I'll explain it in simple terms for you then: you have zero right to tell anyone else how they should spend their time. Unless they are in breach of the rules, as a mere moderator of a website your opinion is not required on the subject.
You apologised for making the previous statement, but now it's been deleted, revisionism can take it's place.
I woke early this morning and have about two hours on the soldering iron already today. How much have you put into your projects today?
PM sent.
Last edited:
Absolutely none. I am one of the unfortunate ones who has to work in a field other than electronics. I start too early to even consider doing anything speakerwise in the mornings. My evenings are often filled with volunteer work, council meetings, strata meetings, technical committee meetings, paperwork and the occasional sit down dinner.
Do you have a point other than to tell me what I should and should be doing as a member of this forum? If so let's take this to email, I'm not into wasting the others valuable time like this.
You forgot to mention people in group A completely disregard any thing that mentions a flaw in DBT'ing. I wonder why? Also people in group A purposly disreguard any logical idea's that don't coincide with DBT'ing having proven cables to be inaudible. Keeping these things in mind I find It hard to believe someone who rejects all idea's outside of his own to be able to change his mind.
Also realize some people posting in absolutes don't have the proper equipment, temperment, or honesty or even a combination of said qualities to even hear the differences.
As for me changing my mind you can show me the accepted standard for human hearing and prove no cable exists that adds distortion, rejects RF and EMI, or alters the original in any way shape or form.
Keep in mind that cables don't alter sound but they "can" allow the signal to pass unmolested if built properly. Only acception to that I know of is silver, its as though silver acts as some kind of high pass filter.
I would also need proof that having all the proof the objectivists wish they had now would change the way I hear my equipment. Otherwise all this is for nothing.
Also realize some people posting in absolutes don't have the proper equipment, temperment, or honesty or even a combination of said qualities to even hear the differences.
As for me changing my mind you can show me the accepted standard for human hearing and prove no cable exists that adds distortion, rejects RF and EMI, or alters the original in any way shape or form.
Keep in mind that cables don't alter sound but they "can" allow the signal to pass unmolested if built properly. Only acception to that I know of is silver, its as though silver acts as some kind of high pass filter.
I would also need proof that having all the proof the objectivists wish they had now would change the way I hear my equipment. Otherwise all this is for nothing.
Hi panikos, not wishing to inflame anything, whilst accepting that there ARE truly some atrocious recordings, I find the vast majority to be excellent really. That of course maybe only applies to what I listen vs what you listen to.
So in my case, ignoring that quite small percentage that ARE bad, I find I 'marvel' more about how good a recording is vs how bad a recording is...I wish (ultimately I never even thought about recording quality, but I guess it is too late in the 'enjoying good systems game' for that to change).
Anyway-just realised I'm waffling a bit!-I get the idea (wrong perhaps) that you don't seem to get a lot of pleasure from listening??? I doubt that, and it's fine to criticise the few bad recordings, but the name of the (only game in town) is to enjoy music??
I'm with markus totally on this, (you might need to remove any desire for a 'totally accurate reproduction of the original event' to make this work), but for me music and recordings are totally enjoyable in a standalone context. They are what they are, nothing more or less.
Bit like a photograph really, no-one in their right mind would feel that they 'transport you into the old illusion'...can't quite think of the right words here, but equally almost everybody loves looking at them, in their own right.
Sure you're not curly??
You keep making these (completely unsubstantiated mind) claims about the failings of dbts. And outright falsehoods.
So, you were unaware that there is no time constraint on how long a dbt can go for??
We explained this (with great difficulty) to curly quite a while ago. He could never seem to grasp it.
Just so's you know, you can take as long as YOU want and need in a dbt. In fact, you can do a dbt exactly in the same way as your normal equipment evaluation process.
Just be unaware of the identity.
Ok??
I don't know how you or others from both sides will see a success or failure for Tom,but I don't think that any one will get rid of his cables and buy more or less expensive ones
SNIP You forgot to include that a lot of us base some of these acceptances on our own dbts. In other words, it it not necessarily blind faith in science and engineers.
Same sort of answer for me as to panikos's earlier quote. Personally, I would find it interesting rather than significant. On one definition, I can see it being significant (ie the first discovery of something), but as it would affect ME not significant at all.
The fact that one person in many has shown they could hear cables with a high degree of confidence would change absolutely nothing about my views that cables, at best, are a very minor factor in good sound.
Hence, anyone with a limited budget (most of us here I'd say) would be wise to ensure their money goes where it would have the best effect.
Eg, anyone who plays with cables in an untreated room is, at the least, ignorant in what constitutes the correct order of importance in audio.
The only area I see for investigation is that between the surface of the wire, the dielectric characteristics, in an obviously sonic domain, of the surrounding materials and the loss of signal coherence due to these interrelationships. In other words, lCr.
I make a good bit of my daily bread from manipulating these interactions, but I have very little objective information to go on, and so, must resort to subjective evaluations to make manufacturing decisions on. I am speaking about transformers here, not EnaBL or Ground Control, and I for one would welcome an investigation that found objective evidence that allowed me to make more precise decisions, rather than divination's.
Bud
I make a good bit of my daily bread from manipulating these interactions, but I have very little objective information to go on, and so, must resort to subjective evaluations to make manufacturing decisions on. I am speaking about transformers here, not EnaBL or Ground Control, and I for one would welcome an investigation that found objective evidence that allowed me to make more precise decisions, rather than divination's.
Bud
Hi Terry,
Yes I'm enjoying most of my LP's/CD's.My comment about bad recordings was done to point out that a transparent and accurate system is not a guarantee of satisfying sound,especially if one has not a reference as to what the engineer was listening at the time of the recording,or how faithfully he has done the recording.If there are recordings that sound good in my system and not good in yours,then surely there will be others that will sound better in yours.Not arguing that a transparent system will do any favours to a bad recording.It won't.Will cables make bad recordings better?No,just as an accurate system won't.Will cables show the qualities of good recordings better?IMO yes,and it is with such recordings I have chosen my cables.
My tastes in music is I guess like many here,from classical,jazz and rock.I still prefer to buy music that I like and not because it is well recorded.
I've yet to see the evidence for your claim that 'we know that DBTs remove unconscious bias'. Did you post it and I missed it? If not, please post it up.
Hi,
That, I am afraid, sounds pretty much like someone digging their own grave....
Cheers,
Why continue to ask people who obviously think Double Blind Testing is flawed and or useless why they are not interested in participating in Double Blind Testing?
Have you ever spent a month or two with a freebie in your system and then swapped in a 500 dollar set of IC's and spent a month listening to the new cables with an objective attitude towards the whole thing? Are you even capable of doing that? Are you interested in doing that?
If not, then is it because you believe cables are inaudible and a comparison like that would be a waste of your time and or money?
People don't really have interest in things they don't believe. I personally don't know what the answer is but getting together with some audio geeks for the sole purpose of swapping out cables has absolutely no appeal for me. Especially after the extensive tube rolling I did. The tube rolling taught me that the methods for your testing were not very effective because I had problems telling tubes apart when purposely swapping then in and out looking for particular differences ie: more bass, smoother highs, etc. I couldn't even do it sighted.
BUT, I was able to discern differences of each tube when I simply put one tube in my preamp and proceeded to listen and enjoy my music for a week or month before trying a new tube. Sometimes I could tell instantly such as the difference between an RCA 12BH7A and a Siemens 5814A, but more often than not the differences were subtle and could not be picked out using an attitude where you go looking for the differences. They are often too complex to be absorbed in a few hours or days.
It has nothing to do with being afraid of participating, It has more to do with being smart enough to know those conditions will not provide any reliable results.
Please try and understand that, your assumption we are all afraid of finding out we wasted money is completely wrong.
That, I am afraid, sounds pretty much like someone digging their own grave....
Cheers,
Last edited:
Should you find yourself in the US, it would be worthwhile to take a few basic courses in sensory research. Here's a program with which I've had experience and highly recommend:
applied sensory science and consumer testing- UC Davis Extension
It may not be as fun as freshman philosophy, but it has the virtue of being correct, useful, and reality-based.
Did you curly? For starters, I do not see any mention is this post that you now know dbt do not require short sessions. At least you have not (yet, to my knowledge) discounted dbts because you listen with your eyes open. (We know you pick components with your eyes open, but that is a different thing to the point I am making.)
So let's examine your latest post, and see just how many good points exist within it shall we?
And those are?? Oh, that's right, you won't say. It's not your job IIRC.
'Those flaws'
'Which flaws are they curly?'
'You know, those flaws. The ones that are there because I hear cables'
'Yeah, but which flaws, exactly, are you talking about?'
'You know, those flaws. The ones that are there because I know I hear cables.'
'Ahhh, those flaws. got you'.
In addition to that, we also disregard the queens english. Now, are these logical ideas any different from 'those flaws'?, or are you simply repeating yourself? You seem to do that a lot, 'I don't like dbt's because they are wrong. I said so'.
I was going to suggest you get on to the bandwagon, good to see you did. Well done. Is one of 'those flaws' the fact that our system is not up to scratch? That is a good point I'll grant, I do not recall anyone ever making that point before in this thread.
See, and this is perhaps another point about dbts in general, or Toms in particular that you may have missed curly. THAT is entirely the reason he will be doing the test on his own system.
It kills quite a few birds with one stone really, it means he can use a decent system (unlike any of ours), it also means he would have the proper temperment...not sure what that means, does it mean that his temper only gets roused for the right reasons???...whatever it actually meant, he will have the right 'it' for the test, unlike any of us, and of course he will be honest unlike any of us blackguards and scoundrels, lying scumbags that we are.
I note with not some little amusement one of the qualities you omitted from your list was 'ears'. Not using your ears DOES seem to be very important in hearing cable differences.
You mean that will change your mind?? Cool, read the thread.
Are you trying to say we have no 'accepted standard for human hearing'?? Really?? I am sure that will be news to those who make a living in the hearing field...may as well pack up and go home as we have no standard by which to measure people. It is there, do a goodle search. That you will accept it seems a little far fetched tho.
Nope. I read it ten times and still cannot understand it. You want me to keep in mind cables don't alter sound, except when they do?? And that all cables do?? Yet keep in mind they don't?? Only exception to cables not changing sound (which they all do, else you would not prefer some cables to others) is silver which does?? When cables don't??
I think you are making me as confused as you on the issue.
Yep, you made some good points.
Please keep it up.
Depends on the meaning of "know." For all I "know," you're an illusion. Or a giant block of tofu that has somehow passed a Turing filter.
For those of us with a more pragmatic view and the basic intelligence to understand it (which, at least in your case, is evident), there's a rich literature in sensory science and experimental psychology. When it comes to auditory questions, it's more useful and pertinent than epistemology.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.