[Riboge]

I'm posting too much in this thread, so one last thought: It occurs to me that those that take the 'scientific' approach see themselves as doing something analogous to saying the emperor has no clothes on when they assert no audible differences to those who hear differences. Here's why that analogy fails. In the fable it's not that the people don't see a naked emperor all along, it's that they are too afraid to admit it and have grown accustomed to acting as if it weren't so. Here the people or many of them anyway hear differences all along, before and after supposedly the truth is asserted. It's more like telling people who persist in seeing a clothed emperor that the clothes really aren't there. This has led to some pretty forced and unlikely claims such as that thousands of people simultaneously and separately are imagining things, the same things. Or that multitudes are so consumed with pride having spent money on cables they can't/won't admit they are deluded. A claim of enduring mass hysteria is the foundation of what is claimed to be a hard-nosed, scientific and practical-minded approach to cables. Talk about improbable!

Face it. The challenge is to explain how it is that people really hear differences when so little shows up on our current means of measuring. Quit ducking it.

 

[UseName]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif You'd best use Markl's descriptions as specimens. I am a neophyte at expressing what I hear in a way that gets across to others in a sufficiently specific way. It is a challenging skill to develop. I fall more in the category of those who have taken some of his recommendations and are glad for it. To put it another way, when I listen to ones he's described I can identify a fair bit of what he says about them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm posting too much in this thread, so one last thought: It occurs to me that those that take the 'scientific' approach see themselves as doing something analogous to saying the emperor has no clothes on when they assert no audible differences to those who hear differences. Here's why that analogy fails. In the fable it's not that the people don't see a naked emperor all along, it's that they are too afraid to admit it and have grown accustomed to acting as if it weren't so. Here the people or many of them anyway hear differences all along, before and after supposedly the truth is asserted. It's more like telling people who persist in seeing a clothed emperor that the clothes really aren't there. This has led to some pretty forced and unlikely claims such as that thousands of people simultaneously and separately are imagining things, the same things. Or that multitudes are so consumed with pride having spent money on cables they can't/won't admit they are deluded. A claim of enduring mass hysteria is the foundation of what is claimed to be a hard-nosed, scientific and practical-minded approach to cables. Talk about improbable! Face it. The challenge is to explain how it is that people really hear differences when so little shows up on our current means of measuring. Quit ducking it.

You admit to hearing the same thing AFTER reading what markl described. If people were really hearing the same differences, they would describe those differences independant of what some 'more experienced' listener said. The challenge of explaining how it is people hear a difference is quite obvious to me... they want to hear a difference. Pretty clear cut IMO.

 

[JohnFerrier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif You'd best use Markl's descriptions as specimens. I am a neophyte at expressing what I hear in a way that gets across to others in a sufficiently specific way. It is a challenging skill to develop. I fall more in the category of those who have taken some of his recommendations and are glad for it. To put it another way, when I listen to ones he's described I can identify a fair bit of what he says about them.

You can't describe one way that cables make an audible difference for you?


.

 

[SamNOISE]

Andrew D.
Canadian Audio Video

 

[mencargo]

A friend of mine brought some new speakers, and plugged them with normal twisted cables, he felt they lack a lot of bass and midrange detail.
After some research he made a cable from UTP LAN CAT 6 cable, twisting 3 of them to make one cable.
Turned to be much better than his dad's expensive audiophile cables.
=D

 

[Riboge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by UseName /img/forum/go_quote.gif You admit to hearing the same thing AFTER reading what markl described. If people were really hearing the same differences, they would describe those differences independant of what some 'more experienced' listener said. The challenge of explaining how it is people hear a difference is quite obvious to me... they want to hear a difference. Pretty clear cut IMO.

That's not what I said, of course. I said he could articulate the difference we both can hear. I hear differences on my own all the time.

 

[Riboge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnFerrier /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can't describe one way that cables make an audible difference for you? .

I didn't say that and you damn well know it! Nasty!

 

[Riboge]

Just for the record lest you empty debunkers try to make more of my not saying what I hear: I have heard cables make a difference in:
timbre of an instrument
dynamics
clarity
apparent separation of instruments
prominence of a frequency range (no idea if this involves different freq.response)
location of sounds on a sharpness to smoothness continuum

But I will not discuss these further or post again in this thread.

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif That all makes perfect sense except for one thing that keeps being ignored (bizarrely in my estimation since it's what it is all finally about): people hear and enjoy the differences! They are not anticipating the unlikely or grasping at minutia. They hear it now, they hear it often, those with practice and skill can even carefully study and describe the differences, others take their recommendations and quite often are glad they did. It seems to me if there were something doable in a home construction that was analogous to this, you'd be foolish to ignore it.

To ignored and to enjoy what? You will keep in ignoring them, till them becomes noticeable, you are misunderstanding me, I'm not talking of differences that could not be heard, I'm talking of the ones that even while are there cannot be heard, as they are beyond of the human threshold...like those 0.009db. They are ignored by default, as they cannot be taken into consideration, they are practically not there...unless you want to have redundant information into the equations...

Another example, we use "pi", the greek number for a number of mathematical and scientific calculations, thousands, but I will ask you, how many digits you use after the decimal point, most of the times 3 or 4 are enough, may I ask you why not using 100 decimal degits? PI is an infinite decimal number...Simply it is not practical, and it will not give you more accuracy at all, given certain level...

 

[JohnFerrier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif I didn't say that and you damn well know it! Nasty!

It was a question, not a statement, based on your post. You didn't indicate that you had previously posted impressions and didn't post an impression. You referred me to markl's posts. I don't know it. That is why I asked.


.

 

[brainsalad]

around and around we go. I'm getting dizzy.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just for the record lest you empty debunkers try to make more of my not saying what I hear: I have heard cables make a difference in:

timbre of an instrument (Harmonics/Frequency Response Balance)

dynamics (Dynamic Range)

clarity / apparent separation of instruments (Distortion/Signal to Noise)

prominence of a frequency range / location of sounds on a sharpness to smoothness continuum (Frequency Response)

Every one of those aspects of sound is measurable.

See ya
Steve

 

[miscreant]

why not just use a little muscular power and pull the copper wires out of your wall and solder directly to your dac or amp... so absolutely no detail will be lost and the veil would be totally gone... forewer!

 

[SamNOISE]

Ohhh, 15-pages and we’ve got where on this subject? Lets see, 15 pages, perhaps an hour worth of typing per page (lotsa’ two-finger hunt & peckers out there), and not one single person has attempted to post their replicated work? Again, let me know and I’ll offer to host you lossless .wav files on my server. Simply share with us the equipment you’ve used so others can attempt to line up similar kit while replicating the experiment (the thousands of you who bought Benchmark DACs can step up any time now…).

Andrew D.
Canadian Audio Video

(or would you rather argue a bit more?)

 

[Jolida302]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif Face it. The challenge is to explain how it is that people really hear differences when so little shows up on our current means of measuring. Quit ducking it.

It's because measuring criterias don't reflect the differences in musicality.
On the paper, solid state amps have lower distorsion rates than tube ones.
But actually good tube amps go much much further (at least in the mid/highs) on all subjective criterias...you can explain that by another theory: the pair and unpair harmonic's issue. So there's a big difference between theory and the reality of sensorial experience. I don't care about the smoky theories of narrow minded pseudo-scientists and jealous...cables of all sorts make a big difference (some downgrade and other upgrade, -just like power filters and vib' control devices and furnitures-, but i'm only interested in the good ones). Only the result and the music counts.