Same old cable argument again...

Got to page 26.

Finally found reference your claim, however, it seems what was said was a bit different
I just got off the phone with Kramer at the James Randi Educational Foundation. I explained to Kramer my concerns that devising a test to win the JREF $1M prize using Shakti stones probably was not possible because the mechanism at play in the Stones probably is a form of EMI filtering, which is not a paranormal mechanism. Demonstrating that EMI filtering creates audible effects does not demonstrate the existence of the paranormal etc, ergo no cash prize.

I then explained, by analogy, that upgrading components in an amplifier can create audible effects for known or at least plausibly scientific reasons. I suggested that the American military, for instance, uses $100 resistors in their cruise missiles, because those resistors, among other things, allow for a cleaner, less distorted electrical throughput. In the realm of audio, cleaner throughput can render audible differences, which has caused some audio types to use expensive resistors and other electronic building blocks.

I then suggested that audio cables are normally shielded to reduce EMI interference, and that a reduction of EMI in this instance can be quite audible.

Kramer evidently understood my concern that, if what we're dealing with in the case of Shakti stones was something of the nature of "upgraded resistors" or "cable shielding"---that is, a scientifically explainable audible effect---then we would have a problem devising a test. So he then conferenced James Randi onto the line.

James (Randi) explained to me that to win the $1M, all a person needs to do is to "demonstrate the existence of the paranormal," which he then described as an observable effect for which there is no known explanation. I then ran through with him my concerns that the Shakti stones work, assuming they do work, on the basis of known scientific laws, that the stones contain inside them magnets and such, and that they work in a fashion not too dissimilar to using a grounded piece of aluminum foil (he reference to aluminum foil was from James Randi).

James Randi then suggested he's currently xraying some stones to find out if there's anything inside them. I suggested he simply break them apart, but the stones are evidently on loan. He then told me that when someone claims that a stereo is improved by placing these stones "in the same room" as the stereo, that claim has no explanation (and is presumably, then, a claim for a paranormal effect).

Those of you who thought I offering giving "semantic" "lawyerly" evasions by suggesting a test using Shakti stones could not win the $1M are wrong. You were also wrong in suggesting that James Randi, due to his high intelligence, could not have misunderstood what the claim for Shakti stones was about. Reread my and John Curl's posts. Phone the Foundation yourselves if you need more than my report above.
Click to expand...
after that it appear the discussion seems to have gone off in to a tangent as they usually do.
 
Not trying to sell anything, but out of curiosity I just ordered interconnnects from an internet trader called StraightThru after reading an ebay review, and was astounded at the phenomenal difference it made from my exisiting Chord prodac and Vanden hull MakIII both of which I have now discarded!
I will say no more but I suggest u try them and youd be suprised to. No quibble refund if u dont like em.
 
Rather Transparent Manhar.

I'll come back to this when you guys have reached page 24 and are still going round in circles.

To sum up, those who hear cable differences want to, and have been brainwashed by the hifi press. Those who don't hear cable differences don't want to and have been brainwashed by the scientific community. Yada yada yada.....
 
Erroneous comment StereoMic.
Some people can hear better than others!
That is a fact. I am ENTdoctor!!
The frequency range which people hear is very varied and you need to audio test them as we do, to realise this. Some people can appreciate minor changes in audio frequencies whilst others can't.
Of course whether a given cable is better than another can only be answered by a double blind randomised controlled scientific study comparing cables, but then again this is not a science forum. People are here merely to express their opinion......... otherwise there woud'nt be anything to say in this forum!
 
In the simplest terms - copper cables sound quite different to silver IME. No debate in my mind. Some prefer the silver sound and others the copper sound.

Before we branch off into debates about rip-off cable vendors, hearing quality, measurement, DB testing. If we cant even agree that these two materials sound quite different when used to link components together then I dont think we're actually discussing the same thing.
 
Ok for the last time....

Get some QED Profile Silver 12 and some Chord Odessey. Hook these up and tell me you can't hear a difference!!!! TRY IT
 
I would also add that it is quite wrong to assume a "believer" in cables automatically buys into the cabling industry and it's pricing concepts. This is quite a different subject.
 
Hi,

Joolsburger said:
Cables are a major rip off.
Click to expand...

And? Virtually any commercial product, from cars to washing powerders are. High End Cables may be a little more so (or not).

However, to argue from "Cables = ripoff" that "all cables sound the same" shows a poor grasp of logic.

I am happily in agreement that pricing in the High End industry is a matter of contention and that often the link between what goes inside and what goes on the sticker is tenous, but so it is with many other products.

However this has absolutely zero relevance to any discussion if cables can cause audible differences and if one or or the other cable is preferable on these grounds.

Ciao T
 
Tim F said:
Ok for the last time....

Get some QED Profile Silver 12 and some Chord Odessey. Hook these up and tell me you can't hear a difference!!!! TRY IT
Click to expand...

Surely its simpler to get an piece of silver cable and any piece of copper? :)
 
So really your input on the subject is irrelevant then.
Click to expand...
I don't see that challenging people making extraordinary claims is irrelevant. Do you consider that believing people have been abducted by aliens is necessary in order to discuss the phenomenon?

In the simplest terms - copper cables sound quite different to silver IME. No debate in my mind. Some prefer the silver sound and others the copper sound.
Click to expand...
So how do they sound? Why can't you determine which is more accurate?

And why don't you invest a little time and money in winning Randi's $1000000? There's no scientific reason why the nature of the conductor should matter, given equivalent resistance and cable topology. So this is by definition paranormal.

Paul
 
Last edited by a moderator:
3DSonics said:
However, to argue from "Cables = ripoff" that "all cables sound the same" shows a poor grasp of logic.
Click to expand...
I agree. However, to argue the other way is quite logical. If you are of the view that all cables sound the same then any expensive cable is, obviously, a ripoff.

Michael.
 
Hi,

Paul Ranson said:
And why don't you invest a little time and money in winning Randi's $1000000? There's no scientific reason why the nature of the conductor should matter, given equivalent resistance and cable topology. So this is by definition paranormal.
Click to expand...

If you make a cable with the exactly same topology (including exact dimensions etc,) but substitute copper by silver several parameters alter, so that both cables are now electrically different, in speaker cables of a few meters length certainly sufficiently so to exceed the "0.1db limit". If you correct the resistance by making silver conductaor smaller diameter you find that the CI, inductance and capacitance have changed. Again, the differences can easily go past the 0.1db limit.

Therefore under the conditionsl of Randi's challenge we are not dealing with the paranormal.

Past that our dear Randi has set up his test conditions in the same style as the ABX Mafia, with a statistical approach that minimises the chance of falsely concluding that the supposedly "extraordinary" claim is true at the cost of maximising the likelyhood of concluding the claim is untrue, when in fact it is true, to a significant but modest or small degree.

So, please stop bandying pseudo-science and charlatanery around, there is no benefit of this to the whole subject at hand.

I'll be writing a little think piece on worldviews, religion and audio as I find time...

Ciao T
 
in speaker cables of a few meters length certainly sufficiently so to exceed the "0.1db limit".
Click to expand...
So let's make interconnects.

Past that our dear Randi has set up his test conditions in the same style as the ABX Mafia, with a statistical approach that minimises the chance of falsely concluding that the supposedly "extraordinary" claim is true at the cost of maximising the likelyhood of concluding the claim is untrue, when in fact it is true, to a significant but modest or small degree.
Click to expand...
This is just gobbledegook.

And are you really claiming that CI is relevant to speaker cables? And that all cable differences are down to changes in the conventional RLC parameters, and can therefore be rather easily emulated?

Paul
 

Latest posts

Back
Top