HornTube, you speak the 'truth' as you and I know it, but others here do not think that we are correct in our opinions, and have made up 'scientific' tests that will confound us, if we are to fall for their challenge and engage in them. For example, I remember the OLD Coke from the '40's and 50's. Even when they went to plastic bottles, or metal cans, it was not the same. Then they TRIED to change the formula, held secret for 100 years. Guess what, everybody who cared, noticed the difference, and fought with real money to get the 'old Coke' back on the shelves. A compromise was reached and interestingly enough, double blind tests that they made at the time made even the most radical people hoping to bring back 'old Coke' back confused and not sure of what they liked, or disliked. Some test, huh? It is the same with ABX testing of audio, they will confuse you, all right. Is this what everyone wants?
Hi Carlos,
my intention was not to insult, I just wanted to say: If someone thinks that he has the right to speak for me and telling the world that "nobody ever heard a difference" reminds me of fascist propaganda! If someone can't hear a difference - that's fine for me. But please, insulting me and my friends (violin makers, sopranos, bassists, studio engineers, jazz musicians, loudspeaker designers and so on) is unacceptable.
Regards
A technician who deliberately tried to convince me with an ABX test about the NON-existing difference relating the green pen colored CD issue was stunned that i could not only hear the difference about the green color issue but also the difference between the 2 "identical" Marantz CD-Players!
BTW, most of my friends are far better trained in listening.
If the wine was bottled correctly and aged the same time in the same cellar than there can't be any difference between a Bordeaux and a Burgundy - in France they will beat you up or they will laugh their heads off. But think, scientifically seen these 2 wines are much much more similar then let's say a film cap and an electrolyte! Or a tube and an IC...
"In controlled double-blind listening tests, no one has ever (yes, ever!) heard a difference between two amplifiers with high input impedance, low output impedance, flat response, low distortion, and low noise."
I find this quite logical and believable. There is so much garbage in hifi today. I love it when a few brave souls speak the tabooed truth.
btw Mr Curl did you win that audible cables thread yet? I lost interest after a thousand pages.
I find this quite logical and believable. There is so much garbage in hifi today. I love it when a few brave souls speak the tabooed truth.
btw Mr Curl did you win that audible cables thread yet? I lost interest after a thousand pages.
Last edited:
Close yor eyes, And pinch your nose closed while tasting, and you won't be able to tell the difference between Coke, old Coke, Pepsi, Sprite and Fanta.
Try it, you'll be amazed!
Put wax in your ears and all amplifiers will sound the same. Try it you will be amazed.
This flawed weak analogy makes this all seem like trolling. The two wines are not even from the same grape and made many miles apart.
I once saw a bar-bet of the difference between cola, 7-up, and ginger ale, and the taster lost the listener test. That is pretty extreme, but I saw it with my own eyes.
having worked at a 'soft drink bottler', rest assured, the 100 year old recipe,
was changed (many) years ago, numerous times,
and no longer has the same ingredients.
many bags of 'white powders' ...
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
as far as testing, by listening,
my hearing does not stay consistent, day to day.
does anyones?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
P.S. shouldn't this be in 'the lounge'?
Last edited:
I don't see any weakness, Sanken, Toshiba and Motorola are also not the same. Filmcaps & electrolytics are even made from completely different materials or take silver & copper or teflon & cotton. According to the "every amp sounds the same" people there can't be any difference as long as the distortion....and so on...
Identifying Amps only with measurements is quiet easy, with wines it is far more complicated. So did you hear anyone saying all wines have the same taste? I bet not.
Last edited:
Listening, tasting, to me, while I know that I CAN be fooled, I cannot be fooled all the time. If I were fooling myself, all the time, then I could not make audio products that generally improve with time. I have known how to make audio equipment with adequate audio measurements, in the opinion of most everyone, for the last 40 years, yet I find it still a challenge. And some designs, where I went away from my instincts, and went with the 'practical' at the time, failed in impersonal audio reviews, even though they measured just fine. Knowing what seems to work (for whatever reason) and learning from my 'failures', keeps me on track.
This analogy goes nowhere. Lemons and grapefruit taste different so Sanken and Toshiba capacitors must sound different?
HornTube, you will not get far with these comparisons on this website, but my associates and I hear differences in virtually all components. Some people here think that IC op amps are virtually all that is necessary. I wish it were true.
Trying to type fast before the Loctite is applied...
Can you (or Peter who made the statement) give NUMBERS for those words I put in bold? The statement is meaningless without numbers. It could be meaningless WITH numbers as well depending on what the numbers are, but it's DEFINITELY meaningless without numbers.
I blame stereophonic playback for this absolute madness.
Try recreating a human voice on a playback system through just ONE high-fidelity speaker. See if you can fool someone with a blindfold on into thinking it's a real person talking.
Now try to do the same with a human voice "phantom centered" in a stereophonic setup. My bet is that the listener will not be fooled no matter how hard you try, and no matter how many thousands of dollars of equipment you use.
Relevance to this thread? You're chasing phantoms. It's no wonder science nor human hearing can convince believers NOR non-believers against their hypothesis when it comes to the sound imparted by various electronic components.
If the goal is to be fooled by a playback system into believing that something we're hearing is "real" (and I believe that's what we're trying to achieve), starting with stereophonics is a BIG mistake. Sure, we get image and stage width, but the potential to be fooled is gone.
I've said the same thing about 3D films. In my mind, they are LESS believable than a high def 2d film. Why? Because, despite the extra dimension, it doesn't LOOK real. IT looks holographic, and EVERYBODY witnesses this phenomenon. At least with a 2d film you could be led to believe you are looking through a window at something taking place. 3D is just smoke and mirrors, and it doesn't fool anyone.
Try recreating a human voice on a playback system through just ONE high-fidelity speaker. See if you can fool someone with a blindfold on into thinking it's a real person talking.
Now try to do the same with a human voice "phantom centered" in a stereophonic setup. My bet is that the listener will not be fooled no matter how hard you try, and no matter how many thousands of dollars of equipment you use.
Relevance to this thread? You're chasing phantoms. It's no wonder science nor human hearing can convince believers NOR non-believers against their hypothesis when it comes to the sound imparted by various electronic components.
If the goal is to be fooled by a playback system into believing that something we're hearing is "real" (and I believe that's what we're trying to achieve), starting with stereophonics is a BIG mistake. Sure, we get image and stage width, but the potential to be fooled is gone.
I've said the same thing about 3D films. In my mind, they are LESS believable than a high def 2d film. Why? Because, despite the extra dimension, it doesn't LOOK real. IT looks holographic, and EVERYBODY witnesses this phenomenon. At least with a 2d film you could be led to believe you are looking through a window at something taking place. 3D is just smoke and mirrors, and it doesn't fool anyone.
Van Gogh ,after Beethoven ,was the first audiophool in history : he cut away his ear to catch THAT effect
Now! this sounds like a good experiment. Can you suggest what is the best wax to use? Does it have to be ear wax or will any wax do? What about supermodel bikini line wax? 😀
Better experiment is to made cancelation (diferential) test according Baxandall with really good, competently made amplifiers. At normal listening position and with real , music signal you will hear nothing. And for sure many will claim, sound is different (but for sure only if they can see what is playing..) . What they hear? Artifact, that are not hearable unmasked with signal (music) ,they hear masked in music with 80-100dB higher level? Try put some arguments, not talks about wine taste..
- Status
- Not open for further replies.