|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: I am not saying cables don't make a difference. posted by Monstrous Mike on June 17, 2003 at 12:34:13:
[ Since people can hear different things when measurements stay the same, I would say this goal is unattainable. ]And some people refuse to hear what is there, even when the changes are gross. But this is getting into the realm of DBT's, and so, I will not argue further. I ask that you do the same, or the posts will have to be deleted.
However, it is pretty obvious, that you are ducking the question entirely anyway.
[ We know the capabilities of the ear. ]
I love that all inclusive "we" Mike. Like you yourself know all of the available reseach on the subject, and fully understand it. In lieu of this, then you MUST be taking some one else's word for it. I guess it comes down to which "guru" you are willing to follow, eh? Who is your personal guru, mtry?
Fact is, while we think we know the limitations of the human ear (actually, and more correctly, the ear/brain interface), we have been fooling ourselves for years.
We have seen the establishment accepted levels of audible THD creep down from several percent in the 50's (3-5% was commonly accepted as being inaudible), down to 1% in the 60-70's, then down to 0.5 to 0.3% in the 90's. Back in the 50's, they thought they knew for sure too.IM distortion has very little hard core data for what is audible and what isn't, part of the issue being: which two-tones for the IM signal? Multi-tones are a completely new type of test signal, one which is closer to real music than sine wave THD, or two-tone IM, and still no one knows what the thresholds are for those.
The time domain is virtualy ignored, and yet, this is an area that an audio cable can affect. It is just not investigated by very many people, and there is little or no published research of this type of signal distortions.
Aside from the curently accepted thresholds of detection, sensitivity and JND's, where are the studies that directly correlate those numbers, with what we can hear on music, using very high performance playback systems? Where are the studies on cummulative distortions, as I discuss in this post:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/30013.htmlObviously, the recording studio can "use up" quite a bit of the tolerance we might have for added distortions and signal abberations, but there is virtually no data on this kind of cummulative signal distortion, and when the actual thresholds of audibility with music under home playback will occur.
Not even mtry has any such citations, because there are none.
[ Sorry but I have a friend with a truck that has lots of torque, pretty good top speed but not so good acceleration. He is beaten off the line by almost all cars, even Hyundais, but wins in top speed. ]
And you make my point for me. Besides, you must know, your freinds truck is the exception, not the rule.
[ I guess this statement applies to Stephen Hawking because I do not believe he has any experience in high end audio or audio technical issues? ]
Actually, it does apply, completely. I do not believe that Stephen Hawking has any experience as an audiophile, nor has he designed any high end audio components, and I seriously doubt if he has ever attempted to compare audio cables. Therefore, despite his undeniable expertise in theoretical physics, he would not know diddly about highend audio design, components or cables, nor would he know what was typical and real world issues and performance for these kinds of components.
You seem to be saying that if someone where highly capable as a chemist, they would automatically know all about fine wines. This is ludicrous of course. A physicist is not automatically an expert on high end audio components, or audio cables either. Unless of course, you are concrned that one of your cables might cause a black hole to form, and need to know about this. :-)
[ Why isn't a coax cable sufficient for real world home audio? ]
Define sufficient. As in "good enough" like Tony wants us all to stop at? Just as there are those who want to realize ALL of the performance potential of their souped up car, their overclocked computer, their musical instrument, there are those who want the same of their home playback system.
The bottom line is that coax has been tried, compared to other geometries and shielding arrangements, and found wanting for that last iota of performance. Even without RFI blasting in. This has been the case for a HUGE number of audiophiles and music lovers. It has been the case for the most discriminating folks, and I thinknthat it has some meaning, that virtually ALL of the high performance aftermarket cable vendors abandon plain coax once you get past the entry level to mid-line models in their cable line-up.
[ Do you have some data that a twisted pair is an improvement in certain situations? ]
I have the results of my listening tests, as well as the corraboration of a great may audiophilers and music lovers. In point of fact, it provides an improvement in nearly ALL cases, and is one of the few things that is about as universal as can be possible for audio cables.
Since you do not accept any kind of evidence (AT ALL) regarding cable sonics in the first place, asking for evidence of even further refinements and subtleties is kind of a joke on your part, right? Like speaking authoritatively about bi-wiring, when you don't even allow that there are differences with single wiring. A moot point indeed from your POV. So I have to take it that the question was not even rhetorical, but rather, merely another red herring to throw into the hat.
Follow Ups:
Your words, not mine....and is one of the few things that is about as universal as can be possible...
Scientists and engineers only speak like this about things like Newton's Law of Gravity and Maxwell's Equations. So saying this about twisted pair cables is about as non-scientific as you can get. Unless, of course, I missed that article titled: "Risch's Twisted Law".
Define sufficient.
Well a simple definition would be a cable that passes an audio signal without audible degradation.
A physicist is not automatically an expert on high end audio components, or audio cables either. Unless of course, you are concrned that one of your cables might cause a black hole to form, and need to know about this.
You are attacking an authority before anything has even been presented or discussed. Suspicion of authority is one of the signs of uncompromising belief systems. You have demonstrated this on many occasions. The need to continually discredit authority is strong indication of a weak position.
You have even dismissed Stephen Hawking as another non-audio physicist who knows "diddly" about high end audio design. You don't think perhaps he has the intelligence to assess this situation in a New York minute? Of course not, he has no "real world experience". Well since he hasn't been to the edge of the galaxy, I suppose we should take his astronomical musings with a grain of salt.
Besides, you must know, your freinds truck is the exception, not the rule.
Well, no actually I don't "must know". I could go into a multitude of wheeled vehicles that have a high top speed but a slow acceleration time compared to other vehicles. You, must know that. Well, maybe not, you might be the exception.
We have seen the establishment accepted levels of audible THD creep down from several percent in the 50's (3-5% was commonly accepted as being inaudible), down to 1% in the 60-70's, then down to 0.5 to 0.3% in the 90's. Back in the 50's, they thought they knew for sure too.
When you say "establishment accepted levels of audible THD", who was this established by? Audiophiles or otolaryngologists? I'll bet if it was audiophiles there are no records of testing and if it was otolaryngologists, there is documented evidence.
I don't mean to be rude or abrasive, just back up what you say.
Mike:You said:
"Scientists and engineers only speak like this about things like Newton's Law of Gravity and Maxwell's Equations. So saying this about twisted pair cables is about as non-scientific as you can get. Unless, of course, I missed that article titled: "Risch's Twisted Law".
I think you just provided the perfect example of the opposite argument to your own. Newton's view of the universe was accepted as truth for several hundred years. It was the first part of my training in Physics.
But guess what? Newton was wrong! For example, his equations of motion are an approximation that works well at low speeds, not as you approach the speed of light.
As the total body of knowledge increased, others like Einstein modified Newton's work. Should the scientific community have ex-communicated these new guys because they dared to suggest that traditional thinking was flawed?
There are many examples over history of closed-minded people stating that "we already know everything" and denying that any new discoveries are relevant. I don't recall any of them being proven right....
Peter
You are elevating cable phsyics theory to be mathematical equivalent with the General Theory of Relativity?Do you seriously think someone with the mental acuteness of Einstein or Newton is going to come along and develop new theories that explain sonic differences in cables?
Maybe someday we will be saying Risch and Einstein in the same sentence. Thanks, you just made my day. LOL....
Einstein does not consider string theory, cosmic foam, alternate universes, quark-gluon plasma...Maxwell doesn't consider those either..As well as vacuum fluctuations, and other stuff..Eventually, both will be proven as partially correct, as was Newton..with what, who knows?
""As the total body of knowledge increased, others like Einstein modified Newton's work. Should the scientific community have ex-communicated these new guys because they dared to suggest that traditional thinking was flawed?""Peter
Funny you use the word ex-communicated...Seems the church used that tool in the past..
""There are many examples over history of closed-minded people stating that "we already know everything"""Peter
And as I believe, Mike is alluding to the fact that JR is indeed showing that behavior here...with respect to one particular cable type, twisted pairs..
I personally believe everything we know as right will eventually be embellished or modified..
Cheers, John
John:"And as I believe, Mike is alluding to the fact that JR is indeed showing that behavior here...with respect to one particular cable type, twisted pairs.."
That's not my read of Jon's posts at all. I don't hear him saying that the science is perfect and that there is nothing to discover.
Actually, I took exception to Mike's statements like:
"This statement is incorrect. There is a large body of work in the medical field that has determined the frequency range we can hear, the minimum SPL we can detect, the minimum change in SPL we can detect, the loudest sounds before damage is done, our sensitivity to harmonics, and the list goes on. We know the capabilities of the ear."
THIS sounds remarkably like declaring an end to an avenue of science, and setting up the premise that anyone who finds evidence to contradict the established wisdom is a heretic.
BTW, I used the religious connotation deliberately -- this sort of thinking smacks of dogma and belief, not open-minded exploration.
At least Einstein knew that he would eventually be proven wrong....
Peter
""That's not my read of Jon's posts at all. I don't hear him saying that the science is perfect and that there is nothing to discover""peter..Although I do not agree, I respect your opinion..You've been quite nice about it..
Jon's post:what Mike was talking about:
""In point of fact, it provides an improvement in nearly ALL cases, and is one of the few things that is about as universal as can be possible for audio cables.""JR
In this case, the traditional thought being "about as universal as can be possible", and Mike being the one to question that traditional thought..and being ostrasized for his beliefs..
""There is a large body of work in the medical field that has determined the frequency range we can hear, the minimum SPL we can detect, the minimum change in SPL we can detect, the loudest sounds before damage is done, our sensitivity to harmonics, and the list goes on. We know the capabilities of the ear."mm
I would tend to agree with him..however, what was not covered is how we interpret a soundstage binaurally..That is way open right now.. The tests Mike talks of have been beat to death.. But, notice that no distortion, either harmonic, or temporal, is in that list..
""BTW, I used the religious connotation deliberately -- this sort of thinking smacks of dogma and belief, not open-minded exploration.""peter
The people who believe cables sound differently must beware of falling into that trap as well..
""At least Einstein knew that he would eventually be proven wrong....""peter..
Yup
Cheers, John
Taken out of context, what you used as your title sounded quite odd.
Of course, you intended it that way.Isn't straight ahead argument enough, why do you feel the need to TRY and use simple minded tricks? Perhaps not enough substance to your arguments?
[ I don't mean to be rude or abrasive, just back up what you say. ]Yes you do, and just as soon as you backup one of your claims.
[ You are attacking an authority before anything has even been presented or discussed. ]
If you are trying to present Stephen Hawkings as an authority on audio cables, then I would need to see the evidence that he is an experienced audiophile, as I have not heard that he is.
If you are trying to make an appeal to authority, and this is based on the further false premise that any authority will do, then you are now two BS levels deep into the muck, instead of just one.
[ When you say "establishment accepted levels of audible THD", who was this established by? ]
The mainstream engineers, psychoacousticians of the time. This info can be found in any number of sources, such as the various editions of The Audio Cyclopedia (Tremaine), as well as various AES articles, and other sources.
However, I am not going to do your homework for you, as it is not too hard to find this kind of info on your own.
Me:
Define sufficient.MM: Well a simple definition would be a cable that passes an audio signal without audible degradation.
Sorry, no such beast exists yet. You only get flavors of more or less accurate. No perfection.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: