wolf_garcia
"Try using high end cables as coat hangers...very difficult."
My problem with high-end cables (that would be anything that did not come with a component, although even those may be high-end) is that they are too much like coat hangers. They tend to be hard to bend and therefore inconvenient.
|
True, but I doubt it will end up settled. |
I was really asking and not having any opinion at that time. I do not have it now, either, but will slowly start thinking about it. Maybe I come up with something meaningful (pro or contra your statement), although do not hold your breath for that. |
Could those two things really be compared in such a simple way? |
I see that my approach of choosing cables based on looks is gaining some traction.
Some signal will come from the beginning to the end, one way or another. Electrons moving along, or just rotating. Who cares, as long as it looks good. It is a cable, after all. |
celander,
Ok, I will stay out of that secret world for now.
|
celander,
I am not kidding. Tell me the secret.
|
|
geoffkait,
I will repeat to you, I am not Scandinavian, but you can think of me in that way if it makes your day.
taras22,
I admit, I did not get the joke about math. It is neither cultural, nor language problem. It just did not appear as a joke. I could easily see how someone, in that field, could start responding with equations so I gave it benefit of the doubt. Makes me wonder if that respirology partner is also a joke. Does she exist?
|
To quote elizabeth, back to actual cables.
Does anyone has experience with Zavfino (1877Phono?) cables? In particular, speaker cables. They are on website that erik_squires had a link to in his post last night.
|
taras22,
I am not sure what affidavit she was talking about, but it seems that it makes two of us. When it comes to math, there are lots of equations and calculations that could be involved, should one wanted to dig deeper into pressures and physiology, but that does become too technical and I never considered mentioning it. It helps understanding, but it gets complicated, too. Definitely does not end up in "plain English". As I said, that gobbledygook was, indeed, simplified to extremes and in as plain of English as it could ever get. Now, when I think about it, maybe it was too simple for her usual approach. |
taras22,
I changed my mind and would now agree it was not a complete waste of time. I, accidentally, found an interesting lecture by that same Dr. West about respiration at the limit. You may not be interested in it, but your partner may. There are some results from actual respiratory measurements on Mount Everest. It is very informative and thought-provoking. On the other hand, she may be familiar with that already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRN124iuqZ8&list=PLE69608EC343F5691&index=14
I also googled "gobbledygook", the word I had never encountered before. The first definition that shows up (I did not dig deeper, I admit) puts it as "excessive use of abstruse technical terms". I read my earlier post again and found maybe three, let’s say four, terms that are not simple English words and I used them sparingly (each one once, except V/Q maybe twice). V/Q, pCO2, FiO2, brainstem. Although they are not your everyday grocery store language, they are as basic and well-known in anything that even remotely discusses breathing. They are far from being complicated or abstruse, much less used excessively. I have a hard time accepting that anyone familiar with these issues finds them too technical. Not to clog this thread, but is there a way your partner could point out parts in that earlier post that she found incorrect or objectionable? I would really appreciate it as I would like to improve my understanding of things and would surely enjoy finding out I was wrong and learning how. I am not sure how to do it outside of this thread, though.
As far as painting goes, I was not thinking deep enough to dissect painters into categories, but it does seem reasonable. In my mind it was not some famous painter, but pretty much your average neighbor, so to say. My point was that for painting you do need to put an effort into learning, even if it is just how to hold the brush, and it will altogether require a lots of practice and muscle coordination (throwing-paint on-the-canvas-from-the-distance kind of paintings do not qualify for this purpose) while hearing is inborn. Now, I am not sure I can fully agree with those differences between hearing and listening, but I can see room for a reasonable debate there.
|
"She also suggested I ask you for a plain english explanation of your point " "And don’t V/Q mismatches occur every time we move and that does affect gas exchange does it not.?"
Well, the answer was the first paragraph. It was very simple and in plain English. However, to simplify it further to the point of bordering with insufficient explanation......yes they do, but it does not matter in a normal subject. |
taras22,
The word "tractate" was more of me making fun of myself for writing a simplified, albeit too long, answer to your question about V/Q mismatch and body movements. I cannot agree more that it was misdirected and a waste of time and electrons.
I do not mind learning so I learned about existence of the field of respirology. I will try to research more on that.to find out what exactly it would encompass. It may be my fault that I have never come across a respirology expert. For some reason, I constantly feel it must be something like pulmonology but, given the responses of your partner, I find it hard to believe. For now, I can only wholeheartedly recommend those two well-known books by Dr. John B. West to your respirology partner. I know she is surely very familiar with them, they are as basic as it gets, but we all need a simple refresher from time to time.
That all brought me to your earlier suggestion I speak to exercise physiology folks about control of breathing. Very simplified, but still interesting, thoughts may be found at 46:08... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjXnz2kYcXE&list=PLE69608EC343F5691&index=11&feature=plpp
If nothing else, it may be interesting for your partner to see how Dr. West, with whose work she is certainly well-acquainted, looks like. |
calvinj,
Your view is right, but do not forget that the title of your original post ends with a question mark. It opened the door for people to answer with their views. Do not get mad at them for accepting your invitation. You have your view, now you have theirs, too.
|
You passed the test then and are a master breather. |
nonoise,
Aeration of the head would have a lot to do with skewing perceptions during cable testing, or any other sound challenge. If I remember it correctly, high frequencies would be affected more. Don't buy expensive tickets for the opera just after the sinus surgery.
The point is to breathe normally and not to attempt to breathe "better". It is on you to join the discussion on who would be considered a "skilled listener".
|
nonoise,
Hmmmm, now when you asked....
That tractate above was a response to a few posts that dealt with "skilled listener" theory/practice. It somehow evolved. I apologize.
|
geoffkait,
Wrong thread. Philosophy class is in Polite Rules thread, third door on the left.
|
If we are talking about milliseconds or something else very short, yes, V/Q mismatch changes. It will change depending on the point in the breath cycle and depend on many factors including the depth of that particular breath, pulmonary pressures, and what not. That is a very theoretical discussion with no practical, except for academic purposes, implementation. In reality, V/Q match/mismatch is looked at as an average over some time. Time being anything, but from inhalation to exhalation would be an extreme. Even proning does not yield result within seconds, if it eventually even does.
You could, temporarily, make a person breath outside of their current breathing pattern needs. A person can do it voluntarily, hyper or hypoventilate for a period of time, but not for any significant time unless cellular metabolism of oxygen changes rapidly, which it is unlikely to. Hyperventilating will end up with lightheadedness (initially), up to unconsciousness. Then, it will go back to the needed pattern. Attempting to hold a breath will be successful only until the brainstem triggers over the voluntary action which will probably be with pCO2 somewhere over 60.
In a pathologic state example, which may not be the best case to discuss this but is descriptive enough, severely acidotic person will have a Kussmaul’s breathing pattern and it will be practically impossible to voluntarily override it.
Breathing pattern in exercise can be changed for the longer term by adjusting cell physiology. Eventually, just like it happens in the heart, well-trained athlete will likely have lower rate at rest. However, that particular change will be the consequence of "training" the end-organ cells and not necessarily "trained" and better breathing.
Those patterns are easier to get a more vivid grip on with a sedated mechanically-ventilated person and changing parameters in real time. That is a completely different topic, far removed from cables that do or do not change the sound.
EDIT: I just realized that I did not answer clearly about the importance of V/Q mismatch. Changes that do happen throughout the cycle are physiologic variation and not to pathologic levels.
All of the above, except for acidotic example, assumes normal healthy subject with no cardiac or metabolic abnormality breathing sea level FiO2 0.21. I also, for simplicity, excluded mentioning pCO2 influence which, in fact, is easily the most important factor influencing breathing patterns above.
|
Physiology of oxygen use does change, points of switch from aerobic to anaerobic etc., but breathing is there in much simpler and less exercisable level. Breathing pattern will change based on the exercise tolerance, but gas exchange will not change without some V/Q mismatches and so on. Breathing pattern will follow the cell-level physiology, not the opposite (unless there is a pathologic condition involved). |
Yes, you are born breathing. Unfortunately, you cannot learn to breathe better. You can learn how to control your breathing pattern to some very limited extent, but it will not be better in any way, as far as gas exchange is considered which is the purpose of breathing.
EDIT: Along with that, breathing is also an activity. It is not a purely receptive event. Comparing senses with muscle activity is not the best example
|
the stuff that, I would suggest played a big role in getting us here as a species, Now we know the culprit for this mess. |
Painting is an active process, making something from, sort of, nothing. Listening is a receptive process. They are incomparable. Painting is not your inborn activity. Listening is. You have to develop/learn the skill of painting. You are born listening. |
"It’s very common for audio dealers to hand a customer some used cable with a request that he try it in his system." The other part of the story is that it is getting very uncommon to find an audio dealer. Should it be expected that a dealer who does not know a customer "personally" loans a cable to her/him? Some people who are not feverish about this hobby do not have a dealer who would ever recognize them. Are there some "cable libraries" where cables could be borrowed for a nominal fee?
|
geoffkait,
Two "what about this" questions that are off the thread topic, but that came to me after reading your list above.
Don’t you sometimes, maybe secretly, wish that you do find someone who agrees with you? Do you ever wonder how that would feel? Having to fight all those windmills alone must be exhausting. |
clearthink,
I was probably not clear enough in my previous post. I am aware that $500 is almost a joke of a price in "audiophile" circles. That does not make anyone out of those circles wrong for wondering if paying so much money is worth it. Is it, indeed, cheap for such a wire will depend on opinion of the buyer, not on some universal "audiophile" understanding.
As far as you never seeing a $10 cable being as good as some dedicated audio cable costing much more, I keep my mind open that it is true and that you are absolutely correct about that. On the other side, just following this thread, there are many other people who would dispute that to the end of the world. Not the part of you not seeing it, but the fact that there is or there is not a difference. I stay out of that debate, partly because of my lack of experience.
My previous post was narrowly, although obviously unsuccessfully, aimed at "newbies, undecided, and curious (the word I added as it described me in that case)" and their possible approach to cables pricier than a regular restaurant meal or something like that. I only intended to point out that for such customers, $500 is the price they would initially consider quite high, but not obscenely so, for a cable and was correctly placed in the initial post. That was all that my post was about.
You are partially correct that my circle of acquaintances is not representative of universe of audiophiles in general. Mostly because none of my acquaintances would ever consider themselves as "audiophiles". Otherwise, my circle of acquaintances is perfectly representative of that universe of audiophiles in general. It is very broad with different approaches, personality traits, heights, weights, and whatever else could come to one’s mind. In this thread, you could see that universe of audiophiles in general consists of those who think that expensive cables are as close to a snake oil peddling as it gets and those who think they are one of the most important pieces in the reproduction equipment chain. How much wider could that universe in general be? |
chemman,
I wish I could write about my views of this topic in a short and simple way. However, I do not need to do it as you have just done it in your previous post addressed to me. I can only sign it, sort of. To the letter, even the part about thinking of borrowing some cables to try what it is all about. |
"...you could make your argument a whole lot stronger and more believable by other undecideds and newbies if you used $5000 instead of $500." $500 is plenty for a wire with two connectors when functionally similar, if not same, can be had for $10-20-30. Most of the people with decent income would agree to that, raising a question if sonic quality gain is worth the difference in price. That is not to say there is no place for pricier cables under the sun, but that $500 is not cheap and it makes a good example for undecided, newbies, and curious. They would not even consider $5000 cable and are ten times more likely to try a $500 one. This one, I am speaking from experience and it may be, as nonoise said, my projection. |
For the purpose of distinguishing sounds, "skilled listener" is anyone who has had intact hearing for at least some time. Most have it from birth. Therefore, if a random group of people picked from the street cannot hear differences in sound, there is a decent chance that differences do not exist. More structured and controlled studies may be needed to support that observation with any acceptable certainty. |
|
geoffkait,
Unfortunately, "chair contains foam similar to something" does not equal "it sounds bad". Writing 101.
What-about-this and what-about-that routines are not that routine at all. I do understand that direct questions asked about your, to say it politely, vague and often incorrect statements may not be to your liking. Well, every now and then you run into a person who reads your post way better than you have ever written it. From time to time, you do show some knowledge and ability to contemplate in a positive way. Sadly, it often gets annihilated by your inept writing skills.
Maybe a course in creative writing would not be a bad first step. There is such a thing as "lifelong learning" and it is no shame to get better at something at an advanced age.
As a side note, I do not drink alcohol so you can start by taking comments about being drunk out of your writing style.
|
nonoise,
I suspect that you're prone to projection, at least in this case.
You are definitely right about that one.
At the same time, sides here are so fierce about their beliefs that no logic will settle it and, so far, I am the only one who raised the issue of the appearance as being important. If appearance were completely unimportant, many cables would look much more mundane.
People often buy cars based on the outside appearance while they never look at it that way while using it. It should not be inconceivable that appearance of the cables has some, maybe minor, influence in the buying decision. Some marketing and psychology professionals probably wrote books and books about it. Think of the second generation Suzuki Hayabusa design. Influenced and made to somehow resemble, among other things, the average/usual rider of that motorcycle shape. I am not saying that cable manufacturers think all their buyers are super-skinny, but they certainly do think about the visual presentation. |
geoffkait,
"Glupson, I didn’t say they were comfortable. I said they sounded bad."
You misunderstood me. I neither said, nor implied you said the IKEA chairs were comfortable. As chairs are primarily used for sitting and not changing the sound in the room, I did an usual mistake people make when watching the picture of the chair. I thought of how comfortable it would be. Your mentioning of stuffing in chairs being intolerable to you, enforced my opinion the chair may be uncomfortable. Stuffing in IKEA chairs is placed there for comfort purposes. While we are at that, could you copy and post the part of your earlier thread you are referring to, in which you said "they sounded bad", so we can read it again? It may be hidden well-enough in your post that no Reading 101 would help. It may call for Writing 101, though.
|
chemman,
I think that bias may occur, although I am not sure it is always in favorable direction.
For whatever it is worth, I recently blasphemously bought a cable (RCA) without ever listening to it. It was a few-hundred-Dollar "upgrade" from $15-16 cable I had had (and still keep). I bought it for the looks. It simply appeared "fancier" on the pictures and was affordable enough for the purpose I had for it. I did not expect much and I got exactly that. The sound is not better for sure. In fact, I think nothing changed although someone might convince me it is even a little worse. I kept it connected because I like those shinier connectors, which I actually almost never see as they are behind the equipment. Was it worth it for the sound? Not at all. Was it worth it for me? Definitely yes. Would I buy it again? No way, novelty has worn off.
I suspect that some, probably not all, of the buyers fall in the similar category. They want finishing touches to their equipment, a final stroke they may feel is missing. Something that, at least in their minds, matches the rest of their system. It does take some sheepish courage to admit you fell for the looks and that is where some of the bias may come from.
If I have to use another RCA cable, I will go back to the $15-16 pair. Unlike these more expensive ones, cheap ones are pliable, have angled connectors, and can easily fit behind the equipment. Expensive ones are hard to bend and fit anywhere without strain. Does anyone else have a problem with stiffer cables?
To answer the title question of this thread, yes, cables matter, but it is not always for the sound. |
According to the picture on the Internet, that IKEA chair seems uncomfortable. Which one may claim for most, if not all, of the IKEA products.
The question arises, what is better investment for a $1000-2000? Good listening chair or a good cable of some kind?
EDIT: If I have calculated it right and IKEA chair is stuffed with same foam as Sonex acoustic foam, it may be cheaper to buy a few IKEA chairs and tear them apart than to buy Sonex foam itself. Of course, if one wants that Sonex foam in the first place. |
taras22,
Now you got me curious, better to say interested. I will try to check them out. Thanks for that info. |
taras22, It may be off the thread topic, but do they really make sofas with wool or down stuffing? My down jackets used to go flat quickly without me even sitting on them. |
"Lets remember that the room is the most important audio component and which provides the largest contribution to the "sound" of a system ( some have pegged that contribution at about 50% )." What about ears? More precisely, the level/loudness of sound. For some reason, that does not get mentioned while it is easily one of the most crucial components of perception of the sound. I am talking about physiologically normal ears working well, not limited due to aging, hairstyle, or whatever else.
EDIT: Having no experience with "expensive" cables, I cannot claim it but I suspect that ear-accommodation effects may trump benefits gained from cables. I am not trying to argue that cables do not matter, but just remind about another big variable in the story. |
I agree that being rich does not guarantee any kind of Nirvana and that the discussion about the sound should not include the price.
At the same time, more expensive equipment often does sound better than the cheap one. Reasons may be many, but expensive piece is frequently better than the significantly cheaper one. Of course, there are exceptions, many of them, to that observation. Still, at the end of the day, buying blindly (not even listening to it) $150 000 equipment is more likely to yield "better" sound than doing the same with $2000.
There are a few posts in this thread that are accurate, in my opinion, but not on the point. Incremental benefits of some more expensive products may not be worth the trouble for someone and may be perceived ridiculously expensive for such a small improvement to others, but they are still improvements. It is personal decision if it is worth it to the buyer. Many may say it is not, but every now and then someone may find $70000 power cord worthwhile. It depends, heavily, on the amount of disposable income and cannot be made as an universal statement what is worth it and what is not.
Now, of course, there is a question if that power cord makes a difference at all and that is the title of this thread anyway. |
"A rich man has about as much chance of entering audio Nirvana as a camel has of passing through the eye of a needle." That must be a really big needle. Why is being rich/able-to-afford so frequently mentioned as a negative trait on this forum? |
We got the proof!
And the proof about frequently debated and as frequently disputed issue of cable directionality is...…...the promotional/advertising material of the manufacturer of such a product. Why would you ever look for your answer elsewhere?
|
french_fries,
Thanks for the post full of sanity. The road so far has been a little different.
Per aspera ad astra.
It is hard to beat Blaupunkt car radio. Maybe Becker Mexico, but even that is a big "maybe".
|
cd318, That is why I mentioned Bose in reference to non-audiophiles and $1000 limit. As much as I may dislike their products, I have not met a Bose owner who is dissatisfied with it. It will not satisfy any "audiophile", but it is on the safe side of that $1000 for the rest of the people. If you asked your neighbor about sound quality, she would easily say that her Bose sounds just fine. |
It might have been from the 1960s although I read it later. It stuck and I still, just as a habit, calculate that way when I see some system. I doubt that anyone, even then, really bought things just because of that rule. |
I would not be surprised. They really got marketing and business close to perfection. |
cd318,
Long time ago, I was told that budget should be divided into 50% for speakers and 50% for everything else. I do not recall if cables were even mentioned. I think they were not on most radar screens at that time. Maybe cables became this fashionable topic when decadence took over.
I think $1000 as a psychological barrier for non-audiophiles may be too high. Bose figured that psychology out and, so far, they keep their systems way under $1000.
|
Any potential difference in sound due to different cables may easily end up being negligible with a small change in loudness. Discussing anything about the sound perception without including the constant of how loud it is, is pointless. Maybe, instead of changing the cable, change the volume. Unfortunately, it is a cheap tweak. |
Hmmmmmm... it appears we should probably add a new word to our list of talker, walker, sitter, and nodder. geoffkait
|
"Some guys can say all that is needed in twenty words."
"...you jump right into a discussion after being away/asleep for a few weeks with a simple +1." According to these few posts, mapman wins. Not even a word, much less twenty. |
