"The Truth in Audio" -- according to www.commonsenseaudio.com

[musicoverall]

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!

[kexodusc]

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.

[woodman]

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.

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.

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!

[theaudiohobby]

that those who "trust their ears" implicitly cannot trust them unless the ears "know" what they're listening to!

That's a good 'un.

[musicoverall]

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!

[Monstrous Mike]

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.

[risabet]

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

[woodman]

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.

... 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.

[kexodusc]

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".

[Monstrous Mike]

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.

[Monstrous Mike]

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.

[Monstrous Mike]

... 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.

[E-Stat]

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!

AR-3s driven by Dyna MK III amps.

rw

[markw]

AR-3s driven by Dyna MK III amps.

OK, 5 points

[musicoverall]

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.

[Feanor]

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.

[E-Stat]

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.

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

[musicoverall]

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!

[E-Stat]

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

[musicoverall]

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?

[Feanor]

And here's the truth in audio:...

1. The speakers represent about 90% of the quality of sound ...
2. The source component (CD or LP) is the next most important...
3. The preamp (or preamp stage of an integrated amp) is next in importance....
4. The amplifier is the least important part of a system....
5. Fancy cables are the 'snake oil' of modern life

...

But not true as you move upscale. E.g., from my experience, the amplifier is important and certainly No. 2; it's more important than source for sure.

OTOH, I subscribe to the "weakest link in the change" perspective, and that is almost always the speaker.

[musicoverall]

But not true as you move upscale. E.g., from my experience, the amplifier is important and certainly No. 2; it's more important than source for sure.

OTOH, I subscribe to the "weakest link in the change" perspective, and that is almost always the speaker.

I think it depends on the system. I use tubed monoblock amps which together cost less than half my speakers cost... er... new retail, that is. OTOH, a good friend of mine uses horn speakers and they sound their best when driven by amplification twice as expensive as the speakers.

[risabet]

But not true as you move upscale. E.g., from my experience, the amplifier is important and certainly No. 2; it's more important than source for sure.

OTOH, I subscribe to the "weakest link in the change" perspective, and that is almost always the speaker.

I am still amazed that the many can consider the amp more important than the source, Can the amp replace information that the source fails to deliver? Can the speakers create that missing info? Obviously not! I agree with the the weakest link theory but I accept the hierarchy theory as proposed by Ivor Tiefenbrun (founder of Linn Prod. Ltd), that you can never replace information that is not retrieved from the source, all you can do is leave it the same or mess it up.

[musicoverall]

I am still amazed that the many can consider the amp more important than the source, Can the amp replace information that the source fails to deliver? Can the speakers create that missing info? Obviously not! I agree with the the weakest link theory but I accept the hierarchy theory as proposed by Ivor Tiefenbrun (founder of Linn Prod. Ltd), that you can never replace information that is not retrieved from the source, all you can do is leave it the same or mess it up.

The speakers have the biggest sonic signature - much more so than the source. It isn't that they're "more important" per se.

Let's take a look at your own system. I could score a Parasound for about $100 used but it would take much more than that to purchase your Martin Logans. Are you suggesting that if you bought a $5000 CD player and had $200 speakers that you're system would sound better? Surely not. What do you feel is lacking from your Parasound? If you feel that it's the "weak" point in your system, you could certainly spend more money and "improve" upon it, right? And remember, Ivor was talking about turntables, arms and cartridges - much more difficult to get right than CD players... if a CD player is ever "right", that is!

And I'm NOT knocking your system! In fact, I wanna come over and hear it! What's your beer preference?

[E-Stat]

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.

That would be the ICK-150. I owned its decent sounding amp cousin, the D-150, about thirty years ago. The Crown dealer where I bought the amp mercifully talked me out of buying that preamp in favor of an H-K Citation 11. That was when I still believed in the value of total harmonic distortion specifications (where ironically it excelled) and the tooth fairy.

Did Mrs E-Stat take home the Gold?

She wishes ! Michelle Kwan won that honor in the short program a little while ago. But, she and I both competed recreationally years ago. That's how we met.

rw