You believe in pure objectivity. I don't. Perhaps this is an irreconcilable difference.
You're the one stating as absolute, unquestionable truth, that interconnects cannot possibly make a difference unless they're damaged or not to industry standard. And then invalidating all evidence to the contrary. I think it's you that has the preexisting belief.
Very presumptuous of you. Thank you for that.
Well, I never said the test was perfect. But I think it's pretty good. And do you really believe there are flawless tests out there? It's just evidence, a data point. It doesn't prove there's a difference buy it casts doubt on the assertion that there isn't. You keep talking about objective data, likely referring to measurements made by instruments. Even if these are 100% trustworthy, they have to somehow be correlated to listening experience, which you are saying is close to completely untrustworthy. We can to THD, SNR, frequency response, SFDR, phase shift, FM distortion, TIM distortion, etc etc. But how do we know we're measuring everything we can hear?
If one set of patch cords made my experience different then there's a difference, period. It doesn't matter why there was a difference(and I'm defining "difference" as my listening experience), beit electrical, voodoo magic, my personal bias, I'm crazy, stupid etc. If my experience was better and I'm willing to spend the money or go through the effort for that experience then it's worth it. And this is an experience that I've been unable to create by changing my mindset. Maybe it'll happen one day. But today ain't that day.
Tattoo was kind enough to give me some links. I will take a look at them.
Last edited:
Single ended
I will stay with my modified McIntosh MI350s.
Done many blind AB's with SEs, solid state class Bs and many other tube amps
The MI350s are superior in all respects (Except their weight and current draw)
Just had a pair of Marantz Model 9s I restored for a customer in Hong Kong and they are simply not in the same league as the Macs.
Just completed a total ground up restoration of a pair of EAR 529 500w mono blocks for a customer. More powerfull than the MI350s (598w at clip for the EAR and 485w for the MI350s) but the Macs again are in a different zip code.
I will stay with my modified McIntosh MI350s.
Done many blind AB's with SEs, solid state class Bs and many other tube amps
The MI350s are superior in all respects (Except their weight and current draw)
Just had a pair of Marantz Model 9s I restored for a customer in Hong Kong and they are simply not in the same league as the Macs.
Just completed a total ground up restoration of a pair of EAR 529 500w mono blocks for a customer. More powerfull than the MI350s (598w at clip for the EAR and 485w for the MI350s) but the Macs again are in a different zip code.
I find this article relevant for the topic, even this thread is not very productive...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...C7g4-uKsLmCJSC34w&sig2=kfnJQait1_2TxLg9pQt38Q
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...C7g4-uKsLmCJSC34w&sig2=kfnJQait1_2TxLg9pQt38Q
Amplifier which have higher distortion can sound more pleasant than amplifier that have lower distortion. Amplifier which have higher distortion can call as "sound effect" 🙂
Why would we need that ability, when a computer can do it for us? These days we can even use wavelets and get a view which is neither pure time or pure frequency domain.fas42 said:
That may, or may not, be true.
It is certainly true that some audio fans are unduly alarmed by what they see in the time domain, even to the extent of describing the effect of simple filtering as distortion - especially when they look at the result of filtering a quite unmusic-like starting transient. I suspect that in some cases this is because their education did not extend to properly understanding Fourier theory, so they deny that which they cannot comprehend.
How probable is that two amplifiers designed to have no audible artifacts when connected to a particular speaker or speakers with varying characteristics will in fact sound different?
How probable is fact that "sound effect" amplifier when connected to a particular speaker will have better measured and subjective performance compared to supposedly perfect amp?
Isn't this "only amp" discussion quite futile and nowhere leading ? When there will be sensible effort to build integrated systems by really talented people not the "lifestyle "companies ?
Whenever I read amp designers thoughts they always stress how bad the speakers are wasting their sincere designing effort . Perspective changes when I read speaker designers complaining about that horrible horde of junk amps unable to unravel the true potential of their marvel speakers
How probable is fact that "sound effect" amplifier when connected to a particular speaker will have better measured and subjective performance compared to supposedly perfect amp?
Isn't this "only amp" discussion quite futile and nowhere leading ? When there will be sensible effort to build integrated systems by really talented people not the "lifestyle "companies ?
Whenever I read amp designers thoughts they always stress how bad the speakers are wasting their sincere designing effort . Perspective changes when I read speaker designers complaining about that horrible horde of junk amps unable to unravel the true potential of their marvel speakers
Most designers are wise enough to design to an interface standard, not a particular load. This is how real engineering works. Imagine the problems if a car/automobile could only run on certain types of road surface? If amplifier designers aim for a voltage standard, and speaker designers use the same standard, then listeners have maximum choice.limono said:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
It's been my experience that different cars and different road surfaces behave differently, some are a pleasant match and some are unpleasant.
AFAIK e.g. NAIM "Supernait" SS-Amp has damping factor around 13 at 4 Ohms.
Tonality is affected audibly by the impedance curve of the loudspeaker ...
A typical broadband driver will sound a little more "fat" in the bass and a little more "airy" in the highs using such an amp.
Some say that this is a "special" or "good" sound ...
To me it is ignoring a common interface standard which is named "voltage control".
What is an "athletic" damping factor e.g. in a Mc Intosh MC 275 tube amplifier is an unathletic one in an SS amplifier.
I am listening to - and developing - my speakers using a solid state amplifier having a damping factor around 1000 at 8 Ohms.
Because i prefer proper interfaces instead of playing "sounding roulette".
Kind Regards
Last edited:
You misunderstood me. I believe in productive debate. Using bunch of subjectivity brings the opposite effect of that.
You keep omitting the word "audible" when talking about difference. It's starting to be annoying. This is audio forum. Can you please get with the program? 🙄
You aren't coming from reading school textbooks, right?
In your opinion. It's horrible in my opinion. This is the example of subjectivity I'm referring to. It has no standard to reference to thus it's subjected to each individual which won't help the debate.
Yours failed to address one of the most basic procedures in objective listening comparison. You need to read up on this before going any further. Of course, if you did that just for your personal consumption, then who cares how you did it but that's not the case. You tried to use that flawed test result to support your argument which is why you ran into a brick wall.
What you have is called anecdotal evidence and they don't mean a hill of beans outside of your own personal domain.
Read up on this stuff. They have been done already. You have access to Google search, don't you?
You do what you want to do for your pleasure. Just make sure you have some solid evidence to back up your claim when posting on public place like online forum.
This would be a key step in a better direction - complete systems fully sorted out to behave correctly. Trouble is, the audio world has a hobbyist mentality - everyone wants a kitset car, with no engine, gearbox or suspension; then play endless games of bolting in whatever is the flavour of the month in the various spots - and whinge every now and again about how the car is a bastard to drive, which is the fault of part (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) ...
...."You do what you want to do for your pleasure. Just make sure you have some solid evidence to back up your claim when posting on public place like online forum."...
And solid evidence points to all cable companies and most amp manufacturers as a "swindlers " Correct?
And solid evidence points to all cable companies and most amp manufacturers as a "swindlers " Correct?
In your opinion I ran into a brick wall. The fact that the test was flawed does not render the results meaningless. Even if it wasn't double blind it still wouldn't be meaningless. Just less meaningful. If we're going to invalidate the results of every test that's flawed then we have to do that with every test, because every test is flawed to some degree. That's why they put P-values on them. It's just a matter of how flawed. You think it's horrible. OK, your entitled to your opinion. But I happen to disagree with that opinion. And doesn't there need to be room for different opinions on this forum?
No idea what you're talking about here. I was pointing out that you were presuming to know how I formed my opinions without even asking. You keep charging me with straw-man arguing. You're doing an ad-hominem. How I formed my opinion, and your speculation on how I formed my opinion, is irrelevant to this debate. The issue is whether or not cables/interconnects can produce an audible difference. And the second issue was whether or not it could be stated as absolute truth. And now the third issue on the table is how meaningful my test results are. You suggested a way this test could have given erroneous results, a flaw. OK. But I don't think we can put a number on the likelihood of erroneous results here. We just have your opinion and mine. Maybe an impasse.
Yes, I'm aware of many studies that try to relate measurements to listening experience. And there's some value to these. But once again, not the last word in what a listening experience is or should be. As you have mentioned several times, listening experience is different than measurements.
Don't really think that was the huge breach of ethics you claimed it to be. But OK. From now on I'll say "audible difference". And here you're nitpicking on this sentence to avoid the point I was making.
Last edited:
That may be because the mechanical equivalent of a voltage interface either doesn't exist or must be ruled out for some reason. Fortunately, electrical engineering is often less messy than mechanical engineering.Bigun said:
Hearing a difference when patch cords are changed is quite likely, under certain circumstances. These are:
1. At least one of the patch cords was faulty, either by accident or design. Too little shielding or too much capacitance are common errors.
2. The equipment has high output impedance or low EMC input tolerance - both possible features of more 'esoteric' audio stuff, but rarer in ordinary commercial items.
Solid evidence points to audibly indistinguishable differences between cables and amps when used as intended except for some that are either defective or esoteric design. As for the swindlers, a different investigation would reveal that.
Yes, it does in an attempt to have a productive debate, especially when yours failed to address one of the most basic procedures in objective listening comparison. IOW, it was DOA.
That would be even worse.
It's meaningless because it wasn't bias controlled.
What do you mean, if? It's being done all over the place. I don't know about the schools you went to but the ones I went through, if you get caught cheating in test, your result is thrown out. It's invalid.
Can you name a few level matched DBT of electronic audio gears that you know are flawed but not invalidated?
You just proved my point about the uselessness of subjectivity when attempting to have productive debate.
The way it's been going, that pretty much sums it up.
But I was just curious, that's all.
You wouldn't be going on and on about it like you have been if the results were to your liking. Sorry to notice but sometimes the truth tastes bitter.
Think whatever you want. I would rather tune in to the thoughts of those with relevant education and experience, hence my curiosity on where you are coming from (don't bother, I know enough already).
You wouldn't be going on and on about it like you have been if the results were to your liking. Sorry to notice but sometimes the truth tastes bitter.
Nitpicking is a necessity to clarify what one means in this inefficient way of communicating which we call internet forums. If that bothers you, perhaps going to local audio club meetings would be an option for you.
Ad hominem. My liking and reason for going on and on is irrelevant.
You mentioned having a productive debate. How do snide comments like this help? This just puts people on the defensive. And then productivity is out the window. And insinuating mental inferiority, or some other character defect like laziness, every time someone asks you to clarify a point is NOT productive at all OR a part of how these forums work.
How can it get worse than meaningless?
So, before going on any further, let me ask, what would you accept as valid evidence that audio interconnects make an audible difference? And if you can't answer this without taking a shot at me this discussion is over.
Last edited:
Exactly. You've once again proved my point about subjectivity in this type of debate.
This debate will pick up its usefulness if you start using objectivity in your argument. That's if you crave such thing.
Who said audio interconnects cannot make an audible difference? Audio cables made to the industry standard spec will be audibly transparent and won't make audible difference as long as it's not defective. BTW, these points were already covered on this thread.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.