 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
184.58.250.114
In Reply to: RE: Cables Asylum posted by fantja on January 21, 2015 at 04:12:32
In any cable discussion it is desirable to exclude allowing that in a cable area. Since the naysayers just never know when to quit.
They are on a MISSION, and they think they have to spread the word..
Since they really believe the drivel they spout, they think they are 'saving' people from folly..
Where in fact they are just insane maniacs.
Anyone who has been around other sites can know exactly what I mean.
Follow Ups:
The solution to that is to have its own forum. For the "cable-sound-the-same" crowd and those into ABX testing, the "scientific method" (they don't actually practice it), and "audio science" types who don't nececessarily subscribe to the audiophile view.
by those who find no value in using better cables?
"Let me tell you all about what I don't experience!" :)
...and replace "naysayer" with "believer" (or whatever the "cables REALLY matter" person calls themself)? Comes off exactly the same as what you accuse the "naysayer" of so closed mindedly doing.
Edits: 01/21/15
Those whom you call "believers" - which by the way, is grossly misapplied term, since it has nothing to do with "believing" - speak from their personal experience.On the other hand, those whom your opponent calls "naysayers" - and myself, not being so restrained, usually calls "cheap deaf morons" - speak purely from lack of said experience. That, and also from the fact that one of the following is true:
- their systems are not resolving enough to allow them to hear any differences;
- their hearing is not good enough, and their listening skills are undeveloped;
- their brain is pre-conditioned to not allow for any differences to be perceived, even if their hearing system is fine.Of course, in majority of cases, it's ALL of the above.
Edits: 01/21/15
I personally LOVE the unsupported and unsupportABLE accusations. Somebody calls BS on the whole cable scene and INSTANTLY it's YOU can't hear. YOU have a marginal system. YOU have a defective brain. YOU have an Ugly Sister.
That's why I stay OUT of most of that cable nuttiness. After purchasing cables with good measureables i simply dropped the matter.
I'm NOT made of $$$ and even if I had a buffer bank account, I could find better stuff to worry about than REALLY expensive cables and wire.
Too much is never enough
Or it could just be that some of us recognize that there are subtle audible and measurable differences, but think that cables are pretty awkward tone controls!
OK, now I've stuck my foot in it. :-)
A sure sign that person is not necessarily aware what he is talking about.
Can you name a true tone control, which expands the soundstage width and height?
How about a tone control that makes treble sound softer, but at the same time more extended?
Joe and Sam?
Look, we know what cables do. L, R, C, grounding and shielding, microphonics, contact rectification. That's it, unless you are a Martian who hears to 30 gHz and you have to worry about the likes of skin effect. Those can of course have a multitude of effects, some of them profound, many dependent on the circumstances of the setup, e.g., whether one is dealing with a high RF environment, equipment impedances, etc.
Sometimes, when problems arise, a different cable can help; sometimes make it will make things worse; most often, it will make no difference or such a subtle difference that only one in a hundred wlll hear it. Charging more than oh, say, $100 for a cable is probably highway robbery; selling an expensive cable for something that you can do with 90 cents worth of parts from Radio shack (if there is still Radio Shack this week) is, well, robbing Fort Knox.
See my point now?
Can you relate what experiences you've had with different combinations of equipment, & cables?
Do all speakers sound the same? Do Wilson Watt Puppies sound the same as AvanteGarde duo horns? Or, Aerial 20Ts? Which of the 3 if any, are capable of more low volume midrange detail retreival? Can they all use the same amplification to drive them? Since Speltz anti-cable is very different physically than Acoustic Zen, 1 is $100, the other is $4000, and they both have different levels of resistance, a different shielding, and 1 brand has two physically separated wires to each speaker, do they both cost the same to make? Of course, I left off terminators, whether or not there are multiple types of metal in the wire, and/or shielding. And, the purity, and/or density..... Perhaps one has 50% of the retail price going into its manufacture, perhaps 1 has 5%?
See my point?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
'Fraid i don't. Even ignoring the notoriously ridiculous markup for cables, my point was that there's only so much one can do to a cable to improve its performance or better suit it to a particular application, and none of the things that I know of that improve the sound cost very much, because a cable is a pretty simple device. Of course you can use esoteric components or manufacturing techniques that do nothing except impress potential customers -- I'm talking about bona fide improvements that result in worthwhile audible differences.
The act & process of having listening experience is far to complex to make definitive claims outside the actual experience. Depending on equipment, room, quality of recording, one "may" have a different experience with different cabling.
I can't make any assertion about your experiences, (especially if you won't elucidate them).
Instead of telling the people what they hear, and that they're imagining things, - why not trust them? After all, they have more experience/knowledge.
People who have heard many, many, many cables, over a wide range of playback systems do not "preach" that all cables sound the same, and/or make little to no difference.
OTOH, most do not say that they make a bigger difference than speakers, for example. I would also hazard, that it is a rare person that will buy an inappropriate cable for their system. I have $2500 speaker cables for my $13,000 speakers in my main system, (after testing more than 10 different brands in all price ranges). I have Home Depot 10 gauge lamp cord in my bedroom system.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
But who said I was telling people that they're imagining things? I didn't say anything to that effect.
I do believe that we are all subject to confirmation bias in our listening and so I always try to back up my own subjective observations with independent confirmation, on the principle that if a disinterested party hears the same thing I do it's probably real.
Also, you seem to assume that I'm someone without experience, or someone who doesn't hear subtle differences in gear. Neither is true. Not by a long shot.
Nor did I say or suggest that all cables sound the same.
So what do I believe?
- That some people can hear subtle differences in audio gear and others merely believe they can. See forex when John Atkinson and another Stereophile reviewer were able to hear differences in a cable AB test while most others who tried couldn't reliably distinguish between the two cables. Experience and training mean a lot.
- That we're all subject to confirmation bias and that the first step to overcoming it is recognizing and admitting that we have it, that our perceptions can be and are altered by our expectations. If one isn't aware of this in one's own listening it isn't reliable. When I think I hear a subtle effect, I always seek an unprompted second opinion from someone who doesn't know audio but does know the sound of live music. Usually it verifies my own, but sometimes I'm caught in wishful thinking.
- That cables can make a difference to the sound or not, depending on the cable and the rig. This has been known since Pupin invented the transmission line!
Years ago, I was given the job of developing protocols for lead dress in the equipment racks at a atudio facility, and spent some time experimenting and measuring signals with s a spectrum analyzer. Watching EMI come and go as you move a cable a few inches or alter its angle is an eye opener. Far from making me a skeptic about the importance of proper cable design, it made me more of a believer. It was immediately obvious, for example, that the power cords on audio and video gear should be shielded! Yet we didn't see shielded power cords until many years later.
It also demonstrated, dramatically, the importance of lead dress. We all know the rules -- keep cables separate, cross at right angles, etc. But do we always follow them?
- That cables are very simple electrical devices and that only a handful of mechanisms influence the sound, and that these are well known.
- That there is a lot of snake oil in the cable business, engineering overkill that doesn't affect the sound but is used to convince people to pay exorbitant prices.
- That cable markups are very high and that you shouldn't waste money on esoteric ones because once you get the basics -- shielding, grounding, LRC, suppression of microphonics, and good connectors -- they don't make a difference.
- That some audiophiles and reviewers have used cables for tone controls to make up for flaws in equipment and recordings. It is of course possible to alter tonal balance with cables -- there's no black magic involved, the effects of changing cable impedance can and have been measured. But I think swapping out cables is a clumsy, expensive and time-consuming way to address these problems.
- That at the prices that are typically charged, putting the same money into another piece of gear -- speakers, amp, DAC, what have you -- will yield more significant results.
Just my opinion, of course, based on what I've seen and experienced over the years. As such it's always subject to revision if and when new information comes in. I think frequently this becomes an emotional debate between objectivists and subjectivists, and people start disagreeing even when they aren't in disagreement! Whereas my personal approach is more one of curiosity -- can you hear this, am I really hearing this, what is causing it from an engineering perspective, is there a cheaper way to do it.
...It seems that a lot of the dispute regarding cables is really over matters of degree. This is compounded by the difficulty of verifying human perception in a reliable and independently repeatable manner. While methodologies to deal with the issues of perception have been developed and are used in other fields, they would be awfully difficult and expensive to apply to the study of cable audibility and other high end minutia. It doesn’t help that a lot of the audio community would consider some of the methodologies to be invalid.
Because the high end cable market is tiny with little potential for big profit, I doubt a rigorous study of cable audibility will ever be conducted so we’re left with what we have now, polarization and lack of consensus. OTOH, I don't think a lack of cable consensus prevents anyone from enjoying their music.
I think you're right. And personally, I've pretty much bypassed the issue because there are so many things I can do/spend time and money on that I know will make a big difference! Or rather I try to use what I know because I've measured it or it was obviously audible, or because there are solid engineering reasons to make a decision. I just try to be practical. For example, I think shielded power cords are a no-brainer, but I think it's much more important to run a heavy gauge cable for the circuit that powers a power amplifier than it is to use a fat power cord, because that's where most of the voltage drop occurs. It's a good example of a case in which a small investment, a circuit with 10 gauge wire, is more likely to yield an audible improvement than a larger one, an esoteric power cord.
excuse me if I've misunderstood in your previous post.
That's why it's good to cite specifics.
If you compare something like AvanteGarde horns to Vandersteens, depending on other amplification factors, - cabling "CAN" or "MAY" be very important. As sensitive & highly detailed and resolving horns also reveal noise. The speaker cables, (different type of shielding)?, could possibly mitigate or amplify this noise, RFI or whatever.
Wilson, AvanteGarde, Karma, Von Schweikert, all make very expensive speakers: all of them have very different physical materials, and all of them sound different. And, - they all sound different from sub-$1000 NHT speakers. With each of those aforementioned speakers, different cables may possibly behave in different ways when we speak of transmitting RFI, or raising or lowering resonant frequency, - some more significantly than others.
Lastly, - there are really no significant "objectivists." No equipment design topology, and no resulting final sound can be universalized to sound better. You can make mundane and gross objective statements like the Manley Stingray is an integrated amplifier that uses tubes. But choosing to use tubes, or not, in your design is a subjective choice.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
That's precisely why I didn't respond to the request for specifics. It's just too complicated and there are too many of 'em! And often you just don't know beyond broad generalizations about output impedance and the like. So I got lazy and skipped the question. :-)
My take on the "objectivist" philosophy is something like this: If you take two amplifiers AND run them within their power envelope AND put a little jigger on them so you can adjust LRC, you won't be able to hear the difference between them in a blind AB test that would confuse Einstein because it was designed to compare differences of a single variable, not complex and ever-changing audio signals.
And, of course, I could be just as snarky about subjectivists, but I'd better save that post for Hydrogen Audio. :-)
I'm actually a great believer in the utility of blind testing and AB testing and, as an engineer, trying to figure out how measurements correlate with what we hear. But on a practical level, most AB testing has limitations and is better at proving that you *can* hear something, and even the most comprehensive measurements won't tell you everything, or be easy to interpret. In many cases, it's taken decades before I understood how a given measurement influences sonics, or someone did some basic research that explained something I've puzzled over. In many cases, I'm still mystified.
And beyond that, what sometimes gets overlooked is that AB tests typically *do* show that components sound different. Tests on converters, sampling rates, amplifiers and op amps have all confirmed audible differences.
At the same time I'm aware that we all suffer from confirmation bias, and that when we evaluate audio we're trying to soot from a heaving boat because our "references" are actually recordings that differ from one another and we're listening to a long chain of equipment, so that one component can be making up for shortcomings in another.
Another way to look at it -- when I was a kid, I learned about hifi from Julian Hirsh. And then at some point I noticed that my system, chosen as it was on the basis of specifications, didn't sound as good as some systems that didn't measure as well, and discovered Stereophile and later TAS and became an ardent subjectivist.
And then, like all good things, subjective audio started to attract some snake oil salesmen and cargo cult reviewers (hi, Enid) whose perceptions had more to do with a colorful imagination than anything else. And a sort of tail-chasing retro/tweak culture arose around that. Besides which it started getting really embarrassing when people started freezing CD's and invoking quantum mechanics.
So now I try to steer clear of the extremes.
I'm not a "cable naysayer". I think I hear subtle differences between different cables, at least some of the time. I definitely believe in the importance of using clean, tight fitting connectors and cables designed to reject extraneous noise.That said, there is a hierarchy of importance in audio componentry. Speakers, recordings, and source components rank higher than cables and racks and footers do. This much is true, I think.
That said, sometimes there's a tendency to focus overly much on the minor differences produced by the lower ranking components once the highest ranking components have been installed and adjusted to our satisfaction. It's almost as if, once the *big picture* has been established, my mind has little else to do but obsess over the tinier details of the presentation. And as I focus more and more upon the tinier details, those details seem to jump out at me in what is perhaps an inordinate manner. Just as the slightest speck of dirt on a fresh white tablecloth might appear like an abomination to the fastidious and disconsolate homemaker, the slightest bit of grit or grunge in the sonic presentation can seem most annoying to the dedicated audiophile. Unforgiveness reigns in the minds of the obsessed.
YMMV and FWIW, of course...
Edits: 01/23/15 01/23/15
LOL, no, I agree. It's what John Atkinson described once as "Princess and the Pea" syndrome -- as I become intimately familiar with a pierce of gear, I start to hear every little shortcoming. And you can get so into that that you can start to miss the forest for the trees. Then you end up with one of those systems where you invite someone to listen and they aren't impressed. "What, dear, you don't hear the non-resonant outlet plate I installed?"
Well, I do think some of that micro tuning is necessary since you do have to live with your system. Forex, there's a window behind one of my speakers at the first reflection point and I can always hear it there, distorting the image. An occasional listener wouldn't notice the effect unless maybe I pointed it out, but I do, and since I have to live with it I'm trying to do something about it.
But mostly, I try to stay focused on the big things like speakers, elecronics, and acoustics, because I think that's where most of the gain lies.
...as in those who believe they hear or experience the difference . Human perception of subtle sensory inputs is biased and inconsistent and therefore unreliable. So "belief" is very much a factor in perception. But that's a discussion for another thread.
You go on to state:
"On the other hand, those whom your opponent calls "naysayers" - and myself, not being so restrained, usually calls "cheap deaf morons" - speak purely from lack of said experience." That's a pretty broad generalization and doesn't come close to explaining the divergent opinions out there. A few of my audio acquaintances have well thought out, nicely resolving systems where above a relatively modest cable quality, they simply don't make a difference...to their ears or mine. IOW, lots of cable experience and they're in the "minor difference" camp. BTW, I don't consider something as trivial as this a "win/lose" situation so no "opponents" here.
"- their systems are not resolving enough to allow them to hear any differences"
While certainly a possibility, I've experienced enough examples to the contrary to consider this a confounding factor.
"- their hearing is not good enough, and their listening skills are undeveloped"
Again, another possibility and again enough contrary examples that this too is probably another confounding factor.
- "their brain is pre-conditioned to not allow for any differences to be perceived, even if their hearing system is fine"
Ah, yes, perceptual bias. This could be the the big one. And I'd bet a large sum of $$ that it works both ways. IOW, is it possible for the brain of the "believer" to be pre-conditioned to perceive differences where none exist? Absolutely! At the margins, it's well documented that humans percieve things that don't exist, fail to perceive things that do seem to exist and find patterns in pure randomness. It's how were built.
The bottom line for me is that the cable "believers" ought to be a bit less dismissive of the cable "naysayers". Considering the relatively simple job cables have to do compared to the rest of the audio chain, they ought to be a minor factor. If they're not, something is really wrong with them and/or the components they tie together.
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Belief:
1.An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2. Something one accepts as true or real
Synonyms: opinion, view, conviction...
Here the "something" is audible differences in audio band cables etc.
Perhaps we use different dialects of english. Or perhaps you're thinking of the religious aspect of the word. Or perhaps you're a "cable guy" and don't care for the subjectiveness and uncertainty implied by the usage of the word. Or perhaps you just don't care for the opinion I expressed. Or perhaps...who knows.
The evidence is pretty clear to those with experience.
A belief is an opinion held outside experience: in this case, experience is the most significant form of knowledge.
Objectively, the differences in different cables are beyond obvious & are not worth discussing. There is no way that a Nordost Valhalla cable is the same as a River cable: even though both are relatively flat.
People with experience have (relative) consensus. A naysayer is a believer, who doesn't test for themselves, uncreatively remaining inexperienced and therefore ignorant. They become a "naysaying believer" when they assert knowledge that they do not possess.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
...you state: People with experience have (relative) concensus. [that cables make a significant audible difference] . That statement ignores the people with experience that arrive at the opposite concensus. You seem to be implying that the only valid experience is the "positive" one. Why should this be so?
You also state "Objectively, the differences in different cables are beyond obvious & are not worth discussing. There is no way that a Nordost Valhalla cable is the same as a River cable: even though both are relatively flat." So the objective differences aren't obvious and aren't worth discussing and yet there MUST be differences between the cables in your example. Why must this be so?
I think cables make a difference in your world because you want them to....not that there's anything wrong with that.
Overall, pretty unconvincing.
FAITH
""ignores the people with experience that arrive at the opposite concensus""
No, - it doesn't IGNORE, - it places them in the proper context, - as true, - as small minority. We can't ignore them, as like many people with "faith" they shout louder in their insecurity and lack of knowledge.
""objective differences aren't obvious and aren't worth discussing""
You mis-quoted me, (why not cut and paste).
OBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES ARE OBVIOUS, and mostly irrelevant.
""Why must this be so?"
????? are you trying to assert that the Nordost Valhalla is the same as the other mentioned? Really? Should I post pictures?
""Overall, pretty unconvincing.""
Only if you're completely outside reason, and foolish
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
You wrote: """objective differences aren't obvious and aren't worth discussing""
You mis-quoted me, (why not cut and paste).
OBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES ARE OBVIOUS, and mostly irrelevant"
Not a misquote because they're not your words, they're mine. You wrote "Objectively, the differences in different cables are beyond obvious & are not worth discussing." What you quoted of me above is a misinterpretation on my part of your original statement...as in "quantum physics is beyond the comprehension of most laymen". The word "plainly" or similar might have been a better choice.
>
>
>
You wrote: "????? are you trying to assert that the Nordost Valhalla is the same as the other mentioned? Really? Should I post pictures?"
No, I'm not asserting Nordost Valhalla is the same as a River cable. I'm asking why they MUST be sonically different. Assuming the function of a cable is to get an electrical signal representing music from here to there with as little change as possible, good, well designed cables ought to sound the same even if they employ radically different designs. That you think I need to see a pic of them to understand the differences causes me to wonder if what you hear is influenced by what you see.
>
>
>
You wrote: """ignores the people with experience that arrive at the opposite concensus""
No, - it doesn't IGNORE, - it places them in the proper context, - as true, - as small minority. We can't ignore them, as like many people with "faith" they shout louder in their insecurity and lack of knowledge."
How do you arrive at the conclusion "they" are a small minority?
What makes you believe they're insecure and unknowledgeable? Neither of those statements ring true from my experience. Seems like your attempting to bolster your position by diminishing anything that doesn't support it.
>
>
>
You wrote: """Overall, pretty unconvincing.""
Only if you're completely outside reason, and foolish."
No, not at all. You've presented opinion as fact and little that really supports your position other than opinion. Your argument remains unconvincing and the arrogant , condescending tone of this statement doesn't help your case because there's a desperate quality about it.
Later!
""I'm asking why they MUST be sonically different.""
They may not be sonically that much different, - especially if used out of context: like with a Sharp boombox. I never asserted anything about whether they are different or not sonically.
""That you think I need to see a pic of them to understand the differences causes me to wonder if what you hear is influenced by what you see."
You've wasted that sentence, - as mentioned, - not sonic.
""How do you arrive at the conclusion "they" are a small minority?""
Because people who've heard many cables do not assert that position.
""Neither of those statements ring true from my experience"
Would you care to enumerate your experience(s)? Please be specific.
""What makes you believe they're insecure and unknowledgeable?""
When queried, and asked for specifics, we (almost always) find that they haven't done much of any experimentation on their own: and/or applied tests out of context, = performed bad tests, - that set up obvious straw men.
""You've presented opinion as fact""
No, I have not. The only "facts" I've presented are that (outside sonics), there are some very real, physical, [objective] differences in various cables. And, - that when most everyone who conducts good scientific investigations through decent controls, in the proper context, - assert that different cables affect the sonic character of the system.
""Your argument remains unconvincing""
I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, I am not making any universal claims. I am convinced by the evidence that I have, for myself.
My claim is my claim. OTOH, I do gain a measure of confidence by having people with the same, and more, experiences corroborate those.
"and the arrogant"
Me asserting what I hear, and repeating the claims of others?
I don't think so...
IT IS FAR MORE ARROGANT for people to make the untested, inexperienced, and baseless claim that I did not hear a difference.
IT IS FAR MORE ARROGANT for someone to say that they are GOD and claim that I am lying for asserting that I heard something: especially if they were not there, and/or have any experience with my system(s) in my home. Or, - attended the 20 + shows that I've been to, or been to the 20+ homes of friends that I've been to... etc etc. etc.
""because there's a desperate quality about it.""
Likely a mis-interpretation on your part, considering that I have nothing to "prove"
"Later"
Much...
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
There are plenty of people who have tried many types, have even performed tests of various sorts, and claim no material differences.
try it! you know you want to!
can you cite some please?
Please make sure that you list people who have experiences with all different levels of systems.
And of course, you don't mean material differences: can you clarify? You may mean sonic differences; or do you mean significant sonic differences?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
"The controversy surrounding the claim to audible improvements due to cabling are widely known and the effects of wire are generally reported as insignificant by many sources outside of subjectivist audiophile circles. Numerous engineering experts in various fields of electrical, audio, and loudspeaker engineering have also stated this opinion. Such experts include Dr. Howard Johnson of Signal Consulting Inc., John Dunlavy most recently of Dunlay Audio Labs, and Roger Russell formerly Director of Acoustic Research for McIntosh Laboratory. Each of these gentlemen has spoken out against exaggerated claims of cable effects on audio reproduction in various venues; Mr. Russell, the man behind the McIntosh Loudspeaker Division from its inception in 1967 until 1992, goes as far as actively criticize exotic cable performance claims on the web site he maintains."
try it! you know you want to!
...every person in your citation will be criticized as not involved with current high end SOTA audio and/or being effectively deaf and therefore opinions expressed will be summarily dismissed as not valid and entirely irrelevant to the current cable discussion, esp those of Roger Russell and the speakers he was responsible for while at McIntosh. I also predict that someone will eventually point out that Roger Russell's latest speaker offering, the IDS line source column contains some kind of Cardas cable for internal wiring, a seeming inconsistency with his published views.
Of course, that citation conveniently leaves out incomparably larger portion of people involved with audio at the highest level, who DON'T share views of the few naysayers mentioned there.
However, as I said, it's all irrelevant - the only things that matter are my system, my hearing, my brain.
nt
try it! you know you want to!
Sorry to disappoint, but it doesn't seem that way.
I mean, in a nutshell - you don't hear it, and support others who don't.
That's fine with me.
... if you want to convince the more discerning masses that they're real, well, that's gonna take a bit more than a few people clustered together saying so. Just because they are touted in advertisements for marketing purposes doesn't make them any more real, either.
Edits: 01/22/15
N/T
Hey, a little scientific proof would go a long way to wipe the smirk off their faces.
is what is going on, and it absolutely is not magic.
Calling it "belief" is simply wrong.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
What's that river in Egypt again???
It comes with a lack of understanding of scientific inquiry.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Prove it. If you can't, then it's just an opinion shared by a relative few. Remember Elvis sightings?
""Prove it.""
What, - a scientific investigation doesn't provide you with proof. The results could be inconclusive.
And, - how do you define proof?
And, - what constitutes proof?
""then it's just an opinion shared by a relative few.""
No, - The one is not a logical deduction from the other. Sorry.
"" Remember Elvis sightings?""
This also harms your case.
""just an opinion shared by a relative few.""
Do a little reversey on that pal. Piling up experiences & tests shows the opposite....
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
A lot of people get into trouble listening to what the little voices in their head tells them.
Face it, y'all were the Jehovah's witness' of the audiophile world before Rod so kindle created your cable asylum and your own, personal "no-go zone", replete with your own muhammed. But, they have their own houses of worship too.
And, just like the witness', when you leave your house of worship and go out knocking on doors, you can expect to either have the door slammed in your face or, even worse, ridiculed.
So, some guy dared transgress your beliefs in your own no go zone and you had Rod apply sharia law. Now you get to dance your war dance.
But, again, if those differences are so apparant, how come nobody has ever convinced the world they are all that significant? After all, nobody disagrees that speakers sound different. Where's that proof?
"I can hear it" doesn't quite cut it in the real world.
it does....
And, - the "burden on proof" is on the person making the claim. And "proof" is a dynamic term, that applies differently to different subjects/objects.
""A lot of people get into trouble listening to what the little voices in their head tells them.""
In this case, that "straw man" and childish over-exaggeration outside reason holds no water. So, without any evidence you are calling people liars? If so, you know where you can stick it.
""Face it, y'all were the Jehovah's witness' of the audiophile world before Rod so kindle created your cable asylum and your own, personal "no-go zone", replete with your own muhammed. But, they have their own houses of worship too.""
I speak for myself, and the only religious dogma, is your unfounded, (outside reason, and outside the application of science and logic), behavior and insults.
""And, just like the witness', when you leave your house of worship and go out knocking on doors, you can expect to either have the door slammed in your face or, even worse, ridiculed.""
Yes, - for years, - fanatics like yourself, outside reason, persecute the truth: it's what, (as a cowardly bully), you do. What makes it worse, is it that you hide behind the work of cowards, instead of investigating & thinking for your self.
""So, some guy dared transgress your beliefs in your own no go zone and you had Rod apply sharia law. Now you get to dance your war dance.""
I'm not the one preaching here, especially the dogma that different cables sound the same. The supreme arrogance is the religious nutter who tells others what they can, and can not hear.
"""I can hear it" doesn't quite cut it in the real world.""
Yes it does actually, like most people here, I own, 4 different audio playback systems. Do you really think that people purchase audio systems that are never used?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
see my posts below.
i did not hear something....
It also could make you incredibly wrong, - because I further claim that if you sat down with me, - you would hear it as well.
That, emphasizes the most important thing, - actually having experiences for YOURSELF, actually testing things for YOURSELF.
The best way to know about whether or not something sounds different is to experience it, to try it. You don't know if you like sushi until you try it. You don't know what it's like to ride a bike through the forest until you do it....
This goes to the fundamental issue of the denigration of empirical data, and the lack of understanding of what "science" & testing, & comparative analysis actually is. People who do the testing, come to the same conclusions. And that's why they stopped unscientific, inexperienced, naysayers disrupt the cable asylum. Because the goal is to enhance the listening experience and try to achieve good sound.
Namely, people with lots of experiences, and who've tested different cables, have found, (and relatively agree), that cables with different properties cause the final sound to SOMETIMES be different: this is a (relative) consensus amongst the MAJORITY of people with experience.
If there was no need for a cable asylum, it wouldn't be here.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
If I have to work that hard to try to convince myself I hear a difference, the reality is that I probably don't and an simply realizing a wish.
But, again, if those differences are so apparant, how come nobody has ever convinced the world they are all that significant? After all, nobody disagrees that speakers sound different. Where's that proof?
Who cares?
Nobody has convinced the world that high end audio reproduction is a worthy pursuit. There's no point in trying to validate one's hobby with the rest of the world that doesn't care.
The only people whose opinions matter to me regarding audio are people who have heard what high end audio systems are capable of and who appreciate it enough to make it their pursuit and who can listen critically and then articulate the aspects of sound quality they are hearing.
There are plenty of people who pontificate about the audio hobby based on a simplistic model of audio reproduction who have never experienced really high fidelity systems, or who have but couldn't appreciate the difference. I do not care about these people's opinions on system building. Nor do I care what anybody thinks who isn't into this hobby.
A better example of religious belief in this hobby is clinging to the DBT. It is an experimental technique that has done nothing to advance the state of the art of audio reproduction. Successful researchers select experimental methods that provide new information and help them advance. Only a fool worships a method that brings no results.
Regarding the cable asylum rules, they would be unnecessary if everybody exercised simple forum etiquette. No hobby forum anywhere welcomes people who post there only to tell everyone their hobby is bullshit. It should be tolerable in small doses, but the cable forum had a history where it suffered from a few disruptive posters flooding the forum with the same pointless comments over and over.
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
So, they don't like people asking uncomfortable questions they can't answer with scientific testing and logic? That's why they need to be segregated into their own no-go zone?
So be it. Whatever it takes to keep the peace. Let the beheadings begin!
Personally, I'll trust my own ears and keep my opinions to myself unless, of course, I form a cult with like minded zealots and we can stroke each others egos. ...and then we can proselytize to the rest of the world until some kind person offers us refuge. where no discouraging words are allowed.
oh the hypocrisy.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
It's just when you propose to tell others what they should believe, or hear, that problems arise.
something......
Worse, - you're calling them liars.
You're like the Catholic church, if you just looked into Galileos telescope, - you'd see that the sun does NOT revolve around the earth. Except in this case, you're one of the lone reactionaries, (with your eyes closed, and your fingers in your ears: singing LALALALA).
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
That makes you the Taliban. so, whose the real dictator here?
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
nt
try it! you know you want to!
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Just my opinion but I think power cables can make a HUGE difference in a system!.. Look at my review over on the cable forum here...
Now I have some idea how much weight I can put in your posts.
Edits: 01/23/15
I wonder, has anyone in the history of mankind ever used "scientific testing" to ascertain that the *next step* (the step just below the one they're presently standing on in a stairwell) is actually there as it appears to be? Or, do they tend to keep on climbing or descending in faith-based manner?My point is: Nobody bothers to test everything their senses report to them because, most of the time, we can indeed trust our senses. It's only after some crazy person *sees* the step that isn't there and walks into an open stairwell that the "scientific inquiries" might begin...
Edits: 01/23/15 01/25/15
And many people hear things that aren't so, also.
Asylums are full of them. (see what I did there? ;))
How many illusionists do you think there are, lurking in the shadows waiting to fool us?
Anything's possible, I guess...
Experience tells us that certain things are more likely than others are and that our senses can indeed be trusted, for the most part.
Dunno. Count the hi-bux ads in any number of audio magazines. ;)
How do you know?
Where you there with them, not hearing something that they did?
Do you feel the same way about your sense of sight?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
One of the things that I've learned in my Philosophy of Science studies is that you can't "prove" that the wall exists, but you have to behave as though it does. This leads us to the truth that our branch of chimp-hominids still have a lot to learn, and that there are different degrees of "proof." I think sometimes that people get really confused between what they call science, and the application of the scientific method.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
"Observational application of the scientific method". You're using this phrase a lot. Got any credible references where it's been used in the context of the audibility of cables? A brief search turned up nothing.
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
...Unsurprisingly, no.
try looking up the scientific method: that is, - if you can't cite any investigations or experiences that you may have had on your own.
Most people, who read/fight on the internet, don't really take the time to gain the knowledge in experience and testing.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
...I'd like to peruse the published literature on observational scientific method as applied to the audibility of cable differences. Apparently there is none. Oh well. Guess we're back to opinions.
Later indeed!
as with any good scientific investigation, one doesn't need to walk the ground already walked, or consult with any other investigation."Personal discovery" LOL.....
The naysayers are making unreasonable claims because they are trying to assert facts based on no evidence. They/you are committing the error of extapolating the "some" to the "all" Again, = playing God, and engaging in belief.
Still waiting for you to cite specific examples of YOUR TESTS.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Well said.
"they [cables] ought to be a minor factor. If they're not, something is really wrong with them and/or the components they tie together."
Very well put! I couldn't agree more. The interfaces that we seem to largely be stuck with are historical artifacts that are piles of (poorly specified) crap from an engineering perspective. And they face equipment ports that are also.
Audiophiles just seem to have a near infinite tolerance for this sort of thing. Guess it adds a touch of mystery and magic to our hobby. Actually it might be a significant reason that it IS still a hobby.
But it's my hobby and I love it. No accounting for taste...
Rick
What I have found is that by reducing the number of wires and cables in the system the sound can be improved considerably. My small portable system has no power cords, no (big) speaker cables, no Interconnects, no digital cable, no ground wires, no internal wiring, no fuses. Does this mean that all cables are inherently bad?....well, uh, maybe.
Nt
.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Nt
"What I have found is that by reducing the number of wires and cables in the system the sound can be improved considerably. My small portable system has no power cords, no (big) speaker cables, no Interconnects, no digital cable, no ground wires, no internal wiring, no fuses."
Does it, by any chance, have a crank on the side? You have just described a music box...
"Does this mean that all cables are inherently bad?....well, uh, maybe."
Can't argue with that! Of course they are. But EVERYTHING is a compromise with good and bad traits. Except for coffee.
Rick
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
