I've known people that won't even comment on equipment they had used in the past because of the same reasons Earl has mentioned.
And what did you do to help them?Obviously they were not in a position to have an opinion of their own.A friend of mine has spent more than $90,000 to buy his precious system and when he happens to pass by for a cup of coffee,his blood presure goes sky high
......and that,not because of the coffee 
But you completely missed the point. Every "subjective" based process is doomed to fail, but not objective data. One cannot argue with objective data, at least not as data, it is what it is (assuming no errors in measurement). One can argue that is doesn't correlate with subjective, and that's what the mags continue to do. But sooner or later people have to come around to the fact that measurements do tell the story and that its the subjective side that is wrong.
And what did you do to help them?Obviously they were not in a position to have an opinion of their own.A friend of mine has spent more than $90,000 to buy his precious system and when he happens to pass by for a cup of coffee,his blood presure goes sky high
I'm glad you put the smilies, because otherwise I'd think that you were serious.
What I mean is that he seems to like my system more than I do,and surely more than he does his.
I do not disagree with that either
I have had a brief look at your speakers.Interesting,and who knows....?But do you think that there are no other speakers that may have good and objective data and sound different than yours? I think yes.Which is the "best"? Can everyone agree?
Oh.....you'll get a PM in a while
Gold is more resistive than copper and therefore not as good a conductor as copper. What it does offer is corrosion protection. But if that very thin layer of gold gets scratched down to the copper the gold, over time, will delaminate from the copper by a layer of copper oxides. If this happens then the gold plating is doing more harm than it is good because you can't clean the oxides away beneath the plating.
Scratching the thin layer of gold is unavoidable since in order to keep the contact resistance down the connector has to be tightly fitted. Every time the connector is connected or removed and reconnected a bit more gold is scratched off.
David.
I mean that if anyone feels confident that he can design "perfect" electronics and the only problem to sell it to the world is marketing,then he should figure marketing ways of his own to persuade the world to buy his "perfect" elctronics.A hifi magazine (telling the truth and nothing but the truth) could be a start.In the mean time,only he can enjoy his "perfect" electronics.
Was it more understandable now?Apologies for my english once more.
better or not is up to your personal, but different sound for sure, before to compare the sound of two material different cable, first to check can you notice the different of after break in and before break in with the same cable ? if not you should up grade your system
tony ma
I think that all speakers would have to sound exactly the same if they were "perfect" so it is only logical that they would begin to sound more similar as they got better and better. And yes, I do believe it eminately reasonable to have a speaker that "everyone" (at least in a blind statistical sense) agrees is "best". UnBlind? Of course not - sound quality hardly even matters in that case.
"Design it"? Why? Just go to Amazon.com and order it, there are lots of choices.
When some speak of "badly designed" electronics I take it that they design "perfect" electronics.....
That's wishful thinking. Not only can you debate which data is relevant you can criticize procedure, the quality or suitability of the test equipment, the competence of the person providing the data, or even that person's honesty.
One can say that a certain harmonic spectrum is desirable, another can even specify exact levels of harmonics are necessary, or the most simplistic person can state the lowest possible distortion measurement takes the cake.
God knows that we have all heard a system that met all of the requirements for "competent" design but it had a mediocre sound.
John
If the stages are competently designed, you don't get any audible degradation. The dbts show this and the maths and engineering on D/A and A/D supports it.
There is no philosophy involved. You don't need an "infinite effort" to reconstruct a sampled signal without audible loss, just a sufficient sampling frequency and word length - this is just standard stuff you can check in any DSP text.
Properly designed A/Ds and D/As are audibly transparent - get over the voodoo of thinking otherwise.
Belief in their non-transparency is the same craziness that believes that competently constructed cables sound different - wishful thinking trying to beat maths, engineering and science.
When a piece of electronics cannot be distinguished as being present or not, then it is indistinguishable from "perfect" and hence for all practical purposes it is "perfect". This is actually not that hard to do.
Mostly its the electronics that claim to "sound better" that have the flaws. Its well known that an amp that "sounds better" is usually just "different" where "different" is interpreted as "better". In fact its really just flawed.
I think it's more accurate to say, "implausible and unsupported by any evidence." There always could be a black swan out there.
I have heard of this many times before.I apologize but find such comments a worthless generalization.Senses/brain have preferences,and there is no perfect or competenly designed/made steak,color,sound............
It is not electronics by the way that claim they sound better.It is the listener who decides if he/she likes a sound or not.
I think something's wrong with the recording if people don't like what they hear. You can't really alter the taste of a dish after it has been served. But this is what audiophools do when they alter the signal. Even worse, they alter each and every "dish" the same way.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.