Can't remember, what speakers did you use?
Ja right, as if you can put any combination of equipment together and expect it to sound realistic. I can think of some combinations that will give you instant hearing AIDS.
This makes perfect sense to me
Carefull, sense work like a diode, only in one direction.
a local manufacturers product. nothing you would ever have, or ever will, hear of I am afraid! As a general rule I don't really like the product from this manufacturer, but this particular one I do quite enjoy. Anyway, the essential point is that it was good enough for the job (not that price means anything, but around 8k I think???..it won an award from one of the hi fi mags over here) and that the speakers remained constant. Ie all we changed was everything leading up to the input terminals on the speaker.
As brett said,it was our duplication of the matrix test. TBH we had different results, as a general rule the more expensive front end was preferred by the majority (the matrix test did not have that result, but then again we only had ten people, they had around forty if memory serves).
I guess you are wondering if the speakers were adequate. I'd say they were, but to be honest I also subscribe to 'not bothering about anything but the speakers and room', ie very biased.
http://www.aslanacoustics.com.au/AVL Minstral.pdf
Ja right, as if you can put any combination of equipment together and expect it to sound realistic. I can think of some combinations that will give you instant hearing AIDS.
Of course not. Surely you have enough knowledge of compatability between audio components?? Then why can you not put a system together??
Maybe give us your definition of synergy. I gave a brief hint of my concept earlier. What I object to is the unspoken thought that it somehow depends on the alignment of the stars, luck, the fickle winds of fate. "Oh man, who coulda predicted it?" Nope. It is all understandable from engineering first principles.
Ahh, but to an audiophile (never forget the power they invest in things like dots of paint everywhere as but one small example)...everything is so mystical and magical, 'ooohhh, try pinning the corner of your curtain up before you place the picture in the freezer''...well no bloody wonder there is this mystical magical quality attributed to good sound. (http://www.theadvancedaudiophile.com/the-curtain-corner-technique/index.html)
Am I saying that some combinations don't work better than others?? Of course not.
It may be a magical combination, but there is no magic in it.
Just engineering.
Judged by what I see, it should be quite nice speakers. I guess that proves that DBT's don't work.
Just wondering what the difference would have been if the speakers didn't have build-in active subwoofers. Results may also depend on what music were used for comparisons.
Well I surely know what equipment not to use.
A system can only be as good as the sum of it's parts, which includes the recordings, the room and even the listener. To get every component to compliment each other in such a way that the end result sound realistic, compared to real instruments, is where the challenge is. I am quite certain that just putting together all components with best published specs will not get you there.
Sure but the final judge of a magical combination is your ears.
Why say even? Once your system gets there it is the most important part of the chain, and it is not fixed like the hardware it is very variable.
For sure there are systems that sound better than others, have never maintained otherwise.
HOW do we get a system that sounds pretty good, the easy way??
Pay attention to the important stuff.
Speakers.
Room,
Speaker room interaction.
Then, if you still feel the need, play with the little stuff. cables, interconnects, whatever. go for it.
Hi andre, not quite sure what you meant re dbts not working...but I think I do.
indeed, I took it as a GREAT proof that dbts do work! Think that may be what you meant.
Funny, the other times I mentioned this it passed without much comment at all, fair enough I guess. Has a bit more life this time round, maybe because it fits in with the risch quotes earlier??
Anyway, (did I mention I love the human behaviour side of things?) I find it interesting the various differing interpretations of the test.
What did I hear? Well, I have already admitted my prejudice about the importance of different parts of the chain, so when I heard *how bloody close they sounded* I was quite stunned TBH. I mean I ''''knew''' they would sound the *same*, but when they bloody sounded the same I could not believe it!
Quite funny really, my reaction.
other side of the coin, and this came mostly from people reading the thread rather than the participants, there was all that stuff about 'the pleasure of long listening lasts longer than the pain of increased price'. I know I stuffed up that quote, but you know the sentiment I am sure.
Me?? Funnily enough it simply backed up my prejudice. The speaker/speaker room is where it is all at.
I laughed and walked away after hearing them, I simply could not be bothered to take the time to discern a difference. The pure audiophiles spent ages to tease out the tiny minutiae, the subtle little differences.
me? FFS, spend that huge difference in cost on the things that matter.
So at the end of the day, both camps walked away with their beliefs intact!!
Me. 'Why frickin bother spending that much for that tiny difference, when obviously you would get a better return spending that amount elsewhere' (subs, better speakers, DSP, room treatment bass traps and diffusors etc etc)
Audiophile. See, you do get a better result by spending money on cables, amps and cdps.
Ironic in the end ain't it. Same scene, two completely different interpretations.
Still, like all of us really, I let my system stand as proof-or otherwise-of my audio philosophy. And i take great pride in the comments along the lines of 'hearing terry's system makes you rethink your audio thoughts'.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This last bit is quite interesting too. Talk is cheap, particularly on an internet forum.
How do you guys know how my system sounds?? Of course you have no idea. you may actually puke when you hear it, it could be the worst bloody thing you have ever had the misfortune to be subjected to.
But here I am, gabbing on with a great deal of self confidence yada yada. And some may agree with me, others not.
But if you all heard it you could be horrified!
At the end of the day, the ONLY thing that shows our personal philosophies in audio is what we can hear when we audition the systems.
look out! (you mean THAT has been your reference???
)Quick poll. Lets assume TG 'passes the test'.
who of the objectivists would accept it??
let's assume TG fails the test.
who of the subjectivists would accept it?
kinda makes it all silly really.
(ps, I would accept it. Cause I am not 'cables do not make a difference'. I am 'why sweat the little ****?')
You left out "amplifier-speaker interaction." Especially with high-end amps that are designed with little attention paid to source impedance and stability. These become inadvertent and non-adjustable tone controls. And there are those pathological speakers with impedance dips that require amps which can source gobs of current- my little tube job would fold up and die if I tried to run JC's WATTs, for example, though it's perfectly happy driving the top end of my M3.3s...
How do you know that? Based on what electrical evidence?
How do you know that it isn't something psychological...and nothing to do with electro-acoustics or sound waves?
Like the Holly Cole CD?
So to record Holly Cole, they must have used "good" equipment with "synergy" correct? Or can a "good" "synergized" system somehow create "acoustic focus" from unsynergized, unfocused source material?
cheers,
AJ
thanks SY, I know little about it., I just sweep it under the generic 'compatible' carpet...as opposed to the synergy crap.
It is a serious 'question' tho. We all sprout off here, (and I think this is where it all lives) ..we use the same words don't we?
I use 'wow, great, fantastic bass'...so does the guy who has a single four inch driver!!!
We all use the same vocabulary. I think that is where it starts.
So someone tells us that 'without proper synergy, you have ear aids'..I expect it to be totally unlistenable. No, it may not be our cup of tea, but it is not something you run screaming from the room.
Someone says 'I changed the cable, and WOW'. I expect a clear and immediately noticeable difference, yet it takes people quite a bit of time to even discern a difference, let alone a preference.
Same with all the other audiophile certainties...class A vs a/b. seperates vs integrated. yada yada yada.
tiny stuff.
yet we all use the BIG words, important, wow etc etc.
i just go in with MY interpretations of the word. Evidently they are impressed with far less than I.
They go WOW, I go 'meh'.
It is a serious 'question' tho. We all sprout off here, (and I think this is where it all lives) ..we use the same words don't we?
I use 'wow, great, fantastic bass'...so does the guy who has a single four inch driver!!!
We all use the same vocabulary. I think that is where it starts.
So someone tells us that 'without proper synergy, you have ear aids'..I expect it to be totally unlistenable. No, it may not be our cup of tea, but it is not something you run screaming from the room.
Someone says 'I changed the cable, and WOW'. I expect a clear and immediately noticeable difference, yet it takes people quite a bit of time to even discern a difference, let alone a preference.
Same with all the other audiophile certainties...class A vs a/b. seperates vs integrated. yada yada yada.
tiny stuff.
yet we all use the BIG words, important, wow etc etc.
i just go in with MY interpretations of the word. Evidently they are impressed with far less than I.
They go WOW, I go 'meh'.
What I meant was that if you can't hear a difference between those systems using said speakers, it must surely be proof that DBT's doesn't work, your wife in the kitchen should have heard the difference.
Like the Holly Cole CD?
Sounds like you like it.
According to me it is impossible to recover lost information, no matter how good the system, in fact the better systems tend to show the shortcomings easier, making some recordings unlistenable. Luckily it more than make up for that when you use good recordings.
I've said many times in the past that is where the difference is, it just depends on what is important to you. I live for detail and realism, so I may say cables have a large influence on detail but it is quite possible that for example somebody else who just cares about the beat wouldn't even notice any detail in the music.
Hi Fredex!
What you say about #2 may indeed be correct but, I question why is that when the opponets of wires sounding different make this same exact statement against the proponents of wires sounding different, all they say is you expected to hear a difference, so you did hear a difference, period! For some strange reason when opponets of wire have sonic differences use it as a weapon to support their beliefs there's no inclusion of; it's true if you were concious of all your expectations. The subconcious is vast and very powerful.
Personally I find such the usage of such an approach hypocritical and it's something that I have a hard time overlooking later. On the internet all we have is our integrity. Say what you mean, mean what you say. Can we make mistakes? Of course but, if it seems deliberate, then with me once a person loses that integrity, I stop further communications. Please understand I'm NOT accusing anyone here of acting that way with me yet. I just hope if I ever see you or other opponents of wires having a sonic difference post about "expectation bias" concerning subjectivists or proponents of wires having a sonic difference you'll attach that same exact caveat to your/their statement
I believe in integrity of internet communications so much I've opened myself up to possible ridicule by honestly stating what my first attempts at sighted and DB wire testings were. I also believe in my postion so strongly that I'm willing to submit to controlled testing.
Thetubeguy1954
Hi Tubeguy.
First of all your integrity is not being questioned.
My post merely questions your belief that expectation bias works as you state. You are one of many that say because I expected A but got B then this proves that expectation bias is not involved. I just don't think it is that simple.
Your post that I was responding to:
In the past I also believed that cables made no difference and like you did some tests and found much to my surprise that there were differences that I could hear.
Now the interesting question is why would I sit down and do tests if I didn't have at least some doubt in my belief. I have a technical background and electrical theory is rock solid for people like me so I was absolutely sure of my beliefs..... or so I thought. Reading magazines planted the idea in my mind that maybe I didn't know for sure. So I can't really say that I was expecting no difference when I did the tests. Now all of this is concious thought, but if you also factor in the subconcious the situation contains so many unknowns that certainty can only be established by DBTs. And so I appluad your willingness to be tested under DB conditions.
If you are successful under SYs test I will have to re-think my position yet again.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Perhaps, but it's almost always applied that way. This thread alone should provide hundreds of examples by searching 'expensive'.
Well there have been huge 'visual' advancements, they are turning into things of great beauty, even I lust after them.
But I guess it is just marketing. Nothing wrong with nice looking whatevers though.
Manufacturing precision (strand shape & surface precision,melting,cooling and forming,anealing...),metal purity,insulation materials,connectors precision and quality,connector materials and platings.
Marketing does not make anything better than it really is,although marketing methods have "advanced"
.If any one took the time and effort to investigate my posts about audioquest "competition X,Z & PRO" interconnects(one example of many),he would get an idea of metal purity effect on cable "sound".Anyone?
Last edited:
What I meant was that if you can't hear a difference between those systems using said speakers, it must surely be proof that DBT's doesn't work, your wife in the kitchen should have heard the difference.
Ah. There we have it.
(I forget, where you there??)
And all this time it was never about price eh andre?
But according to you (unless you were hiding under the couch) even my wife in the kitchen should have heard it.
Ok, so you're answer to my question earlier about what if TG could not hear a difference would be 'no change, I can hear a difference'.
Arrogance.
You were in no way impolite. You stated that (synergy) "is of course something electrical".
I asked for (electrical) evidence of this, before starting the wild goose chase, while the elephant named "psychology" sat patiently in the room beside you.
Still not clear as to your actual answer.
That is good to know, but I wonder how many believers here would agree with you?
So large, that they can't be measured in FR (and other known audible parameters) and evade audibility when not peeking?
As evidenced by..???
Since you didn't build your mystery loudspeakers, how do you know what quality metal/wiring is inside, including the inductors, voice coils, etc?
cheers,
AJ
We have moved to an interesting point. We now have *you* guys throwing your hands up in the air exclaiming 'we know we will fail dbt's'. John Curl stated that quite bluntly, andre is now hiding behind his diagnosis at a distance.
Ok, let's assume dbt's have that magical failure, and the TRUE reason no-one has passed it has nothing to do with cable audibility or otherwise, it is completely the fault of the dbt.
(boy, sad ain't it)
Tell me then KC, how do YOU design and put up a test that can definitively prove one way or the other that you can indeed distinguish between cables?
It is very easy for all of you to sit back and moan and never be constructive, very easy. just go to any pub and hear who whinges the loudest, the no-hopers and the losers of society.
Ok, dbt is so riddled with flaws (sigh), YOU tell us how you can provide proof. (I am reaaaalllly hoping you don't come back with a lame 'cause I will tell you' or something)
Science does not know everything, and we have no 'scientific' method of finding an answer to this question.
really? crikey, we can build the LHC and test for the most interesting and minute things, but science (yet again) is insufficiently advanced to be able to determine cable audibilty.
WHY is it that it seems the only area science fails spectacularly seems to be when it encounters the arrogant audiophile??(tm)
Only trouble is, in this case the AA refuses to remain anonymous...mores the pity.
Ok, let's assume dbt's have that magical failure, and the TRUE reason no-one has passed it has nothing to do with cable audibility or otherwise, it is completely the fault of the dbt.
(boy, sad ain't it)
Tell me then KC, how do YOU design and put up a test that can definitively prove one way or the other that you can indeed distinguish between cables?
It is very easy for all of you to sit back and moan and never be constructive, very easy. just go to any pub and hear who whinges the loudest, the no-hopers and the losers of society.
Ok, dbt is so riddled with flaws (sigh), YOU tell us how you can provide proof. (I am reaaaalllly hoping you don't come back with a lame 'cause I will tell you' or something)
Science does not know everything, and we have no 'scientific' method of finding an answer to this question.
really? crikey, we can build the LHC and test for the most interesting and minute things, but science (yet again) is insufficiently advanced to be able to determine cable audibilty.
WHY is it that it seems the only area science fails spectacularly seems to be when it encounters the arrogant audiophile??(tm)
Only trouble is, in this case the AA refuses to remain anonymous...mores the pity.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.