> Sometimes it is needed to remember the origin of the ongoing cable debate. AFAIR the
> whole story started back in the seventies, when certain people first realized that
> there might be sound differences between various cables used for loudspeakers and
> interconnects.
After the stereo boom in the 70s the luxury home audio industry in the developed world was forced to adapt to the changing market conditions. Demand was down and it was increasingly a replacement market, there was no competing with the products coming from the developing world in terms of technical performance for a given price and the advance of technology had lead to many of the products not being functionally distinguishable. Companies that developed a marketing approach based on perceived performance rather than technical performance began to prosper while those that did not largely ceased trading although many of the brands survived. The mainstream audiophile sector as we know it today was born.
It became apparent early on that not only could the marketing of perceived performance be used to maintain the sales of technically uncompetitive products but it could also be used to "de-commoditise" items like cables. This was the origins of "audiophile" cables in the mainstream although there had always been wacky products in the small ads.
There has never been a debate about audiophile cables among the technically literate or even those with a modest amount of common sense because there is nothing to debate. How cables and sound perception function has been long known and audiophile believers are not putting forward anything that conflicts with it. The debate exists solely among those interested in the products of the audiophile industry.
> whole story started back in the seventies, when certain people first realized that
> there might be sound differences between various cables used for loudspeakers and
> interconnects.
After the stereo boom in the 70s the luxury home audio industry in the developed world was forced to adapt to the changing market conditions. Demand was down and it was increasingly a replacement market, there was no competing with the products coming from the developing world in terms of technical performance for a given price and the advance of technology had lead to many of the products not being functionally distinguishable. Companies that developed a marketing approach based on perceived performance rather than technical performance began to prosper while those that did not largely ceased trading although many of the brands survived. The mainstream audiophile sector as we know it today was born.
It became apparent early on that not only could the marketing of perceived performance be used to maintain the sales of technically uncompetitive products but it could also be used to "de-commoditise" items like cables. This was the origins of "audiophile" cables in the mainstream although there had always been wacky products in the small ads.
There has never been a debate about audiophile cables among the technically literate or even those with a modest amount of common sense because there is nothing to debate. How cables and sound perception function has been long known and audiophile believers are not putting forward anything that conflicts with it. The debate exists solely among those interested in the products of the audiophile industry.
jlsem said:
Wow John, that's quite a diatribe. You seem really angry, sorry that was not my aim. I can answer that with another one, but there seems no point. But perhaps the one point I'd like to make is that what you see as a 'flawed' brain function is in fact a highly tuned survival trait.
jd
Panicos K said:
Well, sorry, if you had any respect you would not accuse me of calling anybody stupid or implying that I consider anybody idiots. For the record, that's what you did, not me.
I was just trying to explain certain things that are common knowledge outside audio.
jd
Andre Visser said:
Why do you insist on calling others 'stupid', while they are just normal people like you and me? Not very nice.
jd
jlsem said:
John, the point is that it's not 'some people' but 'people' as a group. The way we are wired, the result of eons of honing the system to make this exquisite human being that is so tough to put under.
Do you know that test by Floyd Toole while he was still director of development for speakers for Harman Kardon? Did listening tests with a panel where some of them were experienced audio critics, speaker designers etc. people who before the test confidently stated that they were aware of the non-sound influences but sure they could switch them off. Well, in doing both a sighted and a blind test, they ALL gave more preference to the large and shiny box in the sighted test. ALL, including those experienced guys that said they know the effect and thought they could beat it.
Can an apple resist falling down?
jd
janneman said:
As i have this paper not at hand in this moment is it true that _ALL_ couldn´t beat the effect?
I´d suspect (but can´t remember) that it could have been more sort of a group count, so without looking at the individual score it´s impossible to say, if at least certain members of the group could .....
Wishes
Andre Visser said:
We sure can make generalisations.
That's psychology 101.
If you spend a little effort reading up on the human brain, you'll find that Janneman and SY are not too far off the mark.
Magura 🙂
The question remains unanswered.
There is no way you or anyone else can say for certain that is true. It is all conjecture on your part for the very simple reason that you or anyone else have no "pre-evolved" brain with which to make a comparison. I was only protesting and still do that your idea that a normal person has a less accurate accounting of of his environment than a person suffering from mental instability is nonsensical. It's one thing to develop a pet theory based on your own understanding of evolution, but presenting it as fact and defending it in a somewhat condescending manner is a little irritating.
John
janneman said:
I guess this is getting old, but it remains a fact:
Your brain will go to great length, to avoid disappointing you.
This also works the other way around, and however much I hate it, it's the same for all of us.
Magura 🙂
jlsem said:
No nobody can say it is absolutely certain. What we can say is that there is overwhelming evidence and that it is generally accepted by those in the business.
It certainly is NOT conjecture of my part, its common knowledge for anyone bothering to research it. I'm not making this up.
And I do understand that you are protesting, you will have your reasons, but that doesn't change it, does it?
And if sounded condescending, I apologize, that is not my aim. Did I really?
jd
The amount of literature on the subject is fairly vast. Maybe you can point me to your sources, especially the ones regarding the keen minds of mental patients.
John
Magura said:
Agreed. Whenever people are confronted by it, they invariably become angry, thinking they are accused of being stupid or deluded or diminished. That makes it so hard to have an open mind about it and actually go out and research it. But the evidence is overwhelming. Read Daniel Dennet, Marvin Minsky, Antonio Damasio and one of your countryman, Torre Norretranders if I get the spelling right and a whole bunch of others.
To be sure, in each of their papers you can find places to attack and doubt. Taken as a total, there's very little doubt left. And you know, it explains human behaviour beautifully.
Ask the marketing geniuses.
jd
janneman said:
No doubt about that.
As I see it, the problem is to figure when this effect is taking place, but as you stated above, step one is naturally to accept the effect has an influence on you
It's the last part that seems to be the big deal though.
I have personally experienced, that I have been fooled by my own brain, and that royally.
I guess I've never felt more stupid than after that incident, but looking back, I had no need to, rather the opposite.
After that experience, I became somewhat more open to the idea, that I may not be as pragmatic as I'd like to believe.
After reading up on the subject, I felt much better, as I now know, that I'm not alone 😉
Magura 🙂
Magura said:
Indeed. BTW, this was the Danish guy I mentioned above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_Nørretranders
His http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_User_Illusion was translated in Dutch.
jd
janneman said:
Did you also miss the smiley?
Must say though if someone pay $7000 for a cable just because they like the colour............ uhm OK, then maybe they have too much money. 😀
Andre Visser said:
It's fairly easy to demonstrate, that you're a part of that group of people, just like the rest of us.
Whatever you feel like calling that group of people, may be somewhat nicer after you realize that.
Magura 🙂
There are plenty of good examples of how persons with decades of experience in evaluating audio systems are no longer affected by things like marketing hype, price disparity, or visual cues. I will give you a specific example based on my own experience which also correlated with the experience of some of my friends:
A couple of years ago, a company called Music Matters began releasing newly re-mastered editions of stereo Blue Note jazz records. A good friend of mine was given some test pressings to review and they sounded so good that I went home that night and signed up for the subscription, which was the only way they were available. I can't tell you how good these records are. Later, Music Matters announced that after the third installment, forthcoming issues would be of improved quality based on their re-wiring the signal chain in the mastering room with AudioQuest cable. Needless to say, we were a little unhappy that our first six records at $50 a pop weren't as good as they could have been, based on the advertising claims. As it turns out, they should have left them alone because the newer releases are slightly inferior to the first issues. So, once again, high expectations were not met and disappointment ensued.
I might add that this conclusion was reached after nearly two years of comparison in numerous listening sessions.
John
A couple of years ago, a company called Music Matters began releasing newly re-mastered editions of stereo Blue Note jazz records. A good friend of mine was given some test pressings to review and they sounded so good that I went home that night and signed up for the subscription, which was the only way they were available. I can't tell you how good these records are. Later, Music Matters announced that after the third installment, forthcoming issues would be of improved quality based on their re-wiring the signal chain in the mastering room with AudioQuest cable. Needless to say, we were a little unhappy that our first six records at $50 a pop weren't as good as they could have been, based on the advertising claims. As it turns out, they should have left them alone because the newer releases are slightly inferior to the first issues. So, once again, high expectations were not met and disappointment ensued.
I might add that this conclusion was reached after nearly two years of comparison in numerous listening sessions.
John
Magura said:
Yes sure, we are all the same, we all know the same, hear the same, prefer golden cables..........
janneman said:
This is your answer to a person who said several times that the only thing he cares about when testing cables,is SOUND.He asked a simple thing about his cables,his system,his decision.Replying the way you did,IMO,shows that you totally ignored him and his statements,something that could easily be taken as questioning his honesty and intelligence.True,you haven't used the word "idiot"or any other,but replying in the mood and fashion of others that did,it is almost the same thing,only well covered.
With much respect-honestly.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.