the truth
I believe the false generalizations that all scientists lack aesthetic (whatever that means) can be reduced to a shoot the messenger mentality... nothing more... in a feeble attempt to discredit a reasoned and rationally disciplined approach...
John L.
SY said:
I believe the false generalizations that all scientists lack aesthetic (whatever that means) can be reduced to a shoot the messenger mentality... nothing more... in a feeble attempt to discredit a reasoned and rationally disciplined approach...
John L.
terry j said:
Hello terry j!
I consider myself to be a subjectivist. I hear distinct differences in some, not ALL wires, amps, CDPs, tubes etc. Yet I'm not definitely not rabidly anti-science! The mere mention of science does not send me into frenzy. What does get my goat, so to speak are the Lunatic Fringe Objectivists(LFOs) who use pseudo-science and/or voodoo-science claims and then attempt to pass that off as being scientific proof that subjectivists must be wrong!
IMHO it's the LFO's who go into a frenzy whenever anything subjective is mentioned. Their LFO walls instantly spring up at hint of the S-word and immediately they start insisting the subjectivist is anti-science, fooling themself, another victim of expectation bias etc. (and I am not exaggerating, you gotta see it to believe it) it really is amazing to watch.
As I stated earlier I hear distinct differences in some, not ALL wires, amps, CDPs, tubes etc. I also believe there has to be a scientific reason why these sonic differences exist. Where I differ from LFOs is I don't immediately assume, as if that's being scientific, that just because the tests, measurements and the data they provide, don't provide any empirical evidence as to why these differences exist, that automatically means the differences don't exist! I much more inclined to believe we're just not measuring or testing the right things. Albert Einstein, a man who's hardly non-scientific said: "Not everything that counts (or matters TG1954) can be counted (or measured TG1954) and not everything that can be counted (measured TG1954) counts (matters TG1954)."
Perhaps that's the problem we're also facing in audio when we're attempting to define why we hear sonic differences and yet cannot find the scientific reason why? Maybe what we're looking for is one of those things that Einstein was refering to when he said; not everything that counts or matters can be counted or measured? And maybe, just maybe what we're testing or measuring when attempting to discover why we hear sonic differences are one of those things Einstein was refering to when he said, and not everything that can be counted (measured) counts (matters)? Isn't that at least a possibility?
Isn't it possible that what's being tested and/or measured doesn't count or matter when looking for the reasons why we hear sonic differences that, so far, we cannot discover the scientific reasons for why they're heard? Isn't it just possible that those who hear these differences aren't anti-science, fooling themself or just another victim of expectation bias etc? What's anti-science about believing we aren't measuring the right things concerning the question being asked?
Finally I offer this as another possible explanation (besides what Einstein said) as to why we aren't measuring what we're hearing. I once read an article entitled Multidimensional Audio written by Henning Moller, Bruel & Kjaer. The artcile can be read here: http://www.zainea.com/multidimensionalaudio.htm
To briefly summarize their paper, the problem exists because both ---{ subjective and objective }--- groups of audiophiles/music lovers are attempting to define the same thing, but from different points of view and by the usage of different methods. You can read the article in it's entirety at the link below.
***===================================***
Before going any further the term " Good Sound " is used by myself as well as in the article. Unfortunately the term " Good Sound " is often attacked as being soley one's opinion and not definitive. For the purposes of this post and any responses to this post in this thread only let " Good Sound " be defined as, and considered the same as, replicating as accurately as possible an original acoustic event in the original acoustic space in which it occured.
***===================================***
When any human being hears, sees, smells or feels, they do it in a "global" fashion! This means everything about the sound, sight, odor, or sensation, is subjectively registered and perceived simultaneously, but no details are clear to begin with. { TG1954: IMO this explains why it sometimes takes prolonged listening to hear "problems" with audio components that on first listen sounded good. } To process an event "globally" the human brain is required to process an infinite number of one-dimensional domains into a one multi-dimensional conclusion. In practice the human mind can tell, within seconds, if a sound is correct or not, just as quickly as it can tell whether a girl is beautiful or a house, a car or a landscape is impressive.
However when we measure objectively we do exactly the opposite! Now we're describing details with extreme accuracy and we're concentrating on one parameter at a time in a "local" one dimensional fashion. These types of measurements provide us with data, but the data's of limited value and doesn't corrleate well with the data reached via the one multi-dimensional conclusion. If we took the beautiful girl as an example. We could accurately measure how tall the girl is, what color her hair is, how much she weighs, what nationality she is and so on, but that won't directly tell us how beautiful she is. Likewise, with an audio system we could, for instance measure frequency response and harmonic distortion, but neither does that tell us whether the system is good or bad.
The measurements that are usually used in audio need to become more than one dimensional. For us to start being able to accurately correlate objective data with subjective perception we need measurements that are more multi-dimensional! For example if we call the THD at 1 kHz measurement "one-dimensional" we could call the swept THD measurement "two-dimensional". The swept individual harmonic measurement would then be "three-dimensional" and finally the swept individual two-tone distortion curves would be "four-dimensional". Obviously, by adding more dimensions the potential value of the information obtained increases tremendously, but some kind of interpretation is required if confusion is to be avoided. The article suggests expanding the dynamic range or the frequency range as a means to obtain more "dimensions".
As I'm attempting to keep this as brief as possible the article concludes that audio is easily and meaningfully perceived by the "global" subjective human mind and they believe a similar "meaning" can be obtained in the objective world of measurements if the six "measurement domains" the authors described in their article are ever implemented! If or when this is done it could result in measurements that define via scientific methods, what the subjective human mind perceives in a global" fashion! I understand some time has passed since this article is written and measurements & tests have become more "global" but, I believe they haven't become "global" enough and this is possibly why we aren't measuring or testing correctly what's being heard.
Perhaps someday we'll realise both POVs both subjective and objective are as equally right as they were wrong and the truth lies somewhere firmly between their two opposing POVs....
Thetubeguy1954
some pepole hear what some other pepole don't.
some pepole are color blind and see green as brown.
it doesn't mean the pepole with healthy eye sight don't
see green.
you can take what you want from this specific post
but if you cant hear a diffrence between cables doesn't mean others
don't.
the brain is a tricky creature (the brain in our body not me😉 )
sometime it can make you hear different if you convince yourself.
if a pretty big number of people (including me ) can hear a difference
or convince themselves there is one
then i would say probably there is
p.s -
when you are born you can hear almost till 20KHz
when you are about 40 you can hear till 15KHz if you are lucky
some pepole are color blind and see green as brown.
it doesn't mean the pepole with healthy eye sight don't
see green.
you can take what you want from this specific post
but if you cant hear a diffrence between cables doesn't mean others
don't.
the brain is a tricky creature (the brain in our body not me😉 )
sometime it can make you hear different if you convince yourself.
if a pretty big number of people (including me ) can hear a difference
or convince themselves there is one
then i would say probably there is
p.s -
when you are born you can hear almost till 20KHz
when you are about 40 you can hear till 15KHz if you are lucky
I am 49 and till 2 months ago on test I could hear 18000 HZ.The next time I will go for a test,who knows.....
thetubeguy1954 said:
The scientists are working on this; symmetry is important, eg both breasts should be the same size, both eyes should look in the same direction. They analysed Brad Pitt's face using frameworks (like those used for animation) to work out why girls found him attractive.
Panicos K said:
you lucky bastard
this stuff is so interesting, they found out that the ratio of the symmetrical faces perceived as beautiful is (for god sake where is the pie symbol on the keyboard
) pie/2 which is approx. 1.570796326794.......
thetubeguy1954 said:
and hello tube guy.
if you are going to quote me 'back to me', at least take a look at the context in which I said what I said.
We were specifically referring to the sterophile forum. I was asked if I was a member or participated there. yes.
I stand by what I said about the subjectivists there. They are rabidly anti-science. Go and look for yourself.
Now, having corrected that, IIRC out of this back from the dead thread, you are 'one of the good guys', in other words (I think I vaguely recall this( you ave extended invitation to others and/or are willing to test your 'hearing of cables'??? If I am correct in that, kudos.
I hope it happens, unlike for example the many many times I said I'm willing to travel to others to learn more about these things. Ie Andy G will not step up to the plate no matter how vehement his assertions.
I hope those that take up your invite do not resort to voodoo science, but rely on the tried and tested methods like level matched dbt's.
good luck.
I thought for a little while there we may have been starting to communicate with each other with a level of respect that could lead to progress, thanks for bringing me back to my senses.
There are a lot of forums on the internet with all sorts of focus and personality. Stereophile's is (presumably, I've never looked at them) different than this one, serving a different set of needs and desires. I just don't think it's appropriate to bash other forums here or bring disputes from them onto this forum (or vice versa).
terry j said:
Quite frankly because you and the others flat out REFUSE to try to understand or deal with basic scientific principles, so why the heck should I bother wasting my time, with a bunch of un-scientific objectivists. You expect me to do YOUR thinking for you, and I'm not going to. I have told you one of the many problems, if you can't fix it then don't make it my problem.
ps.. and DON'T bring arguements from another forum here, it EXCEEDINGLY BAD form.
If differences are not audible among many of the well known cables vs no brand cables, I would first look into the speaker performance.
soongsc said:
🙂 And which is the "good" speaker setup? The one where differences in cables are negligible? Or the one where it makes a big difference?
What I would try to look at personally is the entire singal chain and the order in which everything flows.
Key said:
That is not easy to answer. Often less obviously transparent or tweaky setups are more musically communicative. Especially with digital sources.
soongsc said:
analog_sa said:
Couldn't we alter these parameters by using a mix matched signal chain. Two sets of identical speakers but one set of speakers with a nominal impedance bridging setup and an active crossover vs the same speaker with poor impedance bridging and a passive crossover. Would this alter the damping factor and other things enough to produce one system that is unpredictable and one that is more predictable.
I suspect that a passive speaker setup itself is a weak point in a system. It leaves too much room for poor impedance bridging and therefor leaves cable makers to futs with impedance loads giving mix matched "different" results.
I think I do not notice these negative side effects not because my signal chain isn't revealing - it is freakin' brutal on a poorly mastered or mixed source but is heaven on a great source - it's because I use proper impedance bridging throughout my entire signal chain right down to the individual drivers in the monitors.
Key said:
Nice theory but only partially convincing. I am not at all sure that speaker cables are the most audible in a system; power cables are at least as audible IME. Even if impedance matching was so important and this certainly does not seem to be the case with low/zero feedback tube amps, how would it explain differences between copper and silver per example?
** about electronics.I am not a regular here but was a bit surprised to see a significant number of people express a belief in the magic properties of audiophile cables. I would not have expected such beliefs to survive very long the regular DIY activity of making and testing loudspeakers. Are the people expressing support for the magic properties of audiophile cables regular loudspeaker DIYers?
Having been here a long time I suggest loaded terms like 'magic' are as useful as 'deaf' (not very.)
You recently had the opportunity to make clear exactly why DBT's are flawed, most notably with someone qualified and very experienced with them, Sean Olive. But you didn't, so you have proven that you have nothing of substance, only bluster.Andy G said:
Priceless. I call that hiding.Andy G said:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.