zerogain name change -hi fi rage

Just as an aside...
IMO One of the reasons double blind tests are inconclusive and different people prefer different presentations is because we all have different ears(size, shape, age, wear etc)so in effect, the same sound can vary quite dramatically between 2 people.
The shape and size of ears especially can make a big difference, in much the same way as a bad loudspeaker horn can add colourations, a good one can make it sound...right.
Nature isn't perfect, with some of us having bad eyesight, sense of smell etc it goes without saying this is true for hearing too.

 

Good Post!

 

But they aren't.

It's just the conclusion is not the one you want to hear.

 

Well, well. Hifi Wigwam seems to not be the only place for cable debates (wars). Oddly enough it is the same arguments.

Double blind listening tests, LCR measurements etc.

I have to agree with Effem here in that double blind tests may be excellent at differentiating subtle audio effects but do not normally as applied. And if anyone comes crashing in to tell me he has used his computer's sound-board to do an ABX test and it shows cables sound the same I'll scream. The problem is to do the job properly requires money.

I have seen double blind tests that claim to show cables, amps and CDs all sound the same. Are they?

I also assume that we might have just moved on from LCR tests. Isn't it odd that hifi measures components one way and then uses them in a completely different way. Malcolm Hawksford has done some good theoretical work on cables and errors. Some reviewers have started to look at differences that can be measured. They may not account for any difference is sound quality but at least they are looking.

 

Stereo Mic is Oedipus and I claim my 5 quid..

 

Personally I thought 'if it measures right it'll sound right' went out with Quad in the 70's.
Also the natural conclusion to this is to build the perfect component-if we know all there is to know, the numbers to aim for -it should be easy.
Another point with the numbers game is 'threshold' figure ie at precisely what level do the numbers cease to matter?
A quote from B&W series 800 white paper to the AES
"The science behind why certain crossover components sound better than others is not fully understood.That polypropylene capacitors sound better than electrolytics is well accepted and can be explained by the behaviour of the dielectric properties as the signal changes.
What is not so clear cut is why different capacitors with ostensibly the same specification can sound so different from one another.
The difficulty mapping physical properties to the perceived performance characteristics further compounds this problem.
Whilst we understand some of the criteria, extensive listening tests are virtually the only tool at our disposal to ensure that the final choice of components is correct"

 

Mike,

It makes no difference to me one way or the other.
I'm not on either side of the fence i was simply adding a different explaination/view.

I'm quite happy to sit back and watch you lot argue, knowing full well that you'll never come close to anything resembling an agreement.

In fact, it's pretty damn amusing. Keep it up! :JPS:

 

Contact them and ask for some more details which they haven't posted on their website. I recall more information being revealed by one of their members on another forum

Ah, but is it likely to be the amplifier that pleases you, pleases me, pleases the majority of it's targeted buying public? Every amp that I have heard with ultra low distortion figures, high damping factors and the myryad of other top flight linear paper specifications have been perceived by me to be rather bland and lacking in real dynamics. It's a subjective thing as they say and that's where the gulf between the objective and subjective will always exist

 

Sorry I really can't be bothered. I'm not really having to justify a globally accepted method for unbiased testing of various products as I'm sure you realise. It's others who need to discredit it.

If you look at it in the cold light of day.

Science and 99.9% of the population,

0.1% of the population,

Science and 99.9% of the population,

0.1% of the population,

Science and 99.9% of the population,

etc.etc.

Still the 0.1% (which is being way generous by the way) argue, yet still fail to produce any evidence, pass any test, demonstrate any truths. In many cases, such delusional behavior would quite possibly qualify the person to be sectioned under the mental health act (not an insult - merely an observation) After all, what the difference between shouting "hear that!" when nothing exists to "See him" regarding an imaginary lepricaun weilding an axe by the living room window.

Don't disagree - some people will subjectively prefer distortion. I do to an extent. The understanding of the audibility of distortion is still being explored, but that's about interpretation of measured differences , not about making something of non existant ones. One thing I will say, is if you have a thermally stable amplifer operating within it's limits which demonstrates very small levels of low and high order HD and IMD, you will have a very accurate portrayal of the recording relayed to the speaker.

I apreciate that and the response was not aimed at you specifically, just at those who claim results are inconclusive (as you did there).

Cooky,

Capacitors are used in circuits of course. Can we be sure that the measureable characteristics of the complete circuit are not changed by the cap swap? Do you have any examples?

 

Did anyone else of the 99.9% of the population not understand the quote from the B&W white paper?
One more time;
The science behind why certain crossover components sound better than others isn't fully understood.
The difficulty mapping...need I go on?

I'm sure B&W can stretch to a bit more than an LCR meter fron Maplin too

Also it would have been nice to hear a response to the 'threshold' question but I fear to arrive at it/them involves admitting listening to the gear then it throws up the delicious question 'who says this is the ideal figure?"And the whole edifice comes crahing down because at the end of the day audio has to go through a set of ears and anyone who dissagrees with the numbers is branded a mental case..

 

But that still does not explain WHY you would use a test methodology that can only have an objective outcome for a subject that is entirely subjective. That isn't scientific, that is totally absurd and perverse in the extreme.

I disagree. The number of people that shout for objectivity is minute - a fraction of one percent is being extraordinarily generous. It's the amount of noise they make which gives them the belief they have something important to say. The stark truth is you are arguing with a tiny minority who even bother to set foot on any forum and you are a tiny minority of that tiny minority. Have a different opinion by all means, but don't hide behind hearsay and conjecture or use words like "delusion" because that's what inflames the rest of us who think otherwise and don't cross the boundary of decency and respect in the process. Not much to ask for.

Whatever possesses anyone to go sermonising on any forum in righteous indignation is beyond logic to me. For a start, folks have more intelligence than they are given credit for so they don't really need nannying about the "dubious" products harped on about although they do appreciate some constructive help. The logical intelligent approach to my way of thinking is to comprehensively ignore or avoid anything I don't agree with or see no merit in. I hate Celery with a passion, so I ignore it, job done.

 

Well said Effem.

As to celery totally agree with you, but chopped up and cooked with red oinions as part of a risotto or stew, now thats a different matter

phil

 

It may be that Stereo Mic's view is held by the majority but he is in the minority of those who care enough to engage in debate. The rest might think they are just snakeoil peddling nutters.

 

Cooky,

This can be very time consuming. I hope you don't mind if I guide you in the right direction and allow you to do your own detective work.

Firstly, a lot of blind tests have been carried out with regards to audible capacitor differences. Not surprisingly, none of the have yet turned in a positive result - in other words when put to the test these differences dry up

Have a look here for an interesting set of discussions on some of the tests carried out by enthusiasts. It's a bit of a primer.

You might also find this link of use in understanding capacitor distortions. I enjoyed it

There's obviously loads more out there if you look - the overwhelming theme being the failure to identify these differences under controlled conditions.

Now again you are left with a quandry. Do you rely on the controlled tests, or the paper submitted by a large loudspeaker comapny that has just launched a huge global advertising campaign featuring Mundorf capacitors?

As for the threshold question, it is complex yet imaterial and irelevent to this discussion.

What you are discussing is measureable. Whether it is audible or not is another matter. What the science community rails against is differences that are NOT measureable but supposedly audible. The only threshold at work there is patience and understanding

 

Whoa there, lets not get carried away.
'held by the majority?
Sorry but I don't think there's one member here who bought their gear based on its measured spec but on how it sounded(as subjective and deluded a pastime as that is).

 

And where does he advocate that?

 

Effem,

I speak the truth. It might not be pleasant to read but if you wish to deny it, please do me the courtesy of giving me a justification other than "in the interests of harmony". If my position is not rooted firmly in fact, then demonstrate that it isn't. That is not much to ask for either is it?

 

If you look at it in the cold light of day.
Science and 99.9% of the population,


Whose science, yours, Professor Malcolm Hawsford's, Martin Colloms, Tony Faulkner's, Bob Clearmountain's?

Actually, 99.9% of the population don't give a damn about it.

As you know "All generalisations are untrue"

Still the 0.1% (which is being way generous by the way) argue, yet still fail to produce any evidence, pass any test, demonstrate any truths.

Are we not exaggerating this a little? The numbers of people buying better than free cables within the 'audio' community is a wee bit more than this value. In fact are your cables the freebies?

In many cases, such delusional behavior would quite possibly qualify the person to be sectioned under the mental health act (not an insult - merely an observation) After all, what the difference between shouting "hear that!" when nothing exists to "See him" regarding an imaginary lepricaun weilding an axe by the living room window.

Not a very good observation and a little insulting to people who do suffer mental health problems.

Somewhat judgemental: 'Hear that when nothing exists': You believe there is not a difference. All the professionals (not cable salesmen) I mentioned above do believe there is a difference. So who to believe, a UK professor of audio, a reviewer with many years experience, a major classical recording engineer, a major mastering engineer of pop/rock recording or someone speaking on behalf of 99.9% of the population and all of science.

Tricky one that

 

Tony Faulkner is known to use B&Q outdoor mains cable as speaker cable.

 

No George not mine. Ours. Colloms in a journalist and makes money out of claiming differences. Faulkner made money out of differences and is an artist not a scientist. He uses lawnmower cable. Clearmountain is a wacky studio guy - there's always one!

It's funny how cable soothsayers cling to the alleged research of Dr. Hawksford. I appreciate the reference. Perhaps you should check your reference in these discussions:

HERE

HERE

AND HERE

But they would think you were certifiable if you told them you spent £300 on a meter of cable or read some of the posts here

Ah the power of marketing. Do you think more than 5,000 households in the UK have tweaky cables? really? Have you ever worked in the audio industry?

I thought long and hard about that observation and stand by it.

I don't think it's tricky at all once you read the links above and read some of Mr Colloms background. You've produced four people of highly dubious credibility or with vested interests to stand against the collective wisdom of the global scientific community and 99.9% of people on earth. Not really that tricky