Fact is good cables have less influence on the signal, therefore the only reason not to use the best possible cables is when they start to reveal system flaws. Even then I would vote for the best cables and equipment to match.
I hear you but that isn't a fact because you have not defined "good". And "best" and "perfect" when you throw "reality" in the mix might actually involve a bit of compromise between the engineer and audience with them meeting half way at an agreeable middle ground. A good reason for me is that there is a possibility that using over engineered cables can actually be pointed to as the cause of errors or flaws in the final product.
Lets for instance say that the best equipment in the world is a 500,000 dollar signal chain with super pure cables and speakers where the box is made out of vacuum panels suspended by opposing magnetic force with a room that is surrounded by a giant flame and an anechoic absorption. Lets say the recording engineer used this as his reference for tracking and mixing. Who would ever be able to afford to hear the mix the way the engineer and band intended it to be heard?
Last edited:
Fact is good cables have no influence on the signal.Fact is good cables have less influence on the signal, therefore the only reason not to use the best possible cables is when they start to reveal system flaws. Even then I would vote for the best cables and equipment to match.
Edit. Oh I forgot the "audible"
So, if someone admits error (if indeed he was), that's a bad thing? I don't get that; I thought the ability to reconsider one's beliefs with experience and evidence was "open-mindedness."
You're relying on your (at best) third hand analysis of his state of mind to try to discredit what he was saying, without considering the content. Bad form!
I don't understand what you mean by over engineered cables, as said the best cables are those that have the least influence on SQ. Cables mostly influence detail, definition and stage focus, so it is not too hard to tell which is better especially if you can reference with real instruments.
I would use a very good system with flat response from at least 20Hz to 30kHz and realistic SQ (compared to real instruments) in a realistically damped room, that way you can assure recordings with good SQ. It is not the responsibility of a recording engineer to compensate for systems with lacking freq response. Regarding detail and focus, as long as it is realistic, you can't have too much but once it is lost, you can't get it back.
Great, I want some of them too.
Yep. Bitter old experts and psychoacoustic engineers.
Everybody knows that a 128kb/s MP3, with only 10% of it's original data, isn't even distinguishable as the original song, right?
So, obviously differences of exponential factors below the "established" audible threshold, should be completely audible.....right?
@Tubeguy -
I, too, appreciate your participation in this test. It is the only reason to even follow this thread. But, having said that, I feel the need to point out that not elaborating on all the variations of "expectation bias" is NOT equivalent to changing its definition, when applied to other people.
People are people (objectivist or subjectivist). People's perceptions are easily swayed by conscious/subconscious bias. Ears are part of people. Hence, neither people, nor their ears are to be trusted.
Your contention that "controls" or "nocebos" are important to weed out the "objectivist's" bias is well taken though.
Eric
40 plus years as audiophile, including working as a technical correspondent at Dynaco, ** Physics, worked in several "real stereo stores," Hewlett Packard Service Engineer, owned tons of gear over the years--yes, I know, so what. Listening to stereo is a lot like driving cars. Drive a Chevy, don't notice much; drive a Porsche, you become one with the road (so I've been told). When I worked with stereo gear and in stereo stores and listened to good gear all day long, I could pick out small improvements. Now that I don't listen as much (with 61 yr old ears), I don't notice as much. If you are starting with a really good system to begin with, say $5000 in used gear, I have found from my own experience that one has to spend a lot of money to improve even one piece of that system to notice a significant improvement and maybe not even then. I spent, and spent, and spent, and never was satisfied. After conducting some extensive "physics" tests with tone generators, high-end microphones, etc., I realized that those folks that say "stop buying equipment and do something about your room acoustics" are more than 100% correct. In short (finally), one has to own and listen to a very high-end system a lot to be able to notice small improvements. I would just hook up the system and enjoy some music and forget about all the other stuff. A glass of wine or a beer will make much more of an improvement in the sound than worrying about cables. Enjoyment is what it is about after all.
wisdom of ages
brings to mind the idiom...
"A foole and his money be soone at debate: which after with sorow repents him too late." [1573 T. Tusser Husbandry (rev. ed.) ix.]
brings to mind the idiom...
"A foole and his money be soone at debate: which after with sorow repents him too late." [1573 T. Tusser Husbandry (rev. ed.) ix.]
I did amend the original comment to include '320 and up' and in fact my mp3s are around 45MB per 4 minute track, but OT.
Agreed. Applies to a wide area of subjects!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.