A lot of recent posts with examples of results obtained that were opposite to a person's "conscious" expectations. These are offered as proof that the change in sound they hear is not due to their expectations. In the light of the 'known' facts about human pschology this is a very weak, and almost child like argument.
It reminds me of religious folk..... "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."--Matt. 18:3
Maybe if you loose your child like innocence you won't hear the cables anymore and sadly miss out on being in audio Heaven. (No disrespect intended)
It reminds me of religious folk..... "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."--Matt. 18:3
Maybe if you loose your child like innocence you won't hear the cables anymore and sadly miss out on being in audio Heaven. (No disrespect intended)
fdegrove said:
No, its just a result of ingeneering devellopment, its no illusion, its genuine, you are really hearing the result of many peoples hard work and lots of money
And there is such thing as truth, but not just one
fredex said:
So let me get this straight:
If I listen to expensive cables, and they sound better, I am a child-like fool because obviously I EXPECTED the expensive cables to sound better.
But if I listen to expensive cables and they sound unexpectedly worse, I am a child-like fool because my findings defy all the 'known' facts about human psychology.
However if I can hear no difference then I become an infinitely wise objectivist, and somehow more grown-up.
Now one of dem objectivists has now shown using ultra-reliable ABX that ALL amplifiers (tubes,sand, T-amps), if one is run through a graphic equaliser to match the FR (and below clipping), CANNOT be told apart.
http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm
Where has the romance gone? 😉
How many inches of cable can you hear? I mean you can connect your amp directly to the speaker terminals or, multiple amps directly to each driver's terminals. What you do depends on the magnitude of the problem you are trying to address. If cables are a real ongoing problem for you why not just eliminate them from the system?
Alan Hope said:
I don't believe you have.
Whilst I was writing that I thought about how the word "imaginary" in this debate is a trigger word for some who wrongly think that they are conscious of everything that goes on inside their head, so I didn't use it. Instead I used "child like" which I can see now is obviously worse, but imagination and child do go well together. Fool is your word.
What I am saying is, the "argument" is child like because it is based on a premis that grownups know is false.
Your extrapolations are based on what you "imagined" ...oops, thought I was saying. 🙂
Panicos K said:
Ha well I actually hope we wont always be in doubt. Maybe if someday there is a vendor neutral reference standard for systems that is kept simple yet effective.
Well provided there is trust with both parties. Currently it seems more like the Mastering Engineer expects a compromised system and references for that instead of for a flat frequency response. But yeah it can be this simple actually. Just go out and find a financially accessible system which sounds real. In the past me saying to do something like that so simply would be laughed at by most anyone and I assume a lot of you still think this is something that should be very hard to obtain or you should struggle with. I do not think it is this way at all and I believe it's long overdo for the reference playback for all CDs etc... to be flat.
..... 
.... 🙂I think these are not mutually exclusive. Just maybe we have never made enough effort to accomplish this.
Thats rather interesting. Powered speakers are not a new concept but I suppose you could get fancy and only use fiber optics for input. But then of course this same thread will again start over one brand of fiber vs another
fdegrove said:Hi,
Proof can be flying in your face but if you can't or aren't willing to accept it why bother?
A cap is is a cap, a resistor is a resistor and so on, right?
Boring and so unproductive....
Ciao, 😉
P.S. It may take years but it wil happen.
IOW, you were blowing smoke.
astouffer said:Thats rather interesting. Powered speakers are not a new concept but I suppose you could get fancy and only use fiber optics for input. But then of course this same thread will again start over one brand of fiber vs another
That is right there was a flurry of active speakers 70s? but the reason for doing so was not to eliminate the speaker cable as I understood it but to allow direct connection to each driver and equalise each amp for its driver. M1 or M2 rings a bell. Philips 'motional feedback' too. If cables are that bad I would have expected the trend to continue but like many flavours of the month they tend to disappear when there is no substance. You are right about a fibre debate.
fredex said:
How much money do you think these companies would lose if all speakers were polyamped active design? There is no money in a cure. The business model points to the come back as being worth a lot more money than a satisfied sale.
Key said:
Hi Key, You have made good points in your posts. Yes is it neutral. For electronics I like the word "transparent" as defined by Bruno Putzey, "no audible difference between in and out", no judgements are required here you can either hear a difference or you can't.
With speakers you can't use this definition, but a flat response 20-20kHz would satisfy me if I could achieve it.
I believe there are transparent electronics but no neutral speakers.
Your remarks about a system sounding good on some material and not others strikes a chord. Tubes can lessen the difference but you have to listen to the amp sound on everything. Life is just not fair!
Fiath-Based Cables. . .
This discussion is cracking me up! It so perfectly echos an age old battle in the medical industry (which I worked in for a decade and still follow closely). Luckily, in DiyAudio, lives are not at stake.
The medical battle pits science-based medicine (double-blind, placebo based clinical trials) against faith-based medicine (homeopathy, therapeutic touch, feng shui, reiki, acupuncture, chiropractic, astrology, etc.).
On one side, you have proven, repeatable, effective treatments that are science-based. Think anesthesia, anti-biotics, diabetes medicines, etc. Of course, being science-based, it is also subject to new evidence, modifications, and valuable criticism that constantly improves its effectiveness. Its the classic "Scientific Method" of the closed-loop, hypothesize, test, utilize, learn, then repeat until you have a product or process that works reliably and predictably. Naturally, nothing is perfect or 100% effective, but that's the nature of all things scientific - spot the flaws, learn from mistakes, and continually make improvements.
On the other hand, you have the "faith-based" remedies. You have old, non-proven, "traditional" (think traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and the old cliche; "2,000 year old treatments can't be wrong. . .") that are purely hype, are totally devoid of repeatable results, and are mostly based on anecdotal hyperbole. But, millions of people follow it and defend it and spend billions of dollars on it. They often cite "miraculous cancer remissions," and tons of "cures," but virtually every "cure" is nothing more than the placebo effect. Most of the "cures" are related to self-healing illnesses: colds, flu's, aches, insomnia, pains, and even some serious problems that are nothing but problems misdiagnosed by a non-professional. There is also, very rarely, some plant or herb that has been used for problems for centuries that makes its way into conventional medicine. But when the plant or herb becomes mainstream, it's because it really works and passes rigorous scientific scrutinizing. Lots of people also die from using these faith-based "cures," but those results are curiously (sadly) omitted.
This is so similar to the audibility of cables discussion because the placebo effect is so prevalent and most pro-cable-audibility claims can only cite anecdotal evidence and have never done double-blind testing. Magically, if they love the expensive cables, they hear a difference and love them. Also, if they don't like the cables, like the ultra-high-end "the size of a fire hose" or mega-buck too good to be true cables, they don't sound good. Shock. Placebo effect.
What do I think? Of course I am susceptible to the placebo effect. Every human is and those who think they can shut it off and be purely objective are completely delusional. I also have some nice, big speaker cables with gold plated connectors. How do they sound? I don't worry about how they sound because I know speakers and signal source are substantially more critical to what I hear and throwing cash into cables to improve MHz performance is silly for audio. Do 20AWG wires perform the same as 10AWG wires that are 50' long at 300W? Of course not. The math and science shows it and so will listening. Do 16AWG wires perform as well as 6AWG that are 6' long at 100W? The math will show some subtle differences as will LR&C measurements, but I seriously doubt it's audible and highly doubt they could be distinguished in a blind test.
Thanks for the great post and discussions!
Paul
This discussion is cracking me up! It so perfectly echos an age old battle in the medical industry (which I worked in for a decade and still follow closely). Luckily, in DiyAudio, lives are not at stake.
The medical battle pits science-based medicine (double-blind, placebo based clinical trials) against faith-based medicine (homeopathy, therapeutic touch, feng shui, reiki, acupuncture, chiropractic, astrology, etc.).
On one side, you have proven, repeatable, effective treatments that are science-based. Think anesthesia, anti-biotics, diabetes medicines, etc. Of course, being science-based, it is also subject to new evidence, modifications, and valuable criticism that constantly improves its effectiveness. Its the classic "Scientific Method" of the closed-loop, hypothesize, test, utilize, learn, then repeat until you have a product or process that works reliably and predictably. Naturally, nothing is perfect or 100% effective, but that's the nature of all things scientific - spot the flaws, learn from mistakes, and continually make improvements.
On the other hand, you have the "faith-based" remedies. You have old, non-proven, "traditional" (think traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and the old cliche; "2,000 year old treatments can't be wrong. . .") that are purely hype, are totally devoid of repeatable results, and are mostly based on anecdotal hyperbole. But, millions of people follow it and defend it and spend billions of dollars on it. They often cite "miraculous cancer remissions," and tons of "cures," but virtually every "cure" is nothing more than the placebo effect. Most of the "cures" are related to self-healing illnesses: colds, flu's, aches, insomnia, pains, and even some serious problems that are nothing but problems misdiagnosed by a non-professional. There is also, very rarely, some plant or herb that has been used for problems for centuries that makes its way into conventional medicine. But when the plant or herb becomes mainstream, it's because it really works and passes rigorous scientific scrutinizing. Lots of people also die from using these faith-based "cures," but those results are curiously (sadly) omitted.
This is so similar to the audibility of cables discussion because the placebo effect is so prevalent and most pro-cable-audibility claims can only cite anecdotal evidence and have never done double-blind testing. Magically, if they love the expensive cables, they hear a difference and love them. Also, if they don't like the cables, like the ultra-high-end "the size of a fire hose" or mega-buck too good to be true cables, they don't sound good. Shock. Placebo effect.
What do I think? Of course I am susceptible to the placebo effect. Every human is and those who think they can shut it off and be purely objective are completely delusional. I also have some nice, big speaker cables with gold plated connectors. How do they sound? I don't worry about how they sound because I know speakers and signal source are substantially more critical to what I hear and throwing cash into cables to improve MHz performance is silly for audio. Do 20AWG wires perform the same as 10AWG wires that are 50' long at 300W? Of course not. The math and science shows it and so will listening. Do 16AWG wires perform as well as 6AWG that are 6' long at 100W? The math will show some subtle differences as will LR&C measurements, but I seriously doubt it's audible and highly doubt they could be distinguished in a blind test.
Thanks for the great post and discussions!
Paul
I saw a programme about two very respected and very good producers working
They were listening to some music
Their speakers were quite scaring
Two 3 or 4ways with all alu cone
Well, the scary part was that they had TWO sets of those in EACH channel
They were listening to some music
Their speakers were quite scaring
Two 3 or 4ways with all alu cone
Well, the scary part was that they had TWO sets of those in EACH channel
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090723141810.htm
An argument for the necessity of the blinded testing of cables and why non blinded tests are useless - especially in audio?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.