I wasn't attempting to make any particular case other than I didn't see that it was necessarily off topic.
From what I've read of the paper I don't see that it sheds any light on the subject, but I don't think John should be prevented from making a case that it does.
se
The topic is, " I don't believe cables make a difference." Since this is an audio board "to what we hear from our systems" is a reasonable implication.
And, oh yes, "any input?"
There's certainly LOTS of input.😎
Given how some cable threads go, this one is, until possibly today, a raving success. (Not tooooo personal).
There are some really interesting philosophical problems of a practical sort demonstrated here.
Well, In defense of Curly Woods I do find I usually agree with the reviewers who do extended listening reviews of equipment ... this when I've owned the equipment before hand. And no matched level adjustment, or even the same system or ears were used.
We learn sounds and in an extended listening test I think one can learn a lot. While that is no way to conduct a scientific experiment, I think we've all come the conclusion that cables are often audible, but not always.
Good work guys!!!
We learn sounds and in an extended listening test I think one can learn a lot. While that is no way to conduct a scientific experiment, I think we've all come the conclusion that cables are often audible, but not always.
Good work guys!!!
I agree with SY, John, why don't you start a thread on it. Looks interesting though I've only scanned it.
Many people with hypercusis show up on the Hyperacusis Network forum, who have had their ears tested, and they can often hear as low as -10dB or slightly below.
Of course you do John - the review is written to sell magazines and equipment. Neither sell particularly well if the review doesn't align with your mindset.
Aligning with your mindset isn't particularly difficult in this field or indeed in any field where subjective opinion is deemed appropriate - just look at the reviews for european performance cars as a case in point.
Until audio equipment assessment has a vocabulary akin to that of oenology (probably one of the most subjective of assessments, and yet one of the more openly rigourous in its application) we will continue to drift and struggle through a swill of self-reverential hyperbole and demagoguery.
This is pointless, but as a demonstration to others just how 'cogent' your arguments are:
- I told you where to find Spice networks, in this thread. It's in LTSpice format.
- Microphones convert variations in sound level to electrical impulses. The truly clever rabbit would see electrical impulses also appear at the speaker end of a pair of cables, and that an MLSSA input works just as well connected there as to the output of a microphone preamp. The more you know...
- ... which apparently doesn't include that Platonic reasoning took a major hit right around the time of Aristotle. Reasoning from ideal first principles is fun and all but ignores that an amplifier's output impedance has complex impedance variations with frequency, speaker cables have complex impedance variations with frequency, and golly-gee so do speakers. Connect them all together and you get frequency response variations at the speaker terminals, both modeled (me) and measured (my brother).
Since you appear as resilient to novel ways of looking at familiar concepts as a bowling ball is to a dry pea, let's just call *this a day* so you can be free to continue your ARGUMENT BY UPPERCASE.
How can a reviewer align his reviews with my mindset? Talk about conspiracy theories.
Brightness/Darkness are common terms used to review equipment are diametrically opposite.
Just one example, is the review of the Benchmark and PS Audio Digital Link III DACs, which I read about in AudioXpress. I've owned both of those processors long before they were reviewed and had compared them. I found the Benchmark more detailed and the PS Audio slightly less detailed and softer sounding.
They came to the same conclusion but preferred the sound of the PS Audio, while I found the Benchmark sounded better in our system.
Yeah, I fully expected it. 🙂
I am sure you knew, but just want to make sure you knew, it was sarcastic.
Even curly seems to admit that five minutes with a magician will result in magic (ie his eyes will be deceived), yet for some unfathomable reason his ears are never deceived, by anything.
I'd hate it if you felt I was in a similar camp as curly......
Well I tried to read it. Can't say I have had the time to truly try to understand all the math but would you sum it up as there might possibly be an active error correction scheme going on? I have suspected as much but I would go further than them and say that virtually any error correcting scheme that has been conceived of is present in the perception-brain system including active buffered feed forward error correcting. I think pretty soon they will empirically prove that there is a small latency in perception due to error correcting and proprioception. I think they have already proven this with isolated senses in the lab a few times.
But see this to me explains why it's so hard to hear certain errors that might be measurable but don't seem to be present in hearing.
Nope - just clever journalism. CNN appeals to one group, FOX news another, the BBC yet another. They all report the same story, but the editorial is slanted to suit the audience. Its simple to pull the wool over hte eyes of those already inclined that way.
What about the myriad shades of grey in between? How far forward is forward? How wide is a wide soundstage? This discussion is proof positive of a lack of common vocabulary - all you can reply is a monochromatic palette.
...and the ones you have disagreed with? Or do you agree with them all?
aaaaah, I see, you qualify it by pointing out the obvious difference - the rest of the system. Cool...
Terry, that notion appears to be one sided. Told repeatedly that two pieces of gear sound different it doesn't seem to be a problem believing the listener will 'hear' differences that don't exist. So far the discussion hasn't much examined the logically equivalent position, that told repeatedly no audible differences between gear can possibly exist the listener will 'not hear' something real. Since we agree belief can influence perception, why would that relationship only work one way?
Not FULLY following you, at least in relation to what I posted...
As far as the point you are making, I agree wholeheartedly. Just a tad confused if you thought that was what I was saying?? yes, that is the whole point of being influenced, who says it is a 'diode' influence heh heh. It is also why these things need to be DOUBLE blind. (curly will prob think that means shutting his eyes as WELL as being blindfolded. No it doesn't curly)
The point I was (poorly obviously) making is that *most* do not really believe the lady gets cut in half, and mysteriously put back together again at the end.
Hence, we accept that our visual sense can be fooled somehow, disconcerting and maddening as that may be.
*some* however seem to think that their sense of hearing is somehow not susceptible to being fooled. that sense alone is unique.
Yet they will never test that, resolutely maintain their unique position apart from mere mortals. (and get offended when we call them golden ears??? after all, there surely IS something special about their hearing then, is there not??)
Me?? I am well aware that most (interesting point...all????) of my senses can be fooled. Heck, there are those who have pain in phantom limbs!
So I accept that those points need to be taken into account IF the sole purpose of auditioning is to determine sonic differences/attributes. Others evidently do not accept that.
panikos
Ok then, I take it then that your comment a description of doomlords system?? I was not sure, as TBH I do not recall him describing his system in those words. I may be wrong. That was why I 'assumed' you were 'exagerating' to make your point. sorry.
In any case, we have gone over this...WHY does he need to have a 'good/great/whatever' system before he is allowed to challenge *what appears to be* violations of fundamental physical laws??? He also has admitted that he has not done DBTs, which for some reason also disqualifies him from talking about dbts (???).
Can I not comment on an album till I have made my own album recording??? So I don't particularly get that line of reasoning.
So, it is best to argue him on the points, not his system as what system he has has no bearing on the discussion (the facts I mean)
Nope, I was right before, you are one of the good guys.
The analogy is to looking at the surface of the ocean and trying to divine what is underneath...
time smear, noise floor, removal of subtle pieces of information...
I was fishing for the kind's of tests. ABX for instance is statistically incapable of proving that 2 cables sound the same.
A DBT of appropriate design could prove a result, but if that test has not been done then where are we. Where are the tests?
dave
Out of 890 plus pages, this comment from aardvarkash10 is the best line to date.
Bud
Perfect.
Bud
I beg your pardon? I read the abstract and stated that it was not about the issue discussed here. Then you urged me to read the whole paper 'and learn something new'. To avoid that you would made a fuss of me refusing to read a paper, I spend an hour to read it. Surprisingly, the paper was about what it said in the abstract.
Now you complain that 'nobody reads it'.
What's your point with this paper? I read it, am waiting for your input, probably in vain.
To repent, you will buy and read:
A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives (Paperback),
by Cordelia Fine; or forever keep your peace 😉
jd
Dave,
No test can prove that two cables sound the same. You can only proof that they sound different. If no difference is found, that doesn't proof there isn't any.
jd
What I bring from the paper to this set of discussions is that the physical construction of the ear is as sensitive as a spectral analyzer. That differences in phase of information, provided as raw sounds, are acutely defined and their relative frequencies are equally well defined. All of this without any possibility of psycho acoustic hocus pocus.
This speaks directly to Curlys continued pointing at phase based alterations being audible. This is only loosely related to overall frequency response. So, to refine a DBT using the information in this paper would seem to point to a spatial placement test, not a frequency or amplitude based test, for determining various cable worth, one from another. And more particularly spatial placements vs specific frequency envelopes that mimic what the conscious mind expects from a natural sound environment and also numerous combination's of the two that are antithetical to natural occurrences of sounds that carry information, rather than using a random noise source or some form of musical environment.
Bud
This speaks directly to Curlys continued pointing at phase based alterations being audible. This is only loosely related to overall frequency response. So, to refine a DBT using the information in this paper would seem to point to a spatial placement test, not a frequency or amplitude based test, for determining various cable worth, one from another. And more particularly spatial placements vs specific frequency envelopes that mimic what the conscious mind expects from a natural sound environment and also numerous combination's of the two that are antithetical to natural occurrences of sounds that carry information, rather than using a random noise source or some form of musical environment.
Bud
- Status
- Not open for further replies.