Yes if the cheap amp doesn't introduce audible errors.
Define "good" - sound or built quality or price or...? If you were talking about sound quality, my anser has to be "yes".
Brothers in arms? I was wondering when it would happen.Yes now there are also scientists that are not good.The last thing will be that the systems of all good scientists sound the same.AMEN.
You might. You apparently still don't understand that the proof you demand results from performing valid tests and therefore it's logically contradictory to say tests aren't required until that proof is forthcoming.
Everyone is free to believe that there is a cheap receiver that doesn't introduce audible errors.😛
Good amp:Sound and build quality.😕
Last edited:
I think you are missing the point
Anyone can post all they want (they should realize where they are posting though). .
If someone just enjoys their setup, enjoys what they buy what is their purpose of using that enjoyment as some sort of fact in a science discussion about cables.
This is the DIY forum, measurements and science go hand in hand with the debate. Subjectivity should be questioned at all times in this forum.
Im fine with people spending $$$ on anything and everything, the more spending the better the economy so I support subjective purchasing. I do not support wildly subjective claims posted online about this product or that product being better. There is a big difference between buying and making claims in posts.
Last edited:
Well, if you think your $1350 constant clipping distortion, compressor, EQ/amplifier sounds "better" than the "cheap", inaudible Pioneer.....what exactly would you call that???
Blatantly obvious audible effects are completely missed (remember our little Klippel Test?🙂)....while imaginary wire "sound".....is easily heard.
Hmmmm...😉
rdf, the way I understand it, I believe (I know redundant) what Markus is saying is that there is no way for him to prove what you alone or anyone claim is true. That burden of proof is not his. We have SB and DBTs that suggest people can't hear the effects of cables or even well designed amplifiers. These are not done to your satisfaction, but are done to his. It seems unreasonable to ask him to design a test to your satisfaction to prove your claim. If you can design a test that proves decently designed/built cables effect the sound enough that we can plainly and reliably "hear" them, by all means do it. MOST persons interested in audio would be in your debt--especially hi end cable manufacturers. I wouldn't expect them to fund such a study however. I know you love logic and logical arguments, but I can't see where you are making one. Perhaps you would like to clarify your position as I doubt you would be taking such an illogical position. Please state in plain English and with proper grammar, so it can be understood by all, your position.
Thanks,
Dan
Thanks,
Dan
Last edited:
I don't think you can in any way comment on my amp or how it behaves since you haven't heard it in my system or even know what my speakers are.
But you never stop thinking you know everything right?Unless of course you have a magic way to measure things from there😛.I am begining to realize a new face of science in your posts that really make me WISH I'm deluded.
Read my post:It has cost ME $1350,while my 250w/ch power amp I got second hand,has cost $650(an this one is SS)
Anything else Mr.know everything?
Last edited:
Kimbois is a 'breath of fresh air' on this cable business. The only 'true believers' here are those who believe that their favorite group of researchers has proven how we hear, what we can hear, and what we need to concentrate on, in future, for sound reproduction.
The followers of this group are certainly on this thread.
Anyone else, like me, is 'pitied', called a liar, money grubber, or some sort of misguided non-scientist. Measurements that we make, don't seem to count.
Can you not see the parallel with Galileo, 400 years ago, trying to get the church official to look through his telescope at the moons of Jupiter?
Professor Francisco Sizzi (Professor of Astronomy) said in 1610:
"Jupiter's moons are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can have no influence on the earth, and therefore would be useless, and therefore do not exist."
Exactly 400 years later, what are we saying about cables? Anyone see a connection?
Professor says that his learning has taught him that nothing that the human eye cannot see, can actually exist, because the 'Church' seat of all learning for centuries, has deemed it so.
Now a certain group of researchers have made an assertion that cables don't make any difference, and the rest of us better watch our step, in order to not be defrocked as a scientist, engineer, and maybe even be prosecuted for lying and deception.
The followers of this group are certainly on this thread.
Anyone else, like me, is 'pitied', called a liar, money grubber, or some sort of misguided non-scientist. Measurements that we make, don't seem to count.
Can you not see the parallel with Galileo, 400 years ago, trying to get the church official to look through his telescope at the moons of Jupiter?
Professor Francisco Sizzi (Professor of Astronomy) said in 1610:
"Jupiter's moons are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can have no influence on the earth, and therefore would be useless, and therefore do not exist."
Exactly 400 years later, what are we saying about cables? Anyone see a connection?
Professor says that his learning has taught him that nothing that the human eye cannot see, can actually exist, because the 'Church' seat of all learning for centuries, has deemed it so.
Now a certain group of researchers have made an assertion that cables don't make any difference, and the rest of us better watch our step, in order to not be defrocked as a scientist, engineer, and maybe even be prosecuted for lying and deception.
$1350 Low power pretty glowing tubes (10w?). Said so yourself.
Acoustic Preference Gracioso 1.0
Low efficiency dome over cone ported box, pretty wood finish.
Cordell article. In this Groundhog Day thread, we'll pretend you didn't read it before 😉
No, science doesn't require you "be there" to understand things. I don't have to drive a Yugo to know it doesn't perform as well as a Ferrari on a racetrack, or jump off a cliff to know it's hazardous...although Audiophiles would...to "experience it for themselves".
It's quite simple science. Unless you listen only to Brittany Spears/Pop music, your low powered tubes, driving the low eff boxes, constantly clip and compress.
It's just that you can't hear it (real "it's").
A common occurrence among those with super duper "wire sound" self assessed "listening" abilities. Can hear imaginary-disappear-during-controlled-listening "wire sonics". Can't hear blatantly audible issues in their systems, because they are too busy listening to wires, cables, capacitors, resistors, bricks, stones, photos and whatnot.
Strange eh?🙂
Last edited:
You don't need to "switch off" your "normal" hearing in a DBT, do you? So why haveall DBTs up to this day proven you wrong?
It is my studied opinion that the brain automatically 'switches off' my 'normal' hearing when doing an ABX type double-blind test. It does NOT 'switch off' when doing a blind A-B test. This has been my professional experience.
Don't worry John, I don't pity you. Your comments on new coke and what you said was contained in the article about cable directionality were certainly less that honest but I don't recall you being called a liar even when the shoe fit. I don't think you intentionally lied and I don't hold it against you. I do think you read what you want to read and hear what you want to hear and I have evidence to support that claim. Until someone disproves what the best available research indicates or your beliefs are demonstrated to have merit you have no point. You and others who hold the same belief are not comparable with Galileo. In fact the opposite is a far more accurate analogy. The research was on his side. IOW you are the Catholic Church in this instance trying to hold back science and discovery. We can all argue this until we are blue in the fingers, but nothing your side has said has changed the basic facts. Until you can, why argue?
I apologize in advance if you find this offensive. It's not my intent.
Dan
Nope. It's your imagination/biases that get switched off, not your brain, so you need to study a lot more.
That is what is "normally" "on", but which you refuse to accept, regardless of how much you will "study".
My tube amp is actually 15w😀 I haven't ever seen you even think of critisizing a similar design by a distinguished member of this forum😀
You still pretent that you don't see my comment about my other huge power amp.WHY? Because it simply suits your arrogance,right?
You haven't applied for news letters regarding my system😀,so you have missed a couple of episodes about my speakers.They are actually Gracioso 2.0 of higher sensitivity.Also,since you have decided to reveal the content of my PM to you(some people like to do this),why don't you reveal my other speakers,Focal Electra 946 with their two 10" woofers,6" midrange and 94 db sensitivity?WHY?Because it simply suits your arrogance,right?
As for the Gracioso 2.0,sorry,it is not a pretty wood finish to me.They are superb solid walnut pieces of art (for others too),with no parallel sides in their shape.No comment on the parts used,I know your views.
Anything else?
Yes doug20,nice post from AJ,only he chooses what even his friends will know.Very nice and most importantly complete and honest post.Enjoy it.......both of you.
Last edited:
Obviously you could never be wrong and obviously ABX tests are flawed because you didnt like the outcome. 🙄
No...audible.
I could care less if one posts measurements of the moon's effect on wires.
Are they audible
Sill waiting on RDF, Jakob2, John Risch robust tests that show this
Waiting...and waiting and waiting and waiting and......🙂
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.