| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
... Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:5hbqc.16235$qA.2006344@attbi_s51... Bromo wrote: On 5/13/04 3:06 PM, in article BGPoc.42335$z06.6207688@attbi_s01, "chung" wrote: You are not answering my question. You said that some things can never be proven. My question was, and is, do you believe that we can ever prove that magic green CD markers make a difference. Sure you can! Next time you use them, you will be able to prove that they make the edge of your CD turn GREEN! Seriously, though, the right question would be WHAT KIND of difference would they make, and how could one measure it? The right quesiton is , what sort of evidence would you accept as proof that green makers do NOT make an audible difference? Oscilloscope traces of pre- and post-treated discs. You complicate the issue. We are talking about digital text files here and they can be compared very easily for differences. Alan. |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
"S888Wheel" wrote in message news:8CMqc.116679
What is near infra red? I say it's red. Unless we are talking about wave lengths that are longer than infra red. But we are not are we? Is there another color between red and infra red? I don't know of one. "The Rays are not Coloured". Newton's, "Opticks". The visual system, except in very special situations, perceives nothing beyond 700nm. It would be very interesting to explore the differences between perception and measurements in the visual and aural fields. Alan |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
S888Wheel wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton At the very small size of red wavelengths, there are certainly possibilities that you know nothing about. Firstly, a CD replay laser is not red, it's in the near infra-red. What is near infra red? I say it's red. Unless we are talking about wave lengths that are longer than infra red. But we are not are we? Is there another color between red and infra red? I don't know of one. If you don't know, then Google is your friend. Look he http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/Outreach...irregions.html There are even journals and publications on near-infrared: http://www.nirpublications.com/index.html |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
"Alan Murphy" wrote in message news:ltPqc.35241$6f5.3535603@attbi_s54...
Oscilloscope traces of pre- and post-treated discs. You complicate the issue. We are talking about digital text files here and they can be compared very easily for differences. Oscilloscope traces of the playback signals of pre- and post-treated discs. |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
From: chung
Date: 5/19/2004 4:14 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Stewart Pinkerton At the very small size of red wavelengths, there are certainly possibilities that you know nothing about. Firstly, a CD replay laser is not red, it's in the near infra-red. What is near infra red? I say it's red. Unless we are talking about wave lengths that are longer than infra red. But we are not are we? Is there another color between red and infra red? I don't know of one. If you don't know, then Google is your friend. Look he http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/Outreach...irregions.html There are even journals and publications on near-infrared: http://www.nirpublications.com/index.html Thank you. I didn't know that infra red was divided into three groups one being called near infra red. I was taking it literally. My mistake. Thanks for the links. |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
On Wed, 19 May 2004 17:14:44 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 5/19/2004 9:41 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 67Mqc.77942$536.12832189@attbi_s03 On 18 May 2004 23:28:42 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Jwqqc.21372$qA.2422963@attbi_s51... On 17 May 2004 23:02:47 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Hc5qc.68156$z06.9029126@attbi_s01... I have no idea. All I know is that I am CERTAIN that SOME CD's revealed less hiss. Your certainty is noted - indeed it is becoming legendary! OTOH, there is no possible mechanism by which this can have occurred in the real physical world. That you are aware of. I am very well aware of how CDs are read, and green pens are simply not capable of affecting this. This ain't rocket science! No, it's optical science. Light moves in strange ways. No, it moves in *extremely* predictable ways, nothing at all strange about it. Indeed, much of Einsteinian physics is based on very precise observations of light doing highly predictable things. I think it is fair to say it moves in strange ways that are predictable. Do you not find quantum effects wave interference patterns forming even when photons are released individually with the double slit barrier to be at least a little bit strange? Did you not find it a little bit strange the simply by monitoring the slits without impeding the path of the photons that the wave interference patterns would break down? I find it charming, not strange, and wavicles is fun! Seriously though, the gross effects at CD-reading intensities are totally predictable, despite the interesting things that happen at the single-photon level. At the very small size of red wavelengths, there are certainly possibilities that you know nothing about. Firstly, a CD replay laser is not red, it's in the near infra-red. What is near infra red? I say it's red. Near infra-red is *just* outside the range of human perception - as opposed to far infra-red, which is only perceived as heat. Infra-red covers several decades! 780nm is right on the limit of human perception, which is defined as the band from 700 to 780nm in all the standard texts, so I won't argue excessively on this point. Unless we are talking about wave lengths that are longer than infra red. But we are not are we? Is there another color between red and infra red? I don't know of one. Near and far infra-red are commonly used terms. The ESA Infra-red Space Observatory (ISO), for instance, operates from 2.5 to 240 microns wavelengths, all of which are counted as infra-red, but the shortest of which is 3 times longer than CD laser light. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
|
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Dd4rc.85435$xw3.4772183@attbi_s04...
Oscilloscope traces of the playback signals of pre- and post-treated discs. That is a *much* less sensitive test than a digital file compare. How would such a file comparison work? |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 5/20/2004 8:33 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: ud4rc.12079$zw.7356@attbi_s01 On Wed, 19 May 2004 17:14:44 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 5/19/2004 9:41 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 67Mqc.77942$536.12832189@attbi_s03 On 18 May 2004 23:28:42 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Jwqqc.21372$qA.2422963@attbi_s51... On 17 May 2004 23:02:47 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Hc5qc.68156$z06.9029126@attbi_s01... I have no idea. All I know is that I am CERTAIN that SOME CD's revealed less hiss. Your certainty is noted - indeed it is becoming legendary! OTOH, there is no possible mechanism by which this can have occurred in the real physical world. That you are aware of. I am very well aware of how CDs are read, and green pens are simply not capable of affecting this. This ain't rocket science! No, it's optical science. Light moves in strange ways. No, it moves in *extremely* predictable ways, nothing at all strange about it. Indeed, much of Einsteinian physics is based on very precise observations of light doing highly predictable things. I think it is fair to say it moves in strange ways that are predictable. Do you not find quantum effects wave interference patterns forming even when photons are released individually with the double slit barrier to be at least a little bit strange? Did you not find it a little bit strange the simply by monitoring the slits without impeding the path of the photons that the wave interference patterns would break down? I find it charming, not strange, and wavicles is fun! Seriously though, the gross effects at CD-reading intensities are totally predictable, despite the interesting things that happen at the single-photon level. we are all free to choose our adjectives. heck some top physicists have used the word "spooky" to describe it. I certainly hope there was no misunderstanding that i might be impying that such behavior had anything to do with the debate over green pens. IMO it is easily resolved even for those who don't know the inner workings of the mechanism by the very data comparison that you and others suggest. If the data is the same from the output of the machine the pen cannot be affecting the sound. At the very small size of red wavelengths, there are certainly possibilities that you know nothing about. Firstly, a CD replay laser is not red, it's in the near infra-red. What is near infra red? I say it's red. Near infra-red is *just* outside the range of human perception - as opposed to far infra-red, which is only perceived as heat. Infra-red covers several decades! 780nm is right on the limit of human perception, which is defined as the band from 700 to 780nm in all the standard texts, so I won't argue excessively on this point. Unless we are talking about wave lengths that are longer than infra red. But we are not are we? Is there another color between red and infra red? I don't know of one. Near and far infra-red are commonly used terms. The ESA Infra-red Space Observatory (ISO), for instance, operates from 2.5 to 240 microns wavelengths, all of which are counted as infra-red, but the shortest of which is 3 times longer than CD laser light. -- Yes Mr. Chung pointed that out as well. 'Near" is an unfortunate word for a layman such as myself. I took it literally and saw no reason not to. My mistake. Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:B_9rc.30097$gr.3041431@attbi_s52... Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Dd4rc.85435$xw3.4772183@attbi_s04... Oscilloscope traces of the playback signals of pre- and post-treated discs. That is a *much* less sensitive test than a digital file compare. How would such a file comparison work? Take two otherwise identical CDs and apply the green marker to one. Then rip them both to WAV files. Since the green pen treatment can only possibly work in the digital domain, any differences between the two CDs would have to show up as differences in the ripped WAV files which would be compared using a simple file compare function. |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
Bruce Abrams wrote in message ...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message news:B_9rc.30097$gr.3041431@attbi_s52... Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Dd4rc.85435$xw3.4772183@attbi_s04... Oscilloscope traces of the playback signals of pre- and post-treated discs. That is a *much* less sensitive test than a digital file compare. How would such a file comparison work? Take two otherwise identical CDs and apply the green marker to one. Then rip them both to WAV files. Since the green pen treatment can only possibly work in the digital domain, any differences between the two CDs would have to show up as differences in the ripped WAV files which would be compared using a simple file compare function. Yes, that's what I had in mind by the oscillsocope idea. |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
|
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
Bruce Abrams wrote:
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message news:B_9rc.30097$gr.3041431@attbi_s52... Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Dd4rc.85435$xw3.4772183@attbi_s04... Oscilloscope traces of the playback signals of pre- and post-treated discs. That is a *much* less sensitive test than a digital file compare. How would such a file comparison work? Take two otherwise identical CDs and apply the green marker to one. Then rip them both to WAV files. Better yet, rip the CD before and after applying the pen. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Bruce Abrams wrote: "Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message news:B_9rc.30097$gr.3041431@attbi_s52... Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Dd4rc.85435$xw3.4772183@attbi_s04... Oscilloscope traces of the playback signals of pre- and post-treated discs. That is a *much* less sensitive test than a digital file compare. How would such a file comparison work? Take two otherwise identical CDs and apply the green marker to one. Then rip them both to WAV files. Better yet, rip the CD before and after applying the pen. Even better than that, rip the same CD twice and see if you get identical .wav files. Norm Strong |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:N1Arc.93495$iF6.8224880@attbi_s02... Bruce Abrams wrote in message ... "Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message news:B_9rc.30097$gr.3041431@attbi_s52... Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Dd4rc.85435$xw3.4772183@attbi_s04... Oscilloscope traces of the playback signals of pre- and post-treated discs. That is a *much* less sensitive test than a digital file compare. How would such a file comparison work? Take two otherwise identical CDs and apply the green marker to one. Then rip them both to WAV files. Since the green pen treatment can only possibly work in the digital domain, any differences between the two CDs would have to show up as differences in the ripped WAV files which would be compared using a simple file compare function. Yes, that's what I had in mind by the oscillsocope idea. This is certainly easy enough to do and I'll be glad to do exactly this experiement. (I'll even do the control of ripping the same disk twice before treatment to verify the accuracy of the data.) I just want to make that you agree that if the pre and post treatment WAVs were identical, then the green pen had exactly no effect. Is this correct? |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
Bruce Abrams wrote:
This is certainly easy enough to do and I'll be glad to do exactly this experiement. (I'll even do the control of ripping the same disk twice before treatment to verify the accuracy of the data.) I just want to make that you agree that if the pre and post treatment WAVs were identical, then the green pen had exactly no effect. Is this correct? ===================== NOT to take one side or the other on the "green pen" issue, but the response from the pro-green-pen camp may be that the green pen had no effect on THIS disc, but might on another. How about the best three out of five? The best eleven out of twenty? -GP |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
Bruce Abrams wrote in message news:vO5sc.27253$zw.25957@attbi_s01...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message news:N1Arc.93495$iF6.8224880@attbi_s02... Bruce Abrams wrote in message ... "Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message news:B_9rc.30097$gr.3041431@attbi_s52... Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Dd4rc.85435$xw3.4772183@attbi_s04... Oscilloscope traces of the playback signals of pre- and post-treated discs. That is a *much* less sensitive test than a digital file compare. How would such a file comparison work? Take two otherwise identical CDs and apply the green marker to one. Then rip them both to WAV files. Since the green pen treatment can only possibly work in the digital domain, any differences between the two CDs would have to show up as differences in the ripped WAV files which would be compared using a simple file compare function. Yes, that's what I had in mind by the oscillsocope idea. This is certainly easy enough to do and I'll be glad to do exactly this experiement. (I'll even do the control of ripping the same disk twice before treatment to verify the accuracy of the data.) I just want to make that you agree that if the pre and post treatment WAVs were identical, then the green pen had exactly no effect. Is this correct? In this case, of course. But several trials with different discs are in order... |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message
news:vO5sc.27253$zw.25957@attbi_s01... This is certainly easy enough to do and I'll be glad to do exactly this experiement. (I'll even do the control of ripping the same disk twice before treatment to verify the accuracy of the data.) I just want to make that you agree that if the pre and post treatment WAVs were identical, then the green pen had exactly no effect. Is this correct? I should probably say at the outset that I don't believe in the green pen thing at all, and I find the whole idea quite ludicrous However, am I correct in thinking that this test won't really be conclusive since when ripping a CD to wav, it doesn't have to be done in real time? I mean, when ripping, can the drive go back and re-read parts of the disc if necessary to ensure no errors? I assume it can (I've never ripped a CD to wav, so I don't know). You'll pardon my ultra-technical language :-) Si |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
Si wrote:
"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message news:vO5sc.27253$zw.25957@attbi_s01... This is certainly easy enough to do and I'll be glad to do exactly this experiement. (I'll even do the control of ripping the same disk twice before treatment to verify the accuracy of the data.) I just want to make that you agree that if the pre and post treatment WAVs were identical, then the green pen had exactly no effect. Is this correct? I should probably say at the outset that I don't believe in the green pen thing at all, and I find the whole idea quite ludicrous However, am I correct in thinking that this test won't really be conclusive since when ripping a CD to wav, it doesn't have to be done in real time? I mean, when ripping, can the drive go back and re-read parts of the disc if necessary to ensure no errors? Yes. Using Exact Audio Copy at highest security setting will do exactly that. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:cWnsc.17943$af3.913182@attbi_s51...
On Mon, 24 May 2004 00:46:40 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: Bruce Abrams wrote in message news:vO5sc.27253$zw.25957@attbi_s01... "Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message news:N1Arc.93495$iF6.8224880@attbi_s02... Bruce Abrams wrote in message ... "Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message news:B_9rc.30097$gr.3041431@attbi_s52... Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Dd4rc.85435$xw3.4772183@attbi_s04... Oscilloscope traces of the playback signals of pre- and post-treated discs. That is a *much* less sensitive test than a digital file compare. How would such a file comparison work? Take two otherwise identical CDs and apply the green marker to one. Then rip them both to WAV files. Since the green pen treatment can only possibly work in the digital domain, any differences between the two CDs would have to show up as differences in the ripped WAV files which would be compared using a simple file compare function. Yes, that's what I had in mind by the oscillsocope idea. This is certainly easy enough to do and I'll be glad to do exactly this experiement. (I'll even do the control of ripping the same disk twice before treatment to verify the accuracy of the data.) I just want to make that you agree that if the pre and post treatment WAVs were identical, then the green pen had exactly no effect. Is this correct? In this case, of course. But several trials with different discs are in order... Before we get to the obvious point that however many are tried, you will still say "ah, but if you had only tried *this* disc", why don't *you* specify some discs that *you* believe made a difference? British pressings of David Sylvian, in a set called the 'Weatherbox'. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...121800-0775651 |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
"Si" wrote in message
news:vLnsc.108888$xw3.6294422@attbi_s04... "Bruce Abrams" wrote in message news:vO5sc.27253$zw.25957@attbi_s01... This is certainly easy enough to do and I'll be glad to do exactly this experiement. (I'll even do the control of ripping the same disk twice before treatment to verify the accuracy of the data.) I just want to make that you agree that if the pre and post treatment WAVs were identical, then the green pen had exactly no effect. Is this correct? I should probably say at the outset that I don't believe in the green pen thing at all, and I find the whole idea quite ludicrous However, am I correct in thinking that this test won't really be conclusive since when ripping a CD to wav, it doesn't have to be done in real time? I mean, when ripping, can the drive go back and re-read parts of the disc if necessary to ensure no errors? I assume it can (I've never ripped a CD to wav, so I don't know). It's my understanding that virtually all CD players have a read ahead buffer to ensure they are capable of doing the same thing. You'll pardon my ultra-technical language :-) Consider yourself pardoned ;-) |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
... *snip* Before we get to the obvious point that however many are tried, you will still say "ah, but if you had only tried *this* disc", why don't *you* specify some discs that *you* believe made a difference? British pressings of David Sylvian, in a set called the 'Weatherbox'. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...121800-0775651 If you'd like to furnish said CD (which I'll return), I'll be glad to perform the above described test and furnish the results to all. |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
Bruce Abrams wrote in message news:P6xsc.109408$536.19487101@attbi_s03...
before treatment to verify the accuracy of the data.) I just want to make that you agree that if the pre and post treatment WAVs were identical, then the green pen had exactly no effect. Is this correct? I should probably say at the outset that I don't believe in the green pen thing at all, and I find the whole idea quite ludicrous However, am I correct in thinking that this test won't really be conclusive since when ripping a CD to wav, it doesn't have to be done in real time? I mean, when ripping, can the drive go back and re-read parts of the disc if necessary to ensure no errors? I assume it can (I've never ripped a CD to wav, so I don't know). It's my understanding that virtually all CD players have a read ahead buffer to ensure they are capable of doing the same thing. Because of the Reed-Solomon interleaved coding, which, in essence, takes a contiguous block of sample data and scatters it about the disk, to read the data back, ALL CD players MUST read an entire block into a buffer and "unscatter" it back into the correct order. Thus, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a CD with real-time playback. Besides the in-place robust data recovery this scheme provides, it also means that data read rate is no no longer tightly coupled to the required audio conversion rate. The player mechanism reads a block into a buffer, then hands that buffer over to the deinterleave and error correction algorithm while it goes and reads the next buffer. The two happen in parallel. The read mechanism adjusts the spin rate of the disk only so that the AVERAGE read rate matches the playback rate. Now, here's a dilemma for the green-pen buffs: elsewhere it is claimed that these sorts of differences are only audible on the finest of equipment, and that it is more apparent on the best (sometimes meant most expensive) CD transports and DACs. Lesser equipment just doesn't have the "resolution" to reveal the subtleties. But, from actual knowledge of the CD player mechanism, we find that if it DOES make a difference, there is something WRONG with the playback system. It was either designed inproperly, because the read mechanism is SUPPOSED to be separate from the decode and conversion mechanism, or it's just plain broken. That suggests, as one possible explanation, that these highly touted high-end players are, in fact, suffering from either defective design or operation. Zut alors! can it be so? Well, in several cases I have personally investigated, it is, indeed, so. Examples include very expensive DACS, highly regarded in the high- end realm as being very "revealing" that suffer VERY bad jitter susceptibility simply because of out-and-out incompetent design. Player mechanisms that imporoerly implement the S/P-DIF output driver making them vulnerable to capacitive loads, dismal mixed-signal layout design allowing signals from one domain to corrupt signals from the other, belt-driven CD players with heavy platters that can't get out of their own way and struggle mightly to try to keep up with the output buffering, undershooting and overshooting their speed targets because of preposterously high mechanical inertia and poor servo control. |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
Bruce Abrams wrote in message ...
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message ... *snip* Before we get to the obvious point that however many are tried, you will still say "ah, but if you had only tried *this* disc", why don't *you* specify some discs that *you* believe made a difference? British pressings of David Sylvian, in a set called the 'Weatherbox'. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...121800-0775651 If you'd like to furnish said CD (which I'll return), I'll be glad to perform the above described test and furnish the results to all. Uhhh.....I already did it, about 8 years ago, and I don't have a duplicate set. The British pressings sounded different from the US versions. Just get two copies of 'Gone to Earth', Brit pressings, and that should work. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...364454-3921627 Since YOU are the one who wants to prove something.... |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
"Bromo" wrote in message
... On 5/16/04 8:07 PM, in article , "GRL" wrote: I think you're right. I mean who doesn't want garden-hose thickness speaker wire going from their super amp to their super speakers? Unfortunately, the garden-hose thickness wire can cost as much as a good amp. Fortunately, I have hit on a sensible and economical solution that provides esthetic chic, excellent performance, and reasonable cost. I use 12 ga. speaker wire from Lowe's and run it through a length of 1/2" garden hose. (I find the braided-look green style works best.) Cost me about $10. Works great. Thinking about contacting a garden hose company about having them make up a run of the hose with a ground wire (oxygen free copper) running through it and selling into the audiophile market. I think if I price it high enough (not too high, though, I have some scruples) and place some ads, those guys at STEREOPHILE will come through with a favorable review. What do you guys think? Sounds like a good busness plan - good luck to you. I think a lot of the interconnect malarchy has a lot to do with the speakers, length of wire and the output impedance of the amplifiers in question. I have spent countless hours in the lab designing RF amplifiers changing impedances by 0.5 Ohms or less and seeing a fairly substantial change in output power, gain or so on. And while Audio amplifiers are supposed to be more robist to this sort of tweaking - the loads are entirely arbitrary (speaker + cable) and I do wonder if there couldn't be an effect. Perhaps if you are open minded, you could get 3 of those zip cords, braid them and take 3 hot leads and 3 grounds and see if you can sense any difference on a recording you understand. Though if your speakers are not good, it won't matter. So many things have been said and written about the sound of all things hi-end, including cables. From all amplifiers and cables sound the same to they sound different...even, "little wooden disks stuck to the wall worked wonders." Much of it is bologna. However, facts are facts whatever anyone says. One fact is that switching out the MIT MI 750 Bi-wire speaker cables in my system with Analysis Plus Oval 12 not only changes the sound, but the entire characteristics of the system. Which if either is closer to right? Well, that may very well be a subjective matter. Right now, I do not really care why cables change the sound of my system, and I doubt most (but not all) who argue about it know anything at all. When a verifiable reason for differences is revealed, then I will care about why some cables sound different. Maybe it is simply a matter of component quality and design, if a cable can be thought of as part of a circuit. |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
Glenn Garza wrote:
So many things have been said and written about the sound of all things hi-end, including cables. From all amplifiers and cables sound the same to they sound different...even, "little wooden disks stuck to the wall worked wonders." Much of it is bologna. However, facts are facts whatever anyone says. One fact is that switching out the MIT MI 750 Bi-wire speaker cables in my system with Analysis Plus Oval 12 not only changes the sound, but the entire characteristics of the system. The fact is that the St. Louis Arch is higher than it is wide. Oh, wait, actually, it only *looks* that way. In fact, the height and width are found to be equal, when they are actually measured. Perceptions aren't necessarily *correct*, you see. It's a fact that you *believe* the switch you made changes the sound. Whether it does, in fact, cause a change in sound, remains to be determined. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
Glenn Garza wrote:
So many things have been said and written about the sound of all things hi-end, including cables. From all amplifiers and cables sound the same Actually, no one's ever said that. to they sound different...even, "little wooden disks stuck to the wall worked wonders." Much of it is bologna. However, facts are facts whatever anyone says. Yes, and facts are such difficult things. One fact is that switching out the MIT MI 750 Bi-wire speaker cables in my system with Analysis Plus Oval 12 not only changes the sound, but the entire characteristics of the system. No, that's not a "fact." The fact here is that you *perceive* a change in the sound of your system when you make this switch. Whether the switch *actually* changes the performance of your system, or whether this is merely a perceptual illusion on your part, is an open question. Which if either is closer to right? Well, that may very well be a subjective matter. Right now, I do not really care why cables change the sound of my system, Which is your prerogative. and I doubt most (but not all) who argue about it know anything at all. Which may be true, but there are some people out there who DO know what effect a cable has on a signal. You could learn something from them. When a verifiable reason for differences is revealed, then I will care about why some cables sound different. Why will you care then, if you don't care now? Maybe it is simply a matter of component quality and design, if a cable can be thought of as part of a circuit. Well, jeez, can you think of a cable that way??? Look, no one's ever said that switching cables can't make a difference. What's been said over and over again is that the performance of cables is well understood, and that *if* a cable switch makes an audible difference, it will be because of significant differences in the measurable characteristics of the cable. Not knowing anything about the two cables you have, I can't say whether they are different enough or not. But until you do a blind comparison, you haven't any basis for making that determination either. Now, you may not want to bother with doing a blind comparison, and you may be perfectly happy choosing between your two cables based on what they sound like to you. As I said above, that's your prerogative. Just don't start telling us about "facts" unless you've done the work to back them up. THAT'S the bologna here. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/...ave/direct/01/ |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot "prove" or
"disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear) of the beholder. And just because the electrical engineers cannot measure any difference in cables does NOT mean they cannot produce a perceptional change in people that may even differ from person to person. But, everything in Life is filtered through our perceptions. We cannot live without our perceptions since that is HOW we interact with our world. So, who cares whether they measure the same or not? They can STILL produce a perceptional difference. Otherwise, WHY have different types of wire, different companies and different product lines? Because even if they measure the same, they are all perceived as different by different customers. If everyone agrees on the same perceptions, then there would only be one cable, period. -Bob Bernstein. |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
On 6/2/04 1:27 AM, in article Tydvc.30476$IB.17093@attbi_s04, "Glenn Garza"
wrote: and I doubt most (but not all) who argue about it know anything at all. When a verifiable reason for differences is revealed, then I will care about why some cables sound different. Maybe it is simply a matter of component quality and design, if a cable can be thought of as part of a circuit. So.... If you think you hear a difference, you will ignore it until someone gives you an explanation? |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 05:27:15 GMT, "Glenn Garza"
wrote: So many things have been said and written about the sound of all things hi-end, including cables. From all amplifiers and cables sound the same to they sound different...even, "little wooden disks stuck to the wall worked wonders." Much of it is bologna. However, facts are facts whatever anyone says. One fact is that switching out the MIT MI 750 Bi-wire speaker cables in my system with Analysis Plus Oval 12 not only changes the sound, but the entire characteristics of the system. Which if either is closer to right? Well, that may very well be a subjective matter. Right now, I do not really care why cables change the sound of my system, and I doubt most (but not all) who argue about it know anything at all. When a verifiable reason for differences is revealed, then I will care about why some cables sound different. How about caring about whether they really *do* sound different, before chasing the cause? Maybe it is simply a matter of component quality and design, if a cable can be thought of as part of a circuit. Maybe it is simply inaudible................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
"So many things have been said and written about the sound of all things
hi-end, including cables. From all amplifiers and cables sound the same to they sound different...even, "little wooden disks stuck to the wall worked wonders." Much of it is bologna. However, facts are facts whatever anyone says. One fact is that switching out the MIT MI 750 Bi-wire speaker cables in my system with Analysis Plus Oval 12 not only changes the sound, but the entire characteristics of the system. Which if either is closer to right? Well, that may very well be a subjective matter. Right now, I do not really care why cables change the sound of my system, and I doubt most (but not all) who argue about it know anything at all. When a verifiable reason for differences is revealed, then I will care about why some cables sound different. Maybe it is simply a matter of component quality and design, if a cable can be thought of as part of a circuit." We have now done enough blind testing of amps and wire we need no longer wonder if all the writing and speaking done has substance, and we have a good insight as to the source of differences heard. The blind tests using listening alone show results close to the same level as guessing would produce. This strongly suggests that any difference is a product of the perception process that occurs in the brain after the signal reaches the ears. The differens so frequently written and spoken about absent controled testing disappear when even simple blind is done, such as putting a cloth over the wire connections so the active bit of gear is not known. We are no longer slave to the "some think and write this or that and some others think different things", we now have a listening alone benchmark against which all reports can be evaluated. This includes the report you make, do you think your experience is an exception to the testing bemchmark? Isn't mit one of those wires with the network, in which case the difference is because it is likely acting as an eq filter on the signal by changing well known properties of rcl in an electrical circuit. A tone control knob makes similar changes to sound. |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
"Bromo" wrote in message
news:uyyvc.1471$%F2.631@attbi_s04... On 6/2/04 1:27 AM, in article Tydvc.30476$IB.17093@attbi_s04, "Glenn Garza" wrote: and I doubt most (but not all) who argue about it know anything at all. When a verifiable reason for differences is revealed, then I will care about why some cables sound different. Maybe it is simply a matter of component quality and design, if a cable can be thought of as part of a circuit. So.... If you think you hear a difference, you will ignore it until someone gives you an explanation? If I hear a difference between 2 cables, and cannot think of any technical reason why I should, my first step is to find out whether the difference is there when I don't know which of the 2 cables is actually in-circuit. If I can consistently tell which cable is in use without extra-audio information, then I will turn up heaven and earth to find out why. I'm just like that. So far, cable changes have never survived the first test, so I haven't had to address the technical issues. Norm Strong |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
RBernst929 wrote:
Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? No one said his perceptions were wrong. I even called his perceptions a *fact.* * You cannot "prove" or "disprove" anyone's perceptions.* You can prove or disprove many conclusions someone draws from his perceptions, however. Those conclusions are not a priori true, because we know (even if you want to deny) that perceptions can be misleading. See Steven's point about Gateway Arch, or any optical illusion, for that matter. Perceptions are in the eye (ear) of the beholder.* And just because the electrical engineers cannot measure any difference in cables does NOT mean they cannot produce a perceptional change in people True. But no one has ever been able to demonstrate the ability to hear differences between cables that couldn't be explained by differences in measurable characteristics. After a while, it becomes reasonable to suspect that no one ever will. that may even differ from person to person.* But, everything in Life is filtered through our perceptions.* We cannot live without our perceptions since that is HOW we interact with our world.* So, who cares whether they measure the same or not?* They can STILL produce a perceptional difference. Can they? No one has ever demonstrated that. People have demonstrated that they experienced a perceptual difference. But no one has ever demonstrated that a measureably similar cable produced it. * Otherwise, WHY have different types of wire, different companies and different product lines? Because some consumers draw unwarranted conclusions from their perceptions (perceptions often manipulated by clever salesfolk or well-meaning fellow audiophiles), and because some consumers are willing to put absolute faith in advertising copy, no matter how pseudoscientific it is. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Getting married? Find great tips, tools and the latest trends at MSN Life Events. http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
|
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
|
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
"Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot "prove" or
"disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear) of the beholder. And just because the electrical engineers cannot measure any difference in cables does NOT mean they cannot produce a perceptional change in people that may even differ from person to person. But, everything in Life is" Perception is very changable, when blind tests are done on wire the perception of difference disappears, meaning the source of the perception is not in the wire but manufactured in the brain downstream of the ears. When people know which wire is being used, the attribute thought different in the wire is originated in the brain and applied to the wire, all at the level of the brain. When a test is done and two wires are said to be switched alternatly but one is in fact used all the time, the differences are reported still because it originates in the brain and not the wire. When people come to realize it, the perception of difference collapses. In the end on a practical level, one needs no longer give thought to wire but enjoy the sound experience without the stress and worry that a different wire might make it "better", as the marketing/hifi mags are egar to be mutually supporting in convincing you. |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 05:20:19 GMT, (RBernst929) wrote: Why are you assuming his perceptions are "wrong"? You cannot "prove" or "disprove" anyone's perceptions. Perceptions are in the eye (ear) of the beholder. You can however prove if they have any existence in the real physical world. Any decent optical illusion is proof that perceptions can be *wrong*. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!! | High End Audio | |||
| Can network, video and sound cables be combined to save space? | General | |||
| Magnan Cables | High End Audio | |||
| How to measure speaker cables? | High End Audio | |||
| Making my own speaker cables... | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
