Andre Visser said:
I think its all in your imagination !
All my cables sound the same............
Re: Re: Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
Ravon I believe you already know the answer to this question but I'll attempt to answer you anyway. No I cannot provide you with some examples! What I can say is I've stated previously here I attend symphonies and as many outdoor concerts as possible ---{both unamplified & amplified}--- I also play acoustic guitar. I have what I believe is a very good idea in my mind of what live, unamplified music sounds like and my goal is to have my audio system replicate that sound as closely as possible within the limitations of today's technology and what I can afford.
When I listen to an audio system if and when one sounds more like what I know/believe live, unamplified music sounds like, then that is IMHO the better, more accurate audio system. That's my process for listening to ICs, preamps, tubes, CDPs etc. With this once exception I cannot put into words why I know/believe one system or component sounds more live, unamplified music than another. For some reason it seems that most audio systems cannot make the sound of the saxophone sound like it is emanating from within the saxophone itself ---{like it does when you hear it live and unamplified!} With most audio systems the sound of the saxophone is just there. I don't hear it emanating from within the horn. I don't hear the horn resonating, I just hear the sound like it's coming out of a speaker, NOT a saxophone ---{like when it's played amplified!} So when I listen that's one of the "sounds" I listen for and when I hear an audio system that's capable of allowing the sax's sound emanate from within the saxophone itself and when I hear the horn resonating ---{I believe that's what I'm hearing perhaps I should be calling it something else?}--- that trait in an audio component, impresses the hell out of me! All other things being equal of course.
I'm sorry but the trutrh is I'm not very good at putting down why one system sounds more like live, unamplified music to me but, I always know when I hear a system that does! I know that doesn't help much. However it the 100% truth!
ravon said:
Ravon I believe you already know the answer to this question but I'll attempt to answer you anyway. No I cannot provide you with some examples! What I can say is I've stated previously here I attend symphonies and as many outdoor concerts as possible ---{both unamplified & amplified}--- I also play acoustic guitar. I have what I believe is a very good idea in my mind of what live, unamplified music sounds like and my goal is to have my audio system replicate that sound as closely as possible within the limitations of today's technology and what I can afford.
When I listen to an audio system if and when one sounds more like what I know/believe live, unamplified music sounds like, then that is IMHO the better, more accurate audio system. That's my process for listening to ICs, preamps, tubes, CDPs etc. With this once exception I cannot put into words why I know/believe one system or component sounds more live, unamplified music than another. For some reason it seems that most audio systems cannot make the sound of the saxophone sound like it is emanating from within the saxophone itself ---{like it does when you hear it live and unamplified!} With most audio systems the sound of the saxophone is just there. I don't hear it emanating from within the horn. I don't hear the horn resonating, I just hear the sound like it's coming out of a speaker, NOT a saxophone ---{like when it's played amplified!} So when I listen that's one of the "sounds" I listen for and when I hear an audio system that's capable of allowing the sax's sound emanate from within the saxophone itself and when I hear the horn resonating ---{I believe that's what I'm hearing perhaps I should be calling it something else?}--- that trait in an audio component, impresses the hell out of me! All other things being equal of course.
I'm sorry but the trutrh is I'm not very good at putting down why one system sounds more like live, unamplified music to me but, I always know when I hear a system that does! I know that doesn't help much. However it the 100% truth!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
But the room your in will alter the sound, curtains, reflections of solid walls.
thetubeguy1954 said:
But the room your in will alter the sound, curtains, reflections of solid walls.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
Hello Nigel! Of course you are 100% in your statement but, in the context of what I'm saying that statement is irrelevent! Why? Because to make a fair & honest comparison of both components would necessitate they be inserted into the same system in that same room. So obviously if BOTH COMPONENTS are being compared in that same exact room, the sound would be altered exactly the same way by the curtains, reflections of solid walls, etc. That's what I meant when I stated All other things being equal of course.
For example with any audio component ---{except speakers}--- I'd simply switch a IC, amp, CDP, tube, preamp for the one already in the system. So any alterations caused by the room would apply to both devices equally, thus becoming a non-issue for all audio components except speakers of course.
Therefore I'll reiterate it seems that most audio systems cannot make the sound of the saxophone sound like it is emanating from within the saxophone itself ---{like it does when you hear it live and unamplified!} With most audio systems the sound of the saxophone is just there. I don't hear it emanating from within the horn. I don't hear the horn resonating, I just hear the sound like it's coming out of a speaker, NOT a saxophone ---{like when it's played amplified!} So when I listen that's one of the "sounds" I listen for and when I hear an audio system that's capable of allowing the sax's sound emanate from within the saxophone itself and when I hear the horn resonating ---{I believe that's what I'm hearing perhaps I should be calling it something else?}--- that trait in an audio component, impresses the hell out of me and causes me to choose that as the more accurate system of the two! All other things being equal of course.
nigelwright7557 said:
Hello Nigel! Of course you are 100% in your statement but, in the context of what I'm saying that statement is irrelevent! Why? Because to make a fair & honest comparison of both components would necessitate they be inserted into the same system in that same room. So obviously if BOTH COMPONENTS are being compared in that same exact room, the sound would be altered exactly the same way by the curtains, reflections of solid walls, etc. That's what I meant when I stated All other things being equal of course.
For example with any audio component ---{except speakers}--- I'd simply switch a IC, amp, CDP, tube, preamp for the one already in the system. So any alterations caused by the room would apply to both devices equally, thus becoming a non-issue for all audio components except speakers of course.
Therefore I'll reiterate it seems that most audio systems cannot make the sound of the saxophone sound like it is emanating from within the saxophone itself ---{like it does when you hear it live and unamplified!} With most audio systems the sound of the saxophone is just there. I don't hear it emanating from within the horn. I don't hear the horn resonating, I just hear the sound like it's coming out of a speaker, NOT a saxophone ---{like when it's played amplified!} So when I listen that's one of the "sounds" I listen for and when I hear an audio system that's capable of allowing the sax's sound emanate from within the saxophone itself and when I hear the horn resonating ---{I believe that's what I'm hearing perhaps I should be calling it something else?}--- that trait in an audio component, impresses the hell out of me and causes me to choose that as the more accurate system of the two! All other things being equal of course.
Andy Graddon said:
No need? You mean can't. No shame in admitting so, we already knew this.
But of course, you need to make claims. And more claims. Because in the end, you can always revert to "Well, I don't need to prove anything, I just need to make claims".
Andy Graddon said:
Like?
Andy Graddon said:
I'll take that as humor, as imagination will never be a shortcoming of the subjectivist eh? 😉
Andy Graddon said:
So if I have this straight, it is the stone deaf, graph staring, meter reading, unrevealing Mid-Fi owning folks like myself who should be undergoing DBT's.
Pray tell why?
Andy Graddon said:
You know, Tom Nousaine use to make house calls to GE's so that they could receive treatment in their own backyards..excuse me, homes. I think he tired of doing so but might still be willing, although practicing medicine without a license is frowned upon in most places.
Andy Graddon said:
Why would I do that when I can stare at a graph or read a meter? You don't think deaf folks actually listen to anything...like music on their stereos...do ya?
Andy Graddon said:
I ignored this before, but now I will take you to task. Could you be more specific? Please tell me the exact polar coordinate you wish the tip of the microphone to occupy, tell me what gating to apply (if any?), then tell me more about what your analysis (and extensive experience of similar measurements done by yourself with analysis?) of this snapshot will reveal about the vast photo album?
Thanks in advance.
cheers,
AJ
nigelwright7557 said:
So if the cable makes a difference then so must the copper tracks on the PCB ?
And:
The cable from a CD player to the amp.
RCA/jack socket connections.
Just where do you stop ?
So when your done whining about how tnargs and AJ are not treating you guys with the respect that you don't deserve, tell me which of the above is true. Either the room matters in ABX or it doesn't.
You subjectivists deal with testing by arguing that it only works in your room with your system, but in an ABX you don't need that. All you need is to isolate one parameter and compare it, ie. the cable.
You all would get respect from people if you would stop changing your argument every time one of us asks a question you can't answer. You guys keep sidestepping our arguments and denying facts even though you cannot substantiate anything you say.
You need to stop assuming that we don't listen to our systems, you need to stop thinking that we have our minds "fixed" prior to testing, you don't know us or anything about us. What we know about you is that you ignore everything that contradicts your BELIEFS and use cheap debating tactics to skirt around the fact that you have no legitimate basis for your nonsense.
Stop saying that we need to learn and be open minded, science is about testing theories not going home alone and listening for what we want to hear and calling it fact.
Speaking of which, do me a favor:
Reread this all out loud, that way when your golden ears hear it, it will be interpreted as absolute fact and be beyond reproach.😀
AJinFLA said:
Just do it AJ.. surely you can't be asking for my guidance on this !!!
and then tell my what YOU think it reveals.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive?
My advice to anyone is get the basics right before agonising over the small details or else you will be running around in circles for a long time. Number one basic is the right loudspeaker for your room in the right place. In my setup the differences heard by moving the loudspeakers a few inches now make any electronics-cable differences almost petty. I have saxaphones with goose bumps and no fancy amps or cables. Traditional measurements will get you good sound, it will help you to build a more balanced system. The downside is you may have to trade a few isolated intense goose bumps for just a lot of of goose bumps all the time.......now back to that sax.
When I listened intently to one instrument and then changed a component I heard changes. Then after settling on this component I usually found that some other instrument sounded worse. This lead to constant swapping, but I could never get everything right. In time one realises "I am are going around in circles". How to stop. For me it was to realise that despite the goose-bumps my triode-horn system could deliver it was woefully unbalanced. I tried to cure this by improving the amp and the more accurate (by traditional measurements) it got, the more it sounded like a solid state amp. Yikes! But the biggest change for the better was building some open baffles and getting a flatter freq response with less resonances.thetubeguy1954 said:
My advice to anyone is get the basics right before agonising over the small details or else you will be running around in circles for a long time. Number one basic is the right loudspeaker for your room in the right place. In my setup the differences heard by moving the loudspeakers a few inches now make any electronics-cable differences almost petty. I have saxaphones with goose bumps and no fancy amps or cables. Traditional measurements will get you good sound, it will help you to build a more balanced system. The downside is you may have to trade a few isolated intense goose bumps for just a lot of of goose bumps all the time.......now back to that sax.
Andy, I would suggest keeping away from personal insults. Telling me that “I don't think” is a personal insult. So far this thread has been civil and there's no reason to change that.
Taking the measurement of the speaker from the listening position is difficult because of the room boundaries reflections. You may not realize how much difference the room itself plays in the acoustic response of your speaker. An analog sweep will look like a hair comb. Gated MLS response is also pretty difficult.
The other point is this, my listening position is different from yours or anyones. The walls are different, room mods are entirely different.
The sole fact that you are suggesting taking such a measurement leads me to believe that you have a very limited knowledge of speaker measurement techniques.
Prove me wrong.
Meanwhile, I am going to go and read D'Appolito. 😉
Taking the measurement of the speaker from the listening position is difficult because of the room boundaries reflections. You may not realize how much difference the room itself plays in the acoustic response of your speaker. An analog sweep will look like a hair comb. Gated MLS response is also pretty difficult.
The other point is this, my listening position is different from yours or anyones. The walls are different, room mods are entirely different.
The sole fact that you are suggesting taking such a measurement leads me to believe that you have a very limited knowledge of speaker measurement techniques.
Prove me wrong.
Meanwhile, I am going to go and read D'Appolito. 😉
Andy you talk as if someone is out to get you. If you can only hear these differences in your home they must only exist there. No help to me over here. 🙂Andy Graddon said:
R-Carpenter said:
Perhaps I should have said.. "You are not thinking" !!
As for why I asked for this measurement.. again....... you are not thinking.
fredex said:
You seem to be reading things I have not said ....
We have a bunch of guys here who pretend to have proven that different cable never sound different, and can't see how flimsy their so called proof is.
R-Carpenter said:
General remark about speaker measurements:
Collecting RTA full range reverberant measurements at listening position for an installed system has no flaws. You see exactly what happens in reality when you listen there. Better average over a window around the listener's ears height. Don't forget that we don't just listen to speakers, but to a room driven by speakers. Thats what we listen to. An acoustics system with a particular trigger. As particular as any speaker model maybe.
There is probably a popular misunderstanding going on in some of the audio public by seeing the gated methods everywhere in publications, design work, tests and specs. Non gated is not useless! Just not quantifiable for development or study.
The reason we want to exclude the room, is to know everything about the system in isolation so to develop it without the 'noise' of some room. Stuff like time behavior data need no reverberation. Also to be fair when testing some speaker because we don't know where is going to end up installed if its commercial, we gate. Its a matter of comparable data. That needs isolation. The isolation is simply the reference system.
Knowing the final room and the positioning is a major benefit*. At $tereophile you may see an RTA average at the end of their measurement tests always correlating very well with the subjective comments for balance.
In a nutshell, room non gated response is valid and REAL.
Of course measuring the same speaker in different listening environments with non gated methods will produce data that will never coincide.
*Happily available to DIY. Knowing your BSC needs according to positioning, or you coverage needs and your room modes, etc.
Andy Graddon said:
I must agree there nothing worse than a bunch of pretenders, but I don't think these guys are pretenders. But they may be out to get you.
Fellow objectivists, ignore these requests for room measurements, the reason these superhearos are asking for your room measurements are as follows:
1. To cause the discussion to continually evolve so they can avoid dealing with facts and questions they can't bs their way out of.
2. They know that your high resolution microphone and computer system will show large in room variations in sound pressure. This allows them to say "see your system is not good enough to hear the differences between cables" In their minds this is proof that they're right.
Silly, ignorant, annoying.
What is really cool about this half-witted attempt at winning an argument that they claim to not care about is that by bringing measurements into this it will remind those who have actually used a measurement system that small movements in the listening device (ears or mic.) result in frequency dependent phase errors, and in a complex reverberant field altered frequency dependent direct/reflected ratios.
You subjectivists want an explanation that doesn't involve you hearing things that don't exist, here it is.
Your head moves around, well trained ears and a couple of mm's of displacement will alter the relative phase of the stereo signals thereby altering the frequency response you hear.
Wow you got to love an argument that allows you to claim well trained ears, me to agree with you and you are still wrong!
Now if you are smart, you will say that if this inconsistent head placement affects subjectivists, then it has to affect objective DBX tests as well right. Absolutely, but notice how it took an objective engineer to actually look for a reason you hear differences, and explain them in a way with which a tester, if so inclined, could eliminate that variable and create a consistent test.
This is what real scientists do, first they think, then theorize, then design a test, maybe run a trial, interpret the accuracy of the trial, tweak the test to fix errors (bias or random), and then run a series of repeated trials.
It is all very formulaic and tedious, but when done right it allows engineers to create models that predict behaviors of various systems. When done wrong the accuracy of the data and therefore the conclusions are unknown.
You guys can keep arguing if you want but without justifying any of your arguments, you can't sway anyone here.
BTW, if you claim that you can detect any minute difference 100% of the time then you have obviously never actually done a test before. No test has that kind of consistency, if you drop an apple from a tree it will always fall down 100% of the time, but the time to impact will vary based on the repeatability of the release and the timing.
FYI, falling apple = the large signal passing through cables and time to impact= the negligible differences between cables.
When you claim that these unmeasurable sounds are detectable to your ears, subjectively, and that you can pick some cable 100% of the time you are basically screaming I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT TESTING, you know who you are.
I think I have made enough comments for you guys to ignore for now.
Later on...
1. To cause the discussion to continually evolve so they can avoid dealing with facts and questions they can't bs their way out of.
2. They know that your high resolution microphone and computer system will show large in room variations in sound pressure. This allows them to say "see your system is not good enough to hear the differences between cables" In their minds this is proof that they're right.
Silly, ignorant, annoying.
What is really cool about this half-witted attempt at winning an argument that they claim to not care about is that by bringing measurements into this it will remind those who have actually used a measurement system that small movements in the listening device (ears or mic.) result in frequency dependent phase errors, and in a complex reverberant field altered frequency dependent direct/reflected ratios.
You subjectivists want an explanation that doesn't involve you hearing things that don't exist, here it is.
Your head moves around, well trained ears and a couple of mm's of displacement will alter the relative phase of the stereo signals thereby altering the frequency response you hear.
Wow you got to love an argument that allows you to claim well trained ears, me to agree with you and you are still wrong!
Now if you are smart, you will say that if this inconsistent head placement affects subjectivists, then it has to affect objective DBX tests as well right. Absolutely, but notice how it took an objective engineer to actually look for a reason you hear differences, and explain them in a way with which a tester, if so inclined, could eliminate that variable and create a consistent test.
This is what real scientists do, first they think, then theorize, then design a test, maybe run a trial, interpret the accuracy of the trial, tweak the test to fix errors (bias or random), and then run a series of repeated trials.
It is all very formulaic and tedious, but when done right it allows engineers to create models that predict behaviors of various systems. When done wrong the accuracy of the data and therefore the conclusions are unknown.
You guys can keep arguing if you want but without justifying any of your arguments, you can't sway anyone here.
BTW, if you claim that you can detect any minute difference 100% of the time then you have obviously never actually done a test before. No test has that kind of consistency, if you drop an apple from a tree it will always fall down 100% of the time, but the time to impact will vary based on the repeatability of the release and the timing.
FYI, falling apple = the large signal passing through cables and time to impact= the negligible differences between cables.
When you claim that these unmeasurable sounds are detectable to your ears, subjectively, and that you can pick some cable 100% of the time you are basically screaming I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT TESTING, you know who you are.
I think I have made enough comments for you guys to ignore for now.
Later on...
@ R-Carpenter and salas
Interesting reading, I once borrowed a professional RTA and was shocked to find what I had been listening to. It wasn't as neat as amp freq response graphs and I was amazed to see how much the amplitude changed with very small mic movements. You have to know what you are doing....even so it helped me a lot to understand and finally get a better sound in my room.
Interesting reading, I once borrowed a professional RTA and was shocked to find what I had been listening to. It wasn't as neat as amp freq response graphs and I was amazed to see how much the amplitude changed with very small mic movements. You have to know what you are doing....even so it helped me a lot to understand and finally get a better sound in my room.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.