IMO, acknowleding that something "could" matter, when there's proof to the contrary and just anecdote on the other side of the fence, is just as bad as saying "there's no need for proof".
DF96 just said it: high-end anyone?
it looks to me like the high-end apologists think that a system which is sensitive to every surrounding factor = a good system. does it pick and demodulate RF? put it inside a $1000 case and sell it for $50k. and then point fingers at the "consumer crap" which somehow manages to pass regulations and does its job with the cheapest SMPS.
Yes, I realise that I may have encouraged foolishness - but fools will be fools whether I encourage them or not. I don't want them accusing me (us?) of denying real effects even when it is completely clear that these effects are negligibly small (or only relevant for other materials - we need to listen to SY on this as he has professional knowledge of this area).mr_push_pull said:
The same things keep coming up:
1. some people clearly prefer some distortion, and show this by deliberately incorporating it into their system (e.g. many Chinese tube buffers).
2. some highly-rated (and/or expensive) items include basic circuit or layout errors, although this may only emerge when someone puts up a circuit here and asks for 'upgrade' help.
3. offered explanations for most tweaks are plainly nonsense, but seem carefully crafted to sound impressive to people who have heard of a few scientific words but don't know what they mean. It is unclear (to me) to what extent the sellers believe their own blurb, but it easier to sell snake oil when the seller is a true believer.
proof to the contrary ...??
In science the more precise the measurement, the more effort has to be made to mitigate sensitivity to the environment - this is a fundamental. So, in one sense the 'better' the audio system the more sensitive it's going to be, automatically.
The real argument in all this is how sensitive people's hearing is - how precise the "measurement" of the recording has to be made for the ear/brain.
and, there is more to this one.
dare to come up with an actual explanation that refutes the one being offered. you'll by rewarded by the cheering crowd "look at the poor bastard clutching at straws while sinking" or "no-one cares anout your math" (or even logic, most of the time) etc.
here's one that might make your blood your pressure rise if you're not versed in the common trolling tactics: What is "time resolution"? - Hydrogenaudio Forums
in case you don't have the patience (and I advise that you actually find something better to do than read it), here's a summary: self-taught (an euphemism) guy thinks he can disprove Nyquist. he doesn't have even the most basic understanding of it. but is quick to criticize the "narrow view of academics" or to throw stuff like "study is to creativity what masturbation is to procreation". after 7 pages of badly-masked ad-hominems he ends with saying "well, I wrote this Java app that kind of disproves my initial theory and maybe you're right and I shoud buy myself a few books".
Don't confuse precision instrumentation with domestic audio; audio is much simpler. Audio is not supposed to be sensitive to its environment, so to the extent that it is sensitive it is poorly designed/built - whatever the price tag. This might be expected in very cheap stuff where quality is not a major consideration, but it should not be a problem in better systems. The fact that it can be a problem is a sign of weakness, not strength.fas42 said:
I may build some DIY audio for myself and for simplicity choose to omit RF filters; I then may suffer the consequences. I would not expect good quality commercial audio to omit RF filters then claim that the resultant sensitivity to the RF environment and fussiness about cable quality is somehow a positive feature and a sign of 'fine discrimination' - yet this is what sometimes happens.
Thanks. Believing that ignorance is somehow a superior form of knowledge seems to be all too common these days.mr_push_pull said:
and the person quoting Keith Johnson (Jason V Serinus) also states at the beginning of his reply. "I am always amused by tests, supposedly conducted under rigorous conditions, that purport to "prove" what many of us hear regardless of the "proof." It is as though statistical analysis could possibly replace one's visceral and emotional reactions to music."
THIS from the guru of "I always hear differences in cables, power cords and ICs"
He once partook in a double blind test Welcome Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelityand couldn't do any better than guessing then swore off double blind tests from then on. Credibility is something Stereophile seems to avoid at all costs.
Mr Serinus also had this to say about blind testing,....
" Simply put, John Atkinson, myself, and others at TAS and Stereophile have written extensively on the shortcomings and limitations of blind testing, as well as the fallacy that measurements tell you everything you need to know about how a product sounds. We've experienced the limitations for ourselves. I've also written at least one passionate As We See It on the subject.
I am not interested in wasting my time or anyone else's time buying into faulty methodology so that others who deny my reality can gloat. I did that once, many years ago, and am not falling for it again.
If anyone needs to truly believe that stock power cables sound the same as Nordost Valhalla or Nordost Odin power cables, they are free to believe it. For those who have heard the difference, and have the means to enjoy after market power cables and tweaks, pleasure and joy awaits. Everyone else can find their joy in rejoicing that their stock cords are just as good. The same holds true for other products.
That some people insist that blind methodology is the only foolproof methodology, no matter how much is published about its limitations and fallacies, says more about their belief systems than anything else.
As for my belief system, it should be evident. My post describes the differences I've heard. If direct experience isn't good enough for someone - if they're going to play the "objective" vs. "subjective" game, and throw the placebo effect stuff at me, as though a music critic abandons all powers of discrimination when listening to music on a high-end system - so be it. I have nothing to prove."
His whistle therapy business though seems to be something he is proud of.
Last edited:
while not attacking Stereophile (I give them points for posting real measurements and as long as there's positive-feedback.com... you get the idea), I once wrote that there's some sort of tacit conspiracy in high-end. the cheering crowd was soon to put me down my labelling me as "conspiracy theorists", which I'm not.
but I was referring to another kind of conspiracy. it's not like some sort of "masonry" whose members gather secretly and devise cunning plots to take over the world by complete manipulation. LOL
but something similar to that kind of realization that comes with maturity. that, sometimes, for most practical purposes, it's actually better to just use people, never really speak your mind and be mostly subversive instead of just trying to sit, talk and try to reach a consensus. it's not like you need to be part of some occult organization that's trying to take on the world to realize it
I'm not sure I'm getting across with the message.
Yes Stereophile posts real measurements but then turn around and let some one like Serinus say whatever subjective drivel they like and NEVER bother to test those wonderful cables and powercords because that would be too "difficult and blind testing is faulty".
Mixing objective and subjective like they do and you end up with a nonsensical publication that appears to be scientific but in reality ends up being a farce.
Mixing objective and subjective like they do and you end up with a nonsensical publication that appears to be scientific but in reality ends up being a farce.
Well, cable worship, I just found out, has moved into the computer realm.
It's a bit slow today and I just overheard two programmers eager to spend some $$$ at Fry's because their pricing is practical.
One engineer just told the other, "Don't go into that other Big Box store's computer section for network cable because they typically charge $50 there. Go to the gaming section where they sell the same cable with same specs in the same length for $20".
Geee, I didn't know there was a difference between a true computing network cable and a gaming cable. Hmmmmmmmmm....
It's a bit slow today and I just overheard two programmers eager to spend some $$$ at Fry's because their pricing is practical.
One engineer just told the other, "Don't go into that other Big Box store's computer section for network cable because they typically charge $50 there. Go to the gaming section where they sell the same cable with same specs in the same length for $20".
Geee, I didn't know there was a difference between a true computing network cable and a gaming cable. Hmmmmmmmmm....
tell me about it. during the course of a random conversation a friend ask me if I can fix his broken HDMI cable. I'm like... come again, please? he looks very surprised and I'm really not getting it. I tell him that the probability of finding a HDMI connector at the local parts store is zero and likely no-one actually sells such thing, because it's kinda difficult to solder so many close and thin wires and a new cable is less than $10. he looks at me confused and says "but I read that there's no way you can get a decent one under $80".
guys. this industry is growing. and growing. and growing... I really wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in the future everyone will know for a fact that your TV will explode if you use generic cables.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.