The league of (extra)ordinary gentlemen

[square_wave]

@Arjun
Yes I have heard about this one too. This happens when you use thick audiophile grade cables which can really transmit vibrations from wooden floors. If you have the component on rolor-blocks and such the component can vibrate really badly.

@Psychotropic
ABX - blind testing with short bursts of music has been discussed a lot in audio circles. There has never been any conclusion drawn. Once in china someone compared a 300$ AV receiver to some super hi-end amplifier using this technique. As usual the AV receiver scored as high as the other amp.
If ABX testing is the ultimate logic for products, we will not have hi-end at all except for speakers.
A typical hi-end setup will look like this

1. 100 $ dvd player
2. 2$ interconnect
3. 2$ speaker wire (lamp cord)
4. 200$ Chinese amplifier
5. 10,000 $ loudspeaker

Any other expensive choice in the components from 1 to 4 can be proven to be false using the ABX blind testing method.

 

[unleash_me]

Once in china someone compared a 300$ AV receiver to some super hi-end amplifier using this technique. As usual the AV receiver scored as high as the other amp.

You can find a similar article here for that enigmatic question - Do all amplifiers sound the same?

Cheers.

 

[madjack]

rofl rofl rofl
hahahaha

Ok, guys, here is the last one I swear. I have just invented a new cable elevator that can be used for speakers cables, power cables, and even interconnects. If you use them for interconnects, you will find the music floating in the air. I call these Floating Elevators. Trademark has been applied for and is pending.

The elevators are silk strings that are carefully woven and extracted from the finest silks in the world. I have given a 10,000 yard order to select weavers in Kanchipuram and Benares where my vestal virgins will oversee the

 

[psychotropic]

once again let me reiterate that i am an agnost, and I have nowhere near enough information or experience to hold a view one way or the other. But I don't see the problem with ABX testing. If something is so much superior to something else, should that not be identifiable blindly? If short pieces of music are not sufficient, then let them test with long pieces, as many number of times, but fundamentally I don't see how an ABX test would not be able to show up a superior component for what it is. Anecdotal evidence (in favour or against) something is not of much use at all. Logic would suggest that if there was a tangible difference between two components, then a properly conducted ABX test would demonstrate it.

I am personally confident I can tell the differences between the various speakers that I heard, in an ABX test. So similarly why can't the people who are confident of the differences offerred by the various cables and tweaks do an ABX test and prove this difference?

What about doing a proper ABX test ourselves? We can get a few people together, in a suitably resolving, high-end system, and ABX between various components. In the absence of a proper switcher, it would be cumbersome, but worth the effort wouldn't you say?

@Arjun
Yes I have heard about this one too. This happens when you use thick audiophile grade cables which can really transmit vibrations from wooden floors. If you have the component on rolor-blocks and such the component can vibrate really badly.

@Psychotropic
ABX - blind testing with short bursts of music has been discussed a lot in audio circles. There has never been any conclusion drawn. Once in china someone compared a 300$ AV receiver to some super hi-end amplifier using this technique. As usual the AV receiver scored as high as the other amp.
If ABX testing is the ultimate logic for products, we will not have hi-end at all except for speakers.
A typical hi-end setup will look like this

1. 100 $ dvd player
2. 2$ interconnect
3. 2$ speaker wire (lamp cord)
4. 200$ Chinese amplifier
5. 10,000 $ loudspeaker

Any other expensive choice in the components from 1 to 4 can be proven to be false using the ABX blind testing method.

 

[square_wave]

@psychotropic
Agree with your Logical intentions Psycotropic. No arguments there

I am merely suggesting the result if you completely believe in the ABX testing method.

In normal routine use, if you are able to discern the difference between a super hi-end amplifier (Boulder, Halcro, Gamut, Lamm) and a cheapo AV receiver or between a 100$ dvd player and a full DCS rack, then you cannot believe in ABX blind testing.

If anyone says that he is a believer in ABX blind testing and invests in anything more for the components 1 to 4, then he is lying or he has invested for pride of ownership and nothing else.

 

[soulforged]

my $0.02

Whatever floats your boat

At the end of the day its your system and it should please you. The other gurus can take a long walk off a short cliff... :indifferent14:

 

[ajinkya]

It is fairly scientific and has nothing to do with snake oil. It is an extension of shielding or twisting design of cables (power cord or others) to eliminate interferences.

Square_wave,
This is as scientific as saying that buses and taller vehicles should be designed differently from low-slung cars because the acceleration due to gravity varies with height and so for taller vehicles we can't use the constant, average value of 9.8 m/s^2, that is near the surface of the earth. Which is, of course, nonsense but someone can 'scientifically' justify pricing their car model much higher, based on a design taking into account "variations in the gravitational acceleration, something no other car manufacturer does, sir!".

Electromagnetic (EM) theory predicts that all fields will interact to some extent, even at infinite distances. The magnitude of interaction falls of rapidly, however, to have any practical significance. Same is true of gravity.

If we started designing our cars and planes, and appliances based on EM theory without a practical, engineering insight, nothing would run, fly or work, since everything would be housed in a heavy Faraday cage enclosure for maximum 'isolation'. EMI is another such area where people use theory to justify impractical applications of it. This whole business of lifting cables above ground is just another example of dangerously shallow understanding of EM theory and obsession to justify the cost one puts into the system.

 

[psychotropic]

hehe once again with no offence meant, that argument does not appeal to me.

If one or more tests showed results that were inconsistent with someone's views, there is not just one possible conclusions, which is that the tests are fundamentally flawed, there are several including (a) that the views themselves are open to question (b) that the tests were improperly conducted, (c) the tests were dishonestly conducted, (d) the statistical methodologies employed in analysing the results are false, and many variants and combinations of the same. To say that in a particular test the results were strange, so the methodology is wrong is anecdotal and inconsequential.

Which is why I am saying, let's not rely on these other people's tests. Let's do one ourselves. I don't even mind travelling for this. Let's assemble some people and do it! Fundamentally I see no logical argument why the ABX methodology is false. I believe I can tell speakers apart in an ABX. I believe I can tell my NAD amp from some other amps, but I am also willing to put myself to a scientific test.

It is incontrovertible that our sensory organs are very complex, and far from immune to distractions. How something tastes is hugely influenced by how it smells and looks. Do you remember the blue pepsi? That was chemically identical to the regular pepsi, yet people claimed it tasted different.....primarily because it looked blue!

What we hear depends a lot on what we see. For example, have a look at this http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/06/20/aural-illusion/ . (Just as a completely tangential thing, i would recommend the book "phantoms in the brain" by VS Ramachandran. It's fantastic how complex our mind is, and how many things contribute to simple things like seeing, hearing, touching etc,.)

Therefore it is scientific and logical to try and eliminate as many extraneous factors as possible while evaluating a particular sensory input. It is this objective that blind testing of audio equipment serves. The same reason why blind tasting is the way to go, when comparing wines. And for all the reasons above i belive it is the ONLY reliable and scientific way of evaluating differences in audio equipment.

So let me reiterate my proposal. Let's do a blind test Come on!

@psychotropic
Agree with your Logical intentions Psycotropic. No arguments there

I am merely suggesting the result if you completely believe in the ABX testing method.

In normal routine use, if you are able to discern the difference between a super hi-end amplifier (Boulder, Halcro, Gamut, Lamm) and a cheapo AV receiver or between a 100$ dvd player and a full DCS rack, then you cannot believe in ABX blind testing.

If anyone says that he is a believer in ABX blind testing and invests in anything more for the components 1 to 4, then he is lying or he has invested for pride of ownership and nothing else.

 

[Asit]

Electromagnetic (EM) theory predicts that all fields will interact to some extent, even at infinite distances. The magnitude of interaction falls of rapidly, however, to have any practical significance. Same is true of gravity.

Dear Ajinkya,

What you have said above is true of both elctromagnetism and gravity, that is, both are infinite range interactions. However, there is a difference: EM effects can be shielded and can be effectively confined in a finite space, while gravity is the only force in nature that can never be shielded (this is the reason why NASA has to go to so much trouble to simulate a situation where astronauts can train to be in outer space conditions).

Now, for the electric signal responsible for audio, how much is the EM interference and if there would be a significant improvement in the sound by a proper shileding can be a debatable subject, one I have no intensions of taking part in. However, the lore is that, for interconnects, shielding is supposed to be important and for speaker cables it is not important. That's why usually you find speaker cables as unshielded, although Chord has some shielded speaker cables.

Regards.

 

[hemantwaghe]

while gravity is the only force in nature that can never be shielded (this is the reason why NASA has to go to so much trouble to simulate a situation where astronauts can train to be in outer space conditions).

Regards.

I read a "secret & private" paper that audio "feels" a lot better in space where gravity is almost 0! ( of course the "room" is filled with air ( 30% From South Pole +28% From Bermuda triangle & Rest from SEcret locations)

I really want to test this - can anyone sponsor my space journey??

 

[suri]

well, there are plenty enough people who believe in god.

then why believe in science?

let us all believe (like cleopatra in her insecure years) in the power of rituals, the power of the unknown, the secret energy of the psions, well anything

 

[ajinkya]

Dear Ajinkya,
However, the lore is that, for interconnects, shielding is supposed to be important and for speaker cables it is not important. That's why usually you find speaker cables as unshielded, although Chord has some shielded speaker cables.
.

Hi Asit,
I agree with the EM shielding bit. And your observation of gravity.

Which is why I mentioned the Faraday cage concept. However, this exactly what I am pointing out towards. In the real world, all effects are coupled to some extent. How much effect the physics has on the final outcome is an engineering decision, not a physical one. It is the engineering of the system that is responsible for minimising the undesired couplings. But to use the fact that a physical coupling exists to propose a solution that has almost negligible (or non-measurable) impact on the final system behaviour is misleading the public at large. And it is not only not in the spirit of science and engineering, it is not in the spirit of truth and honesty as well. That is why I am always wary of solutions which rely on tenuous relations to physics as the basis of their 'improvement'.

I in fact, agree with you that shielding is helpful for the most part and that most cable companies do take pains to engineer good solutions (multi-strand wires, layers of insulating material etc.). However, placing cables above the ground, to minimise vibrations that 'may' affect the sound quality....now that's a bit much. And charging 5 times the amount over a reasonably well-engineered and shielded cable..that's also appalling. That's all I wanted to convey.

-Ajinkya.

regards,
Ajinkya.

 

[gobble]

well, there are plenty enough people who believe in god.

then why believe in science?

let us all believe (like cleopatra in her insecure years) in the power of rituals, the power of the unknown, the secret energy of the psions, well anything

And then there are men of science who believe in god ...

Einstein believed in reincarnation and one of his not often heard quotes was if he were to be reborn, it was his wish to be born a Jain in India.

Regards

Edit: Jains may be considered more atheistic than theistic despite their philosophy of all life having a certain "consciousness"

 

[suri]

And then there are men of science who believe in god ...

Einstein believed in reincarnation and one of his not often heard quotes was if he were to be reborn, it was his wish to be born a Jain in India.

Regards

Edit: Jains may be considered more atheistic than theistic despite their philosophy of all life having a certain "consciousness"

that must have been the public face of einstein, a cultivated face, with quotes such as "God does not play dice with the universe", -

i do not think that a thinking person such as einstein would have truly believed in the abstract (god)

and by the way, gobble, i truly feel a deep empathy with the jain way of life

 

[ajinkya]

I would be interested in a link to this quote from Einstein, which is from an authentic source/book/event. I've seen many 'famous quotes' on the net, which unfortunately turned out to be false/ made-up.

 

[srramanujam]

I would be interested in a link to this quote from Einstein, which is from an authentic source/book/event. I've seen many 'famous quotes' on the net, which unfortunately turned out to be false/ made-up.

This is most certainly one among the made up.

Einstein is one of the most often misquoted non believers. RichardDawkins.net gives a good flavour of these misquotes.

 

[suri]

This is a very peculiar tendency of the western press/media- that they have to make heroes of the popular men/women of their time - ordinary people with extra-ordinary ideas are not good enough - they have to be given a well rounded persona that the average american can relate to. (on the continent, the general public are slightly more clever). so an einstein becomes a person of god and michelle obama (who really resembles a monkey) becomes a person with sculpted arms (also published are "how to achieve" secrets) and a most attractive person!

 

[gobble]

OK I added the note of Atheism and Jainism because I wanted to correct the notion in my first statement that Einstein may have believed in God.

Here is the purported correct statement made by Einstein:
"I do not know if there is rebirth or not, or life after death. But, if it is true, I would like to be born in India as a Jain."

I actually read a reference to it in this book I am reading:

Aidan Rankin: Face to faith | World news | The Guardian


@Suri yes, my first glimpse of the statue of Bahubali and Mahavira in early childhood had a great profound impact on me. I have believed since then that I was gazing upon the profile of men who had "seen" and spoken a great "Truth".

Regards

 

[gobble]

This is most certainly one among the made up.

Einstein is one of the most often misquoted non believers. RichardDawkins.net gives a good flavour of these misquotes.

I think the only evidence of this came from a quote from George Bernard Shaw, not directly from Einstein to the media.

Regards

 

[gobble]

This is most certainly one among the made up.

Einstein is one of the most often misquoted non believers. RichardDawkins.net gives a good flavour of these misquotes.

Reading that link and going by that page alone (I havent read his book) - It appears that Richard Dawkins is the typical ignorant westerner - a man of learning and high qualifications but ignorant none the less about Hindu Cosmology. Carl Sagan atleast admitted that amongst all world religions, only the Hindu's got the time scales "right". This Euro-centrism is very typical of western scholars. I have a book about the history of numbers as maths developed over the last 1000 years and it has scant mention of the serious contribution of Hindu science - mathematics, astronomy (and more generally - medicine) to the world. Hence Diophantus is considered the Father of Algebra and the medical oath is attributed to Hippocrates when a similar oath existed and was propounded centuries before by an Ayurveda sage.

Here is an example Timeline of astronomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Edit: If you read the timeline very carefully you will realize how backward the Europeans were in their understanding of things.
and Calculus created in India 250 years before Newton: study

I have a few books about this By Balachander waiting to be read ...

The Westerners are very obstinate in attributing all developments to Greek culture sadly.

There is also a reference somewhere to books in the library of an ancient church/monastery where Diophantus acknowledged that the Indians already appeared to know the secrets he was searching for.

Cheers