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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why not ask one of the experts here? They know exactly how to correct that. It has something to do with buying expensive gear and cables. Then it will even work with any recording. It's just amazing.

Where did you read that?

IME the better the system became the easier it get to hear recording flaws but luckily the realism created by the few good recordings available make up for that.
 
Great, so what do you argue against?

Your post 12808 naturally.Your(and others) faulse and ironic assumption that audiophiles are idiots and expect from their cables to correct a bad recording.Your blind arrogance that tries in vain to persuade everyone here that you have to be some EE etc.........to be able to judge sound or music,or all audiophiles buy thousands of dollars of cables etc.........
You don't seem to understand or accept that one doesn't have to be able to write a chess computer program to be able to play chess,or cook to judge a taste.Yes,I believe I have done much more cable tests than most here,from a few cents to thousands of dollars.What have you done yourself?And before you ask me well,I nust have tested a few thousands of cables over the last 25 years,and keep going.I can send you my latest cable test notes if you want,but what will change for you?
 
That implies that you have delivered any arguments. But you have not. Once in a while you just throw cryptic sentences into the discussion. I asked you for a simple link a couple of posts ago which you refused to give. So I had to conclude that you're not really interested in a discussion.

Sorry you find them cryptic. Perform a thread search under my name. If help with the search feature is required just ask.
Playing this game where my failure to search for you is an argument is as sad as it is pointless. Claiming I made no technical arguments is perfectly false, and perfectly in line with your string of baseless ad hominems. Answering my earlier question would make a good basis for further discussion, and as a side benefit demonstrate a grasp of concepts deeper than parroting 'audiophool'.
 
btw, I do not understand "our own understanding of best accuracy",

Perhaps perception would be closer to what I meant.
Vey true about recording engineers in many cases,and no one is obliged to accept their "accuracy".:)
On the other hand I don't think that any of my equipment suffers from any lack of accuracy or distorts more or less than the systems of most people here,including those "competently" designed ones:)
 
Last edited:
I believe a live event is a point in history. There is no way to accurately reproduce that live event unless the accoustics of our rooms closely matches that of the live event location.

Perhaps not accurately but with a good system and a good recording it is however possible to recreate the accoustics of the live event realistically enough to sense that space (and not your listening room) when you close your eyes and listen.
 
Perhaps not accurately but with a good system and a good recording it is however possible to recreate the accoustics of the live event realistically enough to sense that space (and not your listening room) when you close your eyes and listen.

Again, this is not an accurate reproduction period. Im no expert in acoustics but there is no way in hell you can reproduce a live event from a stadium, concert hall, etc in a 12x18 room.


You obviously do not understand that when you close your eyes and listen you are essentially let your brain imagine the live event. You give your brain little credit it seems, its an extremely powerful tool that when given the chance will convince people of almost anything.

That is one of the biggest problems with the subjective audiophile type, they seem to not understand how the brain functions.
 
Your post 12808 naturally.Your(and others) faulse and ironic assumption that audiophiles are idiots and expect from their cables to correct a bad recording.Your blind arrogance that tries in vain to persuade everyone here that you have to be some EE etc.........to be able to judge sound or music,or all audiophiles buy thousands of dollars of cables etc.........
You don't seem to understand or accept that one doesn't have to be able to write a chess computer program to be able to play chess,or cook to judge a taste.Yes,I believe I have done much more cable tests than most here,from a few cents to thousands of dollars.What have you done yourself?And before you ask me well,I nust have tested a few thousands of cables over the last 25 years,and keep going.I can send you my latest cable test notes if you want,but what will change for you?

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ke-difference-any-input-1256.html#post2125754

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ke-difference-any-input-1264.html#post2130231

Was this a promise you can't keep?
 
l when given the chance will convince people of almost anything.

Not arguing with that either.However,when you know what you are after,this chance is not given to your brain from just about anything simply because it is expensive,or has a nice colour etc.....I can't and don't know how to prove it,but brains are not always our enemies:)Mine,has rejected beautiful and expensive,cheap and ugly equipment many times:D
 

If you mean my notes,it is a promise I will keep.I also told you to give me some time because of my mother's health problem.She got out of the hospital today so I can spare some more time now.I spent around 50 hours a week at the studio,and had 3-4 hours to sleep these days.
 
Again, this is not an accurate reproduction period. Im no expert in acoustics but there is no way in hell you can reproduce a live event from a stadium, concert hall, etc in a 12x18 room.

You are right a stadium might push it a bit but luckily the music I like most are normally performed in smaller venues.

You obviously do not understand that when you close your eyes and listen you are essentially let your brain imagine the live event. You give your brain little credit it seems, its an extremely powerful tool that when given the chance will convince people of almost anything.

Normally I'm getting accused of giving the brain too much credit. :confused:

That is one of the biggest problems with the subjective audiophile type, they seem to not understand how the brain functions.

Luckily you know. ;) All I understand is that the more accurately you can reproduce a good recording, the easier it become for the brain to detect and process these cues, making for a more realistic and believable experience.
 
Top right beneath page count > "Search This Thread" > "Advanced Search". User name in the right box, criteria in the left.

:) I know how it works. I just don't search through all your posts. You were implying in post #12686 that 18 AWG speaker cables have an audible effect. I just wanted to quickly check the data and do the math if there are any inconsistencies. But in the end I would have said that in most realistic cases one should just use standard 13 AWG and forget about cables forever.
 
You are saying that accuracy doesn't matter as long as the listener is "satisfied".

Interestingly the current technology chain (for competently designed products) from CD to solid state amp to speakers via cables is more accurate than our ears can resolve, except for the end point, the speakers. Up to that point performance is at a level that can't be improved upon (ie improvements that can be heard). Such is the legacy of relentless audio engineering including double blind tests to determine what we can and can't audibly resolve.

If loudspeakers were as accurate and flat as amps in all useful propagation angles, we'd be in audio nirvana. Then we'd just be left with room fix-up.:)

Whats disappointing is that the researchers and manufacturers haven't nailed the non-linearities of mechanical transducers in the same way that they have nailed other devices in the chain. A lack of focus perhaps? Or is it just too hard to crack?

Sorry, quite a bit OT.
 
Interestingly the current technology chain (for competently designed products) from CD to solid state amp to speakers via cables is more accurate than our ears can resolve, except for the end point, the speakers. Up to that point performance is at a level that can't be improved upon (ie improvements that can be heard). Such is the legacy of relentless audio engineering including double blind tests to determine what we can and can't audibly resolve.

That's great, do you have any product names that I can audition?
 
That's great, do you have any product names that I can audition?

No need to have a fetish about product names or manufacturers.

Just go with competently designed CD transports with their transparent DACs, amps and well constructed cables. They all measure with flat frequency response, distortion below audibility and any other audio engineering parameter you care to use.

Up to (but not including) the speakers, we are in the golden age of audio: low unit cost for devices that are engineered to deliver electrical signals with no audible distortion compared with the source. When I owned LPs and turntables everything was more expensive and lower quality than today: the LPs themselves, the turntables, the amps, everything (well except the cables, there're the same;)).

There are the usual counter arguments: "I hear a difference so it must be real", "data measurements aren't everything", "there will always be improvements in technology", "engineering can't explain what I hear", "dbts are flawed in this way or that". Of course if you don't understand dbts or believe in objective measurements or the results of competent engineering then you'd be convinced that the pre-speaker audio chain is flawed.

The childish focus on seeking ghosts in cables or amps or CD transports loses sight of how wonderful have been the advances in audio. Celebrate the fact that engineers and manufacturers have made commodities of audio equipment - commodities in the best sense: equivalent, high quality performance for low unit cost.

OK, end of rave.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.