Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Why do/don't "audiophile" cables improve sound?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do/don't "audiophile" cables improve sound? - Page 18

post #256 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
It isn't! Obviously you never heard a high end system costing over 150.000 dollars.
Your point is absurd. I can hear the dimension of the room in the slapback on everything from Eddie Arnold 78s and Johnny Cash Sun Sessions to modern era classical recordings from the Musikverein in Vienna. Room ambience is an important part of mixes.

See ya
Steve
post #257 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
Of course the vertical dimension can't be captured with two horizontally oriented channels, but width and depth absolutely can.
I don't know how he achieved it, but when I sit in the sweet spot and listen to Karajan's recording of Das Rheingold, the descent from Valhalla into Nibelheim actually has vertical movement. I suspect it has something to do with the way he's balancing the arrangement of the instruments, but I'm really not sure. I've always wondered about it, because I've never heard anything like that before, and considering the content of the scene, I'm sure it's a deliberate effect of some sort.

See ya
Steve
post #258 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by chesebert View Post
Can we get some discussion on 'In what ways does the audiophile cable transmit signal (both small signal and large signal) differently than the nonaudiophile cable?'
I've been waiting for that information since I started posting in this forum a couple of years ago!

See ya
Steve
post #259 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ View Post
an average speaker cable of 10 feet produces a drop-off of almost 3% of loudness intensity (-0.25 dB) at 20 kHz due to the skin effect. That's actually not much and well within the bandwidth of modern electronics' variation. It's certainly nothing one could deduce a dull or underrepresented treble of. The main question is: «Is this audible at all?» My experience tells me that it most likely is.
Before I read the rest of your post, I've got a couple of questions...

Are you saying that *you* can hear -.25 dB at 20kHz or are you saying *most people* can hear it? In music or in test tones? On what do you base your experience about the audibility of slight differences like this in frequencies on the very edge of perception? Have you run tones on your own hearing or anyone else's to check?

Because it's my experience that you could totally filter out 20kHz in music and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone capable of telling the difference. Most people require that the volume of a 20kHz tone be turned up very high to hear it; and when they do hear it, they're *feeling* it more than actually hearing it. It makes absolutely no difference to recorded music.

Thanks
Steve
post #260 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
Before I read the rest of your post, I've got a couple of questions...
I can't tell you anything more than the rest of my post will.
.
post #261 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
Your point is absurd. I can hear the dimension of the room in the slapback on everything from Eddie Arnold 78s and Johnny Cash Sun Sessions to modern era classical recordings from the Musikverein in Vienna. Room ambience is an important part of mixes.

See ya
Steve
Yes, that's you....you're talking about a recording super transparent, nothing in real life, wich you don't hear.

Room abience, like reverberation is something different then hyper detail or super transparency where you can hear the dimensions of the room. Nothing in real life.

Youre, right, you're talking mixes here, technique, just my point.
post #262 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
Yes, that's you....you're talking about a recording super transparent, nothing in real life, wich you don't hear.

Room abience, like reverberation is something different then hyper detail or super transparency where you can hear the dimensions of the room. Nothing in real life.

Youre, right, you're talking mixes here, technique, just my point.
You failed to answer my original post. My point was that you can easily tell room sizes through sound cues in real life. Is it your point that you couldn't tell between a singer singing in a closet and a concert hall?
post #263 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
I don't know how he achieved it, but when I sit in the sweet spot and listen to Karajan's recording of Das Rheingold, the descent from Valhalla into Nibelheim actually has vertical movement. I suspect it has something to do with the way he's balancing the arrangement of the instruments, but I'm really not sure. I've always wondered about it, because I've never heard anything like that before, and considering the content of the scene, I'm sure it's a deliberate effect of some sort.
Funny -- I can't remember similar experiences. But now and then I get a hint of in-front localization, something that's apparently very hard to achieve with headphones, even with binaural recordings (at least to my ears).
.
post #264 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by monolith View Post
You failed to answer my original post. My point was that you can easily tell room sizes through sound cues in real life. Is it your point that you couldn't tell between a singer singing in a closet and a concert hall?
You failed to get my point. On some rigs you can tell(almost see) where the walls are, not in real life.period. Most high end rigs emphesize on technique, not on real life performance. Most people are wowed by the overwhelming detail, wich just isn't there if you care to listen really well to live, original instruments in real life situations.
post #265 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
You failed to get my point. On some rigs you can tell(almost see) where the walls are, not in real life.period. Most high end rigs emphesize on technique, not on real life performance. Most people are wowed by the overwhelming detail, wich just isn't there if you care to listen really well to live, original instruments in real life situations.
And once again, if your ears aren't sensitive enough to hear the details in live venue, why are they sensitive enough to hear it from phones?

Or are you trying to say that some rigs can intelligently select certain details to raise the volume of, so that they can be heard.
post #266 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
You failed to get my point. On some rigs you can tell(almost see) where the walls are, not in real life.period. Most high end rigs emphesize on technique, not on real life performance. Most people are wowed by the overwhelming detail, wich just isn't there if you care to listen really well to live, original instruments in real life situations.
You're getting into semantics. If you were hanging from a rope directly above an orchestra the way the mics used to record it were, you'd hear all that stuff. The overwhelming detail you hear from a good rig is there in real life. By definition. At best, the recording, played back through an amazing rig in a perfectly treated room, will have as much detail as the live performance.

You have to keep in mind that when listening to something like an orchestra live, you're being inundated with the sounds of hundreds of other people coughing and shuffling around, you're spending a lot of time watching the players, observing the conductor and other people, etc. All the detail you're talking about is there, just past all those distractions.

Even with all of that interference, it's still easy to hear room characteristics. Imagine how easy it must be when the orchestra is recorded professionally, with no moving people to mess with acoustics.
post #267 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by LawnGnome View Post
Or are you trying to say that some rigs can intelligently select certain details to raise the volume of, so that they can be heard.
I think the implication is that some HiFi rigs add the illusion of spatial positioning that is not in the recording, these would technically be bad HiFi rigs as they would add stuff that shouldnt be there, I think you can do this to some extent by adding delays and slight phase changes but it would be a con job and not necessarily accurate.
post #268 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
Youre, right, you're talking mixes here, technique, just my point.
I think there's a language problem here. I'm afraid I can't discern your point. Are you talking about synthesized ambiences in a 5:1 system?

See ya
Steve
post #269 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by hciman77 View Post
I think the implication is that some HiFi rigs add the illusion of spatial positioning that is not in the recording, these would technically be bad HiFi rigs as they would add stuff that shouldnt be there, I think you can do this to some extent by adding delays and slight phase changes but it would be a con job and not necessarily accurate.
Such things would one, be measurable, and two, be done intelligently to only certain parts of the waveform, AND at a particular time.

Otherwise the sound would just sound very noticeably wrong.
post #270 of 293
I'm not too sure if "tourmaline" is aware of the fact that 99.9% of his recordings don't even contain natural/ unprocessed informations about room size and positioning at all, and that this would be the only recordings making sense to compare to a real life event.

Uh, plus that the recordings he's trying to compare are to the same percentage mixed to be played on speaker systems. Therefore, the things he's hearing through his headphones are a outcome of almost pure coincidence.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Cables, Power, Tweaks, Speakers, Accessories (DBT-Free Forum) › Why do/don't "audiophile" cables improve sound?