All in the head? - Brain power, what we hear, and believing in science

[Oldpinkman]

That seems a broad enough thread title to allow LOTs of drift :) I propose as a house rule for my thread that anything goes as long as it is "Quite Interesting" and somewhere near topic. To kick off the idea that what we hear - actually hear - not imagine - is fundamentally down to the signal processor we call the brain, I plan to start with STEREO - but I expect to end up all over the shop.

In effect we are saying the finished "sound" is not down to just the ears, any more than a recording is just down to the signal out of the microphone. A lot of processing goes on, and affects what we actually "hear". This means some things we hear, and some changes in what we hear are real - but they are changes in our hearing, and not necessarily changes in the equipment we are listening to.

STEREO. When I set up a new vinyl component, I stick on HFS69 and listen to that girl telling me that the following signal is recorded on both channels equally and in phase and should form a strongly defined central image. It does. The saxophone I hear Karen Sharp playing comes from a place just to the right of the Wii but a bit higher up, and Katie Melua on "Nobody knows you when you're down and out" comes from just left of the sky box. That's with my eyes open. I feel I could do better than point, I could get up and touch the place where the sound comes from, and expect to feel the speaker cone vibrate.

But of course - although I absolutely hear the sound come from that point - it doesnt. There are no sound waves at all being produced from the point where I absolutely hear them coming from. It's a con. They actually come, as the lady on the record says, from the right and left of there, equally and in phase. I am (I think) very lucky. The con of stereo works easily for me - and I love it. Others I know (we had some at PT, Clive197 appears to be one) don't get the illusion, and so don't get the imaging and positioning I do. A bit like I can't get 3d TV (I can't get 3d vision in reality having lost the sight of my right eye). And Gordon didn't get the oscillating ladies I posted a month or two back - rather missing the point that you weren't supposed to see through the illusion, you were supposed to trick your brain into seeing it, or not, at your choice.

But the point is, the most basic idea of the 2 channel most of us listen to now as our primary music source, is a con based on the discovery that you can fake a central image with real sound coming from 2 points in front of the listener. So we hear that central image - because that's how our brain hears, even though we don't hear it, because it's actually not there.

Our brains can get influenced by many other things - which is why the fact that we hear changes doesn't necessarily mean a change has taken place, any more than the fact that I hear a sound coming from the centre of my TV means it actually is coming from there.

Amazing brain :cool:

[Rothchild]

I posted this before but I think it supports your point about the brain's ability to be 'fooled', much as stereo recording and mixing techniques generate 'soundscape'

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Grey_square_optical_illusion.PNG

Just because you thought you saw a difference doesn't mean there's one there:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Optical_illusion_greysquares.gif

[Tim]

I'm confused, what's the point of the two images, they look the same to me?

[Rothchild]

You might also enjoy 'The McGurk Effect'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

[Tim]

Seen that before, but what's the point of the images?

[Rothchild]

I'm confused, what's the point of the two images, they look the same to me?

Image one is just a static so you can see that boxes A and B appear to be different colours, the second image is an animation that demonstrates that boxes A and B are actually the same colour.

[mr sneff]

Image one is just a static so you can see that boxes A and B appear to be different colours, the second image is an animation that demonstrates that boxes A and B are actually the same colour.

The brain 'sees' what it expects to see. There are numerous auditory illusions as well, the virtual barbershop is a good one :)

[RMutt]

I've mentioned this before and I don't know why they do it, but it ruins the illusion I like to hear in front of me. It's where the guitar comes from one side and the voice from the other even though the singer is playing the guitar. Some Hendrix tracks are like that. You know he's playing but from where his voice is coming from he couldn't reach his guitar! and drum kits that span the whole stereo image.

[Oldpinkman]

Ok.since the thread title includes believing in science this is my version of why the cavalier dismissal of science bothers me. And maybe, along with a bit of a personality clash why I'll take my friends advice to go to real pubs instead.
Anyway, according to Stephen fry on qi recently 25% of the worlds population believe the 1969 nasa moon landings were faked. To our national shame allegedly 40% of the uk population believe that. At the secondary schoolwhere my wife teaches, amongst pupils its probably closer to 70%, and they don't believe they were faked in a Hollywood studio, they know they were, in a slightly condescending way. I find that exhasperating. Apparently neil Armstrong used to punch people who said it.

I rather think arthur on this forum identified with neil Armstrong. At the very least he identified with Brian cox and turned off the tv. I may not understand the science like they do but I am minded to the same response.

Why? I haven't personally stood on the moon. I don't know neil Armstrong, buzz aldrin or Michael collins or anyone who knows tgem personally. I haven't even been to cape Canaveral. I know the flapping flag, footprint, no camera reflected in the visor stuff. Ok I watched it live - I was 8, bought a black shirt and white tie like james burke, listened to patrick moore. But I haven't been to space, dont know at first hand that it's black, haven't seen the curvature of the earth (I've seen photos and videos, but I've seen those of gotham city and batman looking at least as real)
I havent seen an atom, although i am interested and try to make sense of technical stuff when experts are kind enough to explain it I don't understand it well enough to challenge or explore it myself.
Yet, you have to ground somewhere. I have some experiences 4 myself which I can relate to my collective experiences of what's reliable, and you get a feel for which experts to trust.


The moon landings were real. A mains cable can't affect how a piece of musical equipment sounds. Until evidence or explantions pkausibly shift the balance of probability the other way.

(Oh - although the black sheep, my parents met in the research labs at boroughs welcome. Science is in the blood):mental:

[PaulStewart]

I just posted this on the Burning in thread but I think it's probably appropriate here too, if not I apologise to the moderators.

Firstly, this is not aimed at anyone or meant as a put down, it's simply a discussion of information and what i think is a viable theory on this subject. Burning in leads and the effect of mains cables, have been dismissed as at best a placebo effect (you pay £200 or even £2000 pounds for a mains cable, it's gonna sound better or you feel a fool) and at worst "absolute rubbish". This would be possible if not for the amount of INDEPENDENT empirical evidence we have heard reported here and elsewhere. The source of this evidence is from people who don't know the mains cable had a big price or had been burned in, so who are they you ask. It's peoples wives and girlfriends. How many times have people posted on this forum and others things along the lines of "Then my wife came in and said, that sounds different/better, what have you changed" Now lets be honest, most audiophiles will bend over backwards to stop the other half finding out how much the cables and other bits really cost, so in their case in won't be a placebo it will be a spontaneous actual perception.

Now burn in is an interesting subject, again we have a large amount of anecdotal, albeit empirical evidence reported from the same independent arbiters, the WAGS. How many times have people reported their partners commenting about new cables sounding "Tight" and then the sound "Opening up". So it's not just audiophiles who can hear it, our uninitiated fellow travellers can too it seems. At one point I did wonder whether the phenomena was caused by a change to the whole circuit. I.E. if we accept that capacitors, valves etc. do indeed burn in, then when we change the cable for one with different properties, did the whole "Settling down" process might have to happen again. This seemed a reasonable hypothesis until I did some tests (double blind comparisons) on cables burned in on a machine designed for the purpose, and these seemed as good as identical cable that had been burned in by regular use and better than out of the box ones, so this need more investigation.

Weighing up the arguments I think that I'm ready to postulate a theory as to why some people can't hear differences in mains cables and cable burn in. I think it's possible that some people don't want to pay out the cost of quality connectors and also don't want to accept that the world moves on and that there prized piece of kit may no longer be the zenith of excellence. Also, others with The latest kit may well not want to accept that a diamond tracing a grove at the end of a stick feeding some old school valve technology with paper cones and horns walks all over their prized computer optimised, £20ks worth of high res alleged super fi. So what happens, well I think, based on an observational methodology I grant you, that a reverse placebo effect kicks in and the brains of the nay sayers simply cannot accept that they are wrong. Also, their hearing as they get older may not be able to resolve these differences, a fallibility the brain does not want to accept. A combination of these factors, would lead to a subconscious repressive block and psychologically they really cannot hear a difference. A closed min s a sad thing.

Cheers

I would ad this is not ignoring science it is an attempt to apply it and solve a conundrum

[chelsea]

This thread is hurting my head

[jandl100]

Meh - just enjoy the fookin' music. ;)

[synsei]

Meh - just enjoy the fookin' music. ;)

+1 :thumbsup:

[Oldpinkman]

Meh - just enjoy the fookin' music. ;)

Ah, I enjoy golf, tennis, evenings out with friends, holidays abroad, playing and listening to music, good food and wine, intelligent conversation, and "quite interesting" stuff. ;)

[lurcher]

The moon landings were real. A mains cable can't affect how a piece of musical equipment sounds. Until evidence or explantions pkausibly shift the balance of probability the other way.

Sorry, the OCD in me forces me to point out that that statement is not valid logically. The moon landing is a event that took place in the past, all evidence and memory indicates that it took place.

Its possible to construct a mains cable that effects the sound of the equipment, just build one with a 1k resistor in line. It will sound different (not make a sound) with a high current power amp, but a low power DVD player will work fine.

Therefore its possible to conceive of a mains cable that can effect the sound.

Therefore your statement is rendered false by the existence of a case that disproves it.

This is not to say that a particular cable will, or that any properly constructed one will, but as a statement of fact like you made its false. This is about science after all.

I do worry though when the word believe and science are joined together, the latter does not require the former as science (by definition) can be tested.

[Gmanuk101]

this is excellent :) also may I argue that there are indeed a few perspicacious opinions here. (I've used 'perspicacious' as an example of what I think occurs, generally, and not discontinuing this forum).

1) a person or persons posts there equipment and proposes a discussion
2) an expert in the field adds his technical discussion, citing some real world scientific data.
3) another posts, following on from point 2 above, yet adding opinion not based on fact
4) another posts, following on from point 3 above, yet adding opinion not based on fact
5) this effect roles on until we have nothing but conjecture based on opinion and subjective analysis, possibly weighted by serveral factors (cost of equipment, 'synergy' argument, what the "Jones' " have) or simply that a person didn't think of a newly desctibed 'nuance' in the first place and therefore forms an opinion based on this, ergo: an unoriginal point of view.

All of this is opinion based on my view of things and in no way is an actual scientific argument and is a theory, indeed which I can not prove nor can be unproven so, like a lot of subjective wording please take with a pinch of salt for the pallet.

remember, I know nothing.

[Gmanuk101]

+1 :thumbsup:

+11

[Oldpinkman]

Ah now for my favourite subject, as a "warm up" for the main theme (left brain v right brain) which made use of injuries affecting the brain (strokes mainly) for its research

At the age of 12 I was hit in the right eye playing badminton. The eye hemorrhaged internally, and had to have 2 emergency surgery procedures to stabilise it. It became squashed out of shape, the iris tore, and a cataract formed in the lens. It was this cataract that led to me being effectively blind in that eye by my 13th birthday. That remained the state of affairs until I was about 40, when another injury caused the surgeons to conclude they needed to remove the cataract to enable them to see in - surgical techniques having advanced to the state that this "problem" lens was now feasible. This resulted in a significant (temporary) restoration of sight. I'll shorten the story lots - there have been morsche ring implants which chafed the cornea, various pressure control treatments including a barveldt shunt tube implant, and 2 corneal grafts, and the eye is now stable and comfortable, although during the last corneal graft, the plastic lens implant shifted and snagged in its supporting membrane, and my vision is below the best that could be achieved if it were considered an acceptable risk to try to surgically correct this.

No rush. The key point I have been building up to, is that over the last 10 years, after an absence of sight for over 30 years, I have had some sight restored, which at its best was probably about able to see down to the thick line on a sight test chart (today is rather less good - I can count fingers 1 metre away from my face). Seeing through my right eye is a slightly surreal experience. It is all "pastel shades" - really rather pretty - this due to the slight hazing, like the old cokin pastel filters for cameras. But it has at times been good enough for me to walk about. Now - some odd stuff

Mostly - distractingly - I just notice the right side of my nose when I can see well. It's such a novelty, that even though if I test by noticing it I can see the left side of my nose with my left eye - it is routinely "invisible" where the right side of my nose is constantly there. My brain is selectively creating the vision differently for each of my eyes, due to its differential experience.

However - this is not a permanent state. from regular eye exams, I am pretty sure that the ACTUAL vision in my eye doesn't change. The cornea is a little clearer some days than others, but the effect is slight. However, my brain switches the vision on and off. What I see is NOT exclusively the electrical signals being fed by my optic nerve. It's what my brain elects to do with them. Sometimes it switches on. Sometimes it switches off. If I am driving - sometimes the switch is flicked, and a 2nd road appears, curving off to the left of the real road. Stay with me for how real this is (I sometimes have to shut my eye if its too distracting)

If I stare at a picture on a wall, sometimes a 2nd "ghost" image appears, up and to the left a little. I then watch a fascinating struggle as the ghost image wavers and is tugged like on a straining rubber band, ever closer to the main image, almost to the point they merge, only to "ping back" again to its original position. This is due to my age when the injury occured and the poor state of right eye vision. Had I injured at age 16, I am told by the doctors that my brain would have no difficulty merging the 2 images into one true 3d image, even though the actual quality of vision was different in the 2 eyes. Had I been 8 at the time of the original injury, there would have been no chance of my brain being able to create an integrated 3d image. At age 12??? It is during this period of our lives that our brains develop this skill, but they need the visual stimulus available to them at the time to do so.

To explain just how real this is, when I first had this restored sight, I used to "try it out" and shut my left eye and just use my right eye. The idea being to see what actual vision I might have if I were to lose my left eye and have to rely on the right. At the moment the doctors avoid unnecessary surgery, since I don't need the eye for sight, and surgical techniques constantly improve. But in the event of me needing it they would take the risks to restore as much sight as possible. So - what happens when I try just me right eye? Really bizarre

When I first ate a bowl of cereal, I chucked the spoonful of food over my left shoulder. Now, blindfold, I can eat a spoon of cereal without spilling it. That is becuase I cautiously use my other senses (motor sensory skills which tell me where my arm is without looking). However - when I present my brain with visual information, it recognises that as best, and acts on it confidently, and incorrectly and I throw the food over my left shoulder.

I am used to processing visual stimulus from my left eye only, using my right brain (which receives the signal from my left eye). However, manifestly, as with many stroke victims, my left brain has said "bugger that" and usurped control of that aspect. But when it then gets information from my right eye direct, it handles it in typical left brain analytical fashion and screws up (I'll come on to left brain right brain in the next post)

Other manifestations - I peed on the floor, instead of the toilet bowl which I could "see" I was peeing into

I walked into a wall next to the door. This is really bizarre. I can clearly see the door way. I actually see a door in a wall. When I walk through the door I am looking at, I walk into the wall.

There - enough for one long post - the brain is an odd signal processor, and we see and hear some odd things according to its processing choices :eek:

[Oldpinkman]

Sorry, the OCD in me forces me to point out that that statement is not valid logically. The moon landing is a event that took place in the past, all evidence and memory indicates that it took place.

Its possible to construct a mains cable that effects the sound of the equipment, just build one with a 1k resistor in line. It will sound different (not make a sound) with a high current power amp, but a low power DVD player will work fine.

Therefore its possible to conceive of a mains cable that can effect the sound.

Therefore your statement is rendered false by the existence of a case that disproves it.

This is not to say that a particular cable will, or that any properly constructed one will, but as a statement of fact like you made its false. This is about science after all.

I do worry though when the word believe and science are joined together, the latter does not require the former as science (by definition) can be tested.

You are quite right. I wish you'd posted that last week. Of course, you couldn't because my comment wasn't there to respond to then. But it might have shortened the time it took me to figure the valve heaters on my headphone amp not functioning was due to me having switched the wallwart supplying it to 12v for Alans amp, and it needed to go back to 24v for mine!!!!:doh:

[jandl100]

A bit about me

Well that was interesting. And you have my sympathies for your ocular problems.

But perhaps this sad ongoing health issue of yours has provided an inappropriate analogy for the audio experience. Your sight is without doubt faulty - and the perception systems of your brain are unable to cope adequately given the extremity of the problem. Sad, but no great surprise.

Perhaps you are reading too much into the visual/audio comparison? Most folks here have pretty decent hearing, I should think.
(And some, like me, are happy to spend many ££ on mains cables because we percieve the differences. ;))

Marc posted that interesting shaded square optical illusion. Does this mean that all such perceptual illusions should therefore be dismissed? Supposing I like the effect of different shades on the square, even though they are really the same? Should I therefore not enjoy the sight? Is it somehow inappropriate or wrong to enjoy looking at it?

Much of the audio that we take for granted is an aural illusion. A central stereo image is one. There is no central sound source there, and yet we perceive it to be. Is this somehow wrong? - should we all just be honest and recognise the reality and just listen to mono sources?

What is your point here, Oldpinkman?

[Gordon Steadman]

I find all this totally fascinating but ultimately, rather boring:lol:

Whilst you lot have been posting reams argu...... discussing the merits of this and that, I've been a busy boy, listening to music, reading various books and welcoming our new feline companion into the fold.

Seriously though folks, I do still find the search for scientific explanations for everything to be important as it is what has bought humans to where we are today and you wouldn't have the hi-fi at all if someone hadn't sat and pondered. I find all the other stuff roughly on the level of a site I just visited that makes crystal pendants that vibrate in sympathy with my personal vibe and provide soulful healing and eternal bliss - could do with a bit of that:eyebrows:

I don't mean to discourage or suggest that many things are a waste of time as, strangely, enough, I suspect there may be things outside my philosophy, and even stranger, it may be that I am not right about ABSOLUTELY everything.

However, I have reached the stage where I really do just want to sit and enjoy what life is left without worrying too much about the whys and wherefores. Thats for you young things.

So carry on chaps and I will dip in and out to check on progress whilst my crystals vibrate in sympathy.

[prestonchipfryer]

I once thought I was in Turkey, but in fact it was Tunisia. What an illusion that was. :)

[anthonyTD]

Excellent post!
I just posted this on the Burning in thread but I think it's probably appropriate here too, if not I apologise to the moderators.

Firstly, this is not aimed at anyone or meant as a put down, it's simply a discussion of information and what i think is a viable theory on this subject. Burning in leads and the effect of mains cables, have been dismissed as at best a placebo effect (you pay £200 or even £2000 pounds for a mains cable, it's gonna sound better or you feel a fool) and at worst "absolute rubbish". This would be possible if not for the amount of INDEPENDENT empirical evidence we have heard reported here and elsewhere. The source of this evidence is from people who don't know the mains cable had a big price or had been burned in, so who are they you ask. It's peoples wives and girlfriends. How many times have people posted on this forum and others things along the lines of "Then my wife came in and said, that sounds different/better, what have you changed" Now lets be honest, most audiophiles will bend over backwards to stop the other half finding out how much the cables and other bits really cost, so in their case in won't be a placebo it will be a spontaneous actual perception.

Now burn in is an interesting subject, again we have a large amount of anecdotal, albeit empirical evidence reported from the same independent arbiters, the WAGS. How many times have people reported their partners commenting about new cables sounding "Tight" and then the sound "Opening up". So it's not just audiophiles who can hear it, our uninitiated fellow travellers can too it seems. At one point I did wonder whether the phenomena was caused by a change to the whole circuit. I.E. if we accept that capacitors, valves etc. do indeed burn in, then when we change the cable for one with different properties, did the whole "Settling down" process might have to happen again. This seemed a reasonable hypothesis until I did some tests (double blind comparisons) on cables burned in on a machine designed for the purpose, and these seemed as good as identical cable that had been burned in by regular use and better than out of the box ones, so this need more investigation.

Weighing up the arguments I think that I'm ready to postulate a theory as to why some people can't hear differences in mains cables and cable burn in. I think it's possible that some people don't want to pay out the cost of quality connectors and also don't want to accept that the world moves on and that there prized piece of kit may no longer be the zenith of excellence. Also, others with The latest kit may well not want to accept that a diamond tracing a grove at the end of a stick feeding some old school valve technology with paper cones and horns walks all over their prized computer optimised, £20ks worth of high res alleged super fi. So what happens, well I think, based on an observational methodology I grant you, that a reverse placebo effect kicks in and the brains of the nay sayers simply cannot accept that they are wrong. Also, their hearing as they get older may not be able to resolve these differences, a fallibility the brain does not want to accept. A combination of these factors, would lead to a subconscious repressive block and psychologically they really cannot hear a difference. A closed min s a sad thing.

Cheers

I would ad this is not ignoring science it is an attempt to apply it and solve a conundrum

[Arkless Electronics]

All mains cables sound the same. It would be ridiculous for it to be any other way. A con to sell accessories and nothing more.... just a pity so many have been taken in. They could have spent that money on records... or beer :cool:

[Rothchild]

Marc posted that interesting shaded square optical illusion. Does this mean that all such perceptual illusions should therefore be dismissed? Supposing I like the effect of different shades on the square, even though they are really the same? Should I therefore not enjoy the sight? Is it somehow inappropriate or wrong to enjoy looking at it?

Much of the audio that we take for granted is an aural illusion. A central stereo image is one. There is no central sound source there, and yet we perceive it to be. Is this somehow wrong? - should we all just be honest and recognise the reality and just listen to mono sources?


Good point, indeed as well as 'the stereo trick' Mp3 encoding (and the one that Minidisks use) is predicated on such knowledge (something to do with masking effects of certain frequencies over certain amplitudes), so I agree, insofar as if a perceptual 'trick' is useful for better outcomes (smaller files, greater efficiency, better sound etc) then that's all good. What I'm concerned about is folk who consistently (and perhaps wilfully) deny the ability for their perceptions to be 'tricked' and would continue, in the face of better evidence, to claim that (for example) the 2 squares actually are different colours.

Recognising which differences are 'in the world' and which are 'in us' is important IMO. Use of scientific method gives us the ability to sort one from the other.

[Macca]

I was basking in the heat from an oil-filled electric radiator the other night. That is until I left the room, came back in and noticed it wasn't even switched on. My brain had 'invented' the sensation of warmth because my concious mind believed it should be there.

[anthonyTD]

Intersting statement Jez,
What's your view on how they are terminated, and the use of different plugs and sockets etc..
A....
All mains cables sound the same. It would be ridiculous for it to be any other way. A con to sell accessories and nothing more.... just a pity so many have been taken in. They could have spent that money on records... or beer :cool:

[synsei]

Just a thought, even if the cable burn-in issue is all in the head, and I'm not saying it is, those in the burn-in camp are in a win-win situation because they know things are going to get better. Anyway I'm outta here as this thread is clearly going nowhere fast and is in fact a rehash of several other threads dealing with the same issue. Perhaps it is time to bring them all together under one roof... :door:

[Welder]

I just posted this on the Burning in thread but I think it's probably appropriate here too, if not I apologise to the moderators.

Firstly, this is not aimed at anyone or meant as a put down, it's simply a discussion of information and what i think is a viable theory on this subject. Burning in leads and the effect of mains cables, have been dismissed as at best a placebo effect (you pay £200 or even £2000 pounds for a mains cable, it's gonna sound better or you feel a fool) and at worst "absolute rubbish". This would be possible if not for the amount of INDEPENDENT empirical evidence we have heard reported here and elsewhere. The source of this evidence is from people who don't know the mains cable had a big price or had been burned in, so who are they you ask. It's peoples wives and girlfriends. How many times have people posted on this forum and others things along the lines of "Then my wife came in and said, that sounds different/better, what have you changed" Now lets be honest, most audiophiles will bend over backwards to stop the other half finding out how much the cables and other bits really cost, so in their case in won't be a placebo it will be a spontaneous actual perception.

Now burn in is an interesting subject, again we have a large amount of anecdotal, albeit empirical evidence reported from the same independent arbiters, the WAGS. How many times have people reported their partners commenting about new cables sounding "Tight" and then the sound "Opening up". So it's not just audiophiles who can hear it, our uninitiated fellow travellers can too it seems. At one point I did wonder whether the phenomena was caused by a change to the whole circuit. I.E. if we accept that capacitors, valves etc. do indeed burn in, then when we change the cable for one with different properties, did the whole "Settling down" process might have to happen again. This seemed a reasonable hypothesis until I did some tests (double blind comparisons) on cables burned in on a machine designed for the purpose, and these seemed as good as identical cable that had been burned in by regular use and better than out of the box ones, so this need more investigation.

Weighing up the arguments I think that I'm ready to postulate a theory as to why some people can't hear differences in mains cables and cable burn in. I think it's possible that some people don't want to pay out the cost of quality connectors and also don't want to accept that the world moves on and that there prized piece of kit may no longer be the zenith of excellence. Also, others with The latest kit may well not want to accept that a diamond tracing a grove at the end of a stick feeding some old school valve technology with paper cones and horns walks all over their prized computer optimised, £20ks worth of high res alleged super fi. So what happens, well I think, based on an observational methodology I grant you, that a reverse placebo effect kicks in and the brains of the nay sayers simply cannot accept that they are wrong. Also, their hearing as they get older may not be able to resolve these differences, a fallibility the brain does not want to accept. A combination of these factors, would lead to a subconscious repressive block and psychologically they really cannot hear a difference. A closed min s a sad thing.

Cheers

I would ad this is not ignoring science it is an attempt to apply it and solve a conundrum

Really, I mean seriously really, what kind of evidence is that? :doh:
Let’s get these wives and sit them in front of a system some time and try out a few mains leads. If they get some statistically significant result then perhaps one might call that evidence.

Whether it is true or not, the well “your kit isn’t resolving/transparent enough” or “your hearing isn’t up to scratch” gets trotted out every time this debate hits the forums.
Now, there is plenty of evidence from numerous tests that even with some of the best equipment and practiced listeners the participants haven’t been able to pick out one mains lead from another with any statistical success.

Dismissing the tests as flawed is fine, but at least they are proper tests. What my missus said isn’t. :rolleyes:

I’ve got upgraded mains leads, expensive connectors (where I have to have any at all) balanced power, and... an ABX testing rig. The fact that for a number of improvements I can’t achieve a statistically significant result when testing doesn’t make me chuck the improvements out, or stop trying other “proven inaudible during test” things. Why? Because I enjoy doing it and for some I really believe that they do make a small difference that testing just doesn’t pick out for whatever reason. So, I get called delusional. Frankly I couldn’t give a fuck. It’s my system and my money.

It’s not the buying or even positive reviewing of this stuff that pisses me off, as a bit of an objectivist, it’s the massive exaggeration of their benefits and the complete dismissal of the science that sound reproduction is based on.

Just a passing thought. So why don’t the designers of these pieces of equipment, some of which post here, fit super mains leads as standard. Ffs their kit cost enough and one would have thought they would want any advantage to sound better than their competitors. :)

[Gordon Steadman]

I was basking in the heat from an oil-filled electric radiator the other night. That is until I left the room, came back in and noticed it wasn't even switched on. My brain had 'invented' the sensation of warmth because my concious mind believed it should be there.

Without any warming influence from the bottle of brandy at all?

[Macca]

Without any warming influence from the bottle of brandy at all?

Brandy? I'm not a bloody millionaire, y'know...

Might have been a can of Guinness.

[Oldpinkman]

I was basking in the heat from an oil-filled electric radiator the other night. That is until I left the room, came back in and noticed it wasn't even switched on. My brain had 'invented' the sensation of warmth because my concious mind believed it should be there.

Small beer Martin. My parents work was in the fabulous world of placebo's. Actual measurable physiological changes take place to the body because of eating sugar pills. In Kenya on national service my dad watched an African go away and die because his witch doctor told him to - and he just laid down and was dead shortly afterwards.

So a bit of heat from a radiator not turned on - kids stuff! ;)

[Macca]

Yep placebo effect is quite amazing really. When my Dad died my mum went on some anti-depressant pills - she was feeling better immediately despite the fact that the variety of pills prescribed took between one to two weeks to have any genuine effect.

[YNWaN]

Frankly, I think your comments are not only ignoring science but attempting to bend it to meet your beliefs!


Burning in leads and the effect of mains cables, have been dismissed as at best a placebo effect (you pay £200 or even £2000 pounds for a mains cable, it's gonna sound better or you feel a fool) and at worst "absolute rubbish". This would be possible if not for the amount of INDEPENDENT empirical evidence we have heard reported here and elsewhere.

There is a much greater weight of empirical evidence to support the concepts of ghosts, the after life, alien abduction etc. - all manner of things that are not accepted as existing, outside of empirical report.


The source of this evidence is from people who don't know the mains cable had a big price or had been burned in, so who are they you ask. It's peoples wives and girlfriends. How many times have people posted on this forum and others things along the lines of "Then my wife came in and said, that sounds different/better, what have you changed" Now lets be honest, most audiophiles will bend over backwards to stop the other half finding out how much the cables and other bits really cost, so in their case in won't be a placebo it will be a spontaneous actual perception.

How many times have wives and girlfriends been played an apparently obvious difference only to declare that none can be heard/exists - does this evidence carry equal weight or is it only relevant when it supports your conjecture?


Now burn in is an interesting subject, again we have a large amount of anecdotal, albeit empirical evidence reported from the same independent arbiters, the WAGS. How many times have people reported their partners commenting about new cables sounding "Tight" and then the sound "Opening up". So it's not just audiophiles who can hear it, our uninitiated fellow travellers can too it seems. At one point I did wonder whether the phenomena was caused by a change to the whole circuit. I.E. if we accept that capacitors, valves etc. do indeed burn in, then when we change the cable for one with different properties, did the whole "Settling down" process might have to happen again. This seemed a reasonable hypothesis until I did some tests (double blind comparisons) on cables burned in on a machine designed for the purpose, and these seemed as good as identical cable that had been burned in by regular use and better than out of the box ones, so this need more investigation.

That's entirely conjecture based on flimsy evidence at best. You assume that it is accepted fact that capacitors and valves burn in - but it's not. Valves warm up and stabilise, but that isn't burning in - they don't improve with age, they just get older and eventually die. Capacitors form when first charged, but that is quite a quick process. Hi-fi is the only realm of existence where entropy appears to work in reverse (apparently)!


Weighing up the arguments I think that I'm ready to postulate a theory as to why some people can't hear differences in mains cables and cable burn in. I think it's possible that some people don't want to pay out the cost of quality connectors and also don't want to accept that the world moves on and that there prized piece of kit may no longer be the zenith of excellence. Also, others with The latest kit may well not want to accept that a diamond tracing a grove at the end of a stick feeding some old school valve technology with paper cones and horns walks all over their prized computer optimised, £20ks worth of high res alleged super fi. So what happens, well I think, based on an observational methodology I grant you, that a reverse placebo effect kicks in and the brains of the nay sayers simply cannot accept that they are wrong. Also, their hearing as they get older may not be able to resolve these differences, a fallibility the brain does not want to accept. A combination of these factors, would lead to a subconscious repressive block and psychologically they really cannot hear a difference. A closed min s a sad thing.

Cheers

I would ad this is not ignoring science it is an attempt to apply it and solve a conundrum

When you write that you are "weighing up the arguments" it sounds much more like you are simply grasping at straws of empirical and anecdotal evidence and using them to justify your own beliefs - I don't see any attempt to balance the arguments for and against.

[Oldpinkman]

OK

My teasing fan dance approach clearly pisses a few off, so the answer before the game. One reason we hear differences, and in particular "run in", "warm up" and "burn in" might be because of the difference in our mental states depending whether we are being run by our left or right brains at the time we listen. Following my mucky eye experiences, and other research into this topic personally, and volumes publicly, I don't think its as simple as one half or the other. I think one half can dominate, and the other half participate to a greater or lesser degree. So the brain halves don't create an on-off binary set of differences. You can get shades of grey (that should excite the ladies!)

So personally I don't hear equipment warm up. My aforementioned friends who understand this stuff a good bit better than me tell me I shouldn't be able to (You obviously have to let the heaters on a valve get up to temperature). But I always enjoy a record more after a while. Let's phrase that as the 2nd LP always sounds better than the first. Regardless of how long I left the amplifier cooking before.

How come? This thought occurred to me the other day when I was nearly nodding off listening to some records - rather than just had the eyes shut cos the soundstage is wider, the instruments more real that way. So, in very brief our brains are split into 2 halves - the left and right hemispheres and they work very differently (there are other bits too like the cortex, but keep it simple here). The right brain processes information from the left ear and eye in normal undamaged brains, and vice versa. That's not the main point of interest here (but it is relevant to some experiments which established all this)

The left brain is better specialised at rational, logical, linear, digital, analytical and verbal. The right brain is nonverbal, spatial, intuitive, holistic, synthetic (as in synthesises rather than analyses). There is tons of research. If anyone who can't draw for toffee and doesn't know much about this wants to go in for some audience participation, we could do an online demo of how the 2 brain halves operate and how to switch between them

So - the easiest illustration I am thinking of refers to drawing (but I have used this for learning sports and musical instruments too). Although all of us have and use both halves of the brain, usually one side is dominant. For most of us that's the left brain. Lots of us actually hear it talking to us from inside as a constant chatter which is very hard to stop. (Try hearing no voice inside you for 60 seconds - artists here probably won't understand what the rest of us are going on about, and can do it easily).

However, although most of us are left brain dominated, and experience the world in a left brain way most of the time, we all get to use our right brain too. We couldn't function as we do otherwise. A good example is learning to drive. When we start out, our left brain takes control. It understands the functions we need to carry out - check in mirror, press pedal with foot, move gearshift with arm, replace arm on steering wheel, ease up foot to reach biting point etc. Each movement is understood, analysed and controlled. Very left brain. Gradually in our learning process we master the skills, and the right brain can control the activity. Driving becomes a holistic activity where we are simply unaware of the individual elements which have to be carried out correctly, and which we monitor individually when learning in left brain mode. In right brain - they just happen.

So - what does it feel like? Well - all the time your voice in your head is chattering to you, you are in left brain verbal mode mainly. Do you sometimes get a warm fuzzy feeling, almost like self hypnosis. Perhaps you have been driving a longish, complex route that is very familiar, and just arrived at your destination without realising - certainly without a conscious verbal analytical awareness of all the individual turns and route decisions made. That feeling is how you are when your right brain is in control. It is possible for those of us with dominant left brains to "force the switch" - so I could demonstrate it as described above.

But it will happen for all of us anyway at times. Can you see where I get back to the conclusion at the beginning. When we get a new bit of equipment, or even when we first go to listen to music, chances are we are in a left brain dominated state of mind. Music just doesnt sound that good using that half of the brain. Enjoyment of music is not a digital linear rational symbolic analytic activity (comparing bits of new equipment is). Enjoyment of music is a synthetic (as in synthesis) spatial intuitive holistic experience. So the right brain is specialised for our enjoyment of this.

Equipment warm up? The cold equipment is being listened to by us whilst our left brain dominates. The warmed up equipment - we have lost ourselves in the music - transitioned to right brain mode, and the enjoyment is that much greater.

That is a real simplification of a vast subject and complex concept. As I noted above - it is not as binary as that (ie right or left). Its more a shift or blend, and we can switch between the modes as needed or externally stimulated.

I learned to recognise the states, and practice changing between them, and how to draw respectably instead of like a kindergarten child, by using some techniques designed to drive the left brain into submission, and let the right brain do what it does best - from a book called "drawing on the right side of the brain" by Betty Edwards. Your right brain has the attributes necessary to draw well. Your left brain is hopeless - but thinks it knows best, and, unless bullied out of the way, takes over and makes you draw in its terms - which are symbols and templates. To draw properly you need to see lines and spaces, relationships and angles and how they relate to each other and copy them in a non-symbolic replicative way. When you can send your left brain to sleep , and let your right brain do what its good at - you can draw (better than before anyway)

And listen better and enjoy music more. Maybe. :cool:

(This maybe one reason Gordon why you can so easily "just listen to the music" and find it hard and uninteresting to deal with equipment evaluation. I strongly suspect you have a more dominant right brain.)

[Oldpinkman]

You might also enjoy 'The McGurk Effect'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

Just got round to viewing this. Brilliant. Totally on topic. Compulsory viewing. Clearly relevant. Thank you. :)

[Arkless Electronics]

Intersting statement Jez,
What's your view on how they are terminated, and the use of different plugs and sockets etc..
A....

Obviously they make no difference! I'm rather shocked that you, as an engineer, even find my statement "interesting"! :eek:

It's one of the most lunatic fringe areas of hifi these days. Not that long ago one would have been quite understandably laughed at for the mere suggestion that mains leads can make a difference. It's very much emperor's new clothes in action.... one of the best examples of it I can think of in fact.
Who would have thought that we would reach the stage where the person who doesn't believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden would be almost in the minority....

[Marco]

Guys, this discussion is teetering very close to the edge of one of those mind-numbingly banal, circular and entirely pointless 'objectivist vs. subjectivist' debates, where entrenched views have about as much chance of being altered, as there is a staunch atheist suddenly embracing God. I will simply not allow this repetitive nonsense to pollute the forum.

Richard, I thought you'd gotten over regurgitating this particular 'bee in your bonnet' - alas it seems not! :rolleyes:

Therefore, unless I can see some evidence of a useful purpose for this thread, in the ensuing page or so, which doesn't centre around the tedious 'obj vs. sub' drivel, however thinly disguised it is as being something different, the thread will be getting binned.

Marco.

[Gmanuk101]

[QUOTE=Welder;508062].

It’s not the buying or even positive reviewing of this stuff that pisses me off, as a bit of an objectivist, it’s the massive exaggeration of their benefits and the complete dismissal of the science that sound reproduction is based on.
QUOTE]

if I had a metaphorical nail and hammer, this would cause the greater in mass bearing down on the lesser with some force; assuming that the greater of the two in mass is the hammer..pmsl

[Gmanuk101]

not being a scientist, however I am a tester of software and therefore know what conditions must be met when testing equipment, how would one test one cable to the next? it appears ears are not to be trusted (in some camps), therefore would something that measures output frequency range suffice? actual data (scientifically proven true data) should be used no?

[Oldpinkman]

Guys, this discussion is teetering very close to the edge of one of those mind-numbingly banal, circular and entirely pointless 'objectivist vs. subjectivist' debates, where entrenched views have about as much chance of being altered, as there is a staunch atheist suddenly embracing God. I will simply not allow this repetitive nonsense to pollute the forum.

Richard, I thought you'd gotten over regurgitating this particular 'bee in your bonnet' - alas it seems not! :rolleyes:

Therefore, unless I can see some evidence of a useful purpose for this thread, in the ensuing page or so, which doesn't centre around the tedious 'obj vs. sub' drivel, however thinly disguised it is as being something different, the thread will be getting binned.

Marco.

Marco. I have not disrespected anybody elses opinions. I have explored a new and interesting idea regarding brain hemispheres. You have ample enthusiasm for the thread when Paul Stewart pens a somewhat pointed post which agrees with your experiences and supports your views, as do Martin T, Synsei and chums, and then it all vanishes when other members make posts disagreeing with your own views, and you elect to blame me for it. I could see this coming, because I could see those aspects you rightly seek to avoid in some posts - but other peoples posts not mine.

As we have noted before - its your football, but I fail to see how it achieves anything silencing these threads. They run out of steam all by themselves, and if people are either uninterested or offended, they can elect not to join in. I was about to have fun with some drawing exercises if any volunteers had poppped up. :rolleyes:

I do see the validity of requiring posts to show respect for the views of others, even if as I noted before, I empathise with the Brian Cox exhasperation over moon-landing dissing. At least have the decency to acknowledge that if you don't like this thread because it is gaining support for views you find challenging, and / or because individual posts are hostile and disrespectful, that its NOT my posts that are disrespectful.

Thank you :)

[Oldpinkman]

not being a scientist, however I am a tester of software and therefore know what conditions must be met when testing equipment, how would one test one cable to the next? it appears ears are not to be trusted (in some camps), therefore would something that measures output frequency range suffice? actual data (scientifically proven true data) should be used no?

Not being a scientist either, I think Bob (Cloth Ears) suggested a measurement test in an earlier thread, and I have a feeling he knows what he is talking about. But if you look at my response to Paul Stewarts earlier post, based on a methodology I agreed with Bob, we were quite happy to accept ears and trust them - as long as appropriate steps controlled that it was ears and not ears influenced by other factors. :)

[Gmanuk101]

then we'd have to look at the ears as the assertor :) not being an ear myself I would ask if all ears were indeed the same as a tool for measurement as opposed to an electronic tool. We would need the assertor to be the same, otherwise the results would be flawed prior to conducting a test no?

[Oldpinkman]

then we'd have to look at the ears as the assertor :) not being an ear myself I would ask if all ears were indeed the same as a tool for measurement as opposed to an electronic tool. We would need the assertor to be the same, otherwise the results would be flawed prior to conducting a test no?

Oh gosh. Maybe. Not sure I understand, so maybe could you have a look at the test I suggested to Paul and explain a bit in that context. If I think I understand your question, I think the answer is that by making the sample size large enough, and the samples to be tested sufficiently anonymous for the test to be valid

Another response might be that whilst I and other "measurement based" people would accept your measurement suggestion, the whole point to this issue is the assertion by those who hear the effect that it CAN be heard, but CAN'T be measured or explained by theory. Accordingly an opportunity to demonstrate that it can be heard reliably and repeatably under controlled blind conditions appears the appropriate way to satisfy the requirements of both views.

Was I anywhere near?

[Effem]

:popcorn:

[Gordon Steadman]

Brandy? I'm not a bloody millionaire, y'know...

Might have been a can of Guinness.
Ah Guinness..just put the end of my last can of draft into the mincemeat mix. Doing the first batch of pies tonight:)

Round tummies beckon:cool:

[Gmanuk101]

Oh gosh. Maybe. Not sure I understand, so maybe could you have a look at the test I suggested to Paul and explain a bit in that context. If I think I understand your question, I think the answer is that by making the sample size large enough, and the samples to be tested sufficiently anonymous for the test to be valid

Another response might be that whilst I and other "measurement based" people would accept your measurement suggestion, the whole point to this issue is the assertion by those who hear the effect that it CAN be heard, but CAN'T be measured or explained by theory. Accordingly an opportunity to demonstrate that it can be heard reliably and repeatably under controlled blind conditions appears the appropriate way to satisfy the requirements of both views.

Was I anywhere near?

yep,. you are :) :) :)

I would however argue that if the assertion is one that can't be measured nor explained (proved or disproven by experiment) then it is belief and has no place in a scientific experiment and we are back to objective -v- subjective yet again.

or perhaps this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox

heh heh heh ;)

my personal experice with my upgraded turntable is this:

isofeet upgrade: didn't hear any different
changed phono cable and tonearm cable from the old original ones: yes I did actually hear a difference in sound reproduction

THe test here would be to hook up some electronic device and measure the current degredation via the cable itself and do a comparrison before and after.. personally I'd rather put on a record and smile.

[Gordon Steadman]

(This maybe one reason Gordon why you can so easily "just listen to the music" and find it hard and uninteresting to deal with equipment evaluation. I strongly suspect you have a more dominant right brain.)

Yup and its name is Veronica!!

[newton]

next time you listen to a busker in the street,ie no mic,amps,speakers etc are you listening in stereo or mono?now block off 1 ear,any difference.if yes then your brain must be providing a mixer.just a thought.

[Gmanuk101]

I think we should all get in a time machine and have a word with Western Electric in 1927. Stereo is an illusion created by the brain when processing two signals, triangulation etc. blah blah blah can we move on now?

[Gmanuk101]

if Coldplay were live in the forest would anyone care to chop them down?

[PaulStewart]

Really, I mean seriously really, what kind of evidence is that?

As I said "Anecdotal and empirical". Your point about sitting WAGS down and asking if they can hear a difference and your observations, more or less proves my point. They object to the spend on the HiFi, so the revere placebo effect kicks in and she damn well won't hear that difference no mater what. ;) Y'know I have not written a paper on anything audio related for years, I might follow this up :lol:

[Yomanze]

The biggest challenge for a subjectivist is understanding that their "ears" can be fooled by countless variables and to spot when they are and aren't hearing things. "Trust your ears" is too simplistic. The biggest challenge for objectivists is understanding that not all variables can be measured, and that something like an ABX test is, for the most part, fundamentally flawed unless you are actually looking for a null result. Like some others on this forum the ultimate test for me is long-term listening enjoyment without getting "creeping niggles" if something isn't quite right.

[Welder]

I totally agree with Oldpinkmans suggestion that what some attribute to equipment warm up is more often than not the brain warming up; becoming more receptive to the sound because we get more relaxed and more attentive after a while.
I know for example that the music rarely sounds as good if I have pressing issues to be dealt with, for example, the music is on but in the back of my mind are the 9 chickens up a tree which will all have to be got down later and it’s fecking cold and tree climbing in the dark, particularly fig trees is dangerous! :eek:

On the subject of testing for expectation bias, or whatever you wish to call it, which currently seems dominated by ABX, I often wonder why those who would advocate ABX as the only reliable method of eliminating bias don’t consider this:
If sighted listening has such an influence on what we hear (consider the prevalence of null statistical results in ABX testing) then surely the opposite may also be true. Depriving a person of one or more of their senses in such tests may skew the test results in another direction.

(John pictures a row of test participants with clothes pegs on their noses) :D

As I’ve mentioned before…often…I can understand the abject loathing of ABX, or any scientific testing methods, by the various reviewers and sales people who have a financial interest in we, the punters, believing that huge differences exist between similar components, but for the ordinary enthusiast, well what’s the problem? I ABX and it has never stopped me buying equipment just because I want it even when I know that the probability is it doesn’t sound a lot different from what I had before. :D

[Yomanze]

Sorry Welder, but do you have any peer-reviewed academic journals to verify your thoughts? ;) :p

[anthonyTD]

:lol:
But seriously, in some cases there is in my opinion a marked difference between different types of mains cables in certain applications, now i can assure you that i am a fully paid up member of the "if there is a perceived difference then you must be able to test for it" party, and this includes cable differences, whether it be that one cable has a tighter plug or socket than another making for a better connection, or one has a lower DC resistance when used in a high current application etc. I am a firm believer in our ability to be able to hear differences even if our current understanding of testing for such differences is not fully up to date in as far as knowing exactly what to look for while testing for such differences...When i see threads like this i am slightly saddened to see how quickly it is jumped on and trampled under foot before some folk have even had chance to put forward their own opinions and experience on this somewhat controversial subject, now i admit in most cases the affect i personally have experienced with mains cables is relatively subtle, however, they are none the less there, now, may i suggest, instead of us going for the juggler every time threads like this appear, for once, lets debate it properly, and see if' as engineers we can in fact between us come up with any sort of rational [or even irrational at this point] ideas of why so many people experience these differences, i would like to think that most of us here are open minded enough to realize that we' as humans currently do not know or understand everything, and therefore' we should when and where ever possible debate such ideas and notions in a thorough but respectful manner, taking into account all notions and ideas from anyone and everyone, no matter how bizare they may seem at first, then, perhaps, who knows, we may actually learn something...
A.
Obviously they make no difference! I'm rather shocked that you, as an engineer, even find my statement "interesting"! :eek:

It's one of the most lunatic fringe areas of hifi these days. Not that long ago one would have been quite understandably laughed at for the mere suggestion that mains leads can make a difference. It's very much emperor's new clothes in action.... one of the best examples of it I can think of in fact.
Who would have thought that we would reach the stage where the person who doesn't believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden would be almost in the minority....

[Marco]

Marco. I have not disrespected anybody elses opinions.


Indeed, Richard, but it's not about that. It's about your penchant for continually addressing your little 'hobbyhorses'! :rolleyes:

You might think that this thread is different, but it's essentially a rehashing of the many debates you've instigated on the forum in relation to 'trusting one's ears' (with the subject of mains leads inevitably cropping up, like a bad penny).

The fact is, no matter your original intention for this thread, it always comes back to the 'same old, same old' - and it's all very tedious...


You have ample enthusiasm for the thread when Paul Stewart pens a somewhat pointed post which agrees with your experiences and supports your views

That occurred in the 'More burning in effects' thread that Mike started, which you 'hijacked' in order to sow the seeds for tackling your latest pet topic here. I was deliberately staying away from this one (the following smiley sums up my reaction when I saw it: :doh:), until it was necessary to intervene.

Anyway, I'll be monitoring the discussion carefully, and if I see nothing new coming of it and simply the rehashing of the same old entrenched views from either side of the fence, resulting in a pointless and circular argument, then the thread will be binned - and that will be an end to the matter.

Marco.

[Arkless Electronics]

:lol:
But seriously, in some cases there is in my opinion a marked difference between different types of mains cables in certain applications, now i can assure you that i am a fully paid up member of the "if there is a perceived difference then you must be able to test for it" party, and this includes cable differences, whether it be that one cable has a tighter plug or socket than another making for a better connection, or one has a lower DC resistance when used in a high current application etc. I am a firm believer in our ability to be able to hear differences even if our current understanding of testing for such differences is not fully up to date in as far as knowing exactly what to look for while testing for such differences...When i see threads like this i am slightly saddened to see how quickly it is jumped on and trampled under foot before some folk have even had chance to put forward their own opinions and experience on this somewhat controversial subject, now i admit in most cases the affect i personally have experienced with mains cables is relatively subtle, however, they are none the less there, now, may i suggest, instead of us going for the juggler every time threads like this appear, for once, lets debate it properly, and see if' as engineers we can in fact between us come up with any sort of rational [or even irrational at this point] ideas of why so many people experience these differences, i would like to think that most of us here are open minded enough to realize that we' as humans currently do not know or understand everything, and therefore' we should when and where ever possible debate such ideas and notions in a thorough but respectful manner, taking into account all notions and ideas from anyone and everyone, no matter how bizare they may seem at first, then, perhaps, who knows, we may actually learn something...
A.

I'm afraid this is one of those things well have to differ on then :) I 100% stick by what I said previously. I really can't put it strongly enough how much I disagree that mains cables make a difference. Anyhow I'll bow out of this aspect of the discussion as circular arguments are a bit of a waste of forum bandwidth!

[Marco]

Anyhow I'll bow out of this aspect of the discussion as circular arguments are a bit of a waste of forum bandwidth!

Smart chap. Any chance you could teach Richard similar skills of perception? ;)

Marco.

[anthonyTD]

:)
I'm afraid this is one of those things well have to differ on then :) I 100% stick by what I said previously. I really can't put it strongly enough how much I disagree that mains cables make a difference. Anyhow I'll bow out of this aspect of the discussion as circular arguments are a bit of a waste of forum bandwidth!

[Effem]

:sucks:

:comatose:

:deceased:

[lurcher]

Thinking about this, the optical illusion on the first page (I will repeat it here) is a better example of the measurement problem than has been discussed. It was presented (I think) as a example of how we can be fooled.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Grey_square_optical_illusion.PNG

If we measure (in any way we choose) the shade of grey in the two squares, they will measure the same, because they are the same. However, because of something else, that is entirly ignored by measuring the two squares, when we look at he picture, we consistently see the squares as different, even when we know they are different, we can see the rest of the image assembled, and the squares change as we watch them. AFAIK, everyone who sees this sees the same thing, so its repeatable and testable, and we can probably use it to create new similar effects, so our observation of the illusion falls under the scientific method. But any measurement we make says there is no difference, but our senses consistently say there is one.

Its hard not to see a comparison to many things in audio where we state, its not real, because its not there when we measure. But people report they can detect a difference.

[mr sneff]

Thinking about this, the optical illusion on the first page (I will repeat it here) is a better example of the measurement problem than has been discussed. It was presented (I think) as a example of how we can be fooled.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Grey_square_optical_illusion.PNG

If we measure (in any way we choose) the shade of grey in the two squares, they will measure the same, because they are the same. However, because of something else, that is entirly ignored by measuring the two squares, when we look at he picture, we consistently see the squares as different, even when we know they are different, we can see the rest of the image assembled, and the squares change as we watch them. AFAIK, everyone who sees this sees the same thing, so its repeatable and testable, and we can probably use it to create new similar effects, so our observation of the illusion falls under the scientific method. But any measurement we make says there is no difference, but our senses consistently say there is one.

Its hard not to see a comparison to many things in audio where we state, its not real, because its not there when we measure. But people report they can detect a difference.

However you measure the 2 squares they will appear the same, what can't be measured is the context in which the 2 squares appear. It's the context they appear in that makes them appear different because the brain expects them to be different even when it's pointed out that they're the same. The same phenomenon can be seen with colour http://dragon.uml.edu/psych/colors1.html

[Marco]

Thinking about this, the optical illusion on the first page (I will repeat it here) is a better example of the measurement problem than has been discussed. It was presented (I think) as a example of how we can be fooled.

If we measure (in any way we choose) the shade of grey in the two squares, they will measure the same, because they are the same. However, because of something else, that is entirly ignored by measuring the two squares, when we look at he picture, we consistently see the squares as different, even when we know they are different, we can see the rest of the image assembled, and the squares change as we watch them. AFAIK, everyone who sees this sees the same thing, so its repeatable and testable, and we can probably use it to create new similar effects, so our observation of the illusion falls under the scientific method. But any measurement we make says there is no difference, but our senses consistently say there is one.

Its hard not to see a comparison to many things in audio where we state, its not real, because its not there when we measure. But people report they can detect a difference.

I like it, Nick - an excellent piece of lateral thinking! ;)

What you've highlighted is another valid example of how not everything we genuinely experience can currently be proven by measurements - and that hypothesis can also be extended to certain phenomena in audio.

The problem is, some folk have rather absolutist views and demand certainty in life (everything neatly pigeonholed into predetermined compartments, labeled as 'facts'), which they rigidly embrace and consider as irrefutable, and so to fulfil that reality, they require the continual presence of 'scientific proof'.

However, when there is an absence of such proof, yet the sense remains that a phenomenon could exist, which can't be proven but *may* be real, it conflicts with their in-built programming and their brains go into 'can't compute mode' (a bit like those robots do in cartoons before they blow up!) :eyebrows:

Therefore, they feel frustrated (annoyed even?) when they can't hear what others seem able to, so this is where cognitive dissonance kicks in and the desire to vehemently oppose and discredit the 'heretics', in an attempt to hide their insecurities. Basically, that behaviour acts as a form of 'coping mechanism'...

However, we've been here many times before on similar threads. That is why these discussions are destined to become repetitive, and thus unlikely to teach us anything new, especially when the chief protagonist is on a relentless (but ultimately fruitless) mission to prove that his opponents are 'delusional', in an effort to appease his own doubts and insecurities.

Marco.

[Rothchild]

However, we've been here many times before on similar threads. That is why these discussions are destined to become repetitive, and thus unlikely to teach us anything new, especially when the chief protagonist is on a relentless (but ultimately fruitless) mission to prove that his opponents are 'delusional', in an effort to appease his own doubts and insecurities.

Marco.

Sorry, but why drag the thread back towards what you've stated you don't want it to become just as the discussion moves towards some more interesting and discursive territory?

I really want to continue this conversation with people like lurcher and sneff who offer a competent intellectual challenge to interpretation and understanding but I'm guessing that by the time I get to sit down at home and consider a response it will get lost in more mud slinging :-(

[Effem]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/10/article-2521023-19FE013100000578-710_308x343.jpg

Put your finger over the join between the two blocks

[Marco]

Sorry, but why drag the thread back towards what you've stated you don't want it to become just as the discussion moves towards some more interesting and discursive territory?


I was merely making an observation, Marc, which I considered relevant to the discussion, as I believed it highlighted the motives of the OP. I fully support the notion that the discussion will move towards more interesting and discursive territory, but I have my doubts. I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong!


I really want to continue this conversation with people like lurcher and sneff who offer a competent intellectual challenge to interpretation and understanding but I'm guessing that by the time I get to sit down at home and consider a response it will get lost in more mud slinging :-(

Not at all, so carry on. Far be it for me to spoil your "competent intellectual challenge"! ;)

Marco.

[anthonyTD]

That's just Mad!:eek:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/10/article-2521023-19FE013100000578-710_308x343.jpg

Put your finger over the join between the two blocks

[mr sneff]

That's just Mad!:eek:
Sorry, what am I 'supposed' to see?

[Effem]

Sorry, what am I 'supposed' to see?

That the blocks are the same shade of grey when you hide the distracting elements

[mr sneff]

That the blocks are the same shade of grey when you hide the distracting elements

Not to me they aren't, does that mean my eyes are fxxked as well as my ears :lol:

[synsei]

Ah, shades of grey. There is a popular pulp novel with those same words in the title which purportedly deals with S&M. This thread is the audiophile equivalent... :D

[Effem]

This is my take on the OP's query/conundrum.

The entire discussion is flawed because to any of us sound does not exist until we A) Receive it via our ear mechanisms and B) How our brains interpret what our ears have detected.

Next time you go to a hi-fi show, just sit and listen to the comments from the listeners and if all their comments are identical in every way of the sound(s) they are perceiving, I will do a tap dance with a Hippo.

There is no such thing as a standard level of hearing acuity, so it's a waste of time looking for a constant known baseline upon which to base any objective evidence of what we may or may not hear. Secondly, all tests that I know of in the scientific world have begun with the premise that everyone hears exactly the same and they use what is "comfortable" units for them to measure, like constant frequency sine waves. I probably couldn't hear a 17khz sine wave if my life depended on it, but I sure as heck can tell you the tiniest last nuance in a highly complex piece of music.

The moment anyone is asked to go into a lab to have their hearing tested, the test is fooked. I found exactly that when conducting many formal planned ABX testing routines for various hi-fi components. The very moment I changed that to an informal relaxed "no pressure" kind of test the results were both conclusive, consistent and expected. Anyone who believes that an ABX test is an essential and indeed consistently measurable test procedure is unwise as far as I am concerned, because you do not understand just how complex humans are.

It took scientists over a 100 years to discover that electric current flows in the opposite direction to that what was believed to be the case and that fact was right underneath their noses the whole time. They don't know how a bee manages to fly, they don't know how to make spider's silk, they don't know how gravity works either, so please don't ever tell me that science is infallible.

Finally, those that cannot hear differences in mains cables, interconnects and speaker cables shouldn't worry themselves that they have an ear-brain malfunction. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but for goodness sake don't be that arrogant that you use irrelevant and pointless arguments to tell me that I can't :steam: :steam:

[synsei]

Meanwhile, elsewhere on this tiny planet of ours I am really enjoying some music :)

[jandl100]

.... so please don't ever tell me that science is infallible.


The whole point about science is that it is a voyage of continual discovery. Nothing is writ in stone, never to be questioned or changed, nothing. Not only is it not infallible, there are so many unknowns. Scientific research is ongoing, and always will be. :)


... now where the hell has 85% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter) of the universe gone? :scratch:

[Effem]

The whole point about science is that it is a voyage of continual discovery. Nothing is writ in stone, never to be questioned or changed, nothing. Not only is it not infallible, there are so many unknowns. Scientific research is ongoing, and always will be. :)


... now where the hell has 85% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter) of the universe gone? :scratch:

And none better to make that statement too Jerry :)

The point I am making (which YOU will clearly understand of course) is that these arguments begin and end the same way; Someone will say "I cannot hear these differences that you say you hear, therefore I can only conclude that you are delusional because I cannot find any objective evidence that you did".

That is sheer arrogance in my book and it said from a point that nobody has actually investigated using a valid objective methodology to reach such a conclusion. We fed get instead with horse shit like placebo and expectation bias, neither of which are relevant.

[mr sneff]

This is my take on the OP's query/conundrum.

The entire discussion is flawed because to any of us sound does not exist until we A) Receive it via our ear mechanisms and B) How our brains interpret what our ears have detected.

Next time you go to a hi-fi show, just sit and listen to the comments from the listeners and if all their comments are identical in every way of the sound(s) they are perceiving, I will do a tap dance with a Hippo.

There is no such thing as a standard level of hearing acuity, so it's a waste of time looking for a constant known baseline upon which to base any objective evidence of what we may or may not hear. Secondly, all tests that I know of in the scientific world have begun with the premise that everyone hears exactly the same and they use what is "comfortable" units for them to measure, like constant frequency sine waves. I probably couldn't hear a 17khz sine wave if my life depended on it, but I sure as heck can tell you the tiniest last nuance in a highly complex piece of music.

The moment anyone is asked to go into a lab to have their hearing tested, the test is fooked. I found exactly that when conducting many formal planned ABX testing routines for various hi-fi components. The very moment I changed that to an informal relaxed "no pressure" kind of test the results were both conclusive, consistent and expected. Anyone who believes that an ABX test is an essential and indeed consistently measurable test procedure is an idiot as far as I am concerned, because you do not understand just how complex humans are.

It took scientists over a 100 years to discover that electric current flows in the opposite direction to that what was believed to be the case and that fact was right underneath their noses the whole time. They don't know how a bee manages to fly, they don't know how to make spider's silk, they don't know how gravity works either, so please don't ever tell me that science is infallible.

Finally, those that cannot hear differences in mains cables, interconnects and speaker cables shouldn't worry themselves that they have an ear-brain malfunction. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but for goodness sake don't be that arrogant that you use irrelevant and pointless arguments to tell me that I can't :steam: :steam:

+1 Well said.

[Marco]

Anyone who believes that an ABX test is an essential and indeed consistently measurable test procedure is an idiot as far as I am concerned, because you do not understand just how complex humans are.


Ahem, less of that, old chap (please remove your remark), as much as I agree with the rest of your sentiments.


Finally, those that cannot hear differences in mains cables, interconnects and speaker cables shouldn't worry themselves that they have an ear-brain malfunction. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but for goodness sake don't be that arrogant that you use irrelevant and pointless arguments to tell me that I can't...

Indeed, or manufacture threads supposedly with a view of engaging others in an 'interesting and discursive debate', which in reality is simply designed to bolster the biases and 'feel-good factor' of the author, whilst simultaneously (however thinly disguised) attempting to discredit the contrary, but equally valid experiences of others, who genuinely may be able to hear what he can't... ;)

Marco.

[Effem]

Ahem, less of that, old chap (please remove your remark), as much as I agree with the rest of your sentiments.

Marco.

My apologies :eyebrows:

CHANGED TO:
"Anyone who believes that an ABX test is an essential and indeed consistently measurable test procedure is UNWISE as far as I am concerned, because you do not understand just how complex humans are."

:D

[Marco]

You're very naughty, Franky-boy, so I've edited your post in order that it is acceptable ;)

Marco.

[Welder]

There is no such thing as a standard level of hearing acuity, so it's a waste of time looking for a constant known baseline upon which to base any objective evidence of what we may or may not hear. Secondly, all tests that I know of in the scientific world have begun with the premise that everyone hears exactly the same and they use what is "comfortable" units for them to measure, like constant frequency sine waves. I probably couldn't hear a 17khz sine wave if my life depended on it, but I sure as heck can tell you the tiniest last nuance in a highly complex piece of music.

:steam: :steam:

I don’t agree.
We do, within a surprisingly narrow range all hear the same. If this wasn’t the case we wouldn’t be able to listen to music let alone comment on the various attributes of one or other piece of equipment. We probably wouldn’t be able to talk to each other and definitely wouldn’t be able to learn how to play musical instruments.

Not only is our hearing accurate, within a range, for pitch, tone and frequency, we have an amazing ability to fill in any missing information for both music and speech.

So no, we don’t all hear differently. What we do all do differently is interpret what we hear depending on a range of factors but the ear is itself is a decent bit of kit.

Deciding who has the ear to brain malfunction and for what reasons makes for an interesting subject.

None of this means that people don’t quite genuinely hear differences that others may not. That being true doesn’t unfortunately mean those differences are there for anyone else apart from the person that hears them.

Bit of a barsteward isn’t it.

[Effem]

You're very naughty, Franky-boy
Marco.

Do I get a jolly good spanking on my bare buttocks? :eyebrows:

[Marco]

Well you jolly well deserve it, you scoundrel! Buckle-end of the belt as usual, and should I ensure it is red-hot? :spank: :whippin:

I know ya lurves da pain :D

Marco.

[Effem]

I don’t agree.
We do, within a surprisingly narrow range all hear the same. If this wasn’t the case we wouldn’t be able to listen to music let alone comment on the various attributes of one or other piece of equipment. We probably wouldn’t be able to talk to each other and definitely wouldn’t be able to learn how to play musical instruments.

Not only is our hearing accurate, within a range, for pitch, tone and frequency, we have an amazing ability to fill in any missing information for both music and speech.

So no, we don’t all hear differently. What we do all do differently is interpret what we hear depending on a range of factors but the ear is itself is a decent bit of kit.

Deciding who has the ear to brain malfunction and for what reasons makes for an interesting subject.

None of this means that people don’t quite genuinely hear differences that others may not. That being true doesn’t unfortunately mean those differences are there for anyone else apart from the person that hears them.

Bit of a barsteward isn’t it.

Well yes John if we dissect the ear mechanism out of the human head, attach electrodes to the nerve endings and transmit sound waves at it, I am sure that what goes in in sound waves would produce a nice wiggly line on an oscilloscope fixed onto the nerve endings.

However, after that it's an endless array of variables, hence we get a myriad of responses from listeners in demo rooms at hi-fi shows hearing the SAME system playing the SAME music at the SAME time, yet it never pleases everyone that's sat there :lol:

[Effem]

Well you jolly well deserve it, you scoundrel! Buckle-end of the belt as usual, and should I ensure it is red-hot? :spank: :whippin:

Marco.

You've got a date BIG BOY :eyebrows:

[Welder]

Well yes John if we dissect the ear mechanism out of the human head, attach electrodes to the nerve endings and transmit sound waves at it, I am sure that what goes in in sound waves would produce a nice wiggly line on an oscilloscope fixed onto the nerve endings.

However, after that it's an endless array of variables, hence we get a myriad of responses from listeners in demo rooms at hi-fi shows hearing the SAME system playing the SAME music at the SAME time, yet it never pleases everyone that's sat there :lol:

Then you will understand my total bemusement at the derision and dismissal by some of those who try to investigate and eliminate where possible these variables. It is and has been in the past how genuine progress in sound reproduction (and in every other branch of science) is made.

Progress, if there is any to be made won’t come from chucking our hands up and stating it’s all way too complicated and everyone hears differently now will it? ;)

[Effem]

Then you will understand my total bemusement at the derision and dismissal by some of those who try to investigate and eliminate where possible these variables. It is and has been in the past how genuine progress in sound reproduction (and in every other branch of science) is made.

Progress, if there is any to be made won’t come from chucking our hands up and stating it’s all way too complicated and everyone hears differently now will it? ;)

Again I won't disagree with you John, but here comes the rub; a few years ago I approached the local Uni to carry out some research regarding the effects or otherwise of a mains cable 'upgrade'. The opening gambit was 6 figures plus, just for looking at it :eek:

There has been stabs at it by the big cable makers themselves with a bigger budget than I had but their findings were dismissed because none of it has been peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific world.

In the great scheme of things, we have far more important things to concern ourselves in science, long long before in fact whether audiophools can or cannot hear any differences with cables. Things like cancer, better crops, eradicating poverty and disease etc, have a far higher priority and of course the necessary funding to carry out that research, so we will have to carry on bickering for many years yet about this subject because there are NO definitive answers either way :lol:

[Marco]

...which is why the best policy is to worry not, ultimately trust the God-given organs on the sides of your head, and just enjoy the music!!

Saves lots of time and heartache :exactly:

I've never understood the mentality of 'certainty seekers'. Having a bit of doubt in your life is healthy!

Marco.

[jandl100]

...which is why the best policy is to worry not, ultimately trust the God-given organs on the sides of your head, and just enjoy the music!!

Saves lots of time and heartache :exactly:

I've never understood the mentality of 'certainty seekers'. Having a bit of doubt in your life is healthy!

Marco.

"Certainty seekers" will never achieve their goal.

They may think they have, but they are just deluding themselves.

"Having a bit of doubt in your life" is a cornerstone of the scientific method.

[Marco]

I totally agree, Jerry.

Unfortunately, however, 'certainty seekers' use science as a crutch to help them gain the certainty they seek, thus for them it must be infallible, and the evidence it produces irrefutable... This effectively acts as a 'coping mechanism/comfort blanket', which is used in their battle against uncertainty, thus allowing them to deal better with the uncertain nature of life :)

Marco.

[Gordon Steadman]

I totally agree, Jerry.

Unfortunately, however, 'certainty seekers' use science as a crutch to help them gain the certainty they seek, thus for them it must be infallible, and the evidence it produces irrefutable...

This effectively acts as a 'coping mechanism/comfort blanket', which is used in their battle against uncertainty, thus allowing them to deal better with the uncertain nature of life :)
Marco.

Well I think thats bollocks but then I'm quite happy dealing with life as it actually is rather than what I would like it to be:eyebrows:

[Marco]

Me too! :)

You can think it's bollocks if you like, but I strongly believe there is an element of truth in it.

There is always the chance, of course, that the arrogance of the 'certainty seekers' in believing they are unquestionably right prevents them from even considering the existence of what I've suggested...... ;)

Marco.

[lurcher]

So no, we don’t all hear differently. What we do all do differently is interpret what we hear depending on a range of factors but the ear is itself is a decent bit of kit.

But the ear is only a small part of the process. Firstly the ear is far from the sound pressure sampling device that we may like to think of.


I am sure that what goes in in sound waves would produce a nice wiggly line on an oscilloscope fixed onto the nerve endings.

Very much not the case. The ear converts from sound as a pressure against time signal when it hits the ear into what is much more like the output from a fast fourier analysis. The ear breaks the sound down into a number of frequencies, and the ear send a series of pulses to the brain that correspond to the level of sound at each of those frequencies. Thats probably why the masking effect that mp3 relies on happens.

You only have to look at the existence of sound-color synesthetes to know that while we all end up with a similar shared experience with sound, the process and what it means to ourself may vary a lot.

The brain is a astonishingly good pattern matching engine, thats what we do all the time when listening. That sequence of signals is a violin, that one a cello, that one spoken voice, not to mention the complex analysis that allows us to decode voice into communicated meaning. Its so very far from a passive measurement system like an oscilloscope that any analogy is fatally flawed. More importantly (to the subject on hand) and impressive, this sound is a violin and a cello, with a singing voice, and we can perceive the sounds as individual components, not just a composite sound.

[Gordon Steadman]

Me too!

You can think it's bollocks if you like, but I strongly believe there is an element of truth in it.

Marco.

I'll say one thing for Richard, his threads must push your post counts through the roof, they seem to go on and on and on and........ seekers of the truth?

[Marco]

Not at all. If he wants to write this kind of stuff, Gordon, then he has to expect it to be challenged by those on 'the other side of the fence'. Simples :)

Perhaps I've hit a raw nerve?

Marco.

[Marco]

The brain is a astonishingly good pattern matching engine, thats what we do all the time when listening. That sequence of signals is a violin, that one a cello, that one spoken voice, not to mention the complex analysis that allows us to decode voice into communicated meaning. Its so very far from a passive measurement system like an oscilloscope that any analogy is fatally flawed.

Quite. Try telling that to the 'certainty seekers' ;)

Marco.

[Gordon Steadman]

Not at all. If he wants to write this kind of stuff, Gordon, then he has to expect it to be challenged by those on 'the other side of the fence' :)

Marco.
I'm a great fan of Simon's Cat!! have you seen 'beyond the fence'? Cats versus birds?? It seems the two might never get on. However, I find a lot of the feel of the thing has gone since he started using others to do the work and just directs.

Better as the artist type I reckon.

Is this relevant? Not sure. But never mind, it keeps the thread ticking over:)

[Gordon Steadman]

Not at all. If he wants to write this kind of stuff, Gordon, then he has to expect it to be challenged by those on 'the other side of the fence'. Simples :)

Perhaps I've hit a raw nerve?

Marco.

Wow, two different quotes in ten seconds, you need to be quicker on the edit button!!! The only raw nerves I have are in my thumb. Damn near cut the damn thing off last week with a Japanese saw. Its hanging on in there but not by much.

[Oldpinkman]

But the ear is only a small part of the process. Firstly the ear is far from the sound pressure sampling device that we may like to think of.


The brain is a astonishingly good pattern matching engine, thats what we do all the time when listening. That sequence of signals is a violin, that one a cello, that one spoken voice, not to mention the complex analysis that allows us to decode voice into communicated meaning. Its so very far from a passive measurement system like an oscilloscope that any analogy is fatally flawed. More importantly (to the subject on hand) and impressive, this sound is a violin and a cello, with a singing voice, and we can perceive the sounds as individual components, not just a composite sound.

I've been resisting comment on this thread again, since it clearly creates so much hostility I am coming round to Marco's view that the boys and girls on a forum aren't grown up enough to handle these discussions sensibly and it just results in futile hostility. I had hoped that the thread could remain on its broad topic of the brain, without that being used as a "you're mental if you hear that" name calling. I'd hoped a few folk might have been up for a bit of fun showing how the brain halves work with some drawing exercises.

However, this comment - with which I don't disagree - does very nicely bring up the left brain right brain discussion again - easiest explained with a drawing analogy - but more fun after people have had a go at it than before. The brain is a good pattern matcher. The left brain, which most of us use most of the time dominantly, particularly likes to match patterns the way Nick described. It will stick a label on it. "That's a violin". It struggles, and finds it very unsettling when it can't label it. But having labelled it, then anything half way recognisable is as good as totally authentic. Hence so many of my musician friends listen on one earpiece of an ipod.

The right brain doesn't go in for labelling. It "experiences". It is far more likely to be bothered (without describing the problem) about how authentic the sound is - exact pitch, timbre, resonances, harmonics. The right brain won't describe them, it will "feel" them - but it is very skilled at doing what the left brain can't, and hearing tiny subtle differences. I'll stop there, but anyone who knows this field of human physiology and psychology can recognise how it affects how we listen to music, and I think is very relevant, and quite interesting, on a hifi forum.

But if it is going to leave folk mortally wounded and resulting to name calling, you can close the thread Marco, and I'll get on with some pure right brain pleasure listening to the virtually BRAND NEW Technics U205C Mk3 I am due to collect this evening :D

[Effem]

But the ear is only a small part of the process. Firstly the ear is far from the sound pressure sampling device that we may like to think of.



Very much not the case. The ear converts from sound as a pressure against time signal when it hits the ear into what is much more like the output from a fast fourier analysis. The ear breaks the sound down into a number of frequencies, and the ear send a series of pulses to the brain that correspond to the level of sound at each of those frequencies. Thats probably why the masking effect that mp3 relies on happens.

You only have to look at the existence of sound-color synesthetes to know that while we all end up with a similar shared experience with sound, the process and what it means to ourself may vary a lot.

The brain is a astonishingly good pattern matching engine, thats what we do all the time when listening. That sequence of signals is a violin, that one a cello, that one spoken voice, not to mention the complex analysis that allows us to decode voice into communicated meaning. Its so very far from a passive measurement system like an oscilloscope that any analogy is fatally flawed. More importantly (to the subject on hand) and impressive, this sound is a violin and a cello, with a singing voice, and we can perceive the sounds as individual components, not just a composite sound.

The text I have highlighted is at the very crux of this argument Nick.

It is that dependency of the brain to match what it has "recorded" previously in memory to what it is currently hearing, hence that's why someone who is passionate and excited about violins will easily tell the difference with the sound of a Stradivarius, whereas to many others it is just another common-or-garden violin. Maybe that's the very reason why some of us can easily and readily discern the 'difference' in sound of a sooper dooper mains cable, whereas others will simply dismiss it as just another common-or-garden power cord and nothing to get excited about.

I have no issues with that at all, but what gets up my nose is this constant need to berate me personally by saying I am "delusional" or suffering from placebo and expectation effects, when even that statement they cannot qualify with any certainty is true. If you intend to get up on your your objectivist high horse, then kindly don't insult my intelligence by using terminology that is a million miles away from being objective :steam:

[Marco]

I've been resisting comment on this thread again, since it clearly creates so much hostility I am coming round to Marco's view that the boys and girls on a forum aren't grown up enough to handle these discussions sensibly and it just results in futile hostility.

Sorry, Richard, that's not really my view at all. Where is this "futile hostility" of which you speak? Aside from Frank's earlier 'idiot' remark, which has now been removed, all I see is a robust debate, where people from both sides of the fence are vociferously defending their views.

If you insist on starting these types of provocative threads, where essentially you are disputing people's valid observations (those contrary to your own), then you have to expect a little 'heat' from the opposition.

Marco.

P.S Enjoy your new cartridge - by all accounts it's a cracker!

[Oldpinkman]

Sorry, Richard, that's not really my view at all. Where is this "futile hostility" of which you speak? Aside from Frank's earlier 'idiot' remark, which has now been removed, all I see is a robust debate, where people from both sides of the fence are vociferously defending their views.

If you insist on starting these types of provocative threads, where essentially you are disputing people's valid observations (those contrary to your own), then you have to expect a little 'heat' from the opposition.

Marco.

P.S Enjoy your new cartridge - by all accounts it's a cracker!

Thanks - I hope to. As you may have noticed I've mentioned it once or twice before since being on the forum, and was rather fond of it.

Regarding hostility - take a look at Franks post before yours ;)

[Gmanuk101]

I'm going to dig out my old music technology essays on how the ear works, beware....:) (i'm actually not going to do that....) :) :) :)

[Marco]

Thanks - I hope to. As you may have noticed I've mentioned it once or twice before since being on the forum, and was rather fond of it.


They are rather rare. I hope it's in as good nick as you think. The only way of finding that out, of course, is when you fit the thing and listen to it! :)


Regarding hostility - take a look at Franks post before yours ;)

Yes, it was rather 'robust', but not what I would call hostile. I suspect that his use of the 'angry smiley' at the end made the post appear more hostile than it actually was...

What you might not know is that Frank has been posting on forums for years, and his time spent on ones which, shall we say, have a rather intolerant attitude towards 'cable believers' (the pet term objectivists/cynics often use to describe those who claim to hear cable effects), and where accusations were frequently made as to him being 'delusional', when no-one there other than any professional psychologists were qualified to accuse him of such, has made him rather jaded about the whole subject, and so threads like this which insinuate something similar, will always be liable to make him 'bristle'.

Is that about right, Frank? :)

Marco.

[Gordon Steadman]

P.S Enjoy your new cartridge - by all accounts it's a cracker!

Oh it is it is. Mine has a non original stylus and its still superb. I hope Richard listens to the whole thing before he splits it up. I heard the Mission/Technics combi once and it sounded rather good. Maybe a Road to Damascus moment coming up for him?:lol:

[Oldpinkman]

They are rather rare. I hope it's in as good nick as you think. The only way of finding that out, of course, is when you fit the thing and listen to it! :)


Marco.

I'm aware of the risk - and also that after all these years and with all these arm changes it may have been good in its day, but bettered now. I was discussing with Owen and Arthur (both paid up U205 fans) the issue of old cartridges and deterioration of the rubber suspensions. Arthur has done well with his Sony MC's (the old git has 2!!!) and, both the boys have decent versions they claim. We live in hope. This one (see "bargains on ebay") is effectively New Old Stock (almost) and comes with a superb arm as well (and a half decent turntable)

There is a Japanese manufacturer of replacement stylus assemblies with an excellent reputation we have discovered, using rare earth magnets, boron cantilever, and a special stylus profile such that they are alleged to sound better than the originals, and I plan to try one of those regardless of how good this cartridge sounds.

As much as anything it was a case of getting hold of the universal body - there are any number of integrated headshell versions around - but I want to use it with the FXR.

So result! :)

[Oldpinkman]

Oh it is it is. Mine has a non original stylus and its still superb. I hope Richard listens to the whole thing before he splits it up. I heard the Mission/Technics combi once and it sounded rather good. Maybe a Road to Damascus moment coming up for him?:lol:

Gordon - I OWNED a mission technics combi for 15 years and would NEVER have parted with it if a babysitter hadn't ripped the cantilever out of the technics :doh: (I have a spare 774, but would only really use it these days if I particularly wanted to try a very compliant cartridge. Its a GREAT arm - but as I have posted before, I prefer the Funks - which are of course a good bit more expensive)

But I suspect the Mission Systemdek is a decent record player for someone looking for an entry into vinyl, so after I've had a listen out of curiosity (assuming its not SO good I want to keep it) I might offer it as a complete record player. Got to be worth £300 I would have thought (there was one on ebay - identical tt and arm, for £600 which I think is probably a bit optimistic, but who knows after Christmas)

:cool:

[Alan Sircom]

Then you will understand my total bemusement at the derision and dismissal by some of those who try to investigate and eliminate where possible these variables. It is and has been in the past how genuine progress in sound reproduction (and in every other branch of science) is made.

Progress, if there is any to be made won’t come from chucking our hands up and stating it’s all way too complicated and everyone hears differently now will it? ;)

I think that, in reality, the people who deride and dismiss such efforts are few in number.

Audio circuits are not designed by wizards and the components are not grown by elven folk. Domestic audio still has to conform to real-world physics and electronics engineering concepts. And while there are people who spend their time looking for loopholes in Ohm's Law, the majority of audio design and manufacture is relatively conservative in nature.

How much of what constitutes 'better' audio is gilding the lily? The nearest we have to a high-fidelity standard are the DIN specs for home audio, and they are a low enough bar that the systems of even the most grumpily impecunious of object-to-it-all objectivists would massively exceed the standard. The problem here is researchers in the AES cohort commonly consider domestic audio 'done' and have moved on to avenues with greater possibility of tenure, so it's difficult to say whether something that outperforms the DIN spec on paper has any correlate with what we perceive, because we mostly have a mid/late 20th Century model of what we perceive.

This poses problems for products at the fringes. they presuppose that 20th Century model of perception to be flawed and run with the idea, coming up with concepts that can be increasingly left-field. Some of these things do appear to work and work consistently, but because those perceptual models are rigidly adhered to, the best we can say in objectively is 'appear to work', and frequently this is shot down in flames as being 'snake oil'. Those 'snake oil' screamers are - to my mind - a little like the Vienna Circle* and their shouting of 'metaphysics!' whenever anything not purely logical was spoken. The problem here is in refusing to even countenance these fringe products, and falling back on the outmoded 'pass/fail' reading of ABX testing when they are brought up, we are unable to scientifically differentiate what actually might be capable of making a difference to sound through sheer intransigence, and fear of looking like a 'crank' in the audio science community.

So we have the worst of both worlds. We have things that are touted as making a difference to performance dismissed without testing, and those who do test them dismissed as cranks for even trying to test them. This is not a model of scientific discovery.

A lot has changed since we left the 20th Century behind. The audio perception model is being redrawn by the impact of auditory neuroscience and even the way we read the results of formal double-blind ABX tests has been redrawn thanks to the input of those trained in SDT (signal detection theory), in that the test is starting to be considered only capable of detecting difference, but is too 'noisy' to accurately reject the null hypothesis. Orders of magnitude larger samples and more complex Beyesian number-crunching should pull true negative results out of the Type II errors, but until that is resolved, the best you can say is either 'A and B are different' or 'no comment'. You cannot conclude that A and B are identical from an ABX test as it stands, I'm afraid - and that lets both the good guys and the bad craziness in through the tradesman's entrance.


*It didn't end well for the Vienna Circle: eventually, they had to stop shouting 'metaphysics' because they found almost all language had a metaphysical context, and it was less disruptive to shout 'not metaphysics' on the rare occasion someone said something purely logical. Ultimately, this led to the collapse of logical positivism (when you try to rid logic of metaphysical constructs, you begin to realise that logic itself is simply a metaphysical construction) and the foundation of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, which led to inevitable weirdness on Gödel's account and he reasoned himself into starving to death.

[anthonyTD]

The ear and brain connection is' as others have described a very complex combination,
I think one of main reasons we cannot agree on what we hear' is fundamentally down to modern living, ie; our need to use the full potential of our capabilities is being hampered every day, and thus some of our senses are being given an easy life to a degree, now, like some of you here have already stated, there are those who are still very much tuned in to the subtleties that make for identifying a Steinmann piano to a Yamaha, or genuine Gibson guitar to an Epiphone, and some can even identify the strings being used! So, why are some able to do this, and others not, well, in my opinion, it is not because one is Delusional, and the other is Deaf, its down to what each individual needs to hear, for what ever that reason may be, whether it is down to their job, or something entirely different, like say, a compulsive nature etc.Either way, there is no doubt in my mind, that as individuals, we all share the same senses, but we do not use them in the same intensity, how many of us have watched a particular sport or profession and marveled at the skill of someone doing something that they could never dream of being able to do, some will say, well, its down to their natural abilities etc, and i would agree to a point, however, i feel a lot of it is down to those individuals being able to strengthen and use the senses needed to accomplish those particular tasks etc...
There are certain aspects of life that we have little to no control over that will' eventually decrease our senses and our abilities, and therefore our skill levels will also decrease, age, and illness are two of the main factors, but there are other reasons.
The point of my ramblings, well, as someone who chose this industry as a profession a long time ago, i firmly believe that over the years i have unconsciously tuned in and heightened certain senses to help me in my profession, much the same as a carpenter, or a racing driver has, and also it is very possible that other senses have become DE-sensitised due mainly to the fact that they are not as important to me as an individual, doing what i do day to day...
Over the many years i have played with cables and connectors, there is no doubt in my mind that there is an obvious difference [to me] between them,some more than others, depending on their application, i really wish there wasn't, as it would make my life, and others in the same field a lot easier when building, and designing finished products etc...
I hope my ramblings have been worth reading.:)
A...

[Alan Sircom]

The point of my ramblings, well, as someone who chose this industry as a profession a long time ago, i firmly believe that over the years i have unconsciously tuned in and heightened certain senses to help me in my profession, much the same as a carpenter, or a racing driver has, and also it is very possible that other senses have become DE-sensitised due mainly to the fact that they are not as important to me as an individual, doing what i do day to day...
Over the many years i have played with cables and connectors, there is no doubt in my mind that there is an obvious difference [to me] between them,some more than others, depending on their application, i really wish there wasn't, as it would make my life, and others in the same field a lot easier when building, and designing finished products etc...
I hope my ramblings have been worth reading.:)
A...

This part I pulled from your words rings very true to me. It's also a movable feast: if you are working on a group of somethings, your discernment abilities shoot right up. So, if you are listening to five different output stages of the same DAC design, for example, you will hear - and hear with great consistency - things about those output stages that no-one (even you, when you step back from the testing) will be able to nuance in the real world. Whether this adds up to improving a product or gilding the lily is one of the great perma-discussions of audio today.

[Oldpinkman]

A couple of quickies

Alan - definitely passed the "quite interesting" test - but also "quite a lot to absorb" - so I may have to read it again. And again.

Anthony - again a definite pass. Undoubtedly right that our senses are not what our ancestors were, and our abilities differ. One that constantly fascinates me is that my dogs can recognise the sound of my wife's car coming. It is definitely NOT a pattern due to time, since it applies if she has just popped out, as much as the regular return from work. I have tried and tried to recognise the sound myself, and I am helped by knowing when she is expected and can't get close. The dogs are utterly reliable.

Regarding testing, ABX and the like, I think there is a tendency to be a bit all or nothing about this. Lets stay with burnin and warm up for a minute. If they happen they are not snake oil or a con. If they don't happen they are not snake oil or a con. Nobody is making any money out of these (broadly - I am aware that there are burnin services, but Paul Stewart remains the only person I am aware of from posts to have used them - everyone else seems happy with home brew). So if they happen, they happen and nobody is making any money out of it and nobody is being conned. Frank, Marco and others hear a warm up affect and attribute it to the equipment warming up. I hear a warm up affect and attribute it to "settling down". My interpretation is that my effect is internal. Their interpretation is that the effect is external. We both experience an effect.

I don't know when I sit down, that having the curtains a bit more closed doesn't change the room acoustics. The actual effect would be subtle. And impossible to measure. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be real (external). A difference like that is going to be real hard to do a classic "blind" test to demonstrate.

Now - my music enjoyment won't be changed, enhanced or diminished, by being able to "do the science". It is interesting. It might be useful. But it is not essential for proving my manhood, or enhancing my music appreciation.

However, to again quote Paul Stewart on an earlier post, he is satisfied that he can hear, and has heard cable burn-in in a blind test scenario, and the test procedure I proposed to him would work to demonstrate that. Blind testing is tough. It doesn't mean being blind fold. In the case of auditioning, it just tries to ensure that the ears ARE the measurement used exclusively, and the brain doesn't blend in visual cues (like the "faa" "baa" McGurk effect) or cues based on knowledge and expectations. Good old pure ears. Recently at Funk, comparing the Flamenca against an RP6 for Arthur, that was as elaborate as putting a few packing cases in the way so I couldn't see which turntable was playing. The old left brain / right brain issue manifested itself there. Initially I struggled to tell them apart (not struggled - felt they were similar and was unsure which I preferred - right brain hearing and synthesising multiple cues. Once I had "sussed it" - my left brain had a label "articulate bass" and it was a piece of piss telling them apart. But note - there might have been valid other factors in the mix I was effectively now ignoring, because left brain thinking had labelled it and taken over.

I accept that science is dynamic, and not fixed, and cannot yet explain everything. Some scientific theories conflict (physics is still looking for the universal theory to unite relativity with quantum ). But the essence of a scientific theory is not that it is perfect. It is that it is useful to describe and predict. So Newtons gravity has been superceded by Einsteins relativity and would fail to predict the "gravity lens" effect of mass bending space/time, but is perfectly useable and still valid for trying to predict where the planets will be in 15 years time. Because science isn't perfect doesnt mean it can just be bypassed for Hogwarts solutions.



Again - if we come to cable burn-in, and the research Frank was seeking to commission, the first task is to establish it is real (external). Observable repeatably and sufficiently consistently. Again - the test I proposed to Paul Stewart would meet that criteria. At that point, there is a demonstrable repeatable phenomena, even if we can't measure or explain it, and science has something to set about testing.

I would not rule out that some differences are very subtle and easily confused or lost (as I alluded to in the Flamenca testing above). But - again - Paul Stewart claims the differences in question were sufficient for him not to be phased and to be capable of blind test distinction. That IS enough if demonstrated to shove the onus back on science, and I suspect the BBC would have a budget for it.

The issue is NOT that you must have a measurement. Just that the difference is enough to repeatably reliably demonstrate, un-polluted by visual or expectation cues. Let me give one last example, and then do some work. I have my main PT system in the living room. In the kitchen are some JPW bookshelves behind a curtain, a NAD 7020 and a Sony CD player. The difference between the 2 systems is enormous and obvious (not necessarily to everyone - I'm not sure my Mum would notice). But I could easily tell them apart immediately in a blind test time after time perfectly. I cannot immediately think of any measurement that could show that (although probably frequency response etc would - but you get my point). Its not an easy single measurement, but it IS something I can demonstrate I can split with ears only.

By contrast, a 0.1 gram change in tracking weight is much less obvious. I would none-the-less reckon to be able to tell blind, but it would take longer and be much harder. But still achieveable. That difference might be really quite subtle. It is possible that there are other differences even more subtle, but real, which can't be detected that way. Whether we decide those differences are "internal" or "external" (note NOT "imagined" or "real") may depend on our understanding of, and acceptance of, what part the brain plays, and how we think physics works. However, many of these "contentious" differences are described as being big enough for an objective test and proof.

I repeat - if nobody wants to do that, it neither affects my man-hood, or personal music appreciation. It might be "quite interesting" (QI) and might lead to scientific research to explain it.

Phew :cool:

[Effem]

They are rather rare. I hope it's in as good nick as you think. The only way of finding that out, of course, is when you fit the thing and listen to it! :)

Yes, it was rather 'robust', but not what I would call hostile. I suspect that his use of the 'angry smiley' at the end made the post appear more hostile than it actually was...

What you might not know is that Frank has been posting on forums for years, and his time spent on ones which, shall we say, have a rather intolerant attitude towards 'cable believers' (the pet term objectivists/cynics often use to describe those who claim to hear cable effects), and where accusations were frequently made as to him being 'delusional', when no-one there other than any professional psychologists were qualified to accuse him of such, has made him rather jaded about the whole subject, and so threads like this which insinuate something similar, will always be liable to make him 'bristle'.

Is that about right, Frank? :)

Marco.

Robust? Yes. Hostile? No, not at all. Towards anyone in particular? Absolutely not.

However, I do get the feeling that bubbling beneath the surface of this discussion is that agenda that folks that do hear cable differences are all the things that I have said in previous posts. This is only a gut feeling and I will stand to be corrected if I am in error. The O/P has stated this a few times before on this very forum in other threads however and while this particular thread thus far hasn't directly addressed that, my instincts say that it is still a tactical or stealth approach with another label on it, because whether it be my left brain lobe or my right brain lobe, or indeed my armpit responsible, it it expending for too much energy on highbrow and somewhat negative philosophising for what is still after all "only a stereo" and a hobby.

If everyone else is enjoying this thread and happy to contribute their wisdoms to it, then kindly ignore this old cynic with too many forum battle scars :)

[Arkless Electronics]

I rather worry that in threads such as this one a balanced argument/debate is getting to be impossible due to vociferous nay sayers being asked to tone it down or not challenge the opinions of others in the interests of forum harmony. However the folks who believe in the audio equivalent of pixies and healing crystals are afforded a platform for their audio "hallucinations" and allowed to rant against the laws of physics to their hearts content. At the end of the day it is probably all a pointless circular argument anyway..... I think belief in an invisible sky wizard who created the earth is practically a reason for sectioning under the mental health act but you try telling a born again Christian that it's all nonsense! :eek:

[Effem]

I rather worry that in threads such as this one a balanced argument/debate is getting to be impossible due to vociferous nay sayers being asked to tone it down or not challenge the opinions of others in the interests of forum harmony. However the folks who believe in the audio equivalent of pixies and healing crystals are afforded a platform for their audio "hallucinations" and allowed to rant against the laws of physics to their hearts content. At the end of the day it is probably all a pointless circular argument anyway.....

Sheesh, and I was accused of being a bit "robust" :rolleyes:

[Effem]

There seems to be a consensus of opinion on here that I am against all scientific analysis about the ethereal effects I claim to be making that has no basis in scientific fact - or at least "unproven".

That is not the case at all. Besides my own first hand experiences, my own controlled testing regimes, plus the fact that I spent a good number of years as a "snake oil vendor" myself with many THOUSANDS of very satisfied customers globally, that more than qualifies me as having a valid opinion, more so than the people that resolutely stick to their out of the box freebie leads and blindly quoting other's wisdoms from the internet, pretending to be "knowledgeable". If some have dared to actually TRY one of these sooper dooper cables and claim they heard no differences at all, then I have never once stepped over the line and accused them of being deaf or denigrate them personally, yet these same people will never return the same courtesy to me and roll out the inevitable tosh that I am delusional, I see fairies in the garden, I am obviously suffering from a severe case of placebo, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

So please, someone actually show me the measurements of what THEY claim isn't happening in a controlled test, not attack me for not having the data of something that I know beyond doubt is happening. When you reply "But I don't have the budget or the means to do that" then we are finally on a level playing field.

[anthonyTD]

Archimedes principle, gravity etc, etc, only became laws after the realization of what was going on, in fact to this day,ask any scientist to explain gravity and see what answer they come up with! However, their affects on us' and the world around us were always there.:)
A...
I rather worry that in threads such as this one a balanced argument/debate is getting to be impossible due to vociferous nay sayers being asked to tone it down or not challenge the opinions of others in the interests of forum harmony. However the folks who believe in the audio equivalent of pixies and healing crystals are afforded a platform for their audio "hallucinations" and allowed to rant against the laws of physics to their hearts content. At the end of the day it is probably all a pointless circular argument anyway..... I think belief in an invisible sky wizard who created the earth is practically a reason for sectioning under the mental health act but you try telling a born again Christian that it's all nonsense! :eek:

[PaulStewart]

However the folks who believe in the audio equivalent of pixies and healing crystals are afforded a platform for their audio "hallucinations" and allowed to rant against the laws of physics to their hearts content.

Jez, two quick points about the "Laws of Physics", firstly, like any laws they can and have been amended many times. Sir Fred Hoyle, FRS a much lauded astro physicist was a firm protagonist of the "Steady State" theory of the universe, this states for those who are unfamiliar with it, that the universe has always existed and always will. One of his upstart ,students a chap called Stephen Hawking proved that there was a "Big Bang"(originally a derisory term for the event coined by Hoyle) and the universe did in fact, have a finite beginning. Said Professor Hawking, FRS was in turn much lauded for this discovery and his further work. He then read the work of Peter Higgs and his theories on mass and proposal of the sub atomic particle the "Higgs Boson". The great man said he thought it did not exist and even bet £200.00 that the large hadron collider would not find it. Oops! You see a smack round the face with a wet kipper can be delivered to the "Laws of Physics" 'cos and this was the first thing they taught me when studying it "They are not laws, they are theories to be used until something that fits observed facts better comes along".

Secondly, given identical physical dimensions, say rods 5mm diameter by 15 cm long would all conductive metals conduct energy identically?

Cheers

[Clive]

This part I pulled from your words rings very true to me. It's also a movable feast: if you are working on a group of somethings, your discernment abilities shoot right up. So, if you are listening to five different output stages of the same DAC design, for example, you will hear - and hear with great consistency - things about those output stages that no-one (even you, when you step back from the testing) will be able to nuance in the real world. Whether this adds up to improving a product or gilding the lily is one of the great perma-discussions of audio today.

The quote above is related in part to blind testing. I'm very strongly of the view the view that most blind tests that people are prepared to accept take place in alien environments with alien systems coupled with short term listening. It's not surprising then that we fail to hear vital emotional clues in such tests. Aside from detecting FR aberrations blind testing is mostly a waste of time, unless conducted in one's own environment over a sensible period of time. But who does this or who cares? No one. Apologies for the rant.....

[Arkless Electronics]

No one would have heard any mains cable effects if some snake oil vendor hadn't decided they needed more money and thought "hmmm what type of after market cable accessory can I flog next?" and was in a position to "persuade" some influential people in the world of hifi that they should propagate the view that they really work. It's impossible, it's imagined, the very thought that it could effect anything is simply ludicrous! If folks don't like that then hey, don't shoot the messenger.

What about the many yards of cable in the ring main? what about the mains plug with its riveted construction and fuse? what about the IEC socket on the amp which is further contacts, another fuse and even worse riveted metal connections? what about the wire in the amp? the mains on/off switch? the vast number of yards of wire in the transformers primary? Further internal fuses?
It's patently obvious that amongst all these other longer lengths of cable and connections and switches the effect of one meter of wire in the form of the mains cable can have no effect! And there's more.... the filtering effect of the smoothing capacitors, the fact that the electrickery has to pass through a rectifier bridge, the presence in most equipment (other than the majority of power amps) of voltage regulators which remove all effects of incoming interference etc by a minimum of 1000 X and in some cases by a million X.... Some more.... In some amps I have built there is such a large bank of smoothing caps that it takes a minute or two for the amp to go off after unplugging it due to the power stored in these caps. Providing that the voltage doesn't go below the drop out voltage of the regulators then you could randomly actually push the mains plug in and out of the socket and provided it was never unplugged for more than say 20 seconds then you wouldn't even hear it happening! :cool: Now where's the importance of the super mains cable there?

To claim, after taking in all the above, that a particular 1-2 M section of the total wire could have any effect is as ludicrous as claiming that bricks float.

It's simply impossible for them to have any effect and therefore by applying Occam's Razor the only possible explanation is that it's expectation bias/imagined. The human mind can be very susceptible to suggestion. This is what hypnotism, advertising and con men rely on!

[jandl100]

Yes, it was rather 'robust', but not what I would call hostile. ..... What you might not know is that Frank has been posting on forums for years, and his time spent on ones which, shall we say, have a rather intolerant attitude towards 'cable believers'

Yeah, Frank's a big softy really. :eyebrows:

[jandl100]

It's impossible, it's imagined, the very thought that it could effect anything is simply ludicrous! If folks don't like that then hey, don't shoot the messenger.

:guns: :p :D

[Oldpinkman]

The quote above is related in part to blind testing. I'm very strongly of the view the view that most blind tests that people are prepared to accept take place in alien environments with alien systems coupled with short term listening. It's not surprising then that we fail to hear vital emotional clues in such tests. Aside from detecting FR aberrations blind testing is mostly a waste of time, unless conducted in one's own environment over a sensible period of time. But who does this or who cares? No one. Apologies for the rant.....

Having done a fair bit of blind testing in my time, and more recently, there is much in what you say. It is of course an essential tool (well, much more relevant and readily explained) if you are an engineer developing product, and so at his request I have done some for Arthur recently (major issue issue with F6 arm, controversy over Technics platters). Old habits die hard though, and when I experienced "apparant change" on cartridge loading recently, I went back to blind testing, and convinced myself the effect was - at the very kindest - unstable and unpredictable (read probably perceived or "internal" rather than physical or external)

It is not impossible to do blind testing for more subtle phenomena in a relevant "real listening" way. I suggested a test method for Dave (Synsei) previously - which requires the help of a beautiful assistant, but allows proper valid blind testing in a natural unstressed normal listening, right brain manner.

So your basic point has merit - it tends to be used in product development to be sure an effect is real, or vote on whether a difference is an improvement or not - but it can be extended to a real listening environment and therefore to assessing differences which might be real but very hard to discern "cold"

I would note, that if looking at some of the commentaries made in "Strokes of Genius" - there appears no suggestion that the effects are subtle or hard to hear (Martin T recently on a mains cable and ETP) - and so - however much it might be better to do a natural listening test, one would expect these observations to survive "lab testing" blind conditions - which are a bit quicker and easier when valid.

[Oldpinkman]

Oh golly gosh. There are some posts where I share the posters view, but start to see where the "it's not what you say but how you say it" argument comes from :sofa:

[Marco]

You see a smack round the face with a wet kipper can be delivered to the "Laws of Physics" 'cos and this was the first thing they taught me when studying it "They are not laws, they are theories to be used until something that fits observed facts better comes along".

Precisely - and we would all do well to remember that fact. Furthermore, no-one is stopping anyone challenging someone else's opinions, but it must be done politely and respectfully, so as not to denigrate the equally valid (contrary) opinions of those you disagree with.

Jez, your views are once again tipping the balance into blinkered and dogmatic absolutism, now coupled with personal insults, which is not welcome here on what is primarily an 'ears first' subjectivist forum.

Please get that last bit into your head and kindly remember it in future, or stay away from these types of threads if you can't control yourself. I will not warn you about this again. Next time it'll be a week's holiday.

Cheers!

Marco.

[Marco]

Oh golly gosh. There are some posts where I share the posters view, but start to see where the "it's not what you say but how you say it" argument comes from :sofa:

Now you know why I said what I did earlier! These types of discussions usually always end up the same way :rolleyes:

Therefore, don't de too surprised if you see a padlock attached to this thread in the very near future.

Marco.

[synsei]

It is arrogant and frankly rather stupid to assume that the laws of physics are cast in stone, they are not. Mankind did not invent the universe therefore whilst it should be fun to attempt to figure out how it works, we are kidding ourselves if we think we have it sussed. Although I don't pretend to understand Quantum physics or mechanics, there may be an answer to this vexing phenomenon in there somewhere...

[Joe]

Next time it'll be a week's holiday.

Cheers!

Marco.

Ey up, Jez, I think you've pulled!

[Marco]

Ey up, Jez, I think you've pulled!

Very good! :D

Marco.

[Oldpinkman]

It is arrogant and frankly rather stupid to assume that the laws of physics are cast in stone, they are not. Mankind did not invent the universe therefore whilst it should be fun to attempt to figure out how it works, we are kidding ourselves if we think we have it sussed. Although I don't pretend to understand Quantum physics or mechanics, there may be an answer to this vexing phenomenon in there somewhere...

The problem here I think is that it is possible to make statements which are true, but can be taken out of context. So "the laws of physics are not cast in stone" is true. To go back to Newton and Einstein, Einstein's ideas can be seen to be more useful than Newton's but not a perfect theorem of everything. That doesn't mean Newton and gravity were wrong. We could still pilot a space ship to Jupiter accurately using Newtonian gravity.

Somewhat bizzarly however Jane, my sat nav, will not be able to take me to collect my cartridge tonight without relying on Einsteins relativity.

The fact that one day, a new theory may emerge (string theory?) which replaces relativity, doesn't mean relativity is wrong or useless.

And Ohms law still comes in pretty handy when designing electronics.

So one aspect of "fug" I think is statements such as that, which are true as far as they go, but mis-used out of context :doh:

[Joe]

It is arrogant and frankly rather stupid to assume that the laws of physics are cast in stone, they are not. Mankind did not invent the universe therefore whilst it should be fun to attempt to figure out how it works, we are kidding ourselves if we think we have it sussed. Although I don't pretend to understand Quantum physics or mechanics, there may be an answer to this vexing phenomenon in there somewhere...

I think that a) physicists may be working on more fundamental issues than whether cables burn in (or whatever the current subjective/objective hoo-hah happens to be), and that b) yer average audiophile is in any case almost certainly not capable of grasping enough about Quantum physics to find an answer there to this or any other audio phenomenon. I would guess, but don't know for sure, that, if asked, most scientists would say 'There appears to be no physical explanation for this observed phenomenon, and no way of measuring it, therefore it must be psychological'. They might suggest some blind testing to check whether the phenomenon is actually occurring, even if only in an 'observed' sense.

[Beobloke]

no-one is stopping anyone challenging someone else's opinions, but it must be done politely and respectfully,

Sort of "Sir, I respectfully suggest that you are talking poppycock, and occasionally straying perilously close to balderdash!" - that sort of thing? :D

Not that I'm suggesting you are, or anyone else is, as I haven't read this thread - no point as I only play test tones on my system anyway. 3150Hz is my favourite.

[jandl100]

The thing about theories, is that they are necessarily approximations of reality. Good for some things, but not (as Richard says) good for everything. Context is all.
V=IR (Ohm's Law) gets you a long way, and is a mighty handy approximation to have around. But it is just an approximation - it breaks down at very low temperatures for example, and becomes increasingly meaningless at very low current levels. Are there some things going on in electrical circuits that make the oft-used approximations break down in some subtle ways at more normal circumstances? I don't know - but it isn't out of the question.
"Quantum physics" is often used by some crystal vendors to promote their product, most often without a basis in fact I am sure. But quantum effects are discernible in normal every day circumstances. Electronics would not work if that were not so.

So, please, less of the dogmatism that electronics engineers know all that there is to be known. Personally, as an ex research scientist I know for sure very few things, but one thing I do know is that there is more to be known.

[Joe]

So, please, less of the dogmatism that electronics engineers know all that there is to be known. Personally, I know for sure very few things, but one thing I do know is that there is more to be known.

I'm an arts graduate, so I know fuck-all.

[synsei]

I think that a) physicists may be working on more fundamental issues than whether cables burn in (or whatever the current subjective/objective hoo-hah happens to be), and that b) yer average audiophile is in any case almost certainly not capable of grasping enough about Quantum physics to find an answer there to this or any other audio phenomenon. I would guess, but don't know for sure, that, if asked, most scientists would say 'There appears to be no physical explanation for this observed phenomenon, and no way of measuring it, therefore it must be psychological'. They might suggest some blind testing to check whether the phenomenon is actually occurring, even if only in an 'observed' sense.

So, if nobody is willing to study the issue why the hell are we arguing about it? Picking on Jez for a moment (Sorry Jez ;)), if we are to take this at face value, why, despite his customers saying otherwise, should Jez's phono stage sound any better or worse than that from Brand X? Surely they are all designed to do the same job therefore they should all sound the same? See how ridiculous this argument has become? I know this statement is full of holes so there is no need to pick it apart, however the essentials are there. What this boils down to very simply is that certain individuals on both sides are attempting to force their opinions on others, which is just damned rude.

[Joe]

So, if nobody is willing to study the issue why the hell are we arguing about it? Picking on Jez for a moment (Sorry Jez ;)), if we are to take this at face value, why, despite his customers saying otherwise, should Jez's phono stage sound any better or worse than that from Brand X? Surely they are all designed to do the same job therefore they should all sound the same? See how ridiculous this argument has become? I know this statement is full of holes so there is no need to pick it apart, however the essentials are there. What this boils down to very simply is that certain individuals on both sides are attempting to force their opinions on others, which is just damned rude.

I have no opinions, so can exempt myself from rudeness.

However, Jez knows what components he puts into his modded phono stages, and how and why these change the sound and, hopefully, make them sound better than un-modded versions. He does not understand how mains cables can sound different, and he has not heard any such difference, so his conclusions are that a) anyone hearing such a difference can only be imagining it, and therefore b) any manufacturer selling fancy mains cables is exploiting their customers. This view is in direct contradiction of those who claim to hear differences, and who may have shelled out £££s on the basis that the differences are real. We have irresistible force (Jez) meeting immovable objects (AoS punters) and the result is much heat and no light.

[Reffc]

I have to challenge one aspect used by pure subjectivist thinking arguments (my standpoint is that I am neither pure objectivist NOR pure subjectivist..the truth in hifi I believe lies half-way between for many reasons), which is that science is insufficient in explaining away hifi matters.

For the most part, acoustic physics, mechanical engineering, maths and electronic theory are well enough established and well accurate enough to be able to describe what we hear, or at least to describe differences between a lot of kit for a vast majority of cases. The supposition that not everything "hifi" can be explained by science is perfectly true, as the IMPORTANT differentiation between claiming the truth and describing the truth, is that science merely attempts to describe, NOT to explain. In doing so, it is all too easy to forget, that those descriptions for the most part are perfectly adequate in terms of the relatively straightforward principles of describing sound reproduction through hifi. Hifi cannot claim to operate at the cutting edges of current scientific understanding and thinking, it is not cutting edge, and for the most part, much of the understanding has been there for decades with the exception of advances in materials engineering and measurement. Where science falls short imho, is that not everyone, in fact, very few enthusiasts have neither the interest nor the understanding to pursue more scientific trains of thought, so the natural fall-back is subjective analysis and description. Nothing at all wrong in that and it's all part of the fun of our hobby.

Where the danger lies imho is when arguments such as "science cannot describe most things in hifi so stop being tiresome" become the de-rigour standpoint, because that is as much as an anathema imho as the opposite point of view and just the other end of the extreme argument viewpoint, plus it is (scientifically speaking) an incorrect statement. If it were not, then the knowledge to design, build, test, measure, refine and perfect all hifi components would not exist, and clearly it does. These arguments are almost exclusively held between enthusiasts and not the engineers responsible for the kit. It is perfectly possible to be both an engineer and an enthusiast, the two are not mutually exclusive. Being an engineer does not disqualify one from having valid hearing and making valid subjective assessments either, because that is an important, in fact essential part of the design process, particularly where loudspeakers are concerned. Balance is everything.

[John]

I have no doubt people hear what people hear, people believe what they believe and people know what they know.
I have a few theories as to why
How each of us perceive and make sense of the world is remarkably different. Our values and world views are governed by our own experiences, how we process information. beliefs and how we think. This is diverse for each individual.
Our sensory experiences work differently to each person. I work in the field of Autism where one of things we learn is people can be hyper or hypo sensitive in particular areas and this can fluctuate from one to the other, whilst I am not saying we autistic I am suggesting that sensory experiences differ for each individual and what one person maybe sensitive too (for instance I really dislike certain frequencies that appear harsh to me) another person may not.
I enjoy the meeting place between subjectivity and objectivity but clearly lie in the subjective camp myself.

[Clive]

Great post John, it goes to show how no one can tell others what they must be hearing, dyslexia too involves auditory (termed phonological in the science) processing issues.

[Marco]

Excellent post, Paul, and I also agree with what John wrote.

As I've said many times before, the problem is rarely the message, but rather how that message is delivered.

Therefore, if someone like Jez, who undoubtedly has years of experience and, technically, knows what he's talking about, seeks to educate someone on a subject he believes they're incorrect about, the way to do that is not to, rather arrogantly, TELL that person they are wrong and that they're 'imagining' things (even if that is the case, as all it'll do is get their backs up), but rather demonstrate to them in a way that isn't demeaning or disrespectful, and by using language that they can understand, why that person may be wrong or making a mistake.

That is where these discussions fall down because no-one likes to be accused of being a fool, or treated like one.

Quite simply, if anyone is going to try and prove me wrong about, say, the subject of mains leads, then it will not happen by being lectured to on a forum by an 'expert', quoting figures and 'scientific facts' from an engineering textbook; it will happen if said expert is able to prove to me on my terms that I am wrong (ears will therefore be involved) - and if they're successful, then I'm more than willing to accept I'm wrong and learn from the experience.

To date, no-one has been able to do that, therefore my current views stand (mains leads, designed for hi-fi purposes, significantly sonically outperform ordinary 'kettle leads') :)

I liked this bit, btw:


Where science falls short imho, is that not everyone, in fact, very few enthusiasts have neither the interest nor the understanding to pursue more scientific trains of thought, so the natural fall-back is subjective analysis and description.


Spot on. That describes me to a tee! Looking at graphs and measurements just makes my eyes glaze over.... Furthermore, I'm simply an end user of product, not a designer, so I see no real reason for falling in love with an oscilloscope, especially as I consider that my ears are plenty good enough for assessing, on a subjective basis, anything that I need to assess in my system ;)

Marco.

[Welder]

I think that, in reality, the people who deride and dismiss such efforts are few in number.

Audio circuits are not designed by wizards and the components are not grown by elven folk. Domestic audio still has to conform to real-world physics and electronics engineering concepts. And while there are people who spend their time looking for loopholes in Ohm's Law, the majority of audio design and manufacture is relatively conservative in nature.

How much of what constitutes 'better' audio is gilding the lily? The nearest we have to a high-fidelity standard are the DIN specs for home audio, and they are a low enough bar that the systems of even the most grumpily impecunious of object-to-it-all objectivists would massively exceed the standard. The problem here is researchers in the AES cohort commonly consider domestic audio 'done' and have moved on to avenues with greater possibility of tenure, so it's difficult to say whether something that outperforms the DIN spec on paper has any correlate with what we perceive, because we mostly have a mid/late 20th Century model of what we perceive.

This poses problems for products at the fringes. they presuppose that 20th Century model of perception to be flawed and run with the idea, coming up with concepts that can be increasingly left-field. Some of these things do appear to work and work consistently, but because those perceptual models are rigidly adhered to, the best we can say in objectively is 'appear to work', and frequently this is shot down in flames as being 'snake oil'. Those 'snake oil' screamers are - to my mind - a little like the Vienna Circle* and their shouting of 'metaphysics!' whenever anything not purely logical was spoken. The problem here is in refusing to even countenance these fringe products, and falling back on the outmoded 'pass/fail' reading of ABX testing when they are brought up, we are unable to scientifically differentiate what actually might be capable of making a difference to sound through sheer intransigence, and fear of looking like a 'crank' in the audio science community.

So we have the worst of both worlds. We have things that are touted as making a difference to performance dismissed without testing, and those who do test them dismissed as cranks for even trying to test them. This is not a model of scientific discovery.

A lot has changed since we left the 20th Century behind. The audio perception model is being redrawn by the impact of auditory neuroscience and even the way we read the results of formal double-blind ABX tests has been redrawn thanks to the input of those trained in SDT (signal detection theory), in that the test is starting to be considered only capable of detecting difference, but is too 'noisy' to accurately reject the null hypothesis. Orders of magnitude larger samples and more complex Beyesian number-crunching should pull true negative results out of the Type II errors, but until that is resolved, the best you can say is either 'A and B are different' or 'no comment'. You cannot conclude that A and B are identical from an ABX test as it stands, I'm afraid - and that lets both the good guys and the bad craziness in through the tradesman's entrance.


*It didn't end well for the Vienna Circle: eventually, they had to stop shouting 'metaphysics' because they found almost all language had a metaphysical context, and it was less disruptive to shout 'not metaphysics' on the rare occasion someone said something purely logical. Ultimately, this led to the collapse of logical positivism (when you try to rid logic of metaphysical constructs, you begin to realise that logic itself is simply a metaphysical construction) and the foundation of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, which led to inevitable weirdness on Gödel's account and he reasoned himself into starving to death.


You may be right Allan. It may just be a small but vocal minority and I would assume this varies greatly depending on which forum, or which folk you speak to.

In my opinion part of the problem isn’t the testing itself although there is still much to learn; it’s the conclusions and extrapolations drawn from them by people who often don’t understand that it’s statistical evidence only of a particular event. As you point out, not hearing a difference on the day doesn’t mean no difference exists, nor does it mean that in some other test, even by some other means, differences wouldn’t become apparent.

I think Anthony TD makes a valid point about knowing what one is listening for and familiarity with the equipment. I’ve experienced exactly this when building speakers and music servers. Interestingly, once you point out to another listener what to listen for and then make an adjustment, many, but not all, can it seems tell the difference with remarkable reliability.
However, this doesn’t really help us much because I don’t think many who are actually interested in the subject would deny that differences exist in most areas of audio, what I argue about, as do the more reasonable audio enthusiasts (note the omission of the term audiophile) is the magnitude of these differences.

I know it won’t happen, but I would like all those actually interested in audio rather than those interested in dogma to undertake their own ABX tests, or for the more patient and technically minded perhaps this if you don’t trust your ears.

http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm

An interesting starting point I found is to find out what you can hear a difference in. I used MFSL recordings v various re-masters; pretty much 90% success rate. Bear in mind this is the same music, just differently mastered. Sooo, for me at least this goes some way to validating the method and my hearing. Now I wouldn’t call the differences between my music samples massive but they are audible. So, I can’t help conclude that if I can hear these differences but struggle to hear any difference between say one Dac or another in a similar test then the differences are less than the differences between the two files of the same music I used initially.

I realise that this type of testing is confidence shaking, but, well, being made to realise that what you thought was certainty is in fact not can’t do you any serious damage. ;)

Anyway, my ribs are on the mend and there are trees to fell, earth to plough, seeds to sow and a lot less time to listen to music let alone debate stuff most don’t really care about.
This fall cost me a Benchmark Dac fecks knows what I’ll end up with if it happens again. :eek::D

[Arkless Electronics]

Whist standing by my take on mains cables, with hindsight I apologise for putting things in an erm... over robust way! :)

[Marco]

No problem, mate. I appreciate your apology, which of course is accepted. Like I said, it's not WHAT you say but rather how you say it :)

Also, it's important to realise that no-one's views here are being censored. The only thing that's being censored is arrogance ;)

Marco.

[lurcher]

To claim, after taking in all the above, that a particular 1-2 M section of the total wire could have any effect is as ludicrous as claiming that bricks float.

They would in mercury. Context does matter :-)

[anthonyTD]

Unfortunately, there isn't much Jez has said here that i haven't said to myself, on many occasions over the years, As engineers thinking and working within the current,and therefore understood laws of physics, i can fully understand the frustration he feels as i have been there, and it doesn't help going over in your head the reasons why it shouldn't happen [really, it doesn't] Also, i for one' would be amongst those first in the cue ready to out the many dealers and salesmen who make ridiculous amounts of money from selling such products if i truly knew and felt 100% sure that what they were selling was indeed just mere snake oil, but unfortunately, to date, i am not sure, in fact i am far from it, so until someone comes up with a feasible and rational scientific understanding of what is really going on, it will continue to frustrate the hell out of me...
Either way, i will continue in this profession with an open mind as i have always tried to do, and ever aware that there are always going to be those niggling things that i don't fully understand, and until i do, i will just work with them, and not against, ie; taking into account the possible potential affect they may have on anything i produce or use in my own products and system.
A...

[Effem]

No one would have heard any mains cable effects if some snake oil vendor hadn't decided they needed more money and thought "hmmm what type of after market cable accessory can I flog next?" and was in a position to "persuade" some influential people in the world of hifi that they should propagate the view that they really work. It's impossible, it's imagined, the very thought that it could effect anything is simply ludicrous! If folks don't like that then hey, don't shoot the messenger.

What about the many yards of cable in the ring main? what about the mains plug with its riveted construction and fuse? what about the IEC socket on the amp which is further contacts, another fuse and even worse riveted metal connections? what about the wire in the amp? the mains on/off switch? the vast number of yards of wire in the transformers primary? Further internal fuses?
It's patently obvious that amongst all these other longer lengths of cable and connections and switches the effect of one meter of wire in the form of the mains cable can have no effect! And there's more.... the filtering effect of the smoothing capacitors, the fact that the electrickery has to pass through a rectifier bridge, the presence in most equipment (other than the majority of power amps) of voltage regulators which remove all effects of incoming interference etc by a minimum of 1000 X and in some cases by a million X.... Some more.... In some amps I have built there is such a large bank of smoothing caps that it takes a minute or two for the amp to go off after unplugging it due to the power stored in these caps. Providing that the voltage doesn't go below the drop out voltage of the regulators then you could randomly actually push the mains plug in and out of the socket and provided it was never unplugged for more than say 20 seconds then you wouldn't even hear it happening! :cool: Now where's the importance of the super mains cable there?

To claim, after taking in all the above, that a particular 1-2 M section of the total wire could have any effect is as ludicrous as claiming that bricks float.

It's simply impossible for them to have any effect and therefore by applying Occam's Razor the only possible explanation is that it's expectation bias/imagined. The human mind can be very susceptible to suggestion. This is what hypnotism, advertising and con men rely on!

I cannot believe what I have just read in that post above, from someone who is "in electronics".

Do you honestly think that what you have written is the first time that anyone has ever mentioned those things?

There is an answer to how:

"What about the many yards of cable in the ring main? what about the mains plug with its riveted construction and fuse? what about the IEC socket on the amp which is further contacts, another fuse and even worse riveted metal connections? what about the wire in the amp? the mains on/off switch? the vast number of yards of wire in the transformers primary? Further internal fuses?"

but, you also forgot to mention the mile upon mile of cables in the national grid, the local step-down transformer, then the underground/overground cables to your house and the electric meter, yet this mere 1 metre of magic wire performs much wonder upon the sound of your hi-fi???????

If you hadn't been so dogmatic, abusive and derogatory I might have explained it to you.

[walpurgis]

Actually, I rather take Jez's side. His views echo mine. Sorry if that clashes with others, but there it is. I view 'special' mains cables as so much hocus pocus.

I find it quite laughable when I see magazine reviews saying things like "bringing a new clarity" when reviewing mains cables.

[Clive]

I find it really annoying that mains cables make a difference. I do the least I can to ensure I have mains cables that don't hold my system back.

[anthonyTD]

Go on Frank, explain it to us anyway. ;)
I cannot believe what I have just read in that post above, from someone who is "in electronics".

Do you honestly think that what you have written is the first time that anyone has ever mentioned those things?

There is an answer to how:

"What about the many yards of cable in the ring main? what about the mains plug with its riveted construction and fuse? what about the IEC socket on the amp which is further contacts, another fuse and even worse riveted metal connections? what about the wire in the amp? the mains on/off switch? the vast number of yards of wire in the transformers primary? Further internal fuses?"

but, you also forgot to mention the mile upon mile of cables in the national grid, the local step-down transformer, then the underground/overground cables to your house and the electric meter, yet this mere 1 metre of magic wire performs much wonder upon the sound of your hi-fi???????

If you hadn't been so dogmatic, abusive and derogatory I might have explained it to you.

[Effem]

Actually, I rather take Jez's side. His views echo mine. Sorry if that clashes with others, but there it is. I view 'special' mains cables as so much hocus pocus.

I find it quite laughable when I see magazine reviews saying things like "bringing a new clarity" when reviewing mains cables.

Well you keep on saying you will pop in to say hello next time you are in Kernow. When you do I will give you a taste of some hocus pocus . . . . . . . . ;)

[Marco]

Guys,

Could we please drop this part of the discussion now (cable 'believers' vs. 'disbelievers'), as those representing either side of the fence will never agree, and so the discussion is becoming repetitive and circular, and dangerously close to unpleasantly argumentative.

If no-one else has got anything new to add, I'm tempted to close the thread.

Marco.

[MCRU]

Guys,

Could we please drop this part of the discussion now (cable 'believers' vs. 'disbelievers'), as those representing either side of the fence will never agree, and so the discussion is becoming repetitive and circular, and dangerously close to unpleasantly argumentative.

If no-one else has got anything new to add, I'm tempted to close the thread.

Marco.

it should have been closed after the very first post from the resident AOS troll.....:lol:

[Marco]

I'm not sure that's helpful, David.

Marco.

[Effem]

Guys,

Could we please drop this part of the discussion now (cable 'believers' vs. 'disbelievers'), as those representing either side of the fence will never agree, and so the discussion is becoming repetitive and circular, and dangerously close to unpleasantly argumentative.

If no-one else has got anything new to add, I'm tempted to close the thread.

Marco.

Well to be honest Marco the thread has drifted a long way off it's original subject which in truth was beyond the ken (or interest) of me and no doubt others too.

I joined AoS to get away from the mud slinging and to be with people who heard what they heard without challenge and we can all say "Yep, very interesting, well done, nice bargain, great find, nice toons etc.". There are more than enough forums around where you can shout "Snake oil!!" all day every day and people who enjoy that should be contented to be amongst that like-minded herd elsewhere.

These threads always end the same way, so I am baffled why the mods don't padlock them at post number one and have done with it.

[MCRU]

I'm not sure that's helpful, David.

Marco.

chill out man and stop taking everything so seriously dude, parts of this thread are so laughable its probably embarrassing to outsiders who are reading but not posting

[Marco]

I'm perfectly chilled out, David - I'm just ensuring that comments made on the forum are constructive, and referring to another member as a troll doesn't constitute as constructive.

Anyway, as Frank has outlined, this thread is long past its sell-by date, so time to bring out the keys...

Marco.