Cable Break-in/adjustment period

DarqueKnight

Flash21 wrote: »

The single-blind test is quite adequate to remove bias.

Please explain to me how bias can be removed from the evaluation of a subjective stimulus. Even if the listener does not know what equipment is being evaluated, he or she still has listening biases and preferences.

heiney9

bikezappa wrote: »

Patents mean nothing and are not required to be scientifically sound.

For example, there are many patents on perpetual motion machines. Does anyone want to buy one?

If some one has a PHd in EE that doesn't mean they are telling the truth or know what they are talking about.

This applies to me and every one else on theis forum.

If however you site a scientific publication or text book then you are giving valid data for information.

Why is a scientific publication or text book any more valid than someone who has a PHd or is an EE. Most of those types of publications are written by one or more indivduals with PHd's or EE degrees. So if DK were to publish the findings he writes about here on the forum then all of a sudden he has instant credibility with you?

Ummmmm.......yeah.....don;t think your post makes sense along those lines. Lots of quacks have published stuff and there are lots of published things that are simply untrue, half true, proven false later, etc.....

Having something published doesn't give anyone or any subject more credence. If you think that........well then it certainly explains your logic when discussing this subject.

H9

AudioGenics

Time to tune up your hearing sensitivity.
or
perhaps we can construct a "model" or series of models to use so that sound may be judged by.

discounts now available for......
Power steering for your hearing: Ears have tiny 'flexoelectric' motors to amplify sound

http://www.physorg.com/news159599814.html

DarqueKnight

H9,

I understand that the antagonist quoted in your post represents himself as a member of the scientific community. His credentials, if any, are suspect because no credible and competent scientist would incorrectly use the word "site". The correct word is "cite", which is short for "citation".

Even more suspect is the fact that no credible and competent scientist would put blind faith in scientific journals and textbooks. This is one of the hallmarks of "pop culture" wherein uncritical thinkers believe anything in print. Gossip magazines thrive on this mentality.

As I stated previously and as every competent and credible scientist knows, scientific literature must be rigorously evaluated mathematically. For example, no credible and competent scientist would take a patent for a perpetual motion machine seriously because such a machine would require an infinite power source and the machine would have to be impervious to wear. Infinite power sources and invulnerability are not mathematically tractable and reasonable.

AudioGenics

"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."

Richard Feynman (1918-1988).

AudioGenics

i like this one better....

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

DarqueKnight

To recap:

We had a forum member start this thread concerning cable break-in. The thread author cited some literature from cable manufacturer AudioQuest's website.

Another forum member informed that AudioQuest has received a patent and manufactures cable products which directly address the issue of cable break-in. This member cited AudioQuest's patent filing which is available for review at the US Patent and Trademark Office website. Links were provided to the patent documentation.

Other forum members, rather than investigating the merits of AudioQuest's patent claims and offering reasoned, critical review, merely offered an inadequate quasi-rebuttal along the lines of "just because something is patented doesn't make it valid".

This naysayers argument, which is too frequently used, implies that since some patents are bad, all patents are suspect. This is absurd reasoning and is like saying that one should not associate with other people because some people are murderers.

bikezappa

heiney9 wrote: »

Why is a scientific publication or text book any more valid than someone who has a PHd or is an EE. Most of those types of publications are written by one or more indivduals with PHd's or EE degrees. So if DK were to publish the findings he writes about here on the forum then all of a sudden he has instant credibility with you?
H9

Yes, if DK published his data in an electronics journal that would go along way to making it creditable. These journals will review the data to see if it makes sense and doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Of course there are bad journals and text books out there. If he publishes his data in crystal health magazine I have my doubts.

Still confused?

Cpyder

heiney9 wrote: »

Why is a scientific publication or text book any more valid than someone who has a PHd or is an EE. Most of those types of publications are written by one or more indivduals with PHd's or EE degrees. So if DK were to publish the findings he writes about here on the forum then all of a sudden he has instant credibility with you?

Ummmmm.......yeah.....don;t think your post makes sense along those lines. Lots of quacks have published stuff and there are lots of published things that are simply untrue, half true, proven false later, etc.....

Having something published doesn't give anyone or any subject more credence. If you think that........well then it certainly explains your logic when discussing this subject.

H9

It's called a peer reviewed journal. Read one sometime. Key word being peer reviewed.

bikezappa

DarqueKnight wrote: »

To recap:

We had a forum member start this thread concerning cable break-in. The thread author cited some literature from cable manufacturer AudioQuest's website.

Another forum member informed that AudioQuest has received a patent and manufactures cable products which directly address the issue of cable break-in. This member cited AudioQuest's patent filing which is available for review at the US Patent and Trademark Office website. Links were provided to the patent documentation.

Other forum members, rather than investigating the merits of AudioQuest's patent claims and offering reasoned, critical review, merely offered a inadequate quasi-rebuttal along the lines of "just because something is patented doesn't make it valid".

This naysayers argument, which is too frequently used, implies that since some patents are bad, all patents are suspect. This is absurd reasoning and is like saying that one should not associate with other people because some people are murderers.

OK EE please explain the quote from the first post explaining the cables copmanies science

"Since human perception
is more aware of the existence of a distortion than the quantity, the better the cable, the worse
in some ways it will sound when new, because the anemic forced two-dimensional effect reulting from
being new will not be ameliorated by other gentler distortions."

That is pure and simple BS science, patented or not.

What are the units of "anemic two-dimensional effect".

Give me a break.

I sometimes think some members of the forum just make this science crap up as a joke to see what others will say.

AudioGenics

DK..

searching on this patent (just quickly)
I see this comment :
DIELECTRIC-BIAS SYSTEM (patent pending): Unfortunately, because insulation stores and releases energy, it is also a “dielectric.” In a cable application, all released energy is distortion. The misnomer “break-in” is often used to describe the pronounced improvement in performance as the dielectric adapts to a charged state as the cable is used. Whenever a cable does not have a charge on it, it is re-adapting to an uncharged state; it is becoming new again.

is this the same patent that is in the courts ?

Monster Cable Charges AudioQuest with Willful Patent Infringement in Federal Court.

heiney9

It's very simple BikeZappa...........don't buy company XYZ's cable if you don't agree with their marketing or their patent.

It's really that simple.

cnh

DarqueKnight wrote: »

H9,

I understand that the antagonist quoted in your post represents himself as a member of the scientific community. His credentials, if any, are suspect because no credible and competent scientist would incorrectly use the word "site". The correct word is "cite", which is short for "citation".

Even more suspect is the fact that no credible and competent scientist would put blind faith in scientific journals and textbooks. This is one of the hallmarks of "pop culture" wherein uncritical thinkers believe anything in print. Gossip magazines thrive on this mentality.

As I stated previously and as every competent and credible scientist knows, scientific literature must be rigorously evaluated mathematically. For example, no credible and competent scientist would take a patent for a perpetual motion machine seriously because such a machine would require an infinite power source and the machine would have to be impervious to wear. Infinite power sources and invulnerability are not mathematically tractable and reasonable.

I'd like to say that although I am not a Natual Scientist, I am a Social Scientist and I can corroborate what DarqueKnight has argued concerning the problems of 'publication'.

To Cpyder below who advances the PEER review gambit, I add, POLITICS. For anyone who is in the higher tier of his discipline blind/peer review is almost IMPOSSIBLE. As most of us are familiar with writing styles and subject matter of more 'successful' authors. I have seen credible scholars shut down by PEER review because their work CONTRADICTS the POWERS that control the discipline. The late Thomas Kuhn was documenting the POLITICS of the HARD SCIENCES in his later work. A demonstration that PEER reviews and the HARD SCIENCES are not devoid of bias, power and politics! Those schooled in the HARD sciences would do well to 'remember' that that science has a "HISTORY" and that history is full of all kinds of nonsense that is hardly scientific. And PEER reviews do not stop B.S. from appearing in journals. In my field at least 50 percent of what moves through peer review is horrid! And hardly worth reading. And some of the hard science stuff is so specialized as to mean nothing to anyone but a hand full of experts. The average Peer Reviewed article is read by less than 5 people? Hardly an advertisement for its significance! Or importance to the Scientific Community at large.

EVERYONE knows Journals are driven by politics, prestige and POWER to a large extent....ask Albert Einstein? Completely unknown and disregarded for over a decade!

Enjoy the 'illusion' of objectivity...if it is one that gives meaning to your life.

There is no such thing as a SCIENCE without SOCIETY! A PURE SCIENCE?

cnh

The Monoliths

DarqueKnight wrote: »

H9,

I understand that the antagonist quoted in your post represents himself as a member of the scientific community. His credentials, if any, are suspect because no credible and competent scientist would incorrectly use the word "site". The correct word is "cite", which is short for "citation".

It could have been worse. He could have spelled it as "sight".:p

bikezappa

heiney9 wrote: »

It's very simple BikeZappa...........don't buy company XYZ's cable if you don't agree with their marketing or their patent.

It's really that simple.

You are correct. I just like to comment on and expose BS science.

And BS science is everywhere.

Astrology is in the science sections of some newspapers.

DarqueKnight

cnh wrote: »

EVERYONE knows Journals are driven by politics, prestige and POWER to a large extent....ask Albert Einstein? Completely unknown and disregarded for over a decade!

Well, everyone who is a member of the scientific community certainly knows this. As I said, its one of our dirty little secrets. Those on the outside looking in are easily impressed by the glossy paper, impressive colorful graphics, lofty and esoteric article titles, illustrious author biographies and journal publication "prestige".

cnh

If you want to see B.S. in Science forget about astrology and look at the current research and CLAIMS of neuroscience....or the unfounded leaps from the Human Genome to claims about genes for this and that kind of BEHAVIOR. With NO REAL SCIENCE behind those absurd claims. No awareness of the CULTURAL biases of concepts like 'aggression', 'male vs. female' behavior, and so on. It's enough to bust a gut. And 100s of millions of dollars go to these Braniacs as most people in my field smile wildly.

And there are more PEER REVIEWED articles with wonderful STATISTICAL MODELS and data for all of this...the problem...there are FLAWS in the INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS that require CROSS-Cultural comparisons and corrections before such GENERALIZATIONS CAN BE DRAWN!

cnh

bikezappa

Well my spelling and gramma suck. Said this many times. Is that all you got now?

Peer review like everything else is flawed and is getting worse. Remember Cold Fusion they by passed all peer review and went to the newspapaers. Sad.

Do you guys get paid well to write this science crap or do you just do it for kicks and juckles?

bikezappa

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Well, everyone who is a member of the scientific community certainly knows this. As I said, its one of our dirty little secrets. Those on the outside looking in are easily impressed by the glossy paper, impressive colorful graphics, lofty and esoteric article titles, illustrious author biographies and journal publication "prestige".

Glossy paper, impressive colorful graphics....... NEVER got me one contract or reseach program funded. That's not how it works. You have been watching to much TV.

No I'm not going to tell you how it works, that's my secret.

cnh

I have friends who have been on the board of those granting institutions and I can tell you that there are a lot of POLITICAL MACHINATIONS that decide who gets funded and who doesn't, don't delude yourself....maybe half of the people who apply for money have decent projects...the rest are either too well-known NOT to be funded or they know people on the board or they write in the FAD of the moment which appeals to certain board members.

Come on. People DON'T stop being HUMAN because they're on the National Science Foundation (board), etc.? In fact they probably got there by **** a lot of their colleagues in the process?

Don't be naive! Enough said....do some field work in these institutions if you don't believe this.

cnh

AudioGenics

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now rejects patents claiming cold fusion.[68] Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents in 2004, said that this was done using the same argument as with perpetual motion machines: that they do not work.

rubin

DarqueKnight wrote: »

To me, the idea that blind trials are applicable to audio are as ignorant and obnoxious as this widely believed naysayers axiom about power cables:

"What good can a few feet of boutique cable do for the power signal after it has traveled through miles of ordinary copper on the power grid and through the ordinary copper in house wiring?"

Naysayers who propagate this nonsense think they are looking smart, but in harsh reality, they are only demonstrating that they are ignorant to the fact that a properly designed and shielded power cord can do much to clean up a power signal after it leaves the wall...just as a good water filter can provide additional cleaning to water that comes out of the tap.

The audio blind trial proponent conveniently ignores, or perhaps is actually not cognizant of, the fact that an audio system's job is to create an illusion and that the illusion created is a fragile one. Moving ones head too far to the left or right or sitting too close or too far from the speakers can diminish the stereo sound field or cause it to collapse altogether.

For some people, the three dimensional sound field illusion created by a good sound system comes into focus immediately upon being seated in the "stereo sweet spot". For others, it takes a few seconds or a few minutes for the sound stage to "gel".

Now, consider those individuals whose ears need a few moments to "come into focus" and then consider the results of putting such individuals in a situation where equipment is being rapidly or even instantaneously switched back and forth.

I realize that many naysayers have no real interest in audio (whether high performance, mid-fi or otherwise). Trying to reason with them is futile. Some simply have belligerent personalities. If they weren't arguing about audio, they would be arguing about something else that they know little to nothing about. Audiophiles are just a popular and easy target for ridicule. It is easy to come on the Internet and grab some attention and perhaps some camaraderie from kindred spirits:

"Yeah...they spend all that money, but they can't prove that they can actually hear what they say they can hear. I'm way smarter than them. My Yorx 8-track sounds just as good as the stuff they spent thousands of dollars on."

Thanks , now I feel better about my JPS power cords.

megasat16

jvc wrote: »

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now rejects patents claiming cold fusion.[68] Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents in 2004, said that this was done using the same argument as with perpetual motion machines: that they do not work.

The real Question to ask would be "when the Patent office ever got it right?". They usually and undeniably awarded patent to the wrong person once too many times and found out a few decades later....:eek:

cnh wrote: »

I have friends who have been on the board of those granting institutions and I can tell you that there are a lot of POLITICAL MACHINATIONS that decide who gets funded and who doesn't, don't delude yourself....maybe half of the people who apply for money have decent projects...the rest are either too well-known NOT to be funded or they know people on the board or they write in the FAD of the moment which appeals to certain board members.

Come on. People DON'T stop being HUMAN because they're on the National Science Foundation (board), etc.? In fact they probably got there by **** a lot of their colleagues in the process?

Don't be naive! Enough said....do some field work in these institutions if you don't believe this.

cnh

Wow! It's nice to know at least there are a few folks who see things the way I see.

AudioGenics

I am not an expert on Patent Law but
I would guess that IF additional evidence can be presented
to the support the idea (ie Cold Fusion) that is under evaluation and then resubmitted to be " patent applied for " for the approval process or that
There must also be an appeal process again just a guess.
Under the area of Patent Law and Lawyers that practice that specialty.

Who knows what new discoveries will be made tomorrow or in the future.

Imagine that this probably causes alot of conflicts and challenges and controversy
when ideas clash.... in medicine, politics, religion, and OMG .....AUDIO VIDEO

IT is our adversarial nature but truth prevails (hopefully)

rayslifecycle

Shoot - Ran out of Popcorn and Soda -

It was the good stuff too, Kettle Corn from Trader Joes.......
although after reading these last few pages - i am not sure if I can trust my taste buds.

Go DK!!!!
Your experiments and writings the past year illustrate your devotion and curiosity to the hobby. Thank you for your efforts.

For water filters - I use a Berkey
http://www.berkeywater.com/start.main.html

bikezappa

jvc wrote: »

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now rejects patents claiming cold fusion.[68] Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents in 2004, said that this was done using the same argument as with perpetual motion machines: that they do not work.

Will they add cables next.

hearingimpared

bikezappa wrote: »

If some one has a PHd in EE that doesn't mean they are telling the truth or know what they are talking about.

This applies to me and every one else on theis forum.

If however you site a scientific publication or text book then you are giving valid data for information.

I was referring to the proof that Dr. Smith writes in all his publications here those of which you and William keep ignoring.

BTW who said that the writer of a "scientific publication or text book" isn't biased.

AudioGenics

I did try submitting a patent for " Hair Loss and enlarged peripheral appendages "
but did not make it
when I asked to do a double triple blind with a twist study......

bikezappa

hearingimpared wrote: »

I was referring to the proof that Dr. Smith writes in all his publications here those of which you and William keep ignoring.

BTW who said that the writer of a "scientific publication or text book" isn't biased.

We are all biased OK? Nobody is perfect.

DK ignores me and it doesn't bother me.

What the hell does this mean.. "anemic two-dimensional effect".

His gramma and spelling skills while sometimes verbose are very detailed and much better than mine and maybe yours.

bikezappa

clarknova_666 wrote: »

Shoot - Ran out of Popcorn and Soda -

It was the good stuff too, Kettle Corn from Trader Joes.......
although after reading these last few pages - i am not sure if I can trust my taste buds.

Go DK!!!!
Your experiments and writings the past year illustrate your devotion and curiosity to the hobby. Thank you for your efforts.

For water filters - I use a Berkey
http://www.berkeywater.com/start.main.html

Can you share that food?

It's so nice to have cheer leaders in the back ground.

****, I take that back, I bet you look like 5 miles of bad road.

Hope I cot the comers right and spelled very thing good enough for every one.