advertisement


Parlour trick

venton said:
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).
Click to expand...

I can easily suggest a perfectly scientific and testable possibility. But of course I have no idea if it *is* the reason in your specific example.

I realised ages ago that my hearing was affected by low levels of mains hum/buzz. The level was so low that I didn't notice this directly. But I twigged one day when I did something that caused hum to cease abruptly. At that point I heard a short burst of hum *just after it must have ended*. I could briefly hear that *it had stopped*. But while it was present I didn't notice it or hear it. Without it, other things seemed clearer.

I can't be certain, of course. But there is a perfectly well-know physiological reason. This is that the higher frequency receptors in our ears are at the 'entrance' end of the structures, so get subjected to LF. (Many people with age deafness conditions used to complain about the 'drums' used by BBC TV News broadcasts because the LF made it harder for them to hear what was being said 'over' them by the announcer.)

So maybe what you did altered the hum level.

As I said, I can't be sure that's the reason. But it is a perfectly rational suggestion which a suitable test could check.

Jim
 
Okay I've read the thread up to now, and my take on it is this.

We have a company - Nordost - who's turnover depends on refuting the logical and scientifically based assertion that conductors of electricity are incapable of modifying the behaviour of electronic devices they are attached to, or supplying, to a repeatable, audible degree. While measurements of these devices do show small differences between these pieces of wire, such differences are at a level considered inaudible.

We have an attendee at a demonstration by this company of their claimed effect, where he counter-claims procedures not too far removed from conjuring or sleight of hand were used to simulate audible differences. He doesn't dispute the audibility, just has an all too convincing explanation of how the impossible-to-unlikely was achieved.

With a turnover to protect, a company might well modify electronic equipment - a display might well remain static, only operated by the knob on the front panel, but be operated remotely by a third person even, or as asserted, a prepared CD of tracks with quite audible differences between them might be employed - converting wav to mp3 and back again, or using compression or a change in eq, as well as volume differences. With a turnover to protect, a company might go in hard if anyone who spotted what they were up to made their observances widely known.

Observers might ask themselves who has most to gain? Who has most to lose?

If Nordost were confident of their position, a well attended test, with fresh and independantly scrutinised equipment, using a similarly scrutinised commercial cd would refute the acusations far better than a writ.

Or they could just pay Penn and Teller to do their dems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIOy48KlgQ8
 
The only person I have seen write in a scientific way about audio is Rob Watts of Chord electronics. He posts a lot on another forum. It could be said that it is just marketing speak, but from owning the Mojo I can tell he is onto something special. And even in the Naim forum, people are saying the Hugo is better than any Naim Dac. The Chord Dave I would love to hear, it has got many more times the processing of Hugo. Don't quote me but he is finding out some pretty astounding things about the sensitivity of the brain to tiny transient timings, down to millionth of a second.
But on to cable - my opinion and experience is that vibration getting into the system is important to the sound, very important. Perhaps these Nordost cables have some kind of dampening, I don't know. But at the end of the day 6 grand is too much for 99.9999% of people - but to some it is worth it. It's up to them if they buy it, none of my business.
 
venton said:
But at the end of the day 6 grand is too much for 99.9999% of people - but to some it is worth it. It's up to them if they buy it, none of my business.
Click to expand...

The main concern I have is that if we were able to *understand* this and test it properly we might find the same improvements could be done *better* for 6 pence. But for that to happen, those involved would have to be willing to take part in appropriate experiments using relevant scientific methods. i.e. ones that could tell what any 'reasons' there really were for any perceived changes and rule out mysteries or errors as to the causes.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sue, you're writing nonsense. Repeatedly.

If you can produce a plausible subjective assessment perhaps we'll give you the time of day. In this case Nordost cheating is very much more likely than their mains cables affecting a CD player so grossly. Their resort to law supports an inference that they cheat. That's my subjective assessment. It's quite funny but I don't have any emotional investment in the matter other than I don't like charlatans, but it's your money.

Remind us how much you have invested in Nordost?

Paul
 
whatsnext said:
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
Click to expand...

Bump - any kind soul what to show us how Nordost changed their system(s)
 
venton said:
The only person I have seen write in a scientific way about audio is Rob Watts of Chord electronics. Don't quote me but he is finding out some pretty astounding things about the sensitivity of the brain to tiny transient timings, down to millionth of a second.
Click to expand...

Can you at least point us in the direction of peer reviewed papers to this effect?
 
Or invite Nordost to a bake off...would have gone down great at Oldius (Geoff's)last one...Cables were given a very fair hearing.
 
Paul R said:
In this case Nordost cheating is very much more likely than their mains cables affecting a CD player so grossly. Their resort to law supports an inference that they cheat. That's my subjective assessment. It's quite funny but I don't have any emotional investment in the matter other than I don't like charlatans, but it's your money.
Click to expand...

Some spectacular and typically contrarian assumptions there. Given the recent history with both Russ Andrews and Naim with regards to advertising the effects of cables I'd have thought Nordorst would have had to feel they were on very safe ground indeed before issuing a potentially risky and costly C&D notice, especially to someone who is a Dr. of some kind (I assume science rather than medicine given he is a mastering engineer) and who has a clear public agenda in attacking products in this area. I suspect there is rather more to this one that would appear to be the case.
 
Indeed. Had Nordost not sent the letter, and instead maintained a dignified silence, no doubt we'd be reading a thread about how Nordost were afraid to defend their position.
 
I need a 3.5mm headphone extension lead ~ 0.5m long. Lets give Russ Andrews a chance and listen to the magic he can bring. Sadly for Russ he does nothing except Plug - plug.

Nordost don't begin to offer anything
 
Tony L said:
Some spectacular and typically contrarian assumptions there. Given the recent history with both Russ Andrews and Naim with regards to advertising the effects of cables I'd have thought Nordorst would have had to feel they were on very safe ground indeed before issuing a potentially risky and costly C&D notice, especially to someone who is a Dr. of some kind (I assume science rather than medicine given he is a mastering engineer) and who has a clear public agenda in attacking products in this area. I suspect there is rather more to this one that would appear to be the case.
Click to expand...
I cannot see this. The blogger has a following but no evidence. Any company of a reasonable size could be expected to get the material removed on those grounds regardless of whether it was true or not. If the blogger was working to attack a company like Nordost surely we would expect him to have gathered evidence like a phone recording/movie which would be quite normal to take at a hi-fi show? To me it looks more like a relatively casual bit of content that came his way into which he put minimal thought and effort and reaped the consequences.
 
Tony L said:
Some spectacular and typically contrarian assumptions there. Given the recent history with both Russ Andrews and Naim with regards to advertising the effects of cables I'd have thought Nordorst would have had to feel they were on very safe ground indeed before issuing a potentially risky and costly C&D notice, especially to someone who is a Dr. of some kind (I assume science rather than medicine given he is a mastering engineer) and who has a clear public agenda in attacking products in this area. I suspect there is rather more to this one that would appear to be the case.
Click to expand...
That's not how the law works. There is no risk to Nordost in the notice. It's a legal threat, "if you don't remove the material we may sue, and this notice proves we have deep pockets and expensive lawyers."

It's completely different to Nordost making unsubstantiated claims in their advertising and the ASA in the UK asking them to please stop. Which I'm sure they're careful not to do, leaving it for the brochures.

FWIW Mark Waldrep being a producer of recordings does make him something of an expert witness when it comes to the subjective judgement of small volume changes.

Paul
 
cooky1257 said:
Can you at least point us in the direction of peer reviewed papers to this effect?
Click to expand...
No, and to me that is the problem.
In fact, the root of the problem of discussions here.
My perception that there are no papers, is an affirmation that science isn't currently up to date.
Your perception, dare I say, is that the research is invalid because there are no peer reviewed papers.
We will never agree, the argument cannot be logically argued.
I can't see any reason why a grant would be given for a scientific study of human hifi perception. More likely, this research will be carried out for commercial reasons to get an edge on the competition. Which is what Rob Watts is doing. I recommend the head-fi Dave forum to read some of his posts - he is very knowledgeable indeed. If you so wished you could ask him some questions on there- he seems to be very happy to oblige.
 
Vent there are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers on everything to do with audio engineering , you may have to become a member of the AES to read some of them but many are open access.
Keith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top