Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 70
  1. #26
    Forum Regular Tony_Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    Anyone who has listened to hundreds or thousands of vinyl and digital recordings on a good system knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that vinyl is far closer to audio truth than digital.
    That is not necessary true.

    If you are comparing LP with CDs, you will notice that each format have its shortcoming and advantages. LP may have higher resolution due to being analog, but the [higher] resolution is masked by its inherited negative qualities such as higher noise and low dynamic range.

    CDs on the hand have better noise and Dynamic range figure than LPs, but it is lacking slightly in resolution due to its low sampling bit. So saying that either format is closer to true recording is not looking at the whole picture.

    But I hope there are no arguments that new [digital] formats such as SACD or DVD-A are leaps and bound ahead of LP and CDs, and are very true to original recording master.

    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    Such a person therefore has developed a healthy distrust of numbers and meters - the limit of audio engineering and science as of this time.
    Well if it wasn't for the numbers, measurements and science, we still be listening to AM radio, and/or noisy scratchy 78s and 45s
    "Say Hello To My Little Friend."

  2. #27
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Montana
    That is not necessary true.

    If you are comparing LP with CDs, you will notice that each format have its shortcoming and advantages. LP may have higher resolution due to being analog, but the [higher] resolution is masked by its inherited negative qualities such as higher noise and low dynamic range.

    CDs on the hand have better noise and Dynamic range figure than LPs, but it is lacking slightly in resolution due to its low sampling bit. So saying that either format is closer to true recording is not looking at the whole picture.

    But I hope there are no arguments that new [digital] formats such as SACD or DVD-A are leaps and bound ahead of LP and CDs, and are very true to original recording master.

    Well if it wasn't for the numbers, measurements and science, we still be listening to AM radio, and/or noisy scratchy 78s and 45s
    CDs on the hand have better noise and Dynamic range figure than LPs, but it is lacking slightly in resolution due to its low sampling bit. So saying that either format is closer to true recording is not looking at the whole picture.

    I'm talking about transcendental audio truth. You're talking about geek stuff. That kind of talk isn't allowed in my sound room. My sound room is a pleasure palace - not a science lab.

    But I hope there are no arguments that new [digital] formats such as SACD or DVD-A are leaps and bound ahead of LP and CDs, and are very true to original recording master.

    WRONG!

    If you don't believe me just spend some time at the HiRez board or the Vinyl board over at AA - there's all kinds of arguments on just that issue. I can tell you that both my dedicated redbook front end AND my vinyl front end run circles around the 2-channel SACD performance of my Marantz 8260 SACD player.

    In fact, I have serious questions as to whether 2-channel SACD is any improvement AT ALL over redbook. I think that SACD is driven primarily by economic and patent considerations. But off course, because its specs are better, the placebo effect has led many "scientists" to conclude that it sounds better; just as the numbers comparison between redbook and vinyl has led countless number-cruchers to believe they hear improvement in redbook over vinyl. Unfortunately, most of them are too arrogant in their belief in their superiority that they can't even see that they suffer from the same ABE's that the golden-ears who they despise are suffering from.

    Well if it wasn't for the numbers, measurements and science, we still be listening to AM radio, and/or noisy scratchy 78s and 45s

    It would be fool-hearty for anyone to claim that numbers, measurements and science don't matter. I used the term "healthy distrust". As much as scientists want the rest of us peons to believe that their quatization of the world is perfect, some of us understand the personal value that a holistic approach to experiencing life can have at times.

    When I'm in my soundroom, I'm in the holistic mode - and it is from that source that my transcendental audio truth is derived. I understand that there are those who have virtually no background in philosophy, art, literature and poetry and that all of this is way beyond them.

    The truly great scientists such as Einstein understood that life can be approached from many different angles, only one of which requires the quantization of all human experience.

    I strongly suspect that both jneutron and Steve Eddy know exactly what I'm talking about. They both seem to me to be people who understand the great value of the discipline that resides in the scientific method, but also are bright enough and experienced enough to refuse to be completely hog-tied by that discipline.

    In the final analysis for me, there is one thing that both encompasses truth and is far more important than truth - WISDOM. And I believe that the essence of wisdom is an appreciation of how little we really know and how limited our way of perceiving and experiencing the world may be.

    Stephen Hawkings has pushed science to its current limits in attempting to describe and understand the universe. Few people, including me, even have a glimmer of what he is talking about and what he sees. Yet, I suspect that even he retains the humility to allow for his limits.

  3. #28
    Forum Regular Tony_Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    184
    Well, I really don't want to get bugged down with the discussion of "philosophy" of human nature and how that relate to audio experience. We will end up running around the circle until the cow come home. So I prefer sticking to the issues

    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    If you don't believe me just spend some time at the HiRez board or the Vinyl board over at AA - there's all kinds of arguments on just that issue.
    Yes, I did see that thread about Vinyl vs SACD/DVD-A over in AA. They had the same problem-which is not looking at the whole picture. We can argue all day [subjectively] about superiority of Vinyl over CD or SACD, but we can not get away from the facts that each format (especially LP and CD) have its shortcomings.

    How can you say that LP is truer to the master recording when master recording have dynamic range of way over 50 dB and extremely low noise, while LP's Dynamic rage is below 50 dB and high S/N (sound to noise) ratio. I know you don't like to get bugged down with the science and numbers, but the knowledge of each formats, their advantage and shortcomings is essentials in evaluating each format correctly.

    I can tell you that both my dedicated redbook front end AND my vinyl front end run circles around the 2-channel SACD performance of my Marantz 8260 SACD player.
    I own over 500 Lps and been listening to them over last 20 years, and I don't buy that statement for a second (for the reason mentioned above). Although my system is not consider high end (or medium end ) and don't have a SACD/DVD-A player, but I belive with the right recording that can take advantage of the new formats, they will definitely blow LP and CDs out of water.

    I think that SACD is driven primarily by economic and patent considerations. But off course, because its specs are better, the placebo effect has led many "scientists" to conclude that it sounds better; just as the numbers comparison between redbook and vinyl has led countless number-cruchers to believe they hear improvement in redbook over vinyl.
    I hope you don't raise that argument with record or audio engineers. They will tell you that SACD or DVD-A are the only format that comes close to true master recording. Why do you think record industry still prevent digital output for above two formats? And the reason is because it is extremely high resolution and so close to master recording that they are afraid it might be used with wrong intention of distributing.

    I don't see anybody raisin any eye brow over digital out from CD player (or LP player if it had one), because they are low resolution formats
    "Say Hello To My Little Friend."

  4. #29
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Montana
    Well, I really don't want to get bugged down with the discussion of "philosophy" of human nature and how that relate to audio experience. We will end up running around the circle until the cow come home. So I prefer sticking to the issues



    Yes, I did see that thread about Vinyl vs SACD/DVD-A over in AA. They had the same problem-which is not looking at the whole picture. We can argue all day [subjectively] about superiority of Vinyl over CD or SACD, but we can not get away from the facts that each format (especially LP and CD) have its shortcomings.

    How can you say that LP is truer to the master recording when master recording have dynamic range of way over 50 dB and extremely low noise, while LP's Dynamic rage is below 50 dB and high S/N (sound to noise) ratio. I know you don't like to get bugged down with the science and numbers, but the knowledge of each formats, their advantage and shortcomings is essentials in evaluating each format correctly.



    I own over 500 Lps and been listening to them over last 20 years, and I don't buy that statement for a second (for the reason mentioned above). Although my system is not consider high end (or medium end ) and don't have a SACD/DVD-A player, but I belive with the right recording that can take advantage of the new formats, they will definitely blow LP and CDs out of water.



    I hope you don't raise that argument with record or audio engineers. They will tell you that SACD or DVD-A are the only format that comes close to true master recording. Why do you think record industry still prevent digital output for above two formats? And the reason is because it is extremely high resolution and so close to master recording that they are afraid it might be used with wrong intention of distributing.

    I don't see anybody raisin any eye brow over digital out from CD player (or LP player if it had one), because they are low resolution formats
    Well, I really don't want to get bugged down with the discussion of "philosophy" of human nature and how that relate to audio experience.

    Then don't try to carry on a discussion with me right now, because that's what I want to talk about.

    We will end up running around the circle until the cow come home. So I prefer sticking to the issues

    You mean stick with YOUR issues. I'll pass for now.

    I hope you don't raise that argument with record or audio engineers. They will tell you that SACD or DVD-A are the only format that comes close to true master recording. Why do you think record industry still prevent digital output for above two formats? And the reason is because it is extremely high resolution and so close to master recording that they are afraid it might be used with wrong intention of distributing.

    It's not an argument - it's my holistic truth - BIG DIFFERENCE.

    And I'll share that truth with whomever I choose - they can take it or leave it - just as I can take or leave other people's truths. I doubt that you really have much of idea of what most recording engineers would say.

    The primary reason for protecting the digital stream is its freedom from pops and clicks, which to the mass market is all that counts. The CPA's and upper management of the big conglomerates could care less about concerns of the high end market - we are a non-entity from an economic point of view.

    They will protect what they need to protect to attempt to maintain their grip on the mass market. If they'd stop worrying as much about copy protection and suing college kids and pay more attention to producing and fostering talent and taste they might be more successful. But just like the engineer who dons blinders, they can think of only numbers.

    Yeah, I know - I've already swallowed the bait and am discussing YOUR issues.

    I don't see anybody raisin any eye brow over digital out from CD player (or LP player if it had one), because they are low resolution formats

    I'll play your game on this one too.

    This just shows how out of touch you are. Don't kid yourself - if they had it to do all over again they certainly would. They have sure tried. SACD is another non-entity from an economic standpoint. It may have been Sony's effort to put the genie back in the bottle - hoping that the mass market would shift to SACD and allow them to copy protect what they would give their right [bleep] to be able to protect with the mass market redbook format. DVD-A was certainly an attempt to do that.

    Neither new format has even made a dent in the mass market - and I predict both will either die or remain marginal formats appealing mainly to engineer-types who are slaves to specs. When the Stone's new box set was released, you couldn't find a hint on the box that it was a dual layer release which included SACD. They were affraid the SACD name or symbol would scare prospective purchasers off.

    Redbook done well is good enough. I can live with it. It's just that I know that nothing available now (other than good master analog tapes) will equal the reach-out-and-touch-realism, goose-bump-inducing magic that is possible with vinyl.

    If I had a half-day of your time in my soundroom you'd come to understand what I'm saying.

  5. #30
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    If you're looking for scientific truth, I'll tell you where you won't find it - Cable Asylum, Jon Risch's website and the bogus, amateur published DBTs you try to foist off on the uneducated, uncritical masses.

    So we can agree on some things in audio?

    If you are looking for scientific truth, look to Steve Eddy and jneutron. They deal almost exclusively with verifiable facts, hypotheses that can be subjected to scrutiny, reason and the scientific method. And isn't it interesting that these two great men of science see the Great Cable Debate as the folly of fools and virtually never try to foist off their "advice" on to others.

    So then they can advise us on audible differences in cables and audio components then?

    Now if you are looking for the transcendental truth of audio as it has been revealed to us mere mortals to date, you must turn to the keeper of all transcendental audio truth - ME, of course.

    As of June, 2004, there are two great revealed truths of audio:

    1. Anyone who has listened to hundreds or thousands of vinyl and digital recordings on a good system knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that vinyl is far closer to audio truth than digital. Such a person therefore has developed a healthy distrust of numbers and meters - the limit of audio engineering and science as of this time.

    2. The vast majority of audiophiles make their decisions without any help from any of us, and manage to log millions and millions of enjoyable listening hours regardless of how hard we who waste our time on audio boards try to dissect and destroy the hobby.

    AND THUS THE MASTER HAS SPOKEN.


    I am trully blessed, if I can say that without lightning sriking, that I live in such a time era to be witness to this master
    Thanks
    mtrycrafts

  6. #31
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    If you're looking for scientific truth, I'll tell you where you won't find it - Cable Asylum, Jon Risch's website and the bogus, amateur published DBTs you try to foist off on the uneducated, uncritical masses.

    So we can agree on some things in audio?

    If you are looking for scientific truth, look to Steve Eddy and jneutron. They deal almost exclusively with verifiable facts, hypotheses that can be subjected to scrutiny, reason and the scientific method. And isn't it interesting that these two great men of science see the Great Cable Debate as the folly of fools and virtually never try to foist off their "advice" on to others.

    So then they can advise us on audible differences in cables and audio components then?

    Now if you are looking for the transcendental truth of audio as it has been revealed to us mere mortals to date, you must turn to the keeper of all transcendental audio truth - ME, of course.

    As of June, 2004, there are two great revealed truths of audio:

    1. Anyone who has listened to hundreds or thousands of vinyl and digital recordings on a good system knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that vinyl is far closer to audio truth than digital. Such a person therefore has developed a healthy distrust of numbers and meters - the limit of audio engineering and science as of this time.

    2. The vast majority of audiophiles make their decisions without any help from any of us, and manage to log millions and millions of enjoyable listening hours regardless of how hard we who waste our time on audio boards try to dissect and destroy the hobby.

    AND THUS THE MASTER HAS SPOKEN.


    I am trully blessed, if I can say that without lightning sriking, that I live in such a time era to be witness to this master
    Thanks
    So then they can advise us on audible differences in cables and audio components then?

    They wouldn't even try.

    Bless you my Brother.

  7. #32
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    So then they can advise us on audible differences in cables and audio components then?

    They wouldn't even try.

    Bless you my Brother.

    Oh, thank you. I needed some blessing for a change
    mtrycrafts

  8. #33
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    11
    My take is very different.
    I have hundreds of CDs and I came to a point where I realized there were dozens of hours of music in that collection that I can't stand. Tracks that I never wanted, stuffed in with the few I like on each CD.
    So, with the best 2-channel system I could afford and some high-quality sound editing equipment, I've been creating my own CDs, filled only with music I love, "remastered" by me in the order I like, with perfect segues and many glitches (clicks or poor fades etc) cleaned up. I can compile, by artist, style, instrument, mood, anything I like.
    When I now put a CD on, I know that not a minute is wasted listening to stuff I would otherwise only listen to because it is taking up space on an otherwise valued CD. Sure, one can program CDs, but often I might only like 15 minutes of the CD. Good editing could mix three or four such albums into one fine hour-long CD.
    I enjoy the actual editing and mixing and can get special pride from the end results.

    Try doing any of this with SACD. Or DVD Audio. Bad luck. You're stuck. You have to listen to what you are told. SACD/DVD-A is a joke. Of my hundreds of CDs, only two are available on SACD. Should I buy music I wouldn't normally want because on SACD it might sound 5% better? I've heard SACD versus redbook on the same player and SACD wins. Listening to the same SACD performance against a WELL-CHOSEN 2-channel system playing redbook, there was only a slight difference...but that was in favor of redbook. Yes, the 2-channel system was twice as expensive and SACD can do the surround gig, but SACD is absolutely valueless to me.
    I have just finished editing my CDs of Monteverdi's L'Orfeo. Running half the length of the original, my edit features only the scenes and voices I enjoy listening to, and it is edited beautifully if I say so myself. It is MY recording, the way I want to listen to it, with no jarring moments that aren't to my taste and that I'd otherwise have to suffer every time I play it.
    It took me three nights to get it the way I wanted it, and I love listening to it.
    Of course, I COULD wait five years for it to come out on SACD, and I COULD force myself to listen to the parts I don't like, and I COULD program the tracks and listen to what the track listing says I can choose from.
    But I prefer to listen to the music I like, rather than worry about how good music I don't care about sounds on SACD.

  9. #34
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    240

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Wrightstuff
    I've been creating my own CDs, filled only with music I love, "remastered" by me in the order I like, with perfect segues and many glitches (clicks or poor fades etc) cleaned up. I can compile, by artist, style, instrument, mood, anything I like.
    Good way to get the most out of ones listening time

  10. #35
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    HA! TRUTH YOU SAY?

    Now if you are looking for the transcendental truth of audio as it has been revealed to us mere mortals to date, you must turn to the keeper of all transcendental audio truth - ME, of course.
    Geez, I need to get those waders out again....maybe a shovel or two as well....

    -Bruce

  11. #36
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5

    Talking Better For Cheaper Is Easy...........................

    If You Want Better For Cheaper.......................

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dear A/V Friend,

    Better for cheaper is easy in my opinion. I had a 13ft pair of Tara Labs Prism Bi-wire cable set up for single run. I paid $180 for the pair 7 years ago. Last month I bought a 100ft. roll of CL rated XPHP from Best Buy (click on link below). I ran a single cable of this stuff to my surrounds and a double run to each of my main speakers and center channel speaker. Of course I used Monster Banana Jacks and Flexi-Pins too. The double run of this cable to my main speakers blew away my $180 Tara Labs Prism Bi-wire. I couldn't believe it! What a difference. Even my wife who doesn't have an audiophile ear could tell a BIG difference. This compact In-wall/Out-of-wall design employs nearly all of the significant technology of the more expensive Monster Cable. I'd bet a double run (i.e. a single cable for ea. "+" and "-") to each Main speaker,of this stuff, would blow your M1.2 away! As for actually bi-wiring your speakers, I think using a double run of speaker cable to each speaker would do just as fine a job as actually bi-wiring them. For $129 for the wire and maybe $100 for 5 sets of jacks you can't go wrong. Oh yea, it'll take you 30 minutes per cable to install the banana jacks to the cable carefully. Also, just so you know how much mark up there is on Monster Cable products, my nephew gets a 60% discount on all Monster Cable products as he is a Best Buy employee. High end stereo stores that sell Monster products have room to deal--believe me! My whole project cost was less than $100 because I knew someone at Best Buy. Best hundred bucks I have ever spent in my life. The sound quality difference was breathtaking. I bet Monster wouldn't like this cheap secret to get out that a double run of their cheaper cable sounds better than a single run of their more expensive stuff. Hope this helps. I can't imagine you could go wrong with this advice. Remember to click the link below so you know exactly what monster cable I'm talking about. There is a cheaper version of this cable that looks similar but uses a smaller gauge wire. I wounldn't want you to confuse the two. Good luck and tell me what you decide.

    Sincerely,
    Shawn Watson
    http://monstercable.com/custom_inst...CI.asp?pin=1447

  12. #37
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5

    Talking Cheaper For Better Is Easy.............

    Quote Originally Posted by stevos2005
    I'm relatively new to picking out cables and i'm only familiar with Monster Cable. I'm plannign to get a decent pair of B&W speakers that have bi-wiring capabilities. What are the benefits of biwiring and is it worth it?

    Also, I have Monster Cable M1.2 speaker cable, and was pleased with it, but I was wondering if there's anything that is a little better that will be cheaper, or something at a similiar or slightly lower price, that is significantly better. The Monster Cable M1.2 is placed at $150 for 10 ft. pair of speakers.

    Thanks!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dear A/V Friend,

    Better for cheaper is easy in my opinion. I had a 13ft pair of Tara Labs Prism Bi-wire cable set up for single run. I paid $180 for the pair 7 years ago. Last month I bought a 100ft. roll of CL rated XPHP from Best Buy (click on link below). I ran a single cable of this stuff to my surrounds and a double run to each of my main speakers and center channel speaker. Of course I used Monster Banana Jacks and Flexi-Pins too. The double run of this cable to my main speakers blew away my $180 Tara Labs Prism Bi-wire. I couldn't believe it! What a difference. Even my wife who doesn't have an audiophile ear could tell a BIG difference. This compact In-wall/Out-of-wall design employs nearly all of the significant technology of the more expensive Monster Cable. I'd bet a double run (i.e. a single cable for ea. "+" and "-") to each Main speaker,of this stuff, would blow your M1.2 away! As for actually bi-wiring your speakers, I think using a double run of speaker cable to each speaker would do just as fine a job as actually bi-wiring them. For $129 for the wire and maybe $100 for 5 sets of jacks you can't go wrong. Oh yea, it'll take you 30 minutes per cable to install the banana jacks to the cable carefully. Also, just so you know how much mark up there is on Monster Cable products, my nephew gets a 60% discount on all Monster Cable products as he is a Best Buy employee. High end stereo stores that sell Monster products have room to deal--believe me! My whole project cost was less than $100 because I knew someone at Best Buy. Best hundred bucks I have ever spent in my life. The sound quality difference was breathtaking. I bet Monster wouldn't like this cheap secret to get out that a double run of their cheaper cable sounds better than a single run of their more expensive stuff. Hope this helps. I can't imagine you could go wrong with this advice. Remember to click the link below so you know exactly what monster cable I'm talking about. There is a cheaper version of this cable that looks similar but uses a smaller gauge wire. I wounldn't want you to confuse the two. Good luck and tell me what you decide.

    Sincerely,
    Shawn Watson
    http://monstercable.com/custom_inst...CI.asp?pin=1447

  13. #38
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5

    Talking Better For Cheaper Is Easy...........................

    [FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=6][COLOR=Purple]
    Quote Originally Posted by stevos2005
    I'm relatively new to picking out cables and i'm only familiar with Monster Cable. I'm plannign to get a decent pair of B&W speakers that have bi-wiring capabilities. What are the benefits of biwiring and is it worth it?

    Also, I have Monster Cable M1.2 speaker cable, and was pleased with it, but I was wondering if there's anything that is a little better that will be cheaper, or something at a similiar or slightly lower price, that is significantly better. The Monster Cable M1.2 is placed at $150 for 10 ft. pair of speakers.

    Thanks!
    Better For Cheaper Is Easy...........................

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If You Want Better For Cheaper.......................

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dear A/V Friend,

    Better for cheaper is easy in my opinion. I had a 13ft pair of Tara Labs Prism Bi-wire cable set up for single run. I paid $180 for the pair 7 years ago. Last month I bought a 100ft. roll of CL rated XPHP from Best Buy (click on link below). I ran a single cable of this stuff to my surrounds and a double run to each of my main speakers and center channel speaker. Of course I used Monster Banana Jacks and Flexi-Pins too. The double run of this cable to my main speakers blew away my $180 Tara Labs Prism Bi-wire. I couldn't believe it! What a difference. Even my wife who doesn't have an audiophile ear could tell a BIG difference. This compact In-wall/Out-of-wall design employs nearly all of the significant technology of the more expensive Monster Cable. I'd bet a double run (i.e. a single cable for ea. "+" and "-") to each Main speaker,of this stuff, would blow your M1.2 away! As for actually bi-wiring your speakers, I think using a double run of speaker cable to each speaker would do just as fine a job as actually bi-wiring them. For $129 for the wire and maybe $100 for 5 sets of jacks you can't go wrong. Oh yea, it'll take you 30 minutes per cable to install the banana jacks to the cable carefully. Also, just so you know how much mark up there is on Monster Cable products, my nephew gets a 60% discount on all Monster Cable products as he is a Best Buy employee. High end stereo stores that sell Monster products have room to deal--believe me! My whole project cost was less than $100 because I knew someone at Best Buy. Best hundred bucks I have ever spent in my life. The sound quality difference was breathtaking. I bet Monster wouldn't like this cheap secret to get out that a double run of their cheaper cable sounds better than a single run of their more expensive stuff. Hope this helps. I can't imagine you could go wrong with this advice. Remember to click the link below so you know exactly what monster cable I'm talking about. There is a cheaper version of this cable that looks similar but uses a smaller gauge wire. I wounldn't want you to confuse the two. Good luck and tell me what you decide.

    Sincerely,
    Shawn Watson
    http://monstercable.com/custom_inst...CI.asp?pin=1447

  14. #39
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884

    "Absolutist advice"???? ROFL

    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    Fine. But you fell way short with that advice. You failed to inform about the vagaries of sighetd listening to determine audible differences. It doesn't work too well.You left this out because you yourself don't know? Or, you may be worried about the truth?

    Just as your absolutist advice to newcomers falls way short by failing to explain it is based solely on "not proven". I guess that makes two of you who may be worried about the truth.
    Absolutist advice? What is this, Phil, argument by making up a phrase, attaching an adjective to a noun? It looks like another misrepresentation. We do not maintain the null hypothesis is proven, never have, and yet you continue to make the false allegation that we do. You imply that we do not want larger scale studies to increase reliability, to reduce the likelihood of Type II errors, which is false, and you know it. Of course, if one does not conclude the null is proven, then one avoids making Type II errors. None of this deters you, Phil, for you keep on making the same false allegations.

    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    Oh, like SET amps? Passive preamps?
    LOL.

    You are at your finest when you're behaving in an arrogant, condescending manner. Is passive agressive behavior a component of the scientific method?
    You are referring to Wrightstuff, of course! In any case, mtrycrafts manner is irrelevant to whether interconnects and speaker cables make an audible difference and under what conditions.
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  15. #40
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    Absolutist advice? What is this, Phil, argument by making up a phrase, attaching an adjective to a noun? It looks like another misrepresentation. We do not maintain the null hypothesis is proven, never have, and yet you continue to make the false allegation that we do. You imply that we do not want larger scale studies to increase reliability, to reduce the likelihood of Type II errors, which is false, and you know it. Of course, if one does not conclude the null is proven, then one avoids making Type II errors. None of this deters you, Phil, for you keep on making the same false allegations.


    You are referring to Wrightstuff, of course! In any case, mtrycrafts manner is irrelevant to whether interconnects and speaker cables make an audible difference and under what conditions.
    You imply that we do not want larger scale studies to increase reliability, to reduce the likelihood of Type II errors, which is false, and you know it.

    The only misrepresentation around here is your mis-characterization of what I have said. When referring to mtrycrafts "absolutist" advice, I did not say or imply that you, mtrycrafts or the Pope don't want better tests. I have never come close to inferring that (although I have raised any number of unanswered questions regarding the test results that are often cited on this board). That was not the subject when I addressed the way in which mtrycrafts give advice. The subject was the advice mtrycrafts gives to newcomers, without any explanation as to how he arrived at his absolutist type advice.

    None of this deters you, Phil, for you keep on making the same false allegations.

    I am not detered by your constant mis-characterization of what I have said in your effort to set up a stawman with whom you can argue. Why don't you show some guts and go over to AA and take on Curl and Reisch like I do.

    mtrycrafts manner is irrelevant to whether interconnects and speaker cables make an audible difference and under what conditions

    And of course I never suggested or implied that it does. In your one dimensional world the only subject that can be discussed is DBT's. There are other issues that non-Spock type people are interested in - such as inter-personal communication and attitudes.

  16. #41
    Forum Regular Thatch_Ear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    11
    Since this thread is about biwiring I would think that if the wire is better than the jumper on the speaker then it will sound better. The more brass you keep out of the signal path the better off you will be.
    Now the question is if you change the jumpers to copper cable will it be as good as biwiring? Probably so. I believe that the largest problems with cabling is not the cables but the terminations.
    David Thatcher

  17. #42
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884

    Consequences

    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    You imply that we do not want larger scale studies to increase reliability, to reduce the likelihood of Type II errors, which is false, and you know it.

    The only misrepresentation around here is your mis-characterization of what I have said. When referring to mtrycrafts "absolutist" advice, I did not say or imply that you, mtrycrafts or the Pope don't want better tests. I have never come close to inferring that (although I have raised any number of unanswered questions regarding the test results that are often cited on this board). That was not the subject when I addressed the way in which mtrycrafts give advice. The subject was the advice mtrycrafts gives to newcomers, without any explanation as to how he arrived at his absolutist type advice.

    None of this deters you, Phil, for you keep on making the same false allegations.

    I am not detered by your constant mis-characterization of what I have said in your effort to set up a stawman with whom you can argue. Why don't you show some guts and go over to AA and take on Curl and Reisch like I do.

    mtrycrafts manner is irrelevant to whether interconnects and speaker cables make an audible difference and under what conditions

    And of course I never suggested or implied that it does. In your one dimensional world the only subject that can be discussed is DBT's. There are other issues that non-Spock type people are interested in - such as inter-personal communication and attitudes.
    "Absolutist advice," again! Whatever does this phrase mean, PC? Do you think just attaching an adjective to a noun establishes the reality of something or other? All I can see is that you would prefer to have us give bad advice and mislead newcomers.

    You already have your own answers for your questions, PC, so they are not "unanswered."

    Let's talk about consequences. What happens if a Type I error is made? A true null hypothesis is improperly rejected. Well, it could cost someone a lot of money buying cables, a consequence of some significance.

    What if a Type II error is made? A false null hypothesis is not rejected. Well, as your reference, Prof. Leventhal, will tell you, one could conclude the differences missed are very small. So, one would not achieve a tiny audible difference in the sound, a very insignificant consequence. It isn't as though someone is incorrectly sent to jail or the military incorrectly chooses to shoot down a commercial airliner.
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  18. #43
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    "Absolutist advice," again! Whatever does this phrase mean, PC? Do you think just attaching an adjective to a noun establishes the reality of something or other? All I can see is that you would prefer to have us give bad advice and mislead newcomers.

    You already have your own answers for your questions, PC, so they are not "unanswered."

    Let's talk about consequences. What happens if a Type I error is made? A true null hypothesis is improperly rejected. Well, it could cost someone a lot of money buying cables, a consequence of some significance.

    What if a Type II error is made? A false null hypothesis is not rejected. Well, as your reference, Prof. Leventhal, will tell you, one could conclude the differences missed are very small. So, one would not achieve a tiny audible difference in the sound, a very insignificant consequence. It isn't as though someone is incorrectly sent to jail or the military incorrectly chooses to shoot down a commercial airliner.
    I don't need to ask Leventhal about the magnitude of differences. He has already answered that question:

    ôRegarding old conclusions, published listening studies employing a small number of trials or listeners (small N) typically fail to produce statistical significance at the 0.05 level. Many readers reach the conclusion: "there were no audible differences." My paper suggests a more accurate conclusion: "there were no large audible differences, but judgment should be withheld about small or moderate audible differences because the studies were not sufficiently powerful (sensitive) to find them when they occur." Professor Shanefield and others interested only in large audible differences will find no practical difference between the conclusions. But those interested in small or moderate audible differences will find the conclusions to be different. fficeffice" />>>

    >>

    Regarding engineering usefulness, even engineers interested only in large audible differences should find the paper useful. First, it discusses statistical assumptions and design considerations for listening studies, Published listening studies often founder on one or both of these requirements. Second, an engineer designing a listening study can use Table 3 to find the minimum N to employ before the risk of overlooking large differences becomes unacceptably large. For example, assume it important to keep type 1 and type 2 error risks small and approximately equal. Table 3 shows that one interested only in large differences (p _> 0.9) can employ merely 10 trials or listeners (N = 10) and require eight correct for significance at the 0.06 level (actual type 1 error risk, that is, exact significance level = 0.0547).]░ Here the risk of over- looking an audible difference (type 2 error) when the difference is large is 0.0702. Thus type 1 and type 2 error risks are reasonably small and approximately equal (FC0.0 = 0.0547/0.0702 = 0.78). So Table 3 shows that an equal-error listening study looking only for large differences can employ an N of 10 and that most published studies, because they use N greater than 10, are needlessly long for this purpose. The third way the paper is useful is that an engineer reading a study with nonsignificant results can use Table 3 to find whether N was sufficiently large to uncover large audible differences when they occur. Since most studies employ an N greater than 10, they can uncover large differences and, with Table 3, the engineer will know why.

    >J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 35, No. 7/8, 1987 July/August, page 569>

  19. #44
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    " Anyone who has listened to hundreds or thousands of vinyl and digital recordings on a good system knows beyond any shadow of a doubt that vinyl is far closer to audio truth than digital."

    Now who is being absolutist? Anyone who has listened to as may recordings as you claim to have knows that there are excellent and miserable recordings in both media. And anyone who has experimented with making their own cd dubs of vinyl records knows that even in a home setup, you can come extraordinarily close. We had someone post here less than a year ago who did just that. It is unfair to compare vinyl records with a re-releases on cd made 20, 30, even 40 years later by different people using entirely different equipment and expecting an equal or superior product, especially when it is often a low budget project targeted at a nostalgia niche part of the larger market. Your absolutist statements are absurd.

    As for vinyl being closer to audio truth than cds, the entire arguement is a joke. For a accurately reproducing the sound of a single instrument such as a guitar, nickelodeon, or drums, Acoustic Research went to extraordinary efforts to produce successful live versus recorded demos in the 60's and 70's under the most contrived conditions. Most other companies which tried it failed miserably. As for commercially produced recordings, at most, small ensembles or soloists can be SUGGESTIVE of live music but as for "TRUTH", it's a real laugh. When you get to bigger groups heard in large venues such as symphony orchestras, choral works and organ recitals heard in cathedrals, operas, neither cds nor vinyl recordings given the current state of the art are even remotely close. Anyone with normal hearing can easily tell the difference between those performances and electronic playback of a recording in a home no matter what the recording or playback technology or equipment used.

  20. #45
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884

    Ho-Hum

    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    I don't need to ask Leventhal about the magnitude of differences. He has already answered that question:

    ôRegarding old conclusions, published listening studies employing a small number of trials or listeners (small N) typically fail to produce statistical significance at the 0.05 level. Many readers reach the conclusion: "there were no audible differences." My paper suggests a more accurate conclusion: "there were no large audible differences, but judgment should be withheld about small or moderate audible differences because the studies were not sufficiently powerful (sensitive) to find them when they occur." Professor Shanefield and others interested only in large audible differences will find no practical difference between the conclusions. But those interested in small or moderate audible differences will find the conclusions to be different. fficeffice" />>>

    >>

    Regarding engineering usefulness, even engineers interested only in large audible differences should find the paper useful. First, it discusses statistical assumptions and design considerations for listening studies, Published listening studies often founder on one or both of these requirements. Second, an engineer designing a listening study can use Table 3 to find the minimum N to employ before the risk of overlooking large differences becomes unacceptably large. For example, assume it important to keep type 1 and type 2 error risks small and approximately equal. Table 3 shows that one interested only in large differences (p _> 0.9) can employ merely 10 trials or listeners (N = 10) and require eight correct for significance at the 0.06 level (actual type 1 error risk, that is, exact significance level = 0.0547).]░ Here the risk of over- looking an audible difference (type 2 error) when the difference is large is 0.0702. Thus type 1 and type 2 error risks are reasonably small and approximately equal (FC0.0 = 0.0547/0.0702 = 0.78). So Table 3 shows that an equal-error listening study looking only for large differences can employ an N of 10 and that most published studies, because they use N greater than 10, are needlessly long for this purpose. The third way the paper is useful is that an engineer reading a study with nonsignificant results can use Table 3 to find whether N was sufficiently large to uncover large audible differences when they occur. Since most studies employ an N greater than 10, they can uncover large differences and, with Table 3, the engineer will know why.

    >J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 35, No. 7/8, 1987 July/August, page 569>
    What constitutes large, medium, and small? No quantification, so essentially a meaningless distinction.

    You simply avoid the question of the consequences of errors, either Type I or Type II? What are they? Why worry about the Type II errors? What significant happens if there is a Type II error? Don't expect Leventhal to answer because that is not a mathematical question, which is why I mentioned sending people to jail, shooting down commercial airplanes, costing lives, things which don't happen in audio. You have simply been picking at nits.
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  21. #46
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    What constitutes large, medium, and small? No quantification, so essentially a meaningless distinction.

    You simply avoid the question of the consequences of errors, either Type I or Type II? What are they? Why worry about the Type II errors? What significant happens if there is a Type II error? Don't expect Leventhal to answer because that is not a mathematical question, which is why I mentioned sending people to jail, shooting down commercial airplanes, costing lives, things which don't happen in audio. You have simply been picking at nits.
    Pat:

    I just returned from spending 4 days on a houseboat on Lake Powell. If I ever saw any value in attempting to carry on a dialog with you, my perception of that value left me within the first day on the lake.

  22. #47
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    Pat:

    I just returned from spending 4 days on a houseboat on Lake Powell..

    You mean there is still water left in the lake to enjoy? Or to cry over its past glory.
    mtrycrafts

  23. #48
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    You mean there is still water left in the lake to enjoy? Or to cry over its past glory.
    Down 50% and some say if the drought continues two more years without major snowfall in Utah and the western slope of the Rockies in Colorado the lake will be unusable for recreation.

    In addition, the Sierra club remains as determined as ever to get the lake drained and blow up Glen Canyon Dam. A lot of very expensive houseboats, including the one my friend owns and on which I was staying, may become totally worthless.

    I've been on the lake when it was full. At 50% it still is awesome.

  24. #49
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    Down 50% and some say if the drought continues two more years without major snowfall in Utah and the western slope of the Rockies in Colorado the lake will be unusable for recreation.

    In addition, the Sierra club remains as determined as ever to get the lake drained and blow up Glen Canyon Dam. A lot of very expensive houseboats, including the one my friend owns and on which I was staying, may become totally worthless.

    I've been on the lake when it was full. At 50% it still is awesome.

    Thanks. I see news reports from time to time. Not good. Not sure why Sierra is trying to do that. They probably would have nothing flowing down river in drought years and kill all the fish.
    mtrycrafts

  25. #50
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Check this out...

    ...for some info re: Lake Powell and Glen Canyon:

    http://www.backpacker.com/article/1,...5__1_6,00.html

    Like everything else in the world, I'm sure these folks have a certain bias but, like audio everyone has their own POV...

    jimHJJ(...and PCT, please don't shoot the messenger...strictly FYI from a disinterested third party...)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. bi-wiring
    By sleeper_red in forum Cables
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 12-19-2004, 02:47 PM
  2. Problem with Monster GameLink 300 S-Video A/V cable
    By DavefromNJ in forum General Audio
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-18-2004, 05:03 AM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-13-2004, 11:47 AM
  4. monster cable differences
    By jmracura in forum Cables
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-04-2004, 07:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •