In Reply to: Jon Risch makes extraordinary claims about his hearing ability that I believe are 100% false -- why trust him? posted by Richard BassNut Greene on March 19, 2008 at 07:31:29:
1. "Risch claims to be able to hear differences in roughly one dozen different wire insulation materials, under double blind conditions, with high scores, and hear them so well he rank orders the insulation materials by sound quality on his web site."
That is the only correct statement you make Richard, unfortunately, you never did get the full import or meaning, and merely latch onto what you consider to be 'impossible'.
BTW, the order of the listing of dielectric quality has often been backed up by other DIYers experiences, they find that the quality does indeed tend to follow the order I list it in. Funny how that would occur, if I was not actually hearing something.
2. "When asked, Risch will never even respond to explain where he found one dozen different speaker wires that were identical except for the use of different insulation materials."
Not quite correct, as I have responded to this type of question before, just not recently. Of course, it could be because I do not respond to every post where you decide to rant and rave about my hearing abilities.
For the record, it was interconnects (coaxial type cables) that were the initial subject of investigation, and subsequently, homemade speaker cables with the various materials, gleaned from the cores of the various coaxial cables. Belden was the source of the coaxial cables, and they have a lot of near duplicate cables except for the insulator material or the conductor type (bare copper, tinned copper, stranded or solid).
I did not have to find a dozen identical coaxial cables either, all I had to do was find near identical pairs, and establish a hierarchy using paired comparisons. As a concrete example, Belden 89259 and Belden 9259 are electrically identical except for the insulation material.
3. "When asked if there were witnesses, he claims there were, but none are ever named, and not one has ever came forward over many years to support Risch (even using an anonymous internet post with a moniker!)."
The original audio cable listening tests with witnesses and/or participants occurred approx. 30-28 years ago. I did not, and do not, name any of them per their requests, so they will not be annoyed by kooks such as yourself bothering them with phone calls or e-mails, etc. As for any of them posting in my support anonymously, actually, one of them did post once if I recall correctly, but I did not save or document the post (on the newsgroups), because it didn't seem to be something that I would need a record of, for any conceivable reason. The reaction to that post, and other similar posts by others, as well as reactions to my own posts, merely reinforced and confirmed the fact that none of those people would want to be involved with the character assassination and virtual lynching that would have ensued. I think their choice was, and is, a wise one given the sheer nastiness that occurs from so many of the objectionists.
4. "Jon Risch has made false claims about his hearing ability that no one can top, simply to promote his self-proclaimed status as a "wire guru." "
They would only be false claims if they were wrong or misinformative. So far, no one has come up with a substantially different order of dielectric quality, nor has anyone proven using scientific methods or a true attempt to duplicate my methods, that what I reported was somehow patently false.
In point of fact, none of the ojectionists that shout the loudest over my results have ever actually tried to use my listening test methodology, or even really tried to conduct non-biased, fault-free listening test's for audio cables using modern equipment and cables.
Of the folks who have actually tried and used my proposed listening test methods, EVERYONE who has given it an honest try came away with positive results, and subsequently, either given up their naysaying altogether, or just plain quit posting/responding to the naysayers.
One of the folks who did post about his experiences over at the Audio Review chat boards (a fellow who used to go by the moniker of 'Vandy") reported his positive results from using my methods, and was promptly buried under a hail of invective and naysaying that quickly put him off from ever posting there again! Yet another reason I do not reveal any names or particulars, too much sheer nastiness going on.
5. "His actual field of expertise, and career, is in pro speakers."
That's right, I design pro loudspeakers for a living. Doing so involves voicing and EQing such systems by ear, so that they sound good and perform well. It also involves some very solid and sophisticated engineering, measurement techniques, and design skills.
I don't think that it is any sort of contradiction with being able to hear subtle details in audio cables and that I design loudspeakers for a living, given that I have to be able to hear how well I am doing with my speaker system designs, and make adjustments based on what I hear. In essence, I listen professionally, and make professional judgements based on my hearing and listening ability. I can't imagine for a moment how that could possibly help me to hear subtle details in audio cables, perhaps if I were a dentist, that would make me more credible in your eyes?
6. " ... and then criticizes blind testing by almost everyone else, either because blind testing itself is no good, or few people other than him know how to run a blind test?"
I do not criticize blind testing by everyone else. I have always maintained that the professionally conducted listening tests by scientists and engineers (such as at the former Bell Labs, then later at Lucent, and at other professional organizations around the world) are in a separate league, and that the problem was with the poorly done amateur listening tests that (falsely) purported to prove that XX components did not sound different (where XX is your audio component of choice: cables, CD players, amps, preamps, etc.)
I note that no one who has conducted said amateur listening tests, or made claims based on them, has ever truly taken successfully the points that I raise in my posts about DBT's to task.
Just as a reminder, see:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2190.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2579.html
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/2580.html
Care to show even one of the points I raise in those three posts to be unscientific or a truly bad way to conduct a listening test?
It might help to remember, that my comments and criticism originate not from some sort of academic exercise or mental gymnastics, but rather, from actual first hand experiences, and actually designing, participating in, and conducting a great many of my own controlled listening tests.
There are so many major flaws with ALL of the published popular press accounts of DBT's concerning consumer audio gear, that none of them can really be taken seriously as any sort of science. They are worse than simply misleading, because for years, they have given false ammo to the objectionists (who also insist on misinterpreting the results as something more than they truly are, and usually as a negative result, which is also a false conclusion) who then ride roughshod over the subjectivist's with their bogus citations.
What I continue to find amazing, is that you continue to post about my hearing ability, and your inability to believe it is real.
I think that this points up the real problem: you.
Jon Risch
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- The usual BassNut BS - Jon Risch 03/19/0819:10:19 03/19/08 (7)
- Yes Jon This Is The Usual BassNut B$hit - thetubeguy1954 08:20:03 03/21/08 (0)
- RE: Dielectric list. - rick_m 14:33:09 03/20/08 (0)
- If you can hear differences among one dozen wire insulation materials in DBTs, then I'll eat my hat - Richard BassNut Greene 09:07:54 03/20/08 (3)
- Mr. Peabody's Improbable History - andy_c 12:41:57 03/20/08 (0)
- Do all hats taste the same? - kerr 10:40:11 03/20/08 (1)
- No, some taste like chicken (nt) - AJinFLA 20:35:40 03/20/08 (0)
- Speaking of which - E-Stat 20:43:59 03/19/08 (0)