[538681]

So --- audio listening preferences (music, equipment, basshead, treblehead, etc.) are personal...no right or wrong here! Whatever floats your boat, good on you.

TBH, the idea that someone would/should change their own preference to align with another's (i.e. Speakers vs IEMs, 'fidelity' to the artist's/engineer's intent vs 'infidelity' , etc.) simply because they haven't truly experienced the pinnacle of the 'best' acoustic delivery mode (argued earlier in the thread) is honestly insulting. 'Really...you just don't know any better...poor schlep' Ugh! That thinking is behind so much of what is wrong with the world today.

Anecdotally, regarding the market's preference for Speakers vs IEMs / Headphones, I really feel like there's been a major shift.

My kids (Millennials) don't even own a stereo system or a home theater but they do own earbuds, tws iems and headphones. Same goes for the majority of their friends. They listen to music from their phones, watch movies on their laptops, and when they do watch content on their TVs...they're happy with the speakers in the TV. I actually have a nice 5.1 HT system that I tried to give to my son a few years ago when I upgraded. He turned it down -- didn't see the need for it!

And their kids?...are using iems or gaming headphones on their Xbox or Nintendo Switch while they're playing Fortnite, Minecraft, etc.

Would be curious to hear what the next generations in your 'circle' are using to enjoy music and movies...

Ah, they are not my circle. I actually want very high quality sound! I'm a retired software engineer with plenty of money to spend on this hobby.

I have a completely unsubstantiated theory as to why I like IEMs more than any speaker system I heard. I also think its a reason why speaker people are generally older (although the highest market sales right now, in billions, are soundbar speakers).

Do you remember the first time you tasted hard liqueur (not sweet)? Godawful wasn't it? But then the pleasure that became associated with it! In short order, if so inclined, you become a connoisseur and the taste becomes sublime. If it was Rum, you like Rum, if Scotch then only that will do.

What was your first experience with music from a device (speaker, headphone, IEM)? Usually it was on some cheap piece of trash if you were young. Mine personally was monaural radio, then Koss headphones, 5.1 surround sound speakers for the TV, and finally Bose headphones 10 years ago. Each step was an improvement. 5 years ago I got my first Etymotic IEM. What a revelation! What pleasure! The psychological anchor was set.

Since then I thought I would get more satisfaction from a good speaker system (because lots of folks said so) and hunted for them in high end music stores to no avail. I listened for hours to my friends very expensive system. Sorry, I just want my IEM. I wanted speakers that would reproduce that pleasure, but failed. I proceeded to buy ever more expensive IEMs which separated me ever further from speaker systems, that for me, were decidedly inferior. I bought headphones which are nice when you get tired of having a plunger in your ear.

The point is, I think everyone is subject to this psychological anchoring bias. If your first significant pleasure was with a good speaker system you are now biased, for ever more, to those sound cues. You will never be satisfied with headphones or IEMs. It will always be perceived as a step down.

But one should not think there is any scientific validity to these biases in the physical world. They are only valid in the biggest DSP in the chain, your brain. I look forward to when we can have better measurements, not only for FR, noise, and distortion, but for detail, sound-stage, and imaging. At a certain point we will be able to look at a spec and truly choose what we prefer without having to try everything under the sun, which is difficult and often impractical.

 

[Ohman]

Regarding speaker cables I can't tell the difference between most unless there is a significant disparity in gauge. What I can tell however, is the difference between silver and copper. One must keep in mind that all speakers are designed with the assumption that copper cables will feed them, not silver and there is a large enough difference in resistance to be noticed. The stupidest purchase I ever made (in the audio realm) was Siltech silver cables to feed a pair of Linn Caber speakers. It made them sound like toy speakers: sibilance, screaming mids and feeble bass was the result. I switched for common hardware store lamp wire and everything was fine, back to normal.

Interconnects are somewhat different. There is a very noticeable difference between El Cheapo and mid-range ones, but not so much between insanely priced ones and mid-range ($40 to $100 for the pair). The expensive ones will usually have better connectors and thicker sleeve but that has no effect on how they convey sound as long as the gauge is the same.

Amplifiers I can tell between mellow ones and bright ones but couldn't pinpoint a specific brand/model in a blind test .Here again very cheap ones sound poorly but I probably wouldn't be able to distinguish a $600 receiver from a $3000 receiver unless they'd be a serious difference in power rating and then again this would only show when the units' volume set high up. In that case the probability that the cheaper amp would clip first is pretty high owing to the expensive one having anti-clipping circuitry that lowers the volume automatically when it reaches a point where speakers (presumed to be high-end) are likely to hit bottom.

 

[bfreedma]

Regarding speaker cables I can't tell the difference between most unless there is a significant disparity in gauge. What I can tell however, is the difference between silver and copper. One must keep in mind that all speakers are designed with the assumption that copper cables will feed them, not silver and there is a large enough difference in resistance to be noticed. The stupidest purchase I ever made (in the audio realm) was Siltech silver cables to feed a pair of Linn Caber speakers. It made them sound like toy speakers: sibilance, screaming mids and feeble bass was the result. I switched for common hardware store lamp wire and everything was fine, back to normal.

Interconnects are somewhat different. There is a very noticeable difference between El Cheapo and mid-range ones, but not so much between insanely priced ones and mid-range ($40 to $100 for the pair). The expensive ones will usually have better connectors and thicker sleeve but that has no effect on how they convey sound as long as the gauge is the same.

Amplifiers I can tell between mellow ones and bright ones but couldn't pinpoint a specific brand/model in a blind test .Here again very cheap ones sound poorly but I probably wouldn't be able to distinguish a $600 receiver from a $3000 receiver unless they'd be a serious difference in power rating and then again this would only show when the units' volume set high up. In that case the probability that the cheaper amp would clip first is pretty high owing to the expensive one having anti-clipping circuitry that lowers the volume automatically when it reaches a point where speakers (presumed to be high-end) are likely to hit bottom.

i assume since you didn’t mention any testing protocols that your statements are based on subjective sighted observation.

Bluntly, that won‘t change any minds here, nor should it.

 

[GearMe]

Ah, they are not my circle. I actually want very high quality sound! I'm a retired software engineer with plenty of money to spend on this hobby.

I have a completely unsubstantiated theory as to why I like IEMs more than any speaker system I heard. I also think its a reason why speaker people are generally older (although the highest market sales right now, in billions, are soundbar speakers).

Do you remember the first time you tasted hard liqueur (not sweet)? Godawful wasn't it? But then the pleasure that became associated with it! In short order, if so inclined, you become a connoisseur and the taste becomes sublime. If it was Rum, you like Rum, if Scotch then only that will do.

What was your first experience with music from a device (speaker, headphone, IEM)? Usually it was on some cheap piece of trash if you were young. Mine personally was monaural radio, then Koss headphones, 5.1 surround sound speakers for the TV, and finally Bose headphones 10 years ago. Each step was an improvement. 5 years ago I got my first Etymotic IEM. What a revelation! What pleasure! The psychological anchor was set.

Since then I thought I would get more satisfaction from a good speaker system (because lots of folks said so) and hunted for them in high end music stores to no avail. I listened for hours to my friends very expensive system. Sorry, I just want my IEM. I wanted speakers that would reproduce that pleasure, but failed. I proceeded to buy ever more expensive IEMs which separated me ever further from speaker systems, that for me, were decidedly inferior. I bought headphones which are nice when you get tired of having a plunger in your ear.

The point is, I think everyone is subject to this psychological anchoring bias. If your first significant pleasure was with a good speaker system you are now biased, for ever more, to those sound cues. You will never be satisfied with headphones or IEMs. It will always be perceived as a step down.

But one should not think there is any scientific validity to these biases in the physical world. They are only valid in the biggest DSP in the chain, your brain. I look forward to when we can have better measurements, not only for FR, noise, and distortion, but for detail, sound-stage, and imaging. At a certain point we will be able to look at a spec and truly choose what we prefer without having to try everything under the sun, which is difficult and often impractical.

Interesting...for me I started with a decent Sansui receiver and a set of EPI speakers, moved to JBL 100s with a Phase Linear 400 amp...was young, listened exclusively to Rock & Roll and looking for 'realistic' sound levels. As my music tastes grew, I moved to Dahlquist DQ 10s, Quad ESL, and Maggies with some dynamic driver detours along the way. What I found was I loved electrostatic and planar speakers for acoustic music but that my Rock/Blues/R&B experience suffered even though I had added a subwoofer.

As soon as I got a real job and a house, I expanded to having an Acoustic system and a Rock/Blues system in two different rooms. Eventually, I finished our basement and added a 5.1 HT setup. Acquiring/upgrading these systems was an interesting (and expensive!) journey.

When having kids forced me to buy some headphones (Senns, Stax), I learned a couple things. I enjoyed the flexibility of headphones (could listen at 'realistic' levels...even when the kids were asleep) and having multiple sound signatures at significant cost savings was a big plus.

Fast forward, I still have a good (not expensive) 5.1 HT system to watch movies but I jettisoned my expensive 2 channel systems and just use headphones / iems now for music listening.

So...if that psychological anchoring bias existed for me, I was able to overcome it!

Today, I own multiple headphones/iems (dynamic, planar, electrostatic, hybrids) with a variety of sound signatures and really enjoy the ability to change my 'sound room' for music genres or even my mood (today's a basshead day, tomorrow's a neutralhead day, etc.). Also, the bonus is that all of these 'sound rooms' cost way less and take up much less space than several 2 channel systems.

Honestly, I (like you) prefer the headphone/iem experience at this point!

 

[Ohman]

i assume since you didn’t mention any testing protocols that your statements are based on subjective sighted observation.

Bluntly, that won‘t change any minds here, nor should it.

Such was not my intention, when I write "I" it implies personal experiences. Sorry if that wasn't clear, it was not about changing anyone's mind. Subjective it was indeed but that doesn't necessarily make it worthless. At least I hope not.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Regarding speaker cables I can't tell the difference between most unless there is a significant disparity in gauge. What I can tell however, is the difference between silver and copper. One must keep in mind that all speakers are designed with the assumption that copper cables will feed them, not silver and there is a large enough difference in resistance to be noticed. The stupidest purchase I ever made (in the audio realm) was Siltech silver cables to feed a pair of Linn Caber speakers. It made them sound like toy speakers: sibilance, screaming mids and feeble bass was the result. I switched for common hardware store lamp wire and everything was fine, back to normal.

Interconnects are somewhat different. There is a very noticeable difference between El Cheapo and mid-range ones, but not so much between insanely priced ones and mid-range ($40 to $100 for the pair). The expensive ones will usually have better connectors and thicker sleeve but that has no effect on how they convey sound as long as the gauge is the same.

Amplifiers I can tell between mellow ones and bright ones but couldn't pinpoint a specific brand/model in a blind test .Here again very cheap ones sound poorly but I probably wouldn't be able to distinguish a $600 receiver from a $3000 receiver unless they'd be a serious difference in power rating and then again this would only show when the units' volume set high up. In that case the probability that the cheaper amp would clip first is pretty high owing to the expensive one having anti-clipping circuitry that lowers the volume automatically when it reaches a point where speakers (presumed to be high-end) are likely to hit bottom.

Use this online tool to show the actual differences in resistance between silver and copper speaker wires that are otherwise identical and please let me know how this could make any audible difference. We can tell that there is a difference, but unless there is a pathological example used that would be obvious and outside the realms of the point of this discussion, it is unlikely to be identified by human ears when listening to music.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wire-resistance

 

[bigshot]

I do much prefer studio music to live (snip) I like what is sonically interesting. I do not value fidelity to an engineer's intent

That's fine. You have a preference for a particular kind of coloration. It's like people who prefer the euphonic distortion of tubes. They like it even if it isn't accurate or true to the fidelity of the original recording. You can feel free to listen to music however you like, from a massive "Voice of the Theater" system all the way down to a transistor radio. What you like is what you like. But this is the Sound Science forum. We tend to focus on objective fidelity, and that means response curves, inaudible levels of distortion, and presenting the music as close to the way it was intended as possible. Everyone makes personal compromises based on their living situation, finances and personal preferences. But that isn't enhancing sound fidelity. It's a trade off of sound fidelity in favor of functionality for our purposes. We all do that, but most of us acknowledge that it's a trade off. We don't claim that those compromises result in better sound fidelity than if we didn't make them.

If you want sound fidelity, which means hearing all the details in perfect balance, you try to get as close to what the original engineers heard in the studio as possible. That means studio monitors, a large room with a good acoustic, and an optimal sitting position.

TBH, the idea that someone would/should change their own preference to align with another's (i.e. Speakers vs IEMs, 'fidelity' to the artist's/engineer's intent vs 'infidelity' , etc.) simply because they haven't truly experienced the pinnacle of the 'best' acoustic delivery mode (argued earlier in the thread) is honestly insulting. 'Really...you just don't know any better...poor schlep' Ugh! That thinking is behind so much of what is wrong with the world today.

You need to understand that when I talk about multichannel music, I'm talking about a kind of system that the majority of audiophiles have never heard before. Stereo involves the meshing of two channels to create a flat plane of sound. Multichannel meshes many speakers into a three dimensional sound field where the soundstage isn't just left and right, but up and down and front and back as well. I'm not talking here about just directionality. We've all heard that in movie theaters with surround sound. I'm talking about a coherent sound field with the ability to place sound objects in three dimensional space. This is a fairly new thing and if I say "you haven't experienced the pinnacle of the best acoustic delivery mode", I'm not being insulting. I'm simply stating something that is very likely a fact.

I'll tell you a story about how I came to a realization about all this. I had a good stereo system in my apartment with two studio monitors. I loved it. When the movie The Incredibles was released, I was invited to a screening of the film at the Frank Wells Theater at the Disney Studio. At the time, the Wells Theater was one of the most state of the art screening rooms in the world, with digital projection and a sound system that was designed in perfect harmony with the acoustics of the room. It isn't a big theater- maybe a few hundred seats and I got there early and got one of the best seats. What I experienced there that night was an epiphany. Before that, I was pursuing a balanced response and low distortion. But here I wasn't just hearing those parameters, I was hearing ones I hadn't even considered. Phase, space conveyed through reflection and delay of sound, the ability for multiple speakers to mesh and put a whisper right inside your ear, or all the way over in the far side of the room. I heard sound objects pass from one corner to another corner. I heard dialogue firmly anchored in the image on the screen. I felt rumbling bass that seemed to be coming up out of the floor and resonated in my chest cavity. When the movie ended, I realized that I could continue optimizing my stereo system until the cows come home and it wouldn't ever come anywhere close to this.

When the time came that I was ready to buy a house, one of my primary requirements was to find a place with a room suitable for building a theater like the one I had heard (obviously on a scale that normal humans can afford). I was lucky and found the perfect place. I installed a 10 foot drop down screen and an HD projector, and I went to work experimenting to create a speaker system capable of recreating that experience I had. It wasn't easy. Home theater is different in many ways than a listening room, and I wanted this to serve for both movies and music. I experimented with speaker placement, moved furniture around, upgraded speakers here and there, and assembled a collection of reference music recordings in 5.1. It took a few years to get it the way I wanted it. But now when I listen to stereo speakers or headphones, I can clearly hear what they are missing.

There is a dimension of sound beyond what most audiophiles talk about. It doesn't have anything to do with copper vs silver wire, open or closed headphones, more expensive DACs, or drivers made from the purest unobtanium. The difference that takes sound into the next dimension is the proper use of physical space.. distance, direction, reflection, ambience... You can get a very primitive idea of what I'm talking about by listening to binaural recordings (when they work properly). But imagine binaural with 7 or 12 or 17 different channels! Multichannel sound goes far beyond two channel. It still isn't "real" because it isn't intended to be real. It's "hyper real"- better than real- almost like an auditory holodeck. You can synthesize this sort of thing with the Smyth Realiser I'm told. But if you have the space and ability to build a multichannel system in your home, it is an experience that you just have too experience yourself. You can't explain to other people in words. (even though I just tried to do that in the past few paragraphs.)

 

[Ohman]

Use this online tool to show the actual differences in resistance between silver and copper speaker wires that are otherwise identical and please let me know how this could make any audible difference. We can tell that there is a difference, but unless there is a pathological example used that would be obvious and outside the realms of the point of this discussion, it is unlikely to be identified by human ears when listening to music.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wire-resistance

I understand your point but I have seen so many graphs pertaining to equipment that looked fantastic on paper, passed blind testing with flying colors, but nevertheless failed to replicate the numbers outside of a controlled environment that \\i have become a tad bit skeptical of both myth and science-backed claim. I'm straddling the fence here, on the one hand I believe that many audio myths are just that, myths. On the other hand I have done experiments that I could replicate when asked to do so. That may still be subjective but unless I kept repeating the exact same mistake over and over, every time I demonstrated the silver vs copper experiment (for example) to other people and that those people were all mistaken, which is rather unlikely, the experiments may have some value outside audio labs. I'm not saying the science backing up or debunking widespread assumptions is wrong, just that in the typical home listening room numbers don't always match the listener's perceived performance from their equipment.

 

[bigshot]

There are two kinds of measurements... Those that are audible by human ears, and those that are not. You determine which is which by performing a blind, level matched direct A/B switched comparison. That establishes a threshold of perception. Blind testing is not random. It's very precise.

There is absolutely no reason to expect that silver and copper sound different based on the measurements and the established thresholds of perception. You are claiming to hear a difference. It's up to you to prove that if you want us to pay attention to your claim in Sound Science. You don't do that by telling us about uncontrolled, sighted, anecdotal impressions. You do that by conducting a proper listening test.

If you would like to learn how to do that for yourself, we would be happy to help you. The process is relatively simple. It involves eliminating the possibility of expectation bias and perceptual error. You can do a test like this in a couple of hours. The equipment needed costs well under $50. If you would like to put your belief to the test and find out the truth for yourself, let us know and we will help.

But this is the Sound Science forum. It's different than the other forums in Head-Fi. Here, we get to ask for controlled tests. We can dismiss sighted impressions.

 

[Ohman]

There are two kinds of measurements... Those that are audible by human ears, and those that are not. You determine which is which by performing a blind, level matched direct A/B switched comparison. That establishes a threshold of perception. Blind testing is not random. It's very precise.

There is absolutely no reason to expect that silver and copper sound different based on the measurements and the established thresholds of perception. You are claiming to hear a difference. It's up to you to prove that if you want us to pay attention to your claim in Sound Science. You don't do that by telling us about uncontrolled, sighted, anecdotal impressions. You do that by conducting a proper listening test.

If you would like to learn how to do that for yourself, we would be happy to help you. The process is relatively simple. It involves eliminating the possibility of expectation bias and perceptual error. You can do a test like this in a couple of hours. The equipment needed costs well under $50. If you would like to put your belief to the test and find out the truth for yourself, let us know and we will help.

But this is the Sound Science forum. It's different than the other forums in Head-Fi. Here, we get to ask for controlled tests. We can dismiss sighted impressions.

Point taken.

 

[GearMe]

You need to understand that when I talk about multichannel music, I'm talking about a kind of system that the majority of audiophiles have never heard before. Stereo involves the meshing of two channels to create a flat plane of sound. Multichannel meshes many speakers into a three dimensional sound field where the soundstage isn't just left and right, but up and down and front and back as well. I'm not talking here about just directionality. We've all heard that in movie theaters with surround sound. I'm talking about a coherent sound field with the ability to place sound objects in three dimensional space. This is a fairly new thing and if I say "you haven't experienced the pinnacle of the best acoustic delivery mode", I'm not being insulting. I'm simply stating something that is very likely a fact.

I'll tell you a story about how I came to a realization about all this. I had a good stereo system in my apartment with two studio monitors. I loved it. When the movie The Incredibles was released, I was invited to a screening of the film at the Frank Wells Theater at the Disney Studio. At the time, the Wells Theater was one of the most state of the art screening rooms in the world, with digital projection and a sound system that was designed in perfect harmony with the acoustics of the room. It isn't a big theater- maybe a few hundred seats and I got there early and got one of the best seats. What I experienced there that night was an epiphany. Before that, I was pursuing a balanced response and low distortion. But here I wasn't just hearing those parameters, I was hearing ones I hadn't even considered. Phase, space conveyed through reflection and delay of sound, the ability for multiple speakers to mesh and put a whisper right inside your ear, or all the way over in the far side of the room. I heard sound objects pass from one corner to another corner. I heard dialogue firmly anchored in the image on the screen. I felt rumbling bass that seemed to be coming up out of the floor and resonated in my chest cavity. When the movie ended, I realized that I could continue optimizing my stereo system until the cows come home and it wouldn't ever come anywhere close to this.

When the time came that I was ready to buy a house, one of my primary requirements was to find a place with a room suitable for building a theater like the one I had heard (obviously on a scale that normal humans can afford). I was lucky and found the perfect place. I installed a 10 foot drop down screen and an HD projector, and I went to work experimenting to create a speaker system capable of recreating that experience I had. It wasn't easy. Home theater is different in many ways than a listening room, and I wanted this to serve for both movies and music. I experimented with speaker placement, moved furniture around, upgraded speakers here and there, and assembled a collection of reference music recordings in 5.1. It took a few years to get it the way I wanted it. But now when I listen to stereo speakers or headphones, I can clearly hear what they are missing.

There is a dimension of sound beyond what most audiophiles talk about. It doesn't have anything to do with copper vs silver wire, open or closed headphones, more expensive DACs, or drivers made from the purest unobtanium. The difference that takes sound into the next dimension is the proper use of physical space.. distance, direction, reflection, ambience... You can get a very primitive idea of what I'm talking about by listening to binaural recordings (when they work properly). But imagine binaural with 7 or 12 or 17 different channels! Multichannel sound goes far beyond two channel. It still isn't "real" because it isn't intended to be real. It's "hyper real"- better than real- almost like an auditory holodeck. You can synthesize this sort of thing with the Smyth Realiser I'm told. But if you have the space and ability to build a multichannel system in your home, it is an experience that you just have too experience yourself. You can't explain to other people in words. (even though I just tried to do that in the past few paragraphs.)

Entirely missed the point.

"You need to understand..."

When the goal of a dialogue is to tell someone that they 'don't get it' and that you know better, you're really not communicating.



"But this is the Sound Science forum..."

Fwiw, it's ok for someone to participate in the Sound Science forum discussions even if their views don't perfectly align with the group's.

 

[sonitus mirus]

People asking questions and challenging opposing perspectives are most welcomed by me. Just be civil, please. A lot of music aficionados will simply ignore this forum altogether and continue to get their information from white papers created for marketing purposes, media sources that pursue benefits that contend with consumers' best interests, or they simply find solace in a limited community that all agree with each other. Sure, we see many questions repeated, but I don't expect that will ever stop and I don't allow myself to become frustrated by this predicament. Sometimes I will participate, and other times I will just read the comments and move on. I am thankful for the participation and I appreciate everyone's opinion, even if I don't always agree with it.

 

[hakunamakaka]

Healthy discussions are good for the forum even when arguing a bit, but people will exaggerate a lot and especially in audio if something is to their likings. Newcomers can get easily be misguided by such believing that cables will make night and day difference or no headphone can much IEM speed

 

[bigshot]

When the goal of a dialogue is to tell someone that they 'don't get it' and that you know better, you're really not communicating.

When someone is offered evidence and help to prove the truth to themselves and they refuse to entertain the idea that they might be wrong, that isn't listening.

Fwiw, it's ok for someone to participate in the Sound Science forum discussions even if their views don't perfectly align with the group's.

I can guarantee you that if you go too far down that road, you will be engaging in an exercise in futility. We aren't allowed to even mention controlled testing in any other Head-Fi forum. Don't be surprised if we don't cater to non-rational subjectivity in the one rational forum on Head-Fi. We're happy to discuss and patiently explain, and you're happy to still "like" whatever you want yourself, but there's no point arguing subjectivity. It's by definition solipsist. We focus on objective reality around here.

I'm not angry or anything. We've just been down this road a lot. It always ends the same. We are still here and the people who argue subjective impressions get really mad and finally go away (usually about 30 posts after they should have left in the first place). I'd suggest you start by reading the first post in this thread. It's the topic you're commenting on, and I'm guessing you haven't read it yet.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

There are two kinds of measurements... Those that are audible by human ears, and those that are not. You determine which is which by performing a blind, level matched direct A/B switched comparison. That establishes a threshold of perception. Blind testing is not random. It's very precise.

There is absolutely no reason to expect that silver and copper sound different based on the measurements and the established thresholds of perception. You are claiming to hear a difference. It's up to you to prove that if you want us to pay attention to your claim in Sound Science. You don't do that by telling us about uncontrolled, sighted, anecdotal impressions. You do that by conducting a proper listening test.

If you would like to learn how to do that for yourself, we would be happy to help you. The process is relatively simple. It involves eliminating the possibility of expectation bias and perceptual error. You can do a test like this in a couple of hours. The equipment needed costs well under $50. If you would like to put your belief to the test and find out the truth for yourself, let us know and we will help.

But this is the Sound Science forum. It's different than the other forums in Head-Fi. Here, we get to ask for controlled tests. We can dismiss sighted impressions.

No reason to expect a difference between silver and copper??...silver is shiney...so obviously "brighter" sounding this has got to be one of the most blatant expectation biases out there.....i know you missed me bud