Testing under controlled conditions will cause their own issues with each individual. "forcing" the subject to be selective, will mask any possible results. Most people that are comparing cables will allow them to be in their system for a period of time before trying to make any choices. I find that when I remove the "test" component" and replace the "reference", again while listening to music as my control, this is when I can find what I like or dislike about the "test" component, in my personal system. Rationalization is not apart of what I am trying to achieve. I am simply looking for a more emotional connection to the music I listen too in my system.
Listening to music is an emotional connection, not an analytic condition. Maybe I forgot how to listen to music somewhere along the way.....
Listening to music is an emotional connection, not an analytic condition. Maybe I forgot how to listen to music somewhere along the way.....
John will certainly understand.
Here's an amusing explanation for those too young or those trapped here in Texas, safely insulated from West Coast pop culture:
est and Werner Erhard - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
As Do I, though for me it was in the form of "The Forum" in 1985.. Don't regret having parted with the money which at the time was a lot for someone saving to put himself through uni. Was it life changing? Probably, but not necessarily for the reasons claimed.. certainly I didn't feel the need to attend all of the ongoing "training" after the event
Why is it I always seem to reply to the off topic bits... ah well such is life BTW I thought I had given this thread the kiss of death the last time I posted (I'm sure a lot wished it was so), but it seems to have come back with a vengeance
At least it is humerous because of the intent for it to be so now Tony.
Ok, replace cancer with "mental health".
And speaking about "science", how can you still invoke science when your supporting arguments are of this kind: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ake-difference-any-input-541.html#post1902919
Last edited:
There was a time when science told us that the Earth was flat too
What about quantum physics? That seemed to have stood the known scientific world on their heads too. Maybe science just does not have an answer for this one yet. I have hope though.
Last edited:
@ syn08,
"mental health" wouldn´t help either as it is totally inappropriate to argue with any serious disease in this discussion.
Regarding the other part of your answer; i don´t get it at that point- i was clearly just addressing a specific argument of yours from another post.
You were arguing that cable manufacturers weren´t supporting (or participating in) any dbt attempts and i gave 3 examples of manufacturers that just did it.
Illustrating my argument that doing so did not (does not) help them in any of the camps.
Maybe you could be more specific which part of my post would be in contrary to any scientific reasoning?
Wishes
"mental health" wouldn´t help either as it is totally inappropriate to argue with any serious disease in this discussion.
Regarding the other part of your answer; i don´t get it at that point- i was clearly just addressing a specific argument of yours from another post.
You were arguing that cable manufacturers weren´t supporting (or participating in) any dbt attempts and i gave 3 examples of manufacturers that just did it.
Illustrating my argument that doing so did not (does not) help them in any of the camps.
Maybe you could be more specific which part of my post would be in contrary to any scientific reasoning?
Wishes
Syn08, go play with your science projects, we are busy with serious stuff that you will not understand.
There was a time when science told us that the Earth was flat too
Dangerous field Curly.
At least the first is partly wrong as it was more a religious belief (surely supported by some socalled scientist at that time), but scientists alreday knew better a couple of hundred (thousand ? ) years before that.
And it is well known that science had always some problems with its own meaning and truth, at least because scientists are human beings.
A still very interesting essay on this topic is:
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions .
Wishes
Very specific: invoking that company's results in testing cables is an insult to anybody's mental health. It is also something I should not use in anything that would qualify as a serious discussion.
But I have to concede, it is an excellent point for this thread, having nothing but an entertainment value.
Now I have to do some really serious stuff: paint my speaker's cables in peaceful, tranquil blue. And to scientifically baste the turkey.
Last edited:
I'm still not getting your point. He claims to hear a difference. The frequency responses are different. There are no pathological components (remember that qualification!) that have stability or drive issues (it is trivial to find competent components, you have to seek out the bad ones). You eq out frequency response and level differences, about which there is ZERO controversy regarding audibility. Voila, the cables sound the same. If the user then, in the face of matched levels and frequency responses, still claims to hear a difference, he has a hurdle to overcome to demonstrate that there are invisible horses- that's his hurdle, not mine as someone engineering a rational solution to a technical problem.
In general we all tend to believe in what we know, or think we know, and prefer to stay with things we can touch, or "found" as a proven fact
Its a request fore feeling safety and protection
Maybe leftovers from our stone age life
Its also common to disbelieve "experts" who say the opposite of what we wanted to hear
Intelligence is no exception, on the contrary
The real exception are people/experts so deeply respected that we believe anything they say or do, right or wrong
And THATS where the real power is
Its a general tendency that influence everything we do, and basic facts we have to deal with
Its a request fore feeling safety and protection
Maybe leftovers from our stone age life
Its also common to disbelieve "experts" who say the opposite of what we wanted to hear
Intelligence is no exception, on the contrary
The real exception are people/experts so deeply respected that we believe anything they say or do, right or wrong
And THATS where the real power is
Its a general tendency that influence everything we do, and basic facts we have to deal with
Last edited:
Back to differences in cables!
Generally I do not agree with the title of this threat, as I find there is certain differences between different types of cable.
But I think these differences can be explained scientifically and logically, and generally these differences are exagerated.
Have a look at audioholics series of articles about cables and their properties.
Pear Cable Redux: How to Combat Scam with Science — Reviews and News from Audioholics
The author is a strict scientifically oriented man.
Also it is pretty healthy to keep both of your feet on the ground, and trying to stay logical and objective towards all the marketing drivel of this strange industry.
One should know that producing even exotic cable with customer specified properties, does not cost a lot of money, as it normally is done in pretty large quantities, and the materials are not very expensive. However a certain up front payment for set up og the machinery has to be expected. LAP, Belden and other large manufacturers of quality cable, do actually often know what they are doing, otherwise neither your computer nor your cellphone would work. So one do have to credit the engineers @ these large manufacturers some knowledge I think. They are with certainty not ignorants all of them.
Often you can find customers writing user-reviews of their new cables, which seems as if cables are the one most important component of a high end stereo system. I even met nerds claiming that "the longer the cable the better".
Also I´ve encountered people paying almost ½ the price of their system for IC´s, power and speaker cables, and even the same price for their amps as for their powercable for it.
This seems both unnecessary and pretty silly, but the interesting part is how did this happen at all.
Some vendors developed very precise and clever strategies and statagems for their demos of their products. If ever atending such a demo, then be aware of the setting of the volume control. It has to be at the exact same position at all times. At best it is never touched throughout the complete demo. Also the choise of music is important, as old distorted records of oldtime stars, often tends to be favoured by cables and gear, not that acurate. Choosing newer and often even simpler enthusiast recordings will lead you elsewhere.
Which an fact brings us back to the breaking point of all cable manufacturers. They want to give you the music you like the most pleasuring way. Who hates Elvis Presley, Roling Stones, Beatles, Fleetwood Mc, Deep Purple, Santana, Eric Clapton, Hendrix, Stevie Ray and all the other heroes as well. I do not, and i hope only Taliban does, as they brought all of us a lot of pleasure and joyful hours. But their recordings are mostly terrible technical mistakes.
So I think you have to decide whether you want your favourite disasters to sound pleasing, or you want your jewels to sound accurate.
An analogy to this is: If you got a beaytifull wife, then turn on the light, if you don´t, screw out the bulb.
PS! And best of all, some vendor of cables claim that a speaker cable should be ecxactly xx cm´s long to provide optimum performance.
Generally I do not agree with the title of this threat, as I find there is certain differences between different types of cable.
But I think these differences can be explained scientifically and logically, and generally these differences are exagerated.
Have a look at audioholics series of articles about cables and their properties.
Pear Cable Redux: How to Combat Scam with Science — Reviews and News from Audioholics
The author is a strict scientifically oriented man.
Also it is pretty healthy to keep both of your feet on the ground, and trying to stay logical and objective towards all the marketing drivel of this strange industry.
One should know that producing even exotic cable with customer specified properties, does not cost a lot of money, as it normally is done in pretty large quantities, and the materials are not very expensive. However a certain up front payment for set up og the machinery has to be expected. LAP, Belden and other large manufacturers of quality cable, do actually often know what they are doing, otherwise neither your computer nor your cellphone would work. So one do have to credit the engineers @ these large manufacturers some knowledge I think
. They are with certainty not ignorants all of them.Often you can find customers writing user-reviews of their new cables, which seems as if cables are the one most important component of a high end stereo system. I even met nerds claiming that "the longer the cable the better".
Also I´ve encountered people paying almost ½ the price of their system for IC´s, power and speaker cables, and even the same price for their amps as for their powercable for it.
This seems both unnecessary and pretty silly, but the interesting part is how did this happen at all.
Some vendors developed very precise and clever strategies and statagems for their demos of their products. If ever atending such a demo, then be aware of the setting of the volume control. It has to be at the exact same position at all times. At best it is never touched throughout the complete demo. Also the choise of music is important, as old distorted records of oldtime stars, often tends to be favoured by cables and gear, not that acurate. Choosing newer and often even simpler enthusiast recordings will lead you elsewhere.
Which an fact brings us back to the breaking point of all cable manufacturers. They want to give you the music you like the most pleasuring way. Who hates Elvis Presley, Roling Stones, Beatles, Fleetwood Mc, Deep Purple, Santana, Eric Clapton, Hendrix, Stevie Ray and all the other heroes as well. I do not, and i hope only Taliban does, as they brought all of us a lot of pleasure and joyful hours. But their recordings are mostly terrible technical mistakes.
So I think you have to decide whether you want your favourite disasters to sound pleasing, or you want your jewels to sound accurate.
An analogy to this is: If you got a beaytifull wife, then turn on the light, if you don´t, screw out the bulb.
PS! And best of all, some vendor of cables claim that a speaker cable should be ecxactly xx cm´s long to provide optimum performance.
Last edited:
Sorry Kurt, but you need to think again
Its unfortunately a common conclusion from people who think they have reached the goal, but in reality only half way there
It really is possible to have it all, without limitations
Haha I think both of you are painting extreme pictures. Maybe it's just the way words come out.
On the one hand I think calling what Hendrix and the Beatles recorded "terrible technical mistakes" should be laughable for obvious reasons. BUT do the artists you listed have "mistake free" recordings? No. Could the commercial copies have been mastered better? With the intention to be played on a system with a flat frequency response. Yes. Also consider that these were mixed in a different time when a set of speakers with a somewhat flat FR from 20Hz - 20kHz was pretty much non existent.
And on the other hand tinitus seems to be dangling a mythical carrot in front of the audiophile claiming that there are systems out there which will make all source material sound glorious despite the FR of said recordings.
Somehow I don't think either of you are exactly right.
On the one hand I think calling what Hendrix and the Beatles recorded "terrible technical mistakes" should be laughable for obvious reasons. BUT do the artists you listed have "mistake free" recordings? No. Could the commercial copies have been mastered better? With the intention to be played on a system with a flat frequency response. Yes. Also consider that these were mixed in a different time when a set of speakers with a somewhat flat FR from 20Hz - 20kHz was pretty much non existent.
And on the other hand tinitus seems to be dangling a mythical carrot in front of the audiophile claiming that there are systems out there which will make all source material sound glorious despite the FR of said recordings.
Somehow I don't think either of you are exactly right.
And on the other hand tinitus seems to be dangling a mythical carrot in front of the audiophile claiming
I really like that one
that there are systems out there which will make all source material sound glorious despite the FR of said recordings.
THAT I didnt claim
A lot of music you will still have to take fore what it is, good music
What I do claim is that theres a lot more good sounding recordings than may realise
Usually its the speakers that fail and are not up to the job
Its my opinion that its mostly about placing the unavoidable distortion correctly
Simply put you have the fundamental tonal structures in one passband/driver, and a lot else like distortion figures in another passband/driver
If this is not coherent it will result in unbareable sound
btw, accuracy is the same fore trimming motors, musical instruments etc
Try to listen to the sweet and smooth sound from a FormelOne racer. Thats only possible because of exstreme accuracy
Same thing really
Quite funny really, when my racebike runs as sweet and smooth as possible, it actually sounds much like the music I hear when coming home from a ride, in tune
Last edited:
Just to be a bit pedantic in this point- i was just invoking the fact that this manufacturer was strongly recommending "structured double blind comparisons" to his distributors/dealers/customers and that he had designed and manufactured a switching device to help in this comparisons.
You was invoking other parts of their web site / technical descriptions for reasons i only could speculate about but am not willing to do so.
Wishes
Ouch!
But I guess I've been there, too. And too often in my own home. That's why I gave up on all recorded music from 1991 to 2004. Just did not like the way it sounded, any of it.
A gang of science charlatans and snake oil merchands cannot have any recommendation taken seriously.
Would you have surgery to a hospital that proudly advertises their voodoo procedures outstanding results. A question mark is not required.
Otherwise, please go ahead and speculate as much as you want. It would only give me the opportunity to tell what I really think about e.g. the cable directionality and break in promoters (if not already clear enough).
That was fun
Offaxis and diffraction is very old news really
Diffraction tests was done way back in the late seventies
The paper, tests and measurements was made by a danish guy, and the only reason I know about it
It helped a lot, and many design really did seem to improve over the years
But time have also shown that it needs a bit more than that
OK, let's take that as a starting point. I know it's a bit of a rehash, but we don't seem to be afraid of that in this thread.
If we somehow remove the EQ and level differences, will all cables sound the same? Can dynamic range be affected by cables? Noise can, but is it an issue with speaker cables?
Which brings us to a rather mundane question: Do "better" cables give flatter, more accurate response? What is the threshold for "better?"
Another question:
What could be the possible good qualities a cable may possess other than flat FR and low noise?
* Dynamics?
* Bandwidth?
* Impulse response?
* Detail?
Just wondering what qualities might make a cable "better." If we know what they might be, can we measure them?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.