Golden Ears Fail Again

[hifitommy]

bruce,

if you dont hear diffs in wire, you dont. if you've read my past posts, youll see that i have never recommended hi buck wires but i do HEAR diffs in cabling but not every single piece between each other. i have no desire to waste time doing dbt for small dollar expenditures. i have never spent as much as $100 on ICs, or spkr wire, but have kimber 8tc that i paid $50 for a 15' pair.

comparing a vicious animal with cable manufacturers is a bit overboard, dontcha think? and if a guy gets nutsy enough to start spending large money on wires thinking that will make his droll little system spring to life, then he gets what he pays for, an expensive lesson (lapdog).

i got what i paid for when i bought kimber pbj ICs, i got MORE than i paid for when i constructed a FINE sounding pair of ICs from ratshack foam insulated 400 ohm tv wire from a recipe in IAR a decade and a half ago. and i got more than my moneysworth when i bought aq type 4 spkr wires. i may someday try the home despot speaker wire trick mentioned in tas, i use malibu lighting wire for my rear speaker runs and center front.

YES i hear diffs there, NO i had not any intention of conducting dbt. no children were hurt during these experiments.

and i really just used the doggie reference to not have to go back to the chihuahua references i so happily used in days of yore.

[RobotCzar]

Bingo!

I've not seen any proof in EITHER direction on the cable sonics issue. It would be interesting to compare two cables that sound very different from one another... which would likely be two on the far opposite sides of neutral and see if DBT is worth anything. I might try that myself. I wish I would have tried on on a couple of CDP's when I had the chance! There is one that sounded so smooth that it had to have been altered to make it that way. It was made by a famous British turntable/arm manufacturer and it came out late in the CD era. It was a POS, as far as I was concerned. I think they wanted it to sound analog-like and it just came out boring.

You know, all opinions are not of equal weight. The usual noisemakers, who, I speculate, have a hard time getting people to listen to what they have to say, keep swawking in this forum. They can be safely ignored. But, you are showing some signs of reason. You need to go further.

First, science almost always generalizes findings from samples because not every case can be tested. Practically all information about humans is done via sampling and not testing every case. We don't, for example, tests drugs on everybody to see if they work or if they are dangerous.

Second, science cannot waste time "proving negatives" such as proving there are no ghosts, or that people cannot hear differences in cables. Science takes the postion that someone must show they CAN or there is no reason to think anyone can. If golden ears simply show (somewhere, somehow) that just ONE of them can hear differences, then we who doubt they can will, I assure you, be quiet and admit we were wrong and we have tin ears. In over 20 years, not ONE has (that I have heard about). I am aware of many trying and failing---and many claim they could. The evidence is there, is it saying humans cannot hear such differences.

Third, scientists have been studying people's sensory perception for years, we have a pretty good idea of what people can hear and we also have a good idea of the standard deviation from the norm. We also know how much subtle electrical signal differences related to sound differences generated from those signals. It is all just math (AND they can be measured). The calculations and measurements indicated that people should not be able to hear things like differences in typical cables. The point is that theory and measurement indicates that people cannot hear such differences, not just the direct tests.

While it may be true that YOU haven't "seen" any evidence--it is quite another matter to say that no evidence exists. The evidence couldn't be clearer--people can't hear differences in typical cables in typical home audio applications. All the whining and wishing in the world isn't going to change that fact.

Is it arrogant to claim people cannot do things they cannot demonstrate? Am I arrogant in claiming you cannot jump to the moon? Moreover, even though we haven't tested everybody, I assert that NOBODY CAN. I can simply measure human muscle output and the energy required and I will have "proof" that nobody can.

[Feanor]

Of course, that golden ears convince themselves that they hear things that in fact they cannot, is well-know to us all. I should know: I'm sure I've done it myself on a good many occassions. Granted, I'm not entirely sure which occassions those were.

Still, it is a fact that while a positive DBT result proves differences do exist, a negative result doesn't prove they don't -- only that they aren't evident under testing conditions.

Your power cable example is relevant. Foolish me: I listened to various people tell that my amplifier is highly sensitive to power cord selection and also, that it is very sensitive highly to vibration. I took various measures in these regards, (thankfully not costing too much money), but I have heard no difference at all. This is my subjective evaluation and proves only one thing: differences that might exist are irrelevant to me.

Of course, golden ears will tell me (1) that I have waxy ears, and/or (2) I would have heard a difference if only I bought some much more expensive device. You can't win these arguements.

[musicoverall]

In over 20 years, not ONE has (that I have heard about). I am aware of many trying and failing---and many claim they could. The evidence is there, is it saying humans cannot hear such differences..

So far, so good with respect to your post and my understanding. I do have a couple of questions and one statement. The latter is all of what you say is fine IF you're basing cable sonics strictly on the basis of LCR parameters. The contention of yeasayers is that there is more to it than that. Even so, would it not be true that a high capacitance cable might very easily be heard as different from a low capacitance cable in a phono application? But onto the questions.

Since you are forthright in admitting that no one has heard differences in blind tests that you are aware of, let's deal with what you are aware of. How many (roughly) failures have you heard of? Of that number, how many of them used equipment other than, for example, a plastic Kenwood receiver and Cerwin-Vega speakers? Are there any where the system was high performance? Oops... I mean, high cost? I forgot for a second that I was talking to what appears to be a total naysayer! LOL. Oh, and no power cords. So far I haven't heard any differences in them but I haven't experimented much, either. But my point is that a test using mass market gear won't really sway me. Lots of detail is lost in such gear.

Finally, I get the impression that your... er... disdain for those who claim differences in audio equipment doesn't begin and end with cabling. True?

[RobotCzar]

Look, the idea that there are some mysterious factors about electrical signals (not "sonics") that we don't know about is, well, ridiculous. People who are scientifically illiterate, and who know nothing about electric theory and its application have decided that there is more to it that we can measure, or know about, or whatever. Such people are resorting not to the mythical, but to the mystical. Sorry, there ain't anything a conductor can do to an electrical signal other than offer up some LR or C. And the effects are completely known (can be calculated). Where is the evidence for something else? Name it and win a Nobel prize. Beware of technobabble in the field of high fidelity audio. If you must deal with something we don't understand that well or something that is complicated enough to use chaos theory--look to acoustics and psychoacoustics.

I haven't kept a list of all the blind tests I have read about, and they don't all address cables (some deal with electronics and other factors). Not all have negative results, but if you are talking about the factors that consistently do have negative results AND have little or no theoretical support, I'd estimate that I have read between 25-50 such tests over a long period (one reason I can't remember). Why don't you ask how many tests I have read about where someone is clearly able to tell cables apart when he can only hear them? The answer to that is zero (in the 30 years or so that expensive cables have been offtered).

People who attempt such tests have learned long ago that if you don't use high end equipment, then the high enders will dismiss you. (Even though they cannot show they acutally can distinguish such equipment other than speakers.) So, the tests I have read almost always use extremely overpriced--er, I mean "detailed" equipment. Sometimes they use a listener's own home equipment, and, of course the listeners ALL claimed they could hear differences PRIOR to the test.

You are showing some signs of being under the influence of the high end bug when you use words like "detail". Does that mean you can't hear some instruments? Sound is an air pressure wave. Waves have only two characteristics frequency (pitch) and amplitude (volume). Reproduced sound also has distortion, which can be heard as noise (sound that wasn't there originally) and inaccurate pitch and volume (as that is all there is). Now if you believe there are limits human perception of distortion, pitch, and volume then you will probably wonder what those limitis are. Modern audio electronics (including wires) have measureable performance outside those limits (note this does not apply to mikes, speakers, and listening envrionments) therefore people cannot tell them apart (and they don't when tested).

Sorry to spoil the "fun" of hobbiests who need to believe, but if you really want accuracy (not "detail") then you should attend to factors that really matter (and some are huge).

[magictooth]

Look, the idea that there are some mysterious factors about electrical signals (not "sonics") that we don't know about is, well, ridiculous. People who are scientifically illiterate, and who know nothing about electric theory and its application have decided that there is more to it that we can measure, or know about, or whatever...

Sorry to spoil the "fun" of hobbiests who need to believe, but if you really want accuracy (not "detail") then you should attend to factors that really matter (and some are huge).

The entire reply is well said. If you haven't already, you should read reply #30 by E-Stat in my thread "Sighted testing..." I have a feeling that the entire yeasayer point of view with regards to cables rests on the psychoacoustic musings of an audio reviewer named Michael Kuller. I couldn't wrestle a direct answer out of E-Stat with my question of whether his entire point of view rested on the say so of this audio reviewer.

[musicoverall]

Look, the idea that there are some mysterious factors about electrical signals (not "sonics") that we don't know about is, well, ridiculous. People who are scientifically illiterate, and who know nothing about electric theory and its application have decided that there is more to it that we can measure, or know about, or whatever. Such people are resorting not to the mythical, but to the mystical. Sorry, there ain't anything a conductor can do to an electrical signal other than offer up some LR or C. And the effects are completely known (can be calculated). Where is the evidence for something else? Name it and win a Nobel prize. Beware of technobabble in the field of high fidelity audio. If you must deal with something we don't understand that well or something that is complicated enough to use chaos theory--look to acoustics and psychoacoustics.

I haven't kept a list of all the blind tests I have read about, and they don't all address cables (some deal with electronics and other factors). Not all have negative results, but if you are talking about the factors that consistently do have negative results AND have little or no theoretical support, I'd estimate that I have read between 25-50 such tests over a long period (one reason I can't remember). Why don't you ask how many tests I have read about where someone is clearly able to tell cables apart when he can only hear them? The answer to that is zero (in the 30 years or so that expensive cables have been offtered).

People who attempt such tests have learned long ago that if you don't use high end equipment, then the high enders will dismiss you. (Even though they cannot show they acutally can distinguish such equipment other than speakers.) So, the tests I have read almost always use extremely overpriced--er, I mean "detailed" equipment. Sometimes they use a listener's own home equipment, and, of course the listeners ALL claimed they could hear differences PRIOR to the test.

You are showing some signs of being under the influence of the high end bug when you use words like "detail". Does that mean you can't hear some instruments? Sound is an air pressure wave. Waves have only two characteristics frequency (pitch) and amplitude (volume). Reproduced sound also has distortion, which can be heard as noise (sound that wasn't there originally) and inaccurate pitch and volume (as that is all there is). Now if you believe there are limits human perception of distortion, pitch, and volume then you will probably wonder what those limitis are. Modern audio electronics (including wires) have measureable performance outside those limits (note this does not apply to mikes, speakers, and listening envrionments) therefore people cannot tell them apart (and they don't when tested).

Sorry to spoil the "fun" of hobbiests who need to believe, but if you really want accuracy (not "detail") then you should attend to factors that really matter (and some are huge).

I didn't ask you how many tests you'd read about where the participants could tell cables apart because you had already answered it previously. I would like to view those tests, however. Any idea where I can find some of them?

No question I'm "under the influence of the high end bug". You're not familiar with the term "detail"? I'd call it an absence of distortions or whatever that mask (not completely hide) a passage or some of the instruments. Place a throw rug over your speakers and you'll hear what I mean. That's a crude definition but I find it usable.

Also, I've read somewhere (I'll have to dig it up again) regarding SACD and it's frequency extension beyond 22khz. The writer said that the lack of noise in the higher frequencies, while not audible at those frequencies, caused the frequencies within the audio band to be clearer... uh... with more detail! I can't exactly recall what descriptors he used. I think the world, even the scientific world, needs to be a little careful about what they proclaim as irreversible gospel.

[E-Stat]

I couldn't wrestle a direct answer out of E-Stat with my question of whether his entire point of view rested on the say so of this audio reviewer.

All I said was Kuller's comments summarized my feelings. My opinion is based upon thirty years of music listening to a wide range of systems, including some cost-no-object evaluation flavors. Concerning the evaluation of all audio components for that matter. I read his comments a month or so back. There's a heck of a lot more complexity to music than either test tones or pink noise. I have yet to read of a single "conclusive" DBT using high end cables that specified any sort of detail as to test specifics. When I pointed that out to mtrycrafts long ago, he first cited a case by Tag McLaren. I followed the link and found that the test compared two different $300 / meter ICs and found no difference between them. Evidently, he speed read the test and thought that it was comparing one of those ICs to the $2 variety. He finally conceded that he could not find "any citations" of the nature I asked.

Do enlighten us if you can.

rw

[RobotCzar]

I You're not familiar with the term "detail"? I'd call it an absence of distortions or whatever that mask (not completely hide) a passage or some of the instruments. Place a throw rug over your speakers and you'll hear what I mean. That's a crude definition but I find it usable.

I think the world, even the scientific world, needs to be a little careful about what they proclaim as irreversible gospel.

Where is Mtry when I need him? He has previously given a list of references to articles, sites, and tests. I will attempt to find mine and post it. Also, former poster eyespy had a site with references. Anybody have the URL?

I AM familiar with the term "detail" along with a lengthy list of mytical terms like "pace" and "resolution" that are meaningless (or vague) high end jargon. I just to find them useless in discussing salient factors of audio reproduction. When you throw a rug over a speaker you reduce the sound aplitude overall and reduce some freqencies more than others. What details are lost? All information is still there, just distorted. I'd like to know how you know what "details" are there to start with? In other words, how do you know the detail you hear wasn't added by the recording, electronics, mike, speakers, or cable? Would it be possible to add more detail? Perhaps the equipment is processing the signal to make it sound more detailed--is that possible? Is more detail that what you could expect to hear from the original source a good thing?

There are two points I am trying to make: 1) "detail" is an imprecise jargony term that often misleads listeners. English major high-end audio pundits love it--but alas on deeper examination it is not as good at the terms that accurately describe sound. 2) detail is like "beauty", what you really should be seeking is accurate sound, not pretty sound. You (seem to) have no reference from which to make any subjective judgements. Just assessing "detail" without a reference is not at all useful and if very open to psychological bias.

The scientific "world" is extremely careful about what it "proclaims". For one thing it insists on unbiased evidence and has lots of rules and checks to make sure the evidence is correct (such as peer review). The high end audio world is not careful at all, does not control for bias (in fact they try like it), eschews valid evidence, and treats subjective impressions as if they have some objective usefullness. The scientific world even states that it is always open to revision IF evidence is uncovered (not so high end audio--just read the responses in this forum). There is no such thing as irreversable gospel in science! In faith-based high-end audio, dogma is all there is. If you really believe what you wrote, the proper choice for you to adopt is obvious. Please do keep looking for accurate information.

[E-Stat]

Where is Mtry when I need him? He has previously given a list of references to articles, sites, and tests.

Oh yes plenty. None, however that provide support for this belief that provide complete test equipment information. First, there's this:

Can your CD Player make a difference?

Here's where he acknowledges his sources are limited:

Why is there so much hostility on this board lately?

Then there's the tired old Russell links that likewise mention nothing of the gear used or argue mediocrity like 18 gauge zip vs. 24 gauge zip:

Null Hypothesis

Here's another list he posted for me:

Cables reviewing by reputable publications/magazines.

I remain waiting for citations that utilize really good gear. Mtry gave up trying to find one.

rw

[musicoverall]

Where is Mtry when I need him? He has previously given a list of references to articles, sites, and tests. I will attempt to find mine and post it. Also, former poster eyespy had a site with references. Anybody have the URL?

I AM familiar with the term "detail" along with a lengthy list of mytical terms like "pace" and "resolution" that are meaningless (or vague) high end jargon. I just to find them useless in discussing salient factors of audio reproduction. When you throw a rug over a speaker you reduce the sound aplitude overall and reduce some freqencies more than others. What details are lost? All information is still there, just distorted. I'd like to know how you know what "details" are there to start with? In other words, how do you know the detail you hear wasn't added by the recording, electronics, mike, speakers, or cable? Would it be possible to add more detail? Perhaps the equipment is processing the signal to make it sound more detailed--is that possible? Is more detail that what you could expect to hear from the original source a good thing?

There are two points I am trying to make: 1) "detail" is an imprecise jargony term that often misleads listeners. English major high-end audio pundits love it--but alas on deeper examination it is not as good at the terms that accurately describe sound. 2) detail is like "beauty", what you really should be seeking is accurate sound, not pretty sound. You (seem to) have no reference from which to make any subjective judgements. Just assessing "detail" without a reference is not at all useful and if very open to psychological bias.

The scientific "world" is extremely careful about what it "proclaims". For one thing it insists on unbiased evidence and has lots of rules and checks to make sure the evidence is correct (such as peer review). The high end audio world is not careful at all, does not control for bias (in fact they try like it), eschews valid evidence, and treats subjective impressions as if they have some objective usefullness. The scientific world even states that it is always open to revision IF evidence is uncovered (not so high end audio--just read the responses in this forum). There is no such thing as irreversable gospel in science! In faith-based high-end audio, dogma is all there is. If you really believe what you wrote, the proper choice for you to adopt is obvious. Please do keep looking for accurate information.

Ok, working a bit more with detail... first of all, no I don't believe a system can "add" detail, it can only subtract it. So I seek out components, including cables, that do less subtracting. I want to hear the full shimmer of the cymbal rather than a rounding off or an unnatural decay. I want to hear the scrape of a bow on a violin. In other words, I want to hear reproduced music as close to the original (or, what I envision as the original) without a loss in realism. My frame of reference is my attendance at literally dozens of live music events each year as well as being a professional musician.

Now as for "accurate" sound... what's accurate? How do you determine accuracy if not by what you hear as accurate? Measurements? Hmmm... even if it sounds terrible? And if you're measuring, do you have any measurements for "imaging" and "soundstaging"? How do you measure those? They are part of a good sound system, just as they are part of a live performance. If I'm fairly close to an orchestra, my ears place the different groupings of instruments in their proper locations. Some stereo components do this well and some don't. How is that measured? Soundstaging... scientific theory would tell us that the only way to widen the soundstage would be to place the speakers further apart! However, I've heard different components that widen, deepen or heighten a soundstage without touching the speakers. So how is soundstaging measured? Both imaging and soundstaging are probably "jargony" terms but have meaning regardless of what terms you use for them. So we should be able to measure them, correct? How?

So you see, accuracy too has to have a reference point. If a component measures well from a THD perspective or LCR or whatever but does not measure the other factors of reproduced music such as imaging and soundstaging, it cannot properly be called accurate, IMHO.

Folks on this forum throw words out at me such as "illusion" in an attempt to cast aspersions. But to me, audio reproduction IS an illusion. It's whatever works for me in my system and for you in yours. It's whatever makes us believe, if even fleetingly, that we're in a live venue listening to a live band. Certain components, including cables, do that for me better than others. Granted, there are absolutes with respect to measurements. But there has to be something else going on besides simple specs. Too many components measure the same and sound different, including speakers, which you've already said have been distinguished in blind tests. As E-Stat mentioned, you can find 5 speakers with identical FR measurements that all sound different from one another.

Who is "Mtry"? I can try a search on this site. Eyespy as well. Thanks for the tip. Whatever you can find of your own without too much trouble will also be appreciated.

[hifitommy]

its already in the recording of course, it cant be added. removing impediments in your system can ALLOW more through to the listener. it can be a cable or a better capicitor or better transformer or a more intelligent layout of components within the chassis. or any of a number of factors.

some of the effects can and some cannot be shown to be better by measurement. as i have stated before, the higher the resolution of a system (not necessarily the cost), the more you can hear small improvements or changes within that system.

[musicoverall]

Oh yes plenty. None, however that provide support for this belief that provide complete test equipment information. First, there's this:

Can your CD Player make a difference?

Here's where he acknowledges his sources are limited:

Why is there so much hostility on this board lately?

Then there's the tired old Russell links that likewise mention nothing of the gear used or argue mediocrity like 18 gauge zip vs. 24 gauge zip:

Null Hypothesis

Here's another list he posted for me:

Cables reviewing by reputable publications/magazines.

I remain waiting for citations that utilize really good gear. Mtry gave up trying to find one.

rw

I went through a lot of this stuff - thanks for posting it. Not much meat, is there? A lot of technical reasons why cables shouldn't sound different, no specifics on cables used in the tests, and no details about the tests themselves. If I wanted to make sure the time honored scientific theories were kept intact, I could likely devise a test that people would fail. So far the

It's interesting to note that John Dunlavy makes expensive cables that he claims sound no different than anything else! Maybe his don't!

[theaudiohobby]

I AM familiar with the term "detail" along with a lengthy list of mytical terms like "pace" and "resolution" that are meaningless (or vague) high end jargon. I just to find them useless in discussing salient factors of audio reproduction.

RobotCzar,

Selecting high end audio equipment is not a scientific pursuit but a lifestyle hobby, while it is a laudable goal to attempt to use scientific methods to resolve controversial and downright false claims, it is daft to reduce selecting high-end audio equipment to a strictly scientific endeavour, as well as reducing the hobby's terminology to using strictly scientific terminology. The use of common names is not unique to audio, and it is not going away anytime soon. At least two of the audio magazines publish a glossary that gives reasonable definitions to common high-end terminology.

[RobotCzar]

Ok, working a bit more with detail... first of all, no I don't believe a system can "add" detail, it can only subtract it. So I seek out components, including cables, that do less subtracting.

You are not listening, how would you know that a system was subtracting detail? You have no reference beyond what you expect to hear. You also have no reason to believe that a system couldn't alter the sound to make you think you were hearing more "detail". All you have are subjective impressions which are easily misled and apply only to you,

I want to hear the full shimmer of the cymbal rather than a rounding off or an unnatural decay. I want to hear the scrape of a bow on a violin. In other words, I want to hear reproduced music as close to the original (or, what I envision as the original) without a loss in realism. My frame of reference is my attendance at literally dozens of live music events each year as well as being a professional musician.

So what, you think your not subject to bias and placebo? I haven't noticed that muscians are better at judging audio reproduction or are less subject to the effects of expectation (placebo effects), do you have any reason to think so? I want to hear those things, too. If I waste my time on factors that don't matter I am less likely to achieve audio satisfaction.

Now as for "accurate" sound... what's accurate? How do you determine accuracy if not by what you hear as accurate? Measurements? Hmmm... even if it sounds terrible? And if you're measuring, do you have any measurements for "imaging" and "soundstaging"? How do you measure those? Some stereo components do this well and some don't. How is that measured? .

Accuracy has two related defintions in my opinion: 1) Is what is reproduced similar to the live reference (note: such references do not exist for pop/rock music which is has no orginal live reference). 2) The measurements are the same for the what was recorded and what is reproduced. Item 2 is true for the electic signal within the ability of humans to distinguish a difference, but is not true for the sound we hear at our listening locations.

You sould understand that electronics (including cables) have absolutely no effect on imaging and soundstage beyond differences in the audio channels, which are determined by the recording techniques, recording equipment, and room effects at the recording and reproduction locations. The effects of imaging CAN be played with electronically by intentionally altering the time and frequency differences among the channels (as time differences are the sole means our brains use to assess imaging and soundstage).

Acoustic placement (3D) effects are extremely important to the illusion of accurate sound but depend mainly on (as I said) the recording, the speakers, and the listening environment. Anaudiophile would be well served to attend to these factors to increase both the accuracy and illusion of his reproduced audio. These factors have zero to do with electronics and cables (except under very extreme conditions). You are quite correct in saying that we have no good way to measure these effects and it wouldn't matter if we did as the listening room and lister position are critical. Note also that 2-ch stereo is a crude illusion to reproduce these factors and are a major limitation to lifelike reproduction in the home (though I have zero hope that commercial implentations of multichannel will fix this situation).

Soundstaging... scientific theory would tell us that the only way to widen the soundstage would be to place the speakers further apart! However, I've heard different components that widen, deepen or heighten a soundstage without touching the speakers. So how is soundstaging measured? Both imaging and soundstaging are probably "jargony" terms but have meaning regardless of what terms you use for them. So we should be able to measure them, correct? How?

No offense, but I don't think you are quite ready to tell us what scientific theory says.. You are simply wrong about what you say--moving speakers futher apart is not the only way to affect sound stage (e.g., projection angle is an example), and the characteristics of the speaker make a HUGE difference. Also keep in mind that reflections from room surfaces are extremely important. The terms are slightly non-technical, but I think they have no technical counterparts at this point. How would you you define soundstage? You seem to think I claim no audio component matter--I claim electronics and cables do not matter.

So you see, accuracy too has to have a reference point. If a component measures well from a THD perspective or LCR or whatever but does not measure the other factors of reproduced music such as imaging and soundstaging, it cannot properly be called accurate, IMHO.

Absolutely, accuracy must have a reference. But, you are confused in thinking that any thing about electronics affects imaging and soundstage. The electrical signal of home audio electronics are so accurate, they do not effect what we hear including soundstange and imaging. Those things are determined by acoustics.

Folks on this forum throw words out at me such as "illusion" in an attempt to cast aspersions. But to me, audio reproduction IS an illusion. It's whatever works for me in my system and for you in yours. It's whatever makes us believe, if even fleetingly, that we're in a live venue listening to a live band. Certain components, including cables, do that for me better than others. Granted, there are absolutes with respect to measurements. But there has to be something else going on besides simple specs. Too many components measure the same and sound different, including speakers, which you've already said have been distinguished in blind tests. As E-Stat mentioned, you can find 5 speakers with identical FR measurements that all sound different from one another.

Again, I agree with much of what you say. ALL audio reproduction is an illusion. We may like effects that are not accurate, we may seek something as close to live as we can achieve. Where we differ is on what factors are important in creating the illusion. Electronics (and since the advent of CD, the recording medium) are trivial factors because they do no affect what you hear (beyond placebo effects). Now you might say "if my beliefs influence what I perceive, where is the harm in that?" To which I would say "I prefer to deal with factors that are not based on my beliefs and my subjective imprresions. I prefer to deal with objectively real factors."

It is a myth that measurements do not determine what we hear (it also is extremely illogical). High enders say that, but they do not have any evidence. No two sets of speakers have idential measurements, that claim is not credible. Speakers sound like they measure--it is possible to take too few or inaccurate measurments and reach bad conclusions. Consider the source of you read.

You are doing the right thing in keeping an open mind and attempting to get more information. Just be aware that the home audio field is rife with misconceptions, myths, and outright lies--including the popular magazines (all the good ones have died).

[RobotCzar]

RobotCzar,

Selecting high end audio equipment is not a scientific pursuit but a lifestyle hobby, while it is a laudable goal to attempt to use scientific methods to resolve controversial and downright false claims, it is daft to reduce selecting high-end audio equipment to a strictly scientific endeavour, as well as reducing the hobby's terminology to using strictly scientific terminology. The use of common names is not unique to audio, and it is not going away anytime soon. At least two of the audio magazines publish a glossary that gives reasonable definitions to common high-end terminology.

I agree that there are many factors involved in user satisfaction, including nameplate pride. But, you need to accept that the whole "lifestyle hobby" is full of misinformation and downright deception. I find the situation very unfair for newcommers to the hobby. The high end (and subjectivist magazines) have a grip on the hobby that is shameful. They don't say "we are having fun at it might not be true" they act like there is some objective reality in what they do (e.g., publishing "dictionaries" that have circular defintions). I want to "resolve downright false claims" and point the way to things that really matter--not spoil anybody's fun. I won't tolerate lies and bad information simply because someone is deriving fun (or money) from them.

To quote the Moody Blues "We're living in the land of make believe, and trying not to let it show." People are entitled to alternate views, particularly when the dominant view has no objective basis. If the emperor has no clothes, are we to keep our mouths shut so as not to embarass anybody?

[theaudiohobby]

I want to "resolve downright false claims" and point the way to things that really matter--not spoil anybody's fun. I won't tolerate lies and bad information simply because someone is deriving fun (or money) from them.

To quote the Moody Blues "We're living in the land of make believe, and trying not to let it show." People are entitled to alternate views, particularly when the dominant view has no objective basis. If the emperor has no clothes, are we to keep our mouths shut so as not to embarass anybody?

Laudable goals , but try to remain level headed, do not throw out the baby with the water, demanding strict use of scientific terminology is exactly that.

[musicoverall]

You are not listening, how would you know that a system was subtracting detail? You have no reference beyond what you expect to hear. You also have no reason to believe that a system couldn't alter the sound to make you think you were hearing more "detail". All you have are subjective impressions which are easily misled and apply only to you,



So what, you think your not subject to bias and placebo? I haven't noticed that muscians are better at judging audio reproduction or are less subject to the effects of expectation (placebo effects), do you have any reason to think so? I want to hear those things, too. If I waste my time on factors that don't matter I am less likely to achieve audio satisfaction.



Accuracy has two related defintions in my opinion: 1) Is what is reproduced similar to the live reference (note: such references do not exist for pop/rock music which is has no orginal live reference). 2) The measurements are the same for the what was recorded and what is reproduced. Item 2 is true for the electic signal within the ability of humans to distinguish a difference, but is not true for the sound we hear at our listening locations.

You sould understand that electronics (including cables) have absolutely no effect on imaging and soundstage beyond differences in the audio channels, which are determined by the recording techniques, recording equipment, and room effects at the recording and reproduction locations. The effects of imaging CAN be played with electronically by intentionally altering the time and frequency differences among the channels (as time differences are the sole means our brains use to assess imaging and soundstage).

Acoustic placement (3D) effects are extremely important to the illusion of accurate sound but depend mainly on (as I said) the recording, the speakers, and the listening environment. Anaudiophile would be well served to attend to these factors to increase both the accuracy and illusion of his reproduced audio. These factors have zero to do with electronics and cables (except under very extreme conditions). You are quite correct in saying that we have no good way to measure these effects and it wouldn't matter if we did as the listening room and lister position are critical. Note also that 2-ch stereo is a crude illusion to reproduce these factors and are a major limitation to lifelike reproduction in the home (though I have zero hope that commercial implentations of multichannel will fix this situation).


No offense, but I don't think you are quite ready to tell us what scientific theory says.. You are simply wrong about what you say--moving speakers futher apart is not the only way to affect sound stage (e.g., projection angle is an example), and the characteristics of the speaker make a HUGE difference. Also keep in mind that reflections from room surfaces are extremely important. The terms are slightly non-technical, but I think they have no technical counterparts at this point. How would you you define soundstage? You seem to think I claim no audio component matter--I claim electronics and cables do not matter.


Absolutely, accuracy must have a reference. But, you are confused in thinking that any thing about electronics affects imaging and soundstage. The electrical signal of home audio electronics are so accurate, they do not effect what we hear including soundstange and imaging. Those things are determined by acoustics.


Again, I agree with much of what you say. ALL audio reproduction is an illusion. We may like effects that are not accurate, we may seek something as close to live as we can achieve. Where we differ is on what factors are important in creating the illusion. Electronics (and since the advent of CD, the recording medium) are trivial factors because they do no affect what you hear (beyond placebo effects). Now you might say "if my beliefs influence what I perceive, where is the harm in that?" To which I would say "I prefer to deal with factors that are not based on my beliefs and my subjective imprresions. I prefer to deal with objectively real factors."

It is a myth that measurements do not determine what we hear (it also is extremely illogical). High enders say that, but they do not have any evidence. No two sets of speakers have idential measurements, that claim is not credible. Speakers sound like they measure--it is possible to take too few or inaccurate measurments and reach bad conclusions. Consider the source of you read.

You are doing the right thing in keeping an open mind and attempting to get more information. Just be aware that the home audio field is rife with misconceptions, myths, and outright lies--including the popular magazines (all the good ones have died).

Your first paragraph - very good point... and you're right. I have no rebuttal except to say that it seems to me that if the studio were adding detail, it would sound unnatural, such as additional shimmer to a cymbal. In other words, I've never heard what sounds to me as "too much shimmer" or too much detail.

You're correct that musicians aren't any better at judging audio equipment... EXCEPT for the fact that we hear live music all the time. Without that frame of reference (which certainly non-musicians can acquire by listening to a lot of live music) you're less likely to be able to tell an alto saxophone from a tenor or a viola from a violin.

You're very much NOT correct when you say that electronics and cables do not affect imaging and soundstaging. In my experience, they can and do. The item that is closest to my memory is a turntable. The soundstaging effects were quite different. Cables have done so but to a much less extent. That's not to say that I disagree with your assessment of what is (most) important... recording, speakers, room. No question. However, after all that is done, there's still a couple of small steps left.

I think you may be right when you say measurements affect all that we hear. However, there must be some things we have neglected to measure and, when we do, we'll be able to tell with a lot of certainty how something will sound absolutely.

[E-Stat]

You're very much NOT correct when you say that electronics and cables do not affect imaging and soundstaging.

Which is why I use passive attenuators with my CDP in lieu of my preamp. The preamp's line stage shrinks the soundstage.

However, there must be some things we have neglected to measure and, when we do, we'll be able to tell with a lot of certainty how something will sound absolutely.

Exactly. Jitter, for example, wasn't important until it was fully understood.

rw

[musicoverall]

Which is why I use passive attenuators with my CDP in lieu of my preamp. The preamp's line stage shrinks the soundstage.

Interesting. I read your more detailed post about your passive attentuators. I've never tried that route - I suppose the reason is I have quite a few things hooked up to the preamp... turntable, CDP, CD recorder, cassette deck and a tuner... and I've not found a passive linestage with enough inputs.

Your jitter example is perfect. When the medium began, we didn't even have a name for this distortion, let alone a cure for it. Once the engineers began listening to what they had designed, it was time to go back to the drawing board for some re-engineering.

[E-Stat]

Interesting. I read your more detailed post about your passive attentuators. I've never tried that route - I suppose the reason is I have quite a few things hooked up to the preamp... turntable, CDP, CD recorder, cassette deck and a tuner... and I've not found a passive linestage with enough inputs.

Well, clearly the approach is not for everyone for the convenience factor you noted and matching issues. I don't remember if I mentioned it before, but I was totally unaware of the two highly desirable characteristics of my primary CD player when I bought it: extremely low out impedance (much lower than my preamp) and high output (again higher than the nominal output rating for my preamp). Coupled with using low cap cables, it enabled for me to say bye-bye to using the preamp for the CD source. It made no sense to use a 21 db gain stage solely to attenuate signal. I use it as a phono stage only where the gain and RIAA eq is necessary. Yes, I bite the bullet and move the cables going to the power amps from attenuators to preamp when I change sources from CD to phono. Although I have a tuner and a cassette deck, they are used with my garage system where again I switch outputs using my first attenuator project. The cassette is used very infrequently primarily to capture tapes to CD.

rw

[RobotCzar]

You're very much NOT correct when you say that electronics and cables do not affect imaging and soundstaging. In my experience, they can and do. The item that is closest to my memory is a turntable. The soundstaging effects were quite different. Cables have done so but to a much less extent. That's not to say that I disagree with your assessment of what is (most) important... recording, speakers, room. No question. However, after all that is done, there's still a couple of small steps left.

Your quoted comment brings us somewhat back to the original discussion. People have not demonstrated they can hear differences in cables (or electronics) so you are making a claim (as many other have) that is not backed up by any evidence. In regard to imaging and soundstage, you do not seem to accept the fact that these perceptions are based completely on differences between the channels only. (Note the difference in imaging and soundstage between mono and 2-ch.). Differenences in channels(electrical signals) in audio electronics (or, laugh, cables) is extremely low. Differences in channels between speakers in a room (sound) are very great (for example, the two speakers are in different locations--duh). Any difference in soundstage or imaging you hear are due to recording differences, speaker/room differences, volume differences, or your imagination.

Now having said that, I must admit that I suspect that vinyl lovers may be a special case. (We are talking about program source (playback medium) not electronics.) I have always suspected that vinyl lovers like something that is added by the medium. I have speculated the added something is increased soundstage (a sense of 3D) ADDED by the cutting lathe or the kludged way vinyl achieves 2-ch stereo. If true, this is exactly a case of "enhanced" realism (or "detail" if you insist) I have previously asked about.

You may be interested to know that one vinyl fan reading this forum did a little experiment. He recorded some of his LPs to CD. He then admitted he could not them them apart (his opinion of the CD playback medium improved). I claim he simply recorded the additional info that results with vinyl playback. You may be getting hyper realism with vinyl, which a lot of people like--but to me is just more distortion. You can try the experiment yourself if you like vinyl.

Thanks for the discussion, it was interesting, I hope you try to find out more facts before your opinions harden.

[theaudiohobby]

Your quoted comment brings us somewhat back to the original discussion. People have not demonstrated they can hear differences in cables (or electronics)

I will have to call you up on this again, certain amplification and source components measure reasonably differently in the frequency and time domain to be readily identifiable in a blind test. I think you should take a trip to the better measurement sites and look at some gross differences in the time domain and frequency domain behaviour of some of these components before you throw out the baby with the water. Now the game changes, when folks try to assert that components that have reasonbly similar measurements sound very different, which is the case with cables.

[musicoverall]

I guess our opinions of what constitutes "demonstration" are just different.

As for vinyl adding something to the signal (if true), it then becomes simply a preference issue. I would have trouble debating against added realism, even if it would be called a "distortion" in the lab. My point all along has never been one of vinyl being more "accurate" - whatever that means. It's simply more realistic to my ears. My goal has never been to build a system that satisfies the numbers crowd but to build a system that comes closet to that lofty goal of recreating live music in my home.

Digital is a compromised medium IMHO... at least the redbook standard. I struggle with digital effects modules for guitar as well - which truly IS adding something to the signal - that's the point of them. When done in the analog domain, they produce a sound that has become the standard for decades. When done with digital modeling, they sound artificial. So digital has done a poor job of recreating a standard in this regard. This may not be very relevant to audio reproduction, but I find it interesting. Also interesting is that my current DAC contains no digital filters or oversampling. As a result, it sounds more realistic, although it may very well measure poorly.

As for my opinions hardening, to me there's no substitute for personal experience. All the tests and specs in the world don't "measure up" if you'll permit me a small pun. That said, I do intend to pursue your POV further - and I thank you for your input. I may disagree but I don't dismiss your thoughts out of hand.

[musicoverall]

The cassette is used very infrequently primarily to capture tapes to CD.rw

My cassette deck is working overtime these days as I'm doing just what you mentioned. Over the last couple of decades, I've amassed about 500 homemade tapes that I'm now transferring to CD. Very much not fun! But unlike LP's which with a minimum of care might very well be in my great grandkids collection, cassette tapes die fairly quickly! The jury is still out on CD.