 
|
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 |
In Reply to: I just hope those folks who dish out hard earned cash... posted by tony montana on July 24, 2003 at 15:49:24:
......those of us who have spent real dollars for exotic cables AND have achieved REAL results? Or are you going to blindly and arbitrarily deny our experiences? Can we find amusement in H, C, and R's "great marketing" as well? Or maybe, just maybe, what they have to say makes sense to reasonable people. They *all* have long technical and business experience, and can back up what they say. Can you? You are merely throwing out cute little phrases so that you, and some others, can mock these fine gentlemen. Tony, you are far short on substance.
Follow Ups:
Or maybe, just maybe, what they have to say makes sense to reasonable people.Like Dan Banquer was trying to say, they do not make sense to any engineers that I know, and I know many since I am one. And I would classify most of them as very reasonable people.
which engineers of successful audio equipment you know (or specifically know their position). I'm not particularly interested in those who design military radar.Lessee here. I'll mention a few I either have met or know of who make quite respectible components at the top of the food chain who would disagree with your assertions:
Luke Manley - VTL Labs
David Wilson - Wilson Audio
Carl Marchisotto - Alon
Jud Barber - Joule Electra
Warren Gehl - Audio ResearchI'm sure if you were to query the industry, you would find far more engineers of stellar equipment who don't buy the zip cord=nirvana deal.
rw
I have had email conversations with engineers from Texas Instruments (DAC engineer), Toshiba (Toslink interface designer) and Bryston (amp designer).There are also a host of other audio engineers, like John Dunlavy and Bob Pease to name two of the more popular, whose names come up here once and awhile and are promptly discredited because of their opinions on exotic cables. So if you took out any engineers who design exotic cables, I believe there would still only be a very small percentage that would advise anyone to spend hundreds on fancy cabling.
I'm not particularly interested in those who design military radar.
Perhaps you feel this way because you have confirmation bias. That is a tendency to dismiss evidence contrary to your beliefs and seek out and prop up affirmations.
And BTW, does this mean you would not believe somebody like Jon Risch if he gave you his opinion about radar performance?
You are almost saying that some audio engineers have a special knowledge that regular (e.g. a radar) engineers do not possess. And not only do they not possess this special knowledge, they can't comprehend it when explained.
You're taking a small portion of audio engineers who tell you things you like to hear, and putting them on a pedastal. Sad, really. After awhile, they start talking down to people.
I'll ask it again for clarity:Please tell us which engineers of successful audio equipment you know (or specifically know their position).
TI does not make any audio equipment that I am aware of. I'm not talking about parts designers who never work on finished product. Toshiba makes mid-fi DVD players. In case you're not aware, Dunlavy is out of business. See attached link for the bad news. As for Bob Pease, I'm not aware of what successful audio equipment he has designed. Do enlighten me.
Ok, so you've got one response with Bryston. Only one? By all means, keep going.
You are almost saying that some audio engineers have a special knowledge that regular (e.g. a radar) engineers do not possess. And not only do they not possess this special knowledge, they can't comprehend it when explained.
Next time you have a loved one with heart difficulties, I can recommend a great podiatrist for them to go to. Why go to a cardiologist since both are medical doctors, right?
You're taking a small portion of audio engineers who tell you things you like to hear, and putting them on a pedastal. Sad, really. After awhile, they start talking down to people.
What I am doing is pointing out that the long term successful designers of the best sounding audio gear dismiss your simplistic view of audio.
rw
Please tell us which engineers of successful audio equipment you know (or specifically know their position).Are these the only people who have valid opinions? I see by your wording now and by your mentioning of John Dunlavy (like his opinion is not non-admissable because he is no longer in business, sheesh!) that you wish to narrow the field of opinion to a group that happens to mostly share your opinion.
That's a weak approach to this discussion.
Why go to a cardiologist since both are medical doctors, right?
Are you in a profession of some sort? Medicine, law, engineering? You do realize that both a cardiologist and a podiatrist have had years of common schooling? That's why a podiatrist can understand a cardiologist much better than you or I when he is describing some new techique or techology in heart medicine. And a podiatrist is in a much better position to be skeptical or question something a cardiologist claims.
What I am doing is pointing out that the long term successful designers of the best sounding audio gear dismiss your simplistic view of audio.
That's pretty arrogant. Simplistic views? Confirmation bias. Really, look it up and understand how it works.
...you wish to narrow the field of opinion to a group that happens to mostly share your opinion.With literally hundreds, if not thousands of audio products around, why not focus on the designers of the best equipment (like your Bryston) and not mid-fi stuff like a $200 Toshiba player.
Are you in a profession of some sort?
I am a computer software engineer. A better example, however, would be my wife. She is a PharmD. (Doctor of Pharmacy) Since she went the clinical route with her career, she works every day in a hospital setting. Doctors regularly request consults for pharmaceutical advice. Their knowledge base is shockingly weak in this regard. Didn't they take that stuff in school? Yes, according to one of her brothers who is a Doc, they got two full quarters of it. The field of medicine is so broad, that specialization is the norm. Even with my wife whose specialty is pharmaceuticals, she has a sub-specialty in cardiovascular drugs. You have a question about heart related drugs, she is an expert. On the other hand, if she were asked for a definitive ruling on a psych drug, she would talk to her friend Sarah because that is her specialty.
Sure, all engineers get the basics. My Doc brother-in-law got his two quarters on pharmaceuticals. Why stop there? Why not consult a source who spends all their time in the specialty of high resolution music reproduction?
Ok, maybe Dunlavy is just inept at business.
rw
Sorry folks, I have to say something. Successful audio designers find that we have to allow the 'non-proven' concepts into our design, because they work. I, personally try to 'prove' or measure 'non-proven' concepts if I can. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't. For example, I still can't prove what Bybee devices do with my existing test equipment. I have tried. Yet, I know that they work for me, because I can hear the difference, and first heard the difference, without knowing Jack Bybee. Now I know the man, (we went to lunch together this week) and I know that he is on track. So do many people in other fields who hire him as a consultant. To ignore what works is not very efficient.
> > So if you took out any engineers who design exotic cables, I believe there would still only be a very small percentage that would advise anyone to spend hundreds on fancy cabling.A non sequitur?
If an engineer designs exotic cables, aren't they fancy?
As matter of fact I do enjoy their postings when it is not cable related. But when it comes to cables, most tend to advocate cable's signature which is going against the concept of engineering.A [cable] engineer suppose to and should aim for achieving non cable signature (transparency). So any engineer who recommending a cable based on their signature is going against that principle :)
...most tend to advocate cable's signature which is going against the concept of engineering.rw
Jon said:"I am saying that different 1M cables will sound different, and have a different sonic signature."Given that all of 1M ICs in question meet minimum specifications (adequate shielding, low capacitance, inductance, resistance and quality construction and connections), there is no basis for such a statement unless one believe that changes in quantum [physics] level are audible. Even if your ear is capable of distinguishing such a minute changes, but your audio components and speaker won't be.
...there is no basis for such a statement unless one believe that changes in quantum [physics] level are audible.Maybe sometime you will have the good fortune to hear a system capable of discerning such differences. Changes in quantum physics unnecessary.
Even if your ear is capable of distinguishing such a minute changes, but your audio components and speaker won't be.
What is the basis for your comment?
rw
Of audiophiles, musiclovers, etc. or to be more precise, those people who care enough to get something other than a Bose Wave radio, the vast majority have heard for themselves what audio cables can do, and treat them as the component that they are.They have the experience, and the sheer time listening to their system after various component upgrades, to have some trust in what they hear over the long term. They KNOW that cables matter, and can be heard as less than perfect. You have to chose which version of imperfection bothers you the least.
Folks like the (cable) naysayers at AR are the very small minority. They are just very vocal about their denial.
You mention that you believe that the speakers and amps limit what could be heard due to cable sonic variations.
However, this is the same flawed logic that is applied to amps and CDPs. Some folks like Dan B. claim that due to the levels of distortion in speaker systems( which often can run from 0.1% in the midrange for an electrostatic panel, to tens of % for cheap white-van speakers, and typically run from 0.5% to several percent for mainstream hi-fi speakers), that this means that any levels of distortion lower than that are going to be indistinguishable from one another.
Yet despite this seemingly reasonable logic, many folks can hear PAST the speaker distortions, and discern sonic differences between power amps with similar specs (by specs, I a refering to the very simplistic THD, S?N, and FR that is often claimed to be sufficient by many of the naysayers). Same for CDP's. If the premise is true that the speakers will mask anything lower than what they produce themselves, then we should not be able to tell the difference between a Mark Levinson and a RS portable CDP. But the vast majority of folks can hear the differences, quite readily, over loudspeakers with distortions tha may be 10 to 100 times as high.
So the whole idea that cable distortions are inaudible, due to this kind of reasoning, is just not going to cut it for the vast majority of experienced audiophiles and musiclovers, not to mention the successfull high end audio designers, who take great pains to voice their products to a point that satifies THEIR sonic requirements, sometimes going contrary to the THD meter BECAUSE THATS WHAT SOUNDS RIGHT TO THEM.
Until you gain some of this kind of listening experience, none of this will make sense when you continue to 'listen with your EE textbook' instead of your heart.
Jon Risch
Of audiophiles, musiclovers, etc. or to be more precise, those people who care enough to get something other than a Bose Wave radio, the vast majority have heard for themselves what audio cables can do, and treat them as the component that they are.They have the experience, and the sheer time listening to their system after various component upgrades, to have some trust in what they hear over the long term. They KNOW that cables matter, and can be heard as less than perfect. You have to chose which version of imperfection bothers you the least.
Yet the same thing can be said with regard to such things as placing photographs of yourself in your freezer and the many other tweaks that have been offered by Peter Belt for quite a few years now.
That's not to say that cables can't make a difference. I'm just curious why it's automatically assumed that they actually do just because people perceive differences with different cables. Using that line of reasoning, one would also have to assume that placing photographs of yourself in the freezer actually does make a difference.
Folks like the (cable) naysayers at AR are the very small minority. They are just very vocal about their denial.
They've hardly cornered the market on denial. The "yeasayers" are also in a state of denial. When do you ever see a "yeasayer" acknowledge the fact that our subjective perceptions are not always unerring reflections of the physical reality? The only time you ever see it acknowledge is when it's immediately followed by their insistance that being human is a disease that only afflicts others and that they're immune.
Y'all are just flip sides of the same coin. Theists on the one side and atheists on the other. Both clinging to their dogma and both clinging to their denial.
So the whole idea that cable distortions are inaudible, due to this kind of reasoning, is just not going to cut it for the vast majority of experienced audiophiles and musiclovers, not to mention the successfull high end audio designers, who take great pains to voice their products to a point that satifies THEIR sonic requirements, sometimes going contrary to the THD meter BECAUSE THATS WHAT SOUNDS RIGHT TO THEM.
But God forbid they should dare recommend to others anything that's contrary to the THD meter. They'd have you swooping down on them questioning their experience, their equipment, their hearing, etc. and generally discouraging anyone else from trying it for themselves.
se
My post was a reply to Tony.He seems more content patting you on the back that answering any of my points.
I am not going to even attempt to address your twisted and bizarre logic used to try and make your post seem reasonable.
Jon Risch
I am not going to even attempt to address your twisted and bizarre logic used to try and make your post seem reasonable.Same ol' song and dance. You can't show where the logic's twisted so you write it off as twisted logic and hope people actually fall for it like some cheap magician's trick.
se
He's nuts, JR! ;-)
He's nuts, JR! ;-)You know, if you tried just a bit harder, I'm sure you could get your nose just a bit farther up Jon's ass. Would you like some help?
se
He said:"...not to mention the successful high end audio designers, who take great pains to voice their products to a point that satisfies THEIR sonic requirements, sometimes going contrary to the THD meter BECAUSE THATS WHAT SOUNDS RIGHT TO THEM."So what he is saying is that high end audio designers rather sacrifice performance (low THD and distortion) over sonic quality if it sound better to them. I would call such a designer an artist rather than audio engineer.
If we choose sonic quality over performance and specifications, then one will never hear the "true" sound of music that was meant to be heard. Rather, you will hear music as an interpretation of somebody else's (designer) senses, and for all we know, the designer might be deaf in one ear and can't hear out the other
So what he is saying is that high end audio designers rather sacrifice performance (low THD and distortion) over sonic quality if it sound better to them. I would call such a designer an artist rather than audio engineer.Why's that? How does being an artist somehow preclude one from being an engineer? What is an engineer but one who uses their knowledge and skill to design something to suit a particular purpose? Why should an engineer be any less an engineer just because the particular purpose in question is ultimately one's own subjective satisfaction? Where is it carved in stone that engineering is to serve purely utilitarian, objective goals?
Take a look at something like the Brooklyn Bridge. While it serves as a bridge, it also has an aesthetic. Would you say that James Roebling was an artist and not an engineer?
If we choose sonic quality over performance and specifications, then one will never hear the "true" sound of music that was meant to be heard. Rather, you will hear music as an interpretation of somebody else's (designer) senses, and for all we know, the designer might be deaf in one ear and can't hear out the other
But it's pretty much ALL subjective when you get right down to it. From the instrument maker, to the musician, to the conductor, to the producer, the recording engineer, to the mastering engineer, etc.
You have the subjective fingerprints of everyone involved in the process all the way down the line. Why should the audio designer or the end user be left out? Why should there be subjectivity all down the line but the designer and the end user are expected to be slaves to some objective goal which will not necessarily result in the best subjective pleasure in the end?
Why should designing toward subjective pleasure be any less laudable than designing toward objective perfection? What else possibly matters at the end of the day but our own subjective pleasure? Does our audio equipment serve us, or do we serve it?
se
The Brooklyn Bridge was an excellent example. I am sure you will agree that the designer of bridge did not sacrify any of the bridge's "required" specification to achieve artistic nirvana. For example, he could have not said that the anchor and its column in the middle of bridge (that support it) does not look good , so it should be removed. so unless he can come up with another scheme to hold up the [middle] weight of the bride, they stay where they are even they look too ugly.The same concept can be applied to audio component design also. You got to achieve minimum requirement for performance (S/N ratio, Distortion and THD, power, bandwidth, etc..) before subjective evaluation even can be mentioned.
For example, if you look at some tube amplifiers, they have excess of 3% THD which mean some of amplifier frequency responses have been hyped up (or down) intentionally. Although the amplifier might sound outstanding on some recordings due to its frequency alteration, but what would happen if by chance we play a recording that have the same exact equalization as the amp do? You will hear double of everything and the recording will probably sound like crap.
So it is always best (and will get most consistent result) if human factor are left out of audio design chain. At least this way, if a recording sound like crap, you can blame it on the artist rather than your system :)
The same concept can be applied to audio component design also. You got to achieve minimum requirement for performance (S/N ratio, Distortion and THD, power, bandwidth, etc..) before subjective evaluation even can be mentioned.And how exactly will you know when you've achieved that minimum requirement of performence unless you listen for yourself?
For example, if you look at some tube amplifiers, they have excess of 3% THD which mean some of amplifier frequency responses have been hyped up (or down) intentionally. Although the amplifier might sound outstanding on some recordings due to its frequency alteration, but what would happen if by chance we play a recording that have the same exact equalization as the amp do? You will hear double of everything and the recording will probably sound like crap.
But if it had the same equalization as the tube amp, then why would it necessarily sound better on a more objectively perfect amp?
So it is always best (and will get most consistent result) if human factor are left out of audio design chain.
What absolute bullshit!
The enjoyment of music is PURELY A HUMAN EXPERIENCE! Why would you take the human factor out of the design chain?
Christ, you're no different than Jon in your intolerance of individuality and diversity. You both want to create some single-minded Borg collective.
Screw that. That's not a world I want to live in.
se
Given that most amplifiers have their input terminals close to their output terminals, the mutual inductance of speaker and interconnect cables may create a significant extra global feedback path. The magnitude and sign of the net feedback depends on internal cable geometries as well as how they are dressed in the audio system (and may be enhanced by such things as steel rack frames, etc., or suppressed by low amplifier input impedance). The amplifier response to this feedback depends on the details of the amplifier circuit.Jon's statement represents the experience of many audio enthusiasts. I believe your statement leaves out an important variable in the category of "one-meter interconnect cables." Even if they have similar resistance and self-inductance, variations in design geometry will cause variations in mutual inductance in particular systems, and results in one system would not predict results in another.
...that the operative word is "minimum". Leaves a lot of room for doubt.
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 © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
