| janneman |
Finally a Hi-Fi glossy did a blind listening test on cables. Following cables sets (both interlink and speaker) were tested (set price in UKP, multiply roughly by 2 to get US $, in brackets):
Nordost (UKP 6500), Siltech (UKP 7700), Stereovox (UKP 10300), Audience (UKP 2000), Chord (UKP 1650) and QED (UKP 120).
Blind test, three listeners, using 3 separate pieces of music each trial.
They did a clever setup: the first cable set was by definition rated 10 points, so each following one had to be rated more or less than 10, better or worse, as to preference rather than specific attributes. A neat way to assess preferences without going into the numbers fight.
Sounds pretty well thought out and logical, right? Wait till you see the results and what they did with it...
Below are the results in raw data. Now, some of you will tell me this is copyrighted material. I know. I looked up this issue, and it appears that it is accepted practice to quote some limited parts from an article with the sole purpose to facilitate discussing the issue and with full acknowledgment of rights, and without any commercial purpose. So here goes:
The table below is from Hi-Fi+ magazine, UK, Issue 34, page 22. Copyright Hi-Fi+.
What do you think of this? Hint: look at the 1st group score of the Siltech (approx US $ 15.000) and the QED (aprox US $ 240). What would you do as the editor of the magazine?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| jackinnj |
| well, we know what the editor won't do -- and that is to refrain from accepting advertising dollars from cable manufacturers! |
|
|
| jeff mai |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
It's official: all cables sound the same! |
How can you get this conclusion?
Just because a few listeners were inconsistant in their assessment of a few cables does not mean that all cables sound the same. |
|
|
| Brett |
| quote: | Originally posted by jackinnj
well, we know what the editor won't do -- and that is to refrain from accepting advertising dollars from cable manufacturers! |
And why should he? A simple test like this is far from definitive, yet the results were published, to the benefit of the readers, and possibly to the detriment of the manufacturers, distributors and retailers. The ones who pay most of the magazine cost. You still have freedom of choice, and can read the ads and decide if you want to buy a specific product or not. |
|
|
| bluebeard |
I am astonished - but shouldn't be - by some repsonses to this article.
There is a huge prologue to this topic in the loudspeakers forum, with a lot of the same attitude - some creeping obeisance to the hype that snake oil vendors crank out. Of course it's that manufacturers right to do such. Of course the magazine editor can do what's necessary to keep his yacht in dockage and his kids in braces. Of course each of us is free to take any of their claims to our best interests on faith and hand em our cash. Of course the chain described above, as an example of enlightened community, is dubious to say the least - but welcome to capitalism. And again, that is perfectly ok - and often entertaining to watch. But it misses the point in this case entirely.
The subject of ultra high end interconnects is a little analogous to the benefits of exercise. Long distance runners reach a point in their training of steeply diminishing returns, yet many far exceed that point. Only the most competetive marathoners will actually benefit from the bare seconds on the hour that an extra hundred mile a week will gain them, yet so many other runners still put in those extra miles - to no good end? Well, that's their business. And it's also not unreasonable for anyone to spend an extra five hundred dollars on speaker cable if it satifsfies their desire for what most would conclude to be an exceedingly diminished return. It would even be perfectly ok if that return were no more than spurious, just imaginary. No - nothing wrong here either. It's their right of course. But that doesn't matter.
It's the great gust of fresh air that a blind test like the one beginning this thread invites into the room. Shouldn't that be the point? Then why talk around it? Going to these glossies for anything more than the occasional raw data they provide is like going to Globe or Enquirer for news of the world. There's far too much crackpot animism applied to this hobby already. Wool cones sound wooly, silk domes sound silky, aluminum sounds tinny, sliver windings lend a pure and polished air to the midrange, oil filled caps give a fluid and mellow tone to the upper range, the three and a half tons of concrete I embedded my entire system in last week really ______________ (fill in the blank).
Ok, a bit of a rant. But this is a subject that always fascinates me - and dissappoints when it so often gets dodged so artlessly. |
|
|
| janneman |
OK, here's the deal.
Recognizing that the first trial results fly in the face of established "belief", they decided that
" Well, the Siltech cables and the Hovland electronics obviously don't get along". Sooo, we delete the results of the first trial for the Siltech, we take the 2nd trial results for the Siltech and copy those into the 1st results table so that we get the same number of results ...
You will also note that the Nordost finished high. That makes them happy, because it is " ...an empathic justification for our faith in its abilities"
They really continue to expose their prejudice that enabled them the fraud so apparent in the first part when they say "Equally apparent (and reassuring) is the audible gap between the expensive cables and the budget QED". Well, the gap wasn't apparent until they "fixed" it!
I mean, how can anybody in his right mind take these guys serious anymore?
Jan Didden
(italics mine) |
|
|
| Stuart Easson |
Hi Janneman,
I can see your point regarding the way these folks conducted the tests, their methodology is, to be very generous, poor. However all it proves is they are not capable scientists and or statisticians. It proves nothing about cables, so please don't try and use obviously bad data and bad statistics ( all theirs ) to make indefensible conclusions to the contrary of the initial hypothesis, that would make you as bad as them...
All we know for certain is that these guys are amateurs, don't repeat their mistake.
Stuart |
|
|
| janneman |
Stuart,
I don't think they are amateurs, the way the set up the test seems quite professional. And since they did such a good job, I am allowed to accept their results, no? They published them, so they must stand behind them. And the results say that in the first trial ALL cables, including the lowly $250 QED , were preferred over the $15.000+ Siltechs, by all listeners with all music. Doesn't that tell me anything about cables?
But there is more:
"[the Stereovox did poor wrt their prices] "Yet having listened to them in isolation I'd consider them worthy of higher marks", and goes on a search for arguments.
There, in one fell swoop the guy invalidates his own carefull blind test and exposes his nakedness. Amateurs? This is an insult to any half-intelligent reader!
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Stuart Easson |
Janneman,
I was being generous to them. Based on the excerpts you've provided the test was basically a waste of time, they already knew what they wanted to show, so the quality of the work thereafter was pretty suspect. The fact that they are willing to publish the results in no way makes them valid...Though they may indeed be willing to stand behind them, this in no way improves the quality of anything they did...
Science rests on the precept that test results are reproducible by anyone in any location, until someone else completes another series of tests and show statistically identical results, there is no certainty of any sort...which I think you already know...I think perhaps you are mad because these gentlemen are trying to sell snake oil using pseudo science...
Anyone here can figure out for themselves if all cables sound the same, they just need to perform more extreme tests...stop using 6ft of cable and start using 60 or 600ft, if there are differences and the inductance/capacitance issues are removed by driving the cables appropriately, the differences will be obvious to all, or not, as the case may be. After all we don't care about the quality of the driving and recieving equipment, we only care about the cables...my 2c worth, and you got it free...;)
Stuart |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stuart Easson
Janneman,
I was being generous to them. Based on the excerpts you've provided the test was basically a waste of time, they already knew what they wanted to show, so the quality of the work thereafter was pretty suspect. The fact that they are willing to publish the results in no way makes them valid...Though they may indeed be willing to stand behind them, this in no way improves the quality of anything they did...[snip] |
Indeed. And there is even more in the article.
But, you know, the tone of the article, where they describe the thought process to try to do a REAL good blind test is rather sincere. I think they were honestly trying to do a good job. So what went wrong? Advertisers pressure? I don't think so, I really think that they just couldn't bring it to themselves to have all their beliefs shattered by their own test. Their beliefs won. This time, its there for all of us to see.
They could have shown all the other mags who's the real leader here, who's the one going where no one had gone before. They missed it.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| analog_sa |
Conducting a test with so many cables is probably very difficult. Whatever the outcome it will only have some validity in the context of the equipment involved.
Finding correlations between the perceived sound quality and price is next to impossible. So, what? Does that make all cables sound the same? |
|
|
| jwb |
I once conducted a blind test with my friends. We were allowed to switch between A and B at will, with any of our favorite familiar music. The only result was that lamp cord was clearly inferior, while all other midrange and high-end cables we had laying about sounded the same.
The magazine editors should have mixed in some really foul cables for comparison. Use some zip cord, some long runs of 36ga wire wrap, aluminum foil, etc. |
|
|
| Dave S |
I really must seek out some products reviewed by "JH" next time I want to buy some commercial gear.
Looking at the QED test results I can only assume he was Jekyll in test 1 and Hyde in test 2! |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by analog_sa
[snip]So, what? Does that make all cables sound the same? |
No, not really. But are you not angry that you are so openly manipulated by the people you turn to for some advise?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| jcarr |
I've conducted listening tests where even sighted listening failed to turn up any noticeable differences between various components (including cables).
But I've also had other tests where blind listening did reveal differences.
YMMV.
jonathan carr |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dave S
I really must seek out some products reviewed by "JH" next time I want to buy some commercial gear.
Looking at the QED test results I can only assume he was Jekyll in test 1 and Hyde in test 2! |
Dave, you obviously read the article. What do you think of the reasoning why JH did such a lousy job on the QED (best in one series, worst in another series), while being quite consistent with the others? They couldn't use the "equipment (in)compatibilty" thing again, they used that already for the Siltech.
So they throw this one on testing stress, isn't it?
Now if that is the case, why is it that it only influenced the QED test and not the others?? Because in the other tests he confirmed their beliefs. They even say so much a few times!
Laughable if it wasn't so sad.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Dave S |
| I just looked up who JH is in the only copy of hi-fi+ I ever bought (Issue 32 which contains a comparison of 2 arm cables - unfortunately they were fitted to 2 different arms for the comparison:cannotbe: ) The scoring makes complete sense now! |
|
|
| Dave S |
Hi Jan,
No I did not read the article, I just looked at the scores on your attachment.
In answer to your question:
I think Jekyll Hughes was probably so mortified that he scored the QED so highly in test 1 that he went out of his way to balance up the ratings in test 2 and thereby retain the reverance we all have for his platinum/gold/titanium/beryllium composite ears. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by jcarr
I've conducted listening tests where even sighted listening failed to turn up any noticeable differences between various components (including cables).
But I've also had other tests where blind listening did reveal differences.
YMMV.
jonathan carr |
Jonathan,
Accepted. But I wouldn't think you would fudge the results afterwards to meet your preconceived expectations.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
"[the Stereovox did poor wrt their prices] "Yet having listened to them in isolation I'd consider them worthy of higher marks", and goes on a search for arguments. |
How does one listen to a cable "in isolation"?
Stick one end in your ear and the other end...???
se |
|
|
| SY |
| JH was the guy who brought Peter Belt to the attention of the world. 'Nuff said. |
|
|
| jackinnj |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
fudge the results afterwards to meet your preconceived expectations.
Jan Didden |
actually there is a school of statistics -- Bayesian analysis -- which allows "expert" ex ante manipulation of statistics -- it gets pretty complicated, but it is an important dimension of stat analysis -- we don't all expect to live in a "log-normal" world anyway. |
|
|
| DigitalJunkie |
| quote: | (set price in UKP, multiply roughly by 2 to get US $, in brackets):
Nordost (UKP 6500), Siltech (UKP 7700), Stereovox (UKP 10300), Audience (UKP 2000), Chord (UKP 1650) and QED (UKP 120).
|
What!
First of all, anyone that pays $10-20K (20 grand!!?!) for freakin cables is completely insane,and has more money than brains,IMHO...
(Flame suit on :hot: )
I was a cable skeptic for a long time,untill one day I decided to play around with interconnects,and I DID notice a difference in sound..
I DIY'd some cables I found on TNT's site,among other places..(braided cat5,and phone cord wire,Magnet wire seperated by "packing tape",coaxial cable,etc.I tried quite a few variations.) Most sounded worse to me,compared to the generic cables that came with my CD-player,tape deck,etc. so I'm still using the generic cables.
I did get quite a suprise when I swapped my speaker cables!
I had used 14awg "zip-cord" for speaker wire for years..
then I got some OFC wire from a car install I helped a friend with..
15awg OFC Rockford Fosgate wire..Not expecting any real difference,I was suprised!, bass was tighter,and the treble was "cleaner" with less grainy-ness.. I've been using the R-F wire ever since..
Finally,I became a believer.
I think cable's can make a difference,but it's a fairly subtle one(to me anyways)..one of those things I'd start tweaking after I got everything else where I liked it..but not something i'd take out a 2nd mortgage for.. :smash: |
|
|
| Paul Ranson |
| quote: | | JH was the guy who brought Peter Belt to the attention of the world. 'Nuff said. |
This 'JH' isn't that 'JMH'.
This 'JH' is Jason Hector, he posts on a number of Internet Forums and is a member here.
Paul |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | Originally posted by Paul Ranson
This 'JH' isn't that 'JMH'.
This 'JH' is Jason Hector, he posts on a number of Internet Forums and is a member here.
Paul |
Ah, well, in the famous words of the late Emily Litella, "That's very different. Never mind." |
|
|
| audio-kraut |
That test only shows what other test - see dunlavy's stunt - have said before. There is some difference in cables, but imho it is the interplay within the reproduction system (not reproductive system). The best example is how some amps react to goertz ls cable.
I run my chain with canare quad both for ls and rca/xlr, and see no reason to change those well made cables for anything else. |
|
|
| DSP_Geek |
| quote: | Originally posted by audio-kraut
That test only shows what other test - see dunlavy's stunt - have said before. There is some difference in cables, but imho it is the interplay within the reproduction system (not reproductive system). The best example is how some amps react to goertz ls cable.
|
Yet another data point in favour of UcD modules - they already have a whopping capacitor on the output, so unless the cable is truly pathological (10 uF zobel sort of thing) the amplifiers will remain stable.
Francois. |
|
|
| Dave S |
It looks like I fell into the same trap as the reviewers - my prejudice against JMH caused me to look for evidence that JH was incompetent.
Mind you, I did not have to look very hard! |
|
|
| HuntTheShunt |
Please, someone supply definitive proof that this cable stuff is pure kings new clothes thought process.
In a enlightened age this must be provable one way or the other? |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by jeff mai
Just because a few listeners were inconsistant in their assessment of a few cables does not mean that all cables sound the same. |
Inconsistent is the conclusion of most blind tests with most unexperienced listeners.
I did blind A-B tests with interconnects.
Without knowing what was playing and with other person switching inputs, I was able to pick the best sounding cable.
Right after that we confirmed with a sighted test, we've got the same conclusion.
But I've been present on blind tests where people couldn't pick the difference, and the difference was there all the time.
There is no conclusion to take from most blind tests, because they should have the same conclusion as a sighted test and most of the times they don't.
I would call those guys amateurs, whoever they are.:cool: |
|
|
| janneman |
Carlos,
You really believe all this yourself? You never doubt yourself??
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Paul Ranson
This 'JH' isn't that 'JMH'.
This 'JH' is Jason Hector, he posts on a number of Internet Forums and is a member here.
Paul |
Paul,
Yes the one in the test is Jason Hector. Don't know him, I normally don't read the glossies but this time I wandered in a book shop at NATO HQ in Brussels while waiting for my meeting to begin and the cover caught my attention.
Anyway, Jason (if you'r listening) I am not out to blame you for anything or what, not at all. I know how unreliable our perception is, mine included, but my gripe was with the post ante (nice term) fudging of data to conform to expectations.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Swedish Chef |
Well, **** amplifiers & equipment always have and always will have a hard time driving cables. The 'phile way of eq is to leave the tone controls out 'coz tone controls "are bad" and then take a POS output stage with high output Z to drive a high capacitance cable to accomplish a HF rolloff. And then tweak the power amp PSU to the correct crappiness for "bass slam".
Man, do I feel lucky I don't work in this field... :cool:
Jan, good article!
/M |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Carlos,
You really believe all this yourself? You never doubt yourself??
Jan Didden |
I don't understand this question.
I'm sharing my experience, while most people here talk theories.You guys take it or leave it.
I know people that also consistently get it right when put to the test.
These people work in the field and have much more experience listening than all of us.
I've made too many tests, too many listening sessions and comparisons, I've learned alot in the last years.
BTW the blind test I was talking about was made with expensive commercial gear, on a local distributor.
| quote: | Originally posted by Swedish Chef
Well, **** amplifiers & equipment always have and always will have a hard time driving cables. The 'phile way of eq is to leave the tone controls out 'coz tone controls "are bad" and then take a POS output stage with high output Z to drive a high capacitance cable to accomplish a HF rolloff. And then tweak the power amp PSU to the correct crappiness for "bass slam". |
I beg your pardon?
Is this for me, Chef?:confused:
It seams that you are a little confused with PSUs and zobels?
| quote: | Originally posted by Swedish Chef
Man, do I feel lucky I don't work in this field... :cool: |
Me neither. |
|
|
| HuntTheShunt |
What is the :-
a. resistance of the cheap cable vis the expensive.
b. inductance of the cheap cable vis the expensive.
c. capacitance of the cheap cable vis the expensive.
Someone who knows the electronic theory speak up! |
|
|
| mattjk |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Finally a Hi-Fi glossy did a blind listening test on cables. Following cables sets (both interlink and speaker) were tested (set price in UKP, multiply roughly by 2 to get US $, in brackets):
Nordost (UKP 6500), Siltech (UKP 7700), Stereovox (UKP 10300), Audience (UKP 2000), Chord (UKP 1650) and QED (UKP 120).
Blind test, three listeners, using 3 separate pieces of music each trial.
They did a clever setup: the first cable set was by definition rated 10 points, so each following one had to be rated more or less than 10, better or worse, as to preference rather than specific attributes. A neat way to assess preferences without going into the numbers fight.
Sounds pretty well thought out and logical, right? Wait till you see the results and what they did with it...
Below are the results in raw data. Now, some of you will tell me this is copyrighted material. I know. I looked up this issue, and it appears that it is accepted practice to quote some limited parts from an article with the sole purpose to facilitate discussing the issue and with full acknowledgment of rights, and without any commercial purpose. So here goes:
The table below is from Hi-Fi+ magazine, UK, Issue 34, page 22. Copyright Hi-Fi+.
What do you think of this? Hint: look at the 1st group score of the Siltech (approx US $ 15.000) and the QED (aprox US $ 240). What would you do as the editor of the magazine?
Jan Didden |
I want my 5 minutes back. |
|
|
| Will |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Finally a Hi-Fi glossy did a blind listening test on cables. Following cables sets (both interlink and speaker) were tested (set price in UKP, multiply roughly by 2 to get US $, in brackets):
Jan Didden |
Ha ha ha,... either one is a fool to believe it or one has not acquired audiophile standard setup to enable listener to differentiate sounds of speaker cables.... |
|
|
| jacco vermeulen |
I remember the days when Edwin van der Kley and Michiel de Goeij started their Siltech cables.
At the time the concensus here already was that vd Hull cables sounded very well.
Unless i talked to one of his former collegues at the Delft electronics faculty who did not have a positive comment to say on vdHull.
At the time cables were very much the issue, skineffect and molecule orientation seemed to dominate.
Mr Pass mentioned recently in another thread on electrolytes that there arent that many electrolytic producers globally, fewer than the number of brands.
In the eightees a German audio magazine conducted comparison test on cables for a couple of years, even comparing audio cable with regular industrial cable.
Years before "L'Audiphile" had spent a lot of time on cables too.
The comparisons in Germany revealed that a number of "audiophilic" cable actually were regular industrial coded wires, a couple of vdHull's cables were identified as such.
Not surprising, vdHull was winding his PU elements by hand on the attic of his home, and done so for years.
No way he could have had access to production facilities, placing a regular special order for different labled cable was much easier.
At the time i went to Germany and bought me some of that industrial cable too.
I still remember the 1/2 inch thick RG214 silverstranded cable from the Berkenhoff & Drebes factory, at $ 1.70 the feet, i used Bi-cabled as speakercable.
Another favorite was the Teflon isolated RG196 at $ 0.70 per feet.
For me, Teflon and Silver became the best combination, sonic differences were apparent.
20 Years ago Siltech had established the name for best audio cables, stating to produce the cables in Nijmegen in Holland.
Undoubtebly they are handwiring their cables in Elst, given the far out pricetags for their cables they must be pooring their blood over the cables at production.
Cables do effect sound production, whether i am able to hear the difference facing mega dollar cable is questionable.
Hell may freeze over before i am willing to pay $ 10.000 for 16 feet of Siltech cable, or any other manufacturers product.
Are you ? |
|
|
| jackinnj |
| quote: | Originally posted by jacco vermeulen
I still remember the 1/2 inch thick RG214 silverstranded cable from the Berkenhoff & Drebes factory, at $ 1.70 the feet, i used Bi-cabled as speakercable.
Another favorite was the Teflon isolated RG196 at $ 0.70 per feet.
For me, Teflon and Silver became the best combination, sonic differences were apparent. |
Every once in a while high-end coaxial cables will show up on EBay (in the Business and Industrial category) -- I purchased some triax with female connectors for a small fraction of its list price. It's often less expensive to purchase the connectors on EBay with the cable attached -- such as WECO connectors.
and speaking (well writing) of listening experiences, there is some interesting statistical analysis in the article on the engineers from Harman International which I posted a few minutes ago, linked here:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/tmw...e/CA475937.html |
|
|
| muhy3 |
I'm relatively new to the audio world, but I'm brave and very logical. As well as that I'm taking up extra units at uni as extra-curricular subjects to help me understand more about electronics and acoustics.
Both my parents are engineers, one acoustic and hydrotechnic engineer and the other (my dad) a master in sciences so I've had an influence to become an engineer myself (studying computers). From what I've learnt so far many factors that most don't even consider affect sound in such way that nothing can be done about it.
For example inductance will always occur, it is not possible to separate the +/- wires that go to each speaker to the diameter of the electron because as theory tells the diameter of one electron is also the span of the universe. To have monstrous cables is definately an advantage over using telephone cabling, believe me I used single strand wire and have driven my speakers to full power (~60W), and I noticed a definite change in sound when I bought some proper audio cable u can measure and cut yourself at the electronics store for $1.50p/m.
To pay exubrous amounts of well earned money on wire that will make little to no difference is perhaps the stupidest thing imaginable. I dont blame the manufacturers, rather I am happy for them because it's a doggy-eat-dog world and if you're too stupid to come to your senses you deserve to live in the make-believe world where you have the best 1m interconnect money can buy.
There is maths that is beyond most people which you could take into consideration when designing an amp to work out particular lengths and gauge, even placement of everything in the system, even the power supply can be and generally is optimised, but such a system does not exist because audiophiles like flexibility, which in turn cuts down ability. There is also realistic feasibility, which manufacturers take into consideration, such as cost/profit ratio etc.
In conclusion, better designed audio cable is better than the normal cable that you get with the dvd player, or that you buy at $1.50p/m like me but that difference is so small its above stupidity to lie to yourself and believe the difference is audible, because in most situation it's a case of self-hypnosis where you're feeding yourself placebo's. Ofcourse this is one kid's opinion, and surely although I have the knowledge, I lack the experience (as in having listened through expensive cable...) |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by jackinnj
and speaking (well writing) of listening experiences, there is some interesting statistical analysis in the article on the engineers from Harman International which I posted a few minutes ago, linked here:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/tmw...e/CA475937.html |
I agree with this statement:
" Listeners are often influenced by a speaker's styling, price tag, manufacturer's reputation, and relative position within a listening room."
But I refuse to admit that these type of listeners are appropriate to participate and take conclusions from listeling tests, blind or sighted.
These are the same kind of guys that buy a certain amp because the feet light blue (Musical Fidelity:D ), or -much worse-, they buy the latest Sony midi because it looks gorgeous.:bawling: |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by jackinnj
Every once in a while high-end coaxial cables will show up on EBay (in the Business and Industrial category) -- I purchased some triax with female connectors for a small fraction of its list price. It's often less expensive to purchase the connectors on EBay with the cable attached -- such as WECO connectors.
and speaking (well writing) of listening experiences, there is some interesting statistical analysis in the article on the engineers from Harman International which I posted a few minutes ago, linked here:
http://www.reed-electronics.com/tmw...e/CA475937.html |
Jack,
Interesting article. In fact, I posted a few paragraphs earlier from the first ref at the end of the article, where Floyd showed that there was a clear difference between listener preferences resulting from blind or sighted tests. What they called the " nuisance factor": the nicest, tallest, most shiny speakers got higher ratings in sighted tests than in blind tests.
To parafrase the other (Pink) Floyd: another brick in the wall
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by carlosfm
I agree with this statement:
" Listeners are often influenced by a speaker's styling, price tag, manufacturer's reputation, and relative position within a listening room."
But I refuse to admit that these type of listeners are appropriate to participate and take conclusions from listeling tests, blind or sighted.
These are the same kind of guys that buy a certain amp because the feet light blue (Musical Fidelity:D ), or -much worse-, they buy the latest Sony midi because it looks gorgeous.:bawling: |
Carlos,
Maybe you should read the article to know what "type of listeners" these were. There were some like you that said, hey, I KNOW what I'm hearing. Well they TOO fell on their face.
The point, which you apparently so stubbornly refuse even to consider, is that it happens with ALL listeners, its not about being good or bad, it's about being a human being. You can't rewire your brain.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| HuntTheShunt |
As long as the wire is thick enough to carry the current and screened that's it?
Some metals carry electrons better than others but by what percentage is the improvement?
Someone must have the facts on this subject! |
|
|
| Sheldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by audio-kraut
interplay within the reproductive system |
Hey, that sounds like more fun than comparing cables.
Sheldon |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| quote: | | As long as the wire is thick enough to carry the current and screened that's it? |
Exactly what my grandpa used to say. I, otoh, greatly prefer it without the screen. |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
The point, which you apparently so stubbornly refuse even to consider, is that it happens with ALL listeners, its not about being good or bad, it's about being a human being. You can't rewire your brain. |
Of course it doesn't happen with ALL listeners.
You are generalizing.
I never look at the aesthetics of a device.
If it sounds good, it's good.
It may even have a crappy slabby case.
What's beauty got to do with sound?
Most people (I'm not including people here, don't get me wrong) would fall for gear like this:
http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consume...isc/index.shtml
Impressive, isn't it?
"It must sound very good":clown: , it's the "typical" reaction.
I've heard it with a couple of my own CDs, that I know very well.
In original form this sounds like pure ****.
The press raved it, even with CDs.
Bless'em, those golden ears.:angel: |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Some metals carry electrons better than others but by what percentage is the improvement? |
A better conductor (lower seriesR) does not necessarily make for a better IC or LS cable.
The Van den Hul carbon range of conductors all prove that, which is not to say these are de facto the best cables around but still.
| quote: | | As long as the wire is thick enough to carry the current and screened that's it? |
Thick enough, sure but not thicker IMHO.
| quote: | | I, otoh, greatly prefer it without the screen |
YES.:)
The question one should ask oneself, I think, is do you want a neutral sounding cable or do you want it to mask some flaws in your system?
Based on that you can alter the sound of a system in various directions by just swapping out cables but a transparant, neutral sounding cable won't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse no matter what it costs.
As this is DIYaudio, why worry about the silly mark ups of the High-End boutiques when you can achieve just as good or even better than most at a fraction of the asking prices anyway?
You see an awful lot of people trying to build the umpeenth variation on a theme when it comes to amps, loudspeakers and what have you.
The same crowd usually complains about the cost of good cables (if they believe it would make a difference to start with) but can't seem to think of a good way of making any...
This I find rather perplexing to say the least.................
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
The Van den Hul carbon range of conductors all prove that, which is not to say these are de facto the best cables around but still. |
Some have carbon ground conductors, and you know what happens when you have a high resistance ground connection, don't you?
Hum.:cool:
I wouldn't use 1cm of these cables.
Low series R is not the most important thing to have on a cable, but this is just too much.
Low capacitance is most of the times the best thing to have. |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sheldon
Hey, that sounds like more fun than comparing cables.
Sheldon |
:D
The blind and sighted tests I talked about was comparing a DIY cable I made with some commercial products.
I had the cusiosity to know if I made a good cable, as at home the "best" cable I had at the time was a QED Silver Spiral.
My diy cable took second place, on blind and sighted test, as much as I wanted it to be the best.
But I'm not biased, I really like to evaluate what I make, even if it is to find out that it's pure ****, no problem, trash bin it goes.
The cable that made an audible improvement to mine was a WireWorld top of the range cable (around 1000 Euros).
Even then, we evaluated the cables on only one system.
I would never give 1000 Euros for a cable, I would rather burn my hands making a better DIY cable. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Some have carbon ground conductors, and you know what happens when you have a high resistance ground connection, don't you? |
Sure...
Yet high series R was neither the reason nor the reasoning behind the development of these cables.
| quote: | | Low capacitance is most of the times the best thing to have. |
I agree provided you want a wideband cable that doesn't need to filter any HF nasties.
As it happens my own IC designs have low capacitance, low series resistance (Ag) and higher than usual inductance.
Add to that high quality soldering and decent RCA plugs and you have a good chance of creating a decent audio cable.
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| quasi |
If we forget for a minute the hype about whether certain cable characteristics enhace the sound (depth, soundstage etc..) and just look how the markerters and sales people even contradict themselves.
You walk into a Hi-Fi shop and look at the pre-amps and power amps. The sales rep describes these as "a wire with gain" i.e. the output is exactly the same as the input just bigger (louder). They'll then talk about the enhanced circuitry that leaves the audio path pure.
So if I apply the same reasoning (theirs), then the ideal cable will have the following characteristics. Zero ohms, zero capacity and zero inductance. This is the only way that what goes in the cable at one end can come out exactly the same at the other end.
But then they show me the cables and (unbelievably) talk about a balanced inductive-capacitive transmission line formed by a the right amount of capacity, inductance and resistance...
huh?
This stuff was a big no no in the amp / pre-amp room!
They continue to show you the twisted structure, or the directionality, or the 2nF per foot / 1 nH per foot specification....
huh? that ain't zero.
Maybe some people can hear cable differences. If they can, what they would hear is, if you follow the pre-amp principle, a denegrated (distorted) version of what went in. Many find this perceived difference pleasing...as a guitarist likes the Marshall sound. So maybe they can hear a mellow sound stage if signal got lost along the way.
So if the best cable has near zero impedance then this is a straight and fat cable (screened for ICs). Twists and other convoluted structures only increase things like capacitance, inductance and resistance....and we all learnt in the pre-amp room that these are no no's.
So I save my money and buy plain ordinary (well screened for ICs) and fat cable and get as close to zero as I can.
Ok ...I'm done |
|
|
| muhy3 |
| You sum things up quite well quasi, so well I think we're long lost brothers. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by carlosfm
Of course it doesn't happen with ALL listeners.
You are generalizing.
I never look at the aesthetics of a device.
If it sounds good, it's good.
It may even have a crappy slabby case.
What's beauty got to do with sound?[snip] |
Carlos,
Maybe you read/remember an earlier post from me about some neurological research. They did a blind test with IIRC 67 people, asking them which Coke they preferred. They got Classic Coke and Pepsi, in unmarked bottles. The preference was about 50-50 split. During the test they monitored peoples brain activity in a scanner. As could be expected, the brain area related to taste was quite active.
Next they did the same test with original marked bottles: Classic Coke & Pepsi. THIS time, 75% preferred Classic Coke...
Again they monitored brain activity. What they saw was that not only was the taste area active, but also the recognition and memory areas lighted up ligh a Christmas tree.
Clearly, their response was heavily influenced by the recognition of the name brand. (BTW, the research was sponsored by advertising organisations trying to find out how to force us to buy a specific brand while we were thinking we made a logical decision out of free will. Ha!).
If you read the first reference in the post above about the Harman speaker testing (Science in the service of art), you have seen that the size and design of the speakers clearly influenced the preference, and that even experienced reviewers who beforehand said, hey, I can disregard these extarnal characteristics, did exactly the same: they were influenced.
Now, this is all unconciously. You (or anyone) are CONVINCED that you disregard it. But it isn't true! Conciousness is like a window over the activity movie of the brain: there is a lot (more than 99% in fact) going on in the brain we don't know, because the attention can only focus on a limited area. So, whether we like it or not, we have only very limited control over this.
Can we gain control over it? Yes, there is research suggesting it is possible. It takes a lot of time and effort, because you are trying to change a system that has been set in its tracks for all your life, and in fact has been shaped by evolution in the millions of years before your birth. BUT, the first step is to fully realise and accept that it is going on, and be extremely critical to yourself. At every step, ask yourself: if I wanted to disagree, where would I attack myself. Be very agressive.
What I see in this forum is that people don't even have a clue that this happens, and of course they feel they KNOW what they hear. Not so, I'm afraid.
If you read the article about the blind cable test I started this thread with, it is all there in its glaring ugliness. A well thought out blind test, carefully set up, giving results that contradict expectations and the process starts. Looking for arguments and fiddling factors to actually make it come out so as to fullfill expectations.
The expensive cable ending last in the first trial. Ahh, that is because "clearly" it is not a good match to the rest of the system. Now in the second trail, a cheap cable ends last. Why don't we say: Ahh, that is because "clearly" it is not a good match to the rest of the system...? Because a cheap cable ending last conforms to our prejudice, and an expensive cable ending last does not.
Man, if you look into this, it's often a lot more exiting than audio.(am I sin-binned now?;) )
Jan Didden |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| quote: | | The preference was about 50-50 split |
It's official: all sodas taste the same! |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by analog_sa
It's official: all sodas taste the same! |
Correct.;)
Jan Didden |
|
|
| carlosfm |
Jan, I would say it's the same thing.
There are specialists in tasting wine, and those can most probably detect the type of wine much more easily than me.
Also, as I don't drink much coke, I could have difficulty in deciding about tastes.
Taste is, I think, a much more difficult matter to evaluate than hearing.
If one thing tastes good for one person and that same thing gives me vomits, I can't evaluate, I can just say I don't like it.
If I don't like coke and have little experience with it I will fail in identifying the brand.
But give me a glass of Jack Daniels and another of J&B and I will tell you what is what.:D
Coke is certainly a difficult thing to evaluate, as 99% is water.:clown: |
|
|
| HuntTheShunt |
"janneman" has the must logical approach so far.
But that may be my prejudice coming through! ;)
At least I accept that my views could be prejudiced that is the main point here.
We should strive for truth not just believe what we are told especially when money or prestige is involved.
We must also guard against people who want to maintain an exalted position be they scientist or soothsayers, at the experience of reason. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by carlosfm
Jan, I would say it's the same thing.
There are specialists in tasting wine, and those can most probably detect the type of wine much more easily than me.
Also, as I don't drink much coke, I could have difficulty in deciding about tastes.
Taste is, I think, a much more difficult matter to evaluate than hearing.
If one thing tastes good for one person and that same thing gives me vomits, I can't evaluate, I can just say I don't like it.
If I don't like coke and have little experience with it I will fail in identifying the brand.
But give me a glass of Jack Daniels and another of J&B and I will tell you what is what.:D
Coke is certainly a difficult thing to evaluate, as 99% is water.:clown: |
Carlos,
You don't get it.
In the sighted Coke test, the preferences with the labelled bottles would have been the same if there had been Pepsi in the Classic Coke bottles and Classic Coke in the Pepsi bottles!
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Swedish Chef |
| A cable is certainly a difficult thing to evaluate, as 99% is copper and only 1% is music. :clown: |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | In the sighted Coke test, the preferences with the labelled bottles would have been the same if there had been Pepsi in the Classic Coke bottles and Classic Coke in the Pepsi bottles! |
But what does it prove?
That there are indeed people I wouldn't bother taking to a fancy restaurant? That much I knew already....:D
Seriously, if you don't taste any difference between cola and pepsi then that's fine by me. If you don't observe any difference between cable x, y or z then that's fine too.
But if some of us do spot differences and want product y instead of x, why would that bother any of us??
Surely you guys all agree that all audio systems don't sound alike either even if they are composed of components that would measure the same and are auditioned in the same room too?
Why bother with the subtleties of audio if it all sounds the same anyway....:xeye:
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Seriously, if you don't taste any difference between cola and pepsi then that's fine by me. If you don't observe any difference between cable x, y or z then that's fine too.
But if some of us do spot differences and want product y instead of x, why would that bother any of us?? |
Spot on.
I just didn't like the title of this thread.:xeye:
If I prefer cable (or whatever) X over Y, what do I care if other people don't have the same oppinion, or can't spot the difference?
Does it prove anything?
Edit: would the cable sound different if I paint it yellow?:clown: |
|
|
| audio-kraut |
| if thats the case, any distortion gets reduced to 1/100 through the cable? ;) |
|
|
| earsandeyes |
I did read the article in the glossy, noticed the apaption of facts and made my own conclusions on the waste of effort put into the blind testing ignoring the real outcome.
This thread has brought a lot more other usefull insights:
But is someone going to wrap up and send a letter to the magazine so they can comment???
If they take themselves seriously they should respond in their own medium. Would be interesting.
And fact of life is that at least on most consumables more costs are involved with packaging and advertising then with the actual product. (in the bottled water business they segment in cost/return of packaging per unit, the content is almost free) |
|
|
| quasi |
For the benefit of makind it is important that we correct some statements made in this thread.
Coke is in fact about 75% water ....the rest is sugar and other stuff.
Not all soda water tastes the same.....the stuff around here is awful.
There are over 200 shades of yellow .....ever tried agreeing on house paint with your wife??
Cheers |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by earsandeyes
And fact of life is that at least on most consumables more costs are involved with packaging and advertising then with the actual product. (in the bottled water business they segment in cost/return of packaging per unit, the content is almost free) |
Talking about prices is a different matter.
Take this example, on the cheap:
1. A cheap 150 Euros CD player
2. A 150 Euros interconnect
Question:
What product costs mode to develop, manufacture, stock, transport, what costed more to produce?
Look at it this way and you soon find out that the interconnect is an armed assault.
:headshot: |
|
|
| audio-kraut |
In this discussion I seem to be missing a point. Most transfers of signals in the studio are being made with regular pro cables - belden, canare etc.
So, if those are good enough for the distances used in the studio to transfer the information, my question is: What should it bring more to use any kind of cable in exotic configurations in the home environment? If my source - cd/lp player can retrieve all the information from the medium, then how can any exotic cable add to this information retrieval or transfer?
If I use similar/same cable what is used in the studio environment, how can I loose any information that wasn't already lost in the studio transfer?
Either my logic is at fault here or those who promote k$ cables. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Either my logic is at fault here or those who promote k$ cables. |
First of all, not all recording studios use cheap, **** cables....
Still, even if they did, why would you want to degrade the signal any further by adding more **** to it?
See, there's the fault in the logic....:cool:
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| quasi |
What a relief to find someone else that thinks like me......gonna cancel them doctors appointments....and sleep tonight.
You are on my buddy list.
Thanks & Cheers |
|
|
| Variac |
| quote: | | Now, this is all unconciously. You (or anyone) are CONVINCED that you disregard it. But it isn't true! Conciousness is like a window over the activity movie of the brain: there is a lot (more than 99% in fact) going on in the brain we don't know, because the attention can only focus on a limited area. So, whether we like it or not, we have only very limited control over this. |
Janneman, This is a great summation!
Instead of banning you I'd like to give you a medal!
Of course that would be an individual act-not a moderator act!
If the people that hear these differences would consider the fact that they COULD be fooled, then I would be MUCH more interested in their opinions, but until a person admits the possibility that they can't always be objective, I really can't take their opinions seriously.
Reminds me of people claiming that advertising has no influence over their purchasing decisions. Trust me- it does- on a subtle level if not on the consious one. Or by influencing those around you which helps shape your opinion. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | If the people that hear these differences would consider the fact that they COULD be fooled, then I would be MUCH more interested in their opinions, but until a person admits the possibility that they can't always be objective, I really can't take their opinions seriously. |
Fair enough...I'll be the first to admit that I can be fooled.
Even though, in all honesty, I can't recall ever having been fooled as far as testing audio gear goes...
Still, no matter what these psycho-babbles claim, you can't just be fooled all the time or can you?
So I suggest that if you can repeatably and reliably observe what you think you're observing, something must be going on...
Either way, Janneman is just trying hard to convince himself not to buy those 7k Siltech wires isn't he? :devilr:
| quote: | | Trust me- it does- on a subtle level if not on the consious one. |
Sure does...
Let it suffice to watch the wife coming home from shopping....
How many of us haven't noticed her proudly showing the latest brand X product we all saw advertised on the tele the other night?:angel:
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| johnferrier |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
First of all, not all recording studios use cheap, **** cables....
|
Are you able to name a studio or two? I'd be interested in their recordings...
JF |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Are you able to name a studio or two? I'd be interested in their recordings... |
Well, there are quite a few studios equipped with Van den Hul cabling.
There may be a list of studios on his website, I haven't checked this for you.
There's also David Manley (VTL, Manley etc.) who uses his own cables (and mics) for his in house recordings.
I assume some of the studios being set up with his professional recording equipment using these cables as well.
There must be plenty more around....Depending on what you'd call decent cabling anyway.....
I can't speak for the musical content of the Manley recordings but technically these are quite extraordinary in that you can actually hear such micro-information as the acoustic signature of the recording studio, etc.
His modified microphones are no slouches either...
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| johnferrier |
Frank,
Thanks for the insight!
JF |
|
|
| jackinnj |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Let it suffice to watch the wife coming home from shopping....
How many of us haven't noticed her proudly showing the latest brand X product we all saw advertised on the tele the other night |
Do they sell Ferragamo shoes in Belgium? I think I could have purchased a Mercedes 500S with the amount of money my wife has invested in Italian leather products during the past 30 years of marital bliss.
...and it gets worse...
:bawling: |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Do they sell Ferragamo shoes in Belgium? |
Sure do...just you don't tell my wife, will you?
I'm trying hard to save up for my next Bianchi bike.
Not quite Merc territory but not exactly cheap stuff either...
Boy, am I a sucker for this high-tech stuff or what?:cannotbe:
Oh, Ferragamo has a mens line as well in case the misses needs a hint for Santa....:D
Cheers guys,;) |
|
|
| Variac |
Well Frank, I guess I will have to take your opinions more seriously :D
I have to make do with a vintage steel Ciocc |
|
|
| audio-kraut |
...| quote: | | First of all, not all recording studios use cheap, **** cables.... |
Nice to you that somebody knows his stuff and keeps "high end" cable manufaturers in bread.
It seems - as in politics - the more outreageous the claims (cable resonances, importance of tl effects at audio frequencies, microphonie of cab les, magnetic effects of the earth magnetic field on cables - yes, I have heard that too)) the more people are going to buy snake oil.
Good if you can afford it. Good not for you - exept if you like spending money on either no or only incremental effects, good for the snake oil sellers. |
|
|
| HuntTheShunt |
The point at issue here is not that exotic cables add to the sound nothing can add to the source. If we are saying that then all reason is lost!
What is being said is that the losses are reduced with exotic cables and that that difference can be discerned. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
[snip]Either way, Janneman is just trying hard to convince himself not to buy those 7k Siltech wires isn't he? :devilr:[snip] |
And succeeding, actually...
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Hi, Fair enough...I'll be the first to admit that I can be fooled.
Even though, in all honesty, I can't recall ever having been fooled as far as testing audio gear goes...[snip] |
Yeah Frank. It's always the OTHER guy that gets fooled, right?;)
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by carlosfm
[snip]Coke is certainly a difficult thing to evaluate, as 99% is water.:clown: |
Carlos,
You know, you are quite right. The test showed that it is IMPOSSIBLE to identify the taste in a blind test.
Yet, with the labels, 3 out of 4 say the stuff out of the Classic Coke bottle "tastes" better!
In the spearker test from Harman, people preferred the nice big shiny speakers over the little dinky ones because they said "they sound better". Yet in a blind test the preference for the nice ones went down and for the dinky ones went up.
Are you starting to see it?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Variac
[snip]If the people that hear these differences would consider the fact that they COULD be fooled, then I would be MUCH more interested in their opinions, but until a person admits the possibility that they can't always be objective, I really can't take their opinions seriously.[snip] |
That's the bottom line indeed. If you are convinced you are always right because you KNOW what you are hearing, you most probably aren't. If you realise you probably are subconciously influenced, you probably do a bit better, and up goes your trustworthiness.
Jan Didden
[I am mostly wrong, so you can trust me..:D] |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by Variac
If the people that hear these differences would consider the fact that they COULD be fooled, then I would be MUCH more interested in their opinions... |
Ok, I admit.:D
| quote: | Originally posted by Variac
...but until a person admits the possibility that they can't always be objective, I really can't take their opinions seriously. |
Ok, I admit.:D
Where's the objectivity in audio?
You can say a device measures better, but if you say it sounds better it's you oppinion, your taste.
That's why I could give a 10 ponctuation to a cable and you could give a different value.
What's objective about audio?
My point is: better or worse there's a difference, and the title of this thread is very wrong.:bawling: |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Are you starting to see it?
Jan Didden |
Of course I am.:D
On a sighted test a Sony SCD-1 would win for most beople while playing CDs.
For me, that plastic nasty cheap but quite decent 500 Euros CDP could win hands down, blind or sighted, if it sounds better to me.
Jan, a little off-topic, but have you realized that what sells more is never the best?
People "eat" with the eyes, and if a certain Fiat is more good looking than a VW Golf, even if the price is the same people will buy Fiat.
Does it make it the best of the two?
If most people pick cable X will you trust?
Wouldn't you want to take a listen yourself?
Do you have faith in what others say?
Would you buy it blind, without listening?
That's the worse mistake people do. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by carlosfm
[snip]Where's the objectivity in audio?
You can say a device measures better, but if you say it sounds better it's you oppinion, your taste.
That's why I could give a 10 ponctuation to a cable and you could give a different value.
What's objective about audio?
My point is: better or worse there's a difference, and the title of this thread is very wrong.:bawling: |
Yes, objectivity, that's the big question. In a general sense, what you like and enjoy is good for you. Even if there is another solution for half the price you are not aware of, that's immaterial.
Your example of the cars in your later post is a good one.
But, if someone tries to sell you a 10.000 $ cable because "it really cleans up the high end", that is no longer (unless you are filthy rich) an impulse buy. You want to make SURE it does what he says. One way would be an objective, blind test. On the other hand, if you BELIEVE it cleans up the high end, that's OK for you, isn't it? I have no clear answer here, I admit.
So, if I tell you, Carlos, you MUST use brass screws to fix your NIGC because it will lower the internal IC magnetic field and clean up the high end, would you believe me? If yes, why? If not, why not?
And, Carlos, your last remark, that there IS a difference, how do you know? (Don't tell me "because I heard it", please!).
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by carlosfm
[snip]For me, that plastic nasty cheap but quite decent 500 Euros CDP could win hands down, blind or sighted, if it sounds better to me.[snip] |
Ahh, yes, true, but the fact that it IS "plastic nasty cheap" makes it quite unlikely that it sounds good alongside a brass-and chrome flagship. Whatever the "objective" sound. THAT's the point!
Jan Didden |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
So, if I tell you, Carlos, you MUST use brass screws to fix your NIGC because it will lower the internal IC magnetic field and clean up the high end, would you believe me? |
I would just doubt.
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
If yes, why? If not, why not? |
No yes, no no.
That, for me, is starting to enter the "black magic" field.:D
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
And, Carlos, your last remark, that there IS a difference, how do you know? (Don't tell me "because I heard it", please!). |
What could I tell you, man?:cool:
Don't tell me you never heard a difference, better or worse, when you change a cable?
If you ask me, I'll tell you that speaker cables make more difference than interconnects.
If you have a low impedance source or preamp (as it should always be) you will find it very difficult to detect differences with interconnects.
But speaker cables's difference is clear as water, specially the type of construction and not the 99.99999999% OFC label on the jacket. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by carlosfm
[snip]No yes, no no.
That, for me, is starting to enter the "black magic" field.:D
[snip] |
Black magic, Balck Gate, Black Mamba (you remember that famous speaker cable), it's all rock and roll to me...
I got to stop talking to you Carlos, it gets too damn expensive!
[Carlos said: Thank you for your email. Your credit card has been charged $5.99 for the first ten words and $1.99 for each additional word in your message. ]:bawling:
Jan Didden |
|
|
| HuntTheShunt |
Thanks for the link.
Very informative.
Love the comment "But how do signals at different frequencies know which wire or group of wires to follow? " |
|
|
| janneman |
Yeah, well, that's a bit cheap isn't it? It's like saying "how do those electrons in the filter know they can't go through the coil but they can go through the capacitor?
But I agree that this Dunlavy guy makes a very convincing piece of prose.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
I got to stop talking to you Carlos, it gets too damn expensive!
[Carlos said: Thank you for your email. Your credit card has been charged $5.99 for the first ten words and $1.99 for each additional word in your message. ]:bawling:
Jan Didden |
:clown: :D
Oh, your new pic looks very... clean?:D |
|
|
| janneman |
Yes,
I like pics from people I admire. This is Paul G Allen, 2nd man in MicroSoft. Has only 1/3 the money of Bill (only 20.1 Billion $ US).
Eight years ago he decided to built a provate spaceship. Last week the ship made it's 3rd flight, and won a 10 million $ prize for reaching a certain altitude & duration in space, sub-orbital.
In 2 to 3 years he will offer tourist flights in space with Richard Branson of Virgin. ( http://www.virgingalactic.com/who.html and http://www.space.com/missionlaunche...an_archive.html ). You can sign up for it already. I hope I can afford it before getting to old.
This kind of people, with a vision, and then realizing it, I admire very much. Of course, it's all subjective;)
Jan Didden |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
This kind of people, with a vision, and then realizing it, I admire very much. Of course, it's all subjective;)
Jan Didden |
I understand that you admire him, I respect that.
He may be a great man for his vision and his actions.
This is off-topic, don't take it personal, Jan, it's not for you, but I need to say this:
As a software professional that I am, reading the words Microsoft make me sick.
MS-Dos is a copy of PCM, Windows is a copy of Macintosh, SQL Server is a copy of Oracle.
Nothing original...
All these copys are very bad, unfortunately.
Even then, MS-Dos was much more stable than any Windows, and SQL Server is not to be taken for serious, it's for kids, not for big companies.
I use Windows 2000 because I have software I need that only runs on this platform.
But I've quit IE long ago.
I've never seen such an unsafe and unreliable piece of software in my life. Every month Microsoft has tens of security patches.
People will one day get really tired of Microsoft, as I am long ago.
What sells more is never the best.
Linux will rule.:cool: |
|
|
| Swedish Chef |
| Imagine an aircraft control system or life-support system based on Windows... :rolleyes: :whazzat: |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by carlosfm
[snip]MS-Dos is a copy of PCM, Windows is a copy of Macintosh, SQL Server is a copy of Oracle.
Nothing original...
All these copys are very bad, unfortunately.[snip] |
Yeah, I know. I think the people from the original GainCard know exactly what you mean (not personal either..:D )
Jan Didden |
|
|
| carlosfm |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Yeah, I know. I think the people from the original GainCard know exactly what you mean (not personal either..:D )
Jan Didden |
Well, look at page 1 of the LM3875's datasheet and you'll see the "Gaincard".:clown:
Doesn't do for me... |
|
|
|
