Quote:
Originally Posted by logwed /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You're saying that they are intended to show that tonal differences occur? Like, they are built for demonstrative purposes?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Doug /img/forum/go_quote.gif
please please please send those over to me! i'd love to do a spectral analysis
how did you do it?
|
They are, specifically, the Nordost Heimdall, which, very clearly, causes the mids to come more "forward" and the Van Den Hul The Orchid which doesn't. I'd really need to both RMAA these (hard to do with XLR cables and I don't want to add a lot of crap between them and the computer that will interfere with the results) and play back a live recording which I'd been present at to determine what is going on. However, with the Buena Vista Social Club, the piano seems to more overwhelm the music with the Heimdalls plugged in. When I had about $5k of DACs and amps here to test, I found with the Heimdalls it was impossible to evaluate them as they were causing tonal changes in the sound, whereas with the Orchids no tonal changes were apparent.
What I've come to realise about all these arguments about whether gear, such as DACs, amps and cables sound different or not is, that there are, essentially two types of "different": There is
tonally different, and there is
more or less detail different. It's easy to impress people with tonal differences, such as the usual "mid-bass hump" or "more treble". It's much harder to impress people who are already into hi-fi in some way with detail differences. So if someone feels that a bunch of DACs sound the same, then they probably do, if they all RMAA flat exactly the same way. Getting out a high-end electrostat rig, one then might be able to determine what is more detailed than what. However, it is a quagmire, as, say, if one component in the chain is killing detail (and we're probably talking tiny,
supposedly inaudible differences in the signal) then no differences will be heard. If anything, this shows what a crazy quest getting the most detail from music is -- you end up spending a lot of money on the tiniest of differences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oatmeal769 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm sure anyone who listens can hear what they like and may agree with you. You cannot prove that you can tell a difference by listening alone though.
|
You can't prove their is not a difference by reading stuff off the web either. If people can't be trusted to evaluate sound on their own, then they can be no more trusted to evaluate the writings of others on their own either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I don't understand why anyone has to "prove" that certain cables sound better to them in their system.
I also don't understand the OP's point about waste. If I buy an interconnect, and try it out in my system, and I think it sounds better, and it is worth the money to me to obtain the improvement that I perceive, how is that a "waste" of money.
|
Some people don't like people having personal opinion, but believe that everyone should follow their beliefs or religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oatmeal769 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Of course there is. Scientific MethodI suppose as many times as other folks need to claim they're not.I have no doubt that it sounds better in your mind. That you can demonstrate an actual audible difference exists by listening alone though, is easily provable as false.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Camper /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Who claims science is the monolith of truth? How many times have "facts" changed what "science" claimed as fact over history?
|
I find the religious nature of people quoting science no different to religious people quoting scripture. It's more about human nature than it is about what is true or not.
The ultimate cable truth is: It's a waste of time arguing over them.