Parlour trick

[Purité Audio]

Have I missed something? It seems to me that the people who usually argue that measurements tell us everything, and that if you didn't blind test it, it didn't happen, are now happy to take the word of somebody based on an entirely subjective assessment, without measurements.

From what I recall of the link in the OP, the blogger estimated* the level change as 1-2dB. I may be mistaken, but I'm sure I read somewhere that a level change of 1dB is the smallest increment which can be reliably detected by ear (presumably blind tested), so we're not talking about 'night and day' differences here.

Also, we're often told (by these same people) how unreliable aural memory is, so how confident can we be of his 'estimate' that the second time was louder?

So, what is it about this blog which has caused the conversion of all these techy types into arch-subjectivists, all of a sudden?

*not 'measured' you will note.

.1dB would be considered accurately level matched.
http://www.puriteaudio.co.uk/blog?page=2

Keith.

 

[droodzilla]

You see the problem here is this, this is only your point of view, there are plenty who have differring views in the scientific world regarding anything based in physics, we do not know everything, even though we like to think we do,new discoveries are happening all the time scientifically, nothing is set in stone as we all know.

A good scientist will say, this is how it is with our current knowledge & investigate, a bad scientist will say this is how it is.

It may be a good get out clause to mock those who state this but it is a fact, we only need to look back our discoveries to learn a lesson in thinking we have all the naswers, we don't even understand how gravity works, fully, yet base our lives & inventions around it as we know as much as we know, currently, research continues in this area for obvious reasons, no research will ever take place regarding anything hifi by a scientist as it has no bearing on our world.
Dark matter is just a word for something we cannot see or understand but know it's there having an effect on everything in the unverse, it is exapnding at an accelerated rate yet the universe should be slowing down with our current understanding of gravity & it's effects on the universe. It would be easier to act as Einstein did when he came up with the theory of relativity, inject a new theory into it to explain how the universe is static to fall in line with current thinking at the time, it was the biggest blunder of his carreer as his original idea was proven correct many years later by Hubble.

I'm afraid being blind to discovery is of no use to anyone, thanfully, real scientists explore & are never satisfied with how things are or the knowledge we currently have.

I'm sorry, you're wrong on just about every level ragaman. Read my posts. Dark matter is a red herring. Everyone in the scientific community knows there are anomolous observations (flat galactic rotation curves, excessive gravitational lensing) that need explaining. These effects have been carefully observed, and those observations have been replicated and subjected to intense scrutiny. The idea of dark matter is one possible explanation (there are a few others). Several experiments have tried to detect dark matter and failed. New, more sensitive experiments are being designed and built as I type. A massive collaborative effort subject to the most rigorous controls and scruting you can imagine (actually I doubt you can imagine it - before I got involved, I couldn't). This is what science looks like. Science is not about one man thinking he hears a difference at a dodgy cable demo.

Most scientist I know are open minded and live and breathe in the hope that they will one day discover new physics. But they're not so open minded they will entertain any theory based on the flimsiest of evidence. They would be wasting their time.

 

[abbydog]

we don't even understand how gravity works, fully,

Just to drag you back from the twilight zone, we understand gravity well enough to get to the Moon and Mars, to leave the solar system and predict orbits. General relativity and field equations allow us to get by. Similarly, our scientific knowledge allows us to design electronic circuits many times more challenging than those in music reproduction and processing. There is nothing happening in a bit of wire between terminals that is not quite well enough understood.

Have a look at chip design where speeds approach the universal constant and 'wires' are ever smaller if you are concerned by the cutting edge. Even here the laws of physics do not appear challenged, so forgive me if I cannot get excited about a 1.2m phono lead.

 

[venton]

I can clearly demonstrate that coupling the case of my NAC72 preamp to its chassis changes the sound (deadens it). Very obviously, simply by whacking a lump of blue tack at the back. Taking it off and on again, easy to blind test.
I don't think there is any known scientific explanation (if there is please tell me).
If I was a young man, I might take this one observation and study and study until I found out why it happened. It would be an advance for science, albeit perhaps a useless one. If there are any science graduates out there, get a second hand 72 for £300, a piece of bluetack, and get studying.

 

[onlyconnect]

I can clearly demonstrate that coupling the case of my NAC72 preamp to its chassis changes the sound (deadens it). Very obviously, simply by whacking a lump of blue tack at the back. Taking it off and on again, easy to blind test.

Did you do the blind test?

Tim

 

[droodzilla]

Just to drag you back from the twilight zone, we understand gravity well enough to get to the Moon and Mars, to leave the solar system and predict orbits. General relativity and field equations allow us to get by. Similarly, our scientific knowledge allows us to design electronic circuits many times more challenging than those in music reproduction and processing. There is nothing happening in a bit of wire between terminals that is not quite well enough understood.

Have a look at chip design where speeds approach the universal constant and 'wires' are ever smaller if you are concerned by the cutting edge. Even here the laws of physics do not appear challenged, so forgive me if I cannot get excited about a 1.2m phono lead.

Indeed. Though it's worth noting that chip designers are reaching the point where they need to think about unwanted quantum mechanical effects (as opposed to the desired QM effects upon which transistors rely) affecting the operation of the chip. It's not quite at that point but it's getting close - hence the intense interest in developing, for example, optoelectronic devices.

 

[Lee T]

I'm sorry, you're wrong on just about every level ragaman. Read my posts. Dark matter is a red herring. Everyone in the scientific community knows there are anomolous observations (flat galactic rotation curves, excessive gravitational lensing) that need explaining. These effects have been carefully observed, and those observations have been replicated and subjected to intense scrutiny. The idea of dark matter is one possible explanation (there are a few others). Several experiments have tried to detect dark matter and failed. New, more sensitive experiments are being designed and built as I type. A massive collaborative effort subject to the most rigorous controls and scruting you can imagine (actually I doubt you can imagine it - before I got involved, I couldn't). This is what science looks like. Science is not about one man thinking he hears a difference at a dodgy cable demo.

Most scientist I know are open minded and live and breathe in the hope that they will one day discover new physics. But they're not so open minded they will entertain any theory based on the flimsiest of evidence. They would be wasting their time.

Dark matter is a red herring

It is at the centre of everything currently being investigated in the physics of the universe, it is a word made up by the scientific world to explain the "phenomonen" of the expansion of the universe, all current laws of physics say it should be slowing down, it's not, we need an answer as to why so here is dark matter, taking up 70% of the universe, we can't see it, as with gravity, we only see it's effect on the sourrounding universe, we cannot detect it, we cannot measure it, it is "fairy dust" physics is it not. We know exactly zero about this phenomonen, zero.

I need read no more.

BTW, i should have added the word "known" in front of the word universe as, before Hubble, we thought the universe was our galaxy,
We thought the atom was the smallest particle

If enough money & effort is thrown into discovery, even then, we don't have answers to everything, nothing has been thrown into anything hifi realted for obvious reasons & never will, so making claims we know everything about it is quite a leap of "faith".

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

.1dB would be considered accurately level matched.
http://www.puriteaudio.co.uk/blog?page=2

Keith.

Well perhaps, but my understanding is that 1dB is the smallest change that can repeatably be differentiated to a statistically significant degree by, for example, a blind test.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Science is not about one man thinking he hears a difference at a dodgy cable demo.

And yet the sciency types on here are quite happy to espouse one man's view of what he reports as his subjective belief of what went on at a 'dodgy cable demo'.

 

[venton]

You're simply wrong about QM. All trained physicists agree on the essence of the theory and how it may be used. Likewise with the so-called standard model of particle physics - it's agreed on by everyone who works in the field and has passed the most stringent of experimental tests again and again. Researchers at the cutting edge will disagree about the best way to extend theory to account for new phenomena or to unify different fields. For example there are various proposals about how quantum mechanics and general relativity might be reconciled. But ultimately these diagreements will be resolved by experiments that all sides will have to accept.

I don't know anything about nutritional scinece but you are certainly wrong about physics.

No I'm not wrong. All trained physicists know how to use probability equations to accurately predict quantum behaviour.
That is very different to knowing 'how' quantum behaviour works.
Nobody knows how it works. If I am wrong, please explain how firing single electrons through a double slit produces interference patterns behind? Does the electron go through both slits?
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." ~ Richard Feynman.

 

[Robert]

Some here may have in the distant past used and read the uk.rec.audio newsgroup on usenet (yes, it still exists!) And will know that I'm a card-carrying "physicist" who remains a real audio nutcase. 8-]

FWIW One of the things I've found so frustrating - as a physicist and injuneer - about the whole 'cables' thing is the way people used to keep appearing and then:

1) Make claims about "obvious" differences, implying you must be deaf if you can't hear them.

2) Make claims about the "reasons" for the difference. i.e. present some apparently 'scientific' reason. Often seeming to be based on making a mountain out of what might be a molehill.

*But* then whenever I tried to check, they'd duck away from having what they said scrutinised using the standard scientific methods. This means an experiment designed to enable a 'critical' test - i.e. one whose outcome might show they were mistaken. Scientists try to *disprove* things. An idea which survives repeated 'critical' tests of that type becomes one they then place some trust in *because* it stood up when tested in such ways.

Fortunately, it is often possible to assess claims about the 'cause' of 'differences' that present some argument in physics. Alas, often the proposed mechanism seems not to stack up or be implausibly small. But of course that doesn't prove there was no audible difference. Just implies any such difference wasn't caused by the proposed mechanism.

I've always been quite happy to accept that others may well hear 'differences' which I miss. My interest then is to look for any "new physics" because it would be exciting to *find* it and learn something I didn't know before. But despite claims made, getting the claimers into such tests seemed to be impossible.

IIRC decades ago there was something like a 10,000 USD prize for anyone who could show they could hear 'differences' in a controlled test that would be 'critical'. Similarly, for some years 'Pinky' on uk.rec.audio offered 1,000 quid in the UK for something similar.

No-one stepped forwards to even try so far as I recall. That continued to be the case for years, and as many came and went, making the claims, then *not* putting it to a critical test.

I'm saying this now because I'd *still* love to find some "new physics" here, but I can't take such a test because I don't seem to hear what others claim. So not showing I can hear it wouldn't prove anything one way or another.

So having experimented with various cables over the years I just go on using ones I made up myself from cable I bought from CPC, Maplin, or RS. (Including low-loss UHF TV cable, which seems to work nicely. )

Jim

Good post.

Listening tests on cables must be performed by 'believers' because they are open to the idea that measurably very similar cables can sound different for as yet unexplained reasons. So they are the ideal listeners for such testing. Those holding an opposing view should not be listeners, though they can of course arrange the test.

With a range of subjects and enough test passes, claims can soon be verified by comparing sighted with unsighted. If difference exist the results should closely tally.
IME and having dabbled in some small way wth this stuff, they don't.

There is however some light at the end of the tunnel. As the modern specialist hi-fi industry as we knew it dies, so is much of the obsession with peripheral matters like cable and support sound.
This stuff all peaked in the 80s and 90s while a relatively healthy 2 channel audiophile industry still existed.
I see far more common sense applied to these matters today, more scepticism if you like, than in the decades past. The emphasis has gone back to the sound of core components - do they sound good, and do they look good

We have thankfully moved on from the crappy circuit stuffed into a tin or plastic box needing 'special' wires to erm.....boogie and connect with the soul

 

[droodzilla]

Dark matter is a red herring

It is at the centre of everything currently being investigated in the physics of the universe, it is a word made up by the scientific world to explain the "phenomonen" of the expansion of the universe, all current laws of physics say it should be slowing down, it's not, we need an answer as to why so here is dark matter, taking up 70% of the universe, we can't see it, as with gravity, we only see it's effect on the sourrounding universe, we cannot detect it, we cannot measure it, it is "fairy dust" physics is it not.

I need read no more.

Read my posts. I've worked on a dark matter experiment. Have you? I'm fully aware of its significance. That's why thousands of physicists worldwide are designing and building experiments to detect it. Here's the one I worked on: http://lz.lbl.gov/detector/. Alternative explanations of the anomalous observations are possible - e.g. modified Newtonian dynamics at galactic length scales - but the existence of a new class of particles appears to be the most promising explanation.

Also, you're wrong about dark matter taking up 70% of the universe and you're getting dark matter and dark energy mixed up. Put simply, dark matter is stuff we can't see (it does not "couple" to the electromagnetic field). As a percentage of the total matter (ordinary + dark), it's more like 84%. Dark energy is what's believed to be responsible for the increased rate of expansion of the universe. If we consider matter and energy together, dark energy accounts for about 70% of the total mass-energy of the universe, with the balance consisting of around 5% ordinary matter and 25% dark matter.

I think you need to read a lot more.

 

[Lee T]

Read my posts. I've worked on a dark matter experiment. Have you? I'm fully aware of its significance. That's why thousands of physicists worldwide are designing and building experiments to detect it. Here's the one I worked on: http://lz.lbl.gov/detector/. Alternative explanations of the anomalous observations are possible - e.g. modified Newtonian dynamics at galactic length scales - but the existence of a new class of particles appears to be the most promising explanation.

Also, you're wrong about dark matter taking up 70% of the universe and you're getting dark matter and dark energy mixed up. Put simply, dark matter is stuff we can't see (it does not "couple" to the electromagnetic field). As a percentage of the total matter (ordinary + dark), it's more like 84%. Dark energy is what's believed to be responsible for the increased rate of expansion of the universe. If we consider matter and energy together, dark energy accounts for about 70% of the total mass-energy of the universe, with the balance consisting of around 5% ordinary matter and 25% dark matter.

I think you need to read a lot more.

Have you discovered what dark matter is, have you measured it, do you understand what it's purpous is in the universe, sadly we know zero about dark matter, it is all theory based on our "current" understanding of physics which is very limited at best.

As a scientist you, more than anyone should understand how little we all know about the universe & the physics that make it up, dark matter laughs in the face of physics, it is not in line with any law of physics we know & why Einstein adjusted his theory as he new it could not be correct, yet was but not "discovered" for years to come.

You see where this is going, the maths didn't add up so he adjusted to fall in line with current thinking, he was wrong to do so.

Surely you cannot be so egocentric to think you, as a scientist, have the answers to all things hifi related when zero experimentation has taken place.

 

[droodzilla]

No I'm not wrong. All trained physicists know how to use probability equations to accurately predict quantum behaviour.
That is very different to knowing 'how' quantum behaviour works.
Nobody knows how it works. If I am wrong, please explain how firing single electrons through a double slit produces interference patterns behind? Does the electron go through both slits?
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." ~ Richard Feynman.

To be honest that's an entirely different ball game (and an interesting one). My take on it is that QM was so revolutionary at the time that physicists were initially happy just to have a theory that worked. In other words, it could be used to predict the results of particular experiments. More importantly, it predicted novel phenomena that had never been observed. For example, Einstein used QM to predict both the phenomenon of lasers and a novel state of matter now know as a Bose-Einstein condensate. The former was first observed in the early 1950s, several decades after Einstein's prediction. Bose-Einstein condensation was first observed in 1995, long after Einstein had died. In this sense, QM is a well established and well understood theory that all professional physicists can agree upon.

The *interpretation* of the mathematical formalism of QM is another matter. For a long time it was thought that the question was merely academic or philosophical but Bell's work on non-local correlations in the 60s started to chip away at the edifice of the "Copenhagen interpretation". It's too complex to go into all the details here. Personally, I'm fascinated by questions about the interpretation of QM and have a feeling that answering some of them could lead to significant advances in the future. But I think I'm still in the minority of physicists on that.

 

[whatsnext]

Who is the PFM Odin Mains cable owner who is willing to offer a bake off so those who care about cables can hear for themselves by virtue of someone who is on their side.

Sorry to be off topic

 

[droodzilla]

Have you discovered what dark matter is, have you measured it, do you understand what it's purpous is in the universe, sadly we know zero about dark matter, it is all theory based on our "current" understanding of physics which is very limited at best.

As a scientist you, more than anyone should understand how little we all know about the universe & the physics that make it up, dark matter laughs in the face of physics, it is not in line with any law of physics we know & why Einstein adjusted his theory as he new it could not be correct, yet was but not "discovered" for years to come.

You see where this is going, the maths didn't add up so he adjusted to fall in line with current thinking, he was wrong to do so.

Surely you cannot be so egocentric to think you, as a scientist, have the answers to all things hifi related when zero experimentation has taken place.

We know a lot more than zero about dark matter, although it has not been directly detected yet, only indirectly inferred. It is in line with some of the physics we know - by definition it possesses mass and participates in gravitational interactions. Dark energy is more of an unknown, which is why I said in my last post you need to distinguish between dark matter and dark energy.

Our current understanding of physics is not "very limited" - the whole of the modern world testifies to that.

Anyway, the main point is that the existence of open questions at the frontiers of physics does not give cable manufacturers licence to make absurd claims.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Off the top of my head a quick example, ... There was a dentist who was raising concerns about this in the USA. I later read he had been struck off because of his views on this, and not 'towing the line'. His career was ended. And another example, albeit an old one, was the great inventor Edison and how he ruthlessly bankrupted Tesla and bought his science into distrepute through lies. And even older, the rivalry between Newton and Leibniz - all pretty nasty stuff. And Einstein, he really didn't like quantum effect at a distance - not sure if he ever got personal about it though.

Practicing dentists aren't academic scientists. Nor, indeed, was Edison. None of us like QM or spooky 'action', but we've leared to live with it and hope for something cooler in future.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Anyway, the main point is that the existence of open questions at the frontiers of physics does not give cable manufacturers licence to make absurd claims.

Very true. Let's also not lose sight of the fact that electronics is mostly engineering, ie applied physics, rather than pure, bleeding edge, physics research.

Where we are, I think, is in an uncomfortable zone between human perception, and applied physics. This is, I suspect, where the problems arise, because we lack the tools to accurately map human perception against possibly miniscule changes in engineering parameters. So unless and until we do, we're on a hiding to nothing. It's why I strive to respect the alternative POV, and hope they will do the same in turn, for mine.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Have I missed something? It seems to me that the people who usually argue that measurements tell us everything, and that if you didn't blind test it, it didn't happen...

It is possible to not be so absolutist on either side. Measurements can tell us qute a lot *provided* we do the right ones and interpret them correctly. That isn't the same as believing they all absolutely tell us "everything".

The problem with tests that aren't done in relevant (in scientific terms) ways is that they may simply produce misleading results. I've documented examples of that for tests done by *measurement*, and it can also happen becuase people jump to the wrong conclusions about *why* they heard a "difference".

The basic difficulty with many tests based on hearing is that many things affect what we hear. So even hearing exactly the same thing played in the same way may sound 'different' for perfectly sensible reasons.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Oh I don't disagree. But the view so often espoused on here is not nearly so nuanced and accomodating.

Frankly, to see people who would not normally give the time of day to an entirely subjective assessment leap on this one because it accords with their prejudices, is hilarious.