Hi,
Let's just say we all hope Mr. Tiefenpockects learned something...
Guess the Linn crew stepped into the pitlane once too often while they were still sponsoring the Formula One circus.
Or maybe the whole bunch was deaf already....
"Linn CEO listens to DSP over Naim Amplifiers"
If they'd run that as a headline in a mag they'd better sell the chairs to go with it..............Pheeeewwww..........
Cheers, 😉
Let's just say we all hope Mr. Tiefenpockects learned something...
Guess the Linn crew stepped into the pitlane once too often while they were still sponsoring the Formula One circus.
Or maybe the whole bunch was deaf already....
"Linn CEO listens to DSP over Naim Amplifiers"
If they'd run that as a headline in a mag they'd better sell the chairs to go with it..............Pheeeewwww..........
Cheers, 😉
You could never make a realistic sound test, without the band playing live! Could you? I guess you could compare the Master recording with a HiFi setup, but would that be realistic? Well, what the band playes and what is on the recording, would that be the same
I have my doubts. This is an impossible discussion.Steen.
We are not talking about the "realism" of music reproduction, we are talking about the audibility of characteristics of certain elements within this chain.
audio-kraut said:
Statement?😕
I assisted several tests.
Blinded and sighted.
Do I need to write a paper?
Maybe you understand german better, so instead the word statement, or claim i use the good old german word "behauptung".
Your "behauptung" does not prove anything, it is on the same level as seeing the loch ness monster or the events surrounding uri geller - everybody saw the spoon bend.
Those claims maybe good enough for you, as the participant (how do i even know that for sure, another "behauptung?) but as an argument that has any meaning in this discussion of the audibility of cabels it fails. No witnesses, no writeup in a recognized journal - nothing. Just a : "behauptung".
Oh yes, i can hear the coughing of the fleas on my dog - prove me wrong.
May be you give me a road map of where you want to head with your arguments so it could follow them😉
audio-kraut said:
What's the matter?
You are too nervous.
Did I claim anything?
Are we discussing or what?
If what I said was written on a web page (as this one is
) would you believe it?😱 This is pathetic.
Read this:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=454479&highlight=#post454479
Follow the link I posted, download the pdf on the bottom of the page.
Educate yourself.
But this is only "literature".
I've been there, done that.
Yes, I always concentrate on the music.
Jan, thanks for the interesting link. IT deserves some real credit here.
One thing that jumps out is how difficult it is to remove all non-test cues; this is true for any kind of sensory research (as well as tests of paranormal abilities). A particularly pernicious version of unconscious cuing is the so-called "Clever Hans Effect," very often the basis for the common anecdote, "The difference was so obvious that even my non-audiophile wife could hear it!"
One thing that jumps out is how difficult it is to remove all non-test cues; this is true for any kind of sensory research (as well as tests of paranormal abilities). A particularly pernicious version of unconscious cuing is the so-called "Clever Hans Effect," very often the basis for the common anecdote, "The difference was so obvious that even my non-audiophile wife could hear it!"
Any authority on that? White paper etc?? Because if not - what am i hearing...what is that light hovering above me...that green beam coming down .. ohhhh noooooo....
If that is not an unsubstantiated claim - what is it? A quote from the bible? That what most of those claims do - asking to believe.
But isn't it funny - all published tests so far have refuted any claims of the participants to be able to identify the sound characteristics of cables. None i have read about ever confirms those claims. Shouldn't that make one careful when one gets comments like yours?
Sorry I can't do that. I am just one of those guys raised with the
assumption that a good hifi setup would play what was on the disc. No more no less. But how to know that it does, still puzzles me.
I have no intention to get into any heated debate about this. I just realise the impossible task to make a realistic conclusion on the 'cable' matter. Who can ever tell if a cable is right? Still I will claim this: If it sounds good, it has got to be good.
Steen.
That was what i assumed too. But even that is in question by those who label those listeners that they want "neutrality" from their equipment. I guess a swearword in the US/european high end community on the level of beeing branded a "lefty" or a "liberal" iin politics.
One thing should be clear - a cable cannot improve the "sound" of the aktive equipment, it can only make it worse. It takes some doing, but certain audiophile cables are capable of that.
audio-kraut said:
Yes.
Amen.
audio-kraut said:
I have made blind tests with cables and they can sound quite different.
Amen.
Go read your audio magazines.
If thats you're idea of unbiased corroboration - sorry, no go. I've read too many Stereophile golden ear comments to trust them any further. Same goes for UHF, Inner ear etc. etc.
@carlosfm - read that article you referred to. A lot of generalities and assumptions,, but what does that have to do with identifying the influence of cables in this here discussion?
I agree that you have to "listen" if you want to assess any type of equipment, but they are again "claiming" that their way is the only one. Sorry, I do my active "listening" differently when I want to compare equipment.
Maybe we have to come to an agreement and a standardised listening education and procedure before we can commence this discussion.
The last one I read was a paper from a german university were the participants - most of them musicians or studio technicians/soundmasters - could not even identify sacd from dvd-a recordings. So much for digital vs. digital audibility.
I agree that you have to "listen" if you want to assess any type of equipment, but they are again "claiming" that their way is the only one. Sorry, I do my active "listening" differently when I want to compare equipment.
Maybe we have to come to an agreement and a standardised listening education and procedure before we can commence this discussion.
The last one I read was a paper from a german university were the participants - most of them musicians or studio technicians/soundmasters - could not even identify sacd from dvd-a recordings. So much for digital vs. digital audibility.
audio-kraut said:
Everybody who talks about music sound like generalities and assumptions.
Because you forget the numbers and concentrate on the music.
audio-kraut said:
I always evaluated things by my own method and I loved to hear that Andreas guy talk and demonstrate because many things were spot on, I couldn't have said it better, it was (is) my way of thinking too.
He insisted, took his time, to let people know that music track pretty well.
That "paper" I found out later.
But that's nothing compared to a really well conducted live test (blinded and sighted), with unknown listeners.
Just 'cause I like to jump in where I don't belong...
I'd like to know why all the proponents of expensive cables don't plug in a noise generator and test the differences. If you can hear a difference, you should be able to measure it. I have not heard differences in my testing. The latest test was with some funky boutique cable that was cross braided and kind of clear, sorry, I don't know the manufacturer, but they were about 8 feet long and real purdy lookin' $250.00 cables I borrowed from my buddies place just for the test. Really sexy looking gold banana plugs. I put them up against 25 feet of 14 ga copper.
I guess that after 30 plus years of listening, my ears just don't hear a difference. I wish my ears were as good as some of the others around here. But wait, then my speakers wouldn't sound as good. Oh no...
Well, maybe it's a blessing.
Cal
I'd like to know why all the proponents of expensive cables don't plug in a noise generator and test the differences. If you can hear a difference, you should be able to measure it. I have not heard differences in my testing. The latest test was with some funky boutique cable that was cross braided and kind of clear, sorry, I don't know the manufacturer, but they were about 8 feet long and real purdy lookin' $250.00 cables I borrowed from my buddies place just for the test. Really sexy looking gold banana plugs. I put them up against 25 feet of 14 ga copper.
I guess that after 30 plus years of listening, my ears just don't hear a difference. I wish my ears were as good as some of the others around here. But wait, then my speakers wouldn't sound as good. Oh no...
Well, maybe it's a blessing.
Cal
carlosfm said:
Carlos,
You are exactly making the point that the critical persons here make. You let a guy talk to you for a long time, letting him point out things HE choses, and then at the end, ahh, yes, now you see (hear). I would NEVER let anybody make my decisions for me this way. Because that is what it amounts to. If the guy is really good, he can get his audience to accept ANYTHING. The guy makes a living from it, and you don't become Linn's Iberia manager by being slow in the head! He has one purpose in life: sell, sell, sell. And he should educate ME on how equipment or cables really sound? Give me a break!
I don't know if you have read the paper of the reference I posted. I would really like to know what anybody can fault on that carefull, critical test, trying to exclude everything not related to the sound, and then show me that that fault is taken care of in a subjective, biased test administered by a salesman, for Pete's sake.
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.