True that description was mine.He only said what his equipment is.It is past experience with the speakers mostly,that makes me believe one should have better references.Emphatic yes,exagerating no,they really have some 100db sensitivity🙂.......dynomite
Good question. The folks making extraordinary claims have yet to produce even ONE valid test. Not one. In 30 years of these claims.
Bad for business, I suppose.
This sounds like a good post but on closer examination is just illogical rambling.
For one, we are talking about a comparison between cables, so the 'sound' from both cables will be processed by the same set of ears. Secondly, the paper only addresses one part of the total perception apparatus, namely the sensor. It does nothing to explain the subsequent processing and interpretation and integration of the sounds by the brain, before it arrives at our concious perception.
Nice elegant words though 😉
jd
Appealing to a specific segment has nothing to do with telling the differences between two components. A reviewer has no clue about a reader's bias or experience with a component he's reviewing.
It's not difficult to tell how a component affects the sound of a system you're familiar with. If you've ever built and optimized an amp or preamp, you might know how difficult it can be to get it to sound good. Does it make it Brighter, Darker, Ill Defined, constrained, more bass, delicate highs, ...
I don't agree with them all, but when comparing gear I'm familiar with, I find my take on the differences (warmth, bass, detail, brightness, darkness) is usually pretty close to that of the reviewer.
It was a direct comparison between two components I already compared. That's how I and the reviewers qualified it. One warmer, softer, less detailed ... the other more detailed, more bright, more neutral in our system, to my ears.
What sound a person likes is a completely different thing and does depend on the rest of the system, as well as a persons ears. Two people can hear the exact same sound come away with different opinions about it. My dad has always preferred a brighter sound than I like. So, recently we've been arguing about where to place our speakers.
Where I like it (1/2 inch back), my dad says it's too dull. Where he likes it sounds to bright to me. But he acknowledges the brightness in comparison to his headphones, but he like the more dynamic sound there. I don't tolerate a lot of music there, like rock. I like the fuller bass and smoother high frequencies.
I'm slowly pushing the speakers back an 1/8" in at time so he won't notice. So, far so good. 😀
Hey janneman, funny eh? I only just had a look at your blog an hour ago, and read this article you linked to in it
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/randoEMS/Idiot_American_Introduction.pdf
It immediately grabbed my attention in light of my above comment
The kids ran past it and around the
corner, where stood another, smaller dinosaur.
Which was wearing a saddle.
Spooky eh?
The rise of Idiot America, though, is essentially a war on
expertise. It’s not so much antimodernism or the distrust of the
intellectual elites that Richard Hofstadter teased out of the na-
tional DNA, although both of those things are part of it. The
rise of Idiot America today reflects—for profit, mainly, but also,
and more cynically, for political advantage and in the pursuit
of power—the breakdown of the consensus that the pursuit of
knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the
notion that the people we should trust the least are the people
who know best what they’re talking about. In the new media
age, everybody is a historian, or a scientist, or a preacher, or
a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the
worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert
is, well, an actual expert.
Yep, we see it all the time, Each story has to have two sides, each given equal airtime and attention. Siggh.
And this is how it ends up
This is how Idiot America engages itself. It decides, en masse,
with a million keystrokes and clicks of the remote control, that
because there are two sides to every question, they both must
be right, or at least not wrong. And the words of an obscure
biologist carry no more weight on the subject of biology than
do the thunderations of some turkeyneck preacher out of the
Church of Christ’s Own Parking Structure in DeLand, Florida.
I think SY might have linked to a you tube with some comedian a while back, which went over this very point. If I could remember what it was I'd link to it now. Alternative medicine/homeopathy? getting equal representation....
Anyway, funny how these things happen yeah?
Does this little excerpt remind anyone else here of anything at all??
I particularly notice this one, as I said personally finding out things is a complete buzz, never stop learning.
But, there are far too many who sit back, like a good little JAIB, and simply sit pontificating from behind a keyboard. NEVER the slightest desire to actually, test, to actually learn....
......the breakdown of the consensus that the pursuit of
knowledge is a good........
Sounds like the perfect test for your dad.If you see him coming with an urchin run for your life......🙂
Because it is a case of the blind leading the blind (as a matter of speaking, not trying to be condescending). The arguments presented are clearly based on a lack of understanding of what we are trying to bring across, talking about measured or calculated FR variations is proof of that. How can someone define the driving qualities of a sportscar if he have never driven one, let alone tell other (that have tried) what you are supposed to experience or not?
If only those "standing behind science" that have never experienced the differences we are talking about, would stop waving arms for a moment and try to understand WHAT differences we are describing, they might just realise there are something going on that they have not tested for yet. This is what I'm hoping for, BudP made some interesting posts that may well describe the reason for the differences we hear but that seems to be ignored.
Terry if you do not trust your brain how do you get to work each day? Be careful next time you see a traffic light. It might be a different color than you thought it was. Be sure to stop and closely inspect it before proceeding. We would hate to lose you due to lack of understanding or fooling yourself 🙂
It does not matter one whit whether or not I hear it does it?? YOU hear it.
Andy G hears it, and curly hears it.
Ok, so '*all* I have to do' is supply the test. I don't care if what you hear is FR based or not, simply can you hear it when measures are taken to control the confounding variables, that's it.
And if I have not ever done one (I have if it is important) that does not mean you cannot talk about it, design one or critique data.
WE (the 'non-believers if you will) ...why do WE have to test for anything?? In any case, even if you are correct that we need to prove YOUR claims, you have already stated the problem. If WE do not hear it, HOW will you ever be able to get us to understand completely what it is you are talking about, so that we can then conduct better tests??? You think I can ever hear what you hear??? And vice versa? I can experience your experience?? no matter how well you describe it, that can never happen.
So, it is far simpler for YOU to show us that it is indeed audible.
Poor old curly, he reckons and has decided that science needs to learn more about audio and how we hear.
How the heck does he think science will do that??
Yep, blind tests. How else can we determine the limits of human hearing? To test hearing we test ONLY hearing, so we account for confounding factors.
But, whilst 'demanding' science learn more (on his say so) he will (again) deny any finding because it involved tests!!!!!
Hmm, we are all experts are we not??
Time to saddle up the dinosaur..yeeharr!!
Pray tell how one proves a negative? And since when is the burden of proof shifted away from the claimants?
I'm also still laughing at those silly scientists who haven't disproved the existence of the Tooth Fairy or my kid sister's invisible horses. Carl sagan's dragon in the garage also comes to mind.
Don't believe or disbelieve, just try. Your audio system may make a difference or not and you may be able to hear it or not. The discussion is useless.
Oh man curly, you gotta stop these one liners, you're killing me!
An amazingly cogent argument, and so convincing. Yep, you are right. Boy, can't believe I was shot down so easily.
how's the dinosaur?
Ps, can you explain how these colour blind people get to work?? even the blind? Take just a little bit more time and at least come up with a rebuttal worth considering yeah?
Andre we can only hope that science will not become stagnant in this field, but it is low on the totem pole, compared to medical and industrial applications and value to humanity. Still there are enough great engineers that do understand that the envelope has yet to be pushed to far. We are still a far cry from the live experience.
Bud P does makes some excellent points. He is always a voice of reason.
We are on the opposite end of this spectrum. I trust what I hear and have heard for over 30+ years and you read books that tell you what is and is not possible.
I'd go one further - you are not even having the same discussion. The only commonality is you are discussing sound...
Excuse me but this is about "AUDIO" not Automobiles, Trains, Airplanes, etc 🙂 If you don't listen thru your equipment and think that it does not alter the final product, maybe I am not the one that is not thinking with my dipstick here 😉
No, I don't read books that tell me what is possible. Of course it is true that I am aware of the arguments, but unlike you I did do a test and found out for myself and formed my own opinion on that data based on personal experience.
It would make salesman of hi end gear with twenty years experience cry, let me tell you. Even I was shocked, and I expected them to sound very close indeed.
Surely by now you have gathered from my posts that I love to test things??
Your response was great. let's keep it going yeah?
Give me an inkling into why you accept that your eyes can be fooled (magic tricks etc) but not your ears??
Maybe you accept that your ears CAN be fooled, but not in this case due to the way you audition gear?? is that it? (long listening then change back etc etc, yes I do read what you write)
See, if you are so sure that knowledge of the cable identity has NO bearing on your perception, then logically the reverse is also true, that NOT knowing should not alter the outcome.
So why are you so against it?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.