Well Tony - Steve appears to have leaped off that fence.

[pctower]

See:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/twe...es/103721.html

[jneutron]

See:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/twe...es/103721.html

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

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pr...ages/8901.html

Cheers, John

[pctower]

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

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pr...ages/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]

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?

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

[pctower]

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?

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]

"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."

[mtrycraft]

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

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pr...ages/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?

[jneutron]

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]

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

[jneutron]

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