• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Only $2,000 to improve your amp's performance

#421
Limeman said:
Listening is important too... anyone claiming this does nothing actually listen to it? :hmm:
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody said listening wasn't important. If people thought that, why would they approve of the idea of a double-blind listening test?

Listening in the context of a double-blind test can be considered a form of measurement anyway--measurement of whether the listener has any significant ability to distinguish between two signals, and perhaps the strength of that ability (e.g., someone who gets it right 195 times out of 200 may be said to have a greater capacity for this kind of distinction than someone who can do it only 140 times out of 200).

Again, given the weight of the presumptive evidence against the value of the power cord, the burden of proof is not on those who claim it doesn't work but on those who claim it does. If a 400 pound man claims he can fly by flapping his arms, it's not on me to prove he can't, it's on him to prove he can.
 
#423
Richard Lindsey said:
I don't think anybody said listening wasn't important. If people thought that, why would they approve of the idea of a double-blind listening test?
Click to expand...

Sure listen - no problem.

Why I think measurement is also important:

Some people like the Monster Bass cables and can hear the difference. A measurement of the Monster Bass cables shows they work as a low pass filter.

So why a listener may be able to hear a difference, it may actually be a lower quality that they claim sounds better.

Limeman said he had access to high end protools sound studio gear. So differences can easily be measured.
 
#424
Limeman said:
Listening is important too... anyone claiming this does nothing actually listen to it? :hmm:
Click to expand...

Not me. :D

If there's no good reason to expect that something has an effect, then I trust my knowledge of how gear works before I trust my own ears in an uncontrolled listening test.

As for blind testing, I doubt that it will settle the issue. It is just too cumbersome, especially if someone wants to go from occasional scattered results to a robust body of evidence.
 
#425
fdeck said:
Not me. :D

As for blind testing, I doubt that it will settle the issue. It is just too cumbersome, especially if someone wants to go from occasional scattered results to a robust body of evidence.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It would be easy, albeit time consuming, to evaluate. All that's needed is a recorded loop, amp, cab, 2 people who are prepared to do what is necessary and paper/pens. If it is done rigorously and repeated enough times then the results should be trusted. Then it can be repeated to see if the result is reproduced. It is simple and logical, but inconvenient.
 
#426
Richard Lindsey said:
I don't think anybody said listening wasn't important. If people thought that, why would they approve of the idea of a double-blind listening test?

Listening in the context of a double-blind test can be considered a form of measurement anyway--measurement of whether the listener has any significant ability to distinguish between two signals.

Again, given the weight of the presumptive evidence against the value of the power cord, the burden of proof is not on those who claim it doesn't work but on those who claim it does. If a 400 pound man claims he can fly by flapping his arms, it's not on me to prove he can't, it's on him to prove he can.
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge, not one single naysayer has provided ANY evidence that they have used and/or listened to and/or tested the MusicCord or MusicCord Pro to provide the basis for their opinions. Not only is this intellectually dishonest, it is just plain idiotic.

Having said that, during un-official blind testing of the MusicCord Pro, listening to some very clean mixes via Myers-HD-1 monitors in a very well-designed control room this last Sunday afternoon, there was a difference between the monitor with the MusicCord Pro and the one with a generic power cord. We listened to identical cuts with the generic power cords in both Myers, with the PowerCord in the right Myer only, and also with the PowerCord then in the left Myer only. It left me really wondering... :hmm:

There were 5 people in attendance. 4 out of the 5 have extensive studio experience and all are exceptional musicians. Only one other person besides me knew the MusicCord Pro was being utilized, yet all those present heard a change. There was no doubt. The monitor with the MusicCord offered greater clarity, better spatial depth, a widening of the stereo field and a tighter low-end when the MusicCord was hooked up to the monitor sub. I am going to hold a more controlled testing this coming Friday evening, but in the meantime, I'd like to ask for help from the engineers and physics experts: Help explain what is going on. Stop with the childish put-downs and try to offer up some valid explanations.

One other observation: I have also tried the power cable with my bass rig. Again, there is a difference. Mids and highs seem less strident and the low end is tighter. It is subtle, but it is there. I can also push my Mesa Walkabout harder and louder before it begins to break up. Having said that, I'm just not certain the changes are worth the cost in a typical live gig setting. I'll have to wait for my gigs to start up in another 10-days (pushing me precariously close to my 30-day return window for the product) to determine if there is true value in that scenario, but for a high-end pro studio controlled setting, there is no doubt the power cables are worth a listen.

Ok... here we go... :hiding:
 
#427
Maybe someday when I am rich I will buy these for all of my gear, but until then, no way. If the difference is a subtle as you claim, then it is definitely not worth it. Even if us bassists could hear a significant difference, almost nobody else would notice. I won't be buying one anytime soon.

That said... I'm still somewhat intrigued....:rollno:
 
#428
lomo said:
I disagree. It would be easy, albeit time consuming, to evaluate. All that's needed is a recorded loop, amp, cab, 2 people who are prepared to do what is necessary and paper/pens. If it is done rigorously and repeated enough times then the results should be trusted. Then it can be repeated to see if the result is reproduced. It is simple and logical, but inconvenient.
Click to expand...

I think it's more complicated than that. Here's the reason. An isolated self-reported result, or even several scattered results, is unlikely to tip the scales.

Let me tell an analogous story about an elementary particle called the top quark. People had a reason to look for it. One could say that they believed it would be there. When they saw the first few promising events, they reported their results informally and with reservations. Then the work began. It took a huge team of scientists another two years, and intense scrutiny of the results before they were confident enough to declare victory in a peer reviewed journal. And they did not simply demonstrate statistical significance, but they reported a few properties of the top, such as its mass.

Now, cable effects are not as serious as top quarks, but I am sure that there have already been scattered reports of seemingly promising results that went nowhere.
 
#429
Limeman said:
To the best of my knowledge, not one single naysayer has provided ANY evidence that they have used and/or listened to and/or tested the MusicCord or MusicCord Pro to provide the basis for their opinions. Not only is this intellectually dishonest, it is just plain idiotic.
Click to expand...

Intellectual dishonesty is when a person says something that they don't believe to be true, or uses an argument that they know to be invalid.

I don't know if you are including me as a "naysayer" but I have been perfectly up front that I have not tested the cables in question, and I have explained why I am not inclined to.

As for advice on how to sort out the cause of what you are experiencing, it's time to get out the test gear. Signal generator and analyzer, at a bare minimum. Don't get electrocuted.
 
#430
Limeman said:
To the best of my knowledge, not one single naysayer has provided ANY evidence that they have used and/or listened to and/or tested the MusicCord or MusicCord Pro to provide the basis for their opinions. Not only is this intellectually dishonest, it is just plain idiotic.
Click to expand...

As fdeck pointed out, this is not intellectual dishonesty. It is a reasoned judgment that these devices are extremely unlikely to work. Unlike the MusicPro marketing material, this judgment is based on actual knowledge.

Intellectual dishonesty would be to refuse to accept good, solid, well-verified data. So far there aren't any, so the issue doesn't arise. The burden of proof would be on the MusicPro people to provide such data, for reasons already explained over and over ad nauseam. They have not done so, and from what I can see, your results don't qualify at this time.
 
#431
Richard Lindsey said:
As fdeck pointed out, this is not intellectual dishonesty. It is a reasoned judgment that these devices are extremely unlikely to work. Unlike the MusicPro marketing material, this judgment is based on actual knowledge.

Intellectual dishonesty would be to refuse to accept good, solid, well-verified data. So far there aren't any, so the issue doesn't arise. The burden of proof would be on the MusicPro people to provide such data, for reasons already explained over and over ad nauseam. They have not done so, and from what I can see, your results don't qualify at this time.
Click to expand...

Understood, as these results were not under tight methodology. They did, however, indicate that there was a difference to the ears of the 5 in that studio - 3 of which had no idea what was being changed and who did not find out until the end of testing.

Sorry for my misuse of "intellectual dishonestly"... let's just say then that opinions based on zero use of the product are less than ideal and clearly NOT an example of good sound scientific methodology.
 
#432
Limeman said:
They did, however, indicate that there was a difference to the ears of the 5 in that studio - 3 of which had no idea what was being changed and who did not find out until the end of testing.
.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of "experiment" that simply cannot be trusted. If the listener isn't blind to the variable (AND to other listeners) and the test isn't repeated enough times to statistically eliminate chance as a viable explanation for the results, then all bets are off. Further, it's not enough to know that something is different. The 2 cables should be described to the listener as A and B or E and F or whatever. The 1st time the sample is played, the listener should be told which is A and which is B. Thereafter it is the listener's task to tell, for each sample played, whether it's A or B. The guy playing the samples should fill out his sheet noting for each "trial" which cable is used and at the beginning, which is A and which is B. The listener should write up his answers as he listens but the 2 people should not speak about anything to do with the experiment-certainly not about the sample just played, until the end when the answer sheet of the listener is "corrected".
 
#434
majortoby said:
This thread is so far beyond dead it's not funny. And the droning repetition of Dawkin's quotes is blah.
Click to expand...
If you are not sufficiently entertained, then why read it? And BTW, if you are referring to my posts, nothing is quoted from Dawkins, but much is simply the jargon of logic as it applies to scientific investigation.
 
#435
Limeman said:
Sorry for my misuse of "intellectual dishonestly"... let's just say then that opinions based on zero use of the product are less than ideal and clearly NOT an example of good sound scientific methodology.
Click to expand...

I agree. But it's my view that the putative gold standard, bias-controlled testing, is really more onerous than anybody imagines because of the effort that it would take to establish sufficiently robust results. In the meantime, some of our options include:

1. Listening tests without bias controls.

2. Evaluation using test equipment and technical judgment.

Neither method can claim to be closer to the gold standard. There are also some "hybrid" methods worth mentioning:

3. Use "biased" listening tests to refine a design so that its effect gets progressively stronger until it unequivocally clears the threshold for measurement using test equipment.

4. Use bias-controlled testing as a research tool to determine thresholds of audibility for a variety of effects, then use these thresholds to help guide technical judgment.

I'm not really opposing uncontrolled listening tests, so much as I am promoting the alternatives.
 
#437
lomo said:
This is the kind of "experiment" that simply cannot be trusted. If the listener isn't blind to the variable (AND to other listeners) and the test isn't repeated enough times to statistically eliminate chance as a viable explanation for the results, then all bets are off. Further, it's not enough to know that something is different. The 2 cables should be described to the listener as A and B or E and F or whatever. The 1st time the sample is played, the listener should be told which is A and which is B. Thereafter it is the listener's task to tell, for each sample played, whether it's A or B. The guy playing the samples should fill out his sheet noting for each "trial" which cable is used and at the beginning, which is A and which is B. The listener should write up his answers as he listens but the 2 people should not speak about anything to do with the experiment-certainly not about the sample just played, until the end when the answer sheet of the listener is "corrected".
Click to expand...

Yes... that is why I identified it as an unofficial test. Initial observations and nothing more. The ears in that studio, however, were extremely familiar with both the material and the equipment being used and several have well earned reputations for knowing what they are talking about.

Thanks for methodology insight. I will be sure to apply it to Friday's test. :)

Cheers!
 
#440
majortoby said:
^^^^Iomo
It was funny when it first got heated, but it's just.....stagnated. And no, you weren't quoting RD, but RL sure was :p
Click to expand...

:confused: No, I sure wasn't. I haven't read any of his books in years [EDIT: actually, I've never read any of his books ... I momentarily had him mixed up with Edward O. Wilson for some reason], and I can't say I would be able to quote a single phrase from any of them. You want to point me at this supposed quote?

And why would it have mattered if I had been quoting Dawkins? Would that have made the point more valid, or less? Or, as I think, neither?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back