Separate names with a comma.
Regarding the idea that THD might have something to do with it, they briefly mention this, but go on to elaborate that for that level of distortion to be audible, you would have to be listening at 120db peak level (ouch) in an anechoic chamber - and even then it is unlikely to be audible, as it would be masked by the music.
One thing that is clear form threads like this is that there is evidence out there, but those who say cables do make a difference are never interested in finding any of that evidence at all.
That's because their own experience is evidence enough for them. I'd say that much is pretty clear too. Again, that is the clear distinction between true "scientists" and "non-scientists," or so to speak.
And behind that is the core belief of the subjectivists that their senses are more reliable than machinery, if not infallible, and that they show things which are not shown by the aforementioned machinery.
How anyone can hold this core tenet and support an entire belief system upon it, in the face of giant technological advances in measuring capability that have been with us for a rather long time now and overwhelming evidence, is beyond me.
Well, there's also the rather overwhelmingly clear fact that our senses can be very easily deceived, especially by those who are trying to deceive us (i.e. the guys selling you the cables). People seem to overlook this quite often.
On the other hand, machines cannot be deceived so easily, especially under controlled conditions (not so much under uncontrolled conditions, however).
It is not the machines being deceived, it is people. Machines only do what it is designed to do. Any kind of error is human error, machines don't make mistakes. Humans have limited senses. We can only see or hear only part of the spectrum. Our senses are not capable of providing accurate measurements given that bias nature of people, limited memory capability to replicate precisely what happened, and the different makeup of the each individual's physiology.
I guess you're right, what I really meant was that the machine could be "tricked" into giving the wrong answer if the test parameters are not strict enough. But it would in the end be human error causing the mistake, unless the machine itself is defective - which would most likely be human error, unless, say, a random cosmic ray went and messed around with your electronics.
Cable makers cannot influence a machine like they can a prospective buyer.
True. That's what marketing does, it plays with the emotional nature of people. Marketers know to go for people subjectivity's than providing objective results because subjective aspects cannot be proven, and adds emotional characteristics to it, it will grab people's attention.
subscribed (yay fraudulent advertising bashing)
My analogy are the noises that water pipes are always making. sometimes quite and sometimes hissing, gurgling and sometimes banging.
We are listening to the flow of electricity through metallic pipes. It makes perfect sense to me that there are imperfections in that flow that are audible and that creative people with a good ear can craft better cables.
And yes your ears in this case are the highest resolution testing devices. What would you have to measure for, to look at a computer read out to tell you of the image depth, sound stage width, clarity of bass, mids and trebles. In a constantly moving and complicated structure such as music.
It is extraordinary that anyone could be trained to the level of belief that machines must be the ultimate tool, and humans must be second best.
I know right, the sound of the electrons colliding around me keeps me up all night.
The sound has only two properties which can change over time. It's frequency(ies) and amplitude(s). The way these two properties change over time can be measured, how you interpret the changes of these two parameters ("image depth", "clarity of bass" etc.) are an entirely different subject and these are not the "real" properties of the sound, they are just the consequences of how the sound's paramters change over time and how you try to interpret these changes in a way that makes sense. For example, when an istrument plays, you don't hear the actual individual sine waves, instead you hear a "timbre".
Once the sound gets converted to digital format, you can measure the properties of the sound nearly perfectly but definitely to a far greater accuracy then by your ears at the very least.
If you want to know if someone sounds good to you, your ultimate tool is your ears (not due to its "high resoulution" mind you). If you want to measure the sound (and don't care much about how that sound is going to sound to you) machines are indeed the ultimate tool.
Exactly! Measurement is only about measuring differences, it's not about the human interpretation of the goodness of those differences.
Wow talk about raising the dead!
Thread is from 2011.