Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Bruce Abrams wrote in message ...
Why don't you try listening to two different cables under sighted conditions and see what happens? I did. That's how I became a proponent of blind testing in the first place. I had been auditioning cables and forget which one I left in the system. Thinking I was listening to cable A, I heard the 'characteristics' of cable A. When I went to switch back to cable B I saw that I was actually listening to cable B. So I asked my wife to do the switching without telling me which was which. At that point I could no longer identify which cable I was listening to. (FWIW, the cables under test at the time were Kimber 8TC and Music Metre Signature.) You actually prove my point, Bruce. These are both very good cables, I presume. The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy to tell. When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I don't mean between similar-quality products, but those of different quality. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
... Bruce Abrams wrote in message ... Why don't you try listening to two different cables under sighted conditions and see what happens? I did. That's how I became a proponent of blind testing in the first place. I had been auditioning cables and forget which one I left in the system. Thinking I was listening to cable A, I heard the 'characteristics' of cable A. When I went to switch back to cable B I saw that I was actually listening to cable B. So I asked my wife to do the switching without telling me which was which. At that point I could no longer identify which cable I was listening to. (FWIW, the cables under test at the time were Kimber 8TC and Music Metre Signature.) You actually prove my point, Bruce. These are both very good cables, I presume. The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy to tell. When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I don't mean between similar-quality products, but those of different quality. You have yet to define "quality" in this context. Is quality defined by price point, or are similar styles of creative ad copy writing sufficient? As regards telling the difference, I have since proven (with my wife's continued patience and assistance) that there is no audible difference to me between Music Metre, Tara RSC, Kimber 8TC, Moster 14 guage flat speaker cable or cheap Radio Shack 12 guage zip cord if I don't know which I'm listening to. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Apr 2004 17:24:48 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper stuff that does. It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, and a basic understanding of electronics, that all cables sound the same. Even those with 'boxes' attached? Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables. Comparisons between 50 cents a foot 'zipcord' and $1,000 a foot Kimber Black Pearl show no differences. This should not be a surprise to any reasonable person. You have done this? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 01:03:05 GMT, TonyP
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 1 Apr 2004 17:24:48 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper stuff that does. It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, and a basic understanding of electronics, that all cables sound the same. Even those with 'boxes' attached? Yes, unless the frequency response is so degraded as to be utterly laughable - think -3dB or so at 20kHz for any chance of audibility. Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables. Comparisons between 50 cents a foot 'zipcord' and $1,000 a foot Kimber Black Pearl show no differences. This should not be a surprise to any reasonable person. You have done this? Not personally, but I have compared cheap 'zipcord' with Cardas Golden Cross, Alpha-Core MI Ag, Kimber 4AG, Nordost Blue Heaven, A Tara Labs cable whose name I forget, and of course Naim NACA5. No audible differences, even between the extreme constructions of the Naim and Alpha-Core cables. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
... Bruce Abrams wrote in message ... Why don't you try listening to two different cables under sighted conditions and see what happens? I did. That's how I became a proponent of blind testing in the first place. I had been auditioning cables and forget which one I left in the system. Thinking I was listening to cable A, I heard the 'characteristics' of cable A. When I went to switch back to cable B I saw that I was actually listening to cable B. So I asked my wife to do the switching without telling me which was which. At that point I could no longer identify which cable I was listening to. (FWIW, the cables under test at the time were Kimber 8TC and Music Metre Signature.) You actually prove my point, Bruce. These are both very good cables, I presume. The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy to tell. When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I don't mean between similar-quality products, but those of different quality. Isn't this a case of circular reasoning? Cheap cable -- poor quality. Expensive cable -- high quality. Sighted test reveals, to you, that expensive cable sounds better than the cheap cable, on some ad-hoc measure(s) that is/are relevant to you. Not surprising really. You start with a hypothesis that there should be a difference in sound between the two and then you find the evidence that this indeed is the case. Ah... Human nature. Isn't confirmatory hypothesis testing wonderful? And quite a problem to overcome if one's goal is to judge equipment based on the sound alone. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Frank O. Hodge" wrote in message news:3z3bc.58126$JO3.36560@attbi_s04...
'What' did I expect the first time? What had you decided that you wanted to expect? That's what. Specifically, I mean. Your answer is hardly responsive. How did I 'create' all the sonic characters of these amplifiers? How was I able to remember all the details? How was I able to produce all the details the first time and do it flawlessley again later? How were you able to remember all such things, in a way that (not ostensibly, sort of nominally, only very putatively) you took to validate your hypothesis? (How do you know that you heard, and remembered, "all the details," initially and "flawlessl[]y" later? The amps did not 'change' in the six-month interval between listening sessions 1 and 2. They retained the same characteristics they had at first exposure. It would be difficult to account for this on mere psychological terms. It is, in fact, a counter-example to your hypothesis. What about the ones that you forgot to listen for, i.e., forgot to say that you heard? You listened for a,b,c; I suggest you listen for x,y,z; now you'd have to restate your listening results, unless perhaps x,y,z (or a,b,c) don't exist anyway, not a hard thing inasmuch as we haven't bothered to define any of them. Which one was the lamp cord, from the hardware store?) How were you able to persist in self-delusion? These were amplifiers. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...
On 1 Apr 2004 17:24:48 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper stuff that does. It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, and a basic understanding of electronics, that all cables sound the same. This is false on its face. I have owned both speaker cables and interconnects that sound different. Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables. Comparisons between 50 cents a foot 'zipcord' and $1,000 a foot Kimber Black Pearl show no differences. This should not be a surprise to any reasonable person. Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. 'Unreasonable people' may simply be the ones who have the most acute hearing. Again, as we approach perfection, differences lessen between products. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
" "Wylie Williams" wrote
. For many years I bought wire from a wire company owner who freely stated that all his wire was made by one of the large wire manufacturers. Sometimes he had a standard product imprinted with his name; sometimes he specified the conductor material, gauge, configuration, and insulation. I am sure that the others do about the same. Noussaine replied Of course, but audiophile wire companies aren't "outsourcing" independently designed wires. They're most likely just finding extant copper to market in an unusual way. Re the first sentence - to be fair you really should not say that they "aren't outsourcing independently designed wires" unless you have actual knowledge that they aren't. There are so many wire companies that it seems unlikely that you have definite knowledge of all of them. Your second sentence is probably true. Most of the "innovation" in audio seems to me to be borrowing extant ideas, products, and designs and marketing them to the audiophile community. I have no problem with that if the idea they copy is a good one. Nor are they conducting independent reaearch, with bias-controlled listening tests to validate, of the "sound" of their cables. It's all marketing with 'smoke and mirrors.' OK, there I have to agree with you. Even if you are making a blanket statement, you are probably right. I imagine that they make sighted comparisons and prefer their own. I don't assume that they have fraud on their minds. Nor that they don't. marketing - I note a hint of an attitude sometimes seen on RAHE, that marketing is dirty and products that are marketed with "smoke and mirrors" are therefore tainted. I believe that any good product is not made bad because the salesman is a liar, although I do believe that consumers can be deluded by skilled marketing into perceiving a product is better than it actually is. We all know about Bose. If we only purchased products and services that were 100% honestly marketed we would find ourselves outside, naked, and hungry. In everything we buy we have to try to cut through the marketing smoke in hopes of finding the truth. Caveat emptor Wylie Williams |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"josko" wrote in message ...
You actually prove my point, Bruce. These are both very good cables, I presume. The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy to tell. When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I don't mean between similar-quality products, but those of different quality. Isn't this a case of circular reasoning? Cheap cable -- poor quality. Expensive cable -- high quality. Sighted test reveals, to you, that expensive cable sounds better than the cheap cable, on some ad-hoc measure(s) that is/are relevant to you. Not surprising really. You start with a hypothesis that there should be a difference in sound between the two and then you find the evidence that this indeed is the case. Ah... Human nature. Isn't confirmatory hypothesis testing wonderful? And quite a problem to overcome if one's goal is to judge equipment based on the sound alone. What 'hypothesis' are you talking about? I did not start out with any 'hypothesis' that there would be or would not be any difference, but I was willing to listen and use my own judgement about what I heard (or did not hear). I have purchased a few cables over the years, including some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the cheaper cable. Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy sources or transducers. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
"Frank O. Hodge" wrote in message news:3z3bc.58126$JO3.36560@attbi_s04... 'What' did I expect the first time? What had you decided that you wanted to expect? That's what. Specifically, I mean. Your answer is hardly responsive. How did I 'create' all the sonic characters of these amplifiers? What deserves more credit? A intelligent human being that has an auditory imagination and powers of reason, or an inanimate object? I'll vote for the person, with the lack of other credible evidence. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:x9Ccc.78936$gA5.970093@attbi_s03... "josko" wrote in message ... You actually prove my point, Bruce. These are both very good cables, I presume. The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy to tell. When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I don't mean between similar-quality products, but those of different quality. Isn't this a case of circular reasoning? Cheap cable -- poor quality. Expensive cable -- high quality. Sighted test reveals, to you, that expensive cable sounds better than the cheap cable, on some ad-hoc measure(s) that is/are relevant to you. Not surprising really. You start with a hypothesis that there should be a difference in sound between the two and then you find the evidence that this indeed is the case. Ah... Human nature. Isn't confirmatory hypothesis testing wonderful? And quite a problem to overcome if one's goal is to judge equipment based on the sound alone. What 'hypothesis' are you talking about? Quoting you: "The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy to tell." Or: "When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I don't mean between similar-quality products, but those of different quality," which again implies that you think that cables of different quality sound differently. This claim of yours also implies that you can infer quality of cables and I kinda doubt that because you keep repeating, in one way or another, that quality and price are perfectly correlated, and they are not. Not even close (this is actually based on some empirical studies of various products). It seems that you use price as the key, if not the only, proxy for quality (the other one is possibly brand name). Hence, a $100 Monster interconnect cable sounds better to you than a $50 Monster interconnect cable and you would be really surprised if that is not the case. I did not start out with any 'hypothesis' that there would be or would not be any difference, Ahhh... so common in the exchanges that I had with other audiophiles on the same topic on RAO and RAHE: We basically live on Mars, in perfect isolation, we do not ever communicate with other fellow audiophiles/friends, we never read audiophile magazines and even if we do we are able to tune out all of that. I doubt that simply because a person who considers himself to be an audiophile and entertains the idea that there is something to be learned from sighted evaluation of two basically same or very similar interconnects wouldn't really do that if, at the very least, he doesn't expect the whole "experiment" to be a valuable learning experience. The rest of the biased evaluation goes like this: once you "detect" a difference you attentionally zero in on it and then you "hear it" over and over again. "Frequency extremes are cleaner" becomes a working hypothesis and every subseqent audition reveals that indeed "the bass seemed tighter and the treble cleaner". The problem is not only that you zero in attentionally on these differences, but you probably also do not level match between listening sessions and this lack of level matching contributes to the illuson of cleaner frequency extremes. Also, it is common for people to use non-diagnostic "evidence" to support the hypothesis in any judgment. This is especially the case with quasi-experts and audiophiles are such a group. Very often they know minute details about various products, yet at the same time they lack basic engineering knowledge about "how things work", not to mention that sometimes they have completely flawed mental models about how specific pieces of equipment work (hence infinite resolution of vinyl and stair-step soundwaves output by DAC for example). In this context, then non-diagnostic "evidence" is price, brand name, and differences in level from one session to another. but I was willing to listen and use my own judgement about what I heard (or did not hear). I have purchased a few cables over the years, including some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the cheaper cable. Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy sources or transducers. Those who claim that there are differences between a $50 Monster interconnect and a $100 Monster interconnect should try using a test with implemented bias controls. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:55:44 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Apr 2004 20:48:52 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: The amps did not 'change' in the six-month interval between listening sessions 1 and 2. They retained the same characteristics they had at first exposure. It would be difficult to account for this on mere psychological terms. It is, in fact, a counter-example to your hypothesis. Actually, it's pathetically easy to account for this on psychological grounds. Not 'mere' psychological grounds, please note the brain is a *very* powerful (and deceitful) instrument! I would question the term "deceitful"...perhaps so, for those that live with meter readings, and pull great tools out of the "bias tool-box". The final arbitor is that brain and ear combo. This is what we are stuck with. What it tells an individual is what his realm of truth is currently filled with. It does not fit mine or anyone else's criteria exactly...it, has...well, ..variability. To try to delete this variability because it does not agree with one's mindset... it is deceitful?. How foolish..those that believe what they hear! Mercy, we must attack the mislead few that believe in such a "deceitful" thing as the brain. If we can just get large parts of the brain nullified (via the "bias-toolset")...maybe we can convince "many" that "all is the same". What a wonderful mindset! A delightful goal to strive for! Camelot..closer!! Reality...more distant!! After all, 'we all know' that tube amps have sweeter treble and more 'air' in the midrange, 'we all know' that Krell amps have more bass 'slam', etc etc etc. Our pitiful brain does tell us that tube amps do have a sound that is a bit different..some interpret as "sweeter"...what is wrong with that? So a big powerful KRELL does have have more "SLAM".. Are we into an session involving "semantics"...not about the fact there are....gads...differences? How did we get into this audio mindset? I somehow always felt that the "High-end" was always about differences, variables..and people that ascessed great value to that. Sorry, but one might have to compromise and let the "folly" continue...but, never, never.....all is the same!! All is the same...dragging the bias toolset..off into the sunset! Leonard.... |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 4/6/2004 10:55 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 5aCcc.84136$K91.184034@attbi_s02 On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:29:29 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ... On 1 Apr 2004 17:24:48 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper stuff that does. It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, and a basic understanding of electronics, that all cables sound the same. This is false on its face. I have owned both speaker cables and interconnects that sound different. It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, that you are simply making a claim based on sighted listening, a technique which is easily proven to be fatally flawed. I will bet you $10,000 that you can not tell cheap 'zipcord' from your favourite 'audiophile' cable, when you don't *know* which one is connected. Do you really have 10,000 dollars to loose on such a wager or did you plan on adding a several conditions if someone were to accpet the bet? As it stands you could easily loose. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 21:59:46 GMT, lcw999 wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:55:44 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 5 Apr 2004 20:48:52 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: The amps did not 'change' in the six-month interval between listening sessions 1 and 2. They retained the same characteristics they had at first exposure. It would be difficult to account for this on mere psychological terms. It is, in fact, a counter-example to your hypothesis. Actually, it's pathetically easy to account for this on psychological grounds. Not 'mere' psychological grounds, please note the brain is a *very* powerful (and deceitful) instrument! I would question the term "deceitful"...perhaps so, for those that live with meter readings, and pull great tools out of the "bias tool-box". The final arbitor is that brain and ear combo. This is what we are stuck with. What it tells an individual is what his realm of truth is currently filled with. It does not fit mine or anyone else's criteria exactly...it, has...well, ..variability. To try to delete this variability because it does not agree with one's mindset... it is deceitful?. How foolish..those that believe what they hear! Mercy, we must attack the mislead few that believe in such a "deceitful" thing as the brain. If we can just get large parts of the brain nullified (via the "bias-toolset")...maybe we can convince "many" that "all is the same". What a wonderful mindset! A delightful goal to strive for! Camelot..closer!! Reality...more distant!! After all, 'we all know' that tube amps have sweeter treble and more 'air' in the midrange, 'we all know' that Krell amps have more bass 'slam', etc etc etc. Our pitiful brain does tell us that tube amps do have a sound that is a bit different..some interpret as "sweeter"...what is wrong with that? So a big powerful KRELL does have have more "SLAM".. Are we into an session involving "semantics"...not about the fact there are....gads...differences? Er, no. We are into the fact that there are *not* differences......... How did we get into this audio mindset? I somehow always felt that the "High-end" was always about differences, variables..and people that ascessed great value to that. It is, but it turns out that these 'differences' mostly do not exist in the physical world. Sorry, but one might have to compromise and let the "folly" continue...but, never, never.....all is the same!! All is the same...dragging the bias toolset..off into the sunset! Leonard.... No 'bias toolset', just the sad reality that all is not as wonderful as George Cardas would have us believe............. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:00:04 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 4/6/2004 10:55 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 5aCcc.84136$K91.184034@attbi_s02 On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:29:29 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ... On 1 Apr 2004 17:24:48 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper stuff that does. It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, and a basic understanding of electronics, that all cables sound the same. This is false on its face. I have owned both speaker cables and interconnects that sound different. It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, that you are simply making a claim based on sighted listening, a technique which is easily proven to be fatally flawed. I will bet you $10,000 that you can not tell cheap 'zipcord' from your favourite 'audiophile' cable, when you don't *know* which one is connected. Do you really have 10,000 dollars to loose on such a wager Yes. But I won't lose it.... :-) or did you plan on adding a several conditions if someone were to accpet the bet? The conditions are as they have always been: Levels matched to +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz at the speaker terminals Test protocol double-blind Pass criterion is 15 or more correct out of 20 trials As it stands you could easily loose. I don't think so, and unlike you, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:AaCcc.84138$K91.183903@attbi_s02...
On 5 Apr 2004 20:48:52 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: The amps did not 'change' in the six-month interval between listening sessions 1 and 2. They retained the same characteristics they had at first exposure. It would be difficult to account for this on mere psychological terms. It is, in fact, a counter-example to your hypothesis. Actually, it's pathetically easy to account for this on psychological grounds. Not 'mere' psychological grounds, please note the brain is a *very* powerful (and deceitful) instrument! Then do so, my good man, then do so. All I have ever heard from you is empty claims. Explian to me, in detail, HOW my mind creates a rolled-off top end in a Bryston power amp, when I had no prior opinion of or familiarity with Bryston amps before the listening trial. Explain to me how my mind creates a wimpy. lifeless sound from the Harman Kardon power amp when I had no prior opinion of or familiarity with Harman Kardon amps before the listening trial. After all, 'we all know' that tube amps have sweeter treble and more 'air' in the midrange, 'we all know' that Krell amps have more bass 'slam', etc etc etc. I know no such thing. I have no opinion of Krell amps. I have heard tube amps, and I have heard the distortion that some people call 'air'. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Subject: Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 4/6/2004 3:59 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: tDGcc.201401$_w.1931622@attbi_s53 On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:54:38 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: I have purchased a few cables over the years, including some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the cheaper cable. Try that when you don't *know* what's connected. You've never actually done this, have you? Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy sources or transducers. I wondered how long it would take you to get round to that old strawman. That's pretty much the only reason why I still own a 'high end' vinyl rig, a Krell amp and Apogee speakers.......... Sounds like you are more interested in arguing about audio than enjoying it. It makes no sense to me to invest in equipment so you can say it isn't as good as it is alleged to be. If you think you can do better for less you are shooting yourself in the proverbial foot with what you have. Should we take it that your position is don't buy your stuff, and you should know, you bought it? |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 4/6/2004 4:15 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: pSGcc.84703$K91.185522@attbi_s02 On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:00:04 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 4/6/2004 10:55 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 5aCcc.84136$K91.184034@attbi_s02 On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:29:29 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ... On 1 Apr 2004 17:24:48 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper stuff that does. It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, and a basic understanding of electronics, that all cables sound the same. This is false on its face. I have owned both speaker cables and interconnects that sound different. It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, that you are simply making a claim based on sighted listening, a technique which is easily proven to be fatally flawed. I will bet you $10,000 that you can not tell cheap 'zipcord' from your favourite 'audiophile' cable, when you don't *know* which one is connected. Do you really have 10,000 dollars to loose on such a wager Yes. But I won't lose it.... :-) You won't loose it because you will never make the bet you proposed. or did you plan on adding a several conditions if someone were to accpet the bet? The conditions are as they have always been: Levels matched to +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz at the speaker terminals Just as I thought. You really didn't want to compare anyone's favorite audiophile cables without messing with their sound. Test protocol double-blind Pass criterion is 15 or more correct out of 20 trials As it stands you could easily loose. I don't think so, and unlike you, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. -- Nah, you just changed the rules as I thought you would. *As it stood* you really weren't offering a bet. Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:y7Kcc.80134$gA5.1003313@attbi_s03... Subject: Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!! From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 4/6/2004 3:59 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: tDGcc.201401$_w.1931622@attbi_s53 On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:54:38 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: I have purchased a few cables over the years, including some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the cheaper cable. Try that when you don't *know* what's connected. You've never actually done this, have you? Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy sources or transducers. I wondered how long it would take you to get round to that old strawman. That's pretty much the only reason why I still own a 'high end' vinyl rig, a Krell amp and Apogee speakers.......... Sounds like you are more interested in arguing about audio than enjoying it. It makes no sense to me to invest in equipment so you can say it isn't as good as it is alleged to be. If you think you can do better for less you are shooting yourself in the proverbial foot with what you have. Should we take it that your position is don't buy your stuff, and you should know, you bought it? When you are done quizzing Stewart, you might want to quiz all the objectivist engineers here who now own SACD players despite the fact that they can't possible sound better than ordinary CD's. You've been told that. I've been told that. Why would *anybody* buy a SACD player? |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:5aCcc.84136$K91.184034@attbi_s02...
This is false on its face. I have owned both speaker cables and interconnects that sound different. It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, that you are simply making a claim based on sighted listening, a technique which is easily proven to be fatally flawed. I will bet you $10,000 that you can not tell cheap 'zipcord' from your favourite 'audiophile' cable, when you don't *know* which one is connected. Beting is not the issue. I can and do hear consistent differences between various components. 'Consistent' is the key here. If I were somehow 'creating' the phenomena, consistency would be a problem. The consistency that I find among various products tested at large intervals of time is fatal to your view. Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables. Comparisons between 50 cents a foot 'zipcord' and $1,000 a foot Kimber Black Pearl show no differences. This should not be a surprise to any reasonable person. Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. 'Unreasonable people' may simply be the ones who have the most acute hearing. So far, no such person has surfaced. Many of course have, like yourself, *claimed* to be able to hear differences, but not one single person has managed to prove this when they didn't *know* which cable was connected. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove I do not hear differences. I can and do, when using equipment of sufficient quality, such as Stax electrostatic headphones. Again, as we approach perfection, differences lessen between products. Any normal cable is already functionally perfect. The only functionally imperfect cables are those ludicrously expensive ones with little boxes attached......................... I have heard differences between cables that are subtle but consistent. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:duJbc.68694$JO3.39664@attbi_s04... Bruce Abrams wrote in message news:Mx_ac.156391$Cb.1611810@attbi_s51... *snip* Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables. Perhaps you could explain the reasoning in the above statement. What is it that a "high-end cable" does better than the "cheaper stuff" that would make it sound different? You can read the product literature just as easily as I can. They explain in the literature what features the cable has. I assume you're award that product literature and ad copy frequently have nothing to do with reality. I'm not interested in what the company says the features are. Can you really profess not to be biased while engaging in sighted listening in light of the above statement? I'm interested in what you think a "high-end" cable does better than the "cheaper stuff." What is the difference between good and cheap cables? Simple question. I bought this one: http://www.monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=129 1 m. pair - 3.28 ft. ILR2-1M 102310 $99.95 pr. The product you purchased makes several rather extraordinary claims including the fact that a Microfiber dielectric somehow contributes to "faster transients and greater clarity." It's interesting that the company offers no explanation as to the mechanism that allows said microfiber dielectric to work its magic. They also make mention of using "multiple guage high and low frequency wire networks for accurate, natural sound reproduction." On its surface, this sounds like a great technical achievement, yet again, there's no explanation as to how it works. If you were marketing such a product against competition from the likes of Transparent, MIT, Kimber, etc. (think Coke & Pepsi) wouldn't a "blind taste test" be the best proof of your claims? Why do you think that not one single high end cable company includes such a blind test in the advertising materials even though it would clearly represent the holy grail? Think about it. All the high-end cable companies are competing for dollars primarily from audiophiles, not from average consumer electronics purchasers who will settle for the "included-in-the-box" interconnect that came with their CD player. If Transparent could market their product by claiming that "in blind comparisons, 9 out of 10 audiophiles prefered our product over Cardas", don't you think they would? I compared it to an older Monster cable that was about half that price. You mean that you read their literature on their newer cable, compared it to their older one, and found their ad copy spot on? Amazing. You suggest a measure of quality. Can we define "quality" in this context? If two pieces of wire measurable pass a signal equally well and are sonically indistinguishable under controlled conditions, what other qualitative measure would you apply? Does it make a difference if one is 12 guage Home Depot speaker wire and one is Kimber Black Pearl? You stated that, "...the better the quality, the more closely perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences." What if the quality of the "cheaper stuff" was already adequate to be functionally perfect for the application? It isn't. I could tell the two interconnect cables apart, easily. Better imaging, transient repsonse, etc. Here's an example of what I mean: 802.11B runs at 11 megabit, while 802.11G runs at 22 megabit, so G must be better/faster, right? Well if the only thing I use my wireless network for is internet access and my internet bandwidth is 5 megabit, is G better? Only in technical sense, as I will perceive no benefit. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
S888Wheel wrote:
The conditions are as they have always been: Levels matched to +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz at the speaker terminals Just as I thought. You really didn't want to compare anyone's favorite audiophile cables without messing with their sound. If you know of any audiophile cable that has trouble matching to those numbers against a 12-ga home depot zip cord, do share that information with us. You will be doing us a favor by exposing those cables that have trouble passing the signal without coloration. Test protocol double-blind Pass criterion is 15 or more correct out of 20 trials As it stands you could easily loose. I don't think so, and unlike you, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. -- Nah, you just changed the rules as I thought you would. *As it stood* you really weren't offering a bet. Why not? Which condition do you take issue with? Do you lose your ability to tell cables apart once you don't know what you are listening to? Or are you one of those who go into a panic when they have to match X to A or B? |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Harry Lavo wrote:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message news:y7Kcc.80134$gA5.1003313@attbi_s03... Subject: Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!! From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 4/6/2004 3:59 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: tDGcc.201401$_w.1931622@attbi_s53 On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:54:38 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: I have purchased a few cables over the years, including some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the cheaper cable. Try that when you don't *know* what's connected. You've never actually done this, have you? Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy sources or transducers. I wondered how long it would take you to get round to that old strawman. That's pretty much the only reason why I still own a 'high end' vinyl rig, a Krell amp and Apogee speakers.......... Sounds like you are more interested in arguing about audio than enjoying it. It makes no sense to me to invest in equipment so you can say it isn't as good as it is alleged to be. If you think you can do better for less you are shooting yourself in the proverbial foot with what you have. Should we take it that your position is don't buy your stuff, and you should know, you bought it? When you are done quizzing Stewart, you might want to quiz all the objectivist engineers here who now own SACD players despite the fact that they can't possible sound better than ordinary CD's. You've been told that. I've been told that. Why would *anybody* buy a SACD player? This one is so easy. (1) There may be recordings mastered really well in the SACD versions, compared to the same recordings in older CD versions. (2) There are multi-channel SACD's that are fun to listen to. (3) SACD players have gotten to the point that they are just as cheap (if not cheaper) than dedicated CD players. (4) Curiosity about what the SACD format sounds like. (5) DVD players with SACD function are not much more than those without. Enough? |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
From: "Harry Lavo"
Date: 4/6/2004 9:23 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message news:y7Kcc.80134$gA5.1003313@attbi_s03... Subject: Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!! From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 4/6/2004 3:59 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: tDGcc.201401$_w.1931622@attbi_s53 On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:54:38 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: I have purchased a few cables over the years, including some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the cheaper cable. Try that when you don't *know* what's connected. You've never actually done this, have you? Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy sources or transducers. I wondered how long it would take you to get round to that old strawman. That's pretty much the only reason why I still own a 'high end' vinyl rig, a Krell amp and Apogee speakers.......... Sounds like you are more interested in arguing about audio than enjoying it. It makes no sense to me to invest in equipment so you can say it isn't as good as it is alleged to be. If you think you can do better for less you are shooting yourself in the proverbial foot with what you have. Should we take it that your position is don't buy your stuff, and you should know, you bought it? When you are done quizzing Stewart, you might want to quiz all the objectivist engineers here who now own SACD players despite the fact that they can't possible sound better than ordinary CD's. You've been told that. I've been told that. Why would *anybody* buy a SACD player? If there are better mastered SACDs then that is reason enough even if one believes the media are inherently equal. I have held off so far but it seems there may be enough superior SACDs to now consider looking into it. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove I do not hear
differences. I can and do, when using equipment of sufficient quality, such as Stax electrostatic headphones." You are asking us to accept you are an exception to what has been so far totaly repeatable in listening alone tests,ie. identify wire different then the level of guessing. Confirmation oppertunities have been offered with cash motivation to demonstrate you are an exception. Stax has no majic so brandishing a brand name about is not confirmation to your claimed exception that your repeorted experiences aren't due to the perception process and not inherent in some factor of the wire. Why should we accept that you are an exception? |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"josko" wrote in message news:xJFcc.200900$_w.1930145@attbi_s53...
You actually prove my point, Bruce. These are both very good cables, I presume. The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy to tell. When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I don't mean between similar-quality products, but those of different quality. Isn't this a case of circular reasoning? Cheap cable -- poor quality. Expensive cable -- high quality. The cables are physically different. Different insulation, different braiding and internal construction, different terminals. The differences represent qualitative improvememnts over cheaper cables. Sighted test reveals, to you, that expensive cable sounds better than the cheap cable, on some ad-hoc measure(s) that is/are relevant to you. Not surprising really. You start with a hypothesis that there should be a difference in sound between the two and then you find the evidence that this indeed is the case. Ah... Human nature. Isn't confirmatory hypothesis testing wonderful? And quite a problem to overcome if one's goal is to judge equipment based on the sound alone. What 'hypothesis' are you talking about? Quoting you: "The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy to tell." That was a CONCLUSION, not an hypothesis. I had tried several similarly-priced cables over the years, and found no significant differences. When I splurged for the $100 cables, it was a far more noticeable difference. Or: "When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I don't mean between similar-quality products, but those of different quality," which again implies that you think that cables of different quality sound differently. This claim of yours also implies that you can infer quality of cables and I kinda doubt that because you keep repeating, in one way or another, that quality and price are perfectly correlated, and they are not. Not even close (this is actually based on some empirical studies of various products). It seems that you use price as the key, if not the only, proxy for quality (the other one is possibly brand name). Hence, a $100 Monster interconnect cable sounds better to you than a $50 Monster interconnect cable and you would be really surprised if that is not the case. The $100 cable does not sound 'twice as good' as the $50 cable. It's about a 15% improvement. I did not start out with any 'hypothesis' that there would be or would not be any difference, Ahhh... so common in the exchanges that I had with other audiophiles on the same topic on RAO and RAHE: We basically live on Mars, in perfect isolation, we do not ever communicate with other fellow audiophiles/friends, we never read audiophile magazines and even if we do we are able to tune out all of that. I am much less dependent on reviews than most typical audiophiles. I do not read reviews of cables. I use only my ears. In any event, I do not trust anything BUT my own ears. I have tried several 'tweek' products that were highy touted and they did not seem any better to my ears. Other tweeks did improve the sound. I am not on the fringe of audiophiles, but squarely in the middle. I use RF traps on my cables because they improve the sound. I do not use 'tip-toes' (I don't even know what they look like). Nor do I use the 'brick' thing or the 'clock' thing. I doubt that simply because a person who considers himself to be an audiophile and entertains the idea that there is something to be learned from sighted evaluation of two basically same or very similar interconnects wouldn't really do that if, at the very least, he doesn't expect the whole "experiment" to be a valuable learning experience. The rest of the biased evaluation goes like this: once you "detect" a difference you attentionally zero in on it and then you "hear it" over and over again. "Frequency extremes are cleaner" becomes a working hypothesis and every subseqent audition reveals that indeed "the bass seemed tighter and the treble cleaner". It was. No doubt about it. The problem is not only that you zero in attentionally on these differences, but you probably also do not level match between listening sessions and this lack of level matching contributes to the illuson of cleaner frequency extremes. I had no reason to single these factors out BEFORE listening. I listened with considerable attention to aeverything about the sound. In fact, the differences are hard to describe, and are more complex, much more complex, than that description. Also, it is common for people to use non-diagnostic "evidence" to support the hypothesis in any judgment. This is especially the case with quasi-experts and audiophiles are such a group. Very often they know minute details about various products, yet at the same time they lack basic engineering knowledge about "how things work", not to mention that sometimes they have completely flawed mental models about how specific pieces of equipment work (hence infinite resolution of vinyl and stair-step soundwaves output by DAC for example). In this context, then non-diagnostic "evidence" is price, brand name, and differences in level from one session to another. I think LP's suck. At one time, I owned 1200 of them. I know. but I was willing to listen and use my own judgement about what I heard (or did not hear). I have purchased a few cables over the years, including some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the cheaper cable. Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy sources or transducers. Those who claim that there are differences between a $50 Monster interconnect and a $100 Monster interconnect should try using a test with implemented bias controls. That guards against 'bias' of one kind, but the simple fact is that without high-resolution transducers and high-quality sources and amplification, no differences between cables can be heard even when they do exist. It is also necessary to have a well-trained, EXPERIENCED, ear. I promise you, that if you try listening through Stax Lambdas you'll hear many more differences than you do through any ordinray loudspeakers. EVERYTHING is heard: cables, amps, RF traps, you name it. In other words, it is not a matter of 'procedure' but a matter of 'equipment and experience'. A test can be perfectly unbiased and yet be completely worthless. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Bruce Abrams wrote:
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message news:duJbc.68694$JO3.39664@attbi_s04... Bruce Abrams wrote in message snip I bought this one: http://www.monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=129 1 m. pair - 3.28 ft. ILR2-1M 102310 $99.95 pr. The product you purchased makes several rather extraordinary claims including the fact that a Microfiber dielectric somehow contributes to "faster transients and greater clarity." It's interesting that the company offers no explanation as to the mechanism that allows said microfiber dielectric to work its magic. They also make mention of using "multiple guage high and low frequency wire networks for accurate, natural sound reproduction." On its surface, this sounds like a great technical achievement, yet again, there's no explanation as to how it works. If you were marketing such a product against competition from the likes of Transparent, MIT, Kimber, etc. (think Coke & Pepsi) wouldn't a "blind taste test" be the best proof of your claims? Why do you think that not one single high end cable company includes such a blind test in the advertising materials even though it would clearly represent the holy grail? Think about it. All the high-end cable companies are competing for dollars primarily from audiophiles, not from average consumer electronics purchasers who will settle for the "included-in-the-box" interconnect that came with their CD player. If Transparent could market their product by claiming that "in blind comparisons, 9 out of 10 audiophiles prefered our product over Cardas", don't you think they would? I have heard differences in some cables. Most, they just sound the same. I have a box of MIT's (with and without boxes), Monster, Distech, Esoteric, Vampire, etc.. All with claim to have special properties that makes their product "wonderful". But, I have heard differences. Nothing of an order of magnitude, but repeatable differences. No, no 'level' matching, just switching them in and out. I have wound up with Canare in the system. They sound better to me than the other hi-end stuff and cost me nothing. I have no bone to pick with the cables I have. I bought them. Some, on marketing, others, because I had nothing else to do. One thing I do know is that people have different preferences in the sound they like. I don't know if this is because of the different "hearing" sensitivity to frequencies (has everyone's hearing been tested and spec'ed?), or what they just think sounds good to them. Preferences. Oh, I remember taking my just spec'ed Phase 400 into a showroom to compare it to the then released Carver 1.5t. I left with my Phase under my arm and my head hanging low. I 'thought' that the Phase would more than hold it's own against the Carver. Same designer, low low distortion figures, it should sound the same. It didn't. It sounded 'worse'. Speakers at the time were DCM TimeWindows. I did the switching. I choose the music, I installed the amp. I controlled the whole test. I would have much rather have saved me the money than to think of how I would have to replace the venerated Phase 400. Needless to say, I bought the 1.5t. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Then do so, my good man, then do so. All I have ever heard from you is
empty claims. Explian to me, in detail, HOW my mind creates a rolled-off top end in a Bryston power amp, when I had no prior opinion of or familiarity with Bryston amps before the listening trial. Explain to me how my mind creates a wimpy. lifeless sound from the Harman Kardon power amp when I had no prior opinion of or familiarity with Harman Kardon amps before the listening trial. " You have presented this rrhtorical parade before, and it misses completely the point. What must be accounted for is the reality of your claim you are an exception to listening alone tests which show amp differences similar to the level of guessing. To pose the question about the origin of the perception process in an individual for 7 examples of the assertion, not yet confirmed, about being an exception is but a red herring. Why should we accept, before any recitation of brands and reported experiences and assigning of descriptive labels there to, when the foundation of your assertion to being an exception has not been established? We don't have to account for your specific perception experience, you have to establish you are an exception and then looking into your reported specific experience might become something of further interest.. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On 7 Apr 2004 04:23:02 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
When you are done quizzing Stewart, you might want to quiz all the objectivist engineers here who now own SACD players despite the fact that they can't possible sound better than ordinary CD's. You've been told that. I've been told that. Why would *anybody* buy a SACD player? Multi-channel sound, which is a *real* advance. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
TonyP wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 1 Apr 2004 17:24:48 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper stuff that does. It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, and a basic understanding of electronics, that all cables sound the same. Even those with 'boxes' attached? Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables. Comparisons between 50 cents a foot 'zipcord' and $1,000 a foot Kimber Black Pearl show no differences. This should not be a surprise to any reasonable person. You have done this? I have. Not with Kimber Black Pearl but with comparisons of $100 a foot speaker cables and interconnects to $0.18 per foot zipcord and junk-box interconnects. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
chung wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote: "S888Wheel" wrote in message news:y7Kcc.80134$gA5.1003313@attbi_s03... Subject: Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!! From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 4/6/2004 3:59 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: tDGcc.201401$_w.1931622@attbi_s53 On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:54:38 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: I have purchased a few cables over the years, including some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the cheaper cable. Try that when you don't *know* what's connected. You've never actually done this, have you? Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy sources or transducers. I wondered how long it would take you to get round to that old strawman. That's pretty much the only reason why I still own a 'high end' vinyl rig, a Krell amp and Apogee speakers.......... Sounds like you are more interested in arguing about audio than enjoying it. It makes no sense to me to invest in equipment so you can say it isn't as good as it is alleged to be. If you think you can do better for less you are shooting yourself in the proverbial foot with what you have. Should we take it that your position is don't buy your stuff, and you should know, you bought it? When you are done quizzing Stewart, you might want to quiz all the objectivist engineers here who now own SACD players despite the fact that they can't possible sound better than ordinary CD's. You've been told that. I've been told that. Why would *anybody* buy a SACD player? This one is so easy. (1) There may be recordings mastered really well in the SACD versions, compared to the same recordings in older CD versions. (2) There are multi-channel SACD's that are fun to listen to. Exactly. I don't give a fig that it's SACD. These are the reasons I own SACDs or DVD-As..I'm interested in remasters, and in multichannel. I also own a few DTS multichannel remasters. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:AaCcc.84138$K91.183903@attbi_s02... On 5 Apr 2004 20:48:52 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: The amps did not 'change' in the six-month interval between listening sessions 1 and 2. They retained the same characteristics they had at first exposure. It would be difficult to account for this on mere psychological terms. It is, in fact, a counter-example to your hypothesis. Actually, it's pathetically easy to account for this on psychological grounds. Not 'mere' psychological grounds, please note the brain is a *very* powerful (and deceitful) instrument! Then do so, my good man, then do so. All I have ever heard from you is empty claims. Explian to me, in detail, HOW my mind creates a rolled-off top end in a Bryston power amp, when I had no prior opinion of or familiarity with Bryston amps before the listening trial. Explain to me how my mind creates a wimpy. lifeless sound from the Harman Kardon power amp when I had no prior opinion of or familiarity with Harman Kardon amps before the listening trial. My guess is that the Bryston is producing a better and more realistic sound and that HK is suffering from some sort of problem - either too heavy a load or running to hot or distorting too much in the upper end. Or any number of things. You just are used to it. It's kind of like B&W speakers. They have a noticeable top-end blare. It sounds good to aging ears, but is fatiguing. After a while you adjust, but it's still there. When you go to listen to other speakers, they seem dull and "wimpy". |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Hearing aids and music | High End Audio | |||
Can network, video and sound cables be combined to save space? | General | |||
Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
hearing loss info | Car Audio |