zerogain name change -hi fi rage

Hmm. I've always assumed that people can disagree without being downright obnoxious to one another. This thread and the last one that got locked, show that you lot can't. Seeya.

 

Not all of us, Uncle.

 

I know, but enough of the posters to make it tiresome just waiting for the next flare up.

 

But Uncle, while things seemed to have got a bit rowdy recently, these kinds of issues effect all the hifi fora on a regular basis.

Seems to me that oneday the whole format of how fora work needs to evolve. There are good things about them but bad things too. It would make an interesting project to look a little more deeply into what is going on and why and to make changes accordingly. (IMHO)

 

1. Who appointed you as spokesman for the scientific community?
2. Show me a scientist who thinks they know all that needs to be known about a subject and I'll show you an arrogant fool.
3. If you know how to make the perfect cable get rich man, do it, we'll all be able to hear it/or not -it'll be like night and day, we'll be queueing up to buy it from you-you're so sure of the science, spec one up get it made I'd buy it for a fair price.
Put your science into practice.
I've tried to agree with some of your reasoning-my crime is to suggest that we may not have the entire picture thats it.

 

True except this forum has a relatively low number of active members and it would seem to have a relatively high proportion of ah ... well I don't quite know how to put it without sounding rude myself, but lets say rude individuals. Couple that with what appears to almost be a case of cyber stalking and it becomes not just the odd thread, but every other thread (or at least seems that way)

 

Guys, allow me to mediate.

Mike, if I read Frank's post correctly, he did not call the scientific community "fucking stupid", just the suggestion that "all that needs to be known is known" about a cable.

Frank, what Mike is saying is that all cables with same LCR values will sound the same. If there are differences, there must be a reason and they must be measurable (assuming we know what there is to measure). I suppose we can throw in factors such as a cable's susceptibility to noise which may also affect the sound.

Now, how about playing nicely?

Apologies for patronising you guys.

 

Dev I'm actually 90% agreeing with Mike even down to choosing my words very carefully describing the cable being electrically benign-ie not upsetting any electronics etc and it 'allowing' my system to perform as it should but absolutism is beyond reason. So I now leave clutching a pearl handled revolver to do the decent thing and no longer post as it takes 2 to argue and make the place unpleasant with zero to gain(boom boom).

 

Frank, is there time.........for one last drink? :cry:

 

......too.....late..........
"the light....
.....the light.....
......Elvis is that you......?

 

Dev,

Firstly I don't think anyone isn't playing nice - I just think there's a number of people out there who can't read between the lines, and see red when they see certain individuals posts.

Secondly Frank is saying that it's "F***ing stupid" to assume that we know all that we need to know about cables and our hearing responses to them. I am saying that the scientific community in general seems to assume exactly that, and to think that people believing the subject needs further investigation are the "f***ing stupid ones" when all the evidence of the past half a century points to it being wholly unneccessary.

The Scientific community might well be interested in investigating audio cables if there were any evidence of audible differences caused by unexplained phenomena. But what Frank and others seem to miss is that there is NO such evidence to perk their interest, and audiophiles resolutely refuse to provide any by not taking and passing blind tests, the first hurdle to clear if their position is to be taken seriously.

So, by definition Frank is saying that the scientific community is "F***ing stupid" which I consider to be an ill advised viewpoint.

In a sentence, Frank suggests we need scientific investigation - the science world suggests we need something to investigate.

 

No Its me ... Uncle Ants ... This isn't heaven, its HiFi Wigwam

 

.

 

....Nice suit man so sparkly... do we all get one up here?

 

Interesting views but rather naive.

Firstly, to say there is "no such evidence to perk their interest" is rather misleading when the truth of the matter is that the statement should read thus: "There is no FUNDING to perk their interest". You paying?

Secondly, as long as electricity can travel from A to B without spilling or losing any and LCR measurements are sufficient to ensure that, everyone is happy. However, LCR measurements are finitely two dimensional and who is to say that objective measurements of cables (or indeed ANY hi-fi components) lie in the current primitive two dimensional domain of measurements? The same equally applies to all the electronics within hi-fi systems and what indicator to perceived sound quality is there in distortion measurements and rated power outputs? None is the answer. When you have devised full OBJECTIVE measurements of the intangibles like "wider soundstage", "image height", "tighter bass", "sweeter midrange" and a hundred other colourful adjectives we all use to describe the sounds we perceive from our hi-fi systems, then come and crow very loudly that science has all the answers, because currently it has none whatsoever.

As for blind tests, why would anyone that truly has a scientific grounding be demanding an objective test to determine an outcome that can only ever result in a subjective appraisal of what is perceived by humans? If you look at the Matrix Hi-Fi blind test experiments then you will see that the catalogue of failures of double blind tests being recorded of the components that we know DO have recognised objectively measurable differences, are being incorrectly subjective assessed under blind conditions. Now either it's become true that objective measurements are not worth the paper they are written on because it all sounds the same anyway, or the test routine is suspect to begin with hence my opening sentence at the start of this paragraph.

Science isn't stupid, but it's failure to concede that's it's always ongoing and always incomplete is utter stupidity. It took over a hundred years before anyone spotted the simple basic error that current flow was opposite to what was believed to be scientific fact.

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Sorry Effem, but I'm sure you will not be surprised that I am going to disagree.

A blind test to prove that a group of individuals can determine different levels of "soundstage" "groove" and "musicality" when switching blind from one measureably similar cable to another.

That's all it will take. Someone - Anyone ! Do that and the science community will possibly invest in further reseach - if only for the possibility of making a discovery that can lead to a lucrative revenue stream.

But you have to clear that hurdle first before educated people will stop sniggering and start listening. And there are plenty of people out there prepared to bet hard cash no one will be able to do it. And there's a lot of very smart people telling you why you won't be able to do it. What a shame a small minority of people don't listen - are these people truly gifted? Or misguided?

 

That's the most sensible thing i've read on here for weeks!
:beer:

 

Of course you are going to disagree and I for one am glad that you do disagree.

It's the total unreliability of double blind listening tests that I call into question because no matter what the component is under test the results are variable at best, unreliable and complex at worst. When we talk of "confidence levels" of percentages across a huge number of listeners so we only have statistical data to look at I get really concerned about the validity of such tests. Matrix Hi-Fi group are doing a lot of research into this area of blind testing and some of the results are very interesting and telling.

You must agree though that all the current objective measurements are carried out in simple linear two dimensional form using basic methodologies. Can you also agree that say an amplifier that has excellent linear two dimensional measured specifications cannot be predicted and guaranteed to also have a faultless subjective sound? Herein lies the gulf where doubt resides and where I am not convinced yet that science holds ALL the answers, but given time will do.

 

Effem,

the only blind test I could see on their site pitted two systems against each other which almost certainly measured the same and apparently sounded the same. Could you shed some more light on their experiments?

I can tell you that an amplifier that has excellent two dimensional measured specifications can be guaranteed to accurately amplify the incoming signal. I can also predict that some will subjectively prefer a distorted version of events. This will however be measurable with what you refer to as a "simple linear two dimensional form using basic methodologies"