Except for my 4 year old CD player, I bought my system back in '92. Here's
what I've got:

Yamaha RX-V850 Pro-Logic receiver (100 watts each on front channels, 30
watts each on rear channels)
Rotel RCD-951 CD player
Yamaha KX-330 cassette deck
Quasar 27" stereo TV
Quasar stereo VCR
JBL LX44s for front speakers, LX300s for rear speakers, modified SC-305 for
center speaker
I don't have a subwoofer because I get excellent bottom end with my system
the way it is.

I want to upgrade my cables. I've still got the Original Monster Cable
speaker cable that I bought 12 years ago, which, although not considered
high end, is still a good, solid, dependable, sturdy, shielded 12 gauge
speaker cable. I've got two choices. I can:

A) Keep my Original Monster Cable and upgrade my interconnects to match it's
quality. The interconnects would be the Audio Interlink 400 Mk.2 and the
Video Interlink 3. Or

B) Get rid of my Original Monster Cable and go top-of-the-line all around
with Monster's best quality Z series speaker and interconnect cable. This
option would obviously cost me a lot more money than option A.

As far as a line conditioner is concerned, which Monster product would be
best for my system?

I know there're lots of other excellent brands out there. The reason I'm
going with Monster is because I know someone who works for a Monster dealer
and can get me 60% off retail prices. Comments and suggestions regarding all
this? Don't bother responding to this, Sullivan. I already know what you
think.

Gordon Tanner wrote:

I know there're lots of other excellent brands out there. The reason I'm
going with Monster is because I know someone who works for a Monster dealer
and can get me 60% off retail prices. Comments and suggestions regarding all
this? Don't bother responding to this, Sullivan. I already know what you
think.

LOL. How generous of you, considering I'm the one who directed you here.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Gordon Tanner wrote:
I want to upgrade my cables. I've still got the Original Monster Cable
speaker cable that I bought 12 years ago, which, although not
considered
high end, is still a good, solid, dependable, sturdy, shielded 12 gauge
speaker cable. I've got two choices. I can:

Why exactly do you want to upgrade your cables? I suspect most people
on
this forum, even those who believe in large audible differences among
cables, would suggest upgrading your components first. What about a
DTS/DD
receiver and a universal-format player (DVD-V/A, SACD, CD), so you can
enjoy new multi-channel audio releases and movies on DVD? How about
saving money for some better speakers? Even if you like your JBL
speakers, I'm sure there are speakers you would enjoy more.

I know there're lots of other excellent brands out there. The reason
I'm
going with Monster is because I know someone who works for a Monster
dealer
and can get me 60% off retail prices.

If you can get Monster Cable for 60% off of retail I would go with
Monster
Cable. They don't do anything fundamental wrong to their cables and
generally seem well-constructed. I use Monster Cable and Tara Labs in
my
systems.

--
Jason Kau
IS FOR EMAIL
IS FOR SPAM
http://www.cnd.gatech.edu/~jkau

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:08:44 +0000, Gordon Tanner wrote:

Except for my 4 year old CD player, I bought my system back in '92. Here's
what I've got:

Yamaha RX-V850 Pro-Logic receiver (100 watts each on front channels, 30
watts each on rear channels)
Rotel RCD-951 CD player
Yamaha KX-330 cassette deck
Quasar 27" stereo TV
Quasar stereo VCR
JBL LX44s for front speakers, LX300s for rear speakers, modified SC-305 for
center speaker
I don't have a subwoofer because I get excellent bottom end with my system
the way it is.

I want to upgrade my cables. I've still got the Original Monster Cable
speaker cable that I bought 12 years ago, which, although not considered
high end, is still a good, solid, dependable, sturdy, shielded 12 gauge
speaker cable. I've got two choices. I can:

A) Keep my Original Monster Cable and upgrade my interconnects to match it's
quality. The interconnects would be the Audio Interlink 400 Mk.2 and the
Video Interlink 3. Or

B) Get rid of my Original Monster Cable and go top-of-the-line all around
with Monster's best quality Z series speaker and interconnect cable. This
option would obviously cost me a lot more money than option A.

As far as a line conditioner is concerned, which Monster product would be
best for my system?

I know there're lots of other excellent brands out there. The reason I'm
going with Monster is because I know someone who works for a Monster dealer
and can get me 60% off retail prices. Comments and suggestions regarding all
this? Don't bother responding to this, Sullivan. I already know what you
think.

__________________________________________________ ______

Gordon....

I would tend to go along with the comments by Jason
Kau...perhaps go with the speaker upgrade first. However,
if you prefer, then by all means do the cable thing first.

There is some low cost, decent, cables out there...for instance
in the latest issue of Stereophile, the annual ratings of
components they have reviewed, there is a suggestion by JA that
the radio shack solid core wire is very listenable and has a
low cost. One stipulation made is that it can tend to sound a
bit "hot" on some speaker systems. So if you do expect to
change speakers soon...then, wait until you get your speakers
until you settle on any cable.

For the sake of gaining knowledge about this interesting
hobby of ours, do check out the lower cost audio cable
at Home Depot, etc. Then take it to the private confines
of your listening area and determine what is best for you.

Be a bit wary of those that know what is best for you..a sad
state of affairs, but there are those that have these insights!@#?

Anyway, after replacing the amplifier could be best time
to review the cables...assuming you have already replaced
the speakers. There is some interplay between the speakers
and the amp..naturally the cables become involved in this.
Audio characteristics are tilted a bit...most people note these
changes. As we all know there are some excellent cables
in the higher range..most have "excellent" prices!! If you
are content with the Monster series..then try it in the new
speaker-Amp environment. I've been stuck with some ole
AudioQuest "Clear" cables running a Classe' "two-ton" amp
into some ole twice refurbished Tympani IV's...this stuff
still sounds great to my ears...as does much of the newer
equipment out there. One thing about some of the overpriced
"stuff" out there is that is will stick with you for years!!
The Magnepan speakers are from '84..the cables from the
mid '90's and the Amp is from the 90's/'03.

Getting the Speaker-Wire-Amplifier combo together at
the same time would be ideal.

However, do as you so desire...be happy with your choices..
..then if next year you decide to alter things again..then do
it, and enjoy it all. Treat it as learning process in this hobby
of ours.

Leonard...

P.S. As to the Power conditioner...filter..whatever,
The Monster 2000, about $199 list is an effective
component. I noticed an ad in the back of
Stereophile where the Computer version
of the filter is $59...It also is noticeable in its
filtering on an HDTV...richness of color,
sharpness of character delineation. Very
noticeable on SD.

in article , Jason Kau at
wrote on 21/03/04 9:38 PM:

Why exactly do you want to upgrade your cables? I suspect most people
on this forum, even those who believe in large audible differences among
cables, would suggest upgrading your components first. What about a
DTS/DD receiver and a universal-format player (DVD-V/A, SACD, CD), so you can
enjoy new multi-channel audio releases and movies on DVD? How about
saving money for some better speakers? Even if you like your JBL
speakers, I'm sure there are speakers you would enjoy more.

I'm not going to be upgrading my components at this time. I'd really
appreciate it if, rather than advising me about stuff that has nothing to do
with the subject at hand, you'd please answer the questions that I actually
asked.

"Gordon Tanner" wrote in message
news:ChG7c.61276$po.555093@attbi_s52...
in article , Jason Kau at
wrote on 21/03/04 9:38 PM:

Why exactly do you want to upgrade your cables? I suspect most people
on this forum, even those who believe in large audible differences among
cables, would suggest upgrading your components first. What about a
DTS/DD receiver and a universal-format player (DVD-V/A, SACD, CD), so
you can
enjoy new multi-channel audio releases and movies on DVD? How about
saving money for some better speakers? Even if you like your JBL
speakers, I'm sure there are speakers you would enjoy more.

I'm not going to be upgrading my components at this time. I'd really
appreciate it if, rather than advising me about stuff that has nothing to
do
with the subject at hand, you'd please answer the questions that I
actually
asked.

You presented to options...both involving spending money on new cables. As
your comment to "Sullivan" indicates, you are clearly aware that there are
basically two schools of thought around he one is that wire is wire and
it all sounds the same, the other is that all wires sound different. The
first school will tell you to save your money and stick with what you have
while the second will tell you to audition the wires and pick what you like
the best. Since it's obvious that you think different wires sound
different, the only option for you seems to be to audition the cables and
decide for yourself. What question were you asking that wasn't answered?

Jason Kau
wrote:

If you can get Monster Cable for 60% off of retail I would go with
Monster
Cable. They don't do anything fundamental wrong to their cables and
generally seem well-constructed. I use Monster Cable and Tara Labs in
my
systems.

While my personal experience with high-end cables is probably more limited than
many posters here I will report that both those brands have had among the worst
speaker terminations I've yet encountered. The Monster had large banana
connectors with what seemed to be an innovative way of securing themselves in
banana jacks. The solid center pin was split in quarters at the tip with an
internal sliding pin that was supposed to spread the tip lips inside the jack
securing it when an external nut was tightened.

There were "only" two problems with that arrangement. On one cable the pin
refused to release once the cable was installed and I felt fortunate that I
didn't break the jack getting the cable dis-installed. On the other cable the
lips were pre-split so the tip wouldn't fit into the jack. The pin was locked
up in that one as well.

Even using the spade lugs was problematic. They were not well shaped and the
cable was stiff enough that undue torque was required to get a secure
connection and when the speakers were re-positioned or moved in any way the
spades loosened up requiring a re-torque.

The $990 Tara Labs RSC speakers cables had the reverse problem. The banana plug
factory terminations had petals so limp that they required re-opening (using a
small flat blade screwdriver after EVERY disconnect.

Neither of these products was acceptable for consumer-use IMO. On the positive
side they both sounded exactly like 14-guage zip cord.

As
your comment to "Sullivan" indicates, you are clearly aware that there are
basically two schools of thought around he one is that wire is wire and
it all sounds the same, the other is that all wires sound different.

I am of two minds on this question, and a little undecided. But one
thing seems sure. If there is an audible difference among cables, it
either doesn't crop up too often (I swear I've heard HUGE differences in
the past) or it is always small. Otherwise there would be no arguments,
right? I mean, let's face it, when there are large differences, there
are no debates. There is no "division into two schools" of audiophiles
concerning, say, speakers. No one save a complete nut would seriously
claim that all sets of speakers sound the same. Go to something a bit
more subtle, DVD players. No one would say that all DVD players sound
the same, would they? So, where does this line get drawn, between
"components we all agree make a difference" and "components we bitterly
argue about being able to hear differences in"?
Somewhere between CD transports and cables, I should think.

-Sean

"Gordon Tanner" wrote in message
news:0Ns7c.57662$SR1.103090@attbi_s04...
Except for my 4 year old CD player, I bought my system back in '92. Here's
what I've got:

Yamaha RX-V850 Pro-Logic receiver (100 watts each on front channels, 30
watts each on rear channels)
Rotel RCD-951 CD player
Yamaha KX-330 cassette deck
Quasar 27" stereo TV
Quasar stereo VCR
JBL LX44s for front speakers, LX300s for rear speakers, modified SC-305
for
center speaker
I don't have a subwoofer because I get excellent bottom end with my system
the way it is.

I want to upgrade my cables. I've still got the Original Monster Cable
speaker cable that I bought 12 years ago, which, although not considered
high end, is still a good, solid, dependable, sturdy, shielded 12 gauge
speaker cable. I've got two choices. I can:

A) Keep my Original Monster Cable and upgrade my interconnects to match
it's
quality. The interconnects would be the Audio Interlink 400 Mk.2 and the
Video Interlink 3. Or

B) Get rid of my Original Monster Cable and go top-of-the-line all around
with Monster's best quality Z series speaker and interconnect cable. This
option would obviously cost me a lot more money than option A.

As far as a line conditioner is concerned, which Monster product would be
best for my system?

I know there're lots of other excellent brands out there. The reason I'm
going with Monster is because I know someone who works for a Monster
dealer
and can get me 60% off retail prices. Comments and suggestions regarding
all
this? Don't bother responding to this, Sullivan. I already know what you
think.


I forgot to answer about the line conditioner...
The HTS 1000 MKII PowerCenter (or HTS 2000 MKII, depending on how many plugs
you need) is a nicely constructed power strip with what seems like
reasonable surge protection and some so-called "clean power" circuits.
I've never heard any difference with just filters, it takes voltage
stabilizers and pretty awful AC out of the wall to make a difference there.

Sean Fulop wrote:

As
your comment to "Sullivan" indicates, you are clearly aware that there are
basically two schools of thought around he one is that wire is wire and
it all sounds the same, the other is that all wires sound different.

I am of two minds on this question, and a little undecided. But one
thing seems sure. If there is an audible difference among cables, it
either doesn't crop up too often (I swear I've heard HUGE differences in
the past) or it is always small. Otherwise there would be no arguments,
right? I mean, let's face it, when there are large differences, there
are no debates. There is no "division into two schools" of audiophiles
concerning, say, speakers. No one save a complete nut would seriously
claim that all sets of speakers sound the same. Go to something a bit
more subtle, DVD players. No one would say that all DVD players sound
the same, would they?

I've owned multiple cd-dvd units and they all sound excatly alike .....if one
didn't I would return it.

So, where does this line get drawn, between
"components we all agree make a difference" and "components we bitterly
argue about being able to hear differences in"?

With subjectivists they all/always sound different; even in the cases where it
was shown that the proponent was unable to validate the "sound" under
bias-controlled conditions.

Jason Kau wrote in message ...
Gordon Tanner wrote:

I know there're lots of other excellent brands out there. The reason
I'm
going with Monster is because I know someone who works for a Monster
dealer
and can get me 60% off retail prices.

If you can get Monster Cable for 60% off of retail I would go with
Monster
Cable. They don't do anything fundamental wrong to their cables

....besides mark them up 60%

Sean Fulop wrote:

As
your comment to "Sullivan" indicates, you are clearly aware that there
are
basically two schools of thought around he one is that wire is wire
and
it all sounds the same, the other is that all wires sound different.

I am of two minds on this question, and a little undecided. But one
thing seems sure. If there is an audible difference among cables, it
either doesn't crop up too often (I swear I've heard HUGE differences in
the past) or it is always small. Otherwise there would be no arguments,
right? I mean, let's face it, when there are large differences, there
are no debates. There is no "division into two schools" of audiophiles
concerning, say, speakers. No one save a complete nut would seriously
claim that all sets of speakers sound the same. Go to something a bit
more subtle, DVD players. No one would say that all DVD players sound
the same, would they? So, where does this line get drawn, between
"components we all agree make a difference" and "components we bitterly
argue about being able to hear differences in"?
Somewhere between CD transports and cables, I should think.

I should think not. I recall only recently an exchange here on the subject
of transports in which several posters argued quite vociferously (as always)
on the improbability of properly functioning transports having audible
effects when connected to properly functioning DACs. As for DACs themselves
(and by extension DVD players), some have expressed doubts as well.

More to the point, the "debate" is not between "people who think everything
sounds different" and "people who think everything sounds the same." It is
between people who think that the present state of scientific knowledge is
sufficient to explain any differences that can be heard, and those who
believe that there are mysteries still to be probed.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE
download! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/

"Gordon Tanner" wrote in message
news:0Ns7c.57662$SR1.103090@attbi_s04...
Except for my 4 year old CD player, I bought my system back in '92. Here's
what I've got:

Yamaha RX-V850 Pro-Logic receiver (100 watts each on front channels, 30
watts each on rear channels)
Rotel RCD-951 CD player
Yamaha KX-330 cassette deck
Quasar 27" stereo TV
Quasar stereo VCR
JBL LX44s for front speakers, LX300s for rear speakers, modified SC-305
for
center speaker
I don't have a subwoofer because I get excellent bottom end with my system
the way it is.

I want to upgrade my cables. I've still got the Original Monster Cable
speaker cable that I bought 12 years ago, which, although not considered
high end, is still a good, solid, dependable, sturdy, shielded 12 gauge
speaker cable. I've got two choices. I can:

A) Keep my Original Monster Cable and upgrade my interconnects to match
it's
quality. The interconnects would be the Audio Interlink 400 Mk.2 and the
Video Interlink 3. Or

B) Get rid of my Original Monster Cable and go top-of-the-line all around
with Monster's best quality Z series speaker and interconnect cable. This
option would obviously cost me a lot more money than option A.

As far as a line conditioner is concerned, which Monster product would be
best for my system?

I know there're lots of other excellent brands out there. The reason I'm
going with Monster is because I know someone who works for a Monster
dealer
and can get me 60% off retail prices. Comments and suggestions regarding
all
this? Don't bother responding to this, Sullivan. I already know what you
think.

The value of the RX-V850 on eBay is around $125, as are the JBL fronts. No
insult, but I think we're talking "mid-fi" at this point. It takes a lot
more gear than you've got to really hear a worthwhile difference in cables,
but depending on your interconnects now...
Shielded 12 gauge speaker cable is enough for this level, so I'd suggest
going with the interconnects before speaker cable.
As I400-MK2 are $35/pr/m, and a Video3 is around $30/m, less your 60%
discount... if it makes you happy, and nothing I say can stop you anyway,
and it's not like that money is going to cure cancer or anything.

Others have commented that you might look at upgrading your components, and
I really encourage you to consider that. I'd bet that a new, modestly
priced, Denon or Sony piece (I'm sure there are a slew of other brands)
would surprise you. I'm also a huge fan of the B&W DM-303 speakers from a
bang-for-the-buck standpoint.

"Ringo Langly" wrote
I forgot to answer about the line conditioner...
The HTS 1000 MKII PowerCenter (or HTS 2000 MKII, depending on how many plugs
you need) is a nicely constructed power strip with what seems like
reasonable surge protection and some so-called "clean power" circuits.
I've never heard any difference with just filters, it takes voltage
stabilizers and pretty awful AC out of the wall to make a difference there.


I agree the Monster line conditioners work very well for the money and usually
you can return them for a refund if you aren't happy with what they do.

On upgrading cables, let me give you my perspective. Here is my list of
priorities for improving your sound - the higher on the list, the more of a
difference it makes:
1. Speakers
2. Room treatment
3. Speaker/listener placement in room
4. Source equipment
5. Preamplifier
6. Amplifier
7. Power conditioner
8. Speaker and interconnect cables
9. Component isolation
10. Power cords
11. Various tweaks

If I had a budget to upgrade my system, I would get the cables last, after
speakers and electronics, to fine-tune the sound of my system. But that's just
my view. Certainly others will disagree.
Regards,
Mike

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 06:16:00 +0000, Nousaine wrote:

Sean Fulop wrote:

As
your comment to "Sullivan" indicates, you are clearly aware that there are
basically two schools of thought around he one is that wire is wire and
it all sounds the same, the other is that all wires sound different.

I am of two minds on this question, and a little undecided. But one
thing seems sure. If there is an audible difference among cables, it
either doesn't crop up too often (I swear I've heard HUGE differences in
the past) or it is always small. Otherwise there would be no arguments,
right? I mean, let's face it, when there are large differences, there
are no debates. There is no "division into two schools" of audiophiles
concerning, say, speakers. No one save a complete nut would seriously
claim that all sets of speakers sound the same. Go to something a bit
more subtle, DVD players. No one would say that all DVD players sound
the same, would they?

I've owned multiple cd-dvd units and they all sound excatly alike .....if one
didn't I would return it.

Perhaps the belief that all cd-dvd units
sound "exactly" alike is as extreme as the
other side of the argument that all are different. The truth
probably lies somewhere in the middle. Current day cd-dvd
units do sound much the same..with very minute differences.
There are differences...but, so small that one has to become
a nit-picker to define them...to some individuals these
differences are worthy to discuss and are important..I
respect that.. I also have problems with some in defining
these differences. Then applying the variances a value
in my "audio value system"

So, where does this line get drawn, between
"components we all agree make a difference" and "components we bitterly
argue about being able to hear differences in"?

With subjectivists they all/always sound different; even in the cases where it
was shown that the proponent was unable to validate the "sound" under
bias-controlled conditions.

Perhaps, a rather extreme statement...I have been in the
midst of many so-called "subjectivist" that could/could not hear
differences in a given listening session...however, no one
in the crowd suggest that..."..you are imagining that..." a bit
of respect was evident. In the sessions some of those
were of the Engineering fraternity...some also found the
differences not significant..others heard them. Everyone
had some wine, talked about systems..went home.
And the Universe went on its merry way!!
...And these groups will continue to enjoy good music
and fine systems..using these crude methods!

Also, this is getting a bit thick to suggest that a given
listening "criteria" must be in place to "cleanse" the
unwashed "subjectivist" of..drat!..must I say it? "BIAS".
Oh Gosh! Am I a better person now? I've said it!

This horse has been beat to death...perhaps, another
tack will work better! The seriousness of all this gets
"humorous" at times! Be happy in your work!

Leonard...

I've owned multiple cd-dvd units and they all sound excatly alike .....if one
didn't I would return it.

So, my new Sony DVD/CD player in fact sounds the same as my 1991 Kenwood
CD player which cost $150? That's ludicrous. You're saying that no
objective test will allow any listener to decisively and immediately
discriminate among two CD players, from ANY TWO GENERATIONS of design
and construction?

-Sean

Sean Fulop wrote:

I've owned multiple cd-dvd units and they all sound excatly alike
.....if one
didn't I would return it.

So, my new Sony DVD/CD player in fact sounds the same as my 1991 Kenwood
CD player which cost $150? That's ludicrous.

Why is it ludicrous? What is it that the Kenwood (or the Sony, for that
matter) gets wrong? Assuming neither is broken, both have ruler-flat
frequency response, and all known forms of distortion measure well below
audible limits. Now, these facts in and of themselves do not PROVE that the
two are indistinguishable, but once you accept them as true it no longer
seems so ludicrous to suggest that they MIGHT sound the same, does it?

You're saying that no
objective test will allow any listener to decisively and immediately
discriminate among two CD players, from ANY TWO GENERATIONS of design
and construction?

A DAC reconstructs an analog signal. How different are the analog signals
reconstructed by different DACs? My limited knowledge of this area suggests,
not very--even among DACs of very different vintage. Certainly by 1991 all
the early kinks in CD had been worked out.

While they all pre-date the equipment you are talking about, here are three
published takes on the subject:

Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)

Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo
Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988)

Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo
Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990)

I haven't read any of them myself (at least not since they were published),
but I suspect you'll find them food for thought.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE
download! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/

lcw999 wrote:

....snips......

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 06:16:00 +0000, Nousaine wrote:



I've owned multiple cd-dvd units and they all sound excatly alike .....if
one
didn't I would return it.

Perhaps the belief that all cd-dvd units
sound "exactly" alike is as extreme as the
other side of the argument that all are different. The truth
probably lies somewhere in the middle. Current day cd-dvd
units do sound much the same..with very minute differences.

Now comes the labeling of me as an extremist. I didn't say that all dvd players
sound the same. I said that the ones that I've owned all sound the same. And
they do. And they sound no different from the other devices that I own that
will play cds either. And, yes it's quite likely that the next one I buy will
sound like them too. But my observation is surely not an extreme at one end of
a debate; it's an observation that I defy anyone to discredit with any real
evidence.

There are differences...but, so small that one has to become
a nit-picker to define them...to some individuals these
differences are worthy to discuss and are important..I
respect that.. I also have problems with some in defining
these differences. Then applying the variances a value
in my "audio value system"

I'm as "picky" an owner as you'll find. I evalute dozens and sometimes over a
hundred different loudspeaker and complete audio systems every year
with excruciating detail and supremely nit-picking attitude. It's simply not
my fault that nominally competent cd/dvd devices, cabling and power amplifiers
have become commodities. It is my good fortune though.

With subjectivists they all/always sound different; even in the cases where
it
was shown that the proponent was unable to validate the "sound" under
bias-controlled conditions.

Perhaps, a rather extreme statement...I have been in the
midst of many so-called "subjectivist" that could/could not hear
differences in a given listening session...however, no one
in the crowd suggest that..."..you are imagining that..." a bit
of respect was evident.

Respect? You mean the unwillingness to suggest that no two ampliifers could
ever sound the same? Situations where playing the same thing twice will get
reports of big differences? Where listeners "negotiate differences"? Where
silence is interpreted as agreement?

Let me give a good example of this. A few years ago at a CES Press Event a
compnay was demonstrating it's new product with a listening demonstration. To
me the new product sounded exactly like the old one (but even so it was
difficult to make a studied evaluation in a room full of strangers).

After the initial presenation the Host asked the usual question "What do you
think?" There was a deafening silence but after a couple seconds someone said
they thought the new product had some improvements and defined them more
specifically. People in general were just kind of looking around sort of dazed.

The guy sitting next to me leaned over and announced that he "thought there was
an improved XXXX and YYYY on the new stuff." Then I just made something up
and said "well I heard a hooded midrange" on the new product.

About this time the Host announced that he was going to repeat the process with
"better" program material (if he wasn't an idiot why didn't he use his best
stuff first?).

So another presentation ensued. Now several people expressed an amazement at
how much better the new prdoct sounded. My neighbor leaned over and noted that
he did 'hear' that hooded midrange and wanted to know what I thought about XXXX
and YYYY. He seemed more than a little peeved when I refused to acknowledge
that those characteristics were present.

This is typical of how "open" group evaluations are conducted, even in homes.
Usually the Host has an agenda; he usually asks "preference" or "open ended"
questions (never a form to fill out with performance scoring). Conversation
among listeners is encouraged and "negotiation" is evident. When the 'right'
answer isn't obtained the session continues until the proper answer is. Silent
listeners have no opinion and never are counted. "Wrong" answers are either
ignored or otherwise discouraged. Even nominal bias controls such as level
matching is never attended.

Results are often radically misinterpreted. I once attended a demonstration
where the Host was comparing cables that had been "broken-in" with the Cable
Enhancer. There were 3 listeners. On the first pass Listener 1 said he thought
the first cable sounded "better." Listener 2 disagreed. I said they sound
identical to me (and they did.)

So the Host said "Let's Do It Again with BETTER program material" even though I
had implored him to use the MOST sensitive recordings for the inital trial. So
he did it again and now the other 2 listeners had reverse opinions (it seemed
that 'sound the same' was not even a possible response for those guys) and mine
was the same. Soooooo we went in to a 3rd trial. Now both of the listeners
agreed that the 2nd alternative was 'better.' At that point the demonstration
was finished and the other 2 listeners and the Host continued to 'negotiate.'

A couple months later one of the other listeners reported in a popular hi-fi
magazine that he was amazed that this device sould actually change the sound of
a cable. If you were follwoing the data suggested NO such thing.

There were 3 listeners and 3 trials = 9 trials. There were 2 for the 1st and 4
for the 2nd and 2 No Difference. These are results that one would expect when
no difference was actually present, and the bias mechanisms involved were heavy
.....no listener privacy, presentation halted when "right" answers obtained,
patently "wrong" answers (no difference) ignored.

Yet that didn't stop that person from reporting that he "heard" (even though on
at least one trial he reported that the un-broken in cable sounded better)
differences.

These are the circumstances of "open" group settings. I've seen it happen in
homes, at Salons, at CES, at AES and reported in high-end magazines.

Respect for "sound" has nothing to do with it. Group Dynamics and Presentation
methods and analysis help form "acceptable" results that fit the bias held by
the Host or other interested parties.

In the sessions some of those
were of the Engineering fraternity...some also found the
differences not significant..others heard them. Everyone
had some wine, talked about systems..went home.
And the Universe went on its merry way!!

Yes and you had no analyzable or replicable results that fit your expectations
but may not have had anything to do with the sound being delivered.

...And these groups will continue to enjoy good music
and fine systems..using these crude methods!

Of course. They fit expectations whether based on sound quality or not.


Also, this is getting a bit thick to suggest that a given
listening "criteria" must be in place to "cleanse" the
unwashed "subjectivist" of..drat!..must I say it? "BIAS".
Oh Gosh! Am I a better person now? I've said it!

Don't take the term 'bias' so personally. It's well known that humans ALL have
built-in acoustical bias mechanisms. Bias control is meant to guard from those
common to all humans; it's fortunate that it also guards against
person-specific bias.

This horse has been beat to death...perhaps, another
tack will work better!

Actually it hasn't been beaten to death because it will not go away just
because you or I declare it "over." Subjectivists won't let it 'die' away
because they will continue to believe foreever hoping that some new measurement
or listening technique will confirm the ability to "hear" inaudible differences
:-)

The seriousness of all this gets
"humorous" at times! Be happy in your work!

Sean Fulop wrote:

I've owned multiple cd-dvd units and they all sound excatly alike .....if
one
didn't I would return it.

So, my new Sony DVD/CD player in fact sounds the same as my 1991 Kenwood
CD player which cost $150?

That would be what controlled listening tests would tell us. If you have some
other evidence I'd like to hear about it. A PSACS controlled listening test in
the mid-90s did show that in a controlled test that one of 10 listeners was
able to reliably identify a 14-bit single DAC Phillips original from a late
model Sony ES machine. Although, this single subject was enough to make the
total experiment positive, it's important to note that he was the only one to
get 9/10 or better so even then the differences were pretty subtle.

That's ludicrous. You're saying that no
objective test will allow any listener to decisively and immediately
discriminate among two CD players, from ANY TWO GENERATIONS of design
and construction?

So let's not extrapolate to extremes. But, yes, the 2 DVD-A machines I
currently own (not counting the 1 in for evaluation, which sounds like the
others) and the 4 cd-only devices and the 3 players I used to own all sound
exactly alike. As I said earlier if any one of then sounded different it would
be history.

And the word "ludicrous" doesn't fit my situation. I evaluate audio products
professionally, have an incredibly good reference system and a listening
technique (Listening Technolgy) designed to super-nit-pick over a hundred
products and systems every year.

What is "ludicrous" is the idea that no two audio products can ever sound the
same and that with modern electronic audio products performance is not a
commodity.

Gordon Tanner wrote in message news:0Ns7c.57662$SR1.103090@attbi_s04...
Except for my 4 year old CD player, I bought my system back in '92. Here's
what I've got:

Yamaha RX-V850 Pro-Logic receiver (100 watts each on front channels, 30
watts each on rear channels)
Rotel RCD-951 CD player
Yamaha KX-330 cassette deck
Quasar 27" stereo TV
Quasar stereo VCR
JBL LX44s for front speakers, LX300s for rear speakers, modified SC-305 for
center speaker
I don't have a subwoofer because I get excellent bottom end with my system
the way it is.

I want to upgrade my cables. I've still got the Original Monster Cable
speaker cable that I bought 12 years ago, which, although not considered
high end, is still a good, solid, dependable, sturdy, shielded 12 gauge
speaker cable. I've got two choices. I can:

A) Keep my Original Monster Cable and upgrade my interconnects to match it's
quality. The interconnects would be the Audio Interlink 400 Mk.2 and the
Video Interlink 3. Or

B) Get rid of my Original Monster Cable and go top-of-the-line all around
with Monster's best quality Z series speaker and interconnect cable. This
option would obviously cost me a lot more money than option A.

As far as a line conditioner is concerned, which Monster product would be
best for my system?

I know there're lots of other excellent brands out there. The reason I'm
going with Monster is because I know someone who works for a Monster dealer
and can get me 60% off retail prices. Comments and suggestions regarding all
this? Don't bother responding to this, Sullivan. I already know what you
think.

I think that in a blind test almost no one would be able to tell the
difference between a really expensive cable and a radio shack cable.
Is there a difference? Yes and very slight, and detectable with test
equipment. Can I hear the difference? Yes and its a very small
one. Can I hear higher than 20khz? No question! Would I pay hundreds
for that very slight difference???

Bob Marcus wrote:
Sean Fulop wrote:

I've owned multiple cd-dvd units and they all sound excatly alike
.....if one
didn't I would return it.

So, my new Sony DVD/CD player in fact sounds the same as my 1991 Kenwood
CD player which cost $150? That's ludicrous.

Why is it ludicrous?

What's interesting to me is what this says about audiophile culture.
Statements that are utterly unobjectionable from a scientific/engineering
standpoint flabbergast some audiophiles almost to the point of
outrage, or at the very least, pointing and jeering. Such
behavior is a sign of intense in-group reinforcement of
dubious belief so that is attains the status of 'common sense'
with little outside input, much less good reality-testing.
'Authorities' like TAS and Stereophile, reinforce, every month,
the idea that 'of course' a $150 digital player
will sound different from a $1500 DVD/CD player, and
this is the result.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Sean Fulop wrote:
So, my new Sony DVD/CD player in fact sounds the same as my 1991 Kenwood
CD player which cost $150? That's ludicrous.


Bob Marcus wrote:
Why is it ludicrous?


Steven Sullivan wrote:
What's interesting to me is what this says about audiophile culture.
Statements that are utterly unobjectionable from a scientific/engineering
standpoint flabbergast some audiophiles almost to the point of
outrage, or at the very least, pointing and jeering.


Which statements are those which are "uttery unobjectionable from a
scientific/engineering standpoint"? That two DVD/CD players can sound
different?

Such
behavior is a sign of intense in-group reinforcement of
dubious belief so that is attains the status of 'common sense'
with little outside input, much less good reality-testing.
'Authorities' like TAS and Stereophile, reinforce, every month,
the idea that 'of course' a $150 digital player
will sound different from a $1500 DVD/CD player, and
this is the result.


This just shows why more audiophiles should read publications like The Audio
Critic which reinforce the "fact" that your inexpensive equipment sounds just
as good - if not better- than the more expensive stuff, so you really are
superior to those foolish High End audiophiles who throw their money away.
Talk about "intense in-group reinforcement of dubious belief". Perhaps you're
just in the wrong group...:-)
Regards,
Mike

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Bob Marcus wrote:
Sean Fulop wrote:

I've owned multiple cd-dvd units and they all sound excatly alike
.....if one
didn't I would return it.

So, my new Sony DVD/CD player in fact sounds the same as my 1991 Kenwood
CD player which cost $150? That's ludicrous.

Why is it ludicrous?

What's interesting to me is what this says about audiophile culture.
Statements that are utterly unobjectionable from a scientific/engineering
standpoint flabbergast some audiophiles almost to the point of
outrage, or at the very least, pointing and jeering. Such
behavior is a sign of intense in-group reinforcement of
dubious belief so that is attains the status of 'common sense'
with little outside input, much less good reality-testing.
'Authorities' like TAS and Stereophile, reinforce, every month,
the idea that 'of course' a $150 digital player
will sound different from a $1500 DVD/CD player, and
this is the result.


This could be due to one's experience with vinyl reproduction equipment.
My experience is that it is very hard to find two vinyl rigs (cartridge,
tone-arm, turntable, preamp, and the physical LP's) that sound the same.
Hence, it is difficult, if not impossible, for vinylists to accept that
CD players, from different generations and price ranges, can possibly
sound the same.

Which brings up an interesting question. If vinyl rigs sound noticeably
different, how can they be accurate? How can they (maybe with the
exception of one system) even be musically (that is the word that
replaces objectively) accurate? You are left with the inevitable
conclusion that musical accuracy has no universal standards.

That's ludicrous.


Why is it ludicrous?


What's interesting to me is what this says about audiophile culture.
Statements that are utterly unobjectionable from a scientific/engineering
standpoint flabbergast some audiophiles almost to the point of
outrage, or at the very least, pointing and jeering.

You're right, I should have been more clear. What I meant was, I've
heard the differences between my Marantz CD player and the old Kenwood,
and between the new Sony and the Marantz, and the differences are large.
There doesn't "seem to be" a difference, there is not a subtle
difference, there is a big difference, especially in the latter case.
That's why I said that the notion they are really the same is
"ludicrous," not because of some preconception that more expensive or
newer units should sound better.

However, it is possible that my perception of a huge difference is
itself the result of bias, which, while I admit hasn't been disproven,
is in my mind so remote a possibility that I call the idea "ludicrous."
All the while admitting the possiblity that this "ludicrous" notion is
nonetheless true.

-Sean

That would be what controlled listening tests would tell us. If you have some
other evidence I'd like to hear about it.

The only evidence I need are my feelings that my new CD player sounds
dramatically better than the older ones. And that the previous one
sounded dramatically better than the one before that. Maybe this is all
the result of bias, but I don't care. It's "bias" that tells me I
prefer Porsches to Hondas, and that's fine too, I'm not bound by an
ethical code to make only rational decisions.

However, I still have reason to believe that my CD-player situation is
different from the scenarios you are describing.
All the kinds of "test" situations that you are so successfully
debunking in your posts reportedly involve listeners that are, at best,
having a hard time discerning any difference even when they want to, or
have been biased. The differences I've noted among my various
generations of CD players are, by contrast, very large and immediately
noticable on any program material. That's why I have a hard time
believing that "bias" would explain it all, but I have to admit it is
possible (I am, after all, a scientist by profession).

-Sean

If vinyl rigs sound noticeably different, how can they be accurate?
How can they (maybe with the exception of one system) even be
musically (that is the word that replaces objectively) accurate? You
are left with the inevitable conclusion that musical accuracy has no
universal standards.

To this, one might say, *duh*.

Of course no self-respecting record nut would claim that records are
accurate, or even that this, in the vinyl world, has any meaning.
Playing vinyl and loving the sound is about an experience, its not about
an approach to accuracy. That's like saying that driving a sports car
is fun because it's "accurate." There's no meaning to a notion of an
"accurately" driving sports car, and that's the point. It's a matter of
taste and pleasant experience, which sports car is your favorite, or
even whether you enjoy sports cars at all.

-Sean

Sean Fulop wrote:
If vinyl rigs sound noticeably different, how can they be accurate?
How can they (maybe with the exception of one system) even be
musically (that is the word that replaces objectively) accurate? You
are left with the inevitable conclusion that musical accuracy has no
universal standards.

To this, one might say, *duh*.

Of course no self-respecting record nut would claim that records are
accurate,
or even that this, in the vinyl world, has any meaning.

Then you haven't played int eh audiophile sandbox very long.

When preseed, vinylphiles will concede that their rigs aren't
*measurably* as accurate as other technology, but they will swear
up and down that they more accurately convey the feel of
live music. I've seen it happen.

Playing vinyl and loving the sound is about an experience, its not about
an approach to accuracy. That's like saying that driving a sports car
is fun because it's "accurate."

The car/audio analogy is also not at all new, and has also
been shredded dozens of times.

Like what you like; but when you depart from talking about how 'fun'
your new CD player is, into talking abotu how *different* it *sounds* from
your old one, you are in the realm of the verifiable. As a scientist,
you must realize that.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Sean Fulop wrote:
That's ludicrous.


Why is it ludicrous?


What's interesting to me is what this says about audiophile culture.
Statements that are utterly unobjectionable from a scientific/engineering
standpoint flabbergast some audiophiles almost to the point of
outrage, or at the very least, pointing and jeering.

You're right, I should have been more clear. What I meant was, I've
heard the differences between my Marantz CD player and the old Kenwood,
and between the new Sony and the Marantz, and the differences are large.
There doesn't "seem to be" a difference, there is not a subtle
difference, there is a big difference, especially in the latter case.


Ceratinly that's possible...even as simple a thing as output level
variance can yield a large subjective difference in quality.
But it's also possible that you are imagining it.

That's why I said that the notion they are really the same is
"ludicrous," not because of some preconception that more expensive or
newer units should sound better.

Since people can, with little difficulty,
be convinced there are big, unsubtle audible differences
between patently identical sources, and since there is no *inherent*
reason why two CD players *should* display big, unsubtle audible
difference, it would be unreasonable to rule out the possibility that
there are in fact no audible differences.


However, it is possible that my perception of a huge difference is
itself the result of bias, which, while I admit hasn't been disproven,
is in my mind so remote a possibility that I call the idea "ludicrous."
All the while admitting the possiblity that this "ludicrous" notion is
nonetheless true.

But there are more levels to bias than that.
Let's say there *are* real audible differences...big ones, even. One
quesiton would be, do you perceive the pricer one to be better because
of the acutal sound, or does knowing that you paid more for it,
bias your to like its sound more?



--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Sean Fulop wrote:
If vinyl rigs sound noticeably different, how can they be accurate?
How can they (maybe with the exception of one system) even be
musically (that is the word that replaces objectively) accurate? You
are left with the inevitable conclusion that musical accuracy has no
universal standards.

To this, one might say, *duh*.

Of course no self-respecting record nut would claim that records are
accurate, or even that this, in the vinyl world, has any meaning.
Playing vinyl and loving the sound is about an experience, its not about
an approach to accuracy.

I'm glad you feel this way, and you know what, I agree with you there.
But reading in these newsgroups, you got the impression that the
vinylists believe they are after accuracy. They love to use the word
musical to qualify accuracy. Or they say accuracy to their memory of
live music.

If accuracy standards can vary significantly, one has to wonder how
important musical accuracy is when one reads reviews or anecdotes.
Someone's idea of musical accuracy may sound terrible to you.

If vinylists agree that they are after a certain pleasant sound, and are
willing to state that the sound is not necessary accurate, there will be
a lot fewer debates.

That's like saying that driving a sports car
is fun because it's "accurate." There's no meaning to a notion of an
"accurately" driving sports car, and that's the point. It's a matter of
taste and pleasant experience, which sports car is your favorite, or
even whether you enjoy sports cars at all.

In that case, you are an enlightened vinylist.


-Sean

More to the point, the "debate" is not between "people who think
everything sounds different" and "people who think everything sounds
the same." It is between people who think that the present state of
scientific knowledge is sufficient to explain any differences that
can be heard, and those who believe that there are mysteries still to
be probed.

Really? People who think the present state of science is sufficient to
explain everything have always been around, and they've always been
wrong. So, this debate is pretty well moot.

But it seemed to me that there is a debate about whether "people can
hear differences" in general among different components. It is a debate
with powerful implications, because there is one side who believes that
it is possible to objectively demonstrate what a person "is able" to
tell apart or express a "legitimate" preference for. This is, at best,
a circular claim. It essentially says that "using scientific
methodology, I can prove just exactly what you are able to tell apart,
according to my methodology."

Now, the related issue that I was asking about is really, when is there
a large (massive) majority of listeners who say "I can hear a
difference," not necessarily according to a scientific methodology, and
what are the factors and thresholds leading to this situation.

Some of the unscientific listening scenarios people have been describing
seem divided into at least two distinct kinds. 1) Situations in which a
large difference is easily and immediately heard, though the possbility
that this perception is the result of bias hasn't been eliminated.
2) Situations involving a number of people who say they don't hear a
difference, and some others who hem, haw, and negotiate over
differences, from which point a sane person might conclude that the
people claiming to hear differences are either imagining them or are
lying because they don't wish to say there is no difference.

Now, the question of whether scenario 1 can be "solved" by ANY
scientific methodology is one that has nothing more than a circular answer.
You have to accept that the methodology in fact probes the precise
perceptual phenomenon you wish to probe, in advance of accepting the
results of tests performed according to the methodology.

Situation 2 seems more simple to resolve, since no participant can
arrive at any consistent answer even under overt biases.
This seems to be the situation at play with cables and interconnects,
more often than not.

Though I have myself been involved in a situation of the first kind,
involving an "obvious" difference, between two RCA interconnects. It
was suggested afterward that the "cheap" interconnect was in fact
defective in some way, so poorly did it sound.

-Sean

When preseed, vinylphiles will concede that their rigs aren't
*measurably* as accurate as other technology, but they will swear
up and down that they more accurately convey the feel of
live music. I've seen it happen.


Yes, well, when I was a boy cruising hi-fi stores, I got this attitude
from the salesmen, which I of course swallowed. When I grew up and
learned a few things, particularly about the superior accuracy of CD, it
became apparent to me that my hearing must not really be responding to
accuracy, and that enjoyable sound was not well-correlated with accurate
sound.

but when you depart from talking about how 'fun'
your new CD player is, into talking abotu how *different* it *sounds* from
your old one, you are in the realm of the verifiable. As a scientist,
you must realize that.

Well, sure. But as an "enlightened" scientist, I also realize that
there are numerous phenomena in this world that we do not completely
grasp scientifically. I'm just now researching, for instance, a new
approach to spectral analysis that essentially says that the good old
"Fourier spectrum" doesn't tell us anything too "accurate" in terms of
how our ears actually hear sound. So, there are numerous aural
phenomena that are, it seems, poorly correlated with anything measurable
in the sound (like, we really don't know what to measure to serve as an
index of these phenomena). One of these is, it seems, the phenomenon of
"soundstaging" or the apparent separation of distinct recorded sounds in
the soundfield between the speakers. Two components may have
"obviously" different soundstages, in terms of one sounding congested
and the other open or well-separated, but I'm not sure this will be
well-measured or even discernible at all by, say, a Fourier spectrum of
a pink noise CD (one measurement technique suggested to me by a fellow
contributor here). The differences I detected quite clearly among my
various generations of CD players (and, yes, in one case even among two
different RCA interconnects used to hook one of them up) were not in the
realm of frequency response (since of course that's the same), but
rather in the soundstaging. The different generations of CD players
I've had have gone from extremely congested to less congested to not
congested, finally, in the case of my new Sony. I don't know how to
scientifically measure the aural phenomenon of "congested" stereo sound
versus "uncongested" stereo sound, but I also know that vinyl excels at
the latter even on quite modest rigs. This might have something to do
with the intermodulation distortion that is the result of having one
stylus picking up sum and difference representations of both left and
right channels---they've become physically coupled in the cartridge,
which may oddly enough produce an enhanced "stereo image" belying the
fact that the actual channel separation is only about 30 dB to the CDs 90!

But I digress.

-Sean

Sean Fulop wrote:

More to the point, the "debate" is not between "people who think
everything sounds different" and "people who think everything sounds
the same." It is between people who think that the present state of
scientific knowledge is sufficient to explain any differences that
can be heard, and those who believe that there are mysteries still to
be probed.

Really? People who think the present state of science is sufficient to
explain everything have always been around, and they've always been
wrong.

Read what I said. I didn't say, "explain everything." I said, "explain any
differences that can be heard." I'll stand by that. If you say you perceive
a difference between two CD players, I (or at least someone a little more
competent technically than I) can find a scientifically valid explanation
for that perception. The explanation may or may not involve perceptual bias,
but it will be a scientifically valid explanation.

So, this debate is pretty well moot.

Don't we wish.

But it seemed to me that there is a debate about whether "people can
hear differences" in general among different components. It is a debate
with powerful implications, because there is one side who believes that
it is possible to objectively demonstrate what a person "is able" to
tell apart or express a "legitimate" preference for. This is, at best,
a circular claim. It essentially says that "using scientific
methodology, I can prove just exactly what you are able to tell apart,
according to my methodology."

Except that it isn't just "my methodology." It's a methodology that's been
tested and validated as a means of determining audible differences, by
people who are competent to do so (and challenged by people who are not so
competent). That's why it's not circular.

Now, the related issue that I was asking about is really, when is there
a large (massive) majority of listeners who say "I can hear a
difference," not necessarily according to a scientific methodology, and
what are the factors and thresholds leading to this situation.

I'm sorry, but I do not understand this sentence.

Some of the unscientific listening scenarios people have been describing
seem divided into at least two distinct kinds. 1) Situations in which a
large difference is easily and immediately heard, though the possbility
that this perception is the result of bias hasn't been eliminated.
2) Situations involving a number of people who say they don't hear a
difference, and some others who hem, haw, and negotiate over
differences, from which point a sane person might conclude that the
people claiming to hear differences are either imagining them or are
lying because they don't wish to say there is no difference.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see the distinction you are making here. In either
case, it's possible that perceptual bias is at play. In either case, it's
also possible that there is a electrical explanation for the perception of
difference.

Now, the question of whether scenario 1 can be "solved" by ANY
scientific methodology is one that has nothing more than a circular answer.

No, it's not, for the reason I noted above.

You have to accept that the methodology in fact probes the precise
perceptual phenomenon you wish to probe, in advance of accepting the
results of tests performed according to the methodology.

Well, sure, if you don't accept the methods that biologists use to build the
case for the theory of evolution, then you probably aren't going to accept
the theory of evolution. But that's not what goes on in these "debates."
What goes on in these "debates" is that people start from the assumption
that evolution is wrong, and then look for reasons not to accept the
methodology that shows otherwise. Alas, the reasons they offer are
empirically weak.

So creationists reject the way biologists read the fossil record, and
subjectivists reject the way perceptual psychologists determine audibility.
That's why I think this is really a "debate" between science and
pseudoscience.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
All the action. All the drama. Get NCAA hoops coverage at MSN Sports by
ESPN. http://msn.espn.go.com/index.html?partnersite=espn

Sean Fulop wrote:
More to the point, the "debate" is not between "people who think
everything sounds different" and "people who think everything sounds
the same." It is between people who think that the present state of
scientific knowledge is sufficient to explain any differences that
can be heard, and those who believe that there are mysteries still to
be probed.

Really? People who think the present state of science is sufficient to
explain everything have always been around, and they've always been
wrong. So, this debate is pretty well moot.


Only if you grossly misrepresent it, as you have just done. Saying that
science can presently explain hearable differences is NOT the same
as saying that 'everything' is explained by the present state of
scientific knowledge.

But it seemed to me that there is a debate about whether "people can
hear differences" in general among different components. It is a debate
with powerful implications, because there is one side who believes that
it is possible to objectively demonstrate what a person "is able" to
tell apart or express a "legitimate" preference for. This is, at best,
a circular claim. It essentially says that "using scientific
methodology, I can prove just exactly what you are able to tell apart,
according to my methodology."

If your are a scientist, I can't understand why you're using the terms
you're using, like 'exactly'. You shoudl know that science is about
likelihoods.

Now, the related issue that I was asking about is really, when is there
a large (massive) majority of listeners who say "I can hear a
difference," not necessarily according to a scientific methodology, and
what are the factors and thresholds leading to this situation.

The literature on perceptual psychology, psychoacoustics, and
errors in reasoning, is not small. Your answers lie there.



--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

"Sean Fulop" wrote in message
...
That would be what controlled listening tests would tell us. If
you have some
other evidence I'd like to hear about it.

The only evidence I need are my feelings that my new CD player
sounds
dramatically better than the older ones. And that the previous one
sounded dramatically better than the one before that. Maybe this is
all
the result of bias, but I don't care. It's "bias" that tells me I
prefer Porsches to Hondas, and that's fine too, I'm not bound by an
ethical code to make only rational decisions.

However, I still have reason to believe that my CD-player situation
is
different from the scenarios you are describing.
All the kinds of "test" situations that you are so successfully
debunking in your posts reportedly involve listeners that are, at
best,
having a hard time discerning any difference even when they want to,
or
have been biased. The differences I've noted among my various
generations of CD players are, by contrast, very large and
immediately
noticable on any program material. That's why I have a hard time
believing that "bias" would explain it all, but I have to admit it
is
possible (I am, after all, a scientist by profession).

A scientist, maybe, but apparently not a particularly curious one. On
the rare occasions when I've heard degradation that, scientifically
speaking, shouldn't exist, I've been unable to rest until I verified
what I heard by blind testing. The difficulty of running such a test
is insignificant alongside the difficultly of accepting a conclusion
that makes no scientific sense.

Norm Strong

In article ,
Sean Fulop wrote:

That would be what controlled listening tests would tell us. If you have
some
other evidence I'd like to hear about it.

The only evidence I need are my feelings that my new CD player sounds
dramatically better than the older ones.

Like Tom said, a "dramatic" difference between CD players which persists
in the face of controlled testing means something was broken or very
poorly designed.

It's not impossible to screw up digital audio. For example, that very
expensive "high end" CD player which, despite the cost, leaves off the
reconstruction filter.

But it's also not that hard to get digital audio right, especially in
this day and age where component integration is very high, leaving fewer
and fewer design choices to people who potentially don't know how to do
things right.

And that the previous one
sounded dramatically better than the one before that. Maybe this is all
the result of bias, but I don't care. It's "bias" that tells me I
prefer Porsches to Hondas, and that's fine too, I'm not bound by an
ethical code to make only rational decisions.

Don't you have any sense of obligation to yourself? Myself, I like to
know when my biases are based on falsehoods so that I can try to modify
or eliminate them. Sure, there are many cases where I just shrug my
shoulders and say "whatever". But when my money, time, or sense of
ethics are on the line...

What's more, I'm astounded that a self-described scientist could be so
blithely dismissive. Learning more about reality by designing and
carrying out rigorous tests is essential to science, and a passion for
doing so essential to scientists. You're turning your nose up at the
results of scientific investigation of audio reproduction, apparently
for no reason better than that you're comfortable with your illusions.
I can understand that in people without any scientific background. I
find it incomprehensible in people with.

However, I still have reason to believe that my CD-player situation is
different from the scenarios you are describing.
All the kinds of "test" situations that you are so successfully
debunking in your posts reportedly involve listeners that are, at best,
having a hard time discerning any difference even when they want to, or
have been biased.

What of the cases where Tom tested listeners who heard dramatic
differences similar in technical plausibility (amplifier sound) to those
you're currently talking about (CD player sound)? Those listeners never
had a hard time discerning differences, until the opportunity for bias
was removed that is. I think you're talking yourself into believing the
evidence is not as strong as it is.

The differences I've noted among my various
generations of CD players are, by contrast, very large and immediately
noticable on any program material.

Did you ever take the step of ensuring that output levels from the CD
players were the same? It's known that listeners usually express a
preference for the louder of two alternatives. (In other words
listeners perceive a quality difference rather than a volume difference,
so long as the volume difference is not too large.)

That's why I have a hard time
believing that "bias" would explain it all, but I have to admit it is
possible (I am, after all, a scientist by profession).

It's more than possible, it's actually very likely given the sum total
of scientific and engineering knowledge about the field of audio
reproduction.

--
Tim

"Sean Fulop" wrote in message
news:Xyw8c.3513$JO3.10706@attbi_s04...
When preseed, vinylphiles will concede that their rigs aren't
*measurably* as accurate as other technology, but they will swear
up and down that they more accurately convey the feel of
live music. I've seen it happen.


Yes, well, when I was a boy cruising hi-fi stores, I got this attitude
from the salesmen, which I of course swallowed. When I grew up and
learned a few things, particularly about the superior accuracy of CD, it
became apparent to me that my hearing must not really be responding to
accuracy, and that enjoyable sound was not well-correlated with accurate
sound.

but when you depart from talking about how 'fun'
your new CD player is, into talking abotu how *different* it *sounds*
from
your old one, you are in the realm of the verifiable. As a scientist,
you must realize that.

Well, sure. But as an "enlightened" scientist, I also realize that
there are numerous phenomena in this world that we do not completely
grasp scientifically. I'm just now researching, for instance, a new
approach to spectral analysis that essentially says that the good old
"Fourier spectrum" doesn't tell us anything too "accurate" in terms of
how our ears actually hear sound. So, there are numerous aural
phenomena that are, it seems, poorly correlated with anything measurable
in the sound (like, we really don't know what to measure to serve as an
index of these phenomena). One of these is, it seems, the phenomenon of
"soundstaging" or the apparent separation of distinct recorded sounds in
the soundfield between the speakers. Two components may have
"obviously" different soundstages, in terms of one sounding congested
and the other open or well-separated, but I'm not sure this will be
well-measured or even discernible at all by, say, a Fourier spectrum of
a pink noise CD (one measurement technique suggested to me by a fellow
contributor here). The differences I detected quite clearly among my
various generations of CD players (and, yes, in one case even among two
different RCA interconnects used to hook one of them up) were not in the
realm of frequency response (since of course that's the same), but
rather in the soundstaging. The different generations of CD players
I've had have gone from extremely congested to less congested to not
congested, finally, in the case of my new Sony. I don't know how to
scientifically measure the aural phenomenon of "congested" stereo sound
versus "uncongested" stereo sound, but I also know that vinyl excels at
the latter even on quite modest rigs. This might have something to do
with the intermodulation distortion that is the result of having one
stylus picking up sum and difference representations of both left and
right channels---they've become physically coupled in the cartridge,
which may oddly enough produce an enhanced "stereo image" belying the
fact that the actual channel separation is only about 30 dB to the CDs 90!


More to the scientific side of your research, how have you verified the
existence of the phenomena that you are trying to measure and quantify?

On 24 Mar 2004 22:05:28 GMT, Sean Fulop wrote:

If vinyl rigs sound noticeably different, how can they be accurate?
How can they (maybe with the exception of one system) even be
musically (that is the word that replaces objectively) accurate? You
are left with the inevitable conclusion that musical accuracy has no
universal standards.

To this, one might say, *duh*.

Of course no self-respecting record nut would claim that records are
accurate, or even that this, in the vinyl world, has any meaning.
Playing vinyl and loving the sound is about an experience, its not about
an approach to accuracy.

Interesting. That's not what we were all saying before 1983, when the
concept of 'high fidelity', and 'the closest approach to the original
sound' most certainly did have meaning to most audiophiles. Indeed,
the subjectivists Bible publication, The Absolute Sound, refers
*exactly* to that ideal of fidelity to the live performance.

Of course, now that we actually *have* a high fidelity source, the
vinylphiles are retreating to the safer ground of 'musical
experience'.

That's like saying that driving a sports car
is fun because it's "accurate." There's no meaning to a notion of an
"accurately" driving sports car, and that's the point.

Clearly, you are not a driver. There is *every* notion of placing your
car accurately on the apex of a curve, and that's the point.

It's a matter of
taste and pleasant experience, which sports car is your favorite, or
even whether you enjoy sports cars at all.

Quite so, so why is it that vinylphiles keep insisting that their
Cavaliers can outcorner the Corvette of CD?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Sean Fulop wrote:

snip

Two components may have
"obviously" different soundstages, in terms of one sounding congested
and the other open or well-separated, but I'm not sure this will be
well-measured or even discernible at all by, say, a Fourier spectrum of
a pink noise CD (one measurement technique suggested to me by a fellow
contributor here).

Pink Noise is poor for testing imaging, since the two channels are
totally uncorrelated. There are test discs with well-recorded imaging
tests for this purpose.

The differences I detected quite clearly among my
various generations of CD players (and, yes, in one case even among two
different RCA interconnects used to hook one of them up) were not in the
realm of frequency response (since of course that's the same), but
rather in the soundstaging. The different generations of CD players
I've had have gone from extremely congested to less congested to not
congested, finally, in the case of my new Sony.

You should definitely try detecting this type of differences using a
level-matched, bias-controlled test. Carefully level-match the CD
players with a test disc and ask a friend to do the switching for you.
You will be amazed how hard it is to tell them apart.

It is also amazing how a small level difference, maybe a couple of dB,
results in very different perceived sound quality, including imaging.

I don't know how to
scientifically measure the aural phenomenon of "congested" stereo sound
versus "uncongested" stereo sound, but I also know that vinyl excels at
the latter even on quite modest rigs. This might have something to do
with the intermodulation distortion that is the result of having one
stylus picking up sum and difference representations of both left and
right channels---they've become physically coupled in the cartridge,
which may oddly enough produce an enhanced "stereo image" belying the
fact that the actual channel separation is only about 30 dB to the CDs 90!

So you like euphonic distortion.


But I digress.

-Sean

On 24 Mar 2004 18:43:46 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:

Sean Fulop wrote:
So, my new Sony DVD/CD player in fact sounds the same as my 1991 Kenwood
CD player which cost $150? That's ludicrous.

Bob Marcus wrote:
Why is it ludicrous?

Steven Sullivan wrote:
What's interesting to me is what this says about audiophile culture.
Statements that are utterly unobjectionable from a scientific/engineering
standpoint flabbergast some audiophiles almost to the point of
outrage, or at the very least, pointing and jeering.

Which statements are those which are "uttery unobjectionable from a
scientific/engineering standpoint"? That two DVD/CD players can sound
different?

No, that they are very likely to sound the same.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

A scientist, maybe, but apparently not a particularly curious one. On
the rare occasions when I've heard degradation that, scientifically
speaking, shouldn't exist, I've been unable to rest until I verified
what I heard by blind testing.

I sleep just fine, even in the face of possibly having chosen a favorite
CD player for less-than-scientific reasons. And even in spite of
negative conclusions about my "curiosity". The fact is, I didn't
realize until these few days that all CD players were scientifically
supposed to sound the same. I thought they each involved possibly
different engineering principles (especially when separated by many
years) and different output circuitry and so forth. So, I didn't know
until now that my judgements are "scientifically" suspect. But, I doubt
I'll bother to try and validate them, since I'm just as happy with the
situation as it stands. I reserve my curiosity (or at least, the energy
expenditure it leads to) for subjects that I'm able to contribute top
notch research in and in which I have a personal research agenda---and
audio perception ain't it.

-Sean