Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Poll: Do Interconnects Sound Different?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Poll: Do Interconnects Sound Different? - Page 3

post #31 of 72
Curse you mbriant! Now my whole test was really flawed...

anders123, I believe the MITerminator 2s are good for bass.

The Kimber PBJs I hear aren't worth their price and may be bright.

I would check Homegrown audio super silver IIs but they may be bright, though I have heard that they are better than PBJs.

Also, I have heard that ZuCables Oxyfuels are good, though I am unclear on their sound characteristics... someone said "fast, neutral, and pleasant sounding with plenty of detail, similar to TMC yellow cables [?]"

Though judging by your setup, I think something that would benefit the upper ranges may be better.
post #32 of 72
Those of you who said "NO" well your wrong. Buy some decent equipment or please have your hearing checked... The fact is they do make a difference. fact. fact. fact. Its a fact. The sound changes. Too many grado users out there... sorry. Maybe rs series is transparent. But I had 225's and hearing differences in cables with them was well... I wish any of you who have them and are comparing cables the best of luck.
post #33 of 72
Definitely a big difference in my opinion. then again, big difference in sound also eqautes to big diffrence in price. For example, I use to have the Linn audio interconnects which were $100 interconnects I think? They were very smooth and warm as well as forgiving. They sounded great in my system. However, once I got the Tara Labs Airs1 Interconnects which retails for $800, I got a huge improvement in transparency, soundstage and lastly more detail. Of course, the warmth I use to have with the Linn disappeared too since these are very neutral cables. Although these are great, I kinda miss the warmth and forgiving sound of the Linns. In other words, if I have a bad recording or listen to mp3s, the song would sound great with the Linns. With Tara Labs, what you feed it thru is what you get, period. Sounds great with SACDs, but horrible with Mp3s via soundblaster live, hehehe.
post #34 of 72

Cables

Good cable knowledge can come from these sites ...

http://www.cardas.com/insights/index.html
http://www.audioquest.com/theory/cable_theory.html

but in the end it's all personal preference, and what will match your system the best.

I think the PBJs are the Grado SR60 of the cable world (pricing structure is uncanny). Generally people say "yeah, those are pretty good." There is no comparison when put up against top of the line stuff, but people generally think fondly of of it...which makes it really easy to sell later if you have to.

Unlike other audio items, cables are very easy to fit into the "try before you buy" category.

Home Grown has a good trial period. I say, you might as well check it out.

http://www.homegrownaudio.com/products.htm

al
post #35 of 72
Facts require evidence. Otherwise, you are just stuck with an opinion.

If you are happy with your opinions on cables, then I won't interfere with your happiness.

What I would really like to see (or hear) is a test where somebody can point out what detail went either missing or was revealed by a cable change. Changes in "soundstage" and "transparency" must include a change in detail.

Otherwise, I'm afraid the whole ongoing tweakspeak is merely pathological science in action.
post #36 of 72
http://skepdic.com/pathosc.html


What's a "pathological science", you ask? Click on the link & find out!

It's the best explanation for tweakspeak yet.
post #37 of 72
Quote:
They were very smooth and warm as well as forgiving. They sounded great in my system.
Vka,
If this is how you feel about the Linn cable, why did you go with the Tara Labs? Has this "huge improvement in soundstage and transparency and lastly more detail" with the Taras really been an improvement, then? Why don't you just trust your instincts, especially if you are searching for "eargasm"? I would think of all those audiophile criteria you have mentioned as secondary. Who needs detail if what he really wants is music? I would just try to be as hedonistic and selfish as possible. I would just go for the eargasm.

Now, I don't know either the Linn cables, nor the Tara Labs, but are you sure the proper criteria for judging the "neutrality" of a component is whether you can perceive more with it? I would always go for warm, musical and enjoyable. How do you know that what you perceive as "added" information has not just been that: "added". How do you know these are nothing but subtle timing anomalies and a sign that those Taras are making minced meat out of your music? Preserving the integrity and coherence of something as complex as a musical signal (and thus preserving its emotional impact) might very well be the only relevant thing in musical reproduction.


rohorn,
In the realm of high-fidelity, science is a means to an end (it is arguable that it always is). Our equipment does not exist to have measurably beautiful specs, but to bring us musical pleasure. You don't have to convince some frightfully limited psycho-acoustic model that some component sounds better than another one, you have to convince me. Any idea how hard that is? I actually do this thing called hearing, all your scientific models only have wet dreams about. Talking about eargasm: Vka, is the Holmes Powell really that good? Please tell me it isn't. Please.
post #38 of 72
I have the MIT T2 in my system right now. I must say, that anyone who thinks there us no difference in IC cables, really need to try these.
post #39 of 72
"Pathological Science" is the only type of science I subscribe too. I believe all scientists are pathelogical. ESPECIALLY Mathematicians. I personally believe that if you think long and hard enough about anything you can make it right, and you can make machines that prove you are right. Take for instance Einstien and Newton. Both were so called "mathematicians/physicist" they invented equations. If you look at einstiens laws of motion they seem all fine and dandy. We still use them because they are so simple. But they aren't accurate, he just made it up during a state of pathological obsession with the motion of the stars. However some people had uses for his methods and they called it calculus. Same for Einstien, his theory can be used to plot the motion of the stars, as can Newtons, but Einstiens is more accurate, however still not perfect. So considering the "fact" that math is pure science I can only wonder why something that "works" on paper "fails" in the real world. You see I feel that all success is based on pathos. I think success is a transcendent result of mental Pathos. I feel that these people spend alot of time being deluded and pathological about math equations until they finally came up with one, tried it out, and it worked yippee. You know technically if you give a keyboard to a monkey and tell him to pound on it for all eternity well at some point he will compose all the literary novels in human history. That would be the most un-pathological method of literary composition. However some of us like to latch onto things and make them real for others through writing. Is it pathos to desire such?? Yes yes it is. But thats ok, pathos as we have learned is the only reason we humans do anything. Trying to put a stop to it is akin to stopping thought altogether. The fact is, the scientist who wrote that paper on Pathelogical Science is suffering from a state of pathos. We all are, thats why many of us get up every morning and go to some job we don't like. We are pathologically deluded. Every man woman and child is a deluded, pathological scientist who makes up reasons why they should do anything at all during the course of a day. Fundmentaly our existence is pathos.
post #40 of 72
ai0tron - Right.........................except I kinda like my job, go to work and draw, also get to go out of the office every now and then and still get pay for it!

You pathos stuff is a bit confusing to say the least, what did you study at college?
post #41 of 72
Did anyone catch the article following the one about pathological science? I wonder how much pathological science went into that one?
post #42 of 72
Tomcat

I agree with every point you made. I certainly don't listen to my headphones to experience mathematically correct wave forms! Science, as you said, should be the means to an end. I use lots of it in my work AND play for the sole purpose of making something real.

On the other hand, there is instrumentation that is vastly more sensitive than the human ear. It is well documented on what "harsh", "warm", etc.. waveforms look like - and how they are perceived. The worst problem confronting musical reproduction hardware testing is unsound (sorry) testing methods. The next problem is an unwillingness of the corporations (manufacturers and the audio press) to adopt a meaningful testing procedure.

Everybody Else:
When any component sounds different, the reasons can always be explained to some degree or another. On the other hand, the "reasons" bandied about by some the cable charlatans are pure fraud: they hope the buyer is too ignorant to question their statements out of fear that maybe they don't know something worth learning. People will go a long way to protect their vanity.

One common behavior among men is to bestow that which they love with dysfunctional adornments. Nothing wrong with that! If it is their wife, it is jewelry. If they are in love with themselves, they get lots of tattoos. If they love their Honda Prelude, they bolt on one of those ludicrous wings on the back. If it is a Harley, it gets chrome. If it is a sportbike, it gets carbon fiber. And if their one true love is their audio system, they buy cables, green markers, and billet RCA jack covers.

To those who don't think (and therefore, aren't), try designing and building an airplane some time. If the aerodynamic math doesn't kill you, the structural part will. And if you don't do any of the math at all, the impending, if not spectacular, failure of your efforts will kill you and earn you a well deserved (but not highly desirable) Darwin Award. I was about to get my aero engineering degree after high school, but the math was more than I could take.

Yes, most mathematical models were made to fit test results of real objects. As a result, they are invaluable tools to those who actually produce real goods for the real world. That includes audio hardware. This stuff isn't witchcraft, but clearly there are enough people living in the neo-dark ages to support a market for it.

The notion that those who are good at math and scientific theory are somehow emotionally difficient, intellectually corrupt, or somehow lacking in their perceptions of reality are truly lending credence to the notion that ignorance is bliss. My older brother has his Masters in math, does beta testing for HP purely for fun, has his own website that blows most commercial sites out of the water (again, for fun), has a theology degree, and is an avid poetry fan - if you doubt it, he has his "poem of the week" on his website. My next older brother aced the math part of the SAT (and got the second highest score in the country that year), got a full college EE scholarship, and was an accomplished musician. Remember that part about aerodynamics? Know anything about the math involved in deriving airfoils? One of the leading authorities on the subject (John Roncz) is also an accomplished concert pianist. Of course, I'm only bringing up people I know about. If any of you knew anything about ol' Al Einstein, you would be exploiting his saying "Not everything that counts can be measured and not everything that can be measured, counts". I first saw that on a sign in the personal office of the world's leading printing vehicle chemist at Lawter Chemicals - and who also plays the harmonica like nobody else I ever heard. Then again, I am biased - he raised me.

What have you ever accomplished, built, or produced that actually serves a function?

On the other hand, those who devote their lives purely to pathos serve a very important function. For it is on the backs of those who are all feeling (but non thinking) that the likes of Adolf Hitler rise to power. It is very easy to manipulate the emotions of those who don't think.

One of my writing teachers taught me that an expression of thought required 3 things: Ethos, Logos, and Pathos. Ethos is the root of the word "ethics". Logos is the root of the word "logic". Pathos is the root of the word "pathetic".

You see, everybody, to some degree or another, has emotions. Unfortunately for the stupid people, well, that's all they have.
post #43 of 72
post #44 of 72
Thread Starter 
Rotareneg, TerriblySorry : LOL

rohorn: I agree with much of what you say. I worked with quite a few electronics scientists who were without a doubt, hard core audiophiles. All regularly attended live concerts of all gendres, and most were musicians to some degree or other.

There is a perception sometimes from the high end types that all they care about it is frequency sweeps and graphs. It's not so.

And I have witnessed them accurately predicting the basic sound of several speakers by looking at the frequency graphs before hearing them.

On the other hand, there is a perception from the science camp that high end types are all egotistical, halucinating, crackpots. I've attended a total of 32 CES shows over the years and have demoed more high end systems than I can remember. There's no doubt about it, they can tweak some incredible sound out of those mind boggling priced electronics, cables, stands, etc.

I've said it before, and will say it again.....the truth lies somewhere in the middle....but IMHO, closer to the science camp.
post #45 of 72
rohorn,

You obviously have a deep love for science, one can only admire. I think it is indispensable as well, but I don't treasure it as much. I don't have to. I am just a listener, I don't have to be concerned with engineerig, I have to be concerned with pudding. Because it's in its eating where the proof is. And my pudding tasting - sorry: - listening experience tells me, that there are differences between cables, and that those are easily audible. There is just no reason I would have to scientifically justify my pleasure.

I am afraid audio engineering is as much an exact science as medicine. This means, there is lots of trial and lots of error. And, yes, there are people selling snake oil. Probably 90 percent of them. The disturbing discovery for me is just this: Those 90 percent are the objectivist main stream, the people claiming superority of digital over analog, of transistors over valves, for example. And if their products sound clearly worse to my ears, even annoying, there is just one simple conclusion for me: their science has to be flawed. Because I am the ultimate judge, remember, I am the one who eats the pudding.

I can only hope that my hifi-preferences will not give rise to another Adolf Hitler. I figure: as long as I refrain from aiding the Neo-Nazis scientifically, we all might be safe. Well, we all might be safe in any case, since I don't have the technological prowess of people like Ferdinand Porsche, Wernher von Braun or Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker. Now, there is scary thought: What if Weizsäcker had succeeded in building the German atomic bomb? rohorn, scientific thought doesn't necessarily prevent immorality. Very often, it is just an instrument. And, at times, a very powerful one.

Uuuh, don't you have the feeling we got a little side-tracked there?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Poll: Do Interconnects Sound Different?