[SmellyGas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Starting flame wars is one of the fundamental goals of probably 25% of the people who actively participate on the Sound Science Forum. (At least another 25% have a deep seated need to demonstrate their brilliance.) It's ok. Some people have a tough time at work, or a tough time at home, some people have "issues," etc., so it's sort of therapy for them to come on the Sound Science forum and act out. You just have to let them do their thing. Eventually, they get bored, or maybe they feel better, and then they go away.

If you're planning to start a flame war, or you need "therapy" and you need to "act out" on this forum, then please do it elsewhere. I just don't understand why there are people who feel the need to make 100% ad hominem attacks yet make absolutely zero contribution to the discussion.

This is the sound science forum. Let's stick to SCIENCE. Once again,

The sound quality must be best at the LINE OUT on the amplifier. It doesn't make any sense that the sound would IMPROVE as it travels down a wire. And if you don't agree, ask yourself what would sound better: a 1 kilometer length or a 1 meter length of the same cable.

This begs the question, what length of cheapo Radio Shack interconnect is comparable in sound quality to what length of XYZ super-expensive interconnect. Certainly 1 meter of Radio Shack interconnect will sound better than 1 kilometer of XYZ expensive stuff.

 

[BIG POPPA]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speederlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, I have a question of my own. Can someone link or post a study or direct measurements correlating measured values for cables, and especially power cords, with audible characteristic changes (again, with audible being measured and not someone's subjective opinion)? I for one would simply like to know if the difference between a $50 cable and a $1000 cable even crosses the line into the audible range at all. There must be direct published numbers on this, yes?

This may be a paradox? A 50 dollar cable will probably have no measurements? Just the sum of parts? A 1000 dollar will not give enough measurements. Don't want to let the secret sauce out to the bag like the Virtual Dynamics meltdown. These guys do CES and other trade shows and demonstrations to show of their gear. This is where you would get the most info.

 

[Speederlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIG POPPA /img/forum/go_quote.gif This may be a paradox? A 50 dollar cable will probably have no measurements? Just the sum of parts? A 1000 dollar will not give enough measurements. Don't want to let the secret sauce out to the bag like the Virtual Dynamics meltdown. These guys do CES and other trade shows and demonstrations to show of their gear. This is where you would get the most info.

No, I just want to see the measurable impact on the audible signal going from cable A to cable B. Take a system with cable A, measure the output, then with the same system, only changing the cable from A to B, repeat those measurements. That would have to do not with "secret sauce" but rather simply proving the claims and putting meat behind all the subjective observations of power cords and audio cables impacting "soundstage" and every other thing. Assuming decent equipment, you can measure changes in sound better than the human ear can hear. It seems like such a simple thing to settle for those with access to the equipment.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speederlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif Assuming decent equipment, you can measure changes in sound better than the human ear can hear. It seems like such a simple thing to settle for those with access to the equipment.

Isn't that based on the assumption that the human ear/brain can only hear what is capable of being measured by the equipment? And isn't that the issue (or at least one of them)?

 

[SmellyGas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Isn't that based on the assumption that the human ear/brain can only hear what is capable of being measured by the equipment? And isn't that the issue (or at least one of them)?

On the other hand, if two cables have negligible differences in frequency response, phase, and distortion, then what property (measurable or unmeasurable) could possibly explain the BIG differences in sound quality that people report?

P.S. This question is for everybody, since PhilS has claimed that I am on his "ignore list" and I hope this to be true.

 

[Speederlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Isn't that based on the assumption that the human ear/brain can only hear what is capable of being measured by the equipment? And isn't that the issue (or at least one of them)?

If you have an audio signal, any changes to that signal can be measured quantitatively. I'm not talking about saying what the changes, if they were audible, actually end up sounding like. I'm talking are they even in the audible range at all. If the changes are audible, they can be measured. Power cord A, measure. Power cord B, measure. Change nothing else. Now audio cable A, measure, audio cable B, measure. Same system, same source. Account for the variables.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speederlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif If the changes are audible, they can be measured.

What measurements and/or type of equipment are you referencing?

 

[883dave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmellyGas /img/forum/go_quote.gif Absolutely not. And if your intent is to start one, then please leave NOW. If you're not interested in the topic or this discussion, then please leave NOW. Thanks.

From where I sit, your first post and your rebutal post sure look like trolling, if not sorry. Oh and with this type of bait post you have qualified for the ignore list

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speederlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, I just want to see the measurable impact on the audible signal going from cable A to cable B. Take a system with cable A, measure the output, then with the same system, only changing the cable from A to B, repeat those measurements. That would have to do not with "secret sauce" but rather simply proving the claims and putting meat behind all the subjective observations of power cords and audio cables impacting "soundstage" and every other thing. Assuming decent equipment, you can measure changes in sound better than the human ear can hear. It seems like such a simple thing to settle for those with access to the equipment.

There aren't any measurements showing differences. In more than 30 years of controversy, this has never been shown.

The next phase of the argument is usually that the test gear is flawed as well as the methodology. I think PhilS. is getting ready to attack any piece of test gear you mention.

What I find curious about this line of argument is that the same level of scrutiny is never applied to the human as test gear. Sure, oscilloscopes go out of calibration. But that's nothing compared to placebo, suggestion or thinking the marketing rep is a great guy. A 'scope doesn't get bowled over by how heavy a cable is or the pretty logo on the side.

Until the believers apply the same scrutiny to themselves that they apply to scientific test methods, their claims should not be taken seriously.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think PhilS. is getting ready to attack any piece of test gear you mention.

No, not at all. I was asking in order to understand better the basis for his position. I'm interested in having a discussion, and learning, notwithstanding that I have some opinions already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif Until the believers apply the same scrutiny to themselves that they apply to scientific test methods, their claims should not be taken seriously.

I think a lot of believers do apply the same level of scrutiny, but then again, I can only speak for myself. I do believe that measurements have something to tell us, as do DBT's, as do our ears. And I think there are legitimate questions to ask about each. OTOH, there's quite a few objectivists on this forum who think our ears have nothing to tell us at all.

 

[SmellyGas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 883dave /img/forum/go_quote.gif From where I sit, your first post and your rebutal post sure look like trolling, if not sorry. Oh and with this type of bait post you have qualified for the ignore list

If anyone else is clearly uninterested in a civil discussion and simply wishes to make these types of personal and judgemental attacks, then please add me to your ignore list as well. Thanks.

 

[m3guy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmellyGas /img/forum/go_quote.gif Say you have a 1 meter of your favorite high-end cable hooked up to your system. 1) How would it sound if you cut it perfectly and made it a 0.5 meter cable? Better? How much better? Same? 2) How would it sound if you cut it perfectly and made it a 0.02 meter (2cm cable)? Better? than the 1 meter? Better than the 0.5 meter? How much better? Same? 3) How would it it sound if you just soldered one end of the cable to the other with copious amounts of silver solder, effectively eliminating the cable? How would everything sound now? Better? Same? Thanks! I'm curious what people think.

The cable you are questioning is the interconnect, speaker cable, or power cable?

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think a lot of believers do apply the same level of scrutiny, but then again, I can only speak for myself. I do believe that measurements have something to tell us, as do DBT's, as do our ears. And I think there are legitimate questions to ask about each. OTOH, there's quite a few objectivists on this forum who think our ears have nothing to tell us at all.

I believe you are just using hyperbole here to draw a greater rhetorical contrast between your camp (aka "believers") and objectivists.

From my reading on these forums, I have seen no one asserting that our ears have nothing to tell us at all. The debate is on other grounds.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjisme /img/forum/go_quote.gif I believe you are just using hyperbole here to draw a greater rhetorical contrast between your camp (aka "believers") and objectivists. From my reading on these forums, I have seen no one asserting that our ears have nothing to tell us at all. The debate is on other grounds.

I recall seeing several posts from objectivists over the past few months, to the effect that, even when they hear a difference between two components, if the measurements don't indicate there should be an audible difference, then they will not accept that there is an audible difference. In a sense, they entirely discount what their ears are telling them, and they consider the measurements conclusive on the issue.

Anyway, that's what I think I've heard, but I didn't intend to mischaracterize anybody's position. My main point was that I don't believe it is fair to suggest that believers ignore certain evidence, while objectivists are entirely free from bias or prejudice in that regard.

 

[DanielCox]

I don't understand where you're getting that from. A sine wave only has a few properties that describe it - all of which are measurable on an oscilloscope to a far, far higher accuracy than anything attached to our bodies.