Mythbusters....

[PeruvianSkies]

I think that we should all send in suggestions to the Mythbusters do see if they can replicate some audio debates and see if there is facts or fiction behind many of the arguments such as ...cables, power, surge & power protectors, vibration, amps & ratings, etc etc etc. The list goes on. Wouldn't it be great to see them tackle some of the things we argue about on here???

[Luvin Da Blues]

I think that we should all send in suggestions to the Mythbusters do see if they can replicate some audio debates and see if there is facts or fiction behind many of the arguments such as ...cables, power, surge & power protectors, vibration, amps & ratings, etc etc etc. The list goes on. Wouldn't it be great to see them tackle some of the things we argue about on here???

...do you think the general public would understand or even care? They do have to get the ratings.

[PeruvianSkies]

...do you think the general public would understand or even care? They do have to get the ratings.

Well, do you think that the general public cares about alot of the myths that they go after? I mean most people don't even think about those things, until they make an episode out of it and now you get people thinking.

[emorphien]

A lot of those myths have already been tested. Of course for those that have been disproven that doesn't mean people have stopped believing in them.

[Luvin Da Blues]

Well, do you think that the general public cares about alot of the myths that they go after? I mean most people don't even think about those things, until they make an episode out of it and now you get people thinking.

Wouldn't that be great if Joe Public started to really care about sound quality? Us audio geeks can only benefit from that.

Knowledge is power

[basite]

it would be a good idea, but there are 2 (major) problems:
1) as said before, they do need their ratings, nobody (exept us) care about expensive cables, neither they care about placement of their speakers, or about surge protectors and power conditioners.

2) If they'd test it, there would be an 80% chance that they'll test it with cheap CC or BB stuff, and using $$$ cables there wouldn't make any difference at all. So they'd need a real good system, and loads of time setting it up, and some good music to test it with, and other stuff.

the only way to check if those things make a difference or not is to try it on your very own system, since things can be completely different on other systems.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Studio-Exec: [I"]Well this week we could have Adam and Jaime spend 30 minutes switching between various brands of wire, the end result not possibly catching stuff on fire. -OR- Adam and jaime could take a sheet of plate glass and try to decapitate a motorcyclist is such a fashion that the headless rider stays on the bike ta freeway speeds!"[/I]

[PeruvianSkies]

I see that some of you feel that this topic would not do well for the Mythbusters, but I still have hope. They have already done two episodes that dealt with sound, one on the giant subwoofer and the other on breaking glass with an unamplified human voice. I don't see any reason why they couldn't do an episode that dealt with sound and also the audio/video hobby-related myths. It would also deal to some degree with power/electricity and maybe some other interesting things. I've always wanted to see a properly set up speaker system where you face the speakers towards each other and the waves cancel out. It might also be cool to do listening tests and find results related to the human ear, etc etc. There are loads of interesting material that could be integrated into an episode. Yes, they like to blow stuff up as well, maybe find out the breaking point of certain speakers or some other fun things resulting in smoke, fire, or booms.

[emorphien]

They won't do it simply because most people don't realize or care that there's a bunch of stupid debates over cables or power/surge protectors and conditioners or that people even debate over silly things like various woods for amp and speaker stands.

[PeruvianSkies]

They won't do it simply because most people don't realize or care that there's a bunch of stupid debates over cables or power/surge protectors and conditioners or that people even debate over silly things like various woods for amp and speaker stands.

and people care whether or not you can catch a samurai sword being swung at your head? or whether you can launch a mute from a trombone and hit the conductor of an orchestra?

[emorphien]

and people care whether or not you can catch a samurai sword being swung at your head? or whether you can launch a mute from a trombone and hit the conductor of an orchestra?

Those are popular/pop-culture myths with broader appeal in the media through movies or whatever.

I'm sure they aren't going to test whether various thermal interface materials really perform better to a significant degree to appease DIY computer builders such as myself. It's entertainment, testing what an enthusiast in a niche market might be interested in is going to seem tedious and boring to the average viewer. Just because they tried to find the brown note, or tried to break glass doesn't mean they're going after our hearts, those are funny or cool things to test. They're not just going to jump over to testing cables or other things and as we all know already, just because something may be proven to be pointless, people in the audio world will continue to do it based on faith that it helps. The mind is a powerful thing, that's good enough for some people to be convinced that some absurd things really do help.

[hermanv]

As an engineer I find many of the Mythbuster's tests meaningless and statistically irrelevant, I do enjoy the show because it's not really about science, it's a comedy and they are good at it.

Many of these audiophile "myths" have been the subject of endless testing and debate. You can find strong evidence to prove that some do or strong evidence that some do not work. Why would Mythbusters have a skill that others have not found (i.e. the abillity to make a convincing black and white conclusion).

Most of the claimed improvements for these "myths" are highly subjective in nature. No cable manufacturer has said my cables make sine waves more sine wave like. The claims are about improvements to music and there is virtually zero test equipment for measuring how accurately music is being reproduced.

[emorphien]

As an engineer I find many of the Mythbuster's tests meaningless and statistically irrelevant, I do enjoy the show because it's not really about science, it's a comedy and they are good at it.

I agree. I just watch the show and get a laugh out of it. If I were in their position I'd be doing the same thing though, it's got to be fun. I try to avoid nit-picking over their tests when things don't seem right.

The claims are about improvements to music and there is virtually zero test equipment for measuring how accurately music is being reproduced.

Well on that note, there aren't magical properties of conducting materials that we can't test for, so any supposed difference between cables should be quantifiable in some manner. The question that follows is whether the difference is actually for the better or worse and ultimately, whether it's significant. Sure something could be better in theory and in measurement in the lab, but it could be well below the threshold of human hearing to the point that the only kind of thing that makes it better is the warm fuzzies a lot of audiophiles associate with it (and often with spending too much).

I believe the psychological will for something to be better is usually one of the biggest factors in our field, it lets a lot of silly myths perpetuate far longer than they should, at any rate.

[hermanv]

Well on that note, there aren't magical properties of conducting materials that we can't test for, so any supposed difference between cables should be quantifiable in some manner. The question that follows is whether the difference is actually for the better or worse and ultimately, whether it's significant. Sure something could be better in theory and in measurement in the lab, but it could be well below the threshold of human hearing to the point that the only kind of thing that makes it better is the warm fuzzies a lot of audiophiles associate with it (and often with spending too much).

I believe the psychological will for something to be better is usually one of the biggest factors in our field, it lets a lot of silly myths perpetuate far longer than they should, at any rate.

The problem comes from the need to assign a number to the difference. There must be somthing quantifiable such as Ohms or Farads. Actually cables that many agree sound better do usually share quantifiable characteristics. Interconnects that sound best have better group delay performance and use insulators of known low dielectic absorbtion, in the case of speaker cables it's large grain structures and low inductance. Most people do not comprehend what group delay or dielectric absorbtion is, they haven't learned it in high school science so it must not exist.

Worse, in my experience these differences only show up in the best systems (weakest link theory) so you just can't hear the effect on a $300 stereo. That system has other problems that easily mask the subtle changes that cables make. On world class systems these changes only seem disproportionately high they are still subtle, just more easily noticed. . On mid priced systems, some changes are perceivable, on my system any quality brand interconnect above around $650 sounds the same, on better systems this is no longer true.

[emorphien]

The problem is that people cannot agree to accept some standard testing practices. We know we can measure a lot of properties of the cables electrically and physically, but there's little to no quality research and testing done on what matters. There has been some work done to relate measured properties and design features to audible impact, but not enough. What has been done has often been discounted by the audiophile elite, as it were. True double blind tests are needed but the companies producing a lot of these cables won't submit their products to such testing for no particular reason at all.

Worse, audiophiles have sometimes claimed that double blind testing holds no value for audio products. What makes this hobby or technology any different from another were double blind testing does matter? Nothing except arrogance and bad attitudes, it's easy to convince one-self that something sounds better, and by the very fact of stating such to someone else they may be persuaded. Without properly setup double-blind testing people are just blowing hot air, and since far too little proper testing has been performed, that's what most of the talk out there is.

If one thing is of no doubt in my mind, while some cables and interconnects can very well be better (I myself have auditioned $6000+ interconnects and cables on extremely high end systems) the amount of improvement there may be can easily be overcome or overridden in many cases by an individuals desire to hear something as better.

So back to the topic at hand: I don't trust mythbusters to put it all together correctly. They'd have to source the measuring out to someone else, then use a good enough system and setup to perform the DBT properly. And like I said before, nobody but us is gonna care.

[hermanv]

The mere words DBT do not of and by themselves describe a test methodology. There has been a lot of debate about test duration, test repetition, whether the listener or the test administartor picks sound samples, who decides when to toggle back and forth etcetera. It has not been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Tests have been performed with disparate results. Certainly some people have suscessfully identified different cables beyond any doubt of random luck.

Nevertheless the debate rages. I offer this; many audiophile tweaks have not stood the test of time, cables do however. More and more varieties more and more businesses than ever.

When I evaluate cables it takes me about two days (after a long burn in) to be reasonably sure that one is better than the other. Trying to do a double blind with many participants and many cables to evaluate becomes a exercise in stamina.

I am completely satisfied with my own judgement about this and owe the world nothing in terms of my effort or time in trying to convince any skeptics.

[nightflier]

I think what this discussion really points to is that there really isn't a trusted group or organization out there that does audio testing. Mythbusters is entertainment, nothing more - if they didn't get high-enough ratings to draw the advertisers, they would be off the air. Such a system cannot possibly be expected to be impartial. There's magazines, but they have the same conflicts of interest with their advertisers. Then there's Consumer Reports, but somehow they keep thinking Bose should be at the top of all the lists. Ultimately, equipment has to be tested in one's home, but how many people realistically have the time and the funds to buy and try 2 versions of every component & cable they buy. Unfortunately, many manufacturers prey on this fact.

What these companies/organizations can do that would be of partial interest to us audiophiles is to test for basic, simplistic durability. How many bends and twists can a cable take before the damage is audible? What amps can play the loudest the longest? How hard can a speaker cabinet be dropped before it cracks and how does it sound afterwards? These are all tests, we as owners cannot afford, but this would at least give us some measurable idea of quality. Asking these entities to do anything more technical would be entirely out of their realm.

[emorphien]

Nightflier, I think the bose thing has to do with them trying to sue the pants off CR at one point.

And I agree with you about a lack of trusted groups or organizations to perform audio testing. Most of the audio rags are entertaining and do sometimes include some good science, but they go off on too many unrelated tangents and aren't the easiest to have faith in (advertising dollars at work). Some sites are trying, however at times I think they are trying too hard to disprove some of the myths that deserve some credence and can end up using faulty science or assumptions based on modeling that aren't always valid.

The mere words DBT do not of and by themselves describe a test methodology.

It's close enough to the meaning and what I was trying to get across. And it doesn't describe a particular test that needs to be performed, but provides guidance as to how tests should be performed to avoid unwanted influences in the interpretations of results.

[basite]

and people care whether or not you can catch a samurai sword being swung at your head? or whether you can launch a mute from a trombone and hit the conductor of an orchestra?

Jeremy Clarkson's latest collumn is all about this sort of amusements...

http://www.topgear.com/content/featu...ries/17/1.html

this part explains alot:

I want to test that new Punto Abarth Fiat is talking about. I want to wring its neck round our track, and drive it all over Wales. Then there's the new M3. That, versus the new V8 Lexus, would surely be one of the great twin tests of the modern age. Which is fastest? Which generates the most g through the Hammerhead? Who knows? And who cares?

I suspect the majority of the audience would rather we loaded both cars into a large plane, flew over the Arizona desert and then pushed them out to see which hit the ground first.

so to answer your question:
no they shouldn't care about it, but they do, because they (the big mass of people) think it's funny, but those who are interested in (in this case cars, in our case audio gear) don't like it.

Keep them spinning,
Bert.

[jt1stcav]

So most likely we'll never see an audiophile-related Mythbusters show...who cares? I watch just to see the lovely Kari Byron!

[Blue Meanie]

I agree that Kari Byron is awfully cute. But that photo on FHM?
That's the best pic I've seen of her from the neck down, but from the neck up, it's absolutely hideous. Her smile in that pic reminds me of the Joker as played by Jack Nicholson in Batman.

Jeff