Of significant interest .....

[3DSonics]

Hi,

So if you can hear the difference between two conventionally equivalent cables you are making a paranormal claim and can challenge for Randi's $1000000. So why not?/QUOTE]

I repeat, DEFINE EQUIVALENT.

Is equivalent when the measurable differences in response and SPL are no more than 0.1db?

Or are we defining equivalency as that point where a null-test leaves identical residue?

Or are we defining equivalency as "audibly not different in a DBT with a statistical analysis that is appropriate to the sample size"?

Randi, more critically has not qualified his challenge, leaving himself a large amount of leeway to weasel out of paying.

And what if I did a Null-Test between the $7K cable and normal "translucent jacket, fine strands" monsterwire and find significant differences (which I may or may not, depending on the $7K construction)? What is these differences where sufficient to be audible in principle? Would I not have DEMONSTRATED SCIENTIFICALLY that the $7K cable is objectively and would I then not be entitled to my halve a million (as the US Dollar is worth nothing these days a US Million is really only halve a million in real money), based strictly on how Mr. Randi worded his challenge ?

Of course not. I would then further have to demonstrate audibility. Under that old friend of DB Testing, a "high stress" situation.

I have been in these occasionally. Once when my own heavily but not fundamentally circuit changing modified CD player went up against a stock machine - and guess what - I could not for the life of me hear ANY difference, yet all others in attendance could, reliably, salvaging halve my pride, that of the modifier, yet not that of a golden-ear.

I re-did the same test blind at a much later date when the issue had become essentially irrelevant and heard the differences just fine. Yet when my "reputation" and even my selfrespect dependend on the differences, I could not hear them, yet they where there. When nothing was at stake, I heard them 20/20.... Go figger.

So, Randi Schmandi.

This guy is one who deliberatly deceives, just like the small time circus illusionist he is. Best, he even deceives himself and the rest of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal).

May I suggest instead to all those with their wits about them (at least before they hit the Guinness, perhaps even after) to instead join CSICON (Commitee for Surrealist Investigation of Claims of the Normal) and have some fun?

Well, I'm outta here, as predicted, this thread is about here and has only a short way to go:

I'll head of for some (most excellent) local Beer (30 cents Euro per halve a liter) and yummy real chinese food. Meanwhile have fun yourselves....

Ciao T

 

[michaelab]

I repeat, DEFINE EQUIVALENT.

You obviously missed this part of Paul's post: "The claim that needs to be tested is that cables that are electrically equivalent sound different."

Electrically equivalent means with equivalent LCR characteristics.

Randi is merely asking anyone to prove that they can detect an audible difference between two cables which, according to known science, should sound the same . An entirely reasonable proposal.

Of course not. I would then further have to demonstrate audibility.

Yes, that is the point of the challenge! People say they can hear a difference when science says none should exist. Randi is just saying "prove it". As I said above, an entirely reasonable proposal.

Michael.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

You obviously missed this part of Paul's post: "The claim that needs to be tested is that cables that are electrically equivalent sound different."

Electrically equivalent means with equivalent LCR characteristics.

I really hate to repeat myself, but I will do.

DEFINE EQUIVALENT.

A given samle of "tightly controlled, precision high frequency cable" is routinely subject to an accepted variance of +/- 10% in CI between samples which translates ultimatly into LCR parameters.

So, when is A equal to B and when are they different.

PLEASE DEFINE EQUIVALENCY in universally agreeable and accepted terms. (for the nth time in this thread).

AND NO, DO NOT WEASEL OUT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF DEFINITION OF TERMS.

Randi is merely asking anyone to prove that they can detect an audible difference between two cables which, according to known science, should sound the same . An entirely reasonable proposal.

ACTUALLY NO.

To quote:

" Well, we at the JREF are willing to be shown that these 'no-compromise' cables perform better than, say, the equivalent Monster cables. While Pear rattles on about 'capacitance,' 'inductance,' 'skin effect,' 'mechanical integrity' and 'radio frequency interface,' - all real qualities and concerns, and adored by the hi-fi nut-cases - we naively believe that a product should be judged by its actual performance, not by qualities that can only be perceived by attentive dogs or by hi-tech instrumentation."

In fact, the challenge by "The Great Randi" (the original stage name of this particular illusionist) supposedly allows differences in LCR parameters (which would BTB include the presence of 'network boxes' which after all only alter LCR parameters) and hence includes any numbers of phenmenae SCIENCE most ardently insists exist and are real.

What this particular illusionist is however confident of (and I would be equally, if I where was calling the shots) is that with in essence full control over any experiment AND with a serious agenda to support AND with sufficient funds gotten by decieving others (which one should remember was and is his mainstay) he can achieve in appearance whatever results he desires, which BTW any villigae idiot could as well, given similar resources, I forgot, the one called Shrub with the help of Blurr already did.

And I would remind again where this already has arrived, is taking bets and all that. It's gone to the Dogs.....

Take your bets gentlemen and enjoy the race.

Yes, that is the point of the challenge! People say they can hear a difference when science says none should exist. Randi is just saying "prove it". As I said above, an entirely reasonable proposal.

Forgive me PLEASE for saying so, but either you could not be bothered to actually READ the smallprint in Randi's challenge (I mean the general one) or perhaps you are somewhat lacking in that department. I would most STRONGLY recommend to ANYONE, regardless of their views on the audibility of cables, or the reality of dowsing or pretty much ANY disputed subject to read the "T&C's" at the foundation of the Illusionist known as "the Great Randi" very carefully and to perhaps consult their laweyer.

I will leave it at that, let him who has ears hear, let him who has eyes see and let the rest remember that in the kingdom of the deaf/blnd one-eye and one-ear are joint kings....

Ciao T

 

[ShinOBIWAN]

AND NO, DO NOT WEASEL OUT OF THE REQUIREMENT OF DEFINITION OF TERMS.

Is your caplock broke or something? Maybe your taking it a wee bit too seriously.

 

[SteveC]

BTW, entries to the James Randi Foundation for the prize have to demonstrate some kind of media presence to warrant the debunking test. This is to cut down on their workload and give some way of sorting through the quantity of emails with only 4 employees, and make it worthwhile for the JRF to go to the trouble, IIRC.

 

[cooky1257]

Given the nature of the challenge and the associated caveats, and the fact there could be £500 000 on the line the very fact that they insist on 'electrically equivalent cables'(not splitting hairs for now)implies an acceptance on their part that cables that are not 'equivalent' do indeed sound different-ergo cables sound different-end of argument, debunkers go home......

 

[Paul Ranson]

Few dispute that you can make a cable that changes the frequency response and that that is audible. What is disputed is that if you make a cable that doesn't change the frequency response (IOW a good cable) then it sounds the same as every other good cable. The cable believers disagree.

Seems pretty straightforward. Why's it so difficult to agree on the disagreement? Do all the 'believers' actually agree with the 'naysayers'?

Paul

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

What is disputed is that if you make a cable that doesn't change the frequency response (IOW a good cable) then it sounds the same as every other good cable. The cable believers disagree.

You are aware that HiFi News sometime in the late 90's published one or two cable tests (I think Ben Duncan did the technical side) where they employed a null test (that is a test where the input to the cable is subtracted from the output and the remaining residue is by definition what the cable added or subtracted) and fully and accuratly compensated the LCR parameters of the cables under test?

Are you aware that the tests showed residue that was in many cases well above the hearing treshold and hence at least in principle potentially audible?

Just checking you know the facts.

Kind regards T

 

[Paul Ranson]

I don't see any facts. Just anecdotes. Can you provide a reference for what is a profound result?

Paul

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

I don't see any facts. Just anecdotes. Can you provide a reference for what is a profound result?

Found it via google (as could you have had you more interrest in what is real rather then your own rethoric) being referenced in:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=13662

Duncan, Ben & Harrison, Andrew;
The Great Cable Test (parts 1-3), Hi-Fi News and Record Review, July - September 1999

Ciao T

 

[unclepuncle]

God I just love these cable debates - the intellectual discourse, the point scoring, the put downs, the insults - it's bloody fantastic
No honestly it is......

Groundhog day anyone!!!

 

[Paul Ranson]

Found it via google (as could you have had you more interrest in what is real rather then your own rethoric) being referenced in:

I looked. I even browsed the articles index at the HFN web site.

I'm having some difficulty understanding the relevance of your AES cite. If the effect mentioned in the summary of that paper is the same discussed or demonstrated by Duncan and Harrison then it is surely not outside LCR?

Paul

 

[mr cat]

God I just love these cable debates - the intellectual discourse, the point scoring, the put downs, the insults - it's bloody fantastic
No honestly it is......

Groundhog day anyone!!!

yeah, if I went away and came back here in ten years time I know exactly who'd be posting and what about...

 

[michaelab]

As usual Thorsten you are losing the argument and thus resort to snide remarks such as suggesting Paul is "only interested in his own rhetoric" or questioning my ability to read. You then continue to flood your posts with straw man arguments and requesting things like a "definition of terms" which have already been given countless times.

In respons I'll just quote Paul's post above which puts it about as succinctly as possible:

Few dispute that you can make a cable that changes the frequency response and that that is audible. What is disputed is that if you make a cable that doesn't change the frequency response (IOW a good cable) then it sounds the same as every other good cable. The cable believers disagree.

Seems pretty straightforward.

Leaving aside Randi's challenge, no-one has ever successfully demonstrated that they can tell apart two electrically equivalent cables (or, if you like, two cables with the same frequency response) under controlled conditions. If they had it would be ground-breaking science that we would all have heard about. The mere fact that there is even a dispute regarding cables is a good indicator that differences are either not audible or infinitessimal and therefore irrelevant. No one disputes that people can distinguish, for example, different loudspeakers. Even under controlled conditions which supposedly make it so difficult to detect differences. Those difficult controlled conditions imposed by the evil naysayers don't seem to affect people's ability to hear differences where they really do exist.

Michael.

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

In respons I'll just quote Paul's post above which puts it about as succinctly as possible:

Few dispute that you can make a cable that changes the frequency response and that that is audible. What is disputed is that if you make a cable that doesn't change the frequency response (IOW a good cable) then it sounds the same as every other good cable. The cable believers disagree.

Seems pretty straightforward.

I hate to be a stickeler for detail in the face of sweeping and brainless dismissal of basic physics in the interest of "winning" a point, however, as a cable that is completely free from any resistance, inductance and capacitance is not possible, ALL cables change frequency response to a certain degree.

So we still require a formal definition as to when this difference becomes too large for cables to be considered "electrically identical to the purpose of use as Speaker/Interconnect/etc Cable".

So I still demand formal definitions, backed by sufficient evidence, however inconvenient this may seem to those who wish to substitue charlatanism for science.

Leaving aside Randi's challenge, no-one has ever successfully demonstrated that they can tell apart two electrically equivalent cables (or, if you like, two cables with the same frequency response) under controlled conditions.

Again, this is a point of debate. Several documented and published tests exist that, when using a significance level suitable to sample size or a confidence interval (in other words good and proper statistics, instead of sensationalism) suggest audibility, but which fail the, in all cases inapproprite, .05 level of significance.

If they had it would be ground-breaking science that we would all have heard about.

Hardly. Nonlinear effects in cables that exclude the direct consequences of LCR are documented and further some of those are in at least some cases sufficiently large to be well above the hearing treshold (that means sufficient in level to be not completely discarded by the ear/brain system) to be potentially audible. And no, no groundbreaking science is required either.

The mere fact that there is even a dispute regarding cables is a good indicator that differences are either not audible or infinitessimal and therefore irrelevant.

If the fact that a given thing or contention was disputed is proof that it is irelevant (which you seem to suggest) large chunks of well accepted physics have just been dismissed. Now THAT I would call ground-breaking science.

No one disputes that people can distinguish, for example, different loudspeakers. Even under controlled conditions which supposedly make it so difficult to detect differences. Those difficult controlled conditions imposed by the evil naysayers don't seem to affect people's ability to hear differences where they really do exist.al.

No-one disputes either that different lossy codecs can be distinguished and it is worth noting that some of those codecs leave less residue on a null test than some cables.

But of course, cables cannot have any audible differences, while lossy codecs of course can. Or so it would seem, if we take certain reasonings at face value.

I may be forgiven for disagreeing, however, it is time to agree to disagree, whenever people operate in the religeous mode, substituting facts with faith and believe arguing any given point, regardless of facts or evidence is perfectly moot.

Ciao T

 

[garyi]

I am just going to throw a guess out here, but is 3d sonics perchance a cable merchant?

For sure shiny cables give men hardons. As its clear and evident from the fact no one can prove anything with regards to if these cables actually do anything, its probably best to look elsewhere as to why grown men whip themselves into a frenzy over them.

Now that would be interesting science.

 

[Stereo Mic]

Thorsten,

Could you please stop wriggling so vigorously and produce something, anything, to justify your rather sad attempts to put down Michael and Paul's reasoning?

 

[anubisgrau]

what's the weather like in tokyo, SM?

 

[Dom_]

http://xkcd.com/309/

^^^^ covers it well i think

 

[3DSonics]

Hi,

Here a list of a few references to the subject.

Duncan, Ben & Harrison, Andrew; The Great Cable Test (part 1), Hi-Fi News and Record Review, July 1999, p.30-33, Vol. 44, #7

Duncan, Ben & Harrison, Andrew; The Great Cable Test (part 2), Hi-Fi News and Record Review, August 1999, p.32-41, Vol. 44, #8

Duncan, Ben & Harrison, Andrew; The Great Cable Test (part 2), Hi-Fi News and Record Review, September 1999, p.40-53, Vol. 44, #9

Lloyd, Jim and Overhauser, David; "Electromigration wreaks havoc on IC design.", EDN magazine (Electroninc Design News), march 25, 1998, p. 145-148

Duncan, Ben; "Loudspeaker cables, Case Proven", Proc. The Institute of Acoustics, UK, Nov '95.

Duncan, Ben; "Modelling cable", Electronics World (UK), Feb 96.

Duncan, Ben; "Measuring speaker cable differences", Electronics World (UK), June/July '96.

Hawksford, Malcolm Omar; "The Essex Echo", Hi-Fi News, Aug '85; Aug & Oct '86 & Feb '87.

Davis, Fred E.; "Effects of cable, Loudspeaker and Amplifier Interactions", JAES, Vol39, #6 Jun 91

Les Leventhal "Type 1 and Type 2 Errors in the Statistical Analysis of Listening Tests" (JAES, Vol.34 No.6)

Greiner, R.A.,"Amplifier-Loudspeaker Interfacing", JAES vol. 28, no. 5 May 80

Davis, Fred E., "Effects of cable, Loudspeaker and Amplifier Interactions", JAES, vol. 39, no. 6 Jun 91

Goudreau, Pete; "JPS Labs Superconductor Interconnects: A Technical Discussion", SoundStage, http://www.soundstage.com/articles/pete01.htm

Note: An interesting article on how mains connections and interconnect cables interact, also gives incidentally a good overview why mains cables can make an audible difference.

Jon Risch, "A User Friendly Methodology for
Subjective Listening Tests", AES paper preprint #3178, presented at the 91st AES convention, October, 1991.

Thorsten Loesch "The Naked Truth about Speaker-Cables"
TNT-Audio 1998 http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/spkcbl_e.html

Thorsten Loesch "The Naked Truth about Interconnect Cables"
TNT-Audio 1998 http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/intere.html

Thorsten Loesch - Various DIY Cable Recipies:
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/ffrc_e.html
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/ubyte2e.html
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/diyce.html
http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/diyce2.html
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=tweaks&m=54462
http://www.zerogain.com/forum/showpost.php?p=86460&postcount=1

This should give a nice start to reading.

L8er T