Jump to content

Yesterday a mains cable sceptic had to revise his thoughts.


Fourlegs

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
19 minutes ago, George 47 said:

Having dabbled in science, I notice the ultimate certainty on here, which fortunately I did not see that often in my working scientific life. In fact, strongly opinionated people were 'shunned' or questioned. But most experts tend to be more questioning and interested in new findings, and less dismissive. No, the window was not totally open, but neither was it locked shut either.

Ditto.

I would add that some of those who take the 'science states that...' approach do on occasiuon woefully ignore what science actually does state.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, tuga said:

I will give that a read sometime this week.

What’s this Knowledge Aliance Brief? Has it been peer reviewed and published?

The fact that 

This collaborative work is being carried out jointly by 3 companies; Vertex AQ Ltd and Acuity Products Ltd, both based in the UK, and Nordost Corporation based in the USA.

smells iffy.

Is it science or pseudo?

Hi,

Here is the video :

Absolutely hilarious. The comments on youtube are definitely worth a read. A very funny video.

Regards,

Shadders.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Here is the video

Yes, I remember it too.  Roy Gregory of Hifi + who became a sales guy at Nordost.  I’m afraid I’m pretty sceptical here too, as if differential or null tests were useful we’d surely see them featuring in reviews and adverts.  

Edited by Nopiano
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just had a quick scan. They seem to be comparing an original WAV file with one captured after having been through the system and re digitised. As far as I can tell they did not, nor could they, ensure the samples were synchronised. Clearly sampling with a time offset will give a different digital file even if they have the same analog reconstruction.

It looks to be such an elementary error I may have miss read it.

Regards Andrew

Edited by andrew s
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
37 minutes ago, tuga said:

I will give that a read sometime this week.

What’s this Knowledge Aliance Brief? Has it been peer reviewed and published?

The fact that 

This collaborative work is being carried out jointly by 3 companies; Vertex AQ Ltd and Acuity Products Ltd, both based in the UK, and Nordost Corporation based in the USA.

smells iffy.

Is it science or pseudo?

The arrangement as I understand it and I have no details is that Vertex and Nordost paid Acuity to do the scientific work. Acuity used their expertise to try and derive a measurement technique that correlated new measurements with the observations on the audible differences. They were able to try any technique they had available. I think they initially produced a paper with some interesting results. This was followed up with further work that developed the technique further. The outcome was the production of this paper. The results looked promising so they decided to go ahead, but the main developer of the technique became ill and unfortunately died.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, t1no said:

Benchmark say "If we hear something, we go back and figure out how to measure what we heard. We then add this test to our arsenal of measurements."

We say "If we hear something we'll mention it on a forum cable topic and argue about what we heard. We then add the argument to the arsenal of similar arguments on every cable topic"

I like Benchmark's approach :D 

Good post (non-ironic!), @t1no.

I've reworked this a little; think of it as an offering...

Benchmark say "If we hear something, we go back and figure out how to measure what we heard. We then add this test to our arsenal of measurements."

I like Benchmark's approach too. It combines the subjective and objective, which is admirably "third way".

What Benchmark don't say is that if ultimately they can't measure what they heard then they conclude they were fooling themselves due to expectation bias and 20 year of conditioning through the devious manipulation of the unscrupulous hifi press.

As far as I know, neither do they say that the equipment of their competitors is badly designed; they assume their potential customers have intelligence, taste and judgement and will decide for themselves based on what they read (measurements) and/or what they hear, according to preference. That's an admirably inclusive approach. I like Benchmark's approach (did I say that?).

To rephrase your second: We say "If we hear something we'll mention it on a forum cable topic in case other wammers find it of interest". We (whoever we is) don't say "if we hear something we'll put up a thread and start a predictable thread war: my, that will be fun"

And for some reason those who believe that, in the absence of measurable evidence, no wammer should have the right to share their personal experiences smell blood and dive in. My cat and dog post was a metaphor but it has pertinence. Why would anyone who believes reported personal experiences are invalid feel it appropriate, let alone necessary, to "contribute" (and I use that term in its loosest definition ever) to a thread with the title "Yesterday a mains cable sceptic had to revise his thoughts"?

This dualism risks killing the forum. There are measurist forums available and subjectivist forums available for those who feel it necessary to treat with respect only the views of those who agree with them. If wammers can't in good heart share their thoughts and experiences in virtual conversation without being attacked, what's the forum for, exactly?

Sometimes it feels like the Spanish Inquisition here: that God exists is patently a fact so we'll torture you until you agree or kill you if you don't; we possess the single, eternal truth. There is no room for umming and erring here, you've clearly been influenced by the devil if the truth - sorry, if The Truth - is not blindingly obvious.

Who would have thought: those who walk the streets of the Wam waving their Science rools, ok placards being compared with religious zealots. Funny old world.

Thanks for listening.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with @TheFlash on this. I am naturally an objective type who like to know how things work.  However, I listen to music purely subjectively. 

I think both sides tend to take potshots at each other and while god exists placards are waved by one side the other counters with ridicule.

I have heard my 5 year old grandchild argue more coherently that most cable discussions on here.😊

Regards Andrew 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION 

NOT EVEN IN CABLE DEBATES. 

1AEC6AFF04C2DC4318B11AEC6AFF04C2DC4318B1&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dthe%2Bspanish%2Binquisition%2Bmonty%2Bpython%26FORM%3DHDRSC3

STILL HILARIOUS EVEN AFTER ALL THESE YEARS

Spanish.jpg

Edited by wHIZZY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, TheFlash said:

Good post (non-ironic!), @t1no.

I've reworked this a little; think of it as an offering...

Benchmark say "If we hear something, we go back and figure out how to measure what we heard. We then add this test to our arsenal of measurements."

I like Benchmark's approach too. It combines the subjective and objective, which is admirably "third way".

What Benchmark don't say is that if ultimately they can't measure what they heard then they conclude they were fooling themselves due to expectation bias and 20 year of conditioning through the devious manipulation of the unscrupulous hifi press.

As far as I know, neither do they say that the equipment of their competitors is badly designed; they assume their potential customers have intelligence, taste and judgement and will decide for themselves based on what they read (measurements) and/or what they hear, according to preference. That's an admirably inclusive approach. I like Benchmark's approach (did I say that?).

To rephrase your second: We say "If we hear something we'll mention it on a forum cable topic in case other wammers find it of interest". We (whoever we is) don't say "if we hear something we'll put up a thread and start a predictable thread war: my, that will be fun"

And for some reason those who believe that, in the absence of measurable evidence, no wammer should have the right to share their personal experiences smell blood and dive in. My cat and dog post was a metaphor but it has pertinence. Why would anyone who believes reported personal experiences are invalid feel it appropriate, let alone necessary, to "contribute" (and I use that term in its loosest definition ever) to a thread with the title "Yesterday a mains cable sceptic had to revise his thoughts"?

This dualism risks killing the forum. There are measurist forums available and subjectivist forums available for those who feel it necessary to treat with respect only the views of those who agree with them. If wammers can't in good heart share their thoughts and experiences in virtual conversation without being attacked, what's the forum for, exactly?

Sometimes it feels like the Spanish Inquisition here: that God exists is patently a fact so we'll torture you until you agree or kill you if you don't; we possess the single, eternal truth. There is no room for umming and erring here, you've clearly been influenced by the devil if the truth - sorry, if The Truth - is not blindingly obvious.

Who would have thought: those who walk the streets of the Wam waving their Science rools, ok placards being compared with religious zealots. Funny old world.

Thanks for listening.

The difference between us audiophiles and no-BS designers is that in our limited knowledge we often attribute the wrong cause to an audible difference or artefact.

And due to our limited knowledge we are more susceptible to being influenced by pseudoscience and fantastic advertorials (reviews)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheFlash said:

Good post (non-ironic!), @t1no.

I've reworked this a little; think of it as an offering...

Benchmark say "If we hear something, we go back and figure out how to measure what we heard. We then add this test to our arsenal of measurements."

I like Benchmark's approach too. It combines the subjective and objective, which is admirably "third way".

What Benchmark don't say is that if ultimately they can't measure what they heard then they conclude they were fooling themselves due to expectation bias and 20 year of conditioning through the devious manipulation of the unscrupulous hifi press.

As far as I know, neither do they say that the equipment of their competitors is badly designed; they assume their potential customers have intelligence, taste and judgement and will decide for themselves based on what they read (measurements) and/or what they hear, according to preference. That's an admirably inclusive approach. I like Benchmark's approach (did I say that?).

To rephrase your second: We say "If we hear something we'll mention it on a forum cable topic in case other wammers find it of interest". We (whoever we is) don't say "if we hear something we'll put up a thread and start a predictable thread war: my, that will be fun"

And for some reason those who believe that, in the absence of measurable evidence, no wammer should have the right to share their personal experiences smell blood and dive in. My cat and dog post was a metaphor but it has pertinence. Why would anyone who believes reported personal experiences are invalid feel it appropriate, let alone necessary, to "contribute" (and I use that term in its loosest definition ever) to a thread with the title "Yesterday a mains cable sceptic had to revise his thoughts"?

This dualism risks killing the forum. There are measurist forums available and subjectivist forums available for those who feel it necessary to treat with respect only the views of those who agree with them. If wammers can't in good heart share their thoughts and experiences in virtual conversation without being attacked, what's the forum for, exactly?

Sometimes it feels like the Spanish Inquisition here: that God exists is patently a fact so we'll torture you until you agree or kill you if you don't; we possess the single, eternal truth. There is no room for umming and erring here, you've clearly been influenced by the devil if the truth - sorry, if The Truth - is not blindingly obvious.

Who would have thought: those who walk the streets of the Wam waving their Science rools, ok placards being compared with religious zealots. Funny old world.

Thanks for listening.

I get what your saying  but sometimes someone just gives an opinion and it's totally polite but then taken as rude etc as you described. Then the guy that made the post gets put in the court and spoken about as if he is not reading in the hope he will be pressured into keeping his opinions quiet. As it's been mentioned before this thread would have died in page one of all agreed. If that's what most people want then start a members only club and dance around a fire of cables 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Griff500 said:

A 'scientific' mind is an enquiring mind (or I thought it was).

True of most of the scientists I’ve worked alongside. Many of the engineers on the other hand did not have an enquiring mindset; more a case of acquire sufficient knowledge to do the job and then apply that knowledge - job done. Obviously something of a generalisation and apologies to any engineers with an enquiring mindset.

I wonder how many in the objective audio camp are engineers rather than scientists. Come to think of it, would ASR be better named Audio Engineering Review. Different skill sets and both of great value, but I know which I looked to when I wanted a view on whether Rob Watts ideas on tap length were valid. The answer to that was “hmm, very interesting and a valid approach but the question is the degree to which it would be audible”.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, tuga said:

The difference between us audiophiles and no-BS designers is that in our limited knowledge we often attribute the wrong cause to an audible difference or artefact.

And due to our limited knowledge we are more susceptible to being influenced by pseudoscience and fantastic advertorials (reviews)

Well, there’s a turn up for the books. Tuga has admitted he is often wrong. Well done mate. 👍😀

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fourlegs said:

Well, there’s a turn up for the books. Tuga has admitted he is often wrong. Well done mate. 👍😀

Oh I am often wrong alright. I used to be very wrong, almost always, when I was a review-reading pure subjectivist. But I have traded belief for knowledge, still only a little knowledge and a lot of doubt, but more importantly my approach has changed and I am now sceptical and inquisitive, and I demand logic and evidence where before only opinion and mystery and desire sufficed...

I admit that I’ve become a bit of a miser when it comes to my practice of audiophilia and I blame my former naïveté and magazines for money wasted and wrong ways taken. Ignorance is not bliss in my experience others may think otherwise.

Edited by tuga
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Camverton said:

Different skill sets and both of great value, but I know which I looked to when I wanted a view on whether Rob Watts ideas on tap length were valid. The answer to that was “hmm, very interesting and a valid approach but the question is the degree to which it would be audible”.

What do you find interesting about tap length?

Do you mean technically interesting or audibly interesting?

I have to say that I am convinced that “Chord-type” long filters are audibly different and that having spent a couple of months listening to such a filter two years ago I can understand the appeal.

Edited by tuga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...