janneman said:
Yes, of course, but don't underestimate the ability of what is between the ears. Listening to stereo music is much like learning to see a 3D printed picture, in the beginning it is 'impossible' until you've learned to see it, then it became easy and you see detail that 'were not there before'.
Andre Visser said:
True, and I agree that it is important. What I am sometimes uncomfortable with is that you 'see' it after it is pointed out to you. Do you then really 'see' it or is that 'planted' in your brain by an 'authority' (however defined) pointing it out to you?
jd
Andre Visser said:
When Frank or Tubeguy say the last thing they are interested in measureing FR with cable A vs B where the real difference might be something easily known to be audible it sort of puts us at an impass.
Also the statement "I know I hear things that no known technique can measure" by itself is sort of meaningless unless philosphically you have a structure for gaining that knowlege. Frequently out of hand rejection of conventional experimental science goes along with this. The evil DBT is out, so then what?
I suppose there are others but as male dominated hobbies go audio has more "creative" science going on than most. Amateur astronomy has many of the same issues and plenty of acrimony too around DIY vs $$$, but they are fairly united on hard technical issues around optical/imaging technology.
janneman said:
A few years ago there was a craze for deciphering 'hidden' images contained in a mass of coloured dots etc. Some friends could decipher most of these whereas having had the images 'pointed out' to me I never could.
The real break point for me in my personal deciphering of replayed stereo was when I first heard a true state of brilliance system. The image was truly three dimensional.
This was - factually - false information as the record was a mono record played because the staging of that system was totally wonderful and very dynamic. It took me some 20 mins to realize! When the designer - owner then played a stereo recording all was clear and my perception was altered for ever. The mono record on a stereo system had the greatest sense of depth and width of image then imaginable to me...that the violins were NOT on one side and the basses on the other of central was unimportant as the overall impression was tangible and totally clear - right to the back of the orchestra.
I believe that my hearing was attuned to the music for its own sake rather than to the technical mastery of the system as a whole. An architect friend who loves his jazz only ever listens to live performances at clubs because a record is of only one aspect of what is in his reality a more total experience.
The point is that we really MUST accept that we are going to have to realize that replay of music on good systems is perceived differently by most samples of listeners. Likewise a very subtle change in presentation may well get one listener's toes tapping whereas the music may not even reach others as more than a soulless rendition.
The brain is weird - and is a very personal possession and translator. It certainly will not perform as a receiver to the dictates of a bank of test equipment.
janneman said:
Jan, I agree it is possible to influence perception therefore my favourite test is giving something (including cables) to a good friend of mine to test without saying anything, then compare his comments with what I've heard. I can't think of one instance where we disagreed.
Hello all,
I think all this cable story has nothing to do with the diameter or the price of cables. The answer is at the first page of every old electricity book, chapter "electrostatic"
any cable insulator, especially some plastics, can get and loose charges, and in certains circonstances it may reach high values.
discharge time are commonly in the range 20mn to many hours and this is coherent with the "break-in time" observed in audiophilia.
ABX testing can learn us nothing about sound of cables, because any time we get close, touch or swap cables we discharge them.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=fr&q="electrostatic+pressure"+eardrum&btnG=Recherche
Another search about "electrostatic pressure" can lead us to suspect that eardrums are sensitive to electrostatics under certains conditions. Et voila...
POL
I think all this cable story has nothing to do with the diameter or the price of cables. The answer is at the first page of every old electricity book, chapter "electrostatic"
any cable insulator, especially some plastics, can get and loose charges, and in certains circonstances it may reach high values.
discharge time are commonly in the range 20mn to many hours and this is coherent with the "break-in time" observed in audiophilia.
ABX testing can learn us nothing about sound of cables, because any time we get close, touch or swap cables we discharge them.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=fr&q="electrostatic+pressure"+eardrum&btnG=Recherche
Another search about "electrostatic pressure" can lead us to suspect that eardrums are sensitive to electrostatics under certains conditions. Et voila...
POL
Attachments
scott wurcer said:
I must say that I don't know how to measure for the differences I mainly perceive between cables, for example how would you measure stage focus.
Once focus are lost, it is much harder if not impossible (for me at least) to hear subtle detail, sometimes even an instrument playing in the background may go unnoticed. In such a case I would guess the measurements will be very similar but the brain ignore some sounds because it may be perceived as 'noise'.
I don't have a problem with DBT's as long as they are done correctly.
brianco said:
Interesting experience, thanks for sharing!
And I agree fully with the last statement!
jd
pol_bct said:
So what's your conclusion, that we should not put our ear against the cables? And what would be the mechanism that electrostatic charge (or not) on a cable influences the sound?
jd
pol_bct said:
As a former collector of stamps from the French empire Reunion is close to my heart, but this stuff is just noise.
janneman said:
Have you considered the opposite? That being constantly told 'nothing to hear, move along' with the full force of a scientific authority you respect could mask differences?
Brad Meyer gave a speech to the BAS in which he related that in group intelligence testing the administrator's unspoken (and also fallacious and planted) belief that the group under test generated below-average results prior was enough to skew their performance downward. Just 'knowing', without conscious prompting or coercion, made subjects 'dumber'. Where does that leave some of the ABX trials you've read about?
For me, certainly. But for the folks who claim to be able to sweep aside all of their biases, conscious and unconscious, and not have to stoop to stupid pet tricks like, "no peeking," the answer is apparently "no."
But until someone has something more solid than just hot air and unsupported claims that run counter to well-established physics, I (and I'd presume Jan) rely on the null results elsewhere when it comes to design choices, and fret less about wires (other than straightforward engineering considerations) than connection integrity.
Hi,
Just ask yourself why your system doesn't sound like the exact same thing a live event does?
The exact replication of time and space is what makes music . An experience that occasionally touches the heart, moves our senses.
If a replica is played over our hi-fi system and does not get that message across, something's wrong with it, right?
I'd love to hear a system built by a science is everything guy. I can't help but wondering what "scientific" would sound like.
Thirty years ago we all heard the same thing from the same brigade: capacitors can't make any difference, same for resistors, wires and so on.
Seems progress is held back by self-proclaimed scientist or so it seems?
Enjoy life, it's short enough as it is 😉
Andre Visser said:
Just ask yourself why your system doesn't sound like the exact same thing a live event does?
The exact replication of time and space is what makes music . An experience that occasionally touches the heart, moves our senses.
If a replica is played over our hi-fi system and does not get that message across, something's wrong with it, right?
I'd love to hear a system built by a science is everything guy. I can't help but wondering what "scientific" would sound like.
Thirty years ago we all heard the same thing from the same brigade: capacitors can't make any difference, same for resistors, wires and so on.
Seems progress is held back by self-proclaimed scientist or so it seems?
Enjoy life, it's short enough as it is 😉
You, of course, would have no preconceptions. Nossir.
edit:
Quad ESL57s and the Quad tube amps
Snell A
Linkwitz's various dipoles
Drew Daniels's horn monster
Marantz 9s
Anything by Western Electric
RCA
All "science is everything" guys
Hi,
Smug and shortsighted.
Not wrong but not right either.
Not green but not red.... Yet ultimately boring and not getting anyone anywhere.
Yawn,😱
janneman said:
Smug and shortsighted.
Not wrong but not right either.
Not green but not red.... Yet ultimately boring and not getting anyone anywhere.
Yawn,😱
Hi,
Ever imaniged that table could be turned?
Mate, by the way you're going we'll al end up paronoid.
Save Our Souls, please.
Forgive our stupidity as well since you're playing God.
Cheers, 😉
janneman said:
Ever imaniged that table could be turned?
Mate, by the way you're going we'll al end up paronoid.
Save Our Souls, please.
Forgive our stupidity as well since you're playing God.
Cheers, 😉
Hi,
And what's the meaning of this?
Or is this just a list of your "pechers mignons' ?
Preconceptions?
Cheers, ?
SY said:
And what's the meaning of this?
Or is this just a list of your "pechers mignons' ?
Preconceptions?
Cheers, ?
If we are to trust our ears, what about brianco's experience with stereo that was actually mono, I instantly knew what he was talking about as I have had many similar experiences. As he says, "the brain is weird" and you can't always trust it to correctly decode what the ear gives it.
I am prepared to believe that some can hear things that others can't because their hearing is better, or trained. But on cables (correct me if I am wrong) there is no consensus on what a particular cable does to the sound. If a cable can influence soundstage, some will make it better and others worse, where is the subjectivist's bible on this?
If there isn't any consensus it must be the brain not the cable.
I am prepared to believe that some can hear things that others can't because their hearing is better, or trained. But on cables (correct me if I am wrong) there is no consensus on what a particular cable does to the sound. If a cable can influence soundstage, some will make it better and others worse, where is the subjectivist's bible on this?
If there isn't any consensus it must be the brain not the cable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.