Spearker cables..fact or fiction?

ben62670

WilliamM2 wrote: »

So there is no way to demonstrate scientifically that there is an audible difference between wires? It's just not possible?

And there has been no evidence showing that wires don't make an audible difference? No studies showing the errors of human perception? Sorry Ben, but you are as close minded as they come.

No there is no way presently to say how a cable sounds. Use your ears. If you don't hear a difference sell the cables and get your money back. Is that simple enough?

I used to be as close minded as you when I first joined, but then I did some swapping to prove the cable beleivers wrong. Guess what I was wrong, and found that cables do make a difference;)
Enjoy

bikezappa

DarqueKnight

As I understand it you need a resonate circuit with the proper amount of capacitance and inductance to filter the noise of a specific frequency. That is a filter. I was refering to line cords that have no filter network that cost $500 and they a fraud. That are basically resistive in nature with no capacitance or inductance.

If you have noise in the line on the street from the power companies the shielded line cord will not stop this noise front entering your equipment. If a simple series network has noise only a filter can block it. The shielded line cord can prevent additional noise from being induced into it for it's 5 foot length, but what about the 100 of miles of unshielded line suppling your power. The simple line cord can't prevent that noise from entering you equipment.

The simple line cord of proper gauge is all that is required for electronic equipment. All well designed electronic equipment has a noise filter built in it. Adding a second line filter is not needed.

I have read some of these web sites that sell $500 line cords and my head goes crazy with their logic.

Read the papers of the Society of Electrical Engieers for good data.

DarqueKnight

heiney9 wrote: »

I'll let DK answer about the speakers.

I'll see what I can remember. I may have to dig up a few old threads to help me along.;)

heiney9 wrote: »

Older Polks in almost all cases (IMO) are better than today's Polk's especially when talking about SDA's. The SDA's are equivalent to the Ferrari 250 GTO, IMO.

That makes sense to me. Thanks for the excellent analogy. I would point out that the hotrodded, modified SDA's are the ones more analogous to Ferraris. We have been living in a world of hotrodded SDA's for so long that it is difficult to remember the dramatic performance difference between stock and modified SDA's.

bikezappa

[QUOTEI also realize that, while some come to these kinds of discussions with closed minds and negative agendas, our comments are read by some with open minds who will find encouragement for experimentation.[/QUOTE]


Why do you need to label people that disagree with you as close minded?

Your a EE, can you explain to me with mathamatics how a simple line cord can with no filter network acnfilter out noise or change the voltage to your equipment?

An isloation transformer will filter out noise because of it's large inductance. If there is RF noise all around you in your house you are probably screwed and may need to move.

bikezappa

ben62670 wrote: »

I fully agree with your first statement. There is no evidence that disagrees with what I have said. It would be nice to be able to prove what we can hear, but we can't. You are hung on the very few things that we can as of now measure.

Why can't you prove the things you hear? Have you tried to test your ability to hear differnces with DBTs? I can clearly tell between mono and stereo, balance controls, bass and treble controls with DBTing. There must be a method to prove you can hear these differnecs and I'm not yrying to bust you balls or anyone elses.

Just thinking I would believe that the humidty and/or temperature would affect the sound in your room.

I also believe that microphones can be set up in your room and be more accurate than your ears or any one else.

CoolJazz

bikezappa wrote: »

The shielded line cord can prevent additional noise from being induced into it for it's 5 foot length, but what about the 100 of miles of unshielded line suppling your power. The simple line cord can't prevent that noise from entering you equipment.

This often quoted logic of a 100 miles (or whatever distance) of power line coming to your house is really, really silly and ignores basic facts!

There is a power transformer just about right outside your house. It's a stepdown transformer. There are also other points in the grid where stepdown occurs. Noise and other disturbances are stepped down at that point, not to mention that the transformer naturally rolls off higher frequency information.

And, very importantly, the transformer secondary presents a low impedance source to your home service. The closer you can keep yourself to that low impedance, the less noise you will have. Which is why circuit separation and load balance are important.

So lower your "mileage" by about 99.99 miles and inject some common sense into your arguement!!

Cool Jazz

BlueFox

bikezappa wrote: »

[Your a EE, can you explain to me with mathamatics how a simple line cord can with no filter network acnfilter out noise or change the voltage to your equipment?

This is not the power cord thread. It is the speaker cable thread.

The math part is simple. The angle of the dangle equals the mass of the **** so long as the thrust of the bust remains constant.

DarqueKnight

bikezappa wrote: »

DarqueKnight

As I understand it you need a resonate circuit with the proper amount of capacitance and inductance to filter the noise of a specific frequency. That is a filter. I was refering to line cords that have no filter network that cost $500 and they a fraud. That are basically resistive in nature with no capacitance or inductance.

If you have noise in the line on the street from the power companies the shielded line cord will not stop this noise front entering your equipment. If a simple series network has noise only a filter can block it. The shielded line cord can prevent additional noise from being induced into it for it's 5 foot length, but what about the 100 of miles of unshielded line suppling your power. The simple line cord can't prevent that noise from entering you equipment.

The simple line cord of proper gauge is all that is required for electronic equipment. All well designed electronic equipment has a noise filter built in it. Adding a second line filter is not needed.

I have read some of these web sites that sell $500 line cords and my head goes crazy with their logic.

Read the papers of the Society of Electrical Engieers for good data.

You know what? I'm really sick of dealing with you and your pseudo scientific ignorance. I realize now that you have no sincere interest in learning about power cable technology and that you are just here to further the naysayers agenda.

Electronic filters come in all shapes, sizes, configurations, and materials.

I gave you valid references to an esteemed physicist's work in materials based noise filtering and you ignored it.

I gave you valid references to several companies whose power cable products are based on sound, verifiable, and in many cases patented noise reduction technologies and you responded with some **** about one manufacturer offering a junk cord for $500.

Why are you so focused on one junk, snake oil cord rather than the many which are based on sound engineering? In any successful market segment there are going to be unscrupulous manufacturers there to scam the consumer.

I know damn well that there are power cords that are junk, just as there is overpriced junk in every merchandise category. I just have sense enough to avoid the junk and buy the good stuff.

OK. Congratulations on finding an expensive piece of junk power cord. If the entire high performance power cord industry is invalidated in your mind by one or a few bad apples then I am glad that you found some joy. I prefer to find (audio) joy in products that produce sound that is pleasing to my ear.

The naysayers standard ignorant **** about the miles and miles of dirty utility company cable has been answered a million times on this forum. The power company's miles and miles of dirty cable does not matter. I addressed this recently in another thread:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The old, snide, tired naysayers "argument" about cheap Romex and miles and miles of cheap, dirty utility company wire conveniently ignores the fact that much can be done to clean the power signal once it comes from the wall...just as a good water filter can do a lot to remove contaminates from tap water after it has been processed by a multi-million dollar water treatment facility and traveled through miles and miles of water system piping.

I wish you much success and satisfaction in your witch hunt for fraudulent power cable products that support your agenda to prove that all power cable products are a scam. When you have completed that task, perhaps you will focus your considerable research and analytical skills on weeding out fraud in the diamond jewelry and expensive handbag industry.

I, on the other hand, will continue to hunt for products that facilitate my enjoyment of reproduced music.

DarqueKnight

bikezappa wrote: »

Your a EE, can you explain to me with mathamatics how a simple line cord can with no filter network acnfilter out noise or change the voltage to your equipment?

Yes I can, however, you seemingly cannot comprehend simple words. I think that going to the trouble of providing a detailed mathematical analysis would be wasted on you.

I gave you an overview of the noise reduction technologies used in power cords and some suggestions for further research in post #1243 and you conveniently ignored it.

Good luck with your career in Internet trolling.

ben62670

bikezappa wrote: »

Why can't you prove the things you hear? Have you tried to test your ability to hear differnces with DBTs? I can clearly tell between mono and stereo, balance controls, bass and treble controls with DBTing. There must be a method to prove you can hear these differnecs and I'm not yrying to bust you balls or anyone elses.

Just thinking I would believe that the humidty and/or temperature would affect the sound in your room.

I also believe that microphones can be set up in your room and be more accurate than your ears or any one else.

I can tell you the exact differences in SQ from different cables. Almost everyone that has joined up at my house, or other houses says the same thing about what differences the cable made. Like sound stage, subtle sounds that weren't audible with some cables, and tonality. Science pretty much tells us that there are 3 things to look at besides noise. Those things are R/C/L. Those three things double every time you double the distance of your cable runs. I have not noticed any difference between 3 foot runs and 6 foot runs. You sir are just another stirrer of pooh. DK spends an awful lot of time responding to inconsiderate fools like you. He is not in the audio business in any way shape or form. His responses are out of kindness, and his love of the hobby. May I suggest you find a short pier and take a long walk.

DarqueKnight

seafire wrote: »

I therefore have a valid question for DK and PLEASE i am not trying to be nasty or funny but would really appreciate his take on the following questions.

Really? Were you trying to be nasty or funny here, or did I misinterpret your motives?:

seafire wrote: »

Well well what do you know.DK that spends all that time on research on items with slight differences in the twilight zone chooses not to upgrade his loudspeakers.The one item which ultimately influences the sound experience of hi fi listening! Nice logic there buddy
SEE WHAT I SAID ABOUT PERCEPTION!!!

---

I think I have made it quite clear that I really have no interest in communicating with you because I consider you to be the epitome of general ignorance. You don't read carefully and you make off the cuff statements that have no basis in technical reality.

However, you posed two questions, in a respectful manner, that might be of interest to our newer members, therefore I will address them. It is doubtful that I will expend further time and energy on responding to any of your posts, whether they are sincere and respectful or otherwise.

seafire wrote: »

Do you really think that with these "outdated" speakers that you can make valid evaluations of differences with any/all audio gear given that loudspeakers are the end accumulation of all in your audio gear link?

Let's see...you are now back with:

1. My speakers are too old and outdated to be technically relevant.
2. I am a musician, therefore my hearing is damaged.

Old speakers + poor hearing = the automatic invalidation of any opinion I might have about audio. Do I understand your premise correctly?

Let's first address your sincere concerns about my poor "old", "outdated" speakers. My Polk Audio Stereo Dimensional Array Signature Reference System 1.2 Trilaminate Loudspeakers (SDA SRS 1.2TL's) were manufactured in October of 1989. That makes them a few months shy of 20 years old.

Questions: Have you ever read my forum signature? Isn't it obvious that your question about old, outdated SDA's has been raised many times on this and other forums? Isn't it obvious that the question is a big joke among knowledgeable SDA enthusiasts?

In the ill-fated "Improvements From Power Cables Are A Myth" thread, I made the following statement in
post number 361. Please pay particular to the statements highlighted in red.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The Polk Audio SDA SRS 1.2TL loudspeakers bear further discussion. I spent several years on a two channel system upgrade, a summary of which was documented here:Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. You can see that the 1.2TL's are the only thing left over from the old regime. Why do you think this is? Nostalgia? Sentimentality? True Love? No. The simple and truthful answer is that I auditioned some high performance, high end loudspeakers to go with my upgrades in high performance, high end amps, source components and cables and COULD NOT find anything I liked better. The best I could do was to upgrade and optimize the 1.2TL's. Since it is widely thought that, in order to get a modern, current model loudspeaker comparable to the 1.2TL in detail, visceral impact, low distortion, natural sound and (approximate) sound staging, you need to look at speakers in the $10,000 to $20,000 range. It is also widely thought that, if the SDA SRS 1.2TL's were offered by Polk today, they would carry a retail price in the $10,000 to $15,000 range. If I run across a loudspeaker tomorrow that gives me greater overall listening pleasure than the 1.2TL's, The Monoliths will be immediately dismissed.

You replied in post number 364 with the following:

seafire wrote: »

Well well what do you know.DK that spends all that time on research on items with slight differences in the twilight zone chooses not to upgrade his loudspeakers.The one item which ultimately influences the sound experience of hi fi listening! Nice logic there buddy
SEE WHAT I SAID ABOUT PERCEPTION!!!

In post #361 I specifically said that I upgraded my speakers. Yet, because you are so blinded by malice and hindered by your lack of proper reading comprehension, you attempt to "slam" me by implying that I am stupid for running high resolution gear with older speakers. You criticize me for a lack of PERCEPTION, yet, you cannot perceive words plainly in front of your face!

I have extensively documented the modifications I performed on my SDA SRS 1.2TL's:

1. DarqueKnight's SDA SRS 1.2TL Sonicap Upgrade

2. DarqueKnight's SDA SRS 1.2TL Driver Basket Insulation Upgrade

3. DarqueKnight's SDA SRS 1.2TL Interconnect Cable Upgrade

4. DarqueKnight's SDA SRS 1.2TL Speaker Seal Upgrade

5. DarqueKnight's SDA SRS 1.2TL Custom AI-1 Non Common Ground Interface Upgrade

A summary of all my SDA SRS 1.2TL upgrades is as follows:

1. Upgraded crossovers with Mills MRA-12 resistors and AudioCap polypropylene film capacitors.

2. Upgraded crossovers again. Replaced AudioCaps with Sonicaps.

3. Replaced stock grille cloth with thinner, silkier, more sonically transparent cloth.

4. Replaced stock 18 gauge pin/blade SDA interconnect with custom 9 gauge interconnect terminated with spades.

5. Replaced stock binding posts with Cardas CCGR-S posts.

6. Built a custom AI-1 non-common ground interface (AI-1 Dreadnought).

7. Removed tweeter protection polyswitch.

8. Applied vibration damping to driver and passive radiator baskets.

9. Replaced SL3000 tweeters with RD0198 silk dome tweeters.

10. Replaced foam tape driver, tweeter, and passive radiator seals with Mortite putty.

I trust the above speaker upgrade details resolve your concerns about my loudspeakers Mr. Seafire. My speakers are not "outdated" in any respect.

seafire wrote: »

From your posts I have gathered that you are a musician and that you play the saxophone?.It is a well known fact that live instruments (saxophone in particular) lead to threshold shift deafness.If so, don't you think that this changes a person's perception to sound?

It depends, Mr. Seafire, on the intensity and duration of the sound. It is amazing how you missed my statements regarding modification of my speakers, yet you easily picked up the fact that I play music. Perhaps you are hoping that my music activities has resulted in hearing damage?

Some rock musicians, particularly drummers and guitarists, seem to have a fairly high rate of hearing loss. I play jazz.

Music is a hobby and an avocation for me. I am an electrical engineer. I have never spent extensive amounts of time in loud environments, musical or otherwise. I have always worn ear protection when needed. Whenever I was going to be playing in a loud musical environment, I wore musician's ear plugs. Whenever I go, or have gone, to a night club, I took regular ear plugs.

This is an important point: My interest in audio reproduction equipment predates my interest in saxophone study by several years. Therefore, I went into the study of music with a deliberate mindset not to do anything to damage my hearing because I knew it would diminish my enjoyment of listening to reproduced music.

As should be obvious from my numerous review posts on this forum, my hearing is excellent...and I don't mean excellent for my age, I mean excellent compared to most humans.

Mr. Seafire, I realize that you are challenged by a short attention span and lack of adequate reading comprehension. You may very well not be able to focus well enough to read everything in my somewhat lengthy reply. However, I do not consider the time and effort wasted because I believe that there are other genuinely interested audio enthusiasts who will read this and receive some benefit from it.

Enjoy your music.

DarqueKnight

ben62670 wrote: »

DK spends an awful lot of time responding to inconsiderate fools like you.

From time to time I will get an email, PM, or a thread reply from someone with sincere interest and no agenda along the lines of:

"I was wondering about the same thing the troll brought up, thanks for helping to clarify things."

"I looked up the research references you provided. They answered a lot of questions that had bothered me for a long time."

I realize that trolls are a lost cause, but, aside from their rapidly diminishing entertainment value, they sometimes ask valid questions. Although their questions come from malicious intent, we have to realize that we are read widely and there are some who will be helped by a thoughtful answer. The thing I don't like is when a reasonable reply has been offered and then a troll conveniently ignores a thoughtful answer and asks the same question 5 posts later. I guess they think it nullifies the invalidation of their "arguments". Sort of like an ostrich sticking his head in the sand.:D

DarqueKnight

BlueFox wrote: »

This is not the power cord thread. It is the speaker cable thread.

The math part is simple. The angle of the dangle equals the mass of the **** so long as the thrust of the bust remains constant.

Needless to say: Gold Jerry.....Gold!:D

bikezappa

CoolJazz wrote: »

This often quoted logic of a 100 miles (or whatever distance) of power line coming to your house is really, really silly and ignores basic facts!

There is a power transformer just about right outside your house. It's a stepdown transformer. There are also other points in the grid where stepdown occurs. Noise and other disturbances are stepped down at that point, not to mention that the transformer naturally rolls off higher frequency information.

And, very importantly, the transformer secondary presents a low impedance source to your home service. The closer you can keep yourself to that low impedance, the less noise you will have. Which is why circuit separation and load balance are important.

So lower your "mileage" by about 99.99 miles and inject some common sense into your arguement!!

Cool Jazz[/QUOTE

ok point taken there are 100 of miles with many step down transfomers in bewteen of unshielded wire that can pick noise.

It's still basically a series circuit of a 1000 feet of wire going from your home to the transformer.

bikezappa

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Yes I can, however, you seemingly cannot comprehend simple words. I think that going to the trouble of providing a detailed mathematical analysis would be wasted on you.

I gave you an overview of the noise reduction technologies used in power cords and some suggestions for further research in post #1243 and you conveniently ignored it.

Good luck with your career in Internet trolling.

You can't give me a mathimatical proof that a $500 line cord or a fuse with no filtering can improve anything because there is no Capacitance or Inductance to do the filtering in the line cord. The equation for impedance is simple and it drops out to just resistenace in a line cord at the frequencies in audio.

You made the claim that line cords and fuses made a difference not I.

More name calling I see.

bikezappa

ben62670 wrote: »

I can tell you the exact differences in SQ from different cables. Almost everyone that has joined up at my house, or other houses says the same thing about what differences the cable made. Like sound stage, subtle sounds that weren't audible with some cables, and tonality. Science pretty much tells us that there are 3 things to look at besides noise. Those things are R/C/L. Those three things double every time you double the distance of your cable runs. I have not noticed any difference between 3 foot runs and 6 foot runs. You sir are just another stirrer of pooh. DK spends an awful lot of time responding to inconsiderate fools like you. He is not in the audio business in any way shape or form. His responses are out of kindness, and his love of the hobby. May I suggest you find a short pier and take a long walk.

Then a DBT should prove you point.

bikezappa

DarqueKnight wrote: »

From time to time I will get an email, PM, or a thread reply from someone with sincere interest and no agenda along the lines of:

We now have a judge of everyones sincerety.

I'm just tired of the **** science that is spreading in the world.

Show me your math not a refernce. It's EE circuits 101.

F1nut

Now back to the question of the blinded testing. Here is what the now publisher (Robert Harley) of one of the major magazines wrote a few years ago....


Quote:
Blind tests nearly universally appear to indicate that no differences exist between electronics, cables, capacitors, etc. In fact, one infamous test "revealed" that no sonic differences exist between power amplifiers. Mark Levinson, NYAL Futterman OTL tube monoblock, NAD, Hafler, and Counterpoint power amplifiers were all judged to be sonically identical to each other and to a $219 Japanese receiver (footnote 7). This very test, wielded by the objectivists as proof that all amplifiers sound alike, in fact calls into question the entire blind methodology because of the conclusion's absurdity. Who really believes that a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers, a Mark Levinson, and a Japanese receiver are sonically identical? Rather than bolster the objectivist's case, the "all amplifiers sound the same" conclusion of this blind test in fact discredits the very methodology on which hangs the objectivist's entire belief structure.

If differences do exist between components, why don't blind tests conclusively establish the audibility of these differences? I believe that blind listening tests, rather than moving us toward the truth, actually lead us away from reality.

First, the preponderance of blind tests have been conducted by "objectivists" who arrange the tests in such a way that audible differences are more difficult to detect. Rapid switching between components, for example, will always make differences harder to hear. A component's subtleties are not revealed in a few seconds or minutes, but slowly over the course of days or weeks. When reviewing a product, I find that I don't really get to know it until after several weeks of daily listening. Toward the end of the review process, I am still learning aspects of the product's character. Furthermore, the stress of the situation—usually an unfamiliar environment (both music and playback system), adversarial relationship between tester and listener, and the prospect of being ridiculed—imposes an artificiality on the process that reduces one's sensitivity to musical nuances.

Going beyond the nuts and bolts of blind listening tests, I believe they are fundamentally flawed in that they seek to turn an emotional experience—listening to music—into an intellectual exercise. It is well documented that musical perception takes place in the right half of the brain and analytical reasoning in the left half. This process can be observed through PET (Positron-Emission Tomography) scans in which subjects listening to music exhibit increased right-brain metabolism. Those with musical training show activity in both halves of the brain, fluctuating constantly as the music is simultaneously experienced and analyzed. Forcing the brain into an unnatural condition (one that doesn't occur during normal music listening) during blind testing violates a sacrosanct law of science: change only one variable at a time. By introducing another variable—the way the brain processes music—blind listening tests are rendered worthless.

'Nuff said.

williamgauci

bikezappa wrote: »

Do you make this stuff up. Where did I say scientists can measure everything?

They may want to and they do try.

There is even a rule in science that states that you can never know the exact position and momentum of very small objects because the very act of measuring them distrubs them or changes them. This has no practical relationship to audio that I know of however. It realy states that some part of things are somewhat random and there maybe free will.

Yes, it's called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with free will.

ben62670

Get back under your bridge.

DarqueKnight

bikezappa wrote: »

You can't give me a mathimatical proof that a $500 line cord or a fuse with no filtering can improve anything because there is no Capacitance or Inductance to do the filtering in the line cord.

I have provided irrefutable mathematical proof that line cords and audio grade fuses filter noise. Fourier analysis is about as mathematical as you can get. My peers (performance audio enthusiasts) all over the world have received my findings with eager thanksgiving.

If you missed those proofs or if you read them and did not understand them, you should be content in the knowledge that it all wasn't meant for you, and others of your ilk, anyway.

Just be happy in your "accomplishment" in finding a junk overpriced power cord.

bikezappa wrote: »

I'm just tired of the **** science that is spreading in the world.

If your brain is sizzlin' due to **** science, that doesn't directly affect your life, then you must have a very angry, miserable existence. I hope you will one day find something that brings joy to your life.

Bye.

****We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion on speaker cables.****

bikezappa

F1nut wrote: »

'Nuff said.

That's not really true about the rules of DBTing because the Audio Critic has a open test to anyone to do DBTing.

His rules are very simple for DBTing of for examples amplifiers.

They must operate the amplifiers in alow distortion mode, that is not over driven. This means that the power output or loadness may need to be reduced for comarison of high power to low power amplfiers.

The audio output of each amplifier must be balanced to I think 0.1 db. Not simple to do.

The person taking the test can listen to ANY music for as long as they want.

The person taking the test can switch between amplifiers at any rate they want.

The person can take the test for as long as they want.

No one according to the Audio Critic has ever been able to tell the differnces between amplfiers with this test.

F1nut

Now back to the question of the blinded testing. Here is what the now publisher (Robert Harley) of one of the major magazines wrote a few years ago....


Quote:
Blind tests nearly universally appear to indicate that no differences exist between electronics, cables, capacitors, etc. In fact, one infamous test "revealed" that no sonic differences exist between power amplifiers. Mark Levinson, NYAL Futterman OTL tube monoblock, NAD, Hafler, and Counterpoint power amplifiers were all judged to be sonically identical to each other and to a $219 Japanese receiver (footnote 7). This very test, wielded by the objectivists as proof that all amplifiers sound alike, in fact calls into question the entire blind methodology because of the conclusion's absurdity. Who really believes that a pair of Futterman OTL tube amplifiers, a Mark Levinson, and a Japanese receiver are sonically identical? Rather than bolster the objectivist's case, the "all amplifiers sound the same" conclusion of this blind test in fact discredits the very methodology on which hangs the objectivist's entire belief structure.

If differences do exist between components, why don't blind tests conclusively establish the audibility of these differences? I believe that blind listening tests, rather than moving us toward the truth, actually lead us away from reality.

First, the preponderance of blind tests have been conducted by "objectivists" who arrange the tests in such a way that audible differences are more difficult to detect. Rapid switching between components, for example, will always make differences harder to hear. A component's subtleties are not revealed in a few seconds or minutes, but slowly over the course of days or weeks. When reviewing a product, I find that I don't really get to know it until after several weeks of daily listening. Toward the end of the review process, I am still learning aspects of the product's character. Furthermore, the stress of the situation—usually an unfamiliar environment (both music and playback system), adversarial relationship between tester and listener, and the prospect of being ridiculed—imposes an artificiality on the process that reduces one's sensitivity to musical nuances.

Going beyond the nuts and bolts of blind listening tests, I believe they are fundamentally flawed in that they seek to turn an emotional experience—listening to music—into an intellectual exercise. It is well documented that musical perception takes place in the right half of the brain and analytical reasoning in the left half. This process can be observed through PET (Positron-Emission Tomography) scans in which subjects listening to music exhibit increased right-brain metabolism. Those with musical training show activity in both halves of the brain, fluctuating constantly as the music is simultaneously experienced and analyzed. Forcing the brain into an unnatural condition (one that doesn't occur during normal music listening) during blind testing violates a sacrosanct law of science: change only one variable at a time. By introducing another variable—the way the brain processes music—blind listening tests are rendered worthless.

....

bikezappa

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I have provided irrefutable mathematical proof that line cords and audio grade fuses filter noise. Fourier analysis is about as mathematical as you can get. My peers (performance audio enthusiasts) all over the world have received my findings with eager thanksgiving.

If you missed those proofs or if you read them and did not understand them, you should be content in the knowledge that it all wasn't meant for you, and others of your ilk, anyway.

Just be happy in your "accomplishment" in finding a junk overpriced power cord.




If your brain is sizzlin' due to **** science, that doesn't directly affect your life, then you must have a very angry, miserable existence. I hope you will one day find something that brings joy to your life.

Bye.

****We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion on speaker cables.****

There is no inductance or capacitance in a fuse or line cord to filter anything. It all resistive.

ben62670

bikezappa wrote: »

There is no inductance or capacitance in a fuse or line cord to filter anything. It all resistive.

Thanks so much for expounding on your ignorance. People like you make me worry that visitors here may actually take people like you seriously.
Again thanks much.
Ben

bikezappa

ben62670 wrote: »

Thanks so much for expounding on your ignorance. People like you make me worry that visitors here may actually take people like you seriously.
Again thanks much.
Ben

Care to be more specific. Or do you just like call people names.

There must be some EEs out there that can correct me if I'm wrong. But the inductive and capacitive impedance of a fuse or a 5 foot line cord is essntailly ZERO and does NO filtering.

Or at least admit that there is NO difference between the $10 line cord and $500 line cords impedance.

DarqueKnight

Guys, I know that eradicating the scourge of premium power cables from the world is a worthwhile cause, but this is a speaker cable thread.

Are you naysayer cultists so desperate for attention that you have to try to promote your agenda in every thread?

So sad.

ben62670

I didn't call you any names, but called you out on your gross ignorance.
If you noticed the post I was referring to was also on cables, and not just fuses(I have no experience with different fuses, and my systems resolution would probably not see any difference). I have posted many many times over and over. The same bottom line is try it, and if you don't like what you can or can not hear sell the damn cables:eek:
Rock on.
Ben

bikezappa

xcapri79 wrote: »

Don't try to ruin the fantasy shared by the mob on this forum. If they believe a $500 power cable makes sense, let it be. We understand the placebo effect. If one thinks it is good, then it is good right?

There is just as good evidence that sugar pills can relieve headaches. You and I don't have to try a sugar pill to test whether they work or not, but it is the argument that the $500 power cable apologists always make.

Be satisfied that there are a number of rational people on here here as well that see this for what it is.

Thanks for the logical support in a world of **** science.

You know I have read a bit about the placebo effect and have found that the suger pills in some cases actually change the body chemistry sometimes. It seems that the mind can change the chemistry of the body. Or maybe the mind and the body are one in the same. I hope that isn't consisdered religious.

I can ceratinly iunderstand paying $500 for a line cord and feeling good about it and and enjoying music more with it.

DarqueKnight

ben62670 wrote: »

The same bottom line is try it, and if you don't like what you can or can not hear sell the damn cables:eek:

But if they did that...what would happen to the "cause"? Don't you want the world to be saved from those vicious, yet seductive, power cable manufacturers?