That's absolutely false. I posted earlier the Spice network demonstrating that Gordon Gow's recommended maximum length of 16 gauge speaker cable into a typical PartsExpress project resulted in almost a full decibel variance across wide sections of the audio band. Years ago my brother, a hard audio skeptic, measured nearly the same amount of variance at home using an MLSSA system. He quickly dumped the cables widely considered adequate.
0.025 dB probably requires welder's cable to approach, something you already appear to 'know' isn't required.
Presumably Michaelson-Morley's results were duplicated countless times since? Where is this equivalent body of peer-reviewed DBTs on cables?
I don't know about physics,but according to a mathemetician friend of mine,maths can explain everything,including sex.His wife divorced him two months after they got married.
Well, I don't disagree with you. But many are the times that I linked to tests and reports where DBT's were done and no statistically relevant differences were found. I get a bit tired of it and stopped doing it long time ago. It doesn't really enrich my life if someone all of a sudden understands the subtleties of perception, so why should I continue to poor my scarce free time into getting them to?
People just dont WANT to understand lest it upsets their world view, the horse led to water and all that. And BTW I don't think anyone claimed that there is any test that proves cables are undistinguisable. For one, cable differences DO exists and can be heard, but those differences, as far as I experienced them, could be explained by measurements. Secondly, you can only prove by test that differences do exist, not that they don't.
jdr
One of the pecularities that almost nobody knows (and it's blissfull ignorance for many) is the feedback mechanism in the brain-ear system as illustrated in the attached. Note the operative word 'simplified'
jd
That's very interesting, I hope its not negative feedback.
Why does anybody want special "golden" ears that allow them to NOT enjoy music?
Regards - Godfrey
I don't have golden ears but what make you think that I don't enjoy the music? I just like to hear it as realistic as possible, what is wrong with that.
That's very interesting, I hope its not negative feedback.
I hope it is, unless you want to blow your brains out
jd
Well you seem to think that you don't have to do a DBT in order to understand it better, I hope those that did the testing don't have the same idea's. It should be very easy to set up a system that nobody will hear differences on, if that is what you want to proof.
I've read that theory, very interesting, however I have to listen with my subjective ears, they don't seem to care about maths.
I hope it is, unless you want to blow your brains out
jd
I didn't mean that type of 'negative' though, more like cancel what you hear.I don't know about physics,but according to a mathemetician friend of mine,maths can explain everything,including sex.His wife divorced him two months after they got married.
Well said Panicos.I've been following this thread mostly as a fascinated spectator.
Sure, cables make a difference. I suspect, from my experience, connectors make a bigger difference. My experience is empirical.
Hang on, there is a point to this.
I used to use kind of skinny lamp cord as speaker cables. A fiend gave me a lot of good Cat5 from a demo. I thought well, this is nice and fat, and free, so let's play with it. Hooked up the speakers with the Cat5 and the sound was "better". Came back the next day and the sound was awfully bad - worse than with the lamp cord.
I listen to symphonic music and the difference between the lampcord and the Cat5 on the first day was this: I could hear the inner parts of the music a bit more clearly and the violins sounded a little more "violiny" - not a huge thing but nice to have.
On the second day the inner parts were even less distinguishable and the strings a little less "stringy". So what could have changed? Could I have fooled myself day before in my enthusiasm for novelty? Possible, but lets check the connections - cleaned them, tightened them, and the sound improved to the standard of day before..
I then thought maybe the original connections with lamp cord weren't up to snuff - put it back with clean, tight connections and it sounded OK, but not quite as good as the Cat5. So perhaps the original connection with lamp cord had deteriorated.....
So that's the empirical experience, so far.
There is another aspect to this empirical experience. I could hear a difference. Fine, that's no big deal. The trick is DESCRIBING the differences I could hear. Was I fooling myself? Was I imagining these differences? Probably not - I'm in live venues quite often close to orchestras and singers so I know what they sound like. And the differences were reasonably gross.
What is extremely difficult to describe and thus to know, is what happened psychoacoustically. I THINK I know what happened: the bad connections and the ancient lampcord introduced enough noise into the signal that when it was reproduced by the speakers some of the quieter musical information was masked by the noise.
I've read quite a bit of psychoacoustic literature and this seems a reasonable conclusion on my part.
But, if I want to PROVE my conclusion beyond reasonable doubt, then I would have to do some blind tests.
Are you incapable of understanding the point being made???
No worries pano, to me your line of thought is far more interesting (and possibly more able to come to real world conclusions) than the endless gasbagging going on.
But we are very probably in a minority.
Sigh. What are we, women or men?? I thought gossiping and bickering were for the women..or so the innuendo goes.
Men are probably vastly more nasty and fishwifey than women will ever be.
Yep, no tests, tho I see Bud has offered some cables for use. One fleeting acknowledgement.....Nope, we will not see any of the JAIBS step up to the plate.
Not sure I completely followed your line here. Of COURSE mine has to sound good..I know you did not mean otherwise....all I do is follow the things that make a REAL difference, and ignore the trivial. That to me is not harder, far easier
Correct, aus is a big place, as is the states. But, I am willing (as offered many times) to go and do a test at andy's place (so it can be on his system etc, all the usual guff that andre likes to talk about as being essential...good game last night andre, habana certainly made an impact for the ba-ba's!!), and that is at least a five hour drive away.
There IS a lot of gtgs that happen over here, lot's of lovely systems I have heard which is great.
Note that curly completely ignored my questions to him...he could not even answer a hypothetical question.
Another thing I find interesting, is the continued insistence from the cable guys that the dbt's etc need to be rigorous (I agree), need to involve trained listeners (good if you can get them) and need to be calibrated by finding levels of JND's say (yeah, would be good).
Why those stipulations?
Because they also need to find reasons/excuses that explain why those same dbt's do NOT reach the same findings as ALL the non-rigorous sighted tests that never use trained listeners and have absolutely NO level of controls or calibrations!!!
Oh the lovely hypocrisy.
My audio theory is simple. BIG MONEY is reserved for the items with a BIG EFFECT.
Items with a LITTLE EFFECT get awarded LITTLE money.
Which is why I feel ripped off when I have to spend more than a few dollars per meter for cabling.
Why is the audiophile world so back to front??
The less results a component gives you the more you pay!! Crazy stuff (hint, because it is soooo hard to get that last poofteenth percent improvement and so we are on the cutting edge of physics and engineering hahahahaha..what a crock of ****)
Doomlord_uk (great handle by the way) you have been arguing cogently about this issues. But I don't think the subjectivists are ever going to be convinced.
Your best bet is to convince those who are open to the results from science and engineering, who don't follow fads, and are skeptical of claims by manufacturers and retailers about expensive cables. Hopefully some of those people read this thread.
I find it passing strange that the subjectivists don't see the category error they are making: they base their knowledge on their own experience, not in a controlled environment. They seem incapable of acknowledging that they are fallible, can be biased and engage in wishful thinking (they must be infallible audio gods!). And instead of keeping their claims within the subjective sphere, they make claims that extend beyond their own experience. They make claims that "cables sound different", and "if you can't hear the differences then its because your system is not good enough". These are claims that posit an objective criteria and objective tests, but no, they will have none of that.
Last edited:
Sorry what were your questions. Things happen pretty fast around here so sometimes I miss some stuff. I would hate to not answer an important question.
Convinced of what? That we have suddenly become deaf? Sorry my ears are still working great at 52
I have proven to myself over many years that know what I hear when I indeed hear it. I find it hard for some people to understand that science has not proven that we can not hear anything, just that it is not consistent in the realm of the testing procedures that have been studied. If you are going to stand behind science, please get the facts right
Last edited:
Hey thanks curly. I get what you mean, glad I wasn't sarcastic now!!! I would have felt ashamed when fronted with your reasonable response
Bit of a waffle, but in there is a hypothetical that I wonder how you would respond.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ake-difference-any-input-214.html#post2002033
fredex (I think ) asked a little while back whether or not you guys felt the knowledge we have of psychoacoustics applied to you guys. (hope I got that kinda right)
Curly, can I ask you (without the answer prejudicing any thing you have ever said ok? just a straight answer to this question), do you accept or not accept the 'finding' (for example) that a level difference between components can lead to descriptions that do NOT include level differences.
Nothing to do with cables, just trying to guage what you accept or not accept.
I get it that you (and others) do not concede that being aware of the cables used has influenced you, I get that. Even tho that does NOT apply in your case, do you accept or not accept that such a phenomenon exists??? Ie, that being aware of which component is which CAN affect the persons judgement??
As I say, trying to get a handle what part of 'psychoacoustics' you (and others) can agree with.
We both know that it will eventually lead to the question 'what have you done to account for these influences you acknowledge exists'
, but for now truly just trying to get a feel.thanks.
When all else fails ask a "have you stopped beating your wife?" question.
may I ask what your audio system is?
If your answer is budget big box store equipment. They respond "how do you expect to hear small differences with stuff like that?'.
If your answer is equipment that is on the magazine's top rated list. They respond either "Why did you get expensive equipment like that if no differences can be heard?" or they will explain why those units don't interface well together.
may I ask what your audio system is?
If your answer is budget big box store equipment. They respond "how do you expect to hear small differences with stuff like that?'.
If your answer is equipment that is on the magazine's top rated list. They respond either "Why did you get expensive equipment like that if no differences can be heard?" or they will explain why those units don't interface well together.
You may be right, but I noticed a long silence after I answered the same question.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.