I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[Curly Woods]

Further, its just a common sense fact (atleast for me) that if you want to believe something is better there is a good probability it will be if you have enough subjective data that your brains uses to conclude it is.

PLACEBO exists and its okay to acknowledge it exists

This absolutely bogus. An experienced listener is usually jaded to the fact that very few things make a "positive" change. I rarely enter into any listening experience expecting anything positive to come from it as I rarely have positive experiences with changes. Not everything is gold out there and it does not take a lot of serious listening to determine that. I guess a first time buyer might expect everything to be "great", but that is the exception. That is my common sense to your argument.

 

[Panicos K]

Actually that is not true, the brain is still processing other stimuli.....like historical performance data of the product, visual cues (brand, price, looks). The brain has all those parameters plugged in before the listening happens. The listening is generally a MINOR part of the conclusions.

The ONLY time where your statement is completely accurate is when you remove all other stimuli with a controlled test. Then and only then does the brain have nothing else to process expect the sound.

Obviously the subjective crowd falsely believes the LAST piece of data (the listening experience) is what it uses as the LARGE factor in the conclusion. Look at any experience, any situation and you will know that there is little probability in the LAST peice of data doing anything accept acknowledging conclusions already made by the other stimuli that has been already processed.

I believe this is part of the truth.Another time where my statement may be correct,is EVERYTIME we hear something for the first time.Unless the hearing system forwards the information to the brain,the brain cannot possibly know what is all about.After that the brain knows what it is everytime it receives this information.It is compared to these "references" that the brain can detect differenes of similar sounds...IMO

 

[Panicos K]

Further, its just a common sense fact (atleast for me) that if you want to believe something is better there is a good probability it will be if you have enough subjective data that your brains uses to conclude it is.

PLACEBO exists and its okay to acknowledge it exists

Yes it does exist and it is even better to train the brain to do some things without it when necessary.We are not irresolute hypnotized creatures just because we happen to have brain you know.

 

[Key]

I don't completely buy that. Have heard too many systems I expected to be great, and they were not. A vice-versa. If preconception is the overriding factor, where does the surprise come from?

I think it works more on the hard to pin down descriptors/differences. So when there is barely a measurable difference you are more likely to see people reaching with the summary of the sound. This is why you never see placebo reviews actually talking about FR or Phase. It's always "the recordings breathe better" "The instruments have a better sense of space", "black background" etc......

 

[Curly Woods]

I think it works more on the hard to pin down descriptors/differences. So when there is barely a measurable difference you are more likely to see people reaching with the summary of the sound. This is why you never see placebo reviews actually talking about FR or Phase. It's always "the recordings breathe better" "The instruments have a better sense of space", "black background" etc......

What if they just report what they hear? Do you really think that every reviewer thinks that everything that they hear is great? Hardly. There are very few components that make a positive difference in every system. Very rare in my experience.

 

[Panicos K]

I think it works more on the hard to pin down descriptors/differences. So when there is barely a measurable difference you are more likely to see people reaching with the summary of the sound. This is why you never see placebo reviews actually talking about FR or Phase. It's always "the recordings breathe better" "The instruments have a better sense of space", "black background" etc......

If two sounds were the SAME with the exception of say a little HF extension,the comments would be about FR.But "air,depth,resolution etc..."are the key factors of the dissagreement between "believers" and "non-believers".That is why comments are as you describe them.A "believer" can comment on FR if that is what he/she hears,I assure you.After all it is the easiest comment to do when such differences are the issue

 

[Andre Visser]

Obviously the subjective crowd falsely believes the LAST piece of data (the listening experience) is what it uses as the LARGE factor in the conclusion. Look at any experience, any situation and you will know that there is little probability in the LAST peice of data doing anything accept acknowledging conclusions already made by the other stimuli that has been already processed.

If your conclusion is based on averages, I agree with you. It is however possible to train yourself to minimise external influences.

Further, its just a common sense fact (atleast for me) that if you want to believe something is better there is a good probability it will be if you have enough subjective data that your brains uses to conclude it is.

Sure, if one like to fool himself, he will succeed. To me the ultimate fool is one who try to fool himself.

 

[Panicos K]

If your conclusion is based on averages, I agree with you. It is however possible to train yourself to minimise external influences.



Sure, if one like to fool himself, he will succeed. To me the ultimate fool is one who try to fool himself.

Further to this,suppose that one is looking for a new pair of speakers to have some more bass power and extension than his existing speakers,and all tests are done in his system and place.Now suppose that he doesn't get what he was hopping to get.Does anyone believe that the price/brand/colour/looks/reviews of these speakers can in any way make him buy them?

 

[rdf]

And RDF, have you ever heard real musicians in a real room that didnt sound very good?

Of course. The finals were at Orchestra Hall, the seasonal broadcasts were in difficult venues like Wayne State University's auditorium. All venues allowed me to hear the materials from which instruments were made and the size of the room. Exactly none supported like the shrill flat jumble I heard from so many DG classical releases. From that I judged the latter - unless DG arranged musicians playing ceramic-coated instruments on a bleacher before a tile wall - were inaccurate without ever seeing the venue.

Your earlier objection raises an excellent point that on reflection seems incredible has stood for so long; the notion that only those who attended the recording are valid commentators on its accuracy and by extension on the sound of the playback chain. If a recording sounds like no probable instrument in no probable (or possible) space as so many do, I'm comfortable calling it inaccurate without ever stepping in the performance space.

 

[rdf]

Actually that is not true, the brain is still processing other stimuli.....like historical performance data of the product, visual cues (brand, price, looks). ....The listening is generally a MINOR part of the conclusions.

Has this* been proven?

* by 'this' meaning across all senses, to a high degree of statistical certainty through multiple clinical trials, that sight and predisposition override other senses permanently, as is implied so often. No one argues that, using as an example one of the senses, a listener can't be temporarily misdirected by properties unrelated to audible performance. That's a completely different ball of wax with completely different logical repercussions than ' listening is generally a MINOR part of the conclusions.'

 

[Panicos K]

Your earlier objection raises an excellent point that on reflection seems incredible has stood for so long; the notion that only those who attended the recording are valid commentators on its accuracy and by extension on the sound of the playback chain. If a recording sounds like no probable instrument in no probable (or possible) space as so many do, I'm comfortable calling it inaccurate without ever stepping in the performance space.

I was listening to Beethoven's Triple Concerto (1970 LP) today(Oistrakh,Rostropovich,Richter contucted by Karajan).If you wish to judge this LP for FR"accuracy" you'll be right to give it 5 out of 10 Yet,the whole sound comes sooo natural that it really gets 10/10.I wasn't there and I don't know how they sounded there.But recordings like this are very rare for me.As for the performance part,well.............no comment.I wish all recordings were like this one.

 

[Key]

If two sounds were the SAME with the exception of say a little HF extension,the comments would be about FR.But "air,depth,resolution etc..."are the key factors of the dissagreement between "believers" and "non-believers".That is why comments are as you describe them.A "believer" can comment on FR if that is what he/she hears,I assure you.After all it is the easiest comment to do when such differences are the issue

Somehow I doubt this. Basically when I mess with FR , Time, Phase I get results just like the ones reported by audiophiles.

 

[Panicos K]

Somehow I doubt this. Basically when I mess with FR , Time, Phase I get results just like the ones reported by audiophiles.

Perhaps using words like "believers,unbelievers and audiophiles" as you and I did ,is a generalization and this is wrong,so I will speak for my self.I understand what you say about FR etc...,I just expect you to understand that I do.I have no problem whatsoever to accept differences related to FR,Phase......,I'm not sure though that you can accept that In fact,I wish that all could be corrected by EQ.Sadly though,the problems don't seem to be there.

 

[Soundmaster]

Soundmaster

Hi ,

Cables do make difference - but if my system is cheap whats the point - its like using a good loud exhaust on a low powered car.

A good system using good cables & you have done justice to your system to deliver sound to your expectation.

Good luck

 

[Key]

Perhaps using words like "believers,unbelievers and audiophiles" as you and I did ,is a generalization and this is wrong,so I will speak for my self.I understand what you say about FR etc...,I just expect you to understand that I do.I have no problem whatsoever to accept differences related to FR,Phase......,I'm not sure though that you can accept that In fact,I wish that all could be corrected by EQ.Sadly though,the problems don't seem to be there.

What problems are we talking about here and how do they manifest? Give me a sound problem that you would solve by means of a cable and I will tell you a better way to do it with dsp, LCR, time manipulation, or some other means.

 

[cbdb]

Of course.
Your earlier objection raises an excellent point that on reflection seems incredible has stood for so long; the notion that only those who attended the recording are valid commentators on its accuracy and by extension on the sound of the playback chain. If a recording sounds like no probable instrument in no probable (or possible) space as so many do, I'm comfortable calling it inaccurate without ever stepping in the performance space.

Its easy calling something inacurate, labeling it accurate is another story.

I probably should have been more specific. Are these single stereo mic recordings?

Do you believe the reason for these poor recordings are the mic cables?

 

[cbdb]

Somehow I doubt this. Basically when I mess with FR , Time, Phase I get results just like the ones reported by audiophiles.

Agree, and FR includes more than easy to hear 6db/oct roll offs: small narrow notches, subtle comb filtering (like every pair of speakers produces with a sound in the middle), phase/time effects are used all the time to artificially expand the sound stage. Certain distorions can seem to "improve" some sound. Get a DSP box and educate yourself on how these things change sound in more subtle ways than most people believe.

 

[Key]

Agree, and FR includes more than easy to hear 6db/oct roll offs: small narrow notches, subtle comb filtering (like every pair of speakers produces with a sound in the middle), phase/time effects are used all the time to artificially expand the sound stage. Certain distorions can seem to "improve" some sound. Get a DSP box and educate yourself on how these things change sound in more subtle ways than most people believe.

Yep, I can think of more than a couple of ways to distort the sound in a euphonic way that I actually find to sound great or addictive. I could easily put some of these things in a little box or even hidden in the skin of a cable and you would have a hard time noticing these tricks as inaccuracies unless you did very fast A/B switching. And I dare say the average audiophile would just pick the one that sounds the best - which I bet would be my cable which distorts the signal in a pleasing manner.

 

[Panicos K]

What problems are we talking about here and how do they manifest? Give me a sound problem that you would solve by means of a cable and I will tell you a better way to do it with dsp, LCR, time manipulation, or some other means.

I guess what takes to do this, will cost more than my cables
I have tried EQ some times to see if what I didn't like was just FR.Part of it was,the rest(harmonics,decay,effortless dynamics,voice naturalness)wasn't.
I'm of those who claim they can hear cable direction*.And those who also hear this,know very well how different the "same"cable can sound

* Twisted pairs,unshielded,so it has nothing to do with where the shield is connected.I have tried this dozens of times.

I have never claimed that any cable has solved any problems in my system.What I claim is that I can make an easy choice between cables for my system.And my cable choices were results of blind testing,despite some here said we were peeking.

 

[cbdb]

Edit: BTW, many specialty recording companies used high-zoot cable, if I'm not mistaken at least far back as Sheffield.

Cant find any info on high-zoot cable. Can you help?