bi-wiring

[markw]

People who continue to pound lawyer jokes into the ground are dull, uncreative, unimaginative boors, who want to sound clever and funny, but merely demonstrate how shallow they are. Cheapshots are just that - cheap - relied upon by automatons who never had an original thought in their minds.

People who make broad generalizations about lawyers, or any other group of people, are nothing more than idiots who insist on demonstrating their lack of critical thinking ability. .

Actually, I find most people, including my lawyer friends, enjoy a good lawyer joke. Where do you think I getthem all? I see no reason to stop making them. After all, had you not been so insistent on letting all of us know you were a lawyer when you first came here, I doubt it would be an issue. After all, you’re the one making “broad generalizations” that anyone here, myself included, who dares disagree with you is "spewing dogma".

As for what to label me, I'll let you go to the sandbox argue over naysayers and yeasayers with Jon Risch.. .

So, are you saying that you are neither? Funny, I thought I was the first “maysayer” on this board. Now you are claiming such status? That’s not what your posts would indicate. As for the past few years, I believe you know full well exactly where I stand on these matters. The fact that you know this simply redoubles my responses to you.

Your posts drip of venom intended for naysayers.

You ought to see what my posts drip with when I'm talking about people like Risch and Curl (who you would label "yeasayers"). My posts drip of venom for people who engage in sloppy thinking and make unsupported accusations or claims, regardless of which side they happen to be on. My posts drip with venom for those who espouse dogma, regardless of which version, instead of dealing in rational, productive, fair dialog. .

So, are you saying my posts “espouse dogma”? Is that what you call posters that don’t share your beliefs? I don’t see where my initial post in this thread “espoused dogma” any more than yours did. Mine was simply the flip side of the coin.

You want me to state some opinions. Well, the following is a collection of some I have stated in the past. Are these enough "opinions" for one day?

My experience with cables:

I’ve been using after-market cables for over 20 years. About 3 years ago, as I was in the process of making some major changes to my system and setting up a dedicated listening room, I auditioned at great length in my system in excess of 20 different brands of cables before I chose the combination of power cords, interconnects, speaker cables, digital cable and phono cable that works for me. However, all of my auditions were sighted and in light of what scientific research has shown as to how unreliable hearing and our other senses can be, there is no way I could claim, from a scientific viewpoint, that any of the cables actually were responsible for audible sonic differences. I am extremely happy with my choices, but I really don’t know what is truly responsible for my perceptions, and when I sit down to listen to music I don’t care nor even think about it. .

The fact that you are happy with your choices pleases me. Moreso, the fact that you realize that sighted testing is unreliable puzzles me, though. Whenever someone else mentions this, you jump on them with a curt post. Are they “espousing dogma”?

The Scientific Approach:

However, from a purely scientific viewpoint, sighted auditions are completely unreliable because, as I said, there is a great deal of scientific research that shows how unreliable our senses can be and how easily they can be affected by attitudes, beliefs and expectations, as opposed to the actual stimuli our senses are attempting to detect and differentiate.

Our brains are far more complex than any machine, but our evolutionary history has caused our senses to excel in areas that were important to our survival as a race and be far less reliable in areas that were not essential to survival. Accordingly, there are distinct limitations to the sensitivity of our senses and there is an extremely complex process that occurs in the brain as it receives and interprets nerve signals from our sensory organs. These brain processing functions also developed primarily to enable and enhance our survivability, and these brain processing functions, while probably extremely good at those things required for survival, may very well be woefully inadequate in enabling us to distinguish between actual audible sonic differences and those perceptions resulting from our attitudes, beliefs and expectations.

I have lost the link, but a report was published several months ago in which psychologists were able to imprint in the memories of approximately one-third of the participants vivid memories of having seen Bugs Bunny at Disneyland. Well, we all know that Bugs Bunny never appears at Disneyland, and yet the implanted memories were as real to these people as any memory.

Our evolution has imbued our senses with marvelous capabilities, but it, as I say, has also resulted in some clear limitations both in sensitivity and how our brain processes nerve signals. Fortunately, our intellect has allowed us to analyze and understand much about how our senses and our brains interact and also to develop incredible technology to fill in the gaps where our senses and brain processing functions are unreliable.

It actually is a little sad to me when I see how many people seem to want to reject the understanding, knowledge and instruments for measurements that our intellect has blessed us with, simply because at times the conclusions to which all of these wonderful tools may lead are at variance with what our unaided, and often unreliable, senses and brain processing functions seem to be telling us at an experiential level. .

Now I’m really confused here. You truly sound like those you attack . You acknowledge that attitudes, beliefs and expectations can “color” the results, thereby opening the door to false results. Again, you attack others who put forth this postulation. We do have at our disposal the means to see thru these false results, don’t you? That’s right....

Placebo effect:

The placebo effect is an established fact, outside audio. Many audiophiles who are often referred to as “golden ears” claim that they don't suffer from the same influences as mere mortals. The people who challenge such claims are right in stating that audio is subject to the same problems as any other research that involves human perceptions?

I also think that people who claim that differences exist have the burden of proof to show that they can actually hear differences under control conditions. I don’t think very sophisticated cable DBTs have ever been performed, but those DBTs that have been performed, to the best of my knowledge, all showed null results. .

Almost correct. This may be where the problem arises. The placebo effect is just as much an established fact in audio as it is anywhere else. Why would you think audio experts are immune from this? They do. Remember that Dunleavy, 12 gauge and the audiophiles trick?

Why aren’t DBTs’ Performed Much:

In general, I don’t expect that many, if any, professionally conducted, independently verified and peer reviewed cable DBTs will ever be run. Despite what the naysayers say, the cable companies have no incentive to run these tests. It’s a lose-lose situation for them. The vast percentage of customers who will buy expensive cables don’t care about DBTs, but might be affected negatively if a number of companies failed to verify differences through exhaustive and professionally conducted testing. On the other hand, if non-null results were produced, the yeasayers (who constitute virtually all of the potential customer base) wouldn’t care; and the naysayers would not start flooding to the stores to buy expensive cables, regardless of what they claim now. Naysayers by nature don’t spend a lot of money on their gear, and they won’t change because of a few non-null results. Moreover, even if every naysayer started buying expensive cables today, it wouldn’t dent the market because there are so few naysayers involved in the high end market. .

Now it’s the chicken or the egg thing. This can be an emotional hobby. Looking at that Dunleavy trick with the 12 gauge and the audiophiles shoes exactly how easy it is to talk someone into hearing what they are told to hear, not what they actually hear.

But, You’re right. The believers would swear they hear what they think they hear regardless of whatever scientific proof was against them. Many religions got started this way. As far as the naysayers go, well, when proof comes forth that there are significant sonic differences in cables perhaps then this issue can be revisited. I myself would be interested in seeing (hearing) what they have to offer. …and it will only take a good faith SBT on my side for me to admit I was wrong. And, yes, I am wrong on occasion. Not too often, but it has happened.

After all, I’ve heard improvements in virtually all other areas of audio over my 40+ years in this hobby. I'm still waiting for a similar leap in technology in cables.

The naysayers’ claim that they would flock to stores if non-null results start coming in is just patently absurd. None of these guys is sitting around impatiently waiting for “permission from mama” (in the form of verified, positive results) to run off and start throwing big bucks around on cables. If they actually believe their own nonsense on this particular point, then they are even more blinded by their own dogma than I imagine. .

I think “naysayers” would, like me, be open to the idea of improving their sound systems if good, solid evidence would manifest itself. As it now stands it’s technobabble, lots of “may result”, “could possibly” and other highly qualified statements, mostly put forth by cable manufacturers and gurus.

Moreover, despite the image naysayers like to portray of the cable industry (always portrayed with virtually no reliable facts to support such image) the vast majority of cable companies I’m aware of are small cottage industry types that don’t even have enough money to advertise, let alone fund expensive tests. .

I have no problems with cottage industries. I simply want a good reason to give up my hard earned cash to them. I’ve heard/read of more than one company who simply bought bulk cable and made cosmetic changes to it and marked it up an ungodly percentage. The names escape me but I’m sure you’ve read about them as well.

Ass faras cottage industries I see quite a few small amp and speaker manufacturers out there making their contribution. More power to them. Their worth is readily apparant upon listening to their products. Too bad the price disparity between the least expensive andthe most expensive cables is such that it inspires tremendous skepticism. ...as well it should.

Finally, there is absolutely no reason why public funds would ever be made available for such testing. .

Me either. It’s not a life and death situation.

Cable Battles:

I’ve been an obsessed audiophile for over 30 years. The battles here extend back decades, and not much has changed in that time. The same cable arguments are being made today that were made 20 years ago. I was always aware of such arguments, but never paid really close attention to the issues until I started visiting here.

I think the people who place themselves in the “objectivist” camp bring a valuable point of view to the table by demanding scientific proof. My big problem isn’t with that viewpoint, it’s with the way it is applied here. I don’t believe most of the regulars here come even close to adhering to sound scientific practices, methodology or critical thought practices that are at the core of the scientific method they profess to follow. Moreover, I think that many of them are as much a prisoner of their own dogma as are the “golden-ears” they routinely criticize. I see very little interest here in reaching the truth. I find that the goal here is to win arguments, not discuss intelligently. As I mentioned recently, I estimate that about 80% of my time here spent in serious argument has been devoted to dispelling miss-statements and miss-characterizations of my position and belief. I believe I have faced that problem either as a result of intentional efforts to discredit me or because the people on this board are such prisoners of their own dogma they simply can’t read and understand what I’m saying. That is why I even gave up trying to carry on any reasonable dialog here.

As for the “golden-ears”, I think most of their typical claims are foolish. However, I have no problem with the way most of them choose personally to buy cables, because that it the way I have always done it and how, if I ever find the need to buy another cable, will continue to do it. From my point of view, that’s a personal issue and a personal decision, and if someone doesn’t like it, tough. .

Phil, here’s where the problem arises. You attack all here who fall on the “objectivist” side of the tracks at one time or another. I can’t recall you ever attacking a subjectivist. Now I wonder who’s zooming who here, to quote an old friend.

DBTs:

My main point with regards to cable DBTs is to ask those who claim that cable DBTs have repeatedly shown null results is to ask those who make such claims to direct my attention to those tests that have been conducted under circumstances that would pass muster in a college level science class, could be accepted for publication is a recognized science journal, or comport with the standards of a recognized science lab. That is the type of question that is routinely asked in court of those experts who express opinions based on the outcome of scientific testing. I would assume, based on numerous discussions I have had with scientists (including my nephew’s wife who is working on her PhD in physics at Lawrence Livermore through Berkley and who has already received several awards in her area of research) that scientists also routinely ask themselves.

In fact, several months ago I related a story here that she shared with me of how her team had lost almost 9 months worth of time by relying, at the insistence of senior scientists, upon published studies that were widely accepted as correct, only to find out that these studies were flat out wrong and led them down the wrong path. So even when people attempt to follow careful protocol (and I’m assuming here that the people that published those earlier studies weren’t intentionally trying to come up with the wrong result) it is certainly possible that invalid results can occur. I would assume that this is one reason why Carl Sagan, suggested the tools for critical thinking set forth in the next section.

Thinking:

Thanks to MM, I picked up the follow from Carl Sagan and have posted it numerous times, because it is the best description I have ever read of how I believe one should approach the pursuit of knowledge: .

I’ll not argue the Carl Sagan quotes. Both sides could learn from him. A great man who will be sorely missed. And, he was grew up in the town next to me. For the sake of berivity I’ll not repost them here.



[QUOTE=pctower] Waveforms and the Laws of Nature

Just as the laws of nature (physics) govern how the cannonball and the feather will fall in a vacuum, the laws of nature (the laws that govern the physical universe) ultimately govern every process involved in the electronic reproduction of music including how we perceive that reproduction. Accordingly, at least theoretically, there is nothing involved in that process that should be beyond the ability of science to measure and explain.

Let’s take a look at what we are talking about here. I assume we all can agree that sound travels in waves, and that the electronic reproduction of sound is explained by the processes that occurs at the microphone where sound waves are translated into electronic signal, at the point where that signal is somehow stored, and later at the point where that signal (in the form of waveforms that can be measured) are retrieved to be amplified and sent on to the speaker, where a process occurs which is essentially the opposite of what occurred at the microphone.

Ideally the sound waves emitted by the speaker would be identical to those that hit the microphone. Of course, everyone recognizes that with our current technology that is not possible. However, at each stage from microphone to speaker we have the technology to measure alterations that occur to the waveform of the electronic signal from the point it enters the given stage to the point it leaves that same stage, including temporal relationships. Thus, with respect to cables, if we look at the waveform, including temporal relationships, both at the input and output of the cable and find no difference, then, assuming we have measured the waveform going in to the cable and waveform going out, including temporal relationships, to a point of sensitivity greater than what is known regarding the sensitivity of human hearing (which isn’t particularly good), and we see no measurable change caused by the cable, then I can see no way to conclude that the cable is affecting the wave form in its long journey from microphone to speaker.

Moreover, if we make those measurements on cable X and cable Y and neither shows any effect on the waveform, but in sighted auditions people claim they hear clear differences between the two cables, I can see no possible way that one could come to any other conclusion than that the differences are due to factors such as the attitude, beliefs and expectations of the people who perceive differences, rather than to anything the cables are actually doing or not doing to be responsible for such differences in perception. I would really like someone to explain how we could come to any other conclusion under such circumstances.

If the waveforms coming out of the speakers are identical as cable X and cable Y are switched in and out of the system, and assuming no other changes such as moving the speakers, then the waveforms hitting the listeners ear will not be changed by a switching of these two cables (because remember I am assuming the waveforms were shown in measurements to be identical using instruments capable of greater sensitivity than human hearing), and yet people claim to hear differences between cables X and cable Y, then the only explanation for such differences has to be what happens inside the heads of the listeners once the sound waves hit their ear drum.

So, the processes involved in electronic reproduction of music, and the laws of nature that govern these processes are well known. Moreover, from what I understand we have instruments that can measure the effect these processes have on the shape and temporal relationship of the waveforms as they travel from microphone to speaker and on to ear drum. If no change can be found in the waveforms as they are emitted by the speaker, or even as they come out of the cable, regardless of whether cable X or cable Y is used, then we either have to conclude that differences have been perceived by the listeners because of (A) the placebo effect, or (B) because of some supernatural force that has never been documented in anything other than audio cables.

Now of course, if the measurements were to show that switching cables X and Y in and out of the system did cause a difference in the signal coming out of each cable significant enough to ultimately cause a difference in the waveforms emitted by the speakers, then one could properly conclude that at least some of the differences perceived by the listeners between the two cables is due to an actual, measurable physical phenomenon occurring within the cable.

However, to the best of my knowledge, such measured differences have never been made between two similar cables of similar length and gauge. .

You might find this link interesting. Or maybe not. It might not be exactly what you want but it’s pretty durn close.

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...bleFaceoff.htm

Interesting results, eh?

In short, the laws that govern the physical universe dictate both how the cannonball and the feather fall in a vacuum and how cables affect the waveforms. There is no room for subjectivity in any of this if the physical phenomenon going on between the input and output of the cables don’t show some effect on the waveforms and/or their temporal relationships that is significant enough to cause an actual audible effect. In such a case, the subjectivity, of necessity, becomes solely a factor of what happens once the ear drum sends the nerve signals on the way to the brain.

If anyone can show me where I am wrong in any of this, I’m all ears, so to speak. .

There’s the rub. Even by your own admission above, attitudes, beliefs and expectations play a major part in the preception of sound and these, my friend, all come into play after the eardrum. And yet you choose to conveniently ignore this when it suits you.

General Thoughts

I have tried to make it as clear as possible here that on a personal basis, I choose components and cables solely on what sounds best to me and what improves my enjoyment of my system, without any consideration given to technology. I even said I didn't care if a designer's chief design tool was midnight séances, as long as his product improved my enjoyment of my system and I judged the improvement to be worth the dollar cost. I think if anyone were to look at my system posted in the Inmate System section (over at AA), and read the review I posted on Sahuaro Cables under my prior moniker, pctower, they would have to conclude that I’m hardly an enemy of high-end cables. .

I have also tried to make it clear that not only do I not rely on DBTs to choose my components and cables, but that I have never personally participated in any kind of blind audio test. .

And by denying yourself the enlightening experience of even a single blind test for cables with one friend, you’ve chosen to ignore the possibility of proving or disproving either case. I guess ignorance is bliss. It saves having to face ones own demons. And yet you still claim to be sitting on the fence? When I see you treating subjectivests wit hequal vigor, perhaps then I'll change my attitude.

With regard to the scientific side of cables and audio in general, I think I have also made it clear that the only thing I'm interested in is an open and productive search for the truth. I defy anyone to point to anything I have posted here that would nail me with respect to any dogma other than a desire to further the technical side, and understanding, of our hobby. If someone can point out any statement I have made here to the contrary, I will be happy to retract it, because I do not want to be misunderstood.

Well Phil, your instant attack of my initial post here trying to hang me with DBT stuff is a pretty good indicator that your preceeding paragraph is total BS.

Where did I ever mention anything about DBT's? And yet you rail about naysayers making "broad generalizations" and "spouting dogma"? And now you cry about my taking a cheap shot with lawyer jokes? You're pretty good at throwing the first punch and then crying when it's returned. It's pretty easy to see where you're coming from.

As far as “the technical side”, it ain't all that difficult. All you ever needed to do is have a friend assist you in a simple single blind test. This was discussed several years ago and yet, nothing happened.

Aside from your actions on this forum and this fine piece of trying to weasel out of them, you’ve just lived up to my expectations. Your actions in this forum fail to meet your grandiose words in this post. You’re just grandstanding for the jury here.

Actions speak louder than words.