I might say something, I hope conveys at least my experience. First, double blind testing will not show any subtle differences, but that could be said the same with a double blind test between New Coke and Old Coke, or even Coke, Pepsi and some generic cola. A VERY rigid test of this type will obscure these differences, even if they are obvious with extended listening, or tasting.
Still, I have never made a preamp or power amp, (and I have designed plenty) that really sounds exactly like another. AND the latest design is NOT ALWAYS the best sounding.
This is my experience, and it is refreshing that some here notice this.
Still, I have never made a preamp or power amp, (and I have designed plenty) that really sounds exactly like another. AND the latest design is NOT ALWAYS the best sounding.
This is my experience, and it is refreshing that some here notice this.
So you never bothered looking up the references I gave you? That's factually incorrect. Why do you keep repeating it?
I know a cable manufacturer in Germany (he has absolutely nothing to do with audio - he produces fireproof cables in coordination with the german Feuerwehr). This guy told me that it must make a difference with the direction and that he could not imagine for one second that cable would sound the same because of the huge manufacturing possibilities and material differences involved! No proof here but interesting thoughts of a man with 27 years of experience in non-audio cable manufacturing.
This has no place good to go. It disappoints me that the "Audio Critic" crowd does not respect the other side enough to put together a calm direct argument. This stuff just escalates to polarized extremes almost immediately.
I have a suggestion !
Set a last post deadline on this thread......then allow all those that were able to stuff a comment in vote on which post was the "The Most 1)Idiotic 2)intelligent and of course the 3) Most entertaining.
......Just 'IN The Spirit of Things'
😛
Set a last post deadline on this thread......then allow all those that were able to stuff a comment in vote on which post was the "The Most 1)Idiotic 2)intelligent and of course the 3) Most entertaining.
......Just 'IN The Spirit of Things'
😛
The new coke was horribly sweet, didn't you have friends in the 60's that ordered a shot of vanilla syrup with their coke? That's the market I thought they were going for. Easily told apart.
BTW I have not tasted any coke in more than 15yr.
Last edited:
Sometime in 95 or 96 we searched and found 2 amplifiers (Technics SU-V???? & Yamaha A-750 or so) with remarkable similar specs, adjusted both according to the service manuals, double checked the most important measurements, THD & TIM were nearly identical with nearly the same amounts of K2 & K3, same rising time etc. Made a listening test with 3 people ordered to shut up and just write down if there were differences. Well, all 3 heard the same difference with Mission floorstanders & a pair of Richard Allen 2-way british monitors. The Technics was mushy like nothing else with rounded transients and a very warm tone. The Yamaha was unbearable bright and missing all the wood & body of the cellos & violins.
If someone thinks that he has the right to speak for me and telling the world that "nobody ever heard a difference" reminds me of fascist propoganda!
Last edited:
Guy probably has a hearing problem of a certain degree which he has not discovered yet. I myself struggle to hear amp differences and hear no diffs whatsoever amongst decent cd players, but it would be arrogant of me to claim that there are none just because my ears are fat.
Keep your opinions, HornTube, but you will find only criticism here. Those who criticize you do belong to a group that subscribes to a few books and their authors, leaving behind what most of us actually experience.
I have many hundred books on the subject of audio and physics, but these do not count, because somebody, somewhere, has stated that I am kidding myself with what I design and its effect on the general public.
I have many hundred books on the subject of audio and physics, but these do not count, because somebody, somewhere, has stated that I am kidding myself with what I design and its effect on the general public.
Coke ran lots and lots of controlled sensory tests- the notion that no-one could tell the difference is completely a figment of John's imagination.
Snopes reviews it here:
snopes.com: New Coke Origin
For a more comprehensive retelling, see "Blink," by Malcolm Gladwell and Mark Prendergast's "For God, Country, and Coca-Cola." The truth is a far more interesting story than John's made-up version.
Thanks, however I was refering to the post by el'Ol where he mentioned investigations at the Technical University Berlin. It is that information that I would be interested to read.
el'Ol, do you have any references or directions that you could post?
Thank you.
Tests should have some common control factors.
I'm done....sorry couldn't resist
Nice... but even with wax in my ears I would hear the difference between a California Audio Labs and a cold dead Sony CD-Player from 50m distance!
Audiophilery looks like a religion. As in a true religion, "True believers" make pontifications on the One Path to Enlightenment (or Multipath, as the case may be here!). Followers strive for this condition; sinners follow poorly, and heretics oppose it openly. It seems to have the structure of a religion.
Now, a proper religion has no rational argument for or against it; "God" can neither be proven to exist or not exist (though proponents and opponents both insist the correctness of the fallacious proofs for their respective cases). This is one reason why the world's major religions have stood the test of time. They endure because they can't be disproven.
The thing is, audiophilery fails to pass this test. Using scientific methods, it has been proven that certain claims made by the True Believers are, in fact, false. A religion cannot be disproven, but audiophilery has. Then it cannot be a religion. Accordingly, all people interested in the subject must be alerted to this conclusion, lest the waste their lives on false pretenses.
True believers resist this conclusion, taking many familiar approaches in a vain attempt to deny the conclusion. We have already seen some in this thread: "who does xxx think he is!?" -- questioning a person's quality rather than his conclusions is an ad hominem attack, a fallacy.
Doesn't this bother anyone? How can we have a well-reasoned discussion about anything if reason goes out the window?
I have a question for the True Believers (you know who you are 🙂 ): do you believe you can produce a true, non-fallacious defense of your beliefs, in light of the OP's statement? If so, are you willing to have it debated in an honest fashion, with no fallacy, no trolling, only rational argument?
What is at stake:
If you accept that it has been disproven, then you accept that all of these things (CD players, amplifiers, cables, etc.) have no difference, and that any difference you think you have experienced was, in fact, a lie. This is a difficult admission for anyone, but a virtuous person will recognize the overwhelming force of reson and concede this point.
On the other hand, if you can prove that it is true (through a similarly scientific and rational basis), then all research (such as the OP's statement) will be cast into doubt! Remember, this is a Good Thing, as science is inherently self-doubting and will greatly value the proof of fallacious data. Indeed, your conclusion could lead to new experiments that prove the existence of this difference. Not only would your belief be verified, others will have no choice but to agree!
The only thing I ask is that all subsequent respondents follow a rational argument. I will gladly point out any fallacious statements, keeping things focused and on track. We can collect rational arguments, for and against, and in the end, decide which arguments are most valid. Finally, we can reach a conclusion, once and for all, deciding if it's really true or not!
Such a solution should please the moderators, no? Fallacy leads to attack which leads to bad threads. Perhaps the moderators may even help me with my proposed ground rules.
Tim
Now, a proper religion has no rational argument for or against it; "God" can neither be proven to exist or not exist (though proponents and opponents both insist the correctness of the fallacious proofs for their respective cases). This is one reason why the world's major religions have stood the test of time. They endure because they can't be disproven.
The thing is, audiophilery fails to pass this test. Using scientific methods, it has been proven that certain claims made by the True Believers are, in fact, false. A religion cannot be disproven, but audiophilery has. Then it cannot be a religion. Accordingly, all people interested in the subject must be alerted to this conclusion, lest the waste their lives on false pretenses.
True believers resist this conclusion, taking many familiar approaches in a vain attempt to deny the conclusion. We have already seen some in this thread: "who does xxx think he is!?" -- questioning a person's quality rather than his conclusions is an ad hominem attack, a fallacy.
Doesn't this bother anyone? How can we have a well-reasoned discussion about anything if reason goes out the window?
I have a question for the True Believers (you know who you are 🙂 ): do you believe you can produce a true, non-fallacious defense of your beliefs, in light of the OP's statement? If so, are you willing to have it debated in an honest fashion, with no fallacy, no trolling, only rational argument?
What is at stake:
If you accept that it has been disproven, then you accept that all of these things (CD players, amplifiers, cables, etc.) have no difference, and that any difference you think you have experienced was, in fact, a lie. This is a difficult admission for anyone, but a virtuous person will recognize the overwhelming force of reson and concede this point.
On the other hand, if you can prove that it is true (through a similarly scientific and rational basis), then all research (such as the OP's statement) will be cast into doubt! Remember, this is a Good Thing, as science is inherently self-doubting and will greatly value the proof of fallacious data. Indeed, your conclusion could lead to new experiments that prove the existence of this difference. Not only would your belief be verified, others will have no choice but to agree!
The only thing I ask is that all subsequent respondents follow a rational argument. I will gladly point out any fallacious statements, keeping things focused and on track. We can collect rational arguments, for and against, and in the end, decide which arguments are most valid. Finally, we can reach a conclusion, once and for all, deciding if it's really true or not!
Such a solution should please the moderators, no? Fallacy leads to attack which leads to bad threads. Perhaps the moderators may even help me with my proposed ground rules.
Tim
Sometime in the 80's British scientists claimed that THD is not important at all. They said that IM and the K2 & K3 combinations tailoring the sound of an amp. I've read it in Stereophile or HiFi-World or Hi-Fi News.. who knows?
Dear horn.... be attention because of the tube may crash you
this thread is pure kryptonite ...some forum members will rip your liver
and give it to vultures, or at least will remove your scalp .
I personally appreciate the courage of people,
I like the boldness also ... and I think a good
controversy is also an interesting spice ... yet
use of names, the nominal charge, will complicate your
relationship with the moderators ... they hate direct charges
pointing fingers ... they want us to be saints.
Please, inform uncle Charlie the cigarrete brand you smoke,
also the drink you like...i may visit you (maybe) in the sin bin
providing you some confort, celebrating your suicide courage.
regards,
Carlos
this thread is pure kryptonite ...some forum members will rip your liver
and give it to vultures, or at least will remove your scalp .
I personally appreciate the courage of people,
I like the boldness also ... and I think a good
controversy is also an interesting spice ... yet
use of names, the nominal charge, will complicate your
relationship with the moderators ... they hate direct charges
pointing fingers ... they want us to be saints.
Please, inform uncle Charlie the cigarrete brand you smoke,
also the drink you like...i may visit you (maybe) in the sin bin
providing you some confort, celebrating your suicide courage.
regards,
Carlos
- Status
- Not open for further replies.