Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
I am sure these guys know a lot, but you give a list of some hundreds of articles, not referring the content of any article and not even telling which of these references are adequate.
Should I be so impressed that I agree with you?
|
No, it was only intended to show that people who do research, do research in a vast amount of themes related to audio and acoustics, trying to explain the tinniest phenomena at this field.
Quote:
| So it is very appropriate that you specify those references that support your claims, and at least shortly explain how. If you want to be scientific and one should take you seriously. |
I did a bit of research, knowing where to, and found some of these at:
http://users.htdconnect.com/~djcarlst/abx_peri.htm
and
http://users.htdconnect.com/~djcarlst/abx_book.htm
Some of those study the phenomena of subjective perception. Don't know if any of these refer specifically to cables, though, but the matter is the same. By the way, this web page is a good recopilation of information about blind tests and their utility.
Quote:
Originally posted by MacDEF
And yet, even though the human ear cannot "hear" above 15,000 - 25,000 Hz, depending on the person, other studies have shown that the harmonics that occur at MUCH higher frequencies are somehow detectable by some people...
...
It's arrogant to question whether we possess the technology to measure differences when double-blind tests clearly show that people can reliably hear the difference???
...
Again Double-blind tests that show a difference in cables have been done over and over and over.
|
I'd like to see any references to controlled tests, and/or scientific or at least technically riguous references that actually support those claims, aside from your personal possibly non-rigorous, uncontrolled tests. I'll go over these further.
Quote:
That appears to makes sense; however, since we (human beings) don't understand everything about such signals or how they end up reprocuding audio, it's more of a working hypothesis than a fact.
...
Again, that's the assumption, but it's not necesarily a fact. And even if we assume this is true, the even BIGGER assumption you're making is that we possess the technology to measure such changes. It's quite possible that the changes that affect sound are not measurable by current technology.
...
...anyone with even a modicum of education in science and research methodology realizes that, regardless of your view on cables, the above two caveats are the first two questions any decent scientists would ask.
|
If all these you say are true, why is it impossible to find any scientific ot technical literature that supports it? Or at least that tries to explain or research into that "unknown" or "unmeasurable" things?
As other person, electronic engineer, much more audio technically informed than me, who has done theorical and practical research for years over the issues discussed here, said at another forum:
"Audio ain't nuclear physics and it ain't rocket science.
...
There are differences between cables but they always have causes that are well-understood.
...
In fact, no new forms of distortion or new measurable whatsis have been discovered in audio for decades and
decades and decades.
...
...its because the science of cables is well-understood, and learnable and we learned it and we understand it.
"
This seems to be widely accepted by audio professionals all over the world. Again, if you have any serious reference or technical literature that contradicts this, I'd like to know it.
Quote:
What a rude and insulting thing to say, Ricky -- what makes you so sure that some of the people you're talking to in these threads don't have backgrounds just as "qualified" as those of the people you appear to worship in the newsgroups? We have many people with backgrounds in science, engineering, recording, production, etc. here on Head-Fi, some of whom have been participating in these "cable" threads.
|
I said "most" of the people, not all. I'd like to know how many of these have a minimal scientific or technical background aside from what they read at audiophile magazines. I'd say not many, reading what I've read about Bybee filters, people being in effect "blind" to anything other than their own perception and whatever stupidity they read from advertisers, and not interested at all in knowing the real working of things.
Quote:
For all the times you throw the word "arrogant" around, you might do well to take a look in the mirrir
|
Yeah, but I was not the first one that used the "arrogant" word here. In fact, I used "arrogant" as a reply to other poster that first called me "arrogant".
Some points about your blind tests:
Quote:
- Measurements: the comparisons I've done have always been between stock RCAs or RatShack $.99 alternatives vs. some more expensive aftermarket cables (AudioQuest, Kimber, StraightWire, etc.). Unless there is a distinct pattern in "measurements" that would consistently affect these tests in *exactly* the same manner each time, I think asking for "measurements" is a red herring.
|
So you are saying that measurements by itself would be useless? I thought you agreed that if there's a difference, it should be measurable somehow, even if it's not possible to do it right now, as you seemed to say. If there's a difference but there's no way to measure it even if we had the neccesary technology, then it must be some sort of paranormal phenomena.
Over the rest of the explanations, I DO believe that some measurements should be done in order to effectively prove that your equipment's outputs, inputs and cables, wether cheap or expensive ones, don't have gross measurable differences. That should be a controlled test.
Over this issue, I'm planning something for all of you having a cd burner, so that your can do your own blind tests at your homes, to test how good are you telling a piece of music not altered, from a played through a cheap cable and then recorded again, same piece of music.
More issues...
Quote:
Originally posted by Dusty Chalk
This is a bit of an overstatement. People in these fields know all about impedance matching, inductance, resistance, capacitance, etc. But what they don't know is the relative importance of all of these things, their interaction, etc., and ultimately the effect of it on enjoyable listening.
|
Wow! If so, what is audio and acoustics engineering about ??? Are audio engineers and researchers just playing with their toys because it is funny, or what?
Quote:
For example, many of them swear by Fourier's analysis. But they completely abuse it.
|
Fourier analysys is just another mode of viewing signals. It's maths, no more, no less.
Quote:
They pay no attention to phase smearing, they figure as long as it has the exact same frequencies, then it is going to be heard the exact same way.
|
What a gratuituous claim!! Easy to talk, isn't it?
Quote:
It's not just that they measure different. You're backpedaling a bit when you say that. Previously you said that they can measure different, as long as it wasn't within appreciable amounts of capacitance, resistance, etc., and that most cables didn't vary (as compared to, for example, rs cables) enough to be perceivably different. Now you're saying, well, if you can tell the difference, then they should measure different. |
?? Don't see the contradiction. If it sounds different, it measures different. If it measures different, I may not sound different if the differences are small enough. And all regular non-faulty, non-special-sound-coloring design I/C cables, measure pretty much alike.
Quote:
That may be, but these sceptic scientists of yours had better be using their equipment correctly.
...
Are you measuring these cables without loads? That would be wrong.
|
And YOU are the one going to teach them how to use their equipment? I see you really believe scientists and engineers are sort of stupids playing with their expensive toys. That's what I mean when I say that some audiophiles are arrogant.
Quote:
Not true. I ran into a guy at a music store about two years ago that re-wired his entire studio with silver cable.
|
What a big proof. I could say that thay I knew a guy 5 years ago that put a cup of water on top of his DAC at his home studio because it sounds better. Please go to any real professional big (or small) studio, and see what they use.
Quote:
No, if you will accept that cables can sound different (you have, under the conditions that they measure considerably different), then one can extrapolate that they will sound marginally different if they measure marginally different.
|
True. But for a cable to measure marginally different, must have a very weird or crappy design.
Quote:
"Objectively better" is an oxymoron
|
Ok, I should have said "different".
Quote:
You're also mixing arguments. We argue about the value of diminishing returns here all the time. That is a perfectly valid criticism. Where to draw the line is an individual decision. You just draw the line way too early for our tastes.
|
I'd say that diminishing returns here have not much sense, as a decent industrial, not expensive cable, as the ones used at recording studios, is as good as any other cable no matter its price.
By the way, in recording studios they care about what is really important. In a quick manner, they are, more or less in this order: acoustics, transducers (microphones/speakers/headphones), electronics, and finally cables.
Long post...
