Is there anything better than Golden Ears?

[jneutron]

Pretty lame reply JimmyN.

Jon Risch

Thank you for keeping it short. Your last one was way too long, and it gets tiring nuking your floobydust with actual technical information, calculations, and tests I performed using calibrated equipment.

As I stated over at cables, I have no issues with your ability to observe, it is your incorrect "physics and e/m" explanations that require correction..

The fact that you link to such garbage web pages as proof that others believe this stuff, is an indication that you need to upgrade your understanding of theoreticals..too many pages out there are simply trash, and must be corrected..for you to actually believe them, is not consistent with reality..

As I just stated over at AR, this paper by fred davis, although very well done, nad two errors...one was a simple impedance thingy, the other was the complete and utter lack of any information or tests required for localization of soundstage..all he did was show transfer function..So, it is quite apparent that what you consider as "two camps", for your own reasons, is quite simply, approaching the problem from two different directions...and from what I find, both have erroneous beliefs of one type or another.. This two camp garbage of yours has to stop, it requires both.

I have no desire for flames, and would appreciate the same from you. I also thank Clint for allowing this thread to continue and give both of us the opportunity to act as adults..

As far as I can see, this forum appears to be better poised for the building of informational guides for all to visit, with respect to my equations, designs, tests, on the e/m side, soldering technology, and I expect the same for my furthering of localization theory, of course that may change should my collaborators wish to publish in the journals.

Perhaps if you can moderate without that silly two camp thing you try to foist on others, the forum you moderate could also be something people could go to to learn the theoretical aspects, instead of the tweaking approach that really, doesn't advance the science.. I am confident that some of the tweaks have an underlying scientific cause, but solutions to those are not forthcoming there..historically speaking, of course.

Cheers, John

 

[J Risch]

Did you mention acoustics?

I don't see the purpose of entering into a debate with Risch. He is a nut case and no one is going to alter his beliefs. It is an exercise in futility. Let him think what he wants to think and us get on with topics that really matter like speakers and room treatments etc., things that acutally have effect on the sound we hear in our homes.

IMHO, YMMV yadda, yadda

Then perhaps you are not familiar with this portion of my web site, simply because you have been lead to think I must be dismissed in whole.

Even some of my more ardent non-supporters with regard to cable issues will admit that my DIY acoustics designs and info are pretty solid stuff.

See:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/a.htm

and the single one most helpful/useful article in that section:
http://www.geocities.com/jonrisch/a1.htm

WHOOOOO HOOOOO!
had to let some of those crazy's out ya know.

Jon Risch

 

[Mudcat]

Sorry dude, If I wanted to have my walls covered in burlap I go live in a barn. Do any of your designs ever consider the WAF?

 

[miklorsmith]

Kinder, Gentler Forum? Give me a Break

I posted about a hundred messages here as an audiophile. I'm not a physicist but I like music. I tried to engage in meaningful, intelligent, enlightening discussions about audio, mostly in the Philosophers and Wisemen arena.

What I found, time and again, is that graphs, equations, and science rule the day here, never mind the fact that there is precious little of it going around. My philosophy is experiential. What I shared was exactly that and proclaimed to be nothing more. What I received varied from openly doubtful to outright hostile. The lockstep of respondents to my ideas was admirable or discouraging, depending on your point of view.

I don't have the expertise nor experience about Mr. Risch's work to make any judgments about it. For that matter, I doubt many of those calling for his head do either.

How is the way Mr. Risch is treated here any different from his seeking a constructive place to discuss ideas about cables? He wishes to limit his dialog to "believers", whereas this forum is committed to the "nonbelievers" camp. Sure, it could be argued that individuals here might be swayed by DBT, but there isn't any going on, so where does that leave us?

Personal disputes aside, I see a lot of interesting thought going on over at AA, not all of it glowing over this or that either. One of the forums is currently laughing at Mr. Risch, yet these posts have not been deleted. Another looonnnngggg thread is dedicated to discussion of the new rules, many of the posts overtly disturbed by the new rules. Not really the stuff of ironfisted control.

I really think we have to keep our own biases in check when making statements proclaiming how gentle things are here in comparison to other places. This thread is a perfect example. Let's see, any discussion of cables, treatments, tweaks of any kind, and even CDP's amplifiers, preamps and anything electronic is met with derision. "Amps all sound the same." "Did you test it? Well, your perceptions are meaningless."

The peaceable atmosphere here is a product of natural selection. Dissenting ideas and people are removed by attrition. Sound familiar? You all are one judgmental group to be patting yourselves on the back about how tolerant and encouraging you are.

I do stop by from time to time, I just don't stop long. Which identical receiver or DVD player is "better" just doesn't stir the juices, y'know?

 

[J Risch]

Tunnel Vision

Sorry dude, If I wanted to have my walls covered in burlap I go live in a barn. Do any of your designs ever consider the WAF?

My designs use burlap (jute), because it is cheap and VERY effective.

Note that there is more than the natural color burlap available, both Wal-Mart and most fabric stores carry the main primary colors, as well as white, off-white, and sometimes others.

In my DIY notes, I also talk about the use of speaker grille cloth as an alternative to burlap, and for those who must have the very best look, the various cloths such as Accoustone, etc, and those used by ASC are readily available, AT A PREMIUM.

Jon Risch

 

[krabapple]

I do stop by from time to time, I just don't stop long. Which identical receiver or DVD player is "better" just doesn't stir the juices, y'know?

Yeah, and once you take Probability and Statistics 101, playing Lotto just *isn't as much fun anymore*. Reality's a *****, ain't it?

Audiophile sites that actually respect the concept of *good reality testing* are few and far between. Audioholics deserves applause. Like websites, all opinions are not created equal. Some are grounded in testable (and tested) fact; others in blind belief.
'Experiential' reports that claim only 'this is what I heard' are unassailable. Experiential reports that claim 'what I heard is due to this'
are something else again. Audiophilia is rife with people jumping to conclusions about 'why' they heard something, in complete ignorance or indifference to alternative, well-founded explanations from science.

You wrote, "I don't have the expertise nor experience about Mr. Risch's work to make any judgments about it. For that matter, I doubt many of those calling for his head do either." But it's plain that at least one or two of the most vociferous *do*, sir. Perhaps you don't have the expertise or experience to see that?

 

[J Risch]

Whose Expert?

You wrote, "I don't have the expertise nor experience about Mr. Risch's work to make any judgments about it. For that matter, I doubt many of those calling for his head do either." But it's plain that at least one or two of the most vociferous *do*, sir. Perhaps you don't have the expertise or experience to see that?

It sure would seem that way, that the, and I quote: "the most vociferous" would have a good reason to give me a hard time over certain issues. But then, they could also have nothing but a need to give me a hard time because they are so bothered by what they see as something other than what _they_ hold dearly as a belief. And nothing more.

Most of my detractors have not supplied a fraction of the kind of evidence they call for regularly from others, few ever provide anything other than hearsay, rumours, personal analysis or opinions, about me or about my ideas and my experiences with cables, etc.

Others with a like mindset seem quite content to take these pronouncements at face value, without demanding anything in the way of evidence, proof, citations, or experience. It is too convenient to just go along with the like minded folks, nevermind the facts or true science.

Jon Risch

 

[WmAx]

But then, they could also have nothing but a need to give me a hard time because they are so bothered by what they see as something other than what _they_ hold dearly as a belief. And nothing more.

Most of my detractors have not supplied a fraction of the kind of evidence they call for regularly from others, few ever provide anything other than hearsay, rumours, personal analysis or opinions, about me or about my ideas and my experiences with cables, etc.

Others with a like mindset seem quite content to take these pronouncements at face value, without demanding anything in the way of evidence, proof, citations, or experience. It is too convenient to just go along with the like minded folks, nevermind the facts or true science.

You make it sound as if you are being persecuted for no reason. If my memory serves correctly, this historical 'persecution' is the result of you claiming and defending as factual, cable audibility differences of cables transmitting the audio bandwidth with similar LCR parameters, but different dielectric, construction or conductor materials. Since no substation is currently known to be available in order to lend credibility to such claims, to be labeled as 'factual', then it is inappropriate and irresponsible, to claim as such. If my memory is faulty, and you only stated such things as your opinion or a theory, then I apologize. But that’s not how I remember things...

-Chris

 

[J Risch]

Yep

You make it sound as if you are being persecuted for no reason. If my memory serves correctly, this historical 'persecution' is the result of you claiming and defending as factual, cable audibility differences of cables transmitting the audio bandwidth with similar LCR parameters, but different dielectric, construction or conductor materials. Since no substation is currently known to be available in order to lend credibility to such claims, to be labeled as 'factual', then it is inappropriate and irresponsible, to claim as such. If my memory is faulty, and you only stated such things as your opinion or a theory, then I apologize. But that’s not how I remember things...

-Chris

I stated that, based on my own controlled listening tests, I considered it a fact that audio cables with similar LCR parameters, but different materials, sounded different. I stated it as a fact, because I had heard this, and detected it under blind conditions, and have done so may times, repeatedly.

Since I know just how well the tests were done, and I know just how scientific and as correct as possible they were done, I also know that the results are true, and as far as I am concerned, factual information.

Now many of the naysayers like to try and dismiss those listening tests, some take the approach that the "other" listening tests did not find this to be the case, but they seldom define what those other listening tests are.

As I point out in these posts:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2190.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2579.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2580.html

many of those "other" listening tests had some serious and significant flaws, and can not even be considered by anyone staking a claim to using science, as some sort of evidence. However, that does not stop certain folks from attempting to do so anyway.

Be aware that despite some claims to the contrary, none of the hard core naysayers have ever used my methods and procedures, despite the fact that my methods and procedures do not violate any scientific principles, or commit any significant flaws or mistakes.

Other naysayers take the tack that I am lying about my listening tests, either an implied or direct tack. As I have been villified somewhat regularly over the years, there are some folks who think this is a reasonable stance to take, but it only has any life at all because of the nearly constant villification a certain few continue to commit.

Still others try to dismiss them for various imagined and unimagined flaws, flaws they typically are unable to articulate or show to be true, yet that does not stop them from throwing the whole kit and kaboodle out anyway.

The bottom line here is that we have folks who are accepting and embracing as real and valid, some pretty awful science in the form of highly flawed classically executed ABX listening tests, but want to disqualify mine because they are not the exact same thing they have latched onto as THE THING, etc.

The interesting part is, that I was able to get quite a few folks to actually TRY using my methods (no, mtry has not, nor have any of his hero's), including some folks that were on the fence, and others that were decidedly anti-cable differences. ALL of them ended up getting results, all of them quit posting or never did post about their experiences after the one person who did post about them was completely and thoroughly ambushed and trashed by a group of naysayers, a group that refused to consider that a listening test that came up with positive results could be accepted.

Excuses were being pulled out of the woodwork, not one wanted to consider the "GASP" possibility that not only was I correct about at least some of my cable sonics assertions, but that my listening test methods were actually usefull, and got results!

BTW, if you would like a copy of my AES preprint on listening tests, and the update addendum I have, just send me a private e-mail and request it.

I have been getting a lot of requests lately, so I would not even know who you were along with the rest.

The other apsect of all of this, is that, with one notable exception (an individual who has gone off on a crusade about me), EVERYONE who has ever built one of my DIY cable designs has been highly impressed, and again, there have been some open-minded folks on the fence, or even leaning anti-cable, that came away understanding and believing in cable sonics after building a set of my cables.

Funny thing is, not one of my long-term, most vocal opponents has ever tried my DIY cable designs, so none of them can comment first hand on their effacy, or on what they heard (or didn't hear).
All of it is based strictly on some pretty dusty theory and supposition on the part of the naysayers, and in most cases, it is not based on actual listening experience with high performance cables, or any of my DIY designs.

Jon Risch

 

[WmAx]

I stated that, based on my own controlled listening tests, I considered it a fact that audio cables with similar LCR parameters, but different materials, sounded different. I stated it as a fact, because I had heard this, and detected it under blind conditions, and have done so may times, repeatedly.

Unfortunately, no data has been published and peer reviewed to support these claims. If you have, indeed, produced tests in private, that meet the minimum qualifications to be considered for serious review in a journal such as JAES, then you should benefit both yourself, audiophiles and the audio engineering community by large, by submitting the detailed tests and resultant data so that such can be reviewed and repeated for verification. Until then, it is only the word of an individual, that is not considered substantiated.

Now many of the naysayers like to try and dismiss those listening tests, some take the approach that the "other" listening tests did not find this to be the case, but they seldom define what those other listening tests are.

many of those "other" listening tests had some serious and significant flaws, and can not even be considered by anyone staking a claim to using science, as some sort of evidence. However, that does not stop certain folks from attempting to do so anyway.

"Other" listening tests, I did not bring up, in any capacity within this conversation. The issue is that no credible verification(s) exist(s), to my knowledge, to support the claim(s).

Be aware that despite some claims to the contrary, none of the hard core naysayers have ever used my methods and procedures, despite the fact that my methods and procedures do not violate any scientific principles, or commit any significant flaws or mistakes.

I suspect this is a result of your seemingly extraordinary claims, relative to the established hearing thresholds. Make your detailed listening tests and resultant data available, as I suggested above, and perhaps people will take these claims more seriously, especially if such is published and peer-reviewed by the appropriate scientific/engineering community.

Other naysayers take the tack that I am lying about my listening tests, either an implied or direct tack. As I have been villified somewhat regularly over the years, there are some folks who think this is a reasonable stance to take, but it only has any life at all because of the nearly constant villification a certain few continue to commit.

Frankly, from my perspective, you are over-reacting to the comments you receive. Stand back and observe the situation from another perspective -- and what you will see is someone(you) making claims of controlled listening tests that have never been published. I suspect that the negative comments that you receive are a result of making claims as factual, when you have not provided evidence to anyone. Whether you are correct, or not, does not matter if it is not demonstrated and/or verified in a manner consistent with what is scientifically acceptable.

The bottom line here is that we have folks who are accepting and embracing as real and valid, some pretty awful science in the form of highly flawed classically executed ABX listening tests, but want to disqualify mine because they are not the exact same thing they have latched onto as THE THING, etc.

It is true that most ABX or DBTs that are published online are scientifically worthless, however, I do not usually notice the people performing said tests claiming that they conducted a test that meets the basic guidelines of currently accepted scientific standards. It seems to me, that these are typically attempts by average people attempting to see if they can find differences, using they best testing methodology that 'they' can manage with their given resources, time and knowledge.

The other aspect of all of this, is that, with one notable exception (an individual who has gone off on a crusade about me), EVERYONE who has ever built one of my DIY cable designs has been highly impressed, and again, there have been some open-minded folks on the fence, or even leaning anti-cable, that came away understanding and believing in cable sonics after building a set of my cables.

Testimonials are not an acceptable means of evidence, when adhering to scientific principles. Therefor, I don't see how this information is relevant to the conversation.

Funny thing is, not one of my long-term, most vocal opponents has ever tried my DIY cable designs, so none of them can comment first hand on their effacy, or on what they heard (or didn't hear).
All of it is based strictly on some pretty dusty theory and supposition on the part of the naysayers, and in most cases, it is not based on actual listening experience with high performance cables, or any of my DIY designs.

The perceptions, especially in uncontrolled conditions, of an individual, are not substantial(they are not acceptable evidence) from a scientific protocol standard. You seem dedicated to analyzing in a scientifically valid manner in the first part of your reply, but now it’s a bit confusing now, in the 2nd half, that you are concerned with biased perception(s) of people.

-Chris

 

[mtrycrafts]

[J Risch]I stated that, based on my own controlled listening tests, I considered it a fact that audio cables with similar LCR parameters, but different materials, sounded different.

Yes, this is you claim but you have not demonstrated, nor anyone else on the planet, for that matter. So, it has zero meaning. Just another story of dubious value or credibility, for that matter.




I stated it as a fact, because I had heard this, and detected it under blind conditions, and have done so may times, repeatedly.

No, Jon, you didn't demonstrate you heard it, you just claimed it. You certainly perceived it most likely. Hear it, that is yet to be demosntrated or determined. But then, no one will ever know as you will never demonstrate it to anyone as you have stated in the past, YOU don't have to prove it to anyone.
So, back to square one. Worthless anecdote of dubious credibility.

Since I know just how well the tests were done, and I know just how scientific and as correct as possible they were done, I also know that the results are true, and as far as I am concerned, factual information.

Yep, you may think this but then so what. You have not demonstrated your ability nor anyone duplicated this claim on th eplanet. So, one can only conclude your protocol to be worthless.

Oh, yes, claiming you followed your conference paper procedure will not cut it as that paper has no value. Worthless.



many of those "other" listening tests had some serious and significant flaws,


Of course yours have no flaws and is based in credible protocol. Nice try. Your protocol is worthless, of no value. Flawed from the start.






Be aware that despite some claims to the contrary, none of the hard core naysayers have ever used my methods and procedures,

Use a worthless method? Why would anyone do that?




despite the fact that my methods and procedures do not violate any scientific principles, or commit any significant flaws or mistakes.

How could it. It is yours, right? You just cannot see the forest from th etrees, Jon. Besides, you still have yet to demonstrate your protocol has merit, OR, you can do what you claim to do. SO, please go and claim anything you like.

Other naysayers take the tack that I am lying about my listening tests,


No, Jon. You are delusional. No one called you a liar. You did publish a conference paper of dubious value.
What is at issue is the credibility of your protocol and your ability to hear what you claim to hear since you have not demonstrated your ability to anyone of credibility. No, your friends or so called clients don't count.
An, you never will demonstarte what you claim. So, it is worthless claim.



The interesting part is, that I was able to get quite a few folks to actually TRY using my methods

A useless method. Who wants to use it? Worthless.


ALL of them ended up getting results,

Right there is a clue of its uselessness and its flawed nature.




Excuses were being pulled out of the woodwork, not one wanted to consider the "GASP" possibility that not only was I correct about at least some of my cable sonics assertions, but that my listening test methods were actually usefull, and got results!

No, Jon, you are not correct, you were not correct as your methods are flawed. No wonder all the repeat outcome. The clue is big enough for a gradeschool student.



I have been getting a lot of requests lately,

So? That is no validation of its worth. John Edwards gets lots of requests too. So what.



EVERYONE who has ever built one of my DIY cable designs has been highly impressed,


Yet another fable, anecdote, urban legend. So what? Meaningless testimonial. No different from all the TV testimonials.



and again, there have been some open-minded folks on the fence, or even leaning anti-cable, that came away understanding and believing in cable sonics after building a set of my cables.

Yes, that is all that is needed- BELIEF.

Thanks for admitting what it takes.



Funny thing is, not one of my long-term, most vocal opponents has ever tried my DIY cable designs,

What is there to try. No one on th eplanet has been able to demonstrate that it is audibly different from 12ga-14ga zip cord, Jon. NO ONE.
Don't forget, you are just claiming to but unable to demosntrate, even after numerous offers, credible offers for you to do so. So stop protesting.

 

[Mudcat]

I stated that, based on my own controlled listening tests, I considered it a fact that audio cables with similar LCR parameters, but different materials, sounded different. I stated it as a fact, because I had heard this, and detected it under blind conditions, and have done so may times, repeatedly.

Just because you say it does not make it a fact.

Since I know just how well the tests were done, and I know just how scientific and as correct as possible they were done, I also know that the results are true, and as far as I am concerned, factual information.

This is as dumb as it gets. Who else knows how the test were done? And not matter how flawed the test, the results will always be true. Not useful, relevant, or even correct, but definitely true.

Now many of the naysayers like to try and dismiss those listening tests, some take the approach that the "other" listening tests did not find this to be the case, but they seldom define what those other listening tests are.

As I point out in these posts:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2190.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2579.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2580.html

In a scientific sense, when the only references are your own previous material, there is a significant cause for concern for the validity of any material contained herein.

many of those "other" listening tests had some serious and significant flaws, and can not even be considered by anyone staking a claim to using science, as some sort of evidence. However, that does not stop certain folks from attempting to do so anyway.

This is the only thing you say that can be taken seriously. A quality DBT/ABX test must be conducted under sterile conditions and none that I've read about even come close.

Be aware that despite some claims to the contrary, none of the hard core naysayers have ever used my methods and procedures, despite the fact that my methods and procedures do not violate any scientific principles, or commit any significant flaws or mistakes.

Because nobody knows what methods and procedures you use. You say you do things but not how you do them. Is this so no-one can repeat the test and invalidate your claim.

Other naysayers take the tack that I am lying about my listening tests, either an implied or direct tack. As I have been villified somewhat regularly over the years, there are some folks who think this is a reasonable stance to take, but it only has any life at all because of the nearly constant villification a certain few continue to commit.

I started this thread when you stated that you can hear the difference of one foot of wire. I interpreted this to mean the difference between a 14 foot speaker wire and a 15 foot speaker wire (or nine and ten foot cables or 199 and 200 foot cables - obviously the longer the cables, the harder it would be - I was not thinking of 0 and 1 foot or one and two foot cables, and I hope you weren't). I'm calling you a liar. Liar Liar Pants on Fire. What revealing system do you have - has anyone ever been privy to your listening environment, and can verify that you are not in fact listening to a b{l}o{w}se acoutimassocrap.

The interesting part is, that I was able to get quite a few folks to actually TRY using my methods

Who? Names, dates. Otherwise no validity. Like me saying My name is Elmer J. Fudd "millionaire" I own a mansion and a yacht.

(no, mtry has not, nor have any of his hero's)

mtry has no heros here, he is tolerated, much like me, wmax, jnuetron, et al, and you.

ALL of them ended up getting results,

Excuses were being pulled out of the woodwork, not one wanted to consider the "GASP" possibility that not only was I correct about at least some of my cable sonics assertions, but that my listening test methods were actually usefull, and got results!

Bet is wasn't a blind test, sighted test alway produce the results the committee wants. Even poorly executed tests get results, bad , useless results, but they are results.

BTW, if you would like a copy of my AES preprint on listening tests, and the update addendum I have, just send me a private e-mail and request it.

I have been getting a lot of requests lately, so I would not even know who you were along with the rest.

Please send me a copy. Tom Goldsworthy email is tomnviv@earthlink.net
I'm trusting fellow members this will not be abused, I get enough spam from porn sites .

The other apsect of all of this, is that, with one notable exception (an individual who has gone off on a crusade about me), EVERYONE who has ever built one of my DIY cable designs has been highly impressed, and again, there have been some open-minded folks on the fence, or even leaning anti-cable, that came away understanding and believing in cable sonics after building a set of my cables.

Funny thing is, not one of my long-term, most vocal opponents has ever tried my DIY cable designs, so none of them can comment first hand on their effacy, or on what they heard (or didn't hear).
All of it is based strictly on some pretty dusty theory and supposition on the part of the naysayers, and in most cases, it is not based on actual listening experience with high performance cables, or any of my DIY designs.

No, I made three versions or your cross coax, using teflon insulation, foamed PE, and some crap from the grocery store - unknown dialectric. Each one was tested two ways - in the original zip configuration and separated and twisted together. Now my wife has aural memory that would make a dog envious (bring on the jokes). She could not tell the difference between any of these cables and 10 awg Sound King or my CAT 5 V3 (henceforth call Biohazard). I played this orchestral CD she has in which several instruments are playing pure notes one at a time from middle C up one octave. Its really neat to hear the differences between a flute, oboe, bassoon, and viloin playing the same note. Yes it was sighted, No she couldn't give a rats *** about which was which. She couldn't determine a difference. I'll let you know what the measurements were later.

 

[markw]

wild west justice still lives.

"Since I know just how well the tests were done, and I know just how scientific and as correct as possible they were done, I also know that the results are true, and as far as I am concerned, factual information."

Judge, jury, both defense and prosecution attorney and hangman all in one.

Who can argue with this?

 

[mtrycrafts]

"Since I know just how well the tests were done, and I know just how scientific and as correct as possible they were done, I also know that the results are true, and as far as I am concerned, factual information."

Judge, jury, both defense and prosecution attorney and hangman all in one.

Who can argue with this?

Hey, it is a Jon Risch experiment, it has to be credible, factual and non negotiable

 

[mtrycrafts]

Because nobody knows what methods and procedures you use. You say you do things but not how you do them. Is this so no-one can repeat the test and invalidate your claim.

If and when he emails his paper, hope you have the stamina to read 30 pages of... well, you will see
That is his protocol. No one has validated it so it is a self fulfilling profecy


Who? Names, dates. Otherwise no validity. Like me saying My name is Elmer J. Fudd "millionaire" I own a mansion and a yacht.

He has claimed 'nondisclosure agreements in the past.


Now my wife has aural memory that would make a dog envious (bring on the jokes). She could not tell the difference between any of these cables and 10 awg Sound King or my CAT 5 V3 (henceforth call Biohazard). I played this orchestral CD she has in which several instruments are playing pure notes one at a time from middle C up one octave. Its really neat to hear the differences between a flute, oboe, bassoon, and viloin playing the same note. Yes it was sighted, No she couldn't give a rats *** about which was which. She couldn't determine a difference. I'll let you know what the measurements were later.

This just shows you that she cannot hear, no matter what you think she can
After all, Jon can so she cannot

 

[krabapple]

This is the only thing you say that can be taken seriously. A quality DBT/ABX test must be conducted under sterile conditions and none that I've read about even come close.

Not even Sam Greenhill's? IIRC He actually found evidence for a difference between one cable in his test and the rest...and sure enough , there was a measurable nonlinearity in frequency response in the audible range, in that one, but not the others. In other words , either through perverse design or bad design, that cable was also a filter. No need for voodoo science or exotic protocols, nor was it evidence that competently designed cables of similar similar length and thickness sound different.

Cables can sound different, and the reasons *why* and *when* they could, are known. AFAIK, Mr. Risch hasn't demonstrated that his cables are likely to sound different from Home Depot standard, based on the known reasons for cable difference. Thus Mr. Risch needs to have someone conduct or proctor a proper ('sterile') DBT, with him as the subject if he likes, to confirm his claim of audible difference. Assuming success in that venture, he then needs to demonstrate that the difference occurs for the reason *he* claims it does, and not some difference in the usual parameters. Good controlled listening tests + good measurements have never yet failed to 'explain' cable differences.

Btw, noted DAC engineer Dan Lavry and others on the ProSoundWeb board have weighed in on the subject of speaker cables, Cardas & MIT pseudoscience, etc
Cables - fact and fiction.

 

[J Risch]

Look at the long history.....

Unfortunately, no data has been published and peer reviewed to support these claims.

OK, but my point was, the claims I made have a basis in something other than sighted listening, or that they were some sort of baseless claims.

If you have, indeed, produced tests in private, that meet the minimum qualifications to be considered for serious review in a journal such as JAES ......

That's one of the problems isn't it, I can't even make such a statement, and some folks are trying to say I am lying, that I did not conduct said listening tests. That is a different issue altogether, and one that leads to the dark side of these debates.

"Other" listening tests, I did not bring up, in any capacity within this conversation.

It is relevant to the original issue of my claims, in that, this is how they have been presented by others, and so, some include that extra baggage too. If you are not doing so, so much the better.

I suspect this is a result of your seemingly extraordinary claims, relative to the established hearing thresholds.

This is a common misconception: that somehow, the hearing thresholds, or the JND's for something, actyually have been correlated with what we hear with music, on any particular amp, CDP, or audio cable.

There has been no such correlation, no such papers, no such magic rossetta stone, and we can not take these hearing thresholds or JND's, and claim that they represent the lmitiations of what we can hear with respect to a power amp, a CDP, or an audio cable that has XX % THD, or =/- ZZ dB FR variation.
It just isn't there, not in the literature.

Frankly, from my perspective, you are over-reacting to the comments you receive.

I am sure that from your perspective, I am. However, YOU have not been subject to the heated venom spewn my way by certain naysayers for years of acrimonious posting. I doubt any rational, thinking human being could go through all of that with out a touch of cynicysm and bad feelings.

I suspect that the negative comments that you receive are a result of making claims as factual, when you have not provided evidence to anyone. Whether you are correct, or not, does not matter if it is not demonstrated and/or verified in a manner consistent with what is scientifically acceptable.

Of course it matters, as I said: I am aware that what I claim is true. For me to ignore the information I posses, to ignore it as if it did not exist, or had not been obtained, would not only be unscientific in itself, but would be a deriliction of my responsibility as a scientist and an engineer.

For anyone else to tell me that I MUST do so, is insane, and a complete perversion of the truth.

It is true that most ABX or DBTs that are published online are scientifically worthless, however, I do not usually notice the people performing said tests claiming that they conducted a test that meets the basic guidelines of currently accepted scientific standards. It seems to me, that these are typically attempts by average people attempting to see if they can find differences, using they best testing methodology that 'they' can manage with their given resources, time and knowledge.

Then why do these ABX/DBT's get used as if they were real evidence, by the cable naysayers, instead of presenting them as the uncertain evidence they actually represent.

As for my listening tests, I did make an AES presentation on the methodology and procedures, none of which violate accepted scientific standards.

Jon R:
"The other aspect of all of this, is that, with one notable exception (an individual who has gone off on a crusade about me), EVERYONE who has ever built one of my DIY cable designs has been highly impressed, and again, there have been some open-minded folks on the fence, or even leaning anti-cable, that came away understanding and believing in cable sonics after building a set of my cables."

Testimonials are not an acceptable means of evidence, when adhering to scientific principles. Therefor, I don't see how this information is relevant to the conversation.

Science admits and accepts anecdotal evidence, and in the case of audio cables, where some folks try to make it seem that sonic differences are utterly ludicrous, it is relevant that many folks differ with that assement.

The perceptions, especially in uncontrolled conditions, of an individual, are not substantial(they are not acceptable evidence) from a scientific protocol standard. You seem dedicated to analyzing in a scientifically valid manner in the first part of your reply, but now it’s a bit confusing now, in the 2nd half, that you are concerned with biased perception(s) of people.

Neither are the rantings of a cale naysayer merely repeating some tired old platitude (30 years of .....), that is not evidence, it is not even a good story!

I am dedicated to the use of a scientific method with regard to cable sonics, in the meantime, I will take into account, and talk about, all the relevant evidence, including anecdotal, that applies to the subject at hand, given the wide range of accusations that have been leveled over a long period of time.

Jon Risch

 

[J Risch]

Predictable, but not true.

[J Risch]I stated that, based on my own controlled listening tests, I considered it a fact that audio cables with similar LCR parameters, but different materials, sounded different.

Yes, this is you claim but you have not demonstrated, nor anyone else on the planet, for that matter.

Not quite the whole story mtry.

Other folks have published articles in popular press magazines, the same kinds of magazines that those null result cable tests you often cite, were done.
Home Theater magazine, HiFi News &RR, What HiFI, and several others have published articles on blind listening tests with positive results for cables.

These articles were no worse in terms of "science" than the very same articles you cite as evidence.

I stated it as a fact, because I had heard this, and detected it under blind conditions, and have done so may times, repeatedly.

No, Jon, you didn't demonstrate you heard it, you just claimed it. You certainly perceived it most likely. Hear it, that is yet to be demosntrated or determined. But then, no one will ever know as you will never demonstrate it to anyone as you have stated in the past, YOU don't have to prove it to anyone.
So, back to square one. Worthless anecdote of dubious credibility.

No mtry, you overstate and spin.
Why would my anecdote be any more worthless than those from Nousaine, or from Arny? You ascribe their ancdotes to fact, and mine as dubious and worthless. Merely because YOU say so? Because a few certain other naysayers make a claim without back-up? Where is YOUR evidence to make such claims?

You are right, I don't have to 'prove' those test results to anyone, I know the results were good, and I know the facts.

Since I know just how well the tests were done, and I know just how scientific and as correct as possible they were done, I also know that the results are true, and as far as I am concerned, factual information.

Yep, you may think this but then so what. You have not demonstrated your ability nor anyone duplicated this claim on th eplanet. So, one can only conclude your protocol to be worthless.

No, coming from someone who claims to live by science, and to be logical, it is curious that you commit a major logical fallacy in your agrument.

Whether or not my conclusions are of any worth to anyone else, because they have not been duplicated by others, has absolutely nothing to do with whether my methods and procedures are of worth. That is two separate issues, and one issue does not affect the other.

Oh, yes, claiming you followed your conference paper procedure will not cut it as that paper has no value. Worthless.

This also is a logical fallacy on your part. You have not shown that the methods and procedures in my paper are in fact, 'worthless', other than you just saying they are. In point of fact, I have asked you for evidence of your claims with regard to this, and you have never come up with any valid reasons why the listening methods I developed are no good.

You started claiming they were 'worthless' years ago, without even having read the paper. Then you got a copy of the paper, and continued to make mistakes, claiming at one point, that the method was not even blind, and yes, wrong again, so until you actually bother to provide some serious and significant evidence regarding those claims of yours, what you have to say with regard to them is "worthless".

Other naysayers take the tack that I am lying about my listening tests,

No, Jon. You are delusional. No one called you a liar. You did publish a conference paper of dubious value.

I repeat, you have not shown any good reasons to be saying things like that, you have not shown any problems or flaws in my paper, just made baseless claims that it has flaws and problems.

ALL of them ended up getting results,

Right there is a clue of its uselessness and its flawed nature.

I think that speaks volumes, and is typical of most cable naysayers, they jump to conclusions and have decided that ANY listening test that comes up with positives, MUST be flawed.

As a matter of fact, Tom Nousaine once admitted this, that he would disbelieve any such results. That is not science, it is a belief system in itself. I see that you subscribe to it as well.

Excuses were being pulled out of the woodwork, not one wanted to consider the "GASP" possibility that not only was I correct about at least some of my cable sonics assertions, but that my listening test methods were actually usefull, and got results!

No, Jon, you are not correct, you were not correct as your methods are flawed. No wonder all the repeat outcome. The clue is big enough for a gradeschool student.

SOS. As I have noted several times, you have not really been able to show that my methods are flawed. You never have. And the hyperbole you add only adds insult to injury. Where is the evidence that my paper was no good, that the methods are flawed? You have not show this to be the case, have not provided any good reasons.

Until you have provided some serious and significant evidence to show that my listening test methods are flawed, or that the procedures are worthless as you claim, I will thank you to refrain from making such baseless claims.

Or will you be a hypocrite about that too?

Jon Risch

 

[J Risch]

Confusion and errors

Originally Posted by JR
Since I know just how well the tests were done, and I know just how scientific and as correct as possible they were done, I also know that the results are true, and as far as I am concerned, factual information.

This is as dumb as it gets. Who else knows how the test were done? And not matter how flawed the test, the results will always be true. Not useful, relevant, or even correct, but definitely true.

You related to mtrycrafts or something?

Anyone who read my AES paper would know how the tests were done, anyone who followed my posts at AR would know, anyone who read my posts at AA Prop heads would know.

As I have stated in another post, I can not, and should not ignore the reality of my experiences, and the facts I have gathered. To deny their validity to myself would be ridiculous. I KNOW

Originally Posted by JR
Now many of the naysayers like to try and dismiss those listening tests, some take the approach that the "other" listening tests did not find this to be the case, but they seldom define what those other listening tests are.

As I point out in these posts:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2190.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2579.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2580.html

In a scientific sense, when the only references are your own previous material, there is a significant cause for concern for the validity of any material contained herein.

If you had read any of these completely, then you would see that I make general arguments that do not depend on any of my previous posts, and when I cite a previous post, it may just be a way of saving typing out yet another general argument from scratch. The general arguments stand on their own feet, or not. But you DO have to read them, or there is no way to decide if those arguments are valid or not. You can't just say. "they are not valid" with out reading them and having a reason to dissagree. Other times, I cite other references or citations.

Originally Posted by JR
Other naysayers take the tack that I am lying about my listening tests, either an implied or direct tack. As I have been villified somewhat regularly over the years, there are some folks who think this is a reasonable stance to take, but it only has any life at all because of the nearly constant villification a certain few continue to commit.

I started this thread when you stated that you can hear the difference of one foot of wire. I interpreted this to mean the difference between a 14 foot speaker wire and a 15 foot speaker wire (or nine and ten foot cables or 199 and 200 foot cables - obviously the longer the cables, the harder it would be - I was not thinking of 0 and 1 foot or one and two foot cables, and I hope you weren't). I'm calling you a liar. Liar Liar Pants on Fire. What revealing system do you have - has anyone ever been privy to your listening environment, and can verify that you are not in fact listening to a b{l}o{w}se acoutimassocrap.

You too are making assumptions.

I was speaking of ADDING one foot of speaker cable to an existing cable (10 feet), specifically, one foot of Monster Original 12 ga. zip to one of my own CC89259 cables, as well as about the difference between a high quality shunt, and one foot of the same Monster cable.

So you can call me a liar all you want, but it also does not make it true.
Of course, the converse could be true just as well, every word you post could be false and without merit, etc. So now, just because I said so, no one else should believe any more of your posts. SHAZZAM!

Originally Posted by JR
The interesting part is, that I was able to get quite a few folks to actually TRY using my methods.

Who? Names, dates. Otherwise no validity. Like me saying My name is Elmer J. Fudd "millionaire" I own a mansion and a yacht.

One of the few who went public was a person who went by the monikor of Vandy over at AR some years ago. He was so attacked and disrespected by the naysayers there, he left the board, and came back once only after a long hiatus, to post that he had discovered that cables sounded different, and he would never participate in such ridiculous discussions again.

After that, several folks requested anonyminity, due to the nasty response to Vandy. Others not related to that board have e-mailed me, gotten the info, and done the tests, and came back to me with results, but they also wished to remain anonyomous.
I can't blame them for wanting to remain below the radar from fools and jerks.

Originally Posted by JR
Excuses were being pulled out of the woodwork, not one wanted to consider the "GASP" possibility that not only was I correct about at least some of my cable sonics assertions, but that my listening test methods were actually usefull, and got results!

Bet is wasn't a blind test, sighted test alway produce the results the committee wants. Even poorly executed tests get results, bad , useless results, but they are results.

Your response tends to reinforce my contention that cable naysayers are predisposed to ignore rersults they do not believe in. That is indeed a non-scientifc belief system.

I will send you the paper, so you can see for yourself, instead of automatically assuming you know it is flawed, etc.

Let's see if you can read better than mtry.

No, I made three versions or your cross coax, using teflon insulation, foamed PE, and some crap from the grocery store - unknown dialectric.

Very simply, if you did not use Belden 89259, then you DID NOT make one of my DIY cable designs, only an unknown kinda-sorta approximation.

This is the kind of disingenious thinking that occurs all the time. In your mind, you duplicated my cables, but for the vast majority of folks who are into DIY audio, and cables, they would not consider them to be equivalent.

mtry thinks that others have conducted any sort of listening test (half-effort or not), therefore, they have duplicated mine. Another example of the shortsightedness of some folks, eh?

You have to DUPLICATE the experiment, you have to DUPLICATE the cable design, not what you THINK is the experiment, not what you think the cable design is. THAT is science.

Jon Risch

 

[mtrycrafts]

You related to mtrycrafts or something?

Everyone is related to me Jon. Is that a problem?


Anyone who read my AES paper would know how the tests were done,


FLAWED!!!

I was speaking of ADDING one foot of speaker cable to an existing cable (10 feet), specifically, one foot of Monster Original 12 ga. zip to one of my own CC89259 cables, as well as about the difference between a high quality shunt, and one foot of the same Monster cable.

All in you imagination, Jon. You can take that to the bank!!!
But you will never find out from a flawed protocol and your refusal to validate it.


One of the few who went public was a person who went by the monikor of Vandy over at AR some years ago.

AH, that famous Vandy experiment. When challenged to demonstrate his extraordinary claims, 48 of 50 correct response, LOL, he disappeared, some excuse but never accepted a real demo, a real DBT protocol.
Yep, these are the only thing you have to offer, Jon. No one to demonstrate their prowess to others and hide when challenged.



After that, several folks requested anonyminity, due to the nasty response to Vandy. Others not related to that board have e-mailed me, gotten the info, and done the tests, and came back to me with results, but they also wished to remain anonyomous.

Yep, flawed protocol will give you flawed data, LOL.



Your response tends to reinforce my contention that cable naysayers are predisposed to ignore rersults they do not believe in.

Your problem is that no one, not one of your claimants, including yourself, are willing to demonstrate their prowess to third parties. Why would anyone believe anythoing you claim or anyone using your flawed protocol. Useless, worthless.


You have to DUPLICATE the experiment,


Your flawed experiment???