Andy Bartha said:
Andy,
Beg you pardon, but you call this logical reasoning or what? This is completely hogwash. Why would this be so?? It is this kind of completely wrong reasoning that puts all of us on the wrong foot.
Jan Didden
MartinQ said:
Dr. Malcolm Omar Hawksford, Ben Duncan. Have no links handy but run a search on the names and also try the "essex echo" for a series of articles by Hawksford. Duncan has published a book "High perormace audio performance" where he touches the cable subject and he also have puplished several articles, the most famous one in HFN/RR vol42 no2 (feb -97).
Oh, found a link;
www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/audio_lab/malcolms_publications.html
/Peter
Pan said:
Hawksford's Essex Echo has rather been ripped to shreds. Which might explain why it never saw publication outside of consumer audio magazines.
And Duncan has been shown to be rather sloppy in his work, seemingly only interested in "proving" preconcieved beliefs rather than getting at the truth.
se
janneman said:
Excuse me, but I can't help but conclude that any difference in
the components will in fact make a difference in the performance.
The only reasonable argument would be whether these
differences are significant or audible.
Nelson Pass said:
Thank you Nelson, exactly my point. The leap from: there will be a difference (on engineering grounds) to "there will be an audible difference" is just so much unfounded speculation.
Jan Didden
Hi all
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=200023#post200023
I wrote this a while ago
Still true today 😉
cheers 😉
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=200023#post200023
I wrote this a while ago
Still true today 😉
cheers 😉
janneman said:
Output impedance of sending device + cable capacitance + input impedance of receiving device = filter.😎
No paradox, never being able to hit a target perfectly doesn't negate getting closer.
Taking the extreme example, say a half-wave rectified version of a recording, if it's at all valid to say it's a 'less accurate' representation of the original acoustic event than playing back the full waveform by neccessity it validates the concept of 'more accurate' and justifies asking - at the theoretical level at least - if altering other parts of the program chain make the resulting reproduction a 'more accurate' or 'less accurate' representation of the original event. What your line of reasoning implies is that, since we can never hope to achieve 100% fidelity to the original event, all reproduction is equivalently inaccurate. Considering the half-wave recitifed signal as equivalent (not trying to put words in your pen and I realize the discussion is about subleties, but the implied reasoning allows for this since it doesn't permit an objective 'target') is a difficult concept for me to accept.
OTOH I fully agree that the next frontier is the recording end, especially the microphones. But there too placing the best available mics optimally, for me, creates a more accurate representation of the original sonic event than placing Rat Shack switcheroo hi-balls beneath a rear hall seat.
I can differentiate between them to a statistically valid degree, depending on how much I've had.
carlosfm said:
Carlos,
You are wasting your time with this true statement. Just because something 'is' in reality does not mean that it 'is' to folks that live their lives in an entirely faith based lifestyle that have had blinders rather effectively and permanently installed by some well organized, powerful and subsequently successfully subversive outside force. Religion is perhaps the best similar example of this unfortunate phenomenon and 'quirk' of human psychological susceptibility.
rdf said:
Closer to what, exactly?
That's so far beyond the context of this discussion it's beyond extreme.
But even if tomorrow we could achieve 100% fidelity to the original event, what of the millions of recordings made prior to tomorrow?
Perhaps it would be easier to accept if you didn't stretch my implications so far beyond their proper context that they become absurd.
But not everyone may want an accurate representation of the original sonic event. In many cases, there isn't an original sonic event to begin with.
And not everyone who produces a recording has the goal of accurate representation of an original sonic event. And ultimately it's a subjective process from the making of instruments to the mastering of a recording. Why must that subjectivity suddenly end on the playback side? What's wrong with the end user editorializing as everyone else along the way has done in order to achieve that which is most pleasing to them?
Hehehe. Damn. What are you having so I can be sure and avoid it? 😀
se
Steve Eddy said:
I am in the process of developing my next (and revolutionary, I should say) system.
It has to do with virtual reality, and this means that I will have the bands playin' on my room.😎
May take some centuries of work, though...
carlosfm said:I am in the process of developing my next (and revolutionary, I should say) system.
It has to do with virtual reality, and this means that I will have the bands playin' on my room.😎
May take some centuries of work, though...
Hehehe. Then you'd better get cracking on that immortality project. 🙂
se
carlosfm said:That project will also take me centuries.
Hey, that could work as long as you make continual progress. 🙂
se
Steve Eddy said:
Closer to what I would have heard sitting in a recording session of a real acoustic event. Simply because perfect reproduction can't be achieved doesn't mean a valid, target, sonic event couldn't have occured.
The absurdity is central to your position, I chose that ridiculous example because it doesn't violate what you wrote. If there is no valid 'target' for accuracy, then half-wave rectification is as 'accurate' as anything else because an accurate replica of a non-existent object is nonsense. All that matters is someone enjoys listening to half a waveform.
Enjoy, why not? I'm not saying less accurate or completely artificial recordings aren't enjoyable or music, but they don't negate the concept of accuracy in a sound re-production chain which is your position.
Nothing at all. Twiddle the EQ, buy a home reverb, press that loudness button or connect the speakers out of phase. But what's wrong with listeners and producers doing the opposite? I'm just saying that opposite exists, you read as saying it doesn't.
Hi,
Everyone's goal will ultimately be different where audio is concerned.
However, generally speaking that is, the goal for a vast number of people involved in this industry is to try to reproduce the original message as faithfully as possible in the confines of a domestic environment.
After all, once the recording engineers have finished messing about with the recording, there isn't much you_the end user_ can do.
Except perhaps the few courageous ones who want to equalize every single recording to their taste in order to "enjoy" even the worst offender...I wish'em good luck.
If people want to use their cables (I/C, L/S or both) for filtering out deficiencies within their electronics (preamp, amp, whatever source) then this would perhaps hide some flaws in their reproduction chain, even make some badly made recordings more listenable but I cringe to think what this would do to the well recorded ones as well.
Either way, it would be money down the drain to spend x-amount of $s on cabling if all you want is some kind of "nasties" filter.
Unfortunately, quite often a neutral (one that does not audibly add to or detract from the original message) set of cables in a system that was "tuned" to be listenable with dubious components using even more dubious cables will inevitably reveal all or most of its shortcomings when a neutral set of cables is replacing the old set.
Not surprisingly, more often than not, the enduser blames the new cables for making his system sound bad........
Sounds familiar?
Cheers,😉
Everyone's goal will ultimately be different where audio is concerned.
However, generally speaking that is, the goal for a vast number of people involved in this industry is to try to reproduce the original message as faithfully as possible in the confines of a domestic environment.
After all, once the recording engineers have finished messing about with the recording, there isn't much you_the end user_ can do.
Except perhaps the few courageous ones who want to equalize every single recording to their taste in order to "enjoy" even the worst offender...I wish'em good luck.
If people want to use their cables (I/C, L/S or both) for filtering out deficiencies within their electronics (preamp, amp, whatever source) then this would perhaps hide some flaws in their reproduction chain, even make some badly made recordings more listenable but I cringe to think what this would do to the well recorded ones as well.
Either way, it would be money down the drain to spend x-amount of $s on cabling if all you want is some kind of "nasties" filter.
Unfortunately, quite often a neutral (one that does not audibly add to or detract from the original message) set of cables in a system that was "tuned" to be listenable with dubious components using even more dubious cables will inevitably reveal all or most of its shortcomings when a neutral set of cables is replacing the old set.
Not surprisingly, more often than not, the enduser blames the new cables for making his system sound bad........
Sounds familiar?
Cheers,😉
rdf said:
Nope. No good. She knew you changed something, and she knew when you did it. She may have imagined she heard a difference, or she may have just wanted to impress you.
In the little experiment I did, the subject knew I was changing from cheap cables to none and back, but did not know which or when. I knew, so it was "single blind." However, I was not motivated to help him tell the difference. He was motivated to be able to tell the difference, but he could not. To convince me he could tell the difference, he had to say more than "It sounds crisper," just once after I changed something. He had to identify with some consistency which was which. But he could tell no difference at all.
Woo. Sixty-eight pages and counting.
For the record, I will admit that cables could make an audible difference, but only by not being good cables (assuming "good" means low resistance, etc. etc.). Some "audiophile" cables might be made to intentionally add resistance or whatever, but I would not want them at any price. I'll stick with the lamp cord, thankee.
rdf said:
Ok, but the objectively perfect system won't give you that. At least not with any recordings made to date.
The absurdity is your going totally literalist and ignoring any and all intent on my part.
I didn't say there was no valid target for accuracy.
What I was trying to get across was that if one's goal is accuracy, there are many thousands of different targets due to there being many thousands of recordings which were made with many thousands of different "filters" in the chain.
If you replicate the filters of one recording, which would achieve the goal you state at top, that system won't give you the same result for all the other recordings.
See above.
Nothing.
I'm just saying that until such time as the objectively prefect recording system and the objectively perfect reproduction system materialize, there's no singular target for accuracy with regard to hearing what you would hear in a recording session of a real acoustic event.
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.