I am closing this thread for a bit while I wade through it and clean out the muck.
.
I'm so disappointed! I'd thought you'd get this down to 3 or 4 pages.
Because they work!
Hi,
Not necessarily.
While it may be innate to some it may well be an educational process to others.
Cheers,
Not necessarily.
While it may be innate to some it may well be an educational process to others.
Cheers,
Hi,
The question one should ask oneself is "Do all cables that exhibit the same measured C, L and R values by definition sound the same?"
IOW is what we measure what we hear or do we perceive more or less of what we can currently measure?
Cheers,
The question one should ask oneself is "Do all cables that exhibit the same measured C, L and R values by definition sound the same?"
IOW is what we measure what we hear or do we perceive more or less of what we can currently measure?
Cheers,
Is that correct for adults with normal hearing development? I don't mean reproduced audio, but in the real world. Do they not hear airplanes as overhead?
I once sat on the end of a picnic bench, in a large park in Orange County CA ,for most of a day. I had a sleep mask on and spent the day learning how to predict where the various sound sources were going, how fast they were moving and where they were in relation to each other. Was an overwhelming experience for the first few hours but became easier to do as the day wore on. I only had one confrontation with a person worried about what nefarious things I was up to and it provided me with a much refined ability to imagine a center channel and sound field from my stereo. The speakers were Ohm F's at the time.
Bud
Hi,
Who'll be the judge of what's correct and what isn't?
Do you honestly believe we all perceive sound in the same way?
I don't think so.
What and how we perceive sound is dependent not only on our physical capabilities but also on what our neurons make us believe that what we hear is really what it is we think it is, but is it?
We all are different, have different upbringing, education, social background and so on.
Truth may be what an instrument is telling us it thinks it is but we'll still interpret it's reading according to our willingness to believe that instrument.
Sure enough, a pound's a pound and a kilogram's a kilogram but when it comes to perception?
So, we could now argue about how fallible humans are and they certainly are but name me one machine that can truly make music.
That's the paradox and that paradox is also what makes this thread go on like forever.
We al have to cling to our belief system in order to survive.
To some it's the reassurance of an oscilloscope to others it's just music.
A the end of the day it's not the scope that's going to change the world but the people that live in it.
So, I hear you asking if what I believe I hear is for real?
The only valid answer is, yes, I believe it is to you.
Does this mean all cable differences are just imaginary figments of our minds?
Absolutely not as I am far to vain as a human being to believe that I and thousands of others with me hear just what we want to hear and that time and time again.
It's just too unlikely....
Cheers,
Who'll be the judge of what's correct and what isn't?
Do you honestly believe we all perceive sound in the same way?
I don't think so.
What and how we perceive sound is dependent not only on our physical capabilities but also on what our neurons make us believe that what we hear is really what it is we think it is, but is it?
We all are different, have different upbringing, education, social background and so on.
Truth may be what an instrument is telling us it thinks it is but we'll still interpret it's reading according to our willingness to believe that instrument.
Sure enough, a pound's a pound and a kilogram's a kilogram but when it comes to perception?
So, we could now argue about how fallible humans are and they certainly are but name me one machine that can truly make music.
That's the paradox and that paradox is also what makes this thread go on like forever.
We al have to cling to our belief system in order to survive.
To some it's the reassurance of an oscilloscope to others it's just music.
A the end of the day it's not the scope that's going to change the world but the people that live in it.
So, I hear you asking if what I believe I hear is for real?
The only valid answer is, yes, I believe it is to you.
Does this mean all cable differences are just imaginary figments of our minds?
Absolutely not as I am far to vain as a human being to believe that I and thousands of others with me hear just what we want to hear and that time and time again.
It's just too unlikely....
Cheers,
How long do you think you would last if you couldn't tell where the Leopard was in the tree or that the snake in grass was at your feet?? I don't know what normal is but idea that you can't tell direction being up,down, behind, left or right sounds kinda crazy to me. We are animals first and foremost and our senses are there for survival in the wild not suburbia.
Rob
And you are in the field of research? If so do please explain how my statement is wrong, I'd like to learn something. Just saying its incorrect is of very limited usefulness.
Well everyone is learning that some people just don't believe that we hear very much or very well. If what we were able to hear was so limited, we would not have survived in the wild. It is useful to think about some of the crazy beliefs that 'scientists' held just a generation or two ago.
For example, the ear was supposed to be phase deaf, at least with monaural signal. This was called 'Ohm's Law of Acoustics'. The hearing model at the time predicted it, the 'crude' measurements seemed to prove it, and the K-horn was born.
Years went by, Bell Labs did additional research, and all of a sudden, speaker path lengths of less than 1 foot became audible and measurable. 'Time Alignment' of loudspeakers was born. By the way, the model for hearing also changed to a more sophisticated one.
For example, the ear was supposed to be phase deaf, at least with monaural signal. This was called 'Ohm's Law of Acoustics'. The hearing model at the time predicted it, the 'crude' measurements seemed to prove it, and the K-horn was born.
Years went by, Bell Labs did additional research, and all of a sudden, speaker path lengths of less than 1 foot became audible and measurable. 'Time Alignment' of loudspeakers was born. By the way, the model for hearing also changed to a more sophisticated one.
I suppose all of the non-believing people use these? Cause if you don't then I cant figure out why you would even bother to participate in this discussion. They are practically free right? Never mind about the durability issue, I have never seen one of these break and they are about a dollar each.
Attachments
Last edited:
So no matter what you have invested in equipment Amps, Speakers, and Sources, you should always look for better equipment and never-mind about cables?
I subscribe to the idea that a system should be well matched. Having 1 dollar IC's on a McIntosh rig because there may be better equipment than your McIntosh doesn't seem very logical does it? Would it not be more appropriate to have IC's with shielding and solid conductors on such a rig? Blue Jeans or Audioquest, but not the freebies that came with your VCR 20 years ago, right?
Last edited:
Nope, that's not really what he said. In the whole context he said that cables do make a difference, but that in general other things make a bigger difference. Sounds reasonable.
Right, the 'freebies' (such as you've shown above) tend to be lacking in various respects. For example, no gold plating, dodgy RCAs, poor (lapped) shielding, low durability. But those shortcomings can be addressed by spending, say $10. No need to head up into $100 territory to fix those kinds of problems.
bingo. and my system is tri-amped.
but I will also be honest here, I happened tp spot a promo sort of deal at bunnings one day (dunno what your equivalent of bunnings would be, but you know huge hardware store thing)...$2.00 each.
I bought all they had as they looked quite spunky and beefy. Prob just a huge rubber wrap tho
One of them broke a while ago, so yep, back in went what you pictured.
can't say I heard a difference (means they are the same quality
)I have to admit I take a great deal of pleasure watching the cognitive dissonance on peoples faces when they try and marry what they see and hear.
Let me guess what your definition of well matched is....,if the amp costs 'mega bucks' then so should the cables??
As I said, mine is tri amped and I guess I have spent about fifty bucks on cabling, and even then I feel ripped off!! haha
My speaker cables?? whatever I have laying around. I am renovating the house, so when I finished the build I used house wiring etc etc, in fact I have different internal wiring from speaker to speaker!!
I often moved them around in the room trying different positions etc, and use speakons. The trouble is, it is a royal PITA to get in and re-wire the speakons if I need new length for the new position.
I find it much easier to get the pliers out, cut the cable and splice in an extra length. If I am lucky, I have a connector laying around, if not out comes the electrical tape, twist the cables together and wrap the tape on them. ( I find green tape gives me the best sound
)
Hmm, a mixture on that particular speaker of light switch wire, cat five and speaker cables I also found at bunnings. It cost 50 cents/metre...I bought all they had in stock.
As I said, there is no difference in the sound.
Of course I do realise and admit that either my ears or my system (or both) are simply not up to scratch to hear the overwhelming OMFG differences...
oh well, watch gonna do?
plenty of more important things than cables me bucko...this thread is proof of that! (if cables always or consistently made a difference/improvement then this thread would not exist. A logical deduction type thing)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.