Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
Except for my 4 year old CD player, I bought my system back in '92. Here's
what I've got: Yamaha RX-V850 Pro-Logic receiver (100 watts each on front channels, 30 watts each on rear channels) Rotel RCD-951 CD player Yamaha KX-330 cassette deck Quasar 27" stereo TV Quasar stereo VCR JBL LX44s for front speakers, LX300s for rear speakers, modified SC-305 for center speaker I don't have a subwoofer because I get excellent bottom end with my system the way it is. I want to upgrade my cables. I've still got the Original Monster Cable speaker cable that I bought 12 years ago, which, although not considered high end, is still a good, solid, dependable, sturdy, shielded 12 gauge speaker cable. I've got two choices. I can: A) Keep my Original Monster Cable and upgrade my interconnects to match it's quality. The interconnects would be the Audio Interlink 400 Mk.2 and the Video Interlink 3. Or B) Get rid of my Original Monster Cable and go top-of-the-line all around with Monster's best quality Z series speaker and interconnect cable. This option would obviously cost me a lot more money than option A. As far as a line conditioner is concerned, which Monster product would be best for my system? I know there're lots of other excellent brands out there. The reason I'm going with Monster is because I know someone who works for a Monster dealer and can get me 60% off retail prices. Comments and suggestions regarding all this? Don't bother responding to this, Sullivan. I already know what you think. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
Gordon Tanner wrote:
I know there're lots of other excellent brands out there. The reason I'm going with Monster is because I know someone who works for a Monster dealer and can get me 60% off retail prices. Comments and suggestions regarding all this? Don't bother responding to this, Sullivan. I already know what you think. LOL. How generous of you, considering I'm the one who directed you here. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
Gordon Tanner wrote:
I want to upgrade my cables. I've still got the Original Monster Cable speaker cable that I bought 12 years ago, which, although not considered high end, is still a good, solid, dependable, sturdy, shielded 12 gauge speaker cable. I've got two choices. I can: Why exactly do you want to upgrade your cables? I suspect most people on this forum, even those who believe in large audible differences among cables, would suggest upgrading your components first. What about a DTS/DD receiver and a universal-format player (DVD-V/A, SACD, CD), so you can enjoy new multi-channel audio releases and movies on DVD? How about saving money for some better speakers? Even if you like your JBL speakers, I'm sure there are speakers you would enjoy more. I know there're lots of other excellent brands out there. The reason I'm going with Monster is because I know someone who works for a Monster dealer and can get me 60% off retail prices. If you can get Monster Cable for 60% off of retail I would go with Monster Cable. They don't do anything fundamental wrong to their cables and generally seem well-constructed. I use Monster Cable and Tara Labs in my systems. -- Jason Kau IS FOR EMAIL IS FOR SPAM http://www.cnd.gatech.edu/~jkau |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:08:44 +0000, Gordon Tanner wrote:
Except for my 4 year old CD player, I bought my system back in '92. Here's what I've got: Yamaha RX-V850 Pro-Logic receiver (100 watts each on front channels, 30 watts each on rear channels) Rotel RCD-951 CD player Yamaha KX-330 cassette deck Quasar 27" stereo TV Quasar stereo VCR JBL LX44s for front speakers, LX300s for rear speakers, modified SC-305 for center speaker I don't have a subwoofer because I get excellent bottom end with my system the way it is. I want to upgrade my cables. I've still got the Original Monster Cable speaker cable that I bought 12 years ago, which, although not considered high end, is still a good, solid, dependable, sturdy, shielded 12 gauge speaker cable. I've got two choices. I can: A) Keep my Original Monster Cable and upgrade my interconnects to match it's quality. The interconnects would be the Audio Interlink 400 Mk.2 and the Video Interlink 3. Or B) Get rid of my Original Monster Cable and go top-of-the-line all around with Monster's best quality Z series speaker and interconnect cable. This option would obviously cost me a lot more money than option A. As far as a line conditioner is concerned, which Monster product would be best for my system? I know there're lots of other excellent brands out there. The reason I'm going with Monster is because I know someone who works for a Monster dealer and can get me 60% off retail prices. Comments and suggestions regarding all this? Don't bother responding to this, Sullivan. I already know what you think. __________________________________________________ ______ Gordon.... I would tend to go along with the comments by Jason Kau...perhaps go with the speaker upgrade first. However, if you prefer, then by all means do the cable thing first. There is some low cost, decent, cables out there...for instance in the latest issue of Stereophile, the annual ratings of components they have reviewed, there is a suggestion by JA that the radio shack solid core wire is very listenable and has a low cost. One stipulation made is that it can tend to sound a bit "hot" on some speaker systems. So if you do expect to change speakers soon...then, wait until you get your speakers until you settle on any cable. For the sake of gaining knowledge about this interesting hobby of ours, do check out the lower cost audio cable at Home Depot, etc. Then take it to the private confines of your listening area and determine what is best for you. Be a bit wary of those that know what is best for you..a sad state of affairs, but there are those that have these insights!@#? Anyway, after replacing the amplifier could be best time to review the cables...assuming you have already replaced the speakers. There is some interplay between the speakers and the amp..naturally the cables become involved in this. Audio characteristics are tilted a bit...most people note these changes. As we all know there are some excellent cables in the higher range..most have "excellent" prices!! If you are content with the Monster series..then try it in the new speaker-Amp environment. I've been stuck with some ole AudioQuest "Clear" cables running a Classe' "two-ton" amp into some ole twice refurbished Tympani IV's...this stuff still sounds great to my ears...as does much of the newer equipment out there. One thing about some of the overpriced "stuff" out there is that is will stick with you for years!! The Magnepan speakers are from '84..the cables from the mid '90's and the Amp is from the 90's/'03. Getting the Speaker-Wire-Amplifier combo together at the same time would be ideal. However, do as you so desire...be happy with your choices.. ..then if next year you decide to alter things again..then do it, and enjoy it all. Treat it as learning process in this hobby of ours. Leonard... P.S. As to the Power conditioner...filter..whatever, The Monster 2000, about $199 list is an effective component. I noticed an ad in the back of Stereophile where the Computer version of the filter is $59...It also is noticeable in its filtering on an HDTV...richness of color, sharpness of character delineation. Very noticeable on SD. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
"Gordon Tanner" wrote in message
news:ChG7c.61276$po.555093@attbi_s52... in article , Jason Kau at wrote on 21/03/04 9:38 PM: Why exactly do you want to upgrade your cables? I suspect most people on this forum, even those who believe in large audible differences among cables, would suggest upgrading your components first. What about a DTS/DD receiver and a universal-format player (DVD-V/A, SACD, CD), so you can enjoy new multi-channel audio releases and movies on DVD? How about saving money for some better speakers? Even if you like your JBL speakers, I'm sure there are speakers you would enjoy more. I'm not going to be upgrading my components at this time. I'd really appreciate it if, rather than advising me about stuff that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, you'd please answer the questions that I actually asked. You presented to options...both involving spending money on new cables. As your comment to "Sullivan" indicates, you are clearly aware that there are basically two schools of thought around he one is that wire is wire and it all sounds the same, the other is that all wires sound different. The first school will tell you to save your money and stick with what you have while the second will tell you to audition the wires and pick what you like the best. Since it's obvious that you think different wires sound different, the only option for you seems to be to audition the cables and decide for yourself. What question were you asking that wasn't answered? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
As
your comment to "Sullivan" indicates, you are clearly aware that there are basically two schools of thought around he one is that wire is wire and it all sounds the same, the other is that all wires sound different. I am of two minds on this question, and a little undecided. But one thing seems sure. If there is an audible difference among cables, it either doesn't crop up too often (I swear I've heard HUGE differences in the past) or it is always small. Otherwise there would be no arguments, right? I mean, let's face it, when there are large differences, there are no debates. There is no "division into two schools" of audiophiles concerning, say, speakers. No one save a complete nut would seriously claim that all sets of speakers sound the same. Go to something a bit more subtle, DVD players. No one would say that all DVD players sound the same, would they? So, where does this line get drawn, between "components we all agree make a difference" and "components we bitterly argue about being able to hear differences in"? Somewhere between CD transports and cables, I should think. -Sean |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
"Gordon Tanner" wrote in message
news:0Ns7c.57662$SR1.103090@attbi_s04... Except for my 4 year old CD player, I bought my system back in '92. Here's what I've got: Yamaha RX-V850 Pro-Logic receiver (100 watts each on front channels, 30 watts each on rear channels) Rotel RCD-951 CD player Yamaha KX-330 cassette deck Quasar 27" stereo TV Quasar stereo VCR JBL LX44s for front speakers, LX300s for rear speakers, modified SC-305 for center speaker I don't have a subwoofer because I get excellent bottom end with my system the way it is. I want to upgrade my cables. I've still got the Original Monster Cable speaker cable that I bought 12 years ago, which, although not considered high end, is still a good, solid, dependable, sturdy, shielded 12 gauge speaker cable. I've got two choices. I can: A) Keep my Original Monster Cable and upgrade my interconnects to match it's quality. The interconnects would be the Audio Interlink 400 Mk.2 and the Video Interlink 3. Or B) Get rid of my Original Monster Cable and go top-of-the-line all around with Monster's best quality Z series speaker and interconnect cable. This option would obviously cost me a lot more money than option A. As far as a line conditioner is concerned, which Monster product would be best for my system? I know there're lots of other excellent brands out there. The reason I'm going with Monster is because I know someone who works for a Monster dealer and can get me 60% off retail prices. Comments and suggestions regarding all this? Don't bother responding to this, Sullivan. I already know what you think. I forgot to answer about the line conditioner... The HTS 1000 MKII PowerCenter (or HTS 2000 MKII, depending on how many plugs you need) is a nicely constructed power strip with what seems like reasonable surge protection and some so-called "clean power" circuits. I've never heard any difference with just filters, it takes voltage stabilizers and pretty awful AC out of the wall to make a difference there. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
Jason Kau wrote in message ...
Gordon Tanner wrote: I know there're lots of other excellent brands out there. The reason I'm going with Monster is because I know someone who works for a Monster dealer and can get me 60% off retail prices. If you can get Monster Cable for 60% off of retail I would go with Monster Cable. They don't do anything fundamental wrong to their cables ....besides mark them up 60% |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
Sean Fulop wrote:
As your comment to "Sullivan" indicates, you are clearly aware that there are basically two schools of thought around he one is that wire is wire and it all sounds the same, the other is that all wires sound different. I am of two minds on this question, and a little undecided. But one thing seems sure. If there is an audible difference among cables, it either doesn't crop up too often (I swear I've heard HUGE differences in the past) or it is always small. Otherwise there would be no arguments, right? I mean, let's face it, when there are large differences, there are no debates. There is no "division into two schools" of audiophiles concerning, say, speakers. No one save a complete nut would seriously claim that all sets of speakers sound the same. Go to something a bit more subtle, DVD players. No one would say that all DVD players sound the same, would they? So, where does this line get drawn, between "components we all agree make a difference" and "components we bitterly argue about being able to hear differences in"? Somewhere between CD transports and cables, I should think. I should think not. I recall only recently an exchange here on the subject of transports in which several posters argued quite vociferously (as always) on the improbability of properly functioning transports having audible effects when connected to properly functioning DACs. As for DACs themselves (and by extension DVD players), some have expressed doubts as well. More to the point, the "debate" is not between "people who think everything sounds different" and "people who think everything sounds the same." It is between people who think that the present state of scientific knowledge is sufficient to explain any differences that can be heard, and those who believe that there are mysteries still to be probed. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE download! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
"Gordon Tanner" wrote in message
news:0Ns7c.57662$SR1.103090@attbi_s04... Except for my 4 year old CD player, I bought my system back in '92. Here's what I've got: Yamaha RX-V850 Pro-Logic receiver (100 watts each on front channels, 30 watts each on rear channels) Rotel RCD-951 CD player Yamaha KX-330 cassette deck Quasar 27" stereo TV Quasar stereo VCR JBL LX44s for front speakers, LX300s for rear speakers, modified SC-305 for center speaker I don't have a subwoofer because I get excellent bottom end with my system the way it is. I want to upgrade my cables. I've still got the Original Monster Cable speaker cable that I bought 12 years ago, which, although not considered high end, is still a good, solid, dependable, sturdy, shielded 12 gauge speaker cable. I've got two choices. I can: A) Keep my Original Monster Cable and upgrade my interconnects to match it's quality. The interconnects would be the Audio Interlink 400 Mk.2 and the Video Interlink 3. Or B) Get rid of my Original Monster Cable and go top-of-the-line all around with Monster's best quality Z series speaker and interconnect cable. This option would obviously cost me a lot more money than option A. As far as a line conditioner is concerned, which Monster product would be best for my system? I know there're lots of other excellent brands out there. The reason I'm going with Monster is because I know someone who works for a Monster dealer and can get me 60% off retail prices. Comments and suggestions regarding all this? Don't bother responding to this, Sullivan. I already know what you think. The value of the RX-V850 on eBay is around $125, as are the JBL fronts. No insult, but I think we're talking "mid-fi" at this point. It takes a lot more gear than you've got to really hear a worthwhile difference in cables, but depending on your interconnects now... Shielded 12 gauge speaker cable is enough for this level, so I'd suggest going with the interconnects before speaker cable. As I400-MK2 are $35/pr/m, and a Video3 is around $30/m, less your 60% discount... if it makes you happy, and nothing I say can stop you anyway, and it's not like that money is going to cure cancer or anything. Others have commented that you might look at upgrading your components, and I really encourage you to consider that. I'd bet that a new, modestly priced, Denon or Sony piece (I'm sure there are a slew of other brands) would surprise you. I'm also a huge fan of the B&W DM-303 speakers from a bang-for-the-buck standpoint. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 06:16:00 +0000, Nousaine wrote:
Sean Fulop wrote: As your comment to "Sullivan" indicates, you are clearly aware that there are basically two schools of thought around he one is that wire is wire and it all sounds the same, the other is that all wires sound different. I am of two minds on this question, and a little undecided. But one thing seems sure. If there is an audible difference among cables, it either doesn't crop up too often (I swear I've heard HUGE differences in the past) or it is always small. Otherwise there would be no arguments, right? I mean, let's face it, when there are large differences, there are no debates. There is no "division into two schools" of audiophiles concerning, say, speakers. No one save a complete nut would seriously claim that all sets of speakers sound the same. Go to something a bit more subtle, DVD players. No one would say that all DVD players sound the same, would they? I've owned multiple cd-dvd units and they all sound excatly alike .....if one didn't I would return it. Perhaps the belief that all cd-dvd units sound "exactly" alike is as extreme as the other side of the argument that all are different. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Current day cd-dvd units do sound much the same..with very minute differences. There are differences...but, so small that one has to become a nit-picker to define them...to some individuals these differences are worthy to discuss and are important..I respect that.. I also have problems with some in defining these differences. Then applying the variances a value in my "audio value system" So, where does this line get drawn, between "components we all agree make a difference" and "components we bitterly argue about being able to hear differences in"? With subjectivists they all/always sound different; even in the cases where it was shown that the proponent was unable to validate the "sound" under bias-controlled conditions. Perhaps, a rather extreme statement...I have been in the midst of many so-called "subjectivist" that could/could not hear differences in a given listening session...however, no one in the crowd suggest that..."..you are imagining that..." a bit of respect was evident. In the sessions some of those were of the Engineering fraternity...some also found the differences not significant..others heard them. Everyone had some wine, talked about systems..went home. And the Universe went on its merry way!! ...And these groups will continue to enjoy good music and fine systems..using these crude methods! Also, this is getting a bit thick to suggest that a given listening "criteria" must be in place to "cleanse" the unwashed "subjectivist" of..drat!..must I say it? "BIAS". Oh Gosh! Am I a better person now? I've said it! This horse has been beat to death...perhaps, another tack will work better! The seriousness of all this gets "humorous" at times! Be happy in your work! Leonard... |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
I've owned multiple cd-dvd units and they all sound excatly alike .....if one
didn't I would return it. So, my new Sony DVD/CD player in fact sounds the same as my 1991 Kenwood CD player which cost $150? That's ludicrous. You're saying that no objective test will allow any listener to decisively and immediately discriminate among two CD players, from ANY TWO GENERATIONS of design and construction? -Sean |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
Sean Fulop wrote:
I've owned multiple cd-dvd units and they all sound excatly alike .....if one didn't I would return it. So, my new Sony DVD/CD player in fact sounds the same as my 1991 Kenwood CD player which cost $150? That's ludicrous. Why is it ludicrous? What is it that the Kenwood (or the Sony, for that matter) gets wrong? Assuming neither is broken, both have ruler-flat frequency response, and all known forms of distortion measure well below audible limits. Now, these facts in and of themselves do not PROVE that the two are indistinguishable, but once you accept them as true it no longer seems so ludicrous to suggest that they MIGHT sound the same, does it? You're saying that no objective test will allow any listener to decisively and immediately discriminate among two CD players, from ANY TWO GENERATIONS of design and construction? A DAC reconstructs an analog signal. How different are the analog signals reconstructed by different DACs? My limited knowledge of this area suggests, not very--even among DACs of very different vintage. Certainly by 1991 all the early kinks in CD had been worked out. While they all pre-date the equipment you are talking about, here are three published takes on the subject: Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986) Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988) Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990) I haven't read any of them myself (at least not since they were published), but I suspect you'll find them food for thought. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page – FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
Gordon Tanner wrote in message news:0Ns7c.57662$SR1.103090@attbi_s04...
Except for my 4 year old CD player, I bought my system back in '92. Here's what I've got: Yamaha RX-V850 Pro-Logic receiver (100 watts each on front channels, 30 watts each on rear channels) Rotel RCD-951 CD player Yamaha KX-330 cassette deck Quasar 27" stereo TV Quasar stereo VCR JBL LX44s for front speakers, LX300s for rear speakers, modified SC-305 for center speaker I don't have a subwoofer because I get excellent bottom end with my system the way it is. I want to upgrade my cables. I've still got the Original Monster Cable speaker cable that I bought 12 years ago, which, although not considered high end, is still a good, solid, dependable, sturdy, shielded 12 gauge speaker cable. I've got two choices. I can: A) Keep my Original Monster Cable and upgrade my interconnects to match it's quality. The interconnects would be the Audio Interlink 400 Mk.2 and the Video Interlink 3. Or B) Get rid of my Original Monster Cable and go top-of-the-line all around with Monster's best quality Z series speaker and interconnect cable. This option would obviously cost me a lot more money than option A. As far as a line conditioner is concerned, which Monster product would be best for my system? I know there're lots of other excellent brands out there. The reason I'm going with Monster is because I know someone who works for a Monster dealer and can get me 60% off retail prices. Comments and suggestions regarding all this? Don't bother responding to this, Sullivan. I already know what you think. I think that in a blind test almost no one would be able to tell the difference between a really expensive cable and a radio shack cable. Is there a difference? Yes and very slight, and detectable with test equipment. Can I hear the difference? Yes and its a very small one. Can I hear higher than 20khz? No question! Would I pay hundreds for that very slight difference??? |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
Bob Marcus wrote:
Sean Fulop wrote: I've owned multiple cd-dvd units and they all sound excatly alike .....if one didn't I would return it. So, my new Sony DVD/CD player in fact sounds the same as my 1991 Kenwood CD player which cost $150? That's ludicrous. Why is it ludicrous? What's interesting to me is what this says about audiophile culture. Statements that are utterly unobjectionable from a scientific/engineering standpoint flabbergast some audiophiles almost to the point of outrage, or at the very least, pointing and jeering. Such behavior is a sign of intense in-group reinforcement of dubious belief so that is attains the status of 'common sense' with little outside input, much less good reality-testing. 'Authorities' like TAS and Stereophile, reinforce, every month, the idea that 'of course' a $150 digital player will sound different from a $1500 DVD/CD player, and this is the result. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
Sean Fulop wrote:
So, my new Sony DVD/CD player in fact sounds the same as my 1991 Kenwood CD player which cost $150? That's ludicrous. Bob Marcus wrote: Why is it ludicrous? Steven Sullivan wrote: What's interesting to me is what this says about audiophile culture. Statements that are utterly unobjectionable from a scientific/engineering standpoint flabbergast some audiophiles almost to the point of outrage, or at the very least, pointing and jeering. Which statements are those which are "uttery unobjectionable from a scientific/engineering standpoint"? That two DVD/CD players can sound different? Such behavior is a sign of intense in-group reinforcement of dubious belief so that is attains the status of 'common sense' with little outside input, much less good reality-testing. 'Authorities' like TAS and Stereophile, reinforce, every month, the idea that 'of course' a $150 digital player will sound different from a $1500 DVD/CD player, and this is the result. This just shows why more audiophiles should read publications like The Audio Critic which reinforce the "fact" that your inexpensive equipment sounds just as good - if not better- than the more expensive stuff, so you really are superior to those foolish High End audiophiles who throw their money away. Talk about "intense in-group reinforcement of dubious belief". Perhaps you're just in the wrong group...:-) Regards, Mike |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Bob Marcus wrote: Sean Fulop wrote: I've owned multiple cd-dvd units and they all sound excatly alike .....if one didn't I would return it. So, my new Sony DVD/CD player in fact sounds the same as my 1991 Kenwood CD player which cost $150? That's ludicrous. Why is it ludicrous? What's interesting to me is what this says about audiophile culture. Statements that are utterly unobjectionable from a scientific/engineering standpoint flabbergast some audiophiles almost to the point of outrage, or at the very least, pointing and jeering. Such behavior is a sign of intense in-group reinforcement of dubious belief so that is attains the status of 'common sense' with little outside input, much less good reality-testing. 'Authorities' like TAS and Stereophile, reinforce, every month, the idea that 'of course' a $150 digital player will sound different from a $1500 DVD/CD player, and this is the result. This could be due to one's experience with vinyl reproduction equipment. My experience is that it is very hard to find two vinyl rigs (cartridge, tone-arm, turntable, preamp, and the physical LP's) that sound the same. Hence, it is difficult, if not impossible, for vinylists to accept that CD players, from different generations and price ranges, can possibly sound the same. Which brings up an interesting question. If vinyl rigs sound noticeably different, how can they be accurate? How can they (maybe with the exception of one system) even be musically (that is the word that replaces objectively) accurate? You are left with the inevitable conclusion that musical accuracy has no universal standards. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
That's ludicrous.
Why is it ludicrous? What's interesting to me is what this says about audiophile culture. Statements that are utterly unobjectionable from a scientific/engineering standpoint flabbergast some audiophiles almost to the point of outrage, or at the very least, pointing and jeering. You're right, I should have been more clear. What I meant was, I've heard the differences between my Marantz CD player and the old Kenwood, and between the new Sony and the Marantz, and the differences are large. There doesn't "seem to be" a difference, there is not a subtle difference, there is a big difference, especially in the latter case. That's why I said that the notion they are really the same is "ludicrous," not because of some preconception that more expensive or newer units should sound better. However, it is possible that my perception of a huge difference is itself the result of bias, which, while I admit hasn't been disproven, is in my mind so remote a possibility that I call the idea "ludicrous." All the while admitting the possiblity that this "ludicrous" notion is nonetheless true. -Sean |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
That would be what controlled listening tests would tell us. If you have some
other evidence I'd like to hear about it. The only evidence I need are my feelings that my new CD player sounds dramatically better than the older ones. And that the previous one sounded dramatically better than the one before that. Maybe this is all the result of bias, but I don't care. It's "bias" that tells me I prefer Porsches to Hondas, and that's fine too, I'm not bound by an ethical code to make only rational decisions. However, I still have reason to believe that my CD-player situation is different from the scenarios you are describing. All the kinds of "test" situations that you are so successfully debunking in your posts reportedly involve listeners that are, at best, having a hard time discerning any difference even when they want to, or have been biased. The differences I've noted among my various generations of CD players are, by contrast, very large and immediately noticable on any program material. That's why I have a hard time believing that "bias" would explain it all, but I have to admit it is possible (I am, after all, a scientist by profession). -Sean |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
If vinyl rigs sound noticeably different, how can they be accurate?
How can they (maybe with the exception of one system) even be musically (that is the word that replaces objectively) accurate? You are left with the inevitable conclusion that musical accuracy has no universal standards. To this, one might say, *duh*. Of course no self-respecting record nut would claim that records are accurate, or even that this, in the vinyl world, has any meaning. Playing vinyl and loving the sound is about an experience, its not about an approach to accuracy. That's like saying that driving a sports car is fun because it's "accurate." There's no meaning to a notion of an "accurately" driving sports car, and that's the point. It's a matter of taste and pleasant experience, which sports car is your favorite, or even whether you enjoy sports cars at all. -Sean |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
Sean Fulop wrote:
If vinyl rigs sound noticeably different, how can they be accurate? How can they (maybe with the exception of one system) even be musically (that is the word that replaces objectively) accurate? You are left with the inevitable conclusion that musical accuracy has no universal standards. To this, one might say, *duh*. Of course no self-respecting record nut would claim that records are accurate, or even that this, in the vinyl world, has any meaning. Then you haven't played int eh audiophile sandbox very long. When preseed, vinylphiles will concede that their rigs aren't *measurably* as accurate as other technology, but they will swear up and down that they more accurately convey the feel of live music. I've seen it happen. Playing vinyl and loving the sound is about an experience, its not about an approach to accuracy. That's like saying that driving a sports car is fun because it's "accurate." The car/audio analogy is also not at all new, and has also been shredded dozens of times. Like what you like; but when you depart from talking about how 'fun' your new CD player is, into talking abotu how *different* it *sounds* from your old one, you are in the realm of the verifiable. As a scientist, you must realize that. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
Sean Fulop wrote:
That's ludicrous. Why is it ludicrous? What's interesting to me is what this says about audiophile culture. Statements that are utterly unobjectionable from a scientific/engineering standpoint flabbergast some audiophiles almost to the point of outrage, or at the very least, pointing and jeering. You're right, I should have been more clear. What I meant was, I've heard the differences between my Marantz CD player and the old Kenwood, and between the new Sony and the Marantz, and the differences are large. There doesn't "seem to be" a difference, there is not a subtle difference, there is a big difference, especially in the latter case. Ceratinly that's possible...even as simple a thing as output level variance can yield a large subjective difference in quality. But it's also possible that you are imagining it. That's why I said that the notion they are really the same is "ludicrous," not because of some preconception that more expensive or newer units should sound better. Since people can, with little difficulty, be convinced there are big, unsubtle audible differences between patently identical sources, and since there is no *inherent* reason why two CD players *should* display big, unsubtle audible difference, it would be unreasonable to rule out the possibility that there are in fact no audible differences. However, it is possible that my perception of a huge difference is itself the result of bias, which, while I admit hasn't been disproven, is in my mind so remote a possibility that I call the idea "ludicrous." All the while admitting the possiblity that this "ludicrous" notion is nonetheless true. But there are more levels to bias than that. Let's say there *are* real audible differences...big ones, even. One quesiton would be, do you perceive the pricer one to be better because of the acutal sound, or does knowing that you paid more for it, bias your to like its sound more? -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
Sean Fulop wrote:
If vinyl rigs sound noticeably different, how can they be accurate? How can they (maybe with the exception of one system) even be musically (that is the word that replaces objectively) accurate? You are left with the inevitable conclusion that musical accuracy has no universal standards. To this, one might say, *duh*. Of course no self-respecting record nut would claim that records are accurate, or even that this, in the vinyl world, has any meaning. Playing vinyl and loving the sound is about an experience, its not about an approach to accuracy. I'm glad you feel this way, and you know what, I agree with you there. But reading in these newsgroups, you got the impression that the vinylists believe they are after accuracy. They love to use the word musical to qualify accuracy. Or they say accuracy to their memory of live music. If accuracy standards can vary significantly, one has to wonder how important musical accuracy is when one reads reviews or anecdotes. Someone's idea of musical accuracy may sound terrible to you. If vinylists agree that they are after a certain pleasant sound, and are willing to state that the sound is not necessary accurate, there will be a lot fewer debates. That's like saying that driving a sports car is fun because it's "accurate." There's no meaning to a notion of an "accurately" driving sports car, and that's the point. It's a matter of taste and pleasant experience, which sports car is your favorite, or even whether you enjoy sports cars at all. In that case, you are an enlightened vinylist. -Sean |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
More to the point, the "debate" is not between "people who think
everything sounds different" and "people who think everything sounds the same." It is between people who think that the present state of scientific knowledge is sufficient to explain any differences that can be heard, and those who believe that there are mysteries still to be probed. Really? People who think the present state of science is sufficient to explain everything have always been around, and they've always been wrong. So, this debate is pretty well moot. But it seemed to me that there is a debate about whether "people can hear differences" in general among different components. It is a debate with powerful implications, because there is one side who believes that it is possible to objectively demonstrate what a person "is able" to tell apart or express a "legitimate" preference for. This is, at best, a circular claim. It essentially says that "using scientific methodology, I can prove just exactly what you are able to tell apart, according to my methodology." Now, the related issue that I was asking about is really, when is there a large (massive) majority of listeners who say "I can hear a difference," not necessarily according to a scientific methodology, and what are the factors and thresholds leading to this situation. Some of the unscientific listening scenarios people have been describing seem divided into at least two distinct kinds. 1) Situations in which a large difference is easily and immediately heard, though the possbility that this perception is the result of bias hasn't been eliminated. 2) Situations involving a number of people who say they don't hear a difference, and some others who hem, haw, and negotiate over differences, from which point a sane person might conclude that the people claiming to hear differences are either imagining them or are lying because they don't wish to say there is no difference. Now, the question of whether scenario 1 can be "solved" by ANY scientific methodology is one that has nothing more than a circular answer. You have to accept that the methodology in fact probes the precise perceptual phenomenon you wish to probe, in advance of accepting the results of tests performed according to the methodology. Situation 2 seems more simple to resolve, since no participant can arrive at any consistent answer even under overt biases. This seems to be the situation at play with cables and interconnects, more often than not. Though I have myself been involved in a situation of the first kind, involving an "obvious" difference, between two RCA interconnects. It was suggested afterward that the "cheap" interconnect was in fact defective in some way, so poorly did it sound. -Sean |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
When preseed, vinylphiles will concede that their rigs aren't
*measurably* as accurate as other technology, but they will swear up and down that they more accurately convey the feel of live music. I've seen it happen. Yes, well, when I was a boy cruising hi-fi stores, I got this attitude from the salesmen, which I of course swallowed. When I grew up and learned a few things, particularly about the superior accuracy of CD, it became apparent to me that my hearing must not really be responding to accuracy, and that enjoyable sound was not well-correlated with accurate sound. but when you depart from talking about how 'fun' your new CD player is, into talking abotu how *different* it *sounds* from your old one, you are in the realm of the verifiable. As a scientist, you must realize that. Well, sure. But as an "enlightened" scientist, I also realize that there are numerous phenomena in this world that we do not completely grasp scientifically. I'm just now researching, for instance, a new approach to spectral analysis that essentially says that the good old "Fourier spectrum" doesn't tell us anything too "accurate" in terms of how our ears actually hear sound. So, there are numerous aural phenomena that are, it seems, poorly correlated with anything measurable in the sound (like, we really don't know what to measure to serve as an index of these phenomena). One of these is, it seems, the phenomenon of "soundstaging" or the apparent separation of distinct recorded sounds in the soundfield between the speakers. Two components may have "obviously" different soundstages, in terms of one sounding congested and the other open or well-separated, but I'm not sure this will be well-measured or even discernible at all by, say, a Fourier spectrum of a pink noise CD (one measurement technique suggested to me by a fellow contributor here). The differences I detected quite clearly among my various generations of CD players (and, yes, in one case even among two different RCA interconnects used to hook one of them up) were not in the realm of frequency response (since of course that's the same), but rather in the soundstaging. The different generations of CD players I've had have gone from extremely congested to less congested to not congested, finally, in the case of my new Sony. I don't know how to scientifically measure the aural phenomenon of "congested" stereo sound versus "uncongested" stereo sound, but I also know that vinyl excels at the latter even on quite modest rigs. This might have something to do with the intermodulation distortion that is the result of having one stylus picking up sum and difference representations of both left and right channels---they've become physically coupled in the cartridge, which may oddly enough produce an enhanced "stereo image" belying the fact that the actual channel separation is only about 30 dB to the CDs 90! But I digress. -Sean |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
Sean Fulop wrote:
More to the point, the "debate" is not between "people who think everything sounds different" and "people who think everything sounds the same." It is between people who think that the present state of scientific knowledge is sufficient to explain any differences that can be heard, and those who believe that there are mysteries still to be probed. Really? People who think the present state of science is sufficient to explain everything have always been around, and they've always been wrong. Read what I said. I didn't say, "explain everything." I said, "explain any differences that can be heard." I'll stand by that. If you say you perceive a difference between two CD players, I (or at least someone a little more competent technically than I) can find a scientifically valid explanation for that perception. The explanation may or may not involve perceptual bias, but it will be a scientifically valid explanation. So, this debate is pretty well moot. Don't we wish. But it seemed to me that there is a debate about whether "people can hear differences" in general among different components. It is a debate with powerful implications, because there is one side who believes that it is possible to objectively demonstrate what a person "is able" to tell apart or express a "legitimate" preference for. This is, at best, a circular claim. It essentially says that "using scientific methodology, I can prove just exactly what you are able to tell apart, according to my methodology." Except that it isn't just "my methodology." It's a methodology that's been tested and validated as a means of determining audible differences, by people who are competent to do so (and challenged by people who are not so competent). That's why it's not circular. Now, the related issue that I was asking about is really, when is there a large (massive) majority of listeners who say "I can hear a difference," not necessarily according to a scientific methodology, and what are the factors and thresholds leading to this situation. I'm sorry, but I do not understand this sentence. Some of the unscientific listening scenarios people have been describing seem divided into at least two distinct kinds. 1) Situations in which a large difference is easily and immediately heard, though the possbility that this perception is the result of bias hasn't been eliminated. 2) Situations involving a number of people who say they don't hear a difference, and some others who hem, haw, and negotiate over differences, from which point a sane person might conclude that the people claiming to hear differences are either imagining them or are lying because they don't wish to say there is no difference. I'm sorry, but I fail to see the distinction you are making here. In either case, it's possible that perceptual bias is at play. In either case, it's also possible that there is a electrical explanation for the perception of difference. Now, the question of whether scenario 1 can be "solved" by ANY scientific methodology is one that has nothing more than a circular answer. No, it's not, for the reason I noted above. You have to accept that the methodology in fact probes the precise perceptual phenomenon you wish to probe, in advance of accepting the results of tests performed according to the methodology. Well, sure, if you don't accept the methods that biologists use to build the case for the theory of evolution, then you probably aren't going to accept the theory of evolution. But that's not what goes on in these "debates." What goes on in these "debates" is that people start from the assumption that evolution is wrong, and then look for reasons not to accept the methodology that shows otherwise. Alas, the reasons they offer are empirically weak. So creationists reject the way biologists read the fossil record, and subjectivists reject the way perceptual psychologists determine audibility. That's why I think this is really a "debate" between science and pseudoscience. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ All the action. All the drama. Get NCAA hoops coverage at MSN Sports by ESPN. http://msn.espn.go.com/index.html?partnersite=espn |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
Sean Fulop wrote:
More to the point, the "debate" is not between "people who think everything sounds different" and "people who think everything sounds the same." It is between people who think that the present state of scientific knowledge is sufficient to explain any differences that can be heard, and those who believe that there are mysteries still to be probed. Really? People who think the present state of science is sufficient to explain everything have always been around, and they've always been wrong. So, this debate is pretty well moot. Only if you grossly misrepresent it, as you have just done. Saying that science can presently explain hearable differences is NOT the same as saying that 'everything' is explained by the present state of scientific knowledge. But it seemed to me that there is a debate about whether "people can hear differences" in general among different components. It is a debate with powerful implications, because there is one side who believes that it is possible to objectively demonstrate what a person "is able" to tell apart or express a "legitimate" preference for. This is, at best, a circular claim. It essentially says that "using scientific methodology, I can prove just exactly what you are able to tell apart, according to my methodology." If your are a scientist, I can't understand why you're using the terms you're using, like 'exactly'. You shoudl know that science is about likelihoods. Now, the related issue that I was asking about is really, when is there a large (massive) majority of listeners who say "I can hear a difference," not necessarily according to a scientific methodology, and what are the factors and thresholds leading to this situation. The literature on perceptual psychology, psychoacoustics, and errors in reasoning, is not small. Your answers lie there. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
"Sean Fulop" wrote in message
... That would be what controlled listening tests would tell us. If you have some other evidence I'd like to hear about it. The only evidence I need are my feelings that my new CD player sounds dramatically better than the older ones. And that the previous one sounded dramatically better than the one before that. Maybe this is all the result of bias, but I don't care. It's "bias" that tells me I prefer Porsches to Hondas, and that's fine too, I'm not bound by an ethical code to make only rational decisions. However, I still have reason to believe that my CD-player situation is different from the scenarios you are describing. All the kinds of "test" situations that you are so successfully debunking in your posts reportedly involve listeners that are, at best, having a hard time discerning any difference even when they want to, or have been biased. The differences I've noted among my various generations of CD players are, by contrast, very large and immediately noticable on any program material. That's why I have a hard time believing that "bias" would explain it all, but I have to admit it is possible (I am, after all, a scientist by profession). A scientist, maybe, but apparently not a particularly curious one. On the rare occasions when I've heard degradation that, scientifically speaking, shouldn't exist, I've been unable to rest until I verified what I heard by blind testing. The difficulty of running such a test is insignificant alongside the difficultly of accepting a conclusion that makes no scientific sense. Norm Strong |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
In article ,
Sean Fulop wrote: That would be what controlled listening tests would tell us. If you have some other evidence I'd like to hear about it. The only evidence I need are my feelings that my new CD player sounds dramatically better than the older ones. Like Tom said, a "dramatic" difference between CD players which persists in the face of controlled testing means something was broken or very poorly designed. It's not impossible to screw up digital audio. For example, that very expensive "high end" CD player which, despite the cost, leaves off the reconstruction filter. But it's also not that hard to get digital audio right, especially in this day and age where component integration is very high, leaving fewer and fewer design choices to people who potentially don't know how to do things right. And that the previous one sounded dramatically better than the one before that. Maybe this is all the result of bias, but I don't care. It's "bias" that tells me I prefer Porsches to Hondas, and that's fine too, I'm not bound by an ethical code to make only rational decisions. Don't you have any sense of obligation to yourself? Myself, I like to know when my biases are based on falsehoods so that I can try to modify or eliminate them. Sure, there are many cases where I just shrug my shoulders and say "whatever". But when my money, time, or sense of ethics are on the line... What's more, I'm astounded that a self-described scientist could be so blithely dismissive. Learning more about reality by designing and carrying out rigorous tests is essential to science, and a passion for doing so essential to scientists. You're turning your nose up at the results of scientific investigation of audio reproduction, apparently for no reason better than that you're comfortable with your illusions. I can understand that in people without any scientific background. I find it incomprehensible in people with. However, I still have reason to believe that my CD-player situation is different from the scenarios you are describing. All the kinds of "test" situations that you are so successfully debunking in your posts reportedly involve listeners that are, at best, having a hard time discerning any difference even when they want to, or have been biased. What of the cases where Tom tested listeners who heard dramatic differences similar in technical plausibility (amplifier sound) to those you're currently talking about (CD player sound)? Those listeners never had a hard time discerning differences, until the opportunity for bias was removed that is. I think you're talking yourself into believing the evidence is not as strong as it is. The differences I've noted among my various generations of CD players are, by contrast, very large and immediately noticable on any program material. Did you ever take the step of ensuring that output levels from the CD players were the same? It's known that listeners usually express a preference for the louder of two alternatives. (In other words listeners perceive a quality difference rather than a volume difference, so long as the volume difference is not too large.) That's why I have a hard time believing that "bias" would explain it all, but I have to admit it is possible (I am, after all, a scientist by profession). It's more than possible, it's actually very likely given the sum total of scientific and engineering knowledge about the field of audio reproduction. -- Tim |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
"Sean Fulop" wrote in message
news:Xyw8c.3513$JO3.10706@attbi_s04... When preseed, vinylphiles will concede that their rigs aren't *measurably* as accurate as other technology, but they will swear up and down that they more accurately convey the feel of live music. I've seen it happen. Yes, well, when I was a boy cruising hi-fi stores, I got this attitude from the salesmen, which I of course swallowed. When I grew up and learned a few things, particularly about the superior accuracy of CD, it became apparent to me that my hearing must not really be responding to accuracy, and that enjoyable sound was not well-correlated with accurate sound. but when you depart from talking about how 'fun' your new CD player is, into talking abotu how *different* it *sounds* from your old one, you are in the realm of the verifiable. As a scientist, you must realize that. Well, sure. But as an "enlightened" scientist, I also realize that there are numerous phenomena in this world that we do not completely grasp scientifically. I'm just now researching, for instance, a new approach to spectral analysis that essentially says that the good old "Fourier spectrum" doesn't tell us anything too "accurate" in terms of how our ears actually hear sound. So, there are numerous aural phenomena that are, it seems, poorly correlated with anything measurable in the sound (like, we really don't know what to measure to serve as an index of these phenomena). One of these is, it seems, the phenomenon of "soundstaging" or the apparent separation of distinct recorded sounds in the soundfield between the speakers. Two components may have "obviously" different soundstages, in terms of one sounding congested and the other open or well-separated, but I'm not sure this will be well-measured or even discernible at all by, say, a Fourier spectrum of a pink noise CD (one measurement technique suggested to me by a fellow contributor here). The differences I detected quite clearly among my various generations of CD players (and, yes, in one case even among two different RCA interconnects used to hook one of them up) were not in the realm of frequency response (since of course that's the same), but rather in the soundstaging. The different generations of CD players I've had have gone from extremely congested to less congested to not congested, finally, in the case of my new Sony. I don't know how to scientifically measure the aural phenomenon of "congested" stereo sound versus "uncongested" stereo sound, but I also know that vinyl excels at the latter even on quite modest rigs. This might have something to do with the intermodulation distortion that is the result of having one stylus picking up sum and difference representations of both left and right channels---they've become physically coupled in the cartridge, which may oddly enough produce an enhanced "stereo image" belying the fact that the actual channel separation is only about 30 dB to the CDs 90! More to the scientific side of your research, how have you verified the existence of the phenomena that you are trying to measure and quantify? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
On 24 Mar 2004 22:05:28 GMT, Sean Fulop wrote:
If vinyl rigs sound noticeably different, how can they be accurate? How can they (maybe with the exception of one system) even be musically (that is the word that replaces objectively) accurate? You are left with the inevitable conclusion that musical accuracy has no universal standards. To this, one might say, *duh*. Of course no self-respecting record nut would claim that records are accurate, or even that this, in the vinyl world, has any meaning. Playing vinyl and loving the sound is about an experience, its not about an approach to accuracy. Interesting. That's not what we were all saying before 1983, when the concept of 'high fidelity', and 'the closest approach to the original sound' most certainly did have meaning to most audiophiles. Indeed, the subjectivists Bible publication, The Absolute Sound, refers *exactly* to that ideal of fidelity to the live performance. Of course, now that we actually *have* a high fidelity source, the vinylphiles are retreating to the safer ground of 'musical experience'. That's like saying that driving a sports car is fun because it's "accurate." There's no meaning to a notion of an "accurately" driving sports car, and that's the point. Clearly, you are not a driver. There is *every* notion of placing your car accurately on the apex of a curve, and that's the point. It's a matter of taste and pleasant experience, which sports car is your favorite, or even whether you enjoy sports cars at all. Quite so, so why is it that vinylphiles keep insisting that their Cavaliers can outcorner the Corvette of CD? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
Sean Fulop wrote:
snip Two components may have "obviously" different soundstages, in terms of one sounding congested and the other open or well-separated, but I'm not sure this will be well-measured or even discernible at all by, say, a Fourier spectrum of a pink noise CD (one measurement technique suggested to me by a fellow contributor here). Pink Noise is poor for testing imaging, since the two channels are totally uncorrelated. There are test discs with well-recorded imaging tests for this purpose. The differences I detected quite clearly among my various generations of CD players (and, yes, in one case even among two different RCA interconnects used to hook one of them up) were not in the realm of frequency response (since of course that's the same), but rather in the soundstaging. The different generations of CD players I've had have gone from extremely congested to less congested to not congested, finally, in the case of my new Sony. You should definitely try detecting this type of differences using a level-matched, bias-controlled test. Carefully level-match the CD players with a test disc and ask a friend to do the switching for you. You will be amazed how hard it is to tell them apart. It is also amazing how a small level difference, maybe a couple of dB, results in very different perceived sound quality, including imaging. I don't know how to scientifically measure the aural phenomenon of "congested" stereo sound versus "uncongested" stereo sound, but I also know that vinyl excels at the latter even on quite modest rigs. This might have something to do with the intermodulation distortion that is the result of having one stylus picking up sum and difference representations of both left and right channels---they've become physically coupled in the cartridge, which may oddly enough produce an enhanced "stereo image" belying the fact that the actual channel separation is only about 30 dB to the CDs 90! So you like euphonic distortion. But I digress. -Sean |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
On 24 Mar 2004 18:43:46 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:
Sean Fulop wrote: So, my new Sony DVD/CD player in fact sounds the same as my 1991 Kenwood CD player which cost $150? That's ludicrous. Bob Marcus wrote: Why is it ludicrous? Steven Sullivan wrote: What's interesting to me is what this says about audiophile culture. Statements that are utterly unobjectionable from a scientific/engineering standpoint flabbergast some audiophiles almost to the point of outrage, or at the very least, pointing and jeering. Which statements are those which are "uttery unobjectionable from a scientific/engineering standpoint"? That two DVD/CD players can sound different? No, that they are very likely to sound the same. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Advice on Cables and Line Conditioners Wanted
A scientist, maybe, but apparently not a particularly curious one. On
the rare occasions when I've heard degradation that, scientifically speaking, shouldn't exist, I've been unable to rest until I verified what I heard by blind testing. I sleep just fine, even in the face of possibly having chosen a favorite CD player for less-than-scientific reasons. And even in spite of negative conclusions about my "curiosity". The fact is, I didn't realize until these few days that all CD players were scientifically supposed to sound the same. I thought they each involved possibly different engineering principles (especially when separated by many years) and different output circuitry and so forth. So, I didn't know until now that my judgements are "scientifically" suspect. But, I doubt I'll bother to try and validate them, since I'm just as happy with the situation as it stands. I reserve my curiosity (or at least, the energy expenditure it leads to) for subjects that I'm able to contribute top notch research in and in which I have a personal research agenda---and audio perception ain't it. -Sean |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Power conditioner or power cord or something else | Audio Opinions | |||
System warm-up | Audio Opinions | |||
cabling explained | Car Audio | |||
How to measure speaker cables? | High End Audio |