Why this thread will never end
After reading many posts in this thread I have realised that this is a religious question rather than a technical one.
To expect anyone to be swayed from one point of view to another would be as absurd as expecting a Christian and a Muslim to agree on which is the one true religion. The two religions involved in this discussion are Subjectivism v's Rationalism.
Being a rationalist myself, I cannot help but try to understand and categorise the two schools of thought.
Rationalism
Based on mainstream scientific beliefs.
Values truth above everything else.
Strives to find objective truths untainted by personal judgement or prejudice.
A rationalist's thinking is constrained by the rules of scientific method.
In this context, believes that subjective listening tests are very unreliable and requires scientific evidence to believe cables make a difference.
Subjectivism
Values an individual's perception of reality above all else.
Sees rationalist evidence as interesting information that can be discarded if one wishes.
A subjectivist is free to believe whatever he wishes to believe.
Your beliefs are are as valid as anybody else's regardless of their qualifications or expertise.
In this context, believes that if a listener believes he can hear a difference then that is all the proof required.
Can you be both a scientist/rationalist and a subjectivist?
No. That is like saying that you are a devout Catholic but do not believe in Jesus.
Of course, if someone not only reject rationalism but also rational thought itself, he can claim
to be a scientist, a subjectivist, a Jewish Muslim and a bowl of petunias all at the same time.
After reading many posts in this thread I have realised that this is a religious question rather than a technical one.
To expect anyone to be swayed from one point of view to another would be as absurd as expecting a Christian and a Muslim to agree on which is the one true religion. The two religions involved in this discussion are Subjectivism v's Rationalism.
Being a rationalist myself, I cannot help but try to understand and categorise the two schools of thought.
Rationalism
Based on mainstream scientific beliefs.
Values truth above everything else.
Strives to find objective truths untainted by personal judgement or prejudice.
A rationalist's thinking is constrained by the rules of scientific method.
In this context, believes that subjective listening tests are very unreliable and requires scientific evidence to believe cables make a difference.
Subjectivism
Values an individual's perception of reality above all else.
Sees rationalist evidence as interesting information that can be discarded if one wishes.
A subjectivist is free to believe whatever he wishes to believe.
Your beliefs are are as valid as anybody else's regardless of their qualifications or expertise.
In this context, believes that if a listener believes he can hear a difference then that is all the proof required.
Can you be both a scientist/rationalist and a subjectivist?
No. That is like saying that you are a devout Catholic but do not believe in Jesus.
Of course, if someone not only reject rationalism but also rational thought itself, he can claim
to be a scientist, a subjectivist, a Jewish Muslim and a bowl of petunias all at the same time.
dukeoyork said:
Ahh, there's the rub eh!
How accurate are the speakers really?
How much influence on the speakers does the room have?
Has it been measured, or done by ear.
Fix all that, then maybe (I did say maybe) any improvements cables (to keep in discussion) bring may be valuable.
My real beef is that the typical audiophile cable believer (and as you guys are hear I don't regard you as typical audiophiles, you at least have some sort of desire to understand it all), usually has NOT optimised any of these other far far more important things. (have a look at the photos they post of their systems, sure all the bells and whistles, beautiful (and expensive) components, python like cables all balanced on rare amazon wood etc etc......speakers backed into corners (WAF), bare floors, assymetric placement blah blah blah)
It is these guys that the 'cable predators' (and the industry) prey on
"Funny thing is, tho... the better the system (room included) the less likely you are to tweak EQ for each recording - even volume levels."
This was the statement I disagree with. And I think it may be why people will choose a less accurate monitor over a monitor with a flat frequency response - they expect there favorite random recording to sound good not revealing.
I just find that *most* recordings the mastering engineer takes a wide Q EQ and boosts the treble anywhere from 1dB (subtle) to about 12dB (obvious or double boosted).
Now recordings that are supposed to sound good or flat on my system do sound awesome but for CDs and Vinyl that has had the EQ boosted it can be a lot more obvious on a system with a flat frequency response on the high end.
This was the statement I disagree with. And I think it may be why people will choose a less accurate monitor over a monitor with a flat frequency response - they expect there favorite random recording to sound good not revealing.
I just find that *most* recordings the mastering engineer takes a wide Q EQ and boosts the treble anywhere from 1dB (subtle) to about 12dB (obvious or double boosted).
Now recordings that are supposed to sound good or flat on my system do sound awesome but for CDs and Vinyl that has had the EQ boosted it can be a lot more obvious on a system with a flat frequency response on the high end.
Re: Why this thread will never end
'rationalism' assumes that all the effective parameters have been recognised. not always the case, as things like the listener's mood can effect how 'good' something sounds.
but, meters don't read minds! they are only 'objective' to the 'ear' of the microphone used to measure the sound, and the 'mind' that placed the measuring microphone. measuring amps is more objective because the waves never hit the air. as soon as those electrical sounds are turned into transducer movement in a room, the measuring system is only as good as the chosen positioning and CHARACTER of the MEASURING TOOLS, and more importantly, the listening preference of the end user!
human hearing on the other hand, benefits from memory, the ability to move and measure at the same time, and, most importantly is the SUBJECTIVE end user of the whole ball of wax.
so, 'objective' measurements aren't all that, although they are extremely useful to someone who doesn't believe meters and analyzers are the 'gospel' of the best way to set up "see" whether sound is 'good' or 'bad' that elicits the maximum EMOTIONAL RESPONSE of the listener. i would reiterate here that this why i like to choose as 'objective' a system as i can afford. i want to bypass emotion, and hear as close to what is there as possible. ther are a lot of awesome recordings, and i don''t want to belittle (with signal degrading EQ) them for the the sake of the lousy ones that want to be EQed.
like, why are cerwin vegas so popular amongst the disco/dj crowd, while classical listeners prefer tannoy or similiar? it's because every type of listeners' music has more EMOTIONAL impact through a system that compliments that particular type of music.
you'd almost think i'm espousing the virtue of 31 band EQ on the playback system, but, i want a 'clinical' system, and if the dance tracks don't thump enough, at least i'll know the general zeitgeist of dance hall mixing from listening through a 'flat'-ish system. many classical recordings sound 'dull' to me. i know, however, that they were recorded by excellent engineers using excellent equipment. and, if you sit and just listen, the 'lack' of ear piercing treble ceases to seem like a problem.
every listener has different 'needs'.
well, that's why we all have a few fav "reference" recordings, ain't it?
for me, it's roxy music 'avalon', robbie robertson (first album) (or any other lanois recording), pink floyd 'the wall', laurie anderson 'strange angels''....and others.
i've heard these 'reference' albums on tons of bitchin' systems, and so i know what's missing or revealed by whatever system i'm 'analyzing' by ear.
i would bet that my set-up measures pretty flat, though. it doesn't have to be absolutely flat for playback, though. as long as it makes happy ears, it's AWESOME! as long as the frequency response is fairly smooth from low to high, the ear can enjoy. it is only ugly spikes and dips that make certain notes jump out or disappear that my ear find to be RUDE.
i like to dampen the room as much as possible without sucking the life out of it.
start with a bigish room (22 X 16 ft. is my listenong room) carpet, acoustic tiles, angled walls and ceilings, and as little glass as is possible.
my studio (20 X 12) has an arced ceiling, and angled wall, and a tapered corner, and is damped with waffle foam on about twenty percent of the room, mostly corners. i don't mind saying it sounds awesome, and clients are always surprised how a 'small' room can sound so great (not boxy).
did i measure it? nope. just went with my intuition, which is a product of years and years of observation.
would i bet on how flat it is? no. but i do know it sounds awesome, and that has been 'proven' over and over by happy clients.
some of us can really just trust our ears, because it's what we do for a living, narf.
it is, in the end, however, just SUBJECTIVE OPINION that rules the experience.
there is no wrong answer. there a more than a few pompous zealots, though, LOL!
to those who just ENJOY music and sound reproduction's quest for perfection, CHEERS!
BigGayAl said:
'rationalism' assumes that all the effective parameters have been recognised. not always the case, as things like the listener's mood can effect how 'good' something sounds.
but, meters don't read minds! they are only 'objective' to the 'ear' of the microphone used to measure the sound, and the 'mind' that placed the measuring microphone. measuring amps is more objective because the waves never hit the air. as soon as those electrical sounds are turned into transducer movement in a room, the measuring system is only as good as the chosen positioning and CHARACTER of the MEASURING TOOLS, and more importantly, the listening preference of the end user!
human hearing on the other hand, benefits from memory, the ability to move and measure at the same time, and, most importantly is the SUBJECTIVE end user of the whole ball of wax.
so, 'objective' measurements aren't all that, although they are extremely useful to someone who doesn't believe meters and analyzers are the 'gospel' of the best way to set up "see" whether sound is 'good' or 'bad' that elicits the maximum EMOTIONAL RESPONSE of the listener. i would reiterate here that this why i like to choose as 'objective' a system as i can afford. i want to bypass emotion, and hear as close to what is there as possible. ther are a lot of awesome recordings, and i don''t want to belittle (with signal degrading EQ) them for the the sake of the lousy ones that want to be EQed.
like, why are cerwin vegas so popular amongst the disco/dj crowd, while classical listeners prefer tannoy or similiar? it's because every type of listeners' music has more EMOTIONAL impact through a system that compliments that particular type of music.
you'd almost think i'm espousing the virtue of 31 band EQ on the playback system, but, i want a 'clinical' system, and if the dance tracks don't thump enough, at least i'll know the general zeitgeist of dance hall mixing from listening through a 'flat'-ish system. many classical recordings sound 'dull' to me. i know, however, that they were recorded by excellent engineers using excellent equipment. and, if you sit and just listen, the 'lack' of ear piercing treble ceases to seem like a problem.
every listener has different 'needs'.
terry j said:
well, that's why we all have a few fav "reference" recordings, ain't it?
for me, it's roxy music 'avalon', robbie robertson (first album) (or any other lanois recording), pink floyd 'the wall', laurie anderson 'strange angels''....and others.
i've heard these 'reference' albums on tons of bitchin' systems, and so i know what's missing or revealed by whatever system i'm 'analyzing' by ear.
i would bet that my set-up measures pretty flat, though. it doesn't have to be absolutely flat for playback, though. as long as it makes happy ears, it's AWESOME! as long as the frequency response is fairly smooth from low to high, the ear can enjoy. it is only ugly spikes and dips that make certain notes jump out or disappear that my ear find to be RUDE.
i like to dampen the room as much as possible without sucking the life out of it.
start with a bigish room (22 X 16 ft. is my listenong room) carpet, acoustic tiles, angled walls and ceilings, and as little glass as is possible.
my studio (20 X 12) has an arced ceiling, and angled wall, and a tapered corner, and is damped with waffle foam on about twenty percent of the room, mostly corners. i don't mind saying it sounds awesome, and clients are always surprised how a 'small' room can sound so great (not boxy).
did i measure it? nope. just went with my intuition, which is a product of years and years of observation.
would i bet on how flat it is? no. but i do know it sounds awesome, and that has been 'proven' over and over by happy clients.
some of us can really just trust our ears, because it's what we do for a living, narf.
it is, in the end, however, just SUBJECTIVE OPINION that rules the experience.
there is no wrong answer. there a more than a few pompous zealots, though, LOL!
to those who just ENJOY music and sound reproduction's quest for perfection, CHEERS!
(my studio monitors)
yeah, baby, yeah! NO speaker cables is best!
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
yeah, baby, yeah! NO speaker cables is best!
dukeoyork said:
Those Fostex were the 1st implentation of the Fostex UDR surround that is so good. If you ever want to donate them this way...
For those that aren't familiar with these, they could be classified as full-range with helper tweeter.
dave
why this thread can never end
Here is the real reason threads like this can never end.
We are story telling animals. We like a good story.
Contrast the 2 following:
~~~~~~~~
"Hey Bob, how's that old E-type Jag of yours doing?"
"It runs. I drive it to the market. Nothing special, runs like a Jag."
~~~~~~~~
"Hey Bob, how's that old E-type Jag of yours doing?"
"Great! You wouldn't believe it, but the thing is running better than I ever thought it would - fantastic!"
"Why? How?'
"I got these great new spark plug wires. They were pretty $$, but the wire is made of 99.9999% pure, oxygen rich smitmuphrium with a thin, thin, thin raboninite insulation.
The Jag starts so much faster, I get better mileage, more top end and the ladies even look at me more. Before these plug wires, it felt like the engine was never really all it could be. Like the spark was holding it back. But now, wow! Completely transformed. Like another car!" Wires matter!
~~~~~~~~~
Which story is more fun, more compelling? Easy. Which is true? Not so easy.
Human nature. 😀
Here is the real reason threads like this can never end.
We are story telling animals. We like a good story.
Contrast the 2 following:
~~~~~~~~
"Hey Bob, how's that old E-type Jag of yours doing?"
"It runs. I drive it to the market. Nothing special, runs like a Jag."
~~~~~~~~
"Hey Bob, how's that old E-type Jag of yours doing?"
"Great! You wouldn't believe it, but the thing is running better than I ever thought it would - fantastic!"
"Why? How?'
"I got these great new spark plug wires. They were pretty $$, but the wire is made of 99.9999% pure, oxygen rich smitmuphrium with a thin, thin, thin raboninite insulation.
The Jag starts so much faster, I get better mileage, more top end and the ladies even look at me more. Before these plug wires, it felt like the engine was never really all it could be. Like the spark was holding it back. But now, wow! Completely transformed. Like another car!" Wires matter!
~~~~~~~~~
Which story is more fun, more compelling? Easy. Which is true? Not so easy.
Human nature. 😀
planet10 said:
you know your horse flesh, lol.
i classify them as wonderfully boring (to listen to. it's 'mysteriously exciting' to ponder their brilliant design). it took me a long time to 'get' them. not exciting at all until you really start listening. then they're like grandma recalling WWII in perfect recall. how much un-embellished detail do you want?
banana fibre. crazy!
Here is what I believe in regards to cables and if they matter or make a difference just my 2 cents.
Does it make a difference? Well in a technical sense I am sure it does make a difference. Anything you change in the signal path will in theory make a difference.
Does it matter? In 99% of the situations I would say no it will make no perceivable difference. And what difference it makes is in most all cases negligible. Unless you are running way too long a run of a cable, the cable is ridiculously thin or fat, or they just have poor connections/solder joints there will be no useful difference in cables. The tonal shift of a cable may be significantly lower than what happens when the barometric pressure shifts in a room or you have a small buildup of wax in your ears or just shifting your head from the sweet spot a nano meter imo. There are far more important things to worry about.
Me I like a strong durable cable with solid solder joints and adequate shielding. Beyond that I think you get into extreme diminishing returns.
Does it make a difference? Well in a technical sense I am sure it does make a difference. Anything you change in the signal path will in theory make a difference.
Does it matter? In 99% of the situations I would say no it will make no perceivable difference. And what difference it makes is in most all cases negligible. Unless you are running way too long a run of a cable, the cable is ridiculously thin or fat, or they just have poor connections/solder joints there will be no useful difference in cables. The tonal shift of a cable may be significantly lower than what happens when the barometric pressure shifts in a room or you have a small buildup of wax in your ears or just shifting your head from the sweet spot a nano meter imo. There are far more important things to worry about.
Me I like a strong durable cable with solid solder joints and adequate shielding. Beyond that I think you get into extreme diminishing returns.
Would any knowledgable 'objectivist' disagree that line level cables with low capacitance/skin effect that do not drop the high end by up to 3db at 20khz as measured in an actual audio system are a significant sonic improvement over lesser cables? Yet this is generally regarded as a merely 'subjective' aspect of cable design.
How about cable design for power and line level audio that shields RF and digital noise induction from sensitive audio electronics? Are these merely 'subjective' effects?
How about speaker cables that do not lose 10-20% of the amplifier's power at the speaker terminals? Again, discarded as not being 'objective' enough by many.
How about biwiring, which utilizes all of the amplifer's feedback to cancel out nonlinear driver back voltage crosstalk between LF and HF sections of speakers? Again, generally discarded as being only a 'subjectivist' tweak.
How about cable design for power and line level audio that shields RF and digital noise induction from sensitive audio electronics? Are these merely 'subjective' effects?
How about speaker cables that do not lose 10-20% of the amplifier's power at the speaker terminals? Again, discarded as not being 'objective' enough by many.
How about biwiring, which utilizes all of the amplifer's feedback to cancel out nonlinear driver back voltage crosstalk between LF and HF sections of speakers? Again, generally discarded as being only a 'subjectivist' tweak.
rdf said:
it drives me bananas.
i bought them 'cause they were on sale for about $1000 bucks (as opposed to $2500, ...i figgered they'd be at least adequate), and then brought them home and learned to love them, later.
i do love that yellow, five-pointed star cone, though. very cool. and the crazy twisting surround. crazy.
here's a professional opinion and rundown....
fostex nf 1a
lowest distortion ever measured?
down to 5 khz, and up to 40!!
colour me psyched.
😉
dukeoyork said:
jeez, when i saw them in 1999 they were $1.2k/pr -- or are yours the active ones? (picture is passive, review is active)
dave
First, skin effect is irrelevant at AF in a stranded cable of <0.8mm or so strand diameter.thoriated said:
http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/skin-effect-relevance-in-speaker-cables/
http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/interview-with-dr-howard-johnson-about-skin-effect/
thoriated said:
dukeoyork said:
Brett said:
a very concise way of un-nailing the supposed crux brett!
(all good fun)
For what seems like the n-hundredth time, NO-ONE takes that position. Try this one instead:
If someone ever bothered to do a properly controlled subjective test that showed significant ability to distinguish between (say) a copper wire and a silver wire with the same R, C, and L (or similar enough to keep frequency response and level differences in the test smaller than 0.1dB across the audio band), that would end the argument. It's now 30 years into the wire fad and not a single person has ever done that. Not one. Ever.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.