Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47
  1. #1
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365

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


  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by pctower

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

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

    Cheers, John

  3. #3
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by jneutron
    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.

  4. #4
    Forum Regular Tony_Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    184
    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
    "Say Hello To My Little Friend."

  5. #5
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by jneutron
    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?
    mtrycrafts

  6. #6
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    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.

  7. #7
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "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."

  8. #8
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by 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."
    It seems to me it's the other way around. Jon Risch works for Rod M. and does his bidding and his dirty work. If Risch didn't, Rod M. would fire him in a heartbeat and get a replacement who would.

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

    You still refuse to see the obvious.

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

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

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

  9. #9
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Steve Eddy is not the kind of individual I would want to enter into a discourse with here and it has nothing to do with his knowledge or lack of knowledge. While I have nothing to say about it, I am happy he chooses not to post here. In his one brief visit here, he was abusive and insulting. That seems to be the kind of relationships he values most. Perhaps that is why he stays at Audio Asylum. He feels more at home with the sickies over there. Their term for their community "asylum" is very appropriate IMO. As for his continuous efforts to tell they truth where it is most needed as you put it, the people who run that asylum including Rod M. neither want nor need the truth when it interferes with their real purpose. Why do you think he was banished from Cable Asylum in the first place?

    "Jon's an unpaid volunteer."

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

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

  10. #10
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Steve Eddy is not the kind of individual I would want to enter into a discourse with here and it has nothing to do with his knowledge or lack of knowledge. While I have nothing to say about it, I am happy he chooses not to post here. In his one brief visit here, he was abusive and insulting. That seems to be the kind of relationships he values most. Perhaps that is why he stays at Audio Asylum. He feels more at home with the sickies over there. Their term for their community "asylum" is very appropriate IMO. As for his continuous efforts to tell they truth where it is most needed as you put it, the people who run that asylum including Rod M. neither want nor need the truth when it interferes with their real purpose. Why do you think he was banished from Cable Asylum in the first place?

    "Jon's an unpaid volunteer."

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

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

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

  11. #11
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Now there you go again Tower twisting other people's words around. I never suggested, hinted or in any way implied that YOU or anyone else was a shyster lawyer. I only proposed that I change MY moniker to Shyster Lawyer. Hey I know, I could use it at Cable Asylum and all of the people who make, sell, and advertise cables could run their ads by me to see if they would be breaking the law. Having disavowed being a lawyer in the first place, I could play at attorney to my hearts content just the way some people play at being electrical engineers. Remember WarrenWarren?????? or was that before your time.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Now there you go again Tower twisting other people's words around. I never suggested, hinted or in any way implied that YOU or anyone else was a shyster lawyer. I only proposed that I change MY moniker to Shyster Lawyer. Hey I know, I could use it at Cable Asylum and all of the people who make, sell, and advertise cables could run their ads by me to see if they would be breaking the law. Having disavowed being a lawyer in the first place, I could play at attorney to my hearts content just the way some people play at being electrical engineers. Remember WarrenWarren?????? or was that before your time.
    Oh I can play this game too. I never suggested, hinted, or in any way implied that YOU or anyone else had suggest that I or anyone else was a shyster lawyer.

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

    http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...gineers27.html

  13. #13
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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

  14. #14
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    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
    mtrycrafts

  15. #15
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "I simply refuse to make wild, unsupported claims. I have more respect for the truth than that."

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

  16. #16
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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..

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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..

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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..

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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..

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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..

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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..


    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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..

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    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
    Last edited by jneutron; 06-29-2004 at 05:40 AM.

  17. #17
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    "I simply refuse to make wild, unsupported claims. I have more respect for the truth than that."

    Some people can add two and two together a million times and never come up with more than three. There are far more than enough dots to draw a very clear picture of what that place is about especially for a sharp lawyer. If you don't face the truth of it, it's because you don't want to. Perhaps if you did, you know you would have to stop posting there yourself and give up the benefit YOU derive from it. You know that they never listen to one word you say or take you seriously. If they don't show any repect for the arguements that neutron or eddy present why then would they listen to anyone like you who has far less technical firepower than they do? You are not looking for a dialogue but merely another platform to speak on, even if you have nothing to say. Of course you can't call a spade a spade or you would admit to being in the same dark coal pit they are in. Masochist!
    Have you had the level of ozone tested in your house? You get more and more bizarre. Who is the "they" that don't listen to what Steve or jneutron say? Both of them have received statements of support from many inmates. Even if they hadn't, how in the world would you know whether people who don't post are listening to them. You assume people post solely for the purpose of those few who actually bother to post themselves.

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

  18. #18
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    What happened Phil, did I hit a raw nerve?

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

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

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

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

  19. #19
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    What happened Phil, did I hit a raw nerve?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  20. #20
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "But that is expecting far too much from an out-of-control mad man."

    I love it. I just love it.

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

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

  21. #21
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    "But that is expecting far too much from an out-of-control mad man."

    I love it. I just love it.

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

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

    And that was precisely my point all along.

  22. #22
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Alas, one foot of braid on the origional mike cable does not translate into one foot of conductor, as the diameter is different, for both layers..In my haste to make the wire, I did not mark the origional braid every foot prior to removal from the mike cable, so I cannot back into the numbers. Gene can measure it, though..

    Yes, but accurately for a 2 m cable?

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





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


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



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

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



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

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



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

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





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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


    By hos measurements?


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

    Yep, not easy.





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

    Cheers, John


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

  23. #23
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Do you have any of this cable left? You could measure how much it streches in your construction scheme and correlate?
    Nope, none left..new build in progress.

    If the protocol is unreliable, the number of listeners is irrelevant. It is unreliable for even one listener. I may be dense or something, I just don't see that because you are not testing a sample population that you can get away with an unrelable protocol.
    Maybe he would get the exact same results; or maybe nothing there from the beginning.
    The fact that existing protocols, ones that are supposedly reliable, have found no diff means one of two things..nothing is there, or the test is not sensitive to the entity sought..

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

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

    You would have asked Nordmark the same thing...

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

    Yes, that is so but is it real? Is it reliable? Or, he is just practiced to give such details regardless of real sonic qualities or just perceived ones that the brain played out? We don't know with his protocol. .
    The virtual images we perceive when listening to stereo are not real..and yes, your observations are valid..

    Didn't he (Nordmark)use DBT listening protocol? Special test signals? As he was looking for threshold information which is fine..
    Where in the name of sam hill did he come up with jitter as the independent variable???

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

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

    I understand where you are going with your experiment and it is great that you are doing it and that you want to increment one parameters so carefully as it should be. I just don't see how his listening protocol can give you a base line?.
    He provided a pointer to the parameters that are being affected...lateralization parameters as well as lateralization jitter....entities which will affect the position in space of the virtual image, and clues that depth of that vitrual image are changing..which indicates to me, at least, that timing issues may be what is changing w/r to wire differences.

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


    Because your wire design addresses ther low impedance, that is even more important for the listeing evaluation to have meaning, even with just one listener.
    What happens when at the time you are ready to do DBT listeing, no one can hear anything different, reliably? Then you have to backtrack and see at what point differences disappear? Why not start with it and see at what poing differences disappear, if there are differences from the first test wire?.
    What differences? please explain...if you use history as an indicator, there are none..so I might as well stop..

    You are hung up on the DBT issue..

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

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

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

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

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


    By hos measurements?.
    I assume you meant whose...and it is Gene..

    No one knows right now if there are gost chasing or not. But wouldn't you rather know from the start if you have anything to investigate instead of backtracking later at what point it was gosthunting?.
    You have missed my point..I AM looking for that entity to investigate...I am an electrical injuneer, and I am looking for an electrical entity.

    I think you will have to do it eventually and see if his findings stand up to bias controlled listening and will these cables as they are currently designe will too?
    Why would you think that?? It is an absolute fact..

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

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

    Cheers, John

  24. #24
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by jneutron
    Nope, none left..new build in progress.



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

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

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

    You would have asked Nordmark the same thing...

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



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



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

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

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



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

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




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

    You are hung up on the DBT issue..

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

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

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

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

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




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



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



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

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

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

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

    John:

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

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

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

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

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

    Does any of this make any sense?

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

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

  25. #25
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    John:
    I suspect where mtry is getting hung up is that he would say Ted's feedback is unreliable because of his listening protocol.
    Mtry is correct...Ted's feedback may be absolutely correct, but no metrics to prove that assertion have been demonstrated..so, the reliability of that feedback has not been established...

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

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

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

    Mtry has been a crusader against voodoo science and unsubstantiate claims made by cable companies. His primary weapon has been to invoke the need for DBTs. He has raised the awareness of many to the need for a more scientific approach to all aspects of high end audio. However, as with any crusader I suspect he may suffer from a little tunnel vision. DBT has served him well in his crusade and he seems reluctant to set it aside for even a brief moment.
    In the end, that is what will be used as the final nail..I may find ele diffs, but it will be necessary to use DBT to determine the validity of a cause/effect.

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

    Cheers, John

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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