Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 76 to 96 of 96
  1. #76
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    LOL, like I said before, anything is possible - it's just not probable. #3 reason is extremely far fetched. If they could show any meaningful evidence of the truth of their products, they would have done so long ago. There is no business in the world that wouldn't want further product penetration. It's just that their ROI, given the current state of testing, isn't going to be good. The nature of R&D in any reputable group of companies is to spend money to improve the product. R&D is also there to prove that their product actually does what the company says that it does.
    Well, whether you think it's meaningful or not, these companies evidence is X number of satisfied customers i.e the word of mouth evidence. It's reviews in audio mags and on internet sites. They reach their target market this way and their target market is likely never to be those who think the sound of cables (should there be any at all) is limited to its LCR parameters.

    Here's a question that's been asked here before and I've seen no good answer. It doesn't have to do with cables but it does have to do with blind testing. If blind testing is such a great way to distinguish (or not) two products and you seem to think people actually care about the outcomes of such tests, why wouldn't Pioneer set up blind tests with their cheap receivers against expensive separates? If the naysayer population is so convinced that all amps sound basically alike, I would think this would be good for Pioneer's business. Speaking generally, why don't ALL manufacturers of cheap items use blind testing to "prove" their cheap products perform as well as more expensive products? Even cable companies could do this. So why don't they? Could it be that they are too expensive to set up, no one will care about the outcome, and they won't be relevant to their target market? Or could it be that blind tests aren't the best way to go???

    E-Stat's points are well taken. Who's going to care that a few testers couldn't tell the difference between Cable A (amp A) and Cable B? After all, you and markw took blind tests and couldn't tell differences. Have you changed anyone's opinion on this board?

  2. #77
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    I'm sure that you would be able to pass your blind test comparing a set of Sound Lab U1 to Bose Jewel Cube quite easily.
    There are zero components (aside from speakers) that exhibit this broad of a difference. I think blind testing is fine for gross, obvious differences. I remain unconvinced that it is of any use for subtle differences.

  3. #78
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    The manufacturer of my cables publishes all their specifications. So? You seem to assume that specifications really convey meaningful knowledge as opposed to simply information. My experience is that by and large they do not. For any component.

    Take five speakers with similar +-3db responses from x to y and you will find five completely different sounding products.

    rw
    Most cable manufacturers that I've ever seen do not provide any meaningful specs. I don't assume that specs are useful. I use the example as when you see a product that doesn't give any specs (as most cable manufacturers are wont to do) such as Nuance speakers, then you need to approach them with more caution than you would with another type of speaker which does provide +/-3db specs. Take it another step when you compare those little minisytems. They purport to produce 300W, but at 20%THD. Specs aren't everything, but they can give an indication, however slight, about how a particular component will sound.

  4. #79
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    Well, whether you think it's meaningful or not, these companies evidence is X number of satisfied customers i.e the word of mouth evidence. It's reviews in audio mags and on internet sites. They reach their target market this way and their target market is likely never to be those who think the sound of cables (should there be any at all) is limited to its LCR parameters.

    Here's a question that's been asked here before and I've seen no good answer. It doesn't have to do with cables but it does have to do with blind testing. If blind testing is such a great way to distinguish (or not) two products and you seem to think people actually care about the outcomes of such tests, why wouldn't Pioneer set up blind tests with their cheap receivers against expensive separates? If the naysayer population is so convinced that all amps sound basically alike, I would think this would be good for Pioneer's business. Speaking generally, why don't ALL manufacturers of cheap items use blind testing to "prove" their cheap products perform as well as more expensive products? Even cable companies could do this. So why don't they? Could it be that they are too expensive to set up, no one will care about the outcome, and they won't be relevant to their target market? Or could it be that blind tests aren't the best way to go???

    E-Stat's points are well taken. Who's going to care that a few testers couldn't tell the difference between Cable A (amp A) and Cable B? After all, you and markw took blind tests and couldn't tell differences. Have you changed anyone's opinion on this board?
    The fact that somebody does something or doesn't do something doesn't make it right. The fact that cable companies refuse to do even a modicum of real testing doesn't make it right. Your (yeasayer) reasons for why they refuse to test are specious. Your (yeasayer)logic for refusing to test is circular. As I've said before, I've never contended that all cables, amps and CDPs sound the same. I do hold forth that blind testing is the only reliable means of testing for differences when human senses and frailties are involved.

  5. #80
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    There are zero components (aside from speakers) that exhibit this broad of a difference. I think blind testing is fine for gross, obvious differences. I remain unconvinced that it is of any use for subtle differences.
    And so what is the basis for this thought? Your own and other audiophile observations.

    The common way of advancing knowledge is to take a hypothesis (belief) --> obtain results --> foment a conclusion. In audiophile-land (la-la-land or the land of the delusional), the way things are determined is by taking a hypothesis (belief) --> drawing a conclusion. Thankfully this type of thinking is only prevalent in audio.

  6. #81
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    The common way of advancing knowledge is to take a hypothesis (belief) --> obtain results --> foment a conclusion. In audiophile-land (la-la-land or the land of the delusional), the way things are determined is by taking a hypothesis (belief) --> drawing a conclusion. Thankfully this type of thinking is only prevalent in audio.
    Absolutely wrong. It appears YOU are the one who's delusional. "obtain results" - sounds like listening to me. It's always the listening that allows us to draw conclusions. You simply don't like my style of listening. You think I have to shut my eyes. Ridiculous.

  7. #82
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    The fact that somebody does something or doesn't do something doesn't make it right. The fact that cable companies refuse to do even a modicum of real testing doesn't make it right. Your (yeasayer) reasons for why they refuse to test are specious. Your (yeasayer)logic for refusing to test is circular. As I've said before, I've never contended that all cables, amps and CDPs sound the same. I do hold forth that blind testing is the only reliable means of testing for differences when human senses and frailties are involved.
    You should write to some of these cable companies and find out the real reasons they don't want to test. I doubt you'll trust their answers, either, but at least you'll hear it from the source. Better, why don't you go to work for one of them and start your own testing? If you feel like these companies are doing such a horrible disservice to the audiophile community, why not do something besides complain on an audio site?

  8. #83
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    Most cable manufacturers that I've ever seen do not provide any meaningful specs.
    I guess you're not looking at the right cables. Here are the specs for mine:

    http://www.jpslabs.com/PDF/instsuperint.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    Specs aren't everything, but they can give an indication, however slight, about how a particular component will sound.
    Let's return to an earlier point you made about the lack of "proof" cable manufacturers provide. If specs provide only a "slight" indication of real world performance (ain't that the truth!), then what the heck do manufacturers of every other components provide as the "proof" of their respective claims? I find precious few ads for ANY components that talk about DBT testing to support the verity of their claims.

    rw

  9. #84
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    I guess you're not looking at the right cables. Here are the specs for mine:

    http://www.jpslabs.com/PDF/instsuperint.pdf


    Let's return to an earlier point you made about the lack of "proof" cable manufacturers provide. If specs provide only a "slight" indication of real world performance (ain't that the truth!), then what the heck do manufacturers of every other components provide as the "proof" of their respective claims? I find precious few ads for ANY components that talk about DBT testing to support the verity of their claims.

    rw
    Well, I should've specified specs with regards to audibility as in how much it could change your frequency response not just a simple resitance, cap, etc. Maybe there's some electrical inclined people who would care to comment?

    In any case, whoever said that most companies provide blind testing to prove their claims? Does this mean anything at all? Certainly not. As I pointed out before, just because people do or don't do something doesn't make it right. In the case of other components, the line of (blind) tests that have been done as to the threshold of audibility with respect to loudness, THD, et al has a long and distinguished pedigree. The R&D sections of these companies use these studies to make better product (hopefully anyways).

  10. #85
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740

    Gladly....

    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    Well, I should've specified specs with regards to audibility as in how much it could change your frequency response not just a simple resitance, cap, etc. Maybe there's some electrical inclined people who would care to comment?

    In any case, whoever said that most companies provide blind testing to prove their claims? Does this mean anything at all? Certainly not. As I pointed out before, just because people do or don't do something doesn't make it right. In the case of other components, the line of (blind) tests that have been done as to the threshold of audibility with respect to loudness, THD, et al has a long and distinguished pedigree. The R&D sections of these companies use these studies to make better product (hopefully anyways).
    The BS detector went off right away.....

    The whole installation information section is utter BS, save for the bending radius. Further, they don't even tell you what changes when they DO burn in! Shippiing something in an anti-static pouch doesn't keep them from being impinged by electromagnetic fields, which is a far greater likelyhood. So how culd you expect them to be "maintained" in their pre-burned-in condidtion if you cannot protect them from ALL possible environmental variables? What about UV light? Temerature variations? Those will have an effect on the dielectric polymers used in manufacturing, no?

    Then they list the electrical parameters in base units, instead of using industry standard units:

    0.00000000004 F instead of 40pF.....an indication they DON'T know what the hell they are doing. Further, there is no such thing as analog and digital capacitance, inductance, or resistance.

    As far as I can tell, you can disregard their specifications as meaningful. They could have just pulled the numbers outta their sphincters based on their obvious lack of knowledge of the basic electrical parameters and environmental influences, electrical or physical.

    -Bruce

  11. #86
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    Further, there is no such thing as analog and digital capacitance, inductance, or resistance.
    Other than stating the obvious, you suffer from making unfounded assumptions. There are separate analog and digital flavors of that interconnect having different build construction and different specifications. Duh.


    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    As far as I can tell...
    Which evidently isn't much given your propensity to assume instead of asking or finding out the correct answer...

    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    ...you can disregard their specifications as meaningful.
    Aside from the fact that they answer the question posed.

    rw

  12. #87
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Other than stating the obvious, you suffer from making unfounded assumptions. There are separate analog and digital flavors of that interconnect having different build construction and different specifications. Duh..
    Your ignorance is showing again. Please, please, please show me ANY reference defining digital resistance, capacitance, or inductance. Regardless of whether the signal is analog or digital, the cable could care less. Impedance is impedance, group delay is group delay and resistance, is resistance. ...need I continue?

    Which evidently isn't much given your propensity to assume instead of asking or finding out the correct answer...


    Aside from the fact that they answer the question posed.

    rw
    I have no need to find the "correct" answer you seek, that wasn't the question posed by the person I was responding too. I am able to tell, however, with the information contained in that PDF is bovine scat. Marketing speak. Nothing more. One does not need to assume anything when they know the topic at hand and recognize the worth of what JPS has published: Nothing.

    I really am sorry you're so technologically deficient not to be able to see through the smoke screen.

    Have YOU sent a set of cables to be measured to verify if their stated specs are correct to either listing in their document? Of course not, you weren't able to spot the fallicy in their ad.

    Maybe they felt that because their meter had a digital readout, it was digital resistance......
    I'd really, really, really, like to see you measure digital resistance. hahahahahahhahahahahhaha....

    Digital resistance, brother, that's rich. It's like that reference Jon Risch had on his webpage once showing 180 degree phase reversals in a cable that was less than 10 degrees in electrical length.....sorry, bad information. That's what you have here, bad information.

    You can beat your chest all you want, attempt to impune my character all you want, but at the end of the day, your ignorance shines brightly here.

    -Bruce

  13. #88
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    Your ignorance is showing again. Please, please, please show me ANY reference defining digital resistance, capacitance, or inductance. Regardless of whether the signal is analog or digital, the cable could care less. Impedance is impedance, group delay is group delay and resistance, is resistance. ...need I continue?
    Ready, shoot, aim, right? . Take a deep breath, slow down and read the doc and my reply again. I'll say this again. There are multiple cables in the product line having different specifications. I'll say this again. Obviously there is no such thing as digital specific parameters. You failed to pick up the clues in the document and made a wild assumption. The second sentence begins with:

    The Superconductor line of cables...

    Most folks would correctly understand the concept of a product line having multiple products. If that wasn't enough, there is a more specific reference:

    The RCA ends of a locking style (except on The Digital Superconductor)...

    Which means A DIFFERENT MODEL.

    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    I really am sorry you're so technologically deficient not to be able to see through the smoke screen.
    I'm really sorry you didn't take the time to read the document and decided instead to make a ludicrous assumption. Did you get it this time , Bruce?

    rw
    Last edited by E-Stat; 02-03-2005 at 12:34 PM.

  14. #89
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Ready, shoot, aim, right? . Take a deep breath, slow down and read the doc and my reply again. I'll say this again. There are multiple cables in the product line having different specifications. I'll say this again. Obviously there is no such thing as digital specific parameters. You failed to pick up the clues in the document and made a wild assumption. The second sentence begins with:

    The Superconductor line of cables...

    Most folks would correctly understand the concept of a product line having multiple products. If that wasn't enough, there is a more specific reference:

    The RCA ends of a locking style (except on The Digital Superconductor)...

    Which means A DIFFERENT MODEL.


    I'm really sorry you didn't take the time to read the document and decided instead to make a ludicrous assumption. Did you get it this time , Bruce?

    rw
    I see what you are saying, but it is so poorly written that is is completely misleading. a couple days from now, I would STILL come to my earliier conclusions it is so bad.

    The title does not meniton, hint, or elude to multiple models, does it? The broad mention of a lineage of cables in the introduction certainly doesn't clarify that they are indeed trying to speak to multiple models. Especially when they go on to say, "The Superconductor is literally....." - matches the title entirely. the crap in parenthases is not intended to be in the main body of the document, which would lead most readers to assume there is another document somewhere else.

    Okay, so lets go from there. Is the resistance inclusive of the shield, or is it just the center conductor?

    Same for the inductance.

    Still would like to know why they didn't include protection from UV, temperature extremes and magnetic fields if they were soooooo concerned about keeping the pre burn-in condition intact(not that I could understand why it would matter). What changes when they break in?

    Woeful friggin document.

    -Bruce

  15. #90
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    I see what you are saying, but it is so poorly written that is is completely misleading. a couple days from now, I would STILL come to my earliier conclusions it is so bad.
    Indeed that is the consequence of speed reading over the first two sentences and choosing to draw conclusions instead. The first sentence uses the plural case and the second mentions the product line.

    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    Okay, so lets go from there. Is the resistance inclusive of the shield, or is it just the center conductor? Same for the inductance.
    I will be happy to email Mr. Skubinski for the answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    Still would like to know why they didn't include protection from UV, temperature extremes and magnetic fields if they were soooooo concerned about keeping the pre burn-in condition intact(not that I could understand why it would matter). What changes when they break in?
    I have no idea. As for you last question, there is a period of time where they sound very dark before opening up. As that occurs over a period of a week or so, I never really thought much about it. Similarly, I will be breaking in my new 'stats shortly and will take the same approach. I'm just going to play them and not worry about it.

    rw

  16. #91
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by magictooth
    Well some of the past threads got me thinking about the differences between sighted vs. blind testing, and there was an interesting point made about taste buds et al. I think that the parallels of taste(stimulus of taste buds)/flavour(interpretation of the stimulus) and sound(stimulus of ear apparatus)/hearing(interpretation of the stimulus) are remarkable.

    Anyways, we had a party last Saturday with 13 guests. I thought that this might be an interesting time to try out a sighted test. Here's the methodology: The night before, I prepared, as one large batch, an excellent salsa whose recipe I obtained in Mexico. On Saturday, I divided the batch into two separate containers.

    When our guests arrived, I eventually steered them around to trying this salsa that I had made. I said that one container had a milder salsa, but that for the other container I had put TWICE the amount of chilies in - thus making it a lot hotter. I asked each guest after they tried both salsas if they liked them and if they found the one salsa too hot. For 6 guests, I let them try the "mild" salsa first; for the other 7 guests, I let them try the "hot" salsa first.

    Guess what the results were??








    All 13 guests or 100% of the sample said that the "hot" salsa was indeed hotter (they also said that they liked it, but that's beside the point). The range of replies to the "hotter" salsa was from "yeah, it's a bit hotter, but I like to eat spicy food," to "WOW, this is way hotter than the other one," - with most comments somewhere in between. Nobody said they tasted the same and nobody said that the "hot" salsa was milder. The guest who said the last comment was even warning other people that the "hot" salsa was indeed much spicier than the other container for part of the night.

    I guess this proves that basic scientific methodology is incorrect with regards to blind vs. sighted testing. I can now see how sighted testing is truly the king of testing methodologies. I lament all those years of toil in school - all wasted working under false assumptions. What was I thinking?!

    I read recently how a new medical procedure to help severe migraine sufferers had passed the ethics board. Basically what they want to do is to patch a little hole in the heart. Previously, people had said that when they had undergone this operation that as a side effect, the severity, intervals between, and duration of their migraines diminished substantially. In order to patch the hole, a small incision is made in the thigh to gain access to the femoral artery. The surgery is accomplished through this little incision. There's going to be 2 testing groups of 100 people each. The one group will actually have this surgery done; the other group will have the same incision cut into their legs but no actual surgery. The apparent reason being that the researchers want to eliminate any possibility of the results being attributed to psychosomatic effects.

    Now as we've seen above in my simple kitchen example, we don't need to do this. IN FACT, what happened to the Hippocratic oath? I mean they're cutting up 100 people for no good reason. I think that they should just simply tell everybody who's getting the surgery that they've had the surgery and be done with it. If it's as good as they say, then everything is going to work out fine. I think that after I open this thread, that I'm going to write to those researchers and their ethics board to tell them that they're going about this "research" in entirely the wrong fashion.

    So there you have it. Blind testing is for the BIRDS. Sighted testing is KING!!!!
    Sure, guests could be misled. But all 13 of them? Some guests might consider it ill mannered to disagree with the host. Perhaps after the party, some guest were thinking you made a mistake(e.g., he forgot to add the hot stuff or didn't add enough).

    I recently bought a jar of salsa con queso labeled mild. Holy frijole, it sure didn't taste mild! I didn't say anything and waited for my girldfriend to try it(I had told her previously it was labeled mild). Without knowing I thought it was too hot, she said if this is the mild kind I sure wouldn't want the hot kind. Obviously our taste buds were not agreeing with the label on the jar. The power of suggestion was not working.

    Had I attended your party I doubt I would have thought one salsa much different than the other. But it would have been rude for me to suggest that you were a forgetful cook or didn't know hot from mild.

  17. #92
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    Well now, this is a hard one to answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    Who's going to care that a few testers couldn't tell the difference between Cable A (amp A) and Cable B? After all, you and markw took blind tests and couldn't tell differences. Have you changed anyone's opinion on this board?
    If you are asking if we succeeded in changing your mind, and a few others thgat believe like you, then the answer is a resounding no.

    But, then again, none of us really expected to.

    Remember, a lot of lurkers read this site and use what's posted here to help them make up their minds on what' makes sense and what doesn't. Then, they will take the opinions expressed here, weigh them against whatever their logical brain says and use that to make their decisions

  18. #93
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Remember, a lot of lurkers read this site and use what's posted here to help them make up their minds on what' makes sense and what doesn't. Then, they will take the opinions expressed here, weigh them against whatever their logical brain says and use that to make their decisions
    Then it's nice that regardless of which decision they make, it'll be the right one - for them. It seems the one thing we all have in common is we're comfortable with our stance.

  19. #94
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by markw
    Then, they will take the opinions expressed here, weigh them against whatever their logical brain says and use that to make their decisions
    Hopefully, they will do better than that. Rather than merely speculate as to what is "logical", they will take the opportuniy to evaluate the performace of various components in their own systems and make their decision upon that experience.

    rw

  20. #95
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Hopefully, they will do better than that. Rather than merely speculate as to what is "logical", they will take the opportuniy to evaluate the performace of various components in their own systems and make their decision upon that experience.

    rw
    Wow! Why didn't I think of that???

  21. #96
    Suspended markw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Noo Joisey. Youse got a problem wit dat?
    Posts
    4,659

    Obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by musicoverall
    Wow! Why didn't I think of that???
    I think we all took that as a given.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Denon, Yamaha or Marantz Receiver
    By spricajder in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 01-22-2009, 03:45 PM
  2. Testing and the Scientific Method
    By pctower in forum Cables
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 06-01-2004, 12:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •