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

Showing 6 responses by 70242241e18c

Garfish: Why do you say I don't trust my senses? That's either an irrational assumption or a deliberate distortion of what I've ben saying. I've been saying that you should use your ears, but in a way that eliminates prejudices and biases, however subconscious they are, so that you judge solely on what is audible.

If that makes me a "non-believer," I'll accept that label.
Detlof: And I'm saying there are ways to find out if something really is "there" or not.

I'm out to enjoy music and audio, too, but it doesn't mean I want to waste lots of money on something that doesn't add anything.
Fpeel: in what way do the "non-believers" inhibit reasonable exchange? There's no insistance that "if something can't be measured it must be psychological." No, the scientific approach would be to be open-minded; that is, "go ahead, prove it." Either measure it and show the results, prove that the effects are audible in double-blind testing by correctly identifying A or B a statistically significant number of times, or explain how it works so others can investigate the phenomenon. Nobody's offered any of these.

Testimonials of "I'm listening to a stock power cable. My, it sounds harsh. Now I'm listening to a Shunyata. Wow, so much more depth and clarity; it's not even subtle!" do not constitute proof or even reliable evidence. It's not being closed-minded to press this point.

Scientific progress is not scattershot. It is based on accumulated knowledge and understanding and continual examination. Even progress based on unforseen discoveries does not develop without understanding the discovered phenomenon. This takes investigation of the discovery. Without understanding there is no progress. Simply asserting that this power cord or that will affect a device's audio performance with no plausible explanation or proof is not understanding. Asserting that power cords are outside the realm of understandable technology also is not understanding, and it's just plain silly to boot. If something previously unknown is occurring with power cords, then please enlighten us on what's going on. Write a paper on it and submit it to the Audio Engineering Society for peer review. Otherwise, go join Pons and Fleischmann with their "cold fusion" scam.

Science doesn't have to investigate every imaginable allegation to maintain credibility or to remain open-minded. If someone asserts that a ball tossed straight up into the air will sometimes float there and not fall back down, it's up to that person to go ahead and prove it by repeatable means; it's not up to the disbelieving scientist to spend the rest of his waking hours tossing a ball straight up to prove that it'll never happen.

Likewise, if someone asserts that contrary to understood physical principles of resistance, inductance, and capacitance, something is going on in wire such that certain braiding techniques and pretty insulation will affect audio signals, or will somehow affect the AC power and somehow improve the audio performance of the device it's attached to, then go ahead: prove your assertion.

To me, it's reasonable to believe that if a system sounds superb with designer power cords and interconnects and speaker wire, it'll also sound superb with stock power cords and interconnects and speaker wire (of adequate gauge), and for a lot less money.
Philiphans: If it gives you great pleasure to buy exotic cables, go ahead. It's a free country, free markets, etc. I prefer to spend money on what I have a reasonable expectation would add performance and am therefore skeptical of spectacular claims that have no technical, scientific, common-sense backup. Or even any empirical data to back up the claims.

Show me a system that sounds superb with exotic cabling (PCs, ICs, speaker wire), and I'm certain that I or anyone else can make it sound equally superb with stock and low-cost cabling.

And with the money saved I can go to concerts, buy CDs, buy an occasional new musical instrument, etc. And go skiing, travelling, etc.

You're right that you don't need to know the technical aspects of audio to enjoy it at least up to a certain level, but I've found that studying and working with and developing audio technology over the past 20+ years has helped me enjoy it more, and given me a very enjoyable career at the same time. Your mileage may vary.
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.
Philiphans: What I have are 3 x 12 AWG and 3 x 14 AWG. Double the size of the 12 AWG would be 9 AWG. Are you suggesting I double the size of my power cord and AB it or not?

Katharina: What do you find troubling? ABX testing IS comparative testing by listening alone, minus the cues that cause biases and therefore invalid listening results. Inattention to biases and prejudices does not make for better evaluation. If you trust your hearing, you should especially try to understand what it means to test by only hearing.