Attention Scientists, Engineers and Na-s


Isn't it funny how timing works. With all the different discussions on proving this, show me fact on that and the psycho acoustical potential of the other thing an article comes along with the same topics and some REAL potential answers. I received my newest copy of "The Audiophile Voice" Vol.7, Issue1 today and on page 16 is an article written by David Blair and Bill Eisen titled "In The Matter Of Noise". The article focuses on disturbance noise but has some reference to thermal noise, low frequency noise and shot noise, and our ability to measure these noises with the equipment of today. We have measured noise as low as 6x10 to the power of -5, or approximately a few cycles per day. We have also found through laboratory testing that the human brain is stimulated with frequencies from just above 0Hz to just below 50kHz. U.S. Department of Defense documents also show studies of low frequency activity below measurable levels and there various affects.
The article then begins to talk about out of band (hearing) noise and in band noise produced by our electronic equipment and the potential of these noises effecting our sound system. The assumptions are that "disturbance noises rob our systems of dynamics, low-level information, tonal purity and stage depth". These effects are for the most part overlooked and misunderstood by the scientific communities. They say they think that our speakers being hit with "massive quantities of R.F.I. are affected" A very good quote referring to power filters was "Effective noise control imposes no sonic tradeoffs or downside." How often have the discussions here on Audiogon focused on what they are doing? A very interesting comment was that Teflon is capable of carrying 40-Kilovolts static charge, and the industry is touting this as a great insulator for audio signals, that's scarey!
Now I bring this to light because I believe the view of the "Scientists and Engineers" here on Audiogon is so narrow that they are failing to see the exciting challenges in front of them. If all these noises do exist, which they do, and they can be transmitted and received through our systems, isn't possible, just maybe feasible that the insulation of our wires, the casing of our dedicated lines the size and shape of the conductor could, just maybe effect the sound? Isn't it even possible that forces set off by electrical components could be interfering in some so far unmeasured and inaudible way affecting the sound. Do you all test within the full spectrum of 0Hz to 50Khz for every possible situation? Or is it possible, just ever so small of a chance that you are overlooking a whole new science yet unexplored. Doesn't that, even slightly excite your little scientific fossils?
Man if I was younger, healthier and wanted a challenge. This is a career if you'd just climb out from behind you oscilloscopes and spectrum analyzer and see the world is indeed still spinning, and yes, it is 2001. Remember how 30 years ago 2001 was going to be so exciting. What the hell have the Scientist, Engineers and Na-sayers who tote there stuff here on Audiogon done for the advancement of science. Anyone, have any of you really broken through! J.D.
128x128jadem6
702....the biases you speak of do exist and indeed I often worry if what I think I am hearing is perhaps nothing but wishful thinking. So if the oppportunity arises, I will try put my hearing to the test. On the other hand I beg you to consider, that biases unconsciously may also work the other way in the sense, that differences which truly do exist are either simply not percieved or an experimental set up is made such, that the outcome leans heavily towards a preconcieved model. All this does not prove that "you" are wrong and "we" are right, all I am trying to say is, that I have doubts towards "science" when it becomes absolute, just as I would naturally doubt the hype, advertisements about wires abound in. Contrary to your stand, I think I can hear differences between ordinary and "exotic" cables, but I am all with you in your "crusade" for scepticism, because this field especially abounds in snakeoil, hype and mark ups which are nothing but indecent. Again, on the other hand, you see, I find it just as indecent, when some cable manufacturers, with serious academic backgrounds, who truly have advanced the state of the art, are put down as simple charlatans by the " measuring crowd ".
702, your right to say the money saved could find better use elsewhere. Neither do I agree exotic cables should be priced so ridiculously high, that's why I always bought them used.
A stock powercord will have reached the point of diminished returns (pdr) when we cannot determine any more differences (sonically) between the standard coppers and PVCs used in its construction. Audiophiles who have exceptional hearing acuity are able to squeeze that last few percent beyond pdr. I can't prove it to you myself, but Seymour Shlien of Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada K2H 8S2 published a scientific paper "Auditory Models for Gifted Listeners" in the Audio Engineering Society Nov 2000 journal. If I may quote from the abstract: He wrote, "Some listeners are especially sensitive to minute codec quantization noise. Various pyschoacoustic tests were performed in order to measure the characteristics of these listeners. Though the auditory filter bandwidths of these listeners appeared to be normal, some had unusual abilities to detect weak signals buried in noise."
Please try to get hold of this very good publication for your scientific reference.
Coming back to our powercord. 702 may i suggest to you a very simple DIY experiment costing a few $. Prepare a pc from ordinary cable double the conductor size of your present powercord to your poweramp and try it out. Please post whether you can hear any difference. Regards.
Philiphans: I do have that publication at home and will dig it out. However, I would caution you that the paper apparently deals with recognition of codec noise, which is far different from cabling effects that may or may not exist. For one thing, codec noise exists and can be repeatedly and reliably detected and measured to verify what the gifted listeners hear. My problem is with "gifted" listeners who claim to hear things that can't be verified, and only when they know what they're listening to.

Thanks for the test suggestion. I'll make a 9 AWG power cable, and when I get a chance, I'll do an ABX test between one of my power amps and another identical model.
702 ..I have a very basic and perhaps naive question: Would you maintain, that ALL highend cable manufacturers peddle in snake oil? If not, where would you draw the line, apart from basic considerations like resistance, capacitance etc? Would you then also say, that the insistence say of the Spectral people, that their gear be solely used with the MIT wires, reflects rather a commercial reality than a scientific one, based on design criteria? Also, since I am unfamiliar with all the literature, do practically all double blind tests which have been published go against the claims of the golden eared? And if yes, what would you say was the bias of the people, who undertook the testing and devised the procedures and last, were do you think I could best read up about it. Hope I'm not too much of a bother. But I suppose I am not the only one, who's interested. Regards,
702, the 9 AWG might be too large for the IEC unless its a specially built one. Please check again, the regular stock cord is usually 3x18AWG (0.75~0.8 mm2), so 3x14 or 3x12 AWGs would be fine for this experiment. Ensure their fitness with your stockist before he cuts the cable!
For the listen, if you're familiar with the sonics of yr poweramp, you can go straight to test it, skipping the AB'g. Live with it for a while...but please keep us posted. Regards.