[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundEdit /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do I always have the inexpensive choice of "not believing"? Given that you don't think I should, apparently, ever ask for proof of any kind in regards to audio equipment, it seems I should live in ignorance unless I do my own research at my own expense. And if I do find evidence that is negative, it is implied that such evidence is beyond unwelcome and nearly heretical here. Since I'm seemingly required to do my own research (anyone want to loan me 10K of AC cables?), I only have the inexpensive "choice" of not believing if I also never buy any audio gear ever since those who advocate it have not responsibility to advocate it based on facts.

Audio phenomena have nothing to do with «believing». They're simply about hearing them and trusting your own senses if the perceived effect is consistent -- so it definitely serves its purpose. If you don't hear the audio phenomena in question, there's no need for you to follow the issue any further. The same applies to «believers» (as you name them, which is definitely wrong), just the other way round. That's the (sad?) truth...

That said, of course I'd like to see physical explanations as well as metrological and statistical evidence. Although I consider it obsolete in the case of electronics components and only a real challenge in the case of cables.
.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wouldn't equate the number of posts on a particular subject as a show of hands. Around here, the most prolific posters aren't necessarily the best informed.

You don't need to be informed to have a sensitive hearing.
.

 

[SoundEdit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wouldn't equate the number of posts on a particular subject as a show of hands. Around here, the most prolific posters aren't necessarily the best informed. I'm sure there are plenty of people just sitting back shaking their heads and waiting for the next amusing set of photos or YouTube video in the ERS paper thread, See ya Steve

Well, I have to sort of agree. I'm not commenting about anyone in this thread so far, of course, but in general it can be much easier and faster to just make stuff up then to actually only make true claims. People can toss out claims way faster than people can responsibly investigate them, so clearly number of posts doesn't necessarily denote knowledge or competence. I've got quite a few posts for just having been here a few days, but I doubt anyone is going say that my high rate of postings per day means I'm more competent than someone with a lower rate. If anything, it is a sign that work is slow

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ You don't need to be informed to have a sensitive hearing.

And you don't need to be educated to be smart. But but being informed and educated can help put your sensitive hearing and smarts to use. But my answer, like yours, doesn't actually advance or prove anything in the thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Audio phenomena have nothing to do with «believing». They're simply about hearing them and trusting your own senses if the perceived effect is consistent -- so it definitely serves its purpose. If you don't hear the audio phenomena in question, there's no need for you to follow the issue any further. The same applies to «believers» (as you name them, which is definitely wrong), just the other way round. That's the (sad?) truth...

Objectively it is true that phenomena exist independent of our belief in them, but it is false to say that belief in them has nothing to do with "belief." That is patently false, or at the very least, equivocal. What you, perhaps, mean is that belief in these phenomena is not based on "faith" but in actual, audible differences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ If you don't hear the audio phenomena in question, there's no need for you to follow the issue any further.

No need? Define "need." Does anybody "need" a super-high quality sound system? Probably not. If true need were the standard of this forum, the entire server and all of the messages on it would disappear in a puff of logic. So please pardon me if I ignore your imperative as being self-contradictory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ The same applies to «believers» (as you name them, which is definitely wrong), just the other way round. That's the (sad?) truth...

I used the term "believers" because it seemed more neutral and less judgmental than, say, "the credulous." They certainly are believers if they believe that a device works. There really is no better word for it. "Believer" is not a pejorative. I'm a "believer" in keeping an open mind, though not so open that it falls out... I'm not sure why you object so vehemently to the word in question--it is certainly not because I've used it incorrectly or pejoratively.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundEdit /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, I have to sort of agree.

You have to see, though, that Bigshot has used the quote out of context. I haven't implied that reality be «democratic», but it is just as little «aristocratic» or «dictatorial» as claimed by him.


Quote:

But being informed and educated can help put your sensitive hearing ... to use.

That's self-evident. It's just not so easily acceptable when stated by a stubborn ignorant.


Quote:

Objectively it is true that phenomena exist independent of our belief in them, but it is false to say that belief in them has nothing to do with "belief." That is patently false, or at the very least, equivocal. What you, perhaps, mean is that belief in these phenomena is not based on "faith" but in actual, audible differences. I used the term "believers" because it seemed more neutral and less judgmental than, say, "the credulous." They certainly are believers if they believe that a device works. There really is no better word for it. "Believer" is not a pejorative. I'm a "believer" in keeping an open mind, though not so open that it falls out... I'm not sure why you object so vehemently to the word in question--it is certainly not because I've used it incorrectly or pejoratively.

Sorry! So I gave a wrong impression. It's not that I'm particularly sensitive to how you use it, I'm just generally opposed to a denomination that could be misleading or deliberately used for discrediting a group of generally open-minded and absolutely (self-)critical people who just have discovered that they reliably and consistently hear audio phenomena which are (still) hard to explain and/or suspect to others -- without any implicated/preconditioned ideologic belief, maybe even thanks to the lack thereof.

Quote:

No need? Define "need." Does anybody "need" a super-high quality sound system? Probably not. If true need were the standard of this forum, the entire server and all of the messages on it would disappear in a puff of logic. So please pardon me if I ignore your imperative as being self-contradictory.

Again, a slight inaccuracy from my part. I wanted to state two things: If you do hear said phenomena, you most likely would have a different approach to the matter, maybe in the form of «now I want to know what it is that I hear!». If you can't hear them, you probably see no worth in following the subject any further, and objectively that would even be the case, strictly related to the phenomena themselves. Whereas audiophiles with an intuitive approach who experience the reality of said phenomena see no need for systematic tests.
.

 

[SoundEdit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif {Quoting SoundEdit}: "But being informed and educated can help put your sensitive hearing ... to use." That's self-evident. It's just not so easily acceptable when stated by a stubborn ignorant. .

That's quite the dangling modifier. Since you are responding to my quote, I'm wondering who, if anyone, you might be referring to as "a stubborn ignorant?"

 

[K2Grey]

IIRC, from what I've heard, oenophiles have actually been able to prove in double blind tests etc. that they can distinguish between different wines (not sure of the exact circumstances). The same cannot be said of cables. The problem is that many people have great trust in their senses, but it is known that senses are affected by for example psychological factors, so for one to hear differences between two cables does not necessarily mean that what is coming out of the headphones is different.

 

[SoundEdit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by K2Grey /img/forum/go_quote.gif IIRC, from what I've heard, oenophiles have actually been able to prove in double blind tests etc. that they can distinguish between different wines (not sure of the exact circumstances). The same cannot be said of cables. The problem is that many people have great trust in their senses, but it is known that senses are affected by for example psychological factors, so for one to hear differences between two cables does not necessarily mean that what is coming out of the headphones is different.

Indeed, such are a regular feature of wine judging but would seemingly be beyond the strictures of this forum's "DBT"-free dictum to get into in too much detail.

Besides, wine is more analogous to the music we play rather than the cables we use. A closer analogy to interconnect cables would be the carafe the wine is served from. Clearly a carafe could easily affect the flavor of the wine but one would hope a properly designed carafe would not, except for the amount of air it exposes the wine to. The super ultra premium AC cables are less like wine carafe but more like the ice bucket used for champagne.

I wish there was a "DBT-only" forum as a balance, though I think such would not be to tastes of the forum's proprietor. If there was such, "naughty" discussion threads could be sent there to the "Château d'If"* of forums instead of being locked.


*Or perhaps more like the Manhattan prison in "Escape from New York"

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I was talking about Head-Fi.

You're soaking in it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif But manyof the folks dealing with these types of cable issues on this sub-forum already have decent headphones in the $500 range. If you've already got the AKG 701, for example, where do you go from there -- vs. improving your source, for example.

From there, you can equalize if necessary, expand your music collection and save up for a good speaker system. Headphones can never match the natural presentation of speakers.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif You don't need to be informed to have a sensitive hearing.

It helps to be informed to understand the realistic limits of one's perception. It also helps to discern the relative merits of one improvement over another. I think being informed is a good thing.

But even assuming that you actually *can* hear things only bats and dogs can hear... How does that qualify you to give advice on stereo equipment to people with normal human hearing? Freakish hearing ability is no more of a thing to be proud of as extra toes on one foot or multiple nipples. There really isn't anything musical to hear in superaudible frequencies. And there's no advantage to being extra sensitive to artifacts and noise in the signal. In fact, that's a detriment to enjoyment of recorded music.

See ya
Steve

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif There really isn't anything musical to hear in superaudible frequencies.

Your statement suggests that you are assuming people that claim to hear differences claim also to have some especial power or extreme hability in their senses over regular/normal people. Where are you making that assumption from? People who can distinguish difference in performance on DVDs, for example, by just looking at their images on a CRT TV, don't have and don't claim to have any Superman sight or see "Superviewable" frequencies of light. It is a different reason why they detect things most people don't, they have trained their eyesight to spot some things that are usually overlooked if you are not aware of what to look for that can help you distinguish some things from some others. While there can be accuracy differences in our senses, perception can also be improved by training.

 

[reano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your statement suggests that you are assuming people that claim to hear differences claim also to have some especial power or extreme hability in their senses over regular/normal people. Where are you making that assumption from? People who can distinguish difference in performance on DVDs, for example, by just looking at their images on a CRT TV, don't have and don't claim to have any Superman sight or see "Superviewable" frequencies of light. It is a different reason why they detect things most people don't, they have trained their eyesight to spot some things that are usually overlooked if you are not aware of what to look for that can help you distinguish some things from some others. While there can be accuracy differences in our senses, perception can also be improved by training.

Just to be clear are you saying by this statement above (as an analogy) that due to the use of that person's ears, on their equipment, etc they have trained themselves to be able to distinguish between different cables also? E.g. when you mention senses.

Or do you believe you cannot train yourself to distinguish between the different quality cables?

Or just none of the above (do I sense that)....

 

[SoundEdit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif People who can distinguish difference in performance on DVDs, for example, by just looking at their images on a CRT TV, don't have and don't claim to have any Superman sight or see "Superviewable" frequencies of light.

This isn't an "Apples to Apples" comparison. A TV produces a smaller range of colors and contrasts than a human can see, unlike high quality sound systems which can reproduce frequencies well above the range of human hearing. No current TV, even 1080i, will be mistaken for reality--except, perhaps, out of the corner of your eye. Video quality is nowhere near the fidelity and threshold of detection level of differences that audio is at. In addition, Video is heavily compressed, unlike CD audio, which produces more artifacts to notice and compare. A DVD player has to do a lot more to convert the data to an analog system than a CD player does to convert audio, especially if it is a progressive scan DVD player with multi-field predictive de-interlacing. The algorithms used in DVD players can make a huge difference.

You are making an implied comparison of the differences in DVD players to the differences in audio cables--the lack of analogy is staggering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra /img/forum/go_quote.gif While there can be accuracy differences in our senses, perception can also be improved by training.

True, but not in excess of our physical limitations. I can't be "trained" to hear frequencies below my threshold of hearing.

Your statement of is very general, and thus says very little as to how this would potentially affect the ability to hear the differences in ICs: Maybe people can learn maybe they can't--it would suggest. But none of that addresses if the difference is there to hear in the first place, in which case no amount of talent or training would help. In some cases, "training" might just help people "hear things" and do the opposite of helping to hear real differences.

 

[Patrick82]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundEdit /img/forum/go_quote.gif A closer analogy to interconnect cables would be the carafe the wine is served from. Clearly a carafe could easily affect the flavor of the wine but one would hope a properly designed carafe would not, except for the amount of air it exposes the wine to. The super ultra premium AC cables are less like wine carafe but more like the ice bucket used for champagne.

Nordost Valhalla is a bucket that is cold on top and warm at the bottom. When you pour liquid into the bucket it gives fake dynamics. It separates the liquid so it tastes different at different depths of the bucket. It makes everything more distinct even when it's the same liquid. Same with audio cables, same liquid but different taste at the other end.

 

[rsaavedra]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundEdit /img/forum/go_quote.gif You are making an implied comparison of the differences in DVD players to the differences in audio cables--the lack of analogy is staggering.

I wasn't comparing the technologies per se obviously. Audio is audio and video is video, no one is claiming otherwise. The fact is, many people can't see a difference between DVDs played by some inexpensive players with known artifacts vs. better ones that reproduce the images without those artifacts. The ability to identify the differences in video reproduction is not trivial, requires in many cases some skill. That was my point, similar skills might apply equally well to perception of some subtleties in audio, despite the differences in media and technologies. Your impossibility to understand this simple analogy (with respect to our cognitive perception and limitations vs. abilities, not with respect to technologies) is what is staggering.

Quote:

I can't be "trained" to hear frequencies below my threshold of hearing.

My analogy was not directed towards you but towards bigshot. However, you also seem to imply assumptions about perceiving things beyond thresholds of the senses. No one that I know has claimed to hear frequencies beyond normal thresholds, where are you guys getting that assumption from? That was precisely the reason for my analogy, to attack that assumption, if you didn't notice.

What people do with respect to DVDs is identify things that are perfectly within the normal threshold of vision, but that might go unnoticed without the skill to spot them. In audio the same might happen. (And that goes for your question too Reano). I'm sure you SoundEdit might keep having difficulties with this analogy though.

 

[JaZZ]

Add MP3s to this. I'm not even trying to learn to spot the artifacts, though, as overhearing them is an advantage for the intended purpose.
.