Hey Mtry....

[_Luke1_]

I think we all know you are an avowed disbeliever in many things audio, i.e. the effects of cables, power cords, differences in components and the like. I have to agree that cables and power cords are way at the bottom of my priority list.

I would like to hear how you drew your conclusions on the inaudibility of changes to cabling and other "snake oil" products.

Thanks.

Luke

[Monstrous Mike]

I think your question is a good one and since I am in the same field of thought as Mtry, I will give my own answer.

First, without trying to sound snotty, I have a Bachelor and Master's of Engineering so I do have a fundamental (if not extensive) background in physics, math, electricity, digital circuitry, etc. And I have been employed in hard engineering jobs for the past 24 years although my last two years after leaving the Canadian Navy, I have been a computer network engineer.

In the Navy, as an electronics engineer, I had to deal with every conceivable type of cabling carrying signals which spanned the entire frequency spectrum. As you may know, a naval war vessel has miles of internal cabling connecting thousands of components.

This knowledge and experience allows me to review technical presentations,like those found in white papers by audio cable companies, with a critical eye. To date, I have yet to see a single paper that does not have some flaw or hole in it as to make it technically incomplete or inaccurate or even misleading. And there are simply no test results that confirm anything that is being claimed.

As well, I have done my own in-home testing (of course in a very unscientific manner) and have found no evidence of cable sonics. I've analyzed circuits and calculated parameters but this has led me nowhere with regard to coming up with golden egg.

I fully believe that if there were any significant improvements to be gained by using some special sort of cable geometry, material or whatever that it could be scientifically presented by that company or even an independent third party in such a way that other scientists and engineers could verify the conclusions.

Since this has yet to be done, any beliefs in cables sonics are purely based on faith which is reinforced by improper home testing methods, flawed scientific analysis and further propegated by others with similar desires.

I cannot conclude that cable sonics as reported by audiophiles are completely invalid, but all current objective evidence points to this conclusion.

[bturk667]

I'll be surprised if he give you an answers based on his personal experimentation and or comparisons. I have not read a response of his to any question or post in quite some time. But I might, just might,read what he has to write about your question.

Good luck!

[RGA]

Monstrous Mike:

Well I doubt anyone is going t disagree that from where you sit you should not be a skeptic. I would like to know if every 100% conceivabvle thing related to the field of audio(not the human testing side which is a whole other discipline outside that of engineering) has been attributed. As we both know there are numerous upon neumerous MEASURABLE audible differences between properly working SS amps, CD players, DA Converters, and alas Cables all occuring in the audible frequency band of 20hz - 20khz and measurable differences outside that band. I have not seen a cable comany say their cables sound better, what I have seen is them saying their cables sound wonderful because of X, Y and Z. The fact that the free one that came with the cd player also does that, well nothing illegal about it.

The problem is that this fellow(link at bottom) is a world class expert with big-time credentials as well...He is not a subjectivist but doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater either. There is engineering and then there is science which is supposed to be objective and draw from several sectors. Western Medical Science and Chinese herbal treatments get head to head debates....the former is arrogant that their way is best(Drugs and more drugs and is basically Science run first and foremost by alterior motives called money making drug companies) and the latter ---well they just continually get results. Where is the science coming from who made up the procedures what if any was the alterior motive. Kinda like the Dairy Corporation of Canada who with lots of science and Double blind tests came up with the long standing four food groups. Of course most people have no clue it was the Dairy Corp who invented that structure That most people 40 and under have been taught....and now that it has been proved wrong and revamped if not completely taken out where is the punishment for these sheisters?

His degrees look impressive anyway.
http://www.colloms.com/

[Monstrous Mike]

RGA,

I do not disagree with the concept of not knowing all there is to know about any particular subject. As a matter of fact, I am quite open-minded scientifically speaking. Things that I feel are not understood and could have merit include accupuncture, hypnosis and other such practices, especially involving the human body or mind.

And while I am not a religious person, I still consider the possibility of of some abstract level of consiousness that we do not understand. And my logic says that it is unlikely we are the only lifeforms in the entire universe.

I could bore everybody and go on and on here but suffice it to say that I don't consider simple copper audio cables to as complex or have a general lack of scientific knowledge like that other ideas I mentioned earlier.

And that link you gave, I really didn't catch the guy's take on audio cables. Although, given that he has worked in the industry for many years, it wouldn't surprise me that he has concluded that putting a more positive spin on cable sonic than guys like I do is probably better for everybody (around him and his work) in the long run.

[RGA]

Monstrous Mike

I agree with you on cables as frankly you'll never hear me support them. I do play devil's advocate on them though because they are often dismissed out of hand. I have really only ever ONCE had a serious cable audition and it was with a MIT cable with a box attached. They were a $100.00 Cdn or so for the pair so it was not obscene.

And there was a difference, they sounded much worse than the cheap cable because they rolled off the highs and generally sounded muted(resistor in the box???).

Nevertheless I can hardly say that MIT cable is no different because well it is ... worse. These companies can deliberately alter the sound if they so choose to do, same for CD player and amp makers. It behooves them to DELIBERATELY make their products sound different.

Burr Brown DACs for instance measure differently, different capacitorsmeasure differently within the audible spectrum. Colloms I don't think is cable friendly and he couches his reviews is noting the terms subjective listening revealed X result. Basically he doesn't throw them out because he has listened to so many units.

Basically if the unit measures differently within the audible spectrum then theoretically given enough time and at the specific frequency at a specific volume in specific passages of music it may be heard. And that's not counting the companies that deliberately alter the sound.

I agree with you on issues related to a being or life outside of this one. I would not say there IS a God or that there IS alien life...but just because i can't prove those exist doesn't mean they don't. The counter is that audio is testable...but in a DBT - which anyway anyone cares to slice it, in the field of social sciences isn't an accurate guage...It's not even accurate statistically - my University Textbook says it, my psych text says it. This does not mean we just rely on every half-baked person who says every wire has a sonic signature and they know which is best...but unfortunately I don't like to use a bad test to prove someone wrong. Especially since even if they pass the test then the test is thrown out as a statistical fluke anyway - talk about stacking the deck.

[Pat D]

The counter is that audio is testable...but in a DBT - which anyway anyone cares to slice it, in the field of social sciences isn't an accurate guage...It's not even accurate statistically - my University Textbook says it, my psych text says it.

DBTs not accurate statistically. Now just what would you even mean by stuch a statement?

More importantly, just what DO your university textbooks say?

[mtrycraft]

but in a DBT - which anyway anyone cares to slice it, in the field of social sciences isn't an accurate guage...It's not even accurate statistically -

For a test not being statistically accurate interesting how the would of science, medicine, etc dend on it.

my University Textbook says it, my psych text says it.

You mean it is not as accurate as 2+2=4?

This does not mean we just rely on every half-baked person who says every wire has a sonic signature and they know which is best

Do you ever challenge such claims?

...but unfortunately I don't like to use a bad test to prove someone wrong.

But you accept the original claim uncallenged? ?That is worse.

[QUOTE Especially since even if they pass the test then the test is thrown out as a statistical fluke anyway - talk about stacking the deck.[/QUOTE]

Not a fluke if it is repeatable.

[mtrycraft]

I'll be surprised if he give you an answers based on his personal experimentation and or comparisons. Good luck!

Now why do I need first hand experience in everything in the marketplace? Is that what you do? Test everything before you make choices? Do you really go out and test all the nonsens? Do you consult the psychics? Why not? Do you consut astrology? Why not? Do you compare every brand of sugar in the store?
Do you go beyond what others claim when you put your $$ on the line? Maybe consult some credible sources?

[mtrycraft]

[b_]I think we all know you are an avowed disbeliever in many things audio, i.e. the effects of cables, power cords, [/b]

Disbeliever? I have not seen any evidence to support all the claims for differences for comparable cables. I do know speaker cables that are grossly different in ga will be audible.


differences in components and the like.


Well, some components have been found to be audibly different in DBT listening and have been published. So, I just don't accept claims for differences based on unreliable protocols. Sighted listening for differences is unreliable before you even start.

I have to agree that cables and power cords are way at the bottom of my priority list.

That is good, but it should be off your radar scope altogether Worry about important aspects of audio

I would like to hear how you drew your conclusions on the inaudibility of changes to cabling and other "snake oil" products.

Let me ask you how you determined that psychics are frauds? Homeopathic medicine is fraud, holistic healing is a fraud, talking to the dead is a fraud, etc?
No, I do not have to try everything in the marketplace. I would not get off first base.




Thanks.Luke

You are very welcome

[_Luke1_]

[QUOTE=mtrycraft]

Let me ask you how you determined that psychics are frauds? Homeopathic medicine is fraud, holistic healing is a fraud, talking to the dead is a fraud, etc?
No, I do not have to try everything in the marketplace. I would not get off first base.

QUOTE]

Sorry Mtry, you can't answer a question with a question. Is it just simple disbelief or did you follow some process?

I'm not going to harass you about the answer, I'm just trying to understand your contempt.

Thanks again.

Luke

[mtrycraft]

[QUOTE=_Luke1_]

Let me ask you how you determined that psychics are frauds? Homeopathic medicine is fraud, holistic healing is a fraud, talking to the dead is a fraud, etc?
No, I do not have to try everything in the marketplace. I would not get off first base.

QUOTE]

Sorry Mtry, you can't answer a question with a question. Is it just simple disbelief or did you follow some process?

I'm not going to harass you about the answer, I'm just trying to understand your contempt.

Thanks again.

Luke

Oh, the question serves a purpose. The same way one determines that those mentioned are frauds, evidence and lack there of. Same apllies for for audible differences in audio. The evidence and lack of evidence. Simple.
If, audible differences in cables of comparable gauges were so different as people claim, tests, real tests would support those claims. Guess what. First, the bases of the original claims are from uselss sighted claims. Useless. Nothing left of a claim so there is no more claim to test.

[Monstrous Mike]

Sorry Mtry, you can't answer a question with a question. Is it just simple disbelief or did you follow some process?

I'm not going to harass you about the answer, I'm just trying to understand your contempt.

Thanks again.

Luke

Perhaps you should look at your own contempt. Did you follow some process for every belief you hold? Does anyone even have enough time in their life to follow a process for every belief they have?

I think the answer is no, so think again how you formed your beliefs. By simply being educated in science, physics, and math, you can formulate and discard beliefs without having to go through any "processes" (this only concerns beliefs that centre on scientific evidence of course not abstract, religious or philosphical beliefs and I think cables can only be classified as a scientific belief).

Do you consider a belief or disbelief to be "simple" if you haven't gone through a "process"?

And while I can't speak for Mtrycrafts, I tend to think his belief about cables are predicated on the evidence at hand and the arguements presented by credible scientists and engineers. If you ask him, he can probably produce a list of reference material that you can read regarding cable sonics. Most people who believe they have heard a magic cable simplly dismiss these references, and I don't mean questionable ones, I mean ALL of them.

Your insinuation that Mtrycrafts needs to have followed some protocol or process where results have conclusively determined that cable sonic are a myth is a false arguement. It is a strawman. Single out one guy who has not done any DBTs or lab testing or molecular analysis and use that to tear down the whole arguement.

Every arguement a person puts forth in favour of magic cables can be disected and dismissed except for personal anecdotes, which cannot neither be confirmed nor denied. That's the simple truth and frankly it is confusing to me why some people simply ignore that fact.

Where exactly are going with your questioning?

I do not believe Mtrycrafts has contempt for cable sonics. He simply has weighed the evidence and it points to cables being benign objects with little influence on sound.

It's really quite odd that people like you use the term contempt for such a silly topic. It amazes my how irritated some people get when they are exposed to the concept that physics contradicts what they think they are hearing.

[mtrycraft]

You should check this link out:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...&pagenumber=14


While it is very long, lots of technical discussions, it is interesting that people can support some of those claims for the high measurements of cable distortion while better equipment has only noise at 20+dB lower measured floor with nothing but random noise.
Not even the claimed high level is in the threshold of audibility yet some still try to claim reasons for differences based on unreliable protocols. Some just don't know when to move on to important areas of audio.

[bturk667]

just as I thought! Never ever again!!!

[mtrycraft]

just as I thought! Never ever again!!!

Famous last words