Yes and yes and no to the clapping thingy..., my room is quite dampened but less that was before.
And you cannot predict on logic what goes on. My front horns played best in a totally empty room (we were moving) - so soft and organic - that I believe now in their potential more than ever before.
When second change came to my system (replacing Cable talks in my fourth system with Audioquest F14-solid core copper) it replaced the character of sound from washed-grey-colored to very colorful one.
When some people hear, see and smell things other justdo not and their memory stores that so they can remember the world left behind, others perceive it as a derivate of their logic. I was to young and blameless then when I heard that change. And change brings another change in.
It seems funny saying this to you guys that should know a lot more about sound chain complexity... we really shouldn´t bring it down to a level when people will ask themselves if DACs "sounds" different - a bit is a bit - right?, and why should we have so many voice coils ? and membranes it should just move some air and that is it. And so on with cables, it just transfers signal to those boxes 3m away..., and nevermind speaker stands or equipment rack, haha, you will end up in the beginning of the road...experiment, open mind, flexibility, direction, my friends.
!!
T
And you cannot predict on logic what goes on. My front horns played best in a totally empty room (we were moving) - so soft and organic - that I believe now in their potential more than ever before.
When second change came to my system (replacing Cable talks in my fourth system with Audioquest F14-solid core copper) it replaced the character of sound from washed-grey-colored to very colorful one.
When some people hear, see and smell things other justdo not and their memory stores that so they can remember the world left behind, others perceive it as a derivate of their logic. I was to young and blameless then when I heard that change. And change brings another change in.
It seems funny saying this to you guys that should know a lot more about sound chain complexity... we really shouldn´t bring it down to a level when people will ask themselves if DACs "sounds" different - a bit is a bit - right?, and why should we have so many voice coils ? and membranes it should just move some air and that is it. And so on with cables, it just transfers signal to those boxes 3m away..., and nevermind speaker stands or equipment rack, haha, you will end up in the beginning of the road...experiment, open mind, flexibility, direction, my friends.
!!
T
Eva said:
Eva
Acoustical problems annoy me a lot less than electrical. Don't know why, but that's how it is. I hear the same deficiencies in a given amplifier through many different speakers and in different acoustic environments. Same with cables. No argument that room acoustics or speakes are important; somehow i am just more sensitive to other types of distortion.
Hi Eva, those are pertinent questions, however, I haven't noticed anyone suggesting that cables should be the first or most important method for adjusting the sound of your system to your liking. I certainly would not go down that road. Just to be clear, the fact that they affect the sound of my system is more of a nuisance to me than an advantage.
Re cables with electrical charge - I have a friend who paid good money for such cables - then found that they sound better in his system with the batteries out.
Brett, if I have said something that offended you, I apologize.
Merry Christmas everyone!
Re cables with electrical charge - I have a friend who paid good money for such cables - then found that they sound better in his system with the batteries out.
Brett, if I have said something that offended you, I apologize.
Merry Christmas everyone!
Eva said:
Yes, I find speaker placement and listening position to be very important, I suggest that it must be optimised before experimenting with cables.
Both could have a drastical effect on the sound, depending on what cables you use for the comparison.
Yes, I like to experiment with different idea's.
Too much.
To get a system to sound good in a room can take a lot of listening and changing positions, adding absorbtion etc. Then you can start working with cables, don't know if it will ever stop.
Yes but ultimately I want to feel as if I'm in the recording venue.
No.
That is one of the most important aspects in hi-fi to achieve good SQ.
Eva,
i think i know what you are aiming at.
In fact differences occuring by changing room acoustics
and speaker positioning have greater impact than all those
"fine tuning" measures. And btw. they are measured easily.
But the effects are different. They are on different levels of
audibility. I agree that talking about cables (and other fine
tuning measures) makes not really sense, if a system suffers
from serious deficiencies in acoustics, causing bad transient
response and/or unbalanced frequency response or
direct/indirect sound ratio changing rapidly with frequency ...
But i feel, if a system is arranged lovelessly concerning those
"fine tuning measures" like
- matching the components
(intuitively like "brilliant preamp" driving "warm power amp" ...)
- suppression of vibration [of speaker cabinets e.g. ! ]
- wiring and connecting
and so on ...
there will remain something like a "glass ceiling" of reachable
maximum quality, which you cannot break through. It is there.
Without those "fine tuning measures" i mentioned there will
always remain some kind of "harsh" or "dull" or "flat" or
whatever sounding impression, separating the listener from
the music.
And i would say this is not what i believe, this is what i know
for sure ...
IMO one has always to adress the "hard skills" (acoustics) and
the "soft skills" of a system (fine tuning). Both levels are needed.
It is just like in real live .
---
This reminds me of a paper describing the process
steps of making the base of a violin.
Material was removed using finer and finer tools.
Laquer is applied.
Laquer dries.
Instrument is played for some years.
...
Every step causes a change in the characteristics, which is
measurable in the formants exhibited by the instrument.
I normally do not like comparing hifi gear with musical
instruments, because a good hifi component should be
the contrary of a musical instrument.
But since objects of both realms are made of real material
using human skills, there are consonances.
Maybe this helps understanding, what i mean.
Kind regards
i think i know what you are aiming at.
In fact differences occuring by changing room acoustics
and speaker positioning have greater impact than all those
"fine tuning" measures. And btw. they are measured easily.
But the effects are different. They are on different levels of
audibility. I agree that talking about cables (and other fine
tuning measures) makes not really sense, if a system suffers
from serious deficiencies in acoustics, causing bad transient
response and/or unbalanced frequency response or
direct/indirect sound ratio changing rapidly with frequency ...
But i feel, if a system is arranged lovelessly concerning those
"fine tuning measures" like
- matching the components
(intuitively like "brilliant preamp" driving "warm power amp" ...)
- suppression of vibration [of speaker cabinets e.g. ! ]
- wiring and connecting
and so on ...
there will remain something like a "glass ceiling" of reachable
maximum quality, which you cannot break through. It is there.
Without those "fine tuning measures" i mentioned there will
always remain some kind of "harsh" or "dull" or "flat" or
whatever sounding impression, separating the listener from
the music.
And i would say this is not what i believe, this is what i know
for sure ...
IMO one has always to adress the "hard skills" (acoustics) and
the "soft skills" of a system (fine tuning). Both levels are needed.
It is just like in real live
.---
This reminds me of a paper describing the process
steps of making the base of a violin.
Material was removed using finer and finer tools.
Laquer is applied.
Laquer dries.
Instrument is played for some years.
...
Every step causes a change in the characteristics, which is
measurable in the formants exhibited by the instrument.
I normally do not like comparing hifi gear with musical
instruments, because a good hifi component should be
the contrary of a musical instrument.
But since objects of both realms are made of real material
using human skills, there are consonances.
Maybe this helps understanding, what i mean.
Kind regards
Eva said:
Yes
More
Only during setup & with a tape measure and bubble level. (Do you?)
A lot?
Who doesn't?
Yes.
Next?
analog_sa, room issues have effects our brains are hard wired to accept as natural, nature or nurture. By a very early age no one is consistently in wonder walking outside from a stone lobby. I suspect that's why we tune it out so easily. Eva however seems to be implying the tint in glasses isn't a distorting effect if you wear them indoors and out. The argument is also petard self-hoist. After all, how can you justify sweating +- 1dB in the x-over if the room is +-20?
Hi,
A bit late to the party but that idea is most certainly not new.
The best solution is not to use synthetic stuff in the fisrt place, use silk or cotton, rice paper or air...
Of course, every scientist will tell you that there's no possibility whatsoever such static can build up in the first place....
Cheers,
A bit late to the party but that idea is most certainly not new.
The best solution is not to use synthetic stuff in the fisrt place, use silk or cotton, rice paper or air...
Of course, every scientist will tell you that there's no possibility whatsoever such static can build up in the first place....
Cheers,
rdf said:
Hi,
As an avid cyclist not having a bell on my bike I rely on my ungreased Campy freehub which doubles as a bell (machine gun sound for the uninitiated)) as soon I stop pedalling.
If that doesn't help, I just unclip and stick my foot out. 100% efficient.
Wish I had a similar device for the hearing-impaired members of the forum.
Jokes aside, merry X-mass all
Pan said:
Test methodology and results were reported somewhere in these forums - will find it for you. I have a cheap multimeter - not up to the task, but no reason to believe that RLC differences could possibly be audible.
I actually handicapped myself slightly with my choice of music. The test was scientifically up to scratch. The results were statistically significant - just!
It was done largely for myself - to see if I was deluding myself or not. Others were interested. It was harder than I expected.
Merry Xmas! 
Re: when you started...
I presume you and all those you are referring to above are each and every one a millionaire courtesy of James Randi, for your demonstrably paranormal hearing.
Are you listening to the advice you are receiving here? *Everyone* hears (or more correctly thinks they are hearing) cable differences during sighted listening, but this listening has no validity as a test. As soon as the listening is conducted in a valid controlled testing environment, no one can hear differences in cables that are correctly specified for the purpose in basic engineering LCR parameters. This has been done. It has repeatability. This is the *true* "direct, repeatable observation" that you thought you were getting from sighted comparison.
*Please* read the thread.
I get the feeling that this thread was re-energized after a few quiet months by the innocents who believe that if they heard *it* during sighted tests, then it must be true. This thread contains extensive discussion of the weakness of such a belief.
Maybe someone can help me understand the difference between (a) the way sighted test adherents attack controlled testing methodologies, while focusing their attention anywhere but on the weaknesses of the sighted test, and (b) the way creationists attack evolution (with special venom for Darwin), while focusing their attention anywhere but on the flimsy to nonexistent evidence supporting their preferred "theory".
hihopes said:
I presume you and all those you are referring to above are each and every one a millionaire courtesy of James Randi, for your demonstrably paranormal hearing.
Are you listening to the advice you are receiving here? *Everyone* hears (or more correctly thinks they are hearing) cable differences during sighted listening, but this listening has no validity as a test. As soon as the listening is conducted in a valid controlled testing environment, no one can hear differences in cables that are correctly specified for the purpose in basic engineering LCR parameters. This has been done. It has repeatability. This is the *true* "direct, repeatable observation" that you thought you were getting from sighted comparison.
T11 said:
*Please* read the thread.
I get the feeling that this thread was re-energized after a few quiet months by the innocents who believe that if they heard *it* during sighted tests, then it must be true. This thread contains extensive discussion of the weakness of such a belief.
Maybe someone can help me understand the difference between (a) the way sighted test adherents attack controlled testing methodologies, while focusing their attention anywhere but on the weaknesses of the sighted test, and (b) the way creationists attack evolution (with special venom for Darwin), while focusing their attention anywhere but on the flimsy to nonexistent evidence supporting their preferred "theory".
rdf said:
This is pretty much the way i feel. On several occassions i had the opportunity to set up a system in really cursed rooms. Not pretty. Once i thought the room was the reason for severe bass problems but it turned out it was only the equipment support.
Interestingly, some people talk of room treatments as if it's an exact science. IME "treated" rooms are often much worse for music listening than untreated. If anything they allow (demand?) higher sound levels.
I´m sorry tnargs; it´s a foreign language for me, so there might be a confusion from time to time.
As far as i understand the description in this point, the term "controlled" doesn´t necessary include "having used controls".
And i can´t remember of any dbt on cables that does include controls on sufficient sensitivity levels.
BTW, Randi doesn´t really qualify at this point. I´ve followed his las years approach, and for logical reasons his argumentation wasn´t really convincing.
As far as i understand the description in this point, the term "controlled" doesn´t necessary include "having used controls".
And i can´t remember of any dbt on cables that does include controls on sufficient sensitivity levels.
BTW, Randi doesn´t really qualify at this point. I´ve followed his las years approach, and for logical reasons his argumentation wasn´t really convincing.
Re: Re: when you started...
I have done blind tests on cables where I was able to identify the four different IC cables used by name, every time. I perceived the sound differences the same in the blind test and sighted.
Although I agree with some of the "advise", I believe it is possible to get the same results with sighted and blind tests.
André
tnargs said:
I have done blind tests on cables where I was able to identify the four different IC cables used by name, every time. I perceived the sound differences the same in the blind test and sighted.
Although I agree with some of the "advise", I believe it is possible to get the same results with sighted and blind tests.
André
- Status
- Not open for further replies.