[Glmoneydawg]

Btw aluminum wire is not up to code here in Canada ....also makes for truly crappy motor windings...you might want to talk to your village elders about this

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Btw aluminum wire is not up to code here in Canada ....also
makes for truly crappy motor windings...you might want to
talk to your village elders about this

But aluminum wire produces such sparkly trebles!

 

[asymcon]

Sorry I haven't read all 93 pages, but I disagree with the thread topic.
Yes, they make a huge difference.
Cheap PVC insulated stock AKG cable falls apart in a few years of indoor usage, but a PE+Neoprene composite as well as silicone holds up for years and years even in challenging conditions. Silicone also makes high diameter power cables (4 AWG) much easier to handle and can withstand over 200°C. So can't see what is the argument here?

Van Damme PE+Neo cable still holds up after 8 years as a mic cable, while just a week ago AKG stock insulation disintegrated into pieces, like aluminium being attacked by Ga.

 

[bigshot]

He meant that cables don't make a difference to the sound. Certainly build quality will make a cable last longer. There the question is how many cheap cables do you have to buy to add up to the price of a fancy cable? Is it cheaper just to replace the cheap one one or two times? Also, in a static home stereo situation, connectors are not likely to get worn out. It might make more of a difference in a portable rig. It's all a trade off of cost vs durability.

 

[asymcon]

I sort of assumed that, but decided to go on with the charade anyway
Actually good cables doesn't have to be expensive. Such as VD single pair for €1.3/metre.
It's better to stick to "buy once, cry once" idea for cables (in instances where higher price actually mean quality), as recabling a mouse lead is no fun, just like some types of HP.

 

[L8MDL]

Why do you feel the need to convince others? Some deep seated insecurity, no doubt...

 

[bigshot]

Why do you feel the need to convince others? Some deep seated insecurity, no doubt...

You can only convince someone who bases their opinions on facts. People who want to believe whatever they want to believe won't listen.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Why do you feel the need to convince others? Some deep seated insecurity, no doubt...

to try and squash silly myths that cause uninformed individuals to waste money? To put snake-oil salesmen out of business?

there's a lot of product being sold thanks to over-blown proclamations on forums like this one from people who think they hear all sorts of amazing benefits from stuff like boutique cables and expensive dacs and the magical benefits of burn-in. There's nothing wrong with trying to get down to some truth and reality.

EDIT - and as far as insecurities go, I'd say it's the folks who have a deep-seated need to believe in the myths that have the insecurities. They can't seem to take having their convictions challenged. They seem to feel that if cables and uber-hi rez sources and all that don't actually make a difference in any meaningful way, the hobby will be ruined for them. But the reality is it's actually just the opposite. The truth will set you free my friends!

 

[Steve999]

to try and squash silly myths that cause uninformed individuals to waste money? To put snake-oil salesmen out of business?

there's a lot of product being sold thanks to over-blown proclamations on forums like this one from people who think they hear all sorts of amazing benefits from stuff like boutique cables and expensive dacs and the magical benefits of burn-in. There's nothing wrong with trying to get down to some truth and reality.

I would add that for a person like me who has always enjoyed recorded music and electronics it is an engaging subject standing on its own merits. It is fertile ground for me to learn interesting things, and an area that I can apply practically in my own home. I also have the opportunity to further understand how the product of recorded music moved from performance of the musicians to recording to mastering to arriving in my home. There are also aspects of consumerism and history that tie into this area too.

The arguments we see going around in circles here are decades old. If people just come in here and influence the subject matter with incorrect information the accuracy and value of the content would plummet.

Sound Science is in a particularly unique position because addressing these issues head-on is often highly discouraged in the rest of head-fi. That dynamic adds some extra friction and challenges for this sub-forum.

 

[gregorio]

I also have the opportunity to further understand how the product of recorded music moved from performance of the musicians to recording to mastering to arriving in my home.

I see this as a particular problem. Audiophiles typically have such an oversimplified and idealised notion of this process that it bares almost no relation to what actually happens and then they base all kinds of other conclusions/assumptions/assertions on those incorrect notions. For example, in the editing phase we have almost unlimited control over every aspect of the recorded performance. Have a look at this for example:

And have a look at the videos on this page to get a fuller understanding of the range of manipulations available: https://www.celemony.com/en/melodyne/what-can-melodyne-do

How often is Melodyne or some similar tool used? Pretty much ubiquitously! (although not commonly on acoustic classical recordings and some jazz).

G

 

[bigshot]

When I was editing M&E, I would do all kinds of edits and no one would ever know that they were edits. Particularly in sound effects where I would create rhythmic combinations of multiple effects that would weave around the musical beats.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

I see this as a particular problem. Audiophiles typically have such an oversimplified and idealised notion of this process that it bares almost no relation to what actually happens and then they base all kinds of other conclusions/assumptions/assertions on those incorrect notions. For example, in the editing phase we have almost unlimited control over every aspect of the recorded performance. Have a look at this for example:

And have a look at the videos on this page to get a fuller understanding of the range of manipulations available: https://www.celemony.com/en/melodyne/what-can-melodyne-do

How often is Melodyne or some similar tool used? Pretty much ubiquitously! (although not commonly on acoustic classical recordings and some jazz).

G

Deepfake manipulation. Leave the imperfections in!

 

[Davesrose]

Deepfake manipulation. Leave the imperfections in!

I've actually been involved with 3D animation, and there has been some recent deepfakes that are really impressive. Take a look at this video from VFX artists looking at the end scene of Rogue One (end of video). It's amazing how much more natural the deepfake is from the CGI rendering of the movie.



At least with VFX, there's still artistry....from what I can tell with music production, it's been "quantized" for quite a few years.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Deepfake manipulation.
[2] Leave the imperfections in!

1. "Deepfake" compared to what? Deepfake compared to a reality that never exists? There isn't a recorded performance, there's a lot of different individual recordings done at different times (and different places) which are edited, processed and mixed into "a performance". In other words, the "deepfake" is effectively the reality of a song/track, while the actual reality is just sequence of individual instrument and vocal recordings.

2. Which imperfections? The imperfections which match (or improve) artistic intentions or the imperfections which detract from them? Did you actually watch the posted and other videos? If you had, then you would have noticed that while we can eliminate imperfections, that's neither the limit of the tools available nor how they are typically used. The tools allow us to manipulate the imperfections, so we can completely correct all aspects of any imperfections, only correct some aspects of the imperfections (while leaving desired aspects of the imperfections unchanged), not change individual imperfections at all or even make the imperfections even more imperfect, entirely depending on artistic intentions!

Aren't you exhibiting exactly what I suggested: "Audiophiles typically have such an oversimplified and idealised notion of this process that it bares almost no relation to what actually happens and then they base all kinds of other conclusions/assumptions/assertions on those incorrect notions."? You're assuming that there is "a performance" of a song/track and also, that all the aspects of all imperfections are deliberate/intensional and artistically desirable. The latter is never the case, even with the world's greatest musicians, let alone with those whose "talent" is partially/largely/entirely their marketability rather than purely their musical ability!

G

 

[TheSonicTruth]

1. "Deepfake" compared to what? Deepfake compared to a reality that never exists? There isn't a recorded performance, there's a lot of different individual recordings done at different times (and different places) which are edited, processed and mixed into "a performance". In other words, the "deepfake" is effectively the reality of a song/track, while the actual reality is just sequence of individual instrument and vocal recordings.

2. Which imperfections? The imperfections which match (or improve) artistic intentions or the imperfections which detract from them? Did you actually watch the posted and other videos? If you had, then you would have noticed that while we can eliminate imperfections, that's neither the limit of the tools available nor how they are typically used. The tools allow us to manipulate the imperfections, so we can completely correct all aspects of any imperfections, only correct some aspects of the imperfections (while leaving desired aspects of the imperfections unchanged), not change individual imperfections at all or even make the imperfections even more imperfect, entirely depending on artistic intentions!

Aren't you exhibiting exactly what I suggested: "Audiophiles typically have such an oversimplified and idealised notion of this process that it bares almost no relation to what actually happens and then they base all kinds of other conclusions/assumptions/assertions on those incorrect notions."? You're assuming that there is "a performance" of a song/track and also, that all the aspects of all imperfections are deliberate/intensional and artistically desirable. The latter is never the case, even with the world's greatest musicians, let alone with those whose "talent" is partially/largely/entirely their marketability rather than purely their musical ability!

G

Never confuse me for an audiophile.

I always value content over what it is played through - be that a $30 CD boombox or a $3,000 living room rig.

Manipulation is manipulation, through either system!