Besides the agenta of the discussion, keep it civil, else I will have to give you some sin bin time. Not only you, to all who gonna follow such a tone.
Apologies Salas....I parallel posted!
I do not confess to be any scientist. Im just a mid-fi guy according to Curly but I love to learn and read about audio science. I have built speakers and subs too so Im dabbling where I can.
I did post some links and I have read as much as I can from true experts in the business. Including people who actually build amps.
I also have a very good life so I can spend money as I see fit when it comes to audio so I spend $$$ testing stuff. I have yet to experience this great difference all here say they do but the biggest difference between me and them is that I TRY to make sure my listening tests are controlled.
I put $$$ behind my opinion any time. I wonder why Curly wouldnt do the same 😉
Do you have any good research links that give some evidence of audiable differences?
Last edited:
Besides the agenta of the discussion, keep it civil, else I will have to give you some sin bin time. Not only you, to all who gonna follow such a tone.
FORUM RULES
1) No personal attacks or bullying. If you disagree with what someone is saying, then present a mature and intelligent case to prove otherwise. Malicious intent will not be tolerated. What you do over private email is one thing, what you do on our forum is another.
2) No offensive language. Sure, most of us use four letter words in normal conversation without too much thinking, but this forum is about thinking. Words are the clothes in which thought is dressed. And luckily, these threads are cheap (pun intended) so please choose language that reflects the quality of your ideas.
Please excuse me here but I was the one being attacked by the pack here. Is this how it works?
Just keep it toned down from now on. All of you. Everybody has digested your persuasions by now. Don't make me enforce civility with bin & ban. We are not teens.
No, we are all to blame!
Back on topic, Im looking for links so I can read something on why there is an audible difference.
btw, Im probably gone for awhile now....so my silence although making you happy isnt because Im tired of this thread 😉
Who were the listeners? Did they receive any training?
Quote from this page: "Recently I have seen adverts and reviews on fibre optic digital interconnects. Some are supposedly far superior to others, despite the fact that 1s and 0s (light present, light not present) are all that is passed. IMHO, it would take truly monumental incompetence to design any digital interconnect that was incapable of passing a digital signal without corruption. Since fibre optics (non-audiophile grade) are used to carry phone calls and data all 'round the world, with very low error rates and over huge distances, it is ludicrous to assume that any commercial digital interconnect will make any difference over a distance of a metre or so.
Bear in mind that the receiver reconstitutes the signal wave shape, it is usually buffered, and will use some form of error correction as well. As for claims that the difference is audible .... "
OK it is said about fibre optics but it clearly show Rod Elliot doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, the digital signal (SPDIF) he refer to in hi-fi are far removed from sending data "all 'round the world".
Good, they use trained listeners, wonder why.
Quote: "I am convinced that comb filtering is at the root of people reporting a change in the sound of cables and electronics even when no significant change is likely. If someone listens to their system using one pair of cables, then gets up and switches cables and sits down again, the frequency response heard is sure to be very different because it's impossible to sit down again in exactly the same place. So the sound really did change, but probably not because the cables sound different!"
Simply not true, it is very easy to get your head in the same position by listening to stage center, to me this is one of the examples where the way we hear and measurements are not the same, I don't hear that large differences when I move my head, it is mostly a change in stage position.
Nice, done by 40 employees, wonder what experience and training they had.
And the point is?
I am not seeing this pressure coming from anyone. At this point the conversation seems to have lost any hint of staying on logical topic. It keeps knee jerking into strawman debate.
I think the basic hypothesis of one side says that outside of LRC and any normal interference/environmental variables in the signal path that most of the idea about differences from cables is misunderstood or due to much more imperative parts of the signal path - the amps, speakers, and in a lot of cases the passive crossovers. So far I do not see any holes in this hypothesis or at least any gaping ones.
I think if there are weird differences from cable swaps in your system it might be due to something you are overlooking - is the signal being clipped anywhere in the chain, is the passive crossover intermodulating? There are so many possible answers outside of the cable itself that to just use a form of deductive logic on one part of the system is to miss the forest for the tree.
If it was possible for us to test on an even playing field matched speaker layouts and be able to compare different variables in the system which are more likely to cause instability or unpredictability I think we would be closer to a real answer.
Yes but combine resistive capacitive and inductive losses and guess what happen to detail.
You MUST learn to trust your own ears against the background of listening correctly (which is different for every one us). Although the written word can give hints and indications it cannot give knowledge of sound. Sound is an experience, rather like smell or taste rather than a subject which can be learnt in the same way as, say, spelling or arithmetic.
Good luck.
This AES article by Sean describes more about the experiments. It's been a while since I read it, so I don't remember if he got into specifics about the training. There's a link to this article on Sean's pages that Doug linked to.
It was meant as a joke Frank, did you miss my post #5903. 😉
I guess there is no place for a joke on such a serious thread. 😀
I Cut out the details and lets just say you discredit all links.....sigh.....nothing new from the subjective side 🙁
Could you post your background, expertise, published papers? Those guys have mountains of data and worlds of knowledge and expertise but you can just say what you want here and think its true....you are a visionary in your own mind aren't you 😉
Im curious if you are just posting opinion or you have some valid credentials to simply push off others who actually do real testing. This is nothing new from the subjective camp, others use the same responses ignoring the mountain of links we can produce.
In the end this is religion to you so I have zero reason to beleive you are in this to learn something new. You are simply here to preach your dogma, I can't wait for you to post those results that include your truely inspiring facts and maybe you will do a controlled test or two.
Never quoted anything out of context.
Are any of you subjective types going post data some day or is this all just circle jerk?
Ho,
Guess not and I'll admit to having taken you seriously as well.
Now that's why valved electonics sound so good.😀
Cheers, 😉
Guess not and I'll admit to having taken you seriously as well.
Now that's why valved electonics sound so good.😀
Cheers, 😉
It is important to bear in mind that the signal actually passed is analog and an approximation of a train of 0s & 1s. The slopes of the bumps can easily affect the timing of their recovery and introduce jitter.
All these little snippets on the net don't really represent the breadth of the research done by Olive & Toole. One really needs to read the entire book to get the whole story -- the book gave me a whole new respect for the work they started. These are the guys saying that measures don't do the job that 2 ears + a brain can accomplish. Note that the blind tests these guys are doing are way better designed than the ABX tests Nusaine does (many of them to be considered little better than a joke). Also note that their tests concentrate on speakers.
dave
PLay a 10k tone thru both speakers, cover one ear and see how far you have to move your head to get a phase induced level change.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.