I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#5,181
Hi,

janneman said:


Hearing happens *between* the ears.



Yeah. And everybody carefully hides it 😉

jd
Click to expand...


Hearing happens between the ears.

Can't fault that one.

It also means it requires a set of social circumstances for the brain to function without external stress, right?

Maybe there are no differences in cables after all, it's just the set of social circumstances that makes them believe there are any, right?

Cleverly bright or brightly clever?

Cheers, 😉
 
#5,183
fdegrove said:
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 😉
Click to expand...

I say all rubbish, except for the last sentence 😀 Watching the high end for years one thing they do is go straight to science for hi-tech components, and to validate their claims, graphs and all. Don't fool yourself you are listening to a "scientific" system right now.

On your second point, I have had an experience that touched my heart and moved my senses, listening to an AM radio in my car, I had to pull over. So normal caps res and wires don't seem to "make a difference".
 
#5,184
On your second point, I have had an experience that touched my heart and moved my senses, listening to an AM radio in my car, I had to pull over. So normal caps res and wires don't seem to "make a difference".
Click to expand...

One on americas better reviewers of live classical music is perfectly satisfied with a table radio in his kitchen.

Sy, you neglected to mention Bose....

Bud
 
#5,187
I have Quad IIs and yes it is interesting how many older tube amps that are highly prized by discerning audiophiles were all built prior to the subjectivist era.

With only simple measurements to guide them how could those engineers make an amp capable of transporting an audiophile to the very gates (Quads take you straight inside) of audio heaven? 😉
 
#5,188
fredex said:
I have Quad IIs and yes it is interesting how many older tube amps that are highly prized by discerning audiophiles were all built prior to the subjectivist era.

With only simple measurements to guide them how could those engineers make an amp capable of transporting an audiophile to the very gates (Quads take you straight inside) of audio heaven? 😉
Click to expand...
To answer the last question, good engineering, well applied.

I haven't had QUAD II's for over 20 years, but I'm still kicking myself far passing up a HK Citation II a few years back for peanuts in VGC.
 
#5,190
SY said:


For me, certainly. But for the folks who claim to be able to sweep aside all of their biases, conscious and unconscious....
Click to expand...

It's still worth noting the relationship is asymmetrical. As far as I can see a truly blind audience cheering a subject to statistically valid results wouldn't invalidate them. A tester the subject knows expects failure does taint the results. That's why for me, of the trials I've seen, the null results mean as little from a scientific perspective as do magazine reviews.

fredex, how do you know the Quad engineers didn't use listening in the design process? I also find it curious you and Brett find it such a performer when a chip amp trashes it in most any scientifically valid performance metric.
 
#5,192
Well I am sure they listened and measured. But still Peter Walker I think was on the record saying cables have no distinct sound unless they are futzed with or broken and I think he was also in the camp that believed amps are not imperative or vastly different if only people used them correctly.

Reallly the best speakers I've heard usually come from the objectivist side of things.
 
#5,193
rdf said:
I also find it curious you and Brett find it such a performer when a chip amp trashes it in most any scientifically valid performance metric.
Click to expand...
See later post for what I actually use.

I want the HK because I like Hegeman's design, and it was an excellent piece of engineering for the time. I can like a 60's musclecar because I like the looks and sound and feel and they can be fun to drive, but I am under no misconception that an Exige would eat it in trackwork.
 
#5,196
rdf said:
fredex, how do you know the Quad engineers didn't use listening in the design process? I also find it curious you and Brett find it such a performer when a chip amp trashes it in most any scientifically valid performance metric.
Click to expand...
1. I don't know. 2. The Quads have a sound, a pentode sound, a very beguiling pentode sound. Very nice euphonic presentation. Even objectivists can have soul.

So to answer your question the Quads are 'curiously' prized for reasons other than your "scientifically valid performance metric."
 
#5,199
janneman wrote:

> So what's your conclusion,

I think I provide enough infos for your own brain machine
if you want to make that small effort and think about it.

If our gear use steam & dampf we could think that vapor and water are responsible for the day to day variations we notice, but our HiFi works with electricity, so we have to find an answer who starts with electricity.

it is not new, 1939
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00010000004000261000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

scott wurcer wrote:

> but this stuff is just noise.

yes, you're right, this is just noise, electrostatic noise modulated by all the spurious in our environnement, main noise, clock noise, CD noise, and so on.

have you ever noticed that the simplest HiFi gears generally sound cleaner that multi-heavy systems, less is more

Occam Law rules everywhere

POL
 
#5,200
rdf 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?
Click to expand...

Agreed, I am well aware of these effects. Simlarly, in group tests where you tell one group that they have been selected because of their intelligence, they perform better than when they are not told this. Such is the power of suggestion. Ask any football coach.

The way I see it, it only reinforces the need for tests that are controlled as best as possible. An ABX test isn't perfect, but runs rings around a casual, uncontrolled 'test'.

jd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom