[krmathis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by csroc /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hydrogenaudio is full of loonies, but at least a lot of them have a better sense of what's reality than a lot of people here

..and their TOS #8 explicitly tell you to back up your statements.

 

[Assorted]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kees /img/forum/go_quote.gif but the question itself is wrong

The question could more accurately reflect the function of interconnects by rephrasing it to: Why are some interconnects and their components better than others? It's a complicated question because SQ itself is not a constant.

SQ is broadly defined by many different schools of audio.

Keeping in mind the miniscule differences wires actually make compared to the actual amp/source/recording, some people "tailor" the sound characteristics to their liking by using different interconnects, thus the best SQ is acheived by the reproduction of the sound they enjoy the most.

Others look for neutrality with absolutely no coloring, where SQ is achieved by the reproduction of the most transparent audio. Because there is no standard of what interconnects should ideally sound like (unlike lossless vs lossy), transparency is ideally neutral sound. They dismiss anything that may color/sharpen/accenuate the sound as the disfunction of the interconnect.

I think that is an important distinction to make, since in the scientific point of view, the ideal wire/interconnect is 100% efficient that is unaltering of the original stream of music.

 

[melomaniac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assorted /img/forum/go_quote.gif in the scientific point of view, the ideal wire/interconnect is 100% efficient that is unaltering of the original stream of music.

all good (and btw it's nice to see a supremus, by which I mean someone who spends a lot of time here, take this topic on once again - appreciated!). however, for the sake of the argument, let's follow the logic upstream, and you'll see it's not all engineering.

sound quality is determined not only by reproduction, but by recording and by the production. if we assume that neutrality is the utmost aim for reproduction, it is because we want to believe, we hope, we expect, that the production and recording is/was as intended.

now, intention is impossible to measure - and some recording artists will be happy to be faithfully reproduced, others will be happier even to be aided by post-production and editing. yet, let's put that aside and, if only for simplicity's sake, assume a perfect symmetry of neutral recording and neutral reproduction, which would yield exactly what the musician(s) sounded like.

in that space.

on that day.

after that meal.

with that other musician.

now, if you've ever picked up a musical instrument (or used your voice that way, namely for performance), you'll be less enthusiastic about neutrality. the performer's job is not to neutrally render notations, or pitch values modulated by rhythm and metrics. the performer's job, whether in a band, choir, orchestra, improvisation, or even in the shower, is to lend character and expression, individual expression and beautiful interpretation, to material that is handed down, composed, or improvised as the case may be.

neutrality has little to do with it: you make your voice, your guitar, your cello, or your pitch-bending synclavier sound the way you want, the way you imagine it can.

so we may argue that a good musician will perform so as to infuse the material with something that is by definition non-neutral: not a noodling down of a piano exercise, but something compelling ad worth listening to. how? well... that's highly subjective. we may compare one version with another, etc (keep in mind that even a successful touring rock band will sound different each night depending on mood, audience, space, amplification, glucose levels etc - before we compare the Stones to a cover band, or this singer to that one) - but in the end, neither can be measurably, demonstrably more musical, given a basic level of technical proficiency.

something may be more on time metrically, more accurate in pitch, faster or slower or more syncopated: but that's not what it's really about. music cannot, in the final analysis, be reduced to proficiency (or hand-eye coordination, or rote memory - all of which undeniably play a part).

so just as Assorted warns that SQ can be defined only broadly, and is hard to pin down objectively, one may warn that SQ implies further variables that can be intentional or unintentional parts of the overall effect, yet are impossible to express and observe neutrally. thus:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assorted /img/forum/go_quote.gif the best SQ is achieved by the reproduction of the sound they enjoy the most.

and maybe for those who are deeply into their chosen music-reproduction techniques, that means treating your system, and even interconnects, the way a musician may treat their axe: tweaking, using different strings or exploring different pickups or inserting and inventing a myriad of ways to manipulate and control sound.

and maybe the reason people on head-fi in particular, and gear-heads in general, are such gadget lovers is that not so secretly, fiddling with the gear is (almost as) fun as playing a musical instrument. if so, nobody is going to tell you how to play yours, though there may be a widespread consensus on what sounds good to the majority of people right then and there...

 

[melomaniac]

... but some may argue that one can observe musical enjoyment biologically (brain imaging, chemical processes in the body, breathing and circulation effects). and that the most pleasing music must be the one that eliminates all inefficient and wastefully roundabout ways of aiming at those, going straight to the point (which might be defined as frantic dance, meditative trance, or something else). when that day comes and biochemical research revolutionizes the music industry, along with the hi-fi world, will we have arrived at the lowest common denominator? has the day already come? and perhaps gone?

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assorted /img/forum/go_quote.gif The question could more accurately reflect the function of interconnects by rephrasing it to: Why are some interconnects and their components better than others? It's a complicated question because SQ itself is not a constant. I think that is an important distinction to make, since in the scientific point of view, the ideal wire/interconnect is 100% efficient that is unaltering of the original stream of music.

Ahh, the inherent problem is exactly what everyone else is discussing, who says any interconnects are better than others. It must be phrased as a change in the sound reproduction, any change. The question of why is there any change is what I am addressing here.

Believe me, I do not think that one aspect causes the difference, which is why I allowed people to select as many as they want. I think that this survey is indeed flawed and may decide to take it down in the next few days. It would seem that there was some confusion of terms on my part, namely placebo effect and psychoacoustics, and thusly there is already a major flaw.

Honestly, I believe the other survey is far more useful, because it is a binary question.

Dave

 

[apatN]

Can't exactly tell you why but I do know they make a difference. I don't buy having expensive plugs. Maybe those bullet plugs are special. Are they?

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by melomaniac /img/forum/go_quote.gif all good (and btw it's nice to see a supremus, by which I mean someone who spends a lot of time here, take this topic on once again - appreciated!). however, for the sake of the argument, let's follow the logic upstream, and you'll see it's not all engineering. sound quality is determined not only by reproduction, but by recording and by the production. if we assume that neutrality is the utmost aim for reproduction, it is because we want to believe, we hope, we expect, that the production and recording is/was as intended. now, intention is impossible to measure - and some recording artists will be happy to be faithfully reproduced, others will be happier even to be aided by post-production and editing. yet, let's put that aside and, if only for simplicity's sake, assume a perfect symmetry of neutral recording and neutral reproduction, which would yield exactly what the musician(s) sounded like. in that space. on that day. after that meal. with that other musician. now, if you've ever picked up a musical instrument (or used your voice that way, namely for performance), you'll be less enthusiastic about neutrality. the performer's job is not to neutrally render notations, or pitch values modulated by rhythm and metrics. the performer's job, whether in a band, choir, orchestra, improvisation, or even in the shower, is to lend character and expression, individual expression and beautiful interpretation, to material that is handed down, composed, or improvised as the case may be. neutrality has little to do with it: you make your voice, your guitar, your cello, or your pitch-bending synclavier sound the way you want, the way you imagine it can. so we may argue that a good musician will perform so as to infuse the material with something that is by definition non-neutral: not a noodling down of a piano exercise, but something compelling ad worth listening to. how? well... that's highly subjective. we may compare one version with another, etc (keep in mind that even a successful touring rock band will sound different each night depending on mood, audience, space, amplification, glucose levels etc - before we compare the Stones to a cover band, or this singer to that one) - but in the end, neither can be measurably, demonstrably more musical, given a basic level of technical proficiency. something may be more on time metrically, more accurate in pitch, faster or slower or more syncopated: but that's not what it's really about. music cannot, in the final analysis, be reduced to proficiency (or hand-eye coordination, or rote memory - all of which undeniably play a part).

Very interesting reflections, I have a slightly different take on it. The consumer does not enter picture until the music has been incarnated on CD, LP or whatever.

I take it as read that performers / interpreters will impose their personalities on the music, no two conductors will interpret a symphony quite the same way and no two orchestras will play the same work exactly the same and no orchestra will play it exactly the same way twice .

That said, it is all outside the control of the consumer , apart from the buy/no buy choice

Thus at the point of delivery our concern is about how a given system renders the recorded sound.

At this point we make a decision about whether we want the rendering to be neutral , by which I mean unchanged from the recording on the playback medium, or altered in some way.

You cannot by definition get an accurate rendering of the recording with a device that intentionally changes the characteristics of the recording. You can speculate about a recording not being an accurate rendering of a performance , but since you can never know how much the recording deviates from the performance, which is long gone and which you probably were not present at anyway it is speculation.

I posit also that no cable can save a lousy performance.

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Very interesting reflections, I have a slightly different take on it. The consumer does not enter picture until the music has been incarnated on CD, LP or whatever. I take it as read that performers / interpreters will impose their personalities on the music, no two conductors will interpret a symphony quite the same way and no two orchestras will play the same work exactly the same and no orchestra will play it exactly the same way twice . That said, it is all outside the control of the consumer , apart from the buy/no buy choice Thus at the point of delivery our concern is about how a given system renders the recorded sound. At this point we make a decision about whether we want the rendering to be neutral , by which I mean unchanged from the recording on the playback medium, or altered in some way. You cannot by definition get an accurate rendering of the recording with a device that intentionally changes the characteristics of the recording. You can speculate about a recording not being an accurate rendering of a performance , but since you can never know how much the recording deviates from the performance, which is long gone and which you probably were not present at anyway it is speculation. I posit also that no cable can save a lousy performance.

I don't want an accurate rendering of the recording. I want a "close as possible" rendering to the original performance....
The only means I have for that is the recording that was made and of which nobody can tell how close it is to the original performance, because the only way to tell that would be by playing it over a sound system, which gives you merely the interpretation of that sound system of the recording...
What is left is to use the recording in a sound sytem of your own that turns it into a performance that you like. Possibly as much like similar live performances as you can get it.

 

[Assorted]

Quote:

Originally Posted by myinitialsaredac /img/forum/go_quote.gif why is there any change is what I am addressing here

... do enjoy writing your paper, maybe you could also have it published and reviewed by (your prospective) engineering department, since it is such a relevant and interesting field.

 

[chesebert]

I don't know about other fields of study but in EE/Emag for such a simple problem (passive primary/secondary LCR circuit, aka cable) there is a right answer. Much like how you don't have to ask 10k people what 1+1=? you can, given, enough intelligence and knowledge, figure that out what the answer is. This is the same with engineering - there is a correct answer.

OP should state his question this way: whether human can experience the effect of differently constructed interconnect when two interconnects of equal length objectively alter the signal in nonidentical ways. (subjective)

alternatively OP can do the math, SPICE simulation, lab work and ask: what's the effect of differently constructed interconnect of the same length on transmitted signal with frequency range between 10hz to 40khz and with 3 or more orders of harmonics. (objective)

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't know about other fields of study but in EE/Emag for such a simple problem (passive primary/secondary LCR circuit, aka cable) there is a right answer. Much like how you don't have to ask 10k people what 1+1=? you can, given, enough intelligence and knowledge, figure that out what the answer is. This is the same with engineering - there is a correct answer. OP should state his question this way: whether human can experience the effect of differently constructed interconnect when two interconnects of equal length objectively alter the signal in nonidentical ways. (subjective) alternatively OP can do the math, SPICE simulation, lab work and ask: what's the effect of differently constructed interconnect of the same length on transmitted signal with frequency range between 10hz to 40khz and with 3 or more orders of harmonics. (objective)

Well put.

Thanks,
Dave