Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Martin
wrote:
I've been thinking about getting a demagnetizer to make my old records
sound better. I've seen them advertised and wondered if they were any
good and what kind of difference I could expect once I've invested in
one.

This is to go with my old Amstrad stack unit which is in my bedroom. Do
you think it would be a worthwhile buy for me?

ahem The above has all the signs of being a wind-up (gramophone?) :-)


I did think of asking about 100 quid hook-up cables and £30/m speaker
wire, but I thought that might give the game away

On a more serious note, have any of you been following the Randi/Pear
cables saga? It's getting more and more viscious as the insults fly
left, right and centre.

Cheers
M

Martin wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Martin
wrote:
I've been thinking about getting a demagnetizer to make my old records
sound better. I've seen them advertised and wondered if they were any
good and what kind of difference I could expect once I've invested in
one.

This is to go with my old Amstrad stack unit which is in my bedroom. Do
you think it would be a worthwhile buy for me?

ahem The above has all the signs of being a wind-up (gramophone?) :-)


I did think of asking about 100 quid hook-up cables and £30/m speaker
wire, but I thought that might give the game away

On a more serious note, have any of you been following the Randi/Pear
cables saga? It's getting more and more viscious as the insults fly
left, right and centre.

Where is that debate taking place?
Is viscious like an angry octopus, vicious and viscous?

--
Eiron.

Eiron wrote:
Martin wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Martin
wrote:
I've been thinking about getting a demagnetizer to make my old records
sound better. I've seen them advertised and wondered if they were any
good and what kind of difference I could expect once I've invested in
one.

This is to go with my old Amstrad stack unit which is in my bedroom. Do
you think it would be a worthwhile buy for me?

ahem The above has all the signs of being a wind-up (gramophone?) :-)


I did think of asking about 100 quid hook-up cables and £30/m speaker
wire, but I thought that might give the game away

On a more serious note, have any of you been following the Randi/Pear
cables saga? It's getting more and more viscious as the insults fly
left, right and centre.

Where is that debate taking place?
Is viscious like an angry octopus, vicious and viscous?

oops

there's a couple of forum posts on Randi's web site, if you have a poke
around there's a small handfull

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97586

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95361

Pear's CEO response

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/double-bl...oax-307473.php
http://tinyurl.com/2n6dfe

M

Signal wrote:
Martin wrote:

Eiron wrote:
Martin wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Martin
wrote:
I've been thinking about getting a demagnetizer to make my old records
sound better. I've seen them advertised and wondered if they were any
good and what kind of difference I could expect once I've invested in
one.
This is to go with my old Amstrad stack unit which is in my bedroom. Do
you think it would be a worthwhile buy for me?
ahem The above has all the signs of being a wind-up (gramophone?) :-)

I did think of asking about 100 quid hook-up cables and £30/m speaker
wire, but I thought that might give the game away

On a more serious note, have any of you been following the Randi/Pear
cables saga? It's getting more and more viscious as the insults fly
left, right and centre.
Where is that debate taking place?
Is viscious like an angry octopus, vicious and viscous?
oops
there's a couple of forum posts on Randi's web site, if you have a poke
around there's a small handfull

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97586

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95361

Pear's CEO response

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/double-bl...oax-307473.php
http://tinyurl.com/2n6dfe

M



James Randi's challenge requires proof on the basis.. "demonstrate any
psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability". No cable mfrs claim any
such properties for their cables - so surprise surprise.. nobody is
willing to partake under these terms. The $1m cable challenge(s) are
vapid, inapplicable, and merely exist as an underhand method of
rubbishing cable makers.

If the challenge was "to demonstrate reliable statistical evidence of
an audible difference under controlled circumstances" (blah blah blah)
- ie. no requirement for proof of fairies or telekinesis if a
difference is found - then he might get a few punters up to the plate.
But is that what he really wants..? Doubt it!

How much did you pay for your speaker cables and inter-connects?

Signal wrote:
Martin wrote:

Eiron wrote:
Martin wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Martin
wrote:
I've been thinking about getting a demagnetizer to make my old records
sound better. I've seen them advertised and wondered if they were any
good and what kind of difference I could expect once I've invested in
one.
This is to go with my old Amstrad stack unit which is in my bedroom. Do
you think it would be a worthwhile buy for me?
ahem The above has all the signs of being a wind-up (gramophone?) :-)

I did think of asking about 100 quid hook-up cables and £30/m speaker
wire, but I thought that might give the game away

On a more serious note, have any of you been following the Randi/Pear
cables saga? It's getting more and more viscious as the insults fly
left, right and centre.
Where is that debate taking place?
Is viscious like an angry octopus, vicious and viscous?
oops
there's a couple of forum posts on Randi's web site, if you have a poke
around there's a small handfull

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97586

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95361

Pear's CEO response

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/double-bl...oax-307473.php
http://tinyurl.com/2n6dfe

M



James Randi's challenge requires proof on the basis.. "demonstrate any
psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability". No cable mfrs claim any
such properties for their cables - so surprise surprise.. nobody is
willing to partake under these terms. The $1m cable challenge(s) are
vapid, inapplicable, and merely exist as an underhand method of
rubbishing cable makers.

Cable mfts DO make paranormal claims.

Ever heard of one way cable? Oxygen free copper? As mains leads? Digital
cables to improve the signal quality from your HD source? $40,000
speaker cables? £500 interconnects? It's all ********.

This should be tested. Randi IS putting up the JREF prize.

In article , Signal
wrote:
Martin wrote:


Cable mfts DO make paranormal claims.

None claim 'psychic, supernatural or paranormal' abilities.

I've not seen any ads include those terms. Perhaps because they might alert
the punters to take what is said with a bag of salt. :-)

However they do seem to make claims for things like "one way cables" for
which they provide zero in the way of relevant measured evidence, and
'technobabble' in place of any explanation based on known physics or
engineering for how the cables can have any audible effect.

There is also the problem of the lack of carefully controlled and run tests
whose results show signs of their being any audible effect. I've not seen
any positive test results where the test method was designed to ensure that
the judgement was on sound alone, and where the test was run in a way to
discriminate against other well-know factors which could cause false
results.

If they can't give a testable basis in terms of physics/engineering, spout
technobabble, and ignore their inability to show reliable evidence, yet
persist in their claim: how is that different from saying the basis is
"psychic, supernatural, or paranormal"?... At what point does talking BS
that clashes with physics, etc, become indistinguishable from making
"psychic, supernatural, or paranormal" claims?

I've no idea what may be in their heads, so can only judge what they
believe by what they claim. That seems to indicate either that they often
have no real understanding of physics/engineering, or have made up versions
of their own that look like twaddle.

The result being various adverts and claims that look like 'science' to the
lay reader (punter), but would be recognised as twaddle by someone who
actually understood the relevant topics, and relying on things which are
beyond established physics, etc.

Although in some cases the sales method seems to be something between
'baloney baffles brains' and 'mountains made out of molehills'. A mix of
giving daftly over-complex and largely irrelevant 'explanations', with
pretending that something matters when it doesn't. How much this is due to
the makers being clueless about science in any case, or having no real
sense, I can't tell.

I think there may be a relevant phrase here, about ducks... :-)

However I don't know the wording of the 'Randi Challenge' for cables, so
can't comment on that at present. Perhaps he has no interest in claims that
are simply twaddle, and/or misrepresent physical science and engineering to
mislead people into spending their money.

Slainte,

Jim

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

However they do seem to make claims for things like "one way cables" for
which they provide zero in the way of relevant measured evidence, and
'technobabble' in place of any explanation based on known physics or
engineering for how the cables can have any audible effect.

Jim. The one-way cable is something from analogue broadcast which the
hifi fraternity have latched onto, without really understanding why. It was
common in broadcast and studio racks to see cables (coax, balanced and
speaker cables) marked with arrows. This was simply to ease the task of
maintenance and show the direction of flow (upstream to downstream) so
that one could follow through when checking connection integrity.

There are plenty of hifi dealers who try to sell one speaker cables with
arrows
marked on them. They also (if you ask) have the same cable without the
arrows, some 25% cheaper. But then you only have a 50/50 chance of
getting the cable the right way round:-)

Iain

In article , Iain
Churches wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

However they do seem to make claims for things like "one way cables"
for which they provide zero in the way of relevant measured evidence,
and 'technobabble' in place of any explanation based on known physics
or engineering for how the cables can have any audible effect.

Jim. The one-way cable is something from analogue broadcast which the
hifi fraternity have latched onto, without really understanding why.

I'm not sure if the purchasers lached onto it for that reason. I suspect
they'd never have seen what you describe below. More likely someone simply
tried swapping a cable round and decided they "heard a difference", and
made the usual assumption in audio that "it must be because..." No idea if
this was a user or a maker/seller, though. But the problem I fear is the
common failure to check the conclusions jumped to. The only "understanding"
is based on this so far as I can see (or hear). Although I think some fancy
cables have deliberately included networks of components which make the
result 'directional' for reason which have zero to do with cable per se.


It was common in broadcast and studio racks to see cables (coax,
balanced and speaker cables) marked with arrows. This was simply to ease
the task of maintenance and show the direction of flow (upstream to
downstream) so that one could follow through when checking connection
integrity.


I've also seen many such cables, for similar reasons. Not in TV studios,
but in complex lab arrangements. e.g. For instrumentation at JET when
heaven knows how many cables are in use, and run into an area inaccessible
when the torus was on. Also, of course all indentified in the usual ways
with letter/number rings, colour codes, etc. Gets to be fun with many
research groups, loads of instruments (plus seriously high power lines and
microwave plumbing) and half-a-dozen languages as people argue. :-)


There are plenty of hifi dealers who try to sell one speaker cables with
arrows marked on them. They also (if you ask) have the same cable
without the arrows, some 25% cheaper. But then you only have a 50/50
chance of getting the cable the right way round:-)

Surely only 25%. It would obviously be a problem if you used the 'hot' and
'ground' wires in place of one another. Likely to confuse the electrons.
On that basis, worth the money. ;-

The root problem for me is the "jump to conclusions" pattern of behaviour I
outline above. Plus the technobabble which is then used in an attempt to
'explain' the 'effect'.

Slainte,

Jim

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

In article , Martin
wrote:


On a more serious note, have any of you been following the Randi/Pear
cables saga? It's getting more and more viscious as the insults fly
left, right and centre.

Afraid not. Where is it? ...and does it shine any light on the topic, or
just smoke and heat? :-)

I recognise the name 'Randi', but not 'Pear'.

Slainte,

Jim

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