-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
As usual, your post makes a lot of sense - a LOT of sense. However, if I might...
I pulled out one of my CD's without looking at it, one of the new CD's I just bought. I'm quite certain it's David Shea, a "new music" (classical, I guess) composer. My hearing tells me it is indeed Mr Shea. In fact, I'm so comfortable with that fact that I don't even need to look at the jewel case. But I will anyway... lo and behold, it IS David Shea!!!!! My senses score again! No blind tests needed.
I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else that cables will enrich your life and fill you with joy. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything!!!! All I can say is that different cables sound different to me... not all of them, but some of them. To my ears - mine alone. If that makes it an illusion... well... it's an "illusion" that makes me just as happy as Skippy peanut butter, Diet Pepsi and the smell of leaves in the fall, all perhaps illusions as well.
So now that leaves me with just one question... how good of a shot are you with that shotgun??? :D
Your example is not even remotely representative of what cable yeasayers have to say. Your example is somewhat akin to saying yeah, the trumpet sure sounded different than the violin that time. I don't think that you're getting the point that the naysayers are trying to make. It is NOT the cables that are making the difference, but only YOUR OWN sighted bias that is making you think there is a difference.
If you are happy with your illusions, then you should present in your posts caveats to the reader. The way most yeasayers post presents their findings as fact instead of as anecdotal evidence. There is a huge difference between the two. If you were to put in huge bold letters such as <h4><b>The following is a conceited, trite, and all but useless anecdote from my own personal experiences</h4></b> or <h4><b>I'm too lazy to take a couple minutes out of my life to do proper blind testing because I'm so perfect that I don't need to follow minimal scientific method, but here I present to you as FACT my findings....</h4></b>, then I will for sure be happy leaving you with your illusions. If you don't do that, then you will find naysayer who get angered at the spread of misinformation and lies. As woodman so eloquently put it, if somebody were trying to pawn off to me peanut butter that cost $200 a jar instead of $2.99, then for damn sure I'd want to do some blind testing to determine whether there's a difference.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
The human mind most likely can be tricked. So you're suggesting that it's tricked each and every time on every single individual??? That is too outrageous.
But I'm curious as to what you will say if I pass with flying colors! You will likely blame something about the test, will you not? And yet, you'd like me to trust it completely! ;)
The human mind can be tricked almost every time. Whenever you add bias via sight, there is reason enough right there. There is not a single scientific journal that would accept sighted testing as a valid methodology.
Should you pass, then you will be amongst the first (if not the first human ever) to pass a blind cable test. People no doubt will ask about your methodology should you pass, and I would personally be interested in finding out your methodology. I think in fact that there is an outstanding award in the $20K range if you can repeat your success for somebody. Maybe there's another member who could point you in that direction.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
Your example is not even remotely representative of what cable yeasayers have to say. Your example is somewhat akin to saying yeah, the trumpet sure sounded different than the violin that time. I don't think that you're getting the point that the naysayers are trying to make. It is NOT the cables that are making the difference, but only YOUR OWN sighted bias that is making you think there is a difference.
If you are happy with your illusions, then you should present in your posts caveats to the reader. The way most yeasayers post presents their findings as fact instead of as anecdotal evidence. There is a huge difference between the two. If you were to put in huge bold letters such as <h4><b>The following is a conceited, trite, and all but useless anecdote from my own personal experiences</h4></b> or <h4><b>I'm too lazy to take a couple minutes out of my life to do proper blind testing because I'm so perfect that I don't need to follow minimal scientific method, but here I present to you as FACT my findings....</h4></b>, then I will for sure be happy leaving you with your illusions. If you don't do that, then you will find naysayer who get angered at the spread of misinformation and lies. As woodman so eloquently put it, if somebody were trying to pawn off to me peanut butter that cost $200 a jar instead of $2.99, then for damn sure I'd want to do some blind testing to determine whether there's a difference.
Well, I'm sorry if I've angered the naysayers! So I will adopt something to add to my posts that I read from E-Stat - YMMV, which I'm told stands for Your Mileage May Vary, which further means that in my system, those particular cables made me believe I heard this and that but you may not. And since my experiences are indeed anecdotal, I shall now remand them to the Cable forum, where they belong. Thanks to all for the interesting information; it's certainly something to ponder. Now I'm off to shovel snow! Or... am I??? I hate shoveling snow so I do hope it isn't another of my blasted illusions! :D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictooth
I know what you're getting at, but I will stand by my position that sighted = bias = not accurate. From my personal experiences dealing with patients every working day, I will hold this to be a 100% incontrovertible truth. The twain shall meet if ever there is somebody who can demonstrate in a blind test the ability to determine which cable is playing with any sort of statistical significance.
For cables yes, but when you start discussing loudspeakers, sources and amplifiers, a blind test is not necessary. Though I agree that blind-testing largely eliminates.the imaginary "subtle" differences that many audiophiles proclaim.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
For cables yes, but when you start discussing loudspeakers, sources and amplifiers, a blind test is not necessary. Though I agree that blind-testing largely eliminates.the imaginary "subtle" differences that many audiophiles proclaim.
I'd even go a step further...on the issues of amplifiers and CD players, there have been hundreds of test proving that decent built home theater receivers and cd players, operating within their design capacities, are audibly indistinguishable from high-end, multi-thousand dollar amplifiers/cd players in blind tests. Audiophiles don't like this, yet despite offered rewards in excess of $10,000 to the first person to be able to discern between a $200 amp and a $10000 amp in DBT conditions, no one has been successful to date. The audiophile world is looking for a hero here to end this debate, maybe you should try out?
As much as I don't like it, this means something.
I find that hard to believe myself, owning more than a few high-end amps, but I still can't deny the possiblility I imagine what I hear! But if I'm happy, then the price I pay is worth it.
It would seem loudspeakers are the only equipment that can be proven to substantially impact sound. Though, this might just mean more work is required in developing test methods...
Until then, I remain on the fence...coward that I am... :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
It would seem loudspeakers are the only equipment that can be proven to substantially impact sound. Though, this might just mean more work is required in developing test methods...
And since I just read from a couple of sources that loudspeakers are indistinguishable (or nearly so) from live music - on this very thread. I can't wait to find out which speakers they are! Soon we will all have the same systems! :D
Seriously, if loudspeakers have broad sonic differences (and they should! - planars vs box vs horns) and blind testing can pick these up but "no one" has been able to tell the difference between any other component in a blind test, might it be true that blind tests are only useful in discerning gross differences and not subtle ones?
-
Then again, there is always the other side of this coin
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
Seriously, if loudspeakers have broad sonic differences (and they should! - planars vs box vs horns) and blind testing can pick these up but "no one" has been able to tell the difference between any other component in a blind test, might it be true that blind tests are only useful in discerning gross differences and not subtle ones?
The blind tests DO work and maybe, just maybe, these greatly touted sonic differences are not as great as some would imagine. Heck, if ya gotta see it to identify it then these arguments kinda lose all validity. So much for using your ears, eh?
I know that this sticks in some peoples craw but, there it is.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
Seriously, if loudspeakers have broad sonic differences (and they should! - planars vs box vs horns) and blind testing can pick these up but "no one" has been able to tell the difference between any other component in a blind test, might it be true that blind tests are only useful in discerning gross differences and not subtle ones?
Could be...I find that hard to believe though. You'd have to explain why seeing which amp you're using helps you hear better. If a difference exists, you should be able to hear regardless of whether you can see the equipment or not. And you should be able to hear it consistently and demonstrate this.
I think that's missing the point though. Even if you can hear the difference, barely, 6 out of 10 times on a piece of gear that costs 20%, 100% or 10 times as much as another, is it really worth it? Probably to some...But if so, I don't think they can use the words "better" or "more musical" or whatever to describe their equipment relative others, instead they should have to say "barely better at 10 times the cost" ;)
-
Well. you're shoveling something all right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
Now I'm off to shovel snow! Or... am I???
...but from what I've been reading, it ain't snow. ;)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
I think that's missing the point though. Even if you can hear the difference, barely, 6 out of 10 times on a piece of gear that costs 20%, 100% or 10 times as much as another, is it really worth it? Probably to some...But if so, I don't think they can use the words "better" or "more musical" or whatever to describe their equipment relative others, instead they should have to say "barely better at 10 times the cost" ;)
But to some people, a 2% improvement in sound is worth a huge premium. There's nothing wrong with that, as I see it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
...but from what I've been reading, it ain't snow. ;)
Could very well be. When someone places something that needs shoveling on my doorstep, I usually shovel it to make it go away! ;)
-
[QUOTE=markw]The blind tests DO work and maybe, just maybe, these greatly touted sonic differences are not as great as some would imagine. Heck, if ya gotta see it to identify it then these arguments kinda lose all validity. So much for using your ears, eh?
/QUOTE]
Perhaps. But introducing an ABX box introduces more electronics (possibly degrading!) to the signal and quickie back and forth snippets never worked for me, anyway. Isn't that how those tests have been used?
Hey, I'm certainly no expert in this stuff and it isn't as though I'm unwilling to learn new things or too set in my ways. But I remain unconvinced that blind tests are necessary, just as I remain unconvinced that cables are strictly slaves of their LCR parameters. Call me crazy. Ok, I know you will! :D
-
ABX Box? We don't need no steenkeeng ABX box to do a blind test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
But introducing an ABX box introduces more electronics (possibly degrading!) to the signal and quickie back and forth snippets never worked for me, anyway. Isn't that how those tests have been used?
All it takes is a good friend you trust and the willingness to try be honest with yourself. Years ago I got hold of some hi zoot speaker cables and swore up and down to my friend (who lived in the same apartment complex) about it. He doubted it. I was aghast that he could not hear what I so obviously heard!
So, since we worked different shifts, he would come into my apartment when I was not home and (randomly) hook up either my new favorites or my old junky cables. Every day, I was to write down what cables I was listening to. My home, my system, my music, no time constraint or pressure. Just use my ears and let them decide. Of course, I could have peeked but that would not have been Kosher, would it? ;)
After two weeks, I was right about 50% correct or, IOW, I had no idea what I was hearing.
Deflated my audiophile ego, it did...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
But to some people, a 2% improvement in sound is worth a huge premium. There's nothing wrong with that, as I see it.
Nope, not at all...Lord knows I've spent a bit of money on amps and the likes over the years, and in all likelihood will continue to do so. I think to be an audio enthusiast/audiophile, you pretty much have to accept diminishing returns.
But I'm careful not to make boastful claims of vast superiority of the equipment I chose over others, particularly when it can be very small, and negligible to most (though I slip up often enough). Let's flip that 2% improvement around, that could mean 98% of the time you can't tell it's better...
I'm not adverse to high quality (and expensive) electronics, but rather I'm of the opinion that for most people, you'll get more improvement by upgrading your speakers (or waiting until you have saved more money and can afford to ) than upgrading amplification (unless more power is needed). If you can't wait by all means improve your components.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
All it takes is a good friend you trust and the willingness to try be honest with yourself. Years ago I got hold of some hi zoot speaker cables and swore up and down to my friend (who lived in the same apartment complex) about it. He doubted it. I was aghast that he could not hear what I so obviously heard!
So, since we worked different shifts, he would come into my apartment when I was not home and (randomly) hook up either my new favorites or my old junky cables. Every day, I was to write down what cables I was listening to. My home, my system, my music, no time constraint or pressure. Just use my ears and let them decide. Of course, I could have peeked but that would not have been Kosher, would it? ;)
After two weeks, I was right about 50% correct or, IOW, I had no idea what I was hearing.
Deflated my audiophile ego, it did...
Interesting. What percentage of correct answers would constitute a positive outcome?
Thank goodness you trusted this friend! Right now I'd be afraid that I'd come home and find CD's missing and a pregnant dog! :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
Simply because no one has ever been able to demonstrate when "blind" that the premise has any validity to it at all - that's how one can know. This is not to say that there is positively, absolutely no sonic difference whatsoever between different cables ... only that whatever differences that might exist are likely to be so minimal - so subtle - so inconsequential - that being able to detect them in a "blind test" is all but impossible.
Yes, I not only "suggest" it, I will go so far as to state it as an incontrovertible FACT that what our 5 senses provide us are under the direct influence and control of the Attitudes and Beliefs that an individual holds. Of course you can "trust" your senses ... to provide you with a sensory perception - but, you cannot trust any of your senses to also tell you what is true and "real" and what is only an illusion. An illusion that you yourself are responsible for the creation of.
Why not? If the phenomenon of "cable sonics" were indeed "real", how does it stand to reason that only a small minority of humans are able to detect them? And when those that report "hearing" such things can only do so when "sighted" listening is involved, and when listening "blind" they fail to be able to "hear" quite as clearly, doesn't that raise a warning flag of suspicion up the ol' flagpole?
No, not unless someone was trying to sell me a jar of peanut butter for $200 with the promise that it would enrich my life in countless ways and make me cherish the day that I discovered such a wonderful product ... then, I might. Then again, on second thought, I'd probably just grab a shotgun and chase his unscrupulous BS ass out of my house!
Point 1. No one! Unless you have read all of the related literature on this topic you don't know that no one has been able to demonstrate the premise. The subtlety of cable differences may be trivial to you but many of us find just those subtleties to be at the heart of music reproduction.
Point 2. True enough, as far as this goes, we have all seen example of optical illusions, but how many of us have had taste illusions etc.
Point 3. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Only a handful of people have a deep understanding of Einstein's Relativity equations but they describe the world pretty well. Because only a small minority understand them would you indict the equations?
The problem with absolute statements is that our experience is limited in both time and space, thus we can not justify making comments that are opinions sound like facts. Ours is a subjective hobby.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
Interesting. What percentage of correct answers would constitute a positive outcome?
Thank goodness you trusted this friend! Right now I'd be afraid that I'd come home and find CD's missing and a pregnant dog! :)
We agreed that a hit rate of 80% would satisfy that an audiable difference existed. I didn't worry about a pregnant dog because we fed each other's cats and took in the mail when we were away and my female was fixed. CD's (at least in the audio sense) didn't exist in those days and we regularly shared records anyway.
Hmmmm. ...now that you mention it, Goldenberry always did like him...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
Let's flip that 2% improvement around, that could mean 98% of the time you can't tell it's better....
Not at all. It means that it's always 2% better sounding. Small improvement but one that's always in evidence. I pulled the number off the wall but it was only for the sake of making a point.
Otherwise, I totally agree with your post.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
We agreed that a hit rate of 80% would satisfy that an audiable difference existed. I didn't worry about a pregnant dog because we fed each other's cats and took in the mail when we were away and my female was fixed. CD's (at least in the audio sense) didn't exist in those days and we regularly shared records anyway.
Hmmmm. ...now that you mention it, Goldenberry always did like him...
Fixing them doesn't mean they ain't interested no more! My parents female dog humps just about anything, including the air - in a kind of grotesque burlesque. The vet says it's an involuntary action. It's definitely a room clearing escapade in the best Three Stooges routine... "Whooooooooaaaaaaaa!!!!!"
80%, eh? And I doubt 5 trials would satisfy anyone so it looks like 10, minimum. Well, no time like the present....
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
Not at all. It means that it's always 2% better sounding. Small improvement but one that's always in evidence. I pulled the number off the wall but it was only for the sake of making a point.
Otherwise, I totally agree with your post.
This I find impossible to believe...sometimes 2% (or whatever number) better sounding. Simple passages aren't necessarily all that demanding. Some times even low-end gear can reproduce these to perfection, or at least AS GOOD as a better piece of gear.
And I think we can both admit, sometimes a better amp is better at most attributes yet worse at others.
It would be more accurate to say, we sometimes think we hear it being 2% better at some things, though we are unable to consistently demonstrate that we hear it is better .
Yikes, I'm sounding like naysayer...gonna have to sell my Rotel and by a Sony receiver...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
This I find impossible to believe...sometimes 2% (or whatever number) better sounding. Simple passages aren't necessarily all that demanding. Some times even low-end gear can reproduce these to perfection, or at least AS GOOD as a better piece of gear.
And I think we can both admit, sometimes a better amp is better at most attributes yet worse at others.
It would be more accurate to say, we sometimes think we hear it being 2% better at some things, though we are unable to consistently demonstrate that we hear it is better .
Yikes, I'm sounding like naysayer...gonna have to sell my Rotel and by a Sony receiver...
Ah, I see what you're saying! Yes, you're correct. If it's a 2% bump in a certain area or two, those areas might not be in evidence all the time. Agreed.
I owned a Rotel years ago and really liked it. I compared it to its contemporary NAD and a few others and I thought it came out on top - so I bought it. It looked like a reject from a metal fab shop, though! :) But great detail! It killed the competition. I also owned a Sony receiver... we won't go there! :)
-
Actually, I'm one of the lucky ones as far as Sony receivers go...I bought a cheapy Pro-Logic jobby for my parents that I borrowed in college for a few years. The darn thing powered some old Cerwin Vega's I had at rediculous volumes and though you could cook eggs on it, it wouldn't die.
I've owned a few NAD's in my days, the 3020 and 3140 I still have, just can't part with'em, but my Rotel is on a whole other level in my opinion (of course I can't prove that and I'd probably fail a DBT)...it certainly looks a lot prettier :)
I don't hear anything "bright" in the Rotel at all...Especially beside the Adcoms.
Not as nice as the Parasound I wanted, but no complaints.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by risabet
Point 1. No one! Unless you have read all of the related literature on this topic you don't know that no one has been able to demonstrate the premise. The subtlety of cable differences may be trivial to you but many of us find just those subtleties to be at the heart of music reproduction.
Everybody knows this to be a fact (except of course those that are plagued with a severe case of terminal denial). If someone were ever successful at "the test", you better believe that the whole world would be summarily informed of the fact ... at least everyone that has ever expressed more than a passing interest in audio, that is.
Quote:
Point 2. True enough, as far as this goes, we have all seen example of optical illusions, but how many of us have had taste illusions etc.
All of us! We experience sensory perceptions - with any of our 5 senses that are not quite "real" every day of the week! Whatever gave you the idea that our eyes were the only sensory organs that are subject to trickery and deception? Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you - it has no bearing on the truth of it. For instance, I myself have many taste illusions which result in my not eating certain foods ... ever! This phenomenon is not the result of my taste buds being different from everyone elses ... it results from Attitudes and Beliefs about those specific foods that I hold. I don't know where these As and Bs came from, but I know that they are responsible for the distaste that I would experience should any of of those foods find their way into my mouth. If these foods were actually that foul tasting, no one else would be able to eat them either.
Quote:
Point 3. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Only a handful of people have a deep understanding of Einstein's Relativity equations but they describe the world pretty well. Because only a small minority understand them would you indict the equations?
You're mixing up apples and elephants here ... we're discussing sensory perceptions - not esoteric science theorems. You try to work ol' Albert Einstein into the equation with the point that few people really understand his "theory" and try to make an analogy between that and the fact that very few people are able to hear the sonic properties of different cables. That simply doesn't fly ... hell, it doesn't even get off the ground. Also, you conveniently failed to comment regarding my final sentence which made the significant point that those that claim to "hear" all sorts of things when "sighted", suddenly lose their magical hearing abilities once the blinders are put in place. Why not? I contend that there simply is no answer to that one other than the oh so obvious one ... that those who "trust their ears" implicitly cannot trust them unless the ears "know" what they're listening to!
-
Quote:
that those who "trust their ears" implicitly cannot trust them unless the ears "know" what they're listening to!
That's a good 'un. :D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
For instance, I myself have many taste illusions which result in my not eating certain foods ... ever! This phenomenon is [u
not[/u] the result of my taste buds being different from everyone elses ... it results from Attitudes and Beliefs about those specific foods that I hold. I don't know where these As and Bs came from, but I know that they are responsible for the distaste that I would experience should any of of those foods find their way into my mouth. If these foods were actually that foul tasting, no one else would be able to eat them either.[/b]]
Hmmm... I wonder about this. I hated liver as a kid and my mother of course made me eat it. So far, your theory holds. But I ate some recently without knowing what it was... it had bacon wrapped around it and I thought it was sausage. Bleah!
Is it attitudes and beliefs or simply a different chemical balance that makes food taste good or bad to us? Whatever... the liver is all yours! :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
Is it attitudes and beliefs or simply a different chemical balance that makes food taste good or bad to us? Whatever... the liver is all yours! :)
I would have to say that attitudes, beliefs, prior knowledge, etc. have a profound effect on our ability to enjoy food. A great chef can take a simple dish yet present it in a way that will have you expecting a very tasty meal. You can eat the exact same thing without the presentation and it will not taste as good. I believe your tastes also change with things like the mood you are in, the environment or atmosphere, etc. For example, when I go whitewater canoing, a simple steak and potato cooked over the fire is like heaven.
And think of all the foods that disgust you just by their name: bull testicles, chocolate covered roaches, liver, etc.
There are obviously some chemicals or tastes that will taste bad regardless of how they are dressed up, but I think true taste testing would need to be blind so that only the sense of taste is working and not preconceived notions.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodman
All of us! We experience sensory perceptions - with any of our 5 senses that are not quite "real" every day of the week! Whatever gave you the idea that our eyes were the only sensory organs that are subject to trickery and deception? Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you - it has no bearing on the truth of it. For instance, I myself have many taste illusions which result in my not eating certain foods ... ever! This phenomenon is not the result of my taste buds being different from everyone elses ... it results from Attitudes and Beliefs about those specific foods that I hold. I don't know where these As and Bs came from, but I know that they are responsible for the distaste that I would experience should any of of those foods find their way into my mouth. If these foods were actually that foul tasting, no one else would be able to eat them either.
Your tastebuds reflect the combination of genes that you inherited from your parents. Our attitudes and beliefs have no influence on whether or not we can taste PTC, phenylthiocarbamide, which taste bitter to some and has no taste to others (a simple recessive/dominant trait), or whether or not sodium benzoate taste sweet, salty, bitter, or tasteless. Peoples choices and preferences for foods, whether they like or dislike them, are determined by a combination of factors, primarily genetic combinations that you can't control and cultural factors that can be learned or unlearned. Biology 101
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
I would have to say that attitudes, beliefs, prior knowledge, etc. have a profound effect on our ability to enjoy food.
That's precisely what I've been trying to get across to those diehards who insist that "I hear what I hear" and that knowing what they're listening to has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
... but I think true taste testing would need to be blind so that only the sense of taste is working and not preconceived notions.
Precisely, Mike. Preconceived notions (even those that are buried deep in the subconscious) will have an effect on every sensory perception that we experience from our eyes, our ears, our nose, our taste-buds, and our fingers. No one - no matter how vehemently they might try to deny it - is immune from this "fact of life".
Thanks for your backup, Mike.
-
Nonetheless
Quote:
Originally Posted by risabet
Your tastebuds reflect the combination of genes that you inherited from your parents. Our attitudes and beliefs have no influence on whether or not we can taste PTC, phenylthiocarbamide, which taste bitter to some and has no taste to others (a simple recessive/dominant trait), or whether or not sodium benzoate taste sweet, salty, bitter, or tasteless. Peoples choices and preferences for foods, whether they like or dislike them, are determined by a combination of factors, primarily genetic combinations that you can't control and cultural factors that can be learned or unlearned. Biology 101
Woodman's points stand, there is more than enough evidence about the validity of blind taste tests.
One has to look no further than the cola wars...Coca-Cola's own research on thousands of people determined that 7/10 people prefer Pepsi over Coke when taste is alone is the input. That was the fundamental driving force behind New Coke (still available in some States/Countries), which research suggested tastes even better, still.
Yet sighted tastes tests produce vastly different results.
I think this was more along the lines of what Woodman was getting at, other senses "interfere" with your perception of taste, and therefore can interfere with "the truth".
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
My hearing tells me it is indeed Mr Shea.
No, it is your brain telling you that it is Mr. Shea. Your hearing is only an objective instrument that takes information from the outside world and passes it to your brain for processing.
And the brain is such a complex machine that it can actually discard objective information from the ear or even add information that is not there during its processing. And you would have to be a robot to be able to control this. This is the exact reason that the medical community tests its new drugs and procedures by concealing from the participants what exactly it is that they are taking.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
Why do you argue a subject that by your own admission is inconsequential to the point of invisibility? Just curious.
Two reasons. Arguing in a civilized manner is stimulating. And even though audio cables is a benign subject, I have come across lots of interesting information during these discussions.
Secondly, I believe that issue of cable sonics can be applied to a much broader spectrum of life. The thought process we use to evaluate and choose and determine preference, etc. in audio is applicable to much more than audio.
As I have mentioned in the past, people still believe in things like toiled water going down a certain way in the Northern Hemisphere or that raindrops are tear-shaped or that the Great Wall of China is the only man-made object seen from space.
Other topics along these lines are people that believe that man did not go to the moon. I really get a kick out of the complete dismissal of the overwhelming evidence that they did not to mention that thinking a government could pull that off is really quite incredulous.
The bottom line: I think people can do a better job of thinking about things, being a little more skeptical, asking more questions, verifying stories and myths and in general being independent rather than sheep.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by risabet
... or whether or not taste sweet, salty, bitter, or tasteless.
You are right of course.
Now say I had two foods which were identical except one had sodium benzoate in it. I had both of them on a table marked A (sodium benzoate) and B (no sodium benzoate) and A had the sodium benzoate. I taste both of them and tell you that I can taste the sodium benzoate in A but not B. What value does my test have for you? What would your reaction be?
Well, it should be to make me redo the test, get a licensed tester, remove the markers, have the friend switch the plates around and do it several times. Then the tester can produce a score card. Now, if I picked A 19 times out of 20, you could say the test was positive. Now we could use other people of varying capabilities, we could change the amount of sodium benzoate in each dish, we could use different base foods, etc. Now that's SCIENCE 101.
I don't see any of that in audio so claims of cable sonics are right up there with claims I can tell Pepsi from Coke while holding a can of each in all their blue and red glory.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
And since I just read from a couple of sources that loudspeakers are indistinguishable (or nearly so) from live music - on this very thread. I can't wait to find out which speakers they are! Soon we will all have the same systems! :D
AR-3s driven by Dyna MK III amps.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
AR-3s driven by Dyna MK III amps.
OK, 5 points ;)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
AR-3s driven by Dyna MK III amps.
rw
I note that you own neither these speakers nor the amps. Nor do I. I guess "near perfect" live sound from our stereo systems isn't motivation enough. :D
-
MASSIVELY irrelevant
Quote:
Originally Posted by risabet
Common sense would indicate that the proper order of importance is
1. Source first, ...
2. Amplification...
3. Loudspeakers...
"The chain is no stronger than it's weakest link." The order of the links is largely irrelevant.
The weakest link in the reproduction chain is almost always the speaker.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
I note that you own neither these speakers nor the amps. Nor do I. I guess "near perfect" live sound from our stereo systems isn't motivation enough. :D
Uh, right.
I'm in Portland this week with the wife watching the US Figure Skating championships. While the skating is first class, hearing the music on the Rose Center's PA is excruciatingly painful. Hearing massed violins screech is not my idea of the "live" experience. But according to Woodman, it must be that I just have a bad attitude. :)
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Uh, right.
I'm in Portland this week with the wife watching the US Figure Skating championships. While the skating is first class, hearing the music on the Rose Center's PA is excruciatingly painful. Hearing massed violins screech is not my idea of the "live" experience. But according to Woodman, it must be that I just have a bad attitude. :)
rw
You should try some blind testing! Sounds like nitpicking to me! :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
You should try some blind testing! Sounds like nitpicking to me! :)
Nit picking to suggest that a sports arena PA sounds different than a live symphony orchestra?
We have a very different point of reference for live music.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Nit picking to suggest that a sports arena PA sounds different than a live symphony orchestra?
We have a very different point of reference for live music.
rw
Sorry - just trying to use my new-found knowledge of objectivity! Illusions, imagination running amok, that sort of thing. I guess you just put a crimp in that! LOL.
Funny - when I think of PA systems, I think of this old Crown preamp I had the distinct displeasure of hearing several years ago, model number cheerfully forgotten. It made a decent system sound like a PA. Thank goodness all preamps don't sound alike!
Did Mrs E-Stat take home the Gold?
|