R-Carpenter, you are correct, but you will never sway those who have faith that what they believe is correct.
Well well, thats of no concern of mine...I prefer to make my own cables...please entlighten me and tell me the value of these arguments
I prefer solidcore and preferably copper foil...it does sound differnt from litzwire...why shouldnt it
You dont think pure silver wire sound different from copper...that is if you have ever heard some
I prefer solidcore and preferably copper foil...it does sound differnt from litzwire...why shouldnt it
You dont think pure silver wire sound different from copper...that is if you have ever heard some
Brett said:
Brett, you are wrong, you will never sway those who know they are correct. 😀
Why trying to sway anybody? Either you hear the difference or you don't.
tinitus said:
Kind of a manipulative response don't you think, we are talking about the difference between quality cables and esoteric cables- cheap cables do cause problems. BTW all cd's do sound the same, it is the compression and mastering that affects sound quality, ie. gold plating does not. Yes I have a gold disc- no it doesn't sound better.
I have heard differences, between cheap components and quality components, but not between quality components and higher quality components.AND I have found a better way to make good sound...namely good amps and design of speaker crossoverif you cant hear any differense I am sorry to say its because you havent heard stuff that really works
R-Carpenter said:
R-Carpenter, I hope you did not see my comment on the Maggies as criticism, I'm trying to understand why you did not hear at least a difference between the cables.
I've only tried a few different amplifiers on the Maggies a few years ago and my comment was based on that.
nunayafb said:
manipulative ? dont know what you mean...is that a problem
CDs...I meant CD players...actually I have heard a cheap 50dollar DVD give a expencive machine a very hard time...proved it was my friends setup that sounds the same no matter what
I wouldnt generalize between the difference of cables whether being related to quality
Andre Visser said:
Again, you are asking us to assume that your ears are better than an oscilloscope or a microphone- have you thought of using an oscilloscope to measure the change. Do you verify the actual resistance? Does this design have a high sensitivity to the value of this resistor(or whatever component)? If you break this down it appears you are ignoring all of the science and relying on your highly subjective brain.
Again, are your ears and brain better than a microphone? Can you honestly say that some minor change that can't be measured you can hear. BTW, people are fooled because you tell them what to listen for and the power of suggestion tricks their brains into hearing it. In your case you are providing the suggestion, and this is way more deceptive than an external suggestion.
How do you know this? That statement proves me right, you are looking for a burn in change! Of course you will hear a difference, you want to.
Now I know this is all argumentative, so I don't want you thinking that I am implying that you are dumb or gullible or anything. I am confident that everyone here is susceptible to influence, or hearing an improvement from their new cables. But some people fight the urge to believe their ears when they suspect that they're being "tricked", others are willing to accept on faith that just because a component is expensive it will sound better.
The first group of people know from the measurements that esoteric components do not produce an audible difference between a standard quality component.
The second group are people that for whatever reason (justified or not) take issue with some of the implementations of science and then make the mistake of grouping all science with the bad science. They then rely on their own intuition (which they trust) and develop a belief structure around it, which is appearing to be almost impossible to penetrate.😀
Let me ask you "believers of cables" this question:
Are you willing to admit the possibility that between your desire for the new expensive stuff to sound better, and the power of influence on the brain/ear connection that maybe there actually is no audible difference? (Assuming no significant measurable diff.)
Lots of opinions here. Do me a favor and don't hang on my every word, I am not a professional writer or debater. Try and respond the intent of my statements.
nunayafb said:
MINE ARE...OBVIOUSLY
I KNOW A COUPLE THAT WILL, PERSONALLY I CANT BE FOOLED IN THAT WAY...MY "HEARING/BRAIN" IS ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVE IN THAT RESPECT...DONT FANCY EXPENCIVE STUFF
As have I.Andre Visser said:
Just my observation. If you want position 2, feel free to have it.analog_sa said:
It must be extremly frustrating for our "just listen" hearing superheros not being able to demonstrate their powers, except at home, in their own "revealing" systems, uncontrolled, with no witnesses. Knowing that they "heard" that wire, component, widget, ghost or whatever.
Enough to drive one bonkers I imagine.
cheers,
AJ
Enough to drive one bonkers I imagine.
cheers,
AJ
Yes, I check that everything is still OK with the oscilloscope, yes somehow I can hear differences that I can't measure with the oscilloscope. No the value of the resistors wasn't that critical in most cases. I strongly believe in science but science surely don't know everything yet, perhaps we are just looking for the answers in the wrong place.
How do you interpret measurements to tell you what the equipment will sound like? Good measurements can give you good sound but that alone can't tell you which equipment will sound best. Measurements are important, it's not everything.
I've done a lot of tests on idea's that I thought would be something special and rejected it after listening, so no I don't believe that influence my judgement. I'm only interested in finding the best possible sound quality, I really don't care what is needed to achieve that. At the same time I must admit that I'm doing this for many years and listening is a training process, I'm not suggesting that everybody will hear the same.
No, I don't want to, imagine how time consuming it can get if you make a change and have to wait before evaluating it. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about huge differences but enough to keep it in mind.
As I've said, if you know what to listen for (by experience) it is not that easy to be tricked. I've heard some expensive equipment that sounded awfull.
As said, measurements is important, not everything. Not all "esoteric" components sound good but it's unfair to judge them as a whole.
I was consistently able to identify four of the best interconnects from a certain manufacturer, by name, in a blind test. Does that count for anything?
AJinFLA said:
No not at all, why should it...matters only to one self, enjoying that little difference
Actually it should be frustrating to those who cant hear it...missing the very last bit🙂
Andre Visser said:
A human's hearing can be dramatically improved with training & experience. On average 10,000 hours of training is required (ref Levitin, This is your Brain on Music)
http://www.yourbrainonmusic.com/
Statistically, given the number of participants, there should be some here that can't hear what others find quite obvious.
dave
Interesting. I may buy that book.planet10 said:
By the same token, I feel it is even more likely that there are many here who imagine they hear differences, and develop extraordinary rationalisations for these miniscule differences.planet10 said:
My take on "burn in" is that it is an inflammatory and misleading concept.
In transformers, where I do play with stacked dielectrics and actual dielectric circuits in the coil, there is a pronounced "aging" process. When dielectrics are made, they have large areas of dipole charge alignment. They literally arrive ready to stick on the wall for a week.
Some of that charge polarity is discharged during manufacture, but there is a very obvious period of operating time, while the fields being applied randomize these remaining domains. Net effects are found in relative phase change, within the bandwidth, and a gross increase in low level information coherency. All of the small signal cues get aligned with their originating signals, from instruments, voices, etc. and the sound becomes more like a real performance. Please notice I am not saying life like here.
There is a fair amount of faith placed in domain resize and reorientation, within the core material used in amorphous core transformers. Claims of 200 hours of use, to effect this change, are common. I do notice that the coils are wound with Mylar film interlayer insulation and signal dielectric. 200 hours seems a sensible amount of time to randomize the dipole electrons in that stuff, with it's dielectric constant of 3.5 to 4 or so. Most of the polyester resins used for potting also have a constant within that range, so the coil really is a lumped sum parameter capacitor.
I cannot decide which form of aging is actually occurring here. Both would provide more low level information and thereby "soften" transient edges and add internal structure to instrument tones.
There is no test evidence I am aware of for domain changes in core that is in use, for any core materials and very little information on dipole randomization either. So, a good place for someone to look into for a thesis.
I would suspect this same randomization of dipole domains to be involved in electrical circuit aging too, though, I cannot say I have ever been able to pick it out of the changes the out put and interstage transformers go through, in the amps and preamps that use our audio devices.
Brett
Do you play that avatar? Do you build your own amps? If so, ya might want to PM me.
Bud
In transformers, where I do play with stacked dielectrics and actual dielectric circuits in the coil, there is a pronounced "aging" process. When dielectrics are made, they have large areas of dipole charge alignment. They literally arrive ready to stick on the wall for a week.
Some of that charge polarity is discharged during manufacture, but there is a very obvious period of operating time, while the fields being applied randomize these remaining domains. Net effects are found in relative phase change, within the bandwidth, and a gross increase in low level information coherency. All of the small signal cues get aligned with their originating signals, from instruments, voices, etc. and the sound becomes more like a real performance. Please notice I am not saying life like here.
There is a fair amount of faith placed in domain resize and reorientation, within the core material used in amorphous core transformers. Claims of 200 hours of use, to effect this change, are common. I do notice that the coils are wound with Mylar film interlayer insulation and signal dielectric. 200 hours seems a sensible amount of time to randomize the dipole electrons in that stuff, with it's dielectric constant of 3.5 to 4 or so. Most of the polyester resins used for potting also have a constant within that range, so the coil really is a lumped sum parameter capacitor.
I cannot decide which form of aging is actually occurring here. Both would provide more low level information and thereby "soften" transient edges and add internal structure to instrument tones.
There is no test evidence I am aware of for domain changes in core that is in use, for any core materials and very little information on dipole randomization either. So, a good place for someone to look into for a thesis.
I would suspect this same randomization of dipole domains to be involved in electrical circuit aging too, though, I cannot say I have ever been able to pick it out of the changes the out put and interstage transformers go through, in the amps and preamps that use our audio devices.
Brett
Do you play that avatar? Do you build your own amps? If so, ya might want to PM me.
Bud
Brett said:
Statistically there will be approximately equal numbers of people "hearing (or not hearing)" on either end of the scale and people that range from from honestly can not hear to those that do, This is liberally made more confusing by all the snake oil.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.