 
|
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 |
I have been reading some of cable and wire reviews that have been posted, and here are some excerpts:"Everything opened up and cleared up..The bass tightened up and also went deeper. I can hear things on recordings that I have never heard before, such as certain cymbals and moroccas on Patricia Barber's Verse. Allison Krause appears before you".
and..."Dark background, minute details in decay were much more present, delivering a 3D sensation. Detail and "air" around instruments is much cleaner and more discernable. Vocals are spooky real. I feel like I could touch Bjork if I reached out my hand.
Just to give you some examples :)
Now the question is: Given that such a low tech piece of wire or cable that is passive could have such an effect on a system, then what kind of effect would we get if replace component that are not passive and complicated (high tech) such as speakers, amps or the CD player? Would we get ten or 100 times the effect cable had on a system?
If you agree that cables have such a huge effect on system, then you must also agree that changing component would have exponential (power of 10) effect (you can't have it both way :) So why bother with baby steps (by changing cables) when you can take a giant leap forward by exchanging your audio components instead of cables. Why limit yourself! :)
Follow Ups:
Many hobbyists do both (experiement with gear and wire). Just because something makes a lesser difference does not make it less important to the hobbyist.Ever heard of "fine tuning"?
Too bad that the majority of us (including myself) are limited in the changes that can be made to the listening room (this can make, by far, the greatest difference).
You are presuming why cables sound better.
nt
IMO these things need to be taken into context. For example lets say that linn cd player sounds better than a levinson, or vice versa. It doesn't mean that your run of the mill ht buff is going to hear it. Same as a race car driver noticing handling differences between two sets of tires, that does not mean the guys hanging out behind dairy queen in their mustangs will.This is a forum of serious music lovers that apprecaite subtle differences on a higher level than Joe at Circuit City.
-robber
Your argument assumes an arbitrary factor of significance regarding component swaps. The fact is, above a shelf system (Aiwa etc) all improvements are 'minor' in one way or another. To those who care they're huge. But once you pass a certain level, there's no exponential improvements at all. Just small steps towards your goal. I dramatize improvements when I make them, but really, they're small. It's that way in any hobby- " Hey dude, I just squeezed an extra 3 horses outta my 'vette "
To that person it's significant, to most, it's pretty fast either way.So, the significance of the factors is arbitrary, it becomes a very personal thing, and many find that in a tweaked system, cables are a good way to get their rig doing what it really can.
I also belive that difference between cables are [very] subtle and if you blink you will miss it. My problem comes when subtle are blow out of proportion and some cable reviewers sound like they are listening to a new system with their new cables. That bothers me and make me start asking questions as to why it is so :)
Given that reviews are descriptions of internal experiences, we cannot asign any scale of logical increase in effect just because a given device is more complex. We cannot asign any scale at all. The reviewer can, but we cannot.And a description of an aural experience cannot be dismissed as exageration by someone who has not experienced it. This is a self evident truth. We have no grounds upon which to base such a critisism. It is understandable that audible changes in a system with which a listener is intimately familiar with would be pretty obvious. Probably stand out like a whale in the desert. All the listener is trying to do is relay this effect. He could be deliberately exagerating or even outright lying, but we have no way of knowing that. All we can do is take his report at face value. If the report describes sonic attributes that we want in our system, we may take a listen to the cable ourselves. If we hear similar improvements, we may buy the cable. If not, we don't. In the end, the review, exagerated, false or accurate as it may be, has only benefited us. Either it showed us a cable that makes our system sound better or it showed us a cable that we need to avoid. A win win prospect if ever there was one.
Thanks,
Rob
Hey robYou said:"All we can do is take his report at face value".
Given the cost of some cables out there, do you think that is reasonable? At least don't you want to know the reason behind it, rather than because somebody else said so? I think that is a fair question :)
Lets be clear here; I am talking about the reviewer's report itself, not any possible physical phenomena that may have sparked his comments. This is all we have to go on. His word as to what he heard.We (meaning anyone other than the reviewer himself) have no way of testing the veracity of this communication. Since he is reporting an internal experience (what he heard) we have no means to determine if the report is true (he is relaying what he actually heard), exagerated (he is relaying more than what he actually heard) or false (he is relaying something he did not actually hear). That is my point.....we can't tell. Given this starting point, the only logical action on our part is to take him at his word and assume he is reporting his experience as acurately as he can (that is, he is not deliberately exagerating or lying) We can test his report agianst our own experience or we can attempt to correlate it to some measured parameter. However, even if we find that we did not hear the same thing or that no physical parameters correlate to the report, we still cannot call the report false. All we can say it that we did not experience the same sonic qualities or that we could find no metric that tracks his description.
Price really does not enter into this evaluation. Lets assume the worst case; the reviewer, let's call him Spam Toelick, deliberately lied about or colored his experience in order to boost the sales of the product, possibly to receive some kick back from the manufacturer, whom we'll call Marital Infidelity. The consumer reads the review and desires to see improvements in his system that line up with Spam's descriptions. He decides to go and listen for himself (maybe a dealer demo, or perhaps he orders it online from Audio Dictator to take advantage of their 30 day return policy). Let's assume he hates it. He does not hear anything like what Spam went on and on about. He now has information he did not previously. He may decide to avoid all Marital Infidelity gear. He may decide to ignore all Spam Toelick columns in the future. Whatever, one thing is for sure, he is not buying this piece of gear. Spam failed in his quest to sell more Marital Infidelity gear. OK, now lets assume he liked it. He thinks Spam was right on the money and he gladly pays the dealer and takes it home (or does not send it back to Audio Dictator). So now what? Has the devious Spam won? Has he succeeded in pawning off overpriced junk on a gullible consumer? I am sure Spam thinks so, maybe even the designer over at Marital Infedelity is rejoicing at another sucker hoodwinked. Sounds vile dosen't it? Ah, but wait. Remember our consumer actually liked the piece of gear and he obviously liked it more than the amount of money the dealer was asking in exchange cause he bought it. All of Spam's evil schemeing has resulted in one thing.....a happier listener. You, me, Spam, and a hundred other geeks who spend their evening composing anonymous essays about audio gear amy think the dude is crazy, that he got taken for a ride, that he pissed away his hard earned cash. But while we wring our hands and wail in lamentation, this poor dupe is enjoying hi music just a little bit more than he used to.
Thanks,
Rob
but your post was so good, I couldn't resist the temptation of quoting it verbatim over at AR:
I find that cable cable differences ARE generally more subtle than component differences. However, the premise that changing low tech passive components will ALWAYS have minor effect does not ring true with my experience. Generally speaking, I do buy components first, and then use the cables that sound the best with those components. I don't feel limited. I would feel more limited if I only purchased cables and components that worked according to my pre-existing model of how things should work. Instead, I listen first, (before I read reviews!), and then I buy according to what sounds best to me. I grant that that this is very subjective, but it grants me a more satisfying experience than reading spec sheets. The best part of all is that I allow myself to learn from my listening sessions, and to fine-tune my system to my tastes. Rationalism is great fun, and I commend your practice of it. But I also recommend that you put aside your arguments and just listen sometimes too.
I agree with your implied indictment of too much hype and hysteria about the way we describe improvements in our systems, but you're dead wrong if you think cables aren't capable of very significant improvements or changes!Low tech? Maybe you're confusing fewer parts with lower complexity. One protein molecule, in chemical terms, is so much smaller and has fewer parts than a full DNA molecule, but it's just as critical and it's HIGHLY technical. Crystalline structures, electromagnetic flux and induction - jeez, how much science do you want to play with? - makes the notion that cables are "simple" simply WRONG! Your multipart components will fail to deliver properly with the wrong cable in between, just as surely as your DNA will if one of those protein molecules is even slightly off.
No, you cannot build a system on just cable magic, nor can you build a system on just component magic with the wrong connectors. Period. It's a community affair, takes a village and all that jazz...
So just use your ears to sort out the hyperbole from the actual difference they make, but the difference is there and you can't help but notice it if your ears work well. And if you can't hear it, then don't buy it, but don't dis the rest of us who can, please. Thank you.
One has to wonder exactly what you are doing here.
But rather is there anything to be heard :)
The well known bias that is used as an excuse to dismiss sighted listening tests will also be present in reverse for any listening test, even a blind one. Folks who don't WANT to hear anything, won't.I once did a listening test where the subject was a die-hard cable naysayer. When he thought he was listening to a cable swap, we actually reversed the polarity on ONE channel without changing cables, and he swore he could not hear a diffence between normal and one channel reversed! This was a relatively large sonic change, and yet, he was so determined NOT to hear anything, he could not even detect this level of change!
These kinds of results, where the subject is not hearing any changes, are totally inconclusive, and have absolutely no meaning, for this very reason.
No matter how open minded you THINK that you might be going into a listening test situation, it is impossible to eliminate this kind of bias, and it is no surprise to folks that it occurs this way.
Jon Risch
... to miss the point, willfully. Given your "position," I ask again: what are you doing here?
First of all, nobody said here, that better equipment don't make a difference. People here only say, that cable TOO make a difference. You can find theoretical background on most manufacturers' homepage, or on this site. If you don't believe that, go to an audio shop and listen to the same equipment with several different cables. If you cannot hear any difference, you should choose another hobby.You said: "changing component would have exponential (power of 10) effect"
Can you please clarify what an expotential (or double or whatever) effect means exactly? (NOT the mathmetics, I know that.)Zozo
That is one place you sure don't want to get theoretical lessens about cables and that is on manufacturers' home page. Most of high end cable manufactures (remember I didn't say all) tend to twist the theoretical theories to accommodate their cables which mean it is biased. There are alot of non biased web sites (Colleges, non cable manufactures, etc...) that will present theoretical view point of wires and cable without having invested interest."go to an audio shop and listen to the same equipment with several different cables. If you cannot hear any difference, you should choose another hobby."Zozo
LOL. That was simple :) So I shouldn't waste my time listening to music if wires/cables don't make any difference in my system? :)
BTW: exponential effect mean astronomical...meaning that if a cables have such a profound effect given its low tech nature, then think what kind of effect high tech (Amps, speakers, etc..) change mean to a system (sonically).
No, I did not say that you should stop listening to music by all means. What I meant was that you should not bother checking this (cable) site for example, where people discuss the differences that cables make. People here share experiences, ask for expert or non-expert advice, etc.If your careful and thorough observation is that cables don't make a difference, you can share it with us, but I can't see the constructive point. Who has benefited from your post in any way? What is your question exactly? How can the inmates help you? What is your advice? (Buy better components! ????)
Every now and then somebody comes up with this "cables (in general!)don't make a difference" stuff. I don't understand why they bother posting it?
If a $1000 is a good investment on cables depends on your gear, If you have an amp that is 15K, you may be better off spending it on cables than on a 16K amp.
Finally, if you hear a difference between components, I cannot believe that you don't hear a difference between cables.
Zozo
Why I come here is to find out the reason behind why somebody hear all those improvement with cables. If you can hear it, then there should be some [reasonable] explanation for it. Don't you think? The old cliche of "I can hear it" does not satisfy my curiosity :)
nt
If you agree that cables have such a huge effect on system, then you must also agree that changing component would have exponential (power of 10) effect (you can't have it both way :)Just throwing more money at active components doesn't always necessarily yield great benefits. The power of diminishing returns comes into play. I don't know of any $4000 CDPs that are more musical than my $3000 GamuT. For that $1000, however, I was able to upgrade the power cords to my monoblocks which did yield clearly audible improvements.
rw
HowdySometimes the best bang for my buck as I was upgrading my system was in changing cables, sometimes not. At one point my speaker wires cost more than my speakers, but my system sounded pretty nice. Later I bought speakers that cost many times as much and those cables still sound fine.
It wasn't that long ago that I scoffed at cables making any difference, but it's pretty hard to argue when you try some out and (at times) get differences like you might expect from changing a component.
Given my surround system I sure don't want to change out all of my cables very often :)
-Ted
Why bother with cables? The answer is simple, this is the Cable Asylum! LOL. Also, without them, hardware is just hardware, it can't make any sound. :)But seriously, it's a two edged sword. Say Joe can't afford that new Hovland pre-amp he wants. But he can take cable costs out of his wife's grocery budget. What's he gonna do? Wait wait wait, or take instant gratification and get cables that at least have the potential for making some improvement now?
The other perspective. Once you've taken your hardware as far as you want to take it for a period of time, it's time to tweak if you don't mind spending a little more. Cables can not only be functional, but be part of your system optimization as well. In theory, you've made that exponential change of equipment already. Your looking for just a little bit more.
Lex
great components do not a great system make.synergy does. and everything, from the source to the speakers, from the room to the outlets, from the footers to the cables, adds or subtracts from synergy.
1+1 makes 3 when the topic is subjective. and like art, audio is.
rhyno
Whatever happened to 2? :)
My Bryston integrated amp sounds WAY better than my NAD integrated amp. Oddly enough I still hear cable differences on both amps.
Rob CThe world was made for people not cursed with self-awareness
At what price point/quality level do you feel cables can make an audible difference? Do you think that interconnects that come with a Kenwood CD player are just as good as Jon Risch's? If not, where does the difference become indiscernible? Monster stuff from Best Buy? Low end Audioquest? I¡¦m not trying to be antagonistic (unlike yourself ƒº) I¡¦m really looking for an honest answer.Thanks.
Hi fyton2vYou said:"Do you think that interconnects that come with a Kenwood CD player are just as good as Jon Risch's".
Did you have to use JR cable for this example LOL.
Most cables that does comes with component as free do not definitely measure up to high quality constructed cables. Mots of them suffer from shielding and/or quality constructions. That is why there are free :)
The difference between cables becomes indiscernible when a cable address all of it specification as cable (such as quality shielding, low loss and capacitance, quality connections and tight grip on both ends). It is like building a car that can do 55 mph (speed limit law), and somebody else build a car that can do 100 mph. But you can not do 100 mph because the speed limit is 55 mph...and the speed limit is Physics's laws.
Electrons can not behave differently in a $1000 cable than a $100 cable because of price tag. They will follow physic's law in the cheaper cable as they do in a more expensive cables. You can not get around Physics law.
Did that answer your question :)
You completely answered my question.
Just as the 55 MPH speed limit is an arbitrary limit, set in this case, by the governement, so is your personal interpretation of the "Physics law" more of a personal limit rather than an absolute.Despite an huge amount of posturing and posting, not one person has ever provided the data for how what we hear fully corrrelates with what has been measured or what has been determined to be our thresholds and limits of hearing. That is the case for a reason, the fact that no researchers have actually done this yet!
The codec people have come the closest, but even they are not 100% on target with correlating what can be measured with what we hear. The typical audio magazine component review measurements (THD, FR, S/N, etc.) are so far away from this, that it is a joke. BTW, the infamous James Johnston (also known as jj) of ATT codec fame has posted this many times, that typical limited measurements DO NOT fully define the audio performance of a component. Let's just say he is light years ahead of folks like mtrycrafts, et al.
[ The difference between cables becomes indiscernible when a cable address all of it specification as cable (such as quality shielding, low loss and capacitance, quality connections and tight grip on both ends). ]
No cable has 100% shielding at all frequencies, despite what a spec sheet might say. So how much is enough? What about the guy next to a radio transmiter, like Dan Banquer?
How low of a loss, and how low of a capacitance?
Some folks say that anything over 17 pF per foot is way too high, and there are interconnects with a 6 dB loss, yet many folks regard these as some of the finest sounding connecting cables out there.What is a quality connection, and why is a tight grip required?
You do not seem to be aware that just because you have a list of cable parameters that you will ultimately judge as "good enough", this is not necessarily the SOTA (State-Of-The-Art) in signal transfer.
What is "good enough" for a Dept. store rack system is NOT "good enough" for a really fine playback system. Yet folks with nothing more than Home Theater In A Box systems want to limit what others will achieve, via this "good enough" frame of mind.
RE your car analogy, it is highly flawed. What about acceleration? The car that can ONLY just do 55 MPH, will NOT be able to accelerate as well as the car that can do 100 MPH. It is also likely that the car that can do 100 MPH will be able to corner better, etc., even at 55 MPH.
Should we all settle for the Hyandai's of the cable world, just because _you_ feel that is "good enough"?Your interpretation of what the limits of the "Physics laws" mean in terms of cable parameters and sonic performance does not seem to be springing from a font of experience.
How many esoteric audio cables have you actualy listened to on a fine system? And Monster Cable on a Best Buy 'Sale of the Week' system does not count.
Until you have heard what can occur with decent cables on a fine system, what you post is mere extrapolation based on a decided lack of experience with high end audio, as well as common audio technical issues. Obviously, to say that coax is the ultimate interconnect, and that a twisted pair with an overall shield is worse, points to a decided lack of real world experience and exposure to what actually happens out there in the real world of high performance playback.
Jon Risch
Despite an huge amount of posturing and posting, not one person has ever provided the data for how what we hear fully corrrelates with what has been measured... .Since people can hear different things when measurements stay the same, I would say this goal is unattainable.
...or what has been determined to be our thresholds and limits of hearing.
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.
RE your car analogy, it is highly flawed. What about acceleration? The car that can ONLY just do 55 MPH, will NOT be able to accelerate as well as the car that can do 100 MPH. It is also likely that the car that can do 100 MPH will be able to corner better, etc., even at 55 MPH.
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.
Until you have heard what can occur with decent cables on a fine system, what you post is mere extrapolation based on a decided lack of experience with high end audio, as well as common audio technical issues.
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?
Obviously, to say that coax is the ultimate interconnect, and that a twisted pair with an overall shield is worse, points to a decided lack of real world experience and exposure to what actually happens out there in the real world of high performance playback.
Why isn't a coax cable sufficient for real world home audio? Assuming we don't live next to a tranmitter, have walls and a roof and our components are within shouting distance of each other, is a coax not sufficient for all home audio applications? Do you have some data that a twisted pair is an improvement in certain situations?
[ 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.
Jon Risch
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?
Jon Risch
[ 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.
Jon Risch
If you look at his web site concerning twisted wire vs Coax, he said and I quote:"After listening to cables with identical materials (Coax and twisted pair), and LCR (Inductance, Capacitance and Resistance) parameters within an acceptably similar range, but different physical geometry's, it was determined that a twisted pair cable with overall shield (a telescoping arrangement) was superior to a coaxial or triaxial type".
That is how he has determined that twisted is better than coax, just by listening. So if I listen to a coathanger and a coax cable, and determine that coat hanger sound better, then that makes it truth :)
I gave you the beneift of the doubt with regard to how insulting you were actually trying to be vs. mere insensitivity with regard to your original posted question. But this post leaves no doubt. This is a personal attack, and this kind of post is not allowed at AA.I know that the AR cable forum naysayers encourage such posts, and regularly get away with them at AR. But this is not AR.
Consider this a warning from the Moderator.
I am going to address this as best I can, so that if you are merely being encouraged by the buffoonery at AR, that you have a chance to stop acting in such a manner. I think that this is more than fair, and more than reasonable.
First, many of your statements here are not based on your own expriences with regard to high performance audio, but are based on what YOU believe is logic and/or physics. Perhaps some of it is second hand propoganda from older hard-line naysayers. You need to realize that many folks here have been down that road, initialy felt that "such and such could not possibly make a difference", and then, when we encountered the real world, and found out it did, had to come to grips with certain undeniable facts of audio life.
I myself felt the same way you do when I first finished college, and felt that the only parameters that mattered for cables were the classic textbook LCR variables. Period, no further consideration.
But like many, once my system and my expereince with audio developed past the simple "plug and play" el cheapo level, and I started to get some hands on experiences, as well as some actual design of audio components, I found out that a lot of what was taught was just a very simple beginning, and NOT the end of the journey.
Just as one discovers that a real world power supply is NOT that perfect battery portrayed voltage source with no sag, no output Z and no noise or ripple, one finds out that the parts themselves are not ONLY resistors, not ONLY capacitors, not ONLY inductors, etc. They ALL have parasitic aspects that affect their operation at other than power line frequencies.
These secondary or parasitic parameter aspects also affect cables. The capacitance is not a pure capacitance, it has DA, DF, and other less than perfect behaviors. This holds true for all of the basic parameters, they are not opure, but rather, have secondary aspects.
So engineers and technicians that found themsleves hearing cable sonics had to go through a learning stage where they puzzled out some of the reasons and the wherefores of it all. Some just take it on 'faith', and do not make a serious attempt to quantify it or understand it. They just know it occurs, and allow for it. Others delve into it as thoroughly as they can, in the true spirit of science and engineering, in an attempt to correlate what they hear with what they measure or resaon out. There are those that go intom denial, and try to pretend with themsleves that it really doesn't occur, and tell themsleves, it is OK if it is a personal preferrence, but they are still denying that it has any basis in reality, rather than accepting or seeking.
Some of this was recently discussed at:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/3784.html
and the subsequent thread that followed.There are a LOT of engineers that either hobby or workin audio, and realize that there is more going on than mere THD, FR and S/N. They found out the hard way, that to amke a product, or their system sond the very best, they had to go beyond text book, beyond simple meter reading, and really sweat the details.
As for your comment about me merely listening, the listening was under controlled blind conditions, and represents literally hundreds of man-hours at that point (I have probably racked up thousands by now) of controlled listening tests.
However, that gets dismissed by some, those who seem to never accept ANY evidence except a good solid whack along the side the head (hey, no, wait a minute I must have hallucinated that, there is no pain, there is no pain...)
Additional evidence is present in the form of the widespread acceptance and positive comments about the DIY cable designs I make available.
Folks generally concede that the twisted pair with overall shield sounds better than the stock coax. Same materials, similar capacitance, etc. In fact, the DIY designs are the proof of the pudding, so to speak. They are validation of the listening results, as well as the reasoned and logical desing based on those listening tests.The result is audio cables that sound as good as aftermarket retail audio cables in the several hundred dollar range or higher. At one hundredth the price.
Finally, you do not seem to do very much in the way of a background check, in terms of what has been posted before, what a given inmate posts about or their opinions, and you do not seem to bother to look up and read some of the various references and citations provided.
If you are going to post here, or at any message board, it would behoove you to find out a few things before you decide to "enlighten" anyone else.[ So if I listen to a coathanger and a coax cable, and determine that coat hanger sound better, then that makes it truth :) ]
Steve Eddy would agree with this, it would sound good to you, and therefore be an inviolate preference, not subject to any one elses disagreement. This has been discussed too, see:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/206918.html
as well as a recent thread here with posts from me and Steve.However, I have addressed my methods and why my listening was much more than just listening and making a snap decision.
So you have to decide, if you are going to try and get along with peope, or just want to act uncivilized. Uncivilized behavior at AA will eventuallly result in steps being taken to protect the other inmates.
If you honestly feel that audio cables do not need to be any better than Belden 1505F, then fine, but do not try to force this one anyone here, most people here are not going agree, and all you will do is come off as an uncivilized jerk.
BTW, you should consider Belden 88281 (Todd Krieger's favorite coax), similar to your favorite, but with foamed FEP teflon insulation rather than foamed PE, and with a solid center wire, which some folks swear by as superior to stranded.
In case you did not realize, you can get a free sample of 88281 from Belden, just call 765-983-5200, ask for Customer Service, and request a 6 foot sample, so you can make two 3 foot cables for stereo. You may have to sweet talk the 56 feet, their normal sample length is 3 feet. (Which is enought to make a digital interconnect, which Todd also says is the greatest). Then you could try it for yourself, and see if the dielectric made a difference for you, in your system, at this point in your audio experience curve.
Maybe it won't for now, but it would not cost you much to find out, and you would be able to hang onto them, and see if later on, the sound became noticable with syustem upgrades or more listening experience.
I have to say, the folks who want to try and preach the gospel of no audible differences, but flat out refuse to even try some high performance cables, are the ones who deserve no respect or consideration in my book, they can't even be bothered to go through the motions of testing the hyupothesis, they are not scientists any more, just pseudo-science bullies.
Jon Risch
All that rambling and condecending commentary and yet, you have yet to show where the laws of physics won't hold up, as Tony mentioned.
You have to consider ALL the physics, not just the simple parts, or the easy parts you can understand.
Jon Risch
.
""you have yet to show where the laws of physics won't hold up, as Tony mentioned."" JBC""You have to consider ALL the physics, not just the simple parts, or the easy parts you can understand.""JR
What in god's name are you talking about??? ALL the physics??
Tony did not mention what part of physics..Juts that price/physics do not correlate...
""or the easy parts you can understand.""JR
Whoa...That veiled insult passed by me, for sure..I missed it completely..
Jon, you are going further down a path, trying to justify your knee jerk...
Why not just apologize and move on??
TTFN, John
There's a consistent chant from Tony and others here that the entire physics of cables boils down to lumped LCR parameters, that this is somehow established fact, and that any other thinking is voodoo.And yet you ask Jon what he's talking about?
But the thing that blows me away the most is this:
"That is how he has determined that twisted is better than coax, just by listening. So if I listen to a coathanger and a coax cable, and determine that coat hanger sound better, then that makes it truth :)"
FOR GOD"S SAKE!! IT'S AN AUDIO SYSTEM!!! It has NO value outside of the way it sounds. If the coat hanger sounds better than a caox cable, then YES it is a superior interconnect (in THAT system, at THAT time, for THAT person).
HOWEVER: Jon would then try to understand WHY it sounds better. Tony would simply suggest that the listener must be wrong.
Peter
"There's a consistent chant from Tony and others here that the entire physics of cables boils down to lumped LCR parameters, that this is somehow established fact, and that any other thinking is voodoo."So far, he has been unable to conclusively demonstrate otherwise, just speculate.
""There's a consistent chant from Tony and others here that the entire physics of cables boils down to lumped LCR parameters, that this is somehow established fact, and that any other thinking is voodoo.""PeterYes, some definitely feel that is the case..Some who do ask for proof otherwise, some ask for possible explanation..Some reject the pseudoscience explanations that are given. To me, Tony has come across similar to what I felt..That yes, standard EE pretty much covers it, but yet, there are many unanswered questions; for me it's e/m field theory of wires.
""And yet you ask Jon what he's talking about?""peter
Yes..Because Tony stated the lack of correlation between the laws of physics and price tag.. as in, the extreme priced cables sometimes have ad hype which is in complete disregard to physics.
If Jon, Tony, myself, are going to react to other posts or ideas within a thread, an explanation should be given..I concur with Tony in that physics and price tag do not correlate..the statement within the thread is what I responded to..
Jon came back with "well, ya gotta learn the physics, because the easy stuff you can understand isn't enough..
Well, I gotta say..the physics guys here (not me) run the most advanced machine on the planet, and they cannot explain how cables can sound different..Doesn't mean they don't sound different, just that they don't know why.. So statements like "you really don't understand the physics"...Hmmmm.
The coathanger thing is a reference to some guy using two and a trash can to run digital audio, and using some test algorithm to determine that every single bit in the stream made it through intact..no errors..I personally prefer something that looks a little better in my living room.
""If the coat hanger sounds better than a caox cable, then YES it is a superior interconnect (in THAT system, at THAT time, for THAT person).""peter
Agreed. And that is what Tony called the individual's "truth".
""HOWEVER: Jon would then try to understand WHY it sounds better. Tony would simply suggest that the listener must be wrong""peter
No. Tony pointed out that one's truth may not be another's. And that Jon's pushing of one cable geometry or dielectric type or stranded/no stranded as being superior to another may not in fact be the "truth" in all cases..
I would tend to agree that Jon would try to figure out why..
Cheers, John
I think a large part of it is that the model that Tony (and Jitter, and many of the naysayers) is willing to settle for is way too simplistic.By reducing the model to ONLY basic LCR parameters, the physics is no longer real world enough to give an answer about audible differences.
You will not acheive a match between the model and the real world down to better than -90 dB without all the other known factors included.As for apologizing, I think that Tony is the one who owes the Cable Asylum inmates an apology, for his trolling posts. And now you, for your characterization of my posts as "knee jerk".
Jon Risch
""I think a large part of it is that the model that Tony (and Jitter, and many of the naysayers) is willing to settle for is way too simplistic.""JRSo, in other words, you are NOT reacting to his posting where he states a lack of correlation between price tag and physics, but to the model you believe Tony has with respect to cables?
Hmmm.
""By reducing the model to ONLY basic LCR parameters, the physics is no longer real world enough to give an answer about audible differences. You will not acheive a match between the model and the real world down to better than -90 dB without all the other known factors included.""JR
Based on the assumption that cable differences can be heard, yes I completely agree..basic LCR does not explain it.
""As for apologizing, I think that Tony is the one who owes the Cable Asylum inmates an apology, for his trolling posts.""JR
He asked a valid question, one which many posters answered in good spirit, with a good bit of discussion..You are the one calling it a troll..
""And now you, for your characterization of my posts as "knee jerk".""
Why? You did a knee jerk..You, either by association, or by classification of questions, have assigned Tony into a category..You then, in THIS THREAD ALONE, either insulted or abused Tony in an unwarranted fashion at least SIX times..Without Tony having said anything to deserve it..
So, yes, your's was a knee jerk. Perhaps you prefer the term unwarranted abuse?
And, I see that you, rather than going back over the posts to understand exactly what I'm talking about with respect to your treatment of Tony, have spent your time attempting to justify your behavior..
And you expect an apology of someone who is pointing out consistently bad behavior on your part??
Perhaps you should go back over this entire thread, and re-examine how you have reacted throughout...
TTFN, John
[ So, in other words, you are NOT reacting to his posting where he states a lack of correlation between price tag and physics, but to the model you believe Tony has with respect to cables? ]Yes.
I would be foolish indeed if I were to deny the physics, ALL the physics, when properly modeled. Unfortunately even such a proper model would not tell us what it would SOUND like.
I have been posting thoughful replies, not knee jerk. If you go back and look at it without the AR bias voltage applied, perhaps you would see that what I was posting was not quite as 'insulting' as it seems from that biased POV.
Jon Risch
I do not consider the "AR" bias in my postings here...There is an obvious history extending far beyond my experience..I see only you degrading Tony's experience, education, understanding..here..You have done so from the first time I saw Tony posting here..
And, you do so from a platform of inacurate understanding of physics, filled with assumptions, suppositions, maybe's...
You stated in a previous post that you consider only postings at AA, without regard to what is done at AR..And I agreed, that you do indeed follow that, w/r to me at least..
Of course, YOU are the one to continue to refer to AR, how you are received there, as a justification for how you treat some here..
""I have been posting thoughful replies, not knee jerk""JR
Hmmm..thoughtful replies??? Do I have to go back to all your posts and copy them here again....the six I copied, and the four more JBC pointed out???
No Jon, what you have done is not thoughtful, not warranted, not useful...You appear to only be responding in that fashion to reduce the stature of those who believe differently from you..
As a fellow forum participant, that would be ok..We are all big boys here..
What you do, however, is not acceptable...Using your position as moderator to quash people who do not agree with you, like Tony..
That is all I ask you to re-think..
""I would be foolish indeed if I were to deny the physics, ALL the physics, when properly modeled.""JR
Nobody has said otherwise....So why do you feel it necessary to say this???
""Unfortunately even such a proper model would not tell us what it would SOUND like.""JR
Again, nobody has said otherwise..
Tony said physics does not correlate to price tag..For you to go on about all this other stuff is diversion...you blasted him six times (ten if you include JBC) over something we all agree with...WHY???
Knee jerk is the automatic reaction to a stimulus...You did so to Tony's post, where none was required..
And you attempt to justify it by categorizing him (your words).
As all can see, you justification falls flat..
TTFN, John
Cheers, John
Few ever claimed NO audiable differences. Some may believe they are too small to accurately identify on a consistent basis. The means to either prover or disprove this is off limits in discussion here.
""I gave you the beneift of the doubt with regard to how insulting you were actually trying to be vs. mere insensitivity with regard to your original posted question. But this post leaves no doubt. This is a personal attack, and this kind of post is not allowed at AA.
Consider this a warning from the Moderator.""JRNow lets see..Why not review the history of the thread..
Tony Said:::
""Electrons can not behave differently in a $1000 cable than a $100 cable because of price tag. They will follow physic's law in the cheaper cable as they do in a more expensive cables. You can not get around Physics law.""TM
In other words, the laws of physics are inviolate..He didn't say anyone doesn't understand them, or that they don't believe them..
And YOU respond:
""Your interpretation of what the limits of the "Physics laws" mean in terms of cable parameters and sonic performance does not seem to be springing from a font of experience.""JR
I challenge any physicist on the planet to disagree with Tony's assertion that the laws of physics are inviolate..(I assume, of course, that physicists will probably the best positioned to answer that question)..He did say that price tags do not change the laws of physics w/r to cable sonics..
""Despite an huge amount of posturing and posting, not one person has ever provided the data for how what we hear fully corrrelates with what has been measured or what has been determined to be our thresholds and limits of hearing. That is the case for a reason, the fact that no researchers have actually done this yet!""JR
On that, I feel we can all agree..nobody, not you, not me, nada, nuttin..
""How many esoteric audio cables have you actualy listened to on a fine system""JR
And how does that work into the laws of physics being inviolate??
""Until you have heard what can occur with decent cables on a fine system, what you post is mere extrapolation based on a decided lack of experience with high end audio, as well as common audio technical issues. Obviously, to say that coax is the ultimate interconnect, and that a twisted pair with an overall shield is worse, points to a decided lack of real world experience and exposure to what actually happens out there in the real world of high performance playback""JR.
The laws of physics do not depend on how many cables or systems he has listened to..
""That is how he has determined that twisted is better than coax, just by listening. So if I listen to a coathanger and a coax cable, and determine that coat hanger sound better, then that makes it truth :)""TM
Lets see...Wasn't this a quote from your website??
""As for your comment about me merely listening, the listening was under controlled blind conditions, and represents literally hundreds of man-hours at that point (I have probably racked up thousands by now) of controlled listening tests.""JR
He did NOT say "merely listening" He said just listening, as in, you have no measurement data to support your assertions...Gee, didn't YOU just say that???Hmmm Lets see..Oh, hear it is....again.....
""Despite an huge amount of posturing and posting, not one person has ever provided the data for how what we hear fully corrrelates with what has been measured or what has been determined to be our thresholds and limits of hearing. That is the case for a reason, the fact that no researchers have actually done this yet!""JRPerhaps this is the "personal attack"???:
""The difference between cables becomes indiscernible when a cable address all of it specification as cable (such as quality shielding, low loss and capacitance, quality connections and tight grip on both ends). ""TM
Nah..Oh HERE I FOUND THE PERSONAL ATTACK!!
""This is the fundamental difference bewteen audio and these very high frequency signals. Sheer frequency is not the only factor, and once again, your lack of exprience with these matters is all too apparent.""JR
and here:
""Your interpretation of what the limits of the "Physics laws" mean in terms of cable parameters and sonic performance does not seem to be springing from a font of experience.""JR
and here:
""How many esoteric audio cables have you actualy listened to on a fine system""JR
and here:
""what you post is mere extrapolation based on a decided lack of experience with high end audio, as well as common audio technical issues. ""JR
So, you are right...There were many personal attacks on this thread...As moderator it is your responsibility to police this forum, to prevent anybody from those type of personal attacks, especially from someone who consistently does such..
Unfortunately, they were all posted by you...
Cheers, John
Jon...you are abusing your position as moderator..I have asked you many times to rethink your position..
[ I challenge any physicist on the planet to disagree with Tony's assertion that the laws of physics are inviolate. ]Are you really that naive?
What Tony was implying was that the "Laws of Physics" say that cables do not sound different. That was the only reason for his posting of what would otherwise be a tautology.
And if you thought I was challanging this kind of statement at face value, meaningless as it would be, then you ARE naive.
[ The laws of physics do not depend on how many cables or systems he has listened to. ]
See above, it was NOT just about the "Laws of Physics".
[ He did NOT say "merely listening" ]
He said, "just by listening" in what was obviously a deragatory manner.
Again, if you want to try and hide your head in the sand, and pretend that it was not meant in that manner, then you are not being realistic at all.If you are going to label the statements I made as personal attacks, then I suggest that what you want to write off as mere statements about the "Laws of Physics", and "just listening", etc. are also definitely in the category of attacks. I find it odd that you will defend Tony, but want to hang me. By your definitions, either there were none, or some, but you can't have it both ways John.
I would characterize what I posted as observations and questions. However, taken out of context, or with a biased eye,
I am sure that someone can get all worked up about it. Witch hunt time.[ Jon...you are abusing your position as moderator..I have asked you many times to rethink your position.. ]
How little you know with regard to the issue of moderating. It is highly likely that anyone interested enough in the subject to take over for me would be much less tolerant of posts from the likes of Tony.
Instead of immediately moving or deleting the post, it was allowed to stand, and despite the antagonistic tone of the post, most of the folks responded in earnest, with what I feel was commendable restraint. Then, once Tony started responding to what was initialy a post asking about listening issues with his bizarre statements about "The Laws of Physics", which were clearly intended to denigrate, it was clear that his intent was not so innocent, but rather was in fact, a troll of sorts.
Then, in point of fact, I posted a reply which attempted to explain some things to Tony, rather than merely deleting his
post, or asking to have him banned. Not many would have been this lenient. Yet you seem to feel that I am the one who should be apologizing to Tony for his trolling, and that I should "rethink my position". If I have any real flaws in these matters, it is probably that I have been too lenient for far too long, and allowed threads, subjects and the like to go on long enough that they get into trouble with enough volleys back and forth.You may not realize it, but I receive numerous complaints with regard to the AR regulars posting here, as well as the semi-regular trolls from folks like Tony. Neither are truly welcomed by the vast majority of the inmates.
Jon Risch
Jon Risch
""[ I challenge any physicist on the planet to disagree with Tony's assertion that the laws of physics are inviolate. ]JE""Are you really that naive?""JR
Nope..I work with the best ones..Ask them...I have..
And the best of them spend a lifetime trying to prove the laws wrong, or embellishing on them.. Some succeed, and are invited to Geneva. Others just add to the existing body of knowledge.""What Tony was implying was that the "Laws of Physics" say that cables do not sound different""JR
What he SAID was physics does not correlate to price tag..YOU are the one assigning "implying" to his statement..
""If you are going to label the statements I made as personal attacks, then I suggest that what you want to write off as mere statements about the "Laws of Physics", and "just listening", etc. are also definitely in the category of attacks.""JR
The law of physics stuff was certainly not an attack..He said price tag didn't correlate to them...period..
Just listening, yep..that could be interpreted two ways..I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt...you didn't..obviously a difference of mindset and perspective.
""I find it odd that you will defend Tony, but want to hang me.""JR
You shouldn't..If he were to post that you had no understanding of what you were talking about, you obviously have no experience or education in these matters, I'd be all over HIM...But such was not the case..It was only you saying such of him..
If he posted incorrect info, I'd be up there correcting it. (assuming I see the thread of course.).
""By your definitions, either there were none, or some, but you can't have it both ways John.""JR
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here Jon..But I will react equally to denigration and put downs from either "side" as it were.
""Jon...you are abusing your position as moderator..I have asked you many times to rethink your position.. ]""JE
""How little you know with regard to the issue of moderating.""JRI am aware that I wouldn't want to do it, as it is impossible to please everyone..But I do know that you post comments dissing people that a moderator SHOULD take exception to..and as you are the moderator, and you do not take exception to the dissing, then that is abuse of the system..Unless one of the rules of being a moderator allows such one way treatment.
"It is highly likely that anyone interested enough in the subject to take over for me would be much less tolerant of posts from the likes of Tony.""JR
In other words, you tolerate him so that you can tell everyone how little he knows??
""with his bizarre statements about "The Laws of Physics", which were clearly intended to denigrate""JR
He said the laws of physics are the same regardless of price tag..
YOU feel the same..You provide DIY solutions which you claim are better than the extremely priced product..So you are saying the exact same thing..Why you chose to take exception to Tony saying it is beyond me..
""Then, in point of fact, I posted a reply which attempted to explain some things to Tony""JR
Yes, Jon, we all read them...I pointed out six places where you dissed him..his understanding, his experience..That is supposed to be against the forum rules..
""it is probably that I have been too lenient ""JR
As I recall, the first time he said he doesn't believe cables sound different, quite civilly, I might add, you threatened him with censureship and banishment...I do not consider that as being "lenient".
""You may not realize it, but I receive numerous complaints with regard to the AR regulars posting here""JR
I'm sure you do..
As I'm sure the moderators at AR receive w/r to your postings over there..
I of course, make the assumption there is a moderator over there..although I've see no evidence to suggest it..
I look forward to a more even handed approach to moderating..and I certainly wouldn't relish the job..
TTFN, John
What do you want?Do you really think Tony had any interest in this discussion other than to stir up controversy. I notice that he immediately posted over at AR wondering if his troll would be left to stand. I seriously don't understand what his point or purpose can be other than to stir up controversy. And yes, I would have either deleted the thread or moved it to Prop Head. The Cable Asylum was created for people to talk about cables and share experiences, not to defend their positions constantly. It wasn't created for trolls to try to get the moderator's goat.
If Tony wants an 'intelligent conversation' and wants to talk physics, why didn't he post at AR or on Prop Head?
That is how he has determined that twisted is better than coax, just by listening. So if I listen to a coathanger and a coax cable, and determine that coat hanger sound better, then that makes it truth :)
If that wasn't a sarcastic, personal attack, then please explain what it has to do with the discussion?
"Electrons can not behave differently in a $1000 cable than a $100 cable because of price tag. They will follow physic's law in the cheaper cable as they do in a more expensive cables. You can not get around Physics law."TM
Yeah, right. Who cares? This statement is nothing more than troll bait. Sure, the electrons follows physics laws, but what's that got to do with the cables in question? Different geometries, different materials, different results. It's completely irrelevant! And what does it have to do with how the cable sounds?
The laws of physics do not depend on how many cables or systems he has listened to.
No, but it surely goes a long way toward having some relevant personal experience to share.
Jon...you are abusing your position as moderator. I have asked you many times to rethink your position.
Jon has had the most difficult forum to moderate. From time to time, moderators have to make tough decisions. From the feedback that I get, a small group doesn't like some of those decisions. Another larger group would rather see more action and see it happen faster. Personally, I don't see abuse here as I've already said that I'd have not allowed this to go this far.
In any case, be careful what you wish for.
""Do you really think Tony had any interest in this discussion other than to stir up controversy.""RMCan you absolutely say he had no interest?
""I notice that he immediately posted over at AR wondering if his troll would be left to stand.""RM
He wondered if his "post" would be left. And I agree with you in that his post on AR asking that question should have been re-thought..
""I seriously don't understand what his point or purpose can be other than to stir up controversy.""RM
Well, ask him..
""That is how he has determined that twisted is better than coax, just by listening. So if I listen to a coathanger and a coax cable, and determine that coat hanger sound better, then that makes it truth :)
If that wasn't a sarcastic, personal attack, then please explain what it has to do with the discussion?""RM
While I personally didn't care for the wording either, he is indeed stating that to each's experience, "truth" in hearing is in the ear of the beholder.
""Sure, the electrons follows physics laws, but what's that got to do with the cables in question?""RM
Tony made a statement that price tag and physics do not necessarily correlate..
""Different geometries, different materials, different results. It's completely irrelevant!""RM
I believe those attributes are what the manu's push as the reasons their product sounds better. And, those attributes are discussed at length by all here..
""And what does it have to do with how the cable sounds?""RM
Everything...We just don't understand the tie in...
""The laws of physics do not depend on how many cables or systems he has listened to.JE
No, but it surely goes a long way toward having some relevant personal experience to share.""RMAgreed..and if he had stated "relevant personal experience" is not necessary because of physics, I'd have been all over him too..
But the opposite would be to reject him because he didn't have a certain threshold of personal experience. Which is also not what you want to do. (not telling you, I'm stating what I think is your position).
""Jon...you are abusing your position as moderator. I have asked you many times to rethink your position.""JE
""Jon has had the most difficult forum to moderate. From time to time, moderators have to make tough decisions.""RM
Agreed. and agreed.
""From the feedback that I get, a small group doesn't like some of those decisions.""RM
That is to be expected, and something would be wrong if nobody expressed that.
""Another larger group would rather see more action and see it happen faster.""RM
The line between constructive feeback and radicalism, that is for you to decide..radicalism never produces the intended result.
""Personally, I don't see abuse here""RM
A changing of subject here, to show the flavor of what I speak...
Rod, please do not consider this an insult, this is to show the abuse I speak of..You are uneducated in you ability to see what others have experienced here in that respect..You do not have the critical thinking ability, nor the social skills to make a clear determination in that regard..And, your command of english is, shall we say, lacking? Your inability to clearly see the abuse is a result of your own failings. You need experience with a thesaurus with more resolving power..
That statement would clearly be construed as abuse..(Well, I tried to make it that way, but I'm not too good at it).
""In any case, be careful what you wish for.""RM
I am being very careful in what I wish for..And I repeat...I want Jon to re-think his position..
I am not advocating his removal as moderator, which is what you seem to be implying of me..I am asking him to re-think the knee jerk attacks he uses towards people who do not believe the same as him.
I'm asking him to trade places for a while, and consider how his behavior towards others would be received if it were being directed towards Jon.
""From time to time, moderators have to make tough decisions""RM
Absolutely, and the decisions I've seen him make w/r to deletions and movings, I've not taken issue with any, even though some were towards me (arguably warranted, but hey, it's a judgement call).
But, as moderator, he also must police his own attitude. And place his own agenda on the shelf..
So, as to your first question?
""What do you want?""RM
I want to frequent a forum where ALL abuse is dealt with accordingly. Not selective enforcement..
I want a place where I can say "I don't hear a difference", that being based on personal experience (not mine, I speak in generalities here), and not be lambasted by the moderator for stating that observation, and being threatened with censorship or banishment. Civil posters who state such should be treated as well as someone who says they can hear a difference..
In fact, there are many instances where people who do state "differences" abuse those who don't, but for that direction, there is no moderation..
I only ask for one set of rules..
Thanks for responding, Rod..I realize you didn't have to..
Cheers, John
"Nah..Oh HERE I FOUND THE PERSONAL ATTACK!!"Ya missed a couple John, you're slipping....
See below:
I gave you the beneift of the doubt with regard to how insulting you were actually trying to be vs. mere insensitivity with regard to your original posted question.AND
I know that the AR cable forum naysayers .....
AND
... so that if you are merely being encouraged by the buffoonery at AR, that you have a chance to stop acting in such a manner.
AND
First, many of your statements here are not based on your own expriences with regard to high performance audio, but are based on what YOU believe is logic and/or physics. Perhaps some of it is second hand propoganda from older hard-line naysayers.
Unfortunately the law of physics still cannot clearly explain why cables sound different and system dependent, or the Asylum would not exist.
Science has send man to the moon, so don't you think science can figure out what a piece of wire is doing to a system electronically and sonically?
Jon Risch
NT
but it just works like magic.
This reminds me of what Arthur C. Clarke has famously commented that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." To put another way, all our current technology and understanding of the physical world is what we've learned up to this point. In no way is it all conclusive and at it's pinnacle. Someday I'm sure we'll advance as a civilization to the point where measuring cable differences will be easy. Not sure when that'll happen, but I'm sure it will. Why am I so sure? I've heard the difference myself, because I tried many cables and some worked well and sounded great and some didn't. That's not faith or hype, it's my own personal experience. In my ears I trust....someday science will catch up.
"In my ears I trust....someday science will catch up."Or maybe your undestanding that hearing begins at the ear, it doesn't end there will catch up.
Sorry, but science is not even following you. It's off in another direction. You're on your own (well actually there's a large group of people with you so you won't be alone).
...of transferring signal that are in Ghz range where cable parameters such as (skin effect, shielding, cable insulation, impedance, capacitance, inductance, length, end terminations) are critical, transferring audio signal that are in KHz range is just elementary :)
This is an oft cited reason that audio cables should not be difficult to deal with, that there are much higher frequencies.Yet few ever stop to ponder the primary difference in these super high frequencies, and audio signals.
In most case, these super high frequencies are not being used directly, rather they represent a carrier wave, or a data transmission protocol, rather than a direct signal. The transmiission system is deliberately made as robust as possible, to that interference will not damage the data transfer. This means that non-linearities in the cables or conducting medium will have very little effect on simple data transfer, whether it is an FM audio carrier, or a high speed digital link.Things such as television signals have a very limited dynamic range, the difference between 100IRE units and 7.5 IRE units is only 22 1/2 dB. You physically can not see below approx. 30-40 dB from Max White on a CRT even if the TV signal had more dynamic range.
Distort the TV signal while it is in RF form, and it is hard to see any effect on the visible signal, it just isn't THAT high up.
Similar issues are present for other very high frequency signals, digital or otherwise, seldom is the signal information directly encoded at that frequency.
With audio, the signal information IS encoded in the direct frequencies involved, the signal is literally an analog of the sound wave that was captured. There is no carrier wave to isolate the cable distortions, there is no digital encoding to wash out minor cable signal distortions and abberations.
In point of fact, the dynamic range of audo signals is in excess of 90 dB, this means that signal abberations that are only .00003 or less of full signal are going to be potentially noticed. Some have questioned this very low level of signal distortion as to real world audibility.
I have found an excellent example of a known audio phenomenon that exists at levels below -90 dB, and is clearly audible, and has been heard by many professionals, as well as audiophiles in their homes.
I am talking about the variuos digital audio dither algorithms in use, and the fact that you can hear differences between the various different types. Sony's SBM (Super Bit Mapping) sounds different than Apogee's UV-22 process, which sonds different than the other record company's dither algorithm. Studio recording professionals can tell you this is so, and folks who own CDP's with user selectable dither algorithms have also heard the differences too.
So audio has the requirement that the signal linearity must be maintained dow to VERY low levels, much lower levels than for almost ANY other data transmission paradigm.
This is the fundamental difference bewteen audio and these very high frequency signals. Sheer frequency is not the only factor, and once again, your lack of exprience with these matters is all too apparent.
Jon Risch
""This is the fundamental difference bewteen audio and these very high frequency signals. Sheer frequency is not the only factor,""JRYou are partially incorrect..(here, I should say your lack of experience is all too apparent, but that of course, would be an insult, which the moderator would have to deal with, as that violates forum rules.)
The main fundamental difference for non modulated signals IS the sheer frequency..
Audio is significant not only for the dynamic range, distortion levels allowed, and noise floor issues, as you correctly pointed out...It is one of the few applications which span three decades of frequency, and that span covers the threshold where skinning takes effect.. Higher frequency applications do not have to worry about skinning other than for resistance..speaking of the conductor only. The difference between gigahertz and terahertz will basically be the surface finish of the wire. (no dielectric talk here..)
""and once again, your lack of exprience with these matters is all too apparent""JR
Why don't you stop with the insults???
TTFN, John
"In most case, these super high frequencies are not being used directly, rather they represent a carrier wave, or a data transmission protocol, rather than a direct signal."Ah, 'in most cases', so you're just going to ignore the others I suppose. Most high density rf data signals(like 16PSK) depend on accurately decoding the phase shift of a signal, small distortions in phase cause data loss and force the system to resend the information slowing throughput. Although you might not "see" it as lost data, it doesn't change the fact that there was destructive interference that caused the system not to accurately capture the data on the first try.
"The transmiission system is deliberately made as robust as possible, to that interference will not damage the data transfer."
Hmmm, so audio engineers haven't done that? Seems to me that a 50 ohm impedance to drive one that is 10 to 50 thousand ohms is pretty robust.
However, there is the luxury in sending data that allows you to retry. However, to the design engineer, this is a back-up plan. the primary goal is to ensure the data gets there correctly on the first try if system throughput specifications are goign to be met.
"Distort the TV signal while it is in RF form, and it is hard to see any effect on the visible signal, it just isn't THAT high up."
I guess you've never seen ignition noise, "snow", or "ghosting". What about selective fading, where parts of the carrier are distorted causing color shifts?
"I am talking about the variuos digital audio dither algorithms in use, and the fact that you can hear differences between the various different types. Sony's SBM (Super Bit Mapping) sounds different than Apogee's UV-22 process, which sonds different than the other record company's dither algorithm. Studio recording professionals can tell you this is so, and folks who own CDP's with user selectable dither algorithms have also heard the differences too."
This has never been verified under rigorous test conditions, has it. The other problem with what you cite is whether or not the application was even implemented properly in the first place.
"So audio has the requirement that the signal linearity must be maintained dow to VERY low levels"
While I agree with you here, you are simply over stating the apparent robustnes of other mediums and the significant engineering challenges that must be overcome in order to have a sucessful system.
Let's take a couple hunks of hardline, put a huge kink in each. In one, we'll run audio through, in the other, a complex modulated rf signal.Which do you think will have the greatest opportunity to experience significant signal distortion?
HowdyThat makes as much sense as saying we know what happens near absolute zero based on our experience at higher temperatures. I'm not saying that there are weird unknown effects near 0 Hz, but your argument is clearly full of holes.
-Ted
As one much closer that most to knowing absolutely zero....:-)Hi Ted..I agree..
What happened to vaca??
Cheers, John
Howdy JohnI'm sorry but "What happened to vaca??" didn't parse.
vaca on Google came up with the following acronyms: Virginia Animal Control Association and Virginia Contracting Activity (which I initially misread as Vaginal Contracting Activity.) In Spanish I think it's 'cow'. I don't remember mentioning cows. Also I don't remember mentioning a vacation (except that I quit work in Feb and am enjoying music while I relax.)
If you decode it for me I'll answer :)
-Ted
(which I initially misread as Vaginal Contracting Activity.)TSOh baby...made my day...:-)
I seemed to remember you taking a vacation, I guess I just misread an earlier post..
Cheers, John
HowdyDuh, I forgot, I was on vacation a month ago, just before mother's day :)
I had a great time visiting my family and then I realized it was almost mother's day so I stayed a little longer.
My brother is coming up next week. As we get older we get a little wiser and stop to smell the roses.
-Ted
HowdySo which cable do you recommend that meets your criteria?
-Ted
They are double braided shielding and are low loss and capacitance with Canare RCA plug. $26 for a 6 footer :)
Hi Tony
For some of us the all mighty dollar dictates whether we take baby steps or giant leaps.Just Trying To Enjoy!!
Thanks
Sheldon
IMO audio is just a hobby and for fun. If we can't poke fun at each other concerning this hobby (an learn something meanwhile), then we should leave it :)
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 ]
