• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

GR Research B24 AC Cable Review: Does it Make an Audible Difference?

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
1,504
Likes
2,653
Location
Vancouver(ish)
Unless it has a mathematical solution, you can't technically prove anything one way or the other conclusively. By that measure, I can't prove that fairies don't live in my garden either although I can pretty much discount it. Generally, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim which is why cable vendors are so vague in the claims of their products.
 

balletboy

Active Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
212
Likes
184
I have very little understanding of the philosophical point other than every once in awhile I might say something profound and philosophical...lol. Purely by trial and error and sheer luck. Okies back to power cables.... They can be measured to death and analyzed to death into miniscule bits of facts and details that will indicate exactly what they are about and what their parameters are. I understand for some peeps that this seem outlandish but it's fact.
I don't dispute the facts. It is ironic that the Greeks were the first to understand the mathematics of sound (most of the language of sound is Greek - octave, tone, harmony, etc.), but they understood the natural world in qualitative terms. Aristotle would have made a great audiophile. Reducing sound to one number (SINAD) would have horrified him.

Here is how Arthur Koestler explains it (and this is well worth reading), especially the quote from Bertrand Russell at the end.

tempImagepxzqbV.jpg


tempImage0IqNrg.jpg
 

Doodski

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
14,930
Likes
14,638
Location
Canada
I don't dispute the facts. It is ironic that the Greeks were the first to understand the mathematics of sound (most of the language of sound is Greek - octave, tone, harmony, etc.), but they understood the natural world in qualitative terms. Aristotle would have made a great audiophile. Reducing sound to one number (SINAD) would have horrified him.

Here is how Arthur Koestler explains it (and this is well worth reading), especially the quote from Bertrand Russell at the end.

View attachment 219006

View attachment 219007
That reads as spin.
 

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
1,504
Likes
2,653
Location
Vancouver(ish)
Aristotle would have made a great audiophile. Reducing sound to one number (SINAD) would have horrified him.
That is because Aristotle had no understanding of the nature of sound and the physics involved. He is a product of his time.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
39,501
Likes
180,024
Location
Seattle Area
You can measure resistance, capacitance, inductance, frequency response, no doubt other things, you cannot prove comprehensively that a power cable cannot make a difference.
By that notion you must believe if I said wearing red socks makes my system sound warmer than blue ones. Right?

Is this how you conduct your real life outside audio? That aliens are living among us for example?
 

balletboy

Active Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
212
Likes
184
That is because Aristotle had no understanding of the nature of sound and the physics involved. He is a product of his time.
I suspect he did. The earliest known treatise on the mathematics of Harmony was written by one of his pupils, Aristoxenos, although their understanding probably predated that by at least 200 years.
 

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
1,504
Likes
2,653
Location
Vancouver(ish)
I suspect he did. The earliest known treatise on the mathematics of Harmony was written by one of his pupils, Aristoxenos, although their understanding probably predated that by at least 200 years.
No. "Harmony" is not sound reproduction. At best it relates to music and what the human perceives as "harmonious", whether visually or audibly. It is unrelated to mechanisms that produce sound. While they were great thinkers, philosophers tend to place too much emphasis on what the ancients knew or understood.
 

balletboy

Active Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
212
Likes
184
By that notion you must believe if I said wearing red socks makes my system sound warmer than blue ones. Right?

Is this how you conduct your real life outside audio? That aliens are living among us for example?
Jimmy Hughes came up with that sock theory years ago. I once mentioned it to him. He didn't laugh because he's a serious guy.

I'm with Koestler. The quotation I copied above was from the end of a review of about 3,000 years of astrophysics, on pages 544/5. His view was that dogma is a roadblock to reality and understanding, or if you think you know everything you'll never discover anything. He quotes the classic example Plato's description of the universe (planets going around in perfect circles) that was taken as dogma, and it took 2,000 years for any progress to be made (by Kepler proving otherwise) because no one could see, or was allowed to see, its fallacies.

I believe in aliens because the probability of life not existing in the rest of the universe is likely infinitely small. I do not worry that they will come here are take me to another galaxy.

I do agree that trying to rationalise everything, as Koestler describes, can result in losing sight of reality. I think that is something that the great American Richard Feynman was very much aware of. When you see the pictures from the James Webb telescope, I ask why anyone would want to reduce the beauty of the universe to a set of mathematical formulae and not appreciate that it is such a hopeless task. I hope the scientists can see the beauty of creation in those images rather than just a fact-check of their last 50 years of scribblings.

I believe in a chaotic universe, and a lot of discovery by accident rather than design, whether the laws of planetary motion or the discovery of penicillin.
 

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
1,504
Likes
2,653
Location
Vancouver(ish)
Science doesn't work on dogma, it works by models of approximation and Plato was correct until proven otherwise by a better model. Just as Newton was with Einstein and so on. What you personally believe is immaterial to science.
 

balletboy

Active Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
212
Likes
184
Science doesn't work on dogma, it works by models of approximation and Plato was correct until proven otherwise by a better model. Just as Newton was with Einstein and so on. What you personally believe is immaterial to science.
Agreed, as I said, dogma was referred to as a roadblock, for 2,000 years Plato was accepted dogmatically and astronomers sought to reconcile observations with Platonic theory, rather than questioning the theory. incidentally, Plato was wrong, planetary motion was not circular, it was elliptical. He was always wrong, the problem was the belief that he was right. Is ASR's use of Sinad as a unifying measurement dogmatic?
 

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
1,504
Likes
2,653
Location
Vancouver(ish)
Agreed, as I said, dogma was referred to as a roadblock, for 2,000 years Plato was accepted dogmatically and astronomers sought to reconcile observations with Platonic theory, rather than questioning the theory. incidentally, Plato was wrong, planetary motion was not circular, it was elliptical. He was always wrong, the problem was the belief that he was right. Is ASR's use of Sinad as a unifying measurement dogmatic?
No, he wasn't "wrong". There is no right or wrong. His circular model was only a crude approximation and was the best one available until a better model was proven. Until someone can prove that there is a better model than SINAD, it is the one that we will use.
 

balletboy

Active Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2020
Messages
212
Likes
184
No, he wasn't "wrong". There is no right or wrong. His circular model was only a crude approximation and was the best one available until a better model was proven. Until someone can prove that there is a better model than SINAD, it is the one that we will use.
Sorry, but Plato's conclusion wasn't even bad science. Koestler describes it as as "process of metaphysical and a priori reasoning". But, because he was Plato, people spent 2,000 years trying to "square the circle", because the circle was really an ellipse. A square is not a crude approximation of a circle. SINAD is seen elsewhere as an aggregate statistic that might identify real stinkers, but that's as far as it goes. If the choice is between SINAD or nothing (or the What HiFi star rating), ASR goes for SINAD and almost everyone else goes for nothing. I suppose one or two people still read What HiFi.

SINAD is not new either. I've seen references to such statistics in research from the 1930s.
 

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
1,504
Likes
2,653
Location
Vancouver(ish)
Sorry, but Plato's conclusion wasn't even bad science. Koestler describes it as as "process of metaphysical and a priori reasoning". But, because he was Plato, people spent 2,000 years trying to "square the circle", because the circle was really an ellipse. A square is not a crude approximation of a circle. SINAD is seen elsewhere as an aggregate statistic that might identify real stinkers, but that's as far as it goes. If the choice is between SINAD or nothing (or the What HiFi star rating), ASR goes for SINAD and almost everyone else goes for nothing. I suppose one or two people still read What HiFi.

SINAD is not new either. I've seen references to such statistics in research from the 1930s.
The blame lies at the feet of those who follow blindly, not the one who makes the hypothesis. I never said SINAD was a "new" model but it remains the best one. BTW, a square is, indeed, a crude approximation for a circle mathematically. A triangle would be an even cruder one.
 

BlackTalon

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2021
Messages
329
Likes
520
Location
DC
I have very little understanding of the philosophical point other than every once in awhile I might say something profound and philosophical...lol. Purely by trial and error and sheer luck. Okies back to power cables.... They can be measured to death and analyzed to death into miniscule bits of facts and details that will indicate exactly what they are about and what their parameters are. I understand for some peeps that this seem outlandish but it's fact.
Philosophy proves power cords do not matter. Current requires a flow of electrons. But in order for electrons to flow from point A to point B they first need to travel half the distance. And then half of that remaining distance. And then half of THAT remaining distance. Rinse, lather and repeat as needed, but the electrons will never, ever be able to make it to point B because they have to keep traversing half the remaining distance first. So no current. And no operation of the audio gear. So the differences between power cords, philosophically speaking, do not matter as none will ever allow the devices to be powered.
 

Doodski

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
14,930
Likes
14,638
Location
Canada
Philosophy proves power cords do not matter. Current requires a flow of electrons. But in order for electrons to flow from point A to point B they first need to travel half the distance. And then half of that remaining distance. And then half of THAT remaining distance. Rinse, lather and repeat as needed, but the electrons will never, ever be able to make it to point B because they have to keep traversing half the remaining distance first. So no current. And no operation of the audio gear. So the differences between power cords, philosophically speaking, do not matter as none will ever allow the devices to be powered.
Ahhhh... Now it all makes sense...lol. I've been wondering about that stuff! :D Lol.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
39,501
Likes
180,024
Location
Seattle Area
Jimmy Hughes came up with that sock theory years ago. I once mentioned it to him. He didn't laugh because he's a serious guy.

I'm with Koestler. The quotation I copied above was from the end of a review of about 3,000 years of astrophysics, on pages 544/5. His view was that dogma is a roadblock to reality and understanding, or if you think you know everything you'll never discover anything. He quotes the classic example Plato's description of the universe (planets going around in perfect circles) that was taken as dogma, and it took 2,000 years for any progress to be made (by Kepler proving otherwise) because no one could see, or was allowed to see, its fallacies.

I believe in aliens because the probability of life not existing in the rest of the universe is likely infinitely small. I do not worry that they will come here are take me to another galaxy.

I do agree that trying to rationalise everything, as Koestler describes, can result in losing sight of reality. I think that is something that the great American Richard Feynman was very much aware of. When you see the pictures from the James Webb telescope, I ask why anyone would want to reduce the beauty of the universe to a set of mathematical formulae and not appreciate that it is such a hopeless task. I hope the scientists can see the beauty of creation in those images rather than just a fact-check of their last 50 years of scribblings.

I believe in a chaotic universe, and a lot of discovery by accident rather than design, whether the laws of planetary motion or the discovery of penicillin.
Sorry where is my answer? Does the color of sock change the sound or not?
 

CapMan

Active Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
167
Likes
386
Location
London
I just love that we got from a power cable to Plato :) Perhaps Danny can include a citation from the P man in his credentials/feedback?!

But on a serious note , is this just wasted energy now? If arguing the toss was an Olympic sport we would have three medal positions here :)
 
Last edited:

ExUnoPlura

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Messages
32
Likes
39
No, it's more a philosophical point on scientific method, I certainly did not make it up, it was introduced to me academically and I've read a little over the years. It does have a big impact on how people think about what they know, the difference between knowledge and truth, minor things like that. I have a rather chaotic view of science and the truth. Karl Popper and Arthur Koestler would be my starting points for reading material. Both very remarkable individuals, born 3 years apart in the Austria-Hungarian Empire and ended their days in London.
Well, with Popper you have erred earlier in your description of falsification criteria, for instance, so your understanding seems a bit idiosyncratic. Popper’s use of this criteria was partly designed to interrogate Freudian theory, for instance, where the internal consistency of subjective reports ruled out any ability to falsify the suppositions of Freud’s theory. As I hinted at earlier, there are critiques like Kuhn and Feyeraband as to the social and methodological assumptions of science, but none of this rules out that a given theory like macro-scale electromagnetism can be sufficiently reliable to provide a definitive answer to the likelihood that a power cable can affect the observable audio properties of a SOTA system. Rather than sprinkle pixie dust skepticism, you should make a positive claim about how the provided measurements are incorrect or incomplete.
 

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
1,504
Likes
2,653
Location
Vancouver(ish)
I fear we will soon travel down the existentialist or nihilist road. It's just an electrical cable.
 

ExUnoPlura

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Messages
32
Likes
39
I fear we will soon travel down the existentialist or nihilist road. It's just an electrical cable.
Post-modern deconstruction of the French variety is the fear for me, being an Anglo-American analytic.
 
Top Bottom