Roy Gregory has lost the plot this time...

I would love to explore this, IIRC it was a Cyrus 8 amp he was using not a CDp. I run a Cyrus 7 amp with a PSX-R so I fit the bill nicely because I paid 350 for a PSX-R - if a 220 Shiva cable provided better results I would have saved 130 squids regardless that I didnt get a black box for the money.

 

Hi Greg,

Thanks for the correction. I think if you conducted this test and you proved RG to be correct, then one could ask whether it was time for audiophile power cords to be regarded as components in their own right (subject to further tests of course) such as CDPs & amps etc rather than just an after-thought.

Also, if say the Valhalla cord proves to be more effective than say Naim's XPS power supply or other such expensive power supplies out there, then what happens next? Ah, the joy of DBTs.



Enjoy the music,

Lawrie.

 

Re: Re: Re: Roy Gregory has lost the plot this time...

Velvet? Mine's black latex :JOEL:

Greg: "I would be very interested to attend a DBT similar to the one RG performed."

RG didn't perform a DBT. I really think we should try and sort this out, maybe even get RG involved if possible. As I've already said twice, if the differences were as huge as he said they were then they'd be easily identifiable in a DBT.

I'd like it sorted out which ever way it goes. If it shows the cables do make a difference then there's some interesting science to be done and it will give the sceptics something to think about. OTOH if there's no DBT identifiable difference then we'd have to conclude, at the very least, that the differences are extremely subtle or probably non-existent - certainly nothing like the "night & day" effect RG talked about.

Michael.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Roy Gregory has lost the plot this time...

True, I meant a DBT which used a similar range of equipment to RG (ie. for my own selfish reasons might include a Cyrus amp for example )

I would really like to hear comparisons of...
1. Nordost (Shiva/Vishnu/Valhalla)
2. two or three Shunyatas (and ideally a Hydra)
3. a TNT TTS
4. Eupens

Lets ave it!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Roy Gregory has lost the plot this time...

He'd never do it, he has far too much to lose. He may be daft, but he isn't daft, if you know what I mean.

Hi-Fi+ seems to have turned into the Nordost fan club over the last couple of years. It's advertising-related, no question about it. That's the way magazines work, and anybody who doubts that is a tad naive.

FWIW I had the Nordost cable experience at Bristol, from a stock cable up through the various snake oil options, to the top Valhalla. Any changes I heard (which I doubt I could distinguish blind, tbh) were subtle, and in the "different rather than better" category. In fact, they were so subtle, the difference was most likely in my head.

It's all guff, really.

-- Ian

 

This is standard procedure in sensory beverage tasting. It should be noted that *serious* wine/tea/coffee tasting (ie not done for a TV audience) is done blind.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Roy Gregory has lost the plot this time...

Well I've been watching and smiling here, some very valid points being raised too. Especially about marketing and price plus the enternal does it, doesn't it.
Ok, we have a Valhalla/vishnu (not heard the shiva), an Anaconda, Tiapan, cardas golden ref, Acoustic Zen tsunamia/Kratoa, Elrod sig, Eupens, and a few more
Power condtoners Hydra/Fururtec/Trichord/Audio magic in various guises.
Regularly we listen to these chords, with/without power conditoners, for our own selfish/ruthless/world dominating ends
I'll state now, we haven't done much DBT other than guess which cable is playing today ?, however if you guys can agree a format/ level matched/same kit/same disc etc, we may just bring some of this gear out to play.
All I can say is, the differencies (Audiable) between some of these cables isn't subtle, others well that reaises the odd smile.
I agree with stebbo on the £1750 for a power chord is plain obsence (however please note, more than a few are sold, weather they believe what they read, or their ears I can't say, however they are sold, also the Anacondona is £2k, the Gargantuana is £1500)
Bottom line is would they/could they offer anything more than say a £12 kettle lead ?
Maybe you guys should assemble a crack DBT squad to suss out the kack, (really) Wm

Edited to add,
We also try all the stock leads that come with the equipment were testing with, and even changed the connectors for the more approved ones and use the stock leads with the conditioners also.

 

It has to happen......

 

Anyway back to the plot, has anyone mailed RG and asked him why he wrote such 'Interesting prose'

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Roy Gregory has lost the plot this time...

Now this sounds to me like the makings of Myth Busting Day Mk II and hats off to a cable manufacturer for laying down the gauntlet. Now, replicating RG's Cyrus system should not be that difficult should it? Also, borrowing the Nordost power cord range should not be that difficult either. Even Michealab is up for the challenge so, I just hope that this time some real myths such as Nordost power cords do improve the sound of components would be busted (or not)

Good point there WM as double standards should not be seen to operating on these forums. Reviewers like Roy Gregory should be given the right to reply as it appears that his reputation is being questioned to a certain degree wouldn't you say?




Enjoy the music,

Lawrie.

 

Judging by his response to a different letter in Issue 29 he's a self confessed luddite and probably doesn't have an e-mail account, much less access to the "inter-web" (his words) thingamy-bobby

Michael.

 

We need a comfortable venue.
We need a system that is absolutely good, this probably means that lucky dip in Timpy's speaker closet isn't the best approach.
We need a statistician to tell us how many listeners, how many trials and how many 'got it right' would be significant.
We need an approach to the listening that fits in with the listeners and maximises the chances of success.

If the setup were two 'identical' CDPs into an amp/speakers. The first round of tests is with identical mains cables. This should show identity if we have the levels etc right. The second is with a wanky wire. This should show a difference.

The tests could be 'ABX', an excerpt of 'A', followed by 'B' followed by a randomly chosen A or B. Repeat until bored.

It would be very useful to use a computer to control the CDPs and preamp/switcher. Does anybody know of an IR interface that does RC5?

Paul

 

Good Lord, don't we all

Moving briefly back to the subject of peer review: don't forget that it operates at the point of manuscript submission. If you have results demonstrating such-and-such an unexpected effect then that can't really be argued with - it's only if your methodology is flawed that you can be hammered by the reviewers ("my mate tried X power cable sighted once and he swears it was really good"), otherwise you'll be able to get your argument across IME.

 

Here's the contact route: [email protected]

As RG claims to do all the editing himself, this should go straight to him.

 

Paul has nicely set out the requirements - so now we need a venue and a date to start off with. Any suggestions?

Getting two identical cd/amp combinations might be more difficult than it seems. Getting a computer controlled "switcher" might also not be that easy. Those two things mean we might have to make do with someone swapping the cable (or not) manually according to a pre-generated random sequence which would of course have to be done obscured from the listeners. I would suggest that the listeners aren't allowed to see the "swapper" during the test so no sub-concious facial cues could give anything away.

As for the statistics, I used to know enough about doing this kind of thing and I should be able to drag it back into working order with reference to a book or two.

Michael.

 

Re: Re: Re: Roy Gregory has lost the plot this time...

My rejection of the idea isn't "out of hand".

From my side, no evidence has been provided to show that the cables in question have an effect. That many people believe that cables make a difference is neither here nor there, it still requires properly conducted tests to produce supporting evidence.

As for "current scientific knowledge", Maxwell's Equations were written in 1873!!! So, there been a large opportunity for the "power cord" brigade to get their act together.

Sure. If a properly conducted (and that is key) test showed that a the differences were audible, then that would be a very interesting result.

Let me add though, it is easy to formulate a test with "nuisance variables" which would invalidate the test. For instance, if you were to use two CD players, even identical ones, I would still expect you to verify they were level matched before proceeding.

I should also add, that a repeatable experiment is important to eliminate statistical chance.

A demonstration that cables work is required before Science goes on a Crusade to explain why they work. It is unreasonable to expect Science to provide the "why" when there is no evidence of an actual phenomena.

The issue is that many things are claimed in the hifi press to be readily discernable differences, and yet the journalists do not demonstrate this in a proper test. The readers swallow it hook line and sinker beleiving that the journalists are in some way gifted.

I can only disagree too

Here's the thing: no one likes peer review. It's a painful process for both sides: the authors want to get there work published, sometimes largely incomplete; the reviewers have to expend serious effort in diligent reviews, sometimes of basically flawed material.

If you want to challenge "the status quo" in Science, then you must accept the burden of proof is on you. The more solid the "conventional wisdom" the greater the effort and evidence you need to provide.

Well, then, just accept that Science is hard work. You cannot come charging in with a new hypothesis, simply on the strength that its new, unless your hypothesis has some supporting evidence. Again, the more evidence you have the better.

A GOOD IDEA is not enough...

 

You need to know something about "type 1" vs "type 2" statistical errors, and also you need to quantify the "detection probability" (ie how likely it is you can hear the difference.)

Roughly speaking, if you think the test is easy (it's an obvious difference) then scoring 9 out of 10 is statistically significant and the probabity of making a type 2 error is also small.

OTOH, if you think it is hard (ie a small difference), then scoring 17 out 25 is what you should shoot for, in order to get "type 2" errors small.

Level match CD Players to .1dB (use 1Khz test tone..)

And FWIW, just about every psycho-acoustic test is done on headphones because speakers/rooms introduce such a significant amount of distortion. If you can't "hear the cable" on phones, you've no chance with speakers..

No, don't repeat until listener fatigue sets in...

Many pre-amps use standard remote sequences you can generate with LIRC (on linux). Most IR software doesn't have a "random X button/display" for you, but it's trivial with LIRC and a little programming. The "hard" part is getting an IR transmitter, but for a man of your means, I'd expect you to do what I did, and use the serial IR driver in conjunction with a simple homebrew circuit to amplify the serial signal so that sufficient current gets dumped into an IR led. (Google LIRC and you'll find links to the software and amp circuits..)

It's quite enlightening to do this, even if it sounds rather dull Good luck!