Hi,
The true drama is that we don't have music anymore but just products.
Cheers, 😉
Panicos K said:
The true drama is that we don't have music anymore but just products.
Cheers, 😉
Yes, he trusted the shop the same way as he trusted his broker and his bank. Of course we all know where such trust can cause you to end up!!😉
fdegroves: So very true!
fdegroves: So very true!
fdegrove said:
On top of that many listen to 5 records/cd's all the time.Even those recordings were recommended by hifi magazines
I dont believe that 🙄
Are we saints in here
I admit, I often have the same disc in the CD for several weeks, if its a good one
Are we saints in here
I admit, I often have the same disc in the CD for several weeks, if its a good one
This is not unique to audiophiles. Even my mother will listen to the same new CD over and over if she likes it.
Nothing wrong with a little novel joy.
Nothing wrong with a little novel joy.
May I again point out that the materials that make up the C are the only possible source of cable specific, sonic differences. And that it is in fact the dielectric constant, which is the charge rate and charge threshold of the various dielectric materials, that cause information corruption, through loss of signal coherence, during the electrostatic moment, when vector change is occurring in an electrical field.
This is easily demonstrable using true Litz coil winding wire, with a thin dielectric on all copper surfaces and relatively small amounts of different dielectric materials added to these lengths. Litz wire, which does not suffer from the RAC losses that most typical copper wires do suffer from, until the megahertz region is approached.
Not to say that L&R are unimportant, to the rest of the system components, but cable specific changes in tonal structure are due solely to the loss mechanisms inherent in the C component and only during the process of vector change in an electrical field. And then it is only important when that vector change is being informed by an information packet, that is meaningful to a subjective, somewhat conscious entity, for whom the losses in information are important.
Bud
This is easily demonstrable using true Litz coil winding wire, with a thin dielectric on all copper surfaces and relatively small amounts of different dielectric materials added to these lengths. Litz wire, which does not suffer from the RAC losses that most typical copper wires do suffer from, until the megahertz region is approached.
Not to say that L&R are unimportant, to the rest of the system components, but cable specific changes in tonal structure are due solely to the loss mechanisms inherent in the C component and only during the process of vector change in an electrical field. And then it is only important when that vector change is being informed by an information packet, that is meaningful to a subjective, somewhat conscious entity, for whom the losses in information are important.
Bud
janneman said:
Right. Now if you can patent the "sound" of an exhaust you should be able to patent the sound of a cable. 😉
fdegrove said:
Frank,
The point is that this is a very, very extremely unlikely scenario. That's the whole point. That cable must be so incompetently designed and/or so completely out of step with the rest of the system to overcome your expectations to actually make it sound bad. For practical purposes, the possibility can be ruled out.
jd
Andre Visser said:
Yes, but you won't know that unless you do a series of controlled tests. Getting up in the morning, turning on the system and telling yourself: 'see, it sounds the same as yesterday' doesn't suffice.
Andre Visser said:
yes it can be influenced by the concious mind, but the process is not accessible to us. You can force yourself to do something or to believe something, but you don't know how it works internally and you don't know what other things come into play.
It also works the other way around, that your unconcious mind has a certain 'feeling' or 'emotion' and then MAKES you conciously come to the conclusion that something is good or bad. You THINK you made that decision but is was a fully automatic reaction based on earlier experience for example, something like a mild trauma you're not aware of.
Andre Visser said:
Are you kidding? You want a list? Size, cost, color, type of terminations. Whether you paid for it or got it free. Brand name. Your friends opinion on one or the other cable.
I know, you were pulling my leg, right?
jd
First. Congratulations on the Boks win against the ABs.Andre Visser said:
Can't remember doing that, those sprigs would hurt.... sure you're not just imagining it? 😀
jlsem said:
Yes you are right. I made the sweeping statement, but I was thinking about a certain type of patients. I should have been more specific but thought the connection with the context would be made.
The point I was trying to make was that people who's brains are less good in convincing them that they really are good, smart, capable people, brains that cannot very well convince them (even subconciously) they are much better than those morons around them, often end up in mental institutions. (Edit: Unless they kill themselves first). This is a fact that can be verified by researching the issue.
jlsem said:
Sorry, but I find this very naive. What you are actually saying is that you are much better than all those morons around you here. The only problem is that all those morons around you here think the same about you .... 😉
Thanks for supporting my points.
jd
Key said:
The better the system, the easier to hear recording flaws. There are no way to compensate for (or repair) an audio signal from which information are distorted or lost. The only way to 'get it right' is to preserve the original signal as much as possible as it go through every stage of recording and playback. I bet the few good recordings available are made on SOTA equipment and recording engineers that are proud of their work.
On the speaker cable audibility I believe there is a continuum of situations.
On one end of the spectrum you can compare two identical cables, same brand, same length, same termination. Of course if you go deep enough into details you will find differences between these so-called identical cables that cause a difference in the sound coming out of your speakers. Let us assume however that the differences are so small that nobody has ever a chance to hear them.
On the other end of the spectrum there are two totally different cables, with wildly varying parameters that cause gross differences in frequency response, damping, what have you. Let us assume that the differences are so gross that anybody who isn't totally deaf can clearly hear the differences everytime.
So, if we go through this continuum we will find a certain region, leets call it the junction, where the audibility just disappears or appears, depending from which direction you come. Furthermore, it stands to reason that this junction is different for different people and also varies with the listening conditions. There is no clear cut point 'now you hear it, now you don't'.
Now, if we agree that this is the situation, we can draw several conclusions:
- it can be expected that experiments around the junction can give different outcomes at different times;
- you can't have a clear cut decision about audibility, only that, for instance, '80% of listeners will hear a difference between cable X and Y under these conditions', or 'only 10% of listeners can reliably hear a difference between cables P and Q under these conditions'.
jd
On one end of the spectrum you can compare two identical cables, same brand, same length, same termination. Of course if you go deep enough into details you will find differences between these so-called identical cables that cause a difference in the sound coming out of your speakers. Let us assume however that the differences are so small that nobody has ever a chance to hear them.
On the other end of the spectrum there are two totally different cables, with wildly varying parameters that cause gross differences in frequency response, damping, what have you. Let us assume that the differences are so gross that anybody who isn't totally deaf can clearly hear the differences everytime.
So, if we go through this continuum we will find a certain region, leets call it the junction, where the audibility just disappears or appears, depending from which direction you come. Furthermore, it stands to reason that this junction is different for different people and also varies with the listening conditions. There is no clear cut point 'now you hear it, now you don't'.
Now, if we agree that this is the situation, we can draw several conclusions:
- it can be expected that experiments around the junction can give different outcomes at different times;
- you can't have a clear cut decision about audibility, only that, for instance, '80% of listeners will hear a difference between cable X and Y under these conditions', or 'only 10% of listeners can reliably hear a difference between cables P and Q under these conditions'.
jd
BudP said:
Hi, I am interested in you talking about electrical signals and then loss of information, so I assume you are saying that there is a loss of electrical signals that carry this information. Surely the 'addition' of information to the electrical signal is the big problem with HiFi?
On SY's the brain filling in the blanks, it surely is very creative and should not be under estimated. Another function it performs is filtering out stuff. We could not function as we do if we were aware of all the sensory data that our senses collect.
In the realm of feelings, ideas and information the same thing happens we could not function if we were aware of every thought and memory.
Some people who suffer with mental illness loose the ability to screen out stuff and they just get overloaded. They hear voices which I believe originate within themselves. We may all have these voices in our heads but we are not aware of them, the brain makes sure they are 'below audibility'.
To reduce the cable audibility debate to just expectation bias is really an insult to science.
cheers.
In the realm of feelings, ideas and information the same thing happens we could not function if we were aware of every thought and memory.
Some people who suffer with mental illness loose the ability to screen out stuff and they just get overloaded. They hear voices which I believe originate within themselves. We may all have these voices in our heads but we are not aware of them, the brain makes sure they are 'below audibility'.
To reduce the cable audibility debate to just expectation bias is really an insult to science.
cheers.
Sometimes it is needed to remember the origin of the ongoing cable debate. AFAIR the whole story started back in the seventies, when certain people first realized that there might be sound differences between various cables used for loudspeakers and interconnects.
Clearly at that time there must have been other reasons than having payed a lot of money for a set of cables and therefore beeing forced to believe in a audible difference.
As a sound reproduction system is a holistic system a user has to take a lot of possible confounders into account; unfortunately the discussion about these topics tends to wide generalizations which are mostly incorrect.
SY pointed out quite often that it is quite dangerous to trust in your hearing ability (or more generally in your senses), and that can´t be doubted. 🙂
But the main question seems to be, if it is impossible to learn in this regard, expecially as there seem to be some professions that has to trust in there senses.
Can anybody imagine a conductor trying to create a certain "klanggestalt" with a orchestra but not trusting in his hearing abiltiy?
And not to forget, is there any possibility to perform a meaningful blind test if listeners can´t trust in their senses? 🙂
BTW, while the expression "since 30 years nil results" sounds quite convincing, the actual number of real experiments seems to be quite low. How many well controlled and conducted dbts on cables exist? I´d guess the number is below 20 in the last 30 years.
And how many of these tests did incorporate positive controls on a sufficient sensitivity level (and negative controls as well)? AFAIK not one.
It might be justified to think that still no real scientific dbt on cables has been done.
Clearly at that time there must have been other reasons than having payed a lot of money for a set of cables and therefore beeing forced to believe in a audible difference.
As a sound reproduction system is a holistic system a user has to take a lot of possible confounders into account; unfortunately the discussion about these topics tends to wide generalizations which are mostly incorrect.
SY pointed out quite often that it is quite dangerous to trust in your hearing ability (or more generally in your senses), and that can´t be doubted. 🙂
But the main question seems to be, if it is impossible to learn in this regard, expecially as there seem to be some professions that has to trust in there senses.
Can anybody imagine a conductor trying to create a certain "klanggestalt" with a orchestra but not trusting in his hearing abiltiy?
And not to forget, is there any possibility to perform a meaningful blind test if listeners can´t trust in their senses? 🙂
BTW, while the expression "since 30 years nil results" sounds quite convincing, the actual number of real experiments seems to be quite low. How many well controlled and conducted dbts on cables exist? I´d guess the number is below 20 in the last 30 years.
And how many of these tests did incorporate positive controls on a sufficient sensitivity level (and negative controls as well)? AFAIK not one.
It might be justified to think that still no real scientific dbt on cables has been done.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.