On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:27:48 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:


I'm not so keen that I would come as far as Helsinki from London to do
it.

That, I can understand.

I do occasionally come to Helsinki for work, though, and when I
do, I will let you know so we can see if we can put this together.


That sounds great. Once you give me your permission I will send you a
personal mail then, with my contact details. (The only stipulation here
is that you must promise never to reveal them in any public forum.)

In fact, I was just recently in London on business also. I was somewhere
near this little suburb town called "high wycombe" stayed in a hotell
called "the bull" etc.. Very cute, serene place, it was.. I've been
recently *very* busy, now things are a bit relaxed, but if I had had the
time then (bout a month ago) I could have arranged a meet with you to do
*my* kind of test: Ie, I would humbly come over to your abode, speaker
cables in hand, hook them up make you listen and ask, "ferchrissake, you
really hear no difference??"


As I have said, what I can or cannot hear is of no importance. The
fact is that you hear a difference in a circumstance where common
sense and science say you should not. The test is thus whether *you*
are actually hearing a difference, or are simply mistaken. To make
that test fair, it must be done under the identical circumstances
which prompt you to hear the difference.



Actually, how about you pay my fare?

Well since you will be coming in for business why should I?? I can at
most, pay for the hotel money of extra day or two you for when you will
stick around some extra time for the test.

You will certainly get much more
than that back when you claim your £1,000.

?? I thought it was pinkerton, not you, that put up that 1000 cash
money? I find it just extremely difficult to believe that some creature
of a stewart pinkerton would live up to his promise and actually pay up
any money even if I do "pass the test", as it were. My only take on this
is curiosity, nothing else. In fact, I *know* for a fact that pinkerton
would say and do anything rather then pay up, so don't take that silly
creature into the equation at all, please.


I have no reason to believe he is not a man of his word. If you would
like to do this thing independently of his challenge, of course, I am
happy to go along with it. I am not offering any money.

And my suggestion of your paying my fare was not to be taken
seriously.



When you say 100% certainty, do you mean we can forget the 16 out of
20 and go for a straight 20 out of 20?

I thought it was 15? No, I'll keep that err margin accounting for the
stress induced by actually performing such a test.



OK - the test will be as I proposed, then.

Ok, 15, or 16 right answers(?), and using my current speaker cables
against some stock lamp cord, whatever the gauge, in my home system. I
can provide you with a local sceptic here (or you might know one
yourself) and I'll have buddy help me out also (as is stipulated with
your protocol).. And results, fairly and honestly, will be made public.

It is 16 - Stewarts stipulation was "more than 15".

This is all provisional, of course. The £1,000 is Stewarts, and he
hasn't yet approved my protocol. If, and when, he does, we can sort
out the details. He may want some changes.

I would also like to gather a few more responses to refine my proposed
protocol - I have already seen a few problems with it that I will deal
with and re-post the page.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:27:48 +0200, Forwarder wrote:



I have no reason to believe he is not a man of his word. If you would
like to do this thing independently of his challenge, of course, I am
happy to go along with it.

We *were* supposed to do this anyways, so yes, his "challange" can be
included, if he does not squi..err.. find your protocol inadequate that
is...

I transfer one of my questions above to this thread, might be wise for
you to consider this possibility beforehand:

"The speaker cables I use are just individual, thin strands of
silver/copper wire shielded with teflon coating and braided in a special
construction, no boxes or resistors anywhere. Your lamp cord is lamp
cord. So if my cables somehow produce enough a wider freq resp variation
as compraed to your lamcord (0.1) then does that mean that the test we
have agreed upon on the thread below can't be done? "

I am presuming that you will bring whatever device necessary to measure
the cables, and the lamp cord of your choice of course...


I am not offering any money.

Ok.


And my suggestion of your paying my fare was not to be taken
seriously.

Ok. I will buy you a beer or two though, as in basic hospitality.



I would also like to gather a few more responses to refine my proposed
protocol - I have already seen a few problems with it that I will deal
with and re-post the page.

Ok. When you so confirm, I will send you a personal message for the
contact details when you are in these parts of the woods. Welcome!

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:49:21 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:27:48 +0200, Forwarder wrote:



I have no reason to believe he is not a man of his word. If you would
like to do this thing independently of his challenge, of course, I am
happy to go along with it.

We *were* supposed to do this anyways, so yes, his "challange" can be
included, if he does not squi..err.. find your protocol inadequate that
is...

I transfer one of my questions above to this thread, might be wise for
you to consider this possibility beforehand:

"The speaker cables I use are just individual, thin strands of
silver/copper wire shielded with teflon coating and braided in a special
construction, no boxes or resistors anywhere. Your lamp cord is lamp
cord. So if my cables somehow produce enough a wider freq resp variation
as compraed to your lamcord (0.1) then does that mean that the test we
have agreed upon on the thread below can't be done? "


I have dealt with this in the other thread.

I am presuming that you will bring whatever device necessary to measure
the cables, and the lamp cord of your choice of course...


I am not offering any money.

Ok.


And my suggestion of your paying my fare was not to be taken
seriously.

Ok. I will buy you a beer or two though, as in basic hospitality.



I would also like to gather a few more responses to refine my proposed
protocol - I have already seen a few problems with it that I will deal
with and re-post the page.

Ok. When you so confirm, I will send you a personal message for the
contact details when you are in these parts of the woods. Welcome!

Sounds good - it is all done much more easily, though, if we stick
with your interconnects rather than the speaker cables. It is more
difficult to disguise the connections of the speakers, and it all
takes much longer as well. Using the interconnects also means that we
can effectively ignore the level and frequency response problems.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:


Sounds good - it is all done much more easily, though, if we stick
with your interconnects rather than the speaker cables. It is more
difficult to disguise the connections of the speakers, and it all
takes much longer as well. Using the interconnects also means that we
can effectively ignore the level and frequency response problems.



Like I said before, I have done very thorough and similar tests using my
speaker cables, not the interconnects. If you accept it when you are
here I will show you how we hid the speaker cables when doing the tests.
We actuallt hide the whole of the back of the system out of sight..
After that, swapping is relatively easy.

Funny thing with the interconnects, if a dime a dozen interconnect is
employed in my system the *sound* of some neighbors' TV (or some TV, but
it is always channel one!) comes from my speakers, very faintly. This
*really* happens. When I employ my interconnects (or the spare
"groneberg" ones) there is dead silence.. So if we do it with
interconnects, I might just hear the difference without listening to
music at all.



d

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

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:21:42 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:


Sounds good - it is all done much more easily, though, if we stick
with your interconnects rather than the speaker cables. It is more
difficult to disguise the connections of the speakers, and it all
takes much longer as well. Using the interconnects also means that we
can effectively ignore the level and frequency response problems.



Like I said before, I have done very thorough and similar tests using my
speaker cables, not the interconnects. If you accept it when you are
here I will show you how we hid the speaker cables when doing the tests.
We actuallt hide the whole of the back of the system out of sight..
After that, swapping is relatively easy.

Funny thing with the interconnects, if a dime a dozen interconnect is
employed in my system the *sound* of some neighbors' TV (or some TV, but
it is always channel one!) comes from my speakers, very faintly. This
*really* happens. When I employ my interconnects (or the spare
"groneberg" ones) there is dead silence.. So if we do it with
interconnects, I might just hear the difference without listening to
music at all.

Do you live close to the TV transmitter? If you are in an area of
really high radio field strength, then all sorts of changes could be
happening to your system depending on what cables you use -
particularly speaker cables, which are not shielded. It is possible
that there is a real difference at work here, just not one resulting
from normal cable differences.

Of course that would lie outside the remit of the challenge.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:21:42 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


Sounds good - it is all done much more easily, though, if we stick
with your interconnects rather than the speaker cables. It is more
difficult to disguise the connections of the speakers, and it all
takes much longer as well. Using the interconnects also means that we
can effectively ignore the level and frequency response problems.



Like I said before, I have done very thorough and similar tests using my
speaker cables, not the interconnects. If you accept it when you are
here I will show you how we hid the speaker cables when doing the tests.
We actuallt hide the whole of the back of the system out of sight..
After that, swapping is relatively easy.

Funny thing with the interconnects, if a dime a dozen interconnect is
employed in my system the *sound* of some neighbors' TV (or some TV, but
it is always channel one!) comes from my speakers, very faintly. This
*really* happens. When I employ my interconnects (or the spare
"groneberg" ones) there is dead silence.. So if we do it with
interconnects, I might just hear the difference without listening to
music at all.


Do you live close to the TV transmitter?

Don't know, or, not that I know of.

If you are in an area of
really high radio field strength, then all sorts of changes could be
happening to your system depending on what cables you use -
particularly speaker cables, which are not shielded.

Well, mine are shielded.

It is possible
that there is a real difference at work here,

How would that "real difference" manifest itself then?

In anycase, the effect is demostrable every time. Though *only* with
interconnects, not speaker cable. No matter what speaker cable is
employed the system almost always dead silent (barring this slight hiss
when you glue your ear to the sonus' tweeter) given that stock
interconnects are not there.


Of course that would lie outside the remit of the challenge.

Ok. Once you are around here you can check for yourself. Under
favorouble circumstances I can repeat the speaker cable test elsewhere
then my home also. But arraning such would be very difficult, though not
impossible.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:37:07 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:21:42 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


Sounds good - it is all done much more easily, though, if we stick
with your interconnects rather than the speaker cables. It is more
difficult to disguise the connections of the speakers, and it all
takes much longer as well. Using the interconnects also means that we
can effectively ignore the level and frequency response problems.



Like I said before, I have done very thorough and similar tests using my
speaker cables, not the interconnects. If you accept it when you are
here I will show you how we hid the speaker cables when doing the tests.
We actuallt hide the whole of the back of the system out of sight..
After that, swapping is relatively easy.

Funny thing with the interconnects, if a dime a dozen interconnect is
employed in my system the *sound* of some neighbors' TV (or some TV, but
it is always channel one!) comes from my speakers, very faintly. This
*really* happens. When I employ my interconnects (or the spare
"groneberg" ones) there is dead silence.. So if we do it with
interconnects, I might just hear the difference without listening to
music at all.


Do you live close to the TV transmitter?

Don't know, or, not that I know of.

If you are in an area of
really high radio field strength, then all sorts of changes could be
happening to your system depending on what cables you use -
particularly speaker cables, which are not shielded.

Well, mine are shielded.

Well, for TV sound to be picked up, the source will be the
transmitter, not a neighbour's receiver. If there is plenty of signal
around, and your system is susceptible, then changing to an unshielded
cable could make a difference.

It is possible
that there is a real difference at work here,

How would that "real difference" manifest itself then?

In anycase, the effect is demostrable every time. Though *only* with
interconnects, not speaker cable. No matter what speaker cable is
employed the system almost always dead silent (barring this slight hiss
when you glue your ear to the sonus' tweeter) given that stock
interconnects are not there.


Of course that would lie outside the remit of the challenge.

Ok. Once you are around here you can check for yourself. Under
favorouble circumstances I can repeat the speaker cable test elsewhere
then my home also. But arraning such would be very difficult, though not
impossible.

OK - lets wait and see where we get to over the next few days.

d

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

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
OK, I've had a bit of a think - and I've written a protocol, which I
believe would be a basis of fair testing of audio components to
resolve such issues as cable sound etc.

I invite all here to read what I suggest, and let me know if I have
either missed something, or am being unfair on one direction or
another.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I think this could be a way of defusing the vituperation that
currently surrounds the subject.

So what do you think?

Just cruising through quickly...

(1) We always level-matched at 20 and 20 KHz, as well as several places
in-between. Its not hard to hear a roll-off below 100 Hz. Also there is the
possibility of notches in the frequencies in-between.

(2) Note the elaborate listener training that is available at www.pcabx.com
.. It's there for a reason. ;-)

(3) Time-synching does not seem to be mentioned. If this protocol is only
for cables, its unlikely to be needed.

(4) The person who connects the cables does not seem to be fully concealed
from the listener, thus the test is arguably not double blind. Some say that
body language is the truly universal language.

The cable changer should be concealed from test start to finish. He should
do what he does base on non-interactive voice commands from the listening
room.

(5) IMO 16/16 is a bit severe. 14/16 is good enough for me.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:50:25 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
OK, I've had a bit of a think - and I've written a protocol, which I
believe would be a basis of fair testing of audio components to
resolve such issues as cable sound etc.

I invite all here to read what I suggest, and let me know if I have
either missed something, or am being unfair on one direction or
another.

http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I think this could be a way of defusing the vituperation that
currently surrounds the subject.

So what do you think?

Just cruising through quickly...

(1) We always level-matched at 20 and 20 KHz, as well as several places
in-between. Its not hard to hear a roll-off below 100 Hz. Also there is the
possibility of notches in the frequencies in-between.

OK - not necessary for cables, though. Maybe I could shift the 15kHz
tone up to 20kHz, but I suspect there may be some CD players that
aren't totally flat up there.

(2) Note the elaborate listener training that is available at www.pcabx.com
. It's there for a reason. ;-)

This protocol is to test subjects who have already identified a
difference, so no listener training is required.

(3) Time-synching does not seem to be mentioned. If this protocol is only
for cables, its unlikely to be needed.

That's right This isn't a protocol for fast ABX switching, so there is
no need. Indeed the test would allow the subject to start and stop the
music, swap CDs etc - whatever he wants really, to aid his decision.

(4) The person who connects the cables does not seem to be fully concealed
from the listener, thus the test is arguably not double blind. Some say that
body language is the truly universal language.

The cable changer should be concealed from test start to finish. He should
do what he does base on non-interactive voice commands from the listening
room.

The cable changer is a skeptic, so should be able to do his job
without communicating any info. In the case of interconnects, I
suppose both bits of kit could be in another room, but not for speaker
cables. I think the protocol is secure enough for practical purposes.
The main thing is to keep the observer from communicating with the
subject. I have made a change to reflect this in an updated page

(5) IMO 16/16 is a bit severe. 14/16 is good enough for me.


It is 16/20, followed by a further 16/20 if successful the first time.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:



http://www.donepearce.plus.com/odds/dbt/

I didn't get the reasoning behind why the cable changer necessarily
needs to be sceptic. Though it's no big deal in the end, since a
"subjectivist" (?) will be present at cable changes monitoring that
indeed the cables are being screwed in properly, etc..