Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of
activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc. There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you" There are no detectable differences in cables, etc. Even though there are millions out there picking and choosing components and cables and changing cables...this little group still tends to "have all the answers". There is a tendency to measure things...with a limited tool set. This is a small vocal minority with an Engineering mindset..for the most part! Suggestions have been made that they cannot get to the real issues of the measurement and numericalizing of the audio domain until more extended toolsets are developed. As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not yet know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work and makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a rather oblique issue not related to electronics and cables, etc. Some* that have written 100,000 responses on these Newsgroups, found humor in the issue. The point was that someday it is entirely possible that once we get down to those most basic levels, some scenarios as follows might evolve. 1. We might well be able to manipulate some particles that, much like the Medical profession does with the bloodstream, we inject elements to better measure and determine what is going on there. In this scenario in electronics it might well be possible to superimpose an intense particle injection on top of the audio stream and develop measurement techniques on this most fundamental level that can be interpreted. There is another sub-atomic level of processes going on below the audio in the wire. Who thinks something along these lines is not attainable? Who thinks that the measurement processes showing watts, volts rise-times, etc..is the end of the trail? Then some comments were made regarding "...thinking outside of the lines.." This did not sit too well with some. When, in fact it is these types that are the "movers and shakers"..things will get done by this "A" type personality. In fact, there is an interesting article in the latest edition of Stereophile regarding one of the individuals that grasp much of the negative aspects of metals and its use in Audio components. I suspect we we shall someday find a bombardment in the sub-atomic particle level that gives some negative characteristics to metal in many applications. There is another sub-particle world down there...we are just not there yet. We are still dabbling in a "broadbrush" dimension. We must await the Scientist and their study of what makes this all tick and hang together. When we learn more, then, we will slowly begin to develop tools and methods to manipulate this sub-particle dimension. That opens mental horizons never really touched upon. For example: ..what really causes the so-called "skin-effect" on audio cables and its alteration of the audio***..I suspect that when more basic info is available in the sub-particle arena, there might be an alterable function in the wire extrusion processes...where wire might well be bombarded with a given set of sub-particles to achieve a given effect. The power to manipulate our Universe will take a quantum leap when we get down to grasping these most basic particle issues. The point of all this is that we still have a long way to go and some basic work is still awaiting in most disciplines. This basic work will not get accomplished by the mindset that "we have the answers and if you differ "..you have a problem with your imagination". I don't accept that. This is not acceptable. I hear differences in some cables..others do not! Let us root for those hidden research Scientist who are stiving to get all this basic info..it will be a better Universe when they do..in many disciplines! The upshot of all this is to keep an open mind. * Interesting story about this kind of thing... In the Italian Legislature Marconi was held up for ridicule when one member of the Legislature held up a wire** and boldly stated "nothing can go through this wire...there is no hole in it" This was followed by a roaring laughter and approval. ** (This was related to the antenna wire) (The principle of RF energy was alien to this group..naturally it must have a hole to flow through..using their given set of knowledge) The Legislative member was serious! It was such a new and unbelievable concept! Leonard... *** This is an issue within Amateur radio and certain wire antennas when loading the antennas with RF. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
lcw999 wrote:
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc. There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you" There are no detectable differences in cables, etc. Not just engineering, but those who are aware of decades of work in the psychology of human perception and judgement. Don't forget taht "objectivism' in audio rests on *two* foundations: 1) technical properties of the components, media, and formats 2) psychological/psychoacoustic research they are both essential to the argument. Even though there are millions out there picking and choosing components and cables and changing cables...this little group still tends to "have all the answers". Millions more simply buy the cable the guy at Best Buy recommends. There is a tendency to measure things...with a limited tool set. This is a small vocal minority with an Engineering mindset..for the most part! I question your understanding of the 'tool sets' involved, and of the sophistication of some of the main engineering voices here. *Your* grasp of science , from what I've seen, is dominated by the sorts of things one gets from speculative, gee-whiz 'Tao of Physics'-like popularizations that border on the pseudoscientific, when they don't pass over into it outright. For example: As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not yet know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work and makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a rather oblique issue not related to electronics and cables, etc. Some* that have written 100,000 responses on these Newsgroups, found humor in the issue. etc. Alas, in a place like this, it's not enough to utter the words 'Sub-Particle issues' or 'quantum mechanics' as if they explain anything -- you actually have to give evidence that they might be relevant to audible difference. Sorry, even capitalizing them won't help. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Whether we can measure and quantify sub-particles (that may or may not exist
and may or may not have any electrical significance) is irrelevant when it comes to what is audible. No one on this forum has ever stated that "if it can't be measured it can't be heard." Many of us have stated that if an audible effect is claimed to exist yet is not measurable, its audibility needs to be verified before anyone is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to measure and quantify the cause of the effect. For example, when an audible difference between two cables is claimed to be observed that is not attributable to measured resitance, capacitance and inductance, the audibility of the effect must be verified before anyone looks for another physical property that is causing the claimed effect. The process of discovering a new physical property would certainly be subject to the rigors of scientific process and peer review (and would likely result in a Nobel prize to the discovering scientist). Shouldn't the observation of such an effect at least be subject to verification under basic controlled conditions? In other words, without scientific evidence that an effect exists, no one is willing to attempt to measure it. How would you measure the amount of green cheese in the moon? The answer is that you wouldn't unless you knew it was made of green cheese. How do you measure what is causing two cables to sound different? You don't until you've proven that they sound different. "I heard a difference when I switched cables" isn't proof. "lcw999" wrote in message news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52... Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc. There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you" There are no detectable differences in cables, etc. Even though there are millions out there picking and choosing components and cables and changing cables...this little group still tends to "have all the answers". There is a tendency to measure things...with a limited tool set. This is a small vocal minority with an Engineering mindset..for the most part! Suggestions have been made that they cannot get to the real issues of the measurement and numericalizing of the audio domain until more extended toolsets are developed. As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not yet know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work and makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a rather oblique issue not related to electronics and cables, etc. Some* that have written 100,000 responses on these Newsgroups, found humor in the issue. The point was that someday it is entirely possible that once we get down to those most basic levels, some scenarios as follows might evolve. 1. We might well be able to manipulate some particles that, much like the Medical profession does with the bloodstream, we inject elements to better measure and determine what is going on there. In this scenario in electronics it might well be possible to superimpose an intense particle injection on top of the audio stream and develop measurement techniques on this most fundamental level that can be interpreted. There is another sub-atomic level of processes going on below the audio in the wire. Who thinks something along these lines is not attainable? Who thinks that the measurement processes showing watts, volts rise-times, etc..is the end of the trail? Then some comments were made regarding "...thinking outside of the lines.." This did not sit too well with some. When, in fact it is these types that are the "movers and shakers"..things will get done by this "A" type personality. In fact, there is an interesting article in the latest edition of Stereophile regarding one of the individuals that grasp much of the negative aspects of metals and its use in Audio components. I suspect we we shall someday find a bombardment in the sub-atomic particle level that gives some negative characteristics to metal in many applications. There is another sub-particle world down there...we are just not there yet. We are still dabbling in a "broadbrush" dimension. We must await the Scientist and their study of what makes this all tick and hang together. When we learn more, then, we will slowly begin to develop tools and methods to manipulate this sub-particle dimension. That opens mental horizons never really touched upon. For example: ..what really causes the so-called "skin-effect" on audio cables and its alteration of the audio***..I suspect that when more basic info is available in the sub-particle arena, there might be an alterable function in the wire extrusion processes...where wire might well be bombarded with a given set of sub-particles to achieve a given effect. The power to manipulate our Universe will take a quantum leap when we get down to grasping these most basic particle issues. The point of all this is that we still have a long way to go and some basic work is still awaiting in most disciplines. This basic work will not get accomplished by the mindset that "we have the answers and if you differ "..you have a problem with your imagination". I don't accept that. This is not acceptable. I hear differences in some cables..others do not! Let us root for those hidden research Scientist who are stiving to get all this basic info..it will be a better Universe when they do..in many disciplines! The upshot of all this is to keep an open mind. * Interesting story about this kind of thing... In the Italian Legislature Marconi was held up for ridicule when one member of the Legislature held up a wire** and boldly stated "nothing can go through this wire...there is no hole in it" This was followed by a roaring laughter and approval. ** (This was related to the antenna wire) (The principle of RF energy was alien to this group..naturally it must have a hole to flow through..using their given set of knowledge) The Legislative member was serious! It was such a new and unbelievable concept! Leonard... *** This is an issue within Amateur radio and certain wire antennas when loading the antennas with RF. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Ah, the very tools that are totally and completely required to settle the
wire, amp, etc. questions are already at hand, your ears. We can do a complete evaluation with listening alone as the experiment. All we need is evaluate two level matched etc. items without knowledge which is active and determine if any of our perceived by listening alone correlates with which is the active gear. All one need do is have someone place a cloth over the connections so as to remove knowledge during the listening alone with only our ears as tools. We need not look to the future and some new knowledge of sub atomic phenomena when we have the tools attached to each of our heads. I'm told when this has been done that the correlation of reported differences from ears alone to which was the actual active gear is at a level similar to that of random guessing. The only possible new measurement that could somehow then make a difference that we don't now have is either some distortion from cloth touching connectrs or some esp type feedback that modulates the electrical performance of the unknown active gear. What other possible measurement of what would undermine the above "just use your ears" listening alone test? Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc. There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you" There are no detectable differences in cables, etc. Even though there are millions out there picking and choosing components and cables and changing cables...this little group still tends to "have all the answers". There is a tendency to measure things...with a limited tool set. This is a small vocal minority with an Engineering mindset..for the most part! Suggestions have been made that they cannot get to the real issues of the measurement and numericalizing of the audio domain until more extended toolsets are developed. As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not yet know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work and makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a rather oblique issue not related to electronics and cables, etc. Some* that have written 100,000 responses on these Newsgroups, found humor in the issue. The point was that someday it is entirely possible that once we get down to those most basic levels, some scenarios as follows might evolve. 1. We might well be able to manipulate some particles that, much like the Medical profession does with the bloodstream, we inject elements to better measure and determine what is going on there. In this scenario in electronics it might well be possible to superimpose an intense particle injection on top of the audio stream and develop measurement techniques on this most fundamental level that can be interpreted. There is another sub-atomic level of processes going on below the audio in the wire. Who thinks something along these lines is not attainable? Who thinks that the measurement processes showing watts, volts rise-times, etc..is the end of the trail? Then some comments were made regarding "...thinking outside of the lines.." This did not sit too well with some. When, in fact it is these types that are the "movers and shakers"..things will get done by this "A" type personality. In fact, there is an interesting article in the latest edition of Stereophile regarding one of the individuals that grasp much of the negative aspects of metals and its use in Audio components. I suspect we we shall someday find a bombardment in the sub-atomic particle level that gives some negative characteristics to metal in many applications. There is another sub-particle world down there...we are just not there yet. We are still dabbling in a "broadbrush" dimension. We must await the Scientist and their study of what makes this all tick and hang together. When we learn more, then, we will slowly begin to develop tools and methods to manipulate this sub-particle dimension. That opens mental horizons never really touched upon. For example: ..what really causes the so-called "skin-effect" on audio cables and its alteration of the audio***..I suspect that when more basic info is available in the sub-particle arena, there might be an alterable function in the wire extrusion processes...where wire might well be bombarded with a given set of sub-particles to achieve a given effect. The power to manipulate our Universe will take a quantum leap when we get down to grasping these most basic particle issues. The point of all this is that we still have a long way to go and some basic work is still awaiting in most disciplines. This basic work will not get accomplished by the mindset that "we have the answers and if you differ "..you have a problem with your imagination". I don't accept that. This is not acceptable. I hear differences in some cables..others do not! Let us root for those hidden research Scientist who are stiving to get all this basic info..it will be a better Universe when they do..in many disciplines! The upshot of all this is to keep an open mind. * Interesting story about this kind of thing... In the Italian Legislature Marconi was held up for ridicule when one member of the Legislature held up a wire** and boldly stated "nothing can go through this wire...there is no hole in it" This was followed by a roaring laughter and approval. ** (This was related to the antenna wire) (The principle of RF energy was alien to this group..naturally it must have a hole to flow through..using their given set of knowledge) The Legislative member was serious! It was such a new and unbelievable concept! Leonard... *** This is an issue within Amateur radio and certain wire antennas when loading the antennas with RF. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
lcw999 wrote:
Suggestions have been made that they cannot get to the real issues of the measurement and numericalizing of the audio domain until more extended toolsets are developed. As an example, I brought up the fundamental issues regarding our lack of knowledge regarding Sub-Particle issues. We do not yet know the most basic elements that makes "everything" work and makes things "stick" together. This was passed off as a rather oblique issue not related to electronics and cables, etc. Some* that have written 100,000 responses on these Newsgroups, found humor in the issue. Leonard, I really would recommend before going into the unknown, to be informed about what science up to now has found out. There is nothing more revealing than reality, you will find even answers to questions which havn't come up. In the Italian Legislature Marconi was held up for ridicule when one member of the Legislature held up a wire** and boldly stated "nothing can go through this wire...there is no hole in it" This was followed by a roaring laughter and approval. Your view is exactly like these Italien parliamentists (still today it's the same), who are uninformed and unscientific. You must be of Italian heritage. We tend to believe in all kind of magic and mystic things, it is a gift from Catholicism. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
lcw999 wrote in message news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
In the Italian Legislature Marconi was held up for ridicule when one member of the Legislature held up a wire** and boldly stated "nothing can go through this wire...there is no hole in it" This was followed by a roaring laughter and approval. Then, my friend, let's complete the analogy. It is members of the audiophile community that are the analogs of the Italian Legislature. You have describe a body utterly unversed in physics, electronics, and the extent of knowledge. They scoff when presented with ideas counter to their deeply held believe system, a system NOT shaped through knowledge, experimentation and rigor, but through blind intuition and political agenda. Oh, and this also applies to the Italian Legislature as well, beside the audiophile community. You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such, without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that field who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the macro world. Yes, "They laughed at Marconi," they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote:
lcw999 wrote in message news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52... In the Italian Legislature Marconi was held up for ridicule when one member of the Legislature held up a wire** and boldly stated "nothing can go through this wire...there is no hole in it" This was followed by a roaring laughter and approval. Then, my friend, let's complete the analogy. It is members of the audiophile community that are the analogs of the Italian Legislature. You have describe a body utterly unversed in physics, electronics, and the extent of knowledge. They scoff when presented with ideas counter to their deeply held believe system, a system NOT shaped through knowledge, experimentation and rigor, but through blind intuition and political agenda. Oh, and this also applies to the Italian Legislature as well, beside the audiophile community. You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such, without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that field who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the macro world. Sorry, but I have discussed this with individuals in this realm. Perhaps you meant "micro"...but, there is not enough knowledge available at this early state to know what can be related to any of these sub-particle dimensions. The reason for the comments about particle issues was to merely wake up those that think that our awareness of current "seemingly known" issues is most likely tied in with other levels of particles... therefore...we will learn much in the future about what is now referred to as a "stable, all is known" category. Don't get upset here...we are still stumbling through the basics...more will evolve. Don't be surprized that we might well learn to manipulate certain particles in this sub-particle domain. Yes, "They laughed at Marconi," they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. I don't think Bozo existed at that time... Thanks for the comments anyway. Leonard... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:29:13 GMT, lcw999 wrote:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote: You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such, without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that field who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the macro world. Sorry, but I have discussed this with individuals in this realm. Perhaps you meant "micro"...but, there is not enough knowledge available at this early state to know what can be related to any of these sub-particle dimensions. The reason for the comments about particle issues was to merely wake up those that think that our awareness of current "seemingly known" issues is most likely tied in with other levels of particles... therefore...we will learn much in the future about what is now referred to as a "stable, all is known" category. Don't get upset here...we are still stumbling through the basics...more will evolve. Don't be surprized that we might well learn to manipulate certain particles in this sub-particle domain. However, you failed to note that all this handwaving is totally irrelevant to audio. Why? Because *before* you start investigating a cause, you need to demonstrate the existence of an effect. This, you have signally failed to do. Cold fusion, anyone? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 20:36:01 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:29:13 GMT, lcw999 wrote: On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote: You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such, without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that field who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the macro world. Sorry, but I have discussed this with individuals in this realm. Perhaps you meant "micro"...but, there is not enough knowledge available at this early state to know what can be related to any of these sub-particle dimensions. The reason for the comments about particle issues was to merely wake up those that think that our awareness of current "seemingly known" issues is most likely tied in with other levels of particles... therefore...we will learn much in the future about what is now referred to as a "stable, all is known" category. Don't get upset here...we are still stumbling through the basics...more will evolve. Don't be surprized that we might well learn to manipulate certain particles in this sub-particle domain. However, you failed to note that all this handwaving is totally irrelevant to audio. Why? Because *before* you start investigating a cause, you need to demonstrate the existence of an effect. This, you have signally failed to do. Cold fusion, anyone? Whoa..again!! This whole verbal process was stated in such a manner to make the point that perhaps we should be a bit wary of "..having all the answers"...this early in the game. We do not yet have such fundamental factors about what makes things tick yet...new breakthroughs come daily. So watch the "..start investigating a cause"..misreadings. No investigating a cause here..If one does not see the logic mentioned above then remain in the box..be happy! Sorry one has to revert to the "handwaving" routine, etc. The rigidness of some learned processes early in the game has apparently "read-in" many "imagined" threats here. Perhaps, I should paint a picture, again: Look over the fences..other disciplines are knocking on the door of potential change for all current knowledge on any given subject. This defensiveness is normal!! It is the Scientific World that is going to rewrite so much of what we know...as they always have. Do not continue to hide in the engineering defensiveness! The Scientist might well provide a toolset that the engineers can use to prove "all cables are the same* in the audio domain". Then one would not have to resort to the "ole Phychology of audio trick", where all is imagined...frequently used if it differs from some "in the box beliefs"! Sorry! One cannot consistently keep using this ole "bias" bucket toolset..people tend to not believe all that. Leonard... * But then, those hateful, devious types that make these "designer" cables might start injecting them with SOMETHING..and change the sound. This requiring two pages of small print exceptions to render the new toolset as correct! Drat, one cannot win! Mercy..mercy! |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
lcw999 wrote:
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 20:36:01 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:29:13 GMT, lcw999 wrote: On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote: You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such, without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that field who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the macro world. Sorry, but I have discussed this with individuals in this realm. Perhaps you meant "micro"...but, there is not enough knowledge available at this early state to know what can be related to any of these sub-particle dimensions. The reason for the comments about particle issues was to merely wake up those that think that our awareness of current "seemingly known" issues is most likely tied in with other levels of particles... therefore...we will learn much in the future about what is now referred to as a "stable, all is known" category. Don't get upset here...we are still stumbling through the basics...more will evolve. Don't be surprized that we might well learn to manipulate certain particles in this sub-particle domain. However, you failed to note that all this handwaving is totally irrelevant to audio. Why? Because *before* you start investigating a cause, you need to demonstrate the existence of an effect. This, you have signally failed to do. Cold fusion, anyone? Whoa..again!! This whole verbal process was stated in such a manner to make the point that perhaps we should be a bit wary of "..having all the answers"...this early in the game. We do not yet have such fundamental factors about what makes things tick yet...new breakthroughs come daily. Objectivist: Elephants do not fly. Can you give any evidence that they do? Some Subjectivist: Whoa! Particle Physics tells us there are a lot of things we don't yet understand, at the particle level. We simply cannot trust our eyes at this time to tell us whether elephants fly. We don't have the advanced tools to detect flying elephants. I'm sure some day in the future, we will have the basic understanding and the tools to appreciate how elephants can fly. And we cannot dismiss anecdotes of people seeing flying elephants; that will be the easy way out. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
In article RAl9c.108645$_w.1357635@attbi_s53,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Cold fusion, anyone? Nowadays it's all Zero Point Energy, or nothing. Go Casimir, go DC -- Dave Collins Entropy just isn't what it used to be! www.collinsaudio.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 22:42:18 GMT, lcw999 wrote:
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 20:36:01 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 03:29:13 GMT, lcw999 wrote: On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +0000, Dick Pierce wrote: You brought up the point of "particle interactions" and some such, without ever once, apparently, listening to those experts in that field who will tell you that the rules at that level are irrelevant in the macro world. Sorry, but I have discussed this with individuals in this realm. Perhaps you meant "micro"...but, there is not enough knowledge available at this early state to know what can be related to any of these sub-particle dimensions. The reason for the comments about particle issues was to merely wake up those that think that our awareness of current "seemingly known" issues is most likely tied in with other levels of particles... therefore...we will learn much in the future about what is now referred to as a "stable, all is known" category. Don't get upset here...we are still stumbling through the basics...more will evolve. Don't be surprized that we might well learn to manipulate certain particles in this sub-particle domain. However, you failed to note that all this handwaving is totally irrelevant to audio. Why? Because *before* you start investigating a cause, you need to demonstrate the existence of an effect. This, you have signally failed to do. Cold fusion, anyone? Whoa..again!! This whole verbal process was stated in such a manner to make the point that perhaps we should be a bit wary of "..having all the answers"...this early in the game. We do not yet have such fundamental factors about what makes things tick yet...new breakthroughs come daily. Whoa yourself! Of course we don't know everything about the Universe, but we *do* know that not one single person has *ever* been able to demonstrate the existence of 'cable sound'. Without *evidence* of audible difference, the is *no* need to go off into the realms of fantasy looking for subatomic causes - for a non-existent effect. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
lcw999 wrote in message news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52...
Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc. There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you" There are no detectable differences in cables, etc. According to William of Occam, nature does not work in a more complicated way than necessary. Given two explanations, the one that is simpler is more likely to be true. The simplest explanation for why people hear difference between cable is that there are audible differences between cables. Citing 'psychological factors' is no explanation at all. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
lcw999 wrote in message news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52... Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc. There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you" There are no detectable differences in cables, etc. According to William of Occam, nature does not work in a more complicated way than necessary. Given two explanations, the one that is simpler is more likely to be true. As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." The simplest explanation for why people hear difference between cable is that there are audible differences between cables. The simplest explanation for why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is that the sun revolves around the earth. So much for Occam. (Or, rather, so much for your version of Occam.) Citing 'psychological factors' is no explanation at all. So what is Occam's explanation for why people sometimes hear differences between things that are exactly the same? bob __________________________________________________ _______________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:48:56 +0000, Nousaine wrote:
"Bob Marcus" wrote: Michael Scarpitti wrote: lcw999 wrote in message news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52... Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc. There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you" There are no detectable differences in cables, etc. According to William of Occam, nature does not work in a more complicated way than necessary. Given two explanations, the one that is simpler is more likely to be true. As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." The simplest explanation for why people hear difference between cable is that there are audible differences between cables. The simplest explanation for why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is that the sun revolves around the earth. So much for Occam. (Or, rather, so much for your version of Occam.) Citing 'psychological factors' is no explanation at all. So what is Occam's explanation for why people sometimes hear differences between things that are exactly the same? We never have had the hard facts that any two of anything is "exactly" the same. You are going from the source (amps-preamp-spk) to the acoustic sphere (air-atmospheric pressure-etc) to the variables of the individual ear-brain structure that varies somewhat between every individual...so if with todays toolsets you determining anything is "exactly" the same.. ..be a bit cautious about the "exactly" stuff. We are not there yet. One can fix about any problem with ye ole "bias-box". What a wonderful tool! bob Or the folks on this wonderful episode of Candid Camera where subjects gladly described the major "differences" in the taste of wine which was poured out of the same bottle. In this case Candid Camera had a table with several filled glasses of wine which were filled from the same bottle but each of which had a partially filled open bottle of wine placed next to each glass. I think the simplest explantion was expectation effect/ common human percepual bias mechanisms. Of course, they only had interviews with a few subjects and it is possible that they had to conduct 100 trials to get a small number of "interesting" responses. But, that doesn't seem likely ...... only 60-minutes or NBC (remember the pick-up side-gas-tank explosion story where they had to use rocket motors to get crash explosions?) would be capable of such gross offense. Even so Candid Camera they only had 6 of 25 or so with perceptually biased answers it's still likely that the simplest explanation of cable sound IS human perceptual bias. __________________________________________________ _ In other postings we refer to the more logical "perceptual interpretation". However, to pursue a given agenda we now use "perceptual bias". One cannot lose with this type of engineering. The ole "bias toolbox" has been opened again. Can't have it both ways!! No one really believes "all is the same"..the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Some are different..others, much the same. Leonard... |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
lcw999 wrote:
"Bob Marcus" wrote: So what is Occam's explanation for why people sometimes hear differences between things that are exactly the same? We never have had the hard facts that any two of anything is "exactly" the same. No, I meant literally exactly the same, as in, nobody flipped the switch (or switched in the other cables, or whatever). If we can be fooled then (and we can), why can't we be fooled when somebody does flip the switch? And if we *can* be fooled when somebody does flip the switch, how do we know we haven't been fooled? (Answer: Bias controls!) bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Free up your inbox with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage. Multiple plans available. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&...ave/direct/01/ |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:kbjac.138194$_w.1598626@attbi_s53... On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 02:54:22 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: (Nousaine) wrote in message ... I don't think so. Muller-Lyrer lines, photos of the St Louis Arch (examples of built-in human perceptual error) and experiments where its been shown that humans will gladly report differences a large majority of the time when given 2 identical sound presentations telsl me that the simplest explanation is that perceptual error is the most likely cause of cable-sound. For an 'explanation' to 'explain', there must be some content. Citing 'perceptual bias' does not account for many of the aspects in listening, such as consistency from time to time. Absolute nonsense! Repetitive reinforcement is one of the mosty basic psychological precepts. We have been over this. I listened to several amplifiers several months apart. If there was no 'real' difference between them, why was the same sound character present that I had heard before? I mean, you have to give an account that shows how I could manage such a sophisticated feat... Obviously, you can't... That would be most likely due to hindsight bias a known bias effect in medical analysis. When you already 'know; the expected effect it most assuredly will reappear when bias mechanisms are noy controlled. Why not try this for yourself? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:03:46 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:kbjac.138194$_w.1598626@attbi_s53... On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 02:54:22 GMT, (Michael Scarpitti) wrote: (Nousaine) wrote in message ... I don't think so. Muller-Lyrer lines, photos of the St Louis Arch (examples of built-in human perceptual error) and experiments where its been shown that humans will gladly report differences a large majority of the time when given 2 identical sound presentations telsl me that the simplest explanation is that perceptual error is the most likely cause of cable-sound. For an 'explanation' to 'explain', there must be some content. Citing 'perceptual bias' does not account for many of the aspects in listening, such as consistency from time to time. Absolute nonsense! Repetitive reinforcement is one of the mosty basic psychological precepts. We have been over this. Indeed we have, and you ignored the obvious explanation the last time, too............... I listened to several amplifiers several months apart. If there was no 'real' difference between them, why was the same sound character present that I had heard before? Because you expected it. I take it that you *are* equipped with a memory? I mean, you have to give an account that shows how I could manage such a sophisticated feat... Obviously, you can't... Obviously, I did, and you ignored it again. It's not a 'sophisticated feat', it's very, very basic human behaviour. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
lcw999 wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:48:56 +0000, Nousaine wrote: "Bob Marcus" wrote: Michael Scarpitti wrote: lcw999 wrote in message news:9Pn8c.87424$po.663367@attbi_s52... Over the years these Audio newsgroups have been a beehive of activity regarding Cables, Amps, CD players...etc. There is a contingent on some of these groups that tend to have an Engineering bent toward those that frequent the High-End audio...basically, it states your "imagination is misleading you" There are no detectable differences in cables, etc. According to William of Occam, nature does not work in a more complicated way than necessary. Given two explanations, the one that is simpler is more likely to be true. As Einstein said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." The simplest explanation for why people hear difference between cable is that there are audible differences between cables. The simplest explanation for why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is that the sun revolves around the earth. So much for Occam. (Or, rather, so much for your version of Occam.) Citing 'psychological factors' is no explanation at all. So what is Occam's explanation for why people sometimes hear differences between things that are exactly the same? We never have had the hard facts that any two of anything is "exactly" the same. You are going from the source (amps-preamp-spk) to the acoustic sphere (air-atmospheric pressure-etc) to the variables of the individual ear-brain structure that varies somewhat between every individual...so if with todays toolsets you determining anything is "exactly" the same.. ..be a bit cautious about the "exactly" stuff. We are not there yet. One can fix about any problem with ye ole "bias-box". What a wonderful tool! bob Or the folks on this wonderful episode of Candid Camera where subjects gladly described the major "differences" in the taste of wine which was poured out of the same bottle. In this case Candid Camera had a table with several filled glasses of wine which were filled from the same bottle but each of which had a partially filled open bottle of wine placed next to each glass. I think the simplest explantion was expectation effect/ common human percepual bias mechanisms. Of course, they only had interviews with a few subjects and it is possible that they had to conduct 100 trials to get a small number of "interesting" responses. But, that doesn't seem likely ...... only 60-minutes or NBC (remember the pick-up side-gas-tank explosion story where they had to use rocket motors to get crash explosions?) would be capable of such gross offense. Even so Candid Camera they only had 6 of 25 or so with perceptually biased answers it's still likely that the simplest explanation of cable sound IS human perceptual bias. __________________________________________________ _ In other postings we refer to the more logical "perceptual interpretation". However, to pursue a given agenda we now use "perceptual bias". One cannot lose with this type of engineering. The ole "bias toolbox" has been opened again. Can't have it both ways!! No one really believes "all is the same"..the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Some are different..others, much the same. Leonard... Actually any two objects can never be physically identical (one will always have a microscopic bit of duct more or less) but when conditions are arranged so that subjects get two presentations that are arranged to be perceptually identical (or so similar that they fall below known thresholds) and still subjects report "differences" what are we supposed to believe? It's interesting that presentations arranged to be acoustically identical will be reported as perceptually different by humans; and that when experienced audiophiles "fail" to reliably identify amps/cables when nothing moe than a cloth is placed over the input/output terminals some folks will argue that there WERE "real" differences that cannot yet be "measured" will be uncovered later. I still wonder why some amp/cable manufacturer with nominally competent electrical performance can't produce a bias controlled listening test that shows their products have any sound of their own? It's a quandry. So many want me to "believe" but when I say "OK show me .... when you don't know the answers in advance" --- no one can. I'm not thinking that 'unmeasurable but real' differences fit into the equation in a meaningful way. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Wquac.42199$w54.279014@attbi_s01...
Absolute nonsense! Repetitive reinforcement is one of the mosty basic psychological precepts. We have been over this. Indeed we have, and you ignored the obvious explanation the last time, too............... There is no 'explanation'. It accounts for nothing. I listened to several amplifiers several months apart. If there was no 'real' difference between them, why was the same sound character present that I had heard before? Because you expected it. I take it that you *are* equipped with a memory? 'What' did I expect the first time? How was I able to remember all the details? How was I able to produce all the details the first time and do it flawlessley again later? Any such 'explanation' is false on its face. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
lcw999 wrote: I still wonder why some amp/cable manufacturer with nominally competent electrical performance can't produce a bias controlled listening test that shows their products have any sound of their own? It's a quandry. So many want me to "believe" but when I say "OK show me ... when you don't know the answers in advance" --- no one can. I'm not thinking that 'unmeasurable but real' differences fit into the equation in a meaningful way. It should come as no surprise to anyone that top-tier products like cables have little 'sound' of their own, and that it's the cheaper stuff that does. Ergo, the better the quality, the more closely perfection is approached, and the subtler the differences. Comparisons between two brands of high-end cables are less likely to show differences than comparisons between cheap cables and high-end cables. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:xVLac.47343$gA5.602175@attbi_s03... (Nousaine) wrote in message news:aAsac.142981$_w.1631847@attbi_s53... Absolute nonsense! Repetitive reinforcement is one of the mosty basic psychological precepts. We have been over this. I listened to several amplifiers several months apart. If there was no 'real' difference between them, why was the same sound character present that I had heard before? I mean, you have to give an account that shows how I could manage such a sophisticated feat... Obviously, you can't... That would be most likely due to hindsight bias a known bias effect in medical analysis. When you already 'know; the expected effect it most assuredly will reappear when bias mechanisms are noy controlled. Why not try this for yourself? 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.) |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
... (Nousaine) wrote in message ... lcw999 wrote: I still wonder why some amp/cable manufacturer with nominally competent electrical performance can't produce a bias controlled listening test that shows their products have any sound of their own? It's a quandry. So many want me to "believe" but when I say "OK show me ... when you don't know the answers in advance" --- no one can. I'm not thinking that 'unmeasurable but real' differences fit into the equation in a meaningful way. 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. Actually, it should come as a great surprise to those who are willing to spend mega-bucks on cables every so often, and even more of a surprise to the reviewers who wax poetic over the incredible difference one megabuck cable makes over another. 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 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? 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. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Bruce Abrams wrote:
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message news:xVLac.47343$gA5.602175@attbi_s03... (Nousaine) wrote in message news:aAsac.142981$_w.1631847@attbi_s53... Absolute nonsense! Repetitive reinforcement is one of the mosty basic psychological precepts. We have been over this. I listened to several amplifiers several months apart. If there was no 'real' difference between them, why was the same sound character present that I had heard before? I mean, you have to give an account that shows how I could manage such a sophisticated feat... Obviously, you can't... That would be most likely due to hindsight bias a known bias effect in medical analysis. When you already 'know; the expected effect it most assuredly will reappear when bias mechanisms are noy controlled. Why not try this for yourself? 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.) I became interested in bias-controls when I had the same experience with capacitors. For enthusiasts this kind of thing seems inevitable. After the 2nd or 3rd 'mistake' I think one has to decide if he's going to investigate true audibility or not or just ignore contrary evidence. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message ... lcw999 wrote: I still wonder why some amp/cable manufacturer with nominally competent electrical performance can't produce a bias controlled listening test that shows their products have any sound of their own? It's a quandry. So many want me to "believe" but when I say "OK show me ... when you don't know the answers in advance" --- no one can. I'm not thinking that 'unmeasurable but real' differences fit into the equation in a meaningful way. 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. 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. Iszzzat so! In the 90s I conducted 2 separate bias controlled wire-sound tests in audiophiles home systems (one an enthusiast and one an audio salesman) who both claimed that their particular wire was substantially better sounding than zip-cord. Both had several hundred dollars of speaker cabling in their systems. Interestingly neither was able to reliably differentiate their reference cabling from $0.18 a foot zipcord. I then repeated this with a 20-year old female college student comparing the zip cord to an 8-foot set of $990 Tara Labs RSC speaker wires. She was also unable to tell them apart. It's also intersting to think about what a wire "manufacturer" actually "makes." For example the Tara Labs RSC (a rectangular shaped copper wire in a translucent casing) was recognized by a member at an audio club ...."I know that wire; we used that to restrap starter motors when I worked at ....." I've visited Transparent Audio Marketing in New Hampshire and I didn't see anything being manufactuered there except for network boxes and terminations. The "wire" was in an old barn wound on cable spools with New England Wire and Cable stamped on them. IOW wire "manufacturers" don't make wire. At best they terminate them. I'm guessing that companies such as Monster Cable may not even have to warehouse cables but simply have them drop-shipped from the manufacturer directly to the vendor from the manufacturer/packaging house. It's all BS but technically brilliant marketing. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message news:Wquac.42199$w54.279014@attbi_s01... Absolute nonsense! Repetitive reinforcement is one of the mosty basic psychological precepts. We have been over this. Indeed we have, and you ignored the obvious explanation the last time, too............... There is no 'explanation'. It accounts for nothing. I listened to several amplifiers several months apart. If there was no 'real' difference between them, why was the same sound character present that I had heard before? Because you expected it. I take it that you *are* equipped with a memory? 'What' did I expect the first time? What had you decided that you wanted to expect? That's what. 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? 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? Any such 'explanation' is false on its face. No kidding? (We are discussing loudspeakers, right? And LPs?) |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Michael Scarpitti wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message ... I don't think so. Muller-Lyrer lines, photos of the St Louis Arch (examples of built-in human perceptual error) and experiments where its been shown that humans will gladly report differences a large majority of the time when given 2 identical sound presentations telsl me that the simplest explanation is that perceptual error is the most likely cause of cable-sound. For an 'explanation' to 'explain', there must be some content. Citing 'perceptual bias' does not account for many of the aspects in listening, such as consistency from time to time. Every time I pay an obscene boatload of money for cables, my whole system sounds much better. Every time, just the same way. And, oh man, when I found out that there really were such things as cable trestles! Thank god they cost so much! |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Bruce Abrams" wrote in message
news:Mx_ac.156391$Cb.1611810@attbi_s51... "Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message ... (Nousaine) wrote in message ... lcw999 wrote: I still wonder why some amp/cable manufacturer with nominally competent electrical performance can't produce a bias controlled listening test that shows their products have any sound of their own? It's a quandry. So many want me to "believe" but when I say "OK show me ... when you don't know the answers in advance" --- no one can. I'm not thinking that 'unmeasurable but real' differences fit into the equation in a meaningful way. 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. Actually, it should come as a great surprise to those who are willing to spend mega-bucks on cables every so often, and even more of a surprise to the reviewers who wax poetic over the incredible difference one megabuck cable makes over another. 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 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? 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. If you will lay your prejudices aside, The Absolute Sound has run a survey of speaker cables in the last two issues (Feb/Mar, Apr/May just out). Previously they did a survey of interconnects. Both surveys done by Paul Seydor and Neil Gader. To quote part of Paul's summary: "... Let me also emphasize that our capsule descriptions have for the most part *really magnified* the differences among these cables. The reality is that it typically required keen, rather exhausting, and decidedly *not* enjoyable concentration to ferret out most of the individual characteristics we've attempted to describe. Could we tell which cable was connected up, say, a few hours after a session or the next morning, if we didn't know? Maybe with the cables that fell to either extreme of the tonal-balance spectrum, but, as in our interconnect survey, I'd not want to place my hard-earned money on it...." (TAS, *Loudspeaker Cable Survey, Part Two*, April/May 2004 pp 63-64). BTW they included a 14gauge Home Depot cable derived from an outside power cord in the survey and it did pretty well. This group's objectivists might want to consider that they have continued to attack their own fantasia, while the audio world has moved on. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Nousaine wrote:
I became interested in bias-controls when I had the same experience with capacitors. For enthusiasts this kind of thing seems inevitable. After the 2nd or 3rd 'mistake' I think one has to decide if he's going to investigate true audibility or not or just ignore contrary evidence. Did you come to any conclusions about capacitor "sound"? Stephen |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"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 $2,000 KEF subwoofer. The carton said "Made in China". Is it a good subwoofer? That should be determined, not by whether it was made in the UK or in China, or how well it is marketed, but by its performance. Wylie Williams The Speaker and Stereo Store |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Bruce Abrams" wrote in message news:Mx_ac.156391$Cb.1611810@attbi_s51... *snip* If you will lay your prejudices aside, The Absolute Sound has run a survey of speaker cables in the last two issues (Feb/Mar, Apr/May just out). Previously they did a survey of interconnects. Both surveys done by Paul Seydor and Neil Gader. To quote part of Paul's summary: "... Let me also emphasize that our capsule descriptions have for the most part *really magnified* the differences among these cables. The reality is that it typically required keen, rather exhausting, and decidedly *not* enjoyable concentration to ferret out most of the individual characteristics we've attempted to describe. Could we tell which cable was connected up, say, a few hours after a session or the next morning, if we didn't know? Maybe with the cables that fell to either extreme of the tonal-balance spectrum, but, as in our interconnect survey, I'd not want to place my hard-earned money on it...." (TAS, *Loudspeaker Cable Survey, Part Two*, April/May 2004 pp 63-64). BTW they included a 14gauge Home Depot cable derived from an outside power cord in the survey and it did pretty well. This group's objectivists might want to consider that they have continued to attack their own fantasia, while the audio world has moved on. If the audio world has moved on, why are there still companies selling obscenely priced speaker cables that are indistinguishable from 12 guage zip cord? The answer is that they haven't really moved on. Here's how I read Paul's summary...We can't really tell the difference between cables, but there must be some difference because nobody would spend that much money on cables if there wasn't, and if there really aren't any differences Kimber, Transparent, MIT, etc. no longer have any reason for existing and if they don't exist they can't buy ad space and if they don't buy ad space...(NB I don't believe anyone would write a good review of bad equipment just to save the advertising revenue. That is not the same as allowing perceptual bias to infect a review by not controlling for it.) |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!!
Bruce Abrams wrote in message news:Mx_ac.156391$Cb.1611810@attbi_s51...
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. Actually, it should come as a great surprise to those who are willing to spend mega-bucks on cables every so often, and even more of a surprise to the reviewers who wax poetic over the incredible difference one megabuck cable makes over another. I have described, before, my test of listening to $50 Monster interconnect and $100 Monster interconnect. I can tell them apart. 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 bought this one: http://www.monstercable.com/productPage.asp?pin=129 1 m. pair - 3.28 ft. ILR2-1M 102310 $99.95 pr. I compared it to an older Monster cable that was about half that price. 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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Hearing aids and music | High End Audio | |||
Can network, video and sound cables be combined to save space? | General | |||
Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
hearing loss info | Car Audio |