I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[janneman]

Originally posted by janneman
Agreed, I am well aware of these effects. Simlarly, in group tests where you tell one group that they have been selected because of their intelligence, they perform better than when they are not told this. Such is the power of suggestion. Ask any football coach.

The way I see it, it only reinforces the need for tests that are controlled as best as possible. An ABX test isn't perfect, but runs rings around a casual, uncontrolled 'test'.

jd

Originally posted by fdegrove
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

[fredex]

Originally posted by BudP
. . . . . . .Totaling it all up, not counting the Planet 10 Fostex / Fonken speakers which are not mine, my system cost $684.00. Including my reference speakers, $1164. I will have a pair of OB with 12" Zenith Alnico, Peerless alnico mids and Bozak alnico aluminum cone tweeters shortly. Cost is $184 total. They and the baffles will be EnABL'd at a cost of 4 hours and $3. I have spent time with the expensive stuff. It all sounds very impressive, but I like to listen to just the music.
Bud

Apart from the EnABL I can dig all of that, especially the last bit. Cheers.

[Jakob2]

Originally posted by SY

<snip>
"There's no physical reason that effects beyond LCR should be audible,
<snip>

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.

[Andre Visser]

Originally posted by fredex
Sure. Audiophiles aren't necessarily after accuracy, that is why they listen to Quad IIs. They want to be 'transported' and accuracy won't do it for some. That is cool, whatever turns their crank, but what amuses me is the notion that less accurate systems are actually more accurate in the sense that they are capable of somehow unlocking "low level information / details" that are buried in the recording which really accurate systems seem to lose.

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.

[SY]

the RFI/EMC issues wouldn´t be covered by simple ´LCR´discussion.

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.

[Andre Visser]

Originally posted by fredex
I've heard anecdotal reports that it really makes an audible difference. Provided your system is revealing enough.

I guess that is with cotton used as dielectric.

Originally posted by fredex
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.

[Andre Visser]

Originally posted by SY
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.

Wow, thanks SY, you must get up here sometime that we can show you how.

Originally posted by SY
(though it must be admitted that I do not tolerate poor quality driving amps).

Talking about the Quad?

[jlsem]

I will look to physics to steer me in the right direction and then decide for myself what sounds "good" because its subjective.

And that makes you different from most audiophiles how?

John

[Andre Visser]

Originally posted by panomaniac
Otherwise what's the matter with tweaking? Isn't that supposed to be part of the fun?

Surely it can't be fun if you have ten or eleven thumbs.

[Jakob2]

Originally posted by SY


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.

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.