And now for some more audiophool nonsense!

[KC1XF]

Mr. MIKE,

AH YES, YOU HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON IT'S HEAD MY FRIEND.

SEE YOU AT NEARFEST...

73,

Fred
KC1XF

[WBear2GCR]

It is extremely difficult to correlate measurable difference to audible perceptions, nearly impossible so far.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE ARE NO PERCEPTIBLE DIFFERENCES!

It may be true that for 99.999% of the population actual, real, audible differences are unimportant or to subtle to matter. That is not the issue or point.

FYI, there is objective, scientific research that has been recently completed and published in professional Journals that shows that audible differences in things like amplifiers does not correlate at all to absolute THD or IM figures, even when they are on the order of 0.001%!!

Yes.  It's called the Placebo Effect.

Don,

Absolutely not the placebo effect.

And, the person who did the research is not only highly regarded in his field, holds a Phd. and is published in the JAES, he is personally extremely anti "tweak"/"audiophool".

His work is significant and important with regard to why and how distortions are audible or inaudible. In specific that the time honored beliefs and assumptions that say merely having a low measured distortion level is sufficient to render differences inaudible is neither correct nor true. What he has done is to explain and define the nature of human auditory perception with respect to distortion - in particular that the harmonic ratios in the distortion spectra are more significant than the absolute level of distortion!

His research and tests are both real and reproducable, the potential for placebo effect has specifically been ruled out by the testing methodology. This guy is serious and the real deal.

                   _-_-bear

[k4kyv]

Then if he can demonstrate it, why doesn't he go after the million buck offer?

[WBear2GCR]

He has demonstrated "it" in terms of the results of his specific research, which relates specifically to amplifiers, not cables. The results also pertain to speakers. The results might be applicable to amplifier + cable combinations, but this has not been tested by Geddes so far.

The Amazing Randi's "challenge" appears to be rather nebulous - if there is a hyperlink to some very specific terms for said challenge, I'd be happy to read it and see if the conditions stated can be satisfied or not. The conditions would have to be rather specific - or else he won't pay out, and there will be no legal way to force that.

There is no way to "prove" what he calls "better" if that is the only criteria provided...

            _-_-bear

[k4kyv]

He has demonstrated "it" in terms of the results of his specific research, which relates specifically to amplifiers, not cables. The results also pertain to speakers. The results might be applicable to amplifier + cable combinations, but this has not been tested by Geddes so far.

The Amazing Randi's "challenge" appears to be rather nebulous - if there is a hyperlink to some very specific terms for said challenge, I'd be happy to read it and see if the conditions stated can be satisfied or not. The conditions would have to be rather specific - or else he won't pay out, and there will be no legal way to force that.

There is no way to "prove" what he calls "better" if that is the only criteria provided...   

If he could document any "improvement" applicable to amplifier + cable combinations, then he ought to be able to use the same criteria to apply to speaker cables only, if any difference actually exists.

If I really believed I could clearly demonstrate any "improvement" you bet I'd call his hand on that million bucks (that the guy probably doesn't have).

And I suggest that it would be appropriate to substitute the words "different" and "difference" for the words "better" and "improvement".

To verify it, would require a double-blind test using a substantial number of subjects, similar to the way the effectiveness of medications is evaluated.

Regarding the Placebo Effect, when running medical tests there is usually a statistically significant "improvement" observed amongst the patients issued the placebo.  Yet, I suspect the magnitude of this result is far higher than any alleged differences observed in the sound coming out of the speakers, between "high-end" speaker cable and ordinary heavy gauge zip cord, or $600 "hospital-grade" power cords versus ordinary $5.00 ones, with identical wire gauge, that can be seen for sale at about any hamfest.

IMO the guy made a pretty safe bet, whether or not he can actually put his money where his mouth is.

BTW, regarding that term, comparing audiophiles to audiophools is analogous to comparing a veteran ham to the stereotype CB'er.

[WBear2GCR]

Don,

The problem is that the term you use, "improvement", is non scientific. While I may and others may agree that in a given circumstance a change is an improvement, it is still relativistic.

There have been many engineering studies that show clear differences between cables, speaker and other. The results can show differences in all the parameters that we know how to measure in a cable. Showing a difference in a cable (or amplifier) is trivial. Correlation of that difference to audible perception is still pretty near impossible. Determining how small of a measurable difference can result in an audible difference is similarly extremely difficult.

The idea that "double blind tests" are definitive or even sufficient to make these determinations (in audio) is extremely problematic. A discussion on this topic is too complex and lengthy for this forum - it has been debated hotly elsewhere. Suffice to say that double-blind type listening tests are useful for determining many things in audio, but not everything. The reasons for this are myriad and multiple. It is a real problem.

The supposition of the placebo effect being a contributor to reports of "improvement" is reasonable, and it is imho very probably taking place. But it does not really serve to explain the issue or resolve it at all.

The idea of testing amp + cable is fairly sound, as there is a clear and easy to document interaction between any amplifier and the load. Again, the issue is not IF it is measurable, but HOW can the measurements correlate to the perception?? There is at this time no way to do that. Thus the problem persists.

And yes, unless he stated his terms for the "test" clearly, he had made a "safe bet".

Don, I understand the distinction you've drawn regarding the audiophool moniker, but just like the moniker "slopbucket" I feel that it is one that paints with too broad of a brush and is far too dismissive and far too broad of an indictment against too many - or at least it gets used that way.

                _-_-bear

PS. again, for most people in most situations, these things are like "angels dancing on the head of a pin". If a receiver, iPod or Bose Wave Radio is sufficient then these things are completely moot.

[KA1ZGC]

This is getting silly.

The only thing in this discussion that needs to be clearly defined, measured, and quantified is the difference between an audiophile and an audiophool.

An audiophile understands that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. They also understand that you can only take audio improvements so far before you eclipse the capabilites of the studio that actually created the music in question (or the human ear itself), and that going much further than that is simply a waste of time and money.

An audiophool, on the other hand, is the first on his block to buy a monsterous oxygen-free copper power cable, usually basing their decision upon price (gotta buy the most expensive one); but seem to beleive that the power just arrives at the AC socket as an Act Of God, and overlook the fact that, in spite of this kilobuck power cord, they're still powering their amp with ordinary Romex just the same as the rest of us are.

Audiophiles, when gathered together in a group, will discuss practical and economical ways they have improved their sound.

Audiophools, when gathered together in a group, will discuss who has the biggest audio pee-pee solely on the basis of how much money they spent on their systems. After all, if it's the most expensive, it's gotta be better, right?

Audiophiles will actually test their equipment before they buy it. They'll try several different units and make their decision based on what they beleive delivers the best sound. It's frequently not the boutique model.

Audiophools will read a review in some audio rag and immediately mail-order the unit, sight-unseen, with only the opinion of a total stranger to guide them.

I could keep going, but I think I've made my point.

Let's face it, the term "audiophool" wouldn't exist if the audiophools themselves didn't exist also. If you're trying different tubes in your amp to find any improvement in the audio, fine. If you're spending a couple hundred bucks on wooden volume knobs because someone told you your volume setting can be modulated by the audio in the room, then you're easily fooled, and easily parted from your money.

There's no point in getting wrapped around the axles over it; there are audiophiles in the world, and there are audiophools in the world. Which is which is a subjective argument, and entirely in the eye of the beholder.

My $0.02.

--Thom
Killer Audio One Zero Gravity Copper

[WBear2GCR]

Moht--

If the only reference made in any posts on this forum about audio gear or people is in the context of "audiophool" that clearly gives a negative impression and also leaves the impression of a negative opinion of all of the so-called audiophile world. Since I have yet to see a single post (other than mine) saying anything positive about the audiophile world, it is fairly safe to make the assumption that this is the  impression intended to be left by those who post this way, using this negative language. If it is not intended, then change the language being used?

The tone of derision, ridicule and incredulity only adds fuel to the fire.

As far as AC power is concerned, hike ur arse down here, and I will be all too happy to swap some stupid IEC line cords and give you the chance to hear for yourself IF you hear any differences - just for example. We can do the same thing with interconnects, ICs, amplifiers and speaker cables. (Bring ur best zip cord and Radio Shack interconnects too.)All day long. You can decide, and then report back to this group with your findings one way or the other. No problem. I'm quite confident.

K?

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

The tone of derision, ridicule and incredulity only adds fuel to the fire.

What fire?

I think you are seeing an audio-hater behind every rock.

[k4kyv]

I consider myself an audiophile.  Have been ever since 1956 when I was 14 years old and began reading about "hi-fi systems", and saved up lunch money for over a year until I could afford a 10-watt mono amp, a 12" speaker, and the plywood to build a homemade bass-reflex enclosure.

I'd say a large percentage of the AM community  are "audiophiles" both in regards to our home entertainment systems and our sound over the radio.

The audiophools and their rubbish like "breaking-in" power and speaker cables, wooden control knobs and $600 line cords, have made the moniker "audiophile" seem faintly embarrassing, just as the stinky guys with the big guts, who waddle around with half dozen HT's dangling off their belt, driving a junky old car made up to resemble a police cruiser with a couple dozen antennas attached, and similar ham radio wierdos that you can see at Dayton every year, have made the term "amateur radio operator" seem faintly embarrassing.

[WBear2GCR]

Don,

Guess I don't see it quite the same way that you do.

I don't really think that most, and probably not more than a handful of AMers are actually "audiophiles" in the sense and to the extent that they are actively pursuing the perfection of audio reproduction.

Otoh, there are those who are embarrassing to any group or hobby. So there we're in complete agreement!

              _-_-bear

[WU2D]

The weakest link has always been the reproducer - hence the Cement speaker..

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

the perfection of audio reproduction

Which is not a scientific term. So, the discussion comes full circle.

[KA1ZGC]

Bear,

You're letting your anger blind you.

You've got yourself so wrapped around the axles that you're now lashing out at anyone and everyone in the discussion, no matter what it is they're saying. You want to blow up at me? Fine, I'll make it worth my while.

Perfection, huh? A true audiophile knows that it's unobtainable.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

--Thom
Killer Agony One Zipper Got Caught

[Tom WA3KLR]

In the professional sound textbooks cement cabinets are recognized as the lowest coloration cabinets, but they are quite impractical for almost everyone.

The 2 weak links in audio listening are the recording acquisition and the speakers.  I don't think this is because they both happen to be the endpoints of the system, but that is the way it is.

Even a person with a very meager stereo system should conclude that the recording session is a limiting factor.

Cone speakers have around 2 % distortion as I recall; I don't know about the electrostatic speakers - they may be a little lower.  My understanding is that the audiophiles cherish the electrostatic speakers - for a combination of reasons mostly being the stereo imaging.  Bass response is the weak point but is overcome with an additional woofer.

Human hearing is known to be non-linear; distortion products are formed in the ears and head.

What's in YOUR head, no one else can say. 
Subjective field by definition. 
Very much like religion.

[WBear2GCR]

Tom KLR,

There are speakers today that have significantly lower distortion.

The 2% figure you mention might be typical of a driver of high quality - especially a midrange or tweeter running close to or at full power/output. At typical listening levels the better drivers are often 10x lower than that, some maybe more today.

Fyi, there is a driver that is a "leaf ribbon" type (printed VC on kapton) that reaches only 1% THD at ~128dB/1m. So operating this same speaker at ~90dB (typical home) level results in a really low THD!! That driver has been around more than 10 years now, and there are probably others that have come along with similar specs. It covers from 1500Hz. up past 20kHz.

And, importantly, the Geddes research (and another similar study 25 years earlier) show that the real issue in (the better) speakers are not gross THD levels but the HOM (higher order modes), or the spectra of higher order harmonics.

Esl speakers may be lower in distortion than cone drivers. The venerable Quad 57 (from 1957) is capable of extremely low distortion operation at modest listening room levels, in part due to the lack of those higher order harmonics - especially those in ratios that the ear finds easy to detect.  And, there are ESLs that are very good at bass - the Acoustat Model 3, 4,6 &8 are very good examples, all of which go lower than the typical "hi-fi" speaker system quite effortlessly! (that being 35Hz and down)

           _-_-bear

ZGC, relax. 

[k4kyv]

In the professional sound textbooks cement cabinets are recognized as the lowest coloration cabinets, but they are quite impractical for almost everyone.

They should be very easy to build, if you don't ever plan to move them once the concrete has hardened.

I recall reading years ago that cheap particle board is acoustically superior to plywood for making speaker enclosures.  From my experience with masonry drainage system components, large cement boxes tend to have a high frequency ring to them, similar to a metal enclosure.  I do recall a construction article from back in the 50's (Popular Electronics?) where they used two layers of thin  plywood spaced about 3" apart, and filled the hollow space in between with sand.

The 2 weak links in audio listening are the recording acquisition and the speakers.  I don't think this is because they both happen to be the endpoints of the system, but that is the way it is.

Even a person with a very meager stereo system should conclude that the recording session is a limiting factor.

Cone speakers have around 2 % distortion as I recall; I don't know about the electrostatic speakers - they may be a little lower.  My understanding is that the audiophiles cherish the electrostatic speakers - for a combination of reasons mostly being the stereo imaging.  Bass response is the weak point but is overcome with an additional woofer.

A good demonstration of the fact is that, even with the best microphones and speakers, a recording made by holding a microphone in front of a speaker stilll sounds like pure crap.

Human hearing is known to be non-linear; distortion products are formed in the ears and head.

What's in YOUR head, no one else can say. 
Subjective field by definition. 
Very much like religion.

That's my take on the idea of seeking absolute perfection in audio reproduction, and claims that 0.001% distortion can make an audible difference to the "enlightened", but that "ordinary" people may not be able to perceive the subtle difference.

Sounds more like sermons you hear on 7300-7500 kHz than science. Pure "faith", not physical perception. 

And we hear in the news every day what a powerful driving force "faith" can be, as people persuaded by "faith" strap explosives onto their own bodies and blow themselves to smithereens.

[AF9J]

Don, I know what you're talking about.  Years ago I had a "portable" (I say "portable" because while it could be carried by its lifting handles, it weighed close to 90 pounds!) guitar speaker enclosure made by a defunct company called  Mitchell.  It used 2, 12" Electrovoice SRO speakers in it, and the cabinet was lined with sand in a layer between the cabinet outer enclosure, and an internal fiberglass layer. It was acoustically pretty flat.  But its weight made it impractical to use for gigging.  The one time I tried carrying it late at night after a gig, I saw spots in front of my eyes!  No Thanks!

Thom, Bear, Bacon, et. al - I think we're losing sight of this posting's original intent.  Maybe I'm to blame for not being clear from the get-go.  Maybe some clarification will help.  Audiophiles and audiophools exist in music (musicians have a tendenacy to be tone conniseurs), stereo/sound reproduction, recording, and even amateur radio (hence the reason why so many of us love AM - for its audio quality).  Here's my take:

Audiophile - loves good sound, knows how his or her system works.  As a result knows what he or she needs to do, to be able to hear the sound he or she wants to hear.  This knowledge of the sound generating system allows him or her to either tweak the present system to their satisfaction, or realize the system's limitations, and either buy or build something to help overcome this limitation in achieving sonic goals.  A knowledge of the function of sound systems (both on at least a basic electronic, and acoustic level), gives the audiophile the ability to determine what will help to significantly improve the sound quality.  An audiophile will realize, that past a certain point the cost of an improvement (in effort expended, and/or money spent), isn't worth the small benefit it gives.  Audiophiles strive to practice the "less is more" concept. They prefer to keep the system as simple as possible, for achieving the desired sound.  It keeps down the cost, and there are less things that have to be worried about going wrong.

Audiophool - also strives for a good sound. But, due to a lack of understanding of sound generating systems, doesn't know how to (or can't be bothered to learn how to) tweak the system presently owned to obtain a satisfactory sound.  Because audiophools are very much plug & play people (much, much more so than audiophiles), they will always look for, and spend money for any system or system components that are claimed to significantly improve sound quality, as soon as they are plugged into the system.   Due to their lack of knowledge, audiophools will take at face value, any claims made about components, and therefore believe rationalizations made for the often exhorbitant cost of components, that an audiophile knows, make preposterous claims of providing signifcant sound improvements (besides, like one of my college roomates told me after she spent $700 on a stereo sytem in 1986, that I told her was no good - "it cost a lot of money, so it has to be good!").

In a nutshell - audiophiles know sound systems, and aren't fooled by outrageous claims.  Audiophools don't, and will believe any claims that are made about sound system components.

A closing thought - "good" sound is a subjective thing.  I will answer this from a musician's standpoint, since this is where the subjective point is most marked.  As a guitarist - I don't like a shrill trebly sound (it's one of the reasons why I find oldies rock & roll annoying - I find the guitars to be so chirpy & trebly sounding).  But I know many guitarists who like a very trebly guitar sound, and complain that my sound is too bassy.  Distortion - in sound reinforcement and stereo systems, distortion is a no-no.  But some guitarists (including yours truly) love distorted sounding guitar.  In some cases the signal has well over 10 or 15% distortion on it,  and is loaded with harmonics (we call it bone crushing distortion).  The same holds true for fidelity. A guitar amp is typically a low fidelity amp.  The best fidelity is obtained by going directly into a mixing board from the guitar.  But most guitarists hate the sound, claiming it sounds cold & brittle.

73,
Ellen - AF9J

[k4kyv]

The only remotely plausible claim regarding the ridiculously expensive speaker cable might relate to higher order harmonics.  Since the human ear is non-linear, two sinewave tones will mix with each other and generate an audible beat note.  I have observed that myself, using two separate audio generators, acoustical, as well as electronic running into separate amplifiers and speakers, at tones as high as 10,000 Hz. As the frequencies approach each other, I can distinctly hear the lower frequency heterodyne product.

Now assuming the person's hearing is acute enough that ultrasonic higher order harmonics will even register with the auditory nerves at all, then intermodulation products amongst these harmonics and overtones might be perceived.  And it is possible that the expensive "high end" audio cables might carry ultrasonic frequencies with a little less attenuation than plain old zip cord.

But if that's the case, instead of paying hundreds of dollars per foot for some exotic product that makes wildly unrealistic claims, why not do the same as we do with our ham radio antennas, and convert the zip cord to open wire line?  Simply separate the conductors by pulling the zip cord apart, and then insert some kind of insulating spacers every few inches, made from plexiglas or other insulating material.  Or why even bother with the zip cord?  I have seen plenty of single-conductor stranded wire at 10 gauge and larger for sale at Lowe's and Home Cheapo.  I'm not so sure that even zip cord has that much attenuation in the 15,000-100,000 Hz range.  I recall in the early 60's, it was not at all uncommon for hams to use zip cord as low-Z twin lead for 80m dipoles, and it appeared to work quite well. I remember a ham who ran a kilowatt on AM using Romex cable for a feedline.  Another successfully used two-conductor telephone drop cable.  A popular type of feedline for pre-WW2 dipoles before the advent of coax and rf twin lead, was the "twisted pair" made up of oridinary rubber covered copper wire twisted together (look it up in old ARRL Handbooks).  If those cables would pass rf at 3,500,000 Hz and higher, ultrasonic frequencies up to 50,000 or 100,000 Hz should be a breeze.

[AF9J]

Very true Don.  I think the lengendary Bluesman, Guitar Slim, used to use a 500 foot run of telephone cable, when he went strolling through the audience playing guitar.

A word about sound in general.  All sound we are normally used to hearing is composed of the root freqency, and the harmonics.  If it weren't it would be the same kind of sine wave tone you hear from a sidetone or code practice osillator used for morse code.  The balance of the harmonics (and enharmonics for that matter), are one of the reasons why two singers singing the same note (or a French Horn vs a Guitar) don't sound the same.  They emit different harmonics.  This fact of physics and life, is one of the reasons, why keyboard synthesizer builders have have been frustrated in trying to get a synth sound more like a grand piano, or a substitute to a guitar.  They can't get the harmonics or the envelope of the signal waveform to completely emulate (even with DSP) the real thing. They can get it close at times, but it never really sounds quite the same.

73,
Ellen - AF9J

[WBear2GCR]

-snip-

I recall reading years ago that cheap particle board is acoustically superior to plywood for making speaker enclosures. 

MDF. Not particle board. Multilayer "birchply" is also extremely good.
Ya know what is even better? Corian. 

The sand trick is Warfdale.

Ellen, probably not 500 feet, more like 75 or 100, and Buddy Guy copped the same trick.

-snip-


A good demonstration of the fact is that, even with the best microphones and speakers, a recording made by holding a microphone in front of a speaker stilll sounds like pure crap.

You'd better be careful about this... a typical single driver in a cone system by definition can not have a broadband flat frequency response. So, there is no chance of getting an effectively transparent recording using a microphone. In a multi-way speaker system (several speakers splitting the freq range) even if it was a very excellent speaker, the nearfield response would not be particularly good due to the limitation of polar response - assuming you got close enough to exclude room and other reflections. Otoh, one probably could make a quite excellent go of it using a wide range ESL driver, close mic'd and get a result that unless you heard the original would sound quite credible.

-snip-

That's my take on the idea of seeking absolute perfection in audio reproduction, and claims that 0.001% distortion can make an audible difference to the "enlightened", but that "ordinary" people may not be able to perceive the subtle difference.

Don, that's just simply not an accurate statement about what is going on nor what claims are being made. Being "enlightened" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Nada, nil, zil, zilch.

The goal in terms of improving a system is obviously and ultimately to achieve perfection - equally obviously, it can not be achieved. Everyone knows that. Sort of like having the best signal, or the best audio... sort of. Or maybe optimizing a receiver??

Please take note of this: "ordinary people" are quite capable of perceiving "the subtle difference". They first have to have an opportunity to do that. That means a system that is sufficiently good in the first place. Secondly, to repeat myself ad nauseum, most people just don't care one way or the other.

And again to repeat myself, Dr. Geddes research, which included all the scientific and statistical controls that anyone could ask for shows that people, ordinary people, can discern differences in amplifiers based on things OTHER THAN standard distortion tests - that means that they COULD hear the difference between amplifiers of "0.001%" distortion AND more importantly that there were amplifiers in groupings that had high distortion through "0.001%" distortion that were adjudged essentially identical (call it the "good sounding" group) and and at the same time a group with the same range of distortions that were adjudged "not good sounding"!! NOTE - the differences were found to be NOT in the absolute value of distortion but the SPECTRA of distortion. Got it now?

And, again, if the rest of a given system has a SPECTRA of distortion(s) of the "bad"type identified by Geddes, then the effect of any one element ("good or bad") is effectively swamped so changing that element becomes not audible.

Don, please don't twist this to be something that it is not?

Finally, if you don't believe me at all, try this serendipitous article:

Electronic Design Magazine, skeptical engineers not audio people.

http://www.electronicdesign.com  search for ED ONLINE 16804

           _-_-bear

[WA1GFZ]

My subwoofer is a 1000 gallon septic tank ca mon

[AF9J]

Hi Bear,

Nope, at least 300 plus feet long for Guitar Slim.  I read it in Guitar Player Years ago, and I just found correlation on some websites:

http://www.cascadeblues.org/History/GuitarSlim.htm   read ParaGraph 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guitar_Slim  read the CAREER section

And yes, I know, the inductance from that long of a cable, would really cut the highs.  Guitar Slim got around this in two ways: 1.) he played distorted guitar (which of course, by itself, has a tendency to sound trebly if you don't turn down the treble); 2.) he used horn drivers, instead of the more common cone speakers (horn drivers have a tendencay to sound tinny).

BTW - IMO, buddy Guy is cool, but Guitar Slim makes Buddy Guy sound like Barry Manilow. You may have heard Stevie Ray Vaughn's cover of Guitar Slim's most popular song, "The Things That I Used To Do."  Guitar Slim lived fast and died young (he was a drunk, and died of pneumonia before he turned 33), and is considered a huge influence to many guitarists from Buddy Guy, to Frank Zappa. 

73,
Ellen - AF9J