Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
On Jun 13, 1:05=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
.... Interestingly enough, most audio writers actually BELIEVE that wire makes a difference, So, of course, when they review a cable, they go on at length about how much better this cable is than what's in their system now. And, just as naturally, the cable under test is never worse than what they are currently using, and just as naturally, they never use a carefully set-up= DBT to ascertain whether or not their "observations" are the product of =A0th= eir ears or their eyes.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Surprised to hear you say "most audio writers actually BELIEVE that wire makes a difference". That sounds like you think a wire is a wire. I was fortunate to have someone gift me an assortment of his stereo wire rejects. Looking all phat mesh colorful and sexy, I swapped out my old days cable and no difference really. Then another and bam, what! That obviously sounds different; we both looked at eachother so I knew he heard it too. This cable was mello, layed back, and I had the perfect place for it. My center channel speaker is not like the others; it's bright sounding with a high sensitivity rating. That mello cable was just what was needed! But there's more... I tried a Silver (snake brand) cable for video and wow, that was another eureka momont. I tried a low end Kimber speaker wire swap and that sounded like crap compared to my M-series; the sound lacked body like AM radio. So far I'm trippin'; cables do have a sound. Now for the clincher... My home boy also brought over three power cables - the insane garden hose variety. I only had one component that allowed for power cable swapping - my amp. I took off the OEM and put one of these pythons. Too much base!!! Holy smokes, power cables can matter just like I read about... whot!? Then another and wow the sound stage became huge. Then the last one and it reminded me of the OEM. I put in the OEM and yes the last phat power cable and it were nearly identical sounding. I opted to retain the huge sound stage cable in that position. If you mean wire is wire, that may be I don't know, but the pairing of equipment to certain wire and all the physics that can be going on does make a very noticeable difference sometimes. I don't have the most resolving stereo so I presume that those who do may hear differences even more easily. I had a little discussion about this with a British fello who had his own tube amp company. He quickly told me that wire is predictable (I'm summarizing). He basically said that solid wire will have a high "slam" factor but rolled off highs, stranded will sound more nuetral, and silver wire will be highly detailed. I could almost visualize what must be under the sheath of the assorted wires I tried based on the sound they impart. Now having seen ads in mags with wire innards shown, there must be combinations of solid, stranded, and even silver in use. This would complicate the British bloke's simple description, but I can see how a wire can be "tuned" in this way. I am using the gifted wires in cetain places of my stereo where their particular charachter will offset something I don't like. Only because I had a bunch of different wires on hand to try one right after the next could I clearly detect all this wire can make a difference buisiness. In some cases, if I had purchased a wire it may not sound different than the stock and then I wouldn't be a believer. If I had purchased the mello wire and inserted it into a system that didn't need mellowing, it would sound like crap. Frankly, shopping for the right "sounding" wire in a particular application would be a hit-and-miss nighmare. You almost need an assortment at the ready to try. I scored wire from my man who didn't like these wires in his system, yet some of them for me worked out great. The wires he has look sweet, I mean damn sweet. But looks and phatness apparently don't always work out to be necesarily the best choice. Bottom line IMO, cables do sometimes make a for better or worse difference. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011 11:15:42 -0700, Kele wrote
(in article ): On Jun 13, 1:05=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: ... Interestingly enough, most audio writers actually BELIEVE that wire makes a difference, So, of course, when they review a cable, they go on at length about how much better this cable is than what's in their system now. And, just as naturally, the cable under test is never worse than what they are currently using, and just as naturally, they never use a carefully set-up= DBT to ascertain whether or not their "observations" are the product of =A0th= eir ears or their eyes.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Surprised to hear you say "most audio writers actually BELIEVE that wire makes a difference". That sounds like you think a wire is a wire. And since when is a wire NOT a wire? I was fortunate to have someone gift me an assortment of his stereo wire rejects. Looking all phat mesh colorful and sexy, I swapped out my old days cable and no difference really. Then another and bam, what! That obviously sounds different; we both looked at eachother so I knew he heard it too. No disrespect meant, but anecdotal "evidence" of this type is, scientifically, speaking, essentially, useless. This cable was mello, layed back, and I had the perfect place for it. My center channel speaker is not like the others; it's bright sounding with a high sensitivity rating. That mello cable was just what was needed! But there's more... I tried a Silver (snake brand) cable for video and wow, that was another eureka momont. I tried a low end Kimber speaker wire swap and that sounded like crap compared to my M-series; the sound lacked body like AM radio. So far I'm trippin'; cables do have a sound. Now for the clincher... My home boy also brought over three power cables - the insane garden hose variety. I only had one component that allowed for power cable swapping - my amp. I took off the OEM and put one of these pythons. Too much base!!! Holy smokes, power cables can matter just like I read about... whot!? Then another and wow the sound stage became huge. Then the last one and it reminded me of the OEM. I put in the OEM and yes the last phat power cable and it were nearly identical sounding. I opted to retain the huge sound stage cable in that position. If you mean wire is wire, that may be I don't know, but the pairing of equipment to certain wire and all the physics that can be going on does make a very noticeable difference sometimes. I don't have the most resolving stereo so I presume that those who do may hear differences even more easily. Like most humans, Those with a more "resolving stereo" hear what the expect to hear. Those who want to hear differences will hear them. Those who do NOT wish to hear differences won't hear them. In a correctly set-up Double-Blind Test (DBT) NEITHER group will hear any differences because there are none. I had a little discussion about this with a British fello who had his own tube amp company. He quickly told me that wire is predictable (I'm summarizing). He basically said that solid wire will have a high "slam" factor but rolled off highs, stranded will sound more nuetral, and silver wire will be highly detailed. Next time you speak to your British "fello", tell him "Poppycock and balderdash!" He should understand that! I could almost visualize what must be under the sheath of the assorted wires I tried based on the sound they impart. Now having seen ads in mags with wire innards shown, there must be combinations of solid, stranded, and even silver in use. This would complicate the British bloke's simple description, but I can see how a wire can be "tuned" in this way. Except that there no way that wire, in the lengths used in home stereo and at audio frequencies can do ANY of those things. That's just fact, my friend. At the low frequencies that ecompass the audio bandwidth, true conductors don't have any characteristics that could in any way change the sound. Now a "cable" manufacturer can build "cables" with little boxes built into them with external components (like resistors, inductors, and capacitors) of sufficient values to actually act as fixed audio filters, but those are merely fixed "tone controls" that you can't alter. They merely attenuate some portion of the audio band. But these aren't really conductors, any more. They will likely sound different from one another. But the amount of resistance, capacitance, and inductance inherent in any wire, in and of ITSELF, cannot have enough of these characteristics to affect an audio signal in any audible way. I am using the gifted wires in cetain places of my stereo where their particular charachter will offset something I don't like. You are deluding yourself. It's just not possible and a DBT would prove it to you. Only because I had a bunch of different wires on hand to try one right after the next could I clearly detect all this wire can make a difference buisiness. In some cases, if I had purchased a wire it may not sound different than the stock and then I wouldn't be a believer. If I had purchased the mello wire and inserted it into a system that didn't need mellowing, it would sound like crap. Frankly, shopping for the right "sounding" wire in a particular application would be a hit-and-miss nighmare. You almost need an assortment at the ready to try. I scored wire from my man who didn't like these wires in his system, yet some of them for me worked out great. The wires he has look sweet, I mean damn sweet. But looks and phatness apparently don't always work out to be necesarily the best choice. Bottom line IMO, cables do sometimes make a for better or worse difference. Religions come in all shapes and sizes. This is a technological religion, and like all religions, it's a myth. But, if it makes you happy to believe this myth (or any other), be my guest. It's a free country, as they say. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote: On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:48:00 -0700, wrote (in article ): This week's stereophile in its online offerings has a gem of an article. 'AudioQuest Headquarters Tour' http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...dquarters-tour If one would want to produce subjective results guaranteed, the "tests" described at the wire company could not have been setup more perfectly. See if you can spot the obvious flaws in the "tests"? Extra points for those who spot the attempts to vaccinate the author's remarks against these flaws? For an even more interesting question, why did they bother when the outcomes were predictable? Might it have something to do with trying to vainly evoke science in support of a marketing department? Magazines have advertisers and often some of the biggest advertisers are cable companies. After all, cable companies are selling, essentially, nothing at, often, very high prices. Their profit margins are astronomical! They can afford to spend a lot of money to advertise. If you ran a magazine would you want to lose that amount of advertising revenue? Of course not. So naturally, your not going to bite the hand that feeds you. It's simple business. Of course. Sometimes the only thing to be said is the obvious. Interestingly enough, most audio writers actually BELIEVE that wire makes a difference, So, of course, when they review a cable, they go on at length about how much better this cable is than what's in their system now. And, just as naturally, the cable under test is never worse than what they are currently using, and just as naturally, they never use a carefully set-up DBT to ascertain whether or not their "observations" are the product of their ears or their eyes. *R* *H* -- Gaudium mundi, nova stella cæli, Fedora12 (2.6.32 kernel) procreans solem, pariens parentem, Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 da manum lapsis, fer opem caducis, virgo Maria. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
In article , Kele wrote:
On Jun 13, 1:05=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: ... Interestingly enough, most audio writers actually BELIEVE that wire makes a difference, So, of course, when they review a cable, they go on at length about how much better this cable is than what's in their system now. And, just as naturally, the cable under test is never worse than what they are currently using, and just as naturally, they never use a carefully set-up= DBT to ascertain whether or not their "observations" are the product of =A0th= eir ears or their eyes.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Surprised to hear you say "most audio writers actually BELIEVE that wire makes a difference". That sounds like you think a wire is a wire. I was fortunate to have someone gift me an assortment of his stereo wire rejects. Looking all phat mesh colorful and sexy, I swapped out my old days cable and no difference really. Then another and bam, what! That obviously sounds different; we both looked at eachother so I knew he heard it too. This cable was mello, layed back, and I had the perfect place for it. My center channel speaker is not like the others; it's bright sounding with a high sensitivity rating. That mello cable was just what was needed! But there's more... I tried a Silver (snake brand) cable for video and wow, that was another eureka momont. I tried a low end Kimber speaker wire swap and that sounded like crap compared to my M-series; the sound lacked body like AM radio. So far I'm trippin'; cables do have a sound. Now for the clincher... My home boy also brought over three power cables - the insane garden hose variety. I only had one component that allowed for power cable swapping - my amp. I took off the OEM and put one of these pythons. Too much base!!! Holy smokes, power cables can matter just like I read about... whot!? Then another and wow the sound stage became huge. Then the last one and it reminded me of the OEM. I put in the OEM and yes the last phat power cable and it were nearly identical sounding. I opted to retain the huge sound stage cable in that position. If you mean wire is wire, that may be I don't know, but the pairing of equipment to certain wire and all the physics that can be going on does make a very noticeable difference sometimes. I don't have the most resolving stereo so I presume that those who do may hear differences even more easily. I had a little discussion about this with a British fello who had his own tube amp company. He quickly told me that wire is predictable (I'm summarizing). He basically said that solid wire will have a high "slam" factor but rolled off highs, stranded will sound more nuetral, and silver wire will be highly detailed. I could almost visualize what must be under the sheath of the assorted wires I tried based on the sound they impart. Now having seen ads in mags with wire innards shown, there must be combinations of solid, stranded, and even silver in use. This would complicate the British bloke's simple description, but I can see how a wire can be "tuned" in this way. I am using the gifted wires in cetain places of my stereo where their particular charachter will offset something I don't like. Only because I had a bunch of different wires on hand to try one right after the next could I clearly detect all this wire can make a difference buisiness. In some cases, if I had purchased a wire it may not sound different than the stock and then I wouldn't be a believer. If I had purchased the mello wire and inserted it into a system that didn't need mellowing, it would sound like crap. Frankly, shopping for the right "sounding" wire in a particular application would be a hit-and-miss nighmare. You almost need an assortment at the ready to try. I scored wire from my man who didn't like these wires in his system, yet some of them for me worked out great. The wires he has look sweet, I mean damn sweet. But looks and phatness apparently don't always work out to be necesarily the best choice. Bottom line IMO, cables do sometimes make a for better or worse difference. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what is significant is this: far more dramatic effects in sound can be acheived by varying speaker placement, and floor/window/wall treatment, but VERY little press is given to same. Why? For the simple reason that stereo mags don't carry ads for tile, carpet and drapes. Doh! *R* *H* -- Gaudium mundi, nova stella cæli, Fedora12 (2.6.32 kernel) procreans solem, pariens parentem, Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 da manum lapsis, fer opem caducis, virgo Maria. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:35:01 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article ): Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what is significant is this: far more dramatic effects in sound can be acheived by varying speaker placement, and floor/window/wall treatment, but VERY little press is given to same. Why? For the simple reason that stereo mags don't carry ads for tile, carpet and drapes. Doh! *R* *H* Almost assuredly. Every now and again, you MIGHT see an article about these things, but, because these are a process rather than a product, they simply get short shrift. But, still, until someone comes-up with a logical "theory" as to how cables can have a "sound" when the maths (and the measurements) show definitively, that they have no effect on the frequency response, distortion, or phase response of the audio signals they are conducting, it's all audiophile mythology, and the products sold (often for exorbitant sums) are snake oil, pure and simple. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
On Jun 19, 2:14=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:35:01 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in article ): Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what is significant is this: far more dramati= c effects in sound can be acheived by varying speaker placement, and floor/window/wall treatment, but VERY little press is given to same. = =A0Why? For the simple reason that stereo mags don't carry ads for tile, carpet= and drapes. =A0Doh! *R* *H* Almost assuredly. Every now and again, you MIGHT see an article about the= se things, but, because these are a process rather than a product, they simp= ly get short shrift. But, still, until someone comes-up with a logical "theory" as to how cabl= es can have a "sound" when the maths (and the measurements) show definitivel= y, that they have no effect on the frequency response, distortion, or phase response of the audio signals they are conducting, it's all audiophile mythology, and the products sold (often for exorbitant sums) are snake oi= l, pure and simple. You are putting the cart before the horse here. reality does not hinge on a human explanation. Gravity did not stop working when physicists were debating Newtonian gravity and general relativity. You certainly can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to come up with a theory. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:36:51 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Jun 19, 2:14=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:35:01 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in article ): Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what is significant is this: far more dramati= c effects in sound can be acheived by varying speaker placement, and floor/window/wall treatment, but VERY little press is given to same. = =A0Why? For the simple reason that stereo mags don't carry ads for tile, carpet= and drapes. =A0Doh! *R* *H* Almost assuredly. Every now and again, you MIGHT see an article about the= se things, but, because these are a process rather than a product, they simp= ly get short shrift. But, still, until someone comes-up with a logical "theory" as to how cabl= es can have a "sound" when the maths (and the measurements) show definitivel= y, that they have no effect on the frequency response, distortion, or phase response of the audio signals they are conducting, it's all audiophile mythology, and the products sold (often for exorbitant sums) are snake oi= l, pure and simple. You are putting the cart before the horse here. reality does not hinge on a human explanation. Gravity did not stop working when physicists were debating Newtonian gravity and general relativity. You certainly can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to come up with a theory. Not at all. This is not a case like gravity. Everyone "sticks" to the planet. There is no one arguing that some people or some things don't stick to the planet, Gravity is just a fact, and you're right, the law of gravity doesn't depend upon human understanding in order for it to function. But cable sound is NOT a "fact". It is a belief system. And just like religion, some people believe in the existence of a god (or gods) and some people don't. And like the existence of gods, logic and science say that the likelihood that cables have a sound is so small as to be practically nil. Just as non-believers in religion require some sort of proof that deities exists in order to change their mind, those who say that cable sound does not and cannot exist, will require some reasonable scientific theory that explains what cable characteristics could possibly exist that affect ONLY a paltry, low-frequency audio signal while not affecting higher frequency video, RF or digital communications in any way that has ever been detected by ANYBODY. IOW, what I think that you are trying to say, here is that if cables do have an audible effect on the signals they pass, and science can't find an explanation for the phenomenon, will that lack of knowledge make that fact not true? And conversely, if you believe in cable sound, and it really doesn't exist, will your belief in it make it a fact? The answer to both of those questions is NO. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
On Jun 23, 4:11=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:36:51 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): On Jun 19, 2:14=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:35:01 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in article ): Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what is significant is this: far more drama= ti=3D c effects in sound can be acheived by varying speaker placement, and floor/window/wall treatment, but VERY little press is given to same. = =3D =3DA0Why? For the simple reason that stereo mags don't carry ads for tile, carp= et=3D =A0and drapes. =3DA0Doh! *R* *H* Almost assuredly. Every now and again, you MIGHT see an article about = the=3D se things, but, because these are a process rather than a product, they s= imp=3D ly get short shrift. But, still, until someone comes-up with a logical "theory" as to how c= abl=3D es can have a "sound" when the maths (and the measurements) show definiti= vel=3D y, that they have no effect on the frequency response, distortion, or pha= se response of the audio signals they are conducting, it's all audiophile mythology, and the products sold (often for exorbitant sums) are snake= oi=3D l, pure and simple. You are putting the cart before the horse here. reality does not hinge on a human explanation. Gravity did not stop working when physicists were debating Newtonian gravity and general relativity. You certainly can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to come up with a theory. Not at all. This is not a case like gravity. Everyone "sticks" to the pla= net. Yeah That is *evidence* of gravity. people stuck to the earth with no human explanation or theory as to why. They kept on sticking even when people believed gravity worked for reasons that were clearly not true. So my point stands. Reality does not hinge on human understanding of it. There is no one arguing that some people or some things don't stick to th= e planet, Gravity is just a fact, and you're right, the law of gravity does= n't depend upon human understanding in order for it to function. Bingo. But cable sound is NOT a "fact". It is a belief system. Cable sound is something that clearly does not have any where near the evidencial support as does gravity and for *that* reason one can legitimately challenge it's existance. But you can't legitimately challenge it's existance based on the lack of a theory as to how it works. We know this is not a legitimate means of challenging things because we know reality does not hinge on humans having a theory as to how it works. Thas is what you did and this what I called out on the carpet. Nothing more nothing less. Your specific argument that believers in cable sound need to have a theory for it to be true was a faulty argument regardless of what the reality is on cable sound. And just like religion, some people believe in the existence of a god (or gods) and some people don't. =A0And= like the existence of gods, logic and science say that the likelihood that cab= les have a sound is so small as to be practically nil. Just as non-believers = in religion require some sort of proof that deities exists in order to chang= e their mind, those who say that cable sound does not and cannot exist, wil= l require some reasonable scientific theory that =A0explains what cable characteristics could possibly exist that affect ONLY a paltry, low-frequ= ency audio signal while not affecting higher frequency =A0video, RF or digital communications in any way that has ever been detected by ANYBODY. IOW, what I think that you are trying to say, here is that if cables do h= ave an audible effect on the signals they pass, and science can't find an explanation for the phenomenon, will that lack of knowledge make that fac= t not true? And conversely, if you believe in cable sound, and it really doesn't exist, will your =A0belief in it make it a fact? The answer to bo= th of those questions is NO. No, what I am saying is the argument that believers in cable sound have to have a theory for why there is cable sound is a faulty argument against cable sound. The argument should hinge on evidence not on theories. That is all I am saying. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
In article , Scott
wrote: No, what I am saying is the argument that believers in cable sound have to have a theory for why there is cable sound is a faulty argument against cable sound. The argument should hinge on evidence not on theories. That is all I am saying. The problem with evidence-only arguments is that evidence can be faulty or misinterpreted. This is why people of a scientific persuasion insist on double-blind, controlled testing. In order for human knowledge to advance, both theory and evidence are necessary. Scientific theories often start with simple observations. These lead to theories, which can be tested by experimentation and more observation. The theories, in order to contribute to human understanding, should make predictions that can be tested and are falsifiable. Experimental results must be reproducible by independent, objective observers. Without a theory of why cables can sound differently, then even the best experiment can only be said to show differences between the cables being tested. No generalization to other cables not under test can be made. -- Jim Gibson |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
"Scott" wrote in message
... The argument should hinge on evidence not on theories. That is all I am saying. The fact is that there are no known extant occasions where there were audible differences due to cables except those where there was a grevious fault, whether by happenstance or intention. The only caveat is that the determination of audible differences had to be made using a well-designed bias controlled test. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:16:39 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Jun 23, 4:11=A0am, Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:36:51 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): [quoted text deleted -- deb] You are putting the cart before the horse here. reality does not hinge on a human explanation. Gravity did not stop working when physicists were debating Newtonian gravity and general relativity. You certainly can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to come up with a theory. Not at all. This is not a case like gravity. Everyone "sticks" to the planet. Yeah That is *evidence* of gravity. people stuck to the earth with no human explanation or theory as to why. They kept on sticking even when people believed gravity worked for reasons that were clearly not true. So my point stands. Reality does not hinge on human understanding of it. There is no one arguing that some people or some things don't stick to the planet, Gravity is just a fact, and you're right, the law of gravity doesn't depend upon human understanding in order for it to function. Bingo. But cable sound is NOT a "fact". It is a belief system. Cable sound is something that clearly does not have any where near the evidencial support as does gravity and for *that* reason one can legitimately challenge it's existance. But you can't legitimately challenge it's existance based on the lack of a theory as to how it works. We know this is not a legitimate means of challenging things because we know reality does not hinge on humans having a theory as to how it works. Thas is what you did and this what I called out on the carpet. Nothing more nothing less. Your specific argument that believers in cable sound need to have a theory for it to be true was a faulty argument regardless of what the reality is on cable sound. And just like religion, some people believe in the existence of a god (or gods) and some people don't. And like the existence of gods, logic and science say that the likelihood that cables have a sound is so small as to be practically nil. Just as non-believers in religion require some sort of proof that deities exists in order to change their mind, those who say that cable sound does not and cannot exist, will require some reasonable scientific theory that explains what cable characteristics could possibly exist that affect ONLY a paltry, low-frequency audio signal while not affecting higher frequency video, RF or digital communications in any way that has ever been detected by ANYBODY. IOW, what I think that you are trying to say, here is that if cables do have an audible effect on the signals they pass, and science can't find an explanation for the phenomenon, will that lack of knowledge make that fact not true? And conversely, if you believe in cable sound, and it really doesn't exist, will your belief in it make it a fact? The answer to both of those questions is NO. No, what I am saying is the argument that believers in cable sound have to have a theory for why there is cable sound is a faulty argument against cable sound. The argument should hinge on evidence not on theories. That is all I am saying. Sigh. That's not my assertion at all, and where you "get" that it is from my words, I simply don't understand. I have said nothing about true believers needing scientific proof supporting their beliefs. I'm saying that skeptics about cable sound would need a scientifically plausible theory in order to look at the phenomenon as anything more than a religious belief system, not "true believers". Why would I care whether or not believers need a scientific hypothesis in order to support their beliefs? They don't accept the existing body of scientific evidence against the proposition now, how would a new body of evidence affect them in any way? I would have thought this would be apparent to even the most casual observer of this thread. It's just like other religious beliefs. If science could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that god doesn't exist, do you think that the religiously inclined would accept one word of it? Do you think that it would change their beliefs in any way? Of course not! Their minds are made up and in both of those belief systems there is no room for fact. But people like me NEED facts, because science tells us that cable sound doesn't exist, And it needs to be proved to me that it does exist before I even think about changing my mind. The difference between people like me and a "True Believer" is that if I'm proved wrong, I'll gladly recant all my assertions about this subject. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
On Jun 23, 4:17=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:16:39 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): On Jun 23, 4:11=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:36:51 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): [quoted text deleted -- deb] You are putting the cart before the horse here. reality does not hing= e on a human explanation. Gravity did not stop working when physicists were debating Newtonian gravity and general relativity. You certainly can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to come up with a theory. Not at all. This is not a case like gravity. Everyone "sticks" to the = planet. Yeah That is *evidence* of gravity. people stuck to the earth with no human explanation or theory as to why. They kept on sticking even when people believed gravity worked for reasons that were clearly not true. So my point stands. Reality does not hinge on human understanding of it. There is no one arguing that some people or some things don't stick to= the planet, Gravity is just a fact, and you're right, the law of gravity d= oesn't depend upon human understanding in order for it to function. Bingo. But cable sound is NOT a "fact". It is a belief system. Cable sound is something that clearly does not have any where near the evidencial support as does gravity and for *that* reason one can legitimately challenge it's existance. But you can't legitimately challenge it's existance based on the lack of a theory as to how it works. We know this is not a legitimate means of challenging things because we know reality does not hinge on humans having a theory as to how it works. Thas is what you did and this what I called out on the carpet. Nothing more nothing less. Your specific argument that believers in cable sound need to have a theory for it to be true was a faulty argument regardless of what the reality is on cable sound. And just like religion, some people believe in the existence of a god (or gods) and some people don't. And= like the existence of gods, logic and science say that the likelihood that = cables have a sound is so small as to be practically nil. Just as non-believe= rs in religion require some sort of proof that deities exists in order to ch= ange their mind, those who say that cable sound does not and cannot exist, = will require some reasonable scientific theory that explains what cable characteristics could possibly exist that affect ONLY a paltry, low-fr= equency audio signal while not affecting higher frequency video, RF or digital communications in any way that has ever been detected by ANYBODY. IOW, what I think that you are trying to say, here is that if cables d= o have an audible effect on the signals they pass, and science can't find an explanation for the phenomenon, will that lack of knowledge make that = fact not true? And conversely, if you believe in cable sound, and it really doesn't exist, will your belief in it make it a fact? The answer to bo= th of those questions is NO. No, what I am saying is the argument that believers in cable sound have to have a theory for why there is cable sound is a faulty argument against cable sound. The argument should hinge on evidence not on theories. That is all I am saying. Sigh. That's not my assertion at all, and where you "get" that it is from my words, I simply don't understand. I got it from this. Audio Empire View profile More options Jun 19, 2:14 pm Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end From: Audio Empire Date: 19 Jun 2011 21:14:43 GMT Local: Sun, Jun 19 2011 2:14 pm Subject: Wire that sounds different, guaranteed "But, still, until someone comes-up with a logical "theory" as to how cables can have a "sound" when the maths (and the measurements) show definitively, that they have no effect on the frequency response, distortion, or phase response of the audio signals they are conducting, it's all audiophile mythology, and the products sold (often for exorbitant sums) are snake oil, pure and simple." I have said nothing about true believers needing scientific proof supporting their beliefs. I have not said that you did. My response was (I will quote myself here) "You certainly can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to come up with a theory." I'm saying that should have been your argument. I'm saying that skeptics about cable sound would need a scientifically plausible theory in order to look at the phenomenon as anything more than a religious belief system, not "true believers". Really? What if they got a mountain of verifiable evidence instead? *That* IMO is what would be needed. Not a theory. The reality of cable sound hinges on evidence and only on evidence. Otherwise the cart is being put before the horse. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
On Jun 23, 12:36=A0pm, Jim Gibson wrote:
In article , Scott wrote: No, what I am saying is the argument that believers in cable sound have to have a theory for why there is cable sound is a faulty argument against cable sound. The argument should hinge on evidence not on theories. That is all I =A0am saying. The problem with evidence-only arguments is that evidence can be faulty or misinterpreted. This is why people of a scientific persuasion insist on double-blind, controlled testing. It is why they insist on verifiability. That comes in many forms. I agree with science on this. Didn't think I needed to mention it. In order for human knowledge to advance, both theory and evidence are necessary. That would be fine if we were talking about human knowledge. But I wan't talking about advancing human knowledge. I wasn't arguing that theories should not be put forth in the light of evidence and then put to the test. I am all for it. It's science. My argument has nothing to do with that though. It was purely an argument that one can not attack an observation becuae the observer does not offer a theory behind the observation. It has no bearing on whether or not the observation was accurate or not. The acid test of cable sound simply has nothing to do with whether or not people who believe it is real have a theory as to how it works. I know how sicnece works and I can say with some certitude that the observations are judged by their varifiability and nothing else. There is no requisit that one has to have a theory for an observation to be real or imagined. Scientific theories often start with simple observations. These lead to theories, which can be tested by experimentation and more observation. The theories, in order to contribute to human understanding, should make predictions that can be tested and are falsifiable. Experimental results must be reproducible by independent, objective observers. Without a theory of why cables can sound differently, then even the best experiment can only be said to show differences between the cables being tested. No generalization to other cables not under test can be made. That is true. But it remains true even if those who believe in cable sound offer up any kind of theories. Claims of cable sound are testable. No need to demand a theory from people making such observations. Just put the observation to the test. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
"Scott" wrote in message
... On Jun 23, 4:17 pm, Audio Empire wrote: Really? What if they got a mountain of verifiable evidence instead? Rule number one: Advocates of the existence of an audible difference are the best people to gather compelling, reliable evidence to support their position. IME, this gets quickly derailed because advocates of audible difrerences that have already been effectively criticized by science behave like people who have dependency issues. They won't do anything effective to create behavioral or intellectual space between them and the object of their dependency. They deny evidence that already exists that shows that they are dependent on a fabrication of their minds that has no physical evidence to support it. *That* IMO is what would be needed. Not a theory. The reality of cable sound hinges on evidence and only on evidence. Otherwise the cart is being put before the horse. I'm involved with adminstering a 12 step program at my church. I see a lot of similarities between people whose lives have been heavily damaged or destroyed by the well-known substance and behaviorally-related hang-ups and audiophiles who hang onto the usual audiophile myths. It is all about denial and pride. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
On 6/22/2011 8:36 PM, Scott wrote:
On Jun 19, 2:14 pm, Audio wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:35:01 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in ): Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what is significant is this: far more dramatic effects in sound can be acheived by varying speaker placement, and floor/window/wall treatment, but VERY little press is given to same. Why? For the simple reason that stereo mags don't carry ads for tile, carpet and drapes. Doh! *R* *H* Almost assuredly. Every now and again, you MIGHT see an article about these things, but, because these are a process rather than a product, they simply get short shrift. But, still, until someone comes-up with a logical "theory" as to how cables can have a "sound" when the maths (and the measurements) show definitively, that they have no effect on the frequency response, distortion, or phase response of the audio signals they are conducting, it's all audiophile mythology, and the products sold (often for exorbitant sums) are snake oil, pure and simple. You are putting the cart before the horse here. reality does not hinge on a human explanation. Gravity did not stop working when physicists were debating Newtonian gravity and general relativity. You certainly can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to come up with a theory. Not at all. There is a qualitative difference between any *natural* artifact or phenomenon, and evaluation of a human engineered device. Gravity, for example exists, as you said, irrespective of anyone's observations or theories. It also, and this is crucial, can be reliably and repeatably measured, i.e. it is trivial to prove that the *effect* is real, irrespective of cause. OTOH, an audio cable is the *product* of a theoretical / mathematical construct, engineered by a human mind. Thus, there is a theory of how a cable should operate, based on mathematics and engineering design, and there is reliable, repeatable objective data to support that cable X performs according to theory and design. It is thus incumbent on someone claiming that this supporting theoretical construct is wrong, because it does not account for their anecdotal experience, to overcome two rationale hurdles; one, they have to demonstrate that there *is* indeed an effect that lies outside of expected operational parameters (based on design and use), and two, they need an alternate theory to explain the differences observed. Lacking the alternate theoretical underpinning, one cannot accept countervailing evidence as unambiguous, since test methods will always be suspect until some basis (besides flawed test design / data acquisition) in theory can be established. Since hurdle #1 appears sufficiently unobtainable at this point, hurdle #2 will likely remain moot. Keith |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:23:57 -0700, KH wrote
(in article ): On 6/22/2011 8:36 PM, Scott wrote: On Jun 19, 2:14 pm, Audio wrote: On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:35:01 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in ): Perhaps. Perhaps not. But what is significant is this: far more dramatic effects in sound can be acheived by varying speaker placement, and floor/window/wall treatment, but VERY little press is given to same. Why? For the simple reason that stereo mags don't carry ads for tile, carpet and drapes. Doh! *R* *H* Almost assuredly. Every now and again, you MIGHT see an article about these things, but, because these are a process rather than a product, they simply get short shrift. But, still, until someone comes-up with a logical "theory" as to how cables can have a "sound" when the maths (and the measurements) show definitively, that they have no effect on the frequency response, distortion, or phase response of the audio signals they are conducting, it's all audiophile mythology, and the products sold (often for exorbitant sums) are snake oil, pure and simple. You are putting the cart before the horse here. reality does not hinge on a human explanation. Gravity did not stop working when physicists were debating Newtonian gravity and general relativity. You certainly can make an argument for the need for varifiable evidence to support the belief in cable sound. But not an argument that someone has to come up with a theory. Not at all. There is a qualitative difference between any *natural* artifact or phenomenon, and evaluation of a human engineered device. Gravity, for example exists, as you said, irrespective of anyone's observations or theories. It also, and this is crucial, can be reliably and repeatably measured, i.e. it is trivial to prove that the *effect* is real, irrespective of cause. OTOH, an audio cable is the *product* of a theoretical / mathematical construct, engineered by a human mind. Thus, there is a theory of how a cable should operate, based on mathematics and engineering design, and there is reliable, repeatable objective data to support that cable X performs according to theory and design. It is thus incumbent on someone claiming that this supporting theoretical construct is wrong, because it does not account for their anecdotal experience, to overcome two rationale hurdles; one, they have to demonstrate that there *is* indeed an effect that lies outside of expected operational parameters (based on design and use), and two, they need an alternate theory to explain the differences observed. Lacking the alternate theoretical underpinning, one cannot accept countervailing evidence as unambiguous, since test methods will always be suspect until some basis (besides flawed test design / data acquisition) in theory can be established. Since hurdle #1 appears sufficiently unobtainable at this point, hurdle #2 will likely remain moot. Keith Congratulations, this is correct and very logically asserted. Since cable sound is a matter of faith and cannot be supported, either by controlled, repeatable observation, or by any known scientific or mathematical theory, Hurdle # 1 is indeed unsurmountable. The key here is the maxim that one cannot prove a negative. For instance, there are many people in this world who believe that the Continent of Atlantis lies at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. The evidence (plate tectonics, etc.) says that there is no room in the middle of the Atlantic for such a continent, but that kind of evidence doesn't sway the true believer. Other than the physical evidence (and some inconsistencies in Plato's Dialogs) there is no way that I (or anyone else) can prove that Atlantis never existed in the Atlantic Ocean, but "True Believers CAN prove that it DID exist merely by finding its remains. OTOH, not finding it proves nothing except that it hasn't (yet) been found. This cable question is similar. There is all kinds of evidence that says that cable can have no sound, but that's a negative, and cannot be proved. True believers in cable sound CAN, again, prove their case by coming up with a valid, testable, theory that shows that previous science was either wrong or incomplete. Therefore logically, the onus is on that camp to explain "cable sound" with a theory, and then test that theory using accepted scientific methodology. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Wire that sounds different, guaranteed
Next time you speak to your British "fello", tell him "Poppycock and
balderdash!" He should understand that! Indeed so, we talk like that all the time here, old chap :-) Rob, don't you know --- Rob Tweed Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd Registered in England: No 3220901 Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com Twitter: @rtweed |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: MYTEK DDD-603 DIGITAL METER 96 kHz EXC & GUARANTEED | Pro Audio | |||
FA: MYTEK DDD-603 DIGITAL METER 96 kHz EXC & GUARANTEED | Marketplace | |||
FA: AMPEX VS-10 VS10 VARISPEED TESTED AND GUARANTEED | Pro Audio | |||
POSTAL LOTTERY: Turn $6 into $60,000 in 90 days, GUARANTEED | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Postal Lottery: Turn $6 into $60,000 in 90 days, GUARANTEED | Vacuum Tubes |