Hi-fi kettle leads and bad science link

[tbewick]

This is a fairly good link I happened to come across through Google:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1686293,00.html

It's a short article on 'high-end' hi-fi power leads in the British national newspaper The Guardian.

Even better is a link from here to a Bad Science website, which the journalist who wrote the above article contributes to.

http://www.badscience.net/

 

[mtrycrafts]

This is a fairly good link I happened to come across through Google:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1686293,00.html

It's a short article on 'high-end' hi-fi power leads in the British national newspaper The Guardian.

Even better is a link from here to a Bad Science website, which the journalist who wrote the above article contributes to.

http://www.badscience.net/

Interesting find, thanks. I wonder if that cable test ever got off the ground

 

[sploo]

The sad thing is that he links to a forum (http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/2806-1.html) where he notes that they've gotten a little bit cross. E.g.:

"Surely the fact that many HiFi enthusiats(sic) can hear a difference, and put there(sic) money where there(sic) mouth is, lends some credibilty(sic) to these claims. Or are we all morons, pretending we hear things just so as to be releived(sic) of our hard earned more redily(sic)"

Errrr. Yea, that's about sum of it. Could do with a lesson in spelling and grammar too .

 

[mtrycrafts]

The sad thing is that he links to a forum (http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/2806-1.html) where he notes that they've gotten a little bit cross. E.g.:

"Surely the fact that many HiFi enthusiats(sic) can hear a difference, and put there(sic) money where there(sic) mouth is, lends some credibilty(sic) to these claims. Or are we all morons, pretending we hear things just so as to be releived(sic) of our hard earned more redily(sic)"

Errrr. Yea, that's about sum of it. Could do with a lesson in spelling and grammar too .

Yes, like humans are known to make wise choices all the time. LOL. Never to be taken in by magic

 

[tbewick]

The sad thing is that he links to a forum (http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/2806-1.html) where he notes that they've gotten a little bit cross. E.g.:

"Surely the fact that many HiFi enthusiats(sic) can hear a difference, and put there(sic) money where there(sic) mouth is, lends some credibilty(sic) to these claims. Or are we all morons, pretending we hear things just so as to be releived(sic) of our hard earned more redily(sic)"

Errrr. Yea, that's about sum of it. Could do with a lesson in spelling and grammar too .

Quite frankly, after reading things like that thread, I sometimes wonder if these people are trying to pull your leg.

The 'war on error' blog, linked to on badscience.net, is a wonderful repository of mind-bendingly bizzare pseudoscience, e.g. -

'P.W.B. Electret Feet that are placed under audio and video equipment also acquire the distinctive energy pattern of the equipment that they are placed under after the equipment has been activated with the Quantum Clip. If the Electret Feet are exchanged between other equipment, it is essential that the equipment is reactivated with the Quantum Clip so that the Electret Feet acquire the changed pattern.

In the same way that we, as human beings, are linked to a photograph taken some time in our past, many if not all objects of a specific and distinctive nature are linked across the world. Objects such as recorded information stored on vinyl records, Compact Discs or magnetic tapes are linked in a 'time warp' situation and, as such, create problems for the human senses. '

And this equation on the 'beer goggle effect', reported on BBC news no less, where:

An = number of units of alcohol consumed
S = smokiness of the room (graded from 0-10, where 0 clear air; 10 extremely smoky)
L = luminance of 'person of interest' (candelas per square metre; typically 1 pitch black; 150 as seen in normal room lighting)
Vo = Snellen visual acuity (6/6 normal; 6/12 just meets driving standard)
d = distance from 'person of interest' (metres; 0.5 to 3 metres)

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=45245236&MyToken=379ac3f4-0ecc-48e9-91d1-b6a390f78da3ML

 

[krabapple]

Members of hifiwigwam did conduct a power cable test. The lead up to it and its often amusing results are contained in this thread

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1614-1.html

The raw results are also linked from the thread. But they can be summarized as follows (by ff123)

"So, yes, if the real differences are obvious, as many evangelists claim, then the current test is valid as evidence against that point of view. But if the real differences are subtle, the test has a low confidence of saying that no real differences were heard."

 

[tbewick]

This (linked-to) thread makes my head spin

Members of hifiwigwam did conduct a power cable test. The lead up to it and its often amusing results are contained in this thread

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/1614-1.html

The raw results are also linked from the thread. But they can be summarized as follows (by ff123)

"So, yes, if the real differences are obvious, as many evangelists claim, then the current test is valid as evidence against that point of view. But if the real differences are subtle, the test has a low confidence of saying that no real differences were heard."

I only got up to page 8 or something on that thread. I'll have to read the rest later. It seems as if they are caught up in statistics hell. I'm not sure about this test, because I thought that double-blind/ABX listening tests need to be done fairly quickly and in a controlled manner -

"There seems to be little doubt that the most sensitive and most conclusive comparisons are those that are done quickly, with a minimum of delay between samples. Fading memory, adaptation and the intervention of nuisance variables make delayed comparisons and long-term listening susceptible to error, even though some listeners argue that they are more comfortable with these procedures".

- Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook, 2nd edn, John Borwick ed., Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. 1994, p482.

"...speaker cables are non directional untill the molecules of the copper burn in , direction of signal creates a flow of signal, oh s**** i forgot, the arrow is to make you not to forget the way that they were run in aprox. 80.00 hours, for all is worth"

- onion

What is this guy going on about?

 

[mtrycrafts]

- Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook, 2nd edn, John Borwick ed., Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. 1994, p482.

"...speaker cables are non directional untill the molecules of the copper burn in , direction of signal creates a flow of signal, oh s**** i forgot, the arrow is to make you not to forget the way that they were run in aprox. 80.00 hours, for all is worth"

- onion

What is this guy going on about?

I think he is pulling the chains of whoever. Did it come from that citation?

 

[krabapple]

I only got up to page 8 or something on that thread. I'll have to read the rest later. It seems as if they are caught up in statistics hell. I'm not sure about this test, because I thought that double-blind/ABX listening tests need to be done fairly quickly and in a controlled manner

"There seems to be little doubt that the most sensitive and most conclusive comparisons are those that are done quickly, with a minimum of delay between samples. Fading memory, adaptation and the intervention of nuisance variables make delayed comparisons and long-term listening susceptible to error, even though some listeners argue that they are more comfortable with these procedures".

- Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook, 2nd edn, John Borwick ed., Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. 1994, p482.

Yes, *switching* should be quick to achieve best discrimination. The listening part can take as long as the listener feels is necessary (and to eliminate whining from them later that they didn't have enough time to 'learn' the sounds). But remember too that your typical audio cable comparison, as done 'sighted' and uncontrolled by your average audiophile, doesn't use quick switching or time contrains on listening -- and that's where all these claims of 'vast difference between cables' come from. Here we have some tests that were done with the same 'slow' switching, same lack of listening limits, but *blind* -- and as result some listeners voted the SAME cable as both best and worst in show.

The test could have also been made tighter by reduicing the number of cables being compared, and by increasing hte # of trials and participants...but it was still telling in its own way.

"...speaker cables are non directional untill the molecules of the copper burn in , direction of signal creates a flow of signal, oh s**** i forgot, the arrow is to make you not to forget the way that they were run in aprox. 80.00 hours, for all is worth"

- onion

What is this guy going on about?

It's a joke.

 

[tbewick]

I think he is pulling the chains of whoever. Did it come from that citation?

Yes. I think you'd have your work cut out if you contributed that forum. . What's even worse is that hi-fi companies propagate this ludicrous science. I was looking at some Naim speakers a while back and the manual for them said that you should only use Naim-branded (directional, with arrows) speaker cable. It even said that using the wrong type of cable could damage the speakers! Arcam think cables in general are so important that they state so in big letters on the outside of their packaging boxes.