[Clarkmc2]

Apparently Katun and germanium have not read the title of this thread. Gosh, should I ignore only these posts about cables or everything they say?

 
Could have sworn I was in the Sound Science forum...

 

[mike1127]

I have avoided putting my whole paradigm in one post because mostly people here take potshots at one or two elements of it. However, because we've got a few folks who are actually interested, I'll go ahead.

pattern recognition

1.     People have an ability to recognize patterns in sound.
2.     What patterns I can hear depend on my training and experience.
3.     Different people have different training and experience, and therefore might possibly hear different patterns.

live vs. recorded

1.     There are plenty of patterns which can be abstracted over both live and recorded music; for instance, rhythmic quality.
2.     Therefore live and recorded music are comparable experiences; at least given the patterns which my training has led me to pick up.
3.     To evaluate playback, I ask "How close is it to what the musicians intended in their live performance?" That's a matter of accuracy. (I'm primary concerned with live acoustic music; please don't bring into it the fact that some performances are assembled from close-miked instruments performing at different times, so there is no "original performance." Okay, fine. That's a different paradigm. Not relevant here.)

the whole system

1.     The whole record/playback system consists of microphones, A/D, D/A, playback amp, speakers. And also recording hall acoustics can be considered part of the system, as well as playback room acoustics.
2.     Controversies over the audibility of cables or amps or A/D or whatever don't need to come into it. Let's talk about acoustics, microphones and speakers.

comparing A and B
 

1.     It's important to have an ability to compare two systems, A and B.
2.     I'm interested in accuracy; that is, which system gets closer to reproducing the patterns that I heard live.

 

1.     Folks here like to say that accuracy is about measurements. Well, not so fast. There will come a time when you have two systems A and B, both of which have audible measured deviations from accuracy (remember we are talking about speakers and microphones) and you have to ask "Which is more accurate?" Basically you have a complex set of measurements, and neither A nor B is superior in all measurements. To put it in a much oversimplified way, maybe A is superior in distortion but B is superior in frequency response. Actually that question is frequency-dependent with a different answer at each frequency or frequency band. You have many measurements; you have multiple curves which criss-cross. So you have to listen in order to determine which one is more accurate, which one is closer to what the musicians intended -- I would use the kinds of pattern-recognition my experience has developed to answer that question
2.     Just in case that leaves you in doubt, how about miking technique? A lot of choices there, and no way to make those choices but to listen.
3. Using my pattern-recognition abilities, I sense distortion in the system as changes to the musical performance. That, I believe, is the proper way to evaluate equipment, because after all, musical performance is the reason it exists

 

[bigshot]

If the goal is to improve your stereo, you need to separate the deviation from accurate that is within your control (your system and listening room) from those that are not (miking, mixing, and recording hall acoustics).

But the theme of this thread is, how can we trust any opinion from someone who talks about cables making a huge difference? Going back to that, I would have to answer that we can't.

 

[Tilpo]

If the goal is to improve your stereo, you need to separate the deviation from accurate that is within your control (your system and listening room) from those that are not (miking, mixing, and recording hall acoustics).

But the theme of this thread is, how can we trust any opinion from someone who talks about cables making a huge difference? Going back to that, I would have to answer that we can't.

After more than one thousand posts the OP was finally responded to.


-- The end.

 

[Katun]

Quote:

Apparently Katun and germanium have not read the title of this thread. Gosh, should I ignore only these posts about cables or everything they say?

 
Could have sworn I was in the Sound Science forum...

 
Pardon me.

 

[JadeEast]

Mike, thanks for laying out your perspective.

 

[germanium]

Quote:

Apparently Katun and germanium have not read the title of this thread. Gosh, should I ignore only these posts about cables or everything they say?

 
Could have sworn I was in the Sound Science forum...

This thread has been off topic for quite a while. HoweverThe fact that I'm saying there can be a difference & so is Katun saying that there can be I think that the verdict according to us is that they need to come up with better testing methodology & acknowledge that these amplifier & cable companies are not all charletans as some actually do listening tests with trained listeners that can in fact be able to point out flaws so the engineers can correct them before going to market. Harman Karden actually has an advanced listener training program that teaches people how the detect even certain types of distortion accurately with 80% minimum correct answers before they are accepted to be trained listeners. So the basic thing I'm saying is go with what your ears tell you is best & not some reviewer or study using techniques that are ofquestionable value.
 
Studies can be conducted in very misleading way whether intended or not. I have seen situations where my modded Adcom amp I did several years ago sounded no different that anouther low quailty amp because the source was poor quality to begin with but in other situations it was a clear winner when the source was better. I tested many different wire configurations with that amp & settled on the copper tubing as having the best sound with that amp. Yes that amp was very senstive to the qualty of the interconnects, Though the differences on the surface seemed subtle the overall effect as you listended to a wide variety of music was the better wiring preserved more of that sound that gave the music life. This was especially noticable on piano music.
 
Just to let you know I do not poo poo science. There was a reason for those differences & I have discused them adnausium here. I do not go after the majic clocks that configure all the electrons in your house nor do I go after those majic rocks that you see in some of the subjetive reviewers magazines. However I do not poo poo everything that subjective reviewers say either as there are real differences that I have heard in amps & wiring. Objective science & subjective impression need to be reconciled in order for the benefits of both to be brought forward & there are benefits to both. Subjective revewers that go ga  ga over the latest overpriced piece of gear do a diservice the public they serve but so do the objectivists that poo poo all suposed diferences as differences do exist.

 

[bigshot]

Just because your informal impression is that cables and amps have a sound, it doesn't invalidate more rigorous tests. The testing methodology isn't faulty. It's the same methodology used to test all sorts of things. Science can't prove something doesn't exist. It's up to you to prove it does. You might want to consider thinking about how you might better reach conclusions about how sound reproduction works. The first step is to not base your opinion on sales tear sheets and magazine advertorial from manufacturers.

The sales pitch and "science" behind magic crystals and green marker pens is *exactly* the same as that used by high end cable companies... Throw around a little legit science, avoid relating it to thresholds of human perception. When questioned, throw out a smokescreen of pseudo science and point to informal, anceotal testamonials, claiming they must be hearing something science doesn't know about yet.

Oh! I forgot the big one... Avoid double blind tests at all costs, and if you can't avoid it, just muddy the waters by going into circular theoretical arguments about the technicalities of testing procedures.

 

[drez]

Quote:

The sales pitch and "science" behind magic crystals and green marker pens is *exactly* the same as that used by high end cable companies... Throw around a little legit science, avoid relating it to thresholds of human perception. When questioned, throw out a smokescreen of pseudo science and point to informal, anceotal testamonials, claiming they must be hearing something science doesn't know about yet.

 
And the logic used in this argument about as good as that used  by the green marker pens and magic crystals.  Plenty of cable manufacturers do things that make sense from a scientific standpoint - just some seem to think that these properties will not cause significant audible differences - this and magic crystals seems quite different to me.  Suggesting that everything that has not been conclusively proven is nonsense is absurdly  bad reasoning - you may as well tell everyone doing any form of research that has not yet been proven - medical science, physics, mathematics - they are all the same as the man selling magic crystals?

 

[bigshot]

Well, if you come up with a method to prove a negative, I'll happily employ it.

 

[germanium]

Quote:

Well, if you come up with a method to prove a negative, I'll happily employ it.

That seems all you are trying to do is prove a negative, a negative result to any possible difference & DBT seems to be your method of choice when DBT stresses people in unnatural ways. I have heard differences & can explane why they exist after much experimentation . I don't need people touting DBT or ABX telling me they do not exist. I also in the past caught a manufacturer trying to trump up a difference between two different ouputs of the same unit which I caught just by listening & being observant. Other people in the room did not catch it but I did. That did not mean that there wasn't a real difference in the outputs. Most everyone in the room picked up the difference but I correctly picked up what in part was causing the difference by ear. Everyone thought that the difference was an improvement but not me, it sounded worse & the reason was the amp was being pushed beyond its limits for clean output. Not quite to clipping but definately where distortion started to pick up & even the manufacturer acknowledged it.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

If the goal is to improve your stereo, you need to separate the deviation from accurate that is within your control (your system and listening room) from those that are not (miking, mixing, and recording hall acoustics).
 

 

That's a practical issue, but I think it's important to understand what we mean when we say "a system is accurate." We mean the entire chain from recording to playback is accurate. There is no way to evaluate the recording without getting playback involved.
 
As a practical matter, most recordings are made understanding there is a plethora of playback systems to be used. The engineer employs some kind of understanding of the playback system he is targeting. In essence, a model in his head or on paper is substituting for the actual playback system. But we should understand that is a model.
 
Likewise a playback system is put together knowing a range of recordings will be played.
 
But to keep our understanding nice and straight, we have to understand there is no way to evaluate accuracy without an entire chain.

 

[Clarkmc2]

Quote:

1. Using my pattern-recognition abilities, I sense distortion in the system as changes to the musical performance. That, I believe, is the proper way to evaluate equipment, because after all, musical performance is the reason it exists

Mike, this is the part that I still don't understand. Without having heard the actual performance that was recorded, how could one tell what was off (or on) in the end result? The permutations of musical performance, and so also the patterns it creates that we might recognize, are infinite or nearly so. A catalog of "stock" patterns recognized from experience would always fall short.

 

[Clarkmc2]

Quote:

 
Pardon me.

Please don't take offense. I was unable to generalize the remark any further and still refer to something recognizable. It struck me as amusing that cable talk came up in a thread named as this one is.

 

[mike1127]

Quote:

Mike, this is the part that I still don't understand. Without having heard the actual performance that was recorded, how could one tell what was off (or on) in the end result? The permutations of musical performance, and so also the patterns it creates that we might recognize, are infinite or nearly so. A catalog of "stock" patterns recognized from experience would always fall short.

You have a great point. This is why I talk of a whole chain. You should be there for the recording -- sit live in the hall, and then listen to the playback. I've made recordings myself and sat in on a couple of pro recordings.
 
This is the central understanding of accuracy. In other situations, it's about using some form of understanding, some form of model -- whether an intuitive understanding or a precise measurement model -- to approximate this central understanding.
 
I think it's important to make clear the epistemology -- a term from philosophy describing how we know things. It describes how we obtain knowledge and what we consider to be valid evidence and all that.
 
Obviously we are compromised most of the time. I put together my current headphone system by listening to recordings I know well. There are some patterns which are a reliable guide I think, such as dynamics with impact. But that's all a model, an approximation, a guess, a gut-feeling, or whatever it might be in the particular case.