Hi,
Absolutely.
That's another point I was trying to get across: does audiometry tell the whole story?
I don't think so. Our perception of what we see as reality is based on all our sensory capabilities, experiences.
In fact I think it's a big part of what makes every individual well, errrr....unique.
For the same reason I don't think the distortion figures tell the whole story either.
They may have relevance to what we perceive but IMO there are far more important facors than just those figures.
Maybe there are ways to capture by measurements what sets a good amp apart from a bad one and harmonic distortion figures can certainly be part of that.
Are we measuring the "wrong thing"?
Probably not but it seems rather obvious we are not meauring the "right thing" either...
Certainly not "everything" that's related to the way we perceive the rendition/reproduction of a musical event/recording.
There are a number of interesting sensory perception topics out there well worth chewing on:
What convinces our brain we are in a particular known room and not another when all we can go on is our auditory perception?
How do we recognize a person's voice on the phone, a phone which has such awful sonic performance, such limited bandwidth?
Certainly it can all be measured but isn't it absolutely amazing how the human brain can pick up on such little clues in a split second?
On the other end of the scale, why is that so much so called high end gear fails the ultimate test: musicality.
The same "raison d'etre" it was made for in the first place?
How many times haven't we walked out of a demo room at an exhibition, for instance, where all this fancy stuff was trying so hard but ultimately failed to simply let the music through?
Still, it measured just fine....
In fact it often measures so well you start wondering whether you're actually measuring the "right thing"......
Seems I'm a rant ahead of you now, Jan.....
Cheers,😉
Absolutely.
That's another point I was trying to get across: does audiometry tell the whole story?
I don't think so. Our perception of what we see as reality is based on all our sensory capabilities, experiences.
In fact I think it's a big part of what makes every individual well, errrr....unique.
For the same reason I don't think the distortion figures tell the whole story either.
They may have relevance to what we perceive but IMO there are far more important facors than just those figures.
Maybe there are ways to capture by measurements what sets a good amp apart from a bad one and harmonic distortion figures can certainly be part of that.
Are we measuring the "wrong thing"?
Probably not but it seems rather obvious we are not meauring the "right thing" either...
Certainly not "everything" that's related to the way we perceive the rendition/reproduction of a musical event/recording.
There are a number of interesting sensory perception topics out there well worth chewing on:
What convinces our brain we are in a particular known room and not another when all we can go on is our auditory perception?
How do we recognize a person's voice on the phone, a phone which has such awful sonic performance, such limited bandwidth?
Certainly it can all be measured but isn't it absolutely amazing how the human brain can pick up on such little clues in a split second?
On the other end of the scale, why is that so much so called high end gear fails the ultimate test: musicality.
The same "raison d'etre" it was made for in the first place?
How many times haven't we walked out of a demo room at an exhibition, for instance, where all this fancy stuff was trying so hard but ultimately failed to simply let the music through?
Still, it measured just fine....
In fact it often measures so well you start wondering whether you're actually measuring the "right thing"......
Seems I'm a rant ahead of you now, Jan.....
Cheers,😉
fdegrove said:
Yes, absolutely. That is one part of the story, and it seems like I'm hearing myself in your comment. But there's another story, we (subconciensly?) assume that what we perceive is the TRUTH(tm). Since THD measurements don't correlate, the measurements are wrong, we say. Well, if you accept that perception does by no means give an accurate account, there is the theoritical possibility that THD measurements are accurately portraying the amp quality, but that out perception gets it wrong. I am not taking any position here, just taking the reasoning to its logical end.
Again, absolutely. It helps to see this in the light of evolution and the survival of the fittest. Does it have survival value to recognise the voice of your mate or the call of a tiger, even if that sound is muted by bushes, phase-distorted by reflections from the trees or your mate has a heavy cold? Absolutely. Does it have survival value to be able to pinpoint the 3rd harmonic level in the war cry of your enemy? Not at all.
[snip]Seems I'm a rant ahead of you now, Jan.....
Cheers,😉
I have the sinking feeling I'm losing this one....😀
Jan Didden
I am confident that everything that needs to be measured is measured, but is not interpreted in the best way. Like the fact that absolute THD is (at higher levels at least) less important than the distortion spectrum.fdegrove said:
However I am also fairly sure that the actual sound is the least important factor. Usually ignored are other variables, such as the appearance of the equipment, state of mind, lighting levels, background noise etc. All of these can have a big effect on our perception. For instance I have many times been fooled into thinking a sound from the stereo downstairs was real, causing me to go and look for the cause, but if I'm sitting listening in front of it I never have the feeling that it's real.
As such, arguments over the perceived benefits of things that seem to have no technical explanation are doomed to go on forever because they concentrate on the wrong thing.
I think that if you are lucky enough to have hearing that can not tell the diff between cheap and expensive interconnects then spend your money on something else - but do not begrudge the people who can hear the diff.
Ask your self if you would use a $5.00 interconnect on a $5000.00 component and you will instantly know which tribe you belong to.
There was an interesting article in Australian hifi mag, Dec04/Jan05 that stated due to recent experiments, our whole understanding of electrical conductivity may be flawed. We no longer know what makes metals metallic or why one element is a metal and another isn't. ( Phillip Phillips, professor of physics at the university of Illinois).
Ask your self if you would use a $5.00 interconnect on a $5000.00 component and you will instantly know which tribe you belong to.
There was an interesting article in Australian hifi mag, Dec04/Jan05 that stated due to recent experiments, our whole understanding of electrical conductivity may be flawed. We no longer know what makes metals metallic or why one element is a metal and another isn't. ( Phillip Phillips, professor of physics at the university of Illinois).
Hi,
I OTOH am confident we're not even close to using proper measurements to corelate to what we actually perceive.
Yet I agree fully when you say that whatever we measure now isn't interpreted in the best way either.
Most of the time I've been just plain disappointed by gorgeous looking equipment.
Some exceptions notwithstanding....Oddly enough those didn't always measure too well though........
Naturally the state of mind and the environmental factors play a major role in how well we'll be able to appreciate, or not, the performane of the equipment.
While I agree that sometimes equipment heard from a secondary room seems to sound better it never managed to convince me I was listening to "the real thing".
No matter how good the equipment used, you can immediately tell it's not real but reproduced IME. And vice versa of course.
If it has a repeatable effect then there must be a technical explanation for it...somehow.
That the guessing seems to go on endlessly is just human resistance to accept change.
Cheers,😉
I OTOH am confident we're not even close to using proper measurements to corelate to what we actually perceive.
Yet I agree fully when you say that whatever we measure now isn't interpreted in the best way either.
Most of the time I've been just plain disappointed by gorgeous looking equipment.
Some exceptions notwithstanding....Oddly enough those didn't always measure too well though........
Naturally the state of mind and the environmental factors play a major role in how well we'll be able to appreciate, or not, the performane of the equipment.
While I agree that sometimes equipment heard from a secondary room seems to sound better it never managed to convince me I was listening to "the real thing".
No matter how good the equipment used, you can immediately tell it's not real but reproduced IME. And vice versa of course.
If it has a repeatable effect then there must be a technical explanation for it...somehow.
That the guessing seems to go on endlessly is just human resistance to accept change.
Cheers,😉
Ahh, but this is the entire point: Do they really sound different, or are the psychological effects bigger than the physical effects? I can hear differences between cables, and between all sorts of unlikely things, but those differences are inconsistent and disappear under double-blind conditions.barn said:
It's nice to see people coming up with such ideas, especially if they turn out to be true, but even if they are proven (which 9 times out of 10 they aren't) they don't automatically invalidate previous theories if they still make useful predictions, just as Newton's laws of motion are still useful despite being wrong in light of Einstein's discoveries.barn said:
Well there you go! Since the perceived sound is likely to be influenced by the appearance of the equipment but doesn't correlate with consciously liking it, there must be some other factors that are more important. Maybe it all boils down to the colour of the volume knob or the height of the feet. Someone needs to study this area more carefully.fdegrove said:
barn said:
Well in that case I should hold off on buying cables until their research is complete. All the "cryoed" cables are bogus, and we have still to discover the best cable. In any case, I highly doubt Kimber and other of the like will be the first to bring it to us. And once they do, after decade or so, they'll bring out copper again, claiming it was better all along.
Double blind test after double blind test has proven these "golden ear" reviewers to be goofs. Once in a while you get a cable that sounds different, but it's because it's a bad cable, not a good one. It's design was conceived to lend itself a fancy discription and mythical properties, as well as a high cost.
There's this huge phallic factor audiophilia. It's the "my cable is thicker than yours" mentality. Or "my amp is less efficient" than yours.
For interconnects there's nothing to be had by going beyond a high end Belden or some such sort. As for speaker wire, zip cord cord works. Keep everything as short as possible.
Back in the 1980s, some Swedish audio dealers made filter boxes using one of those cheap transient protectors and a cap and sold them for €50-100. We're talking thousands of pct in mark-up. Transparent apparently do (did?) the same thing. (Go here for an opened up Transparent box on the Swedish site faktiskt.se.) Only they have (or had) even larger mark-ups. The Transparent execs are evidently the smarter businessmen. But I couldn't care less about Transparent or what cables somebody buys. If somebody wants to pay €1,000 or more for a €1 cap, by all means do. Whatever justification works for you should be enough. There's really nothing reasonable about buying a Ferrari. Who says a car has to be reasonable? (Back when I was a kid, the most excessive and useless heap of junk was the Lamborghini Countach. And we loved it.) Same thing ought to go for audio.
Hi,
Why are cryoed cables bogus and what would the "best" cable be?
Copper instead of what exactly?
I can't help but be curious about the "myhical properties" of such a design.
Oh yeah..........
A "high end" Belden....hmmm sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.
Yep...work it does.
But thick, right?
Impedance correction networks I think those were.
So it's all about money again, isn't it?
Who says an audio system has to be reasonable?
Cheers,😉
P.S. I love the sound of a Lambo as much as I like the sound of a Ferrari....
Guess the reasonable thing is to drive a Porsche though........
Why are cryoed cables bogus and what would the "best" cable be?
Copper instead of what exactly?
I can't help but be curious about the "myhical properties" of such a design.
Oh yeah..........
A "high end" Belden....hmmm sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.
Yep...work it does.
But thick, right?
Impedance correction networks I think those were.
So it's all about money again, isn't it?
Who says an audio system has to be reasonable?
Cheers,😉
P.S. I love the sound of a Lambo as much as I like the sound of a Ferrari....
Guess the reasonable thing is to drive a Porsche though........
phn said:
Useless?? When I was much younger, we (a friend who owned a Countach and me) used to outrun the police Cessna planes on the Californian highways. 200 miles/hour +. That's 360 km/hour in Europe. Oh, I see. Yes. Useless. But fun!
Jan Didden
fdegrove said:
Cryoed is boggus because people vendors make false claims that they sound better to justify massive mark up. You are obviously more read on the topic than I. Perhaps you could educate me about cryoed cables?
fdegrove said:
This was in response to barn's claim that we still have to learn what makes a conductor conduct.
fdegrove said:
Ah! Maybe we have something in common after all. I'm curious about how all the exotic cables sound better too!
fdegrove said:
I really hate to disappoint you, but audio, even high end audio, is hardly the pinnacle of precision interconnect requirements. Belden is well respected and is found in all sorts of high precision applications, designed by people who actually know what they're talking about. Many a rebadged Carol or Belden has found itself rebadged and marked up 1000% to earn rave reviews from people such as yourself.
fdegrove said:
Perhaps you could explain to us how these impedance correction networks work. How can I design one? While a cable in any home would never have the length to need to worry about reflections and the such, ever little bit counts I guess.
Hi,
Sorry but I fail to see the logic in the reasoning here.
One could say that vendors exploit the fact that some cable is cryogenically treated to justify a higher asking price but that doesn't necessarily imply that the cryo treatment is bogus.
Their claims would be false if they'd try to sell cable that's not treated cryogenically yet they'd sell it as such.
Either way, no one's twisting anyone's arm here: no like, no buy.
You could find out more yourself using a local search on the topic for starters.
Then why are you recommending this "high-end" Belden cable in the first place?
Following the zipcord of your reasoning even the most ordinary piece of insulated wire should do.
May very well be but while I do occasionally get commissioned to design audio cables I don't rave about any cable in particular.
Nowhere have I said that it had to be expensive to sound good either....
I could but....:
I don't think those networks are there to counteract reflections in the first place.
But yes, every little bit counts. That's high-end for you.
Cheers, 😉
Sorry but I fail to see the logic in the reasoning here.
One could say that vendors exploit the fact that some cable is cryogenically treated to justify a higher asking price but that doesn't necessarily imply that the cryo treatment is bogus.
Their claims would be false if they'd try to sell cable that's not treated cryogenically yet they'd sell it as such.
Either way, no one's twisting anyone's arm here: no like, no buy.
You could find out more yourself using a local search on the topic for starters.
Then why are you recommending this "high-end" Belden cable in the first place?
Following the zipcord of your reasoning even the most ordinary piece of insulated wire should do.
May very well be but while I do occasionally get commissioned to design audio cables I don't rave about any cable in particular.
Nowhere have I said that it had to be expensive to sound good either....
I could but....:
I don't think those networks are there to counteract reflections in the first place.
But yes, every little bit counts. That's high-end for you.
Cheers, 😉
Cryonics is actually one of the very few things in "high-end" (read high priced) audio that isn't a crook. And how do I know that? I know it because the effects of cryo were documented long before Stereophile came along. It's been known for about a century.
The positive effects of cryonics seem to vary with material. But even when it does make a difference, it's more or less negligible. At least the price is usually so low (unless you're being taken for a ride) you don't feel cheated even in the cases it doesn't.
To make a "high end" cable comparable to anything by Transparent or Kimber or what have you is easy. All you need is sound material (like copper foil shielding; rarely used because of its stiffness, but superior to anything else) and a sound construction. Everything after that depends on the price tag you slap on it. The higher the price, the better it will sound. Why it does nobody seems to know.
phn said:
Hi phn,
What positive effects are you talking about? Resistivity, color, weight? Does it have an audible effect?
Jan Didden
Jan, best cabel is cryogenic cabel, but painted on green - you don't know this ? 😀 Sure, you must have painted by this colour also your ears 😀
Well, at least I think going cryod power cords improved the sound of my system. Of course, it may be the old placebo effect. New shiny cables and all. At least it seems to have some degree of scientific foundation, unlike, say, go faster stripes. Having that said, since I make my own cables cryo is usually not an option and I can't say I care.
I also make sure that I hook up inline cables so the text goes in the direction of the signal.
I also make sure that I hook up inline cables so the text goes in the direction of the signal.
When it comes to cryogenics - since when is higher resistance to abrasiveness, reduced stress in material of any concern in a cable?
I dont want to drill or cut steel with my interconnects!
That is where the audiophile hoodoo comes in. Sure, it does change the properties of materials - but what does this have to do with audiophile application?
It apparently does nothing to the electrical properties of materials - and that counts.
But - maybe some confuse cryogenic treatment with super conductivity? Just because its coooold?
read here:
http://www.nitrofreeze.com/improvements.html
I dont want to drill or cut steel with my interconnects!
That is where the audiophile hoodoo comes in. Sure, it does change the properties of materials - but what does this have to do with audiophile application?
It apparently does nothing to the electrical properties of materials - and that counts.
But - maybe some confuse cryogenic treatment with super conductivity? Just because its coooold?
read here:
http://www.nitrofreeze.com/improvements.html
I could link to a page where they sell gold and silver as jewellery. What does jewellery has to do with audio?
I know that cryonics is used to harden metals. You can cool hot metal in water as well, though evidently not as effective.
My sole point is that the effects of cryo are long documented. But I don't have the expertise to judge if cryo or, say, OFC copper has any sonic effect. I simply can't rule them out. (I do give higher credence to OFC copper because it, like PE, is sometimes used in professional microphone cable.) Litz wire is another technology, or rather design, with a long track record. Now, I don't compare cryo with litz. I only use it as an example.
I'm in the same boat as most people. Since I don't have the expertise I have to judge these things on a case-by-case basis. I can only avoid the most obvious scams, like platforms for solid state amps!🙄 There are simply so many things I don't understand. Like why the RCA connector is still being used when it was considered a useless piece junk almost from day one. "High-end RCA connector" is a contradiction of terms if there ever was one. Or why aren't most phono amps balanced when most cartridges are inherently balanced?
Edited out unrelated nonsense.
I know that cryonics is used to harden metals. You can cool hot metal in water as well, though evidently not as effective.
My sole point is that the effects of cryo are long documented. But I don't have the expertise to judge if cryo or, say, OFC copper has any sonic effect. I simply can't rule them out. (I do give higher credence to OFC copper because it, like PE, is sometimes used in professional microphone cable.) Litz wire is another technology, or rather design, with a long track record. Now, I don't compare cryo with litz. I only use it as an example.
I'm in the same boat as most people. Since I don't have the expertise I have to judge these things on a case-by-case basis. I can only avoid the most obvious scams, like platforms for solid state amps!🙄 There are simply so many things I don't understand. Like why the RCA connector is still being used when it was considered a useless piece junk almost from day one. "High-end RCA connector" is a contradiction of terms if there ever was one. Or why aren't most phono amps balanced when most cartridges are inherently balanced?
Edited out unrelated nonsense.
Nothing, but my link -as you maybe can read - is not about a product made from a material used incidentally in audio as well but about a process and what it does to materials. And since the electrical properties of cabels etc. in audio are the point, i could so far not find a hint as to what cryogenic treatment does do to electrical properties.
So please do not confuse the issue.
Some more info here - still nothing about electrical properties in metals:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/process/pubs/cryog_processing_tc113571.pdf
- Status
- Not open for further replies.