Five Speaker Jumper Comparisons For The SDA SRS 1.2TL

F1nut

I will once again post my direct response to your question in hope of a real answer.

So, where is it?

DarqueKnight

villian wrote: »

I answered you twice already, and stated that I have no desire to continue a fruitless conversation with you or anyone else in this thread as there's no need for that...but...I will once again post my direct response to your question in hope of a real answer.

The conversation is not fruitless if you can justify using a test for a purpose for which is was not intended and has scientifically been proven to yield false results when misused. Asking me why the test can't be used with trained listeners is nonsense because you are asking why can't a test be used for a class of subjects for which it is not intended and not needed.

villian wrote: »

Read these again, then please reply.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/general-av-discussions/2512-speakers%3B-when-good-enough-enough-3.html#post15412

http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/what-is-the-placebo-effect
..I found that one as a "Qualified Web MD'r" ;D;

I am very familiar with placebo effect, and with the articles at Audioholics.com that others like to point us to in an attempt to "educate" us poor, misguided audiophiles. Training is the method by which placebo effect is eliminated. It is only na

villian

BlueFox wrote: »

Why do some people try to apply a medical phenomenon to listening to music?

Because that medical phenomenon is applicable to ALL humans.

Yes, unless you are an alien that even includes yourself.


DarqueKnight - "Training" does not make ones self exempt from the placebo effect.

villian

DarqueKnight wrote: »

What is the scientific validity of using blind testing for phenomena it was not designed to test?

The scientific validity of using blind tests is to enure an unbiased baseline and valid results. The world accepts this, even if you don't. Blind testing was not "Designed" to test any one specific theory or item, and is certainty capable of testing the way sound is perceived...contrary to what you seem to believe.


For what it's worth I believe that Jumper Cables can and do effect sound quality. I don't think it's anything notable, as there's usually far greater things in play than one jumper vs another..but it's analog, so yes, totally possible.

BUT, to claim that any single digital cable reproduces sound in a different way than another is complete hogwash. The cable has nothing to do with the sound reproduction, only the transportation of data. If you can prove to me that 0's and 1's sound differently via different cables, then please do.

I do have to ask: Why do you even use jumpers? Why not Bi-amp or use solid connectors? Solid silver would be a great conductor to start tinkering with.

headrott

villian. You obviously have not read DK's excellent thread that both he and I have posted. Please read that thread before making any other remarks about what blind tests were or were not designed to test. You are making yourself out to look uneducated in what blind tests were designed to be used for and why they were created. Please read the thread here: [URL="villian. You obviously have not read DK's excellent thread that bothhe and I have posted. Please read that thread before making any other remarks about what blind tests were or were not designed to test. You are making yourself out to look uneducated in what blind tests were designed to be used for and why they were created. Please read the thread here: [U][URL="http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?104973-A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing"]An-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing[/URL]

This is the third time this link has been posted to the study of blind tests. if you do not read the thread this time, we will assume you are not really interested in having an educated, informed, and meaningful discussion about blind tests and their purpose; let alone what audible differences there are in switching jumper cables for speakers.

headrott

I will also re-post DK's excellent thread about evaluating early sterophonic systems, I just re-read this myself and it is excellent. Please read this as well villian. Again, if you do not read these threads, we will assume you are not interested in an educated, informed, and meaningful discussion regarding sterophonic sound and the testing methods introduced by the inventors of stereo systems (Bell Labs). Please read, learn, understand and then return with an educated point of view. It will be better for everyone.

Please read here: A-Survey-Of-Early-Stereophonic-System-Subjective-Evaluation

DarqueKnight

villian wrote: »

The scientific validity of using blind tests is to enure an unbiased baseline and valid results. The world accepts this, even if you don't.

"The world", and many scientists of the time, used to accept that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Just because some people are gullible and uneducated enough to accept an unscientific opinion, that does not make it correct.

With regard to addressing bias with training, another forum member summed it up nicely:

BlueFox wrote: »

Really. One aspect of maturity is recognizing your biases, and consciously making an effort to over come those biases. If it can be done for race relations, and other more complex issues, then it certainly can be done for audio equipment.

To state as an absolute, "bias cannot be trained out of a listener", something that obviously is not true is just absurd.

villian wrote: »

Blind testing was not "Designed" to test any one specific theory or item, and is certainty capable of testing the way sound is perceived...contrary to what you seem to believe.

Blind testing is suitable for some types of sound, but not stereo. I thoroughly discuss this in the two historical articles I linked to earlier. The standard basic textbook in sensory evaluation is "Sensory Evaluation Techniques" by Meilgaard, Vance, and Carr. It scientifically describes the types of phenomena for which blind testing is appropriate and the types of phenomena for which descriptive tests are appropriate.

villian wrote: »

For what it's worth I believe that Jumper Cables can and do effect sound quality. I don't think it's anything notable, as there's usually far greater things in play than one jumper vs another..but it's analog, so yes, totally possible.

Saying what you think is just expressing your opinion. Your opinion is questionable since you don't have any solid evidence to back it up. I thought you believed in scientifically validating your views?

villian wrote: »

BUT, to claim that any single digital cable reproduces sound in a different way than another is complete hogwash.

The topic of this thread is analog jumpers. Why are you now ranting about digital cables? You seem to have a lot of pent up aggression towards the concept of cables and are now bouncing around on all the topics that trouble you.

villian wrote: »

The cable has nothing to do with the sound reproduction, only the transportation of data.

A digital cable, like any other cable, introduces noise and distortions in the signal. Some distortions affect the amplitude of the signal and some distortions affect the time relationships of the pulses. Amplitude distortions are inaudible as long as they are not severe. Time relationship distortions (jitter) are audible.

villian wrote: »

If you can prove to me that 0's and 1's sound differently via different cables, then please do.

It appears that your mind is already made up and a closed mind, like a closed parachute, is useless. You should be able to prove to yourself why some digital cables can make a difference by studying the concept of jitter and signal integrity. Some digital cables pass a cleaner, more accurate signal. A cleaner, more accurate signal means that the receiving hardware has to exert less effort and resources to cleaning up the signal, which translates to a cleaner output signal.

villian wrote: »

I do have to ask: Why do you even use jumpers? Why not Bi-amp or use solid connectors? Solid silver would be a great conductor to start tinkering with.

Please refer to post #8 in this thread where I addressed biamping and biwiring.

Post #23 addresses why I went back to jumpers. Further details below are from another thread here:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Some Intrigue

The former binding post plates had the HF binding posts removed and the HF and LF wires were soldered to the same single pair of binding posts. I did the right speaker first and did a quick listening evaluation to confirm that there were no connectivity or assembly problems. I first used the AudioQuest jumpers. I was surprised at the smeared, boomy bass and loss of high frequency detail on the right. I put in some homemade jumpers and they sounded better than the AQ jumpers, but not as clear and detailed as the non-jumpered connection on the left. I knew that the AQ jumpers would require some break in time, but I did not expect them to sound that bad. I waited to do the left speaker and let music play at normal listening level (85 dB-C). The AQ jumpers use three solid polished surface copper conductors with an aggregate wire gauge of 15. The AQ bananas are direct silver plated over beryllium copper.


Figure 13. Homemade jumpers made from DSR Silverline speaker cable. This is a hybrid copper/silver-plated
copper cable with a cross sectional area of 6 square millimeters. This places the wire gauge between 10
gauge (5.26 mm^2) and 9 gauge (6.63 mm^2). The bananas are Monster Cable gold-plated brass.

Over a period of three hours, the right side, with the AQ jumpers, improved to the point where it sounded better than the left. There was a little more overall clarity, detail and image weight. The right side also sounded louder. This was a counter-intuitive result because I expected the right side to either come close to or equal the sound on the left. The left side had the wires from the HF and LF sections of the crossover directly connected to a single pair of binding posts. The right side had the AQ jumpers between the LF and HF binding posts, with the speaker cable connected to the LF posts. Sometimes, Such Good Sound pops up in unexpected places. So far, after 17 hours of play time past the initial 3 hours, I have not heard further improvement. AudioQuest recommends a break in time of 100 hours. The AQ jumpers were purchased out of curiosity. I did not expect them to outperform my home made jumpers.

I sent my initial listening results to AudioQuest. I received this reply:

==================================================================================================
"As for your experience, the stranded cable is the biggest culprit. The interaction between strands is responsible for the worst type of distortion in a cable. This is why (almost all) our cables (and Jumpers) use solid conductors.

Secondly, using a single 10 awg conductor is introducing skin effect problems. Multiple small gauge conductors avoid this issue.

Thirdly, the soldered connections don't help. In our higher end interconnects, digital & video cables as well as HDMI cables, we don't solder, and haven't done in a long time (around 20 years or so). We use a proprietary "Cold Weld" system that provides a "mechanical connection," always the best type of connection to make. In the same way, all speaker cables use a connector that provide a "mechanical connection."

Add it all up and the accumulation of distortion is giving you these results. The aim is to keep distortion to a minimum. Biwiring the speakers would give you the minimum amount of distortion with aftermarket Jumpers as the next best thing to do.

I hope this helps.

Best regards,

Alasdair Patrick - Customer Service
AudioQuest"

By the way, villian, I hope you are not delusional and na

DarqueKnight

villian wrote: »

The scientific validity of using blind tests is to enure an unbiased baseline and valid results. The world accepts this, even if you don't.

If "the world" accepts that bias is insurmountable, why is the concept of "debiasing" consumers a valid branch of economic research?

There are many scholarly papers in the field of sensory science that address the issue of removing the effects of bias with training. There are many scholarly papers in the field of economics on removing the effects of bias with training. A few such references are given in the quote below, which is from a thread from 2012.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Blind tests are required when the possibility that a test participant's bias(es) might affect experimental results and when training to remediate those biases is impractical from a time and economic viewpoint. The absolute argument applied by the blind tests for stereo proponents is that:

1. ALL people have biases.

2. The ONLY way to remove bias is through blinding.

Here, the bias(es) are product knowledge such as price, brand and aesthetics.

Statements 1 and 2 are suspect in light of the facts that:

A. There is no evidence that 100% of humanity is affected by visual bias.

B. Of those people affected by visual bias, there is strong evidence that its effect can be eliminated through training. Notice I said that the effect of the bias can be eliminated. Eliminating the bias itself may be possible, but it is not absolutely required.

C. There is evidence that shows that people are able to overcome much more severe forms of bias such as racial prejudice and misogyny.

If we accept the theory that people cannot be trained to eliminate or ignore biases, we must also accept the fact that people cannot be reformed from negative behaviors influenced by irrational biases, which is absurd.

It is easy to find accounts people who grew up in racist ideology, but later reformed, overcame their biases and went on to form friendships, marriages and business relationships with people who formerly would have been objects of their hatred.

It is easy to find accounts of vicious pimps who grew up hating their mothers and all women, but who later reformed, reconciled with their mothers, and went on to establish stable marriage and family lives.

In light of the extreme examples of the reformed racist and the reformed pimp, I do not see a basis for believing that people cannot be reformed to ignore visual biases when evaluating products. Indeed, such reformation through training is a standard concept in the fields of stereophonic audio, television and economics.

In post #185, I provided evidence where the standard practice for professional evaluation of televisions is non-blind trials, but when untrained evaluators are used, television trials are done blind.

Based on the evidence provided in post #185, you should also add television set evaluators to the list of those who believe bias can be remediated through training.

Again, it is not necessary to eliminate bias. It is the effect of bias that needs to be eliminated. In post #141, I gave the example of my strong visual bias against silver colored components and against speakers clad in oak trim. Neither of those biases prevented me from selecting silver components and from selecting two sets of large size speakers clad in oak. In the first picture in post #141, a black SACD player rests on the equipment cabinet top. The Cary Audio CD 306 PV SACD player comes in black and silver finish. I chose black per my preference and bias.

Have you looked for such information yourself? There is a whole world of knowledge beyond the confines or our august forum. The field of consumer research is full of examples of consumer bias being eliminated or the effects of such bias being eliminated through training and education.

One example is "Consumer Behavioural Biases In Competition-A Case Study", by S. Huck, J. Zhou and C. Duke, Office of Fair Trading, London, U.K., May 2011 (link):

"This is a survey of studies that examine competition in the presence of behaviourally biased or boundedly rational consumers. It will tackle questions such as: How does competition and pricing change when consumers are biased? Can inefficiencies that arise from consumer behavioural biases be mitigated by lowering barriers to entry? Do biased consumers make rational ones better or worse off? And will biased consumer behaviour be overcome through learning or education? (p. 5)

This leaves the possibility that third parties, the press, or government agencies could engage in consumer education and, surely, such efforts cannot have adverse effects. However, there is some literature that throws doubt on the effectiveness of de-biasing and education, certainly from a cost-benefit point of view. For example effective education may not be a simple matter (see, for example, Chater, Huck, and Inderst 2010 or Choi, Laibson, and Madrian 2010). (p. 61)

We also find that firms may sometimes have little incentive to educate consumers. This is particularly severe if educated or sophisticated consumers benefit from the pricing offered by those firms who do not engage in consumer education. However, where learning will eventually eradicate consumer biases, firms may have a clear incentive to establish a reputation for 'fair behaviour' early on. (p. 69)

Another example from the field of economics is "Shrouded Attributes, Consumer Myopia, and Information Suppression in Competitive Markets", Gabaix, X., and D. Laibson, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 505-540, (2006) (link):

"Firms often shroud the negative attributes of their products, particularly high prices for complementary add-ons.

A "curse of debiasing" suppresses unshrouding. Debiasing a consumer improves consumer welfare, but no firm can capture or even partially share these benefits. Firms receive lower profits when they interact with debiased consumers. Debiased consumers know how to avoid high-priced items. Moreover, firms cannot drive away such debiased consumers without losing (profitable) myopic consumers as well. Debiased consumers can pretend to be myopes, enabling the debiased consumers to take advantage of the traps that firms set for myopes." (p. 531)

Therefore, in the field of economics and consumer research, the concept of the "debiased" consumer is well established. "Debiasing" occurs when a biased consumer learns to eliminate, or eliminate the effect of, their biases. The concept of debiasing is also well established in the fields of stereophonic audio and television. It is only within a certain subculture within the stereophonic audio community that the concept of training to remediate biases is not accepted.

This is something you and an accomplice can do yourself. I and others in this thread have mentioned that we have done this. I am glad that you realize that such a study must be done properly within the context of stereophonic audio.

You don't have to wait for someone else to do it. If the reports of members of this forum are not credible evidence for you, do your own study and report your findings.

On The Need For Blind Medical Trials

Evidence has been provided that debiasing consumers is an established practice in stereophonic audio, television and economic research. The question now might be "why isn't the concept of debiasing applied to medical trials?". Training medical professionals and patients to overcome biases would be time consuming, impractical and unrepresentative of the way medicine is administered in actual practice.

For the serious listener (audiophile), debiasing is a required part of becoming proficient in evaluating stereophonic audio equipment.

For the serious viewer (videophile), debiasing is a required part of becoming proficient in evaluating video equipment.

For the serious consumer (shopper of anything), debiasing is a required part of becoming proficient in evaluating merchandise with regard to its true value.

For the seriously or terminally ill patient, taking the time to debias them could result in grave consequences. [pun intended] Furthermore, it is doubtful that such patients would be in a frame of mind to undertake such training.

For the medical researcher working toward a market deadline, taking the time to debias themselves and subjects could result in economic penalties due to delay in patenting and marketing a treatment. Furthermore, it is doubtful that these medical professionals would be in a frame of mind to undertake such training.

DarqueKnight

headrott wrote: »

Please read the thread here: An-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing

Please read here: A-Survey-Of-Early-Stereophonic-System-Subjective-Evaluation

I don't think villian is interested in reading anything that does not support his opinion that audiophiles are gullible consumerists who always grab at the shiniest and most expensive gadget.

BlueFox

villian wrote: »

BUT, to claim that any single digital cable reproduces sound in a different way than another is complete hogwash. The cable has nothing to do with the sound reproduction, only the transportation of data. If you can prove to me that 0's and 1's sound differently via different cables, then please do.

This is another statement that is just false, yet it is posted as a fact. This is a text book example of trolling simply to start an argument. Anyone with even a minimum level of experience in trying different digital cables would know that they sound slightly different in their system.

The latest example in my experience was with the cable used to connect my Bryston BDP-1 digital file player to my Auralic Vega DAC. Originally, it was a Shunyata Python AES digital. Later, Shunyata released the Anaconda version, which they said they wanted to get right before release, and I upgraded. As soon as I put it in I knew this cable was better, much better.

Last December I added a second 20 amp line for my amps, and this removed another layer of haze from the music. However, it exposed a high frequency harshness on some recordings, especially older rock CD files. This was at the same frequency as the slight tinnitus in my left ear, so it aggravated it. My first thought was it is a digital artifact now being exposed, so I bought the Vega since it is a better DAC, and it has digital filters. Using this DAC, the noise was either eliminated, or tamed enough to be present, but not irritating as before.

It was at this point I added the Anaconda AES digital cable, and the noise just disappeared. This was completely unexpected, and I was totally surprised at that result. It works so well that I now have filters turned off on the DAC, the clock set to 'Exact', and am very happy with the final sound.

On3s&Z3r0s

villian wrote: »

...
BUT, to claim that any single digital cable reproduces sound in a different way than another is complete hogwash. The cable has nothing to do with the sound reproduction, only the transportation of data. If you can prove to me that 0's and 1's sound differently via different cables, then please do.

BlueFox wrote: »

This is another statement that is just false, yet it is posted as a fact. This is a text book example of trolling simply to start an argument. Anyone with even a minimum level of experience in trying different digital cables would know that they sound slightly different in their system.

I totally disagree with this too. I have more than a minimum of experience with different digital cables and have never, never, never heard a difference that I could attribute just to the cable. That's USB, TOSLINK, coaxial SPDIF, HDMI. I've had bad cables cause audio problems, but in my personal experience it either plays clean or it doesn't. I haven't heard better cables improve or sharpen the character of the sound.

I've actually spent quite a bit of time recently playing with different USB cables with a Benchmark DAC2. Mediabridge (gold plated $8 cables) sounded the same as a DH labs cable and an AudioQuest cable. I've tried AudioQuest HDMI vs Monoprice(!) HDMI between an OPPO playing an SACD and a Pioneer Elite receiver, zero difference. (I use that AudioQuest cable between my receiver and plasma monitor now because a few inches of the cable jacket are visible and it's prettier than the Monoprice.)

Again, this stuff is all anecdotal. Even if in your system a different USB cable made a substantial difference, it may not at all in a different system. Since my personal experience with digital cables has been different than yours, I am inclined to believe that the cables really should not be making a difference if the source and the DAC are working correctly together. But that is absolutely a largely uninformed opinion, and it's no more or less factual than the statement that USB cables made a big difference in your system. To villain's original point, as far as you're concerned, that's a carved-in-stone fact. But as far as I'm concerned, it's uncorroborated and irreproducible. Just one guy's experience.

If we were all trying to be super friendly-huggy-kumbaya about it then maybe no one would point that out when people do start asserting their experience as universal scientific truth, but again it's not trolling if someone expresses a different viewpoint.

DarqueKnight

I have never heard or seen a difference in audio or video performance with any digital cable I've tried, whether it was optical, coax, or HDMI. The last digital cable comparison I did was in 2009:

Tweaking-Home-Theater-Pt.-3-The-Pioneer-Elite-BDP-09FD-Blu-ray-Player.

I compared HDMI cables made by Acoustic Research ($20), Rocketfish ($85), and Monster Cable ($130). There was no performance difference among them. I subsequently compared the $20 Acoustic Research HDMI cables to $8 Monoprice HDMI cables, didn't see or hear a difference between them, then returned the AR cables.

I did see and hear a big difference in audio and video quality when I switched from a PS Audio Power Plant Premier AC regenerator to a PS Audio P5 AC regenerator. The difference in pixel sharpness is easily seen in figures 6, 7, and 8 of this thread:

Tweaking-Home-Theater-Part-7-PS-Audio-PerfectWave-P5-and-P10-AC-Regenerators.

If power quality can affect the integrity of a digital signal it is reasonable that transmission line quality could also affect digital signal integrity.

Notwithstanding my personal experiences, I don't doubt that different digital cables might make a difference in some systems. I have never compared digital cables in a high end, high resolution stereo system.

Mr. Bubbles

I find threads such as this both entertaining and educational. I have been the one to start crap like this in the past. I have had my ego bruised by DK before. I can see all the sides represented here (I realize that ther are primarily only 2) and understand both. BOTH make perfectly good sense. AND both at times sound utterly ingnorent to the fact that this is a simple case of whose got the biggest dick. (figuratively speaking of course). I consider myself a trained listener though i am sure not nearly as trained as many other on here or other places. I have been around audio and differing parts of the audio industry my ENTIRE LIFE. However I still realize that I am susceptible to the placebo effect. i also realize that I do not know the original intentions of blind testing, nor do I care. There are many things in our lives that we use for different reasons than there original design intentions. Super Glue and WD-40 are two very good examples. Therfore I realize that there are many times when blind testing is not necessary; when results are dramatic or greatly differ. However blind testing is nearly always a plus when results can be very minute and subtle. Trained particiants or not this is true. i personally have my wife help me with my own blind testing when necessary and possible. i get everything ready and tell her waht to do without me watching and then listen. I have also done this with other listeners to be sure i was hearing what i thought i was hearing. This is also a big way that i helped train my own ears to be able to listen for things.

My point is that both of you seem to know what you , yourselves are talikng about and I would bet that both can see the others point but neither can admit to haveing the smaller or equal sized dick.

thsmith

As usual DK, excellent write up and data to support.

Thank you !

DarqueKnight

Mr. Bubbles wrote: »

My point is that both of you seem to know what you , yourselves are talikng about and I would bet that both can see the others point but neither can admit to haveing the smaller or equal sized dick.

It's unfortunate that you want to characterize this as some sort of "contest". Villian alluded to me picking the most expensive item simply because it was the most expensive. I provided several examples where I picked a lower cost item because it performed best or because its performance was equivalent to higher priced alternatives, as in the case of the $8 HDMI cables I use in my home theater system. How can someone know what they are talking about when they make wild, unsubstantiated claims such as this?

If someone makes an ignorant and false comment regarding my motives or experimental conclusions, offering evidence to point out their error is not indicative of needing to win since the person spouting the ignorance has already lost credibility.

There is no need to speculate on my being able to see the other person's point because I have spent several years studying, writing, and publishing on the subject of audio system evaluation. I understand full well the point of some people misusing blind tests for audio since it gives them the results they want: specifically that the differences in audio gear that audiophiles claim to hear are figments of the imagination. You will notice that such people almost invariable harp on the cost of audio equipment rather than its performance.

It was stated that blind tests are necessary due to the need to eliminate bias. I cited the standard basic text book in sensory science which says that blind tests are for untrained subjects. I also cited peer-reviewed journal papers by the inventors of home stereo systems attesting to the fact that evaluation of stereo systems is an activity for trained listeners who are proficient in sound localization techniques. Further, I cited scholarly, peer-reviewed journal papers attesting to the fact that the effects of bias can be properly addressed and eliminated through training. The standard term for it is "consumer debiasing". Where I come from, citing credible references is not called comparing dick sizes, it is called scientific substantiation and validation of a viewpoint.

Mr. Bubbles wrote: »

There are many things in our lives that we use for different reasons than there original design intentions. Super Glue and WD-40 are two very good examples.

Using something for a purpose the thing was not designed for (repurposing) is not a problem as long as it does not cause erroneous results or bad or misleading outcomes. The scientific literature is very clear that simple discrimination tests, like blind tests, are not suitable and appropriate when the sensory stimuli being evaluated have many different components (multi-dimensional).

Mr. Bubbles wrote: »

However blind testing is nearly always a plus when results can be very minute and subtle. Trained particiants or not this is true.

Everything I have read says the opposite. Can you cite credible references to support this?

villian

Mr. Bubbles wrote: »

I consider myself a trained listener though i am sure not nearly as trained as many other on here or other places. I have been around audio and differing parts of the audio industry my ENTIRE LIFE. However I still realize that I am susceptible to the placebo effect.

Bingo.

Mr. Bubbles wrote: »

My point is that both of you seem to know what you , yourselves are talikng about and I would bet that both can see the others point but neither can admit to haveing the smaller or equal sized dick.

Actually, I'm quite capable and will be the first to admit that I can be wrong. I openly admit that I too am susceptible to the placebo effect, and many other things..as every human is. My hearing is about the same, and I'll openly admit to be a very untrained ear. Furthermore, I've stated numerous times already that I wish not to trample this thread for no reason and will discontinue the conversation because it's not an open minded conversation. If DK were to open up his mind (As I have by reading his humongous post about blind studies..which I found extremely interesting) and allow a real conversation, I would gladly participate...but whenever I post something I get responses that are completely biased and lack any real substance..regardless of however much thought, energy, and intellect I use in creating my own posts.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Villian alluded to me picking the most expensive item simply because it was the most expensive..

Never once did I state or allude to you picking the most expensive item simply because it was the most expensive. I stated thatyour conclusion in this thread was funny and ironic, which to me, it is. Furthermore, I stated that you, I, and every other human is susceptible to the placebo effect..because we are. That's the key point I've been trying to make, and what I've been harping on you about. More so than blind studies, or "Picking the most expensive cable as the best" as you have alluded to.

I just thought it was funny that the conclusion made was that the most expensive jumper was the "Best" (In this instance).

It'd be truly interesting to see if you came to the same conclusion blindfolded. Even if the only thing blindfolded was the price tag, allowing you to nit pick the heck out of anything you wanted to compare between cables. I have no doubt that the best cable is the most expensive one here (As you've already stated that you prefer this cable over many others costing many times more) but still..it's kinda ironic and little funny that nearly every thread on this forum ends this way..$$$$ > $$ Granted this isn't THE most expensive cable..but it's the most expensive one in this comparison. Is that not ironic? Maybe not to you, but to me..and I think I'm entitled to that opinion.

The reason I haven't debated this more is because you have a point, and a few decent ones which I agree with. Had this been a digital signal vs an analog one I would more than likely be arguing with you about any result..but that's a whole different story for a whole different thread!

TennMan

This thread was posted in a Polk, vintage speaker forum which basically is a group of people who own 25 year old speakers with values from 25 to 1500 dollars. The question that comes to mind for me when I read the original post in this thread is what percentage of vintage Polk owners who frequent this forum would actually spend $429 on speaker jumpers? I think the answer to that question would be "close to zero percent".

The way I read this thread you need to be a "trained listener" to hear the difference between the jumpers that were compared. That brings to mind the question, what percentage of people who frequent this forum are trained listeners? I'm not talking about self proclaimed trained listeners. I'm talking about someone who has some kind of certification or recognition that makes them stand out from the rest of us who have listened to speakers for the last 30 years. Again I think the answer to that question is also "close to zero percent".

So what we have here is a thread about a product that virtually no one would buy due to the ridiculous cost, and almost non-existent return on investment, presented to a group of people who couldn't hear the difference due to a lack of training. I have the utmost respect for DK and I believe he probably has a trained ear that might be able to hear the difference in the jumpers and he certainly has the right to waste his money anyway he likes. However, I can't help but think the the purpose of this thread is not intended to be an objective test of components that members of this forum might use to improve the sound of their vintage speakers, but is grandstanding intended seek the admiration and envy of the members of this forum. Although it might be interesting reading I find that it has no useful purpose. The arguments about the pros and cons of how the testing was done is just as useless.

F1nut

The question that comes to mind for me when I read the original post in this thread is what percentage of vintage Polk owners who frequent this forum would actually spend $429 on speaker jumpers? I think the answer to that question would be "close to zero percent".

The retail price of the jumpers used on my vintage Polk's was more than that.

DarqueKnight

TennMan wrote: »

This thread was posted in a Polk, vintage speaker forum which basically is a group of people who own 25 year old speakers with values from 25 to 1500 dollars. The question that comes to mind for me when I read the original post in this thread is what percentage of vintage Polk owners who frequent this forum would actually spend $429 on speaker jumpers? I think the answer to that question would be "close to zero percent".

It would be easy to do a poll. However, a recent thread indicates that I am not the only member of this forum interested in high performance jumpers:

Speaker-jumpers-They-do-make-a-difference

Bluefox uses Shunyata VTX-11 jumpers which retail for $400.

F1nut uses MIT shotgun jumpers on his non-SDA vintage Polks. The Shotgun jumpers retail for $695. He uses MIT Magnum jumpers on his SDAs. The price of the Magnum jumpers was not listed on the MIT website, but since they are above the Shotguns, we can reasonably assume that they cost substantially more than $695. The highest model of MIT jumpers is the Oracle, for which a retail price is not listed on the MIT website. MIT also offers a model below the Shotguns, the StyleLine, which retail for $149.

TennMan wrote: »

The way I read this thread you need to be a "trained listener" to hear the difference between the jumpers that were compared.

Most people need to be trained listener just to perceive a three dimensional stereo sound stage.

TennMan wrote: »

That brings to mind the question, what percentage of people who frequent this forum are trained listeners?

Again, polls are easy to post. I bet the results would be interesting, provided you state a valid definition of "trained listener".

TennMan wrote: »

I'm not talking about self proclaimed trained listeners. I'm talking about someone who has some kind of certification or recognition that makes them stand out from the rest of us who have listened to speakers for the last 30 years. Again I think the answer to that question is also "close to zero percent".

You and others of this mindset are taking the context of "trained listener" far outside its meaning. A trained listener is someone who familiar with the performance aspects of stereo reproduction (sound stage, imaging, clarity, detail, etc.) and knows how to apply them in evaluating stereo equipment. It does not require a certification program just as judging a beauty contest does not require a certification from a "beauty pageant judging school". If someone has been working in a field where people are judged on their appearance, they will reach a point where they are able to evaluate contestants according to a set of physical criteria.

TennMan wrote: »

So what we have here is a thread about a product that virtually no one would buy due to the ridiculous cost, and almost non-existent return on investment, presented to a group of people who couldn't hear the difference due to a lack of training.

There are some people who would call you a fool for spending a "ridiculous" amount on capacitors, inductors, and resistors. They would say that you think you know more about crossover design than the people who manufactured the speakers. What would you say to them?

The truth is that different people in a hobby desire different levels of performance. My speaker mods may seem ridiculous to you, but by the same line of thought, the crossover mods you have done to your speakers would seem ridiculous to someone who believes that premium crossover components are snake oil.

TennMan wrote: »

I have the utmost respect for DK and I believe he probably has a trained ear that might be able to hear the difference in the jumpers and he certainly has the right to waste his money anyway he likes.

Again, its all relative. What is wasting money to you is performance enhancement to me. The Erse/Mills/Sonicaps in your SDA 2Bs may seem like a waste of money to some, but I'm sure you consider them performance enhancements.

TennMan wrote: »

However, I can't help but think the the purpose of this thread is not intended to be an objective test of components that members of this forum might use to improve the sound of their vintage speakers, but is grandstanding intended seek the admiration and envy of the members of this forum. Although it might be interesting reading I find that it has no useful purpose. The arguments about the pros and cons of how the testing was done is just as useless.

I read Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, and online reviews of stereo equipment costing six figures. Never once has the thought entered my mind that the author was grandstanding. Some people have an appreciation for higher performance gear and others do not. Some people might think you are grandstanding for listing your speaker mods in your signature:

"SDA 2BTL • Sonicaps • Mills resistors • RDO-198s • New gaskets • H-nuts • Erse inductors • Crossover upgrades by westmassguy"

TennMan wrote: »

Although it might be interesting reading I find that it has no useful purpose. The arguments about the pros and cons of how the testing was done is just as useless.

I'm not sure why you would waste valuable time commenting on a thread that has no useful purpose to you. Everyone in audio is not on the same level and not everyone has the same audio system performance goals. Most people are perfectly happy with stock SDAs while others do various levels of upgrades to them. Everything you have said about this speaker upgrade could be said of you by a "purist" who believes speaker crossover upgrades are a waste of money.

If you think my threads are elitist nonsense and they rub you the wrong way, you should just ignore them and leave them to the one or two people interested in the subject matter. That is what any reasonable person does with information that is of no interest or use to them.

DarqueKnight

F1nut wrote: »

The retail price of the jumpers used on my vintage Polk's was more than that.

What is retail on the Magnum jumpers? Also provide a price for the Oracle jumpers if you have it. Oracle and Magnum jumpers are listed in MIT's 2014 catalog, but the website only has prices for the StyleLine and Shotgun jumpers.

BlueFox

The easy way to avoid spending $400+ dollars on jumpers is to buy speakers that don't use jumpers.

F1nut

DarqueKnight wrote: »

What is retail on the Magnum jumpers? Also provide a price for the Oracle jumpers if you have it. Oracle and Magnum jumpers are listed in MIT's 2014 catalog, but the website only has prices for the StyleLine and Shotgun jumpers.

Magnum jumpers are $995.00
Oracle jumpers are $1595.00

DarqueKnight

F1nut wrote: »

Magnum jumpers are $995.00
Oracle jumpers are $1595.00

Yikes!:surprised:

Those prices make my $429 jumpers seem like fire sale items.

BlueFox wrote: »

The easy way to avoid spending $400+ dollars on jumpers is to buy speakers that don't use jumpers.

Awwwww mannnnnnnn. I should have talked to you before I bought the outrageously expensive jumpers. I'm going to lose sleep knowing that I could have avoided all this simply by buying speakers that don't use jumpers.:sad:

villian

F1nut wrote: »

Magnum jumpers are $995.00
Oracle jumpers are $1595.00

I bet you have some Kimbal Kable wire too? Glad to see that this thread has totally turned into a money pissing contest while I've been gone. At least Dark Knight had a valid argument in that the most expensive wires aren't automatically the best, nor are they worth gloating about.

For what it's worth I know of a guy running Infinity IRS V ($100,000 stereophonic speaker set) on some bargain bin no-name type wiring. Sounds absolutely amazing and he says he wouldn't change a thing about it. Working on room treatments instead.

DarqueKnight

villian wrote: »

Glad to see that this thread has totally turned into a money pissing contest while I've been gone.

That's what we audiophiles do.

villian wrote: »

For what it's worth I know of a guy running Infinity IRS V ($100,000 stereophonic speaker set) on some bargain bin no-name type wiring. Sounds absolutely amazing and he says he wouldn't change a thing about it. Working on room treatments instead.

I can think of three couples who have homes in the $300,000 to $500,000 range that filled them with bargain bin no-name furniture, artwork, and accessories. No class or good taste whatsoever. The homes look absolutely amazing from the outside and they are perfectly happy with their d

headrott

Most importantly villian (*not to diminish others' right to bash those who value expensive wire*); after reading DK's two threads regarding blind tests and early stereophonic evaluation, can you now see why blind tests are not suitable for stereophonic evaluation?

tonyb

I highly doubt you'd get a better review of anything than DK does. He goes to great lengths in his testing methods and explanations/details to tell you why he came to his conclusions....and includes measurements for the scientific crowd.

Would I spend that kind of coin on jumpers for vintage speakers ? No....but that doesn't mean there aren't those that would. If you look at some SDA threads, people spend way more refurbing them. For me however, jumpers don't offer up big enough gains to warrant the price of expensive jumpers, just my .02. If you have the cash however, rock on and go for it. Audio is played on many levels, and because some of us can't participate on another level doesn't mean we should be throwing darts at those who can.

drumminman

One of the missing elements in this thread (or maybe I'm just missing it) is a recognition of the differences in resolving power of equipment. Quality jumpers may make little to no difference in some rigs, and thus be cost prohibitive when it comes to laying out hundreds of dollars for them. But when you reach the level that I'm sure DK's rig has (based on following his various tweaking/equipment acquisition posts over the years), it's not difficult for me to imagine that easily discernible improvements can be heard with something as basic as a jumper.

Having experienced it myself, there's no question that one learns how to listen: to 2 channel rigs, live music, HT, etc. Like all skills, some come by this more naturally with less training, others work a little harder to acquire it. We all base our judgements/opinions on our own experiences, but it's a good idea not to fall into thinking that because "you don't get it, it couldn't possibly be true or have merit."

Mr. Bubbles

Let me start this post by saying I am not knocking either side or person in the argument in this thread. As said earlier DK has bruised my ego before on this forum. I am another that enjoys most of DK's threads because they are very detailed and descriptive. Usually containing at least some amount of emperical data. I understand he is an electrical engineeer, which i am not. It would stand to reason that he knows much more about any aspect of electrical detail than myself. I would bet that his pair of 1.2's would make mine sound like crap in either a blind test or a subjective test. I bet the differences would not be subtle. I also understand completely what Villian is saying. Someone please educate me if I am incorrect on this but I do not know that either of these two people are any better educated or versed in human psychology than myself or Dr. Phil for that matter. I mention that because it would seem that to thoruoghly understand subjective testing we would need to better understand human psychology along with methods of scientific study. I was only stateing before that as an outsider the argument looks like a measuring contest.

I read bot DK'd previous threads on blind testing. I will admit that i got bored part way through the second and may not have been as thorough with it as the first. Some points i noticed in the first is that the information in it pertained to testing in the 1930's on through the 1960's. Part of it delt primarily with aural panorama. It also mentions added detail and other characteristics due to what the listener wanted to hear. In another part it mentions the need to remove all bias by possible use of a curtain.

My personal thoughts on these points are that I could care less what audio systems sounded like in the 30's and most way through the 60's. i would bet that even my 1.2TL's have a lot more detail, panorama, and other subtleties than any of the gear from that time period. I would also think that this points to what i sad earlier. Big differences need no blind test. It would simply be a waste of time. I like listeners in those tests listen for things I want to hear. This does not make my listening emperical as scientific study would normally indicate. As far as removing the bias using a curtain, that would seem to indicate a blind test. The articel mentions that this was never used but does not indicate why. The article also mentions that subjective tests were preferred but does not indicate why. The second may indicate why and I missed it as well as some of the possible references that I did not research either. I assume the preference could be due to blind testing lacking some of the excitement for the new technology they were developeing at the time.

I will further explain that I feel if educated listeners were used in blind tests they would be able to hear the same differences they hear in subjective tests if the differences are indeed there. however if uneducate klisteners were used in blind tests they may not hear a difference that actually exists. They may develope a bias based on visual stimuli and actually choose the better sounding gear, but not based on sound. This would be much less likley with educated listeners. The article describes the listeners as being educate listeners and also states that they were told what to listen for. In out tests at home we may not always know what we are listening for in a sepcific sense but as educated listeners we should hear those things any way. Blind tests should not negate that as if we are trained listeners we should hear differences whether we can see perfectly or are truly blind. Imagine how many blind audiophiles are in the world. is it logical to say that they cannot properly choose the best gear because they, by default, always perform blind testing? This is simply not logical. Infact there is scientific evidence to indicate that blind peiople are more atune to audible differnces that those who are not. (No I will not take the time to look up references for that, This thread is simply not worth that kind of time.) The main point of this paragraph is to say that for a truly educated listener it should not matter if a blind test is used or a subjective test. If their ears and training is great then they should hear the same detailes no matter the if testing is blind or subjective.

I will now say that auditory preferences will always be subjective wheter tested in blind studies or not. Actutal changes in tonal characteristics will not be subjective. Wheter we like them or not will be. As I described earlier, I sometimes use blind testing. I used it more in the past when I was training my ears and brain to hear nuances. I also do not believe that blind testing is always necessary when testing ones own system. DK has no need to perform blind tests on his system as he is educated and a trained listener, but primarily because it is his system and in the end he should choose what he likes best whether it be from an entirely audible standpoint or not. I prefer vintage audio for reasons not always associated with the sound. I would bet there are many others the same as myself.

In the end, I thank DK for his threads and input. he seems very well educated and thorough in his work. i try to learn what I can from the emperical data he provides and I read about his subjective opinions to see if they may spur my interest in something but accept them for just that; His opinions. I also know that scientific answers are based on emperical data and that opinions are what is called theories. With no emperical data they are jsut theories. Some right and some wrong. only the emperical data can prove them. Subjective opinions are not emperical data though they may sometimes find the same answer. If performed properly, blind tests could not hurt results of auditory tests but they could easily be a waste of time. (I do not have references for this but am basing this on my knowledge of human psycholgy, logic, and common sense).

Mr. Bubbles

Now back to the original thoughts on the thread; DK have you ever tried moving the lows/mids and highs internakl wiring to the same binding posts. This woulsd seem like an easy test by simply removing the terminal cup. I realize this would not be an option for those who bi-wire or bi- amp but it would seem that if one is using jumpers as you are this would be something to possibly consider.

Also from an engineering perspective can you give more info on why silver wire may sound different than copper. I know from testing I was involveed in in the past that it is a much better conductor, even when oxidized. In fact silver doesn't appear to loose any conductivity when oxidized as compared to most other metals. however it would seem that just an increas in efficiency should not change tonal characteristics of a larger guage of a lesser efficient conductor. I realize that the impedance will change with AWG due to possible changes in inductance and capacitance but is there enough chnge in these to truly effect the sound of a larger guage less efficient conductor such as copper to the smaller guage silver with the same efficiency. If so can you give a little more detail on why.