"Things that cannot be measured"

[BDWoody]

From a user and posted on the website: "These cables have a pace and fluidity that is unimaginable outside a live venue. "

Maybe he was using it as a jump rope?

 

[Raindog123]

anyone needing speaker wires here's a good deal;

https://www.amazon.com/KabelDirekt-Speaker-Wire-Audiophiles-Systems/dp/B07BBV1J4Z

Looks very similar to my good old RadioShack cable I wrote about here.

 

[Sal1950]

From a user and posted on the website: "These cables have a pace and fluidity that is unimaginable outside a live venue. "

$790 per inch / 12 gauge Such a deal! LOL

 

[Raindog123]

$790 per inch / 12 gauge Such a deal! LOL

It is! ...if you buy it from Dr. Conn-or-tist.

 

[David Harper]

for $790 per inch you could probably get solid silver wires.

 

[VintageFlanker]

for $790 per inch you could probably get solid silver wires.

Or even better: Solid core OCC Silver, cryogenized.

 

[pkane]

for $790 per inch you could probably get solid silver wires.

Nothing beats virgin, first-run copper for SQ, except maybe first-run silver

 

[SimpleTheater]

From a user and posted on the website: "These cables have a pace and fluidity that is unimaginable outside a live venue. "

Has anyone figured out the founders name yet? Dr. Connor Tist

say it fast three times "Connor Tist" "Connar Tist" "ConArtist"

Edit: I see @Raindog123 did.

 

[David Harper]

check out my post in this thread; (I am "Hombre") https://forum.audiogon.com/discussi...audio-components?lastpage=true&page=5#2166413

 

[Wes]

while irrelevant, I do think ecru raised an interesting question:

given that air is not an ideal gas, what deviation should we expect from noise calculations based on the ideal gas law?

not much, and who cares aren't the same thing, despite a certain degree of elasticity in audiophilia

 

[krabapple]

Human capacity for belief in the face of contrary evidence, is limitless. So there we have it: a "thing that cannot be measured". And definitely related to the audio hobby.

 

[krabapple]

[PNAS is one of the most rigorous scientific journals in the world]

Wellll.....

Certainly it's prestigious.

But.

PNAS has a policy of allowing 'contributed' articles -- articles by or sponsored by a NAS member -- via a sort of 'fast track' where the review rules are somewhat different.

This has occasionally resulted in what I'll gently refer to as publishing misdemeanors (work that could/should not have been published otherwise).

I believe this policy has been tightened up in recent years, but it was in force for decades

 

[krabapple]

In my very humble opinion, what cannot be measured is the individual preference.

I wish people would stop saying this.

What does 'measured' mean here?

Researchers can certainly do statistical studies of audio preference while altering different variables, and make fairly robust predictive models from those findings. See Olive, Toole, et al.

Is that not 'measuring' enough?

 

[j_j]

This is audiophile gold. @solderdude @pkane , I’m going to begin a script on being at the correct atmospheric pressure to properly enjoy music. There must be ways to control pressure to always keep it stable. Barometric pressure must be held constant. The real question becomes “Should your cables be run in a vacuum tube of some kind?” I’m not sure yet. Start thinking, it might take me a few days for this one.

Well "STP" means standard temperature and pressure, which is basically room temperature at sea level, give or take.

At that point, the white noise due to the molecular nature of air runs about 6 to 8.5 dB SPL.

Yes, that sets a noise floor, and a level below which claims of hearing are very suspicious. Now, it's not as simple as you think, because you have to look at the energy per ERB, not the total energy. Still, in the most sensitive spots in the spectrum, this gets you into the neighborhood of -20dB, which is just BARELY below the actual known zero loudness level around the ear canal resonance.

The point being that stuff below that is really NOT going to be audible.

 

[j_j]

What about enclosing the listener? I mean, JJ has educated us a little bit regarding noise at the ear drum from the air.

Won't help unless you remove the air from both sides of the eardrum. I trust the difficulties involved there are evident.

 

[j_j]

Has anyone figured out the founders name yet? Dr. Connor Tist

say it fast three times "Connor Tist" "Connar Tist" "ConArtist"

Edit: I see @Raindog123 did.

Their ethics officer is a woman named "May Yo Ren"? The chief scientist is "Cap't John Tuttle", and the CFO is Lt. Kije?

 

[j_j]

given that air is not an ideal gas, what deviation should we expect from noise calculations based on the ideal gas law?

Well, at STP air is pretty close, except for the water vapor. Remember, only argon is a "round single particle" though

Still covalent attraction isn't in play, it's not dense enough. It's REALLY not dense enough for actual collisions.

But the irony is that it does not matter at all. All you need to know is the velocity and rotational moment of the various molecules. In this, water is a pain, having 3, rather than 2, contributions, and argon is wonderful, having only velocity.

But it's not hard. Anyone who actually does physics could do it. The most uncertain part is the area of the tympanum.

 

[BluesDaddy]

Won't help unless you remove the air from both sides of the eardrum. I trust the difficulties involved there are evident.

You're injecting seriousness and literalness to our spot of fun! ;-)

 

[krabapple]

Someone just pointed me to this: Stereo Review amp test from January 1987 - https://americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf ) - Although there are some details missing and more observations would be nice, there is a good deal of validity here - it looks like the kind of thing I was alluding to. So maybe no audible differences between amplifiers (again, I have always gone for low cost, good measurement amplifiers with roughly this belief).

As certainly as anything can be certain, amplifiers *can* be made to sound different. I'm sure you know that. For sure, David Clark (the investigator in that article, and a founding figure in audio hobbyist ABX testing) would agree.

To avoid endless straw-manning by subjectivists, the claim always should be properly qualified, e.g., no audible difference between amps when they are 1) not designed to add distortion (tubes), 2) level-matched, and 3) auditioned within their intended use parameters.

 

[rdenney]

... 3) auditioned within their intended use parameters.

Which is not one of the lighter matters for low-power amps, or for music with sharp dynamic peaks played loudly.

Rick "thinking that his 125-wpc+1.8dB-headroom isn't quite enough for the Revel F12's for the ReallyLoud(tm) use case" Denney