Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Bruce Abrams wrote in message ...

Why don't you try listening to two different cables under sighted
conditions and see what happens?


I did. That's how I became a proponent of blind testing in the first place.
I had been auditioning cables and forget which one I left in the system.
Thinking I was listening to cable A, I heard the 'characteristics' of cable
A. When I went to switch back to cable B I saw that I was actually
listening to cable B. So I asked my wife to do the switching without
telling me which was which. At that point I could no longer identify which
cable I was listening to. (FWIW, the cables under test at the time were
Kimber 8TC and Music Metre Signature.)


You actually prove my point, Bruce. These are both very good cables, I
presume. The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy to
tell. When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I don't
mean between similar-quality products, but those of different quality.
  #43   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Wylie Williams"
wrote:


"Nousaine"
It's also intersting to think about what a wire "manufacturer" actually
"makes." For example the Tara Labs RSC (a rectangular shaped copper wire

in a
translucent casing) was recognized by a member at an audio club ...."I

know
that wire; we used that to restrap starter motors when I worked at ....."

I've visited Transparent Audio Marketing in New Hampshire and I didn't see
anything being manufactuered there except for network boxes and

terminations.
The "wire" was in an old barn wound on cable spools with New England Wire

and
Cable stamped on them. IOW wire "manufacturers" don't make wire. At best

they
terminate them.

I'm guessing that companies such as Monster Cable may not even have to
warehouse cables but simply have them drop-shipped from the manufacturer
directly to the vendor from the manufacturer/packaging house. It's all BS

but
technically brilliant marketing.


You are right; most wire is made by a few companies for the many who
market it. For many years I bought wire from a wire company owner who freely
stated that all his wire was made by one of the large wire manufacturers.
Sometimes he had a standard product imprinted with his name; sometimes he
specified the conductor material, gauge, configuration, and insulation. I
am sure that the others do about the same. I have no problem with that.
Outsourcing applies to far more than wire. I recently sold a $2,000 KEF
subwoofer. The carton said "Made in China". Is it a good subwoofer? That
should be determined, not by whether it was made in the UK or in China, or
how well it is marketed, but by its performance.

Wylie Williams
The Speaker and Stereo Store


Of course, but audiophile wire companies aren't "outsourcing" independently
designed wires. They're most likely just finding extant copper to market in an
unusual way.

Nor are they conducting independent reaearch, with bias-controlled listening
tests to validate, of the "sound" of their cables. It's all marketing with
'smoke and mirrors.'
  #45   Report Post  
Bruce Abrams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
...
Bruce Abrams wrote in message

...

Why don't you try listening to two different cables under sighted
conditions and see what happens?


I did. That's how I became a proponent of blind testing in the first

place.
I had been auditioning cables and forget which one I left in the system.
Thinking I was listening to cable A, I heard the 'characteristics' of

cable
A. When I went to switch back to cable B I saw that I was actually
listening to cable B. So I asked my wife to do the switching without
telling me which was which. At that point I could no longer identify

which
cable I was listening to. (FWIW, the cables under test at the time were
Kimber 8TC and Music Metre Signature.)


You actually prove my point, Bruce. These are both very good cables, I
presume. The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy to
tell. When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I don't
mean between similar-quality products, but those of different quality.


You have yet to define "quality" in this context. Is quality defined by
price point, or are similar styles of creative ad copy writing sufficient?
As regards telling the difference, I have since proven (with my wife's
continued patience and assistance) that there is no audible difference to me
between Music Metre, Tara RSC, Kimber 8TC, Moster 14 guage flat speaker
cable or cheap Radio Shack 12 guage zip cord if I don't know which I'm
listening to.


  #48   Report Post  
josko
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
...
Bruce Abrams wrote in message

...

Why don't you try listening to two different cables under sighted
conditions and see what happens?


I did. That's how I became a proponent of blind testing in the

first place.
I had been auditioning cables and forget which one I left in the

system.
Thinking I was listening to cable A, I heard the 'characteristics'

of cable
A. When I went to switch back to cable B I saw that I was actually
listening to cable B. So I asked my wife to do the switching

without
telling me which was which. At that point I could no longer

identify which
cable I was listening to. (FWIW, the cables under test at the time

were
Kimber 8TC and Music Metre Signature.)


You actually prove my point, Bruce. These are both very good cables, I
presume. The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy to
tell. When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I don't
mean between similar-quality products, but those of different quality.


Isn't this a case of circular reasoning? Cheap cable -- poor quality.
Expensive cable -- high quality. Sighted test reveals, to you, that
expensive cable sounds better than the cheap cable, on some ad-hoc
measure(s) that is/are relevant to you. Not surprising really. You
start with a hypothesis that there should be a difference in sound
between the two and then you find the evidence that this indeed is the
case. Ah... Human nature. Isn't confirmatory hypothesis testing
wonderful? And quite a problem to overcome if one's goal is to judge
equipment based on the sound alone.

  #49   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Frank O. Hodge" wrote in message news:3z3bc.58126$JO3.36560@attbi_s04...

'What' did I expect the first time?


What had you decided that you wanted to expect? That's what.


Specifically, I mean. Your answer is hardly responsive. How did I
'create' all the sonic characters of these amplifiers?

How was I able to remember all the
details? How was I able to produce all the details the first time and
do it flawlessley again later?


How were you able to remember all such things, in a way that (not
ostensibly, sort of nominally, only very putatively) you took to
validate your hypothesis? (How do you know that you heard, and
remembered, "all the details," initially and "flawlessl[]y" later?


The amps did not 'change' in the six-month interval between listening
sessions 1 and 2. They retained the same characteristics they had at
first exposure. It would be difficult to account for this on mere
psychological terms. It is, in fact, a counter-example to your
hypothesis.

What
about the ones that you forgot to listen for, i.e., forgot to say that
you heard? You listened for a,b,c; I suggest you listen for x,y,z; now
you'd have to restate your listening results, unless perhaps x,y,z (or
a,b,c) don't exist anyway, not a hard thing inasmuch as we haven't
bothered to define any of them. Which one was the lamp cord, from the
hardware store?) How were you able to persist in self-delusion?


These were amplifiers.
  #51   Report Post  
Wylie Williams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

" "Wylie Williams" wrote
. For many years I bought wire from a wire company owner who freely
stated that all his wire was made by one of the large wire manufacturers.
Sometimes he had a standard product imprinted with his name; sometimes he
specified the conductor material, gauge, configuration, and insulation.

I
am sure that the others do about the same.


Noussaine replied
Of course, but audiophile wire companies aren't "outsourcing"

independently
designed wires. They're most likely just finding extant copper to market

in an
unusual way.


Re the first sentence - to be fair you really should not say that they
"aren't outsourcing independently designed wires" unless you have actual
knowledge that they aren't. There are so many wire companies that it seems
unlikely that you have definite knowledge of all of them. Your second
sentence is probably true. Most of the "innovation" in audio seems to me to
be borrowing extant ideas, products, and designs and marketing them to the
audiophile community. I have no problem with that if the idea they copy is
a good one.

Nor are they conducting independent reaearch, with bias-controlled

listening
tests to validate, of the "sound" of their cables. It's all marketing with
'smoke and mirrors.'


OK, there I have to agree with you. Even if you are making a blanket
statement, you are probably right. I imagine that they make sighted
comparisons and prefer their own. I don't assume that they have fraud on
their minds. Nor that they don't.
marketing - I note a hint of an attitude sometimes seen on RAHE, that
marketing is dirty and products that are marketed with "smoke and mirrors"
are therefore tainted. I believe that any good product is not made bad
because the salesman is a liar, although I do believe that consumers can be
deluded by skilled marketing into perceiving a product is better than it
actually is. We all know about Bose.

If we only purchased products and services that were 100% honestly marketed
we would find ourselves outside, naked, and hungry. In everything we buy we
have to try to cut through the marketing smoke in hopes of finding the
truth. Caveat emptor

Wylie Williams

  #52   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"josko" wrote in message ...


You actually prove my point, Bruce. These are both very good cables, I
presume. The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy to
tell. When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I don't
mean between similar-quality products, but those of different quality.


Isn't this a case of circular reasoning? Cheap cable -- poor quality.
Expensive cable -- high quality. Sighted test reveals, to you, that
expensive cable sounds better than the cheap cable, on some ad-hoc
measure(s) that is/are relevant to you. Not surprising really. You
start with a hypothesis that there should be a difference in sound
between the two and then you find the evidence that this indeed is the
case. Ah... Human nature. Isn't confirmatory hypothesis testing
wonderful? And quite a problem to overcome if one's goal is to judge
equipment based on the sound alone.


What 'hypothesis' are you talking about? I did not start out with any
'hypothesis' that there would be or would not be any difference, but I
was willing to listen and use my own judgement about what I heard (or
did not hear). I have purchased a few cables over the years, including
some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at
one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much
costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The
differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble
cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the
cheaper cable.

Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.

  #53   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:29:29 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...
On 1 Apr 2004 17:24:48 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like
cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper
stuff that does.


It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, and a
basic understanding of electronics, that all cables sound the same.


This is false on its face. I have owned both speaker cables and
interconnects that sound different.


It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, that you
are simply making a claim based on sighted listening, a technique
which is easily proven to be fatally flawed. I will bet you $10,000
that you can not tell cheap 'zipcord' from your favourite 'audiophile'
cable, when you don't *know* which one is connected.

Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons
between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show
differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables.


Comparisons between 50 cents a foot 'zipcord' and $1,000 a foot Kimber
Black Pearl show no differences. This should not be a surprise to any
reasonable person.


Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. 'Unreasonable people' may
simply be the ones who have the most acute hearing.


So far, no such person has surfaced. Many of course have, like
yourself, *claimed* to be able to hear differences, but not one single
person has managed to prove this when they didn't *know* which cable
was connected.

Again, as we approach perfection, differences lessen between products.


Any normal cable is already functionally perfect. The only
functionally imperfect cables are those ludicrously expensive ones
with little boxes attached.........................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #55   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
"Frank O. Hodge" wrote in message news:3z3bc.58126$JO3.36560@attbi_s04...


'What' did I expect the first time?


What had you decided that you wanted to expect? That's what.


Specifically, I mean. Your answer is hardly responsive. How did I
'create' all the sonic characters of these amplifiers?


What deserves more credit? A intelligent human being that has an auditory
imagination and powers of reason, or an inanimate object?

I'll vote for the person, with the lack of other credible evidence.


  #56   Report Post  
josko
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:x9Ccc.78936$gA5.970093@attbi_s03...
"josko" wrote in message

...


You actually prove my point, Bruce. These are both very good

cables, I
presume. The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy

to
tell. When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I

don't
mean between similar-quality products, but those of different

quality.

Isn't this a case of circular reasoning? Cheap cable -- poor

quality.
Expensive cable -- high quality. Sighted test reveals, to you, that
expensive cable sounds better than the cheap cable, on some ad-hoc
measure(s) that is/are relevant to you. Not surprising really. You
start with a hypothesis that there should be a difference in sound
between the two and then you find the evidence that this indeed is

the
case. Ah... Human nature. Isn't confirmatory hypothesis testing
wonderful? And quite a problem to overcome if one's goal is to

judge
equipment based on the sound alone.


What 'hypothesis' are you talking about?


Quoting you: "The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy
to tell."

Or: "When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I don't mean
between similar-quality products, but those of different quality," which
again implies that you think that cables of different quality sound
differently. This claim of yours also implies that you can infer
quality of cables and I kinda doubt that because you keep repeating, in
one way or another, that quality and price are perfectly correlated, and
they are not. Not even close (this is actually based on some empirical
studies of various products). It seems that you use price as the key,
if not the only, proxy for quality (the other one is possibly brand
name). Hence, a $100 Monster interconnect cable sounds better to you
than a $50 Monster interconnect cable and you would be really surprised
if that is not the case.

I did not start out with any
'hypothesis' that there would be or would not be any difference,


Ahhh... so common in the exchanges that I had with other audiophiles on
the same topic on RAO and RAHE: We basically live on Mars, in perfect
isolation, we do not ever communicate with other fellow
audiophiles/friends, we never read audiophile magazines and even if we
do we are able to tune out all of that. I doubt that simply because a
person who considers himself to be an audiophile and entertains the idea
that there is something to be learned from sighted evaluation of two
basically same or very similar interconnects wouldn't really do that if,
at the very least, he doesn't expect the whole "experiment" to be a
valuable learning experience. The rest of the biased evaluation goes
like this: once you "detect" a difference you attentionally zero in on
it and then you "hear it" over and over again. "Frequency extremes are
cleaner" becomes a working hypothesis and every subseqent audition
reveals that indeed "the bass seemed tighter and the treble cleaner".
The problem is not only that you zero in attentionally on these
differences, but you probably also do not level match between listening
sessions and this lack of level matching contributes to the illuson of
cleaner frequency extremes. Also, it is common for people to use
non-diagnostic "evidence" to support the hypothesis in any judgment.
This is especially the case with quasi-experts and audiophiles are such
a group. Very often they know minute details about various products,
yet at the same time they lack basic engineering knowledge about "how
things work", not to mention that sometimes they have completely flawed
mental models about how specific pieces of equipment work (hence
infinite resolution of vinyl and stair-step soundwaves output by DAC for
example). In this context, then non-diagnostic "evidence" is price,
brand name, and differences in level from one session to another.

but I
was willing to listen and use my own judgement about what I heard (or
did not hear). I have purchased a few cables over the years, including
some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at
one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much
costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The
differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble
cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the
cheaper cable.

Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.


Those who claim that there are differences between a $50 Monster
interconnect and a $100 Monster interconnect should try using a test
with implemented bias controls.

  #57   Report Post  
lcw999
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:55:44 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 5 Apr 2004 20:48:52 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

The amps did not 'change' in the six-month interval between listening
sessions 1 and 2. They retained the same characteristics they had at
first exposure. It would be difficult to account for this on mere
psychological terms. It is, in fact, a counter-example to your
hypothesis.


Actually, it's pathetically easy to account for this on psychological
grounds. Not 'mere' psychological grounds, please note the brain is a
*very* powerful (and deceitful) instrument!


I would question the term "deceitful"...perhaps so, for those
that live with meter readings, and pull great tools out of the
"bias tool-box". The final arbitor is that brain and ear combo.
This is what we are stuck with. What it tells an individual is
what his realm of truth is currently filled with. It does not
fit mine or anyone else's criteria exactly...it, has...well,
..variability. To try to delete this variability because it
does not agree with one's mindset... it is deceitful?. How
foolish..those that believe what they hear! Mercy, we
must attack the mislead few that believe in such a "deceitful"
thing as the brain. If we can just get large parts of the
brain nullified (via the "bias-toolset")...maybe we can
convince "many" that "all is the same". What a wonderful
mindset! A delightful goal to strive for! Camelot..closer!!
Reality...more distant!!


After all, 'we all know' that tube amps have sweeter treble and more
'air' in the midrange, 'we all know' that Krell amps have more bass
'slam', etc etc etc.


Our pitiful brain does tell us that tube amps do have a sound that
is a bit different..some interpret as "sweeter"...what is wrong
with that? So a big powerful KRELL does have have more "SLAM"..

Are we into an session involving "semantics"...not about the fact
there are....gads...differences? How did we get into this audio
mindset? I somehow always felt that the "High-end" was always
about differences, variables..and people that ascessed great
value to that. Sorry, but one might have to compromise and
let the "folly" continue...but, never, never.....all is the same!!
All is the same...dragging the bias toolset..off into the sunset!
Leonard....

  #59   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 21:59:46 GMT, lcw999 wrote:

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:55:44 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 5 Apr 2004 20:48:52 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

The amps did not 'change' in the six-month interval between listening
sessions 1 and 2. They retained the same characteristics they had at
first exposure. It would be difficult to account for this on mere
psychological terms. It is, in fact, a counter-example to your
hypothesis.


Actually, it's pathetically easy to account for this on psychological
grounds. Not 'mere' psychological grounds, please note the brain is a
*very* powerful (and deceitful) instrument!


I would question the term "deceitful"...perhaps so, for those
that live with meter readings, and pull great tools out of the
"bias tool-box". The final arbitor is that brain and ear combo.
This is what we are stuck with. What it tells an individual is
what his realm of truth is currently filled with. It does not
fit mine or anyone else's criteria exactly...it, has...well,
..variability. To try to delete this variability because it
does not agree with one's mindset... it is deceitful?. How
foolish..those that believe what they hear! Mercy, we
must attack the mislead few that believe in such a "deceitful"
thing as the brain. If we can just get large parts of the
brain nullified (via the "bias-toolset")...maybe we can
convince "many" that "all is the same". What a wonderful
mindset! A delightful goal to strive for! Camelot..closer!!
Reality...more distant!!


After all, 'we all know' that tube amps have sweeter treble and more
'air' in the midrange, 'we all know' that Krell amps have more bass
'slam', etc etc etc.


Our pitiful brain does tell us that tube amps do have a sound that
is a bit different..some interpret as "sweeter"...what is wrong
with that? So a big powerful KRELL does have have more "SLAM"..

Are we into an session involving "semantics"...not about the fact
there are....gads...differences?


Er, no. We are into the fact that there are *not* differences.........

How did we get into this audio
mindset? I somehow always felt that the "High-end" was always
about differences, variables..and people that ascessed great
value to that.


It is, but it turns out that these 'differences' mostly do not exist
in the physical world.

Sorry, but one might have to compromise and
let the "folly" continue...but, never, never.....all is the same!!
All is the same...dragging the bias toolset..off into the sunset!
Leonard....


No 'bias toolset', just the sad reality that all is not as wonderful
as George Cardas would have us believe.............

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #61   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:00:04 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton

Date: 4/6/2004 10:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 5aCcc.84136$K91.184034@attbi_s02

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:29:29 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message

...
On 1 Apr 2004 17:24:48 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like
cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper
stuff that does.

It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, and a
basic understanding of electronics, that all cables sound the same.

This is false on its face. I have owned both speaker cables and
interconnects that sound different.


It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, that you
are simply making a claim based on sighted listening, a technique
which is easily proven to be fatally flawed. I will bet you $10,000
that you can not tell cheap 'zipcord' from your favourite 'audiophile'
cable, when you don't *know* which one is connected.


Do you really have 10,000 dollars to loose on such a wager


Yes. But I won't lose it.... :-)

or did you plan on
adding a several conditions if someone were to accpet the bet?


The conditions are as they have always been:

Levels matched to +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz at the speaker
terminals

Test protocol double-blind

Pass criterion is 15 or more correct out of 20 trials

As it stands you could easily loose.


I don't think so, and unlike you, I'm putting my money where my mouth
is.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #63   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Subject: Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 4/6/2004 3:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: tDGcc.201401$_w.1931622@attbi_s53

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:54:38 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

I have purchased a few cables over the years, including
some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at
one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much
costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The
differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble
cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the
cheaper cable.


Try that when you don't *know* what's connected. You've never actually
done this, have you?

Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.


I wondered how long it would take you to get round to that old
strawman. That's pretty much the only reason why I still own a 'high
end' vinyl rig, a Krell amp and Apogee speakers..........


Sounds like you are more interested in arguing about audio than enjoying it. It
makes no sense to me to invest in equipment so you can say it isn't as good as
it is alleged to be. If you think you can do better for less you are shooting
yourself in the proverbial foot with what you have. Should we take it that your
position is don't buy your stuff, and you should know, you bought it?

  #64   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 4/6/2004 4:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: pSGcc.84703$K91.185522@attbi_s02

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:00:04 GMT,
(S888Wheel) wrote:

From: Stewart Pinkerton

Date: 4/6/2004 10:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 5aCcc.84136$K91.184034@attbi_s02

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 21:29:29 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message
...
On 1 Apr 2004 17:24:48 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like
cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper
stuff that does.

It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, and a
basic understanding of electronics, that all cables sound the same.

This is false on its face. I have owned both speaker cables and
interconnects that sound different.

It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, that you
are simply making a claim based on sighted listening, a technique
which is easily proven to be fatally flawed. I will bet you $10,000
that you can not tell cheap 'zipcord' from your favourite 'audiophile'
cable, when you don't *know* which one is connected.


Do you really have 10,000 dollars to loose on such a wager


Yes. But I won't lose it.... :-)


You won't loose it because you will never make the bet you proposed.


or did you plan on
adding a several conditions if someone were to accpet the bet?


The conditions are as they have always been:

Levels matched to +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz at the speaker
terminals


Just as I thought. You really didn't want to compare anyone's favorite
audiophile cables without messing with their sound.

Test protocol double-blind

Pass criterion is 15 or more correct out of 20 trials

As it stands you could easily loose.


I don't think so, and unlike you, I'm putting my money where my mouth
is.
--


Nah, you just changed the rules as I thought you would. *As it stood* you
really weren't offering a bet.


Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering








  #66   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:y7Kcc.80134$gA5.1003313@attbi_s03...
Subject: Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 4/6/2004 3:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: tDGcc.201401$_w.1931622@attbi_s53

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:54:38 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

I have purchased a few cables over the years, including
some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at
one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much
costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The
differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble
cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the
cheaper cable.


Try that when you don't *know* what's connected. You've never actually
done this, have you?

Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.


I wondered how long it would take you to get round to that old
strawman. That's pretty much the only reason why I still own a 'high
end' vinyl rig, a Krell amp and Apogee speakers..........


Sounds like you are more interested in arguing about audio than enjoying

it. It
makes no sense to me to invest in equipment so you can say it isn't as

good as
it is alleged to be. If you think you can do better for less you are

shooting
yourself in the proverbial foot with what you have. Should we take it that

your
position is don't buy your stuff, and you should know, you bought it?


When you are done quizzing Stewart, you might want to quiz all the
objectivist engineers here who now own SACD players despite the fact that
they can't possible sound better than ordinary CD's. You've been told that.
I've been told that. Why would *anybody* buy a SACD player?
  #67   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:5aCcc.84136$K91.184034@attbi_s02...

This is false on its face. I have owned both speaker cables and
interconnects that sound different.


It should come as no surprise to anyone with real experience, that you
are simply making a claim based on sighted listening, a technique
which is easily proven to be fatally flawed. I will bet you $10,000
that you can not tell cheap 'zipcord' from your favourite 'audiophile'
cable, when you don't *know* which one is connected.


Beting is not the issue. I can and do hear consistent differences
between various components. 'Consistent' is the key here. If I were
somehow 'creating' the phenomena, consistency would be a problem. The
consistency that I find among various products tested at large
intervals of time is fatal to your view.

Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons
between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show
differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables.

Comparisons between 50 cents a foot 'zipcord' and $1,000 a foot Kimber
Black Pearl show no differences. This should not be a surprise to any
reasonable person.


Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere. 'Unreasonable people' may
simply be the ones who have the most acute hearing.


So far, no such person has surfaced. Many of course have, like
yourself, *claimed* to be able to hear differences, but not one single
person has managed to prove this when they didn't *know* which cable
was connected.


You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove I do not hear
differences. I can and do, when using equipment of sufficient quality,
such as Stax electrostatic headphones.


Again, as we approach perfection, differences lessen between products.


Any normal cable is already functionally perfect. The only
functionally imperfect cables are those ludicrously expensive ones
with little boxes attached.........................


I have heard differences between cables that are subtle but
consistent.

  #68   Report Post  
Bruce Abrams
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:duJbc.68694$JO3.39664@attbi_s04...
Bruce Abrams wrote in message

news:Mx_ac.156391$Cb.1611810@attbi_s51...

*snip*

Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons
between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show
differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables.


Perhaps you could explain the reasoning in the above statement. What is

it
that a "high-end cable" does better than the "cheaper stuff" that would

make
it sound different?


You can read the product literature just as easily as I can. They
explain in the literature what features the cable has.


I assume you're award that product literature and ad copy frequently have
nothing to do with reality. I'm not interested in what the company says the
features are. Can you really profess not to be biased while engaging in
sighted listening in light of the above statement? I'm interested in what
you think a "high-end" cable does better than the "cheaper stuff." What is
the difference between good and cheap cables? Simple question.


I bought this one:

http://www.monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=129

1 m. pair - 3.28 ft. ILR2-1M 102310 $99.95 pr.


The product you purchased makes several rather extraordinary claims
including the fact that a Microfiber dielectric somehow contributes to
"faster transients and greater clarity." It's interesting that the company
offers no explanation as to the mechanism that allows said microfiber
dielectric to work its magic. They also make mention of using "multiple
guage high and low frequency wire networks for accurate, natural sound
reproduction." On its surface, this sounds like a great technical
achievement, yet again, there's no explanation as to how it works. If you
were marketing such a product against competition from the likes of
Transparent, MIT, Kimber, etc. (think Coke & Pepsi) wouldn't a "blind taste
test" be the best proof of your claims? Why do you think that not one
single high end cable company includes such a blind test in the advertising
materials even though it would clearly represent the holy grail? Think
about it. All the high-end cable companies are competing for dollars
primarily from audiophiles, not from average consumer electronics purchasers
who will settle for the "included-in-the-box" interconnect that came with
their CD player. If Transparent could market their product by claiming that
"in blind comparisons, 9 out of 10 audiophiles prefered our product over
Cardas", don't you think they would?

I compared it to an older Monster cable that was about half that
price.

You mean that you read their literature on their newer cable, compared it to
their older one, and found their ad copy spot on? Amazing.

You suggest a measure of quality. Can we define
"quality" in this context? If two pieces of wire measurable pass a

signal
equally well and are sonically indistinguishable under controlled
conditions, what other qualitative measure would you apply? Does it

make a
difference if one is 12 guage Home Depot speaker wire and one is Kimber
Black Pearl? You stated that, "...the better the quality, the more

closely
perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences." What if the
quality of the "cheaper stuff" was already adequate to be functionally
perfect for the application?


It isn't. I could tell the two interconnect cables apart, easily.
Better imaging, transient repsonse, etc.


Here's an example of what I mean: 802.11B runs at 11 megabit, while

802.11G
runs at 22 megabit, so G must be better/faster, right? Well if the only
thing I use my wireless network for is internet access and my internet
bandwidth is 5 megabit, is G better? Only in technical sense, as I will
perceive no benefit.


  #69   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

S888Wheel wrote:



The conditions are as they have always been:

Levels matched to +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz at the speaker
terminals


Just as I thought. You really didn't want to compare anyone's favorite
audiophile cables without messing with their sound.


If you know of any audiophile cable that has trouble matching to those
numbers against a 12-ga home depot zip cord, do share that information
with us. You will be doing us a favor by exposing those cables that have
trouble passing the signal without coloration.


Test protocol double-blind

Pass criterion is 15 or more correct out of 20 trials

As it stands you could easily loose.


I don't think so, and unlike you, I'm putting my money where my mouth
is.
--


Nah, you just changed the rules as I thought you would. *As it stood* you
really weren't offering a bet.


Why not? Which condition do you take issue with? Do you lose your
ability to tell cables apart once you don't know what you are listening
to? Or are you one of those who go into a panic when they have to match
X to A or B?

  #70   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Harry Lavo wrote:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:y7Kcc.80134$gA5.1003313@attbi_s03...
Subject: Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 4/6/2004 3:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: tDGcc.201401$_w.1931622@attbi_s53

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:54:38 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

I have purchased a few cables over the years, including
some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at
one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much
costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The
differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble
cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the
cheaper cable.

Try that when you don't *know* what's connected. You've never actually
done this, have you?

Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.

I wondered how long it would take you to get round to that old
strawman. That's pretty much the only reason why I still own a 'high
end' vinyl rig, a Krell amp and Apogee speakers..........


Sounds like you are more interested in arguing about audio than enjoying

it. It
makes no sense to me to invest in equipment so you can say it isn't as

good as
it is alleged to be. If you think you can do better for less you are

shooting
yourself in the proverbial foot with what you have. Should we take it that

your
position is don't buy your stuff, and you should know, you bought it?


When you are done quizzing Stewart, you might want to quiz all the
objectivist engineers here who now own SACD players despite the fact that
they can't possible sound better than ordinary CD's. You've been told that.
I've been told that. Why would *anybody* buy a SACD player?


This one is so easy. (1) There may be recordings mastered really well in
the SACD versions, compared to the same recordings in older CD versions.
(2) There are multi-channel SACD's that are fun to listen to. (3) SACD
players have gotten to the point that they are just as cheap (if not
cheaper) than dedicated CD players. (4) Curiosity about what the SACD
format sounds like. (5) DVD players with SACD function are not much more
than those without. Enough?


  #71   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

From: "Harry Lavo"
Date: 4/6/2004 9:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:y7Kcc.80134$gA5.1003313@attbi_s03...
Subject: Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

From: Stewart Pinkerton

Date: 4/6/2004 3:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: tDGcc.201401$_w.1931622@attbi_s53

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:54:38 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

I have purchased a few cables over the years, including
some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at
one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much
costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The
differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble
cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the
cheaper cable.

Try that when you don't *know* what's connected. You've never actually
done this, have you?

Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.

I wondered how long it would take you to get round to that old
strawman. That's pretty much the only reason why I still own a 'high
end' vinyl rig, a Krell amp and Apogee speakers..........


Sounds like you are more interested in arguing about audio than enjoying

it. It
makes no sense to me to invest in equipment so you can say it isn't as

good as
it is alleged to be. If you think you can do better for less you are

shooting
yourself in the proverbial foot with what you have. Should we take it that

your
position is don't buy your stuff, and you should know, you bought it?


When you are done quizzing Stewart, you might want to quiz all the
objectivist engineers here who now own SACD players despite the fact that
they can't possible sound better than ordinary CD's. You've been told that.
I've been told that. Why would *anybody* buy a SACD player?







If there are better mastered SACDs then that is reason enough even if one
believes the media are inherently equal. I have held off so far but it seems
there may be enough superior SACDs to now consider looking into it.
  #72   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove I do not hear
differences. I can and do, when using equipment of sufficient quality,
such as Stax electrostatic headphones."

You are asking us to accept you are an exception to what has been so far
totaly repeatable in listening alone tests,ie. identify wire different
then the level of guessing. Confirmation oppertunities have been offered
with cash motivation to demonstrate you are an exception. Stax has no
majic so brandishing a brand name about is not confirmation to your
claimed exception that your repeorted experiences aren't due to the
perception process and not inherent in some factor of the wire. Why
should we accept that you are an exception?
  #73   Report Post  
Michael Scarpitti
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"josko" wrote in message news:xJFcc.200900$_w.1930145@attbi_s53...

You actually prove my point, Bruce. These are both very good

cables, I
presume. The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy

to
tell. When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I

don't
mean between similar-quality products, but those of different

quality.

Isn't this a case of circular reasoning? Cheap cable -- poor

quality.
Expensive cable -- high quality.


The cables are physically different. Different insulation, different
braiding and internal construction, different terminals. The
differences represent qualitative improvememnts over cheaper cables.

Sighted test reveals, to you, that
expensive cable sounds better than the cheap cable, on some ad-hoc
measure(s) that is/are relevant to you. Not surprising really. You
start with a hypothesis that there should be a difference in sound
between the two and then you find the evidence that this indeed is

the
case. Ah... Human nature. Isn't confirmatory hypothesis testing
wonderful? And quite a problem to overcome if one's goal is to

judge
equipment based on the sound alone.


What 'hypothesis' are you talking about?


Quoting you: "The difference between cheap cables and good ones is easy
to tell."


That was a CONCLUSION, not an hypothesis. I had tried several
similarly-priced cables over the years, and found no significant
differences. When I splurged for the $100 cables, it was a far more
noticeable difference.

Or: "When I say 'I can tell the difference between cables' I don't mean
between similar-quality products, but those of different quality," which
again implies that you think that cables of different quality sound
differently. This claim of yours also implies that you can infer
quality of cables and I kinda doubt that because you keep repeating, in
one way or another, that quality and price are perfectly correlated, and
they are not. Not even close (this is actually based on some empirical
studies of various products). It seems that you use price as the key,
if not the only, proxy for quality (the other one is possibly brand
name). Hence, a $100 Monster interconnect cable sounds better to you
than a $50 Monster interconnect cable and you would be really surprised
if that is not the case.


The $100 cable does not sound 'twice as good' as the $50 cable. It's
about a 15% improvement.


I did not start out with any
'hypothesis' that there would be or would not be any difference,


Ahhh... so common in the exchanges that I had with other audiophiles on
the same topic on RAO and RAHE: We basically live on Mars, in perfect
isolation, we do not ever communicate with other fellow
audiophiles/friends, we never read audiophile magazines and even if we
do we are able to tune out all of that.


I am much less dependent on reviews than most typical audiophiles. I
do not read reviews of cables. I use only my ears. In any event, I do
not trust anything BUT my own ears. I have tried several 'tweek'
products that were highy touted and they did not seem any better to my
ears. Other tweeks did improve the sound. I am not on the fringe of
audiophiles, but squarely in the middle. I use RF traps on my cables
because they improve the sound. I do not use 'tip-toes' (I don't even
know what they look like). Nor do I use the 'brick' thing or the
'clock' thing.

I doubt that simply because a
person who considers himself to be an audiophile and entertains the idea
that there is something to be learned from sighted evaluation of two
basically same or very similar interconnects wouldn't really do that if,
at the very least, he doesn't expect the whole "experiment" to be a
valuable learning experience. The rest of the biased evaluation goes
like this: once you "detect" a difference you attentionally zero in on
it and then you "hear it" over and over again. "Frequency extremes are
cleaner" becomes a working hypothesis and every subseqent audition
reveals that indeed "the bass seemed tighter and the treble cleaner".


It was. No doubt about it.

The problem is not only that you zero in attentionally on these
differences, but you probably also do not level match between listening
sessions and this lack of level matching contributes to the illuson of
cleaner frequency extremes.


I had no reason to single these factors out BEFORE listening. I
listened with considerable attention to aeverything about the sound.
In fact, the differences are hard to describe, and are more complex,
much more complex, than that description.

Also, it is common for people to use
non-diagnostic "evidence" to support the hypothesis in any judgment.
This is especially the case with quasi-experts and audiophiles are such
a group. Very often they know minute details about various products,
yet at the same time they lack basic engineering knowledge about "how
things work", not to mention that sometimes they have completely flawed
mental models about how specific pieces of equipment work (hence
infinite resolution of vinyl and stair-step soundwaves output by DAC for
example). In this context, then non-diagnostic "evidence" is price,
brand name, and differences in level from one session to another.


I think LP's suck. At one time, I owned 1200 of them. I know.

but I
was willing to listen and use my own judgement about what I heard (or
did not hear). I have purchased a few cables over the years, including
some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at
one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much
costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The
differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble
cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the
cheaper cable.

Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.


Those who claim that there are differences between a $50 Monster
interconnect and a $100 Monster interconnect should try using a test
with implemented bias controls.


That guards against 'bias' of one kind, but the simple fact is that
without high-resolution transducers and high-quality sources and
amplification, no differences between cables can be heard even when
they do exist. It is also necessary to have a well-trained,
EXPERIENCED, ear. I promise you, that if you try listening through
Stax Lambdas you'll hear many more differences than you do through any
ordinray loudspeakers. EVERYTHING is heard: cables, amps, RF traps,
you name it.

In other words, it is not a matter of 'procedure' but a matter of
'equipment and experience'. A test can be perfectly unbiased and yet
be completely worthless.
  #74   Report Post  
TonyP
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Bruce Abrams wrote:

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:duJbc.68694$JO3.39664@attbi_s04...

Bruce Abrams wrote in message


snip


I bought this one:

http://www.monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=129

1 m. pair - 3.28 ft. ILR2-1M 102310 $99.95 pr.



The product you purchased makes several rather extraordinary claims
including the fact that a Microfiber dielectric somehow contributes to
"faster transients and greater clarity." It's interesting that the company
offers no explanation as to the mechanism that allows said microfiber
dielectric to work its magic. They also make mention of using "multiple
guage high and low frequency wire networks for accurate, natural sound
reproduction." On its surface, this sounds like a great technical
achievement, yet again, there's no explanation as to how it works. If you
were marketing such a product against competition from the likes of
Transparent, MIT, Kimber, etc. (think Coke & Pepsi) wouldn't a "blind taste
test" be the best proof of your claims? Why do you think that not one
single high end cable company includes such a blind test in the advertising
materials even though it would clearly represent the holy grail? Think
about it. All the high-end cable companies are competing for dollars
primarily from audiophiles, not from average consumer electronics purchasers
who will settle for the "included-in-the-box" interconnect that came with
their CD player. If Transparent could market their product by claiming that
"in blind comparisons, 9 out of 10 audiophiles prefered our product over
Cardas", don't you think they would?


I have heard differences in some cables. Most, they just sound the same.
I have a box of MIT's (with and without boxes), Monster, Distech,
Esoteric, Vampire, etc.. All with claim to have special properties that
makes their product "wonderful". But, I have heard differences. Nothing
of an order of magnitude, but repeatable differences. No, no 'level'
matching, just switching them in and out. I have wound up with Canare in
the system. They sound better to me than the other hi-end stuff and cost
me nothing.
I have no bone to pick with the cables I have. I bought them. Some, on
marketing, others, because I had nothing else to do.
One thing I do know is that people have different preferences in the
sound they like. I don't know if this is because of the different
"hearing" sensitivity to frequencies (has everyone's hearing been tested
and spec'ed?), or what they just think sounds good to them.
Preferences.
Oh, I remember taking my just spec'ed Phase 400 into a showroom to
compare it to the then released Carver 1.5t. I left with my Phase under
my arm and my head hanging low. I 'thought' that the Phase would more
than hold it's own against the Carver. Same designer, low low distortion
figures, it should sound the same. It didn't. It sounded 'worse'.
Speakers at the time were DCM TimeWindows. I did the switching. I choose
the music, I installed the amp. I controlled the whole test. I would
have much rather have saved me the money than to think of how I would
have to replace the venerated Phase 400. Needless to say, I bought the 1.5t.

  #75   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

"Then do so, my good man, then do so. All I have ever heard from you is
empty claims. Explian to me, in detail, HOW my mind creates a
rolled-off top end in a Bryston power amp, when I had no prior opinion
of or familiarity with Bryston amps before the listening trial.
Explain to me how my mind creates a wimpy. lifeless sound from the
Harman Kardon power amp when I had no prior opinion of or familiarity
with Harman Kardon amps before the listening trial.
"

You have presented this rrhtorical parade before, and it misses completely
the point. What must be accounted for is the reality of your claim you
are an exception to listening alone tests which show amp differences
similar to the level of guessing. To pose the question about the origin
of the perception process in an individual for 7 examples of the
assertion, not yet confirmed, about being an exception is but a red
herring. Why should we accept, before any recitation of brands and
reported experiences and assigning of descriptive labels there to, when
the foundation of your assertion to being an exception has not been
established? We don't have to account for your specific perception
experience, you have to establish you are an exception and then looking
into your reported specific experience might become something of further
interest..



  #76   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

On 7 Apr 2004 04:23:02 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

When you are done quizzing Stewart, you might want to quiz all the
objectivist engineers here who now own SACD players despite the fact that
they can't possible sound better than ordinary CD's. You've been told that.
I've been told that. Why would *anybody* buy a SACD player?


Multi-channel sound, which is a *real* advance.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #77   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

From: chung
Date: 4/7/2004 8:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

S888Wheel wrote:



The conditions are as they have always been:

Levels matched to +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz at the speaker
terminals


Just as I thought. You really didn't want to compare anyone's favorite
audiophile cables without messing with their sound.


If you know of any audiophile cable that has trouble matching to those
numbers against a 12-ga home depot zip cord, do share that information
with us. You will be doing us a favor by exposing those cables that have
trouble passing the signal without coloration.

I have never looked into it but I recall some "objectivists" claiming that some
audiophile cables do have audible colorations. That was why I made my comment
in the first place.

Test protocol double-blind

Pass criterion is 15 or more correct out of 20 trials

As it stands you could easily loose.

I don't think so, and unlike you, I'm putting my money where my mouth
is.
--


Nah, you just changed the rules as I thought you would. *As it stood* you
really weren't offering a bet.


Why not? Which condition do you take issue with?


Matching at different frequencies. If a "favorite audiophile cable" has to be
EQed to sound the same then it does sound different to begin with. Stewart did
say that one could not tell the difference between zip cord and one's favorite
audiohhile cable.

Do you lose your
ability to tell cables apart once you don't know what you are listening
to?


I don't know really. I do know that the cables I have were cited blind as
having made a difference in the sound. The sample was only one though.

Or are you one of those who go into a panic when they have to match
X to A or B?


I don't do my blind comparisons as ABX . I do them as simple A B comparisons. I
haven't compared cables in over a decade. Most of my comparisons are between
different issues of recordings.








  #79   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

chung wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:y7Kcc.80134$gA5.1003313@attbi_s03...
Subject: Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 4/6/2004 3:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: tDGcc.201401$_w.1931622@attbi_s53

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:54:38 GMT,
(Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:

I have purchased a few cables over the years, including
some that were custom-trimmed. I compared several of these cables at
one point and found no discernible differences. Then I tried a much
costlier cable (Monster brand) and it stood out from the others. The
differences were subtle, but the bass seemed tighter and the treble
cleaner. The frequency extremes, in other words, stood out from the
cheaper cable.

Try that when you don't *know* what's connected. You've never actually
done this, have you?

Those who claim that there are no differences must be using crummy
sources or transducers.

I wondered how long it would take you to get round to that old
strawman. That's pretty much the only reason why I still own a 'high
end' vinyl rig, a Krell amp and Apogee speakers..........


Sounds like you are more interested in arguing about audio than enjoying

it. It
makes no sense to me to invest in equipment so you can say it isn't as

good as
it is alleged to be. If you think you can do better for less you are

shooting
yourself in the proverbial foot with what you have. Should we take it that

your
position is don't buy your stuff, and you should know, you bought it?


When you are done quizzing Stewart, you might want to quiz all the
objectivist engineers here who now own SACD players despite the fact that
they can't possible sound better than ordinary CD's. You've been told that.
I've been told that. Why would *anybody* buy a SACD player?


This one is so easy. (1) There may be recordings mastered really well in
the SACD versions, compared to the same recordings in older CD versions.
(2) There are multi-channel SACD's that are fun to listen to.


Exactly. I don't give a fig that it's SACD. These are the reasons
I own SACDs or DVD-As..I'm interested in remasters, and in multichannel.
I also own a few DTS multichannel remasters.




--

-S.

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

  #80   Report Post  
Joseph Oberlander
 
Posts: n/a
Default Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:AaCcc.84138$K91.183903@attbi_s02...

On 5 Apr 2004 20:48:52 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:


The amps did not 'change' in the six-month interval between listening
sessions 1 and 2. They retained the same characteristics they had at
first exposure. It would be difficult to account for this on mere
psychological terms. It is, in fact, a counter-example to your
hypothesis.


Actually, it's pathetically easy to account for this on psychological
grounds. Not 'mere' psychological grounds, please note the brain is a
*very* powerful (and deceitful) instrument!



Then do so, my good man, then do so. All I have ever heard from you is
empty claims. Explian to me, in detail, HOW my mind creates a
rolled-off top end in a Bryston power amp, when I had no prior opinion
of or familiarity with Bryston amps before the listening trial.
Explain to me how my mind creates a wimpy. lifeless sound from the
Harman Kardon power amp when I had no prior opinion of or familiarity
with Harman Kardon amps before the listening trial.


My guess is that the Bryston is producing a better and more
realistic sound and that HK is suffering from some sort
of problem - either too heavy a load or running to hot
or distorting too much in the upper end. Or any
number of things.

You just are used to it. It's kind of like B&W speakers.
They have a noticeable top-end blare. It sounds good to
aging ears, but is fatiguing. After a while you adjust,
but it's still there. When you go to listen to other
speakers, they seem dull and "wimpy".
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hearing aids and music John Richards High End Audio 12 April 7th 04 06:29 PM
Can network, video and sound cables be combined to save space? Gilden Man General 4 February 3rd 04 12:33 PM
Comments about Blind Testing watch king High End Audio 24 January 28th 04 05:03 PM
Note to the Idiot George M. Middius Audio Opinions 222 January 8th 04 08:13 PM
hearing loss info Andy Weaks Car Audio 17 August 10th 03 08:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:45 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"