audiophile has nothing to do with the kind of music you listen to.
In my decade long experience - audiophiles listen to equipment and cable, not to the music.
audio-kraut said:
I do have many very fine jazz recordings too, what else 🙄
But actually not needed to reveal this
I admit, I have spent many years, searching fore the sound I dreamed of
Im close enough now to only listen to music where I really appreciate good aticulation and sonics
But sometimes I get bored and search fore further improvement, which is mostly better DIY amps and DIY speakers
And if I need a cable I build one, or use what I have...its all very cheap
Well, I do have some Duelund flat silver interconnects with pure silk sleeve, and they work very well...and really dont care much whether they are better or worse than others
I bought them cheap, so they are just there
I admit on second thoughts that I once long ago bought some supposedly "better" balanced cables, and quickly realised that I had been cheated, and they vere sold cheap
I prefer to do my own
Honestly I really dont understand this "audiophile" - "not audiophile"
Attachments
If you as expected want to dismiss my "findings" I have described and experienced on and on numerous times, then please do so...its not my loss, and dont care one way or the other
I do my own things accordingly to what I find best, and thats all that matters to me
No matter the outcome of a cable "blind-test"...it wont change anything
I do my own things accordingly to what I find best, and thats all that matters to me
No matter the outcome of a cable "blind-test"...it wont change anything
I heard this response before.
They call it a true believer. Whatever the evidence - it won't change anything.
The question is - does it not change anything because you have made up your mind that differences must be audible, because you hear them - even if the evidence might point to the fact that self delusion is involved?
Or does it mean that it will not change anything because it is just too unimportant.
If audibility should be one of those decades be proven, it will not make a difference to me, as I have proven to myself that I cannot hear them. It is a matter of no importance to me. My ears are just not equipped for such finery.
audio-kraut said:
Thats what I said...it wont change anything, whatever the reasons may be 😉
But we agree so far that I would never use some kind of strange cable to try and chance the sound
tinitus said:
Very predictable response...fear of the unknown
Well friends...what if it really could be your ticket to audio nirvana 🙂
Well friends... the correct answer is... it isn't...😀 😉
No fou necessary... just logic and common sense
John L.
auplater said:
Well then.... we will never know 🙂
Its like with music
Some like really awful stuff, and others something completely different
"quality" is really very relative
What works fore some, really puts others off
Hard to say that one is better than the other
Something we cant measure
Brett said:
Brett what I do on AA has absolutely NOTHING to do with how I behave here. AA encourages such type of beavior by their lack of strong moderation when the flames and disparaging begins. Here on DIY it's a completely different story as this forum is moderated a lot better & fairer. FYI I address others on PHP they same way people address me. Here @ DIY I refrain as best I can from that type of behavior. I reread my post to you and found it was quite civil.
You're twisting what I said in an effort to be able to attack what was an otherwise civil post on my part. I never said you labelled me as anything. What I specifically said was "I noticed that despite the fact that nothing I posted implied either Dr Linkwitz or myself embraced the usage of Brilliant Pebbles, you also immediately went to that exteme as a means to cast a shadow of doubt on what I posted. I stand by that as you were the only one of us in our exchange of posts that brought up the extremist subjective tweak of Brillant Pebbles. It was IMO obviously done in an effort to discredit what I said. There was no other reason to broach that area, period. If others mentioned Brillant Pebbles you should have addressed them for doing so, not me.
First) Dr Linkwitz performed extensive objective tests as well as subjective listening over a period of years to develope a product (Orion Speakers) that he marketed as being "It is an open-baffle loudspeaker of the highest sonic accuracy and refinement. It incorporates not only what I learned from previous exercises, but also takes advantage of the latest in driver technology. It was safe to assume anyone who markets a product that they are calling "...of the highest sonic accuracy and refinement..." was both listening for & measuring for any and all potential problems they could locate. The fact remains that Dr Linkwitz missed the problem because he couldn't hear the problem, period. I guess that's just too difficult for some people to accept.
Second) Your example of misplaced keys is a flawed one. It has nothing to do with how well a person can see, but rather has more to do with how poorly a person searches for something.
Nice try Brett. I've gone back and read many posts in this thread and it's gotten way off the simple audibility or inaudibility of cables. In addition my post to you wasn't about cable audibility as far as Dr Linkwitz was concerned. It was about why using him as an example of a pioneer who's interested in SOUND, has an extensive electronics background and yet does not think much of expensive cables and exotic products, wasn't a wise choice! The fact remain that no matter how accomplished Dr Likwitz is in electronic and speaker design, we don't know how well he hears!
So as I stated previously if others mentioned Brillant Pebbles you should have addressed them for doing so, not me. Now Brett you can deny it all you want to but, IMHO you only mentioned Brillant Pebbles in your response to my post in an effort to discredit what I said.
Brett who ever said there weren't decent engineering reasons why the sonic problem existed, not me! Fact is if you read the page I refered to in another post http://linkwitzlab.com/orion-rev1.htm Dr Linkwitz admits he knew there were engineering reasons why this problem could have andin fact did, exist! "There are two potential problems with the traditional way of mounting a driver by clamping it with screws to a baffle. One, the magnet/mass and basket/compliance can form together a very high Q resonant structure, where the magnet moves relative to the voice coil at a resonant frequency, which is typically in the 150 Hz to 450 Hz range. Two, structure borne vibration, which is generated by the considerable force that the accelerating cone of the driver exerts on the basket, is transmitted through the mounting scheme into the baffle. I believe the logical conclusion is this: although he knew a potential problem could exist, the reason Dr Linkwitz didn't test for the problem was because he didn't hear the problem when he listened and therefore felt it didn't exist! It wasn't until Dan Barringer revealed the problem existed through subjective listening, that Dr Linkwitz could even eventually hear the problem and then later fix it. Why is that so hard to accept?
You can believe whatever you want to Brett. Personally I think if Dan Barringer told Dr Linkwitz he heard a difference when adding Brillant Pebbles to the Orions but, couldn't explain the reason why they'd make a difference Dr Linkwitz would have probably tried it and listened for himself. Dr Linkwitz holds Dan's opinions in high esteem: I have learned to trust his (Dan's) observations even when I sometimes cannot immediately hear what he noticed.
Brett "if' you've really read my posts on AA, then you already know I'm not technically oriented because I've stated that numerous times on that forum. Now although this has absolutely NOTHING to do with our previous exchange of posts Brett and IMO is another attempt on your part to discredit and cast a shadow in my opinions, by changing this into something I know nothing about i.e., technical issues, I'll attempt to answer you.
Having the ability to explain how and why audio components and wires work is completely different from having the ability to hear a difference in wires or components. I haven't the slightest idea how amplifiers, preamps, CDPs or wires work. That said, I know I hear differences in some wires & audio components. I have had and still have a standing offer to prove this to anyone who comes to Orlando Fla and wishes to visit my home. I certainly cannot prove it to anyone over the internet, can I?
Now back to what we were actually talking about. In the end Brett these are the facts, which for some strange reason you seem unwilling to admit. Dr Linkwitz after years of measuring & listening produced what he felt was an open-baffle loudspeaker of the highest sonic accuracy and refinement that had a problem he couldn't hear and never detected via his testing, until Dan Barringer pointed it out through subjective listening!
Thetubeguy1954
audio-kraut said:
Audiophile:
usually defined as:
–noun : a person who is especially interested in high-fidelity sound reproduction.
Someone who loves music is a, um, "music lover". (Melophile?)
The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
If one is not interested in high fidelity sound reproduction - why haunt a diy-audio forum?
That was a unnecessary disparaging remark by audio-kraut, but there's no reason a music lover couldn't also like to build speakers.
I'm still freaked out that people put pebbles on speakers. Surely this thread marks the beginning of the Apocalypse.
I'm still freaked out that people put pebbles on speakers. Surely this thread marks the beginning of the Apocalypse.
Sorry, I was not aware that "audiophiles" should not be disparaged.
I guess we should expand the UN resolution to ban criticism of religion to the self proclaimed members of this group.
If you call yourself an audiophile - that is your problem.
I rely on my definition on personal experiences as stated.
And as portrayed so lovingly in stereophile.
They seem to relish in listening to equipment and music is just a necessity to evaluate the various tweaks and products.
If you do not fall under that category - why do you feel disparaged?
I clearly stated my parametres.
My threshold is lower. I begins with the claimed tonal differences in various high end connectors.
There is no "usual" definition.
Why I "haunt"...because hifi to me is based on real technical advances and testable evidence in the service of musical reproduction.
Audiophile claims - again to repeat, as experienced by me, have to do usually with untestable or untested assertions and mostly non reproducible anecdotal experiences.
I see a difference between HiFi and Audiophile - maybe I have too long indulged in "stereophile" and show allergic reactions.
Sorry if I intruded into your realm - I will refrain from disturbing your circles again.
Don't refrain. Tender sensibilities need a bullet every now and then, and, possibly, more often. If they can't take, st*ff them.
Frank
The difference in the majority of cables usually is snake oil. However, when it comes to Nordost cables and interconnects, I can honestly and definitively say that the cable DOES make a difference. A gentleman from the local Hi-Fi store brought over a demo kit of Nordost speaker cables. The kit ranged from the entry level to the cost-is-no-option cable. I sampled them through my Balanced Audio Technology VK-300x with a Marantz SACD player through a Cambridge Audio DacMagic. The loudspeakers used were Focal Electra Be 1027's.
The entry level cables called Blue Heaven were first. I sampled those and there was a defininative difference between my 120 dollar set of AudioQuest cables. I mean the difference was literally night and day, and even my friends who are not sound savvy noticed a difference in the quality.
He then sampled me the next level up, which are the Red Dawn cables. Again, the difference between the Blue Heaven and Red Dawn was night and day. Clarity was improved, spatial imaging was more precise, bass quality was even better. The next level was again the difference between night and day. As well as the level above that, which was unaffordable.
I can honestly say, the difference between regular coiled speaker wire and the flat wire Nordost cables were unbelievable. The cost however, is steep, even for the Blue Heaven entry level. But, if you have the money to spend, Nordost cables are the best thing to buy.
The entry level cables called Blue Heaven were first. I sampled those and there was a defininative difference between my 120 dollar set of AudioQuest cables. I mean the difference was literally night and day, and even my friends who are not sound savvy noticed a difference in the quality.
He then sampled me the next level up, which are the Red Dawn cables. Again, the difference between the Blue Heaven and Red Dawn was night and day. Clarity was improved, spatial imaging was more precise, bass quality was even better. The next level was again the difference between night and day. As well as the level above that, which was unaffordable.
I can honestly say, the difference between regular coiled speaker wire and the flat wire Nordost cables were unbelievable. The cost however, is steep, even for the Blue Heaven entry level. But, if you have the money to spend, Nordost cables are the best thing to buy.
Wow, night and day. And specifically that brand. And all the cables of that brand sound night and day different from one another. And the differences in the speaker wire are unbelievable.
That must have been some salesman doing the demo!
That must have been some salesman doing the demo!
Re: Appeal to what?
Hello John!
Although I may be mistaken I believe you're incorrect in your assessment. IIRC the ad hominem refered to as Appeal To Authority is when someone, in this case it was dzzmiller, uses a person who's an accepted authority in one area ---{Dr Linkwitz who'll I'll stipulate for this debate is an authority on electronics & speaker design}-- and then states that by virtue of his authority in these areas we should accept he's also an authority in other areas as well. My problem with dzzmiller's post was this: Dr Linkwitz's extensive electronics background, does not automatically also make him an authority on expensive cables and exotic products. That was were IMO the ad hominem refered to as Appeal To Authority was invoked.
Now when I refered to both Dr Linkwitz & Dan Barringer I never stipulated either was an authority. I was simply attempting to show that even though Dr Linkwitz spent years of objective testing and listening, he didn't locate a problem with his Orion speakers, speakers which Dr Linkwitz marketed as a finished product and he refered to as being an open-baffle loudspeaker of the highest sonic accuracy and refinement. Yet his friend Dan Barringer detected the problem through simple subjective listening.
I was hoping that example would show the more ardent objectivists here that subjective listening can detect things that objective measurements miss. That of course doesn't mean and I never stated or implied that once subjectively heard these things couldn't be objectively measured. I was also hoping this might provide us all with some common ground between the two differing (subjective & objective) POVs in audio.
As I've previously stated to Brett here IMO the problem with some, perhaps many objectivists is they believe if a person chooses audio components or wires via subjective listening that means they automatically embrace every subjective tweak from Intelligent Chips & Brilliant Pebbles to Frozen Photos in their freezer and have a complete disregard for science . As a subjectivist myself I'll readily admit there are some subjectivists who are such extremist, but in my 40+ years in this hobby I've found most subjectivists are much more rational than that.
These types of subjectivists, like myself, believe there are sonic differences in some wires and audio components. We've seen enough instances of components that measure well but replicate music poorly as well as components that measure less well but replicate wonderfully, to know most measurements & specs do little in explaining how well a component will replicate what we consider to be the only reference standard, i.e., the sound of live, unamplified instruments & singers, in a given acoustical space and it's that reference standard we're attempting to emulate via subjective listening.
However we realise it's impossible to know what space most music was recorded in as it's impossible to know where the mics were placed in that space. Therefore we believe one most attend as many events of live, unamplified instruments & singers, in as many different acoustical spaces as possible in order to educate their ear/brain as to the sound of these live, unamplified instruments & singers in as many different types of spaces as possible. Thus we've come to rely on my ears as being the final arbitrator of how well an audio component replicates the sound of live, unamplified instruments & singers, in a given acoustical space.
thetubeguy1954
auplater said:
Hello John!
Although I may be mistaken I believe you're incorrect in your assessment. IIRC the ad hominem refered to as Appeal To Authority is when someone, in this case it was dzzmiller, uses a person who's an accepted authority in one area ---{Dr Linkwitz who'll I'll stipulate for this debate is an authority on electronics & speaker design}-- and then states that by virtue of his authority in these areas we should accept he's also an authority in other areas as well. My problem with dzzmiller's post was this: Dr Linkwitz's extensive electronics background, does not automatically also make him an authority on expensive cables and exotic products. That was were IMO the ad hominem refered to as Appeal To Authority was invoked.
Now when I refered to both Dr Linkwitz & Dan Barringer I never stipulated either was an authority. I was simply attempting to show that even though Dr Linkwitz spent years of objective testing and listening, he didn't locate a problem with his Orion speakers, speakers which Dr Linkwitz marketed as a finished product and he refered to as being an open-baffle loudspeaker of the highest sonic accuracy and refinement. Yet his friend Dan Barringer detected the problem through simple subjective listening.
I was hoping that example would show the more ardent objectivists here that subjective listening can detect things that objective measurements miss. That of course doesn't mean and I never stated or implied that once subjectively heard these things couldn't be objectively measured. I was also hoping this might provide us all with some common ground between the two differing (subjective & objective) POVs in audio.
As I've previously stated to Brett here IMO the problem with some, perhaps many objectivists is they believe if a person chooses audio components or wires via subjective listening that means they automatically embrace every subjective tweak from Intelligent Chips & Brilliant Pebbles to Frozen Photos in their freezer and have a complete disregard for science . As a subjectivist myself I'll readily admit there are some subjectivists who are such extremist, but in my 40+ years in this hobby I've found most subjectivists are much more rational than that.
These types of subjectivists, like myself, believe there are sonic differences in some wires and audio components. We've seen enough instances of components that measure well but replicate music poorly as well as components that measure less well but replicate wonderfully, to know most measurements & specs do little in explaining how well a component will replicate what we consider to be the only reference standard, i.e., the sound of live, unamplified instruments & singers, in a given acoustical space and it's that reference standard we're attempting to emulate via subjective listening.
However we realise it's impossible to know what space most music was recorded in as it's impossible to know where the mics were placed in that space. Therefore we believe one most attend as many events of live, unamplified instruments & singers, in as many different acoustical spaces as possible in order to educate their ear/brain as to the sound of these live, unamplified instruments & singers in as many different types of spaces as possible. Thus we've come to rely on my ears as being the final arbitrator of how well an audio component replicates the sound of live, unamplified instruments & singers, in a given acoustical space.
thetubeguy1954
- Status
- Not open for further replies.