| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cables..attitudes..variables..
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:28:56 GMT, Leonard
wrote: I would suggest that there are those among us that have a mental dividing line that keeps their mental processes from venturing further than a given point on the cable issue. Indeed yes - it's called intelligence! :-) If one cannot explain a phenomenon or strange occurance within the framework of that "mental dividing line" then you have made a mistake or you are treading on the land beyond that dividing line. The land of the "strawman". The unknown, this is not well taken by this mindset. In the cable realm, all is known..we need not learn more. But, Mr. Anschuetz raises the specter of having to tread in that land where all future knowledge lies. Where deep research tends to thrive at times. Nope, deep research is based on reliable, repeatable and falsifiable *observations*, not wacky theories made up in order to sell product. In the area of 'cable sound', such observations are notably absent. Many thanks to Mr. Anschuetz for his thought provoking few lines. An ability to admit to an unexplained occurance is a sure sign of an inquiring mind and a degree of maturity. Mind you, he was ridiculed for making these statements by one of those that think cables are "all the same". "It was just bad connections"...as if he would not have checked this over and over! He did. Did you not read that he suffered this condition *once*, and was unable to repeat it? A classic case of a bad connection, usually caused by a speck of dirt, or a connector not fully locked. Of course, *you* would have us search for cosmic radiation, little green men, or possibly your Indian spirit guide, but a poorly made connection is just a little more likely, wouldn't you say? It must be explained within the mental barrier concepts..it does not exist if not explainable by known concepts. Narrow! I refer you to William of Occam. When you hear the sound of hoofbeats, don't expect zebras..................... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
Ref: Fixed attitudes...no room for modifications..changes..
Mr. Pinkerton has been on these audio groups for over a decade and has rather pronounced attitudes about cables in general. He does not detect any differences in audio cable..he does not mince words on telling you that, "...you cannot tell any difference either..!" My stance is that there are differences and in varying degrees. Simply put, we disagree! I contend that if you try a variety of cable types in your system at home and in the quietness of that environment you determine a particular cable does indeed sound a bit better, then by all means get it. Be wary of those that know what is best for "you". __________________________________________________ On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:14:03 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:28:56 GMT, Leonard wrote: I would suggest that there are those among us that have a mental dividing line that keeps their mental processes from venturing further than a given point on the cable issue. Indeed yes - it's called intelligence! :-) Indeed, a stunted intellectual set, grounded in the past, not willing to accept that things change and not all is known about any aspect of our endeavors at this early juncture. The dividing line is here. In one of the examples in my initial note, it was implied that we do not know, at this juncture, what the most basic particles are..therefore, we cannot know the reaction of other elements in the Universe that affects them..until we get down to that level, much of our knowledge is cut off on so many basic issues. If one cannot explain a phenomenon or strange occurance within the framework of that "mental dividing line" then you have made a mistake or you are treading on the land beyond that dividing line. The land of the "strawman". The unknown, this is not well taken by this mindset. In the cable realm, all is known..we need not learn more. But, Mr. Anschuetz raises the specter of having to tread in that land where all future knowledge lies. Where deep research tends to thrive at times. Nope, deep research is based on reliable, repeatable and falsifiable *observations*, not wacky theories made up in order to sell product. In the area of 'cable sound', such observations are notably absent. Somehow, you seem to be implying that those who consider various cables are gullible to the "hawking" of the Vendors! Please! We all live in this Capitalistic Society and all of the pressures of the sales scenario. Enough already, we all know that Vendors tend to go off into the "light fantastic". The real issue here is involved in the comments made above about the trial of varying cables in the comfort of your own audio environment...then saying "yea" or "nay" based on "your" own judgement. That others, somehow, know what is best for me..it just won't float! Get real! Many thanks to Mr. Anschuetz for his thought provoking few lines. An ability to admit to an unexplained occurance is a sure sign of an inquiring mind and a degree of maturity. Mind you, he was ridiculed for making these statements by one of those that think cables are "all the same". "It was just bad connections"...as if he would not have checked this over and over! He did. Did you not read that he suffered this condition *once*, and was unable to repeat it? A classic case of a bad connection, usually caused by a speck of dirt, or a connector not fully locked. Of course, *you* would have us search for cosmic radiation, little green men, or possibly your Indian spirit guide, but a poorly made connection is just a little more likely, wouldn't you say? Classic stuff here..you attempt to take a situation where a number of examples were given where we are learning daily about many "unknowns" and then delve into the "ole" little green men or Indian spirit guide routine. This ploy tends to reflect so much of my point in the note. The new knowledge is there beyond the barriers..therefore, it falls into the "strawman" and ridicule category by those that have "all the answers". The answer to any strange occurance must be found in the "known". Nevermind that the known is severely lacking in its scope. The inability to provide for any "unknown" to have validity and not be explainable, in the rational world, "is" the issue here. Ponder that! This ploy to "play to the audience" and brandy about phrases like "cosmic radiation", Little Green men, et al..is the tool of those that truly don't grasp the issue. The element of "ridicule" is always brought into play when running into the aformentioned barrier! Classic - predictable! It must be explained within the mental barrier concepts..it does not exist if not explainable by known concepts. Narrow! I refer you to William of Occam. When you hear the sound of hoofbeats, don't expect zebras..................... __________________________________________________ ________________________ So, after many years, this issue has been hashed out on these Newsgroups. Most people understand that they must be the final arbitor on the selection of their systems. There are those out there that say NO! I know what is best for you! Thus, one has to ignore this type and proceed forward toward good music. Do be ready to admit you can't hear and say "..you're right.. there is no difference..". They will be happy for awhile! This case is closed, go about selecting your system as you so desire! Enjoy! As stated above, Mr Pinkerton has his view, I respect that, however, I differ! The world will go on! Leonard... P.S. As I have been around these Audio Groups for decades, the following tidbits might be interesting to you: 1. At one time we were all ridiculed by thinking that 16bit representation was not nirvana! Much "fodder" on these newsgroups. It was the ploy of the Manufacturers. 16bit was all we needed, don't listen to those mean ole Manufacturers..then new knowledge came from over the mental barriers and newer better concepts prevailed. We now have much superior non-16bit sound! 2. Then some advanced Engineers noted that a clean power supply coming into a solid-state amp made things notably cleaner. The ridicule began to flow by the same crowd. Ha! they said: power is power, ad infinitum. But, others noted that indeed the sound was better. We now have better sounding pre-amps and amps due to cleaner power sources. These are just two items that this "we have the answers" group failed to shout down! There are other issues there from the past...The cable issue still lingers on..but, it too will fade away. The real world will overcome this group aided by information from across that "mental-barrier" I have discussed! |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:00:18 GMT, Leonard
wrote: Ref: Fixed attitudes...no room for modifications..changes.. Also ref. physical reality............ I am sorry to report that even in 'high end' audio, it remains the case that 2+2=4. Mr. Pinkerton has been on these audio groups for over a decade No, it just seems that way! :-) and has rather pronounced attitudes about cables in general. He does not detect any differences in audio cable..he does not mince words on telling you that, "...you cannot tell any difference either..!" More to the point, I and others have put money on it. There's a pool of around $4,000 waiting for *anyone* who can tell apart two cables in a level-matched double-blind conditions. This pool has lain on the table for about five years, and no one has even *tried* to collect it, despite numerous wild claims about 'huge' sonic differences by 'subjectivist' posters. My stance is that there are differences and in varying degrees. Simply put, we disagree! I contend that if you try a variety of cable types in your system at home and in the quietness of that environment you determine a particular cable does indeed sound a bit better, then by all means get it. Be wary of those that know what is best for "you". I contend that any such 'differences' exist only inside your head. As noted, you can collect enough cash for some *really* kool kables if *you* really can tell the difference. __________________________________________________ On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:14:03 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:28:56 GMT, Leonard wrote: The new knowledge is there beyond the barriers..therefore, it falls into the "strawman" and ridicule category by those that have "all the answers". The answer to any strange occurance must be found in the "known". Nevermind that the known is severely lacking in its scope. The inability to provide for any "unknown" to have validity and not be explainable, in the rational world, "is" the issue here. Ponder that! P.S. As I have been around these Audio Groups for decades, the following tidbits might be interesting to you: A fine example of Leonard's dislocation from reality, as these groups have not *existed* for plural decades. 1. At one time we were all ridiculed by thinking that 16bit representation was not nirvana! Much "fodder" on these newsgroups. It was the ploy of the Manufacturers. 16bit was all we needed, don't listen to those mean ole Manufacturers..then new knowledge came from over the mental barriers and newer better concepts prevailed. We now have much superior non-16bit sound! A fine tale - but not supported by *listening tests*. Show me the studio *master* tape that has more than 90dB dynamic range, and I'll show you a *possible* need for more than 16 bits. Until then, you are just off on another one of your flights of fancy. 2. Then some advanced Engineers noted that a clean power supply coming into a solid-state amp made things notably cleaner. The ridicule began to flow by the same crowd. Ha! they said: power is power, ad infinitum. But, others noted that indeed the sound was better. We now have better sounding pre-amps and amps due to cleaner power sources. No one who had even a smattering of EE knowledge, would have said any such thing. You are simply making this up. A good power supply is *essential* to *any* high quality audio electronics equipment. Of course, if you are talking about rubbish such as line conditioners and 'audiophile' power cords, then you simply don't understand what the power supply *does*. It is of course true that there's a *lot* of *extremely* expensive so-called 'high end' gear which is quite apallingly designed, but that's another matter. These are just two items that this "we have the answers" group failed to shout down! That's because the first is bull****, and the second is untrue. There are other issues there from the past...The cable issue still lingers on..but, it too will fade away. The real world will overcome this group aided by information from across that "mental-barrier" I have discussed! The only mental barrier in this thread seems to be between you and the real physical world......... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
In article cJ79b.445885$o%2.202854@sccrnsc02, Leonard
writes: The short-sighted viewpoint that we now know all the characteristics of cable and that it is a cut and dried technology..needs to be reconsidered. I work for Belden, the largest manufacturer of professional audio and video cable in the world, and I can tell you that all cable is NOT "cut and dried". Certainly after 101 years we know a lot about making cable. Let's say we know 99.9%. There are always new plastics, new ways of measuring, computer-controlled manufacturing etc. etc. that send us back to the drawing board. The video cables we make today we could NOT have made 20 years ago, maybe even less. And there are some effects we can't quite figure out, such as why our French Braid shield (a double serve braided along one edge) performs better at RF than a full braid. And there are many technologies coming down the pike (room temperature superconductors, for one) that will turn everything you know on its ear. How about zero resistance speaker cables? How about having your amplifier in San Francisco and your speaker in New York, with no loss, no limit on current? Boggles the mind. Maybe in the next decade we'll get to 99.99% knowledge. Steve Lampen Belden Electronics Division |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
"ShLampen" wrote in message
... In article cJ79b.445885$o%2.202854@sccrnsc02, Leonard I work for Belden, the largest manufacturer of professional audio and video cable in the world, and I can tell you that all cable is NOT "cut and dried". Certainly after 101 years we know a lot about making cable. Let's say we know 99.9%. There are always new plastics, new ways of measuring, computer-controlled manufacturing etc. etc. that send us back to the drawing board. The video cables we make today we could NOT have made 20 years ago, maybe even less. And there are some effects we can't quite figure out, such as why our French Braid shield (a double serve braided along one edge) performs better at RF than a full braid. So, what? None of this has any relevance to audio with a measly 20kHz bandwidth. Name one wire, cable, or interconnect advancement in the past 20 years (or even 101 years) that has made an audible improvement in audio cables. Video cables are another story but even competent cables of 20 years ago would do just fine against the most recent cables of today. Cable TV was born in 1948 with coax cable capable of over 500MHz bandwidth. Even today's highest definition component video is under 30MHz which is well below the state of the art of the early 1900s. Sure with new materials and techniques cables have improved in terms of cost, flexibility, connector reliability, etc but not in terms of measureable audible differences. And there are many technologies coming down the pike (room temperature superconductors, for one) that will turn everything you know on its ear. How about zero resistance speaker cables? How about having your amplifier in San Francisco and your speaker in New York, with no loss, no limit on current? Boggles the mind. Again, so what? Sure superconductivity has great applications in the power utility market but audio? Even if you have a unrealistic 1/2 mile of 12 gauge speaker wire you only need twice the amplifier power compared to a 1 foot speaker wire. Even buying the cheapest 1/2 mile of 12 gauge speaker cable will cost over $800 per channel. The cost of doubling the amplifier power will be less than the wire cost and it will certainly be cheaper than any superconducting cable. In all practical situations the driver coil resistance is the dominant resistance in the system. Now for extra credit what happens when you have a superconducting driver coil? |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
Ref: Realities from differing viewpoints...
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:41:38 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 21:00:18 GMT, Leonard wrote: Ref: Fixed attitudes...no room for modifications..changes.. Also ref. physical reality............ I am sorry to report that even in 'high end' audio, it remains the case that 2+2=4. Granted: 2+2=4 Mr. Pinkerton has been on these audio groups for over a decade No, it just seems that way! :-) and has rather pronounced attitudes about cables in general. He does not detect any differences in audio cable..he does not mince words on telling you that, "...you cannot tell any difference either..!" More to the point, I and others have put money on it. There's a pool of around $4,000 waiting for *anyone* who can tell apart two cables in a level-matched double-blind conditions. This pool has lain on the table for about five years, and no one has even *tried* to collect it, despite numerous wild claims about 'huge' sonic differences by 'subjectivist' posters. Does anyone care? Really? My stance is that there are differences and in varying degrees. Simply put, we disagree! I contend that if you try a variety of cable types in your system at home and in the quietness of that environment you determine a particular cable does indeed sound a bit better, then by all means get it. Be wary of those that know what is best for "you". I contend that any such 'differences' exist only inside your head. As noted, you can collect enough cash for some *really* kool kables if *you* really can tell the difference. Really, who cares if another does not agree on differences.. Consistantly abusive attitudes tend to alienate people from this view "..I have the answers..you do not.." Be happy with your answers..I differ, most Audiophiles also disagree. You're right about the differences exist in my "head".. It is there where the final arbitor resides..the land of the Subjectivist! __________________________________________________ On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:14:03 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:28:56 GMT, Leonard wrote: The new knowledge is there beyond the barriers..therefore, it falls into the "strawman" and ridicule category by those that have "all the answers". The answer to any strange occurance must be found in the "known". Nevermind that the known is severely lacking in its scope. The inability to provide for any "unknown" to have validity and not be explainable, in the rational world, "is" the issue here. Ponder that! P.S. As I have been around these Audio Groups for decades, the following tidbits might be interesting to you: A fine example of Leonard's dislocation from reality, as these groups have not *existed* for plural decades. I should have said a decade..but, this gives you "fodder" for ridicule. 1. At one time we were all ridiculed by thinking that 16bit representation was not nirvana! Much "fodder" on these newsgroups. It was the ploy of the Manufacturers. 16bit was all we needed, don't listen to those mean ole Manufacturers..then new knowledge came from over the mental barriers and newer better concepts prevailed. We now have much superior non-16bit sound! A fine tale - but not supported by *listening tests*. Show me the studio *master* tape that has more than 90dB dynamic range, and I'll show you a *possible* need for more than 16 bits. Until then, you are just off on another one of your flights of fancy. So we haven't improved a thing..you've got be kidding! As mentioned above..I think there is still a meeting of the Flat-Earth Society! Not supported by "listening Tests"..who cares? Fall back on ye ole dynamics..but, then there are other parameters that come into play, i.e., sampling rates, etc. 2. Then some advanced Engineers noted that a clean power supply coming into a solid-state amp made things notably cleaner. The ridicule began to flow by the same crowd. Ha! they said: power is power, ad infinitum. But, others noted that indeed the sound was better. We now have better sounding pre-amps and amps due to cleaner power sources. No one who had even a smattering of EE knowledge, would have said any such thing. You are simply making this up. A good power supply is *essential* to *any* high quality audio electronics equipment. Of course, if you are talking about rubbish such as line conditioners and 'audiophile' power cords, then you simply don't understand what the power supply *does*. It is of course true that there's a *lot* of *extremely* expensive so-called 'high end' gear which is quite apallingly designed, but that's another matter. I don't remember his name, but I think that after designing some Amplifiers/processers he went to maybe, Monster Cable? Anyway he was somewhat renowned for his work prior to moving. Classe' has been utilizing some of the work done in this arena...again, you really don't want to believe..but, so be it. Be happy in your insights. It is not "made up" just because you don't believe it. What a mindset! I am talking about "line conditioners" and the movement of some filtration processes into the Power supply area. Now brace yourself...improved power cables!! These are just two items that this "we have the answers" group failed to shout down! That's because the first is bull****, and the second is untrue. There are other issues there from the past...The cable issue still lingers on..but, it too will fade away. The real world will overcome this group aided by information from across that "mental-barrier" I have discussed! The only mental barrier in this thread seems to be between you and the real physical world......... __________________________________________________ _______________ I don't think that Mr. Pinkerton is going to change this aging view that has been espoused for "less than a decade". He had lambasted, called various respondents names and generally took the exchange of ideas into the gutter...time and time again. I stand by the statements above. He has chosen to carry this interchange into his normal discourse over the years. This seems to strike at his ego...manners, decorum and general politeness tend to fleetingly go away and old manners from other Audio forums reappear. How did I know this interchange would end up this way? Experience and close observation. This case is closed. I stand by my statements...you disagree.. So be it! Nothing will be resolved here. We differ! Leonard... |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
"Lou Anschuetz" wrote in message
... (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in news:bk4kvr0h22 @enews3.newsguy.com: large snip I refer you to William of Occam. When you hear the sound of hoofbeats, don't expect zebras..................... Yep, I too have cited Occam's Razor. But, his principle doesn't say that it can't be zebra's - only that it is unlikely to be. -- Lou Anschuetz, Network Manager, CMU, ECE Dept. WHAT HOOF's ! You've just got two coconut shells your banging together. - -Monty Python |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:48:01 GMT, Leonard
wrote: On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:41:38 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote: There's a pool of around $4,000 waiting for *anyone* who can tell apart two cables in a level-matched double-blind conditions. This pool has lain on the table for about five years, and no one has even *tried* to collect it, despite numerous wild claims about 'huge' sonic differences by 'subjectivist' posters. Does anyone care? Really? You seem to care enough to post endless handwaving about magical mystical effects, when the physical evidence that there is *no* audible difference lies before you. My stance is that there are differences and in varying degrees. Simply put, we disagree! I contend that if you try a variety of cable types in your system at home and in the quietness of that environment you determine a particular cable does indeed sound a bit better, then by all means get it. Be wary of those that know what is best for "you". I contend that any such 'differences' exist only inside your head. As noted, you can collect enough cash for some *really* kool kables if *you* really can tell the difference. Really, who cares if another does not agree on differences.. Consistantly abusive attitudes tend to alienate people from this view "..I have the answers..you do not.." Be happy with your answers..I differ, most Audiophiles also disagree. Ah, another one who speaks for 'most audiophiles'. My constant advice is never to believe what I say, but to get out there and do your own listening *under controlled conditions*. You willl find no need for magical mystical theories to explain cable differences - because they don't exist in the real physical world. You're right about the differences exist in my "head".. It is there where the final arbitor resides..the land of the Subjectivist! I rest my case............... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
Ref: Ridicule about power filters..power supplies..cords..
Gary.. This is but one issue that has come up on these audio groups. I was throughly ridiculed on another newsgroup when I mentioned that a filtration system that I had tried and just purchased, did in fact improve the sound of my system. The individual that started the rally on that newsgroup is still the "catalyst" that thrives there. When he would jump on an issue there was about three others that would jump into the fray - you could count on it - and one was Stewart..not sure about the other. However, the comment to me on one note was simply that "wire is wire...power is power.." This was coming after rather heated debates on cables, etc. The thrust of the interplay was that these filters could do nothing for the sound..the power supplies in the system would not be altered by the filtration external to the system. Ridiculous that anyone would think that AC filtration could affect the audio! Marketing ploys! Others were ridiculed about this during that period...probably from around 1996 on up to 1999. Can't remember. However, if its important to you perhaps you can look it up. Also, in those interchanges, I mentioned that I had a friend in the N.C. area I think that had worked on elaborate filtration systems on Catscan devices..absolutely needed to clean up the garbage on the AC lines. I had mentioned that others were applying some of these ideas to audio applications. External to the regular power supply. Years after these interchanges many companies introduced some very large and expensive power cleanup devices. I believe that Stereophile had made some reviews of some of these devices at the time and in some cases found them helpful..this always fired off the anti-everything crowd. Mind you we were discussing the filtration prior to the Power supply..not the power supply proper. My wording could imply I was referring to the Power supply. I think most people involved in electronics are well versed on the necessity of a well built power supply. These issues came up for long periods of time.. ..suprized you didn't see them or get involved. My system reacted in a favorable way with the filtration in front and some types on these groups tended to violently differ. The reaction was worse than I related in the note you are referring to. Leonard.. __________________________________________________ ________ On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:08:42 +0000, Gary Rosen wrote: "Leonard" wrote in message news:CLp9b.464322$Ho3.75270@sccrnsc03... 2. Then some advanced Engineers noted that a clean power supply coming into a solid-state amp made things notably cleaner. The ridicule began to flow by the same crowd. Ha! they said: power is power, ad infinitum. But, others noted that indeed the sound was better. We now have better sounding pre-amps and amps due to cleaner power sources. What is your reference for this? I've been reading these groups for a long time, I've seen all the debates - CD vs. vinyl, cables, DBTs, etc. Never once can I recall *anybody* saying "power is power" - as an EE I know that clean power is fundamental to the operation of any system and I am dead certain that Stewart, Dick Pierce and the rest of the "same crowd" know this too. If this debate occurred, you should be able to find it on Google. - Gary Rosen It is not "if" the debates did occur..they happened, but who has the inclination to dig up that old stuff. Who can remember the exact name of a poster. Who knows who was part of the "crowd" at that time. There was about three at the time that was fairly active. A certain number are still around. Three of those are still around. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
Leonard wrote:
You're right about the differences exist in my "head".. It is there where the final arbitor resides..the land of the Subjectivist! This is a really a rather extreme view that reminds me of an incident when I was teaching an organ lesson. The student played a G natural instead of a G flat in the soprano of a passage of the Brahms 'Herzleibster Jesu' chorale prelude, turing the harmony from E flat major to E flat minor, which essentially ruins Brahms' beautiful harmonic progression during that part of the piece. It is routine for music teachers to point out note mistakes to beginning and intermediate students because they often aren't aware of them, and when I did so, he replied in a serious tone 'it's only a half step'. Not wanting to insult him, I tried to refrain from laughing, but it is true, in his mind, it was okay, because a half step didn't mean much to him. Keep in mind that as a whole, seeing music reproduction as more subjective than music performance would be a position virtually impossible to successfully defend. So, is the final arbiter REALLY in the land of the subjectivist? And what was that you said about 'narrow'? |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:32:08 +0000, jjnunes wrote:
Leonard wrote: You're right about the differences exist in my "head".. It is there where the final arbitor resides..the land of the Subjectivist! This is a really a rather extreme view that reminds me of an incident when I was teaching an organ lesson. The student played a G natural instead of a G flat in the soprano of a passage of the Brahms 'Herzleibster Jesu' chorale prelude, turing the harmony from E flat major to E flat minor, which essentially ruins Brahms' beautiful harmonic progression during that part of the piece. It is routine for music teachers to point out note mistakes to beginning and intermediate students because they often aren't aware of them, and when I did so, he replied in a serious tone 'it's only a half step'. Not wanting to insult him, I tried to refrain from laughing, but it is true, in his mind, it was okay, because a half step didn't mean much to him. Keep in mind that as a whole, seeing music reproduction as more subjective than music performance would be a position virtually impossible to successfully defend. So, is the final arbiter REALLY in the land of the subjectivist? The final arbitor is in the ear-mind complex..and the ear-mind is an integral part of the Subjectivist processes. This was somewhat out of context. This was stated in conjunction with statements about about one making decisions on systems in his own private audio listening environment. Then the comment that this is the land of the Subjectivist. I think it is! And what was that you said about 'narrow'? Ref: subjectivist thoughts..application of concept. Interesting query there jj. In my sense of the application of the word Subjectivist. I was referring to the issue of when listening to music via a recording with all your grand components..your ear-mind construct is extremely "subjectivist" in nature. One is making value judgements on how close the system sounds to some real, or perhaps imagined, representation of that source. The the ear-mind construct has to considered, in my way of thinking, as an extremely subjectivist ole soul. It has to do with so many variables, experiences, education and a myriad of scenarios that one has gone through. It is the product of all that has been input to it over the years. It is not consistent at times, depending on age, etc. There is a myriad of balancing acts going on, all based on that "input" that has been fed into it for many years. So, to my logic, the scenario you painted regarding the student has to do with his interpretation of how to play the note and a value judgement as to its importance..it is this judgement that is wrong..he accesses no importance to the sloppiness you mentioned. It is a two step process..first the physical to get the right note and if he/she misses it..the value accessment that it is O.K. This might well be due to a general lazyness, even though they knew it was not quite right. A seriousness regarding their "value system" seems to not be fully developed.. ..we tend to pass off as immaturity. To me, the aboved mentioned scenario of Student attitudes is a bit different than that of the listener sitting in the quiet of his Audio room making decisions on how close the Flute with its air escaping sound is to some real or imagined representation. Or perhaps the timbre of a well played Sax as it lumbers down the scale. Note, I said real or imagined..we tend to recall various recording, or live music, as we play selections and attempt to make decisions on its truthfulness to our memory. We make these instantaneous comparisons to memory all the time when we listen. To me this is an aspect of the Subjective that is somewhat different than the scenario you painted. Correct me if I'm wrong or not even on track!! As to the comment on "...music reproduction more subjective than music performance..." I would have to think about this and go through an "unlayering" process mentally. I've never thought of those elements as being mutually exclusive. Again, step me through how this idea was articulated to you. I'm willing to listen and absorb. Anyway, I find the note "thought provoking"..and the last question a bit of a mental challenge..as I'd never thought of the two factors in juxtaposition. Interesting. To me, one's view of the Universe is seen through the Subjective glasses..as one gets wiser it has to be tempered somewhat if it runs roughshod over basic logic. In my view, we're stuck with some of the foibles of "Subjective" direction. Perhaps this is not too "narrow". There is not much we can do about it at the present time..we can't measure it or give some numerical value to it..we must suffer with what we have! Anyway..interesting note! Leonard... |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
Leonard wrote:
The final arbitor is in the ear-mind complex..and the ear-mind is an integral part of the Subjectivist processes. This was somewhat out of context. This was stated in conjunction with statements about about one making decisions on systems in his own private audio listening environment. Then the comment that this is the land of the Subjectivist. I think it is! The problem with this is that ear-brain LEARNS to recognize patterns and make associations. An inquiring mind doesn't really do this in total isolation. Maybe that makes you happy, but to me it's like suffocation. Simply stated, there is more going on than what is in the listeners head. The universe was here long before we were and we are aware of only a tiny fraction of it to say the very least. To me, the aboved mentioned scenario of Student attitudes is a bit different than that of the listener sitting in the quiet of his Audio room making decisions on how close the Flute with its air escaping sound is to some real or imagined representation. Or perhaps the timbre of a well played Sax as it lumbers down the scale. Note, I said real or imagined..we tend to recall various recording, or live music, as we play selections and attempt to make decisions on its truthfulness to our memory. We make these instantaneous comparisons to memory all the time when we listen. To me this is an aspect of the Subjective that is somewhat different than the scenario you painted. Correct me if I'm wrong or not even on track!! Well, it's certainly not how Pythagoras and his followers worked out the basic physics of tuning systems. They wanted to increase the understanding of what was going on. I think that's important. Despite that, there are obviously other ways. I'm really a pluralist about all this for practical reasons. As to the comment on "...music reproduction more subjective than music performance..." I would have to think about this and go through an "unlayering" process mentally. I've never thought of those elements as being mutually exclusive. Again, step me through how this idea was articulated to you. I'm willing to listen and absorb. I didn't mean to say they were mutually exclusive. The objective/subjective is ideally sort of a continuum to me. The many rough places where it is not are caused because I don't understand something. To me, one's view of the Universe is seen through the Subjective glasses..as one gets wiser it has to be tempered somewhat if it runs roughshod over basic logic. In my view, we're stuck with some of the foibles of "Subjective" direction. Perhaps this is not too "narrow". There is not much we can do about it at the present time..we can't measure it or give some numerical value to it..we must suffer with what we have! Learing new methodical techniques is the best that can be done. Some people don't like that for some reason. Go back to the reason you posted a response to Pinkerton's post if you don't know what I mean. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
Ref: Subjectivism...methodical techniques..contradictions
Below is a well thought out response to a problem regarding the overpowering aspects of the subjective process and an awareness of it negative side and some thoughts on how to better control it. On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 05:44:43 +0000, jjnunes wrote: Leonard wrote: The final arbitor is in the ear-mind complex..and the ear-mind is an integral part of the Subjectivist processes. This was somewhat out of context. This was stated in conjunction with statements about about one making decisions on systems in his own private audio listening environment. Then the comment that this is the land of the Subjectivist. I think it is! The problem with this is that ear-brain LEARNS to recognize patterns and make associations. An inquiring mind doesn't really do this in total isolation. Maybe that makes you happy, but to me it's like suffocation. Never thought of any aspect of the Subjective mind as functioning in isolation. My basic thrust is that it improves with its interplay with the so called "real-world" out there. Improve meaning ridding itself of the more negative aspects of the Subjective process. I would think that the Subjective is molded by all that you perceive, learn, reject, comparative processes, and on it goes. The only isolation aspect I have mentioned is that of making cable decisions in you own audio space at your pace and choosing. It is a personal choice you are making..to insure a bit better audio. To improve the illusion the ear-mind presents to you upon playback. Agreeing with that ear-mind construct is a positive step to me in this cable selection process. This includes many other components. I would recommend that one concur with what your ear-mind construct is in favor with rather than some external process that says there is no difference. All listening is accomplished with all the mental resources at work..go with them. Simply stated, there is more going on than what is in the listeners head. The universe was here long before we were and we are aware of only a tiny fraction of it to say the very least. To me, the aboved mentioned scenario of Student attitudes is a bit different than that of the listener sitting in the quiet of his Audio room making decisions on how close the Flute with its air escaping sound is to some real or imagined representation. Or perhaps the timbre of a well played Sax as it lumbers down the scale. Note, I said real or imagined..we tend to recall various recording, or live music, as we play selections and attempt to make decisions on its truthfulness to our memory. We make these instantaneous comparisons to memory all the time when we listen. To me this is an aspect of the Subjective that is somewhat different than the scenario you painted. Correct me if I'm wrong or not even on track!! Well, it's certainly not how Pythagoras and his followers worked out the basic physics of tuning systems. They wanted to increase the understanding of what was going on. I think that's important. Despite that, there are obviously other ways. I'm really a pluralist about all this for practical reasons. As to the comment on "...music reproduction more subjective than music performance..." I would have to think about this and go through an "unlayering" process mentally. I've never thought of those elements as being mutually exclusive. Again, step me through how this idea was articulated to you. I'm willing to listen and absorb. I didn't mean to say they were mutually exclusive. The objective/subjective is ideally sort of a continuum to me. The many rough places where it is not are caused because I don't understand something. To me, one's view of the Universe is seen through the Subjective glasses..as one gets wiser it has to be tempered somewhat if it runs roughshod over basic logic. In my view, we're stuck with some of the foibles of "Subjective" direction. Perhaps this is not too "narrow". There is not much we can do about it at the present time..we can't measure it or give some numerical value to it..we must suffer with what we have! Learing new methodical techniques is the best that can be done. Some people don't like that for some reason. Go back to the reason you posted a response to Pinkerton's post if you don't know what I mean. My problem is with applying methodical techniques in areas where they will not apply. My contention is that regarding cable selection let the user make the selection in a "pure" Subjective mode, which he does anyway, for the most part. Then after a few weeks, months etc., he decides some alteration is necessary, then we are seeing a modification of, perhaps, a Subjective flaw in the process. Let the user learn that lesson..let him modify his processes. Perhaps, he might decide there is very little differences in what he was selecting. Note, I said "might"...in my mind there are notable differences in cables..I have difficulty with the scenario being painted that they are all the same. There are areas of one's mindset that reacts strangely to an environment labeled a "test" environment. There seems to be an inability to concentrate on issues in a "test" mode that become evident in the quietness of your own audio environment. Mind you, while one is testing..it is all still flowing throught this Subjective process...but, with a set of parameters changed...different from my "..in the quiet of my audio space" scenario. Being exposed to the teaching profession, I'm sure you are aware of this little foible of the mental processes. Years ago I dabbled in the Amateur Radio business...One night as I sat in my Radio shack tuning my rig..getting the standing waves ratio low as possible on the transmission lines and on one those Tube amplifiers "dipping the plate current"..I thought, wouldn't it be great to have the ability to adjust the subjective aspects of society with this kind of numerical control. I merely adjusted for a prime condition on the meters..neat. But, lo, this is not the way it is..therefore we best accept that the Subjective world really controls our very being. I'm merely adjusting to a harsh reality we are faced with. Granted, we can apply some methodical techniques to the "world out there"...it all must past the muster through the Subjective domain..I merely accept this..and observe. I am not necessarily a proponent. However, I do not agree with those that see this as all negative. We can't really escape it at this point in time. It is an integral part of what we are all about. Ref your continuum statement: You are probably right..there might well be a continuum involved here..but, to me, we now have some bad gaps in that continuum. Who knows..we shall see. Mind you, all this hassle over Subjective/Objective might well be a semantics issue to get a mental handle on something that is a continuum! A method to isolate the extremes of a continuum. Food for thought. Again, thanks for the note. I generally learn a bit from this type of interchange. Leonard... |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
What 'failed scenario'? DBTs *work*, and sighted listening is fatally flawed. This is only in dispute by those who really do have an agenda. Sorry, you keep saying this and waving your arms, but that won't make it true. Most DBTs used to compare audio components with music are fatally flawed, even more so than sighted listening. DBTs seem to remove subtle audible differences (such as dynamic contrasts, imaging, soundstaging, timbral diffferences, tonal colors, etc.). NEVER has a DBT with audio equipment and music shown differences in any of these areas with audio components. We are all aware of these subtle audible differences (isn't that what High End is all about?), but by your logic and standards they don't exist. DBTs have ONLY been shown to positively identify gross differences in loudness and frequency response, and then mostly with pink noise as a source. So what 'proof' do you have that DBTs work with audio equipment and music that is not anecdotal pseudoscience? Regards, Mike |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
Ref: Agendas...ego-problems..Newsgroup clutter.
Mr. Pinkerton has stated his case, I disagree with him. I have stated my case..he disagrees with me. These audio newsgroups have been filled with fodder with those that have an agenda..all wrapped up in an ego problem generated by previous statements. Nothing said here will change either of our minds..therefore we probably should do a "case really closed" to this issue. Move along! This all gets boring to the reader of these groups. Leonard... __________________________________________________ ______ On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:38:41 +0000, Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 19:13:48 GMT, Leonard wrote: No one in their right mind needs a series of test to decide what is best in their system. They do if they want to know what *sounds* best - or just plain different! You seem to have an "agenda"..all facts are "warped" by this long time commitment to this failed scenario. Live and let live seems to be an alien concept! What 'failed scenario'? DBTs *work*, and sighted listening is fatally flawed. This is only in dispute by those who really do have an agenda. No one buys your idea of "tests are needed"..knowing full well this will lead to other test scenarios. Sure they do - stop pretending that you speak for anyone but yourself. Mind you, this somewhat ridiculous word interchange is about just letting an individual select cables as he sees fit. You don't know what is best for him!! I do if he wants the best sound for his overall system budget! You definitely do *not* get better sound from more expensive cables, that is a *fact*. Do grasp that! No one cares what you think nor are concerned about any pre-freshmen test to resolve a simple issue such as this. Having been on these groups for a "decade" espousing this stuff..obviously none of the previous postings have meant much to anyone. Oh, we get a new bunch of 'true believers' every so often, whose wacky theories need to be debunked. It was Siegfried Duray-Bito when I started out, now it's you and Lou. I suppose if someone came in and commented that your Audio system was a bit harsh and seems to get more "grating" on the ears with time...would you resort to "..it sounds great to me.."? I'd be rather surprised by such a comment, since it actually has a pretty 'laid back' sound balance. Hence, I'd be very curious as to the nature of the visitor's system. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
Ref: Considering evidence...
..selecting components. normanstrong... If this scenario works for you, then great! I merely point out that I tend to be a bit leary of "scientific theory" that is day in and day out contradicted by users. I don't think I go into the selection of components with the dependence on "theory" that you do..but, perhaps that is flaw in my listening processes. There is more than one way to "skin a cat"!! Enjoy the music..don't get too involved with the hardware selection process. Be happy! There is a group out there that says it all sounds the same anyway. If you can believe that! Leonard... __________________________________________________ _______ On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:59:38 +0000, normanstrong wrote: "Leonard" wrote in message t... What physical evidence?...if an individual decided that a particular cable sounds best in his system..what is your grounds for argument. It is his business, his system..his decision. What kind of mental arrogance are we into here. No one in their right mind needs a series of test to decide what is best in their system. I've always considered that I'm in my right mind, but I DO require a series of tests if I'm to be persuaded that some effect that makes no sense technically does in fact exist. IOW, if the results are contrary to accepted scientific theory, I don't throw out the theory, I re-do the test, more carefully this time. If careful replication still contradicts scientific theory, I will have to question the theory (although I'd certainly wonder how the theory ever became accepted in the first place if it's so easy to disprove.) So far, I've never run into that situation. And yes, I've run several reasonably careful DBTs over the years. Some day I'll describe my experience with the "frozen CD" test. That one had me scratching my head for quite a time. Norm Strong |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cables..attitudes..variables..
|
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
mkuller wrote:
Most DBTs used to compare audio components with music are fatally flawed, even more so than sighted listening. DBTs seem to remove subtle audible differences (such as dynamic contrasts, imaging, soundstaging, timbral diffferences, tonal colors, etc.). NEVER has a DBT with audio equipment and music shown differences in any of these areas with audio components. (Stewart Pinkerton) That is of course not true, but it's certainly the case that DBTs fail to demonstrate 'differences' due to expensive casework abnd designer badges................ mkuller We are all aware of these subtle audible differences (isn't that what High End is all about?), but by your logic and standards they don't exist. Stewart Pinkerton No, you like to *believe* that these differences exist, but DBTs show that they really don't. Learn to live with that. "DBTs show (that these subtle differences) really don't (exist)." Unbelievable. As an High End audiophile, this is the most EXTRAORDINARY statement I have ever heard from you - which is saying a lot. Because your flawed use of DBTs doesn't show what you want, you claim it doesn't exist - no audible differences in dynamic contrasts, imaging, soundstaging, timbral diffferences, tonal colors, etc. That's truly amazing! Regards, Mike |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Stewart Pinkerton
No, you like to *believe* that these differences exist, but DBTs show that they really don't. Learn to live with that. mkuller "DBTs show (that these subtle differences) really don't (exist)." Unbelievable. As an High End audiophile, this is the most EXTRAORDINARY statement I have ever heard from you - which is saying a lot. Because your flawed use of DBTs doesn't show what you want, you claim it doesn't exist - noaudible differences in dynamic contrasts, imaging, soundstaging, timbral diffferences, tonal colors, etc. That's truly amazing! Stewart Pinkerton No, that's reality. You cannot show *any* reliable and repeatable evidence that such audible differences in dynamic contrasts, imaging, soundstaging, timbral diffferences, tonal colors, etc actually exist among nominally competent amplifiers, and especially among cables. That you cheerfully *imagine* such differences to exist, is of interest to no one but yourself. It has been obvious for some time that your view of reality is a little different. Ok, so now you have carefully qualified your general statement and it only applies to "nominally competant amplifiers and cables". So do the subtle differences I mentioned above appear in your reality with other components or do the audio components in your world only have gross frequency response and loudness differences? Regards, Mike |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:52:44 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote: It has been obvious for some time that your view of reality is a little different. From yours, certainly. My view of reality is based on careful experimentation, not on reading magazine reviews of this month's latest 'wonder product', which of course just *must* sound different from last month's 'wonder product'. For a really great belly laugh on this subject, see Martin Colloms 'subjective scoring system'. Ok, so now you have carefully qualified your general statement and it only applies to "nominally competant amplifiers and cables". It always did. I've noticed on RAHE that no matter how many times 'objectivists' propound their views with the proper qualifications -- e.g. the words "nominally competent", "likely", "gross differences', etc -- and it has now been dozens, if not hundreds of times, since I've been reading the newsgroup -- certain 'subjectivists' simply fail to register them. Hence the canard emitted perennially from the 'subjectivist' side that 'objectivists' think 'all amps/cables/CD players sound the same'. Makes me wonder if there's some sort of perceptual bias going on. -- -S. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:52:44 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote: It has been obvious for some time that your view of reality is a little different. From yours, certainly. My view of reality is based on careful experimentation, not on reading magazine reviews of this month's latest 'wonder product', which of course just *must* sound different from last month's 'wonder product'. For a really great belly laugh on this subject, see Martin Colloms 'subjective scoring system'. Ok, so now you have carefully qualified your general statement and it only applies to "nominally competant amplifiers and cables". It always did. I've noticed on RAHE that no matter how many times 'objectivists' propound their views with the proper qualifications -- e.g. the words "nominally competent", "likely", "gross differences', etc -- and it has now been dozens, if not hundreds of times, since I've been reading the newsgroup -- certain 'subjectivists' simply fail to register them. Hence the canard emitted perennially from the 'subjectivist' side that 'objectivists' think 'all amps/cables/CD players sound the same'. Makes me wonder if there's some sort of perceptual bias going on. -- -S. And it follows with the corollary that if there have ever been any amplifiers that have ever been shown to sound different under any set of conditions that somehow that means Every Ampliifer sounds different from Every Other One. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
mkuller wrote:
So do the subtle differences I mentioned above appear in your reality with other components or do the audio components in your world only have gross frequency response and loudness differences? Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Some of them do, others have things like HF IMD and switching distortion. Cables of course have no such effects, which is why they all sound the same (except in the *gross* cases alreadty mentioned). I'm not talking about things you've measured but aspects of a component's performance you have heard. To reiterate, I'm asking you if you have ever heard audible differences in dynamic contrasts, imaging, soundstaging, timbral diffferences, tonal colors, etc. in comparing any two audio components. In your world, do these audible differences exist and if so, where? Please don't sidestep - just answer the question. Regards, Mike |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Mkuller wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote I've noticed on RAHE that no matter how many times 'objectivists' propound their views with the proper qualifications -- e.g. the words "nominally competent", "likely", "gross differences', etc -- and it has now been dozens, if not hundreds of times, since I've been reading the newsgroup -- certain 'subjectivists' simply fail to register them. Hence the canard emitted perennially from the 'subjectivist' side that 'objectivists' think 'all amps/cables/CD players sound the same'. Even jj said some cables are designed as tone controls, i.e. they sound different, and we've recently read here the report from the Swedish audio group which proved CD players can sound different. So in your 'objectivist' view which components sound different from each other? Amps that aren't 'nominally competent' (if they sound different, they must be 'nominally incompetent')? Preamps? Speakers? Regards, Mike Cables designed to be tone controls are not cables designed to pass a signal with minimal distortion, which is what nominally competent cables are designed to do. If cables can be designed to sound different, and some CD players can be found to sound different, it means that cables and CD players can sound different. It does not mean they are *likely* to sound different. This oft-repeated distinction should be committed to memory by certain parties to avoid future misunderstanding. If you have been unclear all along as to the meaning of the phrase 'nominally competent', then you should have said so earlier. -- -S. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Isn't it interesting that only people who practice bias controlled listening tests get access to this special stuff?  Would you say that Stewert doesn't practice bias controled listening or maybe this claim is less than accurate? |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Mkuller wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote I've noticed on RAHE that no matter how many times 'objectivists' propound their views with the proper qualifications -- e.g. the words "nominally competent", "likely", "gross differences', etc -- and it has now been dozens, if not hundreds of times, since I've been reading the newsgroup -- certain 'subjectivists' simply fail to register them. Hence the canard emitted perennially from the 'subjectivist' side that 'objectivists' think 'all amps/cables/CD players sound the same'. mkuller wrote: Even jj said some cables are designed as tone controls, i.e. they sound different, and we've recently read here the report from the Swedish audio group which proved CD players can sound different. So in your 'objectivist' view which components sound different from each other? Amps that aren't 'nominally competent' (if they sound different, they must be 'nominally incompetent')? Preamps? Speakers? Steven Sullivan : Cables designed to be tone controls are not cables designed to pass a signal with minimal distortion, which is what nominally competent cables are designed to do. Since there is no label on these amplifiers or cables that says "nominally competent", this statement (of Pinkerton's which you repeat) is meaningless to the average audiophile. The average audiophile has some learnin' to do, IME. And I believe Nousaine disagrees about amplifier sound which makes your claim even more meaningless. So either "all amps sound the same" or they don't. You can't have it both ways. First of all, what claim are you referring to? Second of all, unless I have made a claim about 'all listeners' or 'everyone', then no disagreement in itself could be 'proof' that my claim is 'meaningless'. I believe you are wrong about Mr. Nousaine's views, which he has explained *in detail* MANY times here. I'm pretty sure he agrees that nominally competent amps working operated their design parameters are likely to sound the same. Which means that amps *can* sound different, but that when subjective bias is accounted for, they likely *won't*. Which, AFAIR, has been his experience. I believe you have misunderstood and misrepresented both my and Mr. Nousaine's views, and not for the first time. Please desist from doing so. Nice sidestep Steven - you didn't answer the question I asked about which components are "likely" to sound different. If you've comprehended what I've written, it should be easy to surmise what components will tend to sound the same when they are nominally competent and operating under normal loads. I'm testing you. -- -S. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
mkuller wrote:
I'm not talking about things you've measured but aspects of a component's performance you have heard. To reiterate, I'm asking you if you have ever heard audible differences in dynamic contrasts, imaging, soundstaging, timbral diffferences, tonal colors, etc. in comparing any two audio components. In your world, do these audible differences exist and if so, where? Stewart Pinkerton wrote: They exist, but almost exclusively among loudspeakers. Where some such effects exist in amplifiers, it is invariably due to some technically obvious problem such as poor crosstalk, weak power supplies or a poor S/N ratio. And I'm not talking about subtle shortcomings. To be more specific, timbral and tonal differences are *always* traceable to gross frequency errors or very high harmonic distortion (as with SET amps), while poor dynamic contrasts are a function of weak power supplies. Imaging and soundstaging problems are of course SNR and crosstalk related, but these tend not to exist with modern amps and CD sources. "Not to exist." Amazing. BTW, the *vast* majority of such artifacts as claimed in these newsgroups are simply in the heads of the listeners, and do not exist in the real physical world. For instance, I have *never*, with CD sources and solid-state amplifiers listened to under 'blind' conditions, identified any of the effects you mention, aside from tonal imbalances due to poor bass or treble response. These purple prose claims of 'dynamic contrasts', 'inner detail' etc are in my experience simply made up mythical tales, which *never* survive controlled listening conditions. You and the other objectivists have NEVER heard any of these things under "controlled listening conditions" because the faulty use of DBTs obliterates them. DBTs with audio components have ONLY shown gross frequency response and loudness differences - therefore in your world those are the only differences that must exist. Pinkerton said They (subtle audible differences) exist, but almost exclusively among loudspeakers If that is the case, please reference the DBTs where these subtle differences were identified. Oh, that's right - DBTs are not needed with speakers, since everyone 'knows' they all sound different - right? You can't have it both ways. Regards, Mike |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
(Mkuller) wrote:
However, in my extensive observational listening, I personally have never heard two amplifiers that do sound the same. (Nousaine) wrote: That's what I mean. What a lucky guy I must be to have selected the only amplifiers in the world that sound the same for my personal kit. And, how lucky were Floyd Toole (1976) and Dave Clark (1987) to have selected the dozen or so amplifiers that actually did sound alike for those two experiments. And how lucky was Steve Maki when he just happened to have on hand the only amplifier on earth (Yamaha integrated amplifier) that sounded exactly like Steve Zipser's Pass Aleph's on the trip to Sunshine Stereo. Isn't it interesting that only people who practice bias controlled listening tests get access to this special stuff? Isn't it interesting that only the people who practice bias control in the form of DBTs find that all amplifiers sound the same? Could it be that the flawed use of DBTs removes subtle audible differences and only reveals gross frequency response and loudness differences? Nah, DBTs are PERFECT when used this way even though there is no direct evidence supporting them or the sloppy protocols that are used because - get this - they are used in academic psychoacoustic research! Regards, Mike |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
Pinkerton said
They (subtle audible differences) exist, but almost exclusively among loudspeakers If that is the case, please reference the DBTs where these subtle differences were identified. Oh, that's right - DBTs are not needed with speakers, since everyone 'knows' they all sound different - right? You can't have it both ways. Regards, Mike Well, I must admit that Mike has a good point here. If one accepts the thesis that loudspeakers differ dramatically in sound, such that DBT are a waste of time, I'd personally like to see someone waste a bit of it just to prove it. Yes, I believe that the sound of loudspeakers varies enough that it should be easy to tell which one is which. But it's a long way from a "same - different" test to actually saying something substantative about the sound of a speaker whose identity is unknown. Professional audio reviewers and golden ears manage to avoid commenting on the sound of unknown speakers. I can't say that I blame them. There's always the chance that they will admire the sound of a speaker that they are on record as hating when they heard it sighted--or vice versa. I find most interesting the cleverness of the excuses they use to avoid finding themselves in that position. Norm Strong |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE,,,, Endless is the word, alright. I'm back from a welcome hiatus of a year or two, only to discover the same arguments, carried on by many of the same people. I do admire their persistence. Of course, the DBT is my all time favorite. So I'll jump in right here and say, I've heard significant differences in amplifiers, or rather, between two particular amplifiers, a Parasound HCA1000 and a Spectron Digital One. Yup, I heard them. And they weren't subtle either. snip Within the confines of my livingroom, my choice of a Spectron over a Parasound has proved highly gratifying. In the context of the extraordinary and sometimes absurd claims of the "subjectivists" frequenting this newsgroup, I can only say, Color me objectivist. I like my Spectron, just as Stewart likes has Krell; but does it *really* sound different than the Parasound? I couldn't say. Welcome back. Of course the Spectron sounds different/better - you heard it, and time has proven it a satisfying musical choice. Of course you could have done a DBT, ended up buying a Sony receiver and been really unhappy with your sound and wondering why. Regards, Mike |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
(Mkuller) wrote:
(Mkuller) wrote: However, in my extensive observational listening, I personally have never heard two amplifiers that do sound the same. (Nousaine) wrote: That's what I mean. What a lucky guy I must be to have selected the only amplifiers in the world that sound the same for my personal kit. And, how lucky were Floyd Toole (1976) and Dave Clark (1987) to have selected the dozen or so amplifiers that actually did sound alike for those two experiments. And how lucky was Steve Maki when he just happened to have on hand the only amplifier on earth (Yamaha integrated amplifier) that sounded exactly like Steve Zipser's Pass Aleph's on the trip to Sunshine Stereo. Isn't it interesting that only people who practice bias controlled listening tests get access to this special stuff? Isn't it interesting that only the people who practice bias control in the form of DBTs find that all amplifiers sound the same? Could it be that the flawed use of DBTs removes subtle audible differences and only reveals gross frequency response and loudness differences? Nope it's more likely that differences that do not have an acoustic source are avoided. Nah, DBTs are PERFECT when used this way even though there is no direct evidence supporting them or the sloppy protocols that are used because - get this - they are used in academic psychoacoustic research! Regards, Mike I love those references to 'sloppy' protocols. What is more sloppy than an unlevel matched open "comparison" with no data recorded and often one of the units under test not even in the room? Could it be that sonic differences that disappear when the listener is figuratively required to close his eyes are not acoustically based and exist only in the mind of the listener? Nah; open evaluations are perfect even if they are never used in scientific inquiry when it canbe avoided. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
"Stewart Pinkerton" schrieb
First of: You are giving good advice to newcomers, imho. If in doubt, avoid *anything* with an 'audiophile' label. You will miss out on some fine (but very overpriced) kit such as Krell and Jeff Rowland, but the upside is that other kit (Arcam, Bryston) Well, Arcam woul have been one of my personal subjectivist recomendations if asked for good sounding hifi for the money... But I would warn any friend to buy the likes of JV*, Techni*, name a few more in the same price range because I listened to them (some time ago, so they may have greatly improved in the meantime). Are those the grossly flawed (i.e. 70% of the world market) which do sound different? How come you didnīt recomend any japaneese hifi? sounds just as good for a fraction of the price, Objection (just for the record) and you will have avoided all of the real charlatans such as Cary, Audio Note and Jadis. Objection (just for the record) Additionally, *never* buy speaker cable at more than a couple of bucks a foot, or interconnects at more than $30 a pair! Objection (just for the record) The above advice should provide you with a goodly chunk of additional budget to spend where it matters - on the speakers. Yes, speakers do make the greatest difference, then maybe room tuning and gear placement. What really puzzles me: You and others have been at the center of this debate for years now (I droped out reading this ng about a year ago and am sneeking a look back right now only to find out that nothing has changed...). What is your motivation to spend so much time sitting in front of your monitor if you *know* (or deeply believe) that all that stuff sounds the same anyway? Saving the world from overpriced hifi like Krell (i donīt like their sound ;-)) or Jadis (they make music come alive and breethe, imho)? If good hifi by now (since when, by the way? Early 80s?) is more or less indistinguishable anyway and therefore no more progress necessary (except speakers of course), why donīt all those electronic engeneering people do some proper engeneering in vastly developing branches like car electronics or missile guiding systems? Just wondering. Subjectivist Charlie |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Can network, video and sound cables be combined to save space? | General | |||
| Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion | Audio Opinions | |||
| Cables used when rec. from tape to PC question. | General | |||
| Kenwood DIN cables - custom lengths? can they be spliced? | Car Audio | |||
| Ears vs. Instruments | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
