Have we all been duped??

[damacman]

Originally Posted by Masterlu

Yup, become a Subscriber; get my special pricing, and guaranteed satisfaction with WW.

You know, I can't come up with a single good reason why I shouldn't support you Ivan - IMHO one of the best mouthpieces our hobby has ever seen. The John Force of audio.

Done.

[Masterlu]

Originally Posted by damacman

You know, I can't come up with a single good reason why I shouldn't support you Ivan - IMHO one of the best mouthpieces our hobby has ever seen. The John Force of audio.

Done.

Thank you!

I personally guarantee you many times your investment in return.

[SteveJ]

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Just a couple parting thoughts on "perception" as it relates to a number of things that cannot be explained by reductionist science.

Itzhak Perlman's Stradivarius violin does not sound like Alan Loveday's Guarnerius when playing the same exact notes in Vivaldi's "Winter" in The Four Seasons. When "measured" with a spectrum analyser, the data will be the same, but, they don't sound the same...at all.

Why do they sound different? We don't know, but we sure as h*ll can hear the difference.

There are lots of things in this universe that "reductionist science" simply cannot explain. How does reductionist science explain that our dogs (and some cats) are waiting for us when we get home?

Or the sensation of being stared at?

We've all experienced and/or perceived these phenomena.

But, reductionist science cannot explain them.

Any more than it can explain Gravity.

As Dan said, though, we know it when we hear it...

Dear PumaCat, I must respectfully disagree.

The overtones of the fundamental frequencies, the harmonics and resulting intermodulations are why a Stradivari violin can be distinguished from a Guarneri. These phenomenon can be measured in the same way as voice recognition.

Of course this put us no closer to answering the initial question.

For the record, since I am unable to resist the urge to participate in this thread , I do not have an opinion as to whether a properly made cable can be distinguished from or preferred over another.

I would regard myself as a skeptic that would/will be happy to become a believer.

[damacman]

Originally Posted by Masterlu

Thank you!

I personally guarantee you many times your investment in return.

Most assuredly. So, gimme the scoop on the cable!

[Masterlu]

Originally Posted by damacman

Most assuredly. So, gimme the scoop on the cable!

PM inbound

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by SteveJ

Dear PumaCat, I must respectfully disagree.

The overtones of the fundamental frequencies, the harmonics and resulting intermodulations are why a Stradivari violin can be distinguished from a Guarneri. These phenomenon can be measured in the same way as voice recognition.

Of course this put us no closer to answering the initial question.

For the record, since I am unable to resist the urge to participate in this thread , I do not have an opinion as to whether a properly made cable can be distinguished from or preferred over another.

I would regard myself as a skeptic that would/will be happy to become a believer.

Hi Steve!

I wasn't aware that were measurement systems that could distinguish a Stravarius from Guarnerius, but I would love to see the data or analysis; that would be fascinating. If you have any links or references, please let me know as I would enjoy reading about this subject.

Thanks!

-PC

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by damacman

Well, I need a 3M USB 2.0 A to B cable to go between my D150 and PC. Currently, I'm using a freebie cord that came with a printer. My main beef with it is that its connection to the D150 is not solid - wonky at best.

I'm game to be objective here. Recommend an inexpensive substitute and I'll try it out! I was looking at the AudioQuest Pearl or Wire World Chroma . . . other suggestions?

Shunyata Venom USB, no question about it. In my experience and system, it outperforms my reference of five years, AQ Diamond.

[SteveJ]

Originally Posted by Puma Cat

Hi Steve!

I wasn't aware that were measurement systems that could distinguish a Stravarius from Guarnerius, but I would love to see the data or analysis; that would be fascinating. If you have any links or references, please let me know as I would enjoy reading about this subject.

Thanks!

-PC

Here is one. I will look for others.

https://www.limelightmagazine.com.au...-in-new-study/

Perhaps this is where we should be looking to quantify a difference between two cables, run voice analysis software and look for differences. This could be used in interconnects, data cables, ethernet cables and power cables. I would have to think about how to do it with speaker cables. It might provide a subjective method of analysis. I think the null box might not be sufficient.

Here is another.https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0325135302.htm

Although they are comparing the violins to human voices it would be just as easy to compare one violin to another or, more to the point of this discussion, one cable to another and if you were to run an audio track through the left and right channels of a system, say between the preamp and amp, and use voice analysis software to quantify any differences at the output of the amp, then reverse paths until the signal had gone through each combination of channels and interconnects, you could establish IF there were a quantifiable difference.

Maybe this is a start?

And now PumaCat, I must make a confession. I did not actually know that voice analysis methodology was being used on violins. I made sense to me from what I knew about fundamental frequencies, the harmonics and resulting intermodulations and voice analysis and my experience with spectrum analyzers and the sound of certain violins that it would work.

[Puma Cat]

Originally Posted by SteveJ

Here is one. I will look for others.

https://www.limelightmagazine.com.au...-in-new-study/

Perhaps this is where we should be looking to quantify a difference between two cables, run voice analysis software an look for differences.

Thanks, Steve.

Much appreciated.

[doggiehowser]

The McNamara fallacy (also known as quantitative fallacy[1]), named for Robert McNamara, the US secretary of defense from 1961 to 1968, involves making a decision based solely on quantitative observations (or metrics) and ignoring all others. The reason given is often that these other observations cannot be proven.

The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is OK as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can't be easily measured or to give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist. This is suicide.

— Daniel Yankelovich "Corporate Priorities: A continuing study of the new demands on business." (1972)