.

 I would also point out that I am simply offering this challenge to anyone who cares to take it. The burden of proof is always with the proponent of the hypothesis, in this case believers in power cords. This is standard scientific method, the burden is always on positive proof - a paper claiming pixies must exist because no-one has been able to disprove their existence would not be taken seriously.

 As for buying the power cord, I would prefer to challenge someone who already has a cord they are "familiar" with and which they themselves are confident they can hear a difference in.

 I can appreciate that you would not risk flying to the UK to take up this challenge, and do not take it to mean you are backing out.

 The challenge is open to anyone. As I said, I would not have to be present if the trail could be properly documented and overseen. It could be conducted in the US, as long as it was rigorous._

 

I agree with most of what you say. Keep in mind, however, that "Cable companies are actively defrauding people" is an hypothesis. Also, legally speaking, if a prosecutor were to accuse someone of fraud, the burden of proof would be on the prosecutor. The defendant need prove nothing.

 As is usual in life, there's a happy medium where both sides admit that rarely in life is anything black or white.


----------



## mojo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I agree with most of what you say. Keep in mind, however, that "Cable companies are actively defrauding people" is an hypothesis. Also, legally speaking, if a prosecutor were to accuse someone of fraud, the burden of proof would be on the prosecutor. The defendant need prove nothing._

 

That's true, but I didn't say that.

 While I do think many cable companies are frauds, I do not have the resources to prove it and have not been a victim of that fraud myself, so do not bring a case against them. Randi does have the resources, so good luck to him.

 Actually, Randi is being quite good about all this. He could just organise trials himself, with an open invitation to so called "golden ears" but otherwise just using ordinary people. With a reasonably large sample size he could get a statistically valid result, and then bring civil suits against cable companies for false advertising when it is proven human beings cannot hear differences between their cable and far cheaper products. That would shift the burden of proof to the cable companies, since Randi would have already proven that human beings cannot hear any difference. Like it or not the law would side with his scientific research rather than vague claims made by the cable companies.

 I can understand why he doesn't do that - it wouldn't prove to believers that he is right. They would claim their hearing was better or more trained than ordinary peoples.

 So, in that respect, while I do tend to think high end cable companies are fraudsters, I think the people who buy their products are often defrauding themselves just as much.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fishski13* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_bigshot,
 out of curiosity, could you give details about what electronics/speakers/HP you use._

 

I don't know what you can tell from a list of stuff. It's how I use the equipment, not the equipment itself.

 I have several systems at home for different purposes and my closet full of equipment moves around as needed... My main monitors are custom made 10 inch 3 ways. I also have some nice old JBLs and some Klipsch bookshelves I use as rear channels. My main amp is a honkin big Sony- sorry don't remember the model. Several old amps that don't get a lot of use. Raine pro grade 31 band and cheapie DOD 15 band graphic EQs. Burwen TNE 7000a. Phillips 963sa SACD/DVD/CD player. Six iPods from 3g to Classic. Various preamps, compressers/expanders, noise reduction units. Akai R2R. Three super Beta. Four Super VHS. Laserdisc. Several CD players and DVD players I don't use any more. Dual 1.4 G4 Mac that I use as my audio workstation. Macbook I use as source in my A/V rig. Two Thorens turntables for LPs and a Dual for 78s. I also have a Tiger Oak Victor Victrola VV-X and a RCA/Victor 2-65 suitcase.

 In general, my Mac equipment has been replacing my sources. At the office, I have a really nice video digitizing station where I've been doing most of my work lately. I'm in the process of building a digital database of video and media files for a non-profit archive. I generally digitize whatever old formats I play as I play them. For sound I use Peak, Spark XL, Soundtrack Pro and SoundSoap for two channel stuff. Final Cut Pro Studio for video. When I need to do production stuff, I offline in Final Cut and export to ProTools.

 The REAL story about my stuff is the music though. I have over 8,000 CDs, 5,000 video tapes, 2,000 laser discs, 1.5 TB of digital files, and well over 15,000 records- Diamond Disks, 78s, LPS. My music collection goes all the way back 100 years to the very earliest disc recordings... jazz, classical, pop, rock n roll, ethnic, country, folk, comedy, spoken word, etc. I share a warehouse with a buddy of mine who is the same about comic books as I am about music.

 See ya
 Steve

 Oh, I fogot. A Wollensak 8 track player!


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That quite flawed thinking and analogizing._

 

Is English not your native language?

 Just curious
 Steve


----------



## Riboge

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is English not your native language?

 Just curious
 Steve_

 

This is beneath even you. If you had spent more than a petty and vindictive second on what I quoted and wrote you would see I was imitating LawnGnome for using just this diction, more gently implying about him exactly what you have crassly made explicit.

 Goodbye, folks. The number of times I have been lamely attacked for exactly the opposite of what I have said or because the poster had not read the thread to see where I was actually coming from over the course of the thread has convinced me that meaningful discourse on difficult issues is impossible on Head-Fi. I have even had private discussion with one of the seemingly more serious skeptics in which he came to explicitly acknowledge one of the key points I have been asserting and then found that he refused to acknowledge this in the forum, saying that what he said in private and online were different. Instead he mocked me online for concerning myself with the very things he and I exchanged several very lengthy emails on.

 I have expended enormous efforts to articulate some different vantages on these issues and toward achieving a not-so-polarized=not so ridiculous and unproductive balance in comprehending these issue. It has been very useful to me in developing my own thoughts and sharpening by articulation of these, but it appears to have been of little value to others, which makes me sad but not think that I had nothing to say, rather that few here are willing to read and consider difficult, unusual=creative approaches to such things. My frustration but your loss. Adios.


----------



## OverlordXenu

You weren't attacked, he simply asked a question.


----------



## vcoheda

you were wrong to think that any cable discussion with these people would be anything resembling productive.


----------



## monolith

Nevermind, please delete this or something.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is beneath even you._

 

It was an honest question. There's nothing wrong with not being a native English speaker. I'd kind of like to know that because it helps me understand where you're coming from.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_If you had spent more than a petty and vindictive second on what I quoted and wrote you would see I was imitating LawnGnome for using just this diction, more gently implying about him exactly what you have crassly made explicit._

 

So let me understand this... you're angry because you think I was making fun of you for the exact same thing you were making fun of Lawn Gnome about?

 Well, I wasn't making fun of you. I was trying to figure out if there was a valid reason for our lack of communication. I think I got my answer anyway.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is beneath even you. If you had spent more than a petty and vindictive second on what I quoted and wrote you would see I was imitating LawnGnome for using just this diction, more gently implying about him exactly what you have crassly made explicit.

 Goodbye, folks. The number of times I have been lamely attacked for exactly the opposite of what I have said or because the poster had not read the thread to see where I was actually coming from over the course of the thread has convinced me that meaningful discourse on difficult issues is impossible on Head-Fi. I have even had private discussion with one of the seemingly more serious skeptics in which he came to explicitly acknowledge one of the key points I have been asserting and then found that he refused to acknowledge this in the forum, saying that what he said in private and online were different. Instead he mocked me online for concerning myself with the very things he and I exchanged several very lengthy emails on.

 I have expended enormous efforts to articulate some different vantages on these issues and toward achieving a not-so-polarized=not so ridiculous and unproductive balance in comprehending these issue. It has been very useful to me in developing my own thoughts and sharpening by articulation of these, but it appears to have been of little value to others, which makes me sad but not think that I had nothing to say, rather that few here are willing to read and consider difficult, unusual=creative approaches to such things. My frustration but your loss. Adios._

 


 What the hell are you talking about?

 Maybe you should put more effort in your actual arguments, instead of trying to word your fluff to sound like anything more than that.


----------



## LawnGnome

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Riboge* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That quite flawed thinking and analogizing.

 If you haven't murdered someone then you do not know what it is like to murder someone. That is the correct analogy and it is just as true.

 If people applied this logic more often to everyday situations things would go a whole lot better._

 


 Two words for you.

 Reading Comprehension.

 It needs to become your friend.


----------



## Pibborando

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vcoheda* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_these people_

 

Say what now?


----------



## bigshot

They're trying to get the thead closed. This is always how these things end. Someone gets offended for no reason and the other gets loud and indignant until the moderators lock the thread. I don't know why people get all worked up like this. It's just an internet chat board. I guess it doesn't matter. It doesn't appear that Pear Cables is going to stand behind their product, so there won't be much to discuss anyway.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## mojo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_It was an honest question. There's nothing wrong with not being a native English speaker. I'd kind of like to know that because it helps me understand where you're coming from._

 

Ah, makes sense now you explained it. Can I just ask, are you black? It would help me understand where you are coming from.

 I too am leaving this thread. My challenge still stands, but I am no longer participating. Once things have descended to this level of trolling and subtle racism, all rational argument is for naught. If anyone wants to take up the challenge, they can PM me.


----------



## gotchaforce

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mojo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ah, makes sense now you explained it. Can I just ask, are you black? It would help me understand where you are coming from._

 

Dear god the logical fallacies nuclear bomb just went off


----------



## monolith

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mojo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Once things have descended to this level of trolling and subtle racism, all rational argument is for naught._

 

There's no trolling and _certainly_ no racism here. ...At all.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mojo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Ah, makes sense now you explained it. Can I just ask, are you black? It would help me understand where you are coming from._

 

No, I'm white- if you're not being totally facaetious. I really don't see what the problem is. If someone is from Italy or Japan or the moon, there's nothing to be embarassed or ashamed about. Differences are what make people interesting.

 If someone is having problems understanding what other people say to them and phrase things unclearly, it just might be that they aren't totally comfortable in the language. There's nothing wrong with that. I know if I tried to discuss stuff like this with my Mexican friends in Spanish, I sure wouldn't fare too well! If English wasn't his native language, I'd be happy to streamline my speech to help get my ideas across, and I'd make an extra effort to figure out what he was trying to say.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## -=Germania=-

$300 vs. $7k - hmmm - I am preety sure that I wouldnt notice the difference.


----------



## manaox2

On topic, are there any new details on the challenge?


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *manaox2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_On topic, are there any new details on the challenge?_

 

I check the JREF site occaisionally , there is no news as yet and even the discussion seems to have been dropped off. It looks like it is not going to happen.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I check the JREF site occaisionally , there is no news as yet and even the discussion seems to have been dropped off. It looks like it is not going to happen._

 

This is exactly what I predicted... that he'd just move on to the next victim and hope nobody noticed
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. This guy is an enormous scammer of the worst sort.


----------



## bigshot

I'm assuming you are referring to the fella from Pear.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## monolith

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is exactly what I predicted... that he'd just move on to the next victim and hope nobody noticed
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. This guy is an enormous scammer of the worst sort._

 

That'd make sense if the people who were challenged hadn't backed out.

 It's weird. I'd be pretty happy if I made and endorsed something, and someone offered me a million dollars to simply demonstrate what I'm already saying. I'd have to be lying about what I'm endorsing in order not to jump on that deal, or something.


----------



## manaox2

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *monolith* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That'd make sense if the people who were challenged hadn't backed out.

 It's weird. I'd be pretty happy if I made and endorsed something, and someone offered me a million dollars to simply demonstrate what I'm already saying. I'd have to be lying about what I'm endorsing in order not to jump on that deal, or something._

 

Is it disconcerting to anyone else that both parties are keeping silent about the challenge not taking place? I mean, shouldn't this mean one of them backed out and the other gets to show that they were scared to test the theory? Really odd to me that no one has inflated their ego because of this.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *manaox2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is it disconcerting to anyone else that both parties are keeping silent about the challenge not taking place? I mean, shouldn't this mean one of them backed out and the other gets to show that they were scared to test the theory? Really odd to me that no one has inflated their ego because of this._

 

Well if you had read the JRF forum a couple of weeks back there was a lot of toing and froing about it and many heated exchanges and not a little bad behaviour and much shouting. It seems to have calmed down now.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *monolith* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That'd make sense if the people who were challenged hadn't backed out.

 It's weird. I'd be pretty happy if I made and endorsed something, and someone offered me a million dollars to simply demonstrate what I'm already saying. I'd have to be lying about what I'm endorsing in order not to jump on that deal, or something._

 

My understanding is that, although Pear backed out, Fremer didn't.


----------



## cosmopragma

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My understanding is that, although Pear backed out, Fremer didn't._

 

Interesting how a closed belief system warps the mind.I won't bother to ask you, earwicker7, if you've ever tried to tell well constructed cables apart in a DBT.We all know the answer.

 Fremer isn't willing to spend > $7000 out of his own pocket although given his claims are substantial winning $1000000 by discriminating the cables should be quite easy.

 I guess it's time to collect the ridiculous amount for the snake oil cable in order to shut the clowns up once and for all.
 I do offer $300 from my hard earned money for the purpose, and believers are invited to join, too.You know, all the day and night differences, should be quite easy to put us rational guys to shame.


----------



## bigshot

Fremer wasn't the one challenged. Pear was. The challenge was "prove the difference between monster cables and pear cables". But the guy from Pear was too chicken to submit to the test himself. His first diversion was to insist that an "expert" participate in the test. Randi located him an expert, and then the Pear guy backed out. I think that pretty much tells you about the value of his product.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My understanding is that, although Pear backed out, Fremer didn't._

 

facepalm.jpg

 The challenge was for Pear, not Fremer.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cosmopragma* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I do offer $300 from my hard earned money for the purpose, and believers are invited to join, too.You know, all the day and night differences, should be quite easy to put us rational guys to shame._

 

I would still really like to see this challenge. I will pledge $100 for this, I am a student so money is a bit tight, especially after having to replace our car 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Running total = $400

 Who will hold the money ?


----------



## bigshot

Save your money. Even if the test was conducted by the Pope, the people you are trying to convince would still think it was rigged.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Save your money. Even if the test was conducted by the Pope, the people you are trying to convince would still think it was rigged.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

At this precise moment I am not concerned about convincing anyone on this particular occaision, its not like this is a _jitter_ or _CD players sound the same _or _CD vs LP _thread 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I genuinely would like to see the challenge done, one can worry about the interpretation after the event, if Fremer won he could buy the cable from us.

 If you read the Pear site they provide a graph showing the signal loss at 10 - 20K for their cables vs "a leading competitor(unnamed)" they say that both cables were the same gauge and length yet the competitor shows a 0.5V 
 greater drop than the Pear cable i.e measurably different.


----------



## bigshot

Quite frankly, I wouldn't believe anything on the Pear site after the way that fella behaved.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_facepalm.jpg

 The challenge was for Pear, not Fremer._

 

True, but Fremer wants to take it forward and Randi wants to kill it.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Quite frankly, I wouldn't believe anything on the Pear site after the way that fella behaved.

 See ya
 Steve_

 

Listen, I'll call chickens**t on Pear just as much as you guys will, but the truth is, from a business standpoint, they should have never even entertained this crackpot. Granted, I'm not a businessman, I've got ethics, and from this point Pear wimped out... but if I were running a business, which is what they are doing, I wouldn't have anything to do with it. It's lose-lose for them. Randi wins, they're humiliated, Randi loses, the anti-cable people find some way to trash Randi. Come on, we've all been on this topic long enough to know that they wouldn't accept a win as proof of anything.


----------



## cosmopragma

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Listen, I'll call chickens**t on Pear just as much as you guys will, but the truth is, from a business standpoint, they should have never even entertained this crackpot. Granted, I'm not a businessman, I've got ethics, and from this point Pear wimped out... but if I were running a business, which is what they are doing, I wouldn't have anything to do with it. It's lose-lose for them. Randi wins, they're humiliated, Randi loses, the anti-cable people find some way to trash Randi. Come on, we've all been on this topic long enough to know that they wouldn't accept a win as proof of anything._

 

You are extrapolating from your attitude to ours.
 Why should listeners with a rational approach not accept the (unexpected) result of a proper scientific experiment?
 Seems you don't know much about science and the proponents of a scientific approach.
 The point is that up to now your irrational camp hasn't passed a single DBT and therefor there's absolutely zero evidence for your claims.(Correct me if I'm wrong.I do have access to an university library and this way to any scientific paper ever published).

 Personally I can easily get along with subjectivists in a friendly manner.This is a hobby and meant to be fun and no pitbull fight or pissing contest.
 About twice a year I do visit head-fi member RichterDi and we always do have lots of fun despite of his quite different taste and approach.
 Most of his headphones are recabled, there are some aftermarket PCs and expensive ICs and he does believe in the beneficial effect of a CD demagnetizer and so on.We always laugh about my sceptical facial expression when I look at this demagnetizer gizmo.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 What he doesn't do and what I can't stand anymore is claiming "night and day" differences.Those huge differences would mean you could easily pass a DBT with a 100% result and you obviously can't.
 Talking someone who doesn't like the basic sonic signature of particular headphones into purchasing expensive cables in order to fix it is misleading nonsense.Unfortunately this is quite common here nowadays.


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *cosmopragma* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Seems you don't know much about science and the proponents of a scientific approach._

 

Yeah, I guess graduating Phi Beta Kappa with a Bachelor of, oh what was that, oh yeah, Science doesn't give me any knowledge of the scientific method. Participating in real, university sanctioned experiments apparently means nothing either.

 As opposed to you, who thinks that the purpose of the scientific method is to solve pissing matches on the internet. It's funny how every time a skeptic disagrees with anything, they start screaming "Science, science!!!" without knowing jack s**t about what science entails. There is nothing, let me repeat, NOTHING in the scientific method that says one side can scream "Science" at the other and at the same time claim that they have no duty to proove anything. This "It's only your side who has the responsibility to prove this" idea is Wikipedia science.

 Duh.


----------



## jsaliga

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, I guess graduating Phi Beta Kappa with a Bachelor of, oh what was that, oh yeah, Science doesn't give me any knowledge of the scientific method._

 

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Do you think that a science degree somehow immunizes you from logical fallacies and faulty reasoning? Your scientific pedigree certainly has not appeared to be on display very much throughout the course of these cable discussions. I'm not saying that it needs to, but you sure do seem to want to have it both ways arguing as you have been and then throwing your degree around as though it alone somehow makes your theories more credible.

 Like it or not, cosmopragma makes a good point about how people tend to make exaggerated claims about the differences they hear with even the slightest, most inconsequential of changes to their systems. It makes it very hard for people to get an honest picture of what is going on. Speaking for myself, I pretty much ignore anyone who uses the phrases "blown away by the improvements" or "it made a night and day difference." The problem with such drivel is that it fails to provide a meaningful frame of reference for the people reading this stuff.

 --Jerome


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jsaliga* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Do you think that a science degree somehow immunizes you from logical fallacies and faulty reasoning? Your scientific pedigree certainly has not appeared to be on display very much throughout the course of these cable discussions. I'm not saying that it needs to, but you sure do seem to want to have it both ways arguing as you have been and then throwing your degree around as though it alone somehow makes your theories more credible.

 Like it or not, cosmopragma makes a good point about how people tend to make exaggerated claims about the differences they hear with even the slightest, most inconsequential of changes to their systems. It makes it very hard for people to get an honest picture of what is going on. Speaking for myself, I pretty much ignore anyone who uses the phrases "blown away by the improvements" or "it made a night and day difference." The problem with such drivel is that it fails to provide a meaningful frame of reference for the people reading this stuff.

 --Jerome_

 

My (extremely obvious) point was that 90% of the people around here who yell "scientific method" know nothing of what they speak because they have never had any first hand experience with it. Their version of science is what they pull off of wikipedia and is so far flung from the real scientific method that it's laughable. They've confused "magician" with "scientist"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My (extremely obvious) point was that 90% of the people around here who yell "scientific method" know nothing of what they speak because they have never had any first hand experience with it. Their version of science is what they pull off of wikipedia and is so far flung from the real scientific method that it's laughable. They've confused "magician" with "scientist"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




._

 

Really, my impression was that we are a relatively well educated bunch, we have several academics, researchers, doctors and a decent number of PhDs onboard. We have loads of people with formal training in EE and related disciplines.

 Perhaps you can describe what you mean by Scientific Method that is at odds with the folks you take issue with.


----------



## rhythmdevils

interesting! would someone post when the test is done? i can't read through this whole thing


----------



## Agnostic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My (extremely obvious) point was that 90% of the people around here who yell "scientific method" know nothing of what they speak because they have never had any first hand experience with it. Their version of science is what they pull off of wikipedia and is so far flung from the real scientific method that it's laughable. They've confused "magician" with "scientist"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




._

 

Yes, obviously there are two versions of scientific method: 

 1. Yours, the "real one", which exactly like cables has to be "personally experienced" to be understood.
 2. The one the rest of the people here have been refering to, of which you can probably find a short but reasonably accurate description in the Wikipedia and many more elaborate and accurate descriptions in any introduction to the Philosophy of Science.


 Of course the first version is neither scientific nor methodical. 
 The second version of scientific method can be criticized and some people have quite succesfully done so (see Feyerabend for instance).

 And once more you have resorted to ad hominem argumentation. The fact that you're a former magician does not in any way make it impossible to follow scientific method. Surprising isn't it?


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Perhaps you can describe what you mean by Scientific Method that is at odds with the folks you take issue with._

 

For one, there's the "Nuh-uh, I don't have to prove it doesn't happen, you have to prove it does..." BS that floats around here, as if science inherently sides with skeptics. Anyone who has ever been involved in an actual scientific experiment (which I have) knows that you do everything possible to prove your point, you don't pass the buck to the people who think you're wrong. It's a cop-out, pure and simple. Say, for example, it's the mid 80s, and a scientist dealing with AIDS panic says, "Kissing somone will not spread AIDS... but I don't have to prove that, you have to prove that it does!" They would be laughed out of their profession.

 Also, the phrase "This stuff has been established for 50 years, it's not going to change." Science is constantly morphing, it is not (as the wikiscientists claim) something forever set in stone. The last generation's science is less advanced than this generation's science, and only a temperocentrist would believe that the same pattern won't hold to the next generation.

 Then there is the most flagrant part, the rampant idea that observation is a completely optional part of the scientific process ("I don't need to hear it to know...").

 My problem is people using the word "science" when they have no idea of the extremely rigorous standards that it entails. It might pass on Oprah, but it doesn't pass with me.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_For one, there's the "Nuh-uh, I don't have to prove it doesn't happen, you have to prove it does..." BS that floats around here, as if science inherently sides with skeptics._

 

Have you heard of the "Burden of Proof"?

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wikipedia* 
_Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see negative proof)._

 

Obviously you have not participated in the scientific method as much as you thought. I'd say someone that says $13,000 power cables and cd demagnetizers work would be the one making the bold claims, no?


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *OverlordXenu* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have you heard of the "Burden of Proof"?_

 

Um, thanks for proving my point with your, um, wikipedia quote
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## OverlordXenu

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Um, thanks for proving my point with your, um, wikipedia quote
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




._

 

Wikipedia is a terrible source, but I just wanted to link to a definition quickly. You have yet to actually say why the burden of proof isn't on you.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Um, thanks for proving my point with your, um, wikipedia quote
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




._

 

So let me get this straight:

 Your premise is that people who quote wikipedia are incapable of understanding the scientific method. Xenu quotes wikipedia. Therefore, Xenu is incapable of understanding the scientific method.

 Surely someone with your training should understand the shortcomings of this type of "logic."


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So let me get this straight:

 Your premise is that people who quote wikipedia are incapable of understanding the scientific method. Xenu quotes wikipedia. Therefore, Xenu is incapable of understanding the scientific method.

 Surely someone with your training should understand the shortcomings of this type of "logic."_

 

No, what I'm saying is that I wouldn't recommend using someone who's only checked out engine schematics on wiki as your mechanic.

 If I said "I am too a sound engineer, I read wikipedia" you'd justifiably laugh at me. All I'm saying is that there is a lot more to the scientific method than what you would expect if you used Head-Fi wisdom as your measurement; most (not all) people's understanding of the scientific method here is vague at best, as they are quoting a malleable website. I like wikipedia, it serves its purpose, but it is the single most unscientific source I can think of.


----------



## Febs

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No, what I'm saying is that I wouldn't recommend using someone who's only checked out engine schematics on wiki as your mechanic.

 If I said "I am too a sound engineer, I read wikipedia" you'd justifiably laugh at me. All I'm saying is that there is a lot more to the scientific method than what you would expect if you used Head-Fi wisdom as your measurement; most (not all) people's understanding of the scientific method here is vague at best, as they are quoting a malleable website. *I like wikipedia, it serves its purpose, but *it is the single most unscientific source I can think of._

 

So then, in fact, Xenu's reference to Wikipedia does *not* does not prove any point that you are purporting to make, and was nothing but a cheap shot on your part. Don't you ever get tired of doing that?


----------



## earwicker7

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Febs* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So then, in fact, Xenu's reference to Wikipedia does *not* does not prove any point that you are purporting to make, and was nothing but a cheap shot on your part. Don't you ever get tired of doing that?_

 

You know, I have better stuff to do than dance around this subject, it's like explaining colors to the blind


----------



## Febs

So apparently the answer to my last question is "no."


----------



## cosmopragma

earwicker7, I've just typed a reply to your rage but I had second thoughts and deleted it.
 It's no fun to kick a man that has already knocked himself out and is lying on the ground.


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yeah, I guess graduating Phi Beta Kappa with a Bachelor of, oh what was that, oh yeah, Science doesn't give me any knowledge of the scientific method. Duh._

 

Motto!

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## bigshot

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hciman77* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Really, my impression was that we are a relatively well educated bunch, we have several academics, researchers, doctors and a decent number of PhDs onboard. We have loads of people with formal training in EE and related disciplines._

 

Some of us just have good ol' American common sense.

 See ya
 Steve


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *earwicker7* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Anyone who has ever been involved in an actual scientific experiment (which I have) knows that you do everything possible to prove your point,_

 

Woah ! - I think what you meant to say was "you do everything possible to make sure that the experiment is conducted properly so as to make sure that you control all extraneous variables and to not let your biases influence the results"

 "everything possible to prove your point" 

 sounds a lot like lets cook the results or ignore some data points to make sure the results fit our theory - not terribly sound from a scientific point of view.


----------



## Hello

I have to agree with earwicker's sentiment that many people who claim to be proponents of the scientific method really aren't very scientific in their reasoning.

 A common mistake is to take the word of a scientist, thinking that amounts to the scientific method! But, actually, there's a subtle distinction. The scientific method is not about taking people's word for things -- its about experiments and verifiability of those experiments. And, sometimes experiments which 'prove' things are faulty, sometimes people fudge data, sometimes people just outright lie, etc. So, it's always a bit risky to just take someone's word for something, even if it's from a well-respected scientist. 

 There's also a lot of misuse statistics. Strictly speaking, if a person is trying to identify cable A from cable B, and gets it right say 50 out of 100 times, that doesn't prove no one could tell a difference. It doesn't even prove the test subject couldn't tell a difference! The conclusion is that there is no statistical evidence to support the hypothesis that the test subject could hear a difference, which is not the same thing as saying there's statistical evidence which proves the test subject could not tell a difference.

 Now, as a matter of 'common sense' -- and common sense is actually quite unscientific -- I wouldn't pay thousands of dollars for a cable that I could only identify 50 out of 100 times, in comparison to some much cheaper cable. But, this is a personal decision that's different than trying to prove a more universal phenomena. 

 I think earwicker's sentiment about passing the buck in burden of proof has to do with the confusion of not having evidence to support a claim being the same as having evidence to deny a claim.


----------



## hciman77

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Hello* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_There's also a lot of misuse statistics. Strictly speaking, if a person is trying to identify cable A from cable B, and gets it right say 50 out of 100 times, that doesn't prove no one could tell a difference. It doesn't even prove the test subject couldn't tell a difference! The conclusion is that there is no statistical evidence to support the hypothesis that the test subject could hear a difference, which is not the same thing as saying there's statistical evidence which proves the test subject could not tell a difference._

 

In part this is a question of semantics and in part it is to do with how you construct your hypotheses.

 One common approach is the null hypothesis. You posit that there is no effect of changing a condition. So for example you posit that subjects will perform a dichotic listening task no differently if they are standing knee-deep in a vat of custard or not. If when the results come in the mean, mode, median and standard deviation are all the same and a T-test or one-way ANOVA or whatever doesnt reveal a difference then you:

 "Fail to reject the null hypothesis"

 If there is a significant difference ( p < 0.01 or P < 0.05) you "reject the null hypothesis"

 Alternatively you might say

 H1 (or RQ1) - _Standing knee-deep in a vat of custard will impair dichotic listening performance_

 So you have a positive hypothesis

 If there is no difference you say 
_there is no support for H1_ or 
_H1 is not suppported_

 If there is a difference you say 
_there is support for H1_ or 
_H1 is supported_

 Then you or others may repeat it varying 

 Subjects 
 Amount of custard (kneee-high, waist-high, neck-high)
 Temperature of custard (cold, warm, hot)

 While philosphically you may never prove that standing in a vat of custard (never) impairs performance eventually if you keep getting negative results you give up because it becomes those awful words _generally accepted_ or you are bored with it or you cant get any more NSF money for replication studies.


----------



## Hello

And "Fail to reject the null hypothesis" does not mean "Accept the null hypothesis".

 It's a very simple logical statement that A implies B is not equivalent to not A implies not B. 

 There are all sorts of reasons why one may not get statistical evidence to reject the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is truly incorrect. Perhaps the differences in performance is very small, which would require larger sample sizes. Perhaps the wrong thing is being measured.

 How you get to conclude 'not B' is my point. You're not using hypothesis testing. In your post, we get to conclude custard does not 'impair dichotic listening performance' because you got bored or because NSF funding dried up (after a bunch of negative results). 

 Now, I'm not saying you do this, but if after running a few experiments to see whether custard has an impairment on hearing, you don't get any evidence -- to me, the proper statement is to say you don't have evidence to support the claim for an impairment of hearing, and not to say "it's a scientific impossibility" or "it's statistical improbability".

 If someone chooses not to believe something that is not scientifically proven, that's fine. But, something does not need to be scientifically proven to be true. Most things that people think they know are not scientifically proven. In fact, the very statement that something should be scientifically proven to be considered true is not scientific!


----------



## Hello

There's a lot of dishonesty in experiments and reporting statistical results. Even if cables did not make a difference, it would not be that hard to get a so-called statistically significant result. If you run an experiment a 100 separate times, you're going to have a pretty good chance that at least one of those experiments will produce a 'statistically significant' difference at say the alpha = .05 level. Of course, it is incorrect to throw away the negative results and keep the positive results -- but that's not to say companies don't do it.

 The fact that no cable manufacturer has proclaimed a rigorous study that shows cable makes a difference to me means that cable manufacturers simply don't do the studies. Given the expense, the time, and the risk of performing such studies, it's no wonder that companies don't perform them. And, it doesn't seem like anyone else has the incentive to really pursue acquiring scientific evidence that cables can make a difference in sound.


----------

