Anyone who holds such contradictory beliefs as their humility before evidence and certainty regarding 'Evasionists' should stick to cartoons.
SY, my suggestion is an ABX box is a topological change on the order of a cable change and a completely unnecessary one that adds nothing to the protocol.
Wahab - you've completely lost me there.
Not sure what you are saying...
logical, as we are in the perfect thread to be all lost...11000 + posts,
and still no exit in sight for anybody !!
Posted by jakob2
A simple conclusive or inconclusive would be nice. Then I would know if it is worth digging up. What does "balanced" mean?
Posted by RDF
I thought it added the ability to rapidly switch between sources to the protocol. Alot of talk on this thread about extended listening. But, most of the objections in the previous 40some years has been about short aural memory and the need for rapid switching.
How else is this accomplished?
Posted by SY
Glad you're all better now.
Eric
A simple conclusive or inconclusive would be nice. Then I would know if it is worth digging up. What does "balanced" mean?
Posted by RDF
I thought it added the ability to rapidly switch between sources to the protocol. Alot of talk on this thread about extended listening. But, most of the objections in the previous 40some years has been about short aural memory and the need for rapid switching.
How else is this accomplished?
Posted by SY
Glad you're all better now.
Eric
Member
Joined 2004
As a cable "believer" myself I still think the differences caused by materials and construction will show up as different LCR values.
I guess one could say some upon inspectioning the LCR data of two cables that are claimed to sound different generally conclude: "between both cables there is a difference of a few pFs, uHs and a couple of ohms, so irrelevant in electrical terms and therefore not even worth listening to."
On the other side, some upon listening to the same cables will analyze the same data and generally conclude: "between both cables there is a difference of a few pFs, uHs and a couple of ohms, so irrelevant in electrical terms and therefore the cause must lie elsewhere."
Now I would like to know what´s the criteria both characters base their conclusions on, that makes them dismiss such measured differences.
As BudP and Joachim point out:
... these aspects when detected are indeed subtle. Even the jargons often mentioned by reviewers such as "better imaging and soundstaging", "more bass authority and top-end sparkle" and the like are subtle as well, so much that standing by a "sweet spot" is often required.
I mean, they´re subtle when compared to more important things like melody, harmony and rythm within the song, and this IMO is valid for every device in the chain that´s generally regarded as capable of sounding different, from amplifiers to loudspeakers from different brands in the same "price area".
Assuming their minds are not playing tricks, some won´t detect those audible differences. Some detect it and consider irrelevant. And some will detect it and consider relevant.
Given an LCR meter with enough resolution, would it not be obvious to the latter group to conclude "subtle differences = small LCR ammounts"? Only manufacturers claim esoteric stuff to legitimate insane prices. If you are into DIY you should know better.
Please, that would be interesting to see.
Thanks Simon, were that a normal coaxial cable that you've used?
Steve, interesting observation. Seems that 'objectivists' and 'subjectivists' have more in common than we thought.
jd
When a composer or conductor shouts at his musicians that a tiny bow stroke should create sadness and not happiness,this doesn't actually have to do with "clarity,detail etc......."and surely no LCR details and clarity.Sadly it is even more subtle than that
.Ask a musician. For some that is a big difference.
Last edited:
When a composer or conductor shouts at his musicians that a tiny bow stroke should create sadness and not happiness,this doesn't actually have to do with "clarity,detail etc......."and surely no LCR details and clarity.Sadly it is even more subtle than that
Right, but you just admitted in your previous post that it could all be your imagination. So why do you adamantly claim that there is an objective reason - wire "sound", for your subjective experience? Why is that true simply because you want and believe it to be true?
I have never said it couldn't be my imagination.I said that I don't believe it is always my imagination,and that there are things that might not be known at present.I have also never claimed that my subjective experience is objective.I said many times that I like what I like,and that may be something you don't like,or,find it not accurate.What I like and manage to have through my system pleases me,but know that it might not please you.That is why I don't ask anyone to pay for what I like
Also,never said that LCR,shielding etc... are not important.They are,they are known,but you just can't say-without knowing-that some of us choose "pathological" cables to achieve what they like,or simply say that we all have incompitently designed equipment.We don't.In seting up a good sounding system,some of us may be at least as good as yourself.
Last edited:
When a composer or conductor shouts at his musicians that a tiny bow stroke should create sadness and not happiness,this doesn't actually have to do with "clarity,detail etc......."and surely no LCR details and clarity.Sadly it is even more subtle than that
Do I understand that you agreed with me then? That "a tiny bow stroke should create sadness and not happiness,this doesn't actually have to do with "clarity,detail " and therefore doesn't depend on cable subtleties?
jd
- Status
- Not open for further replies.