Why is there so much hostility on this board lately?

[Tony_Montana]

Man, a person can get mentally exhausted by listening to both sides and try to figure out who is right. And some of responses can get down right fire(y) and hostile, calling other posters liars or gullible.

May be we should ban DBT discussion :D on this forum also to see if we can reduced some of the heat that has been generated around here. IMO, hostility will take away the credibility no matter which side it is emitted from.

[pctower]

Man, a person can get mentally exhausted by listening to both sides and try to figure out who is right. And some of responses can get down right fire(y) and hostile, calling other posters liars or gullible.

May be we should ban DBT discussion :D on this forum also to see if we can reduced some of the heat that has been generated around here. IMO, hostility will take away the credibility no matter which side it is emitted from.

In my humble opinion, if we were all being honest with ourselves, we would admit that there is very little of value to say about audio cables. People like jneutron conduct serious experiments, but he is pretty much a lone wolf in that regard.

In addition, most people have no interest in discussing cables. They either believe they improve their systems or they don't and they just don't want to be bothered discussing a subject that has little of real substance to it.

So a board like this becomes one big game. In games the objective is to pulverize the other side. So it gets nasty - kind of like virtual hockey.

As least that's my $0.02 worth of an answer to your question.

[rb122]

Man, a person can get mentally exhausted by listening to both sides and try to figure out who is right. And some of responses can get down right fire(y) and hostile, calling other posters liars or gullible.

May be we should ban DBT discussion :D on this forum also to see if we can reduced some of the heat that has been generated around here. IMO, hostility will take away the credibility no matter which side it is emitted from.

This board isn't any more hostile than any discussion where one side is widely divergent from the other. I'm simply amazed that there is so much passion about something that even the biggest yeasayer would call subtle at best.

This argument, while seemingly complex, is really quite simple. The naysayers request a "put up or shut up" definitive solution. Nothing wrong with that since belief in cable sonics appears to have no basis in scientific fact at this time. Wouldn't most of us argue that flying saucers don't exist until we were proven wrong? Sorry for using a well worn analogy! :)

[E-Stat]

I'm simply amazed that there is so much passion about something that even the biggest yeasayer would call subtle at best.
If you stand back from the specifics, I think you find the underlying debate is really not about cables at all. It is the feeling by some that science has fully quantifiied absolutely every single aspect of the musical experience. Any differences between various audio components is simply due to easily corrected frequency differences. Redbook CD really is perfect and the higher resolution standards are there simply for marketing purposes. There have been no real improvements in the reproduction chain for over twenty years, so now companies are just playing musical preferences.

My experiences do not support that view.

rw

[markw]

Wouldn't most of us argue that flying saucers don't exist until we were proven wrong?

Well, that would be true unless you are posting on a board solely devoted to talking about people's personal experience, wether real or imagined, with flying saucers. Then their existance is assumed to be a given, no further proof needed. And, to question that would be bad manners.

That would be analogous to openly proclaiming God doesn't exist in a church. And, like that flying saucer analogy, religion is a personal decision arrived on by experiences based on ones perceptions, not scientific reasoning. Likewise, that's fine for that one person to believe but for them to adamantly try to claim it a the only truth and push it down someone else's throat is another story.

This isn't a church. In spite of what some would wish for, this is an open forum. Nothing is a given here. As in the case of religion, unless one chooses to believe, no science in the world can "prove" the existence of God to one who isn't open to that idea.

In spite of that, many (myself included) believe in God, but that's based on my personal experiences. I cannot "force " these on you. If you were to ask me to "prove" he exists in a scientific manner, then I'm at a loss. I can share my experiences with you, but when asked for other proof, I'd have to say I'm at a loss. It's all in faith.

If, after admitting there is no scientific proof, I were to continue to try to force God on you, I would be considered a crazy fanatic. That line is crossed when I fall back on the old "Can't you see??" mantras. We could argue all day and I could still not provide real proof for my case. But, then again, you could not prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God doesn't exist either. But, then again, it's not your place to try prove to me that God doesn't exist. If you were so minded, you would (and should) demand proof from me that He does exist.

There are some high minded that would like to have us believe that unless one shares their faith, they are not seeing reality. Generally, they tend to congegrate in packs and glad hand each other, while ignoring the fact that, in the real world, they don't have a leg to stand on. Generally, these types are hapier in a commune with their own kind but occasionally fo out into the worls en masse and they, though strength of sheer numbers, try to force their faith on the unwary.

Witness the Crusades, the Spanish Inqusition and, more recently, the Islamic state trying to expand it's borders.

Cables aren't a faith based religion, are they? Don't they have a basis in earthly science?

Audiable cable differences between the same gauge, construction and length cables is another story. There, I would like a little more proof. I've seen measurable differences but to compare these to audiable differences is another matter. There are ways to determine this but nobody seems to want to prove these measured differences are audiable.

Some feel their own personal perception of something is sufficient proof it exists. Well, to them it does. It's just as real to them as the flying saucer sightings are to those that believe. But, others with a more pragmatic view might see otherwise. That fact seems lost on some who are so intent on "forcing" their belief on others that the lack of proof means nothing to them. Yelling, screaming, mocking and putting down of the proof demanding skeptics is the order of the day. That doesn't make up for a lack of proof of their existance, though.

Likewise, demanding proof frm non-believers that they don't exist is a common tactic. That assumes they exist, which hasn't been proven to begin with!

Preception is real in the eyes of the beholder. Reality is real to everyone, except perhaps in The Matrix.

[skeptic]

The debate, if it can be called that, revolves around the issue of whether or not consumers should take on blind faith, the products of an upstart industry which proposes to supplant products which were deemed entirely satisfactory for decades with new more expensive, sometimes very much more expensive alternatives for which they have demonstrated no proof of their superiority. The people who developed and used the prior cable technology, which we consider ordinary, were no dummies. In fact they were a collaboration of the same electronics engineers who developed radio, television, color television, and all of the high tech electronics as well as the manufacturers who make and set the standards for the wire and cable industry. So the question is, why should we take the word of those who would sell us on these new and unproven products.

IMO, on this board, there are few if any people who have a vested financial interest in the exotic cable industry who post here. They would be open to the same challenge as anyone else. Most or all of the people who post here are in the category of hobbyists. On another board, Cable Asylum, free and open discussion is restricted and is the haunt of many participants who do have a vested financial interest in the industry.

"May be we should ban DBT discussion on this forum also to see if we can reduced some of the heat that has been generated around here."

Just such a ban exists at Cable Asylum for ostensibly just this reason but it doesn't seem to have quelled the flame wars there. Then why do they persist in maintaining it. There can be only one logical answer. The clue to that answer is strongly suggested by the identities of those who fund that board and by the proposed mission statement some month back by the owner of the site, Rod who wanted to restrict discussion to "positive experiences with cables." Among the sponsors are those who manufacture and sell cables. To me, this means that the site is dedicated to promoting these products, not to openly discussing them at all. Further evidence of this is given in their own admission of the validity of DBTs in a policy statement as the sole means to scientifically determine whether or not subtle audible differences exist between similar products. Banning discussion of DBTs here would not only eliminate the element of the only scientifically valid means for arbitrating the existance of such differences but would make this site a clone of Cable Asylum and a shill for this industry as well.

The surprising rancor which exists on this topic suggests a strong emotional involvement that many contributors have with their purchases of audio equipment regarding it as an expression of themselves rather than merely machines they own which perform a certain function in their lives. Challenging their claims for their audio equipment is tantamount to challenging their worth as individuals. Rather silly IMO but that's the reality of it.

[rb122]

The surprising rancor which exists on this topic suggests a strong emotional involvement that many contributors have with their purchases of audio equipment regarding it as an expression of themselves rather than merely machines they own which perform a certain function in their lives. Challenging their claims for their audio equipment is tantamount to challenging their worth as individuals. Rather silly IMO but that's the reality of it.

You are suggesting, nay, you're saying absolutely that the people are not hearing what they say they're hearing. In short, you're (and I'm not singling you out, nor am I verbally spanking - I'm just stating a fact) telling them they are either lying or their minds/ears are playing tricks on them. Wouldn't it follow that a defense posture would ensue?

[rb122]

If you stand back from the specifics, I think you find the underlying debate is really not about cables at all. It is the feeling by some that science has fully quantifiied absolutely every single aspect of the musical experience. Any differences between various audio components is simply due to easily corrected frequency differences. Redbook CD really is perfect and the higher resolution standards are there simply for marketing purposes. There have been no real improvements in the reproduction chain for over twenty years, so now companies are just playing musical preferences.

My experiences do not support that view.

rw

Nor do mine, except with respect to cables. But I've nowhere near the experience comparing components that you apparently have, either. But if redbook CD truly is perfect, then live music is horribly distorted. But that's another discussion.

But you have to admit that the science behind their comments is compelling at the least. Does that ever make you question your experiences? I think the naysayers are only suggesting that you do so in light of what they view as overwhelming evidence to the contrary... and that evidence is based on science rather than perception. And whatever concerns I have that science may not explain everything in audio, I do believe it is overall more reliable than perceptions. For instance, my perception is that LP's are more accurate than CD's. For me, that's true but it would be hard to sell that to the scientists just as its hard for them to believe your perceptions of cables.

You make a lot of great arguments and your posts stimulate conversation. I've often felt that the lack of yeasayers on this board is detrimental so please, continue to post.

[jneutron]

You are suggesting, nay, you're saying absolutely that the people are not hearing what they say they're hearing. In short, you're (and I'm not singling you out, nor am I verbally spanking - I'm just stating a fact) telling them they are either lying or their minds/ears are playing tricks on them. Wouldn't it follow that a defense posture would ensue?

The text you have quoted did not say that..

John

[skeptic]

If they had a vested financial interest in selling these products, I would suggest that they are lying. However, as I have concluded that most of the people who post here are hobbyists and do not have a financial interest in these wires but possibly an emotional investment in them, I am saying that neither we nor they know whether what they are hearing is real or imagined. And some of us will not take it on blind faith because of that emotional investment. The anti DBT policy statement at Cable Asylum, the only statement I ever read there that I agree with, says that DBTs are the only way to demonstrate scientifically whether or not such audible differences actually exist or are imagined. The crude comparisons which hobbyists make, even if they are sincere, are totally unconvincing to me and apparantly to a lot of other people as well. It is very easy to be tricked, fooled, draw the wrong conclusions when the only evidence you have to go on is someone's testimonial. Those who are trained to question so called proof in order to satisfy themselves of the validity of a claim, cannot accept just that no matter how many people make that claim or who those people are.

[pctower]

You are suggesting, nay, you're saying absolutely that the people are not hearing what they say they're hearing. In short, you're (and I'm not singling you out, nor am I verbally spanking - I'm just stating a fact) telling them they are either lying or their minds/ears are playing tricks on them. Wouldn't it follow that a defense posture would ensue?

I don't recall anyone ever accusing someone of lying about their experience. It's unfortunate that people believe they are somehow "defective" if their minds play tricks on them. I readily admit my mind may be playing tricks on me as to my 30 plus years of personal experience with high end audio. But so what ? I have a human brain that it subject to the influence of bias. For me, I don't care about that. All I care about is the enjoyment I derive from the system I have assembled using my own scientifically flawed approach.

I think the problem often boils down to lack of common courtesy. It seems to me that if people simply want to share their personal experiences with one another they should be left alone to do that. On the other hand, if they start making claims, they become fair game. But even then, there are offensive ways to challenge those claims and there are tactful, respectful ways to lodge what I would consider legitimate claims.

[pctower]

Well, that would be true unless you are posting on a board solely devoted to talking about people's personal experience, wether real or imagined, with flying saucers. Then their existance is assumed to be a given, no further proof needed. And, to question that would be bad manners.

That would be analogous to openly proclaiming God doesn't exist in a church. And, like that flying saucer analogy, religion is a personal decision arrived on by experiences based on ones perceptions, not scientific reasoning. Likewise, that's fine for that one person to believe but for them to adamantly try to claim it a the only truth and push it down someone else's throat is another story.

This isn't a church. In spite of what some would wish for, this is an open forum. Nothing is a given here. As in the case of religion, unless one chooses to believe, no science in the world can "prove" the existence of God to one who isn't open to that idea.

In spite of that, many (myself included) believe in God, but that's based on my personal experiences. I cannot "force " these on you. If you were to ask me to "prove" he exists in a scientific manner, then I'm at a loss. I can share my experiences with you, but when asked for other proof, I'd have to say I'm at a loss. It's all in faith.

If, after admitting there is no scientific proof, I were to continue to try to force God on you, I would be considered a crazy fanatic. That line is crossed when I fall back on the old "Can't you see??" mantras. We could argue all day and I could still not provide real proof for my case. But, then again, you could not prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God doesn't exist either. But, then again, it's not your place to try prove to me that God doesn't exist. If you were so minded, you would (and should) demand proof from me that He does exist.

There are some high minded that would like to have us believe that unless one shares their faith, they are not seeing reality. Generally, they tend to congegrate in packs and glad hand each other, while ignoring the fact that, in the real world, they don't have a leg to stand on. Generally, these types are hapier in a commune with their own kind but occasionally fo out into the worls en masse and they, though strength of sheer numbers, try to force their faith on the unwary.

Witness the Crusades, the Spanish Inqusition and, more recently, the Islamic state trying to expand it's borders.

Cables aren't a faith based religion, are they? Don't they have a basis in earthly science?

Audiable cable differences between the same gauge, construction and length cables is another story. There, I would like a little more proof. I've seen measurable differences but to compare these to audiable differences is another matter. There are ways to determine this but nobody seems to want to prove these measured differences are audiable.

Some feel their own personal perception of something is sufficient proof it exists. Well, to them it does. It's just as real to them as the flying saucer sightings are to those that believe. But, others with a more pragmatic view might see otherwise. That fact seems lost on some who are so intent on "forcing" their belief on others that the lack of proof means nothing to them. Yelling, screaming, mocking and putting down of the proof demanding skeptics is the order of the day. That doesn't make up for a lack of proof of their existance, though.

Likewise, demanding proof frm non-believers that they don't exist is a common tactic. That assumes they exist, which hasn't been proven to begin with!

Preception is real in the eyes of the beholder. Reality is real to everyone, except perhaps in The Matrix.


Well said.

[rb122]

The text you have quoted did not say that..

John

No, it didn't. Skeptic wondered why people feel that they are personally being attacked when it's only their beliefs that are questioned. I was attempting to point out that they feel that way because of the general consensus on this board that those with cable sonics beliefs are hearing things.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am totally amazed when I come here to read some of the really passionate, inflammatory, and often very bated language coming from posters here(Mtry does have a way of bringing that out of you) However, I agree with Dr. Toole on this one, there is FAR more going on in your room than through those wires. It seem pretty silly to me to see people ingaging so vehemently over a subject that would account for about 1-2 percent of the total sum of things. When I went to college we called that majoring in minors.

These discussion IMO would have far more credibility especially amoung the yeasayers if I knew that 100% of the acoustical problems in their rooms were conquered before they made any claim to hearing the differences between cables. Without proof positive of this, then I cannot go along with the yeasayers.

Experience has taught me that the average listening room has room related resonances that are between 4-20db loud, do you really think that you can hear cable differences over that?

I also know that most audiophiles pay more attention to their equipment than to the room it sits in, so this camp leaves me with some doubts about their claims.

It seems to me that they should close this forum, and open up one on room acoustics. Its far more important than what goes between components, and from amps to speakers.

[rb122]

I think the problem often boils down to lack of common courtesy. It seems to me that if people simply want to share their personal experiences with one another they should be left alone to do that. On the other hand, if they start making claims, they become fair game. But even then, there are offensive ways to challenge those claims and there are tactful, respectful ways to lodge what I would consider legitimate claims.

If I were to share with you my experiences with the sound of different cables, I am, in effect, making a claim.

I agree that some posters are less civil than others, either overall or on occasion. But I see that from both sides. Passion runs high and therefore so do tempers.

As it happens, I think you have the right idea. Your system should make the music listening experience more enjoyable for you, regardless of how your posts make others feel.

[rb122]

Those who are trained to question so called proof in order to satisfy themselves of the validity of a claim, cannot accept just that no matter how many people make that claim or who those people are.

Agreed. But those who swear by different cables are just as comfortable with their protocol as you are with yours.

Who is the poster who signs off his post with a disclaimer that says his opinions are just that and are not intended to make claims but only state his experience, however flawed it may be? Does such language make his posts less offensive to the scientific mind? PCTower brought this up - where does simple experience sharing end and claims begin? At what point does it become necessary for the naysayers to respond with their customary tales of caution? I'd be curious to hear your views and those of folks such as Mtrycrafts and gang.

[Bobby Blacklight]

I have been in and out if this forum for a couple of years now and for the most part the group just keeps rehashing the same debates over and over. You get some newbies from time to time but the core members of the group set the tone of the board and what side of the debate is supported. If we don't like what we read here we have no one to blame but ourselves. You cannot challenge a persons perceptions" reality" any more than you can hear through there ears. What's real for them is what counts.

The whole idea with DBT is to remove bias. The bias is part of a persons "reality". So you are trying to use or come up with a scientific method to alter a persons "reality" by removing part of it? Now you can make an argument that by doing so you enable them to "hear" the truth but without your biases and life experinence you are not yourself. None of us listen with blindfolds on. So for a guy coming home to listen to his rig after a hard day at work do you think any of this stuff really matters??

[E-Stat]

But you have to admit that the science behind their comments is compelling at the least. Does that ever make you question your experiences?
All tests, be they for audio cables, tires, washing machines...whatever are valid for that which they test. It is inherently unscientific to take specific results and extrapolate them to a completely different sample. All of the "reported findings" using DBTs on this board deal with mid-fi equipment and usually just comparing one size zip to another.

Dialtones like mtry then pop back with "prove that the quality of the audio gear used in the tests makes a difference" line. Think about what he is really saying. "Prove that OUR assumption (devoid of facts) that such tests are also equally valid for equipment not included in the test sample" is not correct. Isn't that bizarre? Prove that our assumption is incorrect. LOL!!! Certainly such a position is anything but scientific. It merely represents his belief. "Only we who carry the mantle of science are free to make any number of completely unsubstantiated assumptions." Then the party line follows the "if the cable makers think their product makes a difference, they why don't they prove it?". Well, I've already answered that question before and not gotten a single compelling answer.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=18771&postcount=53

Well, Skeptic says that AR used to do that thirty and forty years ago. Why don't they or anyone else on the planet do so today? Skeptic then blames it on audiophiles. He says that now that audiophiles "failed to embrace" AR, that company has fallen from grace and no longer produces state-of-the-art gear. And since they were the ONLY ones EVER to design their equipment around accurate musical results, then the audio world has never been the same. ALL AUDIO COMPANIES TODAY just follow the fads and go for the colorations that some folks like. Come on, isn't that a tad bit paranoid? Accuracy alone , BTW, does not automatically imply inherently musical. That is far too much of a simplification.

So what proof is there applies to what it applies. No more. If there are no differences to be found under any situation, then show me a test where someone is comparing Nordost Valhalla to zip on a $100,000 system and you will then have something to say. Otherwise, enjoy your theories, extrapolations, and lack of direct experience on the matter. We who do have experience (and not delusions, my ditch digger friend from Monterey) are the benefactors.

rw

[okiemax]

You said: "Some feel their own personal perception of something is sufficient proof it exists. Well, to them it does. It's just as real to them as the flying saucer sightings are to those that believe. But, others with a more pragmatic view might see otherwise. That fact seems lost on some who are so intent on "forcing" their belief on others that the lack of proof means nothing to them. Yelling, screaming, mocking and putting down of the proof demanding skeptics is the order of the day. That doesn't make up for a lack of proof of their existance, though."

You must have found some cable yeasayer posts on this forum that I can't find. I don't see any "I hear a difference, you got to too" posts. Nor do I find any "if you don't hear a difference, you are wrong" posts. Can you point out some of these yeasayer missionaries to me? I doubt you will find many. You will have no trouble, however, finding naysayers who are trying to get others to think like them. Some form of "I don't think you really heard it, so prove it" reply is almost guaranteed to follow anyone's report of a positive experience with an audiophile cable. It's plain to see that the forum members who are "intent on forcing thier beliefs on others" are the naysayers, not the yeaesayers.

[skeptic]

"If I were to share with you my experiences with the sound of different cables, I am, in effect, making a claim."

If you claimed that your car got 70 miles to the gallon and accelerated from zero to sixty miles an hour in 5.5 seconds we could see what the manufacturer claimed and what any one of several independent testers had found and published. But even if we hadn't, we could point out that on the face of it this would seem impossible since the engine came out of a lawn tractor and the body was salvage of a Sherman tank. If we asked you how you know and you told us, well I floored it and by the time it felt like I was going sixty miles an hour I hadn't counted to six yet and it seemed like I went 70 miles before my one gallon gas tank ran dry, we could all have a good laugh. To some of us, that's the situation we have with these wire claims.

"I agree that some posters are less civil than others, either overall or on occasion. But I see that from both sides. Passion runs high and therefore so do tempers.'

It seems crazy to get all worked up over something as ludicrous as a Sherman tank with a lawnmower engine and just as crazy to get worked up over these wires, but if people want to continue to come here and make their preposterous claims without any meaningful substantiation, they will get zinged and if that riles them up, well they've got a problem much worse than audio equipment.

[Rockwell]

You must have found some cable yeasayer posts on this forum that I can't find. I don't see any "I hear a difference, you got to too" posts. Nor do I find any "if you don't hear a difference, you are wrong" posts. Can you point out some of these yeasayer missionaries to me? I doubt you will find many. You will have no trouble, however, finding naysayers who are trying to get others to think like them. Some form of "I don't think you really heard it, so prove it" reply is almost guaranteed to follow anyone's report of a positive experience with an audiophile cable. It's plain to see that the forum members who are "intent on forcing thier beliefs on others" are the naysayers, not the yeaesayers.

Not recently, but years ago, this board really was a battlefield. It was not uncommon to read things like that. Most of the more unreasonable subjectivist have retreated to AA, I think.

[skeptic]

I think that this statement was made by one of the so called subjectivists themselves warning that when he and a few others left, there would be nobody on that side of the "debate" to argue with. More than one person posting here predicted the death of this board. I must admit that if I was busier, I might get bored enough so that PC Tower would be rid of me once and for all. But I still have enough idle time on my hands to give him an occasional zinger or two. Especially when he really needs one.

[Richard Greene]

Terrence the Terrible sez:
"I am totally amazed when I come here to read some of the really passionate, inflammatory, and often very bated language coming from posters here(Mtry does have a way of bringing that out of you) However, I agree with Dr. Toole on this one, there is FAR more going on in your room than through those wires. It seem pretty silly to me to see people ingaging so vehemently over a subject that would account for about 1-2 percent of the total sum of things. When I went to college we called that majoring in minors."

RG:
The point in arguing about wires, and baiting the "WireNuts", is that whether you're right or wrong would make little difference to the overall sound quality. The whole point is to argue bitterly about the least important link in the audio system (according to us WirePolice, although most WireNuts claim differences among wires are so H*U*G*E even their wives could hear the difference while still in their cars coming up the driveway) and completely ignore the most important variable -- the listening room --- because fixing a room requires knowledge, measurements and tools whose application is not that simple
for those without experience ... and even after everything is just right the wife will see the acoustics treatments and go berserk threatening divorce if they are not removed and taken to the village garbage dump immediately. Wires are easy -- you just read some review, believe it, buy them, and then post on the internet how G*R*E*A*T they are "Why now, with my new Unobtanium Deluxe Ultra Ultra Diamond Ruby Cables, Barry Manilow sounds E*X*A*C*T*L*Y like Frank Sinatra on my rig ! ... EXACTLY ! ... Just ask my wife"

R. BassNut Greene
Funding for this post provided by The WirePolice Foundation, curing WireNuts,
one not at a time.

[okiemax]

"If I were to share with you my experiences with the sound of different cables, I am, in effect, making a claim."

If you claimed that your car got 70 miles to the gallon and accelerated from zero to sixty miles an hour in 5.5 seconds we could see what the manufacturer claimed and what any one of several independent testers had found and published. But even if we hadn't, we could point out that on the face of it this would seem impossible since the engine came out of a lawn tractor and the body was salvage of a Sherman tank. If we asked you how you know and you told us, well I floored it and by the time it felt like I was going sixty miles an hour I hadn't counted to six yet and it seemed like I went 70 miles before my one gallon gas tank ran dry, we could all have a good laugh. To some of us, that's the situation we have with these wire claims.

"I agree that some posters are less civil than others, either overall or on occasion. But I see that from both sides. Passion runs high and therefore so do tempers.'

It seems crazy to get all worked up over something as ludicrous as a Sherman tank with a lawnmower engine and just as crazy to get worked up over these wires, but if people want to continue to come here and make their preposterous claims without any meaningful substantiation, they will get zinged and if that riles them up, well they've got a problem much worse than audio equipment.

If a claim is patently preposterous (as in your Sherman tank analogy), I don't understand why you feel it is necessary to point out the obvious. Can't others see this without help from you? Nor do I understand why you have a need to label claims of subjective experiences as presposterous just because they haven't been tested in a controlled experiment. Are you trying to protect people from themselves?

[pctower]

All tests, be they for audio cables, tires, washing machines...whatever are valid for that which they test. It is inherently unscientific to take specific results and extrapolate them to a completely different sample. All of the "reported findings" using DBTs on this board deal with mid-fi equipment and usually just comparing one size zip to another.

Dialtones like mtry then pop back with "prove that the quality of the audio gear used in the tests makes a difference" line. Think about what he is really saying. "Prove that OUR assumption (devoid of facts) that such tests are also equally valid for equipment not included in the test sample" is not correct. Isn't that bizarre? Prove that our assumption is incorrect. LOL!!! Certainly such a position is anything but scientific. It merely represents his belief. "Only we who carry the mantle of science are free to make any number of completely unsubstantiated assumptions." Then the party line follows the "if the cable makers think their product makes a difference, they why don't they prove it?". Well, I've already answered that question before and not gotten a single compelling answer.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=18771&postcount=53

Well, Skeptic says that AR used to do that thirty and forty years ago. Why don't they or anyone else on the planet do so today? Skeptic then blames it on audiophiles. He says that now that audiophiles "failed to embrace" AR, that company has fallen from grace and no longer produces state-of-the-art gear. And since they were the ONLY ones EVER to design their equipment around accurate musical results, then the audio world has never been the same. ALL AUDIO COMPANIES TODAY just follow the fads and go for the colorations that some folks like. Come on, isn't that a tad bit paranoid? Accuracy alone , BTW, does not automatically imply inherently musical. That is far too much of a simplification.

So what proof is there applies to what it applies. No more. If there are no differences to be found under any situation, then show me a test where someone is comparing Nordost Valhalla to zip on a $100,000 system and you will then have something to say. Otherwise, enjoy your theories, extrapolations, and lack of direct experience on the matter. We who do have experience (and not delusions, my ditch digger friend from Monterey) are the benefactors.

rw

Dialtones like mtry then pop back with "prove that the quality of the audio gear used in the tests makes a difference" line. Think about what he is really saying. "Prove that OUR assumption (devoid of facts) that such tests are also equally valid for equipment not included in the test sample" is not correct. Isn't that bizarre? Prove that our assumption is incorrect. LOL!!! Certainly such a position is anything but scientific. It merely represents his belief. "Only we who carry the mantle of science are free to make any number of completely unsubstantiated assumptions."

You've really gone to some of the key nuances that drive the fierceness of the debate. Mtry has never actuall said what you quoted. But the type of advice he gives newcomers would have to lead most thinking men, I believe, to conclude that in essence he is saying what you have in quotes.

However, because he has never said that in the express words you quote, it permits his defenders like Pat D. to play games by arguing that mtry and others don't actually make the claim you have in quote, when in fact that is exactly what they are claiming.

The problem is even worse, because not only are the tests they cite not applicable to any other equipment, listeners, listening room, etc, the protocol for the actual equipment under test is generally quite flawed in these tests.

So the beat goes on.

[skeptic]

Why do people feel the need to post here and make the claims for cables in the first place? They could just as easily keep THEIR opinions to themselves as well. People like to post on BBs. Besides, what's obvious to me is not necessarily obvious to someone else. Especially a newbie who gets bombarded by endless ad copy, sales pitches in retails stores, and some more of the same on some internets sites. So it's nice to have a balance of opinions. At this site for the moment, the balance may be in favor of those who don't believe that these cables are of any value. At other times, the preponderance of opinions was in the other direction or at least that's how it seemed to me. I don't consider this one of life's major issues. And I usually don't insult people unless they insult me first. But if they do, they may get it back in spades.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Terrence the Terrible sez:
"I am totally amazed when I come here to read some of the really passionate, inflammatory, and often very bated language coming from posters here(Mtry does have a way of bringing that out of you) However, I agree with Dr. Toole on this one, there is FAR more going on in your room than through those wires. It seem pretty silly to me to see people ingaging so vehemently over a subject that would account for about 1-2 percent of the total sum of things. When I went to college we called that majoring in minors."

RG:
The point in arguing about wires, and baiting the "WireNuts", is that whether you're right or wrong would make little difference to the overall sound quality. The whole point is to argue bitterly about the least important link in the audio system (according to us WirePolice, although most WireNuts claim differences among wires are so H*U*G*E even their wives could hear the difference while still in their cars coming up the driveway) and completely ignore the most important variable -- the listening room --- because fixing a room requires knowledge, measurements and tools whose application is not that simple
for those without experience ... and even after everything is just right the wife will see the acoustics treatments and go berserk threatening divorce if they are not removed and taken to the village garbage dump immediately. Wires are easy -- you just read some review, believe it, buy them, and then post on the internet how G*R*E*A*T they are "Why now, with my new Unobtanium Deluxe Ultra Ultra Diamond Ruby Cables, Barry Manilow sounds E*X*A*C*T*L*Y like Frank Sinatra on my rig ! ... EXACTLY ! ... Just ask my wife"

R. BassNut Greene
Funding for this post provided by The WirePolice Foundation, curing WireNuts,
one not at a time.

Doc,

Just as sure as I am a brown skin, green eyed, bald headed, muscled jock rican from New York city, these guys are going to skip over these comments and continue to bicker amoungst themselves about a piece of wire. I am begining to believe this is more about who's piss contains more testosterone than it is about wire itself.

Were can I donate to the Wirepolice foundation? I would like to give them my whole paycheck. They got alotta work to do.

[markw]

All it takes is a little prick to destroy it.

[E-Stat]

You've really gone to some of the key nuances that drive the fierceness of the debate. Mtry has never actuall said what you quoted.
In response to an earlier observation concerning the utter lack of any compelling test, here was his response:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=18240&postcount=29

"Hey, I don't have to have a single citation. You still have the burden of demonstration for differences. Rather simple science. "

So, he is saying, "I don't have to prove my assumption. You still have the burden of proving my assumption wrong. "

Indeed simple science for simpletons.


rw

[E-Stat]

Why do people feel the need to post here and make the claims for cables in the first place? They could just as easily keep THEIR opinions to themselves as well.
In case you haven't noticed, many posters ask for advice. Here are some recent examples, in all of which you decided to post:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=2858

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=1990

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=1738

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=1518

What is your reason?

rw

[skeptic]

I look for every opportunity to correct your mistakes. I have great hopes that you will someday learn something from your exchanges here just as PCTower did. His views are very different now than they were when he first started posting on this BB and I expect you too will gain from reading opinions that don't agree with your preconceived notions too. I consider it missionary work. I'm sure others like Woodman, Mtrycraft, Monstrous Mike, Bruce and other with experience and advanced knowledge do too. I'm merely giving back to society in gratitude for having had the opportunity to learn so much.

While you may find this hard to understand, so did PCTower at first and for a long time. But with persistance, he has gained a lot and I think you eventually will too.

[E-Stat]

I'm merely giving back to society in gratitude for having had the opportunity to learn so much.
We share that in common. May you share the good fortune of hearing some of the systems I've heard one day, despite your particular set of preconceived notions.


rw

[pctower]

I look for every opportunity to correct your mistakes. I have great hopes that you will someday learn something from your exchanges here just as PCTower did. His views are very different now than they were when he first started posting on this BB and I expect you too will gain from reading opinions that don't agree with your preconceived notions too. I consider it missionary work. I'm sure others like Woodman, Mtrycraft, Monstrous Mike, Bruce and other with experience and advanced knowledge do too. I'm merely giving back to society in gratitude for having had the opportunity to learn so much.

While you may find this hard to understand, so did PCTower at first and for a long time. But with persistance, he has gained a lot and I think you eventually will too.

Beleive it or not, I think I've probably learned more from you than just about anyone. You are very good at taking the time to explain technical issues in terms that lay people can understand.

[mtrycraft]

It is the feeling by some that science has fully quantifiied absolutely every single aspect of the musical experience. Any differences between various audio components is simply due to easily corrected frequency differences. Redbook CD really is perfect and the higher resolution standards are there simply for marketing purposes. There have been no real improvements in the reproduction chain for over twenty years, so now companies are just playing musical preferences.
rw

What absolute nonsense.

[mtrycraft]

Funding for this post provided by The WirePolice Foundation, curing WireNuts,
one not at a time.
Did my annual donation arrive in time? :D

[DMK]

[
Well, Skeptic says that AR used to do that thirty and forty years ago. Why don't they or anyone else on the planet do so today? Skeptic then blames it on audiophiles. He says that now that audiophiles "failed to embrace" AR, that company has fallen from grace and no longer produces state-of-the-art gear. And since they were the ONLY ones EVER to design their equipment around accurate musical results, then the audio world has never been the same. rw

I wish I could find his posts where he writes that his system is 0% of the way to accurately reproducing live music in his home. The people that tested those AR's and couldn't tell them from live music years ago must have been deaf! In fact, I've discouraged people from buying used AR-9's because of Skeptic's obvious disappointment in them. He must have been taken in by the hype. My system may only fool me into believing I'm hearing live music 15% of the time but that's a lot more than 0%! I've suggested that he buy better speakers, some tubed gear and more vinyl but that "accuracy" is 0% enjoyable for him so I've run out of suggestions.

[skeptic]

There you go twisting my words around DMK. You credit me with saying things I didn't say and distorting the things that I did. I bought those AR9s on an impulse after a crazy car accident where I hit a huge tire that disintegrated off a semi on an interstate and came flying at me. They were demos and I paid $500 for the pair. Hard to resist that kind of bargain especially when I was still kicking myself for passing up the MX110B for $75 from the authorized repair center when I had the opportunity. I actually did not like these speakers until I tweaked them myself.

What I said about Acoustic Research is that they were among the few companies that ever tried a live versus recorded demo in public and probably the only ones who ran them successfully. I presented you with a link to a discussion on another BB where people who participated in it discussed it in detail and even gave an account of the article they wrote for the Boston chaper of the Audio Engineering Society.

As for zero percent, I stick with what I said but since you have forgotten it, I'll remind you of the gist of it. When I was very young, I had the opportunity to hear all of the practice sessions and concerts of an amature orchestra called The Queens College Orchestral Society since many friends and a few relatives played in it. I was struck by the enormous difference between the sound of the instruments and the orchestra in the practice room in the basement and in the concert hall at dress rehearsals and in the concerts themselves. The difference was of course the acoustic which as Dr. Bose told us (if you don't believe one other word he ever wrote or said, you can take this one to the bank) the overwhelming majority of sound we hear at a live concert is due to acoustics of the hall. What I said is that the current state of the art of sound recording and reproduction is still so primitive that it doesn't even understand let alone know how to reproduce the effects of acoustics of a live concert. Therefore on a scale of zero to a hundred where zero represents virtually anyone with normal hearing being able to identify instantly that they are listening to a recording played by a machine in their home and not a live performance in a concert hall and one hundred being where even the most experienced concert goers would be fooled most of the time, the best our technology can produce today is the same as it was a hundred years ago just after recording technology was invented and that is a score of zero. I'll stick with that because I am convinced more than ever that it is true. That does not mean that the timbre of individual instruments cannot be duplicated by audio equipment under highly contrived circumstances when compared in the same venue as the live instruments.

[E-Stat]

I wish I could find his posts where he writes that his system is 0% of the way to accurately reproducing live music in his home. The people that tested those AR's and couldn't tell them from live music years ago must have been deaf!
The search engine here is lacking in that it leads you to the entire thread, not the post in question. Here's one where he corrected my understanding of one of his earlier comments:

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=14019&postcount=30

Actually, the live testing was on the AR-3 and LST, not the newer AR-9 design. I was amused, however, at his comments that despite the flat on axis performance of the AR tweeter designs, he couldn't imagine using something other than his indirect firing variation. So the AR engineers were at once the brilliant designers of perfection for over two decades, yet hopelessly inept. Go figure.

rw

[DMK]

There you go twisting my words around DMK. You credit me with saying things I didn't say and distorting the things that I did. .

I was indeed pulling your chain! Sorry, but it WAS sorta fun! Since you mentioned taking Dr Bose' comment "to the bank", the next thing I'll probably say is that you're a huge fan of Bose! ;)

Seriously though, are you saying that ALL the live music you hear is in a large concert hall? No string quartets in an intimate setting? No jazz in a small club? With those venues as a reference point, my system does pretty fair in fooling me into believing I'm hearing live music at times.

Also, you can't have it both ways. Are the AR's 0% convincing as they are in your system or are they convincing enough to fool a bunch of musicians many years ago? You made your case on one side but what happened to fool those other people? Ok, as E-Stat said, it's two different models of speakers but what gives?

[skeptic]

The AR engineers were at least aware that not only was on axis frequency response important but that the frequency response of the total radiated energy was also important, something most other manufacturers still haven't figured out yet. But Peter Snell said when I met him that the frequency response at the listener was the really important factor. This lead me to consider that they engineers at AR hadn't gone quite far enough and that it was improtant for the early reflections over time to all have a reasonably flat response. When taking polar radiating patterns into consideration, the shortcoming of the direct firing systems at high frequencies becomes obvious. That is why so many music lovers buy loudspeakers which in one way or another fire high frequencies indirectly as well as directly. They may not know why they sound better but they do know it. These examples include most electrostatics, bipolar and omnipolar designs like Mirage, top of the line speakers from Snell, Vandersteen, Revel, among many others with indirect firing tweeters and of course, JBL paragon. Speakers which fire directly but with both off axis and on axis tweeters are also numerous form AR-LST to Mcintosh towers, Infinity IRS to old large Bozak systems. Every one of the designers of those systems knew that he could not get the sound he wanted for his best offering from a single direct firing tweeter.

[skeptic]

I have written about the plusses and minuses of Bose 901 extensively. It is a speaker I am very familiar with in its best incarnation, the original version. Suffice it to say that I simply accept it as an alternative product to the more conventional designs which never reached its full potential and is almost universally unsatisfactory to audiophiles. However, it has another market which likes it and pays the high asking price for it. It has attributes which apparantly appeal to many people who are not audiophiles.

It was interesting to hear the live versus recorded demos. The first one I heard with an AR3 sitting next to a guitarist, the speaker sounded barely perceptably brighter than the guitar but was otherwise indistinguishable to me. I was sitting just about directly on axis. I cannot tell whether or not things would have been different had I been sitting off axis but I suppose it would have. The live recorded demo against a restored Seeburg Nickelodeon was even more convincing. In this case the speakers were on the floor as I recall next to the nickelodeon on either side. It should be noted that the radiating pattern of direct firing loudspeakers in not similar to most musical instruments. The human voice may be an exception because most sibilant and explosive parts of speech which contain high frequencies are probably directed mostly forward. This is why it is hard to distinguish words clearly when someone is talking while facing away from you.

When the venue is small, the chances of a convincing duplication of a sound in a home is much greater than when it is large because the acoustics are more similar. What I am saying is this. While it was possible to recreate the sound of the guitarist in the hotel suite with an echoless recording played back with a carefully adjusted sound system right next to the guitarist, the sound I heard coming from Andre Segovia's guitar when he gave his concert at Carnegie Hall in the sixties cannot be duplicated in a home by any technology we have today. Are acoustics important in the enjoyment of music? That's not just my opinion but the opinion of virtually every music director and conductor in the world. And it's also the opinion of the most respected acousticians in the world like Leo Baranek of BBN, America's largest acoustical consulting firm. Want to learn what it's really about? Click on this web site, scroll down to "listen to this program, real audio" and get it straight from the world's leading acoustics experts. It's one of several lectures on acoustics which explains why it is so important in the enjoyment of music.

[rb122]

. If there are no differences to be found under any situation, then show me a test where someone is comparing Nordost Valhalla to zip on a $100,000 system and you will then have something to say. rw

Therein lies, if not the problem, then the lack of a solution. If bias is a factor in comparing audio components, it works for AND against. A diehard naysayer could likely take such a test and find nothing. That shouldn't satisfy you. Only if someone you know as a cable enthusiast (yourself, for example) takes the test will you lean toward believing the results. You or someone with your experience and like-mindedness could go a long way towards shutting the naysayers up for good. Do you see such a test occurring?

[E-Stat]

A diehard naysayer could likely take such a test and find nothing.
I was thinking more of a sample of listeners.


Only if someone you know as a cable enthusiast (yourself, for example) takes the test will you lean toward believing the results.
I really don't consider myself a cable enthusiast. Since moving the zip cord to the HT system many years back, I have used only two different kinds of speaker cable and I don't anticipate the need to change anytime soon. I maintain they are but the icing to an already good cake.


Do you see such a test occurring?
Certainly not. Those who claim no differences would never do it. Those who would couldn't care less. As is the case with virtually ever single audio company on the planet since none use such testing for any promotional purposes (at least in this century or for the past twenty years)

rw

[E-Stat]

Are acoustics important in the enjoyment of music?
Naturally. I have spent a fair amount of time and effort to improve the acoustics of my dedicated listening room to that end. Whether the source of the sound is a number of musicians or a set of speakers, the acoustics of a large venue play a significant part in the overall experience. I find that the best systems are able to better reproduce a number of spatial cues that are found in a quite a few acoustical instrument recordings. It can be spooky to very clearly hear hall boundaries that sound significantly larger than the room in which they are played, sans any artificial signal processing.

rw

[skeptic]

What little effect the acoustics of a live performance in a concert hall gets into any recording is hardly reproduced in anything like the way you experience it live.

Most of what you hear live is reverberation. In my experimentation with acoustics and electronic simulation of acoustics, I have given a great deal of thought about why concert hall acoustics improve the sound of music. Here are some of the conclusions I have reached so far.

Because reverberation falls off more rapidly at high frequencies the tone of musical instruments is mellower but still retains the sharp transient attack that gives it clarity. Clearer and mellower at the same time is a seeming contradicton to someone whose experience is limited to the reproduction of sound with today's technology but that is the enhancement to tonality you get from a concert hall.

Because the reverberant components are associated in your brain with the direct wave, and because the total energy of the sound of each musical note by each instrument is the area under a curve, not the initial amplitude of the sound, the perceived power of musical instruments as opposed to their loudness is very different. A pipe organ playing softly filling the acoustical space of a large church seems much more powerful to our brain than a recording of the same organ minus the reverberation played through a speaker at the same loudness or even at greater loudness at home. The ability of a great tenor to fill up the acoustical space of an opera house without amplification really separates the men from the boys when it comes to the quality of the human voice. The power of a symphony orchestra is totally lost in a recording where there is little or none of the reverberaton you'd hear at a live performance. Perhaps this is why audiophiles tend to play their sound systems so loud. It compensates for the relatively feeble power of the sound these instruments make at normal listening levels given the acoustics of home listening rooms.

The arrival of late reflections of one note at a live performance at the same time as the direct sound or early reflections of subsequent musical notes at the listener's ear creates harmonies and dissonances missing in recordings where the reverberation is minimal or absent.

Composer use reverberation and musicians adjust for acoustics of different spaces in the way they perform. One technique common in much serious music is the buildup to a crecendo often by a 100 piece orchestra, or a 300 voice chorus, or a pipe organ and then a sudden pause while the reverberation dies out. This period of time creates the tension and excitement of the next note which follows. Without this reverberation and dying out, the time interval where there is little or no sound becomes a musical discontinuity completely destroying the effect the composer and musicians were looking for.

There are many others but I think that this is sufficient to explain why IMO, the best state of the art sound systems today cannot even come close to reproducing what I consider the only music justifying the time, effort, and cost to develop the best technology to reproduce it. What you get instead is a pale facsimile which may explain why so few people like it. It also explains why IMO, the cost and effort to reproduce the last 5% of the 5% or 10% or 11% of the music that actually made it on to the recording is so rediculous. Meanwhile the other 90% or 95% of the music that is missing is ignored.

[bturk667]

I am being honest with myself! In my system, Nordost cables not only made a difference but a damn nice one. They are a valued piece to my audio puzzle!

[rb122]

Certainly not. Those who claim no differences would never do it. Those who would couldn't care less. As is the case with virtually ever single audio company on the planet since none use such testing for any promotional purposes (at least in this century or for the past twenty years) rw

Then the entire debate of cables is pointless as there is no workable solution as I see it.

[rb122]

I am being honest with myself! In my system, Nordost cables not only made a difference but a damn nice one. They are a valued piece to my audio puzzle!

That's great - I'm glad you're happy. I won't tell you you're imagining things and I won't tell you your perception is accurate. As Markw became the first "maysayer" to go along with the yeasayers and naysayers, I now proclaim myself the first "Playsayer"... as in just play music and don't worry. Or perhaps I'm an "Eitherwaysayer"... either way you prefer, science or listening. But to answer another of your posts on another board, I'm not a "counterweighsayer" in that I personally didn't try the Heavyweight counterweight for the Rega but I listened to it in another system and I didn't hear anything terribly worthwhile with the upgrade - nothing worth the $$$.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What little effect the acoustics of a live performance in a concert hall gets into any recording is hardly reproduced in anything like the way you experience it live..

I hope this is not a global statement, and one specific to a particular recording or this statement is not sound. We hear binaurally. If you record binaurally you will experience the acoustics of the concert hall with a great deal of accuracy. If you record in 5.1, then it depends highly on how many microphones are used, there placement, and how well the mix is done.


Because reverberation falls off more rapidly at high frequencies the tone of musical instruments is mellower but still retains the sharp transient attack that gives it clarity. Clearer and mellower at the same time is a seeming contradicton to someone whose experience is limited to the reproduction of sound with today's technology but that is the enhancement to tonality you get from a concert hall...

The first part of you paragraph is true and false. HIgh frequencies are effected by reverberation. The farther you are from the source, the more reverberation is heard, the more the high frequencies are rolled off. However, the more the high frequencies are rolled off, the more blunted the transient attack is, and the less clarity is heard. Clearer and mellower is a contradiction, and therefore is NOT what is heard. Since reverberation is a series of reflections that are heard after the original signal, the longer the reverberation time, the less clear the source will sound. That is why engineers do not place their primary pickup systems in the audience, but right on stage with the musicians.



Because the reverberant components are associated in your brain with the direct wave, and because the total energy of the sound of each musical note by each instrument is the area under a curve, not the initial amplitude of the sound, the perceived power of musical instruments as opposed to their loudness is very different. A pipe organ playing softly filling the acoustical space of a large church seems much more powerful to our brain than a recording of the same organ minus the reverberation played through a speaker at the same loudness or even at greater loudness at home.

Much of what you are saying here is jibberish, and the second part is totally incorrect. A organ recording minus its location reverberation entails placing the microphones CLOSER to the source. This will indeed make the source LOUDER and more POWERFUL to the ears. A organ playing softly with all of its location reverberation recorded will sound distant, and less powerful because much of the high frequency component will be rolled off, which alters the freuqncy response of the organ. If you replay the recording minus the reverberation through a speaker it will sound more powerful than the on location with the reverberation because the source is now in the near field(the speaker), closer, and the ear perceives it as louder(Haas precedent effect)


The ability of a great tenor to fill up the acoustical space of an opera house without amplification really separates the men from the boys when it comes to the quality of the human voice.

Not really sure where you are going with this, or how it relates to what you have typed before it. ???


The power of a symphony orchestra is totally lost in a recording where there is little or none of the reverberaton you'd hear at a live performance..

This is not true at all(where do these people get this stuff???) The frequency response and timbre will be different, but the amplitude will be percieved as louder because the microphones would have to be closer to the source to elimate the venue's reverberation. Reverberation does not add amplitude, nor is it equated to greater power. Reverberation becomes dominate the further you move from the source. As you travel farther from the source, the reverberation increases, but the amplitude of the direct signal decreases(which denotes a loss of power). When combined with the roll off of high frequencies, the source is percieve as losing MORE power.[\b]


Perhaps this is why audiophiles tend to play their sound systems so loud. It compensates for the relatively feeble power of the sound these instruments make at normal listening levels given the acoustics of home listening rooms...

[b]I am really scratching my bald head on this one. I think most audiophiles play their systems loud so they can hear inner detail over the background noises that are found in the typical house. If what you assert is true, then what they say about the mighty Klipschorn speakers is a lie. Since I have three of the speakers myself, I can attest that NOTHING that comes out of that speaker is feeble.


The arrival of late reflections of one note at a live performance at the same time as the direct sound or early reflections of subsequent musical notes at the listener's ear creates harmonies and dissonances missing in recordings where the reverberation is minimal or absent. .

All of this is wrong. Reflections do not create harmonies(harmonics?) or dissonances. These come from the instruments directly as a result of individual notes, or mulitple notes being played simultaneously. Reflections alter the timbre and frequency response of the direct signal.


Composer use reverberation and musicians adjust for acoustics of different spaces in the way they perform. One technique common in much serious music is the buildup to a crecendo often by a 100 piece orchestra, or a 300 voice chorus, or a pipe organ and then a sudden pause while the reverberation dies out. This period of time creates the tension and excitement of the next note which follows. .

There some problems with this statement. Different venues have different reverberation decay times. These times will be perceived differently by each perfomer based on where they are located in relationship to the walls of the venue. You would also have to distinguish between high frequency decay, and low frequency decay(which is
we3wqwsaqwriting in decay time into the pieces is a silly proposition at best. Too many variables to make it effective.



Without this reverberation and dying out, the time interval where there is little or no sound becomes a musical discontinuity completely destroying the effect the composer and musicians were looking for..

[b] Can you site



There are many others but I think that this is sufficient to explain why IMO, the best state of the art sound systems today cannot even come close to reproducing what I consider the only music justifying the time, effort, and cost to develop the best technology to reproduce it. What you get instead is a pale facsimile which may explain why so few people like it. It also explains why IMO, the cost and effort to reproduce the last 5% of the 5% or 10% or 11% of the music that actually made it on to the recording is so rediculous. Meanwhile the other 90% or 95% of the music that is missing is ignored.[/QUOTE]

[skeptic]

I have been experimenting with acoustics, simulaton of acoustics, and the implications of acoustics for over thirty years. Your response suggests that you have given these concepts about thirty seconds of thought. You have not understood one thing I have said and it is therefore pointless for me to discuss it further with you.

I will give you one last thought to think about. While it is true that a binaural recording superficially resembles what you hear live, there is one very drastic difference. The sound field at a live performance is a vector field. The sound you hear in a binaural recording is two scalar fields. And therein lies a world of difference. If you don't understand this, I cannot help you.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What little effect the acoustics of a live performance in a concert hall gets into any recording is hardly reproduced in anything like the way you experience it live..

I hope this is not a global statement, and one specific to a particular recording or this statement is not sound. We hear binaurally. If you record binaurally you will experience the acoustics of the concert hall with a great deal of accuracy. If you record in 5.1, then it depends highly on how many microphones are used, there placement, and how well the mix is done.


Because reverberation falls off more rapidly at high frequencies the tone of musical instruments is mellower but still retains the sharp transient attack that gives it clarity. Clearer and mellower at the same time is a seeming contradicton to someone whose experience is limited to the reproduction of sound with today's technology but that is the enhancement to tonality you get from a concert hall...

The first part of you paragraph is true and false. HIgh frequencies are effected by reverberation. The farther you are from the source, the more reverberation is heard, the more the high frequencies are rolled off. However, the more the high frequencies are rolled off, the more blunted the transient attack is, and the less clarity is heard. Clearer and mellower is a contradiction, and therefore is NOT what is heard. Since reverberation is a series of reflections that are heard after the original signal, the longer the reverberation time, the less clear the source will sound. That is why engineers do not place their primary pickup systems in the audience, but right on stage with the musicians.



Because the reverberant components are associated in your brain with the direct wave, and because the total energy of the sound of each musical note by each instrument is the area under a curve, not the initial amplitude of the sound, the perceived power of musical instruments as opposed to their loudness is very different. A pipe organ playing softly filling the acoustical space of a large church seems much more powerful to our brain than a recording of the same organ minus the reverberation played through a speaker at the same loudness or even at greater loudness at home.

Much of what you are saying here is jibberish, and the second part is totally incorrect. A organ recording minus its location reverberation entails placing the microphones CLOSER to the source. This will indeed make the source LOUDER and more POWERFUL to the ears. A organ playing softly with all of its location reverberation recorded will sound distant, and less powerful because much of the high frequency component will be rolled off, which alters the freuqncy response of the organ. If you replay the recording minus the reverberation through a speaker it will sound more powerful than the on location with the reverberation because the source is now in the near field(the speaker), closer, and the ear perceives it as louder(Haas precedent effect)


The ability of a great tenor to fill up the acoustical space of an opera house without amplification really separates the men from the boys when it comes to the quality of the human voice.

Not really sure where you are going with this, or how it relates to what you have typed before it. ???


The power of a symphony orchestra is totally lost in a recording where there is little or none of the reverberaton you'd hear at a live performance..

This is not true at all(where do these people get this stuff???) The frequency response and timbre will be different, but the amplitude will be percieved as louder because the microphones would have to be closer to the source to elimate the venue's reverberation. Reverberation does not add amplitude, nor is it equated to greater power. Reverberation becomes dominate the further you move from the source. As you travel farther from the source, the reverberation increases, but the amplitude of the direct signal decreases(which denotes a loss of power). When combined with the roll off of high frequencies, the source is percieve as losing MORE power.[\b]


Perhaps this is why audiophiles tend to play their sound systems so loud. It compensates for the relatively feeble power of the sound these instruments make at normal listening levels given the acoustics of home listening rooms...

[b]I am really scratching my bald head on this one. I think most audiophiles play their systems loud so they can hear inner detail over the background noises that are found in the typical house. If what you assert is true, then what they say about the mighty Klipschorn speakers is a lie. Since I have three of the speakers myself, I can attest that NOTHING that comes out of that speaker is feeble.


The arrival of late reflections of one note at a live performance at the same time as the direct sound or early reflections of subsequent musical notes at the listener's ear creates harmonies and dissonances missing in recordings where the reverberation is minimal or absent. .

All of this is wrong. Reflections do not create harmonies(harmonics?) or dissonances. These come from the instruments directly as a result of individual notes, or mulitple notes being played simultaneously. Reflections alter the timbre and frequency response of the direct signal.


Composer use reverberation and musicians adjust for acoustics of different spaces in the way they perform. One technique common in much serious music is the buildup to a crecendo often by a 100 piece orchestra, or a 300 voice chorus, or a pipe organ and then a sudden pause while the reverberation dies out. This period of time creates the tension and excitement of the next note which follows. .

There some problems with this statement. Different venues have different reverberation decay times. These times will be perceived differently by each perfomer based on where they are located in relationship to the walls of the venue. You would also have to distinguish between high frequency decay, and low frequency decay(which is
always longer) Composers know that writing in decay times into the piece is a silly proposition at best. Too many variables to make it effective.



Without this reverberation and dying out, the time interval where there is little or no sound becomes a musical discontinuity completely destroying the effect the composer and musicians were looking for..

Can you name a specific song or composer who writes reverberation decay into their score? I have been recording music and film scores for about 20 years, and quite frankly I have never heard of such a thing.




There are many others but I think that this is sufficient to explain why IMO, the best state of the art sound systems today cannot even come close to reproducing what I consider the only music justifying the time, effort, and cost to develop the best technology to reproduce it. What you get instead is a pale facsimile which may explain why so few people like it. It also explains why IMO, the cost and effort to reproduce the last 5% of the 5% or 10% or 11% of the music that actually made it on to the recording is so rediculous. Meanwhile the other 90% or 95% of the music that is missing is ignored.

Skeptic, what are you saying here?? I am dazed and confused buddy

[skeptic]

I've given you a lot of new ideas to think about. You won't find any of it in a book. These are original concepts. As difficult as it was to understand how to reconstruct reverberant sound fields, it was much harder to understand why to reconstruct them. Your flip response shows that you have not given any of it any real thought. Mull over it and come back in a few months. Perhaps a light or two will flicker on.

[Tony_Montana]

Doc,

Just as sure as I am a brown skin, green eyed, bald headed, muscled jock rican from New York city, these guys are going to skip over these comments and continue to bicker amoungst themselves about a piece of wire.

Well, I didn't skip over your comment and it is worth repeating. You said:"These discussion IMO would have far more credibility especially amoung the yeasayers if I knew that 100% of the acoustical problems in their rooms were conquered before they made any claim to hearing the differences between cables. Without proof positive of this, then I cannot go along with the yeasayers.

Experience has taught me that the average listening room has room related resonances that are between 4-20db loud, do you really think that you can hear cable differences over that?"

That just show how unimportant wires are when considering other aspects of HT setup :)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I've given you a lot of new ideas to think about. You won't find any of it in a book. These are original concepts. As difficult as it was to understand how to reconstruct reverberant sound fields, it was much harder to understand why to reconstruct them. Your flip response shows that you have not given any of it any real thought. Mull over it and come back in a few months. Perhaps a light or two will flicker on.

There are no new idea's here, just a bunch of senseless jibber that doesn't square with anything that has been researched or taught. If this was so cutting edge you wouldn't be sitting here typing about it, you would be out putting your ideas into action. Jack Renner, John Eargle, Shawn Murphy and every other great engineer would be out of business instantly.

Based on the fact that I was able to rebut all of this foolishness should show you that a no real thought is needed for this junk. You are just trying to sound well versed in a subject that apparently you have no knowledge of. The uneducated would probably be impressed at your long winded bunch of nonsense, but for those of us who have studied acoustics know hot air when we read it. Perhaps you should come back in a few months when the effects of the mushrooms you have consumed have worn off

[skeptic]

Then the one thing we can agree on is that we have nothing further to say to each other on this subject.

[E-Stat]

There are no new idea's here, just a bunch of senseless jibber that doesn't square with anything that has been researched or taught.
You just don't understand. You see, skep worked out all the physics and math thirty years ago.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=9586&postcount=17



If this was so cutting edge you wouldn't be sitting here typing about it, you would be out putting your ideas into action. Jack Renner, John Eargle, Shawn Murphy and every other great engineer would be out of business instantly.
Even though the magic was put before these mortal fools, none could possibly understand the genius behind the work.

rw

[mtrycraft]

I look for every opportunity to correct your mistakes. I have great hopes that you will someday learn something from your exchanges here just as PCTower did. His views are very different now than they were when he first started posting on this BB and I expect you too will gain from reading opinions that don't agree with your preconceived notions too. I consider it missionary work. I'm sure others like Woodman, Mtrycraft, Monstrous Mike, Bruce and other with experience and advanced knowledge do too. I'm merely giving back to society in gratitude for having had the opportunity to learn so much.
While you may find this hard to understand, so did PCTower at first and for a long time. But with persistance, he has gained a lot and I think you eventually will too.


You are expecting the impossibility. PCTower wanted to expand his knowledge base, to lear. Estat knows it all already.

[Richard Greene]

Someone wrote, and I don't even remember who at this point:
"What little effect the acoustics of a live performance in a concert hall gets into any recording is hardly reproduced in anything like the way you experience it live."

RG
In the old days the seats I could afford for a live performance were so far back the sound was pure mono by the time it reached my ears ... but with today's ultra-high ticket prices, we're forced to sit so far away "in the bleachers" that the performance is just a rumor -- the sound never reaches us at all.

Heard Aretha Franklin live a few weeks ago with her excellent band -- TT would have fit in
perfectly on B3

Will hear Al Green live this Sunday night.

There's no doubt I can't reproduce the sound I hear in the Detroit Music Hall at home,
however I can reproduce Aretha and Al in their prime (1960's and 1970's, respectively)
at home simply by playing my Rhino and DCC Gold CD's ... and listening to whatever reverberation the recording engineer put in the recording + whatever my room adds.

So what if it doesn't exactly sound like the Music Hall on my two-channel system?

I'll still enjoy the music and the wife will be dancing in the living room ... however if the
wife starts "singing" I'll have to put her outside until the song is over.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Then the one thing we can agree on is that we have nothing further to say to each other on this subject.

My guess here is that you have nothing further to offer. I am surprised, with such pure genious at work, you would think you could fully explain these cutting edge ideas you have and enlighten us mere mortals. Most "pioneers" in their field would be eager to explain how they have arrived at their conclusions, why are you so reluctant? Come on Skeptic, share your info.

Doc,
I am green with envy. But do you have to keep sticking your thumb in my eye about all of these great concerts you attend? Geez!!!

[skeptic]

I will give you just one thought to dwell on. Since this is new to you, give it some time. I don't think you will find it in any book. This has to do with perceptions, not measurements.

When you hear an orchestra play a note at 100 db in a concert hall and it sounds like it is coming from 40 feet away, and that note takes 4 seconds to die out because the sound is filling a 400,000 cubic foot room, your brain concludes that it is a very powerful source of sound.

When you hear a recording of that same orchestra playing the same note at 100 db from speakers in your home and it sounds like it is 8 feet away, and that note takes about 1/2 second to die out when it is only filling a 4000 cubic foot room, your brain concludes that it is a far less powerful source of sound.

No speaker, no sound system, no cable, no matter how accurate in the sense we are accostomed to judging it by, can overcome that vast difference. The primitive technology we use to record and reproduce sound has omitted over 95% of what was heard in the live experience. And NO, binaural recordng is not a satisfactory means of recovering that difference for the reason I already explained.

Come back in six months and if you begin to see the validity of this conclusion, perhaps I will discuss some of the others I presented you with that you were so quick to dismiss as jibberish.

[E-Stat]

When you hear an orchestra play a note at 100 db in a concert hall and it sounds like it is coming from 40 feet away, and that note takes 4 seconds to die out because the sound is filling a 400,000 cubic foot room, your brain concludes that it is a very powerful source of sound.
I will certainly agree that I find nothing that approaches the sheer natural power of a full symphony with chorus playing a piece like Orff's Carmina Burana. The last time I heard it at the ASO, I was in the main orchestra section about row G. (I normally prefer the loge). The final parts of the "Empress of the World" movement are guaranteed to raise the hairs on your arm with such sudden and explosive level changes. Very emotional.



No speaker, no sound system, no cable, no matter how accurate in the sense we are accostomed to judging it by, can overcome that vast difference.
While I certainly don't hold my system as any landmark, I have heard one particular system at length that bridges the gap more than 5%, IMHO. It can swing massive and instantaneous amounts of acoustic energy in an apparent space much larger than the boundaries of the room in which it is found. I think that is the key to why hearing it is so compelling. The walls of the room disappear into a much larger space. While most folks consider a 2 kw system (very nice watts at that) utter overkill, it is absolutely necessary to deal with demanding program material.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I will give you just one thought to dwell on. Since this is new to you, give it some time. I don't think you will find it in any book. This has to do with perceptions, not measurements.

When you hear an orchestra play a note at 100 db in a concert hall and it sounds like it is coming from 40 feet away, and that note takes 4 seconds to die out because the sound is filling a 400,000 cubic foot room, your brain concludes that it is a very powerful source of sound.

When you hear a recording of that same orchestra playing the same note at 100 db from speakers in your home and it sounds like it is 8 feet away, and that note takes about 1/2 second to die out when it is only filling a 4000 cubic foot room, your brain concludes that it is a far less powerful source of sound.

No speaker, no sound system, no cable, no matter how accurate in the sense we are accostomed to judging it by, can overcome that vast difference. The primitive technology we use to record and reproduce sound has omitted over 95% of what was heard in the live experience. And NO, binaural recordng is not a satisfactory means of recovering that difference for the reason I already explained.

Come back in six months and if you begin to see the validity of this conclusion, perhaps I will discuss some of the others I presented you with that you were so quick to dismiss as jibberish.

One problem Skeptic, there is no validity to this conclusion. None, 0, nada. This conclusion runs completely counter to what has been understood regarding acoustics for at least a decade.


hen you hear an orchestra play a note at 100 db in a concert hall and it sounds like it is coming from 40 feet away, and that note takes 4 seconds to die out because the sound is filling a 400,000 cubic foot room, your brain concludes that it is a very powerful source of sound..

This is a completely relative conclusion. Where is the 100db measurement taken? At what frequency? From directly on stage, 3rd row, back of the hall??? At exactly 40ft?? Secondly, you are once again equating reverberation with increased amplitude, and that does not square with what has been measured and studied over the years. After the sound has reflected throughout the space, it is down in amplitude by the time it reaches our ears. As the distance of the source is doubled, it loses approximately 6db of amplitude. It doesn't make a difference whether that sound is traveling from the front wall to your ears, side wall to your ears, back wall to your ears, or from the ceiling to your ears. That is a fact.


When you hear a recording of that same orchestra playing the same note at 100 db from speakers in your home and it sounds like it is 8 feet away, and that note takes about 1/2 second to die out when it is only filling a 4000 cubic foot room, your brain concludes that it is a far less powerful source of sound...

Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! The sound in the concert hall may be bigger sounding, but not louder. In this case because you are in the near field(in comparison to the far field in your concert hall example ) the sound will be louder to the ear, not less powerful. Do you understand the concept of far field vs near field listening? In your home you are closer to your speakers, and have very little reverberation versus sitting in a concert hall. If you were to take acutal measurement in both of your examples, you would find the home example with a flatter frequency response, with more extended high frequency information. That is because the air absorption in a smaller room is FAR less a factor than it is in a concert hall. You are also not considering the surface absorption, reflections, diffusion, abfusion and several other key equations in your conclusions


No speaker, no sound system, no cable, no matter how accurate in the sense we are accostomed to judging it by, can overcome that vast difference. The primitive technology we use to record and reproduce sound has omitted over 95% of what was heard in the live experience. And NO, binaural recordng is not a satisfactory means of recovering that difference for the reason I already explained.

Skeptic, part of you problem lies in the fact that you do not have a good footing in basic acoustics 101. Without a foudation based on known facts, every conclusion you make comes up with a false result. What factual measured basis did you come to achieve this 95% omitted claim?(which is just not true)

Binaural hearing + binaural recording= no spatial loss reproduction. Since binaural recording is based on our binaural hearing, if well done you have a VERY close simulation of exactly what is heard in the concert hall.

[skeptic]

The nice thing about hitting your head against a brick wall is that it feels so good when you stop.

That's it! I quit. You win.

[Tony_Montana]

Don't feel so bad Skep. At least you gave it a good try. The main thing is to learn from each other, and then move on :)