So because they are well known reviewers their views must be right... right??
The Watercooler -- Impressions, philosophical discussion and general banter. Index on first page. All welcome.
- Thread starter Rockwell75
- Start date
I respect they views and certainly what they say has more weight for me. Plus I trust my ears too.
There are some who say the opposite too. There are people out there saying all sorts of different things-- I have found the most success gravitating towards whose experiences are similar or relatable to my own. This is not to diminish the weight or value of others' experiences, testimonies or impressions-- and I know that we all hear things differently and are differently sensitive to different things... but I can only really relate to a viewpoint, no matter whose it is, when it is consistent with my own experience.
Well people like Precog, Resolve , Antdroid and super reviews to sound like they know what they are talking about and have more experience than me. The most important thing is that I don't hear any difference . So even if it's proven by science somehow, until I don't hear it myself it's not relevant for me.
Yes this. I don't care how renowned anyone or revered anyone is-- we all have the unalienable right to make up our own minds using our own intelligence and based on our own experiences & intuitions. If I make bad or incorrect judgments then this will be reflected in my own life and experience somehow, and it will be up to me to change my thoughts, habits, actions in whatever way the situation commands. The same goes for anyone else. Until then we all need to learn to respect each other as we make our way on this simultaneously collective but fundamentally individual journey of life.
Ryokan
Headphoneus Supremus
I was so confident I heard a difference when switching to a silver plated cable (even had to lower the volume) I posted about it on the science forum where they politely rejected my claims and told me to listen again without knowing which was which. A proper test isn't possible at the moment so I just swopped them back hoping the difference would be clear like it was, it wasn't and there was no need to adjust the volume, and they sound pretty much alike.
I don't want to keep disconnecting the MMCX for obvious reasons which I know sounds like an excuse, but used to believe I could often tell a difference when trying different cables, now not so sure and guys who know much more than me assure me there is no difference. One reason given why I thought I heard a difference is because Andromeda's are very sensitive and not a typical iem.
I don't want to keep disconnecting the MMCX for obvious reasons which I know sounds like an excuse, but used to believe I could often tell a difference when trying different cables, now not so sure and guys who know much more than me assure me there is no difference. One reason given why I thought I heard a difference is because Andromeda's are very sensitive and not a typical iem.
blotmouse
Headphoneus Supremus
So there is no difference unless you have a sensitive IEM? Is that what they said? That would be less than an absolute statement that there is no audible difference, obviously.
Andromeda DNA is in almost the entire CFA lineup and they are very widely sold.
Even if the thought that a cable will change the sound and your brain agrees to this thought, then the sound will be perceived by you as being changed. This wont be measured.
Audio is weird in that you can teach the hardware (eardrum) how to decipher what the input actually is. And its a one way street. What you heard yesterday as amazing can easily be made subpar by hearing something higher quality that teaches your brain this new spectrum.
I think a child might be more able to tell if there's a difference or not, because the mind is less influenced by bias, ideas and expectations. Or maybe a highly enlightened man .lol
My views on this matter cut right to the heart of some of my deepest metaphysical convictions, played out in this hobby under the guise of the "objective vs. subjective" debate. The best wholesale framing of this distinction I've encountered is found in this quote from Emerson:
"As thinkers, mankind have ever divided into two sects, Materialists and Idealists; the first class founding on experience, the second on consciousness; the first class beginning to think from the data of the senses, the second class perceive that the senses are not final, and say, the senses give us representations of things, but what are the things themselves, they cannot tell. The materialist insists on facts, on history, on the force of circumstances, and the animal wants of man; the idealist on the power of Thought and of Will, on inspiration, on miracle, on individual culture. These two modes of thinking are both natural, but the idealist contends that his way of thinking is in higher nature. He concedes all that the other affirms, admits the impressions of sense, admits their coherency, their use and beauty, and then asks the materialist for his grounds of assurance that things are as his senses represent them....
The idealist, in speaking of events, sees them as spirits. He does not deny the sensuous fact: by no means; but he will not see that alone. He does not deny the presence of this table, this chair, and the walls of this room, but he looks at these things as the reverse side of the tapestry, as the other end, each being a sequel or completion of a spiritual fact which nearly concerns him. This manner of looking at things, transfers every object in nature from an independent and anomalous position without there, into the consciousness...
The materialist, secure in the certainty of sensation, mocks at fine-spun theories, at star-gazers and dreamers, and believes that his life is solid, that he at least takes nothing for granted, but knows where he stands, and what he does. Yet how easy it is to show him, that he also is a phantom walking and working amid phantoms, and that he need only ask a question or two beyond his daily questions, to find his solid universe growing dim and impalpable before his sense."
One thing I see all the time is an appeal to "science". This is all fine and good however it's worth pointing out that the sorts of things being discussed here vis a vis the nature of individual subjective conscious perception and conception of sound-- sit right at the, no beyond the current limits of scientific understanding. Right now the precise nature of asymmetrical subjective conscious awareness is unknown to modern science. We have lots of understanding of the mind and its capacity as a computational device-- but what consciousness ultimately is, we do not have an inkling at this point. The so called "hard problem" of consciousness namely how the attributes found inherent in and intrinsic to mental states can be derived from the objective sensible universe-- is just as much of a problem now as it was 100 years ago.
As one might expect there are many different views on the matter but when you boil it all down there are two fundamental camps and they are precisely what Mr. Emerson describes above. The materialist view, namely that the objective physical universe is the primary seat of reality, has been predominant in western academia and western science for at least the last 100 years. This is, among other things, why you find so many measuerbators among the college dorm neckbeard crowd over at reddit. In the context of this present discussion this materialist conviction manifests as a that belief that everything meaningful can be measured and ultimately if it can't be measured then it ultimately it lacks any sort of objective reality and is nothing more than some sort of sonic chiaroscuro. This is why so many confidently take issue with what some people report with their ears when it cannot be captured in the usual way by quantifiers.
The subjectivist view, namely that the mind and consciousness has more of an impact on what it is perceiving and the world in which it is living than that of a passive and helpless spectator, is at heart, just an expression of metaphysical idealism Emerson so eloquently describes above. The thing is this: since we as a society at large, in this modern period, have scarcely begun to consider such a view, nevermind what such a metaphysical shift would entail...it's presently very difficult at this point to say anything conclusive to debates like one and it probably will remain so for some time .
I won't pretend to know the answers at this point either but I have been staunchly in the idealist camp, about this and other things, for quite some time. As it pertains to this hobby the central point is that the mind can, in and of itself, exert an impact on its surroundings and on what its perceiving, the nature and extent of which depends on the strength, character and capacity of the individual mind in question. Yes it's true that people can go in with strong convictions one way or another and either hear something that isn't there, or not hear something that is. There's also the fact that the mind can act as blotting paper and adapt to new sounds and surroundings rather quickly. This is why someone like me was totally happy with my Sure SE215 for years as I'd never tried anything better.
I've shared the following video around quite a bit and I think it's worth sharing again here as it speaks perfectly to the belief that the most important factor in our perception is the attitude of the mind.
"The mind is its own place and in itself can make a hell of heaven, or a heaven of hell" Milton once said and perhaps that's relevant here. If someone could placebo themselves into believing their kilobuck cable made a difference and further placebo themselves into a state of joy whenever they heard it...then perhaps it's still a win for them after all.
"As thinkers, mankind have ever divided into two sects, Materialists and Idealists; the first class founding on experience, the second on consciousness; the first class beginning to think from the data of the senses, the second class perceive that the senses are not final, and say, the senses give us representations of things, but what are the things themselves, they cannot tell. The materialist insists on facts, on history, on the force of circumstances, and the animal wants of man; the idealist on the power of Thought and of Will, on inspiration, on miracle, on individual culture. These two modes of thinking are both natural, but the idealist contends that his way of thinking is in higher nature. He concedes all that the other affirms, admits the impressions of sense, admits their coherency, their use and beauty, and then asks the materialist for his grounds of assurance that things are as his senses represent them....
The idealist, in speaking of events, sees them as spirits. He does not deny the sensuous fact: by no means; but he will not see that alone. He does not deny the presence of this table, this chair, and the walls of this room, but he looks at these things as the reverse side of the tapestry, as the other end, each being a sequel or completion of a spiritual fact which nearly concerns him. This manner of looking at things, transfers every object in nature from an independent and anomalous position without there, into the consciousness...
The materialist, secure in the certainty of sensation, mocks at fine-spun theories, at star-gazers and dreamers, and believes that his life is solid, that he at least takes nothing for granted, but knows where he stands, and what he does. Yet how easy it is to show him, that he also is a phantom walking and working amid phantoms, and that he need only ask a question or two beyond his daily questions, to find his solid universe growing dim and impalpable before his sense."
One thing I see all the time is an appeal to "science". This is all fine and good however it's worth pointing out that the sorts of things being discussed here vis a vis the nature of individual subjective conscious perception and conception of sound-- sit right at the, no beyond the current limits of scientific understanding. Right now the precise nature of asymmetrical subjective conscious awareness is unknown to modern science. We have lots of understanding of the mind and its capacity as a computational device-- but what consciousness ultimately is, we do not have an inkling at this point. The so called "hard problem" of consciousness namely how the attributes found inherent in and intrinsic to mental states can be derived from the objective sensible universe-- is just as much of a problem now as it was 100 years ago.
As one might expect there are many different views on the matter but when you boil it all down there are two fundamental camps and they are precisely what Mr. Emerson describes above. The materialist view, namely that the objective physical universe is the primary seat of reality, has been predominant in western academia and western science for at least the last 100 years. This is, among other things, why you find so many measuerbators among the college dorm neckbeard crowd over at reddit. In the context of this present discussion this materialist conviction manifests as a that belief that everything meaningful can be measured and ultimately if it can't be measured then it ultimately it lacks any sort of objective reality and is nothing more than some sort of sonic chiaroscuro. This is why so many confidently take issue with what some people report with their ears when it cannot be captured in the usual way by quantifiers.
The subjectivist view, namely that the mind and consciousness has more of an impact on what it is perceiving and the world in which it is living than that of a passive and helpless spectator, is at heart, just an expression of metaphysical idealism Emerson so eloquently describes above. The thing is this: since we as a society at large, in this modern period, have scarcely begun to consider such a view, nevermind what such a metaphysical shift would entail...it's presently very difficult at this point to say anything conclusive to debates like one and it probably will remain so for some time .
I won't pretend to know the answers at this point either but I have been staunchly in the idealist camp, about this and other things, for quite some time. As it pertains to this hobby the central point is that the mind can, in and of itself, exert an impact on its surroundings and on what its perceiving, the nature and extent of which depends on the strength, character and capacity of the individual mind in question. Yes it's true that people can go in with strong convictions one way or another and either hear something that isn't there, or not hear something that is. There's also the fact that the mind can act as blotting paper and adapt to new sounds and surroundings rather quickly. This is why someone like me was totally happy with my Sure SE215 for years as I'd never tried anything better.
I've shared the following video around quite a bit and I think it's worth sharing again here as it speaks perfectly to the belief that the most important factor in our perception is the attitude of the mind.
"The mind is its own place and in itself can make a hell of heaven, or a heaven of hell" Milton once said and perhaps that's relevant here. If someone could placebo themselves into believing their kilobuck cable made a difference and further placebo themselves into a state of joy whenever they heard it...then perhaps it's still a win for them after all.
Ryokan
Headphoneus Supremus
Andromeda's being an iem that are very sensitive to even slight impedance changes which maximise voltage variations. Westone W80's for example are 'more stable giving just 3 times the lowest impedance above 10khz, compared to the Andro's that reach this value in the midrange and are 6 times the lowest impedance'. Impedance between cables is usually negligible and other parts of the chain will have much more of a noticeable affect. So if I perceived a difference it is no coincidence it was with the Andromeda's, normally there would be no discernible difference with most other iem's, as I understand the reason given.
Ryokan
Headphoneus Supremus
Or getting someone to switch the cables (or not) without seeing them. Someone on the Science forum posted a Youtube video called 'The Null Tester' which is interesting.
Or buying one of these and hooking up two cables to it, connecting earpieces to different cables and listening to them at the same time.
https://www.amazon.com/Topzone-inch-2-5mm-Stereo-Cable/dp/B005TL2J8Q
Auditory memory is very tricky and fleeting. You can be tricked very easily that you are hearing things differently even after 5 seconds have passed. I don't know how people report several different areas they hear a change and with such detailed descriptions.
I'll check that video out.
Last edited:
blotmouse
Headphoneus Supremus
All this. Love it. Great post.
claud W
Headphoneus Supremus
Very Superior???
You are pulling my leg. I'm 73 years old and have been into Audio since I was 20. I don't hear too good around 7 or 8 K depending how my ears are doing that day. My left ear don't hear as good as my right, so I have to adjust balance on my DAP. You might say that this is Claud's last Audio Stand.
You are pulling my leg. I'm 73 years old and have been into Audio since I was 20. I don't hear too good around 7 or 8 K depending how my ears are doing that day. My left ear don't hear as good as my right, so I have to adjust balance on my DAP. You might say that this is Claud's last Audio Stand.
On the subject of cables, while I wouldn't say I was a sceptic coming into this hobby, I just couldn't understand spending crazy $$ on them, "how much difference could they really make?" I thought.
In the case of USB, the cable can make a measurable difference, as proven by this reviewer, who's impressions and opinions I trust quite a bit:
I got that Supra USB cable to use with my Bifrost2, and I don't know whether it's that or the SXC-8 cable I'm also now using with my Campfire Cascades, but for whatever reason I'm enjoying them even more now than when I first got them about a year ago.
I agree completely that even if there is just a placebo effect from cables or other things that are difficult/impossible to 'measure', then it's up to the user to decide how much $$ that effect is worth relative to the perceived increase in enjoyment.
I'm starting to realise this is probably the same reason why my wife likes to have so many different pairs of shoes, pieces of jewellery, handbags etc...which I'm very happy for her to buy these days, makes it much easier to justify my own next head-fi purchase
In the case of USB, the cable can make a measurable difference, as proven by this reviewer, who's impressions and opinions I trust quite a bit:
I got that Supra USB cable to use with my Bifrost2, and I don't know whether it's that or the SXC-8 cable I'm also now using with my Campfire Cascades, but for whatever reason I'm enjoying them even more now than when I first got them about a year ago.
I think this is FAR more relevant in this hobby than people sometimes realise. I know for certain that my own state-of-mind has a huge impact on how I am perceiving what I am hearing. For example, I have a ritual of taking the dog for a walk first thing every Sunday morning, and it doesn't seem to matter what gear I take with me, those are some of the best experiences I can recall listening to music over the last 12 months. Conversely, if I'm feeling tired and cranky with work, my IER-Z1R can sometimes seem total crap to me and I wonder why I have them. But I just put 'em a way for a day and listen to them again, and It's like "oh yeah that's right..."
I agree completely that even if there is just a placebo effect from cables or other things that are difficult/impossible to 'measure', then it's up to the user to decide how much $$ that effect is worth relative to the perceived increase in enjoyment.
I'm starting to realise this is probably the same reason why my wife likes to have so many different pairs of shoes, pieces of jewellery, handbags etc...which I'm very happy for her to buy these days, makes it much easier to justify my own next head-fi purchase
Users who are viewing this thread
- Khumbaba
- rocketron
- cats4cans
- RTodd
- btwine
- vsrrr
- Simpeler
- bgillis
- Sokra
- TheMiddleSky
- osanchez4808
- AntiqueMusician
- npatrix
- timbre1822
- fidgeraldo
- matze76287
- Hanesu
- zlayde
- Loke13
- silvahr
- dpwolfordMD
- gLer
- fejnomit
- wolfstar76
- Death_Block
- mikaik
- Deathman666
- roeschel
- Duality937
- oliveradr
- GroovyAudio
- maceto
- bondbearer
- XTF1
- gryphonos
- NJoyzAudio
- Jonanzzy10
- vaporsynthwave
- pasul
- blotmouse
- Metalboyy
- fadingstarlight
- Riccardoyeh
- Audioenophile
- szabb27
- Soundvibrations
