Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Audiophile cables, an interesting question.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Audiophile cables, an interesting question. - Page 32

post #466 of 1186

  


Edited by herbie12389 - 4/17/14 at 10:33pm
post #467 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbie12389 View Post
 

Dude tell me what I have already read a million times. please. I'm simply as strong minded as you are because I too have been proven something. When I can hear it... It validates it for me. It should for anyone in the audiophile community. What a machine reads is way different than a brain takes in information.


Okay, so you are a dyed-in-the wool if I hear it it must be so audiophile.  There is plenty you can learn here, but you seem to be having none of it.  Your position is not scientifically tenable.  Your experience is not sufficiently perceptive to be the final word as your hearing is too influenced by non-sound factors.  But I am sure you won't believe that.  Your belief no doubt takes precedence in your mind to evidence.  But that is of course not how it works here.  Your impressions and experiences carry no over-riding weight or credibility. 

post #468 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbie12389 View Post

What a machine reads is way different than a brain takes in information.

That is undeniable. Machines are much more accurate and precise than ears and they aren't subject to psychological factors like expectation bias (and inflated audiophile ego).
post #469 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbie12389 View Post

Should we start talking about how conductive certain materials are... like copper or silver for example 

You'll enjoy chatting about that subject with SE!
post #470 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbie12389 View Post
 

Should we start talking about how conductive certain materials are... like copper or silver for example 


No, you should start talking about how copper will transmit a signal that is different than silver in a way that is audible in the audio bandwidth.  The answer for most well designed equipment is that it does not.  But for something to sound different the signal must be different if one is not being fooled. 


Edited by esldude - 4/17/14 at 2:34pm
post #471 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbie12389 View Post

They would be laughing their asses off. Lol. Saying "MY GOD WHAT HAVE YOU DONEEE? GET THAT TRANSISTOR OUTTA HERE!"

No, they'd be embracing the transistor and wishing they'd had them to work with back in the '20s, '30s and '40s.

se
post #472 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
 


Okay, so you are a dyed-in-the wool if I hear it it must be so audiophile.  There is plenty you can learn here, but you seem to be having none of it.  Your position is not scientifically tenable.  Your experience is not sufficiently perceptive to be the final word as your hearing is too influenced by non-sound factors.  But I am sure you won't believe that.  Your belief no doubt takes precedence in your mind to evidence.  But that is of course not how it works here.  Your impressions and experiences carry no over-riding weight or credibility. 


Edited by herbie12389 - 4/17/14 at 10:32pm
post #473 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post


Okay, so you are a dyed-in-the wool if I hear it it must be so audiophile.

Didn't he say he was a high end stereo salesman? That puts his credibility even lower... somewhere between personal injury attorney and used car salesman..
post #474 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbie12389 View Post

I'm not worried about gaining credibility.

And I have to say, you're doing a bang up job of it!
post #475 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


No, they'd be embracing the transistor and wishing they'd had them to work with back in the '20s, '30s and '40s.

se

It would be amazing to see what they would do if that technology was available at that time. No doubt about that. 

post #476 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post


And I have to say, you're doing a bang up job of it!

.


Edited by herbie12389 - 4/17/14 at 10:31pm
post #477 of 1186
If they had solid state technology that basically solved all of their problems with audio fidelity, they would probably move on to psychoacousics and multi-channel sound (much like Bell Labs).
post #478 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbie12389 View Post

Should we start talking about how conductive certain materials are... like copper or silver for example 

Conductivity just boils down to simple resistance. The conductivity of silver is about 6% greater than copper. Which means if you simply use a tiny bit more copper, you can end up with the same rsistance as a given diameter and length of silver.

se
post #479 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbie12389 View Post
 

Should we start talking about how conductive certain materials are... like copper or silver for example 


As I mentioned earlier (I think it was in this thread at least), the difference in conductivity between a 13AWG copper wire and a 14AWG copper wire is something like 5 times larger than the difference in conductivity between a 14AWG silver wire and a 14AWG copper wire.

post #480 of 1186
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

If they had solid state technology that basically solved all of their problems with audio fidelity, they would probably move on to psychoacousics and multi-channel sound (much like Bell Labs).

.


Edited by herbie12389 - 4/17/14 at 10:30pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Audiophile cables, an interesting question.