[71 dB]

I don't listen with headphones too often, and I typically don't bother with crossfeed in most situations where I do listen using headphone. When I do use crossfeed, I've found that the Jan Meier emulation at 650 Hz and -9.5 dB works the best for me. It generally does not get in the way with most stereo content and it really helps with my Beatles mono box set and even some of the earlier experimental tracks in stereo.

Beatles mono box? What? Isn't it monophonic sound? Sorry my ignorance. I don't listen to Beatles. Just interested of how crossfeed helps with mono. For mono sound I have recently developped a plugin to generate random noise-based pseudo-spatiality making mono sound less "lifeless" on headphones. That's kind of anti-crossfeed and I call the resulting sound diffuse mono.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Beatles mono box? What? Isn't it monophonic sound? Sorry my ignorance. I don't listen to Beatles. Just interested of how crossfeed helps with mono. For mono sound I have recently developped a plugin to generate random noise-based pseudo-spatiality making mono sound less "lifeless" on headphones. That's kind of anti-crossfeed and I call the resulting sound diffuse mono.

Sorry, that was a bit confusing. The mono box set has some 1965 stereo mixes from Help! and Rubber Soul. Some of the tracks are really gimmicky with instruments and vocals only on one channel. Makes it feel like my sinuses are stuffy when I listen to them with headphones.

 

[bigshot]

Those tracks really don't sound very good on speakers either. There is a similar thing in early quadrophonic recordings. Some mixes tended to isolate individual instruments into separate channels. Some people like this, but I don't. There's no bridging between channels to create a sound field. It's just sound coming at you from different directions, which gets tiresome.

 

[71 dB]

Sorry, that was a bit confusing. The mono box set has some 1965 stereo mixes from Help! and Rubber Soul. Some of the tracks are really gimmicky with instruments and vocals only on one channel. Makes it feel like my sinuses are stuffy when I listen to them with headphones.

Oh, some ping pong stereo tracks. Thanks for the clarification! Yeah, those are completely unsuitable for headphones as they are.

 

[gregorio]

I did propose it as a "possible explanation" but if you rather use the age old "brain fooling you" explanation, then how can science progress forward.

Unfortunately, this statement is just so typical of what we have to deal with here. So many fallacies, falsehoods and hypocrisy in one sentence, even though you don't appear to be one of the fanatical, misguided audiophiles. It might be worth going through it a bit:

1. But it's not a "possible explanation"! If it flies in the face of science and has no supporting reliable evidence, then it's a "nonsense explanation".
2. Instead of using the age old "brain fooling you" explanation, you rather use the age old magnetism explanation. Magnetism was first investigated about 2,500 years ago, the relationship with electricity was discovered 2 centuries ago and magnetism has been used as an explanation for all kinds nonsense.
3. Firstly, much of science does not "progress forward" and we wouldn't want it to! "1 + 1 = 2" is probably about the oldest science we have and it has never progressed, 1 + 1 still equals 2 millennia later and if it suddenly did progress to equalling something other than 2, modern human society would probably collapse. This is an obvious example but there are countless others, many specific to electricity (and magnetism). We have laws of physics and axioms, they may expand or we may find new ways to apply them in technology but they do not progress. Science progresses in those areas where we know our theories are incomplete and sending an analogue electrical signal down a cable is NOT one of those areas! Secondly, your statement is false anyway because "the age old brain fooling you explanation" is itself a large area of CURRENT scientific investigation. In fact, there is a scientific area specific to the perception of sound (called psycho-acoustics) and research is still active in this field because we know our knowledge is still incomplete.

[1] I am only speaking of my experience because that is the closest experience I have for cables, it is definitely a subjective thing and I don't know how it is the wrong feeling? [2] Aren't sound subjective in the first place?

1. Another typical misguided audiophile statement! We often have feelings and experience things that are not logical, rational or accurate/correct, which is why we have schools with mandatory teaching of maths, history and science. If we didn't, we'd still be living in the dark ages and there wouldn't be any recording/reproduction technology in the first place! You have "the wrong feeling" because you are ignoring school level math, history and science.
2. Didn't you learn at school that sound is simply pressure waves moving through air, that we measure it with Decibels and that measurements are objective?

The above is why we can't convince some people, their personal (flawed) perception trumps even basic schooling and without even basic schooling, scientific facts have no meaning and carry no more weigh than any other biased opinion on the internet.

G

 

[Lumithium]

1. Another typical misguided audiophile statement! We often have feelings and experience things that are not logical, rational or accurate/correct, which is why we have schools with mandatory teaching of maths, history and science. If we didn't, we'd still be living in the dark ages and there wouldn't be any recording/reproduction technology in the first place! You have "the wrong feeling" because you are ignoring school level math, history and science.
2. Didn't you learn at school that sound is simply pressure waves moving through air, that we measure it with Decibels and that measurements are objective?

Regarding the sound, decibels and measurements are objective, but they aren't everything. Just like an Orchestra aren't just about playing the right notes. A performer may purposely raise a tone to create extra tension, scientifically, they are playing the wrong note. But realistically, that tone may not ruin the performance, and in fact it can make the overall performance even more enjoyable. Is the performer right or wrong? If you follow all history and science, this performer would've been fired. But you are missing the bigger picture.

I understand what the other person mean when they said I can have a bias because I was looking at the cables. To which I replied I understood and point taken after bit of conversation. As for your comment, I don't understand what you are trying to say, other than trying to insult my intelligence.

Our science understanding isn't set and stone. It improvises as our technology advances. Right now the our understanding suggests it (cable) doesn't and shouldn't make a difference. A lot of people also thinks it does not make a difference. But who knows in the future if that is going to change as our understanding of hearing improves and our method of testing advances? And for the record, the thread title, "How do I convince people audio cables DO NOT make a difference?" On itself is based on our current understanding of sound, which as you said it isn't complete. The statement clearly implies that any future studies that suggest it may have effect on our way of perceiving sound is false. Which is clearly the opposite of science.

The above is why we can't convince some people, their personal (flawed) perception trumps even basic schooling and without even basic schooling, scientific facts have no meaning and carry no more weigh than any other biased opinion on the internet.

You are trying to imply that others biased opinions are wrong, while yours are right. The "scientific facts" that you, me, everyone else based on, can be false all along, like many other theories that have been proven wrong before.

If one day a study suggest cables do make a difference in hearing, what side will you be on? Won't that make your "fact" you have been believing all this time wrong? And if you choose to ignore this question, then it makes you more biased and more "anti science" than me. Because you would be straight up denying the science you loved.

If my methods are flawed, I am fine with people pointing the mistakes I made. Like what others did to point out my flaws back then when I was testing cables, sure thing. But your comment has absolutely nothing constructive to give.

 

[bfreedma]

Regarding the sound, decibels and measurements are objective, but they aren't everything. Just like an Orchestra aren't just about playing the right notes. A performer may purposely raise a tone to create extra tension, scientifically, they are playing the wrong note. But realistically, that tone may not ruin the performance, and in fact it can make the overall performance even more enjoyable. Is the performer right or wrong? If you follow all history and science, this performer would've been fired. But you are missing the bigger picture.

I understand what the other person mean when they said I can have a bias because I was looking at the cables. To which I replied I understood and point taken after bit of conversation. As for your comment, I don't understand what you are trying to say, other than trying to insult my intelligence.

Our science understanding isn't set and stone. It improvises as our technology advances. Right now the our understanding suggests it (cable) doesn't and shouldn't make a difference. A lot of people also thinks it does not make a difference. But who knows in the future if that is going to change as our understanding of hearing improves and our method of testing advances? And for the record, the thread title, "How do I convince people audio cables DO NOT make a difference?" On itself is based on our current understanding of sound, which as you said it isn't complete. The statement clearly implies that any future studies that suggest it may have effect on our way of perceiving sound is false. Which is clearly the opposite of science.


You are trying to imply that others biased opinions are wrong, while yours are right. The "scientific facts" that you, me, everyone else based on, can be false all along, like many other theories that have been proven wrong before.

If one day a study suggest cables do make a difference in hearing, what side will you be on? Won't that make your "fact" you have been believing all this time wrong? And if you choose to ignore this question, then it makes you more biased and more "anti science" than me. Because you would be straight up denying the science you loved.

If my methods are flawed, I am fine with people pointing the mistakes I made. Like what others did to point out my flaws back then when I was testing cables, sure thing. But your comment has absolutely nothing constructive to give.

Version #10928 of the attempt to invalidate established science with unsupported FUD. Yes, perhaps everything we know about the well studied field of audio reproduction is wrong. Perhaps tomorrow, pigs will fly.

I‘m not staying up nights waiting for either to happen.

BTW, foundational science doesn’t change every time someone drops an unsupported idea in the bowl. If you want to play that card, at least have a rational theory that is in some way supportable. Repeatedly posting “you can’t prove what we currently know will never change” is as anti science as it gets.

 

[bigshot]

Sound is frequency and amplitude over time. We can measure all those things. Scientists and engineers understood sound reproduction well enough to design digital audio to be audibly transparent. It seems to me that they wouldn’t be able to do that without an understanding of how sound works. They certainly didn’t guess.

We may not know everything about black holes, but sound reproduction has been studied and perfected for over a century. It’s not like we’re flying blind there.

Than you for inviting me to point out the flaw in your thinking. Happy to oblige. You’ve gotten to the point where you’re making stuff up and throwing out wild guesses to prop up your bias. If that isn’t obvious to you, it sure is to us.

 

[Lumithium]

Version #10928 of the attempt to invalidate established science with unsupported FUD. Yes, perhaps everything we know about the well studied field of audio reproduction is wrong. Perhaps tomorrow, pigs will fly.

I‘m not staying up nights waiting for either to happen.

BTW, foundational science doesn’t change every time someone drops an unsupported idea in the bowl. If you want to play that card, at least have a rational theory that is in some way supportable. Repeatedly posting “you can’t prove what we currently know will never change” is as anti science as it gets.

The foundational science you mentioned won't change. How electrons and other stuff work on the cables are well understood. That's not the point I was trying to convey.

The whole point of the reply is because his post that has no intention to add constructive feedback and just instead mocking the question just for the sake of it, and didn't even bother to continue read on, at which I did take back my original comment and taken the criticism that my original comparison is not as fair as it can be, so it's scientifically flawed. Had he read the rest of the thread, there will be no need for such comment to exist to begin with. The whole rest of the post is just a rant.

I could stretch and list examples of how these happened before, but I understand your point.

 

[bigshot]

There’s virtue in concise and to the point communication. No one is required to read the whole internet to get a point. If someone has a point to make, they should state it clearly and succinctly right up front. If they make it hard on the reader, they should expect that the reader won’t get read past a few sentences or a paragraph at most.

That said, making an oblique or indirect post is a lot better than using that as an excuse for creating an even more pointless and non communicative reply.

 

[Lumithium]

My apologies, was not my intention to start any theories with my comment. I just felt it is unfair to me that I get categorized as someone who can't listen when that is not the case.

 

[bigshot]

You might not understand how many people we get in this group who defend the most ridiculous positions to the death. It wears our patience thin at times. You'd think that a science based group would be calm and rational, but in our current culture, the word science is a lightning rod for stupid people.

 

[Whazzzup]

Sooo 177 pages 2650 posts I guess the answer is you can’t. But it was fun trying?

 

[bfreedma]

Sooo 177 pages 2650 posts I guess the answer is you can’t. But it was fun trying?

This thread does demonstrate a level of willful ignorance that‘s fully committed to resisting facts and logic. Seems to be a bizarre matter of pride to some.

 

[Whazzzup]

This thread does demonstrate a level of willful ignorance that‘s fully committed to resisting facts and logic. Seems to be a bizarre matter of pride to some.

Well who wears the willful ignorance is in the eye of the beholder, but you had fun? Right?