New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Radioshack wires.... - Page 9

post #121 of 212
12/28/05 at 4:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ
Imagine distortions in the range of 0.01 to 0.05%, with different spectra, but all in all not much difference in quantity. And imagine 20-20,000 Hz with less than 0.3 dB deviation from a straight line. That's the real world of (at least solid-state) amplifiers. Now you really think you can tell which amp sounds how? The one with 0.15 dB drop-off at 20 kHz will sound brighter and livelier and the one with 0.25 dB drop-off more laid-back? That's not how it works. In fact there's about the same likelihood that it's the other way round. The same applies to distortion: An amp with 0.05% THD can sound cleaner and more transparent than one with 0.01%.
Five bucks says they both sound the same.

See ya
Steve
Reply
post #122 of 212
12/28/05 at 4:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wodgy
The only question is whether these measurements correlate to audible differences. You cannot make this determination by just looking at the scope. Empirical testing involving actual human listeners is necessary.
I can look at the scope and see if it makes a difference to bats. That's a lot easier than trying to put the tiny little blindfolds on them for the DBTs.

See ya
Steve
Reply
post #123 of 212
12/28/05 at 11:12am
Maybe if people didn't immediately take the "I'm right, you're wrong" stance we might actually get somewhere with these discussions? It's possible I suppose, but not very likely that we would be able to keep it up for long.
Reply
post #124 of 212
12/28/05 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
When "Son of Sam" observed that his neighbor's dog was telling him to kill people, was that an observation with some probative, evidentiary value regarding the phenomenon, or was it a subjective anecdote?

See ya
Steve
It's an observation with some probative, evidentiary value regarding the phenomenon that is completely refuted by other evidence such that we know that the observation was completely incorrect and the result of some psychosis. It is not an anecdote.
Reply
post #125 of 212
12/28/05 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
We aren't talking about music. We're talking about sound reproduction.

See ya
Steve
You're playing your semantic games again. You always try to define away the weaknesses or flaws in your position (not that there are not weaknesses or flaws on both sides).
Reply
post #126 of 212
12/28/05 at 4:35pm
I have to define terms because people use imprecise language to dance around having to actually say something concrete, or because they just don't know the proper words to say what they're trying to say. My definitions make no difference to the former, and they assist the latter.

These two concepts shouldn't be that controversial...

Music making is the organization of sounds and expression through sound. It is what it is, whether it's recorded in SACD or wax cylinder. Qualities of music making are generally described as emotions and technique of performance style... brisk tempi, flexible rubato, sinewy expressiveness, angry staccato sharpness, veiled transparency, crispness of attack, romantic fervor, etc.

Music reproduction is the more or less faithful duplication of sound. It has nothing to do with the way the sound is organized or the emotional expressiveness of it. It's a continuum of accuracy (or lack of it) on a variety of aspects... volume, tone (ie: frequency), dynamics, transients, distortion, etc. You can call sound reproduction dull (meaning slurred transients and muffled high frequencies) or harsh (attentuated upper mids) or grainy (distortion), or smooth (even response with rounded off transients), etc.

These are two completely different things. Crediting your cables for presenting an emotional impact in music is like complementing the paperboy for the quality of the writing on the editorial page.
Reply
post #127 of 212
12/28/05 at 4:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
I have to define terms because people use imprecise language to dance around having to actually say something concrete, or because they just don't know the proper words to say what they're trying to say. My definitions make no difference to the former, and they assist the latter.

These two concepts shouldn't be that controversial...

Music making is the organization of sounds and expression through sound. It is what it is, whether it's recorded in SACD or wax cylinder. Qualities of music making are generally described as emotions and technique of performance style... brisk tempi, flexible rubato, sinewy expressiveness, angry staccato sharpness, veiled transparency, crispness of attack, romantic fervor, etc.

Music reproduction is the more or less faithful duplication of sound. It has nothing to do with the way the sound is organized or the emotional expressiveness of it. It's a continuum of accuracy (or lack of it) on a variety of aspects... volume, tone (ie: frequency), dynamics, transients, distortion, etc. You can call sound reproduction dull (meaning slurred transients and muffled high frequencies) or harsh (attentuated upper mids) or grainy (distortion), or smooth (even response with rounded off transients), etc.

These are two completely different things. Crediting your cables for presenting an emotional impact in music is like complementing the paperboy for the quality of the writing on the editorial page.

Bravo, champ. Bravo.

Except his comeback would be, within your own analogy, that the paperboy stays up late and draws pictures in each paper, adding that special touch that makes the enjoyment of the reader (or lack thereof) enhanced.

And it would be ridiculous, but there you go.
Reply
post #128 of 212
12/28/05 at 5:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobeau
....FWIW Mr. Morphsci is a 49 yo geneticist. According to his profile - I mean I haven't tracked him down and followed to work to prove it.

Egads I'm 49 When did I get so old. Anyway I do not consider myself a technophobic luddite (In fact my wife constantly calls me a techie and she's only 35)

Measurements are good but don't forget that they have to be interpreted and put into context. That is where the arguements come in because data can be interpreted in more than one way. If it couldn't then what fun would we have in science.

I am not anti measurement nor am I anti-dbt. I am only anti-narrow viewpoints that limit science to only this or that way of thinking. The mark of a trully great scientist is their ability to step beyond current thinking and theory and embrace the possibilities their data is telling them.

But in reality science is my vocation so I do not tend to make it very important in my hobbies. I have no need to do a dbt to check out cables or any other component in my system. I trust my ears to tell me what I like. If that offends some peoples sensibilities, then so be it. Do whatever you like with your system and if you want to do dbt's I think that is great.

Personally I think we should have a forum on here devoted to scientific testing of components (including dbt's) but I do not run this place. The reason I think this would be a good thing is that more people would come to realize how difficult it is to design a good dbt from both a statistical and technical viewpoint.
Reply
post #129 of 212
12/28/05 at 6:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
These are two completely different things. Crediting your cables for presenting an emotional impact in music is like complementing the paperboy for the quality of the writing on the editorial page.
I'm not crediting my cables for presenting an emotional impact in music, and I never said any such thing. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm crediting the cables for making a more faithful reproduction of the sound, and my point is that if the music is "more faithfully reproduced" to my ears and thus I enjoy it more (IMO, enjoyment being the primary purpose of this hobby as opposed to the abstract pursuit of scientific principles), then I don't care whether it shows up on a some graph or mesauring device as an improvement that the current state of the science has confirmed is audible (while for others this seems to be their predominant focus.)

Can you deal with that?! - Ben Stiller (Meet The Parents)
Reply
post #130 of 212
12/28/05 at 7:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotJeffBuckley
Except his comeback would be, within your own analogy, that the paperboy stays up late and draws pictures in each paper, adding that special touch that makes the enjoyment of the reader (or lack thereof) enhanced.
If the paperboy alters the content of the paper he is delivering, I won't be happy. It's not his job to alter things. He is just supposed to deliver. The same goes for cables.

See ya
Steve
Reply
post #131 of 212
12/28/05 at 7:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
If the paperboy alters the content of the paper he is delivering, I won't be happy. It's not his job to alter things. He is just supposed to deliver. The same goes for cables.
Which, of course, begs the question.
Reply
post #132 of 212
12/28/05 at 7:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS
I'm not crediting my cables for presenting an emotional impact in music, and I never said any such thing.
You said that defining the difference between music and reproduction was a semantic argument that had no meaning. Several posts back, you divided the world into two groups... people who listen to music for enjoyment and people who listen to music by monitoring how it looks on test equipment. A previous poster described a certain quality of sound reproduction in a cable as being "exciting". There certainly does seem to be some blurring of the lines between the emotional impact of music and the way equipment reproduces it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS
if the music is "more faithfully reproduced" to my ears and thus I enjoy it more (IMO, enjoyment being the primary purpose of this hobby as opposed to the abstract pursuit of scientific principles), then I don't care whether it shows up on a some graph or mesauring device as an improvement that the current state of the science has confirmed is audible
It's great if the problem is as simple as "choose A or B" where one of the choices is "faithfully reproduced" and one isn't. But putting together a great sounding system is rarely that simple. The sound can be affected by everything from the dirt on the record you're playing to the shape of your room. If you don't apply some sort of measurement and analysis to figuring out how each stage in your system works, you'll just end up getting random quality, because there are just too many variables. You'll certainly never be able to accurately recommend to someone else what really does make a significant difference and what doesn't because your purely subjective reaction doesn't apply to anyone else.

Solipsism is great for me... YMMV

See ya
Steve
Reply
post #133 of 212
12/28/05 at 7:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
You said that defining the difference between music and reproduction was a semantic argument that had no meaning.
My point was not that there is not a difference between music and sound reproduction. My point was that you were trying to obscure what I said and set up a straw man by introducing these terms into the argument, and turning the focus onto their associated definitions. A neat debaters trick. But no matter.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
If you don't apply some sort of measurement and analysis to figuring out how each stage in your system works, you'll just end up getting random quality, because there are just too many variables. You'll certainly never be able to accurately recommend to someone else what really does make a significant difference and what doesn't because your purely subjective reaction doesn't apply to anyone else.
With all due respect, IMO that's just pure hogwash. But I respect your right to build your system your way. For many of us, however, while there may not be perfect certainty, there is frequently agreement on Head-Fi about how certain amps, cables, components, etc. sound. So the excahnge of information about what I hear and what others hear IMO is valuable in and of itself and I don't think (and many others don't think) it is as worthless as you would make it.

But I guess there's no point to this and we must just agree to disagree.
Reply
post #134 of 212
12/28/05 at 10:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS
My point was not that there is not a difference between music and sound reproduction. My point was that you were trying to obscure what I said and set up a straw man by introducing these terms into the argument, and turning the focus onto their associated definitions.
Perhaps you were talking about something entirely different. I was talking about how difficult it is to figure out why something sounds the way it does when you describe sound using terms that describe subjective emotional states, rather than words that describe what you are actually hearing. Do you have any opinion on that subject?

We were discussing "prat" and I have to admit, even after it was explained to me, I still have no idea what "prat" sounds like. It was supposedly a common term here in this discussion board too. But the people who seem to know what "prat" is didn't even agree among themselves on its meaning. You don't have to be a nuclear physicist to know that terms like that aren't very good if we're all trying to communicate effectively.

See ya
Steve

NotJB- Next time, you might want to use the example of people who believe in UFOs or ghosts or leprechauns instead of the analogy you used.
Reply
post #135 of 212
12/28/05 at 11:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
Perhaps you were talking about something entirely different. I was talking about how difficult it is to figure out why something sounds the way it does when you describe sound using terms that describe subjective emotional states, rather than words that describe what you are actually hearing. Do you have any opinion on that subject?

We were discussing "prat" and I have to admit, even after it was explained to me, I still have no idea what "prat" sounds like. It was supposedly a common term here in this discussion board too. But the people who seem to know what "prat" is didn't even agree among themselves on its meaning. You don't have to be a nuclear physicist to know that terms like that aren't very good if we're all trying to communicate effectively.
I understand your points, and I agree with much of what you say. In particular, I agree that it is often difficult to describe to another what you hear, even when you are not trying to describe subjective emotional responses to sound or music, but are just trying to describe what something actually sounds like. I also agree that the term "prat" can be confusing and can mean different things to different people. But I also think that there are many observations by people on this forum that don't merely amount to describing their emotional response to cables or to music or sound reproduction in general. I think people on this site often describe what they are actually hearing, but the disagreement is whether they actually are hearing what they say they are hearing. I thought that is the issue we were talking about, but instead we seem to have gotten focused on something else. At least I think that's the case. But maybe not. What was the question again?


Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot
NotJB- Next time, you might want to use the example of people who believe in UFOs or ghosts or leprechauns instead of the analogy you used.
NotJB, would you mind editing your previous post? I find it offensive, and I'm sure you didn't mean it to be. Then I'll respond to your argument, which I think is misplaced.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home