... and unreliable human hearing really is.

Continuation of penultimate response to Ethan Winer: Like the Amazing Randi, you don't feel obliged to stick to the facts when you attack those with who you disagree. :-(

That should end: It's good to be skeptical. It's destructive to be cynical. I just wonder where you stand.

I would be interesting to hear JA's take on this. Whether it is something he would add to his measurements page or just a snake-oil purity scale, destined to be swallowed up by the greater subjectivist/objectivist 100 years war. :)

They will obviously have to publish their methodology at some point in the future. And the comment by Mr Gregory about the "Law of diminishing returns.. need no longer apply" seems just a bit self-serving for a manufacturer of very high priced cabling. If, by some unforseeable accident, a $100/meter cable achieves a similar salutary effect on sound quality (and on the graphing chart), well, your Diminishing Returns paradigm takes one on the chin, so to speak. Jus' sayin...

It would be much cheaper if they used Diffmaker freeware. http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm

I don't think Diffmaker is quite the same thing - that only compares two analogue audio signals and isolates the difference between them. What Nordost and Vertx are trying to do isn't entirely clear, but it looks like they are making comparisons with the original digital audio data. This would be an absolute measure of degradation, rather than a relative one.

Yeah yeah just more BS from "high end" manufacturers giving another spin on why their products are really better. Blah blah blah I bet it will turn up to be crackpot pseudo-science that won't hold up to real scientific review.

If this were a scientific approach, they would have put it out for peer review before press release.

Although I wasn't there for the demo,I was enthusiastically awaiting news.The tease from HiFi+ whetted my enthusiasm. As usual, the "wallpluggers"are the first to chime in with their two cents worth of "show me the real science"vitriol. Negativism and being close minded is a sure way to stay mirred in the past. Yessiree, zip cord and wall pluggin is the life for me. Not.

To the poster "Nick" above, DiffMaker actually operates in the digital domain by comparing two WAV files. If you want to use it to compare two analog signals, you need to digitally record them using a sound card or other digital recording device.

As they were preparing to fly out of Denver, I happened upon Roy Gregory and Joe Reynolds of Nordost. Discussing reactions to my report, which I trust you will understand is a Reader's Digest summary of a complex presentation that was cut short by a hotel-wide power outage and subsequent false alarm fire alarm sounding and temporary evacuation - I'm not making this up - Gareth's research is very much a work in progress. The graphs and research displayed at the seminar are the result of six months of intense work. There's a lot more to come. Secondly, as far as I understand, the intention is to submit the research to MIT for peer review. jason

One does not submit one's work to a lab or university of one's choice for peer review; one submits it to a journal whose editor, if he/she deems the work worthy, will select the reviewers.

I sat through the presentation. I was struck by the lack of understanding by the presenters of the information presented and the reluctance to offer up any details. I thought the analysis of the data was very lacking and the conclusions presented (cables, noise filters, mechanical isolation make a big difference) were not supported by the by the data presented. This is a big mistake. If there is something in this the initial bad methodology will color the acceptance of it later. The interesting data was in the changes caused by the addition of an accessory, the rest was not particularly meaningful. I'm surprised that the spectrum (FFT of the time data) was not presented. Without the actual data to process its difficult to draw conclusions, especially the "missing link" conclusions presented. The lack of transparency and the vague response to questions about an AES paper or how the measurements were made has this more of a cold fusion story than a breakthrough room temperature superconductor

"...Has produced an entirely new method for measuring the audible effects of components on sound...." That sounds suspiciously like a statement of fact, rather than the untested claim it actually is. The word that comes to mind is, "credulous," not "skeptical" or "rigorous." And that's pretty typical.

If that piece on Nordost had been printed in the Onion I would not have thought it out of place. Absolutely unbelievable.

@ Chuck Lee Believing in voodoo science and hocus-pocus magic generated by manufacturers that are selling expensive products for you to buy is not the smartest financial move in the world. But hey, if it makes you feel better to spend $4000 on an AC cable, then more power to you. On the other hand, if you want to insult us "wallpluggers" then expect to be mocked since you are apparently unable to understand basic science.

Wow, i see some real threatened wallpluggers here, fyi you don't need to speand $4000 to get better sound, shunyata Venom is $100 and sounds terrific. : P

Hmm, 6 months of research? I find it hard to believe that, in an arena lacking coherent and/or consistent approaches to measurement currently that six months of research would result in any significant new information. I'd be more intrigued if it were six YEARS of research, which might allow enough time for development of a hypothesis, methodology, testing, and conclusions. Six months is hardly enough time to get your thoughts organized unless your goal is marketing and not scientific.

"According to Gregory, the so-called law of diminishing returns, which says the more costly, high quality parts you put into a cable or device, the less of an improvement you will hear, need no longer apply." That statement is ludicrous. There really is no shame in their game. High-end cables are sold by dealers because they have excellent margins, are easy to install, almost never need repair, and have luxury appeal. Selling Nordost is like having a license to print money. If you must buy fancy cables then at least do so after addressing the acoustic properties of your room. It really irritates me when I see a five or six figure system sitting in a room with glass walls and marble floors. Inevitably these are the systems with the most expensive cables and other sorts of "tweaks".

The $10 CD-ROM in my computer reads (undamaged) CDs with 100% accuracy. It is not possible to get a more accurate reading. One missed bit on code and the software doesn't work. The claim that a power cable will improve the 100% read accuracy is simple fraud... and reporting such claims without that perspective seems poor journalism indeed.

Wrong Jerry, your computer is not the be-all and end-all of digital reproduction. There's a little thing called jitter, and yes it happens inside your computer too.

Jerry, you wrote that "The claim that a power cable will improve the 100% read accuracy is simple fraud..." My apologies. but I don't see anywhere where that claim has been made. Setting up such strawmen is a fruitless means of participating in any discussion, surely.

Call me crazy, but why am I the only one who wonders why this touted "breakthrough" was teased to the public before it was ready for scrutiny instead of being presented as a finished work to the AES? I'm not necessarily saying that what they claim isn't true, but it sorta looks like they're rediscovering difference or signal subtraction. This isn't the first time a manufacturer has claimed to have something special to prove that only their gear is the last word in honest signal integrity, however in order for the methodology to be taken seriously, THE TEST METHODOLOGY MUST BE DISCLOSED so that it can be scrutinized by others. To not do so is basically to say, "I have a way to prove my stuff is the best. Really, I do. But I'm not going to tell you what it is, so you'll just have to take my word for it." But what do I know?

To echo the rational posters here, this is not the approach that real engineers/scientists use when making a major discovery. If this "method" had any purpose other than marketing, it would have at the least been presented to AES for review and discussion. But hey, they suddenly made decades of research/engineering in electronics obsolete in only 6 months, so who am I to judge.. [insert "roll eyes" emoticon here]

timing errors reduced by the power cord or by the other equipment (original file and a copy on CD played on another player) reducing noise ? noise levels are already 100DB or more below the signal so what is the gain to lower it by another 15% nobody can hear that. it does not tell if the original signal was still the same.... (at some filter or suppression and the noise will be lower.....) Hey read the claims carefull what they claim, they probably can prove it but what is really improving besides theire bank account, if you buy this stuff...

Having sat in on this demonstration both in Denver and at a private pre-preview, I think there are some points that are worthy of note. 1) This is very much a work-in-progress. It's been a long time since I submitted a dissertation or a thesis, but if I remember rightly, it was not considered good form to turn up with a handful of notes, saying "I've not finished yet", but a good idea to discuss your work with your peers and your professor before submission. That is what's happening here 2) This is presented as a Calls For Comment among audio manufacturers and public alike. This is in part why the methodology was not disclosed at this time - essentially it's at measurement + mathematician stage. Give it time - they are working through the 3,000 ways of not making a lightbulb right now 3) Roy is boundless in his enthusiasm when he gets excited about something. And these guys just might be on to something... I can understand the inertia, but I don't think it's just

"I've not finished yet" and "work-in-progress" are not exactly consistent with the claim on Nordost's web site of "...finally offers incontrovertible proof of the very real and all too audible impact that 'accessories' such as AC and signal cables or equipment supports make in even a modest system". And the idea of having the VP of Marketing for Nordost writing articles about Nordost in HiFi+ is such a conflict of interest that I'm amazed it's even considered, let alone allowed.

As I said, Roy's enthusiasm can be boundless when he gets excited about something. And he's very definitely excited about this. When the more concrete evidence to support this is made public, those claims of his will have justification. You'll have to wait and see, though. Roy does not write articles about Nordost in the magazine; the 'Knowledge Alliance' described above (and written about in the magazine) is not run by, owned by, or even particularly benefits Nordost directly. If anything, Nordost has the most to lose here; it's basically acting as patron for a measurement system that may end up saying that someone else's equipment does a better job than its own products.

This "Knowledge Alliance" is a laughable euphemism for "Nordost marketing blitz". To claim it's not associated specifically with Nordost is an outright lie. It's quite clear that their game is to delay in perpetuity any disclosure of what they are really doing. In the unlikely event that they actually do disclose what's going on, there's lots of smart people who have been down this road many times who will critically examine it. And THAT is where Nordost stands to lose.

Wow, it's really interesting to read the fear amongst the cable and isolation naysayers. I saw the presentation and it was clear that it's preliminary results presented by marketing guys trying to get a jump on the final, official results, which are likely months away. The defense contractor analyst was not starting from ground zero at measuring sonic phenomenum because his specialties are sonar and radar, not audio. I'm reserving judgement until we see and actual white paper and it's subjected to validation. If nothing ever comes out, then we can lay it off to pure marketing hype, but if they deliver it could be a great leap forward in correlating what we hear to what's happening electronically. BTW, the CDPs compared were an old Linn, a current Rotel and a dcS. It was amazing to finally get confirmation of how badly that old Linn measured vs. what I heard it in the early 1990s.

Strange then that most of this "Nordost marketing blitz" is conducted by Steve Elford of Vertex AQ (a UK-based competitor), the majority of information disclosed thus far is on the Vertex AQ site and that the end of the talk turns to discussing the strengths of rival brands (to both companies) such as Stillpoints, Finite Elemente and Crystal Cable. As I said earlier, these people are still at the "3,000 ways not to make a lightbulb" stage; maybe the end result will come to nothing, or maybe it'll join Audio Precision and the Miller QC Suite as one of the barrage of tests people use to determine product quality. It's too early to say for sure, even if those determined to play judge, jury and executioner think they know better.

Okay, now I get it. "We really don't know WTF we're doing at this point" translates to "incontrovertible proof", and "Nordost is paying Vertex AQ for this work" translates to "this is a strategic alliance having no relationship to Nordost".

I don't know why the post reposted, sorry. But no, that's not how it happens. "We really don't know WTF we are doing at this point" translates to "We've found something. How big a thing we don't know at this time." And where on earth did you get the idea that Nordost was paying Vertex AQ? Sometimes a strategic alliance is just that; a strategic alliance. Of course I may be wrong, and it was Nordost on the grassy knoll after all.

Oops, sorry - I should have said "Acuity", rather than "Vertex AQ". Somebody's paying them to come up with the measurement technique. There's no way they're doing it on their own. It's hard to keep all these scammers straight.

"Seminar", huh? "Cables really matter", huh? "Timing", huh? The problem is that there are plenty of fools out there, ready *once again* to spend their money on ignorant fools' or plain scammers' cables - the choice is yours. Ridiculous "seminars" by ridiculous vendors for ridiculous clients...

Bollocks!

And yet another "breakthrough" in a piece of wire. Actually it's called another way to fool the dopey. I thought the other company had the "breakthrough" the other week, in last month's ad. Will these still need to be on cable "elevators" has that issue been resolved?

I understand why people like "monkeyboy," "Costas," ands "George" are skeptica;, but I am also puzzled why they are ridiculing the experimental evidence that was presented in the Nordost-Vertex seminar. Are they satisying that difference testing doesn't work? Are they saying that difference testing is legitimate, but only in the hands of people who don't work for Vertex or Nordost? Or they claiming that as they _personally_ can't think of a reason why cables or vibration isolators can affect sound quality, their opinions should therefore be treated as received lore? Open your minds, people, maybe there is something in this work that does deserve further experimental investigation.

John, some of us are skeptical because we understand science and electronics. Null and difference tests are absolutely valid, but to convince me I need ALL of the data with nothing hidden or obfuscated. That hasn't happened here, and you and I both know that will never happen.

Ethan, when ypou write "John, some of us are skeptical because we understand science and electronics," I had to roll my eyes, because your preantation on "audio myths" at the recent AES Convention did little more than reveal your own lack of technical knowledge. FIrst, Dr, Crum;s presentation showed why your oft-made claim that acoustic "comb filtering" is the cause of all perceived differences is flawed; second, your claims that the correct use of dither is also an audio myth was embarassing, given that the careful reearch in the academic literature has convincingly shown both the audibility of its beneficial effectsa and the audibility of its omission. You admitted in your presentation that you have _no_ scientific training or qualifications -- perhaps you should leave subjects like this to those of us who _do_!

LOL, nice try John. :->) I never said that comb filtering is the cause of all perceived differences! I'm certain the MAIN reason people think they hear a difference after demagnetizing an LP or raising their speaker cables off the floor with cable elevators is what JJ and Poppy addressed. They didn't want to offend by using the word "delusion," but I'm glad to because it's the truth and the proper word. In my comb filtering article I was trying to be conciliatory to 'phooles, by showing them a reason the sound really can change. And I stand by that using my measurements as proof. John, if you're so convinced that dither makes an audible (not measurable) difference, please read my dither article and email me your guesses (and I do mean guesses) as to which sections are dithered and which are not: www.ethanwiner.com/dither.html As an aside, it amazes me that you could see JJ's and Poppy's presentations and still not understand how frail and unreliable hum

"I never said that comb filtering is the cause of all perceived differences!" Ethan, please don't insult me by back-tracking. Both in your AES presentation and on the Stereophile forum, you stated definitively that acoustic comb filtering was the reason people heard a difference, for example, with the Furutech "LP demagnetizer." Yet Dr. Krum's presentation showed definitively why the measured differences in the continuous sound at 2 different positions in the room have little or even no effect on the perceived sound quality. Your protests have as little credibility as your implications in the AES presentation that Stereophile promotes Geoff Kaits' "Intelligent Rocks." And while I am on the subject, you should be ashamed of using an AES presentation to promote your room acoustic treatments. And you accuse others of being sales hacks!

John, your hostility is misplaced, and surely inappropriate. If you show me a forum post where I said comb filtering is the ONLY reason people think they hear a difference with replacement power cords et al, I will mail you a check for $100. That you can make your case only by stuffing words into my mouth says much more about you than about me! John, the best solution is for you and I to get together in person, with our laptops connected to your system or mine (or preferably both in two sessions). Then we can test our various theories as to what matters and what does not. I test you blind, and you test me if you'd like. Single blind is fine, and having a few witnesses from both sides of the "debate" is better still. Now, I know you won't agree to this because it's in your financial interest to perpetuate anti-science BS. But I'd love you to prove me wrong and accept this "challenge" for lack of a better word.

How was that AES presentation, did JA attend? I heard it was quite good. Talking bout' magic things audiophiles believe in. Did Mickey Fremer attend to to debate these things, as he certainly has some really far out abilitys to hear things, from his write ups. Who attened the Stereophile workshop, what went on there? Ethan did you go to the Stereophile workshop? Another question I thought of, how does a consumer based publication, get a spot at a PRO event?

"If you show me a forum post where I said comb filtering is the ONLY reason people think they hear a difference with replacement power cords et al, I will mail you a check for $100." Ethan, you specifically said and have not denied it that you feel comb filtering is the reason I and others heard a difference with the Furutech "LP demagnetizer." You said at AES and you said it on the Stereophile forum. And regarding your blind test "challenge," as I once wrote in ther magazine, and has been reprinted by Tom Nousaine et al, "blind testing is the last refuge of the agenda-driven scoundrel." Consider yourself so accused. And, BTW, when you write "know you won't agree to this because it's in your financial interest to perpetuate anti-science BS," I think you need to take a chill pill, Ethan. You should note that almost none of the products you took a swing at at AES are advertised by their manufacturers in Stereophile. Like the Amazing Randi, you don'

George asked "how does a consumer based publication, get a spot at a PRO event?" Michael Fremer is well-known in the NY pro-audio scene; I have been a full member of the Audio Engineering Society since 1981 and a voting member of NARAS (Producers and Engineers Wing) since 1997. George also asked "Who attended the Stereophile workshop, what went on there?" This panel included mastering engineers Bob Ludwig and Greg Calbi, Sony Legacy senior VP Steve Berkowitz, and manufacturer Eveanna Manley. The topics was about why, if conusmrs have embraced HD video, they generally are content with MP3s etc. The room was SRO full - whereas Ethan's session on "Audio Myths" was about 70% full.

John, in hindsight I should have said "audiophile magazines" at my workshop. It was unfair of me to single out Stereophile Magazine. Okay, now here are two questions for you: 1) If comb filtering isn't the reason you and others heard a difference after "demagnetizing" an LP, what is your explanation for hearing a difference? Please be very specific! 2) If getting together with you in person is not a valid way to tell if you can really hear the effect of tweaks like demagnetizing vinyl, what is your better suggestion for *proving* the effect is real? Finally, it looked like there were close to 200 people at my talk late Monday afternoon. I can believe there were more people at Mike's. So what? Half the people had already left the show by Monday. Are you suggesting that Scientific Truth is best decided by a popularity contest?

Ethan, when you say, "you and I both know that will never happen." What evidence are you relying on to make statement? Are you, in fact, just working on anecdote and inductive reasoning? Put another way, aren't you letting your own prejudices get the better of you? You may well be right, all of this comes to nothing. It may just be a lengthy excuse for a 'white paper'. Or, it might be something that itself leads nowhere, but in the process delivers concrete results in a wholly unexpected manner. Or maybe, just maybe, it adds something constructive to audio, which has importance far beyond the companies currently announcing this. You don't seem able to parse this, Ethan. You seem intent on cutting it off at the knees. This is like walking into Pierre and Marie Curie's lab 110 years ago, pointing at the big pile of pitchblende and saying "You call THAT a nuclear power station?" It's good to be skeptical. It's destructive to be cynical. I just wonde

"What evidence are you relying on to make statement?" My evidence is many years of posting in the Stereophile forum. :->) I really do wish that John would agree to get together in person to hash this out. Web forums are not a good venue for a technical discussion and meeting of opposite minds, and a blog comments area is even worse. I imagine that John and I agree on much more than we disagree, even if he won't say so in public. Unlike many 'phooles, John is an accomplished recordist, so he knows what matters. But if you think about it, some people have a vested interest in preventing conclusive acceptance of what is audible and what is not. Hence my "never happen" comment.

Nice answer, but it evaded the question. The original posting was about a prospective measurement system. Your comments suggested (correctly, I feel) that it is as nothing without showing its workings. You then implied that no such disclosure of data and working will ever be forthcoming. Are you basing this implication on anything more than anecdote or inductive reasoning?

Woooowwwwwwwww. It's amazing what this has turned into since I looked at it a week ago. I'm willing to wait and see what this "measurement system" actually consists of in the future, but it still seems to me to be marketing more than a scientific endeavor. To think that Nordost has absolutely nothing to do with the project when their marketing guy is making the presentation and they paid for the room and provided promotional signage within that room is...a stretch. We'll call it "a stretch." Any scientific "breakthrough" must be open to dissection by others. If it passes scrutiny and can't be disproved, then more power to them. But to use it as a marketing ploy and get as much mileage out of it (and thus, sales) as possible with the potential that it quietly goes away in the future is simply making it appear as nothing more than a marketing exercise. Especially when it was PRIMARILY aimed squarely at the foreheads of consumers, not at anyone else within

"John, in hindsight I should have said "audiophile magazines" at my workshop. It was unfair of me to single out Stereophile Magazine." Thank you for the correction, Ethan. Of course, the problem with a public event is that things that are said can't be unsaid. Now for your questions. You asked: "1) If comb filtering isn't the reason you and others heard a difference after "demagnetizing" an LP, what is your explanation for hearing a difference?" I have no idea, not do I have to. Science proceeds by experimental observation first, with explanation later, sometimes very much later. More in my next response.

Ethan asked " 2) If getting together with you in person is not a valid way to tell if you can really hear the effect of tweaks like demagnetizing vinyl, what is your better suggestion for *proving* the effect is real?" Yes, I heard a difference when I wasn't expecting one. That is all I need. For me. Yes, more work is needed but am certainly not offering to do that work myself. Perhaps when I retire :-)

I thought the claim was not just that the effects of the LP demagnetizer could be heard, but that the additional bass could even be heard from another room, right? See this blog entry from Stephen Mejias - http://tinyurl.com/yjcdmqb - Stephen says: "There is a difference and it is obvious and it is immediate. The applause at the very beginning of the LP sounds more like real applause, more like pairs of human hands coming together to make sound, and less like Styrofoam or static. JA walks into the room and announces, 'There's more bass, too!'". Given that the change was so obvious, I would think any of the claimants would be very eager to embarrass the naysayers with their ability to immediately identify it. After all, that's what happened at Mikey's, right? As to what Ethan said at the AES, I don't see why anybody would get mad at him for stating the obvious about Stereophile.

Ted Clamstruck stated "As to what Ethan said at the AES, I don't see why anybody would get mad at him for stating the obvious about Stereophile." Okay, Ted, when, exactly, did Stereophile review favorably (or even at all) the "Intelligent Rocks" that Ethan used as an illustration of an audo myth?

In the post above, for "Intelligent Rocks, " read "Briliiant Pebbles," of course.

NyQuil wrote: "Nice answer, but it evaded the question." Not really. In my initial post I wrote "some of us are skeptical because we understand science and electronics." When you understand how electronics works, you understand that ALL such "high-end" wire products are a scam. There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to wire at audio frequencies, and all this stuff has been understood fully for 100+ years. Therefore, it's safe to conclude those marketeers will never offer proof their wires "measure" better. In fact, they insult us by even claiming the benefits of their wire is even measurable. They're hiding behind the apron strings of science. The should go back to using subjective prose because they will never prove it with science. If you or anyone else would like to make a long-term bet, $1,000 says a year from now there still will be no proof. Google to find my email addy.

JA said, "I have no idea, [nor] do I have to." Yes John, ethically speaking, you DO have to prove it. Based on a single anecdotal experience, you are suggesting people should spend $1,800 (!) on a device that may or may not work, and most likely does not work. When an extraordinary claim is made - in this case that music on a non-magnetic LP can be improved by applying a demagnetizer - that demands extraordinary proof. My proof that the Furutech demag is BS, besides the common sense obvious, is I heard no difference in the two clips you mailed me. If the effect was so obvious you heard it from another room, then I would have heard at least a small difference. And if the bass really changed, that is trivial to measure yet I measured nothing. It amazes me that anyone could see the talks Monday by JJ and Poppy and still insist "I know what I heard that one time" is valid.

JA said, "I have no idea, [nor] do I have to." Yes John, ethically speaking, you DO have to prove it. - Yet Ethan. I do not remember you making that demand when we reported, anecdotally, of the effect of your own product :-) And when you said that "Based on a single anecdotal experience, you are suggesting people should spend $1,800 (!) on a device that may or may not work, and most likely does not work." I offered my experience, honestly described. People are free to believe or ignore as they wish. I have no desire to submit my experiences to your thought police, Ethan. You have every right to offer an opposed opinion, as you are doing here.

Those are good points John, but there are two defining differences between high quality bass traps and a "demagnetizer" for LP records. One is that EVERYONE hears the effect of bass traps with no disagreement. The other is measurement data clearly shows that adding bass traps reduces peaks, nulls, and ringing. And getting back to the topic of this blog, what's missing is proof in the form of measurement data that is universally accepted as valid.

As I read this blog again, especially the description by the cable purveyors, I am flumaxed. So in 6 months these sales guys have redefined digital audio, when the creators of digital optical recording, Philips and Sony (mostly PHILIPS) introduced the format decades ago, and before that in the 70's digital recording was coming to fruition, so we are talking almost 40 years!!! Digital recording has progressed and improved via real science, and improvements. Philips/Sony basically made a dramatic jump in optical digital recording with the SACD/DSD format. Yet these wire guys have now "discovered" the power cord, above all else, is a culprit, in causing some issues. Does anybody wonder, in all these years, with the research capacity of Philips, some engineer at their facility would have discovered that a power cord would be an issue? Now this is after DECADES of digital recording systems, by numerous mfgs. Yet in a mere 6 months, a wire seller, has discovered that his magic power cord, improv

@ george: The 'sales guys' are the front end of this. The company doing all the measurement is Acuity Products Ltd. Acuity's 'day job' is designing ultrasonic measurement protocols to assess submarine sonar systems, and finding ways to measure and reduce electronic systems noise in miscellaneous combat applications. All this is public domain and on Acuity's website, although the details of this work is restricted. The guys doing this research are not rolled out to public seminars because post-doctoral mathematicians have an alarming habit of scaring away real people.

Ethan, I noticed you suggested that being 'delusional' is the main reason that people 'think' the sound changes when their speaker cables are raised from the floor. Are you serious? I'm so tired of hearing the naysayers suggest, "This is why you 'think' you hear a difference." Well, it is because we 'do' hear a difference. I came across this, quite by accident a couple of years ago, when I lifted one channel's speaker cables from my carpet onto a box to vacuum and wondered why that side sounded so much clearer than the other. I then started off by using cheap porcelain bowls and have now graduated to Dark Fields. There is such an obvious difference that you would have to be somewhat to totally deaf not to hear it. Good grief. Don't be insulting.

I know you'll find this insulting, but it's not meant that way. I have nothing to gain by insulting you! You say "we 'do' hear a difference ... There is such an obvious difference that you would have to be somewhat to totally deaf not to hear it." Gordon, if you are anywhere near me in Western Connecticut, I'll gladly visit you in person and PROVE to you with a simple blind test that you only think you hear a difference. If you're not near me, but another reader here with cable lifters is, I extend that offer to them. As long as they promise to post here an honest recount of what happened.

Hi Ethan. I will explain further. A dealer didn't sit me down and say, "Watch this. Don't these cables elevators make things sound nicer? Just listen. Don't you hear it? You should." I came across this by my own means, and quite unexpectedly. When I first noticed the difference with one channel's speaker cables off the carpet, I thought,'What did I break? I searched for something wrong on the other channel. Maybe a lose cord or interconnect. Nothing wrong. Then, I realized that the speaker cable was still off the carpet. I dropped that channel and raised the other channel. I was absolutely dumbfounded. Now what?! Something new? You have to be kidding. I lifted both off the carpet and it sounded even better. It was as if someone turned a 'focus' knob a little bit. I tried wood, plastic, metal, and other materials under the cables. Each time, the sound changed a bit. As it dawned on me that I couldn't possibly be the only one to have discovered thi

this, I did a few searches. Low and behold, I wasn't the first. Since them, I've tried a few different home made versions. One day, I tried the Shunyatas. I 'might' get hold of an Acoustic Revive RCI-3 in the future. For now, I'm quite happy. So...when I hear someone suggest that it's all in my head, I usually just laugh. I didn't ever expect this particular aspect of this grand hobby to even exist. If someone had told me of this, I would have had the same attitude as you. 'You must be kidding.' To say I need to take part in a double-blind test for cable elevators is like me asking you to take a similar test to tell the difference between a pepperoni-mushroom pizza and a ham and pineapple. The cables I was using were Goertz Ag3s. Perhaps they were more effected by the lift. I'm now using Tara Labs The 0.5s. They are less effected than the Goertz, but there is still a definite difference. There must be an awful lot of 'deluted' people out there, ju

judging by what I read. Best of luck, Ethan.

Ethan said "please read my dither article and email me your guesses (and I do mean guesses) as to which sections are dithered and which are not: www.ethanwiner.com/dither.html" You are even more unqualified in practice it seems! Here are some basics for you in any simple such test: try comparing the same passages dithered and undithered, not different ones (!!), try to remove observer bias (in your case the meaning of the term is quite literal) and try not to invalidate the purpose of your own test by concluding any correct identifications must have been lucky guesses by chance. Embarrassing indeed. Wait till I show Bob Katz this one!

John does a great service by publishing consistent measurements and Ethan also for engineering cost-effective acoustic devices. However, the only talk at the AES which agrees with my inferential & anecdotal data was Siegfried Linkwitz's. His thesis is that nobody is qualified to rate reproduction unless they audition acoustic music regularly. My criterion is auditioning within the critical distance. This rules out halls over 600 seats and ensembles larger than 30 players. Any more and you lose discrimination of articulation and discreet specular reflections. I attend over 50 such concerts a year and also hear piano & harpsichord played in my domicile (the latter is the musical equivalent of an impulse function). I have never been fooled by a reproduction system although I have heard very good illusions demonstrated by Michael Gerzon, Charlie Hanson, JJ, Ralph Glasgal, Andrew Lipinsky and GamuT. I welcome comments from all who maintain their hearing with equal rigor. All else is chasing the euphonic.