AJinFLA said:
ROFLMAO !!!!! That really is the funniest thing I have ever seen you write !!
We now have intellegent microphones capable of "interpreting" electonic signals !!!! yeeehaw !!!
next time I set up some mics for a gig , I must remember to ask them politely not to misbehave.
AJinFLA said:
Now you ask me the meaning of exotic, I've learned that term from the objectivists? 😀
That's the reason for writing ("exotic"). I guess it would mean something like OFC cable with special dielectric, good connectors?
AJ, I've tried to explain what I mean by a good system and you make a joke of it, so why will I try again?
André
Jakob2 said:
... but don't really. Not when we are listening to music on our loudspeakers at home. see http://tinyurl.com/4k9sqy
ditto regarding step-changes in amplitude, in more realistic situations the limits of audibility are around 0.5 to 1.0dB.
I actually saw a bunch of cables in a shop that were for seperate music types...
There was a set for Jazz a set for Rock - a set for Classical etc...
I am very sceptical when audio starts to get toward Psycho-acoustics and away from science.
There was a set for Jazz a set for Rock - a set for Classical etc...
I am very sceptical when audio starts to get toward Psycho-acoustics and away from science.
Jakob2 said:
These studies are few and far between because anyone with knowledge of the realities of human perception and a basic knowledge of electrical engineering is never going to approve wastage of research funds on foregone conclusions.
Electronics Today International reported about 20 years ago on DBT testing they conducted on approx a dozen speaker cables with a significant population of listening subjects. They focused more on different types of cable, not so much on brand comparisons of equivalent cables (that is the sort of nonsense you might read in an audiophile rag). Nothing even came close to being statistically indicative of a detectable difference.
I believe the Audio Engineering Society has conducted tests, also with a null result.
OTOH if you want to read about a scientific study on audibility of cables that never took place, see http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-09/092807reply.html#i4
Come on cable-believers ... there's a million bucks up for grabs!
If you can hear (and identify) a difference, then you should be able to claim the prize.
http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html
If you can hear (and identify) a difference, then you should be able to claim the prize.
http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html
Can a microphone tell a Gretsch from a Strad ?
Yes Andy, it can. I am sure FBI has sonic signatures of all collectible violins on file, in case something gets stolen.
This is also how they trace individuals. Our voices have particular sonic signatures, that are place in algorithms and systematize create a good deal of a database.
The difference, you hear between the sound of different violins, is defined by the body volume, material, strings and finish. Complicated combination but possible to measure and define.
Yes Andy, it can. I am sure FBI has sonic signatures of all collectible violins on file, in case something gets stolen.
This is also how they trace individuals. Our voices have particular sonic signatures, that are place in algorithms and systematize create a good deal of a database.
The difference, you hear between the sound of different violins, is defined by the body volume, material, strings and finish. Complicated combination but possible to measure and define.
R-Carpenter said:
I think here is a misunderstanding.
The microphone can only convert air vibrations to electrical signals, nothing else.
The computer and obvious complex software have to process that electrical signals to make anything usefull of it.
Perhaps a system like that, used for measurements, will show much more differences between cables also. 😀
André
Andre Visser said:
Hi Andre, Try this experiment.................. #1 Rewire your system with the vilest dreck you can lay your hands on(Rubber gloves might be recommended here!). #2 Go sit on a beach or go up into the mountains for a couple of days.( Whatever gives you the highest relaxation factor) #3 When you return home tanned and relaxed, imbibe moderately, fire up your system, abandon all preconceived notions and listen. Gods honest truth, Iv'e never been able to tell the difference on even the highest resoloution systems!
tc-60guy said:
Hi tc-60guy, I didn't want to tell this because I'm tired of ducking the bullets 😀 but since you made this suggestion, explain this:
Due to other things occupying my mind, I did not listen to my system for at least six weeks. I've lent my pre-amp to a friend also. Last week I received a call from a guy that want to listen to my amps, so we arranged that he visits me on Wednesday afternoon. After getting back my pre-amp Wednesday morning, I reconnected it and sat down to listen if everything was fine. I've heard immediately that the sound stage was blurry and the bass sounded silly.
I thought perhaps you guys are right, it must be me, 🙂 so I listened a bit longer but only get irritated with the system. I've checked the speaker cables, nothing wrong, interconnects, found that I've inserted the cables between CD and pre-amp the wrong way round. (The arrows showing the other way. 😀 ) OK, now that everybody is laughing, it is twisted pair screened cables with the screen connected on one side, so there is direction, but I thought that can't be it. I sat down and listened and the system I remembered was back.
André
tnargs said:
You'll like this one, started out as a blind test, unitl they saw it coming that the cheaper one sounded better. Then it was back to business as usual.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45178&highlight=
and then here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=507497#post507497
Jan Didden
Andre, did you then reverse the cables a few times and confirm you could really tell the difference? Whenever this sort of thing happens to me, and I try to prove it, the differences dissolve into thin air.
Conrad Hoffman said:
No, I haven't, I was happy with what I hear but if you want I can do it again. DBT perhaps? 😀
R-Carpenter said:
oooooo, and there they are in your lounge room, whispering in your ear to tell you what instruments are playing.
.
.
.
.
Talk about big brother !!!!
MartinQ said:
There are two main problems with this MartinQ. and they're created by RANDI! These "problems" are...
1) This statement outlines the rules covering the offer made by this Foundation (JREF) concerning psychic, supernatural or paranormal claims.
No Subjectivists claims to have psychic, supernatural or paranormal abilities, period. So right off the bat they're not eligible. Subjectivists claim to only having "trained" ears, i.e. ears that are trained to listen for subtle differences many others miss.
============================================
2) ---{[I}Actually it's #12 in their Challenge Application[/I] Wherein RANDI states: 12. This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions: First, he/she must have a “media presence,” which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person’s abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified.
RANDI's #12 rule states the person must have media presence, which essentially eliminates ALL subjectivists but audio reviewers. Seems like it's RANDI, not subjectivists who's really afraid to put their $$$$$ where their mouth is!
Andre Visser said:
Hello Andre, You are indeed a brave man! You just walked into the lions' den with pork chops around your neck! Did you at least reinsert the cables again, ("the wrong way") and give it a listen?
janneman said:
I am not saying there is a difference I am saying a lot of people are "hearing" a difference. What they are hearing maybe due to real external sound pressures or internal psychological factors.
Subjectivists are unrealistic when they rule out the psychological factors, but objectivists are unrealistic when they think a person is only capable of hearing real phenomena.
Maybe it's just language, I am using the word hearing to include "the sensation of hearing". But I have just looked up the definition ..."the ability to perceive sound by detecting vibrations via an organ such as the ear. ..."
So in answer to your question and the rant above I will have to admit that I don't know if they are hearing what they say they are hearing. But I believe they are experiencing "the sensation of hearing", and to the brain there is no difference between this and hearing real phenomena.
Cheers
Andre Visser said:
No bullets from here, just a few simple questions:
How can you be sure that you had the cables connected in the "right" direction when you listened to your system the last time before you lent your pre-amp to your friend? Do you use a QA checklist every time you put your system together?
And if you do not use that QA checklist, how can you remember the sound of a system from which you cannot be sure that it was set up in the "right" way?
fredex said:
I just don't want to spend a lot of time worrying about placebo effects when there is so much music to listen to! At the end of the day, I still remain highly skeptical! I don't want to denigrate anyone who believes in the efficacy of gormet cables. I just don't feel the magic, and that's the bottem line with me. On the other hand, I'm glad someone cares enough about the reproduction of music to care about such esoterica!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.