[Split]Technical split from: Pear Cable CEO Calls James Randi's $1 Million Offer a Ho

sol invictus said:
So then why did you post a link to something with little or no relevance to the question at hand?
Click to expand...

Saying that room modes and cancellations have nothing to do with a tone of 50Hz inside a room just shows even more how much in need of some basics in acoustics you are.

If you want some lectures, send me some money. I will stop my attempts to teaching you for free over this forum :D
 
Last edited:
rsaavedra said:
Saying that room modes and cancellations have nothing to do with a tone of 50Hz inside a room just shows even more how much in need of some basics in acoustics you are.
Click to expand...

OK, rsaavedra, the fifth troll's the charm - you win. Congratulations.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
Paul, a sound wave is a collective motion of air molecules. The energy and momentum of the wave is not carried by any individual molecule, or even by any finite collection of them - in fact none of the molecules move any significant distance as the wave passes, any more than water molecules are carried along by water waves.
Click to expand...
I know that this is an old post, but gee, am I the only one that sees a contradiction here, and it does not matter if they don't move a significant distance, they still move, and the property of air affects the frequency response too.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
I'm closing my eyes now....and I still can't hear a difference between these posted arguments.

I've read as much of this thread as I can tolerate in one sitting.
That being said, this info may have been mentioned already...

Discuss theory and 'what-if' all you guys want, but the best way is to take the (listening) challenge yourself.
(I can't yet post links - 9 posts so far, toward the 15 required)

Go build yourself an A/B box.
Easy....one relay, a switch, a diode, some appropriate jacks, and a DC wall wart.
sound.westhost.com/absw.htm
Correct, it's not A/B/X, but by pushing the button you go back and forth between the gear being tested.....you will not know which you are listening to unless you install the A and B LEDs (or keep them out-of-sight).
I'm sure much has been mentioned here on JREG about A/B (/X) testing.

I build DIY headphone amps, and use this A/B box to 'listen' for better quality between each of my designs.
Of course I'm testing the electronics/components part of the system.
I have not tested the 'sound' of two different cables, yet.

But for ST's-and-GIG's, try this:

Walk into an audiophile hi-fi store with an A/B box in your hand, telling the salesman..."I'd like to A/B test some gear before I buy it."
What reply do you expect to hear from the salesman?
Probably not much cooperation, and.... why not ?

But who's going to buy/borrow the Pear $7500 cables, to compare ?
What about the difference between ANY cables ?
I do have on-hand some $700 interconnects (yes, not speaker cable) ...and some el cheapo 99cent store interconnects.
I'll try it this week.

More info:
sound.westhost.com/cables.htm
ackthud.net/shawnfogg/pics/temp/ABX_manual.pdf
sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm

=S=
 
Stupid said:
I'm closing my eyes now....and I still can't hear a difference between these posted arguments.

I've read as much of this thread as I can tolerate in one sitting.
That being said, this info may have been mentioned already...

Discuss theory and 'what-if' all you guys want, but the best way is to take the (listening) challenge yourself.
(I can't yet post links - 9 posts so far, toward the 15 required)

Go build yourself an A/B box.
Easy....one relay, a switch, a diode, some appropriate jacks, and a DC wall wart.
sound.westhost.com/absw.htm
Correct, it's not A/B/X, but by pushing the button you go back and forth between the gear being tested.....you will not know which you are listening to unless you install the A and B LEDs (or keep them out-of-sight).
I'm sure much has been mentioned here on JREG about A/B (/X) testing.

I build DIY headphone amps, and use this A/B box to 'listen' for better quality between each of my designs.
Of course I'm testing the electronics/components part of the system.
I have not tested the 'sound' of two different cables, yet.

But for ST's-and-GIG's, try this:

Walk into an audiophile hi-fi store with an A/B box in your hand, telling the salesman..."I'd like to A/B test some gear before I buy it."
What reply do you expect to hear from the salesman?
Probably not much cooperation, and.... why not ?

But who's going to buy/borrow the Pear $7500 cables, to compare ?
What about the difference between ANY cables ?
I do have on-hand some $700 interconnects (yes, not speaker cable) ...and some el cheapo 99cent store interconnects.
I'll try it this week.

More info:
sound.westhost.com/cables.htm
ackthud.net/shawnfogg/pics/temp/ABX_manual.pdf
sound.westhost.com/abx-tester.htm

=S=
Click to expand...
A very good friend, "one that I have talked about many times behind his back about this" who buys into the wire woo-woo will be here from the 15th to the 19th, and I just know that has we listen to my system, wire will come up as sure as the sun, and the heat discussion shall begin.

Paul

:) :) :)

He also believes in a so-called god but that is another thread :rolleyes:
 
Stupid said:
Walk into an audiophile hi-fi store with an A/B box in your hand, telling the salesman..."I'd like to A/B test some gear before I buy it."
What reply do you expect to hear from the salesman?
Probably not much cooperation, and.... why not ?
Click to expand...

After you destroy the micro-annealing of the oxygen free gold conductors by inserting your lead contaminated junk switches, the whole system is going to sound like crap and nobody will be able to tell the difference either way.
 
Dan O. said:
After you destroy the micro-annealing of the oxygen free gold conductors by inserting your lead contaminated junk switches, the whole system is going to sound like crap and nobody will be able to tell the difference either way.
Click to expand...
With the so-called lead contaminated amps and all too.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
I know that this is an old post, but gee, am I the only one that sees a contradiction here, and it does not matter if they don't move a significant distance, they still move, and the property of air affects the frequency response too.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're asking and/or disputing. Could you clarify?

The statement of mine you quoted is correct, but I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with it.
 
Last edited:
A year ago I moved into a new house.
I began posting questions on how to (properly) acoustically treat my small music studio, and "L-shaped" living room....over at Rec.org forums.

Over there I got several responses from some true experts in the field...and I was basically told that I would never get satisfactory sound unless I knocked out walls here, added some walls there, etc...
I was also blasted for experimenting with non-traditional , more decorative absorption materials.

I stopped asking questions at that point.
I like perfection for sure, but when faced the financially impossible solution, I opted to: do my best, spend the least.
I refuse to buy in to "your audio will sound like crap unless you..."

It was a good lesson for me; to keep listening to the music, and stop worrying about the music.

=S=
 
sol invictus said:
I'm not sure what you're asking and/or disputing. Could you clarify?

The statement of mine you quoted is correct, but I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with it.
Click to expand...
You contradict yourself and if you don’t see it, well if you don’t see this, I can’t help you.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
If your listening setup is not exactly like the experts it won't sound as good to the expert.
 
I did find (in my closet) some "slightly esoteric" speaker cables Kimber 8pr.
...and the challenger, some 16ga zip cord.
I'll need to build another AB comparator box, using a higher rated relay.

Zip Cord, it's not just for strangulation any more...!!

=S=
 
Last edited:
Paulhoff said:
You contradict yourself and if you don’t see it, well if you don’t see this, I can’t help you.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

No, Paul, I didn't. But perhaps my statement wasn't very clear, so let me try to clarify it for you.

Imagine an ocean wave that originates in New Zealand during a storm, travels across the Pacific, and several days later provides a good break for some surfers in California. That wave carries momentum and energy which it imparts to the California coast and to those surfers once it arrives.

Now consider a water molecule somewhere in the middle of the Pacific. When the wave passed, that water molecule moved very slightly up and down. For a few seconds of the days it took the wave to cross the ocean it carried a tiny fraction of the wave's energy and momentum. Many, many other times during those days it momentarily carried a little of the energy of various other waves.

So to understand the physics of all those waves in terms of water molecules, we'd have to describe the motion of every water molecule in the Pacific ocean for a period of days (which is completely impossible, or course). And yet understanding the waves is very easy if we use the equations that describe the collective motions of water instead (which ignore that fact that it's made of molecules).
 
Last edited:
Oh, and looking back at this thread I recall why I was explaining that (that's the problem with digging up 5 month old threads, Paul). You had implied that the particles in those diagrams were meant to represent air molecules, and I was pointing out that that cannot be the case - air molecules don't move any significant distance as a result of waves passing by any more than water molecules do. They just vibrate back and forth.

So the particles in those diagrams do not represent anything like air molecules. Instead, they are meant to represent the energy density of the waves, which themselves are being treated in a geometric optics approximation.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
Oh, and looking back at this thread I recall why I was explaining that (that's the problem with digging up 5 month old threads, Paul). You had implied that the particles in those diagrams were meant to represent air molecules, and I was pointing out that that cannot be the case - air molecules don't move any significant distance as a result of waves passing by any more than water molecules do. They just vibrate back and forth.

So the particles in those diagrams do not represent anything like air molecules. Instead, they are meant to represent the energy density of the waves, which themselves are being treated in a geometric optics approximation.
Click to expand...
I implied no diagram, but the properties of air do determine how of how sound with propagate thru it, no matter how little they may move.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom