Free Shipping on All Orders 1-866-764-1801

Vist our Online Store
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 193
  1. #31

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    794

    Default

    Abandon all hope, ye who enter here. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
    SDA 2BTL · Sonicaps · Mills resistors · RDO-198s · New gaskets · H-nuts · Erse inductors · Crossover upgrades by westmassguy
    Adcom GTP-450 preamp
    Adcom GFA-555 amp · Upgrades & speaker protection added by OldmanSRS
    Pioneer DV-610AV DVD/CD player
    SDA CRS+ · Hidden away in the closet

  2. #32

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post
    I asked villian twice to scientifically justify the use of blind tests (which are designed for untrained listeners) for stereophonic audio (which is designed for trained listeners).
    I answered you twice already, and stated that I have no desire to continue a fruitless conversation with you or anyone else in this thread as there's no need for that...but...I will once again post my direct response to your question in hope of a real answer.

    Read these again, then please reply.

    http://forums.audioholics.com/forums...html#post15412

    http://www.webmd.com/pain-management...placebo-effect
    ..I found that one as a "Qualified Web MD'r" ;D

    The only questions I have left for you are as follows: What makes you think that you are immune from the human condition and medical phenomenon known as "Placebo Effect"; Who qualified you as a "trained listener"; can you provide proof of this qualification; and why would the result of a blind test be any different for a trained listener vs an untrained listener when the reality of the matter has been proven otherwise? (See first link if you are wondering what I'm talking about, you should have already read it..but read again you obviously missed it..)

    I don't doubt that you're dully qualified, but it sounds to me like you're using your qualification as a "cop out" of blind testing. Are you afraid of making the wrong calls if blind tested, because that's what it's starting to sound like. :/
    Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. :)

  3. #33

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    6,125

    Default

    Why do some people try to apply a medical phenomenon to listening to music? The attempted correlation makes no sense. Well, it does make sense if you are listening to music after drinking beer, but even that, if recognized, can be a useful auditory evaluation tool.

    The reason is they have no idea what they are talking about. Since they are clueless, they try to rationalize their opinion, an opinion based on zero experience, with irrelevant comparisons to medical studies. While that obviously makes zero sense, apparently they think it gives their fantasy opinion an appearance of legitimacy.

  4. #34

    Member Sales Rating: (13)

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    The Mars Hotel
    Posts
    31,246

    Default

    I will once again post my direct response to your question in hope of a real answer.
    So, where is it?
    'Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

  5. #35

    Member Sales Rating: (3)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    SDA SweetSpot
    Posts
    5,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    I answered you twice already, and stated that I have no desire to continue a fruitless conversation with you or anyone else in this thread as there's no need for that...but...I will once again post my direct response to your question in hope of a real answer.
    The conversation is not fruitless if you can justify using a test for a purpose for which is was not intended and has scientifically been proven to yield false results when misused. Asking me why the test can't be used with trained listeners is nonsense because you are asking why can't a test be used for a class of subjects for which it is not intended and not needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    Read these again, then please reply.

    http://forums.audioholics.com/forums...html#post15412

    http://www.webmd.com/pain-management...placebo-effect
    ..I found that one as a "Qualified Web MD'r" ;D;
    I am very familiar with placebo effect, and with the articles at Audioholics.com that others like to point us to in an attempt to "educate" us poor, misguided audiophiles. Training is the method by which placebo effect is eliminated. It is only naïve, untrained people who are swayed by attributes that have no effect on performance. You seem to not be aware that placebo effect can work both ways: it can make you perceive something that is not there and it can make you insensitive to something that is there.

    In the Audioholics article you linked to, there is no mention of evaluation of stereophonic performance, only that some "audio buddies" could not tell a difference most of the time when blind folded. There is also no mention of the level of experience and skill in stereophonic evaluation of the participants. Basing your belief on such a poorly documented exercise is unfortunate. It seems that you are gullible enough to accept anything that falls into your preconceived and biased anti-audiophile notions.

    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    The only questions I have left for you are as follows: What makes you think that you are immune from the human condition and medical phenomenon known as "Placebo Effect";
    I never said I was immune to placebo effect. The fact that I trained myself to learn to evaluate on the basis of performance would indicate to a reasonably intelligent person that I have some respect for the issue of placebo effect and took steps to address it.

    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    Who qualified you as a "trained listener"; can you provide proof of this qualification;
    You obviously have reading comprehension issues. I provided a direct quote from two of the early researchers in stereophonic audio who stated that their intention was for people to train themselves in the practice of sound localization techniques. It is nonsense to think that the inventors of stereo intended for people to go to some type of school and get a certificate in stereo listening.

    Did you ask the people in the Audioholics exercise what their "credentials" were?

    Here is the quote from the Bell Labs researchers again. This time pay attention to the part in red:

    Quote Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post

    Two Bell Telephone Laboratories scientists, F. K. Harvey and M. R. Schroeder, presented a paper* at the 12th Annual Convention of the Audio Engineering Society on October 11, 1960 with abstract as follows:

    "In transmitting and reproducing two-channel stereophonic signals, the original program material may be modified deliberately or unintentionally. Separation upper and lower cutoff frequencies as well as full-band channel separation (in dB) have been evaluated subjectively in terms of detection of spatial difference, preservation of spatial resemblance, and listener preference. In addition, other pertinent observations on subjective aspects are reported."

    In their discussion of their test procedure, Harvey and Schroeder stated:

    "Critical listeners were sought in these tests because of a desire to set permanent standards. At the moment, only a small percentage of people fully appreciate high fidelity. Even less appreciate or understand stereo. However, there is a growing sophistication evidenced among users of stereo equipment. Anticipating the future, it seemed wise to avoid naive or unconcerned personnel in these tests to prevent establishing loose standards which eventually might have to be abandoned.

    The listeners chosen were sophisticated in the art of sound localization either by working in this field or by education before testing. They were felt to be the equal of any serious listener who is accustomed to playing the same records many times and thus becomes familiar with the more subtle artistic and technical effects."


    *Harvey, F. K. and Schroeder, M. R., "Subjective Evaluation of Factors Affecting Two-Channel Stereophony", Journal of The Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 9, No. 1, January 1961, pp. 19-28.
    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    and why would the result of a blind test be any different for a trained listener vs an untrained listener when the reality of the matter has been proven otherwise? (See first link if you are wondering what I'm talking about, you should have already read it..but read again you obviously missed it..)
    There are studies in peer reviewed audio literature where trained listeners have performed exceptionally well in blind tests. Again, you can't seem to grasp the concept that blind testing is not for studies with trained subjects and that asking for a test to be used in situations for which it was not designed is the height of scientific dishonesty and ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    I don't doubt that you're dully qualified, but it sounds to me like you're using your qualification as a "cop out" of blind testing. Are you afraid of making the wrong calls if blind tested, because that's what it's starting to sound like. :/
    No, I am not afraid of making the wrong call if blind tested. What you don't seem to understand is that a properly trained person will not make the wrong call because they won't be straining to hear some nebulous, undefined "difference", they will be listening for and documenting specific differences, if any, in performance.

    This is how your line of "reasoning" looks:

    1. A fork can be used to cut a piece of meat.
    2. A knife can be used to cut a piece of meat.
    3. The person using a knife to cut a piece of meat is using a "cop out" because a fork can be used to cut meat and lots of other people use forks to cut meat. Never mind that the knife was designed for cutting food and the fork was designed for piercing, holding, and transporting food from plate to mouth.


    Since you provided me with a couple of links to further reading, I will return the favor:

    A-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing

    A-Survey-Of-Early-Stereophonic-System-Subjective-Evaluation
    Last edited by DarqueKnight; 04-20-2014 at 03:13 AM.
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    __________________
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

  6. #36

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueFox View Post
    Why do some people try to apply a medical phenomenon to listening to music?
    Because that medical phenomenon is applicable to ALL humans.

    Yes, unless you are an alien that even includes yourself.


    DarqueKnight - "Training" does not make ones self exempt from the placebo effect. ;)
    Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. :)

  7. #37

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post
    What is the scientific validity of using blind testing for phenomena it was not designed to test?
    The scientific validity of using blind tests is to enure an unbiased baseline and valid results. The world accepts this, even if you don't. Blind testing was not "Designed" to test any one specific theory or item, and is certainty capable of testing the way sound is perceived...contrary to what you seem to believe.


    For what it's worth I believe that Jumper Cables can and do effect sound quality. I don't think it's anything notable, as there's usually far greater things in play than one jumper vs another..but it's analog, so yes, totally possible.

    BUT, to claim that any single digital cable reproduces sound in a different way than another is complete hogwash. The cable has nothing to do with the sound reproduction, only the transportation of data. If you can prove to me that 0's and 1's sound differently via different cables, then please do.

    I do have to ask: Why do you even use jumpers? Why not Bi-amp or use solid connectors? Solid silver would be a great conductor to start tinkering with.
    Last edited by villian; 04-20-2014 at 06:08 AM.
    Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. :)

  8. #38

    Member Sales Rating: (4)

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Salem, Oregon (Polk county!)
    Posts
    4,342

    Default

    villian. You obviously have not read DK's excellent thread that both he and I have posted. Please read that thread before making any other remarks about what blind tests were or were not designed to test. You are making yourself out to look uneducated in what blind tests were designed to be used for and why they were created. Please read the thread here: An-Historical-Overview-of-Stereophonic-Blind-Testing

    This is the third time this link has been posted to the study of blind tests. if you do not read the thread this time, we will assume you are not really interested in having an educated, informed, and meaningful discussion about blind tests and their purpose; let alone what audible differences there are in switching jumper cables for speakers.
    Last edited by headrott; 04-20-2014 at 06:51 AM.
    Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:

    "I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."

    "Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson

    "Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee

  9. #39

    Member Sales Rating: (4)

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Salem, Oregon (Polk county!)
    Posts
    4,342

    Default

    I will also re-post DK's excellent thread about evaluating early sterophonic systems, I just re-read this myself and it is excellent. Please read this as well villian. Again, if you do not read these threads, we will assume you are not interested in an educated, informed, and meaningful discussion regarding sterophonic sound and the testing methods introduced by the inventors of stereo systems (Bell Labs). Please read, learn, understand and then return with an educated point of view. It will be better for everyone.

    Please read here: A-Survey-Of-Early-Stereophonic-System-Subjective-Evaluation
    Taken from a recent Audioholics reply regarding "Club Polk" and Polk speakers:

    "I'm yet to hear a Polk speaker that merits more than a sentence and 60 seconds discussion."

    "Green leaves reveal the heart spoken Khatru"- Jon Anderson

    "Have A Little Faith! And Everything You'll Face, Will Jump From Out Right On Into Place! Yeah! Take A Little Time! And Everything You'll Find, Will Move From Gloom Right On Into Shine!"- Arthur Lee

  10. #40

    Member Sales Rating: (3)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    SDA SweetSpot
    Posts
    5,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    The scientific validity of using blind tests is to enure an unbiased baseline and valid results. The world accepts this, even if you don't.
    "The world", and many scientists of the time, used to accept that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Just because some people are gullible and uneducated enough to accept an unscientific opinion, that does not make it correct.

    With regard to addressing bias with training, another forum member summed it up nicely:

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueFox View Post
    Really. One aspect of maturity is recognizing your biases, and consciously making an effort to over come those biases. If it can be done for race relations, and other more complex issues, then it certainly can be done for audio equipment.

    To state as an absolute, "bias cannot be trained out of a listener", something that obviously is not true is just absurd.
    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    Blind testing was not "Designed" to test any one specific theory or item, and is certainty capable of testing the way sound is perceived...contrary to what you seem to believe.
    Blind testing is suitable for some types of sound, but not stereo. I thoroughly discuss this in the two historical articles I linked to earlier. The standard basic textbook in sensory evaluation is "Sensory Evaluation Techniques" by Meilgaard, Vance, and Carr. It scientifically describes the types of phenomena for which blind testing is appropriate and the types of phenomena for which descriptive tests are appropriate.

    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    For what it's worth I believe that Jumper Cables can and do effect sound quality. I don't think it's anything notable, as there's usually far greater things in play than one jumper vs another..but it's analog, so yes, totally possible.
    Saying what you think is just expressing your opinion. Your opinion is questionable since you don't have any solid evidence to back it up. I thought you believed in scientifically validating your views?

    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    BUT, to claim that any single digital cable reproduces sound in a different way than another is complete hogwash.
    The topic of this thread is analog jumpers. Why are you now ranting about digital cables? You seem to have a lot of pent up aggression towards the concept of cables and are now bouncing around on all the topics that trouble you.

    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    The cable has nothing to do with the sound reproduction, only the transportation of data.
    A digital cable, like any other cable, introduces noise and distortions in the signal. Some distortions affect the amplitude of the signal and some distortions affect the time relationships of the pulses. Amplitude distortions are inaudible as long as they are not severe. Time relationship distortions (jitter) are audible.

    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    If you can prove to me that 0's and 1's sound differently via different cables, then please do.
    It appears that your mind is already made up and a closed mind, like a closed parachute, is useless. You should be able to prove to yourself why some digital cables can make a difference by studying the concept of jitter and signal integrity. Some digital cables pass a cleaner, more accurate signal. A cleaner, more accurate signal means that the receiving hardware has to exert less effort and resources to cleaning up the signal, which translates to a cleaner output signal.

    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    I do have to ask: Why do you even use jumpers? Why not Bi-amp or use solid connectors? Solid silver would be a great conductor to start tinkering with.
    Please refer to post #8 in this thread where I addressed biamping and biwiring.

    Post #23 addresses why I went back to jumpers. Further details below are from another thread here:

    Quote Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post
    Some Intrigue

    The former binding post plates had the HF binding posts removed and the HF and LF wires were soldered to the same single pair of binding posts. I did the right speaker first and did a quick listening evaluation to confirm that there were no connectivity or assembly problems. I first used the AudioQuest jumpers. I was surprised at the smeared, boomy bass and loss of high frequency detail on the right. I put in some homemade jumpers and they sounded better than the AQ jumpers, but not as clear and detailed as the non-jumpered connection on the left. I knew that the AQ jumpers would require some break in time, but I did not expect them to sound that bad. I waited to do the left speaker and let music play at normal listening level (85 dB-C). The AQ jumpers use three solid polished surface copper conductors with an aggregate wire gauge of 15. The AQ bananas are direct silver plated over beryllium copper.


    Figure 13. Homemade jumpers made from DSR Silverline speaker cable. This is a hybrid copper/silver-plated
    copper cable with a cross sectional area of 6 square millimeters. This places the wire gauge between 10
    gauge (5.26 mm^2) and 9 gauge (6.63 mm^2). The bananas are Monster Cable gold-plated brass.


    Over a period of three hours, the right side, with the AQ jumpers, improved to the point where it sounded better than the left. There was a little more overall clarity, detail and image weight. The right side also sounded louder. This was a counter-intuitive result because I expected the right side to either come close to or equal the sound on the left. The left side had the wires from the HF and LF sections of the crossover directly connected to a single pair of binding posts. The right side had the AQ jumpers between the LF and HF binding posts, with the speaker cable connected to the LF posts. Sometimes, Such Good Sound pops up in unexpected places. So far, after 17 hours of play time past the initial 3 hours, I have not heard further improvement. AudioQuest recommends a break in time of 100 hours. The AQ jumpers were purchased out of curiosity. I did not expect them to outperform my home made jumpers.

    I sent my initial listening results to AudioQuest. I received this reply:

    ================================================== ================================================
    "As for your experience, the stranded cable is the biggest culprit. The interaction between strands is responsible for the worst type of distortion in a cable. This is why (almost all) our cables (and Jumpers) use solid conductors.

    Secondly, using a single 10 awg conductor is introducing skin effect problems. Multiple small gauge conductors avoid this issue.

    Thirdly, the soldered connections don't help. In our higher end interconnects, digital & video cables as well as HDMI cables, we don't solder, and haven't done in a long time (around 20 years or so). We use a proprietary "Cold Weld" system that provides a "mechanical connection," always the best type of connection to make. In the same way, all speaker cables use a connector that provide a "mechanical connection."

    Add it all up and the accumulation of distortion is giving you these results. The aim is to keep distortion to a minimum. Biwiring the speakers would give you the minimum amount of distortion with aftermarket Jumpers as the next best thing to do.

    I hope this helps.

    Best regards,

    Alasdair Patrick - Customer Service
    AudioQuest"
    By the way, villian, I hope you are not delusional and naïve enough to think that your opinions on blind testing, Audioholics quotes, and so forth are bringing some new revelation to the forum. You are not the first person who sought to "educate" us on the "requirement" for blind testing in stereo evaluation. Just one of many epic threads on the topic can be found here (I begin to chime in at post #32):

    Stupid-things-you-hear-from-the-DBT-Null-test-crowd....

    I also was amused to see that one of the people who "thanked" the Audioholics article is an Audioholics moderator who came to the Polk Forum with the stated purpose of "cleaning it up". Eventually, the only thing that was "cleaned up" was his forum membership after he was banned.
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    __________________
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

  11. #41

    Member Sales Rating: (3)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    SDA SweetSpot
    Posts
    5,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    The scientific validity of using blind tests is to enure an unbiased baseline and valid results. The world accepts this, even if you don't.
    If "the world" accepts that bias is insurmountable, why is the concept of "debiasing" consumers a valid branch of economic research?

    There are many scholarly papers in the field of sensory science that address the issue of removing the effects of bias with training. There are many scholarly papers in the field of economics on removing the effects of bias with training. A few such references are given in the quote below, which is from a thread from 2012.

    Quote Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post
    Blind tests are required when the possibility that a test participant's bias(es) might affect experimental results and when training to remediate those biases is impractical from a time and economic viewpoint. The absolute argument applied by the blind tests for stereo proponents is that:

    1. ALL people have biases.

    2. The ONLY way to remove bias is through blinding.


    Here, the bias(es) are product knowledge such as price, brand and aesthetics.

    Statements 1 and 2 are suspect in light of the facts that:

    A. There is no evidence that 100% of humanity is affected by visual bias.

    B. Of those people affected by visual bias, there is strong evidence that its effect can be eliminated through training. Notice I said that the effect of the bias can be eliminated. Eliminating the bias itself may be possible, but it is not absolutely required.

    C. There is evidence that shows that people are able to overcome much more severe forms of bias such as racial prejudice and misogyny.

    If we accept the theory that people cannot be trained to eliminate or ignore biases, we must also accept the fact that people cannot be reformed from negative behaviors influenced by irrational biases, which is absurd.

    It is easy to find accounts people who grew up in racist ideology, but later reformed, overcame their biases and went on to form friendships, marriages and business relationships with people who formerly would have been objects of their hatred.

    It is easy to find accounts of vicious pimps who grew up hating their mothers and all women, but who later reformed, reconciled with their mothers, and went on to establish stable marriage and family lives.

    In light of the extreme examples of the reformed racist and the reformed pimp, I do not see a basis for believing that people cannot be reformed to ignore visual biases when evaluating products. Indeed, such reformation through training is a standard concept in the fields of stereophonic audio, television and economics.

    In post #185, I provided evidence where the standard practice for professional evaluation of televisions is non-blind trials, but when untrained evaluators are used, television trials are done blind.

    Based on the evidence provided in post #185, you should also add television set evaluators to the list of those who believe bias can be remediated through training.

    Again, it is not necessary to eliminate bias. It is the effect of bias that needs to be eliminated. In post #141, I gave the example of my strong visual bias against silver colored components and against speakers clad in oak trim. Neither of those biases prevented me from selecting silver components and from selecting two sets of large size speakers clad in oak. In the first picture in post #141, a black SACD player rests on the equipment cabinet top. The Cary Audio CD 306 PV SACD player comes in black and silver finish. I chose black per my preference and bias.

    Have you looked for such information yourself? There is a whole world of knowledge beyond the confines or our august forum. The field of consumer research is full of examples of consumer bias being eliminated or the effects of such bias being eliminated through training and education.

    One example is "Consumer Behavioural Biases In Competition-A Case Study", by S. Huck, J. Zhou and C. Duke, Office of Fair Trading, London, U.K., May 2011 (link):

    "This is a survey of studies that examine competition in the presence of behaviourally biased or boundedly rational consumers. It will tackle questions such as: How does competition and pricing change when consumers are biased? Can inefficiencies that arise from consumer behavioural biases be mitigated by lowering barriers to entry? Do biased consumers make rational ones better or worse off? And will biased consumer behaviour be overcome through learning or education? (p. 5)

    This leaves the possibility that third parties, the press, or government agencies could engage in consumer education and, surely, such efforts cannot have adverse effects. However, there is some literature that throws doubt on the effectiveness of de-biasing and education, certainly from a cost-benefit point of view. For example effective education may not be a simple matter (see, for example, Chater, Huck, and Inderst 2010 or Choi, Laibson, and Madrian 2010). (p. 61)

    We also find that firms may sometimes have little incentive to educate consumers. This is particularly severe if educated or sophisticated consumers benefit from the pricing offered by those firms who do not engage in consumer education. However, where learning will eventually eradicate consumer biases, firms may have a clear incentive to establish a reputation for 'fair behaviour' early on. (p. 69)


    Another example from the field of economics is "Shrouded Attributes, Consumer Myopia, and Information Suppression in Competitive Markets", Gabaix, X., and D. Laibson, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 505-540, (2006) (link):

    "Firms often shroud the negative attributes of their products, particularly high prices for complementary add-ons.

    A "curse of debiasing" suppresses unshrouding. Debiasing a consumer improves consumer welfare, but no firm can capture or even partially share these benefits. Firms receive lower profits when they interact with debiased consumers. Debiased consumers know how to avoid high-priced items. Moreover, firms cannot drive away such debiased consumers without losing (profitable) myopic consumers as well. Debiased consumers can pretend to be myopes, enabling the debiased consumers to take advantage of the traps that firms set for myopes." (p. 531)


    Therefore, in the field of economics and consumer research, the concept of the "debiased" consumer is well established. "Debiasing" occurs when a biased consumer learns to eliminate, or eliminate the effect of, their biases. The concept of debiasing is also well established in the fields of stereophonic audio and television. It is only within a certain subculture within the stereophonic audio community that the concept of training to remediate biases is not accepted.

    This is something you and an accomplice can do yourself. I and others in this thread have mentioned that we have done this. I am glad that you realize that such a study must be done properly within the context of stereophonic audio.

    You don't have to wait for someone else to do it. If the reports of members of this forum are not credible evidence for you, do your own study and report your findings.

    On The Need For Blind Medical Trials

    Evidence has been provided that debiasing consumers is an established practice in stereophonic audio, television and economic research. The question now might be "why isn't the concept of debiasing applied to medical trials?". Training medical professionals and patients to overcome biases would be time consuming, impractical and unrepresentative of the way medicine is administered in actual practice.

    For the serious listener (audiophile), debiasing is a required part of becoming proficient in evaluating stereophonic audio equipment.

    For the serious viewer (videophile), debiasing is a required part of becoming proficient in evaluating video equipment.

    For the serious consumer (shopper of anything), debiasing is a required part of becoming proficient in evaluating merchandise with regard to its true value.

    For the seriously or terminally ill patient, taking the time to debias them could result in grave consequences. [pun intended] Furthermore, it is doubtful that such patients would be in a frame of mind to undertake such training.

    For the medical researcher working toward a market deadline, taking the time to debias themselves and subjects could result in economic penalties due to delay in patenting and marketing a treatment. Furthermore, it is doubtful that these medical professionals would be in a frame of mind to undertake such training.
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    __________________
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

  12. #42

    Member Sales Rating: (3)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    SDA SweetSpot
    Posts
    5,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by headrott View Post
    I don't think villian is interested in reading anything that does not support his opinion that audiophiles are gullible consumerists who always grab at the shiniest and most expensive gadget.
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    __________________
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

  13. #43

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    6,125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    BUT, to claim that any single digital cable reproduces sound in a different way than another is complete hogwash. The cable has nothing to do with the sound reproduction, only the transportation of data. If you can prove to me that 0's and 1's sound differently via different cables, then please do.
    This is another statement that is just false, yet it is posted as a fact. This is a text book example of trolling simply to start an argument. Anyone with even a minimum level of experience in trying different digital cables would know that they sound slightly different in their system.

    The latest example in my experience was with the cable used to connect my Bryston BDP-1 digital file player to my Auralic Vega DAC. Originally, it was a Shunyata Python AES digital. Later, Shunyata released the Anaconda version, which they said they wanted to get right before release, and I upgraded. As soon as I put it in I knew this cable was better, much better.

    Last December I added a second 20 amp line for my amps, and this removed another layer of haze from the music. However, it exposed a high frequency harshness on some recordings, especially older rock CD files. This was at the same frequency as the slight tinnitus in my left ear, so it aggravated it. My first thought was it is a digital artifact now being exposed, so I bought the Vega since it is a better DAC, and it has digital filters. Using this DAC, the noise was either eliminated, or tamed enough to be present, but not irritating as before.

    It was at this point I added the Anaconda AES digital cable, and the noise just disappeared. This was completely unexpected, and I was totally surprised at that result. It works so well that I now have filters turned off on the DAC, the clock set to 'Exact', and am very happy with the final sound.

  14. #44

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    ...
    BUT, to claim that any single digital cable reproduces sound in a different way than another is complete hogwash. The cable has nothing to do with the sound reproduction, only the transportation of data. If you can prove to me that 0's and 1's sound differently via different cables, then please do.
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueFox View Post
    This is another statement that is just false, yet it is posted as a fact. This is a text book example of trolling simply to start an argument. Anyone with even a minimum level of experience in trying different digital cables would know that they sound slightly different in their system.
    I totally disagree with this too. I have more than a minimum of experience with different digital cables and have never, never, never heard a difference that I could attribute just to the cable. That's USB, TOSLINK, coaxial SPDIF, HDMI. I've had bad cables cause audio problems, but in my personal experience it either plays clean or it doesn't. I haven't heard better cables improve or sharpen the character of the sound.

    I've actually spent quite a bit of time recently playing with different USB cables with a Benchmark DAC2. Mediabridge (gold plated $8 cables) sounded the same as a DH labs cable and an AudioQuest cable. I've tried AudioQuest HDMI vs Monoprice(!) HDMI between an OPPO playing an SACD and a Pioneer Elite receiver, zero difference. (I use that AudioQuest cable between my receiver and plasma monitor now because a few inches of the cable jacket are visible and it's prettier than the Monoprice.)

    Again, this stuff is all anecdotal. Even if in your system a different USB cable made a substantial difference, it may not at all in a different system. Since my personal experience with digital cables has been different than yours, I am inclined to believe that the cables really should not be making a difference if the source and the DAC are working correctly together. But that is absolutely a largely uninformed opinion, and it's no more or less factual than the statement that USB cables made a big difference in your system. To villain's original point, as far as you're concerned, that's a carved-in-stone fact. But as far as I'm concerned, it's uncorroborated and irreproducible. Just one guy's experience.

    If we were all trying to be super friendly-huggy-kumbaya about it then maybe no one would point that out when people do start asserting their experience as universal scientific truth, but again it's not trolling if someone expresses a different viewpoint.

  15. #45

    Member Sales Rating: (3)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    SDA SweetSpot
    Posts
    5,364

    Default

    I have never heard or seen a difference in audio or video performance with any digital cable I've tried, whether it was optical, coax, or HDMI. The last digital cable comparison I did was in 2009:

    Tweaking-Home-Theater-Pt.-3-The-Pioneer-Elite-BDP-09FD-Blu-ray-Player.

    I compared HDMI cables made by Acoustic Research ($20), Rocketfish ($85), and Monster Cable ($130). There was no performance difference among them. I subsequently compared the $20 Acoustic Research HDMI cables to $8 Monoprice HDMI cables, didn't see or hear a difference between them, then returned the AR cables.

    I did see and hear a big difference in audio and video quality when I switched from a PS Audio Power Plant Premier AC regenerator to a PS Audio P5 AC regenerator. The difference in pixel sharpness is easily seen in figures 6, 7, and 8 of this thread:

    Tweaking-Home-Theater-Part-7-PS-Audio-PerfectWave-P5-and-P10-AC-Regenerators.

    If power quality can affect the integrity of a digital signal it is reasonable that transmission line quality could also affect digital signal integrity.

    Notwithstanding my personal experiences, I don't doubt that different digital cables might make a difference in some systems. I have never compared digital cables in a high end, high resolution stereo system.
    Last edited by DarqueKnight; 04-20-2014 at 11:04 PM.
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    __________________
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

  16. #46

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Upstate S.C.
    Posts
    643

    Default

    I find threads such as this both entertaining and educational. I have been the one to start crap like this in the past. I have had my ego bruised by DK before. I can see all the sides represented here (I realize that ther are primarily only 2) and understand both. BOTH make perfectly good sense. AND both at times sound utterly ingnorent to the fact that this is a simple case of whose got the biggest dick. (figuratively speaking of course). I consider myself a trained listener though i am sure not nearly as trained as many other on here or other places. I have been around audio and differing parts of the audio industry my ENTIRE LIFE. However I still realize that I am susceptible to the placebo effect. i also realize that I do not know the original intentions of blind testing, nor do I care. There are many things in our lives that we use for different reasons than there original design intentions. Super Glue and WD-40 are two very good examples. Therfore I realize that there are many times when blind testing is not necessary; when results are dramatic or greatly differ. However blind testing is nearly always a plus when results can be very minute and subtle. Trained particiants or not this is true. i personally have my wife help me with my own blind testing when necessary and possible. i get everything ready and tell her waht to do without me watching and then listen. I have also done this with other listeners to be sure i was hearing what i thought i was hearing. This is also a big way that i helped train my own ears to be able to listen for things.

    My point is that both of you seem to know what you , yourselves are talikng about and I would bet that both can see the others point but neither can admit to haveing the smaller or equal sized dick.
    If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of Progress?!


    Monitor 5Jr, Monitor 5, RTA12, SDA 2A, 1c, SRS, 1.2TL, Atrium.

  17. #47

    Member Sales Rating: (22)

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Directly over the center of the earth in Olathe Kansas
    Posts
    5,825

    Default

    As usual DK, excellent write up and data to support.

    Thank you !
    Speakers: SDA-1C (most all the goodies)
    Preamp: Joule Electra LA-150 MKII SE
    Amp: Wright WPA 50-50 EAT KT88s
    Analog: Marantz TT-15S1 MBS Glider SL| Wright WPP100C Amperex BB 6er5 and 7316 & WPM-100 SUT
    Digital: Mac mini 2.3GHz dual-core i5 8g RAM 1.5 TB HDD Music Server Amarra (memory play) - USB - W4S DAC 2
    Cables: Mits S3 IC and Spk cables| PS Audio PCs

    Ofc: Wright WLA12 preamp: Anthem Amp 1: Pio Elite DV-79AVI: Airport Express: CAL Sigma II DAC: PA LS90 sonicaps and mills

  18. #48

    Member Sales Rating: (3)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    SDA SweetSpot
    Posts
    5,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Bubbles View Post
    My point is that both of you seem to know what you , yourselves are talikng about and I would bet that both can see the others point but neither can admit to haveing the smaller or equal sized dick.
    It's unfortunate that you want to characterize this as some sort of "contest". Villian alluded to me picking the most expensive item simply because it was the most expensive. I provided several examples where I picked a lower cost item because it performed best or because its performance was equivalent to higher priced alternatives, as in the case of the $8 HDMI cables I use in my home theater system. How can someone know what they are talking about when they make wild, unsubstantiated claims such as this?

    If someone makes an ignorant and false comment regarding my motives or experimental conclusions, offering evidence to point out their error is not indicative of needing to win since the person spouting the ignorance has already lost credibility.

    There is no need to speculate on my being able to see the other person's point because I have spent several years studying, writing, and publishing on the subject of audio system evaluation. I understand full well the point of some people misusing blind tests for audio since it gives them the results they want: specifically that the differences in audio gear that audiophiles claim to hear are figments of the imagination. You will notice that such people almost invariable harp on the cost of audio equipment rather than its performance.

    It was stated that blind tests are necessary due to the need to eliminate bias. I cited the standard basic text book in sensory science which says that blind tests are for untrained subjects. I also cited peer-reviewed journal papers by the inventors of home stereo systems attesting to the fact that evaluation of stereo systems is an activity for trained listeners who are proficient in sound localization techniques. Further, I cited scholarly, peer-reviewed journal papers attesting to the fact that the effects of bias can be properly addressed and eliminated through training. The standard term for it is "consumer debiasing". Where I come from, citing credible references is not called comparing dick sizes, it is called scientific substantiation and validation of a viewpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Bubbles View Post
    There are many things in our lives that we use for different reasons than there original design intentions. Super Glue and WD-40 are two very good examples.
    Using something for a purpose the thing was not designed for (repurposing) is not a problem as long as it does not cause erroneous results or bad or misleading outcomes. The scientific literature is very clear that simple discrimination tests, like blind tests, are not suitable and appropriate when the sensory stimuli being evaluated have many different components (multi-dimensional).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Bubbles View Post
    However blind testing is nearly always a plus when results can be very minute and subtle. Trained particiants or not this is true.
    Everything I have read says the opposite. Can you cite credible references to support this?
    Last edited by DarqueKnight; 04-21-2014 at 06:34 PM.
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    __________________
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

  19. #49

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Bubbles View Post
    I consider myself a trained listener though i am sure not nearly as trained as many other on here or other places. I have been around audio and differing parts of the audio industry my ENTIRE LIFE. However I still realize that I am susceptible to the placebo effect.
    Bingo.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Bubbles View Post
    My point is that both of you seem to know what you , yourselves are talikng about and I would bet that both can see the others point but neither can admit to haveing the smaller or equal sized dick.
    Actually, I'm quite capable and will be the first to admit that I can be wrong. I openly admit that I too am susceptible to the placebo effect, and many other things..as every human is. My hearing is about the same, and I'll openly admit to be a very untrained ear. Furthermore, I've stated numerous times already that I wish not to trample this thread for no reason and will discontinue the conversation because it's not an open minded conversation. If DK were to open up his mind (As I have by reading his humongous post about blind studies..which I found extremely interesting) and allow a real conversation, I would gladly participate...but whenever I post something I get responses that are completely biased and lack any real substance..regardless of however much thought, energy, and intellect I use in creating my own posts.


    Quote Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post
    Villian alluded to me picking the most expensive item simply because it was the most expensive..
    Never once did I state or allude to you picking the most expensive item simply because it was the most expensive. I stated thatyour conclusion in this thread was funny and ironic, which to me, it is. Furthermore, I stated that you, I, and every other human is susceptible to the placebo effect..because we are. That's the key point I've been trying to make, and what I've been harping on you about. More so than blind studies, or "Picking the most expensive cable as the best" as you have alluded to.

    I just thought it was funny that the conclusion made was that the most expensive jumper was the "Best" (In this instance).
    It'd be truly interesting to see if you came to the same conclusion blindfolded. Even if the only thing blindfolded was the price tag, allowing you to nit pick the heck out of anything you wanted to compare between cables. I have no doubt that the best cable is the most expensive one here (As you've already stated that you prefer this cable over many others costing many times more) but still..it's kinda ironic and little funny that nearly every thread on this forum ends this way..$$$$ > $$ Granted this isn't THE most expensive cable..but it's the most expensive one in this comparison. Is that not ironic? Maybe not to you, but to me..and I think I'm entitled to that opinion.

    The reason I haven't debated this more is because you have a point, and a few decent ones which I agree with. Had this been a digital signal vs an analog one I would more than likely be arguing with you about any result..but that's a whole different story for a whole different thread!
    Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. :)

  20. #50

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    794

    Default

    This thread was posted in a Polk, vintage speaker forum which basically is a group of people who own 25 year old speakers with values from 25 to 1500 dollars. The question that comes to mind for me when I read the original post in this thread is what percentage of vintage Polk owners who frequent this forum would actually spend $429 on speaker jumpers? I think the answer to that question would be "close to zero percent".

    The way I read this thread you need to be a "trained listener" to hear the difference between the jumpers that were compared. That brings to mind the question, what percentage of people who frequent this forum are trained listeners? I'm not talking about self proclaimed trained listeners. I'm talking about someone who has some kind of certification or recognition that makes them stand out from the rest of us who have listened to speakers for the last 30 years. Again I think the answer to that question is also "close to zero percent".

    So what we have here is a thread about a product that virtually no one would buy due to the ridiculous cost, and almost non-existent return on investment, presented to a group of people who couldn't hear the difference due to a lack of training. I have the utmost respect for DK and I believe he probably has a trained ear that might be able to hear the difference in the jumpers and he certainly has the right to waste his money anyway he likes. However, I can't help but think the the purpose of this thread is not intended to be an objective test of components that members of this forum might use to improve the sound of their vintage speakers, but is grandstanding intended seek the admiration and envy of the members of this forum. Although it might be interesting reading I find that it has no useful purpose. The arguments about the pros and cons of how the testing was done is just as useless.
    SDA 2BTL · Sonicaps · Mills resistors · RDO-198s · New gaskets · H-nuts · Erse inductors · Crossover upgrades by westmassguy
    Adcom GTP-450 preamp
    Adcom GFA-555 amp · Upgrades & speaker protection added by OldmanSRS
    Pioneer DV-610AV DVD/CD player
    SDA CRS+ · Hidden away in the closet

  21. #51

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Abbotsford BC
    Posts
    1,941

    Default

    TennMan, nail, hammer, head, BANG.

    DK is an electrical engineer as I've read on here, sure what he does can mystify some but he does do a thorough job in his testing and evaluation. While some of it is downright boring, some of it is actually useful information. It's nice to see someone in his position to not only do what he does, but have some hard data to back up the facts. Would I spend $429 on speaker jumpers, not in the near future, would I buy them if I had a set of more expensive speakers than I have now? Possibly. His work makes me also think of things to do (borrow a line from DK himself) when I get more dedicated to audio than I am.
    Living Room Evolved
    Onkyo TX-NR717
    Parasound HCA-1200II
    Polk Audio RTi A7 Black Front
    Polk Audio RTi A3 Black Rear
    Polk Audio CSiA6 Center
    Transparent Audio Music Wave Biwire cables > Mains
    Canare 4S11 >Center
    Audioquest Evergreens on most of the analog connections
    Tannoy TS2.12 Sub
    Marantz CD6004
    Pro-Ject Debut Carbon Piano Black TT
    Parasound Zphono Phono Preamp
    Apple Mac Mini
    Apple TV 3rd Gen
    Sony PS3 160Gb/Microsoft XBox 360
    Insignia 55 inch 120Hz TV

  22. #52

    Member Sales Rating: (13)

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    The Mars Hotel
    Posts
    31,246

    Default

    The question that comes to mind for me when I read the original post in this thread is what percentage of vintage Polk owners who frequent this forum would actually spend $429 on speaker jumpers? I think the answer to that question would be "close to zero percent".
    The retail price of the jumpers used on my vintage Polk's was more than that.
    'Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

  23. #53

    Member Sales Rating: (3)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    SDA SweetSpot
    Posts
    5,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TennMan View Post
    This thread was posted in a Polk, vintage speaker forum which basically is a group of people who own 25 year old speakers with values from 25 to 1500 dollars. The question that comes to mind for me when I read the original post in this thread is what percentage of vintage Polk owners who frequent this forum would actually spend $429 on speaker jumpers? I think the answer to that question would be "close to zero percent".
    It would be easy to do a poll. However, a recent thread indicates that I am not the only member of this forum interested in high performance jumpers:

    Speaker-jumpers-They-do-make-a-difference

    Bluefox uses Shunyata VTX-11 jumpers which retail for $400.

    F1nut uses MIT shotgun jumpers on his non-SDA vintage Polks. The Shotgun jumpers retail for $695. He uses MIT Magnum jumpers on his SDAs. The price of the Magnum jumpers was not listed on the MIT website, but since they are above the Shotguns, we can reasonably assume that they cost substantially more than $695. The highest model of MIT jumpers is the Oracle, for which a retail price is not listed on the MIT website. MIT also offers a model below the Shotguns, the StyleLine, which retail for $149.

    Quote Originally Posted by TennMan View Post
    The way I read this thread you need to be a "trained listener" to hear the difference between the jumpers that were compared.
    Most people need to be trained listener just to perceive a three dimensional stereo sound stage.

    Quote Originally Posted by TennMan View Post
    That brings to mind the question, what percentage of people who frequent this forum are trained listeners?
    Again, polls are easy to post. I bet the results would be interesting, provided you state a valid definition of "trained listener".

    Quote Originally Posted by TennMan View Post
    I'm not talking about self proclaimed trained listeners. I'm talking about someone who has some kind of certification or recognition that makes them stand out from the rest of us who have listened to speakers for the last 30 years. Again I think the answer to that question is also "close to zero percent".
    You and others of this mindset are taking the context of "trained listener" far outside its meaning. A trained listener is someone who familiar with the performance aspects of stereo reproduction (sound stage, imaging, clarity, detail, etc.) and knows how to apply them in evaluating stereo equipment. It does not require a certification program just as judging a beauty contest does not require a certification from a "beauty pageant judging school". If someone has been working in a field where people are judged on their appearance, they will reach a point where they are able to evaluate contestants according to a set of physical criteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by TennMan View Post
    So what we have here is a thread about a product that virtually no one would buy due to the ridiculous cost, and almost non-existent return on investment, presented to a group of people who couldn't hear the difference due to a lack of training.
    There are some people who would call you a fool for spending a "ridiculous" amount on capacitors, inductors, and resistors. They would say that you think you know more about crossover design than the people who manufactured the speakers. What would you say to them?

    The truth is that different people in a hobby desire different levels of performance. My speaker mods may seem ridiculous to you, but by the same line of thought, the crossover mods you have done to your speakers would seem ridiculous to someone who believes that premium crossover components are snake oil.

    Quote Originally Posted by TennMan View Post
    I have the utmost respect for DK and I believe he probably has a trained ear that might be able to hear the difference in the jumpers and he certainly has the right to waste his money anyway he likes.
    Again, its all relative. What is wasting money to you is performance enhancement to me. The Erse/Mills/Sonicaps in your SDA 2Bs may seem like a waste of money to some, but I'm sure you consider them performance enhancements.

    Quote Originally Posted by TennMan View Post
    However, I can't help but think the the purpose of this thread is not intended to be an objective test of components that members of this forum might use to improve the sound of their vintage speakers, but is grandstanding intended seek the admiration and envy of the members of this forum. Although it might be interesting reading I find that it has no useful purpose. The arguments about the pros and cons of how the testing was done is just as useless.
    I read Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, and online reviews of stereo equipment costing six figures. Never once has the thought entered my mind that the author was grandstanding. Some people have an appreciation for higher performance gear and others do not. Some people might think you are grandstanding for listing your speaker mods in your signature:

    "SDA 2BTL • Sonicaps • Mills resistors • RDO-198s • New gaskets • H-nuts • Erse inductors • Crossover upgrades by westmassguy"

    Quote Originally Posted by TennMan View Post
    Although it might be interesting reading I find that it has no useful purpose. The arguments about the pros and cons of how the testing was done is just as useless.
    I'm not sure why you would waste valuable time commenting on a thread that has no useful purpose to you. Everyone in audio is not on the same level and not everyone has the same audio system performance goals. Most people are perfectly happy with stock SDAs while others do various levels of upgrades to them. Everything you have said about this speaker upgrade could be said of you by a "purist" who believes speaker crossover upgrades are a waste of money.

    If you think my threads are elitist nonsense and they rub you the wrong way, you should just ignore them and leave them to the one or two people interested in the subject matter. That is what any reasonable person does with information that is of no interest or use to them.
    Last edited by DarqueKnight; 04-22-2014 at 12:39 AM.
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    __________________
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

  24. #54

    Member Sales Rating: (3)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    SDA SweetSpot
    Posts
    5,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F1nut View Post
    The retail price of the jumpers used on my vintage Polk's was more than that.
    What is retail on the Magnum jumpers? Also provide a price for the Oracle jumpers if you have it. Oracle and Magnum jumpers are listed in MIT's 2014 catalog, but the website only has prices for the StyleLine and Shotgun jumpers.
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    __________________
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

  25. #55

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    6,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TennMan View Post
    This thread was posted in a Polk, vintage speaker forum which basically is a group of people who own 25 year old speakers with values from 25 to 1500 dollars. The question that comes to mind for me when I read the original post in this thread is what percentage of vintage Polk owners who frequent this forum would actually spend $429 on speaker jumpers? I think the answer to that question would be "close to zero percent".
    How many people buy a Bugatti? Yet, you put that car on the cover of your magazine and its going to sell. People want to read about it. I too am a Stereophile subscriber, though lately I haven't been able to read any issues. I read in awe about speakers well beyond my meager means and begin to catalog products in my own head. My last visit to Audio Concepts, the salesman tried to convince me not to listen to the $30k Wilson speakers, basically telling me that if you hear these, you won't like your system anymore. Truth of the matter is that after hearing that system, I found massive flaws in my system. I've since fixed 95% of those flaws I didn't know existed and now I've got a system that is well above where I was with little investment.

    Just like a flagship product, ideas and designs are introduced that eventually filter down. This type of 'testing' could serve as a trigger that could get someone on the forum to invest in making their own jumpers and replacing those crap stock jumpers you see on every speaker. It also reinforces the fact that if you do choose to continue your upgrade path, you might eventually hit a wall, but there should be improvements as you move up.


    I consider myself, even being half deaf in one ear, to be a trained listener. I've heard what a system is capable of when at optimal performance. I've noticed characteristics in those systems that I don't hear in this or that system, even my own system. I know where my system stands. I know how far I have to go and how much it'll cost to reach a 'high-end' sound. Some improvements go unnoticed by listeners, while those same improvements can be night and day for others. I've been on both ends of that spectrum and know how frustrating it is when someone hears a big difference and it sounds exactly the same to you. After hearing hundreds of setups now, my training has improved through trial and I often find myself on the more desirable (from my standpoint at least) end.

    DK has a system that most on this forum will never get more than a whiff of. The fact that he shares his experiences isn't grandstanding in my books, nor is the fact that he actually hears differences that he can back up with measurements. Its simply providing examples of what he's done at multiple levels, just like the jumper cable prices, as a service to the community.
    Usher CP-6311, Shuguang S200MK, Shuguang S845MK, Pioneer BDP-51fd, Essence Audio HDACC, Douglas IC's, Douglas Alpha bi-wire SC's, Pangea/Douglas PC's, Epson 8100

  26. #56

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    6,125

    Default

    The easy way to avoid spending $400+ dollars on jumpers is to buy speakers that don't use jumpers.

    Name:  image.jpg
Views: 101
Size:  141.1 KB

  27. #57

    Member Sales Rating: (13)

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    The Mars Hotel
    Posts
    31,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarqueKnight View Post
    What is retail on the Magnum jumpers? Also provide a price for the Oracle jumpers if you have it. Oracle and Magnum jumpers are listed in MIT's 2014 catalog, but the website only has prices for the StyleLine and Shotgun jumpers.
    Magnum jumpers are $995.00
    Oracle jumpers are $1595.00
    'Political Correctness'.........defined

    "A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

  28. #58

    Member Sales Rating: (3)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    SDA SweetSpot
    Posts
    5,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F1nut View Post
    Magnum jumpers are $995.00
    Oracle jumpers are $1595.00
    Yikes!

    Those prices make my $429 jumpers seem like fire sale items.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueFox View Post
    The easy way to avoid spending $400+ dollars on jumpers is to buy speakers that don't use jumpers.

    Attachment 96840
    Awwwww mannnnnnnn. I should have talked to you before I bought the outrageously expensive jumpers. I'm going to lose sleep knowing that I could have avoided all this simply by buying speakers that don't use jumpers.
    Last edited by DarqueKnight; 04-22-2014 at 03:21 AM.
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    __________________
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

  29. #59

    Member Sales Rating: (0)

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F1nut View Post
    Magnum jumpers are $995.00
    Oracle jumpers are $1595.00
    I bet you have some Kimbal Kable wire too? Glad to see that this thread has totally turned into a money pissing contest while I've been gone. At least Dark Knight had a valid argument in that the most expensive wires aren't automatically the best, nor are they worth gloating about.

    For what it's worth I know of a guy running Infinity IRS V ($100,000 stereophonic speaker set) on some bargain bin no-name type wiring. Sounds absolutely amazing and he says he wouldn't change a thing about it. Working on room treatments instead.
    Too many good quotes to list..waiting for some fresh ammo. :)

  30. #60

    Member Sales Rating: (3)

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    SDA SweetSpot
    Posts
    5,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    Glad to see that this thread has totally turned into a money pissing contest while I've been gone.
    That's what we audiophiles do.

    Quote Originally Posted by villian View Post
    For what it's worth I know of a guy running Infinity IRS V ($100,000 stereophonic speaker set) on some bargain bin no-name type wiring. Sounds absolutely amazing and he says he wouldn't change a thing about it. Working on room treatments instead.
    I can think of three couples who have homes in the $300,000 to $500,000 range that filled them with bargain bin no-name furniture, artwork, and accessories. No class or good taste whatsoever. The homes look absolutely amazing from the outside and they are perfectly happy with their décor. They wouldn't change a thing about it. Working on making babies instead.

    We all have different priorities.
    Last edited by DarqueKnight; 04-22-2014 at 03:33 AM.
    "Polk SDA-SRSs are hopelessly out of date both sonically and technologically... I see no value whatsoever in older SDA speakers."~Audio Asylum Member
    __________________
    "Knowledge, without understanding, is a path to failure."~DK

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Polk speaker comparisons
    By friggy in forum Speakers
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-22-2012, 12:35 AM
  2. Center speaker comparisons.
    By pearsall001 in forum Speakers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-19-2011, 08:57 AM
  3. LCi Speaker opinions and comparisons wanted
    By xfiring in forum Speakers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-07-2007, 09:54 PM
  4. Setting up speaker comparisons
    By Harvey/ Ga in forum Vintage Speakers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-02-2007, 07:47 PM
  5. Objective Speaker Comparisons
    By PolkThug in forum Speakers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-20-2005, 12:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts