Cables again. For Arny, et al.

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Feb 20, 7:26 pm, Greg Wormald <greg.worm...@gmail,com > wrote:
> In article <fpg2r602...@news3.newsguy,com >, Peter Wieck <p...@aol,com >
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 10:51 am, Greg Wormald
> > > You see, this is where we part company. So everything that follows is
> > > impossible for me to accept.
>
> > OK... With respect, you are committing the fallacy of "Begging the
> > Question".
>
> Peter,
>
> My understanding of "begging the question" is where the argument's
> conclusion is actually one of it's presumptions/assumptions. I don't
> think that's what I said, it certainly wasn't what I meant. I meant that
> I couldn't accept the OP's assumptions and therefore the rest of his
> argument was unacceptable to me.
>
> > (*snip*)
>
> Most of the rest of your considerations are accepted.
>
> That does not change what I heard, or the conclusions I reached. I (and
> others) have heard differences in connectors/cables many times in blind
> trials. If other people have not heard differences in different trials
> that's something to investigate, but does not in itself invalidate the
> contradicting trials.
>
> I also do not accept the assumption that the basic parameters V I & R
> are fully able to describe the transmission of a complex musical signal
> down a connector, and neither do a lot of scientists.
>
> Many scientists also eschew the use of ABX testing in it's usual form
> (as described here a number of times) as being adequate for making the
> conclusions that are often made here.
>
> It is also now fairly commonly accepted that the influence of the bias
> of the experimenter often influences the perceived outcome.
>
> I further note in your response that you were fairly careful to use
> words like "not necessarily" and "most" and "likely" and I approve.
>
> Greg

Greg:

With respect, many "Scientists" do not accept Global Warming, do
accept "Creationism" and do not accept Evolution. At least one very
well known Nobel-prize winning scientist also firmly believes and has
stated "in the literature" that non-white individuals are necessarily
inferior to white individuals. Your mileage may vary, but expertise-in-
depth in one particular field does not protect one from being an
absolute pillock in another.

So, unless you have specifics, you are making a specious argument
without support - AKA anecdote. You started by quoting Clarke's
Laws... but just now fell into the fallacy of requiring "proof of the
negative". Again, you are making a positive assertion without direct
evidence. William of Occam warned against such things quite clearly
and Clarke most certainly did not have that in mind when he formulated
his laws. You need to read Isaac Asimov's small tribute to Clarke on
this issue in his story "Not Final". That will help you understand
more aptly (Both parties were "right").

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

Peter Wieck <pfjw@aol,com > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 7:26 pm, Greg Wormald <greg.worm...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > In article <fpg2r602...@news3.newsguy,com >, Peter Wieck <p...@aol,com >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 16, 10:51 am, Greg Wormald
> > > > You see, this is where we part company. So everything that follows is
> > > > impossible for me to accept.
> >
> > > OK... With respect, you are committing the fallacy of "Begging the
> > > Question".
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> > My understanding of "begging the question" is where the argument's
> > conclusion is actually one of it's presumptions/assumptions. I don't
> > think that's what I said, it certainly wasn't what I meant. I meant that
> > I couldn't accept the OP's assumptions and therefore the rest of his
> > argument was unacceptable to me.
> >
> > > (*snip*)
> >
> > Most of the rest of your considerations are accepted.
> >
> > That does not change what I heard, or the conclusions I reached. I (and
> > others) have heard differences in connectors/cables many times in blind
> > trials. If other people have not heard differences in different trials
> > that's something to investigate, but does not in itself invalidate the
> > contradicting trials.
> >
> > I also do not accept the assumption that the basic parameters V I & R
> > are fully able to describe the transmission of a complex musical signal
> > down a connector, and neither do a lot of scientists.
> >
> > Many scientists also eschew the use of ABX testing in it's usual form
> > (as described here a number of times) as being adequate for making the
> > conclusions that are often made here.
> >
> > It is also now fairly commonly accepted that the influence of the bias
> > of the experimenter often influences the perceived outcome.
> >
> > I further note in your response that you were fairly careful to use
> > words like "not necessarily" and "most" and "likely" and I approve.
> >
> > Greg

> Greg:

> With respect, many "Scientists" do not accept Global Warming, do
> accept "Creationism"

re: creationsim -- Many? Only if you keep the quotes around 'scientists'.

The number of credible scientists who believe in creationism -- that all the species
were created at once, as we see them today -- is zero. The number who 'believe in'
intelligent design -- that evolution does not occur via mutation, natural selection and
genetic drift, but rather requires intervention of an 'intelligence' -- is miniscule, and
almost none are biologists. The number is far from 'many'.


-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

"Greg Wormald" <greg.wormald@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:fpigeu02o2l@news3.newsguy,com

> That does not change what I heard, or the conclusions I
> reached. I (and others) have heard differences in
> connectors/cables many times in blind trials.

Tell us the details of these trials. Unless the cables were peculiarly
flawed, this is an exceptional result.

> If other people have not heard differences in different trials
> that's something to investigate, but does not in itself
> invalidate the contradicting trials.

In general, there are no audible differences between even marginally good
interconnects, There are not even any measurable differences in many cases.

> I also do not accept the assumption that the basic
> parameters V I & R are fully able to describe the
> transmission of a complex musical signal down a
> connector,

Name the other relevant parameters.

> and neither do a lot of scientists.

Any scientist who believed such a thing would be able to name the other
relevant parameters.

> Many scientists also eschew the use of ABX testing in
> it's usual form (as described here a number of times) as
> being adequate for making the conclusions that are often
> made here.

Please name a true scientist who believes that, and cite the scientific
paper in which he said that.

> It is also now fairly commonly accepted that the
> influence of the bias of the experimenter often
> influences the perceived outcome.

Yes, that is why true scientists do double blind listening tests.

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

"Peter Wieck" <pfjw@aol,com > wrote in message
news:fpg2r60221b@news3.newsguy,com
>
> f) I would posit that most hearing-individuals here could
> distinguish the difference between very badly made "patch
> cords" with construction and design flaws and the
> very-bestest-most-expensive-oxygen-free-
> silver-patch-cords-rolled-on-the-thighs-of-virgins-by-the-first-full-
> moon-after-Walpurgis-Night.

Then you've never actually tried the relevant experiment with enough
experimental controls to obtain a reliable result.

Patch cables are so non-critical in terms of their mission, that barbed wire
slipped through wet noodles (for insulation) would perform identically to
sliver/teflon ones. So would 3/8" rusty steel rebar separated with wet,
wooden clothespins.

Not only would there be no audible difference, but it would be challenging
to find a measurable difference.

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Feb 20, 7:27 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "Peter Wieck" <p...@aol,com > wrote in message
>
> news:fpg2r60221b@news3.newsguy,com
>
>
>
> > f) I would posit that most hearing-individuals here could
> > distinguish the difference between very badly made "patch
> > cords" with construction and design flaws and the
> > very-bestest-most-expensive-oxygen-free-
> > silver-patch-cords-rolled-on-the-thighs-of-virgins-by-the-first-full-
> > moon-after-Walpurgis-Night.
>
> Then you've never actually tried the relevant experiment with enough
> experimental controls to obtain a reliable result.
>
> Patch cables are so non-critical in terms of their mission, that barbed wire
> slipped through wet noodles (for insulation) would perform identically to
> sliver/teflon ones. So would 3/8" rusty steel rebar separated with wet,
> wooden clothespins.
>
> Not only would there be no audible difference, but it would be challenging
> to find a measurable difference.

Mpffff.... Not quite. I have been in massively RF-rich environments
that patch cords such as you describe would be rectifying all over the
place. I spent three years as an on-site project architect at the UofP
hospital back in the day - and trust me, crappy patch cords (and
crappy components) picked up no end of garbage. Long hours and my own
office accorded me the privilege of setting up a system on-site.

So, I state with direct experience that well-made "cables" do make a
direct, discernable, measurable, observable, audible difference. After
that, we are at the margins. And that - to me - remains unproven.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:04:33 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article <fpl02101b1u@news1.newsguy,com >):

> On Feb 20, 7:27 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
>> "Peter Wieck" <p...@aol,com > wrote in message
>>
>> news:fpg2r60221b@news3.newsguy,com
>>
>>
>>
>>> f) I would posit that most hearing-individuals here could
>>> distinguish the difference between very badly made "patch
>>> cords" with construction and design flaws and the
>>> very-bestest-most-expensive-oxygen-free-
>>> silver-patch-cords-rolled-on-the-thighs-of-virgins-by-the-first-full-
>>> moon-after-Walpurgis-Night.
>>
>> Then you've never actually tried the relevant experiment with enough
>> experimental controls to obtain a reliable result.
>>
>> Patch cables are so non-critical in terms of their mission, that barbed wire
>> slipped through wet noodles (for insulation) would perform identically to
>> sliver/teflon ones. So would 3/8" rusty steel rebar separated with wet,
>> wooden clothespins.
>>
>> Not only would there be no audible difference, but it would be challenging
>> to find a measurable difference.
>
> Mpffff.... Not quite. I have been in massively RF-rich environments
> that patch cords such as you describe would be rectifying all over the
> place. I spent three years as an on-site project architect at the UofP
> hospital back in the day - and trust me, crappy patch cords (and
> crappy components) picked up no end of garbage. Long hours and my own
> office accorded me the privilege of setting up a system on-site.
>
> So, I state with direct experience that well-made "cables" do make a
> direct, discernable, measurable, observable, audible difference. After
> that, we are at the margins. And that - to me - remains unproven.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA

Well, that's different. Most cheap interconnects pick up garbage in
electromagnetically noisy environments because they aren't fully shielded,
not because of any inherent quality of the wire. In fact, I suspect,
(although I do not know for sure) that using quasi-balanced and fully
balanced interconnects (where the shield carries no signal) would eliminate
much if not all of that interference.

--
Do you know the difference between students like you, amateurs and
professional jazz musicians? Student bands and amateurs "almost" swing!

Fred Berry
Professor of Music
Stanford University

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

"Peter Wieck" <pfjw@aol,com > wrote in message
news:fpl02101b1u@news1.newsguy,com

> So, I state with direct experience that well-made
> "cables" do make a direct, discernable, measurable,
> observable, audible difference. After that, we are at the
> margins. And that - to me - remains unproven.

I know from theory and experiences gathered under carefully controlled
conditions, that cables made to normal commercial standards using ordinary
commercial-grade materials perform just as well as
very-bestest-most-expensive-oxygen-free-silver-patch-cords-rolled-on-the-thighs-of-virgins-by-the-first-full-moon-after-Walpurgis-Night.

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Feb 22, 9:11 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
> "Peter Wieck" <p...@aol,com > wrote in message
>
> news:fpl02101b1u@news1.newsguy,com
>
> > So, I state with direct experience that well-made
> > "cables" do make a direct, discernable, measurable,
> > observable, audible difference. After that, we are at the
> > margins. And that - to me - remains unproven.
>
> I know from theory and experiences gathered under carefully controlled
> conditions, that  cables made to normal commercial standards using ordinary
> commercial-grade materials perform just as well as
> very-bestest-most-expensive-oxygen-free-silver-patch-cords-rolled-on-the-th­ighs-of-virgins-by-the-first-full-moon-after-Walpurgis-Night.

Truly! The guy no doubt accidentally fixed or cleaned something when
he changed cables.

Everyone that thinks high dollar voodoo audio cables sound better,
outta the gene pool.

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:04:07 -0800, jamesgangnc wrote
(in article <fq7sn702tbe@news4.newsguy,com >):

> On Feb 22, 9:11 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote:
>> "Peter Wieck" <p...@aol,com > wrote in message
>>
>> news:fpl02101b1u@news1.newsguy,com
>>
>>> So, I state with direct experience that well-made
>>> "cables" do make a direct, discernable, measurable,
>>> observable, audible difference. After that, we are at the
>>> margins. And that - to me - remains unproven.
>>
>> I know from theory and experiences gathered under carefully controlled
>> conditions, that  cables made to normal commercial standards using ordinary
>> commercial-grade materials perform just as well as
>> very-bestest-most-expensive-oxygen-free-silver-patch-cords-rolled-on-the-th­
>> ighs-of-virgins-by-the-first-full-moon-after-Walpurgis-Night.
>
> Truly! The guy no doubt accidentally fixed or cleaned something when
> he changed cables.
>
> Everyone that thinks high dollar voodoo audio cables sound better,
> outta the gene pool.

Agreed - unless of course they are making the cables and are soaking rich
gotta-have-the-most-expensive-of-everything audio idiots. In that case, I
say, more power to 'em!

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

Sorry, I wouldn't trust such an anecdote, from a TAS writer, to reflect
an thorough ruling out of other causes.

___
-S
"Hey pip squeak, who's L Ron, some new rapper?" -- Nic

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

"Sonnova" <sonnova@audiosanatorium,com > wrote in message
news:fp2mtd02u78@news3.newsguy,com ...
> I've made no bones about my firm commitment to the proposition that in
> audio,
> there is simply nothing that a cable can do to affect the sound of a
> system
> at all (unless that cable were purposely designed to be a filter or the
> runs
> are so long (for interconnects) that they roll-off the extreme top).
>
> So it was with some interest that I read Wayne Garcia's excellent article
> ('The Big Beat" Page 36) in the latest TAS about Blue Note's Vinyl
> reissues
> of Rudy Van Gelder's often stunning jazz recordings of the late '50's and
> early '60's.
>
> That these recordings were, are, and will continue to be viewed as the
> best
> of the best is not at issue here. What somewhat startled me was that
> Garcia,
> the author, received two sets of four review pressings of some of these
> reissues. The first set he found to be excellent, but the second set blew
> him
> away. What was the difference? He asked Producer/Engineer Joe Harley via
> E-mail. Why does the second set sound so much more immediate, present, and
> dynamic, in short, more musically thrilling than the first?
>
> Harley answered back that he wished he could go back and remaster the
> first
> set of releases because after they were done, he went back and re-wired
> AcousTech's (the studio doing the transfers) mastering system with
> upgraded
> AudioQuest cabling!
>
> How can this be that Wayne Garcia, not knowing that anything had changed
> (ostensibly), immediately noticed that something had changed for the
> better
> in the second set of releases and found it significant enough to mention
> it
> to Blue Note? Does this mean that interconnects can and do make an audible
> difference (something that my electronic engineering degree makes it hard
> for
> me to believe).
>
> Arny? Anyone?

Can "anyone" say for certain that only _one_ variable is involved here?
Maybe some trivial explanation applies such as the wax moved about in WG's
ear canal?
Norman

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

"Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline,net > wrote in message
news:fp57rk019kh@news1.newsguy,com ...
>
> Can "anyone" say for certain that only _one_ variable is involved here?
> Maybe some trivial explanation applies such as the wax moved about in WG's
> ear canal?

Although you meant it in jest (or did you?), explanations like this are far
more common and far more important than most people realize.

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

"jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:fp9sp402itp@news1.newsguy,com ...
> "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@optonline,net > wrote in message
> news:fp57rk019kh@news1.newsguy,com ...
>>
>> Can "anyone" say for certain that only _one_ variable is involved here?
>> Maybe some trivial explanation applies such as the wax moved about in
>> WG's
>> ear canal?
>
> Although you meant it in jest (or did you?), explanations like this are
> far
> more common and far more important than most people realize.
>

Taken out of context, and with so many variables being involved, I can't say
what I meant. :-)

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

>I've made no bones about my firm commitment to the proposition that in audio,
>there is simply nothing that a cable can do to affect the sound of a system
>at all (unless that cable were purposely designed to be a filter or the runs
>are so long (for interconnects) that they roll-off the extreme top).
>
>So it was with some interest that I read Wayne Garcia's excellent article
>('The Big Beat" Page 36) in the latest TAS about Blue Note's Vinyl reissues
>of Rudy Van Gelder's often stunning jazz recordings of the late '50's and
>early '60's.
>
>That these recordings were, are, and will continue to be viewed as the best
>of the best is not at issue here. What somewhat startled me was that Garcia,
>the author, received two sets of four review pressings of some of these
>reissues. The first set he found to be excellent, but the second set blew him
>away. What was the difference? He asked Producer/Engineer Joe Harley via
>E-mail. Why does the second set sound so much more immediate, present, and
>dynamic, in short, more musically thrilling than the first?
>
>Harley answered back that he wished he could go back and remaster the first
>set of releases because after they were done, he went back and re-wired
>AcousTech's (the studio doing the transfers) mastering system with upgraded
>AudioQuest cabling!
>
>How can this be that Wayne Garcia, not knowing that anything had changed
>(ostensibly), immediately noticed that something had changed for the better
>in the second set of releases and found it significant enough to mention it
>to Blue Note? Does this mean that interconnects can and do make an audible
>difference (something that my electronic engineering degree makes it hard for
>me to believe).
>
>Arny? Anyone?

One would assume years of installation for the previous wire, with years
of corrosion, loose connections and every chance for failed insulation
and other opportunity for signal degradation that can happen in a
complex studio installation with hundreds of feet of wire.

People in a domestic settingwho put in new wire report difference when
it is most likely just cleaning the terminals by friction.

Re: Cables again. For Arny, et al.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:57:11 -0800, wrct@club.cc.cmu.edu wrote
(in article <fp58sn01b07@news1.newsguy,com >):

>> I've made no bones about my firm commitment to the proposition that in
>> audio,
>> there is simply nothing that a cable can do to affect the sound of a system
>> at all (unless that cable were purposely designed to be a filter or the runs
>> are so long (for interconnects) that they roll-off the extreme top).
>>
>> So it was with some interest that I read Wayne Garcia's excellent article
>> ('The Big Beat" Page 36) in the latest TAS about Blue Note's Vinyl reissues
>> of Rudy Van Gelder's often stunning jazz recordings of the late '50's and
>> early '60's.
>>
>> That these recordings were, are, and will continue to be viewed as the best
>> of the best is not at issue here. What somewhat startled me was that Garcia,
>> the author, received two sets of four review pressings of some of these
>> reissues. The first set he found to be excellent, but the second set blew
>> him
>> away. What was the difference? He asked Producer/Engineer Joe Harley via
>> E-mail. Why does the second set sound so much more immediate, present, and
>> dynamic, in short, more musically thrilling than the first?
>>
>> Harley answered back that he wished he could go back and remaster the first
>> set of releases because after they were done, he went back and re-wired
>> AcousTech's (the studio doing the transfers) mastering system with upgraded
>> AudioQuest cabling!
>>
>> How can this be that Wayne Garcia, not knowing that anything had changed
>> (ostensibly), immediately noticed that something had changed for the better
>> in the second set of releases and found it significant enough to mention it
>> to Blue Note? Does this mean that interconnects can and do make an audible
>> difference (something that my electronic engineering degree makes it hard
>> for
>> me to believe).
>>
>> Arny? Anyone?
>
> One would assume years of installation for the previous wire, with years
> of corrosion, loose connections and every chance for failed insulation
> and other opportunity for signal degradation that can happen in a
> complex studio installation with hundreds of feet of wire.
>
> People in a domestic settingwho put in new wire report difference when
> it is most likely just cleaning the terminals by friction.

That's reasonable. If the old cable had corroded or otherwise degraded
connections, it COULD be responsible for this dramatic change in sound.