Power cable

[Vladimir]

Good album cover too.

 

[ellisdj]

Shadders your saying because of this exaplanation this is true which is fine

However for someone to make a statement about something they do actually need to make it for them to have made it.

They didnt and they have not made that statement and you are therefore wrong about them making that statement even if your right about the rest. They have not stated that they have discovered a new form of noise. Those words would be written in black and white if that is what they were saying

But they are not and havent.

 

[CnoEvil]

I am trying to explain it in different ways. What djellis is not doing is stating where he thinks i am going wrong, he seems to be rejecting what is written without understanding what is written.

Regards,

Shadders.

That much is clear.....but it has little chance of success.

 

[shadders]

Shadders your saying because of this exaplanation this is true which is fine

However for someone to make a statement about something they do actually need to make it for them to have made it.

They didnt and they have not made that statement and you are therefore wrong about them making that statement even if your right about the rest. They have not stated that they have discovered a new form of noise. Those words would be written in black and white if that is what they were saying

But they are not and havent.

Hi,

Not sure what you are trying to say.

I think you are saying, because the video/document did not state/write the words noise, then they never meant noise.

If the above statement is correct, then you are wrong.

Anyone in engineering can use the word noise/jitter interchangeably.

Anyone in engineering can use the word noise/distortion interchangeably.

In the video at 01:46 they state "not jitter". Jitter is noise.

In the video at 01:54 they state "different distortion mechanism not seen before". Distortion is noise.

In the document they state jitter multiple times on page 10, right column, first paragraph. Jitter is clock noise.

Whatever term they use - they were talking about noise - i stated noise in the first post on this subject - i could not recall the company or video. Me stating noise is an accurate description of the issue.

If your complaint is that i never recalled the exact sentence in the document, or the exact words verbatim in the video, then you are correct - i did not recall the exact sentence or the exact words spoken in the video.

What i am correct in, is calling it noise.

So, please confirm the complaint :

1. Is it, i did not recall the exact sentences written in the document, or words spoken in the video.

2. Is it, that i called the issue noise which is a correct description of the issue, and you do not like this.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Infiniteloop]

560+ Posts! . . So whats the verdict? Are we all mentally ill for believing or not believing?

Perhaps Bertrand Russell sums it up best:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts."

He was a *****.

Really? - Compared to who?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

 

[Vladimir]

560+ Posts! . . So whats the verdict? Are we all mentally ill for believing or not believing?

Perhaps Bertrand Russell sums it up best:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts."

He was a *****.

Really? - Compared to who?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

Sir Karl Popper. A delightful chap.

 

[ellisdj]

Shadders your saying because of this exaplanation this is true which is fine

However for someone to make a statement about something they do actually need to make it for them to have made it.

They didnt and they have not made that statement and you are therefore wrong about them making that statement even if your right about the rest. They have not stated that they have discovered a new form of noise. Those words would be written in black and white if that is what they were saying

But they are not and havent.

Hi,

Not sure what you are trying to say. 

I think you are saying, because the video/document did not state/write the words noise, then they never meant noise. 

If the above statement is correct, then you are wrong. 

Anyone in engineering can use the word noise/jitter interchangeably.

Anyone in engineering can use the word noise/distortion interchangeably.

In the video at 01:46 they state "not jitter". Jitter is noise. 

In the video at 01:54 they state "different distortion mechanism not seen before". Distortion is noise. 

In the document they state jitter multiple times on page 10, right column, first paragraph. Jitter is clock noise. 

Whatever term they use - they were talking about noise - i stated noise in the first post on this subject - i could not recall the company or video. Me stating noise is an accurate description of the issue. 

If your complaint is that i never recalled the exact sentence in the document, or the exact words verbatim in the video, then you are correct - i did not recall the exact sentence or the exact words spoken in the video. 

What i am correct in, is calling it noise. 

So, please confirm the complaint :

1. Is it, i did not recall the exact sentences written in the document, or words spoken in the video.

2. Is it, that i called the issue noise which is a correct description of the issue, and you do not like this. 

Regards,

Shadders. 

Look how complex you have made this. Thats all irrelevant.

It was simple - you said the video claim they have discovered a new form of noise. That was your statement.

I said they dont actually say that in it and you would have to say your wrong if they dont say that.

That is a very simple thing - not stupidly complex like you have tried to make. They either make the statement or not.

We know they have not written it so if they dont say the words in the video they have not claimed it at all.

I knew you would do anything to not have to say your wrong.

 

[shadders]

Shadders your saying because of this exaplanation this is true which is fine

However for someone to make a statement about something they do actually need to make it for them to have made it.

They didnt and they have not made that statement and you are therefore wrong about them making that statement even if your right about the rest. They have not stated that they have discovered a new form of noise. Those words would be written in black and white if that is what they were saying

But they are not and havent.

Hi,

Not sure what you are trying to say.

I think you are saying, because the video/document did not state/write the words noise, then they never meant noise.

If the above statement is correct, then you are wrong.

Anyone in engineering can use the word noise/jitter interchangeably.

Anyone in engineering can use the word noise/distortion interchangeably.

In the video at 01:46 they state "not jitter". Jitter is noise.

In the video at 01:54 they state "different distortion mechanism not seen before". Distortion is noise.

In the document they state jitter multiple times on page 10, right column, first paragraph. Jitter is clock noise.

Whatever term they use - they were talking about noise - i stated noise in the first post on this subject - i could not recall the company or video. Me stating noise is an accurate description of the issue.

If your complaint is that i never recalled the exact sentence in the document, or the exact words verbatim in the video, then you are correct - i did not recall the exact sentence or the exact words spoken in the video.

What i am correct in, is calling it noise.

So, please confirm the complaint :

1. Is it, i did not recall the exact sentences written in the document, or words spoken in the video.

2. Is it, that i called the issue noise which is a correct description of the issue, and you do not like this.

Regards,

Shadders.

Look how complex you have made this. Thats all irrelevant.

It was simple - you said the video claim they have discovered a new form of noise. That was your statement.

I said they dont actually say that in it and you would have to say your wrong if they dont say that.

That is a very simple thing - not stupidly complex like you have tried to make. They either make the statement or not.

We know they have not written it so if they dont say the words in the video they have not claimed it at all.

I knew you would do anything to not have to say your wrong.

Hi,

The term jitter and noise are interchangeable. The term distortion and noise are interchangeable. This is a FACT.

As such, i am correct to have stated noise. I do not see why this is such an issue for you.

If you disagree, then state that jitter is not noise, and distortion is not noise. Then we can agree to disagree.

They have NOT discovered a new distortion mechanism.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[ellisdj]

Shadders they have not claimed to. You said that had claimed it.

They havent claimed it so your wrong

Its that simple mate cmon just say no they havent claimed it I got that wrong ffs

 

[shadders]

Shadders they have not claimed to. You said that had claimed it.

They havent claimed it so your wrong

Its that simple mate cmon just say no they havent claimed it I got that wrong ffs

Hi,

Video 01:46 : "Nothing to do with jitter whatsoever"

Video 01:54 : "This is a totally different distortion mechanism, not one that anyone we are aware of, has seen before".

If no one has seen before, it is new.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[Andrewjvt]

Shadders they have not claimed to. You said that had claimed it.

They havent claimed it so your wrong

Its that simple mate cmon just say no they havent claimed it I got that wrong ffs

Shadders is merely calling them up on making misleading marketing claims to sell cables as he has pointed out. Thats all. Technically i dont think hes wrong about that no matter what exact wording in not even arsed to watch the video myself. Those marketing videos for cables make me throw up in my mouth.

 

[Infiniteloop]

560+ Posts! . . So whats the verdict? Are we all mentally ill for believing or not believing?

Perhaps Bertrand Russell sums it up best:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts."

He was a *****.

Really? - Compared to who?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

Sir Karl Popper. A delightful chap.

Hardly.

 

[ellisdj]

Shadders they have not claimed to. You said that had claimed it.

They havent claimed it so your wrong

Its that simple mate cmon just say no they havent claimed it I got that wrong ffs

Hi,

Video 01:46 : "Nothing to do with jitter whatsoever"

Video 01:54 : "This is a totally different distortion mechanism, not one that anyone we are aware of, has seen before". 

If no one has seen before, it is new. 

Regards,

Shadders. 

Your right he does say that there just watched it - Could be misleading if you only watched 3 minutes of the video I will admit.
Then at 31 minutes that is elaborated on - he explains its to do with measuring more complex signals as opposed to just sine waves which is the apparent usual approach.

So its hardly them claiming they have discovered a new form of noise that is what you said - which is very obvious when you watch the whole video. Very obvious in fact

I am not in dispute of anything from shadders in terms of the accuracy of whats in there. Just how he is being padantic on whats said there in the whole context. I didnt remember that 10 secs of comment

Hands held up roy gregory mentions it though, which could be mis leading I suppose.

 

[shadders]

Shadders they have not claimed to. You said that had claimed it.

They havent claimed it so your wrong

Its that simple mate cmon just say no they havent claimed it I got that wrong ffs

Hi,

Video 01:46 : "Nothing to do with jitter whatsoever"

Video 01:54 : "This is a totally different distortion mechanism, not one that anyone we are aware of, has seen before".

If no one has seen before, it is new.

Regards,

Shadders.

Your right he does say that there just watched it - Could be misleading if you only watched 3 minutes of the video I will admit. Then at 31 minutes that is elaborated on - he explains its to do with measuring more complex signals as opposed to just sine waves which is the apparent usual approach.

So its hardly them claiming they have discovered a new form of noise that is what you said - which is very obvious when you watch the whole video. Very obvious in fact

I am not in dispute of anything from shadders in terms of the accuracy of whats in there. Just how he is being padantic on whats said there in the whole context. I didnt remember that 10 secs of comment

Hands held up roy gregory mentions it though, which could be mis leading I suppose.

Hi,

Just to reiterate - jitter is noise. Distortion is noise.

Video at 31:00 : "The distortion mechanism is linked inately to the program being played." Also later states using test tones you will not see this distortion mechanism.

They do not provide sufficient information for you to understand the detail of what they have produced - all we have are low resolution graphs where you cannot see the axis etc. In the last page, all we see is blue line which is the bad signal and a red line which is better signal.

What we do know is that when you connect their power cord and mains purifier the "distortion" reduces.

What they are not telling you is, what is the noise profile on the mains that causes these errors.

The output from the purifier and power cord they claim, is removing something from the mains. What is this something that they are removing ?.

Again, they have NOT provided the noise profile of the incoming mains so you can determine what is occuring with the system. From the video - no one was able to hear the improvement due to the power outage, yet they had lights, projector and camera working.

In summary - they provide too little information to analyse their results (which are low resolution). So all you can do is believe what you are told.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[ellisdj]

Again shadders you are being overly pedantic. Some of the graphs they explain what the axis are.

They also quite clearly say this is all new and we only have so much information and understanding and are not going into huge detail - hifi demo not a uni course which is fair enough.

The demos they would do is the exact same demos they were doing all the time. There is one for stillpoints that I can link for you if you want
Its pretty much same thing similar people

Again the message is we can hear big differences but can we show anything to corroborate it.
Roy Gregory uses a few wrong words in the presentation - he says timing errors when he means to say time domain errors. Thats likely because he is used to saying it so thats what comes out when you are in a situation like that semi rehearsed and you get thrown off your thought directions with questions. All been there.

The thing to point they are and they are not really selling anything. Normally in those demos the something being promoted gets added to the system and they do before and after playback. Something is being sold.

You cant say for sure whether is accurate or made as there is not more detail I appreciate that. Fact its still on the vertex aq website means they are still trying to make their costs back from it / feel its genuine. Each to their own thought on that one

 

[spiny norman]

This is all so much more fun than listening to boring old music.

 

[lpv]

do u people have families? work?commitments other than this forum?

you're here from dawn till dusk

 

[ellisdj]

Arguing about hifi is a bigger part of the hobby than listening hifi imo.

I have grown up around uncles auguing with each other about it - even they they wrere both wrong all the time

 

[shadders]

Again shadders you are being overly pedantic. Some of the graphs they explain what the axis are.

They also quite clearly say this is all new and we only have so much information and understanding and are not going into huge detail - hifi demo not a uni course which is fair enough.

The demos they would do is the exact same demos they were doing all the time. There is one for stillpoints that I can link for you if you want Its pretty much same thing similar people

Again the message is we can hear big differences but can we show anything to corroborate it. Roy Gregory uses a few wrong words in the presentation - he says timing errors when he means to say time domain errors. Thats likely because he is used to saying it so thats what comes out when you are in a situation like that semi rehearsed and you get thrown off your thought directions with questions. All been there.

The thing to point they are and they are not really selling anything. Normally in those demos the something being promoted gets added to the system and they do before and after playback. Something is being sold.

You cant say for sure whether is accurate or made as there is not more detail I appreciate that. Fact its still on the vertex aq website means they are still trying to make their costs back from it / feel its genuine. Each to their own thought on that one

Hi,

The document states connecting the power cord and mains purifier reduces the errors - hence the red and blue graphs on the last page. They are selling these power cords and mains purifier.

The point i am making is that :

1. Mains can be clean - that is, no noise.

2. They have repeatable results. When they analyse the errors in the timing, they get the same errors in exactly the same place, every time. If the clock circuit was experiencing jitter (clock timing noise) it would be random - gaussian. They state it is not this, on page 10 of their document. (Page 10, right hand column, first paragraph.) This is what they are claiming is new - never seen before - totally different distortion mechanism.

3. If the mains was pure 50Hz, 240volts RMS, you would NOT see the reduction in the errors when they connect their power cord and mains purifier.

4. So, how are they ensuring that there is noise on the mains that affects the timing of the CD players under test ?.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[ellisdj]

Again shadders you are being overly pedantic. Some of the graphs they explain what the axis are.

They also quite clearly say this is all new and we only have so much information and understanding and are not going into huge detail - hifi demo not a uni course which is fair enough.

The demos they would do is the exact same demos they were doing all the time. There is one for stillpoints that I can link for you if you want Its pretty much same thing similar people

Again the message is we can hear big differences but can we show anything to corroborate it. Roy Gregory uses a few wrong words in the presentation - he says timing errors when he means to say time domain errors. Thats likely because he is used to saying it so thats what comes out when you are in a situation like that semi rehearsed and you get thrown off your thought directions with questions. All been there.

The thing to point they are and they are not really selling anything. Normally in those demos the something being promoted gets added to the system and they do before and after playback. Something is being sold.

You cant say for sure whether is accurate or made as there is not more detail I appreciate that. Fact its still on the vertex aq website means they are still trying to make their costs back from it / feel its genuine. Each to their own thought on that one

Hi,

The document states connecting the power cord and mains purifier reduces the errors - hence the red and blue graphs on the last page. They are selling these power cords and mains purifier.

The point i am making is that :

1. Mains can be clean - that is, no noise.

2. They have repeatable results. When they analyse the errors in the timing, they get the same errors in exactly the same place, every time. If the clock circuit was experiencing jitter (clock timing noise) it would be random - gaussian. They state it is not this, on page 10 of their document. (Page 10, right hand column, first paragraph.) This is what they are claiming is new - never seen before - totally different distortion mechanism.

3. If the mains was pure 50Hz, 240volts RMS, you would NOT see the reduction in the errors when they connect their power cord and mains purifier.

4. So, how are they ensuring that there is noise on the mains that affects the timing of the CD players under test ?.

Regards,

Shadders.

I wondered if that is what you was getting at before - they are putting noise on the mains to get a result? No way of knowing that one dude is there.

Seems a bit silly but I know how scepticle you are so you see any area - I would as well.

They do say we have funded this but we are not saying the results are exclusive to our products - you could use any from all these manufacturers - they name about 5 and it would be the same.

Its not hard and cold selling based around this is it in that sense.

 

[chebby]

Arguing about hifi is a bigger part of the hobby than listening hifi imo.

It's good to see some honesty at last.

 

[Oldphrt]

The hole is deep enough now Ellis. You can stop digging. *crazy*

 

[shadders]

Again shadders you are being overly pedantic. Some of the graphs they explain what the axis are.

They also quite clearly say this is all new and we only have so much information and understanding and are not going into huge detail - hifi demo not a uni course which is fair enough.

The demos they would do is the exact same demos they were doing all the time. There is one for stillpoints that I can link for you if you want Its pretty much same thing similar people

Again the message is we can hear big differences but can we show anything to corroborate it. Roy Gregory uses a few wrong words in the presentation - he says timing errors when he means to say time domain errors. Thats likely because he is used to saying it so thats what comes out when you are in a situation like that semi rehearsed and you get thrown off your thought directions with questions. All been there.

The thing to point they are and they are not really selling anything. Normally in those demos the something being promoted gets added to the system and they do before and after playback. Something is being sold.

You cant say for sure whether is accurate or made as there is not more detail I appreciate that. Fact its still on the vertex aq website means they are still trying to make their costs back from it / feel its genuine. Each to their own thought on that one

Hi,

The document states connecting the power cord and mains purifier reduces the errors - hence the red and blue graphs on the last page. They are selling these power cords and mains purifier.

The point i am making is that :

1. Mains can be clean - that is, no noise.

2. They have repeatable results. When they analyse the errors in the timing, they get the same errors in exactly the same place, every time. If the clock circuit was experiencing jitter (clock timing noise) it would be random - gaussian. They state it is not this, on page 10 of their document. (Page 10, right hand column, first paragraph.) This is what they are claiming is new - never seen before - totally different distortion mechanism.

3. If the mains was pure 50Hz, 240volts RMS, you would NOT see the reduction in the errors when they connect their power cord and mains purifier.

4. So, how are they ensuring that there is noise on the mains that affects the timing of the CD players under test ?.

Regards,

Shadders.

I wondered if that is what you was getting at before - they are putting noise on the mains to get a result? No way of knowing that one dude is there.

Seems a bit silly but I know how scepticle you are so you see any area - I would as well.

They do say we have funded this but we are not saying the results are exclusive to our products - you could use any from all these manufacturers - they name about 5 and it would be the same.

Its not hard and cold selling based around this is it in that sense.

Hi,

The document is too vague for anyone to be able to determine anything other than what they are telling you. What they have stated is :
"What is more, this result is repeatable, the same musical extract played in the same machine and under the sameoperating parameters, gives exactly the same results every time you run the test, irrespective of geographical location, even when the tests are conducted months apart."
They have never stated the operating conditions, but noise on the mains can be vastly different depending on where you are, influenced significantly by the industry or systems (mobile, radio transmitters etc) located near you, or the mains can be very clean.

So, for the same operating conditions, they must be generating them. What they are, has never been published.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

[CnoEvil]

This is all so much more fun than listening to boring old music.

Even my most boring piece of music, doesn't come close! *sad*

 

[ellisdj]

Again shadders you are being overly pedantic. Some of the graphs they explain what the axis are.

They also quite clearly say this is all new and we only have so much information and understanding and are not going into huge detail - hifi demo not a uni course which is fair enough.

The demos they would do is the exact same demos they were doing all the time. There is one for stillpoints that I can link for you if you want Its pretty much same thing similar people

Again the message is we can hear big differences but can we show anything to corroborate it. Roy Gregory uses a few wrong words in the presentation - he says timing errors when he means to say time domain errors. Thats likely because he is used to saying it so thats what comes out when you are in a situation like that semi rehearsed and you get thrown off your thought directions with questions. All been there.

The thing to point they are and they are not really selling anything. Normally in those demos the something being promoted gets added to the system and they do before and after playback. Something is being sold.

You cant say for sure whether is accurate or made as there is not more detail I appreciate that. Fact its still on the vertex aq website means they are still trying to make their costs back from it / feel its genuine. Each to their own thought on that one

Hi,

The document states connecting the power cord and mains purifier reduces the errors - hence the red and blue graphs on the last page. They are selling these power cords and mains purifier.

The point i am making is that :

1. Mains can be clean - that is, no noise.

2. They have repeatable results. When they analyse the errors in the timing, they get the same errors in exactly the same place, every time. If the clock circuit was experiencing jitter (clock timing noise) it would be random - gaussian. They state it is not this, on page 10 of their document. (Page 10, right hand column, first paragraph.) This is what they are claiming is new - never seen before - totally different distortion mechanism.

3. If the mains was pure 50Hz, 240volts RMS, you would NOT see the reduction in the errors when they connect their power cord and mains purifier.

4. So, how are they ensuring that there is noise on the mains that affects the timing of the CD players under test ?.

Regards,

Shadders.

I wondered if that is what you was getting at before - they are putting noise on the mains to get a result? No way of knowing that one dude is there.

Seems a bit silly but I know how scepticle you are so you see any area - I would as well.

They do say we have funded this but we are not saying the results are exclusive to our products - you could use any from all these manufacturers - they name about 5 and it would be the same.

Its not hard and cold selling based around this is it in that sense.

Hi,

The document is too vague for anyone to be able to determine anything other than what they are telling you. What they have stated is :
"What is more, this result is repeatable, the same musical extract played in the same machine and under the sameoperating parameters, gives exactly the same results every time you run the test, irrespective of geographical location, even when the tests are conducted months apart."
They have never stated the operating conditions, but noise on the mains can be vastly different depending on where you are, influenced significantly by the industry or systems (mobile, radio transmitters etc) located near you, or the mains can be very clean.

So, for the same operating conditions, they must be generating them. What they are, has never been published.

Regards,

Shadders.

I get that shadders , makes sense needs to be an exact constant - I bet they have likely plugged the cd player into a plug socket in whereever they are in wales - same one everytime as you would to use it normally.

Now you normally say none of that noise on the mains will make any difference any way - it wont affect the playback of a system - so what does it matter if its 9am January or 12pm June?

Or do you think they have plugged in 99 chinese smps psu's in a massive inline strip to then show the benefit of their power conditioner ?