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

[mtrycraft]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

Thanks
The ink wasn't even dry yet

[mtrycraft]

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]

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]

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


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]

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 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]

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]

[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]

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/ph...AppendixE.html

and

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...00000000000000

[okiemax]

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/ph...AppendixE.html

and

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...00000000000000

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]

"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]

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]

"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]

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,
and

Yes

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

[mtrycraft]

"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]

"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]

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]

"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.