I don't doubt the apparent convincing nature of his perceptions, given the usual audiophile reliance on sighted evaluations.
Sorry to come so late to the party, but this caught my mental eye, because I have seen something like that a few times before.
First time was probably 20+ years back. A scope screen shot of noise coming out of a filter I think it was. Next was a scope shot after replacing a cap with a boutique one, orders of magnitude more expensive. Noise level much lower.
I was able to prove that it was just a matter of fiddled scales. If you cut out the two screen shots, and tilted the high-noise one 45 degrees or so backward and glanced at them side by side, they were identical. Exact.
The other was here on diyaudio also quite some years ago. Some 'magical' thing that would improve not just audio stuff but even the power of a car engine! It may have been a Bybee product but I can't remember for sure. Two graphs: one showing the torque versus revs of a stock engine, the other with the 'magic device' attached. Torque looked quite a lot higher. Not sure of the details any more but again I could prove that the two curves were identical but that the scale of the second had been manipulated. Actually got to the point that the guy called me in Holland, but eventually removed those graphs.
And let's be honest, salesmen also play the music on the system they want to sell just a tiny bit louder than the rest. Sounds better! And they will continue to do it as long as there are customers that insist 'I hear what I hear'.
Jan
Last edited:
I should note the reason I raised the audioquest letter is that Audioquest themselves were trying to distance themselves from the dealer who had comissioned the video. AQ did listen to it, did question it, but didn't check for themselves and signed off.
What I cannot decide is if this is an honest mistake they are trying to rectify, or frantic back pedaling from a sh*tstorm of their own making. Having read their show reviews they are clearly in the suggestion and hypnotism game, but more hi-end dealers are so cannot single them out for that alone...
What I cannot decide is if this is an honest mistake they are trying to rectify, or frantic back pedaling from a sh*tstorm of their own making. Having read their show reviews they are clearly in the suggestion and hypnotism game, but more hi-end dealers are so cannot single them out for that alone...
Wish I knew now,
What I didn't know then... ( Bob Seger)
I bought the Duelund cast resistors, believing they must be really good if they cost so much.
I prefer Mills 12 watt resistors.
Cheap and reliable.
I have also found that less strands in an analog audio conductor generally results in cleaner sound. There are lots f technology involved, but generally some simple structure with the right material can get you pretty good results when flexibility is not too important.
For the general consumer, generally knowledge does not penetrate the thought process as it is too complicated for people to comprehend. But I generally prefer some information technical enough to help differentiate from the general maze of products. But the experience is much more a deciding factor.
Do the consumer return policy apply to these kinds of products in the US or other countries? I generally recommend resellers to have a set for people to let consumers they are familiar with to try before they buy to prevent any scratch etc. disputes.
I take this incident as evidence that even people like Audioquest who make what I believe to be highly improbable claims about the sonic properties of cables for analog links (interconnects, speaker cables) are unwilling to make the claims that were made for digital links (SP/DIF, AES/EBU, Toslink, USB, HDMI, etc.) because those claims are so much more improbable.
HI end dealers flip flop and fly all over the place.
I went in to one to buy some Naim speaker wire terminations, and the guy noticed my bag of purchased CDs, and asked what I'd bought.
They were some mostly unmixed, 2 mic blues recordings.
He read the labels, and said yech- these are good players, but they used all audioquest cables for the performers and recording process.
It'll sound like crap!
With the number of places selling hi end (expensive) audio products dwindling, as these boutiques go under, this store now sells audioquest.
Advertising sleight of hand has been common in the industry for quite some time. I remember reading an Empire cartridge ad many years ago in which the manufacturer quoted results from a magazine test. The words 'higher than average distortion' were actually highlighted in bold print to imply that this was a positive characteristic.
This is where I think the consumer needs to be able to listen to qualities independent of the slight loudness differences. I have also found people to reduce the level so that sound is not so fatiguing. Asking to listen at different volume levels is also a good way to handle the situation. As a customer, I really spend the time and effort to make sure I am getting something that I can accept for a long time.
Then there are those who show data that is pretty clearly from mismeasurement. Some years ago, Speaker Builder magazine published a letter (or was it an article) by some guy that used to do a pseudoscientific review magazine and who was then selling his own line of magic capacitors. He showed an oscilloscope plot of a waveform with and without his brand of cap. The "with" had extra wiggles on the displayed waveform (said to be from a CD of a trumpet playing -- the wiggles are "what makes it sound real"). But the time scale of the scope plot called that into question - according to the ?sec per division" and the # of divisions, there could only have been about 4 samples worth of the CD's data in the entire plot. The wiggles sure weren't coming from what was coded on the CD. My guess was that it was probably the big cap body was picking up a nearby AM radio station and aliasing on the digital oscilloscope. I even wrote the author a letter, with questions, to the magazine, but never heard back nor saw my questions published. Maybe Ed Dell didn't want to pursue the questions or (more likely) the "scientist" just never replied back to the magazine and it all got forgotten.
Shag-Thee.
(at age 6, I got hit on my forehead with a street stone. The scar reminds me to be aware of geeks bearing bricks)
You should have witnessed Thomas Höhne (Sovereign amps, Aaron) in his High End store in Essen, demoing the Neumann amp line he distributed at mega volume : Super Klasse !
Attachments
A Scientific fact that is easy to prove and has been proven many times and in many ways:
Human beings are made in such a way that they perceive sounds that never existed as well as sounds that do exist. The sounds that never existed are usually or at least often fabrications of the listener's brain.
What, that we hear telepathic messages from Aliens? Each to their own I guess.
You appear to be highly confused in your thinking. The process of hearing involves both one's ears AND brain. You hear what you hear after it has passed through and been processed by both these organs.
To suggest you don't hear what you hear is simply ludicrous; it implies that one of these organs has somehow been bypassed. I think you may have been watching too many episodes of the X Files.
You appear to be highly confused in your thinking. The process of hearing involves both one's ears AND brain. You hear what you hear after it has passed through and been processed by both these organs.
To suggest you don't hear what you hear is simply ludicrous; it implies that one of these organs has somehow been bypassed. I think you may have been watching too many episodes of the X Files.
Not at all. You are the one who thinks about space aliens. I tried to drop that foolishness, but here it gets brought up again.\
Just because I don't share your apparent fascination with messages from
space aliens? LOL!
False. If you actually study the science of perception, it is quite possible and even likely to hear things that never passed through your ears.
One set of real world examples can be found here:
Diana Deutsch - Illusions and Research
Right, the brain is the most powerful organ in the body and it often takes precedence over the others.
Another example - the well known McGurk Effect, explained and illustated many places on the web including here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGurk_effect
"
The McGurk effect is a perceptual phenomenon that demonstrates an interaction between hearing and vision in speech perception. The illusion occurs when the auditory component of one sound is paired with the visual component of another sound, leading to the perception of a third sound.[1] The visual information a person gets from seeing a person speak changes the way they hear the sound.[2] People who are used to watching dubbed movies may be among people who are not susceptible to the McGurk effect because they have, to some extent, learned to ignore the information they are getting from the mouths of the "speakers".[3] If a person is getting poor quality auditory information but good quality visual information, they may be more likely to experience the McGurk effect.[4] Integration abilities for audio and visual information may also influence whether a person will experience the effect. People who are better at sensory integration have been shown to be more susceptible to the effect.[2] Many people are affected differently by the McGurk effect based on many factors, including brain damage and other disorders.
"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
I think many people need to inform themselves about human perception, links already provided. This might help keep them from making fools of themselves in public.
..and stereo is another. Where is the phantom center channel generated? The brain, of course. Is it heard by the ears? No, there is nothing in the real world to hear, which is why we call it "Phantom".
- Status
- Not open for further replies.