jlsem said:
Yes. Unfortunately they are a pretty penny. They used to be more expensive until they changed the terminal plugs to a different, cheaper design.
jlsem said:
This line of reasoning is stupid, I live 5 min. from Harvard Square and I'm sure I could find more than one nobel laureate with an encyclopedic knowledge of 19th century music that listens to nothing but a Bose Wave radio.
No less stupid than the Bud Lite line. Stuart's post implied that someone with a Superior Education like yourself (and presumably his own self) would be immune to deception-by-cable. Now Stuart, scientist that he is, makes an assumption that deception (self- or otherwise) is the cause of someone preferring one cable over another. This is unproven.
My comment about my friend, although true, was really meant to be light hearted and show that possessing a scientific degree from an institution like MIT makes no difference one way or another in the debate.
The logic of the zip cord line was that Nordost cable is to zip cord what a Trappist ale is to Bud Lite. You seem to think vice versa.
John
jlsem said:
I would be very surprised if I showed a cable preference that was the same from one day to the next. But I remain faithful to the idea that the test will never happen. Both sides of this issue will never enter into a test by any protocol that truely has equal probability of either outcome.
The claim that (fill in the blank) cable is so obviously superior to #10 romex that "I" can tell 15 seconds after entering the room has been made numerous times here, never backed up in any way.
As such it will always remain only a claim. But I personally don't believe that counter claims are of any more or less value than the original claim or any less immune to accusations of deception.
There exist people who market their own equipment based on claims that "audiofoolery" is useless and measurement reigns supreme. Based on what I've listened to and how badly these systems performed, I'd say they are no less guilty of deception themselves - in their own special way.
John
jlsem said:
There is an inherently loopsided aspect to this, let's say that I am basicly indifferent, there is no way you can prove that I have to be hearing a difference.
I never said anything about measurement, pure listening but ALL biases removed.
Well, be that as it may, I don't think I have ever suggested in 851 posts on this forum that I could prove anything. I have often played the devil's advocate against the argument that Science Answers Everything, but I see no harm in that.
John
That is my own goal and I sometimes come pretty close because I forget what might be causing any bias. It's true that sales demonstrations contain biases but go to any show and you can usually slip in under the radar and listen to a system without anyone saying anything to you, and when audio equipment and cables all start to look the same, the bias of appearance is also removed.
John
Ask Phil Byers. 😀
I think that if a difference is described as "night and day" or "my wife, who is not an audiophile, was two rooms away and heard the difference," that not much listener training would be needed.
John, the lopsided aspect is the old black swan fallacy. I can't prove there's no Santa Claus, but there's no use spending my time trying different chimneys waiting for him to show up.
Do you believe Scott was thinking that when he typed his last reply? From the manner in which the post was worded, he only seemed frustrated and tired to me. I myself have drawn no conclusions from these arguments. I simply stated neither side seemed to have more merit than the other.
I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say all cable listening tests provide positive results in terms of there being a discernible difference between all cables.
John
BigGayAl said:
The Oxford dictionary defines 'rational' as "sensible, sane, moderate, not foolish or extreme..."
I get it.... you are saying it is not possible for a subjectivist to be a rationalist, i.e. sensible, sane, moderate, un-foolish, un-extreme. 😱 😱 😱 😱 😱
Hmm, I never thought of that.... but it would explain the difficulty in communicating with them 😀
The big block in the brainwaves of subjectivists is they believe rational audiophiles are obsessed with meters. What hogwash! Strawman! It just suits rationality-free subjectivists to paint their enemy with that lie so they can find fault.
I want to meet the subjectivists who understand that 'cable rationalists' are simply willing to accept the limitations of human hearing and the way the psychoacoustics of human perception can be so misleading, and that the uncontrolled tests some people call 'listening' are an exercise in delusion.
Cable rationalists are simply removing delusion from their tests, and for that they are being ridiculed
tnargs said:
which begs the point as to why many accept and actively push the idea that a controlled test should be any closer to "reality" than real listening.
dzzmiller said:
Sounds like he is withholding a little info. So how easy would it be to make some cables that give an effect? Could we make some that goose the high end a little? Maybe make some that add a little 2nd order distortion? What about the opposite - de-goose the high end a little. The de-goose cable might be more useful.
I believe you. It's easy to hear differences in cables that are malfunctioning or inappropriate for their application. Nobody in their right mind would argue that cables cannot be made or used in a way that makes them audibly degrade the signal.thetubeguy1954 said:
Are you seriously saying they (you) believe it without any evidence? And please don't say your evidence is uncontrolled 'listening'. That has been soooo disproven that it has much less than zero worth (because it becomes disinformation).
Hello Pot, I would like to introduce you to my friend Kettle.
Your statement has nothing to do with DBT or statistics; it is simply a logical truth. It therefore says nothing about DBT or statistics.
Correct! And every time someone tries to demonstrate the existence of electricity, it only proves that electricity existed in that wire at that time. But smart people without an agenda are sooner or later willing to generalise based on weight of evidence and absence of contradictory evidence. For audible wiring that time passed decades ago; where were you? (oh, 1954....)
Not true, and that is why I continue. Audio newbies are often willing to listen, and it concerns me that they read a barrage of nonsense from The Deluded Ones Who Believe Their Delusions Are Truth Because They Experienced It. To call such people Subjectivists is ridiculously generous; I am a subjective being too, but I am willing to think through what caused me to have a perception a certain way.
Instead, audio newbies who could be sensibly applying their usually quite limited budget to loudspeakers and room factors, are being encouraged to waste (oh, it's such a waste) their money on insanely priced wires. And these shameful recommendations are casually dropped like pearls of wisdom from people assuming the role of high priest.
MORE than sufficient proof has been provided, all in the one direction. Do you think sufficient proof has been provided that life evolves? Creationists don't think so. That is a comment about them, not about the evidence.
Simple logic. (And nobody has ever claimed otherwise.)
Not true. What on earth makes you think Creationists accept evidence, or that their audio equivalents are any different?
False argument: you are pretending there is only black and white. There are many people who change their views from time to time, in relation to this matter as to most any matter. You are claiming that EVERYONE has to change their view when proof is available, and that if they don't the fault is in the proof. People aren't like that!
Don't feed the pigeons 😉 Their egos are big enough already. Half of 'em only need half a chance to think they are the only one with telepathy 😉BradS said:
Yes
Yes!
Yes Yes Yes! 😀
Sighted test = no test, I'm afraid.Alan Hope said:
Are you saying someone *predicted* what jitter would sound like? Surely that is not necessary. Someone (with a lab) can simply increase jitter until it is clearly audible, then more, then some more... 😀 then double it! I wonder how that would sound?
That's not an assertion you will ever hear from me. The delusion of sighted perception of sound from an audio system is the sum product of conscious *and unconscious* values. Therefore no matter how strongly you feel about something consciously, it might (or might not) be overridden by something you are unaware of. Yes, even a Scot's feelings about money (just)!
Sighted test = no test, I'm afraid.
Don't bother. Such a small scale test will not have a significant result either way. Much larger tests have been done, the results are in. All we have to do is stop believing we are "the one person in the world" referred to above.Andre Visser said:
tnargs said:
... may not be anywhere as limited as you may think. I was reading in some paper somewhere recently that research is pointing towards the ability of a trained human to perceive timing errors on the order of the time it takes light to travel a foot... (that should stir up some more debate)
I don't know how solid that is, but it makes you think. The trained human ear certainly has more capability than a microphone.
Psychoacoustics also plays a big role in "blind" tests. Not many (i've not seen any documented ones) pass as scientifically & statistically valid. So if you can't do (or afford to do) a proper blind test, what can you do? Practise often, and trust your ears. Your musical enjoyment is all that matters.
Me -- a frugal-phile(tm) -- i can't afford to play too much with cable so i just use my 24g solid cryo-treated copper speaker cables, made cheap by piggy backing on the billions of miles made for the computer industry and don't obsess over it. I do know cables make a difference, but who has the time & money to find the ones that are really best? One of these days i'll make some interconnects too (i've got all the parts).
dave
planet10 said:
Hi dave,
See I wonder about stuff like this. And the same goes with super transparent systems. I do believe that you can train yourself to pickup errors and spot things that most normal people just tend to ignore. And you can do it past the point of where even most engineers normally would care to go with it. But it seems like at a certain point of transparency wouldn't the sound benefits stop and you just start revealing more and more of the mechanics of everything - the jitter, haze, lack of "sharpness". I think my system is pretty transparent but I have yet to hear what small amounts of jitter sound like and I don't think I exactly care to or see a use for it beyond depressing me haha.
As an engineer that is aiming for recordings that can easily be reproduced on a variety of systems wouldn't the more ideal your system becomes, just take you an extra step away from what the person with just the average everyday good system hears?
And also are there any studios outside of mastering studios that use expensive interconnects? Most of the places I have seen up close it just looks like the normal neutrik and switchcraft affair. I mean maybe a canare here or there but nothing insanely expensive. And those telephone jacks they use on the patchbay those aren't exactly audiophile. Think they use silver solder on those patchbays? Or just normal 60/40?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.