No just because I can still hear detail in them.
First show me one, then we can worry about the explanation.
Hi curly, can YOU explain buds ramble to me??
I have not made opinions of others (character, motives, anything) but I have commented on the 'sense' or otherwise of the written word...just as you have done here.
Can you explain bud's theory? (we know have three trying to explain buds ideas....bud, andre and curly..hmmm) The link between the stereo perception and then suddenly shifted over to 'amount of data per unit of time we receive'..
where did that come from?, it came from left field. Page 800 or whatever, and suddenly there is a new budtheory, based on what?
As I say, I reckon blood Ph has as much validity, and if you and andre reject that well that just means you have closed your minds and cannot accept anything new. It will be the world according to curly, and what a sad frickin place that would be.
How IS your foot curly? Gotta stop putting bullets in it you know
You can debate all aspects about why things can not be, but you will never be able to prove any of it, regardless of any tests that are conducted. It is simply not possible to prove anything about human abilities to a perfect degree where there will never be doubt.
Ok, so you do concede that it is possible the cable effects you are hearing are perhaps disputable...you now admit that all this time you have been telling us that you are hearing the different cables, you now admit it is simply not possible to prove that? not possible to prove anything about human abilities?
Thank you finally, we have made progress.
Woah!! I think we are talking about two different things!! I am not talking about dielectrics or whatever, just this idea of different speeds of reproduction, the rate of data input I think he described it as.
The ONLY data we have is on the recording...correct? It takes a finite amount of time to play that recording, correct? Unless that time differs how can we have different rates of data input to our senses??
In any case, that amount of data is FAR less than what we would have received if we were present at the original event, correct?
We would NOT have described the original event as 'etched, harsh or whatever' would we?? (ie audiophile terms)
So I think his theory is crap to be frank.
I did urge you not to concentrate on the word I was typing and knew that the word was possibly not the correct one. Did you miss what I wrote? (go back and check, I'll wait)
I don't see any consistency, or any connection between Bud's theory and what some claim here. Care to explain?
jd
There are lots of ways to change perceived sounds, this is nothing new. Unless you do a controlled test. If then it still works, we got something. If not, waste of time and effort.
jd
I think it would be better if Bud explain what he mean by 'the rate information unfolds'?. I believe there are more a loss of 'timing' of low level detail which may cause our ears / brain to discard that information as unimportant, but please don't stone me, I know nothing about that, only a theory based on what I hear.
I did see it. 😉 Usually I only get a bit cloudy when insults start to travel around, there are no need for that.
No it doesn't.
It shows that different dielectrics (not colours!!) may have different effects on the characteristic impedance wrt frequency. Note that for polyethylene, polypropylene and PTFE there is no effect wrt frequency.
Btw, guess what dielectrics are used for audio cables? PE and PTFE!
Jan, what I mean is that his theory may describe what 'we' are hearing, not like some theories that are directly in contrast with what listening suggest.
Isn't that the idea?
Hardly. I do not believe that tests of this type can ever provide real true data as the brain is under pressure to perform. It is just not something that I feel will ever be totally proven until science can read what the brain is seeing when a person listens to music. Test conditions are pressure packed and will skew results. Maybe we get a Vulcan to perform your tests 🙂
You again consider that you know what everyone thinks. Maybe you can start a forum of one as you already know what anyone else in the word is thinking or doing, if it does not suit your ideals. What a life it must be to be so knowing, all the time.
Last edited:
If that is what you think, I can not change your opinion. I am able to not allow colors of cable, construction techniques(which means absolutely nothing to me) or name brands (as there are few that anyone would know by name anyway).
I have daily exposure to these items not once or twice a year, if that of the average person. If anything I am predisposed to not thinking any of these cables makes a good difference, as they rarely improve my system to any degree or else not for the cost differences involved.
Someone that rarely ever compares any audio equipment, much less cables probably might be jaded by something "new" to them.
It is like sex with my wife after 30 years, I think I know about everything that there is to know or what to expect, but maybe some are not with one woman long enough to know small and intricate details about them. If I were to step outside of my marriage, I doubt that I would have an issue describing the differences between these two woman, but maybe sex is sex to some
Curly, still being as obtuse and mulish as ever, I see?
That's because you refuse to try and understand the really rather simple basis of a DBT. Or rather, I think you know very well how it will work and you can't admit you were imagining the differences. Your claim that you are 'under pressure' is pathetic. This is your chance to prove yourself right, as you KNOW you are - where's the pressure? You're not worried you might be proved wrong, are you?
Actually, science can do that... But there's no need, because a DBT will logically prove whether or not those differences you insist you hear are real or imagined.
Yet another strawman argument. You're full of cr4p, Curly.
Bzzt. Sorry curly (the ongoing education continues...siiiggghhhhh)
they were YOUR words I quoted..back to yourself. You tried to use them against me, but only succeeded in demolishing your own case.
You claim that you, without doubt, can hear cable signatures...true or false curly?
You also state that you are not influenced by anything other than the sound, true or false curly?
You state this as an absolute, true or false curly?
Ok then for arguments sake let's accept all that.
Good. Now explain it all in the light of your own words curly
but you will never be able to prove any of it, regardless of any tests that are conducted. It is simply not possible to prove anything about human abilities to a perfect degree where there will never be doubt.
I ask you yet again curly, do you have any doubt about YOUR abilities?? If not, then why did you write what you did?
If you do not want to answer that one, what about THIS one. It is just not something that I feel will ever be totally proven until science can read what the brain is seeing when a person listens to music.
Again, are you as certain of your abilities to hear these differences in the light of YOUR comment here as you have been maintaining all this time??
(I told you all of this before, I was trying to be helpful you know, you gotta stop shooting your gun into your foot)
What, is this a trick question?
Well, let me see now... oh, I know! You put carbon in it!! Amirite???
Hey, Andre the Intellectual Giant, I've got a question for you too! (it's not a trick question though).
What happens to a material when you put carbon in it, apart from changing its colour?
I will not respond to anyone that has no valid experience in audio other than what they have read from a book. Period.
So,would you be able to detect any difference between the black and another color?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.