janneman said:
fdegrove said:Hi,
You're doing it again, Jan.
Do you actually realise how condescending that comes across?
The power of suggestion in this case is: I'm superior, you are just gullible sheep. Amen.
What you suggest is so transparent it's an insult to human intelligence.
Cheers,
Frank, I'm sorry, but I can't follow you. I've read my post several times, where am I condescending? Where do I suggest I am smarter than you or anyone else (I have no reason to think that).
I hope that it's not the word 'intelligence' as such that ticks you off? I could also have given the following example:
"Similarly, in group tests where you tell one group that they are in a lower-than-average-intelligence group, they will tend to perform worse than when they are not told this." Is this more politically acceptable? (And no, I'm not making this up).
Or do you feel that ANY reference to one's intelligence is taboo? No problem, I can also give illustrations about sportsmen where the power of suggestion is also very strong. Just let me know what you are comfortable with.
Edit: Frank, do you interprete the very first sentence as my suggestion that I'm not subject to it and therefore better? If so, let me tell you that I never meant this; it only says I'm aware of the effect, not more, not less. I find it curious that you could interprete it otherwise.
jd
SY said:
I wonder when this focusing on ´LCR´occurs?
Normally the basic description should be a possible (or impossible
) difference after exchanging an interconnect or a speaker cable in an existing sound reproduction system.Normally the bottom line since the beginning of this discussion in the 70´s was, that differences had to occur in the audio band to be audible and if these difference were below the known hearing thresholds than it was concluded that they must be inaudible.
That is a somewhat more general definition because it includes effects based on RFI/EMC and amplifier instabilities as well. While the latter could be grounded on ´LCR´ the RFI/EMC issues wouldn´t be covered by simple ´LCR´discussion.
fredex said:Sure. Audiophiles aren't necessarily after accuracy, that is why they listen to Quad IIs.
Well, then I'm not an audiophile, I like accuracy.
My problem is with some that claim accuracy by quoting freq response and THD measurements taken while driving a resistive load. These measurements will not tell you much about SQ or accuracy in a real system.
I've listened to a system that is widely known for it's excellent specifications but if that is what real instruments should sound like, I would rather not listen to music. I believe good sounding systems will also measure good but all systems that measure good will not necessarily sound good.
No, they would generally fall under one of two categories:
1. Unusual environment (e.g., right next to a 50kW broadcast station antenna) or extremely long (30m or more) runs of cable.
2. Poor amplifier design.
#1 is a vanishingly small subset. It's certainly not a factor in the superhuman claims of the high end tale-spinners who can tell silver from copper or Teflon from polyethylene.
#2 is a reasonably small subset, but in any event, it is trivially easy to provide a competent amplifier. That's why I've made the qualification again and again that the driving amp not be pathological.
Completely personal anecdote: Since getting serious about audio, I've lived in at least 15 different locations. I have never, not once, ever experienced RFI/EMC through my speaker cables (though it must be admitted that I do not tolerate poor quality driving amps). Interconnect wire is a different issue because of signal level and impedances.
fredex said:
I guess that is with cotton used as dielectric.
fredex said: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.
On my system I have only one capacitor directly in the signal path and this is on the tweeters. Currently it is Hovland Musicaps, I'm open for other suggestions, provided it is sort of affordable.
SY said:
That´s still a bit surprising; at the beginning the discussion was not about the point of "superhuman hearing capabilities" but more about known thresholds.
At least from now looking back the categorical character of the conclusion doesn´t seem to be justified.
It is hard to predict what an effect in specific gear a RFI/EMC problem will have. It could be just sort of demodulation, moving of dc offet or working points, alteration/modulation of balancing currents over unbalanced connections and so on.
I know it is easy to be sarcastic over a lot of arguments in audiophilic discussions, but one sometimes has to remember where this comes from.
Quite often the reason is a categorical statement from someone regarding the general impossibility of audibility of something due to physic related reasoning.
At further analysis it often happens that this reasoning is just based on pure psychoacoustics which by it´s nature doesn´t really provide reasons for categorical statements about impossibilities.
I love to hear the QUAD tube amps, never have. Especially like to hear them on the panels.
The 303 and the 405 were designed to drive the Electrostatic panels too. They did an "OK" job at it. But I've heard much,much better on the panels, both solid state and tube. The ESLs are just so glorious. But double stacked they are kinda tough to drive.
Oh, sorry - back to cables.
The 303 and the 405 were designed to drive the Electrostatic panels too. They did an "OK" job at it. But I've heard much,much better on the panels, both solid state and tube. The ESLs are just so glorious. But double stacked they are kinda tough to drive.
Oh, sorry - back to cables.
fredex said:
So the entire history of electronic amplification since the Williamson has been one long masturbatory exercise? No one needs low impedance speakers, let's consign those the poor design exercises like SE tube amps. So how do you guys justify owning anything past a Crown DC150 or Sony home theatre rig on an audible performance basis? The gap between philosophy and practice is conspicuous.
rdf: As you well know, the Williamson had some stability issues and questionable overload recovery. Some progress has been made since then, but you've also noticed that most highly-rated modern tube amps are pretty much clones of old circuits. The real improvements have been power supplies, stability, and overload recovery.
That said, I seriously doubt that anyone could tell the difference between an old Marantz 510 and the latest whiz-bang Parasound/Krell/Ayre if the amps were not clipping and no peeking was allowed. Or, for that matter, any of those amps and the canonical Pioneer receiver, with the same non-clipping proviso.
Before the rocks start flying, anyone who hasn't done a level-matched blind comparison and will still opine is a pitiful gasbag who shouldn't be taken seriously.
edit: I'm speaking of power amps. Preamps are a whole 'nother issue.
That said, I seriously doubt that anyone could tell the difference between an old Marantz 510 and the latest whiz-bang Parasound/Krell/Ayre if the amps were not clipping and no peeking was allowed. Or, for that matter, any of those amps and the canonical Pioneer receiver, with the same non-clipping proviso.
Before the rocks start flying, anyone who hasn't done a level-matched blind comparison and will still opine is a pitiful gasbag who shouldn't be taken seriously.
edit: I'm speaking of power amps. Preamps are a whole 'nother issue.
SY said:
Rocks have flown for 200 pages. The group here with no problem painting 'the superiors' as delusional marketing dupes has a tough slog justifying on a performance basis anything past a used Rotel.
I've used regular non-blind audio comparisons professionally for a generation, between sources I absolutely know are different, and far from supporting your stereotypes of hearing different brands of AM tower obstruction lighting bulbs and grades of network cable, find fast switching obscures and masks very large and real differences. From long personal experience I find the protocol insensitive and easily confusing to the point of being nearly useless and not a reveal-all silver bullet. If long personal and professional experience consigns me to gasbag status, where do I get my T-shirt?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.