In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Even with a 'no-quibble money back guarantee'....? How 'fair' does it
have to get?

Check carefully those 'no quibble money back guarantees' Many insist the
item must be fit for re-sale and have the original packaging.

--
*Eschew obfuscation *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 11:35:19 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Not all journalists are like this. But I am afraid that my regard
for the general level of what you will read in audio magazines is low.

With certain honourable exceptions, of course. ;-)

--
Chris Isbell
Southampton, UK

Wally wrote:
Keith G wrote:


OK, I'm getting cornered into defending summat I really don't give a
FF about, but FWIW, I don't think all the 'snake oils sellers' are
totally evil. Some, at least, offer 30 day money back schemes 'if not
delighted' which I think is fair


No, it isn't fair - they're bull****ting chancers.


How do you know this? Has it occurred to you that the vendors actually
believe it works?



... and I don't think all the 'victims'
are necessarily idiots just because they spend money on summat I
wouldn't entertain for a nanosecond (femto?). The point is, in
'audio' (ie. music replay), we are in the business of pleasuring our
senses. Whilst the associated gadgetry to create the basic sound will
have its basis very firmly planted the the cold hard world of
physical reality, the perceptions we get from it is most definitely
not - due to us being Human Beans.


They *are* idiots because they're too ****ing stupid to question whether or
not they're about to waste their money on crap. The lying, chancing, two-bit
scum that flog 'improvements' that consist in nothing more than the mere
assertion/implication that some piece of crap will make it better should be
honest enough to tell the mugs that pay up that they are indeed mugs and
that all they're buying is bull****. But they won't do that - because hoping
that there are dumb suckers out there that will believe the **** that they
peddle is precisely how they make their money. They are *fleecing* people
and are little better than theives and pickpockets.


Do you consider homeopaths 'scum'? I'd suggest that their venture is far
less benign, but the principle is identical - selling products with
no/little empirical evaluation.


Consequently, many people will try any number of different ways to
'enhance' what they hear - and some of them will be pretty wacky,
simply due to the diverse nature of people. Whether or not they
actually work is hardly the point - what matters IMO is whether the
punters/victims/whatever *believe* they perceive an improvement (or
whatever it was they were looking for) and are *happy* with the
results!!


Would you advocate the view that *new* punters should be drawn into this
audiophonic brothel - that it's okay for new punters to be fleeced by the
liars and con artists that are out to do nothing other than fleece people?


I think 'fleeced' is rather strong. Audio, for most in this group, is
little more than a hobby. And we all indulge to the extent of our
budgets. I'd argue there's very little additional utility when comparing
a 100UKP and a 10,000UKP amplifier - people still buy the latter, are
they fleeced? I think by your logic they are.


So...

When the Snake Oil Squealers start howling at the 'victims' who *all*
claim their listening experiences *are* enhanced ('money well spent'
etc.) my reaction is to say 'leave 'em alone, they're enjoying it'.


It's one thing for some idiot - for idiots is what they are - to spend far
too much money on a load of bull****. When they then come into a public
forum, making dumb-ass pronouncements that said bull**** improved their
sound, they *deserve* to be shot down in flames.

Or applauded for challenging convention. Your choice, obviously.



(I think it gets a bit dodgy when people start to tell others what
they may or may not be *perceiving*....???)


So far as I can tell, nobody's telling them what they're perceiving - to do
so would be philosphically derelict (unless they have a new theory of
consciousness they'd like to propound). What they do is suggest that there
are reasons for *thinking* that there's an improvement, like avoiding
buyer's remorse, etc. These people *always* balk at the challenge of
conducting a double-blind test - their pathetic egos are too fragile to risk
being made a public laughing stock by being unable to tell A from B. The
fact that they run a mile from what should be an *easy* thousand pounds is
telling enough - and tells the rest of us that they're so ****ing *thick*
that they spout their ****e in here and then realise that they don't really
believe it themselves! If they really *did* believe that they could tell a
difference, they'd be jumping at the chancing of whipping a swift big one
from Pinky - but they ****e out of it *every ****ing time*, without fail.
They're nothing but stupid, dumb-**** liars who spend their time sucking
each other's audiophonic dicks.


I think the 'challenge' is not taken for two main reasons: not sure that
their experience can be reliably replicated (and hence embarrassment
etc.); and, can't be bothered. I don't think they're liars. A problem is
that the effects that people who buy this sort of stuff believe they
hear are not measurable by any other method than human trial, sample
size one or possibly two. And in view of the fact that this group is
marshalled by empiricists and technocrats they're wise to steer clear.


My favourite tweak (cheapest one I know) is simply to turn the lights
off when you are playing music!! Better *everything* and you get to
save a little money at the same time - especially effective with a
valve amp beaming back at you!!


I could go along with lights out - it's amazing what you can hear when you
stop listening and start experiencing.


Indeed :-)

Anyway, that Classic FM chiller cabinet thing is on. It's making me relax...

Ommmm.

Ommmmani.

Ommmmmani padme hum....

Oh yes, I'm relaxed now. I'm chilled. I'm so *****ing* chillled, those
bull****-buying ****wits aren't bothering me any more. Stupid ****ers!

;-)


That's the ticket ;-)

Rob

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:01:22 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 09:39:52 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:


I was surprised some time ago to be told that some DACs *don't* reclock
the input data stream. Indeed, there is a review of one in this month's
'Hi Fi World' where the reviewer claims the DAC he is reviewing makes a
'feature' of not doing so. That said, such reviews often contain
nonsense, so he may be wrong... :-)

Well, as you know, the data arrives serially, and completely out of
order,

I would not have said "out of order" as the sequence is defined and I
assume is followed. Hence the bits arrive "in sequence".


The sequence is defined, but it is also definitely out of order in
that it won't fill up a DAC from one end. The order is not LSB-MSB, or
even anything close.



so the correct bits must be gathered together and assembled into
a word before they can be presented to the DAC. That happens at a clock
edge, so I think that means the DAC must be reclocked to function.

This depends on the meaning of "reclocked".

For example, the SPDIF signal is equivalent to a bitstream XORd with a
frequency that defines the frequency and phase of the transmitter's bitrate
and sample rate clock.

You can recover this by manipulating and filtering the input stream, and
hence get a new 'clock' which is simply derived from the input stream.
Nominally, there would be no need to have anything like a PLL or LO in the
reciever. The output to the DAC could then be timed from this 'recovered
clock'.

I would not tend to call the above 'reclocked'.

The only way I would say the DAC was not reclocked was if it simply
used the next received data edge to trigger the DAC as it filled up. I
don't think any current machines do this.

However a system that has a LO and realigns the timing to this, perhaps
altering the LO using a PLL guided by the clock info in the input I would
called 'reclocked'.

I know that the Meridian DACs I prefer do reclock with a (dual) PLL system.
I don't know about other DACs, and have been told on occasion that some of
them don't reclock.

How would they work?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Apologies if this is a repeat but the first post via google did not
turn up after an hour.

Keith G wrote:
Define 'stupid' - one of the 'tweaky people' people I mentioned the other
day

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/voodo01.JPG

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/voodo02.JPG

is a *Research Aeronautical Engineer* for a NATO-funded Scientific Institute
and often has Japs coming over to see *him*!! Are you saying such a person
could also be 'stupid'...??

As someone who knows a large number of these people I can assure the
answer is unequivocally yes. A significant proportion are stupid and
the large decline in educational/research standards is not unrelated to
the problem.

Scientist - If it can't be measured it can't be heard....

Since our instruments are far more sensitive than the ear and not
connected to something as unreliable as the human brain it the only
sensible view to take. It is the basis of science - a quick check of
the scientific method may be helpful.

No, the 'DBT' test is a near useless mechanism in my book.

So much for the enormous number of such tests performed every day in a
wide range of disciplines.

Without getting too far into that particular can of worms,

(which I am not going to justify)

all I'm going to say is that I
reckon you've got less than 5 seconds to determine a difference between two
bits of kit, which is why I 'choose' over a period of weeks or months, when
I think I *know* the kit involved. Even if you could make a snap decision
between two bits of kit at a given moment in time, it's a bit like an MOT -
doesn't mean the brakes will still be working a week's later..

When you have defined what perceived difference means then you have
pretty much defined the experiment to be performed.

Claiming to derive pleasure from a new purchase and that it adds to
ones listening experience is perfectly reasonable and will be accepted
by most people. Claiming it sounds better in a physical sense is going
against long established scientific knowledge and will be challenged
and then disregarded without evidence.

OK, you're talking about the world-famous 'cable challenge' here - I'm more
refering to 'voodoo tweaks' like the pebbles mentioned in the OP.
...[SNIP]...
I think the ante's overdue for upping - most people wouldn't walk to the end
of the road for a grand these days...

The pebbles would qualify for Randi's million dollar challenge if that
is enough.

In article , Chris Isbell
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 11:35:19 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Not all journalists are like this. But I am afraid that my regard for
the general level of what you will read in audio magazines is low.

With certain honourable exceptions, of course. ;-)

ahem Ah, well... there are 'gentlemen' and there are 'players'... ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Keith G wrote:

Even with a 'no-quibble money back guarantee'....? How 'fair' does it
have to get?

Fair is when these professional liars are shut down.


is a *Research Aeronautical Engineer* for a NATO-funded Scientific
Institute and often has Japs coming over to see *him*!! Are you
saying such a person could also be 'stupid'...??

Of course! Being an engineer has nothing to do with being intelligent,
practical or sensible.


Even if a 'new punter' comes into the 'audio racket' somewhere near
the top of the tree, the curiosity *will* be there with some of them
(it's in the genes) and comparison/upgrade/tweak spiral will
inevitably unfold, even though they have started out with near SOTA
kit!

They're curious because the bull**** about esoterica like fancy cables (and
bottles of ****ing rocks!) is promulgated in the hifi press *without
challenge*. If they don't have the technical nous to engender skepticism,
then they risk getting suckered into what is a *wholesale pack of lies*
designed to fleece people.


I have yet to see any 'believer' throw a serious challenge into this
forum, at least.

That's because they don't start from a position of challenge - they start
from a position of believing bull**** and wanting to tell others, who they
think will be like-minded souls, about their discovery that some piece of
esoteric trash has enhanced their sound. They're in here looking for an
audiophonic blowjob from suckers just like them, and their noses get put out
of joint when they encounter the inevitable challenge from those who doubt
the veracity of the claims.


IOW, the squealers want to modify the stated 'perceptions' into some
other form of scientology acceptable to themselves...?

No, they are challenging the claims that the stated perceptions come about
due to physical properties of some tweak or other. It's a question of the
reason for the perceptions, not of what someone has perceived. Nobody *ever*
comes in here and says that they're having a more enjoyable listening
experience because they're a sucker, do they?


No, the 'DBT' test is a near useless mechanism in my book. Without
getting too far into that particular can of worms, all I'm going to
say is that I reckon you've got less than 5 seconds to determine a
difference between two bits of kit, which is why I 'choose' over a
period of weeks or months, when I think I *know* the kit involved.
Even if you could make a snap decision between two bits of kit at a
given moment in time, it's a bit like an MOT - doesn't mean the
brakes will still be working a week's later..

I agree with your approach - I take the same view with regard to deciding
whether a piece of kit is worth having. However, I don't agree that it's a
useless mechanism in the case where someone comes in here and says cable A
sounds different from cable B. What he's doing is describing the results of
an A-B comparison. It just isn't a valid comparison because he hasn't
isolated his own psychological factors from the test. If he's going to bang
on about A-B differences, then the testing has to be blind.



OK, you're talking about the world-famous 'cable challenge' here -
I'm more refering to 'voodoo tweaks' like the pebbles mentioned in
the OP.

That's somewhat different. As others have mentioned, there is actually
something in the notion that cables can 'sound' different. Rather, they have
electrical properties which, in theory, should be able to affect the sound,
insofar as the sound is the result of the conversion of an electrical signal
which has passed through the cable. What they don't realise is that these
electrical properties mainly pertain to - ie, are significant at - at radio
frequencies (eg, skin effect), but are inaudible at audio frequencies.

Consider another: turntables. Wobbly, bouncy things that can suffer
feedback, rumble when somebody walks past, jumpy needles when the washing
machine stops, etc. Clearly, physical isolation from external vibration is a
good thing for such equipment. As is isolation of things that produce
vibrations (like speakers).

People are willing to accept that there may well be something in various
seemingly-anal tweaks to hifi systems because, to some extent, there *is*
something in *some* of it. The problem lies in implying that a whole host of
other tweaks *also* have something in them, when the reality is that they're
relying on 'credence by association'. These latter are predicated on the
notion that 'serious audio' is a world where enthusiasts indulge in
ever-more-weird tweaks that make various improvements to the quality of the
sound - this is promulgated by the con artists who make and sell this crap,
and the magazine reviewer liars who say it actually works.

Note the difference: with cable electrical properties like RLC, and wobbly,
vibration-prone turntables, punters can appreciate that there is real
physics in there somewhere. With bottles of rocks, they can't see any
real-world theory (because there *isn't* any real-world theory). The latter
is bull**** which relies on appeal to the supposed authority of bull****
manufacturers and the lying magazine scum who say it works.

It's one thing to buy rip-off cables because you've heard of RLC and are
curious about whether it really does work; it's quite another to buy bottles
of rocks because some lying con-artist says it does.


I think the ante's overdue for upping - most people wouldn't walk to
the end of the road for a grand these days...

I would. What would it take? A couple of hours? How many here wouldn't take
the chance to earn 500 quid an hour on any evening they can be arsed to sit
and listen to some music?


Anyway, that Classic FM chiller cabinet thing is on. It's making me
relax...

Chiller Cabinet?

Some pishy show where they play modern, non-classical stuff to 'chill' to
after you've been out 'clubbing'. Something to do with 'yoof', I suspect.



--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

In article , Rob
wrote:


I think the 'challenge' is not taken for two main reasons: not sure that
their experience can be reliably replicated (and hence embarrassment
etc.); and, can't be bothered. I don't think they're liars.

They may well not be liars. However it does seem strange that the
essentially universal reaction is to avoid the situation of engaging in a
test whose result might have the ability to *support* their claims.

FWIW My suspicion is that people may simply be self-deceived, or mislead by
others. However in the absence of test results it is hard to reach a
conclusion.

Above said, if I thought I could hear the claimed differences I'd welcome
the chance to test this and see if it was the case.

I would also have thought that any journalist who was sure they could hear
the difference would welcome a test as passing it would enhance their
reputation as the only journalist to have ever been able to back their
claims with reliability. Afraid that to me it seems rather like a lack of
confidence for them to refuse. If they won't show the confidence, why
should I or you put any confidence in their claims?...


A problem is that the effects that people who buy this sort of stuff
believe they hear are not measurable by any other method than human
trial, sample size one or possibly two.

I am not quite sure what you mean by the above. So far as I can see, of the
claim is that cables or other devices produce an audible effect as a
consequence of changing the sounds. If so, then that can be expected to be
demonstrable by a test that only allowed the claimer to discriminate by the
sounds. Hence if they *can* hear a difference in that situation I'd expect
them to be able to show this in a test.

Note that people often claim that such differences are "obvious" or
"dramatic", or employ some other term which indicates that the differences
are far from being subtle or difficult to hear. Although they sometimes
imply that only mortals with hearing/perceptions as skilled/sensitive as
their own would find this to be the case.

And in view of the fact that this group is marshalled by empiricists and
technocrats they're wise to steer clear.

Why? The only reason for that which seems obvious to me is that actually
they have no confidence that they *can* actually hear a difference. if they
make claims that they do not themselves believe, then I'd agree that they
might be wise to 'steer clear'.

It seems to me that the criticism isn't simply for making the claims. It is
for making claims that they then refuse to show they can demonstrate when
only listening is involved and they have no other way of telling one item
from another. And the way this refusal seems to have become an established
pattern of behaviour.

Although I doubt this group is 'marshalled'... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Even with a 'no-quibble money back guarantee'....? How 'fair' does it
have to get?

Check carefully those 'no quibble money back guarantees' Many insist the
item must be fit for re-sale and have the original packaging.



I wouldn't expect anything less - would you?

"andy" wrote


is a *Research Aeronautical Engineer* for a NATO-funded Scientific
Institute
and often has Japs coming over to see *him*!! Are you saying such a
person
could also be 'stupid'...??

As someone who knows a large number of these people I can assure the
answer is unequivocally yes.


:-)


OK, by what definition?


A significant proportion are stupid and


Too vague - roughly what, half of them?



Scientist - If it can't be measured it can't be heard....

Since our instruments are far more sensitive than the ear and not
connected to something as unreliable as the human brain it the only
sensible view to take. It is the basis of science - a quick check of
the scientific method may be helpful.


I'm not querying the definition, merely relating the 'gist' of it.....



No, the 'DBT' test is a near useless mechanism in my book.

So much for the enormous number of such tests performed every day in a
wide range of disciplines.


I'm discussing only the practice of DBTs with respect to compaing audio
gear.


Claiming to derive pleasure from a new purchase and that it adds to
ones listening experience is perfectly reasonable and will be accepted
by most people. Claiming it sounds better in a physical sense is going
against long established scientific knowledge and will be challenged
and then disregarded without evidence.


Don't understand what you mean here - 'sounding better' (highly subjective)
means what it says to me...??


I think the ante's overdue for upping - most people wouldn't walk to the
end
of the road for a grand these days...

The pebbles would qualify for Randi's million dollar challenge if that
is enough.


I'm only vaguely aware of all that hullabaloo - I don't give it much
attention...!!