Split into a separate reply because this one point got very, very long. In fact I'm tempted to move this to a separate thread, possibly in General. Mods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaZZ
I don't get what you're trying to say. Trusting your senses is a subjective thing, nevertheless can lead to objective, reproduceable results (just like measuring instruments, BTW).
|
Yeah. I can agree with that. But I don't think they will
always lead to that. Let me backtrack a bit, maybe even backpedal a bit, and restate my position. You may not care about thinking about the issue this abstractly, since you mentioned you care more about enjoying the music rather than engaging in such feats of sophistry as this
But I think this is an important point to make, and if I don't keel over from exhaustion from writing this, maybe I'll back it up too.
[size=large]Listening[/size]
Let's say that tomorrow - or, say, July 23rd *wink* - I come across and listen to a state of the art SET amp. And let's say that I hear a difference. Let's say
further that I love the sound. I don't have any problem with that! And I don't really have a problem with people not wanting to look any further into audio gear and just enjoy what they have and what they've heard. What I
do have a problem with is a lack of an attempt to take what we experience and integrate it into theories that are falsifiable and predictive. Like I said, I can't help but analyze and criticize.
[size=large]What it means to think objectively[/size]
All I'm asserting is two things:
- If I do hear a difference, either it is in some sense quantifiable, or else it's placebo.
- If I do measure a difference, the rationale must make more scientific sense than the placebo effect to explain the audible difference. Otherwise, the placebo effect is the more likely hypothesis (although it is not guaranteed to be the correct one).
I can't even say that I even
know how to measure the difference - I'm certainly not saying that audio engineering has the answers to everything right now. All I can say is that, unless no difference existed in the first place, right now or some point in the future, a theory will exist that will explain why that amp sounds so good using numeric measurements and analysis. In a more wishy-washy sense, we're smart enough to figure it out. Pretty weak, eh? The second point is there because anybody can find a difference between two different things, even two of the same make and model, but it takes hard proof to say that difference means anything, backed up with logic and experience.
[size=large]Truth and theory[/size]
And it's here where I think we're never going to agree. For every device, there are always going to be any number of parameters and failure modes. Without exception, the audiophile community will attribute differences in sound to
every parameter and failure mode of the device!
Thus, interconnects sound different because of different dielectrics, resistances, capacitances, characteristic impedances, electrostatic forces, microphonics, crystalline structures, quantum alignments, conductor widths, conductor lengths, connector types, connector materials, conductor materials, conductor distances, numbers of conductors, solder types, and braid topologies. In other words, according to various audio manufacturers, audiophiles and Head-Fi members,
every conceivable difference to a cable changes the sound.
This is not sound science! Or sound engineering for that matter! Occam would roll in his grave if he saw a state of the art engineering theory such as this, practiced by the most famous people in the industry. No, I'm not saying everybody believes every effect is important - but that's an even more complicated situation, because then everybody has their own little theory as to how cables work, and will choose different effects to work towards the same goals.
What does all that mean in the end? Surprisingly, not as much as you'd think I'd say, but still a lot. Even if you attributed audible differences to all those effects, you'd still have a consistent theory of interconnects, and there wouldn't be any evidence I could show you to sway you towards thinking one of those effects didn't matter. You could even build cables based on your theory, and they could sound good, and people would buy them.
It's on the fringes that this sort of thinking breaks down.
- When some people think a $200 cable sounds as good as a $1000 cable, or a $10,000 cable, that's because the $200 cable got it right and everybody else is overcharging. Or the designers got lucky, or they've tapped into a hitherto-unseen effect.
- When a cable that takes all these effects into account sounds only as good as those that don't, the other cables got lucky, or they've tapped into a hitherto-unseen effect.
- When some differences are clear as day sometimes and impossible to detect in others, it is due to emotions/stress in the listener, or a flawed audio system, or a flawed detection system, or a hitherto-unseen effect.
- When RCA connections still invariably used for even the top of the line gear when the optimum characteristic impedances are obtained with BNC or coax, it's because of the entrenched standard, vendor stupidity, or a hitherto-unseen effect. (Anybody who doubts me on this can show me a 20Ghz switch with RCA inputs.)
- When 6N copper so highly desired for interconnects, yet the amplifiers themselves use regular copper and (heaven forbid) 66/37 solder, it's because the interconnect can affect the sound independently of the materials inside of the electronics due to some hitherto-unseen effect.
- When audio salesmen tell you to purchase cables based on a percentage of the total value of the system, rather than how much intrinsic value the cable adds to the system, it's because the cables are always less important to the final sound quality than the other components of the system, regardless of how any of them sound or cost.
Of course you can answer all of these questions. Everybody can. You might be able to answer them better than I have. That's not the point. The point is that to answer them you will almost invariably need to appeal to ad hoc hypotheses. Either here's a flaw somewhere else in a system, or a new effect is discovered, or an existing effect is less important than some other effect. Never is an effect considered completely inaudible based on new evidence, nor is an effect generalized to explain more evidence. Rarely (if ever) does an experiment in a new cable result in a poorer sounding cable. Ever since audiophiledom has started, and people started caring about cables, the theory of their quality has
never simplified over time, and it remains a collection of guidelines about how certain parameters of construction affect certain dimensions of listening, without significant predictive power about how
not to build a cable beyond what has been already manufactured. Of course I'm singling out cables in particular here but I could repeat this argument for all sorts of other things.
Truth, per se, is not directly a part of the conversation. Everybody can explain the evidence, and if you are comfortable with believing that every effect is audible and everything sounds different I won't be able to convince you otherwise. But if you don't - if you admit that some effects are not audible, that some audible differences may in fact not exist, that we humans are smart enough to agree on what is and is not audible, and that we can program a computer to test for everything that is audible - then everything else must fall into place.