Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
|
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
|
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
RBernst929 wrote:
You guys just dont get it. EVERYTHING is subjective because it is filtered through our biological perceptive apparatus. This is how we perceive the world. Even our measurements are made this way. Excuse me? I'm very sorry, sir. What is quoted above from your post is a virtual dictionary definition of solipsism, a position that has never been held by ANY school of philosophers or by ANY outstanding thinker. It is the 'reductio ad absurdum' of subjectivism. It really isn't even possible to have a discussion with such a precept. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
|
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
"RBernst929" wrote in message
newsKrxc.2188$jw.147@attbi_s04... You guys just dont get it. EVERYTHING is subjective because it is filtered through our biological perceptive apparatus. This is how we perceive the world. Even our measurements are made this way. You cannot separate the fish from the sea to make "objective" measurements about the ocean. Likewise, we are inherently filtered as humans by our biological limitations. This can lead to false conclusions. If every wire sounds the same, and every competent CD player sounds the same and every competently desiged Amp sounds the same, why are there many many different approaches to reproducing a recording? NO, its not just marketing. People do hear a difference, and all the objectivists in the world cannot refute it. -Bob Bernstein. Every wire does not sound the same. Any wire larger than or equal to 12 gauge (speaker wire) sounds the same. Every competently designed CD player _does_ sound the same, unless it is broken. I still have an ongoing bet with anyone who can tell me with 75 per cent accuracy which pair of speaker wires they are listening to. Double blind, their choice of music, third party does the test and keeps score. I have done this test for 20 years, golden ears, cloth ears, regular people like you filtering thru your biological perceptive equipment -- the bet still has not been claimed. The thing you can't seem to understand is, both wires, for instance, are being auditioned with the same amp, the same speakers, the same set of biological perceptive equipment. You cannot say there will be a difference just because of your bio filter, because the same filter is in place for the entire test. The only way there will be a perceived difference is if you pay so much for your new SuperWires, then you WANT them to sound different (better?). Otherwise, you got taken, right? If this is the case, then you are using a whole different set of biological filters (my cables are waaaay more expensive than yours, so they MUST sound better.) I will tell you this, what you ate yesterday will affect your brain's chemistry and it's ability to process the signals fed to it by your ears a whole lot more than any set of speaker wires. Tom |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
On 6/10/04 12:35 AM, in article 3yRxc.3980$2i5.2445@attbi_s52, "Nousaine"
wrote: Bromo wrote: On 6/9/04 7:48 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: Competition does not necessarily imply performance differences. Nor does the existence of commodity products limit their usage in combination. I use a lot of salt and choice ground chuck. So why then do I make so many different meals out of these two? Except with audio equipment the market is NOT a commodity market - where the competition is based upon price. In many aspects it surely is. Wires? amps? Cd Players? Speaker Stands? Speaker Spikes? No single (or married :-) person has ever shown an ability to actually "hear" any nominally competent device under even moderately bias-controlled conditions. Either way - even among the mass market - the market is not a commodity market. Not that it could be (anything could be) - but it isn't. In every other aspect performance is a commodity and sold, like clothing detergent, on promotion and merchandising. A Commodity market is only driven by price - price alone. The quality is assumed. It is not to say that electronics couldn't be a commodity market (though I am not sure exactly how) - but as it is right now and through its entire past - it is NOT one. Memory chips, screws, nails, cement are all commodities. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
|
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... Bromo wrote: ...snips.... A Commodity market is only driven by price - price alone. The quality is assumed. It is not to say that electronics couldn't be a commodity market (though I am not sure exactly how) - but as it is right now and through its entire past - it is NOT one. Memory chips, screws, nails, cement are all commodities. But memory chips, nails, cement and table salt are sold on a brand name basis .... otherwards there would be no price difference but there is. I have 2 boxes of table salt in my spice cabinet as we speak and one cost nearly twice the other. Commodities (as in consumer goods as opposed to "wheat") are precisely the kind of product that relies on brand management , promotion and merchandising. Otherwise on eof my salt cartons wouldn't need that picture of a girl with the umbrella to keep the price premium. And branding can lead to some really aggressive pricing disparities. I was looking at a box of PepcidAC at Costco just a few days ago. Right next to it was the generic equivalent (Kirkland) for one-fourth the price. And this is the same product--probably made by the same manufacturer! Yet, according to the pharmacist, PepcidAC easily outsells the generic. Brand has easily become the principal factor leading to sales. The actual quality of the product is far less important, and high-end audio is a clear example. Norm Strong |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
On 6/11/04 7:50 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote: Bromo wrote: ...snips.... A Commodity market is only driven by price - price alone. The quality is assumed. It is not to say that electronics couldn't be a commodity market (though I am not sure exactly how) - but as it is right now and through its entire past - it is NOT one. Memory chips, screws, nails, cement are all commodities. But memory chips, nails, cement and table salt are sold on a brand name basis .... otherwards there would be no price difference but there is. I have 2 boxes of table salt in my spice cabinet as we speak and one cost nearly twice the other. Commodities (as in consumer goods as opposed to "wheat") are precisely the kind of product that relies on brand management , promotion and merchandising. Otherwise on eof my salt cartons wouldn't need that picture of a girl with the umbrella to keep the price premium. That's true - but that, as well as CD players are not commodities. |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
Bromo wrote:
On 6/11/04 7:50 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: Bromo wrote: ...snips.... A Commodity market is only driven by price - price alone. The quality is assumed. It is not to say that electronics couldn't be a commodity market (though I am not sure exactly how) - but as it is right now and through its entire past - it is NOT one. Memory chips, screws, nails, cement are all commodities. But memory chips, nails, cement and table salt are sold on a brand name basis .... otherwards there would be no price difference but there is. I have 2 boxes of table salt in my spice cabinet as we speak and one cost nearly twice the other. Commodities (as in consumer goods as opposed to "wheat") are precisely the kind of product that relies on brand management , promotion and merchandising. Otherwise on eof my salt cartons wouldn't need that picture of a girl with the umbrella to keep the price premium. That's true - but that, as well as CD players are not commodities. If table salt is not a commodity you must be subscribing to a different world's economics. I'm guessing that this must be proof of alien visitation and other-world economics :-) I'm glad I'm not buying my cd players (even dvd players) from those guys. |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
On 6/13/04 6:45 PM, in article zO4zc.42914$HG.42059@attbi_s53, "Nousaine"
wrote: Commodities (as in consumer goods as opposed to "wheat") are precisely the kind of product that relies on brand management , promotion and merchandising. Otherwise on eof my salt cartons wouldn't need that picture of a girl with the umbrella to keep the price premium. That's true - but that, as well as CD players are not commodities. If table salt is not a commodity you must be subscribing to a different world's economics. I'm guessing that this must be proof of alien visitation and other-world economics :-) Generally commodities have set specifications, and one companies' product is substituted for other companies. It is a bad place to be if you are a manufacturer or producer - so you try to differentiate yourself somehow. As CD players can have features different from one another, even if you don't believe in sound differences, this is where a savvy manufacturer tries to command a price premium. Sony and to some degree Philips are able to do so, but either way, if any market is in danger of commoditizing, it is CD's. Ironically, now that the music companies are copy protecting their discs, having everyone move to CD-ROM's as transports, and so on - is impossible because of it - which is preventing the commoditization.... I'm glad I'm not buying my cd players (even dvd players) from those guys. Which guys? The Aliens? ;-) |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:JC%wc.13818$4S5.4528@attbi_s52... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message news:rkJwc.10912$4S5.2052@attbi_s52... S888Wheel wrote: From: Steven Sullivan Date: 6/6/2004 6:44 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: "Bob Marcus" Date: 6/5/2004 11:58 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Bromo wrote: I believe our hobby is about the consistent creation of the illusion of performers in the room with you as much as it is about truth. Of course, but the key word here is "consistent." A stereo image is an illusion, but it's a consistent one--it doesn't disappear when you close your eyes. A perceived difference between brand-name and generic 12-gauge cables, on the other hand... bob Optical illusions are fairly consistant as well. Bromo's post was a response to the claim that optical illusions are an example of perceptions being wrong. The problem with that example is that in audio "perceptions" cannot be "wrong" since the goal of audio is aimed at "perceptions." Of course they can be *wrong*, if they are used as a basis for claims that are *wrong*. They being the perceptions? Nope. The perceptions are what they are regardless of how they are used to draw conclusions. The conclusions may be wrong but the perceptions simply are what they are. So? No one is saying the person didn't have hte perceptions . No one is saying the perceptions *didn't exist in their minds*. Similarly, if someone claims that the Gateway Arch looks higher than it is wide, no one claims they are *lying*, that they aren't *really* having that perception. But the perception is still *wrong* (as in *inaccurate*). The claim was made that a perception can't be wrong. That's clearly nonsense. Perceptions are *often* wrong. So are beliefs. Sincere belief in an error does not make it less an error. You might find it interesting to look at this checkerboard illusion. Try as I might, I can't overcome it by knowing the answer ahead of time. http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/ade..._illusion.html Norm Strong Geez Norm, that's crazy good stuff. I can visualize the proof but I still can't visualize the simularity. Where do you find this kind of stuff on the web? Wessel Dirksen |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
"Glenn Booth" wrote in message
news:XPkxc.62851$eY2.12635@attbi_s02... In message , S888Wheel writes I have heard two sides to this point. One side is that a placibo works so long as it is not known that it is a placibo. The other side being that bias affects can affect disbelievers as well. If the first is true then bias controls seem more important than if the second is true. It really begs the question, can one be affected by sighted bias without certain preconceptions? If only it were that easy. We all have preconceptions that are very difficult, sometimes impossible, to train ourselves out of. We start learning them very early in life; we have formed biases based on our experiences before we have any notion of what bias is. At that point it's too late. There are many examples of illusions that persist even when we know them to be 'false', where intuition misleads us. It's been brought up in this forum before I think, but the book "Inevitable illusions" by Piattelli-Palmarini does a good job of exploring many of them. The Monty Hall paradox and the St. Louis arch are two of many examples. Weight of research suggests that there is always some tendency towards bias, even in the most intelligent and level headed among us. Borrowing from the aforenamed book, "We see what we see, even when we know what we know". We can't just turn bias off, and we can't experience life without generating preconceptions. I don't know if it's true, but apparently Niels Bohr had a horseshoe hung on his wall. A visitor was astonished to see it, and said "But Professor Bohr, surely you can't believe in such a stupid superstition". Bohr answered "Of course I don't, but they tell me it works even if I don't believe in it!". That's good! It never ceases to amaze me the sort of inside comical wisdom that the big thinkers of our scientific history have produced when "not looking". This is of course indirectly related to the subject. This reminds me of a remark that Albert Einstein made which is off topic here, and yet right on topic . . . After Albert Einstein fled nazi Germany, a German publication was released entitled (loosely translated) "100 scientists against Einstein", to of course undermine his reputation. When a reporter asked him what he thought of this he said +/- "Why 100? If I am wrong, one would be sufficient" As to placebos, medical statistics sometimes includes a 'susceptibility' measure to gauge how likely a given individual is to respond to a placebo over a number of trials. Over placebos and evidence based medicine. Think about it. One who participates with an informed concent, double blind randomized trial is looking for something. Wessel |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
... Bromo wrote: On 6/6/04 9:44 AM, in article , "Steven Sullivan" wrote: Why , then, is it so difficult for subjectivists to entertain the notion that they can be 'fooled' in other, just as well characterized ways? Namely, fooled by their built-in, psychological biases to believe that a *real* audible difference exists, when it does not? Since there exist some people that are unable to form a stereo image - it is conceivable to me that there are people that could form stereo images with much less difficulty than an average person. That doesn't follow. There may be a small number of people who cannot form a stereo image, but the vast majority of people obviously can (or stereo would have withered on the vine 40 years ago). If you mean that there are some people more amenable to the audio equivalent of "willing suspension of disbelief"--i.e., quicker to believe that they are listening to "the real thing"--that's probably true. For them it might be possible to 'hear' differences, perhaps. Hear what differences? And if there are such adepts, why haven't we found any? Or is 'hear' in quotes because what you really mean is 'imagine'? To someone that is convinced that they can hear a difference, you can present all the papers, academically rigorous, simulations, surveys and so on that tells them they are hearing things - and as long as they perceive a difference (however rigorous or non rigorous) they will view those telling them otherwise as either having a tin ear, or silly. Yep. Doesn't mean they're right. I use simulators at work a lot - to simulate nonlinear circuitries - and if the bench gives me a different result than my simulators say - it is not reality that is in error. While this is not the same as the psycho-acoustic soundstaging, etc, it should illustrate the perspective of the subjectivists. If they hear a difference - there *is* a difference. And if they hear a difference under some conditions but not others...? bob You know besides psychoacoustics there is also always going to be an objectively measureable variance of physical conditions going on with any subjective acoustic hearing test. Even if the source and environment are precisely controlled, one's hearing apparatus will always physically vary from person to person. Even if the outer ear shape differences are considered acoustically negligable (which they aren't IMO), the mechanical properties of the middle ear structures and especially inner ear are subject to enormous physical differences. Of course it is about A vs. B in the same set of ears. But who is to say that A vs. B are indeed the same or different from person to person running through a similar mechanical hearing circuit but with a different transfer function. Wessel |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
On 6/19/04 2:58 AM, in article FuRAc.54441$2i5.41860@attbi_s52, "Wessel
Dirksen" wrote: "Glenn Booth" wrote in message news:XPkxc.62851$eY2.12635@attbi_s02... In message , S888Wheel writes I have heard two sides to this point. One side is that a placibo works so long as it is not known that it is a placibo. The other side being that bias affects can affect disbelievers as well. If the first is true then bias controls seem more important than if the second is true. It really begs the question, can one be affected by sighted bias without certain preconceptions? If only it were that easy. We all have preconceptions that are very difficult, sometimes impossible, to train ourselves out of. We start learning them very early in life; we have formed biases based on our experiences before we have any notion of what bias is. At that point it's too late. There are many examples of illusions that persist even when we know them to be 'false', where intuition misleads us. It's been brought up in this forum before I think, but the book "Inevitable illusions" by Piattelli-Palmarini does a good job of exploring many of them. The Monty Hall paradox and the St. Louis arch are two of many examples. Weight of research suggests that there is always some tendency towards bias, even in the most intelligent and level headed among us. Borrowing from the aforenamed book, "We see what we see, even when we know what we know". We can't just turn bias off, and we can't experience life without generating preconceptions. I don't know if it's true, but apparently Niels Bohr had a horseshoe hung on his wall. A visitor was astonished to see it, and said "But Professor Bohr, surely you can't believe in such a stupid superstition". Bohr answered "Of course I don't, but they tell me it works even if I don't believe in it!". That's good! It never ceases to amaze me the sort of inside comical wisdom that the big thinkers of our scientific history have produced when "not looking". This is of course indirectly related to the subject. This reminds me of a remark that Albert Einstein made which is off topic here, and yet right on topic . . . After Albert Einstein fled nazi Germany, a German publication was released entitled (loosely translated) "100 scientists against Einstein", to of course undermine his reputation. When a reporter asked him what he thought of this he said +/- "Why 100? If I am wrong, one would be sufficient" As to placebos, medical statistics sometimes includes a 'susceptibility' measure to gauge how likely a given individual is to respond to a placebo over a number of trials. Over placebos and evidence based medicine. Think about it. One who participates with an informed concent, double blind randomized trial is looking for something. There is a fair contention that the crowd that claim they hear nothing (or what differences they might hear are imaginary) because they didn't measure it - is another flavor of the 'emperor has no clothes' argument. Given the level of vitriol and aggression - it is almost as if they are trying to silence anyone who claims observation in contradiction to their position. The "subjectivists"/"empiricists" have their placebo's - but the hard core "objectivists"/"theorists" are not enirely free of their notions. And true to most hobbies - polarizations have occurred and battle lines drawn! ;-) |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
Wessel Dirksen wrote:
You know besides psychoacoustics there is also always going to be an objectively measureable variance of physical conditions going on with any subjective acoustic hearing test. Even if the source and environment are precisely controlled, one's hearing apparatus will always physically vary from person to person. Even if the outer ear shape differences are considered acoustically negligable (which they aren't IMO), Your opinion is unnecessary here. It is an accepted fact that the outer ear, among other physical characteristics, is acoustically significant. There's even a technical term for it: head-related transfer function. the mechanical properties of the middle ear structures and especially inner ear are subject to enormous physical differences. Of course it is about A vs. B in the same set of ears. But who is to say that A vs. B are indeed the same or different from person to person running through a similar mechanical hearing circuit but with a different transfer function. Soooo....what, exactly? A vs. B will be different from person to person. That's part of why an ABX test involving, say, 20 subjects can't prove that *no one* can hear a difference between the two things being tested. But if you do enough ABX tests with enough subjects and you keep coming up negative, the search for that one special person who can hear this difference begins to look futile. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Make the most of your family vacation with tips from the MSN Family Travel Guide! http://dollar.msn.com |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
Bromo wrote:
There is a fair contention that the crowd that claim they hear nothing (or what differences they might hear are imaginary) because they didn't measure it - what 'crowd' is this? is another flavor of the 'emperor has no clothes' argument. Given the level of vitriol and aggression - it is almost as if they are trying to silence anyone who claims observation in contradiction to their position. Then again, it's subjectivists who start most of the DBT threads here. What does that tell you? -- -S. Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. -- spiffy |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
On 19 Jun 2004 14:45:33 GMT, Bromo wrote:
There is a fair contention that the crowd that claim they hear nothing (or what differences they might hear are imaginary) because they didn't measure it - is another flavor of the 'emperor has no clothes' argument. Which 'crowd' is this? I have never yet seen such an argument advanced - except by the 'subjectivists' as a strawman argument. Given the level of vitriol and aggression - it is almost as if they are trying to silence anyone who claims observation in contradiction to their position. The only 'they' who have *ever* tried to *silence* the opposition have been the 'subjectivists'. The 'objectivists' are always happy to accept any *evidence* opposing their position. Interestingly, none is *ever* forthcoming................. The "subjectivists"/"empiricists" have their placebo's - but the hard core "objectivists"/"theorists" are not enirely free of their notions. Such as? And true to most hobbies - polarizations have occurred and battle lines drawn! ;-) Indeed - but it hardly seems a fair fight! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
There are so many opinions, so many arguments, no one can really prove
anything....no one can measure ... By observing this thread I have learned that if there are audible differences in cables, they are so minute that it is not worth spending a lot of money on. If there really were appreciable differences, it wouldn't be discussed, it would be dismissed as a fact. "Bob Marcus" wrote in message ... Wessel Dirksen wrote: You know besides psychoacoustics there is also always going to be an objectively measureable variance of physical conditions going on with any subjective acoustic hearing test. Even if the source and environment are precisely controlled, one's hearing apparatus will always physically vary from person to person. Even if the outer ear shape differences are considered acoustically negligable (which they aren't IMO), Your opinion is unnecessary here. It is an accepted fact that the outer ear, among other physical characteristics, is acoustically significant. There's even a technical term for it: head-related transfer function. the mechanical properties of the middle ear structures and especially inner ear are subject to enormous physical differences. Of course it is about A vs. B in the same set of ears. But who is to say that A vs. B are indeed the same or different from person to person running through a similar mechanical hearing circuit but with a different transfer function. Soooo....what, exactly? A vs. B will be different from person to person. That's part of why an ABX test involving, say, 20 subjects can't prove that *no one* can hear a difference between the two things being tested. But if you do enough ABX tests with enough subjects and you keep coming up negative, the search for that one special person who can hear this difference begins to look futile. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Make the most of your family vacation with tips from the MSN Family Travel Guide! http://dollar.msn.com |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
... Wessel Dirksen wrote: You know besides psychoacoustics there is also always going to be an objectively measureable variance of physical conditions going on with any subjective acoustic hearing test. Even if the source and environment are precisely controlled, one's hearing apparatus will always physically vary from person to person. Even if the outer ear shape differences are considered acoustically negligable (which they aren't IMO), Your opinion is unnecessary here. It is an accepted fact that the outer ear, among other physical characteristics, is acoustically significant. There's even a technical term for it: head-related transfer function. The head related transfer function is what I'm referrng to here and I did mention that it is significant. From the 7 year old info I know on this, the majority of the differences from subject to subject in the total transfer function seem to come from mostly the inner ear, less from the mechanical transformer function of the middle ear (which seems to be a good transformer), and even less from the acoustic properties of the outer ear canal. I mention "seem" because as far as I know, there is not a large body of conclusive data on this, and mostly on cadavers which is really more of a "in vitro" like setting. The basal membrane is very sensitive to even the slightest environmental influence. Also the outer ear structures acoustic properties +/- tend toward negligability for the frequencies where the human voice is in question which is why I figured I'd put that very debateable caveat in. If there are any cochlear implant research guys out there they will certainly be able to tell us more, and I hope they do. I still stand by my 2 cents that if "the head" is not the same, that there is an extra variable to confound things in a small sample. Your point about a statistically significant sample size is valid but you would have to corre ct for this and other coufounding factors. This turned out to be off topic. Yet, I think anybody's opinion is necessary in a forum discussion if they feel it is necessary to communicate. It seems you feel my bit is unnecessary to read. Sorry about that Bob. the mechanical properties of the middle ear structures and especially inner ear are subject to enormous physical differences. Of course it is about A vs. B in the same set of ears. But who is to say that A vs. B are indeed the same or different from person to person running through a similar mechanical hearing circuit but with a different transfer function. Soooo....what, exactly? A vs. B will be different from person to person. That's part of why an ABX test involving, say, 20 subjects can't prove that *no one* can hear a difference between the two things being tested. But if you do enough ABX tests with enough subjects and you keep coming up negative, the search for that one special person who can hear this difference begins to look futile. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Make the most of your family vacation with tips from the MSN Family Travel Guide! http://dollar.msn.com |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
Wessel Dirksen wrote:
"Bob Marcus" wrote in message ... Wessel Dirksen wrote: You know besides psychoacoustics there is also always going to be an objectively measureable variance of physical conditions going on with any subjective acoustic hearing test. Even if the source and environment are precisely controlled, one's hearing apparatus will always physically vary from person to person. Even if the outer ear shape differences are considered acoustically negligable (which they aren't IMO), Your opinion is unnecessary here. It is an accepted fact that the outer ear, among other physical characteristics, is acoustically significant. There's even a technical term for it: head-related transfer function. The head related transfer function is what I'm referrng to here and I did mention that it is significant. From the 7 year old info I know on this, the majority of the differences from subject to subject in the total transfer function seem to come from mostly the inner ear, less from the mechanical transformer function of the middle ear (which seems to be a good transformer), and even less from the acoustic properties of the outer ear canal. I mention "seem" because as far as I know, there is not a large body of conclusive data on this, and mostly on cadavers which is really more of a "in vitro" like setting. The basal membrane is very sensitive to even the slightest environmental influence. Also the outer ear structures acoustic properties +/- tend toward negligability for the frequencies where the human voice is in question which is why I figured I'd put that very debateable caveat in. If there are any cochlear implant research guys out there they will certainly be able to tell us more, and I hope they do. I still stand by my 2 cents that if "the head" is not the same, that there is an extra variable to confound things in a small sample. Your point about a statistically significant sample size is valid but you would have to corre ct for this and other coufounding factors. This turned out to be off topic. Yet, I think anybody's opinion is necessary in a forum discussion if they feel it is necessary to communicate. It seems you feel my bit is unnecessary to read. Sorry about that Bob. I'm afraid I was guilty of some careless writing here. When I said, "Your opinion is unnecessary," what I meant was that you didn't have to state something as an opinion if there were solid scientific findings to back it up. But I see from your subsequent explanation that you specifically referring to the outer ear, which is less of a factor, so your stating it as an opinion was perfectly understandable. My apologies for the confusion. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ From ‘will you?’ to ‘I do,’ MSN Life Events is your resource for Getting Married. http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
"Hasenpfeffer" wrote in message
news:h7rCc.166192$Ly.81116@attbi_s01... There are so many opinions, so many arguments, no one can really prove anything....no one can measure ... By observing this thread I have learned that if there are audible differences in cables, they are so minute that it is not worth spending a lot of money on. If there really were appreciable differences, it wouldn't be discussed, it would be dismissed as a fact. Very nicely put. Short and to the point. And why spend $5k and up on wire when an upgrade to speakers and room acoustics would be better served with greater noticeable difference. And $5k is way too much. $100 USD should be plenty to wire any system. I remember buying a NAD integrated (3400) in the early 90's. The salesman told me that there was an interconnect by NAD for $35 that replaced the solid metal bar that connected the pre & amp sections that provided a huge improvement. Cool. I paid them the extra money and hooked it in when I unpacked the amp. Played it with the cable in for a year before I got to thinking. Wonder how big of a difference there was? This was before I was ever on a BBS (early version of the web) or anything else, let alone reading mags that had articles on this stuff. Made sense to me that a cable would be better than a solid bent piece of metal. Made the change and low and behold......no difference. P*ssed me off! I was expecting a huge drop in the quality of music only to find no difference. WTFO! I played and played with it eventually asking my roommate to tell me when one was switched. Never heard of ABX or blind testing back then. Just did it. He wasn't able to hear anything. Sometimes I switched, other times I didn't. He couldn't make a distinction at any time. Then I had him switch without telling me. Not one difference in sound. Phooey! Funny, I had forgotten about this until starting this reply. John |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
Yesterday, while checking the speaker cable I realised one probably
broken at the joint. So I decided to get rid of the all 8 silver spades on my left speaker/Amp. Since, it took me a long time to strip the individual wire ,I did not bother to remove the silver spades in my left channel cables. Thw silver termination was chosen by my ""reputable" dealer who after conducted variuos tests - declared that silver matched my Amp spaker combination bettter than gold spades. So, yesterday was a day of revelation to me when I discovered that it make absolutely no difference at all between my left and right speaker. One connected using silver and one all bare wires. ( but I thing now it sounded better, LOL) My overpriced 2 cents. |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
"TChelvam" wrote in message
... Yesterday, while checking the speaker cable I realised one probably broken at the joint. So I decided to get rid of the all 8 silver spades on my left speaker/Amp. Since, it took me a long time to strip the individual wire ,I did not bother to remove the silver spades in my left channel cables. Thw silver termination was chosen by my ""reputable" dealer who after conducted variuos tests - declared that silver matched my Amp spaker combination bettter than gold spades. So, yesterday was a day of revelation to me when I discovered that it make absolutely no difference at all between my left and right speaker. One connected using silver and one all bare wires. ( but I thing now it sounded better, LOL) My overpriced 2 cents. Of course, this observation is invalid unless you carried out a rigorously observed double blind test with a sample of listeners equivalent to that of a small town and balanced the output levels to each speaker to better than 0.1 dB. -)) Stephen |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
"Stephen McLuckie" wrote in message
... "TChelvam" wrote in message ... Of course, this observation is invalid unless you carried out a rigorously observed double blind test with a sample of listeners equivalent to that of a small town and balanced the output levels to each speaker to better than 0.1 dB. -)) Oh boy, so I can't trust my hears? There goes my weekend. |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
Chelvam wrote:
Oh boy, so I can't trust my hears? There goes my weekend. No, you can trust your ears. It's your eyes you can't trust. They're the organs telling you things are different; your ears just come along for the ride. Take your eyes out of the equation, and your ears won't deceive you. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ From ‘will you?’ to ‘I do,’ MSN Life Events is your resource for Getting Married. http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Cables
"Chelvam" wrote in message news:a%gEc.112641$2i5.81713@attbi_s52...
"Stephen McLuckie" wrote in message ... "TChelvam" wrote in message ... Of course, this observation is invalid unless you carried out a rigorously observed double blind test with a sample of listeners equivalent to that of a small town and balanced the output levels to each speaker to better than 0.1 dB. -)) No, if he claimed this in a peer-reviewed journal you might have a case. Not here. Oh boy, so I can't trust my hears? There goes my weekend. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Comments regarding: Cables, Hearing, Stuff!! | High End Audio | |||
Can network, video and sound cables be combined to save space? | General | |||
Magnan Cables | High End Audio | |||
How to measure speaker cables? | High End Audio | |||
Making my own speaker cables... | High End Audio |