Hi,
It's not something religious for me either and I'm human too.
Fact is, I have not seen much proof either way, the samples brought to the table just made me laugh, respectfully yet laugh just the same.
Seems to me science has been stuck to what it believed as scientifically proven fifty years back and that's the end of that?
Excuse me but what's the meaning of all this?
Next time you come to Belgium I'll invite you to some real systems so you wake up from the Middle Ages.
All food on on me. And that will be real food too, no junk food.
Buenas...
Cheers,
SY said:
It's not something religious for me either and I'm human too.
Fact is, I have not seen much proof either way, the samples brought to the table just made me laugh, respectfully yet laugh just the same.
Seems to me science has been stuck to what it believed as scientifically proven fifty years back and that's the end of that?
Excuse me but what's the meaning of all this?
Next time you come to Belgium I'll invite you to some real systems so you wake up from the Middle Ages.
All food on on me. And that will be real food too, no junk food.
Buenas...
Cheers,
Key said:
Sure. Audiophiles aren't necessarily after accuracy, that is why they listen to Quad IIs.
They want to be 'transported' and accuracy won't do it for some. That is cool, whatever turns their crank, but what amuses me is the notion that less accurate systems are actually more accurate in the sense that they are capable of somehow unlocking "low level information / details" that are buried in the recording which really accurate systems seem to lose. In a way they are onto something as the appreciation of music requires a certain frame of mind and if a euphonic (inaccurate) sound can lull them into this state they become more sensitive to the nuances. The bottom line is, all this happens in the brain.
Hi,
Proof?
For the uneducated PW aka Quad used heavilly tinned copper wire with bees waxed cotton sleeves....
Admittedly P2P wiring harnesses were a piece of art, visually at least.
Back to the future, some audiophiles simply adore natural stuff like that. Maybe for good reason, who knows?
Cheers,
SY said:
Proof?
For the uneducated PW aka Quad used heavilly tinned copper wire with bees waxed cotton sleeves....
Admittedly P2P wiring harnesses were a piece of art, visually at least.
Back to the future, some audiophiles simply adore natural stuff like that. Maybe for good reason, who knows?
Cheers,
Well my main field of experimentation has been surround sound decoding so it is a bit hypocritical for me to be calling people out on those grounds. But again this can be done in a 1:1 fashion and does not necessarily imply misuse. You can make a mix where you predict how it will work in an ideal stereo and surround system at the same time - referencing trumps all.
I just feel if you are trying to unlock directionality, ambience, largeness - some exaggeration - with subtle equipment changes you are going the wrong direction. It's like guitarists that go back and forth over the small variables in tubes when it would be much much easier to just try a new speaker or rebias. If you are trying to unlock hidden details I have had infinitely more success with surround sound decoders than cable swaps - these are differences most anyone would agree are present.
I just feel if you are trying to unlock directionality, ambience, largeness - some exaggeration - with subtle equipment changes you are going the wrong direction. It's like guitarists that go back and forth over the small variables in tubes when it would be much much easier to just try a new speaker or rebias. If you are trying to unlock hidden details I have had infinitely more success with surround sound decoders than cable swaps - these are differences most anyone would agree are present.
Give this a read, it's a blind test, somewhat similar to Bob Carver's mythical one:
http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_marco.htm
http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_marco.htm
fdegrove said:.........For the uneducated PW aka Quad used heavilly tinned copper wire with bees waxed cotton sleeves....
Admittedly P2P wiring harnesses were a piece of art, visually at least.
Back to the future, some audiophiles simply adore natural stuff like that. Maybe for good reason, who knows?
Cheers,
Are you suggesting Walker chose that wire because it sounded good?
Or are you suggesting that the wire's influence is so great that it can be still heard in spite of the above?
I've heard anecdotal reports that it really makes an audible difference. Provided your system is revealing enough.Andre Visser said:
. . . . . Linseed oil? I know they say it is good for wood. What would the reason be apart from lubricating the surface electrons, smoother sound perhaps?
I think you haven't ever heard a high resolution system if you have no paper/foil in oil caps. Think "inter-transient silence".
And I thought you were a tweak.
Here's a direct link to the blind test I linked to above (silly site frames meant my previous link just went to the main page):
http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm
Here's a link to the Bob Carver challenge:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/archive/index.php/t-77920.html
I'm sure that's been posted here a dozen times or more.
I was talking with an audio engineer with over 50 years of experience, and his basic stance was:
- Yes, there's an audible difference between tube amplification and solid state.
- There are junk amps and good amps, mainly having to do with measurable differences like wattage, feedback etc.
- An underpowered amp, an amp not properly mated with its speakers, will sound poor, especially at higher levels.
BUT
- Once you're dealing with a good amp, that can drive the speakers, most other stuff is mumbo jumbo. Good cables are fine, you don't need $10k cables. You don't need a $100k all-silver tube amp. You don't need a $10k rack.
- The speakers, especially their placement, are vital.
My favorite quote was: "The most dramatic improvements in sound I've ever heard had to do with moving the speakers a foot one way in the room."
Having dabbled in hifi myself for a while now, there's definitely a sect of wealthy folks who are always hopping from the greatest to the latest etc. They gauge systems by reviews, without ever hearing them, and spend tens of thousands of dollars doing so. These people make audio dealers *very happy* and are good for the industry. I doubt any manufacturers would complain about them either.
http://www.matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm
Here's a link to the Bob Carver challenge:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/archive/index.php/t-77920.html
I'm sure that's been posted here a dozen times or more.
I was talking with an audio engineer with over 50 years of experience, and his basic stance was:
- Yes, there's an audible difference between tube amplification and solid state.
- There are junk amps and good amps, mainly having to do with measurable differences like wattage, feedback etc.
- An underpowered amp, an amp not properly mated with its speakers, will sound poor, especially at higher levels.
BUT
- Once you're dealing with a good amp, that can drive the speakers, most other stuff is mumbo jumbo. Good cables are fine, you don't need $10k cables. You don't need a $100k all-silver tube amp. You don't need a $10k rack.
- The speakers, especially their placement, are vital.
My favorite quote was: "The most dramatic improvements in sound I've ever heard had to do with moving the speakers a foot one way in the room."
Having dabbled in hifi myself for a while now, there's definitely a sect of wealthy folks who are always hopping from the greatest to the latest etc. They gauge systems by reviews, without ever hearing them, and spend tens of thousands of dollars doing so. These people make audio dealers *very happy* and are good for the industry. I doubt any manufacturers would complain about them either.
Written like Romy's twin was at the keys. Certainly coincident with his views, and likely everyone here also.
Totaling it all up, not counting the Planet 10 Fostex / Fonken speakers which are not mine, my system cost $684.00. Including my reference speakers, $1164. I will have a pair of OB with 12" Zenith Alnico, Peerless alnico mids and Bozak alnico aluminum cone tweeters shortly. Cost is $184 total. They and the baffles will be EnABL'd at a cost of 4 hours and $3. I have spent time with the expensive stuff. It all sounds very impressive, but I like to listen to just the music.
Bud
You poor people who can hear the difference between copper and silver, wires raised off the floor, carbon and film, oil or not, too much cosmic rays, or the hand braided shields by Peruvian virgins. The time and energy you must spend trying to get the "perfect sound"; never really getting there. The burden of educating the unwashed masses must be imense and never ending. Lucky for me all I seem to be able to tell the difference between is good and bad music.
For the umpteenth time, wether or not you subjectivists hear a difference or not is irelevant becuase: what you "think" sounds "good" means nothing to me or any one else. Your opinion is subjective. ( some "audiophiles like large distortion and uneven freq, and phase responses ). Even if you get a large group of "audiophiles" agreeing on a "good" sound its still subjective and I might not agree. So knock yourselfs out (and sell off the farm) trying to decide on the best whatever (you will never agree). I will look to physics to steer me in the right direction and then decide for myself what sounds "good" becuase its subjective.
For the umpteenth time, wether or not you subjectivists hear a difference or not is irelevant becuase: what you "think" sounds "good" means nothing to me or any one else. Your opinion is subjective. ( some "audiophiles like large distortion and uneven freq, and phase responses ). Even if you get a large group of "audiophiles" agreeing on a "good" sound its still subjective and I might not agree. So knock yourselfs out (and sell off the farm) trying to decide on the best whatever (you will never agree). I will look to physics to steer me in the right direction and then decide for myself what sounds "good" becuase its subjective.
But why look to physics, when you can just look to your own ears?
(Nicely mixed metaphor, that.)
It helps to understand that it's a basic characteristic of human nature to want the best, to fear what we have is inadequate, to wonder if our money might improve our estate.
And for those that have the money, they buy the voodoo they think they need, and to them it really DOES make a difference.
But why does it bother you so much if someone states some benefit from raising their speakers off the floor with a carbon footstool?
As you said, it's subjective, and to them, it makes an improvement.
It's sad to think this is how they view audio equipment, so you should probably just pity them. Instead of enjoying the music, they worry about the quality of the silver in their cables.
(Nicely mixed metaphor, that.)
It helps to understand that it's a basic characteristic of human nature to want the best, to fear what we have is inadequate, to wonder if our money might improve our estate.
And for those that have the money, they buy the voodoo they think they need, and to them it really DOES make a difference.
But why does it bother you so much if someone states some benefit from raising their speakers off the floor with a carbon footstool?
As you said, it's subjective, and to them, it makes an improvement.
It's sad to think this is how they view audio equipment, so you should probably just pity them. Instead of enjoying the music, they worry about the quality of the silver in their cables.
Apparently it is not fun if it is not based in the simplest science available, according to the razor. On the other hand, I am probably the king of heretical tweaks, not based upon these slices of science, you can see what sort of storms those have brought up, and yet, I still have amazing amounts of fun blowing minds with what can only be magic.
Was at Rene' Jaeger's house on Saturday doing just that. With a pair of his magnepan 2.6R speakers, some 1" X 2" pieces of clear acrylic tape, with restickable adhesive on one side, and the narrow wooden side decorations. I am sure he is still shaking his head and muttering "lunatic".
Bud
- Status
- Not open for further replies.