I personally don’t discriminate.
Harley quote
Regarding two aftermarket power cables: "These differences in the shapes of the musical waveforms are far too small to see or measure with even the most sophisticated technology, yet we as listeners not only routinely discriminate such differences, we sometimes find musical meaning in these differences."
Nonsense. Just because people claim to "routinely discriminate" differences doesn't mean it's true or they're right. Apparently many have witnessed UFOs but that doesn't mean they actually saw extraterrestrial visitors, does it? Some have seen/heard a deity speaking to them "routinely"; does that imply that they are surely communing with an unseen/unmeasurable spiritual force(s)? Can we not put a little more effort into confirmatory reality-testing first when "the most sophisticated technology" can find nothing in 2020? (Of course, speaker cables can measure differently as per here, here, even if not necessarily audible in many cases by the time we connect amp to speaker.)
ARCHIMAGO
Nonsense. Just because people claim to "routinely discriminate" differences doesn't mean it's true or they're right. Apparently many have witnessed UFOs but that doesn't mean they actually saw extraterrestrial visitors, does it? Some have seen/heard a deity speaking to them "routinely"; does that imply that they are surely communing with an unseen/unmeasurable spiritual force(s)? Can we not put a little more effort into confirmatory reality-testing first when "the most sophisticated technology" can find nothing in 2020? (Of course, speaker cables can measure differently as per here, here, even if not necessarily audible in many cases by the time we connect amp to speaker.)
ARCHIMAGO
167 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
Regarding two aftermarket power cables: "These differences in the shapes of the musical waveforms are far too small to see or measure with even the most sophisticated technology, yet we as listeners not only routinely discriminate such differences, we sometimes find musical meaning in these differences." Thus demonstrating why Robert Harley, author of The Complete Guide to High End Audio is a legendary and respected high end audio reviewer. Nonsense. Thus demonstrating why fuzztone is of no consequence, and probably never will be. |
When I grew up, there were four tastes -- sweet, salty, sour, and bitter. Now there is a fifth, umami. Umami was identified, chemically, in 1908 but not understood by biology until the first taste receptors specific to umami were discovered in 2000. Were people tasting umami before their chemical or biological explanations were specified? Surely. Were there folk terms for something science had yet to measure or explain? Sure. "Savory" was one word. It seems reasonable to think that this happens in audio. At the same time, people who go looking for a sensation -- for whatever reason -- might be able to convince themselves it's there. So, in the end, science settles nothing. We have to listen carefully for ourselves and find ways to test ourselves. And we have to decide whether or not to trust other's testimony that they hear a difference. |
Wow what a load of, "let's start an argument". Cables make a difference it's as simple as that.. Break in, (not burn in) makes a lot of difference. I've seen some sloppy testing, but this guy takes the cake... 3" cheater wire. 6 hours of break in,, laying on the floor from his Emotiva. Then shows us a graph. BUT the volume wasn't the same the, bla .bla .bla. What was the question? That's right there wasn't one. It is just a slam from a person using cheap equipment, that even lamp cord, could have produced the same results.. I've seen the weave from more than one manufacture. The function is for RFI, EFI more than anything.. The construct makes a big difference too. Apples Oranges.. Let me see if I can hear a difference on my 60 year old radio shack receiver, to my 70 year old Sears speakers.. Give me those Kimbers, It's gonna sound like a brand new Mac set up... EVERYTHING about the test was bogus.. The End... Regards |
I see no trolling. I see one reviewers debatable opinion of another. An excellent analysis by hilde45. Patented insults from MC in lieu of any rational response which he is incapable of (clown scribe.) And the usual blabbering from oldhvymec (even though we love him so...) Wait. I guess csmgolf IS the troll. |
Regarding two aftermarket power cables: "These differences in the shapes of the musical waveforms are far too small to see or measure with even the most sophisticated technology, yet we as listeners not only routinely discriminate such differences, we sometimes find musical meaning in these differences." There are two type of people who make these statements: 1) Those who try to equate the relatively simple two dimensional aspect of signal transmission (time and amplitude) with either vastly more complex things like sound fields, or with completely unrelated things. 2) People who don’t have a good handle on electricity, electronics, physics, math, or related as well as no concept about what we can measure and to what precision. They probably also discount every experiment that pokes a hole in their magical view of human perception too. 3) Marketers. We no doubt will find out new things about the physical properties of material and electrical conduction, but we can already measure the results (i.e. the actual conduction) to precision well beyond human perception. What's funny is these people will be the first to put down or attempt to discredit scientists and engineers who have done the work, --unless-- what those scientists and engineers say agrees with what they already believe. |
The list of things that have been asserted here at the 'gon that do not matter / performance cannot be measured consequently cannot improve a system: 1) Speakers 2) Amplifiers 3) Pre-amps 4) Cables 5) Transports 6) DACs 7) Servers / Renderers 8) Isolation 9) Tweaks (that list is long and deep) 10) Carts over $XX price point I am sure I am missing some. Those who fall into these camps should all get together and start "Shibboleth Audio", where "You Can't Tell the Difference". |
@audio2design What’s funny is these people will be the first to put down or attempt to discredit scientists and engineers who have done the work, --unless-- what those scientists and engineers say agrees with what they already believe.It’s a valid point. I know you weren’t addressing my post, but I think my point as complementary. Sometimes science knows what to measure for and sometimes the discovery comes outside of science (such as the chemist who was also a cook and wanted to know where the umami flavor came from) and then science gains new parameters to what to look for. When science is successful, we gain a new level of descriptive power and the ability to manipulate the factors involved. People who get up in arms against science are sometimes at odds with scientism and not science. Scientism is the belief that science tells us all we need to know about the world and that its way of describing and analyzing it is all one needs. That’s clearly not true, but it doesn’t invalidate the many ways science as a tool is powerful and complementary to the things we are interested in. |
And the usual blabbering from oldhvymec (even though we love him so...)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll take that as a complement "we love him so", back at ya.. But the guy was full of "hooey" none the less or maybe it's "suey", I may have gotten my PIG calls mixed up.. It has been a while since I took care of pigs. Still full of it. The Emotiva system pretty much did it for me though.. MidFi at best. They always sound like they are under water to me. Putting a 600.00 cable with a 3" jumper is NOT the way to test things.. He did prove how to make a really, really bad cable though.. Not one thing about how his spliced cable sounded. What the heck.. who cares RIGHT? It measured the same.. LOL HO HO HO. Like comparing a 1968 Pantera with a 1968 Ford Pickup.. I had both... Both had 4 wheel, both had 351 Cleveland blocks (Ford V8), that's it... NO THEY DIDN'T SOUND THE SAME... :-) Blabber I can, Blabber I will "Yoda" Regards.. |
| Post removed |
No I didn't say it. I thought it would provoke discussion. AND watching Chucky going for low hanging fruit. He NEVER misses a chance. http://archimago.blogspot.com/2020/11/on-measurements-listening-and-what.html?m=1 |
Thank goodness some of these opposing viewpoints don't have actual armies at the ready, to literally slay the other side, because they would for the sake of being right. I could never understand how deeply religious some get over so trivial a matter of what and how other people hear. All the best, Nonoise |
While Archimago is absolutely right in everything he states, I am sure many people here will never let their strong conviction be swayed by reality. When one is convinced of one's own superiority, then one tends to put more faith in what they believe than what can be proven. It is absolutely unquestionable beyond any shadow of a doubt that digital, especially anything approaching high res can far far more accurately reproduce an ANALOG waveform than can a vinyl playback system or reel-to-reel. And let's be honest, that is all they are doing, recreating an analog waveform. No more, no less. All these flowery words about the ear, human perception, etc. is meaningless. All these devices do is recreate an analog waveform. Simple case in point. Record a record on a high end system to digital and play it back on a technically accurate DAC (not expensive, technically accurate) and you will have a very hard time differentiating them if you can at all. Take a high res digital track, and convert it to vinyl (or reel-to-reel), using whatever process you want, and you will always be able to quickly tell the two apart. If audiophiles applied basic logic, they would understand this means that vinyl is nothing more than the sum of its colorations and if you like it (I often do), there is nothing wrong with that, but just treat it as what it is. |
fuzztone: No I didn't say it. I thought it would provoke discussion. Last chance, before I conclude you are stone dead incapable of understanding even the simplest thing. Here is your post:
Did you or did you not write, "Nonsense"? If not you then who said it was nonsense? It was you, right? Right????! |
of course, on the table next to the listening chair....excellent sources. of natural diffraction; Acoustic Design and Noise Control, Volume 1 M. Rettinger Elements of Acoustical Engineering - H. Olson Analog Electronics, Devices, Circuits and Techniques - G. Williams ( recommended by the late great Roger Modjeski... |
"Elements of Acoustical Engineering - H. Olson" Be careful with it... Acoustic design and noise control: Rettinger, Michael: Amazon.com: Books And with this one... Analog Electronics: Devices, Circuits, and Techniques: 1st (First) Edition: Gerald E. Williams: 8580000082029: Amazon.com: Books |
| Post removed |
"By the way, I haven't owned a TT since the mid '80s, punky Brewster."Was it really punk? The Record Players: DJ Revolutionaries: Brewster, Bill, Broughton, Frank: 9780802170897: Amazon.com: Books |
So basically a troll. Maybe you should change your moniker to allnoise? nonoise6,656 posts01-11-2021 12:57amPoor, poor audio2design. Taken down a few notches from a surfeit of hubris and he's all aflutter and talking like a street punk, showing his true colors. |
I’m deeply religious, reading a great scientific book right now called Carved in Stone which uses petroleum industry data to assess the Earths lithography. Yup, there was a global Flood. Mockers will always mock what they do not understand, and a favorite trick is to use a false dichotomy between religion and science. Harley knows what he’s talking about. I confirm such things on a bi-weekly basis. If you’re not building systems, you don’t know, regardless of how much "science " you wish to appeal. |
Is it a great scientific book because it supports the beliefs you already have, or is it a great book because it had undergone rigorous peer review for accuracy and reasonableness of its conclusions? I could go into this in some detail, but I will only offer this quote, from the author of that book, as my counterpoint and let others decide the likely accuracy of said book.
Is this relevant to a discussion of audio? It is, because it illustrates how we allow our beliefs to influence what information we decide to accept or not, even if the vast vast balanced of data and knowledge is counter to our beliefs. It is good to question everything, including yourself. |
| Post removed |
I don't get it. Music is all about personal perception and emotional engagement. Arguing that someone couldn't possibly hear a difference because the measurements don't show it makes no sense. If a particular listener prefers one product over another, that's ALL that counts. I have an electronics background which tends to reduce my willingness to accept radical approaches, but I would never tell someone else that what they are perceiving is all in their head. |
What we perceive is all in our head. The only way it makes sense is if the measurements show a difference that is audible otherwise all we are left with is imaginary global floods. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-01/tud-whw010821.php?fbclid=IwAR275RtkQTvQoYcJSyzuI14b7... |
@djones51 - if you want to select products based on the way they measure, that's certainly your (and anyone else's) prerogative. Personally, I'd rather choose products that sound good to me, regardless of what the measurements say. Measurements can be a useful engineering tool, but they are only useful to a point. Measurement technology continues to improve like everything else, and our understanding of what measurements are useful and important also changes. Just as an example, whitecamaross has been publishing youtube recordings of his system with different amps and cables. I suspect these amps and cables measure almost identically, yet even listening through cheap earbuds on an ipad from youtube, you can hear the difference in the way they sound. So what measurements are causing this sound difference, and how would you figure out what measurements to look for to get the sound of one vs the other? |
djones51, please, read the book. One of the statements made repeatedly by Tim Clarey, the geologist author, is that the rocks don't lie. The record is there, right under our feet. The petroleum industry in its thirst for crude and gas has charted it all out as they poked thousands of holes into the land and oceans. Flood: NOT imagination, but supported by study of sedimentation, plate tectonics, hydrology, and other sciences. So, let's not play the game of marginalization by attempting to declare what I am discussing as "imaginary". |
+1 to the comment from @jaytor " If a particular listener prefers one product over another, that's ALL that counts." I've been listening to 5 USB cables with the express objective of figuring out how little I can spend on a USB cable and still get music that sounds good to me. Several of the cables were loaned to me by a friend and the less expensive cables were purchased by me. The cables were: Generic HP printer cable: Free with printer (I found it still wrapped in our drawer of computer stuff) Belkin Gold: $15 Pangea Audio Premier SE: $50 Shunyata Venom: $100-200 Phasure Lush: $253 The cables were connecting a Pro-ject Stream Box Ultra S2 streamer and a Denafrips Ares II DAC. I started listening with the Shunyata Venom cable as a default of something that is widely mentioned as being decent in sound and did so for two weeks. I burned in each of the cables for about 100 hours before listening seriously (streamer, DAC, amplifier all on but with volume turned down). First, I wanted to hear the generic HP printer cable as the extreme case to understand whether cables make any difference at all. That HP cable sounded so awfully bad that I lasted only about an hour with listening to that cable. My specific impressions were: generic HP printer cable: Sound feels shut-in and veiled. Trailing edge of notes have an overhang. Treble is a bit harsh. Bass sounds tubby. A brief synopsis of my listening notes on the other cables was: Belkin Gold: Not bad at all in isolation, but lacking a bit in richness and detail versus the higher priced cables. I had high hopes for the inexpensive Belkin as it was a former The Absolute Sound recommended product in 2013. Pangea: More detail than the Belkin, but also somewhat harsh in tone and a bit congested in sound (more detail, but detail was not easy to understand) Shunyata: Very solid all around (detail, smoothness of tone, timing, fullness of sound) Phasure Lush: Unfortunately (as this was the most expensive of all of the cables) this sounded best of all. It did everything as well or better than the Shunyata Venom cable but also had conveyed a beautiful, organic sounding tone quality for acoustic instruments and voices, but still conveyed the edge in Kurt Cobain's voice better than the Shunyata and Pangea cables. Perhaps the most telling takeaways for me was that even though I had five cables that I could use, I ALWAYS wanted to go back to the Phasure Lush cable. I'm listening to Trevor Pinnock playing Bach's The Well Tempered Clavier on harpsichord and thinking/feeling just how beautiful this sounds. I can say that with different USB cables, the Ares II DAC was definitely more/less listenable & more/less enjoyable for me. Can that difference be measured by the equipment and measurements that current science is aware of? Maybe...Maybe not. Would I rather spend my time listening via the Phasure Lush USB cable than the other cables I tested? Definitely. |
| Post removed |
BTW, I'm not denying that measurements don't matter. My perspective is that there seem to be some aspects of audio reproduction that are not captured by our current equipment, measurements, or even combinations of measurements that are meaningful. That does not mean to me that we might not someday find the measurements that explain the differences in the quality of sound reproduction. I'm talking about this from the perspective of what we currently have available as of today. |
| Post removed |
I am comfortable taking a minority position, especially when it is supported by good science. Like the book I referenced. None of you have offered one spec of rebuttal. That's because your position is scientifically weak. BTW, note that I was responding to the incessant (on this site) derogatory comments on religion and faith. Maybe others will step aside, roll over - not me. I'm content to return the thread to audio. |
| Post removed |
Oh no, you opened that can .. douglas_schroeder2,813 posts01-11-2021 1:50pmdjones51, I wondered who would step into the doo doo.
This is how even a highly educated person can allow their beliefs to cloud their mind. There is enormous evidence for moving tectonic plates and that the shape of the land has changed considerably over billions of years. We still see plate movement. Far far far far more likely that sediment is the result of tectonic land shift, things formally underwater, no above, and vice versa. It has long been accepted that a large portion of North America used to be a sea (under water). But if he is using a flood (that only lasted 40 days and nights) to justify there being sandstone in many places that are now land, they that sandstone should be literally everywhere, but have you heard of the Canadian Shield? Vast expanse of igneous rock not a hint of sandstone. Since he claims the flood was recent, there is no way it would have eroded away either. Again, this portends to audio. We have vast amounts of information that shows that digital, especially high res digital is vastly superior to vinyl, its not even close, vastly superior at recreating an analog waveform. However, because some really like vinyl, and it sounds better to them, they are unable to let go of the belief that it must be superior at analog reconstruction even though all the evidence says otherwise. To support that claim, they literally make up things about digital (even a few PhDs), and assign qualities to vinyl/analog that are simply not at all true. |
