Well Tony - Steve appears to have leaped off that fence. [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Well Tony - Steve appears to have leaped off that fence.



pctower
06-25-2004, 11:10 AM
See:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/tweaks/messages/103721.html

jneutron
06-25-2004, 12:00 PM
See:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/tweaks/messages/103721.html


Oh Geeze, wonder what they're gonna say about me??

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/8901.html

Cheers, John

pctower
06-25-2004, 05:55 PM
Oh Geeze, wonder what they're gonna say about me??

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/8901.html

Cheers, John

Well John,

I would hope no one would be critical of either you or Steve. You have both proved your intellectual honesty and devotion to the scientific method.

If and when either one of you chooses to venture "outside the box" briefly (if in fact either of you is even really doing that), no one should doubt that you will ultimately ensure that any conclusion or claim either of you might put your name to will be solidly grounded in good science.

Perhaps more importantly, neither of you allow yourself to become wedded to any given theory. In my opinion, you both are honest seekers of the truth wherever the search may lead and without regard to protection of ego.

I enjoy the journeys both you and Steve take and share with the rest of us. You are great examples of the special combination of insatiable inquisitiveness and solid adherence to scientific discipline that has brought the world so many scientific and technological advances.

Tony_Montana
06-25-2004, 06:26 PM
Thanks PCtower for the link.

You know, SE sometimes amazes me with his knowledge of cables overall, material and manufacturing aspect of it. And he use it very effectively if needed. He recently got hit pretty hard by one regular member in Prop Head, calling him a "sh*t stirer", which really wasn't called for. IMO, anyone that can not post without being insulting to any body else, should quit posting altogether. We are adults after all, aren't we? :confused:

BTW, I hope you realized that my post about fence sitters was to poke fun at ourselves and was only for humor (note grinning smiley by the subject line). Richard Greene once said that if anybody take cables too seriously, they should have their head examined. And he is right :)

mtrycraft
06-25-2004, 09:54 PM
Oh Geeze, wonder what they're gonna say about me??

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/8901.html

Cheers, John


I am glad you made reference to that post which I have read there too.

While I applaud you for the efforts you go to in the quaility of cables and measured specs behind them, except for the lack or R :), you ask for a listening test that I didn't see any controlls applied to. How can it be reliable? How do you know that the perceived impressions are as were claimed?

Perhaps some of the results, if real, could have been attributed to level differences due to resistance being so far off from the other cable which we don't know anything about.

Besides you taking extraordinary measures to have cables of such quality that you can alter just one parameter at a time, you need equivalent listeing evaluations too, highly controlled with significant results.



Can you send the same cable to your other source? Do they do DBT listening? Another listener who can?

pctower
06-25-2004, 11:17 PM
Thanks PCtower for the link.

You know, SE sometimes amazes me with his knowledge of cables overall, material and manufacturing aspect of it. And he use it very effectively if needed. He recently got hit pretty hard by one regular member in Prop Head, calling him a "sh*t stirer", which really wasn't called for. IMO, anyone that can not post without being insulting to any body else, should quit posting altogether. We are adults after all, aren't we? :confused:

BTW, I hope you realized that my post about fence sitters was to poke fun at ourselves and was only for humor (note grinning smiley by the subject line). Richard Greene once said that if anybody take cables too seriously, they should have their head examined. And he is right :)

The way Steve has been treated at AA is abominable. The institutional banning of him from CA is blatantly unfair and hypocritical. I have met Rod M and he seems like a nice guy, but I have very little respect left for him, as he repeatedly defends and sides with Risch.

This is only a hobby, but I often feel some sadness with a lot of what goes on there with the repeated attacks on people like Steve and John E. by Curl and Risch. That whole mess is such a stark example of the ego-driven, anti-intellectual, anti-reason, supersition-based thinking that has impeded human progress and led to millions of murders, torture and brutality throughout history.

I'm sure many cannot see the connection and I'm certainly not accussing Curl or Risch of being murderers or torturers. But the bashing of truth and reason that they perpetrate regularly is akin to the superstition and fundamentalist dogma that still plagues much of the world today with respect to human affairs which (unlike cables and high end audio) really are serious and important.

And, yes, I knew your fence post was meant as humor. My response started out with humorous intent and then I just got carried away and felt the need to spout off for no particular reason. Certainly wasn't meant as personal to you. In my book, you're one of the good guys.

skeptic
06-26-2004, 03:45 AM
"I have met Rod M and he seems like a nice guy, but I have very little respect left for him, as he repeatedly defends and sides with Risch."

It seems to me it's the other way around. Jon Risch works for Rod M. and does his bidding and his dirty work. If Risch didn't, Rod M. would fire him in a heartbeat and get a replacement who would.

"This is only a hobby, but I often feel some sadness with a lot of what goes on there with the repeated attacks on people like Steve and John E. by Curl and Risch. That whole mess is such a stark example of the ego-driven, anti-intellectual, anti-reason, supersition-based thinking that has impeded human progress and led to millions of murders, torture and brutality throughout history."

You still refuse to see the obvious. This is a site for very soft sell advertising of a concept to a naive market which has delusions that it is sophisticated. It plays to their egos by having the participants believe that they have come away with knowledge. These newly self appointed priests then not only go out to buy aftermarket cables for themselves but advise others who feel that they know virtually nothing to do the same. It changes the culture. For certain people who sell cables IMO, it's an advertising business. For others like Risch who don't, it's an ego trip. I told you some years ago that the mentaility of Jon Risch was like that of a little tyrant who has godlike control over what other people say and do in his realm. You ridiculed that thought then. Now you are repeating it. Have you changed your mind?

If the people who are abused stay to endure more abuse when they could simply leave, it says something about their sick state of mind. A normal person who is abused repeatedly without sanctions against the abusers from those in charge would protest and if there was no change, would quit the site. Those who stay under such circumstances get something of value out of being abused. Read Jean Paul Satre's play "No Exit."

pctower
06-26-2004, 09:24 AM
"I have met Rod M and he seems like a nice guy, but I have very little respect left for him, as he repeatedly defends and sides with Risch."

It seems to me it's the other way around. Jon Risch works for Rod M. and does his bidding and his dirty work. If Risch didn't, Rod M. would fire him in a heartbeat and get a replacement who would.

"This is only a hobby, but I often feel some sadness with a lot of what goes on there with the repeated attacks on people like Steve and John E. by Curl and Risch. That whole mess is such a stark example of the ego-driven, anti-intellectual, anti-reason, supersition-based thinking that has impeded human progress and led to millions of murders, torture and brutality throughout history."

You still refuse to see the obvious. This is a site for very soft sell advertising of a concept to a naive market which has delusions that it is sophisticated. It plays to their egos by having the participants believe that they have come away with knowledge. These newly self appointed priests then not only go out to buy aftermarket cables for themselves but advise others who feel that they know virtually nothing to do the same. It changes the culture. For certain people who sell cables IMO, it's an advertising business. For others like Risch who don't, it's an ego trip. I told you some years ago that the mentaility of Jon Risch was like that of a little tyrant who has godlike control over what other people say and do in his realm. You ridiculed that thought then. Now you are repeating it. Have you changed your mind?

If the people who are abused stay to endure more abuse when they could simply leave, it says something about their sick state of mind. A normal person who is abused repeatedly without sanctions against the abusers from those in charge would protest and if there was no change, would quit the site. Those who stay under such circumstances get something of value out of being abused. Read Jean Paul Satre's play "No Exit."

It seems to me it's the other way around. Jon Risch works for Rod M. and does his bidding and his dirty work. If Risch didn't, Rod M. would fire him in a heartbeat and get a replacement who would.

Jon's an unpaid volunteer. I don't think most volunteers consider that they "work" for the boss in the manner you suggest, nor does the head of the organization usually think in terms of "firing" volunteers. You are certainly correct, however, that Jon is driven by ego and a desire to be viewed as the guru of the world of cables.

You still refuse to see the obvious.

I simply refuse to make wild, unsupported claims. I have more respect for the truth than that.

What I have claimed and believe is a matter of record. Some of what you say I would agree with and some I think is pure speculation and irresponsible blabbering.

As for "abuse", Steve makes his own choices and I doubt that he feels much pain for having had the balls to persist in his continuous efforts to tell the truth where it is most needed instead of cowardly hiding behind a moniker at a place where one is already preaching to the choir. The contrast is quite striking.

skeptic
06-26-2004, 10:39 AM
Steve Eddy is not the kind of individual I would want to enter into a discourse with here and it has nothing to do with his knowledge or lack of knowledge. While I have nothing to say about it, I am happy he chooses not to post here. In his one brief visit here, he was abusive and insulting. That seems to be the kind of relationships he values most. Perhaps that is why he stays at Audio Asylum. He feels more at home with the sickies over there. Their term for their community "asylum" is very appropriate IMO. As for his continuous efforts to tell they truth where it is most needed as you put it, the people who run that asylum including Rod M. neither want nor need the truth when it interferes with their real purpose. Why do you think he was banished from Cable Asylum in the first place?

"Jon's an unpaid volunteer."

I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read that. Volunteer? Like the people who answer the phones at the MS Telethon or lick and stuff envelopes for political candidates? Jon gets to play little dictator even jumping on Curl's back once. Volunteer--hahahahahahahaha. That's the joke of the day. He's in his glory. This is probably as much power as he will ever see in his life. Even at home his wife probably tells him what to do and what he can't do. Even his kids and the dog probably do that. Good one Phil.

So is everyone using a Moniker a coward Phil? When you wanted to communicate with me, you had no problem obtaining my name and my e-mail address and even some of my bio. So have other people. However, in these exchanges, I prefer to keep it just a little more impersonal. BTW, you still haven't told my how you like my proposed NEW moniker "shyster lawyer." So I'm not a lawyer. Does it matter? In law as in engineering, everyone's an expert. Right Phil?

pctower
06-26-2004, 11:17 AM
Steve Eddy is not the kind of individual I would want to enter into a discourse with here and it has nothing to do with his knowledge or lack of knowledge. While I have nothing to say about it, I am happy he chooses not to post here. In his one brief visit here, he was abusive and insulting. That seems to be the kind of relationships he values most. Perhaps that is why he stays at Audio Asylum. He feels more at home with the sickies over there. Their term for their community "asylum" is very appropriate IMO. As for his continuous efforts to tell they truth where it is most needed as you put it, the people who run that asylum including Rod M. neither want nor need the truth when it interferes with their real purpose. Why do you think he was banished from Cable Asylum in the first place?

"Jon's an unpaid volunteer."

I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read that. Volunteer? Like the people who answer the phones at the MS Telethon or lick and stuff envelopes for political candidates? Jon gets to play little dictator even jumping on Curl's back once. Volunteer--hahahahahahahaha. That's the joke of the day. He's in his glory. This is probably as much power as he will ever see in his life. Even at home his wife probably tells him what to do and what he can't do. Even his kids and the dog probably do that. Good one Phil.

So is everyone using a Moniker a coward Phil? When you wanted to communicate with me, you had no problem obtaining my name and my e-mail address and even some of my bio. So have other people. However, in these exchanges, I prefer to keep it just a little more impersonal. BTW, you still haven't told my how you like my proposed NEW moniker "shyster lawyer." So I'm not a lawyer. Does it matter? In law as in engineering, everyone's an expert. Right Phil?

When you wanted to communicate with me, you had no problem obtaining my name and my e-mail address and even some of my bio. So have other people. However, in these exchanges, I prefer to keep it just a little more impersonal.

Yes, and I have always, and will always, maintained your public confidentiality. But then again, I'm just a shyster lawyer (Gee, I wish I were witty and clever enough to dream up such unique and creative terms).

skeptic
06-26-2004, 05:18 PM
Now there you go again Tower twisting other people's words around. I never suggested, hinted or in any way implied that YOU or anyone else was a shyster lawyer. I only proposed that I change MY moniker to Shyster Lawyer. Hey I know, I could use it at Cable Asylum and all of the people who make, sell, and advertise cables could run their ads by me to see if they would be breaking the law. Having disavowed being a lawyer in the first place, I could play at attorney to my hearts content just the way some people play at being electrical engineers. Remember WarrenWarren?????? or was that before your time.

pctower
06-27-2004, 09:36 AM
Now there you go again Tower twisting other people's words around. I never suggested, hinted or in any way implied that YOU or anyone else was a shyster lawyer. I only proposed that I change MY moniker to Shyster Lawyer. Hey I know, I could use it at Cable Asylum and all of the people who make, sell, and advertise cables could run their ads by me to see if they would be breaking the law. Having disavowed being a lawyer in the first place, I could play at attorney to my hearts content just the way some people play at being electrical engineers. Remember WarrenWarren?????? or was that before your time.

Oh I can play this game too. I never suggested, hinted, or in any way implied that YOU or anyone else had suggest that I or anyone else was a shyster lawyer.

I guess you're just feeling depressed about the fact that engineers have now become worthless and no one can figure out what to do with them. I suggest putting em all out to pasture where they can't bore the rest of us to death.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0627Engineers27.html

jneutron
06-28-2004, 05:27 AM
I am glad you made reference to that post which I have read there too.

While I applaud you for the efforts you go to in the quaility of cables and measured specs behind them, except for the lack or R :), you ask for a listening test that I didn't see any controlls applied to. How can it be reliable? How do you know that the perceived impressions are as were claimed?

Perhaps some of the results, if real, could have been attributed to level differences due to resistance being so far off from the other cable which we don't know anything about.

Besides you taking extraordinary measures to have cables of such quality that you can alter just one parameter at a time, you need equivalent listeing evaluations too, highly controlled with significant results.

Can you send the same cable to your other source? Do they do DBT listening? Another listener who can?

Yah, I did mess up...no resistance measure..oh well..

Listening test...the only controls were that the listening system is one which is familiar to the listener..and the rest of the system was untouched..but it was a sighted session..he put the wires in, then listened..

The purpose of the initial test is to start to develop a baseline..which I will explain as it progresses.

Of note is the fact that at low levels, the sound appeared correct to him..but, as he increased the power, the bass fell off..both of us have the impression that resistance was at play here..since bass is by far the biggest power hog, it also seems logical. But, since the differences cited were "seen" to be different at different levels, absolute level isn't a player here..I'm rather confident, without asking, that he does not have a loudness control..

His description of 3 dimensional soundstage issues were by far the most detailed description I've come across...and it raises a whole spectrum of issues which are extraordinary..The transforms required to get from two point sources at different distances (the sax and washboard) but in the same angular location, to the two independent virtual images created within the mind by two point sources (the speakers) are not going to be easy math, so I'm thinking about it..

The questions this result raises are several: first, what cues are being used to establish distance from a listener to a virtual image, second...of those cues, how does temporal shift left to right affect it..third, how does a "wire" affect those temporal relations..

The issues clearly do not fit within a 20 to 20Khz bandwidth model, nor is it simple phase accuracy...It's not a frequency response issue, at least at low levels, and I'll beef up the wire to see if that changes the higher level bass impression..

Yes, it's all subjective..yes, it assumes a level of trust and reliability..and yes, I will continue to work with Ted in this fashion, as I seen nothing to indicate that he will be anything other than completely professional and honest..on the contrary...I asked him to do some work for me as a favor, and he provided impressional detail I would not have been able to.

E-stat had pointed me to another on the east coast, but that person never continued discussion..my friend the boat guy...lost cause..he prefers tossing money into that big hole in the water.

DBT will come with time, but for now, I am trying to establish what it is that is being heard. these initial rounds of tests, I believe, will provide a better metric for observing differences.

Gene is chompin at the bit to measure the remaining cable..I will arrange for that. But he does not DBT, simply electrical eveluations. I wish to test my assertion that my cable has no skinning inductive loss up to at least a megahertz..I designed it so to eliminate skinning as a factor, and to keep the inductance low..

I'll start a new thread to cover this ongoing topic..later today, perhaps.

Cheers, John

mtrycraft
06-28-2004, 07:49 PM
Don't get me wrong. I just want a meaningful outcome, especially after the long, hard, and meticulous effort you put into the wires to control one aspect at a time. It is your experiment, after all. I don't count but I hate to see you do all this for a weak link.

Yah, I did mess up...no resistance measure..oh well..

You only made one set of that cable design? I thought you bought a whole bunch, or is that the raw material that your took apart to make the cable? How long was it? Can't you replicate it and measure? Or measure the whole roll and figure the unit resistance?



Of note is the fact that at low levels, the sound appeared correct to him.

If I remember correctly, that level was 75dB spl - 80dB spl for his 92.5 dB spl sensitive speakers. that is less than 0.1watts.

.but, as he increased the power, the bass fell off..both of us have the impression that resistance was at play here..since bass is by far the biggest power hog, it also seems logical.

If it has a problem above 0.1 watts, one has to wonder. Speaker impedance dip issues? Amp output impedance issue?



Well, it can be, but But, since the differences cited were "seen" to be different at different levels, absolute level isn't a player here..I'm rather confident, without asking, that he does not have a loudness control..

It would have been much better if somehow all this could be followed by measurements. I have real confidence issues about perception reliability.

His description of 3 dimensional soundstage issues were by far the most detailed description I've come across...and it raises a whole spectrum of issues which are extraordinary..

While it may seem so, I must question the listening protocol and what perception and how bias influenced the description. Not knowing the reliability of this observation but we know the protocol cannot be reliable.


The transforms required to get from two point sources at different distances (the sax and washboard) but in the same angular location, to the two independent virtual images created within the mind by two point sources (the speakers) are not going to be easy math, so I'm thinking about it..

Before you do any math though, I would try a better listening protocol first. That is the weakest link in this experiment. You cannot get reliable inputs without a reliable protocol. But that is my humble opinion and I am a nobody :)

Toole and the Canadian Research Lab and other speaker makers that were exposed to that experience use DBT liseting for any evaluations of sound.

http://miragespeakers.com/nrc_story.shtml

While this is another speaker company, they were there at the same time periods, Toole and Paisley.





Yes, it's all subjective..

Very big issue.

yes, it assumes a level of trust and reliability.

Trust is insignificant next to subconscious bias. I would not even question his honesty but bias which he has no control of or even knows when it is in or out.

and yes, I will continue to work with Ted in this fashion, as I seen nothing to indicate that he will be anything other than completely professional and honest.

Still cannot overcome the issue of bias. You just cannot do perception testing in sighted condition. Sorry. Unreliable.


he provided impressional detail I would not have been able to.

Looks like it. But, one cannot trust sighted listeing for such experimental endevor as you are embarking on. All for not.



DBT will come with time, but for now, I am trying to establish what it is that is being heard.


But that is the whole issue with listening. You just don't know what he heard so far. It very well be confirmed by DBT duplication. Or, it may be totally dismissed. You just don't know. Then, you introduce DBT in the middle of the experiment and wonder what happend, why couln't be detected? Perhaps there was nothing to detect from the start?



these initial rounds of tests, I believe, will provide a better metric for observing differences.

I am not sure of that. How can unreliable listening in the early stages set a benchmark?

Gene is chompin at the bit to measure the remaining cable..I will arrange for that. But he does not DBT, simply electrical eveluations.


I wish to test my assertion that my cable has no skinning inductive loss up to at least a megahertz..I designed it so to eliminate skinning as a factor, and to keep the inductance low..


His testing can do that?


Do you want to contact or for me to intercede with Tom Nousaine? He has access to listening panels I think, and DBT protocol for sure :)

skeptic
06-29-2004, 04:41 AM
"I simply refuse to make wild, unsupported claims. I have more respect for the truth than that."

Some people can add two and two together a million times and never come up with more than three. There are far more than enough dots to draw a very clear picture of what that place is about especially for a sharp lawyer. If you don't face the truth of it, it's because you don't want to. Perhaps if you did, you know you would have to stop posting there yourself and give up the benefit YOU derive from it. You know that they never listen to one word you say or take you seriously. If they don't show any repect for the arguements that neutron or eddy present why then would they listen to anyone like you who has far less technical firepower than they do? You are not looking for a dialogue but merely another platform to speak on, even if you have nothing to say. Of course you can't call a spade a spade or you would admit to being in the same dark coal pit they are in. Masochist!

jneutron
06-29-2004, 05:29 AM
Don't get me wrong. I just want a meaningful outcome Or measure the whole roll and figure the unit resistance?

I haven't gotten you wrong..you are raising meaningful issues..issues that need to be considered, so that blind alley's are not persued..


Or measure the whole roll and figure the unit resistance?

Alas, one foot of braid on the origional mike cable does not translate into one foot of conductor, as the diameter is different, for both layers..In my haste to make the wire, I did not mark the origional braid every foot prior to removal from the mike cable, so I cannot back into the numbers. Gene can measure it, though..


If I remember correctly, that level was 75dB spl - 80dB spl for his 92.5 dB spl sensitive speakers. that is less than 0.1watts.

He was 2 meters from the speakers..and I don't know what the meter is reading, there of course is room gain..


If it has a problem above 0.1 watts, one has to wonder. Speaker impedance dip issues? Amp output impedance issue?

Possibly, or a perceptual difference at varying levels..


It would have been much better if somehow all this could be followed by measurements. I have real confidence issues about perception reliability.

He is not setup to measure what I wish to measure. The wire design also included a nice feature which will allow measurement of error between what is at the speaker and what is at the amp, accurate to in excess of 500 Mhz. (wouldn't want to be close to the wire limit, would we?). Standard test protocol is to have the measurement system at least 10 times better than the measurement, and I wish to see 2 uSec level detail. I think 500 Mhz capability does that.


While it may seem so, I must question the listening protocol and what perception and how bias influenced the description. Not knowing the reliability of this observation but we know the protocol cannot be reliable.

You preach to the choir here..I know that..and keep that in mind.


Trust is insignificant next to subconscious bias. I would not even question his honesty but bias which he has no control of or even knows when it is in or out.

Again, agreed..


Still cannot overcome the issue of bias. You just cannot do perception testing in sighted condition. Sorry. Unreliable.

Perhaps unreliable...but perhaps, quite reliable for a single individual, while not statistically meaningful when applied to a general population.

he provided impressional detail I would not have been able to.


Looks like it. But, one cannot trust sighted listeing for such experimental endevor as you are embarking on. All for not.

Again, I'm not yet interested in extending the results to the general population. Nor, in a simple DBT protocol.

What I am interested in, is focussing on what he perceives to be the difference..So far, the feedback has not been a FR or phase related issue,which is the normal stuff that is spouted as why there is no difference.

these initial rounds of tests, I believe, will provide a better metric for observing differences.


I am not sure of that. How can unreliable listening in the early stages set a benchmark?

Hmmmm..how best to explain....

Human ears are 6 inches apart..that clearly defines the limits of lateralization that humans are capable of..1.2, 1.5 Khz maximum freq...

So then, why did Nordmark do his testing? Quite obviously, there was nothing there for him to find...everyone already tested lateralization...everyone knew it...1.5 Khz max...how many people told him he was wasting his time?

My goal is to find what the electrical difference is at the speaker via subtraction...understand what those differences do to the virtual image, and once clearly understood, then a valid DBT can be designed, with a clear definition of what it is that is being tested..simply substituting wires and saying"is there a diff" is far too inexact for my desires..I am focussing far deeper than that.

I prefer to crawl first....(and that has nothing to do with the martinis)..

It may be that we are more susceptible to the effects of timing delays caused by R and L than we are frequency response, given that 2 uSec thingy, and for low impedance measurements, I can see that everybody is measuring incorrectly. My wire design addresses that.

Gene is chompin at the bit to measure the remaining cable..I will arrange for that. But he does not DBT, simply electrical eveluations.

I wish to test my assertion that my cable has no skinning inductive loss up to at least a megahertz..I designed it so to eliminate skinning as a factor, and to keep the inductance low..



His testing can do that?

He can test RLC out to about one Mhz. I fear he may not have an easy time with only 6 to 8 feet, however..


Do you want to contact or for me to intercede with Tom Nousaine? He has access to listening panels I think, and DBT protocol for sure :)

Eventually, yes. But I don't know what entity or level of effect is there, to define a test..but I'll keep that in mind. Thank you .

As always, there remains the possibility that I am chasing ghosts..Luckily, I do not define my existence on the outcome of my tests, but rather, by my ability to engineer the tests...

Cheers, John

pctower
06-29-2004, 06:08 AM
"I simply refuse to make wild, unsupported claims. I have more respect for the truth than that."

Some people can add two and two together a million times and never come up with more than three. There are far more than enough dots to draw a very clear picture of what that place is about especially for a sharp lawyer. If you don't face the truth of it, it's because you don't want to. Perhaps if you did, you know you would have to stop posting there yourself and give up the benefit YOU derive from it. You know that they never listen to one word you say or take you seriously. If they don't show any repect for the arguements that neutron or eddy present why then would they listen to anyone like you who has far less technical firepower than they do? You are not looking for a dialogue but merely another platform to speak on, even if you have nothing to say. Of course you can't call a spade a spade or you would admit to being in the same dark coal pit they are in. Masochist!

Have you had the level of ozone tested in your house? You get more and more bizarre. Who is the "they" that don't listen to what Steve or jneutron say? Both of them have received statements of support from many inmates. Even if they hadn't, how in the world would you know whether people who don't post are listening to them. You assume people post solely for the purpose of those few who actually bother to post themselves.

The reality is you don't have the guts to go over there and fight for what you believe. Steve, jeneutron and I all have proved we are more than willing to post what we believe to be the truth even if we know we will be attacked. You, on the other hand....

skeptic
06-29-2004, 07:33 AM
What happened Phil, did I hit a raw nerve?

eddy and neutron being taken seriously? By who? eddy has been banned from the cable forum. If he pushes his luck, he might be banned from the site altogether.

Have you forgotten Rod M's proposed mission statement for Cable Asylum? Only postive experiences with cables would be discussed. Think good thoughts. Think happy thoughts. And when you think cables, you know what you are supposed to do. And now a word from our sponsors...

"The reality is you don't have the guts to go over there and fight for what you believe."

Why should I help them sell cables? If I post what I think which is that their product is worthless and they have no scientific proof based on measurements or double blind tests to suggest otherwise to any rational consumer, I would be banned immediately. There is nothing to fight for if the only purpose of a web site is to advertise for legitimacy of the audiophile cable industry. They control the horizontal. They control the vertical. Their view is the only one allowed. Get it yet? I didn't think so.

pctower
06-29-2004, 09:19 AM
What happened Phil, did I hit a raw nerve?

eddy and neutron being taken seriously? By who? eddy has been banned from the cable forum. If he pushes his luck, he might be banned from the site altogether.

Have you forgotten Rod M's proposed mission statement for Cable Asylum? Only postive experiences with cables would be discussed. Think good thoughts. Think happy thoughts. And when you think cables, you know what you are supposed to do. And now a word from our sponsors...

"The reality is you don't have the guts to go over there and fight for what you believe."

Why should I help them sell cables? If I post what I think which is that their product is worthless and they have no scientific proof based on measurements or double blind tests to suggest otherwise to any rational consumer, I would be banned immediately. There is nothing to fight for if the only purpose of a web site is to advertise for legitimacy of the audiophile cable industry. They control the horizontal. They control the vertical. Their view is the only one allowed. Get it yet? I didn't think so.

CA is a lost cause. But the fight is waged elsewhere including Tweaks, Prophead and General.

You have not produced a speck of evidence that Rod M has any financial interest in the sale of cables.

I don't agree with much of what Rod does. On the other hand, my respect for truth is what drives me to challenge your foolish and reckless allegations that are wholly unsupported other than through the most tenuous of circumstantial evidence. I have yet to see one other person (other than me when I raised the possibility - did not make the allegation - in response to one particularly eggregious post by Rod M over at Prophead) ever give the slightest credence to your claim that Rod's behavior is governed by a financial interest in selling cables.

The wholly unsupported claims you make about Rod and his motivations are just as baseless and foolish as the claims of many yeasayers.

I would have far more respect for you and your claims if you merely said that Rod behaves as if he has a financial interest in selling cables, while making it clear you have no direct or reliable proof that he does. But that is expecting far too much from an out-of-control mad man.

skeptic
06-29-2004, 10:33 AM
"But that is expecting far too much from an out-of-control mad man."

I love it. I just love it.

An attorney who says he would like to see criminal laws rolled back on one thread, defending people who steal money legally on another, and then protesting that he disagrees with them on a third. How Orwellian.

I have no PROOF of anything. It's an opinion. I look at the facts, try to sort them out in a mosaic that is coherent and makes sense, and try to come to the most logical conclusion, possibly the only one that explains someone's behavior and statements. Does Rod M want to sell cables? Probably not. What he wants is to keep his financial supporters happy. Do they want to sell cables? You bet they do. But they and he are smart enough to know that on a site like AA you don't say "buy my cables because they are wonderful." That might work with a small percentage of contributors but it would chase many others away and badly discredit the site. Instead, it paints a facade of an open discussion forum just like this one with just one or two more restrictive rules. Only in those instances where direct confrontation with the final goal is unavoidable is it necessary to take a heavy hand. Otherwise it is just like any other discussion site. That's what Dubczek wanted in 1968. That's what Gorbachev wanted in 1990. Tyranny with a smiley face. I don't care if you like to vacation on the Black Sea. Be my guest. They'll be only too happy to mete out all of the punishment you can take until they tire of you. And apparantly you will be just too happy to receive it because just like a bad little boy creating mischief, you demand attention even if it is not the kind of attention you hope for. They don't take you seriously there. I don't take you seriously here. That's one thing we have in common.

pctower
06-29-2004, 03:02 PM
"But that is expecting far too much from an out-of-control mad man."

I love it. I just love it.

An attorney who says he would like to see criminal laws rolled back on one thread, defending people who steal money legally on another, and then protesting that he disagrees with them on a third. How Orwellian.

I have no PROOF of anything. It's an opinion. I look at the facts, try to sort them out in a mosaic that is coherent and makes sense, and try to come to the most logical conclusion, possibly the only one that explains someone's behavior and statements. Does Rod M want to sell cables? Probably not. What he wants is to keep his financial supporters happy. Do they want to sell cables? You bet they do. But they and he are smart enough to know that on a site like AA you don't say "buy my cables because they are wonderful." That might work with a small percentage of contributors but it would chase many others away and badly discredit the site. Instead, it paints a facade of an open discussion forum just like this one with just one or two more restrictive rules. Only in those instances where direct confrontation with the final goal is unavoidable is it necessary to take a heavy hand. Otherwise it is just like any other discussion site. That's what Dubczek wanted in 1968. That's what Gorbachev wanted in 1990. Tyranny with a smiley face. I don't care if you like to vacation on the Black Sea. Be my guest. They'll be only too happy to mete out all of the punishment you can take until they tire of you. And apparantly you will be just too happy to receive it because just like a bad little boy creating mischief, you demand attention even if it is not the kind of attention you hope for. They don't take you seriously there. I don't take you seriously here. That's one thing we have in common.

I have no PROOF of anything. It's an opinion.

And that was precisely my point all along.

mtrycraft
06-30-2004, 09:54 PM
Alas, one foot of braid on the origional mike cable does not translate into one foot of conductor, as the diameter is different, for both layers..In my haste to make the wire, I did not mark the origional braid every foot prior to removal from the mike cable, so I cannot back into the numbers. Gene can measure it, though..

Yes, but accurately for a 2 m cable?

Do you have any of this cable left? You could measure how much it streches in your construction scheme and correlate?





Perhaps unreliable...but perhaps, quite reliable for a single individual, while not statistically meaningful when applied to a general population.


If the protocol is unreliable, the number of listeners is irrelevant. It is unreliable for even one listener. I may be dense or something, I just don't see that because you are not testing a sample population that you can get away with an unrelable protocol.
Maybe he would get the exact same results; or maybe nothing there from the beginning.



he provided impressional detail I would not have been able to.

Yes, that is so but is it real? Is it reliable? Or, he is just practiced to give such details regardless of real sonic qualities or just perceived ones that the brain played out? We don't know with his protocol.



Again, I'm not yet interested in extending the results to the general population.

I understand that. But if his observations are unreliable due to listeing protocol, what then? How do you check his reliability? Impressional detals are not convincing unless it is reliable. But I don't count, just commenting, trying to help so your experiment has meaning for you from the start.



What I am interested in, is focussing on what he perceives to be the difference..So far, the feedback has not been a FR or phase related issue,which is the normal stuff that is spouted as why there is no difference.

So he has other issues. But we don't know how good they are, how real and factual. Telling you so eloquently or differently does not make his perceived observation real and credible as his protocol is unreliable no matter what or how well he can relate what he thinks he hears. We don't know what he hears beacuse of the protocol. Again, I am nobody in the audio world:)





Human ears are 6 inches apart..that clearly defines the limits of lateralization that humans are capable of..1.2, 1.5 Khz maximum freq...

So then, why did Nordmark do his testing? Quite obviously, there was nothing there for him to find...everyone already tested lateralization...everyone knew it...1.5 Khz max...how many people told him he was wasting his time?

Didn't he use DBT listening protocol? Special test signals? As he was looking for threshold information which is fine.

My goal is to find what the electrical difference is at the speaker via subtraction...understand what those differences do to the virtual image, and once clearly understood, then a valid DBT can be designed, with a clear definition of what it is that is being tested..simply substituting wires and saying"is there a diff" is far too inexact for my desires..I am focussing far deeper than that.

I understand where you are going with your experiment and it is great that you are doing it and that you want to increment one parameters so carefully as it should be. I just don't see how his listening protocol can give you a base line?

What would happen if he couldn't reliably repeat his perceived problems under bias controls? After all, if you cannot do better than chance guessing what good is it? I just don't think we know anything from his listening. How can we?

I prefer to crawl first....(and that has nothing to do with the martinis)..

It may be that we are more susceptible to the effects of timing delays caused by R and L than we are frequency response, given that 2 uSec thingy, and for low impedance measurements, I can see that everybody is measuring incorrectly. My wire design addresses that.

Because your wire design addresses ther low impedance, that is even more important for the listeing evaluation to have meaning, even with just one listener.
What happens when at the time you are ready to do DBT listeing, no one can hear anything different, reliably? Then you have to backtrack and see at what point differences disappear? Why not start with it and see at what poing differences disappear, if there are differences from the first test wire? That is what I would do. But, I am nobody, really, I don't count :) A pimple on the ass of progress:D

I wish to test my assertion that my cable has no skinning inductive loss up to at least a megahertz..I designed it so to eliminate skinning as a factor, and to keep the inductance low..


By hos measurements?


He can test RLC out to about one Mhz. I fear he may not have an easy time with only 6 to 8 feet, however..

Yep, not easy.





As always, there remains the possibility that I am chasing ghosts..Luckily, I do not define my existence on the outcome of my tests, but rather, by my ability to engineer the tests...

Cheers, John

No one knows right now if there are gost chasing or not. But wouldn't you rather know from the start if you have anything to investigate instead of backtracking later at what point it was gosthunting?
I think you will have to do it eventually and see if his findings stand up to bias controlled listening and will these cables as they are currently designe will too?

jneutron
07-01-2004, 06:05 AM
Do you have any of this cable left? You could measure how much it streches in your construction scheme and correlate?

Nope, none left..new build in progress.


If the protocol is unreliable, the number of listeners is irrelevant. It is unreliable for even one listener. I may be dense or something, I just don't see that because you are not testing a sample population that you can get away with an unrelable protocol.
Maybe he would get the exact same results; or maybe nothing there from the beginning.

The fact that existing protocols, ones that are supposedly reliable, have found no diff means one of two things..nothing is there, or the test is not sensitive to the entity sought..

Are you asking me to repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat.... some test that has not found the entity? That sounds like fun..:-) You are, in fact, asking me to waste my time attempting to duplicate something that hasn't borne fruit with absolutely no experince in DBT testing.

I clearly state: some extremely good researchers have gotten zero results...why would I expect different?

You would have asked Nordmark the same thing...

he provided impressional detail I would not have been able to.


Yes, that is so but is it real? Is it reliable? Or, he is just practiced to give such details regardless of real sonic qualities or just perceived ones that the brain played out? We don't know with his protocol. .

The virtual images we perceive when listening to stereo are not real..and yes, your observations are valid..


Didn't he (Nordmark)use DBT listening protocol? Special test signals? As he was looking for threshold information which is fine..

Where in the name of sam hill did he come up with jitter as the independent variable???

Prior to his work, there were no real methods to quantify jitter w/r to audio lateralization..so why did he do it??? Prior to him, time based lateralization above 1.5 Khz was a waste of time...DBT's proved it...so, what changed???serendipity?

My goal is to find what the electrical difference is at the speaker via subtraction...understand what those differences do to the virtual image, and once clearly understood, then a valid DBT can be designed, with a clear definition of what it is that is being tested..simply substituting wires and saying"is there a diff" is far too inexact for my desires..I am focussing far deeper than that.


I understand where you are going with your experiment and it is great that you are doing it and that you want to increment one parameters so carefully as it should be. I just don't see how his listening protocol can give you a base line?.

He provided a pointer to the parameters that are being affected...lateralization parameters as well as lateralization jitter....entities which will affect the position in space of the virtual image, and clues that depth of that vitrual image are changing..which indicates to me, at least, that timing issues may be what is changing w/r to wire differences.

Can you provide any research which details testing a stereo at the speakers, to rule out lateralization indicators, to the level of a microsecond? So far, I've come across none.. hell, I haven't found anyone who can reliably test to that level with equipment.



Because your wire design addresses ther low impedance, that is even more important for the listeing evaluation to have meaning, even with just one listener.
What happens when at the time you are ready to do DBT listeing, no one can hear anything different, reliably? Then you have to backtrack and see at what point differences disappear? Why not start with it and see at what poing differences disappear, if there are differences from the first test wire?.

What differences? please explain...if you use history as an indicator, there are none..so I might as well stop..

You are hung up on the DBT issue..

I will test the differences between what is at the amp binding posts, and what is at the speaker terminals..and, based on Ted's initial feedback, I can rule out frequency response issues, and magic entities like motor generator, piezo, grain boundaries, dielectric involvement....and concentrate on the entities that do most certainly affect the position and focus of the virtual image formed by our brain....lateralization delays..And, since that entails microsecond level entities, forms a basis for the resolution I will need to look for that.

Finding none means there is nothing there....(move along, citizens....)

Finding something means having a meaningful entity to use in the structuring of DBT's.

Attempting to DBT my cable at this point is random engineering...I will do so only after finding a realistic electrical difference.

I wish to test my assertion that my cable has no skinning inductive loss up to at least a megahertz..I designed it so to eliminate skinning as a factor, and to keep the inductance low..



By hos measurements?.

I assume you meant whose...and it is Gene..


No one knows right now if there are gost chasing or not. But wouldn't you rather know from the start if you have anything to investigate instead of backtracking later at what point it was gosthunting?.

You have missed my point..I AM looking for that entity to investigate...I am an electrical injuneer, and I am looking for an electrical entity.


I think you will have to do it eventually and see if his findings stand up to bias controlled listening and will these cables as they are currently designe will too?

Why would you think that?? It is an absolute fact..

You and I seem to differ in that you approach this from a "can you hear it direction", while I'm approaching it from an "is there something there to hear" point..

Both are perfectly valid approaches, and one cannot survive without the other. That is why, should I find a diff, I would take you up on your DBT offer..

Cheers, John

pctower
07-01-2004, 06:47 AM
Nope, none left..new build in progress.



The fact that existing protocols, ones that are supposedly reliable, have found no diff means one of two things..nothing is there, or the test is not sensitive to the entity sought..

Are you asking me to repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat.... some test that has not found the entity? That sounds like fun..:-) You are, in fact, asking me to waste my time attempting to duplicate something that hasn't borne fruit with absolutely no experince in DBT testing.

I clearly state: some extremely good researchers have gotten zero results...why would I expect different?

You would have asked Nordmark the same thing...

he provided impressional detail I would not have been able to.



The virtual images we perceive when listening to stereo are not real..and yes, your observations are valid..



Where in the name of sam hill did he come up with jitter as the independent variable???

Prior to his work, there were no real methods to quantify jitter w/r to audio lateralization..so why did he do it??? Prior to him, time based lateralization above 1.5 Khz was a waste of time...DBT's proved it...so, what changed???serendipity?

My goal is to find what the electrical difference is at the speaker via subtraction...understand what those differences do to the virtual image, and once clearly understood, then a valid DBT can be designed, with a clear definition of what it is that is being tested..simply substituting wires and saying"is there a diff" is far too inexact for my desires..I am focussing far deeper than that.



He provided a pointer to the parameters that are being affected...lateralization parameters as well as lateralization jitter....entities which will affect the position in space of the virtual image, and clues that depth of that vitrual image are changing..which indicates to me, at least, that timing issues may be what is changing w/r to wire differences.

Can you provide any research which details testing a stereo at the speakers, to rule out lateralization indicators, to the level of a microsecond? So far, I've come across none.. hell, I haven't found anyone who can reliably test to that level with equipment.




What differences? please explain...if you use history as an indicator, there are none..so I might as well stop..

You are hung up on the DBT issue..

I will test the differences between what is at the amp binding posts, and what is at the speaker terminals..and, based on Ted's initial feedback, I can rule out frequency response issues, and magic entities like motor generator, piezo, grain boundaries, dielectric involvement....and concentrate on the entities that do most certainly affect the position and focus of the virtual image formed by our brain....lateralization delays..And, since that entails microsecond level entities, forms a basis for the resolution I will need to look for that.

Finding none means there is nothing there....(move along, citizens....)

Finding something means having a meaningful entity to use in the structuring of DBT's.

Attempting to DBT my cable at this point is random engineering...I will do so only after finding a realistic electrical difference.

I wish to test my assertion that my cable has no skinning inductive loss up to at least a megahertz..I designed it so to eliminate skinning as a factor, and to keep the inductance low..




I assume you meant whose...and it is Gene..



You have missed my point..I AM looking for that entity to investigate...I am an electrical injuneer, and I am looking for an electrical entity.



Why would you think that?? It is an absolute fact..

You and I seem to differ in that you approach this from a "can you hear it direction", while I'm approaching it from an "is there something there to hear" point..

Both are perfectly valid approaches, and one cannot survive without the other. That is why, should I find a diff, I would take you up on your DBT offer..

Cheers, John

I will test the differences between what is at the amp binding posts, and what is at the speaker terminals..and, based on Ted's initial feedback, I can rule out frequency response issues, and magic entities like motor generator, piezo, grain boundaries, dielectric involvement....and concentrate on the entities that do most certainly affect the position and focus of the virtual image formed by our brain....lateralization delays.

John:

I suspect where mtry is getting hung up is that he would say Ted's feedback is unreliable because of his listening protocol.

I assume you believe that Ted's detailed descriptions of differences he experiences is sufficient for your work at this time - that because he can be so specific you are, for the time being, willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as one aide to guide your research.

If you ultimately come up with something you think is significant, then would be the time for more rigorous blind tests conducted by people who know what they are doing.

If I correctly understand the difference you have with mtry it seems to me that mtry is primarily concerned about the possibility you might be wasting your time because of his rigid insistence on DBT at each stage of a research project, whereas you are willing unwilling to be shackled by DBTs at the early stages of your research (and instead rely upon Ted's detailed descriptions which you think might be valid).

Controlled testing is obviously important at certain stages of research, but it seems to me that the way some people here want to apply it encourages the Tyrany of the DBT at the expense of possible progress.

Does any of this make any sense?

Mtry has been a crusader against voodoo science and unsubstantiate claims made by cable companies. His primary weapon has been to invoke the need for DBTs. He has raised the awareness of many to the need for a more scientific approach to all aspects of high end audio. However, as with any crusader I suspect he may suffer from a little tunnel vision. DBT has served him well in his crusade and he seems reluctant to set it aside for even a brief moment.

Don't mean to leave you out, mtry. In the words of Bill O'Rielly, what say you?

jneutron
07-01-2004, 07:57 AM
John:
I suspect where mtry is getting hung up is that he would say Ted's feedback is unreliable because of his listening protocol.

Mtry is correct...Ted's feedback may be absolutely correct, but no metrics to prove that assertion have been demonstrated..so, the reliability of that feedback has not been established...


I assume you believe that Ted's detailed descriptions of differences he experiences is sufficient for your work at this time - that because he can be so specific you are, for the time being, willing to give him the benefit of the doubt as one aide to guide your research.
If you ultimately come up with something you think is significant, then would be the time for more rigorous blind tests conducted by people who know what they are doing.
If I correctly understand the difference you have with mtry it seems to me that mtry is primarily concerned about the possibility you might be wasting your time because of his rigid insistence on DBT at each stage of a research project, whereas you are willing unwilling to be shackled by DBTs at the early stages of your research (and instead rely upon Ted's detailed descriptions which you think might be valid).

Controlled testing is obviously important at certain stages of research, but it seems to me that the way some people here want to apply it encourages the Tyrany of the DBT at the expense of possible progress.

Does any of this make any sense?

100 percent..especially the "rigorous blind tests conducted by people who know what they are doing" part..I do not have experience in DBT, and none of the DBT professionals know how to test lateralization fuzzing of image localization/depth perceptions vs cable energy release mechanisms. (for lack of a better description of what I am looking at).


Mtry has been a crusader against voodoo science and unsubstantiate claims made by cable companies. His primary weapon has been to invoke the need for DBTs. He has raised the awareness of many to the need for a more scientific approach to all aspects of high end audio. However, as with any crusader I suspect he may suffer from a little tunnel vision. DBT has served him well in his crusade and he seems reluctant to set it aside for even a brief moment.

In the end, that is what will be used as the final nail..I may find ele diffs, but it will be necessary to use DBT to determine the validity of a cause/effect.

My initial foray with Ted gives me a clearer focus on what it is I can concentrate on..

Cheers, John

mtrycraft
07-01-2004, 10:56 AM
My initial foray with Ted gives me a clearer focus on what it is I can concentrate on..

Cheers, John

If I understand all this better, clearer :),
now you will measure the cable to see if you have something that would be a logical correlation to his descriptions?

I am really trying to understand and be clear in my small mind:)

mtrycraft
07-01-2004, 11:22 AM
I suspect where mtry is getting hung up is that he would say Ted's feedback is unreliable because of his listening protocol.

Yes, that is my hangup. Ted may be absolutely correct, or he may not be at all in his perception. I have no idea.



If you ultimately come up with something you think is significant, then would be the time for more rigorous blind tests conducted by people who know what they are doing.

I could follow that no problem.

If I correctly understand the difference you have with mtry it seems to me that mtry is primarily concerned about the possibility you might be wasting your time because of his rigid insistence on DBT at each stage of a research project, whereas you are willing unwilling to be shackled by DBTs at the early stages of your research (and instead rely upon Ted's detailed descriptions which you think might be valid).

Only if the early stage is a foundation, a building block to the next level. The way I see it is that if the foundation is questionable, then what? Or, if at a later stage when you bring in reliable controls that does not support the premis, I would think you'd have to backtrack, step at a time, to see if it is questionable all the way back to the foundation or some other step afterwards.

I suppose you can do it in this order.

Controlled testing is obviously important at certain stages of research, but it seems to me that the way some people here want to apply it encourages the Tyrany of the DBT at the expense of possible progress.

I don't think so. If you need that level of control at some stages of research, what happens when at those stages it doesn't support the work? Do you say that the previous work is validated but not the last step? Or, is only the last step needs validation? And if it is not validated, all steps leading up to it are invalidated? I would think a lot of work for nothing then. Or, am I just not seeing the trees from the forest?



Mtry has been a crusader against voodoo science and unsubstantiate claims made by cable companies. His primary weapon has been to invoke the need for DBTs. He has raised the awareness of many to the need for a more scientific approach to all aspects of high end audio. However, as with any crusader I suspect he may suffer from a little tunnel vision. DBT has served him well in his crusade and he seems reluctant to set it aside for even a brief moment.

I don't think I have a problem setting it aside for moments at all. Just questioning, so I can understand, what happens with the information gained during those set aside periods. If in the end, all information will be properly validated, then I cannot really object as a different researcher is taking a different path but in the end, the research will follow proper protocols. Maybe that is my hangup, waiting to the end if it stands or fails instead of each step standing or falling down.

But, I am not a signatory to the experiment :D so I don't really count :)

Don't mean to leave you out, mtry. In the words of Bill O'Rielly, what say you?

Naw, you never leave me out :)

jneutron
07-01-2004, 11:24 AM
If I understand all this better, clearer :),
now you will measure the cable to see if you have something that would be a logical correlation to his descriptions?

Absolutely.

Nothing in his description sounds like any kind of frequency response amplitude anomoly.

So, the most logical thing to look at would be time based things. Lord knows, simple FR and distortion has been beaten to death, to I look to lateralization.

They keep talking about how silver is brighter, yada yada..you know the things they attribute to wires..but, when push comes to shove, a "brighter" wire doesn't have a frequency response difference that shows in test...I'm really wondering if by "brighter", they are actually describing a virtual image that has all the frequency components localizing to the same point...hmmm, I don't think I'm describing it well at all...

When I use my eq to dial my system when I'm standing in front of it in my living room, I tweak, listen, tweak, listen...but, my eq is godawful crap....there's no way in heck I'm gonna set both channels identically...so a singer's voice, when I close my eyes, is right there in front of me, but something's weird...the sibilance is not at the exact same place the rest of her voice is..it's just to the right of the rest of her voice.. If I could set the knobs just right, I could get that sibilance exactly where she is...then maybe it'll sound "brighter"??? Who knows..

But, if an event "happens", and we judge it's location by r-l time diff, and part of that event spectra is delayed a bit more (like a coupla microseconds), what do we see in the image? Farther away, closer, no change? A washboard and sax have different spectra..if the different freq components are delayed differently, what does that do to the image?

That's basically why I'm looking for the delays..nice, ele test.. If it can be shown that the delay garbage can change the image as described, then we can correlate some cable parameters to listening, and then do some real listening tests, knowing what independent variable to change, and what effect to look for.

OH...here's a graph I did coupla days ago..it is the energy storage of a wire vs it's characteristic impedance, while feeding an 8 ohm load. As can be seen, as the inductance of the cable goes up, so does the energy storage..and as inductance goes up, capacitance goes down, following the L*C=1031 * DC equation. What really startled me is that the total energy that is stored in the cable is a minimum when the cable impedance is equal to the load impedance...Logical, in hindsight, but nonetheless, unexpected. So, for cable impedances above the load's, the storage is inductive, while for z below the load, it is capacitive.



Cheers, John

mtrycraft
07-01-2004, 11:27 AM
the DC resistance of the braid.
If you measure the overall DC resistance before you cut it apart and make your new cable, if you don't cut any off but use its full length after streaching, will the overall resistance change as you didn't deform the strands just the shape of the braid? If no change, that would give us an equivalent gauge number?

jneutron
07-01-2004, 11:38 AM
the DC resistance of the braid.
If you measure the overall DC resistance before you cut it apart and make your new cable, if you don't cut any off but use its full length after streaching, will the overall resistance change as you didn't deform the strands just the shape of the braid? If no change, that would give us an equivalent gauge number?

When are you gonna stop beating me over the head with this resistance crap...

I told you time and time again.....I FORGOT TO MEASURE THE DAMN THING. I got so worried about L and C, I just plain forgot R...

I have no clue how much braid I used, how tight I stretched it, nothing...and I don't even have a piece of the cable left to measure....

Geeeeeeeeze...can't a guy make a mistake now and then????Boy....you'd think I was supposed to be scientific, or sumptin....

Cheers, John (where'd I put that tape measure) E..

PS...for the next run, I'm just gonna mark the braid on the mike cable every foot, as I still don't know how many feet of braid I need for every foot of double coax...what a pain...but I think that it's resistance will remain the same from one mark to the next regardless of how it has been elongated or reduced..

I'm even starting to figure out how to build a braider, as it gets very tough finding different size braids..might as well make my own with stock bare magnet wire....and as a bonus, I can cover my 100 foot snake cable with braided nylon to make it look pretty..that tube braid stuff is expensive...course, I could always send it to a braiding house..

mtrycraft
07-01-2004, 11:40 AM
Thanks :)
The ink wasn't even dry yet :D

mtrycraft
07-01-2004, 11:44 AM
When are you gonna stop beating me over the head with this resistance crap...

I told you time and time again.....I FORGOT TO MEASURE THE DAMN THING. I got so worried about L and C, I just plain forgot R...

I have no clue how much braid I used, how tight I stretched it, nothing...and I don't even have a piece of the cable left to measure....

Geeeeeeeeze...can't a guy make a mistake now and then????Boy....you'd think I was supposed to be scientific, or sumptin....

Cheers, John (where'd I put that tape measure) E..

PS...for the next run, I'm just gonna mark the braid on the mike cable every foot, as I still don't know how many feet of braid I need for every foot of double coax...what a pain...but I think that it's resistance will remain the same from one mark to the next regardless of how it has been elongated or reduced..

I'm even starting to figure out how to build a braider, as it gets very tough finding different size braids..might as well make my own with stock bare magnet wire....and as a bonus, I can cover my 100 foot snake cable with braided nylon to make it look pretty..that tube braid stuff is expensive...course, I could always send it to a braiding house..


I am not beating you over the head. I am asking a general question about braid resistance. Is my presumption correct that th eoverall resistance will not change if the original lenght is not cut? If I measure before streching and after, no cutting of wire, resistance be the same?

jneutron
07-01-2004, 12:22 PM
I am not beating you over the head. I am asking a general question about braid resistance. Is my presumption correct that th eoverall resistance will not change if the original lenght is not cut? If I measure before streching and after, no cutting of wire, resistance be the same?


Ummmm, Mtry? It was a tongue in cheek post...:-) (yah, I know... keep my day job...)

And I think you are correct...resistance should be the same...

OH, and lest you think otherwise, I respect your views...we may not see eye to eye on the cart vs donkey thing, but that is a trivially small thing....

As for the house of cards falling around me should I eventually do a DBT to find nuttin...that's ok...as I say, I already have a day job...this stuff...is fun.

Cheers, and thanks...John

mtrycraft
07-01-2004, 04:32 PM
Ummmm, Mtry? It was a tongue in cheek post...:-) (yah, I know... keep my day job...)


Well, yes. More practice, from my perspective, on that one :D


OH, and lest you think otherwise, I respect your views...we may not see eye to eye on the cart vs donkey thing, but that is a trivially small thing....

Yes, thank you :)

As for the house of cards falling around me should I eventually do a DBT to find nuttin...that's ok...as I say, I already have a day job...this stuff...is fun.

Cheers, and thanks...John

Yes, your experiment is indeed fun. Too bad you are sooo far away, not that I would be much help, but I can watch, and not butt in too much :) I do have two hands to lend :) Or get in the way :)

pctower
07-01-2004, 05:19 PM
I suspect where mtry is getting hung up is that he would say Ted's feedback is unreliable because of his listening protocol.

Yes, that is my hangup. Ted may be absolutely correct, or he may not be at all in his perception. I have no idea.



If you ultimately come up with something you think is significant, then would be the time for more rigorous blind tests conducted by people who know what they are doing.

I could follow that no problem.

If I correctly understand the difference you have with mtry it seems to me that mtry is primarily concerned about the possibility you might be wasting your time because of his rigid insistence on DBT at each stage of a research project, whereas you are willing unwilling to be shackled by DBTs at the early stages of your research (and instead rely upon Ted's detailed descriptions which you think might be valid).

Only if the early stage is a foundation, a building block to the next level. The way I see it is that if the foundation is questionable, then what? Or, if at a later stage when you bring in reliable controls that does not support the premis, I would think you'd have to backtrack, step at a time, to see if it is questionable all the way back to the foundation or some other step afterwards.

I suppose you can do it in this order.

Controlled testing is obviously important at certain stages of research, but it seems to me that the way some people here want to apply it encourages the Tyrany of the DBT at the expense of possible progress.

I don't think so. If you need that level of control at some stages of research, what happens when at those stages it doesn't support the work? Do you say that the previous work is validated but not the last step? Or, is only the last step needs validation? And if it is not validated, all steps leading up to it are invalidated? I would think a lot of work for nothing then. Or, am I just not seeing the trees from the forest?



Mtry has been a crusader against voodoo science and unsubstantiate claims made by cable companies. His primary weapon has been to invoke the need for DBTs. He has raised the awareness of many to the need for a more scientific approach to all aspects of high end audio. However, as with any crusader I suspect he may suffer from a little tunnel vision. DBT has served him well in his crusade and he seems reluctant to set it aside for even a brief moment.

I don't think I have a problem setting it aside for moments at all. Just questioning, so I can understand, what happens with the information gained during those set aside periods. If in the end, all information will be properly validated, then I cannot really object as a different researcher is taking a different path but in the end, the research will follow proper protocols. Maybe that is my hangup, waiting to the end if it stands or fails instead of each step standing or falling down.

But, I am not a signatory to the experiment :D so I don't really count :)

Don't mean to leave you out, mtry. In the words of Bill O'Rielly, what say you?

Naw, you never leave me out :)

If you need that level of control at some stages of research, what happens when at those stages it doesn't support the work? Do you say that the previous work is validated but not the last step? Or, is only the last step needs validation? And if it is not validated, all steps leading up to it are invalidated? I would think a lot of work for nothing then. Or, am I just not seeing the trees from the forest?

All good questions. That's the point where science may take on aspect of art. Intuition and discretion may come into play. The scientist must decide if he is willing to rely upon the results of the control test and give up proceeding in that particular direction. If he is uncertain as to whether the test is really reliable, he has to decide whether he'll trust it and give up that particular quest and run the risk of not discovering something that might have turned up down the road, or decide that the test results might not be wholly reliable and therefore proceed on which runs the risk of wasting a lot of time.

Despite all appearances to the contrary, scientists are people too and therefore each will respond and decide in his own particular way I suspect.

I don't think I have a problem setting it aside for moments at all. Just questioning, so I can understand, what happens with the information gained during those set aside periods. If in the end, all information will be properly validated, then I cannot really object as a different researcher is taking a different path but in the end, the research will follow proper protocols. Maybe that is my hangup, waiting to the end if it stands or fails instead of each step standing or falling down.

I think you have framed the issue very well. And I don't think you have a "hangup". You just have your own way of approaching something. Your intuition I suspect tells you that all who seek what jneutron is seeking are just wasting their time and you yourself might choose to spend your time in ways that you find more productive.

Nothing wrong with that. If we all followed the same path, we would sacrifice the great potential that comes from millions of humans following many different paths.

Where I suspect you, jneutron and I would converge in our paths (assuming I was a scientist too) is that in the end we would demand good, extensive control empirical testing to support any claim we were prepared to make based on the particular path we each may have choosen to get to the end result.

okiemax
07-01-2004, 06:26 PM
If you need that level of control at some stages of research, what happens when at those stages it doesn't support the work? Do you say that the previous work is validated but not the last step? Or, is only the last step needs validation? And if it is not validated, all steps leading up to it are invalidated? I would think a lot of work for nothing then. Or, am I just not seeing the trees from the forest?

All good questions. That's the point where science may take on aspect of art. Intuition and discretion may come into play. The scientist must decide if he is willing to rely upon the results of the control test and give up proceeding in that particular direction. If he is uncertain as to whether the test is really reliable, he has to decide whether he'll trust it and give up that particular quest and run the risk of not discovering something that might have turned up down the road, or decide that the test results might not be wholly reliable and therefore proceed on which runs the risk of wasting a lot of time.

Despite all appearances to the contrary, scientists are people too and therefore each will respond and decide in his own particular way I suspect.

I don't think I have a problem setting it aside for moments at all. Just questioning, so I can understand, what happens with the information gained during those set aside periods. If in the end, all information will be properly validated, then I cannot really object as a different researcher is taking a different path but in the end, the research will follow proper protocols. Maybe that is my hangup, waiting to the end if it stands or fails instead of each step standing or falling down.

I think you have framed the issue very well. And I don't think you have a "hangup". You just have your own way of approaching something. Your intuition I suspect tells you that all who seek what jneutron is seeking are just wasting their time and you yourself might choose to spend your time in ways that you find more productive.

Nothing wrong with that. If we all followed the same path, we would sacrifice the great potential that comes from millions of humans following many different paths.

Where I suspect you, jneutron and I would converge in our paths (assuming I was a scientist too) is that in the end we would demand good, extensive control empirical testing to support any claim we were prepared to make based on the particular path we each may have choosen to get to the end result.

Yep, there are scientific methods(plural), not just a scientific method.

mtrycraft
07-01-2004, 07:57 PM
[QUOTE=pctower
Where I suspect you, jneutron and I would converge in our paths (assuming I was a scientist too) is that in the end we would demand good, extensive control empirical testing to support any claim we were prepared to make based on the particular path we each may have choosen to get to the end result.[/QUOTE]

We may, face to face, could understand better each approach and come to the conclusion
that all three would be acceptable, certainly in the end :)

pctower
07-01-2004, 09:47 PM
Yep, there are scientific methods(plural), not just a scientific method.

I respectfully disagree. There are four basic steps to the scientific method:

1. Observe something.

2. Come up with an explanation (an hypothesis) to explain what you observed.

3. Use this explanation to predict new things you would see if the explanation is correct.

4. Put the explanation to the test by finding out if the things you predict will actually occur (through empirical testing).

You can wander in and out of those steps, as I tried to describe in my prior post. But sooner or latter you've got to pass the ultimate test - you must make it past step 4.

See:

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

and

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000

okiemax
07-01-2004, 11:36 PM
I respectfully disagree. There are four basic steps to the scientific method:

1. Observe something.

2. Come up with an explanation (an hypothesis) to explain what you observed.

3. Use this explanation to predict new things you would see if the explanation is correct.

4. Put the explanation to the test by finding out if the things you predict will actually occur (through empirical testing).

You can wander in and out of those steps, as I tried to describe in my prior post. But sooner or latter you've got to pass the ultimate test - you must make it past step 4.

See:

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

and

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000

Because "method" means procedure or process, the steps seem to imply a recipe or cookbook approach to science, which may be misleading. It ain't necessarily the way things happen, which may be what you mean by "wander in and out." According to William McComas, in his Ten Myths of Science , many pre-college texts are getting away from this list of steps approach in favor of discussions of methods of science:


"Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists


The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.


One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.


Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench.


Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science."

http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

skeptic
07-02-2004, 03:27 AM
"Because "method" means procedure or process, the steps seem to imply a recipe or cookbook approach to science, which may be misleading."

The method is not a cookbook recipe for experiments, it is a cookbook recipe for the logical process of developing, testing, and reformulating conclusions, theories, and ultimately understanding. And there is nothing wrong with it. In fact it is the only system that works. The alternative is religion, a blind faith or the willingness to draw conclusions in an illogical manner.

By demanding that for any conclusions this logical process be explained openly and fully to the greater scientific community, it is inherently exposed to the scrutiny of those who would shoot it down to see if it stands up to the logic claimed for it. And of course, all conclusions in science are tentative until better ones replace it. That is another difference between science and religion, there are NO absolutes.

When people ignore or reject this process, they are no longer scientists but partisan advocates with an emotional attachment for a particular theory. Among "scientists", it happens more often than we'd like to admit.

pctower
07-02-2004, 04:30 AM
Because "method" means procedure or process, the steps seem to imply a recipe or cookbook approach to science, which may be misleading. It ain't necessarily the way things happen, which may be what you mean by "wander in and out." According to William McComas, in his Ten Myths of Science , many pre-college texts are getting away from this list of steps approach in favor of discussions of methods of science:


"Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists


The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.


One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.


Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench.


Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science."

http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html

I agree. What you say is what I was trying to say in my initial post from a slightly different angle.

NONETHELESS, ultimately the true scientist still must make it past step 4 (empirical testing and verification). Mtrycrafts and jneutron may disagree on the different byways and detours to take along the way, but both I'm sure agree that ultimately step 4 is the gate through which all true scientists must pass.

Step 4 is the defining feature of the scientific method. At least that's what that widely revered early 21st century philosopher, PCTOWER, is reported to have once told a small group of his on-line students.

skeptic
07-02-2004, 05:03 AM
"Step 4 is the defining feature of the scientific method. At least that's what that widely revered early 21st century philosopher, PCTOWER, is reported to have once told a small group of his on-line students."

Does that include Jon Risch, John Curl, and Rod M.? I guess they flunked their finals.

mtrycraft
07-02-2004, 08:51 PM
Mtrycrafts and jneutron may disagree on the different byways and detours to take along the way, but both I'm sure agree that ultimately step 4 is the gate through which all true scientists must pass.

Step 4 is the defining feature of the scientific method. At least that's what that widely revered early 21st century philosopher, PCTOWER, is reported to have once told a small group of his on-line students.


Yes,:D
and

Yes :D

I must make note of knowing this philosopher, not in person but by communications and on his part, a picture :)

mtrycraft
07-02-2004, 08:52 PM
"Step 4 is the defining feature of the scientific method. At least that's what that widely revered early 21st century philosopher, PCTOWER, is reported to have once told a small group of his on-line students."

Does that include Jon Risch, John Curl, and Rod M.? I guess they flunked their finals.


They quit before finals. Too chicken.

okiemax
07-02-2004, 10:15 PM
"Because "method" means procedure or process, the steps seem to imply a recipe or cookbook approach to science, which may be misleading."

The method is not a cookbook recipe for experiments, it is a cookbook recipe for the logical process of developing, testing, and reformulating conclusions, theories, and ultimately understanding. And there is nothing wrong with it. In fact it is the only system that works. The alternative is religion, a blind faith or the willingness to draw conclusions in an illogical manner.

By demanding that for any conclusions this logical process be explained openly and fully to the greater scientific community, it is inherently exposed to the scrutiny of those who would shoot it down to see if it stands up to the logic claimed for it. And of course, all conclusions in science are tentative until better ones replace it. That is another difference between science and religion, there are NO absolutes.

When people ignore or reject this process, they are no longer scientists but partisan advocates with an emotional attachment for a particular theory. Among "scientists", it happens more often than we'd like to admit.

Albert Einstein could have used your connect-the-dots view of how science works. An orderly process would have kept him focused and saved a lot of time. When asked how he worked, Einstein is said to have replied "I grope." Maybe he thought groping was one of the methods of science.

skeptic
07-03-2004, 03:43 AM
I think he meant that he groped for theories to explain the inconsistancies he observed and he groped for methods to test them. The formula for the scientific method as I said is not a cookbook for this. It is a formula for the process of deductive reasoning which relates the creation of theories explaining observations and the testing of those theories to verify or refute them thereby establishing better understaning. This is what gaining real knowledge is about.

One of the things so interesting about Einstein's special theory of relativity is that it flies directly in the face of everyday experience. Even after you understand it, there is still and instinctive disbelief that it could possibly be true. Yet today, 99 years after it was first published it is considered one of the very most secure bedrocks of our understanding of the physical universe having been verified in another test just a few months ago, I think by NASA. Still, like all scientific theories, it continues to be challenged periodically even if only as a mental exercise.

pctower
07-03-2004, 09:14 AM
"Step 4 is the defining feature of the scientific method. At least that's what that widely revered early 21st century philosopher, PCTOWER, is reported to have once told a small group of his on-line students."

Does that include Jon Risch, John Curl, and Rod M.? I guess they flunked their finals.

They never even found the room where the exam was being administered.