Blind test have nothing to do with "I like it ,or not "..They should discover really audible differences. If blind test show, that someone cannot distinguish two or more audio components by ear , it have no sense to talk about diferences in sound. That´s simple. And differences in sound must be acompanied with differences in signal , other way it is black magic and alchemy..
I cannot allow this vein of thought to float there like a meatball in the air.
Science has absolutely touched on a very large and significant part of audio. To state otherwise is incorrect.
All of it. Certainly not.
Is it a gross exaggeration...somewhat. I see validity on both sides of this fence. In my short time in audio, I've learned this.
A powercord edit(or IC, star ground, ss vs tube)can indeed alter the sound of a system. It can do so via ground loop. I've experienced it with loops 6 feet long and loops 125 feet long. I figured it out, theorized a fix, applied the fix, it worked, I moved on. In point of fact, when Tom Van Doren was here giving his EMC lecture, he stated that it wasn't possible to run an unbalanced audio from one side of a room to another noise free. At lunch break, I explained to him in detail how to do it, what I did, why I did it, and how it worked.
If some poor foolish audiophile says a powercord makes a difference, most "engineers" will state that it CANNOT. CASE CLOSED. Miles and miles of ac wire, PSRR, whatever. AND, they are incorrect.
When an audiophile can here a difference but yet so called "experts" are telling them it cannot, what can the audiophile believe?
I know what I'd think. And I say it right here.
The "experts" don't know what they are talking about (WRT EMC), but are not allowing that fact to stop them from expressing a bad opinion.
Leaving the audiophile only the pseudoscience being spouted by the vendors.
jn
Last edited:
I have never enjoyed headphones that much, either. Aside from blowing out your ears, I believe hearing perception includes the use of your body as well as your ears, per se. Without the impact on your chest, headphones leave me wanting regarding reality.
Attachments
Do you seriously believe that the fields of science indicated here cover completely sound reproduction and perception issues?
Scientific work is not unknown to me, I've spent 10 active years in electrical engineering and solid state physics (ab initio, molecular dynamics and Monte Carlo computer simulations of ion-solid interactions, non-equilibrium processes in solids at atomic level, calculations of 3D distribution of implanted impurities at near-surface layer, mechanisms of diffusion and annihilation, configuration of atomic structure around various point defects).
I've mentioned all this here just to state, that transistors and IC design has absolutely nothing to do with sound perception. And, remember, that if serious mathematicians read "scientific foundations" of signal theory more than 5 minutes, they start to wonder why this model should correctly describe sound perception.
Last edited:
The portion which covers getting an electrical signal from Point A to Point B and scaling it, yes, absolutely. The scientific work that still remains is the interaction of acoustics with perception and how to deal with that on a transducer level. John engineers some excellent products, but this is all stuff that was solved on a technical basis decades ago.
You are erecting a false dichotomy. I was addressing your use of 'very little' in connection with science and audio. If you actually meant to say 'sound perception' then I would say that science has already said a great deal, but there is still more to be said.VladimirK said:
jn makes a good point about 'experts' sometimes speaking without sufficient thinking first. These days I usually try to remember to say that power cables should not make a difference, rather than cannot make a difference. However, the big issue is usually with people who regard themselves as audio experts yet appear to reject science - sort of 'post-modern audio'. Few people would go to see a post-modern dentist or lawyer, yet they seem happy with post-modern audio.
Indeed.
Sound perception lies on acoustic and brain computing. (Psychoacoustic)
Transistors are about amplifying or commuting electrical signals. Those signals can be measured and even simulated.
We don't know yet how to isolate all the electric distortions we can see and figure-out the level of their psycho acoustic effects. But we are on the way and we know, at least, when two signals are identical in a decent frequency range around audio range: 10 to 100 Mhz.
Harmonic distortion, Fourrier analyses, Intermodulation analyses, phases and delays (group delay, phase modulation) etc...
This gives-us an idea of the order of magnitude of the distortions generated by the different elements composing our Hifi system. Regarding those numbers, cables are not on my urgent list. Better grounding is.
*Your* perception cannot and never will be measured.
Post modern pseudo science
[Joke] There is 2 good reasons why Teflon is better than all other isolation materials for cables. High frequencies electrons, carrying most of the audio details, travel on the skin of conductors. Those details can be constrained(1) and trapped(2) by the isolation around. Teflon is the material presenting the less friction forces(1). Teflon is anti adhesive too(2).[/joke]
[Joke] There is 2 good reasons why Teflon is better than all other isolation materials for cables. High frequencies electrons, carrying most of the audio details, travel on the skin of conductors. Those details can be constrained(1) and trapped(2) by the isolation around. Teflon is the material presenting the less friction forces(1). Teflon is anti adhesive too(2).[/joke]
They are on top, now, you are my cable's guruWell, they should be...
Last edited:
Christophe,
I completely understand what you were saying earlier about what a recording engineers job is. Having spent years around the PA industry doing live music and also spending more time in a studio than in high school I understand the power of the sound engineer. The exact same PA or studio system can sound so different in two different persons hands. These are creative position that can and do make the music, whether it is involving or just a lot of noise for the listener. The sound-scape on any album is in the engineers hands. I have never heard a live simulcast that sounded as good as a post processed recording where things are put into balance and any problems from the venue corrected.
That being the case after the recording is finished I can not see any way that any hifi system can then make something better than it is at that point. You could change something, remove to much high frequency content or boost the bass if that is what you want but that is no longer a true reproduction of what is in the recorded music. You can not make a bad recording good, if you have subjectively done that you have change it from its original final form.
I see no way that any preamplifier can improve the music, and I don't think that is what it is ever supposed to do. As someone else said we are only selecting sources or just increasing the level of the source component enough to drive the amplifier stage. So to me the object there is to do no harm to the original signal, period. Nothing added or removed. Unless of course you are using a tone control and then that is for personal reasons, not to necessarily improve the original recording.
As far as the loudspeakers are concerned it would be nice to have a perfect reproducer but I think that we are far from that point. Whether horns or direct radiators there are no perfect devices, some better than others but nothing that is perfect. I think that this is the weak link in the entire reproduction chain. Those who love the dynamics of a horn system I can understand, but very few compression drivers are that great, a few are exceptional but noting is perfect. The same goes for any direct radiators, no dome tweeter that I know of is not going to have some hash or breakup modes in the higher frequencies. The only device I have ever heard that could get the upper frequencies correct was the TAD ET-703 where I could actually identify a difference between a triangle and what otherwise would just be some type of cymbal. I am not saying that nothing else can do this, but I have not heard anything that did. On the other hand I can't imagine any horn loaded bass system in a room that could ever get down to 20hz by itself, not unless the horn was as big as the side of the room, and a big room at that. So we can have hybrid systems and hope that we can integrate all of the components together to achieve our goals. This really seems to be the elephant in the room no matter what the electronic components are, no matter how great they are, the major error is always in the loudspeakers.
I completely understand what you were saying earlier about what a recording engineers job is. Having spent years around the PA industry doing live music and also spending more time in a studio than in high school I understand the power of the sound engineer. The exact same PA or studio system can sound so different in two different persons hands. These are creative position that can and do make the music, whether it is involving or just a lot of noise for the listener. The sound-scape on any album is in the engineers hands. I have never heard a live simulcast that sounded as good as a post processed recording where things are put into balance and any problems from the venue corrected.
That being the case after the recording is finished I can not see any way that any hifi system can then make something better than it is at that point. You could change something, remove to much high frequency content or boost the bass if that is what you want but that is no longer a true reproduction of what is in the recorded music. You can not make a bad recording good, if you have subjectively done that you have change it from its original final form.
I see no way that any preamplifier can improve the music, and I don't think that is what it is ever supposed to do. As someone else said we are only selecting sources or just increasing the level of the source component enough to drive the amplifier stage. So to me the object there is to do no harm to the original signal, period. Nothing added or removed. Unless of course you are using a tone control and then that is for personal reasons, not to necessarily improve the original recording.
As far as the loudspeakers are concerned it would be nice to have a perfect reproducer but I think that we are far from that point. Whether horns or direct radiators there are no perfect devices, some better than others but nothing that is perfect. I think that this is the weak link in the entire reproduction chain. Those who love the dynamics of a horn system I can understand, but very few compression drivers are that great, a few are exceptional but noting is perfect. The same goes for any direct radiators, no dome tweeter that I know of is not going to have some hash or breakup modes in the higher frequencies. The only device I have ever heard that could get the upper frequencies correct was the TAD ET-703 where I could actually identify a difference between a triangle and what otherwise would just be some type of cymbal. I am not saying that nothing else can do this, but I have not heard anything that did. On the other hand I can't imagine any horn loaded bass system in a room that could ever get down to 20hz by itself, not unless the horn was as big as the side of the room, and a big room at that. So we can have hybrid systems and hope that we can integrate all of the components together to achieve our goals. This really seems to be the elephant in the room no matter what the electronic components are, no matter how great they are, the major error is always in the loudspeakers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.