How do I convince people that audio cables DO NOT make a difference
Jul 28, 2019 at 10:23 AM Post #1,397 of 2,695

gregorio

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
4,139
Likes
2,278
[1] Never confuse me for an audiophile.
[2] Manipulation is manipulation, through either system!

1. If you're going to make typical audiophile fallacious assertions and ignore the actual facts, how can I do anything other than confuse you for an audiophile?

2. The vast majority of commercial music recordings can only exist due to manipulation. Again, with the vast majority of commercial music an actual performance of a song/track never exists, the song only exists through the manipulation of all the individually recorded instruments. So what are you saying, that you don't want any manipulation and therefore no music from around the late 1950's onwards?

G
 
Jul 28, 2019 at 5:45 PM Post #1,399 of 2,695

TheSonicTruth

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Posts
1,018
Likes
126
1. If you're going to make typical audiophile fallacious assertions and ignore the actual facts, how can I do anything other than confuse you for an audiophile?

2. The vast majority of commercial music recordings can only exist due to manipulation. Again, with the vast majority of commercial music an actual performance of a song/track never exists, the song only exists through the manipulation of all the individually recorded instruments. So what are you saying, that you don't want any manipulation and therefore no music from around the late 1950's onwards?

G

Audiophile = love of the sound of something

MELOphile = admiration of the music itself

So don't try to make a flat or sharp singer into something he or she ain't! (Unless you work for Fox)
 
Jul 28, 2019 at 8:19 PM Post #1,400 of 2,695

castleofargh

Sound Science Forum Moderator
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Posts
9,515
Likes
4,914
Audiophile = love of the sound of something

MELOphile = admiration of the music itself

So don't try to make a flat or sharp singer into something he or she ain't! (Unless you work for Fox)
they're artists, why shouldn't they create what they want, anyway they want it, using any tool they want? we're having the same conversation again and again. you'd rather keep a given art form stagnant because you like how it was at a certain point and don't like how it is evolving. a guy like you was actively complaining every time a new instrument, musical genre, or production process came to be. and of course like everyone of those guys, you believe your circumstances are different and that you're really doing it for the sake of music. and like them, you're wrong. because every single one of those new tools, new techniques, new styles, brought the potential for more diversity in music. this post processing tool is the same, it offers many new options and doesn't remove anything. an artist doesn't like that tool, he just won't use it, the end. only guys like you, wish to remove possibilities because you don't like them.
there are many albums I'm reluctant to describe as music, and even more stuff that I simply don't like, but I'll always be on the side of artistic freedom. even if the result is more of the stuff I hate!




I'm a tiny bit passionate about artistic freedom in general, sorry to everybody for probably adding fuel to this strange off topic.
 
Jul 29, 2019 at 5:44 AM Post #1,401 of 2,695

gregorio

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
4,139
Likes
2,278
So don't try to make a flat or sharp singer into something he or she ain't!

That statement makes absolutely no sense, unless you have an idealised and completely incorrect understanding of what all the popular music genres are and how they're created. Have you ever heard what an electric guitar actually sounds like? Each note is just a short, quiet twang, it only sounds anything even vaguely like an electric guitar by manipulating it into "something it ain't" (with massive amounts of added distortion). What about a drumkit, ever heard what one of those actually sounds like? Again, it's manipulated to sound very significantly different on a recording (or at a live gig) from what it really sounds like. Synthesizers are of course by definition pure manipulation. And backing instruments/vocals and lead vocals have been edited, layered and otherwise significantly manipulated going back as far as the late 1950's (Phil Spectre's "wall of sound" for example). So that's the drums, guitars, synths, backing instruments and vocals all manipulated "into something they ain't", what's left?? ... Nothing's left, that's everything, every instrument in the entire band! Without this manipulation "into something it ain't" what you'd be left with would sound absolutely nothing like a rock band or any other derivative or related genre! In other words, your cry of "don't try to make it into something it ain't" is utter nonsense, the vast majority of music only exists BECAUSE it's been made "into something it ain't", this is what defines and differentiates all these music genres from purely acoustic music genres!

Also (and again), did you even watch the posted video before your rant? Did you not notice that all sung notes are sharp, flat or usually both, as they invariably drift during the evolution of the note? Given that all popular music genres are defined and predicated on making every sound/instrument "into something it ain't", why shouldn't we do the same with the lead vocal if it improves artistic intent?

Lastly (and also again!), if you repeatedly make typical misguided/misinformed audiophile assertions then you leave us with no logical alternative but to view you as a typical misguided/misinformed audiophile. If, as you state, you don't want to be viewed this way, the solution is entirely in your hands, IE. Don't make typical misinformed audiophile assertions in the first place and certainly don't just keep repeating them!

I'm a tiny bit passionate about artistic freedom in general, sorry to everybody for probably adding fuel to this strange off topic.

It's not entirely off topic, the whole point of artistic intention is to manipulate/affect perception and the reported differences between audio cables are wholly due to differently affected perceptions. The only difference is that with artistic intention perception is affected with audible differences, while cables solely depend on other differences, which aren't audible. Admittedly then, it's only very tenuously on topic! :)

G
 
Last edited:
Aug 2, 2019 at 10:46 PM Post #1,402 of 2,695

Maxx134

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Posts
5,248
Likes
2,972
Location
NYC
Who cares about sound humans can't hear? It won't make Bon Jovi sound any better. Just apply a low pass filter at 20kHz and forget it.

Hate to burst your bubble, but tests say different:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10848570/

Capture+_2019-08-02-22-44-47.png
:)
More at bottom of that page:
Capture+_2019-08-02-22-44-31.png
:)
This could be the key and one aspect overlooked in this thread...
 
Last edited:
Aug 2, 2019 at 10:59 PM Post #1,404 of 2,695

oldmate

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Posts
1,264
Likes
438
Location
Australia
The truth will set you free my friends!

Not to mention saving you a fist full of dollars.

I had to laugh hard the other day when reading a certain members posts about how his hearing is not up to par because of his age but in another post can tell the difference between a 6 and 8 wire cable. After 50 hours of burn in of course!!

Don't bother with these types. They are a lost cause and usually never post in the music thread which is what this is all about.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2, 2019 at 11:01 PM Post #1,405 of 2,695

Davesrose

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Posts
4,829
Likes
163
Hate to burst your bubble, but tests say different:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10848570/


:)
More at bottom of that page:

:)

Oh god, not this hyperbole. I have seen an even more recent Japanese study about brain activity with high frequencies, but all of this is meaningless. The Japanese study had a small sample, and there was a various range that had activities in the thalamus, but no activities in the cortex. The neurologist of the study has been very cautious to say there *might* be some kind of actual perception. Of those he found that did have activity, it was only noticed with EKG and they themselves didn't feel any reactions.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2, 2019 at 11:16 PM Post #1,406 of 2,695

Maxx134

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Posts
5,248
Likes
2,972
Location
NYC
Oh god, not this hyperbole

Look who is not being open to facts?
Tell the researchers who done all the work, in numerous publications, that it's just Hyperbole... to you!

For lazy readers:
Quote:
"Psychological evaluation indicated that the subjects felt the sound containing an HFC to be more pleasant than the same sound lacking an HFC. These results suggest the existence of a previously unrecognized response to complex sound containing particular types of high frequencies above the audible range. We term this phenomenon the "hypersonic effect."

I would also speculate that this could be a reason why some prefer DSD files..
 
Last edited:
Aug 2, 2019 at 11:30 PM Post #1,407 of 2,695

Maxx134

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Posts
5,248
Likes
2,972
Location
NYC
I see nothing in the titles of those articles that imply that cables will make a difference. Of course I didn't read them...
Apologies to all here.
As I am actually just trying to find and suggest any possible reason as to why this thread topic exists.

We should focus on anything overlooked and why we have this situations like mine, where I have heard super expensive headphone wire that was not any better than cheaper wire, but still, I have heard wire that I preferred over others..
 
Last edited:
Aug 2, 2019 at 11:36 PM Post #1,408 of 2,695

oldmate

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Posts
1,264
Likes
438
Location
Australia
Psychological evaluation indicated that the subjects felt the sound containing an HFC to be more pleasant than the same sound lacking an HFC. These results suggest the existence of a previously unrecognized response to complex sound containing particular types of high frequencies above the audible range. We term this phenomenon the "hypersonic effect.

You conveniently left out as you lot always do that this was a controversial scientific study and that numerous other studies have contradicted the portion of the results relating to the subjective reaction to high-frequency audio, finding that people who have "good ears" listening to SACD and high resolution DVD Audio recordings on high fidelity systems capable of reproducing sounds up to 30 kHz cannot tell the difference between high resolution audio and the normal CD sampling rate of 44.1 kHz.
 
Aug 2, 2019 at 11:44 PM Post #1,409 of 2,695

Davesrose

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Posts
4,829
Likes
163
Look who is not being open to facts?
Tell the researchers who done all the work, in numerous publications, that it's just Hyperbole... to you!

For lazy readers:
Quote:
"Psychological evaluation indicated that the subjects felt the sound containing an HFC to be more pleasant than the same sound lacking an HFC. These results suggest the existence of a previously unrecognized response to complex sound containing particular types of high frequencies above the audible range. We term this phenomenon the "hypersonic effect."

I would also speculate that this could be a reason why some prefer DSD files..

Could you be up to date? The study you're trying to quote now is already discredited. What you've been inferring is ultra-high frequencies....even past 20KHZ can be "euphoric". I have a medical background: I have yet to see any studies that say people can perceptualyl "feel" beyond their hearing capability.

I did invest in SACD when it came out, and I've always liked it for classical. It's more that it has a low noise floor, is replicating studio masters, and with DSD recordings I could hear more soundstage. I haven't formally tested my hearing, but listening to sound tones on my laptop, I've heard 17khz (and I'm in my early 40s). Given my age, I doubt I'm in the outlier group of being able to *actually* hear above 20khz. But even then, it's only during the best situations that you can hear highest FR. And no matter what study, there has been no cohesive one that has offered definitive proof of perceptual ultra-high FR.
 
Aug 2, 2019 at 11:48 PM Post #1,410 of 2,695

Maxx134

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Posts
5,248
Likes
2,972
Location
NYC
You conveniently left out as you lot always do that this was a controversial scientific study and that numerous other studies have contradicted the portion of the results relating to the subjective reaction to high-frequency audio, finding that people who have "good ears" listening to SACD and high resolution DVD Audio recordings on high fidelity systems capable of reproducing sounds up to 30 kHz cannot tell the difference between high resolution audio and the normal CD sampling rate of 44.1 kHz.
Ok, I will accept your opinion and also appreciate that you made me aware of what I didn't fully look into.
So if you can linked one at your leisure it would help because the problems that can happens if the tests you mentioned had zero high frequency content?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top