Skip to main content
Topic: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio? (Read 16787 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #100
Apparently he wasn´t referring to any "cable burn in test"
Wrong. He's challenging you to take the test so that he finally has data, since your fellow weasels wouldn't bite.
The reason being, is that you said prior a positive result was possible:
http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-10#post-38823
Quote
Jakob2
We assume you´ve send out the two randomly labeled cable sets and that you got after some time the response and after unblinding you realize that the listener´s anwer was correct. What are you doing next?
So, he saw a weasel who thought it was possible to get correct answers for "burned" cables. He then directly challenge that weasel to take the test and provide data.
Do you know what a weasel does in such a situation Jakob? Of course you do. ;)

i never claimed to hear a burn in effect in cables there was no test to weasel out.
Of course not. Weasel speak is to say claim "is possible". Then weasel out of any test.
As you know.
Loudspeaker manufacturer


Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #102
<snip>
It's what a weasel needs as a variable to game a "cable" test, as you know.

So, you really believe in the magic of those "gameboxes" because no scientific or engineering assessment of the "box effect" is known to man. :)

Jakob, since you are obviously a friend of Fremer, why don't you obtain a clarification from him, and share it with us?

Quote
Quote

So blind as well as deaf trolling.

In that pic Fremer´s loudspeaker cable still isn´t shown, or is it?

Jakob, since you are obviously a friend of Fremer, why don't you obtain a clarification from him, and share it with us?

Quote
Quote
Which is exactly what the Pear cable was. But your weasel hero got scared, so he was forced to move the goal post to his gamebox cables, knowing fully well that added variable box would be his weasel way out, as it adds a non-cable variable that would force testing etc on Randi...which is not Randis burden, especially with his $million on line.
What weasels your ilk are! <snip>

Let´s see what the state of your premises is:
1.) Fremer´s loudspeaker cables were equipped with "gameboxes" ...... blatantly wrong

Please define "gamebox".  I've read the thread and the linked articles and other sources, and for the life of my I can't tell what Fremer used or exactly what AJ is referring to.

Quote
2.) Fremer got scared and moved the goal post....... blatantly wrong, see the cited messages between Fremer and Randi

Jakob, since you are obviously a friend of Fremer, why don't you obtain a clarification from him, and share it with us?

Quote
3.) an implicit one; i.e. testing wouldn´t have been needed without "game boxes"......wrong, see the short explanation in my answer to Arnold B. Krueger.

Jakob, given all of the imprecise language and dissembling in that response, please clarify.

Here's my take. 

Conventional science clearly shows that there is no magic in speaker cables or interconnects, just LCR and small amounts of secondary parameters such as those related to dielectric loss and temperature coefficients of the vaious elements, none of which have any relevant reliably audilble  properties.  People like Fremer and you are just out there, misleading and dissembling as you will, trying to invent some credibility for the incredible.

Therefore, when given an opportunity such as Randii provided, its up to the magic cable advocates to provide convincing, reliable evidence.   Seeing none, there's no reason to believe that people like Fremer are anything but foolish, poorly-informed  placebophiles or stealth salesmen who live in and by means of the deep pockets of audio snake oil vendors. 

So Jakob, instead of all this haggling over he-said, they-said, nobody said, everybody-said, why not actually say something believable, relevant and meaningful?

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #103
He refuse to use the magic pears (original challenge) and insisted on using this "cable" replete with gamebox.
http://www.stereophile.com/cables/1206tara/#GFmwtBPAdOGGZle0.97


from that link:
"And now let's gently touch ground: A 1m pair of Zero interconnects will set you back $14,900. I am sorry.

Here's the good news: A 2m pair of Zeros also costs $14,900. So does a 3m pair. The length required to go from my preamp to my amps costs a not-so-cool $17,000"


 :o  :o  :o

That would be hilarious if it wasn't so obscene !
Well, Jakob2 likes his choice, as it allowed an escape from a reality smackdown.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #104
The pearl guys could weasel out all night long, it is completely irrelevant to the Fremer/Randi challenge case. You need a person to do the test, and that was Michael Fremer and you need some ridiculously priced loudspeaker cables to test against the mentioned good monster cables.
I don't think it is irrelevant at all. By pulling out, the pear guys changed the situation for everyone else.

It is to be expected that in such a challenge, which is not just about a significant amount of money, but also about the corresponding publicity, that people will play games. So if people don't weasel out at some point, realizing that their chances of winning are slim, they will want to put the blame for a fail on the other side. No surprise here.

Pear played that game right from the start, by accusing Randi of not playing fair. You can always assert that, regardless of any evidence. You just have to live with the fact that for some spectators, it will look like you are chickening out. The odds are that your believers will still believe you, maybe a bit more staunchly than before, and your sceptics will still be sceptical, maybe a bit more complacently than before. A quack who is happy with his current flock of believers will therefore tend not to engage with Randi.

I'm sure Randi is completely aware of the mechanics of this situation. It is his obvious goal to make quacks look bad. The way to do that is to tickle their self-importance and self-delusion. This will not work with a quack who knows that he's a quack, and conducts his business with full awareness of its fraudulent nature. I'm led to assume that Pear belong to this group.

The actual story is, in my opinion and from what I recall going on back then, more like this: Randi was simply unaware of the full range of nonsense that infests high end audio hardware.  He naively thought that 'cables' means cables  (insulated wires + terminals).  He was unaware , for example, that some high end cables -- speaker cables AND interconnect cables -- come with in-line 'magic boxes'  that might or might not act as crude equalizers. When he was apprised of the existence of such shenanigans (by people having much more experience with the idiocy of audiophiles), he more or less decided to wash his hands of such tiresome crapola rather than give pompous little jerks like Fremer a chance to 'win' on such a weasely technicality.


Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #105
Randi weasel
Randi was simply unaware of the full range of nonsense that infests high end audio hardware.

That's the smaller picture. The larger picture, is Randi had been exposing fraudsters, shysters, con men and scammers for decades.
From Geller et al on thru the cable peddlers.
That's not good for shyster conman business. Ditto for Meyer and Moran, exposing how fraudulent "Hi Re$" is being peddled to cripple minded consumers (most willing, starving for scams audiophiles). Randi and M&M et at are not good for shyster con busine$$. That's going to put them on opposite sides of coin.
Right Jakob2?  ;)
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #106
The actual story is, in my opinion and from what I recall going on back then, more like this: Randi was simply unaware of the full range of nonsense that infests high end audio hardware.  He naively thought that 'cables' means cables  (insulated wires + terminals).  He was unaware , for example, that some high end cables -- speaker cables AND interconnect cables -- come with in-line 'magic boxes'  that might or might not act as crude equalizers. When he was apprised of the existence of such shenanigans (by people having much more experience with the idiocy of audiophiles), he more or less decided to wash his hands of such tiresome crapola rather than give pompous little jerks like Fremer a chance to 'win' on such a weasely technicality.
I think he's technically knowledgeable enough to know that such 'magic boxes' may contain circuitry that does alter the sound appreciably, and hence is detectable by an ordinary listening test. That's part of the game of goalpost shifting that one has to expect in these cases. Perhaps he had to ask somebody about the technical details, but he certainly had the right instincts.

If you include such "extreme" constructions in the general term "cable", then one has to admit that cables can alter the sound. Which is probably their whole point of existence of such contraptions. The better question, then, is why cables are supposed to alter the sound in the first place. If people were reasonable, they would work from the grounds that cables have no business altering the sound, hence any cable product offer promising better sound would automatically be viewed with suspicion. Once you see it this way, the basis for boutique cables all but disappears.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #107
Additional boxes should be outside any reasonable definition of what a cable is generally understood to be.

Randi would have been justified in rejecting a proposal to use a cable that required a black box as part of its operation.
An additional black box could easily accommodate passive reactive components, which could plausibly change the frequency response significantly enough to produce a reliable tell.

All the challenger really needed to do was demonstrate that they could hear the difference between a cheap $10 Radio Shack cable vs a "modest" (by audiophile standards) high-end cable of a mere few thousand dollars in value.

Should have been child's play, right ? (even the audiophile's wives would notice the difference - as audiophiles are so fond of telling u:)) )

An easy 1 million dollars, you would think. What a terrible missed opportunity.    

 


Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #108
Huh ... more than one thread on this?

<rant>
I have had a pretty decent speaker set with a crossover consisting of simply a first-order highpass for the tweeter (the woofer rolling off by itself). I am pretty sure that if I "rebuilt" these speakers for my $3000 biamping cable set, which really heavy just a bit thicker than a capacitor, then the treble difference would be night and day. Literally. Like turning on and off. At least after a burn-in period.
</rant>
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #109
I only read through page 5 of this discussion here, so my apologies if I'm repeating anything, but as far as I recall the Randi/Fremer challenge was between speaker cables and not interconnects. The link to Stereophile is for interconnects.
I just looked up Fremer's latest review, and his speaker cables are also listed as Tara Labs: TARA Labs Omega EvolutionSP. So, I assume those were the ones he would pit against the Monster cables. Whether these speaker cables have a "magic box" I can't say.
I do believe that some speaker cables, whether they have an extra box or not, perform a sort of EQ on the signal, and I believe The Audio Critic already showed this by measurements in the early 90s (he showed measurements of a speaker cable that had a spike in the treble). There's also a thread here on HA of someone succesfully ABX'ing two different speaker cables, and measurements also showed different frequency responses for them.
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #110
as far as I recall the Randi/Fremer challenge was between speaker cables and not interconnects. The link to Stereophile is for interconnects.
I just looked up Fremer's latest review, and his speaker cables are also listed as Tara Labs: TARA Labs Omega EvolutionSP. So, I assume those were the ones he would pit against the Monster cables. Whether these speaker cables have a "magic box" I can't say.
My faulty recollection was ICs, but it appears it was these Tara speaker cables with 1"+ round removable "slugs" at end

Once again, the burden would not be on Randi to do on site measurements on that "cable" nonsense to check for sleigh of hand
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #111
as far as I recall the Randi/Fremer challenge was between speaker cables and not interconnects. The link to Stereophile is for interconnects.
I just looked up Fremer's latest review, and his speaker cables are also listed as Tara Labs: TARA Labs Omega EvolutionSP. So, I assume those were the ones he would pit against the Monster cables. Whether these speaker cables have a "magic box" I can't say.
My faulty recollection was ICs, but it appears it was these Tara speaker cables with 1"+ round removable "slugs" at end

Once again, the burden would not be on Randi to do on site measurements on that "cable" nonsense to check for sleigh of hand

If those speaker cables changed the frequency response, and this went unnoticed by Randi, then Fremer might have been able to hear a difference, and he would win a million dollars.
The link you provided went to their news site. Here's a link to the ones I mentioned, which I think are the same ones you were thinking of:
http://www.taralabs.com/speaker-cables/item/92-pr-the-omega-evolution
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #112
I see someone has been drinking revisionist past-flavored coolaid.

THERE WAS NO "Randi/Fremer Challege" !!!
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #113
And no guerrilla tactics by Meyer and Moran either??

But our champion of science-ish sounding method sez....
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #114
"guerrilla tactics" the irony, it burns.

Is concern trolling a guerrilla tactic?
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #115
I see someone has been drinking revisionist past-flavored coolaid.

THERE WAS NO "Randi/Fremer Challege" !!!
??
Do you mean that it never happened? I am aware of that (as we probably all are). I'm also aware that it was originally a case between Randi and Pear cables, and then Fremer hopped on board.
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #116
I see someone has been drinking revisionist past-flavored coolaid.

THERE WAS NO "Randi/Fremer Challege" !!!
??
Do you mean that it never happened? I am aware of that (as we probably all are). I'm also aware that it was originally a case between Randi and Pear cables, and then Fremer hopped on board.

Depends on what you thinks constitutes "Something happening".

Was there ever an actual reliable listening test with adequate controls?  AFAIK, no.

One view might be that the challenge part may have commenced, but it ended up with no resolution, and there was no actual execution of it.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #117
<sniP>

Things cannot be judged by apperaneces without disassembling them, and whether the "box" is used or not doesn't seem so important to me.

The "cables" that you mentioned above are a bit different because there is active circuitry involved which works due to the power delivered for example by the usb interface.
Today even wireless power delivery would be possible, but back in 2008 it wasn´t that easy anyway.

But nevertheless, your conclusion is spot-on; judging by appearence isn´t the correct approach, measurements and detailed examination - including splitting apart the cable - could (and should) have been part of the negotiation, for the reasons outlined in an earlier post.
Otoh, if there is no way to scientific way to avoid fraud and even the advice and supervision from a magician/illusionist would not help, then you have to face the fact that cable challenges are impossible to do......

@ ajinfla,
<snip>
No, a weasel will find any way out of a cable test, by introducing a magic gamebox into a "cable" test. <snip>

If you still haven´t got why _any_competent experiment wrt "cable sound" (being called a "Randi challenge" or just a listening test) must include sound measurements of the systems overall and an agreement about the tolerable differences in comparison to the known thresholds of hearing, then ......


Quote
In that pic Fremer´s loudspeaker cable still isn´t shown, or is it?
So weasels will pretend not to see the link provided with the pic and where it came from. Shocking.

The questions were :
1.) is that Fremer´s loudspeaker cable, which he wanted to use, shown in the pic?
2.) is a "gamebox" (copyright ajinfla) attached to Fremer´s loudspeaker cable?

Does the link, provided with the pic, answer these questions or are you just acting as the "master weasel in chief" ?

Quote
So when will you accept Jinjukus cable challenge to you and provide some data? How is weasel hearing?

As Jinjuku didn´t challenge me (as you know, Jinjuku wants to test listener´s claims about their ability to hear an effect) repetition of imaginery challenges will not help your case......

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #118
Apparently he wasn´t referring to any "cable burn in test"
Wrong. He's challenging you to take the test so that he finally has data, since your fellow weasels wouldn't bite.
The reason being, is that you said prior a positive result was possible:
http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-10#post-38823
Quote
Jakob2
We assume you´ve send out the two randomly labeled cable sets and that you got after some time the response and after unblinding you realize that the listener´s anwer was correct. What are you doing next?
So, he saw a weasel who thought it was possible to get correct answers for "burned" cables. He then directly challenge that weasel to take the test and provide data.
Do you know what a weasel does in such a situation Jakob? Of course you do. ;)

Wow ......
First of all, let´s assume :) that you know the meaning of the word "assume", but that you like to pretend you don´t.
Second, even, if Jinjuku would have dreamt that i, by that sentence, did not assume but confirmed that another listener would have been able to perceive "EUT" , even in that highly unlikely case, it would be still the claim of _that_ listener not my claim to be able to hear.....
Third, Jinjuku´s proposal was to send two sets of cables to a listener (who claimed to be able to .....) and the listener should answer which set was "burned in" and which was not.
So, that is only one trial and the chance to get the answer right or wrong is "a coin flip" ; do you know what the probability is?  Not sure? Well, let me help you, it is 0.5 .

Therefore i was asking, what Jinjuku would do next . And i really hope that this time even you are able to grasp why a single trial does not really help.......

<snip>
Jakob, since you are obviously a friend of Fremer, why don't you obtain a clarification from him, and share it with us?

I know your imagination is strong. ;)
But, as you know, it´s the claimant´s burden of proof, so you should ask ajinfla for the answer.

Quote
Please define "gamebox".  I've read the thread and the linked articles and other sources, and for the life of my I can't tell what Fremer used or exactly what AJ is referring to.

So, you have to ask ajinfla what the meaning is, as he introduced it. Obviously he fears the "magic" of those " gameboxes" .....

Quote
<snip>Here's my take. <snip>

Please remember, the topic isn´t what _you_ think about "cable sound" or what you believe about Fremer, but my assertion that Randi did not play a fair game and weaseled out .

Quote
So Jakob, instead of all this haggling over he-said, they-said, nobody said, everybody-said, why not actually say something believable, relevant and meaningful?

Well that was right from the beginning:
Quote
Michael Fremer was prepared to take the challenge, but Randi wasn´t really playing a fair game and weaseled finally out.....


Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #119
measurements and detailed examination - including splitting apart the cable - could (and should) have been part of the negotiation, for the reasons outlined in an earlier post.
Wrong. There is zero burden on Randi and 100% burden on your weasel ilk. The Pear cables were the challenge and your weasel ilk weaseled out with his removable "slug" cable demands.
There only one way to see the dichotomy between Randi the debunker of fraudsters...and your fraud peddlers.

As Jinjuku didn´t challenge me
He did and you weaseled out. Still no data from your ilk. They know what happens when they test their beliefs vs reality.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #120
Jinjuku´s proposal was to send two sets of cables to a listener (who claimed to be able to .....) and the listener should answer which set was "burned in" and which was not.
So, that is only one trial and the chance to get the answer right or wrong is "a coin flip" ; do you know what the probability is?  Not sure? Well, let me help you, it is 0.5 .
Right, which then makes the audiophool believer who claimed to be able to "hear" burned cables, look the fool.
That is exactly why weasels avoid blind tests! As you know.

Please remember, the topic isn´t what _you_ think about "cable sound" or what you believe about Fremer, but my assertion that Randi did not play a fair game and weaseled out .
Right, that is what a weasel would assert. Just like a weasel would assert "Guerrilla Tactics" by M&M, Oohashi isn't nonsense, the "understand" Kunchur, Jinjuku didn't challenge them, they have a "list" forthcoming, etc, etc.
As you would know.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #121
One view might be that the challenge part may have commenced, but it ended up with no resolution, and there was no actual execution of it.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

Although I find this debate has turned very ugly, then on a general level I side with Randi in most cases and also out of principle, whereas I find Fremer to be a pain in the arse.
However, when I read about the cable challenge a while ago, the documents I came across, from both camps, seemed to me to show that Randi hadn't played entirely fairly. But it should of course be said that we only have access to a limited amount of information, and we don't know what went on in Randi's mind when he closed the challenge, so we have to make some conlcusions of our own. In any case, I find that this debate has spurred a lot of speculations of who did what based on who they were, and that doesn't resolve or prove anything. Moreover, what does it matter now? This is just turning into a war and a smear campaing. So challenge Fremer again, perhaps with a cash price, measure his cables to see if they actually do perform EQ, and see if he complies, and then do the test. Yes, I am very aware that he might talk his way out of it, but as he's the most arrogant of all the snake-oil people, he might also be the most likely to accept (or will he?).
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #122
No need, this has all been done before: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/941184-observations-controlled-cable-test.html
which apparently sprung from this http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97675

Still Reality 1 Believers 0

Now of course, shysters inc, will say these tests no good, no "postive controls" used, etc., statistically insignificant only one person blah, blah, blah
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #123
One view might be that the challenge part may have commenced, but it ended up with no resolution, and there was no actual execution of it.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

Although I find this debate has turned very ugly, then on a general level I side with Randi in most cases and also out of principle, whereas I find Fremer to be a pain in the arse.
However, when I read about the cable challenge a while ago, the documents I came across, from both camps, seemed to me to show that Randi hadn't played entirely fairly. But it should of course be said that we only have access to a limited amount of information, and we don't know what went on in Randi's mind when he closed the challenge, so we have to make some conlcusions of our own. In any case, I find that this debate has spurred a lot of speculations of who did what based on who they were, and that doesn't resolve or prove anything. Moreover, what does it matter now? This is just turning into a war and a smear campaing. So challenge Fremer again, perhaps with a cash price, measure his cables to see if they actually do perform EQ, and see if he complies, and then do the test. Yes, I am very aware that he might talk his way out of it, but as he's the most arrogant of all the snake-oil people, he might also be the most likely to accept (or will he?).

One doesn't need a million dollar prize to do objective testing. The characterization from believers of Randi as "backing out" is simply a trick to confuse people into thinking this somehow shows evidence of something when there is no objective evidence of anything at all, at least not in favor of magic cables.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #124
Randi isn't rich at all in the overall context. $1 million is pocket change to the likes of Agilent etc. So if magic cables can demonstrated then why are these mega electronic corps not even one bit interested?

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019