For fun, I popped over to Audio Science Review for the first time in a while and found that measurements of cables have been added, including for this $1000 USB cable (you read that right): https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/jps-superconductor-v-usb-cable-review.42731/
It ain't even the most expensive USB cable.
Oh, yes, and MQA is now dead. (I'm behind on audiophile goings-on, I know.) It joins SACD in the audiophile graveyard. I'm sure there are fanboys (all boys) who will mourn its demise and sing its praises forever more.
@Todd A thousand dollar USB cable?! :o
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 04, 2023, 04:56:08 AM@Todd A thousand dollar USB cable?! :o
Yep, and there are audiophiles who will swear that they can hear a difference.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 04, 2023, 04:56:08 AM@Todd A thousand dollar USB cable?! :o
PD
Well yes, my USB cable did cost as much too. Unlike a lot of dissenters I hold the opinion that one can hear the quality of such a cable.
Quote from: Harry on July 04, 2023, 05:01:57 AMWell yes, my USB cable did cost as much too. Unlike a lot of dissenters I hold the opinion that one can hear the quality of such a cable.
I've heard the difference with interconnects and speaker cables, but was rather surprised that one could hear the difference with a USB cable. Did you do a side-by-side (or really one after another--preferably "blind") test before purchasing it?
PD
Quote from: Harry on July 04, 2023, 05:01:57 AMWell yes, my USB cable did cost as much too. Unlike a lot of dissenters I hold the opinion that one can hear the quality of such a cable.
My USB hard disk is connected by a cable which looks like it costs $1. I can transfer a Terabyte of data into that hard disk and the transferred data is bit-for-bit identical. How can you improve on that?
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 04, 2023, 05:05:44 AMI've heard the difference with interconnects and speaker cables, but was rather surprised that one could hear the difference with a USB cable. Did you do a side-by-side (or really one after another--preferably "blind") test before purchasing it?
PD
I always sample different cables before buying anything PD :)
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 04, 2023, 05:08:14 AMMy USB hard disk is connected by a cable which looks like it costs $1. I can transfer a Terabyte of data into that hard disk and the transferred data is bit-for-bit identical. How can you improve on that?
Nothing improves on that. Audiophile cables represent the absolute, pure triumph of charlatanism in marketing. As per PT Barnum's accurate assessment, people fall for it every day.
I suggest we change the subject, before the thread gets locked. :)
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 04, 2023, 05:15:14 AMI suggest we change the subject, before the thread gets locked. :)
I write facts that can be and have been objectively measured. People who claim they can hear a difference in USB cables write about magic.
Quote from: Todd on July 04, 2023, 04:46:48 AMOh, yes, and MQA is now dead.
I just sold my old MQA dac, that explains why I didn't get much for it.
I agree with Spotted Horses mostly because we always have a pattern of Harry buying something and then three or four other posters reacting. It is just a matter of balance. On other forums I've also seen it go the other way where subjectivists will brow beat the minority of objectivists present. It is difficult to have a healthy conversation when both sides treat the other as fools and idiots.
Quote from: DavidW on July 04, 2023, 06:35:13 AMI just sold my old MQA dac, that explains why I didn't get much for it.
I hadn't even heard of MQA and had to google it. Tells you how far behind the times I am! :(
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 04, 2023, 07:01:22 AMI hadn't even heard of MQA and had to google it. Tells you how far behind the times I am! :(
PD
Almost no one has heard of it (or heard it).
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 04, 2023, 07:01:22 AMI hadn't even heard of MQA and had to google it. Tells you how far behind the times I am! :(
PD
Behind the times!! I (did) count myself as an audiophile. Following this thread for some time and have not a scooby-doo on the content. To paraphrase Mr Spock "Hi-FI, but not as we know it, Jim".
Quote from: DavidW on July 04, 2023, 06:43:27 AMIt is difficult to have a healthy conversation when both sides treat the other as fools and idiots.
Subjectivists (aka, die-hard audiophiles) believe they can hear differences between digital cables. They have for decades. In the 90s, they would argue about the relative "sound quality" of different Toslink cables. I assume some still do. The assertions of such people are not grounded in physical reality. By definition, that is foolish. It's much better for audiophiles to admit they prefer certain forms of distortion and that's what they're on about, but they shan't. Old men are proud of spending tons of money on Giffen goods and cannot be dissuaded from the wisdom of their choices.
The death of MQA is a beautiful thing. :)
My oldest son wants to inherit my Hifi. There's hope!
Quote from: Todd on July 04, 2023, 07:56:07 AMSubjectivists (aka, die-hard audiophiles) believe they can hear differences between digital cables. They have for decades. In the 90s, they would argue about the relative "sound quality" of different Toslink cables. I assume some still do. The assertions of such people are not grounded in physical reality. By definition, that is foolish. It's much better for audiophiles to admit they prefer certain forms of distortion and that's what they're on about, but they shan't. Old men are proud of spending tons of money on Giffen goods and cannot be dissuaded from the wisdom of their choices.
I think that a lot of the issue is: what sound do you like? I can say that I've heard the differences in what one can hear re instruments (and, oh, there's a...whatever! I'd never noticed it before). When I auditioned some components, some of the combos came across to me as "too syrupy"...trying to figure out how to describe it. Maybe too warm, not crisp, too removed and laid back?
In any event, it comes down to factors like: 1) How good is your hearing 2) How good are your listening skills and also what and how you really listen to music. Lots more, but I'm mostly focusing on classical music here. That said, people listen to a variety of music and in different listening settings (One could be jogging or doing chores or trying to keep the neighbors or family members happy by not playing things too loud). In the end, it's ones preferences that matter (In my opinion anyway). And also ones budget, of course. :)
PD
p.s. And I was referring to analogue cables here in my comments; I haven't tried any comparisons of digital cables.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 04, 2023, 09:24:31 AM1) How good is your hearing
Old people have poor hearing. This is measurable. Old people cannot hear what they are writing about. That is the single greatest reason why hi res is a joke.
I'm not sure what listening skills are or if they can be objectively established. OK, they can't.
Quote from: Todd on July 04, 2023, 10:04:42 AMOld people have poor hearing. This is measurable. Old people cannot hear what they are writing about. That is the single greatest reason why hi res is a joke.
I'm not sure what listening skills are or if they can be objectively established. OK, they can't.
Yes, hearing declines as one gets older (in terms of frequencies), but hearing damage also depends on a lot of things and one can prevent at least some of that (from what I understand). And you're also saying that hi res is just for "old people" which I wasn't saying and also don't know exactly what age and hearing ability you are talking about.
Listening: it's a skill and also means about being able to focus on what your are listening to. For some people, they don't listen to some music that intently (for whatever reasons and that's o.k.). For me, normally, I listen differently when I am auditioning components (or cables or other things) than when I am listening to music as I just want to enjoy the music once I get home. :) ;)
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 04, 2023, 10:34:43 AMYes, hearing declines as one gets older (in terms of frequencies), but hearing damage also depends on a lot of things and one can prevent at least some of that (from what I understand). And you're also saying that hi res is just for "old people" which I wasn't saying and also don't know exactly what age and hearing ability you are talking about.
Audiophiles skew old, meaning over 40. Everyone over 40 (younger, actually) has experienced hearing loss at high frequencies. The only benefit hi res recordings theoretically bring are reproducing frequencies over 22.05 KHz, which most young people can't hear, let alone old people who have measurable declines. Hi res is audiophile snake oil and represents how daffy the (sub-) industry is at its core. Hypothetical hearing damage doesn't really matter with respect to audiophilia.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 04, 2023, 10:34:43 AMListening: it's a skill and also means about being able to focus on what your are listening to. For some people, they don't listen to some music that intently (for whatever reasons and that's o.k.). For me, normally, I listen differently when I am auditioning components (or cables or other things) than when I am listening to music as I just want to enjoy the music once I get home.
This is purely anecdotal and conjectural. "Listening skills" cannot be objectively defined.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 04, 2023, 07:16:34 AMAlmost no one has heard of it (or heard it).
The only thing I heard of mqa was Steve Guttenberg (the audiophiliac, not the actor) not liking it... and he is VERY OPEN MINDED!
Quote from: Irons on July 04, 2023, 07:53:02 AMBehind the times!! I (did) count myself as an audiophile. Following this thread for some time and have not a scooby-doo on the content. To paraphrase Mr Spock "Hi-FI, but not as we know it, Jim".
That was how I felt when everyone was talking about tube amps! ;D
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 04, 2023, 10:34:43 AMYes, hearing declines as one gets older (in terms of frequencies), but hearing damage also depends on a lot of things and one can prevent at least some of that (from what I understand). And you're also saying that hi res is just for "old people" which I wasn't saying and also don't know exactly what age and hearing ability you are talking about.
Listening: it's a skill and also means about being able to focus on what your are listening to. For some people, they don't listen to some music that intently (for whatever reasons and that's o.k.). For me, normally, I listen differently when I am auditioning components (or cables or other things) than when I am listening to music as I just want to enjoy the music once I get home. :) ;)
PD
There's
hearing and there's
listening. Young children can hear very well up to 20 kHz, but they haven't developed listening skills which is the ability to analyse the sound (e.g. the amount of dynamic compression below 400 Hz). Ironically hearing gets worse with age while listening skills can improve with age if practised. People tend to overestimate their hearing abilities and underestimate Placebo effect. Snake oil sellers take full advantage of this psychological fact milking as much as they can.
Quote from: Todd on July 04, 2023, 11:01:52 AMThis is purely anecdotal and conjectural. "Listening skills" cannot be objectively defined.
Level of concentration.
Level of training too. Kids like bass and treble. And sugar.
Quote from: Irons on July 04, 2023, 11:52:19 PMLevel of concentration.
Are the levels you refer to objectively measurable and verifiable?
Quote from: Todd on July 05, 2023, 04:16:08 AMAre the levels you refer to objectively measurable and verifiable?
Yes. I listen to a piece and it goes in one ear and out the other. Listen again and I am captivated.
Quote from: Irons on July 05, 2023, 06:53:23 AMYes. I listen to a piece and it goes in one ear and out the other. Listen again and I am captivated.
I see.
They key is to focus on the parts of the system that matter the most. If you look at a measurement of a super-audiophile set of headphones you can see that a test waveform (usually a square wave) distorted, and not just a little bit. Same with fancy speakers. If you take the output of a decent amplifier the waveform will look perfect. A test is to subtract the output from the input and see what is left. In a decent amp, only a tiny discrepancy. Transducers (headphones, sepeakers, microphones) are where improvements are to be found. The only time to worry about an amplifier is the output stage, where it is driving speakers or headphones where amplifier fights against the mechanical movement of the transducer.
A cable connecting two components is extremely non-critical. For speaker cable, it has to be much lower resistance than the speaker. That can be achieved by thicker conductors. That's not expensive.
Re listening skills.
When someone who has only heard music based on common practice tonality first hears a bit of atonal Schoenberg say, they are sometimes initially completely confused, disoriented. This disorientation does not always persist and some people claim to enjoy that sort of music.
When someone who has only heard the sort of music commonly heard on Classic FM, tonal music with affecting and memorable melodies, first hears a bit of renaissance or early baroque imitative counterpoint, a fantasia by Francesco da Milano say, they are sometimes initially completely confused, disoriented. This disorientation does not always persist and some people claim to enjoy that sort of music.
My postulate is that something is learned which enables the transition from disorientation to a pleasurable experience, and that something is correctly called a "listening skill."
In the context of audio, it is possible to teach people what to listen for
https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-listen-course-on-how-to.html
Though I admit I haven't tried this course myself.
People going on about cables and listening skills and such forth are entirely oblivious to just how disconnected from reality audiophilia is. It's a daffy and daft hobby for people who enjoy buying overpriced consumer goods. Hey, I've dropped some coin on it, it's fun, but layering in pseudoscience is a waste of time.
Quote from: Todd on July 06, 2023, 03:54:16 AMPeople going on about cables and listening skills and such forth are entirely oblivious to just how disconnected from reality audiophilia is. It's a daffy and daft hobby for people who enjoy buying overpriced consumer goods. Hey, I've dropped some coin on it, it's fun, but layering in pseudoscience is a waste of time.
The fact that you can't hear the difference between cables doesn't mean that others can't. Most people won't tell the difference between the red on a tribal Turkoman rug and the red in a sandwich wrap.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 06, 2023, 04:05:00 AMThe fact that you can't hear the difference between cables doesn't mean that others can't.
It's not about me. It's about physics and psychoacoustics and basic engineering. People who wrongfully and dishonestly assert that they can hear the difference between cables merely need to provide measurements taken at the listening position when using loudspeakers, or, better yet, measurements taken when headphones are used. They don't. They would be exposed as frauds if they did. Audiophile gear is contemporary snake oil.
Quote from: Todd on July 06, 2023, 04:11:49 AMIt's not about me. It's about physics and psychoacoustics and basic engineering. People who wrongfully and dishonestly assert that they can hear the difference between cables merely need to provide measurements taken at the listening position when using loudspeakers, or, better yet, measurements taken when headphones are used. They don't. They would be exposed as frauds if they did. Audiophile gear is contemporary snake oil.
Human perception is not about measurements.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 06, 2023, 04:20:46 AMHuman perception is not about measurements.
Hearing is.
Quote from: Todd on July 06, 2023, 04:22:30 AMHearing is.
Can you measure the difference between, let's say, Glenn Gould and Claudio Arrau?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 06, 2023, 04:28:03 AMCan you measure the difference between, let's say, Glenn Gould and Claudio Arrau?
That is not what is under consideration when one considers audiophile cables. You are confusing topics.
Quote from: Todd on July 06, 2023, 04:29:30 AMThat is not what is under consideration when one considers audiophile cables. You are confusing topics.
I consider perception. Including what we hear. Of course, it is possible to try to measure something. But will the results of measurements, or the units adopted for measurements, be exhaustive in explaining how we perceive what we hear? Can physics explain anything at all, if every few decades so called science changes its conclusions to a set of other conclusions?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 06, 2023, 04:37:51 AMI consider perception. Including what we hear. Of course, it is possible to try to measure something. But will the results of measurements, or the units adopted for measurements, be exhaustive in explaining how we perceive what we hear? Can physics explain anything at all, if every few decades so called science changes its conclusions to a set of other conclusions?
Question begging and off topic. People who believe and claim that audiophile cables can make an audible difference can and should post objective measurements showing that they do. Cables do not operate in the aesthetic or artistic domains, they operate in the grubby world of physical reality.
Since you are big into definitions, perhaps you can elaborate on what you mean by "so called science", the very thing that allows you to listen to recordings in the first place.
I can draw on my direct experience. I have used different cables in different audio sets, and have been convinced many times that there is a very noticeable difference.
When I talk about so-called science, I meant a system of knowledge whose developers agree amongst themselves on certain criteria which they will apply to describe phenomena which they do not understand. Once again convinced that the explanations are unsatisfactory, they either agree to change the set of criteria, or introduce an element which is considered inexplicable.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 06, 2023, 04:49:50 AMI can draw on my direct experience. I have used different cables in different audio sets, and have been convinced many times that there is a very noticeable difference.
Anecdotes can persuade some. Some people swear they have seen Bigfoot. Such people have exactly as much credibility as people who claim that there are "very noticeable" differences between cables.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 06, 2023, 04:49:50 AMWhen I talk about so-called science, I meant a system of knowledge whose developers agree amongst themselves on certain criteria which they will apply to describe phenomena which they do not understand. Once again convinced that the explanations are unsatisfactory, they either agree to change the set of criteria, or introduce an element which is considered inexplicable.
This applies to objective measurements of cables how? Also, it applies to the fields of audiology and psychoacoustics how?
Quote from: Todd on July 06, 2023, 04:55:25 AMAnecdotes can persuade some. Some people swear they have seen Bigfoot. Such people have exactly as much credibility as people who claim that there are "very noticeable" differences between cables.
This applies to objective measurements of cables how? Also, it applies to the fields of audiology and psychoacoustics how?
1. I'm quite happy with the conclusions I've drawn for myself. In my current system, cables
a sounds better than cables
b. However, I would not recommend cable a to anyone, because in a different system and for a different set of ears the result might be different.
2. There is no such thing as "objective" measurements. There are arbitrarily chosen units and protocols. And even if there was, in any individual perception the interpretation of the results inevitably becomes subjective.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 06, 2023, 05:28:45 AM1. I'm quite happy with the conclusions I've drawn for myself.
Cool beans.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 06, 2023, 05:28:45 AM2. There is no such thing as "objective" measurements.
Incorrect.
Luckily the engineers who designed the circuits used in our audio equipment were not radical subjectivists but instead used physical principles that haven't changed much since the 1930s.
And perceptions can be validated. If the difference between two speaker cables is as obvious as claimed, then you should be able to tell them apart in a double blind test. Just have an assistant change the cables randomly while you are out of the room. You'll need to choose the right cable in 9 out of 10 trials for statistical significance.
To quote Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool."
Quote from: Daverz on July 06, 2023, 08:17:06 AMLuckily the engineers who designed the circuits used in our audio equipment were not radical subjectivists but instead used physical principles that haven't changed much since the 1930s.
And perceptions can be validated. If the difference between two speaker cables is as obvious as claimed, then you should be able to tell them apart in a double blind test. Just have an assistant change the cables randomly while you are out of the room. You'll need to choose the right cable in 9 out of 10 trials for statistical significance.
To quote Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool."
We all know that the debate about cables has been going on for years, and there are people who think cables change the sound, just as there are people who think they don't. I have been convinced many times in many different situations that cables affect sound. For me, this is an undeniable fact. And I don't care what other fellow music lovers think about it. I'm not going to change anyone's mind. If you happy with any piece of wire between components - that's just great!
As for Feynman's phrase. Perhaps we should clarify what is meant by "fool yourself". I suppose the one and only thing we can't be wrong about is that we know our selves. Everything else in the apparent world is the result of external influences over which we have no control.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 06, 2023, 08:40:07 AMFor me, this is an undeniable fact.
It is actually an easily deniable opinion.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 04, 2023, 09:24:31 AMI think that a lot of the issue is: what sound do you like? I can say that I've heard the differences in what one can hear re instruments (and, oh, there's a...whatever! I'd never noticed it before). When I auditioned some components, some of the combos came across to me as "too syrupy"...trying to figure out how to describe it. Maybe too warm, not crisp, too removed and laid back?
In any event, it comes down to factors like: 1) How good is your hearing 2) How good are your listening skills and also what and how you really listen to music. Lots more, but I'm mostly focusing on classical music here. That said, people listen to a variety of music and in different listening settings (One could be jogging or doing chores or trying to keep the neighbors or family members happy by not playing things too loud). In the end, it's ones preferences that matter (In my opinion anyway). And also ones budget, of course. :)
PD
p.s. And I was referring to analogue cables here in my comments; I haven't tried any comparisons of digital cables.
Linn Audio, the Scottish company, inventor of the famous LP 12 turntable, tried to make a big thing about teaching their prospects "listening skills" as part of their sales strategy. They called it "Tune Dem" - as you can imagine, it's very contentious. Here are the details - worth a glance I think
https://www.linn.co.uk/uk/about-us/tune-dem
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 06, 2023, 08:40:07 AMI suppose the one and only thing we can't be wrong about is that we know our selves
Do we, really?
I doubt it, or rather I agree that we might (just might, mind you) know our selves in the here and now and for an extremely limited period of time. Do you really know what your self will be in 10 years time? Is your self today the same as it was 10 years ago?
To stay on-topic: do you really know what your hearing range is, ie what frequencies you can or you cannot hear? And please, don't tell me this is all subjective, for it is not, just as it is not subjective that you cannot see infrared or ultraviolet light with your naked eye. If you visit an audiologist, you will be able to know precisely what frequencies you can hear and what frequencies you cannot hear, just like a visit to an ophtalmologist will tell you exactly what you can and what you cannot see with your naked eye --- everyone wearing glasses, yours truly included, knows as much.
An electrical potential different ("voltage") appears on the output pins of your amplifier. The job of the speaker cable is to apply an identical potential difference to the input pins of your speaker. The wire is a conductor, which in the ideal case means that the electrical potential is identical all along the wire. The deviation of the wire from a perfect conductor is characterized by the resistance, inductance, and capacitance of the wire. All three of these can be measured by a simple scientific instrument. The inductance and capacitance are determined by the geometry, no amount of money will change them. The resistance (which means that there will be some loss of potential difference across the conductor when current flows) can be driven down by using higher grade copper, or making the conductor thicker. Making the wire thicker does not cost thousands of dollars.
If the cable is an issue it should be measurable. I.e., make a high resolution measurement of the potential difference at the amplifier and at the speakers and compare them. If there is a benefit to better cable it must be measurable (although which sorts of differences can be perceived is a separate question).
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 06, 2023, 11:14:29 AMThe inductance and capacitance are determined by the geometry, no amount of money will change them. The resistance (which means that there will be some loss of potential difference across the conductor when current flows) can be driven down by using higher grade copper, or making the conductor thicker. Making the wire thicker does not cost thousands of dollars.
These are hard facts that any high-school student conversant with physics knows.
But then again, for some people physics is just a so-called science.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 06, 2023, 11:14:29 AMIf the cable is an issue it should be measurable. I.e., make a high resolution measurement of the potential difference at the amplifier and at the speakers and compare them. If there is a benefit to better cable it must be measurable (although which sorts of differences can be perceived is a separate question).
A very measurable one, too. An appointment with an audiologist will sort it out in less than 15 minutes.
Quote from: Todd on July 06, 2023, 09:07:36 AMIt is actually an easily deniable opinion.
It is undeniable for me, for you - whatever. Your idea not important for me, as my idea for you.
Quote from: Florestan on July 06, 2023, 09:39:52 AMDo we, really?
I doubt it, or rather I agree that we might (just might, mind you) know our selves in the here and now and for an extremely limited period of time. Do you really know what your self will be in 10 years time? Is your self today the same as it was 10 years ago?
The only thing we can know for sure is our selves. As an educated person, you no doubt know what was written at the entrance to the temple of Apollo at Delphi. People came there to know their destiny, but they were told, always the same thing. Know thyself. Fate, and all things (objects) in the manifested world are changeable. Things change, perish, disappear. You, the perceiving subject, are unchanging. You are no thing. Know thyself. Know who you are.
Your body will change in 10 years, it will change in the next second. Your thoughts will change, all the things around you will change. But the perceiving subject is always the same. The no/thing does not change. You are, limitless beyond time and space. Yes, we are here and now only. Know thyself and be free as you are ever.
Wow :o , this thread has become 'way too philisophical.
But one thing that I'm glad has come is the difference between hearing and listening. (And I'm not talking about appreciating this or that genre of music.)
Listeners be trained or train themselves to hear differences in the sound of audio components -- certainly that is true for speakers, but little doubt is the case other components. So for example, Drs. Floyd Toole and Sean Olive are famous for the application of trained listening in case of loudspeaker testing. For example this article published by Dr. Olive some years ago ... A Method For Training Listeners and Selecting Program For Listening Tests (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/03/method-for-training-listeners-and.html)
On the one hand very many audiophile are and should be recognized as "trained listeners" when it comes to audio components in general. Broadly this means that they care about and listen for very subtle sound differences ... However this appreciation in no way diminished that many of the "differences" they purport to hear are purely wishful thinking on account of their self-motivation to hear differences.
I hope we can accept, on the other hand, the other truth that many audiophiles don't want objective audio perfection. This explains in particular the nearly-prevalent audiophile preference for tube amplification. Ultimately there's no mystery to that: tubes produce relatively high levels of 2nd and/or 3rd order distortion. These sound pleasant and, additionally, tend to mask other, less agreeable distortions. The only remaining question is how high they need to be to have an audible effect.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 06, 2023, 10:05:29 PMIt is undeniable for me, for you - whatever. Your idea not important for me, as my idea for you.
Your opinion is very easily deniable. If you opined that the moon is made of cheese, you would be exactly as wrong as you are about cables. You might also say the moon being made of cheese is undeniable, but that does not make it undeniable.
Quote from: Fëanor on July 07, 2023, 03:58:37 AMWow :o , this thread has become 'way too philisophical.
We have had an outbreak of philosophy recently. ;D Always interesting around here!
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2023, 05:30:58 AMWe have had an outbreak of philosophy recently. ;D Always interesting around here!
lol
PD
Quote from: Todd on July 07, 2023, 04:11:02 AMYour opinion is very easily deniable. If you opined that the moon is made of cheese, you would be exactly as wrong as you are about cables. You might also say the moon being made of cheese is undeniable, but that does not make it undeniable.
You can argue that red is always the same, and has a code of ff0000. And deny those who see differences in red in different objects. After all, the code is always the same, right? Аnd, I have no idea what the moon is made of.
Quote from: Brian on July 07, 2023, 05:30:58 AMWe have had an outbreak of philosophy recently. ;D Always interesting around here!
It was not philosophy.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 07, 2023, 07:44:17 AMYou can argue that red is always the same, and has a code of ff0000. And deny those who see differences in red in different objects. After all, the code is always the same, right?
When translating what you are attempting to write to audio, yes, it's always the same. Claims of superior/more refined/etc perception are fundamentally false. You can't hear what is not there, nor can you see what is not there. You can hallucinate, though. Best not to confuse hallucinations with real things.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 07, 2023, 07:44:17 AMYou can argue that red is always the same, and has a code of ff0000. And deny those who see differences in red in different objects. After all, the code is always the same, right? Аnd, I have no idea what the moon is made of.
It is more subtle than that. Suppose you bought a red Saint Laurent sweater sweater in Paris and I bought the same Saint Laurent sweater in New York. What if you claimed that they are not the same, the one sold in Paris has a more vivid shade of read and the one sold in New York is an inferior version made for Americans. We could argue, do side-by-side comparisons, claim the lighting isn't the same, etc. But in the end we could get a spectrometer and measure the light reflected from each sweater to high precision. We could look at the data and if the spectra are identical the color is the same. If the spectra are not identical we could still argue about which one looks better (which would be subjective) but we'd know they are different.
The same with audio cables. If I connect my speaker with lamp cord and measure the test signal on my speaker posts, then connect my speaker with a $10,000 cable and measure the test signal on the speaker posts (high resolution, 24-bit 192 kHz ADC, etc) I can see if there is a difference or not. We could even do something sensible like try larger and larger diameter lamp cord until there is no measurable improvement.
With speaker cables there is an additional consideration, physics. A wire is a simple thing. If two wires have the same resistance, capacitance, inductance they will behave the same. All of these parameters should be as low as possible. You don't have to listen to a wire. You can just measure the properties and see which is better.
This may or may not be relevant to this discussion. Not about cable but amplifiers, but I think the same points apply
A few years ago I asked an electronic engineer who designs and builds audio equipment this question.
I am sure this has been asked and answered a thousand times before and if it's just too annoying that someone is asking it again, I'm sorry. But what is amp quality? How do you measure it? What do I look for in an amp to know that it's a quality amp?
This is the reply I got
If I knew that I'd be a wealthy man! Ultimately there is only one piece of test gear that can answer this and we all have a pair of them on the sides of our head...
There are no measurements that can tell if an amp will sound good to human ears. Sure we can say pretty reliably that an amp that measures badly will sound bad but there is no guarantee that an amp that measures amazingly good will sound anything better than average and sometime worse than average... I once designed a prototype amp that had distortion so low I couldn't measure it at all, it was flat from DC to over 100KHz, damping factor of 1000 or more etc... it sounded bloody awful! Now such an amp will not be bass light, or treble shy, or sound distorted or coloured... no no no... but it's dead easy to avoid all that... the problem will usually be (as it was with this one) a flat, lifeless, "grey", "sterile" sound that has little stereo depth and which if turned up to try and get some more life and dynamics just gets more and more of an "in yer face wall of sound".
It has nothing much to do with all the things everyone expects... it's not to do with power, with high current, with having a large power supply, with using quality parts.... all these things add a little to an already good amp but do not inherently make an amp good!
Most of it is all firmly in the realms of "nobody knows". When I design a new amp, whether it be a phono stage, power amp whatever, I haven't the faintest idea what it will sound like until I get to hear it (and neither does any other amplifier designer. If they say they do they are lying. End of).
For pretty much any parameter of an amplifier that anyone thinks is really important there is usually another amplifier around that does the opposite and yet still manages to sound great... within reason of course!
In the immortal words of Toyah... it's a mifftawy!
Quote from: Mandryka on July 07, 2023, 11:58:33 AMThis may or may not be relevant to this discussion. Not about cable but amplifiers, but I think the same points apply
A few years ago I asked an electronic engineer who designs and builds audio equipment this question.
I am sure this has been asked and answered a thousand times before and if it's just too annoying that someone is asking it again, I'm sorry. But what is amp quality? How do you measure it? What do I look for in an amp to know that it's a quality amp?
This is the reply I got
If I knew that I'd be a wealthy man! Ultimately there is only one piece of test gear that can answer this and we all have a pair of them on the sides of our head...
There are no measurements that can tell if an amp will sound good to human ears. Sure we can say pretty reliably that an amp that measures badly will sound bad but there is no guarantee that an amp that measures amazingly good will sound anything better than average and sometime worse than average... I once designed a prototype amp that had distortion so low I couldn't measure it at all, it was flat from DC to over 100KHz, damping factor of 1000 or more etc... it sounded bloody awful! Now such an amp will not be bass light, or treble shy, or sound distorted or coloured... no no no... but it's dead easy to avoid all that... the problem will usually be (as it was with this one) a flat, lifeless, "grey", "sterile" sound that has little stereo depth and which if turned up to try and get some more life and dynamics just gets more and more of an "in yer face wall of sound".
It has nothing much to do with all the things everyone expects... it's not to do with power, with high current, with having a large power supply, with using quality parts.... all these things add a little to an already good amp but do not inherently make an amp good!
Most of it is all firmly in the realms of "nobody knows". When I design a new amp, whether it be a phono stage, power amp whatever, I haven't the faintest idea what it will sound like until I get to hear it (and neither does any other amplifier designer. If they say they do they are lying. End of).
For pretty much any parameter of an amplifier that anyone thinks is really important there is usually another amplifier around that does the opposite and yet still manages to sound great... within reason of course!
In the immortal words of Toyah... it's a mifftawy!
His reply to you may well have been marketing, and/or his target market may be people who demand distortion. Maybe his amp that has a "flat, lifeless, "grey", "sterile" sound that has little stereo depth" is fantastic.
The situation is more complicated with a power amplifier which drives dynamic speakers. The amp can work beautifully driving an 8 ohm resistor and have instabilities when connected to dynamic speakers which have inductive/capacitive/resistive impedance. I had a Denon amp that worked beautifully with one pair of speakers, but with another pair (ADS L810, as I recall) produced horrid distortion. (I'm not taking about subtle distortion, I mean buzzing and static that was louder than the signal.) I think the current custom of having a power amplifier to drive passive speakers is idiotic. Amplification should be built into the speaker, and tailored to the speakers response.
Quote from: Mandryka on July 07, 2023, 01:23:07 PMI'd like try active speakers sometime, Genlec or Neumann - but I'm not sure how maintainable they are.
@Spotted Horses
What's to maintain?
Quote from: Mandryka on July 07, 2023, 11:58:33 AMThere are no measurements that can tell if an amp will sound good to human ears.
I heard precisely the opposite from the CEO of a professional audio equipment manufacturer (speakers, amps, DSP equipment). To be sure, the company acknowledges the audiophile market and caters to it to an extent with its DSP equipment by offering various audiophile-approved presets and the ability to fiddle with frequency response, phase, etc to their hearts' content. (The CEO referred to it as the high end consumer market and commented approvingly on the silly high prices manufacturers get to charge.) The audiophile market is the rump of the audio gear market. It's filled with voodoo magic and preposterous promises - and well-heeled buyers willing to plump for poor measuring and bad sounding gear for prestige purposes. (Think Wilson speakers.)
Quote from: Mandryka on July 07, 2023, 01:23:07 PMI'd like try active speakers sometime, Genelec or Neumann
Active outperforms passive every time. I've thought about switching several times, but haven't yet pulled the trigger.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 07, 2023, 09:07:53 AMIt is more subtle than that. Suppose you bought a red Saint Laurent sweater sweater in Paris and I bought the same Saint Laurent sweater in New York. What if you claimed that they are not the same, the one sold in Paris has a more vivid shade of read and the one sold in New York is an inferior version made for Americans. We could argue, do side-by-side comparisons, claim the lighting isn't the same, etc. But in the end we could get a spectrometer and measure the light reflected from each sweater to high precision. We could look at the data and if the spectra are identical the color is the same. If the spectra are not identical we could still argue about which one looks better (which would be subjective) but we'd know they are different.
The same with audio cables. If I connect my speaker with lamp cord and measure the test signal on my speaker posts, then connect my speaker with a $10,000 cable and measure the test signal on the speaker posts (high resolution, 24-bit 192 kHz ADC, etc) I can see if there is a difference or not. We could even do something sensible like try larger and larger diameter lamp cord until there is no measurable improvement.
With speaker cables there is an additional consideration, physics. A wire is a simple thing. If two wires have the same resistance, capacitance, inductance they will behave the same. All of these parameters should be as low as possible. You don't have to listen to a wire. You can just measure the properties and see which is better.
If I buy two identical cables, only one in Paris and one in New York, they are likely to sound the same. If I buy two different cables in Paris, they might sound different. However, someone might not notice the difference. When I change the directionality of the same cable in my system, just reversing it, if we're talking about a cable with the same jacks, I can almost always hear the difference. What about the measurements in this case?
But, to reiterate what I've already said above. I'm not going to convince anyone of anything. I don't need to, and I won't lose sleep if someone can't hear what I hear.
Quote from: Todd on July 07, 2023, 08:49:10 AMWhen translating what you are attempting to write to audio, yes, it's always the same. Claims of superior/more refined/etc perception are fundamentally false. You can't hear what is not there, nor can you see what is not there. You can hallucinate, though. Best not to confuse hallucinations with real things.
What you are trying to say is that the measurement of the signal by an instrument and the process of human perception are one and the same. It is hardly a hallucination, something else. Maybe just an inability to grasp the obvious.
It's interesting that those who claim that all cables sound the same, at the same time claim that files of different resolutions are indistinguishable to the ear. Or that there is no difference between components with very different characteristics.
It's ridiculous, but humanly so understandable. People are conditioned as much as possible. It is very difficult for them to give up what is imprinted in their heads. Thinking is very much like the movement of a tram on rails.
If you don't mind, I'm not going to continue this topic.
Quote from: Mandryka on July 07, 2023, 01:23:07 PMI'd like try active speakers sometime, Genlec or Neumann - but I'm not sure how maintainable they are.
@Spotted Horses
I've been using active speakers for a some time. At the very least they have the advantage that there is no compatibility issue between different speakers and amplifiers and fewer cables, which reduces the risk of having a cable that does not match well.
There are a lot of great active speakers on the market now. You could go a step further and try listening to integrated solutions where all is in one box.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 07, 2023, 08:02:01 PMIt is hardly a hallucination, something else.
You are right, it could be something else, like the placebo effect, active self-delusion, or dishonesty.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 07, 2023, 07:50:13 PMWhen I change the directionality of the same cable in my system, just reversing it, if we're talking about a cable with the same jacks, I can almost always hear the difference.
Let me see if I got this right. You have a cable with jacks at both ends, say Jack A and Jack B. Do you claim that, if you insert Jack A in the input source and Jack B in the output device you hear a different sound than the sound you hear if you insert Jack B in the input source and Jack A in the output device?
Quote from: Florestan on July 08, 2023, 05:26:37 AMLet me see if I got this right. You have a cable with jacks at both ends, say Jack A and Jack B. Do you claim that, if you insert Jack A in the input source and Jack B in the output device you hear a different sound than the sound you hear if you insert Jack B in the input source and Jack A in the output device?
Yes, that is precisely what AnotherSpin asserts. There are, in fact, people who believe that electrons flow more better if cables are connected one direction vs another. You can read for yourself how far gone AnotherSpin is.
Quote from: Todd on July 08, 2023, 05:30:55 AMYes, that is precisely what AnotherSpin asserts. There are, in fact, people who believe that electrons flow more better if cables are connected one direction vs another. You can read for yourself how far gone AnotherSpin is.
I had to ask because I really could not believe my eyes. I still hope I got it all wrong and this is not what he claims. The alternative is too dire to contemplate.
^Re.
@Mandryka's comment: Yes, when class D modules fail it's typically terminal.
I used B&O IcePower modules for my main speakers for 11 years before the first 250ASX2 powering the bad section failed. Months after the second failed. That's when I decided to swap for Hypex. The 125ASX2 modules in the subwoofers are still fine in their fourteenth year, and I have two spares now too, originally the main speakers' mid and tweeter sections.
So I have in total 1200 W power for the main speakers, idling at 50 W. I can live with that. The subwoofer amps idle at some 7 W each.
Quote from: Valentino on July 08, 2023, 08:55:54 AM^Re. @Mandryka's comment: Yes, when class D modules fail it's typically terminal.
I used B&O IcePower modules for my main speakers for 11 years before the first 250ASX2 powering the bad section failed. Months after the second failed. That's when I decided to swap for Hypex. The 125ASX2 modules in the subwoofers are still fine in their fourteenth year, and I have two spares now too, originally the main speakers' mid and tweeter sections.
So I have in total 1200 W power for the main speakers, idling at 50 W. I can live with that. The subwoofer amps idle at some 7 W each.
I've never had that much power. Last month I bought the most powerful amp I've ever owned, a mere 200W, and I felt that in the attacks of tones -- especially the attacks of percussive instruments like piano - it made a difference.
The amp is a big problem because it hums badly, mechanical hum. I tried putting it out of earshot, but the high capacitance of the long interconnects caused huge system problems -- suddenly weird noises from the DAC and the crossover (there are passive subs)
The reason for the hum is that it is designed for American electricity -- 60Hz. Here in the UK we have 50Hz. So I'm having a friend build be something called a "bucking transformer" -- life's a bitch sometimes.
Does anyone believe in Cable Lifts?
https://titanaudio.co.uk/products/titan-audio-cable-lifts
Although these lifts do give an elegant cosmetic improvement to the look and feel of your system wiring the performance of the seismic damping is really where the beauty lies, by removing even the smallest amount of high frequency vibration you are allowing your cable signal to transfer with much less distortion and therefor presenting a more accurate reproduction.
Quote from: Mandryka on July 08, 2023, 09:27:06 AMDoes anyone believe in Cable Lifts?
https://titanaudio.co.uk/products/titan-audio-cable-lifts
Although these lifts do give an elegant cosmetic improvement to the look and feel of your system wiring the performance of the seismic damping is really where the beauty lies, by removing even the smallest amount of high frequency vibration you are allowing your cable signal to transfer with much less distortion and therefor presenting a more accurate reproduction.
The FTC needs to sue these cable manufacturers for making false claims like this. Not gonna happen, I know...
Quote from: Florestan on July 08, 2023, 05:26:37 AMLet me see if I got this right. You have a cable with jacks at both ends, say Jack A and Jack B. Do you claim that, if you insert Jack A in the input source and Jack B in the output device you hear a different sound than the sound you hear if you insert Jack B in the input source and Jack A in the output device?
Yes, you got it right. You can check info online if you don't believe your own ears or my words. For example, see screen shot from popular UK cable company web site below (https://chord.co.uk/speaker-cable-guide). Some cable producers mark direction arrows on their cables too. Of course one may not hear the difference with crappy components and poor cables, or if one's ears are full with rubbish and brain's full with wrong concepts.
Quote from: Florestan on July 08, 2023, 06:14:17 AMI had to ask because I really could not believe my eyes. I still hope I got it all wrong and this is not what he claims. The alternative is too dire to contemplate.
And if you're in Bucharest, and using standard Euro sockets in the mains, try reversing the component plugs 180 degrees, one at a time. Chances are, you'll notice a change in sound. Of course, if you don't care about sound quality, you don't have to bother.
Quote from: Mandryka on July 08, 2023, 09:27:06 AMDoes anyone believe in Cable Lifts?
https://titanaudio.co.uk/products/titan-audio-cable-lifts
Although these lifts do give an elegant cosmetic improvement to the look and feel of your system wiring the performance of the seismic damping is really where the beauty lies, by removing even the smallest amount of high frequency vibration you are allowing your cable signal to transfer with much less distortion and therefor presenting a more accurate reproduction.
Some audio components, cables included, may be sensitive to extraneous influences such as micro vibrations or electrostatic. Sometimes the use of lifts can have an audible effect. I have heard the effect when using sophisticated Nordost speaker cables. In this case there was an effect of the lifts material also. There was a difference, for example, between pieces of wood and glass.
By the way, different ways of controlling vibration can produce very good results. When I was using active speakers, the inexpensive IsoAcoustic Bronze stands gave a very good effect on the sound.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 08, 2023, 09:32:06 PMSome audio components, cables included, may be sensitive to extraneous influences such as micro vibrations or electrostatic. Sometimes the use of lifts can have an audible effect. I have heard the effect when using sophisticated Nordost speaker cables. In this case there was an effect of the lifts material also. There was a difference, for example, between pieces of wood and glass.
I can confirm that, using Valhalla Nordost speaker cables and interlinks.
Quote from: Harry on July 08, 2023, 09:46:26 PMI can confirm that, using Valhalla Nordost speaker cables and interlinks.
If I remember accurately, it's been about 10 years since, Nordost interlink cables have directional arrows.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 08, 2023, 09:51:03 PMIf I remember accurately, it's been about 10 years since, Nordost interlink cables have directional arrows.
Correct.
Oh, FFS, if members are just going to fill this thread with garbage information, just shut it down.
Quote from: Daverz on July 08, 2023, 10:17:02 PMOh, FFS, if members are just going to fill this thread with garbage information, just shut it down.
Yes, it's a very typical reaction. Anything that doesn't fit in your head is immediately declared garbage. Convenient, but so pathetic... Open your eyes (or ears) life is wonderful!!
Quote from: Mandryka on July 08, 2023, 09:27:06 AMDoes anyone believe in Cable Lifts?
Literally lifting the veil. Seismic damping in cables is obviously very important.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 08, 2023, 08:55:20 PMSome cable producers mark direction arrows on their cables too.
That's called marketing.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 08, 2023, 08:55:20 PMor if one's ears are full with rubbish and brain's full with wrong concepts.
Poor grammar aside, this perfectly exempifies audiophile self-delusion.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 08, 2023, 08:55:20 PMYes, you got it right.
If you really believe that, be my guest. Just be aware that the laws of physics are against you. And this is my very last reply to you, here or everywhere. There is a Romanian saying:
Nu e nebun cine e nebun, e nebun cine se pune cu nebunul.
Quote from: Florestan on July 09, 2023, 05:04:25 AMIf you really believe that, be my guest. Just be aware that the laws of physics are against you. And this is my very last reply to you, here or everywhere. There is a Romanian saying: Nu e nebun cine e nebun, e nebun cine se pune cu nebunul.
Florestan and Todd and all others, can we please stop this senseless discussion, it makes me quite sick! Lets agree to disagree.
Quote from: Harry on July 09, 2023, 05:31:54 AMFlorestan and Todd and all others, can we please stop this senseless discussion, it makes me quite sick! Lets agree to disagree.
You are propagating lies and falsehoods. Lies and falsehoods should be pointed out everywhere, all the time.
My lord, they charge $650 for a little stand to hold your cable off the floor! :o ;D
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 08, 2023, 08:55:20 PMYes, you got it right. You can check info online if you don't believe your own ears or my words. For example, see screen shot from popular UK cable company web site below (https://chord.co.uk/speaker-cable-guide). Some cable producers mark direction arrows on their cables too. Of course one may not hear the difference with crappy components and poor cables, or if one's ears are full with rubbish and brain's full with wrong concepts.
Among those wrong concepts could be the Maxwell Equations, I suppose.
An audio signal is bipolar. The potential difference (voltage) sweeps symmetrically from positive to negative, and similarly the current flow alternates in direction. It certainly is possible to make a gadget that behaves asymmetrically for positive and negative current (a diode, for instance) but there can be no "correct" orientation for a cable having such properties, since the current alternately goes both ways. (Laying aside the fact that a cable is a conductor and should be entirely symmetrical.)
Quote from: DavidW on July 04, 2023, 06:43:27 AMI agree with Spotted Horses mostly because we always have a pattern of Harry buying something and then three or four other posters reacting. It is just a matter of balance. On other forums I've also seen it go the other way where subjectivists will brow beat the minority of objectivists present. It is difficult to have a healthy conversation when both sides treat the other as fools and idiots.
The level and tone of the discussion has not improved since
DavidW posted this. There have been many useful and enlightening contributions from all posters, but also unnecessary ad hominems and name calling. We urge members to avoid these attitudes, and hopefully we will not be forced to temporarily lock this thread.
Thanks!
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 09, 2023, 05:50:46 AMMy lord, they charge $650 for a little stand to hold your cable off the floor! :o ;D
Pfft, that's nothing. IsoAcoustics charges up to $899.00 - but offers sales as low as $699.00 - for this laminated Maple butcher block with feet. Their ad copy: "
Combining the mass of a thick butcher block with IsoAcoustics patented isolation, DELOS provides a low noise floor by eliminating the effects of structure-borne vibrations."
(https://www.audioadvice.com/media/catalog/product/cache/c6bbdce3cd46370f3aaae71ba6cbbc02/d/e/delos2216m1top.jpg)
People buy this stuff.
Quote from: Harry on July 09, 2023, 05:31:54 AMFlorestan and Todd and all others, can we please stop this senseless discussion, it makes me quite sick! Lets agree to disagree.
I certainly agree to disagree in matters of opinion, preferences and taste --- which are subjective. Physics, though, is a hard science based on facts and data which do not depend on subjective preferences.
...
Over and Out
Was the term "name calling" not clearly legible in my post above? Really!
Quote from: Florestan on July 09, 2023, 06:47:03 AMI certainly agree to disagree in matters of opinion, preferences and taste --- which are subjective. Physics, though, is a hard science based on facts and data which do not depend on subjective preferences. Anyone --- and I mean, anyone --- who really believes that switching the jacks of the same cable results in a different sound is a madman --- and I mean, a madman, ie one who lives in a world of his own which has got little, if anything, to do with the real world.
Over and out.
You really do not know when to stop do you Andrei, which makes me sad beyond believe.
Quote from: ritter on July 09, 2023, 06:51:48 AMWas the term "name calling" not clearly legible in my post above? Really!
You know me only too well, Rafael. I just couldn't help it. Feel free to take any action you deem fit. I do not retract a iota of what I wrote. ;D
Quote from: Harry on July 09, 2023, 06:54:55 AMYou really do not know when to stop do you Andrei,
Actually, I do: when it's too late. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on July 09, 2023, 06:55:12 AMYou know me only too well, Rafael. I just couldn't help it. Feel free to take any action you deem fit. I do not retract a iota of what I wrote. ;D
Action has been taken.
Best regards,
Quote from: ritter on July 09, 2023, 06:59:24 AMAction has been taken.
Great! Very good and thank you. I really mean it, my friend.
QuoteBest regards,
Likewise. 8)
Quote from: Todd on July 09, 2023, 06:22:34 AMPfft, that's nothing. IsoAcoustics charges up to $899.00 - but offers sales as low as $699.00 - for this laminated Maple butcher block with feet. Their ad copy: "Combining the mass of a thick butcher block with IsoAcoustics patented isolation, DELOS provides a low noise floor by eliminating the effects of structure-borne vibrations."
(https://www.audioadvice.com/media/catalog/product/cache/c6bbdce3cd46370f3aaae71ba6cbbc02/d/e/delos2216m1top.jpg)
People buy this stuff.
Gotta laugh ;) ::)
I've never found that swapping, cable, interconnects, or AC (mains) cords has made any difference I could positively recognize; likewise isolation devices though they might work under some circumstances ... but then again I've never tried,
e.g. Nordost 'Valhalla' nor MIT 'Magnum Opus' (https://www.transparentcable.com/products/magnum-opus-speaker-cable) speaker cable for instance.
Quote from: Florestan on July 09, 2023, 05:04:25 AMIf you really believe that, be my guest. Just be aware that the laws of physics are against you. And this is my very last reply to you, here or everywhere. There is a Romanian saying: Nu e nebun cine e nebun, e nebun cine se pune cu nebunul.
I spent a few days in Bucharest just over a year ago, when I was forced to flee from a Russian missiles attacks on my city. I was pleasantly impressed by the Romanians' hospitality and the beauty of the country. However, my knowledge of various languages is too limited to understand your phrase. I suppose there is something very nice there.
I have already said it above several times and can only repeat it again. I am not trying to change anyone's mind about anything. You have your ideas, I have mine. Do we really have to think alike?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 09, 2023, 08:28:18 AMI spent a few days in Bucharest just over a year ago, when I was forced to flee from a Russian missiles attack on my city. I was pleasantly impressed by the Romanians' hospitality and the beauty of the country. However, my knowledge of various languages is too limited to understand your phrase. I suppose there is something very nice there.
I have already said it above several times and can only repeat it again. I am not trying to change anyone's mind about anything. You have your ideas, I have mine. Do we really have to think alike?
Fuck Putin and Russia! Slava Ukrainy!
Quote from: Todd on July 09, 2023, 04:33:17 AMPoor grammar aside, this perfectly exempifies audiophile self-delusion.
I can write to you on my native language, but you will not be able to understand it.
Quote from: Todd on July 09, 2023, 05:33:33 AMYou are propagating lies and falsehoods. Lies and falsehoods should be pointed out everywhere, all the time.
Mind you, no one here is saying that you are a liar. You have your views, someone else has theirs. Do you necessarily need to put labels? What's wrong with you? I hope it's not some incurable disease and you'll be fine. Try drinking warm water in the morning in small sips.
Quote from: Fëanor on July 09, 2023, 07:24:17 AMGotta laugh ;) ::)
I've never found that swapping, cable, interconnects, or AC (mains) cords has made any difference I could positively recognize; likewise isolation devices though they might work under some circumstances ... but then again I've never tried, e.g. Nordost 'Valhalla' nor MIT 'Magnum Opus' (https://www.transparentcable.com/products/magnum-opus-speaker-cable) speaker cable for instance.
This is exactly the case. You've driven a Yugo and you try to convince the owner of an Aston Martin that all cars drive the same way because they all have four wheels.
You can also, of course, recall the laws of physics and say something about wheel traction, friction or Newton's laws. All this is solemn true, but Yugo and Aston Martin are not the same thing, whatever the holder of universal objective knowledge Todd may claim... Lets talk about self-delusion now :-)
Couldn't find Florestan's original post, copying from Harry's comment:
"I certainly agree to disagree in matters of opinion, preferences and taste --- which are subjective. Physics, though, is a hard science based on facts and data which do not depend on subjective preferences. Anyone --- and I mean, anyone --- who really believes that switching the jacks of the same cable results in a different sound is a madman --- and I mean, a madman, ie one who lives in a world of his own which has got little, if anything, to do with the real world.
Over and out."
Oh, what a kindergarten. Physics is endlessly changing. Newton's laws in their modern formulation are different from formulations of Newton's. The third law is only applicable when the speed is negligible compared to the speed of light. Nothing is hard here, my friend. Only a very naïve person would base their argument on the idea that physics, classical or modern, explains anything more or less finally.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 09, 2023, 09:22:22 AMCouldn't find Florestan's original post, copying from Harry's comment:
"I certainly agree to disagree in matters of opinion, preferences and taste --- which are subjective. Physics, though, is a hard science based on facts and data which do not depend on subjective preferences. Anyone --- and I mean, anyone --- who really believes that switching the jacks of the same cable results in a different sound is a madman --- and I mean, a madman, ie one who lives in a world of his own which has got little, if anything, to do with the real world.
Over and out."
Oh, what a kindergarten. Physics is endlessly changing. Newton's laws in their modern formulation are different from formulations of Newton's. The third law is only applicable when the speed is negligible compared to the speed of light. Nothing is hard here, my friend. Only a very naïve person would base their argument on the idea that physics, classical or modern, explains anything more or less finally.
So
@Florestan too. I expect that you didn't leave Ukraine with much on your back (or in a car or by bus or walking?)...like as in no stereo equipment--probably just a few suitcases of clothing, some photos, etc.?
Do you know whether or not your house/condo/apartment building is still intact?
PD
p.s. Currently watching Svitolina vs. Azarenka.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 09, 2023, 11:16:30 AMSo @Florestan too. I expect that you didn't leave Ukraine with much on your back (or in a car or by bus or walking?)...like as in no stereo equipment--probably just a few suitcases of clothing, some photos, etc.?
Do you know whether or not your house/condo/apartment building is still intact?
PD
p.s. Currently watching Svitolina vs. Azarenka.
I left home with several family members a few days after the invasion started. We managed to take a few suitcases of belongings, etc. with us. We managed to hire a taxi to the border with Romania and went to Germany after that.
A few months after that we returned back home. Although missile and drone attacks continue until now, we are used to it and it is not so scary anymore. My family's flat was not damaged.
Svitolina is from Odessa, my hometown. We are in a music forum, so it might be appropriate to say that it is also the city where Emil Gilels, David Oistrakh, Nathan Milstein, Sviatoslav Richter started their careers.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 09, 2023, 08:40:54 AMMind you, no one here is saying that you are a liar.
Edited by moderator. Personal attacks have no space in GMG. You were all warned.
Quote from: Todd on July 09, 2023, 11:46:46 AMYou clearly missed the point. ...
I mentioned the things which are obvious to me. I accept that another person, such as you or someone else, may have an opposite conclusions — for me it is not wrong or correct, it is different. My perceptions, based on personal experience, do not change that in any way, and I am in no way bothered by your disagreement.
...
Rest of post edited by moderator. Personal attacks have no space on GMG.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 09, 2023, 09:22:22 AMOh, what a kindergarten. Physics is endlessly changing. Newton's laws in their modern formulation are different from formulations of Newton's. The third law is only applicable when the speed is negligible compared to the speed of light. Nothing is hard here, my friend. Only a very naïve person would base their argument on the idea that physics, classical or modern, explains anything more or less finally.
Everything (horses, arrows etc.) moved at negligible speed compared to the speed of light in the days of Newton. Should the people have said: "Lets not trust these laws of Newton despite of all the evidence for them to work very well, because a few centuries from now someone named Albert Einstein might come up with a new law of relativity."?
Do you use relativistic physics to calculate how cars accelerate? I don't and nor should you. When you calculate the orbits of GPS satellites that's when you use relativistic physics for more accurate results.
Quote from: Fëanor on July 09, 2023, 07:24:17 AMlikewise isolation devices though they might work under some circumstances ...
I'd love to see the circumstances under which such devices would or could make any difference. Audio engineers account for isolation in their designs, and most manufacturers include some type of feet for their electronics, often rubbery doodads. I've never seen mention of isolation devices for professional rack-mounted equipment, including gear used in recording and mastering studios. Effective isolation devices are just more audiophile myths - and as this thread amply demonstrates, there are lots of those.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 09, 2023, 01:52:29 PMEverything (horses, arrows etc.) moved at negligible speed compared to the speed of light in the days of Newton. Should the people have said: "Lets not trust these laws of Newton despite of all the evidence for them to work very well, because a few centuries from now someone named Albert Einstein might come up with a new law of relativity."?
Do you use relativistic physics to calculate how cars accelerate? I don't and nor should you. When you calculate the orbits of GPS satellites that's when you use relativistic physics for more accurate results.
I gave the example that even the most fundamental concepts of physics change over time. Therefore references to the principles of physics are not hard enough.
Comparing audio components by measuring their parameters does not seem serious to me. I remember a few decades ago, frequency range was an important indicator. Everyone wanted a bigger number at the top and a smaller number at the bottom. Or, the more watts, the better. Over time, they figured it out, finally being able to understand that that is not all there is to the sound.
One just can not measure what heard or felt. Can we understand why we love this or that by taking measurements?
I have no idea what the specifications of my current audio are. What frequencies, how many watts and so on. I just don't know, maybe there is somewhere in the booklet, which I can't remember where I keep either. And I had no idea what the specs were of my last set. But the current set sounds different, and overall better to me.
A couple of weeks ago I replaced a couple of ethernet cables, from the computer to the switch and from the switch to the streamer. One pair of the cables for the other pair. Both pairs are relatively inexpensive. One pair is from Meicord, Germany, the other is from Supra, Sweden. Changing to Supra made a difference to the sound. I like it better now. What are the physical parameters of both pairs of cables I have no idea. In my previous audio set the Meicord sounded better than Supra. I also used one of the Meicord cables to connect the optical/ethernet box to the router, instead of the standard noname cable. Another noticeable improvement in sound. Go figure. And, Meicord cables are directional. Sounds changes with change of direction. The size and depth of the soundstage, the clarity of the acoustic bass, etc.
P.S.: I might also add that a few years ago I replaced the standard external power supplies with linear power supplies for several system components. A very serious improvement in sound.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 09, 2023, 10:07:21 PMA couple of weeks ago I replaced a couple of ethernet cables, from the computer to the switch and from the switch to the streamer. One pair of the cables for the other pair. Both pairs are relatively inexpensive. One pair is from Meicord, Germany, the other is from Supra, Sweden. Changing to Supra made a difference to the sound. I like it better now. What are the physical parameters of both pairs of cables I have no idea. In my previous audio set the Meicord sounded better than Supra. I also used one of the Meicord cables to connect the optical/ethernet box to the router, instead of the standard noname cable. Another noticeable improvement in sound. Go figure. And, Meicord cables are directional. Sounds changes with change of direction. The size and depth of the soundstage, the clarity of the acoustic bass, etc.
Ethernet is a packet delivery system. A block of binary numbers is delivered with with a CRC code which allows the receiver to determine if there were any errors. If errors were detected the block of data is retransmitted until errorless data is received. That means that absolutely errorless data is received, or no data is received. It is impossible for slightly degraded data to be received, you either get perfect data, or it drops out entirely. The most up-to-date internet standard is 70,000 times faster than the data rate for blue book CD sound. That means that one second of audio data can be delivered in about 14 microseconds. Playback is not synchronous, the player maintains a buffer of data queued to be converted and relies on the ethernet source to keep that buffer full. My player even shows me how much data has been buffered, usually as soon as I start playback almost the entire track is buffered and queued for playback.
There is no programatic mechanism which would allow an ethernet cable to sound slightly better than another ethernet cable.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 09, 2023, 11:38:37 AMI left home with several family members a few days after the invasion started. We managed to take a few suitcases of belongings, etc. with us. We managed to hire a taxi to the border with Romania and went to Germany after that.
A few months after that we returned back home. Although missile and drone attacks continue until now, we are used to it and it is not so scary anymore. My family's flat was not damaged.
Svitolina is from Odessa, my hometown. We are in a music forum, so it might be appropriate to say that it is also the city where Emil Gilels, David Oistrakh, Nathan Milstein, Sviatoslav Richter started their careers.
Glad that you are all o.k. and had a home to come back to.
And the musicians that you listed are some of my favorites!
PD
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 10, 2023, 12:39:25 AMThere is no programatic mechanism which would allow an ethernet cable to sound slightly better than another ethernet cable.
People who believe USB cables sound different will believe ethernet cables sound different. In reality, they cannot sound different. People who claim such cables sound different do not know what the cables do.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 09, 2023, 08:52:28 AMThis is exactly the case. You've driven a Yugo and you try to convince the owner of an Aston Martin that all cars drive the same way because they all have four wheels.
You can also, of course, recall the laws of physics and say something about wheel traction, friction or Newton's laws. All this is solemn true, but Yugo and Aston Martin are not the same thing, whatever the holder of universal objective knowledge Todd may claim... Lets talk about self-delusion now :-)
A poor analogy. There are many technically measurable characteristics that distinguish a Yugo from an Aston Martin. Engine power, torque, center of mass location, suspension design allowing the four wheels to maintain constant force and alignment regardless of velocity, accelartion and turn radius. But of course, coefficient of friction between the tires and the road put an ultimate limit on possible performance that no amount of engineering can surpass, but the Aston Martin (I assume) gets closer to the limit.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 10, 2023, 12:39:25 AMEthernet is a packet delivery system. A block of binary numbers is delivered with with a CRC code which allows the receiver to determine if there were any errors. If errors were detected the block of data is retransmitted until errorless data is received. That means that absolutely errorless data is received, or no data is received. It is impossible for slightly degraded data to be received, you either get perfect data, or it drops out entirely. The most up-to-date internet standard is 70,000 times faster than the data rate for blue book CD sound. That means that one second of audio data can be delivered in about 14 microseconds. Playback is not synchronous, the player maintains a buffer of data queued to be converted and relies on the ethernet source to keep that buffer full. My player even shows me how much data has been buffered, usually as soon as I start playback almost the entire track is buffered and queued for playback.
There is no programatic mechanism which would allow an ethernet cable to sound slightly better than another ethernet cable.
You have just enlightened me, thank you so much! I mean, I didn't understand anything, but it sounds convincing anyway. Too bad it doesn't match my experience, but still fun to read.
By the way, have you ever heard that there are different standards for ethernet cables? Cat5, Cat6, Cat7, etc.? That they differ in parameters? That there are cables with shielded and unshielded connectors?
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 10, 2023, 09:34:30 AMA poor analogy. There are many technically measurable characteristics that distinguish a Yugo from an Aston Martin. Engine power, torque, center of mass location, suspension design allowing the four wheels to maintain constant force and alignment regardless of velocity, accelartion and turn radius. But of course, coefficient of friction between the tires and the road put an ultimate limit on possible performance that no amount of engineering can surpass, but the Aston Martin (I assume) gets closer to the limit.
There are measurable characteristics that differs between cables too.
Quote from: Todd on July 10, 2023, 04:05:59 AMPeople who believe USB cables sound different will believe ethernet cables sound different. In reality, they cannot sound different. People who claim such cables sound different do not know what the cables do.
People who can't hear the differences between the sound of different cables can know everything about what cables do. There's no contradiction. That's the sad, albeit funny, thing about it.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 10, 2023, 03:53:42 AMGlad that you are all o.k. and had a home to come back to.
And the musicians that you listed are some of my favorites!
PD
Thank you for your kind words.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 10, 2023, 09:44:36 AMThere are measurable characteristics that differs between cables too.
That does not change the fact that ethernet uses a packet delivery scheme with error detection and correction. It delivers bit-identical data or it delivers no data. Saying that music sounds better when used with a different cable is like saying that the character Madame Bovary is more depressed if you transfer the pdf file of the novel with a different cable.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 10, 2023, 10:12:48 AMThat does not change the fact that ethernet uses a packet delivery scheme with error detection and correction. It delivers bit-identical data or it delivers no data. Saying that music sounds better when used with a different cable is like saying that the character Madame Bovary is more depressed if you transfer the pdf file of the novel with a different cable.
That's an interesting comparison. The Moonlight Sonata will certainly remain a Moonlight Sonata no matter what cable is used to transmit the signal during playback. But the sound quality may change during playback. Or not.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 10, 2023, 10:33:29 AMThat's an interesting comparison. The Moonlight Sonata will certainly remain a Moonlight Sonata no matter what cable is used to transmit the signal during playback. But the sound quality may change during playback. Or not.
It simply cannot, because any functioned ethernet cable will deliver and
identical stream of numbers to the DAC. If the DAC receives the same numbers, it produces the same analog signal.
@Spotted Horses You're assuming that the listener's perception of changed sound quality supervenes on physical properties of the system. But that's not right. It's a
perception, and as such can supervene on psychological properties -- the power of suggestion, the knowledge that money has been spent etc. It is perfectly consistent to say:
1. I hear a change to the the sound
and
2. There is no change to the sound.
(Supervenience is a term in logic -- A supervenes on B if there cannot be a change in A without there being a change in B.)
Quote from: Mandryka on July 10, 2023, 10:50:19 AM@Spotted Horses
You're assuming that the listener's perception of changed sound quality supervenes on physical properties of the system. But that's not right. It's a perception, and as such can supervene on psychological properties -- the power of suggestion, the fact that money has been spent etc. It is perfectly consistent to say:
1. I hear a change to the the sound
and
2. There is no change to the sound.
(Supervenience is a term in logic -- A supervenes on B if there cannot be a change in A without there being a change in B.)
You are absolutely correct, of course. If reversing the cable "sounds better" at least that is free.
The health of the economy depends on money flowing to people who use it to do something useful. If I give money to Shure for a pair of headphones the company becomes more profitable and allows them to make even better headphones. If I give it to Naxos, they can use it to make more records. If I give it to a company that sticks a directional label on a $5 ethernet cable and sells it for $5,000, how does that benefit the society?
Re directionality in cables, I think that in interconnects with arrows the connection to the grounded shield is only at one end. Best to put that end in the preamp. Interconnects without arrows are grounded at both ends.
Quote from: Mandryka on July 10, 2023, 11:18:12 AMRe directionality in cables, I think that in cables with arrows the connection to the grounded shield is only at one end. Best to put that end in the preamp. Cables without arrows are connected at both ends.
The Nordost speaker cables I have seen are side-by-side ribbon looking things, no ground shield. For a cable from pre-amp to amplifier, that is normally coax with a single internal conductor, which means the shield must be connected on both sides or there is no circuit. Without connection on both ends the amp will interpret the signal relative to its ambient earth ground, which is not a usable signal. If it is a case of two conductors inside a sheath, then that could work, but it is not clear why there is any advantage grounding one side or the other, especially since component makers didn't design it to work that way.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 10, 2023, 12:56:29 PMIf it is a case of two conductors inside a sheath, then that could work, but it is not clear why there is any advantage grounding one side or the other, especially since component makers didn't design it to work that way.
No good physical reason for this design as far as I know. There may be evil marketing reasons. I was once told that the Naim SNAIC is built like this.
Odin Gold cables and interlinks by Nordost are ordered. A worthwhile investment, at least to me. But what do I know. Let the experts speak.......
Quote from: Mandryka on July 10, 2023, 01:31:19 PMNo good physical reason for this design as far as I know. There may be evil marketing reasons. I was once told that the Naim SNAIC is built like this.
The industry standard 3 pin XLR connector has two internal conductors and a sheath connection. It is useful for things like microphone connections, where the signal may be small and vulnerable to interference. I also see such connectors on headphone amps for fanatics. Such a connection could have advantages when the system is designed to take advantage of it. Hanging the sheath off the ground pin on one side when the grounds are explicitly connected by the cable seems like it would be a detriment to performance.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 10, 2023, 09:48:31 AMPeople who can't hear the differences between the sound of different cables can know everything about what cables do. There's no contradiction. That's the sad, albeit funny, thing about it.
What?
Quote from: Harry on July 10, 2023, 01:42:57 PMA worthwhile investment, at least to me.
By definition, it is not an investment. It is an expenditure on a Giffen good.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 10, 2023, 10:48:55 AMIt simply cannot, because any functioned ethernet cable will deliver and identical stream of numbers to the DAC. If the DAC receives the same numbers, it produces the same analog signal.
Ok, you (and Todd) win! All components including cables sound the same. No worries!
Quote from: Harry on July 10, 2023, 01:42:57 PMOdin Gold cables and interlinks by Nordost are ordered. A worthwhile investment, at least to me. But what do I know. Let the experts speak.......
Hopefully they will fit your system well and you will love the sound.
Will you get the cables already pre-burned? Nordost dealers, I remember, provided such a service.
Quote from: Mandryka on July 10, 2023, 10:50:19 AM[..] the knowledge that money has been spent etc. [..]
I don't think there is a direct correlation between money spent and sound preference. My current set is much cheaper than the few sets I had before, and in some ways I like the sound at least as much.
Also, a few years ago I had two pairs of very expensive and awesome sounding earphones from Noble Audio, along with a matching DAC and custom silver cables (yes!). Now I have earphones many, many times cheaper, but the sound is excellent too.
Yeah, you'll probably say that I've talked myself into believing that much cheaper sets sound great too...)))))
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 10, 2023, 09:42:41 PMHopefully they will fit your system well and you will love the sound.
Will you get the cables already pre-burned? Nordost dealers, I remember, provided such a service.
Yes I specifically asked them to burn them in for I know what difference that makes. When I started a long time ago with Blue Heaven and Red dawn, over to Valhalla, and now to the best Nordost has to offer Odin Gold, burning in is necessary.
Quote from: Harry on July 10, 2023, 01:42:57 PMOdin Gold cables and interlinks by Nordost are ordered. A worthwhile investment, at least to me. But what do I know. Let the experts speak.......
Hope that you enjoy them Harry!
PD
Quote from: Harry on July 10, 2023, 01:42:57 PMOdin Gold cables and interlinks by Nordost are ordered. A worthwhile investment, at least to me. But what do I know. Let the experts speak.......
If they are worthwhile to you and you like them, then who cares what the "experts" think? (I hated even typing that term.)
One would think that if audiophiles were secure in their belief that they hear what they claim they hear that they would do the following. First, they would subject themselves to a hearing test by an audiologist so they could objectively verify that they can indeed physically hear all the output from those sweet, sweet tweeters used on fancy speakers and hypothetically contained in so-called "high resolution" recordings. Second, they would subject themselves to double blind-listening tests. Superior, well-trained, well-honed hearing would surely shine in such a setting. Third, they would perform in-room measurements that objectively verify that their stereo setups are basically perfect, which would only make sense, because any person with superior, well-trained, well-honed hearing would necessarily end up with a supremely well-measuring system, one that lifts all veils, one that reveals all microdynamic contrasts in the context of huge macrodynamic swings, one that images perfectly, one that generates the optimal amount of air. Surely they would do that. Otherwise one is forced to conclude based on the evidence that audiophiles splurge on Giffen goods that create markedly distorted sound but offer bragging rights.
Quote from: Harry on July 10, 2023, 01:42:57 PMOdin Gold cables and interlinks by Nordost are ordered. A worthwhile investment, at least to me. But what do I know. Let the experts speak.......
Is it fair to say the some audiophiles are of the Romantic rather than the Enlightenment Era?
Quote from: Bachtoven on July 11, 2023, 12:21:28 PMIf they are worthwhile to you and you like them, then who cares what the "experts" think? (I hated even typing that term.)
Exactly. People who like what they hear rely on their own experience. But there is a specific kind of people who need to overthrow what others like by appealing to randomly drawn measurements or formulas. You might call them "experts". The difference between the former and the latter is that the former rely on what they hear, while the latter rely on what they do not hear but supposedly know from others.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 12, 2023, 07:58:31 AMExactly. People who like what they hear rely on their own experience. But there is a specific kind of people who need to overthrow what others like by appealing to randomly drawn measurements or formulas. You might call them "experts". The difference between the former and the latter is that the former rely on what they hear, while the latter rely on what they do not hear but supposedly know from others.
I prefer to enjoy my
music rather than testing/measuring my equipment. I never buy gear for its own sake--I buy it so my music sounds more realistic. I sometimes wonder if these objectivists ever listen to live music and know what the instruments actually sound like.
Quote from: Bachtoven on July 12, 2023, 10:00:35 AMI prefer to enjoy my music rather than testing/measuring my equipment. I never buy gear for its own sake--I buy it so my music sounds more realistic. I sometimes wonder if these objectivists ever listen to live music and know what the instruments actually sound like.
Likewise. I love listening to music, and I don't care what the measurements of the components are.
It's the music that should be musical, not the bloody stereo.
Quote from: Valentino on July 12, 2023, 01:47:29 PMIt's the music that should be musical, not the bloody stereo.
My audio gear doesn't need to be musical, because Elgar was. :D
Quote from: Bachtoven on July 12, 2023, 10:00:35 AMI sometimes wonder if these objectivists ever listen to live music and know what the instruments actually sound like.
I do, which is why I know that the following is false:
Quote from: Bachtoven on July 12, 2023, 10:00:35 AMI never buy gear for its own sake--I buy it so my music sounds more realistic.
Precisely contrary to what audiophiles say and write, even the most elaborate system in existence does not actually sound realistic. The degree of artificiality varies, but all audio gear sounds artificial.
Of course, I'm not an objectivist - whatever that means, precisely - but rather a realist and I know that subjective audiophiles who pretend that objective measurements do not dictate actual sonic performance are detached from reality. As evidence of my non-objectivity, I enjoy dynamic loudspeakers, even with their known limitations.
Quote from: Valentino on July 12, 2023, 01:47:29 PMIt's the music that should be musical, not the bloody stereo.
True.
Funny enough on the complete other side of debating the virtues of high end audio... I went on a vacation and just packed some cheap bluetooth headphones. I loved what I listened to. Sometimes there is more to music than the gear used.
Quote from: Todd on July 12, 2023, 04:46:56 PMI do, which is why I know that the following is false:
Precisely contrary to what audiophiles say and write, even the most elaborate system in existence does not actually sound realistic. The degree of artificiality varies, but all audio gear sounds artificial.
Of course, I'm not an objectivist - whatever that means, precisely - but rather a realist and I know that subjective audiophiles who pretend that objective measurements do not dictate actual sonic performance are detached from reality. As evidence of my non-objectivity, I enjoy dynamic loudspeakers, even with their known limitations.
True.
I'm more of a "musicphile" than an audiophile. Yes, I like nice gear but it's the means to an end, not the end itself.
I need to stay out of this thread before my head fucking explodes.
Quote from: Bachtoven on July 12, 2023, 06:36:33 PMYes, I like nice gear but it's the means to an end, not the end itself.
I've read and heard that from audiophiles for decades. I'll assume in your case it is true. Most of the time it is not. The way one can tell is how vehemently audiophiles insist that their superior hearing allows them to detect even the tiniest discrepancies in audio performance and declare that the artificial sound reproduction they fancy is more realistic than some other gear. Never mind that they can't physically hear it or that there is no audible difference to discern, such as with digital cables.
Quote from: DavidW on July 12, 2023, 06:01:11 PMI went on a vacation and just packed some cheap bluetooth headphones.
I recently had to buy some cheap wired earbuds for travel. (I nearly lost my wireless pair.) The frequency response is clearly different from the wireless pair, rolled off both high and low, and the clarity does not match my open back full size headphones, but for certain types of music, the lower fi, midrange rich sound works splendidly. I'd love to have Beyer T1 level performance everywhere, all the time, but that just is not in the cards, so adjustments must be made, and it's easy to do.
Quote from: Todd on July 12, 2023, 06:50:22 PMI've read and heard that from audiophiles for decades. I'll assume in your case it is true. Most of the time it is not. The way one can tell is how vehemently audiophiles insist that their superior hearing allows them to detect even the tiniest discrepancies in audio performance and declare that the artificial sound reproduction they fancy is more realistic than some other gear. Never mind that they can't physically hear it or that there is no audible difference to discern, such as with digital cables.
I recently had to buy some cheap wired earbuds for travel. (I nearly lost my wireless pair.) The frequency response is clearly different from the wireless pair, rolled off both high and low, and the clarity does not match my open back full size headphones, but for certain types of music, the lower fi, midrange rich sound works splendidly. I'd love to have Beyer T1 level performance everywhere, all the time, but that just is not in the cards, so adjustments must be made, and it's easy to do.
My hearing is far from perfect. Maybe that's why some components, including cables, sound better to my ears than others. Of course, I am not an audiophile, it is important to me that the sound of music does not have too much noise of various origins and serious distortion.
I agree that price is not decisive. At one time I used at the same time regular wired iPhone earphones in turn with a very expensive set of Noble earphones with Chord DAC. Both variants sounded very different, but it didn't stop me from enjoying music in each scenario.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 12, 2023, 09:36:57 PMOf course, I am not an audiophile,
lol what? Then what do you call yourself? Anyone that argues over the philosophy behind buying greatly overpriced audio gear is clearly an audiophile. Normal people don't care. :laugh:
Quote from: DavidW on July 13, 2023, 06:46:47 AMlol what? Then what do you call yourself? Anyone that argues over the philosophy behind buying greatly overpriced audio gear is clearly an audiophile. Normal people don't care. :laugh:
For audiophiles there is no overpriced audio gear, the quality we seek is expensive and we are willing to pay. Take for instance the Odin Gold loudspeaker cables and ditto interlinks I ordered, are to most people over priced, just google them, but for me the value of sound is equal to the price. I am one of those who clearly hears differences. :)
Quote from: DavidW on July 13, 2023, 06:46:47 AMlol what? Then what do you call yourself? Anyone that argues over the philosophy behind buying greatly overpriced audio gear is clearly an audiophile. Normal people don't care. :laugh:
Seriously? I don't need to call myself. I am, and I know I am.
I don't care how much an item costs. It can be expensive, it can cost very little, it can cost nothing. All objects appear in my perception in the same way. They appear and then disappear.
Quote from: DavidW on July 13, 2023, 06:46:47 AMlol what? Then what do you call yourself? Anyone that argues over the philosophy behind buying greatly overpriced audio gear is clearly an audiophile. Normal people don't care. :laugh:
As an aside, I heard one story from a sales associate who worked at a now defunct audio shop. He told me the story of a certain customer (who we all know of in the area) who had made a ton of money at a local business that he had started. He apparently, came into the store to buy a stereo system and asked for the most expensive pieces that they had--not the best--the most expensive. I don't believe (and I could be wrong here) that he even auditioned the system in the store before purchasing it.
@DavidW A friend of mine several years ago mentioned that she was looking for a CD player for her home for her and her partner to use. I suggested a then-existent Tivoli player (which I had looked at once upon a time) which I thought would suit their needs and there was one in a local shop and it was what I thought was a reasonable $600. I knew that they weren't big music junkies and wouldn't want to be spending a ton of money on different components. She was like: "That's a lot of money!". She'll spend $200 on a pair of shoes. My thinking was that it's getting hard to find some sort of all-in-one CD player (particularly one that is any good). I have no idea what Bose are going for these days or a basic Cambridge Audio, but I suspect that they are more. Tivoli also had a good reputation and I figured that it would last reasonably well for them. Oh, well. I tried. And if anyone else here has any suggestions, I'll happily pass them along. :)
PD
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 13, 2023, 08:23:35 AMSeriously? I don't need to call myself. I am, and I know I am.
I don't care how much an item costs. It can be expensive, it can cost very little, it can cost nothing. All objects appear in my perception in the same way. They appear and then disappear.
Γνῶθι σαυτόν
Quote from: Harry on July 13, 2023, 06:54:06 AMFor audiophiles there is no overpriced audio gear,...
For audiophools there is no overpriced audio gear.
For audiophiles there ARE overpriced audio gears.
Quote from: Harry on July 13, 2023, 06:54:06 AMThe quality we seek is expensive and we are willing to pay.
Quality costs money, but it is about the rule of diminishing returns. Oftentimes the price point of optimal "bang for the buck" isn't that high. In the end you are willing to pay only as much as you can afford. You don't own the most expensive speakers in the World, do you?
Quote from: Harry on July 13, 2023, 06:54:06 AMTake for instance the Odin Gold loudspeaker cables and ditto interlinks I ordered, are to most people over priced, just google them, but for me the value of sound is equal to the price. I am one of those who clearly hears differences. :)
How does this cheap cable sound to you?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/KabelDirekt-2x2-5mm²-Speakers-Surround-polarity/dp/B098NS8FD3/ref=sr_1_3?crid=25HMDBARHINME&keywords=speaker+cable&qid=1689273755&sprefix=speaker+cable%2Caps%2C112&sr=8-3
£15.99/10 m, 2x2.5 mm²
That's the kind of "default" cable I use. Works perfectly to me.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 13, 2023, 10:46:00 AMHow does this cheap cable sound to you?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/KabelDirekt-2x2-5mm²-Speakers-Surround-polarity/dp/B098NS8FD3/ref=sr_1_3?crid=25HMDBARHINME&keywords=speaker+cable&qid=1689273755&sprefix=speaker+cable%2Caps%2C112&sr=8-3
£15.99/10 m, 2x2.5 mm²
That's the kind of "default" cable I use. Works perfectly to me.
No need to hear these. The picture from Amazon says volumes.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 13, 2023, 11:25:48 AMNo need to hear these. The picture from Amazon says volumes.
What, you can tell from the picture that they are Putinists?
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 13, 2023, 11:34:47 AMWhat, you can tell from the picture that they are Putinists?
I guess your words are full of sarcasm?
I think the picture shows the target audience of this kind of cables and shows how this audience listens to music. We can also assume that they are not listening to Shostakovich at all. Although, you never know.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 13, 2023, 08:27:12 AMAs an aside, I heard one story from a sales associate who worked at a now defunct audio shop. He told me the story of a certain customer (who we all know of in the area) who had made a ton of money at a local business that he had started. He apparently, came into the store to buy a stereo system and asked for the most expensive pieces that they had--not the best--the most expensive. I don't believe (and I could be wrong here) that he even auditioned the system in the store before purchasing it.
@DavidW A friend of mine several years ago mentioned that she was looking for a CD player for her home for her and her partner to use. I suggested a then-existent Tivoli player (which I had looked at once upon a time) which I thought would suit their needs and there was one in a local shop and it was what I thought was a reasonable $600. I knew that they weren't big music junkies and wouldn't want to be spending a ton of money on different components. She was like: "That's a lot of money!". She'll spend $200 on a pair of shoes. My thinking was that it's getting hard to find some sort of all-in-one CD player (particularly one that is any good). I have no idea what Bose are going for these days or a basic Cambridge Audio, but I suspect that they are more. Tivoli also had a good reputation and I figured that it would last reasonably well for them. Oh, well. I tried. And if anyone else here has any suggestions, I'll happily pass them along. :)
PD
What you described is not uncommon at all. Having audio jewelry is definitely a thing. One company I can think of is Gryphon Audio, I've never even heard of them in the US but they are very popular in the east.
Quote from: Bachtoven on July 12, 2023, 10:00:35 AMI sometimes wonder if these objectivists ever listen to live music and know what the instruments actually sound like.
Lots.
Lots. The one thing I learned from Covid after one of our not so old partners passed away is as Andy says in Shawshank Redemption "get busy living or get busy dying." Life is too short to not fully enjoy the things I love. After hearing Pogorelich's new Chopin album he is back on my list of musicians to see live and though he has nothing in the US this year I'd seriously consider going to Europe to see him. Though all is not rosy with that album as it's severely flawed but I hear glimpses of greatness again.
I use the measurements to guide me. Like when I'm exploring a new mtb trail I wouldn't just head to it blind, I need my Garmin GPS, Trailforks, etc.
Quote from: Todd on July 12, 2023, 06:50:22 PMI'd love to have Beyer T1 level performance everywhere, all the time, but that just is not in the cards, so adjustments must be made, and it's easy to do.
Is this really the "level of performance" to want? Sad. The comments that follow are even more brutal than Amir's tear down of them.
(https://i.imgur.com/e5vRHT7.png)
edit: oh wow, the cherry on that sundae is the distortion in the most sensitive range of our hearing and
$900. The replies to that thread make sense.
Quote from: Atriod on July 13, 2023, 12:30:48 PMI use the measurements to guide me.
I don't fit into either camp. I use measurements as a starting point, but then turn to subjective impressions to narrow it down and I value both. I usually find that the best gear works well on both sides.
To put a question to
@Bachtoven or
@AnotherSpin would you not find measurements that show a 100 wpc amp into 4 ohms actually only putting out 65 to be pretty egregious? Or one that has a couple of db of channel imbalance? I have a really hard time imaging (or my imagination is not good enough!) that things like that or the Beyerdynamic T1 measurements not being helpful to
anyone. I am an optimist so I picture there is more middle ground that exists among us, just that online communication makes people take fairly rigid stances in order to get their point across.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 13, 2023, 10:46:00 AMFor audiophools there is no overpriced audio gear.
For audiophiles there ARE overpriced audio gears.
Quality costs money, but it is about the rule of diminishing returns. Oftentimes the price point of optimal "bang for the buck" isn't that high. In the end you are willing to pay only as much as you can afford. You don't own the most expensive speakers in the World, do you?
How does this cheap cable sound to you?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/KabelDirekt-2x2-5mm²-Speakers-Surround-polarity/dp/B098NS8FD3/ref=sr_1_3?crid=25HMDBARHINME&keywords=speaker+cable&qid=1689273755&sprefix=speaker+cable%2Caps%2C112&sr=8-3
£15.99/10 m, 2x2.5 mm²
That's the kind of "default" cable I use. Works perfectly to me.
That's your opinion Poju, and that's your right, but respect at least my view too, and stop posting all this crap about cheap is better, I get tired of hearing the same old story over and over and over again from you. By now we know what you think.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 13, 2023, 11:34:47 AMWhat, you can tell from the picture that they are Putinists?
You are stepping out of line majorly, shame on you!
Quote from: Harry on July 13, 2023, 01:18:26 PMYou are stepping out of line majorly, shame on you!
Well, yes, in bad taste. My apologies.
Quote from: Atriod on July 13, 2023, 12:41:30 PMIs this really the "level of performance" to want? Sad. The comments that follow are even more brutal than Amir's tear down of them.
It seems to be pretty clear. Todd likes the sound of the Beyer T1, and wants to like the sound (or level of performance) of other components in a similar way. Measurements have nothing to do with it. Humans like the sound, not measurements.
Quote from: Atriod on July 13, 2023, 12:41:30 PMIs this really the "level of performance" to want?
Sure is. See, exactly unlike audiophiles, I use measurements as a guide to predict how things will sound before I even listen. I know what measurements mean. I know that there is a perfect correlation between objective measurements and sound quality. Audiophiles deny that - see many prior posts in this very thread - and instead delude themselves into believing that measurements do not predict sound, and that they can hear things that measurements show do not and cannot exist. People may like or dislike whatever they choose, but to make ascientific assertions as audiophiles are prone to do is just silly.
Quote from: Todd on July 13, 2023, 03:00:57 PM[..] I use measurements as a guide to predict how things will sound before I even listen. [..]
The claim that it is possible to predict sound by measurements reminds me of the ideas of Cesare Lombroso, who claimed that a person's criminal tendencies could be determined by skeletal and cranial measurements.
Well. Most of what we react to is the system's frequency response and the behavior of the room. Both can be measured.
The really funny bit is that the music we listen to has been measured already. If it wasn't measured there would be no sound.
Quote from: Valentino on July 13, 2023, 10:17:52 PMWell. Most of what we react to is the system's frequency response and the behavior of the room. Both can be measured.
The really funny bit is that the music we listen to has been measured already. If it wasn't measured there would be no sound.
Does this mean that the "better" the frequency response, the stronger impression of the music is? Some forty years ago I listened to a Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto in an archive recording with Yehudi Menuhin from a primitive wired radio in a cheap hotel room. It seems to have been the strongest impression I ever had of a Mendelssohn concerto, which I never managed to repeat later. Perhaps because I didn't think to take measurements of the radio and the room and make an attempt to recreate them?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 13, 2023, 11:35:28 PMDoes this mean that the "better" the frequency response, the stronger impression of the music is? Some forty years ago I listened to a Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto in an archive recording with Yehudi Menuhin from a primitive wired radio in a cheap hotel room. It seems to have been the strongest impression I ever had of a Mendelssohn concerto, which I never managed to repeat later. Perhaps because I didn't think to take measurements of the radio and the room and make an attempt to recreate them?
A very good point.
Quote from: Atriod on July 13, 2023, 12:17:14 PMWhat you described is not uncommon at all. Having audio jewelry is definitely a thing. One company I can think of is Gryphon Audio, I've never even heard of them in the US but they are very popular in the east.
Thanks, I'll check them out.
PD
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 13, 2023, 09:09:40 PMThe claim that it is possible to predict sound by measurements reminds me of the ideas of Cesare Lombroso, who claimed that a person's criminal tendencies could be determined by skeletal and cranial measurements.
A false analogy. The internet is rife with these.
Quote from: Harry on July 13, 2023, 01:16:32 PMThat's your opinion Poju, and that's your right, but respect at least my view too, and stop posting all this crap about cheap is better, I get tired of hearing the same old story over and over and over again from you. By now we know what you think.
I didn't say cheap is better. I say at some point moving from cheap to expensive there is a point where you get most bang for the buck.
Cables are among the most stupid things to waste money on. That's just how it is. People who claim to hear differences are victims of snake oil marketing and placebo effect. If I come to your house and switch your pricy cables to coat hangers, are you sure you can tell them apart without KNOWING which one is connected? Yes, that has been tested and it turned out it is not easy to tell coat hangers apart from audiophile cables.
So, are you dear Harry claiming:
1) You have superhuman hearing at your age (you are not a teenager anymore, sorry)
2) You are completely free of Placebo effect (a superhuman again)
3) Cable sellers don't take advantage of the weaknesses of human psychology
4) Only some cable manufacturers know how electricity really works (electric engineers don't)
5) Million dollar studios use somewhat cheap professional cables because they are ignorant.
Yes, this is my opinion. I have an university degree in electric engineering (acoustics and signal processing) If that is useless in forming an opinion about audio, then WHAT is it good for? I have been into audio since 1993 (30th anniversary!) and I have come to these conclusions as teachings of life.
If you are after the best possible sound Harry, I recommend spending your hard earned money primarily on things that matter the most:
Acoustic treatment and speakers. Those matter the most. Just be aware that very expensive speakers don't always be the best. a 10.000 € speaker may have better performance than and 100.000 € speaker and a really good 3.000 € speaker may beat a "bad" 10.000 € speaker etc.
Together with acoustics and speakers the placement of speakers and listener in the room is another very important aspect, but practically "free." All it take is some effort to try and figure out the optimal placements. Moving speakers just a couple of inches can change the sound a lot. Speaker "toe in" is also an important aspect of optimising the sound quality. There are people who buy very expensive speakers and put them in rooms with poor acoustics in wrong places and end up with much worse sound quality that people with affordable good speakers in rooms with reasonable acoustics and good placement.
Thanks to matured digital technology everything else matters very little if at all. Higher price tag can however provide better connections/functionality (flexibility), ease of use, better build quality/durability, better design (matter of taste) and of course bragging rights so it is not complete waste of money.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 13, 2023, 09:09:40 PMThe claim that it is possible to predict sound by measurements reminds me of the ideas of Cesare Lombroso, who claimed that a person's criminal tendencies could be determined by skeletal and cranial measurements.
It is about
what we can predict from the measurements. A certain measurement may tell us the sound is lacking bass, but not anything about how good the soundstage is. Another measurement may tell us how good the soundstage is etc. So, you may not be able to know criminal tendencies from the cranial measurements, but you may know the that the person has Hungarian ancestory.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 13, 2023, 11:35:28 PMDoes this mean that the "better" the frequency response, the stronger impression of the music is? Some forty years ago I listened to a Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto in an archive recording with Yehudi Menuhin from a primitive wired radio in a cheap hotel room. It seems to have been the strongest impression I ever had of a Mendelssohn concerto, which I never managed to repeat later. Perhaps because I didn't think to take measurements of the radio and the room and make an attempt to recreate them?
Your anecdote reminds me of the first time I heard Prince's Let's Go Crazy. On the radio in a then 10 years old Mazda 1500. I was 19, it was summer and there were girls everywhere.
I surely don't try to replicate feelings when setting up stereo equipment. First I try to make it perform well objectively. Afterwards I adjust to taste with music.
I don't know if I am one of the people being accused of being an "objectivist." I listen to music, I don't put on an audio file and watch guages monitoring current and frequency response. People who design audio equipment are (hopefully) objectivists. They design their systems using analytic calculations, computer modeling and precise measurements, complemented by listening trials to confirm that their quantitative works is producing the desired result. I can't believe that is happening at Nordost. Their main activity is trying to make the cable look cool, and generating marketing materials that will convince people to pay enormous sums of money for a cable that is functionally indistinguishable from a cable you can buy for $15 on amazon.com
There is a clear reason a pair of headphones could be very expensive. The engineers must design and manufacture a powerful magnet with a tailored magnetic field gradient. They must design and manufacture a voice coil, a wound coil of wire as light as possible which can sustain as large a current as possible. They must design and manufacture a diaphragm which has the highest possible stiffness to weight ratio, which won't flex or exhibit mechanical resonances when driven by the voice coil, distorting the sound. This involves choice of material, thickness, shape, etc. Producing the device requires engineering skill and precisely controlled manufacturing. And after they have done their best with the technical work in design, manufacturing and testing you still have to listen to it, because exactly how it will interact with an individuals ear is somewhat unpredictable. I have several pairs of headphones which I regard as being of high quality, but which have their own subtle sound signature.
A cable is a pair of conducting filaments, or a pair of bundles of conducting filaments. It is entirely passive. An ideal conductor allows current to pass with no resistance. In practice a cable has a small resistance, inductance and capacitance, which means a small potential difference (voltage) is required to drive the current through the cable, which represents signal loss. The goal is to make this loss sufficiently small. This is accomplished by using material with the lowest available resistivity (usually copper) and making the thickness of the wire sufficiently large.
If a cable has a direction indicator, then the manufacturer is perpetrating a fraud. A speaker cable is symmetrical. If you reverse the two ends you have the same object. It is logically impossible for a speaker cable to have a correct signal direction. Even if the cable were asymmetrical, the signal is symmetrical. The current flow alternates in direction and even if the cable were "right" for one direction, it would be "wrong" when the current flow reverses. I read the marketing materials provided by Nordost and it explains how the weird appearance of the cable is needed to defeat pernicious effects that don't actually exist. The only "luxury" required of a cable is gold-plated connectors. The resistance of a cable is typically dominated by the contact resistance at the connector and gold (as the ancients knew) is the metal with the least tendency to oxidize, and surface oxide degrades contact quality. If you are spending large sums of money on speaker cable you are being taken advantage of.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 14, 2023, 06:23:32 AMI don't know if I am one of the people being accused of being an "objectivist." I listen to music, I don't put on an audio file and watch guages monitoring current and frequency response. People who design audio equipment are (hopefully) objectivists. They design their systems using analytic calculations, computer modeling and precise measurements, complemented by listening trials to confirm that their quantitative works is producing the desired result. I can't believe that is happening at Nordost. Their main activity is trying to make the cable look cool, and generating marketing materials that will convince people to pay enormous sums of money for a cable that is functionally indistinguishable from a cable you can buy for $15 on amazon.com
There is a clear reason a pair of headphones could be very expensive. The engineers must design and manufacture a powerful magnet with a tailored magnetic field gradient. They must design and manufacture a voice coil, a wound coil of wire as light as possible which can sustain as large a current as possible. They must design and manufacture a diaphragm which has the highest possible stiffness to weight ratio, which won't flex or exhibit mechanical resonances when driven by the voice coil, distorting the sound. This involves choice of material, thickness, shape, etc. Producing the device requires engineering skill and precisely controlled manufacturing. And after they have done their best with the technical work in design, manufacturing and testing you still have to listen to it, because exactly how it will interact with an individuals ear is somewhat unpredictable. I have several pairs of headphones which I regard as being of high quality, but which have their own subtle sound signature.
A cable is a pair of conducting filaments, or a pair of bundles of conducting filaments. It is entirely passive. An ideal conductor allows current to pass with no resistance. In practice a cable has a small resistance, inductance and capacitance, which means a small potential difference (voltage) is required to drive the current through the cable, which represents signal loss. The goal is to make this loss sufficiently small. This is accomplished by using material with the lowest available resistivity (usually copper) and making the thickness of the wire sufficiently large.
If a cable has a direction indicator, then the manufacturer is perpetrating a fraud. A speaker cable is symmetrical. If you reverse the two ends you have the same object. It is logically impossible for a speaker cable to have a correct signal direction. Even if the cable were asymmetrical, the signal is symmetrical. The current flow alternates in direction and even if the cable were "right" for one direction, it would be "wrong" when the current flow reverses. I read the marketing materials provided by Nordost and it explains how the weird appearance of the cable is needed to defeat pernicious effects that don't actually exist. The only "luxury" required of a cable is gold-plated connectors. The resistance of a cable is typically dominated by the contact resistance at the connector and gold (as the ancients knew) is the metal with the least tendency to oxidize, and surface oxide degrades contact quality. If you are spending large sums of money on speaker cable you are being taken advantage of.
As for me, all I can tell you is that when I was auditioning components and figuring out what would work for me, I went in really skeptical as far as things like interconnects and speaker cables went. I focused my probably imperfect listening skills using the same CDs and pieces of music, components, listening spots, etc. (and was allowed to listen on my own too)...and to be fair and give credit to the person who was helping me (and he did ask a lot of questions and also gave me a lot of info--for example in terms of changes in radio signals and what I liked listening to--as in compression, I believe is the term, of radio signal. As in would it be worth it for me to spend more money in terms of buying a high-end tuner if the signals were so compressed in terms of bandwidth?). And I passed on that tuner. He also did mention (and we talked about) the differences in sound that one could hear (components, cables, etc.) and that it was also a matter of preference.
Just my thoughts.
Best,
PD
I stopped being an audiophile when I gave up listening to money and prestige.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 13, 2023, 08:27:12 AM@DavidW A friend of mine several years ago mentioned that she was looking for a CD player for her home for her and her partner to use. I suggested a then-existent Tivoli player (which I had looked at once upon a time) which I thought would suit their needs and there was one in a local shop and it was what I thought was a reasonable $600. I knew that they weren't big music junkies and wouldn't want to be spending a ton of money on different components. She was like: "That's a lot of money!". She'll spend $200 on a pair of shoes. My thinking was that it's getting hard to find some sort of all-in-one CD player (particularly one that is any good). I have no idea what Bose are going for these days or a basic Cambridge Audio, but I suspect that they are more. Tivoli also had a good reputation and I figured that it would last reasonably well for them. Oh, well. I tried. And if anyone else here has any suggestions, I'll happily pass them along. :)
PD
PD, if they had an external dac then a dedicated cd player might not make sense. Using a cheap dvd player as a transport would still produce inaudible jitter. Steve Guttenberg who reviews very expensive gear himself uses an Oppo blu-ray player. I have a dedicated cd player, partly to handle scratched discs, but mostly out of nostalgia. But most people don't buy cd players anymore and have not for the past twenty years or so.
Quote from: Atriod on July 13, 2023, 12:41:30 PMIs this really the "level of performance" to want? Sad. The comments that follow are even more brutal than Amir's tear down of them.
FR for headphones need to be taken with an enormous grain of salt. They are usually based on taking an average preference as a standard since no standard exists. There is a wide variety of ear shapes, but also the average person liking more bass doesn't make it an objective fact that the T1s are bass lite.
I personally find that the Harman target doesn't fit my own ears at all. And if it was a good predictor of SQ then the akg k361 should certainly sound better than the really off beyer dt1990s but they absolutely do not.
Another problem I have with these FR graphs is that they are effectively lies due to octave smoothing. It is the narrow resonance curves that really give a headphone its sound characteristic which is exactly what the plots wipe out.
An fr plot can give you a vague sense of the sound profile, but that is it. You have to listen with your own ears.
This is in stark contrast to speakers which should be designed to measure flat (at least before room response is taken into account).
Quote from: DavidW on July 14, 2023, 09:20:53 AMPD, if they had an external dac then a dedicated cd player might not make sense. Using a cheap dvd player as a transport would still produce inaudible jitter. Steve Guttenberg who reviews very expensive gear himself uses an Oppo blu-ray player. I have a dedicated cd player, partly to handle scratched discs, but mostly out of nostalgia. But most people don't buy cd players anymore and have not for the past twenty years or so.
I perhaps did not explain myself the best. I think that they were looking for an all in one unit in "think boom box but better"...the Tivoli unit was an all-in-one unit including speakers...maybe also a tuner? I forget. Perhaps I should try and educate them a bit better.
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 14, 2023, 09:32:19 AMI perhaps did not explain myself the best. I think that they were looking for an all in one unit in "think boom box but better"...the Tivoli unit was an all-in-one unit including speakers...maybe also a tuner? I forget. Perhaps I should try and educate them a bit better.
PD
Oh okay I misread you before.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 14, 2023, 08:09:37 AMAs for me, all I can tell you is that when I was auditioning components and figuring out what would work for me, I went in really skeptical as far as things like interconnects and speaker cables went. I focused my probably imperfect listening skills using the same CDs and pieces of music, components, listening spots, etc. (and was allowed to listen on my own too)...and to be fair and give credit to the person who was helping me (and he did ask a lot of questions and also gave me a lot of info--for example in terms of changes in radio signals and what I liked listening to--as in compression, I believe is the term, of radio signal. As in would it be worth it for me to spend more money in terms of buying a high-end tuner if the signals were so compressed in terms of bandwidth?). And I passed on that tuner. He also did mention (and we talked about) the differences in sound that one could hear (components, cables, etc.) and that it was also a matter of preference.
Just my thoughts.
Best,
PD
Sounds like a sensible approach.
It's complicated because the ears are not microphones and the brain is not a tape recorder. What is presented to our consciousness as "sound" or "music" has already been processed by subsystems of our brain that we are not aware of. Even and A/B comparison is dicey, because of the tendency to find the louder one is superior, or one with stronger base/treble emphasis. What sounds better in an A/B test may become fatiguing in long listening. I let long term listening pleasure be the ultimate guide, and gravitate towards brands which reputation and my experience tell me are characterized by engineering integrity.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 14, 2023, 04:16:11 AM[..] So, you may not be able to know criminal tendencies from the cranial measurements, but you may know the that the person has Hungarian ancestory.
Did I understand you correctly - Hungarians can be distinguished by the shape of their skulls?
Quote from: Todd on July 14, 2023, 03:54:43 AMA false analogy. The internet is rife with these.
No more false than the claim that you can predict sound quality from measurements.
More, you've admitted to appreciating the sound of your T1 headphones, which happen to have poor measurements as was shown above. Either you did not see those measurements, or you ignored them. Any way you confirmed that measurements are not important to judge the sound favourably.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 14, 2023, 10:49:40 AMNo more false than the claim that you can predict sound quality from measurements.
More, you've admitted to appreciating the sound of your T1 headphones, which happen to have poor measurements as was shown above. Either you did not see those measurements, or you ignored them. Any way you confirmed that measurements are not important to judge the sound favourably.
All incorrect. First, phrenology is pseudoscience and cannot be compared to real science. Second, I did see the measurements of the T1 (the T1/1 and T1/3 actually, both of which I own) prior to listening and buying, and the Audezes, Focals, Audio Technicas and other headphones I purchased as well. The same applies to most other gear I purchased as well. The measurements are what made me seek the gear out, and the measurements did, in fact, predict the sound. Third, I contend that audiophiles live in a fantasyland where measurements do not dictate sound and where they claim they hear things that do not exist or that they cannot hear. It's entirely possible to enjoy grossly distorted sound - the continued existence of turntables and tubes demonstrates that conclusively. Measurements are real, they are objective, and they do predict sound. And a lot of audiophile gear is pure snake oil. It's really quite simple.
Quote from: Todd on July 14, 2023, 11:01:57 AMAll incorrect. First, phrenology is pseudoscience and cannot be compared to real science. Second, I did see the measurements of the T1 (the T1/1 and T1/3 actually, both of which I own) prior to listening and buying, and the Audezes, Focals, Audio Technicas and other headphones I purchased as well. The same applies to most other gear I purchased as well. The measurements are what made me seek the gear out, and the measurements did, in fact, predict the sound. Third, I contend that audiophiles live in a fantasyland where measurements do not dictate sound and where they claim they hear things that do not exist or that they cannot hear. It's entirely possible to enjoy grossly distorted sound - the continued existence of turntables and tubes demonstrates that conclusively. Measurements are real, they are objective, and they do predict sound. And a lot of audiophile gear is pure snake oil. It's really quite simple.
The problem with measurements is that each of them offer only one angle to assessing component quality and ignore a significant number of others.
In Lombroso's time, many people thought he was right, and his ideas were quite influential. Time has passed, and now many people think differently. So with all so-called scientific knowledge, it doesn't stand the test of time. What seems immutable today will seem ridiculous tomorrow. Your faith in science is comical, it's time to grow up.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 14, 2023, 11:50:56 AMThe problem with measurements is that each of them offer only one angle to assessing component quality and ignore a significant number of others.
This requires clarification. Multiple measurements are typically used to assess every piece of gear. As mentioned before, measurements do predict sound quality. That is a fact. Also a fact, human hearing is limited. Another fact, marketing and advertising are known to work very well.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 14, 2023, 11:50:56 AMIn Lombroso's time, many people thought he was right, and his ideas were quite influential. Time has passed, and now many people think differently. So with all so-called scientific knowledge, it doesn't stand the test of time. What seems immutable today will seem ridiculous tomorrow.
It is odd to see someone stick so doggedly with a false analogy. If you insist on relying on false analogies, consider upgrading. The one you've selected doesn't work.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 14, 2023, 11:50:56 AMYour faith in science is comical, it's time to grow up.
The things one can read online.
Quote from: Todd on July 14, 2023, 12:50:31 PMThis requires clarification. Multiple measurements are typically used to assess every piece of gear. As mentioned before, measurements do predict sound quality. That is a fact. Also a fact, human hearing is limited. Another fact, marketing and advertising are known to work very well.
It is odd to see someone stick so doggedly with a false analogy. If you insist on relying on false analogies, consider upgrading. The one you've selected doesn't work.
The things one can read online.
1. Yes, you can use two or three kinds of measurements. Each of them shows one thing, separately. But human perception is holistic, we hear everything at once and see if it suits us or not. Your story with the T1 headphones illustrates this most obviously. Some particular measurement was bad, and yet your holistic perception told you that the sound was almost perfect for you. This is why a person's integrated perception is always better than any measurement. Your perception is perfect for you, and it may be useless for someone else, and any single measurement does not necessarily correspond to the specific perception of an individual person (you could call this the T1 principle).
2. This is not just an analogy, but an illustration that any "scientific" knowledge can not only be frivolous, but also comes and goes.
3. Much can be read online.
Quote from: DavidW on July 13, 2023, 01:00:38 PMI don't fit into either camp. I use measurements as a starting point, but then turn to subjective impressions to narrow it down and I value both. I usually find that the best gear works well on both sides.
I see the following. You pay attention to measurements, and that's fine, we are all conditioned by external influences. But then you make decisions based on your own impression. And that's beautiful, a clear sign of maturity.
It's very important to stop trusting what you read or hear from others. We've all made mistakes making decisions dictated by others.
Trust in yourself. At the end of the day, that's all that matters, the rest is a faint shadow. Tale told by an idiot. The weak read measurements, the strong listen to their selves.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 14, 2023, 10:35:00 AMDid I understand you correctly - Hungarians can be distinguished by the shape of their skulls?
Frankly I don't even care, because it was only an analogue, a bad one I guess... ...dealing with subjectivist audiophiles drives me crazy.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 14, 2023, 11:50:56 AMThe problem with measurements is that each of them offer only one angle to assessing component quality and ignore a significant number of others.
In Lombroso's time, many people thought he was right, and his ideas were quite influential. Time has passed, and now many people think differently. So with all so-called scientific knowledge, it doesn't stand the test of time. What seems immutable today will seem ridiculous tomorrow. Your faith in science is comical, it's time to grow up.
You sound like someone who knows nothing about science and what it is! It is amazing how scientifically illiterate people are! Science represents the best available knowledge and aims to make it better with time. When you say science doesn't stand the test of time, it means science improves in time. It is about finding holes in our knowledge and understanding and trying to fill them. Not everything is known. That's why scientists keep working to know more.
Measurent from one angle is better than no measurements at all. We can make measurements from multiple angle and have a good understanding of the thing measured. Also, how the measurements are interpreted is important and may require skills and experience. You want a doctor to look at your X-ray rather than a taxi driver, don't you?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 14, 2023, 11:50:56 AMThe problem with measurements is that each of them offer only one angle to assessing component quality and ignore a significant number of others.
That is why there are different measurements are employed to fully characterize a system.
QuoteIn Lombroso's time, many people thought he was right, and his ideas were quite influential. Time has passed, and now many people think differently. So with all so-called scientific knowledge, it doesn't stand the test of time. What seems immutable today will seem ridiculous tomorrow. Your faith in science is comical, it's time to grow up.
Scienficic knowledge doesn't stand the test of time?
Lombroso's work didn't have a solid basis, it was a codification of his prejudices. Legitimate scientific knowledge is never invalidated. It may be found to be a special case of a more general theory. Somewhere above you mentioned, as an example, Newton's laws supposedly being invalidated. This is nonsense. Newton's laws are perfectly valid, in the regime of velocity, mass and length scale that he considered. In quantum mechanics a fundamental particle does not have a definite reality, but Newton's laws apply to the wave functions. In relatively there are new transformation laws, but in the limit of velocity significantly slower than the speed of light those transformation laws and dynamic equations reduce to Newton's formulation. The idea that an amplifier or another device can be described in terms of frequency response is based on Fourier's theorem, first formulated in 1822 and subsequenty refined and generalized.
Good measurements is a pre-requisite for good sound. A device with bad frequency response can't sound good. A device with good frequency response may have shortcomings if other characteristics of its response aren't good (output impedance or damping factor, phase distortion, nonlinearity, harmonic or inter modular distortion). And for transducers (headphones, speakers) there is the additional uncertainty in how it will interact with our physiology or room acoustics.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 15, 2023, 03:03:50 AMGood measurements is a pre-requisite for good sound. A device with bad frequency response can't sound good.
A device with bad frequency response can sound good in special cases: E.g. if for some reason the recording has +7 dB bump at 100 Hz and the device happens to have a mirroring 7 dB dip at 100 Hz, the resulting frequency response is flat and is likely to sound good. The chances of this lucky match is of course miniscule and everything else sounds crap.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 14, 2023, 09:13:59 PM1. Yes, you can use two or three kinds of measurements.
For most components, not just one or two or three measurements can be used, but many can be used. They predict sound. That is a fact.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 14, 2023, 09:13:59 PM2. This is not just an analogy, but an illustration that any "scientific" knowledge can not only be frivolous, but also comes and goes.
It is a false analogy and it illustrates nothing. Phrenology was pseudoscience that had detractors in its time. The findings of phrenology could not be verified using objective measurements a century later. By contrast, the design and construction of audio gear is based on real science that has been verified billions and perhaps trillions of times using objective measurements all over the world for decades, and over a century in some instances.
Though you have denied you are an audiophile, your posts perfectly illustrate the anti-science, fantasyland outlook of audiophiles.
Your insistence that some audiophile myths are real does illustrate the persuasive powers of marketing, though, so something concrete does come out of what you write.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 14, 2023, 10:35:00 AMDid I understand you correctly - Hungarians can be distinguished by the shape of their skulls?
In London the Opera House orchestra used to call Solti The Screaming Skull.
Quote from: Todd on July 15, 2023, 04:40:43 AM[..]
Though you have denied you are an audiophile, your posts perfectly illustrate the anti-science, fantasyland outlook of audiophiles.
Your insistence that some audiophile myths are real does illustrate the persuasive powers of marketing, though, so something concrete does come out of what you write.
I'm not familiar with audiophile myths, sorry. And I care little for the quest for perfect sound. It suits me how my current Naim set sounds, and I have no idea what its measurements are.
I think you understand what I'm trying to say but pretend you don't. But, that's totally fine with me, I'm not convincing anyone of anything or forcing anyone to see things the way I see them. Such a task would be ridiculous, quite like the story about the skulls of Hungarians we were told above.
Hi all, I'm going to split these threads to reserve this audio system thread for just that. I will temporarily lock the thread.
Holy cow that was 12 pages!?! :o Carry on with the debate here please. Keeping in mind of course to please continue to refrain from ad hominem attacks.
Quote from: DavidW on July 14, 2023, 09:39:13 AMOh okay I misread you before.
Thinking about your suggestion of a DAC got me thinking. I'll have to ask them a few more questions.
If they do have a DVD player and would be willing to buy a DAC, what kind of speakers would they need to be able to hook up to it? Would they need a powered pair of bookshelf speakers?
PD
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 14, 2023, 09:42:30 AMSounds like a sensible approach.
It's complicated because the ears are not microphones and the brain is not a tape recorder. What is presented to our consciousness as "sound" or "music" has already been processed by subsystems of our brain that we are not aware of. Even and A/B comparison is dicey, because of the tendency to find the louder one is superior, or one with stronger base/treble emphasis. What sounds better in an A/B test may become fatiguing in long listening. I let long term listening pleasure be the ultimate guide, and gravitate towards brands which reputation and my experience tell me are characterized by engineering integrity.
Funny that you mentioned the loudness factor. I was over at a friend's house a couple of months ago and we were doing a comparison test. I had asked him about whether or not he could hear much of a difference between a relatively recent CD which he has both on LP and on CD and he was asking what I could hear. He did also bring up the factor, as you had mentioned, that people tend to find the louder sounding one as the better of the two--which he tried to make adjustments for. Obviously, it's hard to do on the fly for someone in a home setting.
In any event, I enjoy what I ended up with...and that's all that matters in the end. :)
PD
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 15, 2023, 09:39:00 AMI'm not familiar with audiophile myths, sorry.
You have been propagating them.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 15, 2023, 09:39:00 AMI think you understand what I'm trying to say but pretend you don't.
I understand what you are writing, and I understand that it is ascientific and objectively wrong.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 15, 2023, 12:17:26 PMThinking about your suggestion of a DAC got me thinking. I'll have to ask them a few more questions.
If they do have a DVD player and would be willing to buy a DAC, what kind of speakers would they need to be able to hook up to it? Would they need a powered pair of bookshelf speakers?
PD
They can use passive speakers along with an amp, or they can use active speakers by themselves. There is no point in using a receiver though with an external dac, most receivers will just digitize the signal to add their processing and then decode with their own built in dac.
I mean this was years ago though so I'm sure they figured out what they wanted, and in fact have probably just switched to streaming.
Quote from: Todd on July 15, 2023, 04:46:30 PMYou have been propagating them.
I understand what you are writing, and I understand that it is ascientific and objectively wrong.
You are propagating the idea of objective knowledge, which makes absolutely no sense. Everything that man knows is subjective. Every bit spoken or written by others inevitably becomes subjective if it enters your knowing for a moment or two before it disappears.
You may dream that you see Beethoven drinking beer with Brahms. In the dream you will have full confidence that you are seeing an objective event. However, everything will be happening in your head only, i.e. in your subjective knowing.
Everything that exists in your knowing under the label of science is just your dream. You are, the rest is smoke.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 14, 2023, 04:04:55 AM...
1) You have superhuman hearing at your age (you are not a teenager anymore, sorry)
...
In the present context** I consider superhuman hearing to be a disability, not an asset. I feel a bit sorry for anyone claiming to be sensitive to incremental changes in sound ranging from tiny to imaginary.
** that is, appreciation of music as listened to via an audio system.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 04, 2023, 05:08:14 AMMy USB hard disk is connected by a cable which looks like it costs $1. I can transfer a Terabyte of data into that hard disk and the transferred data is bit-for-bit identical. How can you improve on that?
You can
subjectively improve on that by making the cable much more expensive and fancier looking. This will trigger Placebo effect on those whose knowledge and understanding of technical things such as digital audio and physics is lacking.
In a way I envy these people who can experience this kind of Placebo effects. The World is certainly more interesting and colourful place for them, if you have tons of money to waste that is... ...for us who understand that a $1 USB cable gets the job done 100 % being an audiophile is less exciting, but also cheaper.
Quote from: DavidW on July 15, 2023, 07:40:09 PMThey can use passive speakers along with an amp, or they can use active speakers by themselves. There is no point in using a receiver though with an external dac, most receivers will just digitize the signal to add their processing and then decode with their own built in dac.
I mean this was years ago though so I'm sure they figured out what they wanted, and in fact have probably just switched to streaming.
I'll check back in with them. At the time, the wife told me that they wanted to listen to their CD collection again (which I'm pretty certain wasn't that large). They travel a lot, so I expect that that project has gone by the wayside [that plus Covid shutting things down and also dealing with repairs to their second home post-tropical storm].
But thank you so much for the helpful comments! :)
Best,
PD
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 04, 2023, 07:01:22 AMI hadn't even heard of MQA and had to google it. Tells you how far behind the times I am! :(
PD
You missed nothing. MQA was a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 15, 2023, 09:39:00 AMI'm not familiar with audiophile myths, sorry. And I care little for the quest for perfect sound. It suits me how my current Naim set sounds, and I have no idea what its measurements are.
As far as I know, Naim audio products measure very well. In fact almost all audio gear these days measure well. The exceptions are such as:
1 Loudspeakers have multiple issues.
2 Headphones have issues.
3 Headphone amps can have power capacity and output impedance issues.
4 Tube amps have issues (on purpose to have "warm" sound)
5 Cheap audio gear
may have whatever issues.
Apart from the list above, audio stuff tends to measure well enough to be transparent for human ears these days.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 15, 2023, 09:27:06 PMYou are propagating the idea of objective knowledge, which makes absolutely no sense. Everything that man knows is subjective. Every bit spoken or written by others inevitably becomes subjective if it enters your knowing for a moment or two before it disappears.
You may dream that you see Beethoven drinking beer with Brahms. In the dream you will have full confidence that you are seeing an objective event. However, everything will be happening in your head only, i.e. in your subjective knowing.
Everything that exists in your knowing under the label of science is just your dream. You are, the rest is smoke.
Are you using drugs? That's possibly the craziest post I have ever seen on this discussion board.
The problematic thing about opinions like yours here is that they promote the idea that all opinions are equal, but that's not the case! You are entitled to your opinions, but that doesn't mean they are equal to other opinions.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 16, 2023, 02:52:00 AMAre you using drugs? That's possibly the craziest post I have ever seen on this discussion board.
The problematic thing about opinions like yours here is that they promote the idea that all opinions are equal, but that's not the case! You are entitled to your opinions, but that doesn't mean they are equal to other opinions.
No, are you?
Of course I am entitled to have my opinions. And you are entitled to have yours. And there is no slightest reason for you and me to hold the same opinions on everything.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 15, 2023, 09:27:06 PMYou are propagating the idea of objective knowledge, which makes absolutely no sense. Everything that man knows is subjective. Every bit spoken or written by others inevitably becomes subjective if it enters your knowing for a moment or two before it disappears.
You may dream that you see Beethoven drinking beer with Brahms. In the dream you will have full confidence that you are seeing an objective event. However, everything will be happening in your head only, i.e. in your subjective knowing.
Everything that exists in your knowing under the label of science is just your dream. You are, the rest is smoke.
What?
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 16, 2023, 02:19:54 AMAt the time, the wife told me that they wanted to listen to their CD collection again (which I'm pretty certain wasn't that large).
In that case the best thing to do is rip them and load them on their phone. Then they can listen to it anywhere. They can buy a bluetooth speaker for when they don't want to listen to headphones.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 16, 2023, 02:52:00 AMAre you using drugs? That's possibly the craziest post I have ever seen on this discussion board.
Please keep it respectful. $:)
I'm ancient and have typical ears for my age. Therefore I can't hear some differences others can. But I think there are processing differences that may also muddy the waters a little. For instance I can identify the actors who do voiceovers on commercials, not just the easy ones like Donald Sutherland and John Cusack, but harder ones like Josh Brolin and Brian Cox (who does Americanese on his). It's clear that there's more than frequency response involved in some discriminations.
I don't think this alters the case for/against audiophile claims which involves information that is measurably identiucal, unlike the identifiable characteristics of voices which differ greatly. I only bring it up to rabbit trail pointlessly.
Quote from: DavidW on July 14, 2023, 09:30:37 AMFR for headphones need to be taken with an enormous grain of salt. They are usually based on taking an average preference as a standard since no standard exists. There is a wide variety of ear shapes, but also the average person liking more bass doesn't make it an objective fact that the T1s are bass lite.
I personally find that the Harman target doesn't fit my own ears at all. And if it was a good predictor of SQ then the akg k361 should certainly sound better than the really off beyer dt1990s but they absolutely do not.
Another problem I have with these FR graphs is that they are effectively lies due to octave smoothing. It is the narrow resonance curves that really give a headphone its sound characteristic which is exactly what the plots wipe out.
An fr plot can give you a vague sense of the sound profile, but that is it. You have to listen with your own ears.
This is in stark contrast to speakers which should be designed to measure flat (at least before room response is taken into account).
So it looks like this got split off into a new thread, seeing this because it showed up in my notifications.
Maybe there are some differences of opinion with speaker vs headphone measurements.
But if even you assert that Harman/B&K target is "not for you" the measurements of the T1 are garbage, here is the full thing: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/beyerdynamic-t1-review-v2-headphone.20192/
The measurement system is flat it does not care about any curve, the target curve is overlayed on top of the headphone's frequency measurements. The T1 has some nasty emphasis well within the audible range, if you have presbycusis in that 5k-10k Hz range then you have no business spending let me correct myself not $900 for these headphones but a laughable $1300 (Amazon has a great price matching algorithm and dropped it down probably because of the sale on Beyerdynamic's website). Though looking at Beyerdynamic's page for them they sprinkle it with some clever marketing like Tesla this and Tesla that.
Additionally look at the very high distortion in the most sensitive range of our hearing. Amir can hear it and even says the headphone can't be saved with EQ.
I hear you on the point about overly smoothed frequency response charts, you always see these on speaker manufacturer's pages. You can make even a Lowther look like it measurements flat anechoic with enough smoothing. That is not what what's happening here, if it were Amir's measurements would be much lower fidelity and mask the issues.
Quote from: DavidW on July 16, 2023, 05:45:56 AMIn that case the best thing to do is rip them and load them on their phone. Then they can listen to it anywhere. They can buy a bluetooth speaker for when they don't want to listen to headphones.
I'll suggest that to them though I suspect that they aren't the type to want to do any ripping (They are in their over 70's) and own their own home so I suspect that they also aren't into headphone listening (just judging on what I know of them). But, who knows, I could be wrong! In any event, I'll suggest it to them....thanks! :)
PD
Quote from: drogulus on July 16, 2023, 08:21:44 AMI don't think this alters the case for/against audiophile claims which involves information that is measurably identiucal, unlike the identifiable characteristics of voices which differ greatly. I only bring it up to rabbit trail pointlessly.
Every single person posting to the original thread is an audiophile. An audiophile is someone that cares about sound quality, whether that means listening to expensive junk measuring headphones, SOTA measuring Genelecs, Nordsot Thor cables or earbuds connected to an iPod
that comments on the sound quality of those earbuds/iPod or recording quality of the albums they're listening to.
An example of someone who is not an audiophile - my best friend's mother who is a professional violinist that listens to a (I think?) Sherwood tower speaker system that buzzes on the low bass at louder levels. Either from the surrounds deteriorating or us damaging one of the drivers from a house party. She does not care and has never commented on this. She was more upset about people leaving empties on the piano :laugh:
Quote from: Atriod on July 16, 2023, 12:10:54 PMEvery single person posting to the original thread is an audiophile.
Bold type does not make something more true.
Quote from: Todd on July 16, 2023, 12:16:57 PMBold type does not make something more true.
You're an audiophile, even if you like to emphasize the word in a denigrating manner. Maybe some of the moderators that intervened with some of the posts aren't, but everyone commenting on sound quality is, which was everyone before they stepped in.
Quote from: Atriod on July 16, 2023, 12:21:08 PMYou're an audiophile, even if you like to emphasize the word in a denigrating manner. Maybe some of the moderators that intervened with some of the posts aren't, but everyone commenting on sound quality is, which was everyone before they stepped in.
Um, nope.
Quote from: Atriod on July 16, 2023, 11:57:08 AMSo it looks like this got split off into a new thread, seeing this because it showed up in my notifications.
Maybe there are some differences of opinion with speaker vs headphone measurements.
But if even you assert that Harman/B&K target is "not for you" the measurements of the T1 are garbage, here is the full thing: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/beyerdynamic-t1-review-v2-headphone.20192/
The measurement system is flat it does not care about any curve, the target curve is overlayed on top of the headphone's frequency measurements.
I knew about the Beyer 8 kHz spike but on that headphone it is truly astounding! The 1990s on the balanced pads also have it, but it is balanced by the bass which it seems to have much more of than those T1s.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 14, 2023, 04:04:55 AMCables are among the most stupid things to waste money on. That's just how it is. People who claim to hear differences are victims of snake oil marketing and placebo effect. If I come to your house and switch your pricy cables to coat hangers, are you sure you can tell them apart without KNOWING which one is connected? Yes, that has been tested and it turned out it is not easy to tell coat hangers apart from audiophile cables.
Unfortunately all the images in my Photobucket account are deleted, I had a picture of the inside of an MIT cable box that had electrolytic caps hot glued together. Looked like someone just threw them in there and went to town with the hot glue. I couldn't find the picture on Google Image Search.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 13, 2023, 01:44:33 PMIt seems to be pretty clear. Todd likes the sound of the Beyer T1, and wants to like the sound (or level of performance) of other components in a similar way. Measurements have nothing to do with it. Humans like the sound, not measurements.
On the contrary, it's audiophiles that fight so vigorously against being labeled an audiophile and instead preferring vague terms like "music lover." I assure you there are people that actually know what measurements mean and how they correlate with sound. Don't confuse a single person's incongruity in thinking with some truth that you've found.
If you're open to it get the third edition of Toole's book: https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers-Engineering/dp/113892136X/
He has made a very successful career out of sound reproduction research, and has plenty of people, including myself that have followed his writing and AES presentations, so you're wrong about all humans not liking measurements.
Quote from: Zauberschloss on July 16, 2023, 01:48:52 PMUnfortunately all the images in my Photobucket account are deleted, I had a picture of the inside of an MIT cable box that had electrolytic caps hot glued together. Looked like someone just threw them in there and went to town with the hot glue. I couldn't find the picture on Google Image Search.
I just found a picture on a Reddit thread. Is this the one to which you were referring? Note: I have no idea whether or not someone just made this up.
https://www.reddit.com/r/audiophile/comments/1fivn2/ever_wondered_what_was_in_the_mit_speaker_cable/
PD
p.s. The image is at the top of the thread.
Quote from: Zauberschloss on July 16, 2023, 01:48:52 PMUnfortunately all the images in my Photobucket account are deleted, I had a picture of the inside of an MIT cable box that had electrolytic caps hot glued together. Looked like someone just threw them in there and went to town with the hot glue. I couldn't find the picture on Google Image Search.
It must be musical glue containing stardust extracted from unicorn urine... ???
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 17, 2023, 02:59:37 AMI just found a picture on a Reddit thread.
(https://external-preview.redd.it/gsCpgoo6AeWgfug1J5liziCynwyeJHRi1He-8K5KRE4.jpg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=be5b3b5c5bc0a7dc146ea4e1088dc149bb8e6ae0)
Reminds me of some Wilson crossovers which were filled with epoxy, fully covering all components. It makes the sound more something.
Quote from: Zauberschloss on July 16, 2023, 02:08:39 PMIf you're open to it get the third edition of Toole's book: https://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers-Engineering/dp/113892136X/
You must be horn speaker/waveguide person with a new user name.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 15, 2023, 09:27:06 PMYou may dream that you see Beethoven drinking beer with Brahms. In the dream you will have full confidence that you are seeing an objective event. However, everything will be happening in your head only, i.e. in your subjective knowing.
Everything that exists in your knowing under the label of science is just your dream. You are, the rest is smoke.
Your views are reminiscent of notions that 'the entire universe could just be a dream I am having.' While it is obviously impossible to disprove this (people trying to convince you otherwise are just part of your dream) it is an absurdly narcissistic outlook. Apparently you regard yourself so highly that Einstein's theory of general relativity is something you dreamed up, even though you also dreamed that you have trouble understanding your phone bill.
In science, in particular, a scientist will put forward a result until he or she has collected extensive data under controlled circumstances, compared with mathematical models, analyzed to determine that the result cannot be explained by statical fluctuations, and will not be published until it has been reviewed by one or more peers. It would not be generally accepted until numerous other scientists have repeated the experiment or calculation and obtained similar results. If you call this a dream, it is a strange kind of dream. I cannot think of an instance when a scientific result which has passed this test has been invalidated, although they are often generalized or refined.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 17, 2023, 10:07:15 AMYour views are reminiscent of notions that 'the entire universe could just be a dream I am having.' While it is obviously impossible to disprove this (people trying to convince you otherwise are just part of your dream) it is an absurdly narcissistic outlook. Apparently you regard yourself so highly that Einstein's theory of general relativity is something you dreamed up, even though you also dreamed that you have trouble understanding your phone bill.
In science, in particular, a scientist will put forward a result until he or she has collected extensive data under controlled circumstances, compared with mathematical models, analyzed to determine that the result cannot be explained by statical fluctuations, and will not be published until it has been reviewed by one or more peers. It would not be generally accepted until numerous other scientists have repeated the experiment or calculation and obtained similar results. If you call this a dream, it is a strange kind of dream. I cannot think of an instance when a scientific result which has passed this test has been invalidated, although they are often generalized or refined.
Are you really interested in how I regard myself? But why? Isn't there anything more interesting and important in your life? Like your own self?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 17, 2023, 10:39:29 AMAre you really interested in how I regard myself? But why? Isn't there anything more interesting and important in your life? Like your own self?
I'm not too interested in how you regard yourself.
To quote Carl Sagan
QuoteWe live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.
I think it is important to prevent misunderstanding of the methods and contents of science and technology research.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 17, 2023, 10:54:09 AMI'm not too interested in how you regard yourself.
Then why are you writing about it?
Wouldn't it be better to focus on your self? Just look -- you know your self for sure, and this is the only knowledge that remains constant and unchanging. While each and all apparent things come and go like the morning dew, without the slightest exception. Is not your Self the only real treasure you possess? You may or may not know what Einstein said, but you cannot unknow your self.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 15, 2023, 09:27:06 PMYou are, the rest is smoke.
Including the Russian war on Ukraine?
Quote from: Florestan on July 17, 2023, 11:27:52 AMIncluding the Russian war on Ukraine?
Yes, of course. There was another raid tonight, about three in the morning. Loud explosions, and during one of them, very close by, an open window rattled, the heavy curtains were lifted by the wave. It was really scary. Now it's morning, the sun is shining, the birds are singing, everything is fine. Wars come and go, you stay.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 17, 2023, 09:30:27 PMYes, of course. There was another raid tonight, about three in the morning. Loud explosions, and during one of them, very close by, an open window rattled, the heavy curtains were lifted by the wave. It was really scary. Now it's morning, the sun is shining, the birds are singing, everything is fine. Wars come and go, you stay.
Everything is fine, except for those killed, maimed and left homeless in that raid. Go ahead, tell them or their relatives it was all smoke.
You stay if you are lucky. If you are not, you go with the war.
Quote from: Florestan on July 18, 2023, 04:24:13 AMEverything is fine, except for those killed, maimed and left homeless in that raid. Go ahead, tell them or their relatives it was all smoke.
You stay if you are lucky. If you are not, you go with the war.
Do I understand it right, an observer from afar is telling someone who has been living in a war for many months how and what to do? Well, go on, it's awfully interesting and immensely useful. Many thanks in advance.
Luck has nothing to do with the fact that I am, and neither does war.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 17, 2023, 11:08:10 AMThen why are you writing about it?
I am writing about the basis and content scientific knowledge.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 18, 2023, 04:44:41 AMDo I understand it right, an observer from afar is telling someone who has been living in a war for many months how and what to do? Well, go on, it's awfully interesting and immensely useful. Many thanks in advance.
Luck has nothing to do with the fact that I am, and neither does war.
I am not telling you anything, I was just commenting upon your philosophy. Don't worry, I won't anymore, it's not worth my time. Looks like the war may have deeply affected your reason.
Over and out for good.
Quote from: Todd on July 16, 2023, 12:16:57 PMBold type does not make something more true.
Does not make it less true either.
Quote from: Florestan on July 18, 2023, 06:26:40 AMI am not telling you anything, I was just commenting upon your philosophy. Don't worry, I won't anymore, it's not worth my time. Looks like the war may have deeply affected your reason.
Over and out for good.
I'm not quite sure why you would want to appear rude and move on to discussing my personal qualities. It's a typical demagogue tactic. However, this is your problem, not mine.
Quote from: Irons on July 18, 2023, 07:57:20 AMDoes not make it less true either.
In general, perhaps not. Here it is decidedly untrue.
What is the topic of this thread? Utter Confusion? Member Bashing? Science and Religion?
Quote from: Valentino on July 20, 2023, 11:52:53 PMWhat is the topic of this thread? Utter Confusion? Member Bashing? Science and Religion?
One topic is the utter daftness of audiophilia generally.
I would like to believe we're on the cusp of a post-subjectivist, post-Romantic, (post-Harrian), era of the gear selection game. That is, one in which objective measurements are more important.
Measurements have guided me in recent years to select, e.g. my Purifi-based amplifier. I've had many various more expensive amps, (including a Pass Labs), but none have been better than the Purifi which has more detail, resolution, transparency, "air", and firmer, more articulate bass than anything heretofore.
As for the question of hearing vs. listening, short of a severe hear deficit, listening is more important to the audiophile. I believe I can hear quite subtle sound differences; this is contrary to the opinion of too many objectivists who deny anyone's ability to hear anything but gross differences caused, usually, by poorly designed or technically defective component.
OTOH, the old subjectivist mantra, "Trust you ears", is goes too far. One must balance one's impressions with objective measurement data: it's too easy to be deceived by the former.
FWIW, I've never heard a digital cable or AC mains cord that made the slightest difference to the sound; I've never heard a properly made/gauged interconnect or speaker cable that made a positively identifiable or persistent difference to the sound.
Quote from: Valentino on July 20, 2023, 11:52:53 PMWhat is the topic of this thread? Utter Confusion? Member Bashing? Science and Religion?
🙁 😞
PD
Quote from: Fëanor on July 21, 2023, 08:07:10 AMlistening is more important to the audiophile.
Is it? What is your objective basis for that assertion?
Not only am I not convinced of that based on observations of non-audiophiles, I am convinced that most audiophiles are defined primarily by their audio gear fetishes. Some audiophiles go one better and fetishize specific types of recordings, defined by recording techniques (eg, Blumlein microphone configurations sound most bestest), recording/mastering gear (eg, specific Neumann microphones are the most goodest), releases from specialized audiophile micro-labels (eg, Water Lily Acoustics, IsoMike), and so on. It is not uncommon to see audiophiles cling to dead or statistically irrelevant formats, too, such as LP, SACD, DVD-Audio, and MQA. Every once in a while, one will come across a kook who will go on about the supremely fine sound of DAT or 13 bit analog reel-to-reel, and even the hyper-specialized/kooky direct to disc recordings still made today. (Paavali Jumppanen made one of those recordings.) In short, it's not music that audiophiles concern themselves with, it's gear, and, to borrow from Mr Veblen, the pleasures derived from invidious distinction which necessarily accompanies conspicuous consumption.
The term audiophile might have once meant anyone with a commitment to a high standard of sound quality in music reproduction. The existence of ex-audiophiles has developed out of the recognition that audiophilia has been so deeply infected by subjectivist claims that rational persons no longer wish to associate themselves with the term. I care about sound quality just as much as I ever did, but the sad truth is the well has been poisoned.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2023, 09:07:45 AMQuote from: Fëanor on July 21, 2023, 08:07:10 AMAs for the question of hearing vs. listening, short of a severe hear deficit, listening is more important to the audiophile.
Is it? What is your objective basis for that assertion?
"Objective" basis? Well sorry, I don't think there
is any objective basis.
Anyway, I simply meant that the audiophile cares about the sonic nuances more than the other folks: resolution, dynamic contrasts, articulate bass,
etc. Objective hearing acuity has not that much to do with appreciating these things.
Quote from: Fëanor on July 21, 2023, 10:25:19 AM"Objective" basis? Well sorry, I don't think there is any objective basis.
So then it is purely subjective, which renders the following . . .
Quote from: Fëanor on July 21, 2023, 10:25:19 AMAnyway, I simply meant that the audiophile cares about the sonic nuances more than the other folks: resolution, dynamic contrasts, articulate bass, etc.
. . . devoid of meaning. You have no way to support your assertion other than based on what you feel.
Quote from: Fëanor on July 21, 2023, 10:25:19 AMObjective hearing acuity has not that much to do with appreciating these things.
This is very highly unlikely.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2023, 09:07:45 AMIs it? What is your objective basis for that assertion?
Not only am I not convinced of that based on observations of non-audiophiles, I am convinced that most audiophiles are defined primarily by their audio gear fetishes. Some audiophiles go one better and fetishize specific types of recordings, defined by recording techniques (eg, Blumlein microphone configurations sound most bestest), recording/mastering gear (eg, specific Neumann microphones are the most goodest), releases from specialized audiophile micro-labels (eg, Water Lily Acoustics, IsoMike), and so on. It is not uncommon to see audiophiles cling to dead or statistically irrelevant formats, too, such as LP, SACD, DVD-Audio, and MQA. Every once in a while, one will come across a kook who will go on about the supremely fine sound of DAT or 13 bit analog reel-to-reel, and even the hyper-specialized/kooky direct to disc recordings still made today. (Paavali Jumppanen made one of those recordings.) In short, it's not music that audiophiles concern themselves with, it's gear, and, to borrow from Mr Veblen, the pleasures derived from invidious distinction which necessarily accompanies conspicuous consumption.
You are painting "audiophiles" with too broad a brush. There are audiophiles and pathological audiophiles. At one point I paid $900 for a pair of headphones. That is probably 20 times what a "normal" person would think is justified. I consider it a worthwhile expenditure because the measurable and unmeasurable performance of the product enhanced listening pleasure. Similar considerations for various toys such as DACs, headphone amps, etc. I consider myself an audiophile because I do value accurate sound reproduction, to the extent that it enhances the enjoyment of music at a cost which seems proportional to the quality of the product.
Maybe some people would deny I am an audiophile because I decline to pay $10k for a USB cable.
Quote from: Fëanor on July 21, 2023, 08:07:10 AM[...] OTOH, the old subjectivist mantra, "Trust you ears", is goes too far. One must balance one's impressions with objective measurement data: it's too easy to be deceived by the former.
[...]
Dividing people into objectivists and subjectivists seems very funny. After all, each of people can only subjectively perceive things, i.e. objects. Any perception of an individual is subjective. In case the subject takes into account the so-called objective measurements, it is only as another object of his individual subjective perception. We cannot distrust our ears or any other organ of perception, because we have nothing but these.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 21, 2023, 11:12:02 AMThere are audiophiles and pathological audiophiles.
When I use the word audiophile, I explicitly mean people who deny the value of objective measurements and actually believe ad copy and think they can hear things that they can't possibly hear. You know, like people who claim they hear differences in digital cables.
I have spent lots and lots of money on gear, yet I know that what I hear deviates from linearity and that the measurements of the gear I buy really do predict how the gear sounds. For instance, I own five pairs of ridiculously expensive headphones, four of which cost a grand when I bought them. They all sound good in their own way, but all are obviously distorted. They are expensive and fun tone controls. I don't pretend otherwise.
The same applies to other gear. I have heard some of the most fantastically expensive speakers on the market in person, and every single pair of such speakers sound off, sound fake, sound unbalanced. This includes some of the biggest, baddest offerings from Sonus Faber, Avalon, Nola, B&W, Wilson*, and brands I can't even remember, along with some super-duper amazing monitors from the same makers that rely on the most advanced materials known to audiophiles. The only pair of audiophile speakers I've ever heard that came close to actually living up to the BS audiophiles spew was one of the Dynaudio Evidence line models. Pro/studio gear, though, sounds better, cleaner, more accurate. It also measures better. Go figure.
And of course there's the silly secret language audiophiles use. It's just gibberish. I don't hear "air" for instance, an audiophile term that means nothing at all. I also have never heard "palpable" imaging or soundstaging. And how does one hear "resolution"? What does that mean? That's something that old people physically cannot hear. They just can't. At least if one accepts what is actually meant by the concept of "high resolution". If people make up their own definitions for words and ignore physics and audiology and psychoacoustics, then sure, anything goes - and that is what has happened with audiophiles. They are detached from reality.
Here's how I hear, using Beyer T1/1s as an example. (T1/3s sound very different, as measurements predict.) The huge increase in high frequency output creates a sense of false detail, emphasizing high treble and rendering strings and pianos more "detailed", and some sopranos sound as though they sing with a brighter tone. It's a variant of the boom-tizz monitor design. Likewise, with Focal Elears, the high sensitivity creates an exaggerated sense of dynamic contrast, and the huge drop in output around 4 kHz results in a dull sound for string fundamentals, but exaggerates the harmonics for violin and some winds, as well as some studio altered voice playback, leading some people to claim that they hear new details when in fact what they hear is unbalanced, distorted sound. There are no new details to hear. (The Elears are my favorite headphones for watching TV and movies precisely because of their distorted presentation.)
* If ever I meet Dave Wilson in person, I will thank him for producing such consistently poor sounding gear that he ended up inadvertently saving me money. A little over a decade ago, I was all set to drop tens of thousands of dollars on uber-speakers, and made the 200 mile trek to hear some Wilsons, among other things. I can't remember the model, but it sounded markedly inferior to a pair of Focals that cost 1/10th as much. (The Focals measured better, as it happens.) The Watt/Puppy II was one of the most ridiculously bass-heavy speakers I've ever heard. And the original iteration of the CUBB was an ear-bleeder, though a part of that was due to the fact that the store salespeople didn't know that the speaker's crossover did not use baffle step compensation and therefore should not have been placed away from the wall. But they sure did blabber about the detail. Don't worry, objective measurements clearly show that those speakers produced too much high frequency energy by design.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2023, 12:21:38 PMHere's how I hear, using Beyer T1/1s as an example. (T1/3s sound very different, as measurements predict.) The huge increase in high frequency output creates a sense of false detail, emphasizing high treble and rendering strings and pianos more "detailed", and some sopranos sound as though they sing with a brighter tone. It's a variant of the boom-tizz monitor design.
I have Beyerdynamic T1 R1. I like them a lot. I was surprised to see that the subsequent revisions (R2, R3) had response which is less flat. New circumstances mean I need closed back headphones and I ended up trying the Shure SRH840A, which to my ears sounds a bit better than the T1s, although the open configuration give the T1 a more natural comfortable experience. The only problem with the Shure SRH840 is the flimsy plastic construction (they only cost $150) which causes noise if I jiggle the cord. If I continue to enjoy the SRH840A's, I'll probably upgrade to Shure SHR1540's at some point.
But now we are off topic for audiophilia.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on July 21, 2023, 12:48:15 PMNew circumstances mean I need closed back headphones and I ended up trying the Shure SRH840A, which to my ears sounds a bit better than the T1s, although the open configuration give the T1 a more natural comfortable experience.
I suggest keeping an eye on the Denon site. They routinely have unadvertised sales. Their closed back designs sound excellent.
Quote from: Todd on July 21, 2023, 10:44:04 AMQuote from: Fëanor on July 21, 2023, 10:25:19 AM"Objective" basis? Well sorry, I don't think there is any objective basis.
So then it is purely subjective, which renders the following ...
Quote from: Fëanor on July 21, 2023, 10:25:19 AMAnyway, I simply meant that the audiophile cares about the sonic nuances more than the other folks: resolution, dynamic contrasts, articulate bass, etc.
. . . devoid of meaning. You have no way to support your assertion other than based on what you feel.
Ah, so I surmise that you just don't agree with
my definition of audiophile but instead prefer your own. Fine
;) :blank:
Quote from: Fëanor on July 22, 2023, 07:58:05 AMAh, so I surmise that you just don't agree with my definition of audiophile but instead prefer your own. Fine.
That's certainly one way to look at it, but it does not change the fact that your definition possesses no meaning. Your assertion that audiophiles are more concerned with nuance and whatnot has no basis in objective reality. You just made it up. That's fine.
Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2023, 08:24:43 AMThat's certainly one way to look at it, but it does not change the fact that your definition possesses no meaning. Your assertion that audiophiles are more concerned with nuance and whatnot has no basis in objective reality. You just made it up. That's fine.
Such thing as objective reality is pure imagination. You can not verify it is not so, because all you have is subjective perception.
Quote from: Todd on July 22, 2023, 08:24:43 AMThat's certainly one way to look at it, but it does not change the fact that your definition possesses no meaning. Your assertion that audiophiles are more concerned with nuance and whatnot has no basis in objective reality. You just made it up. That's fine.
Surely we all know music lovers who aren't especially concerned about the quality of the sound provide they can make out the music. Such folks may have only simple, cheap "compact" stereo systems, or perhaps are basically content to listen through $50 earphones or computer speakers. These folks
aren't audiophiles.
But people who are fussy about the sound quality and willing to spend a little time an money on a system that can produce sound very well
are audiophiles. (Perhaps
you are an audiophile by these definition; I know I am.)
By contrast your definition of "audiophile" is restricted to the likes of someone obsessed with the likes of $10,000 speaker cables. Your definition is prejudicial and restrictive.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 22, 2023, 08:53:49 AMSuch thing as objective reality is pure imagination. You can not verify it is not so, because all you have is subjective perception.
Um, yeah, right.
Quote from: Fëanor on July 22, 2023, 09:08:19 AMSurely we all know music lovers who aren't especially concerned about the quality of the sound provide they can make out the music.
That's most people. They're called normal people.
Quote from: Fëanor on July 22, 2023, 09:08:19 AMBy contrast your definition of "audiophile" is restricted to the likes of someone obsessed with the likes of $10,000 speaker cables. Your definition is prejudicial and restrictive.
Incorrect. I already wrote that I explicitly mean people who deny the value of objective measurements and actually believe ad copy and think they can hear things that they can't possibly hear. One needn't spend $10K on cables. One can spend modest sums on snake oil and claim to hear things that aren't there. It happens all the time. It is people like this who then may claim that that they care more about sonic nuances, about resolution, dynamic contrasts, articulate bass, etc without offering any evidence to support such an assertion. For this assertion rests on the assumption that the gear, modestly priced or expensive, actually delivers superior performance in the stated areas, and that people who use such gear actually do appreciate various aspects of music performance more than normal people.
Since you mentioned it, can you explain how you can hear resolution since you included that word in your definition? The only people who mention resolution mean "high resolution". High resolution explicitly refers to the ability to reproduce frequencies above 22.05 kHz. People can't hear beyond that level. Older people have experienced decades of hearing degradation as part of the aging process and typically can't hear beyond 14-15 kHz, and sometimes notably lower. Since you physically cannot hear whatever benefits may derive from high resolution recording and playback - not least because recording, mastering, and playback may limit frequency response anyway - what do you mean? Because you might be relying on an idiosyncratic definition of the word rather than the proper definition of the word.
Remember, audiophiles make up nonsense words and descriptions all the time. I cited a couple previously, but one need only pick up an audiophile rag or read an online audiophile review to read reviews with even more words and descriptions that mean nothing at all. Many audiophiles then parrot this nonsense. It becomes part of the secret language, the secret society, the way for audiophiles to distinguish themselves from the unhearing masses, the deaf philistines, etc. It's invidious distinction for a subset of the middle class.
Quote from: Todd on July 23, 2023, 04:01:54 AMUm, yeah, right.
Not sure? Name a thing which exists beyond your knowing. And be finished right now, freedom is in your eyesight.
My definitions:
An eco-audiophile is a person who cares about (objective) sound quality and uses money on quality audio gear, but also understands the law of diminishing returns, what matters the most in audio and also the pitfalls of snake oil marketing. An eco-audiophile has good speakers, but pretty cheap "default" speaker cables. Eco-audiophiles often have strong science/engineering background.
An ego-audiophile is a person who cares about (subjective) sound quality and uses a lot of money on quality audio gear and doesn't let the law of diminishing returns affect so much. Can be a victim of snake oil marketing, because of placebo effect and ego. An ego-audiophile has good speakers and fancy speaker cables, because their ego doesn't settle for cheaper cables. Ego-audiophiles have often weaker knowledge about science and are less engineering-type people.
An audiophool is a person who falls for the craziest audio marketing scams and claims. They have the most expensive speaker cables and "tuning crystals" all over their listening rooms, but their audio system may have poor performance compared to the cost, because it is based on snake oil and pseudoscience rather than science of acoustics, electronics and signal processing. Audiophools are the too far gones of audio.
The borders of these three types are fuzzy. It can be difficult to say if someone is an eco- or ego-audiophile for example.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 23, 2023, 05:09:35 AMNot sure? Name a thing which exists beyond your knowing. And be finished right now, freedom is in your eyesight.
Huh?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 23, 2023, 05:09:35 AMName a thing which exists beyond your knowing
There are streets in Bucharest / villages in Romania that I've never heard of, let alone visited. Still, they do exist.
Quote from: Florestan on July 24, 2023, 01:21:26 AMThere are streets in Bucharest / villages in Romania that I've never heard of, let alone visited. Still, they do exist.
How you know this?
If the object does not exist in your knowing it does not exist for you. The thought about the possible existence of an object and the knowing of the object itself are not identical. In this case your thought exist in your knowing but not the object.
"If a tree falls in a forest" philosophy appeals to tweenagers.
Quote from: 71 dB on July 23, 2023, 08:16:34 AMMy definitions:
An eco-audiophile is a person who cares about (objective) sound quality and uses money on quality audio gear, but also understands the law of diminishing returns, what matters the most in audio and also the pitfalls of snake oil marketing. An eco-audiophile has good speakers, but pretty cheap "default" speaker cables. Eco-audiophiles often have strong science/engineering background.
...
This definition is apparently lost on
@Todd.
I very much agree with your "eco-audiophile" definition and insist that such folks are a substantial segment of audiophiles.
I slightly disagree with you in as much as eco-audiophiles may be simple informed, sensible people, not necessarily with especially strong science/engineering backgrounds.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 24, 2023, 02:33:26 AMHow you know this?
My right thumb told me so and I trust it unconditionally.
Quote from: Fëanor on July 24, 2023, 07:50:54 AMThis definition is apparently lost on @Todd.
It's just another interwebs definition, one of hundreds/thousands/millions.
Quote from: Florestan on July 24, 2023, 09:10:42 AMMy right thumb told me so and I trust it unconditionally.
So, you talk to your thumb and trust its judgements. There's nothing unusual about that. The mind is used to looking for answers to all its questions in the most bizarre places. It's not natural, but it's normal.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 24, 2023, 11:20:09 AMSo, you talk to your thumb
Actually, it's the other way around: my right thumb talks to me. I just listen.
(https://www.bridgewaypm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/blog5698mar10.jpg)
Quote from: Todd on July 24, 2023, 03:29:42 AM"If a tree falls in a forest" philosophy appeals to tweenagers.
Yes, Berkeley said
to be is to be perceived. That statement cannot be refuted. One can only cite a hypothetical unobserved (objective) reality as an alternative. But that's not what I'm pointing to. One can focus attention on infinitely arising, changing and disappearing, thus not real objects in knowing, or one can shift attention to a permanent unchanging and thus only real perceiving subject, self. In India they call it
satchitananda. Knowing which knows itself as bliss. There is no philosophy in knowing that you are, no speculation required to know your self. Know the truth, and the truth will set you free, Jesus says. Be a bliss, huh? ;)
Quote from: Florestan on July 24, 2023, 11:22:17 AMActually, it's the other way around: my right thumb talks to me. I just listen.
Perfect. I assume you can provide measurements showing that there is no difference between the way your thumb and any other thumb talks?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 24, 2023, 09:56:28 PMPerfect. I assume you can provide measurements showing that there is no difference between the way your thumb and any other thumb talks?
I must confess that when I point my right thumb upwards its voice is noticeably different from its voice when I point it downwards.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 24, 2023, 09:36:19 PMYes, Berkeley said to be is to be perceived. That statement cannot be refuted.
So, according to Berkeley and you, an isolated, uninhabited Pacific island did not exist before it was first seen by somebody, and that somebody created it on the spot by the very act of seeing it.
This thread is really going off-topic, ladies and gentlemen!
Quote from: Florestan on July 25, 2023, 12:41:49 AMI must confess that when I point my right thumb upwards its voice is noticeably different from its voice when I point it downwards.
On a slight tangent my favourite ever superhero was Mr Invisible from the great film "Mystery Men". The 'problem' with his super-power was that he was
only invisible when people were NOT looking at him.
My concern Florestan is that we have no proof your thumb exists at all except when you are talking to it. I think you should make your thumb an active poster on this forum so then at least we might get some sense of it actually existing let alone being sentient in its own right.
Quote from: Florestan on July 25, 2023, 02:06:33 AMSo, according to Berkeley and you, an isolated, uninhabited Pacific island did not exist before it was first seen by somebody, and that somebody created it on the spot by the very act of seeing it.
I'm not trying to simulate Berkeley, whose texts I know very little about. The reference to him came up after Todd's post above.
I'm saying that what is not in my knowing does not exist for me. Does it exist beyond my knowing is irrelevant for me. I have nothing to do with the objects beyond my knowing, hence no intertest whatsoever. Belief in a non-perceivable objects is pretty funny. There's a lot out there in the realm of the unperceivable. Islands, unicorns, ghosts, belief in the victory of communism, and a lot of other things, no sane limits.
But, here is even more important thing. I'll repeat what I've already said above. I may know or not know this or that object, including an island in the Pacific, or unicorn, or some firm measurements of USB cables. In any case each of the objects is not constant in my knowing, they come, stay for a moment, and go, thus not permanent, thus not real. Whereas knowing of objects is permanent and stays without slightest change. This is the only reality available to me, my knowing = my self.
Quote from: Roasted Swan on July 25, 2023, 03:45:01 AMOn a slight tangent my favourite ever superhero was Mr Invisible from the great film "Mystery Men". The 'problem' with his super-power was that he was only invisible when people were NOT looking at him.
;D
QuoteMy concern Florestan is that we have no proof your thumb exists at all except when you are talking to it. I think you should make your thumb an active poster on this forum so then at least we might get some sense of it actually existing let alone being sentient in its own right.
I am Florestan's right thumb. I dropped by just to let you all know that I do exist and am very conscious of my own self. Everything else is smoke.
Quote from: Florestan on July 25, 2023, 05:54:51 AM;D
I am Florestan's right thumb. I dropped by just to let you all know that I do exist and am very conscious of my own self. Everything else is smoke.
is that an example of a thumb "thumbing its nose" at someone? Do thumbs have noses? So many existential questions.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 25, 2023, 04:02:56 AMI'm saying that what is not in my knowing does not exist for me.
To call this "philosophy" teenager-ish would be an insult to teenagers.
QuoteThis is the only reality available to me, my knowing = my self.
Okay, here's some food for your thought.
I don't know the name of the person who activated the missile which destroyed the Odessa Cathedral, nor have I ever seen him nor will I ever see him --- therefore, he doesn't exist. But what doesn't exist cannot act, so there was no missile at all. Moreover, I had never heard about the Odessa Cathedral nor had I seen it --- therefore, it didn't exist. But what doesn't exist cannot be destroyed. Ergo, the destruction of the Odessa Cathedral is a fake news, there was no missile to begin with, and there was nothing to destroy.
Quote from: Florestan on July 25, 2023, 05:54:51 AMI am Florestan's right thumb. I dropped by just to let you all know that I do exist and am very conscious of my own self. Everything else is smoke.
If you typed this with more than one finger, it's fake news ;D
Quote from: Roasted Swan on July 25, 2023, 06:00:22 AMDo thumbs have noses?
One could see the whole body as an appendix of the thumb, in which case they do have noses. (Florestan)
+ 1. (Florestan's thumb)
Quote from: Brian on July 25, 2023, 06:07:58 AMIf you typed this with more than one finger, it's fake news ;D
Florestan typed that with just two fingers: his right index and his left middle finger, but it's me, his right thumb, that ordered and supervised the whole thing. ;)
Quote from: Florestan on July 25, 2023, 06:08:03 AMOne could see the whole body as an appendix of the thumb, in which case they do have noses. (Florestan)
+ 1. (Florestan's thumb)
thumbs up from me
Quote from: Florestan on July 25, 2023, 06:03:11 AMTo call this "philosophy" teenager-ish would be an insult to teenagers.
Okay, here's some food for your thought.
I don't know the name of the person who activated the missile which destroyed the Odessa Cathedral, nor have I ever seen him nor will I ever see him --- therefore, he doesn't exist. But what doesn't exist cannot act, so there was no missile at all. Moreover, I had never heard about the Odessa Cathedral nor had I seen it --- therefore, it didn't exist. But what doesn't exist cannot be destroyed. Ergo, the destruction of the Odessa Cathedral is a fake news, there was no missile to begin with, and there was nothing to destroy.
Everything you mentioned exists in your mind as a thought, not even as an object. It comes, stays for some time and leaves. Just like everything else in the apparent world. Things come and go, but you as a perceiving subject remain. The same is true of any other human being. I saw the damaged cathedral a couple of days ago with my own eyes. But that doesn't mean it will stay in my knowing forever. This object disappeared after a minute or two, the thought began to fade soon after, being displaced by other thoughts. And that's a good thing.
P.S.: And, there's no food for thought here. You don't have to think to know that you are. Moreover, the mind does everything it can to obscure the simple and undeniable truth of your existence.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 25, 2023, 08:06:23 AMEverything you mentioned exists in your mind as a thought, not even as an object. It comes, stays for some time and leaves. Just like everything else in the apparent world. Things come and go, but you as a perceiving subject remain. The same is true of any other human being. I saw the damaged cathedral a couple of days ago with my own eyes. But that doesn't mean it will stay in my knowing forever. This object disappeared after a minute or two, the thought began to fade soon after, being displaced by other thoughts. And that's a good thing.
P.S.: And, there's no food for thought here. You don't have to think to know that you are. Moreover, the mind does everything it can to obscure the simple and undeniable truth of your existence.
I am not audiophile since I do not obsess about audio quality. As long as it is decent, I'm okay. But I do recognize that audio reproduction has measurable attributes. And for those who know how to interpret the numbers, this can be an objective guide to comparing audio equipment (discounting the room itself).
So, your arguments strike me as specious.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 25, 2023, 08:06:23 AMEverything you mentioned exists in your mind as a thought, not even as an object. It comes, stays for some time and leaves. Just like everything else in the apparent world. Things come and go, but you as a perceiving subject remain. The same is true of any other human being. I saw the damaged cathedral a couple of days ago with my own eyes. But that doesn't mean it will stay in my knowing forever. This object disappeared after a minute or two, the thought began to fade soon after, being displaced by other thoughts. And that's a good thing.
P.S.: And, there's no food for thought here. You don't have to think to know that you are. Moreover, the mind does everything it can to obscure the simple and undeniable truth of your existence.
Personally, I'd love to hear more about what you like listening to--particularly in terms of classical music--in the appropriate threads. Also, things like favorite *Ukrainian composers, musicians, conductors. Maybe starting a thread in "The Diner" about what has life been like for you, family, friends, etc. in Ukraine. How are you surviving? Day to day problems (as you've had to deal with them personally or from people that you know well or news reports) in getting food, power, internet, heat, etc.
*I know that someone started a thread on Ukrainian composers already, so it would be quite interesting to hear your thoughts about them there--and I'm sure that you probably can add others not mentioned there. :)
Best wishes,
PD
Quote from: San Antone on July 25, 2023, 11:34:36 AMSo, your arguments strike me as specious.
That's perfectly fine. If the measurements are to your advantage, so be it. There is no problem for me in someone assessing the difference between audio components in a different way than I do. I don't even find it strange when someone insists that there is no difference between components, like cables for example. That's not true for me, but I'm not going to lose sleep over someone disagreeing with me. 8)
Where are the "insights"? All I see are chimpanzees flinging their feces at each other.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 25, 2023, 11:47:00 AMPersonally, I'd love to hear more about what you like listening to--particularly in terms of classical music--in the appropriate threads. Also, things like favorite *Ukrainian composers, musicians, conductors. Maybe starting a thread in "The Diner" about what has life been like for you, family, friends, etc. in Ukraine. How are you surviving? Day to day problems (as you've had to deal with them personally or from people that you know well or news reports) in getting food, power, internet, heat, etc.
*I know that someone started a thread on Ukrainian composers already, so it would be quite interesting to hear your thoughts about them there--and I'm sure that you probably can add others not mentioned there. :)
Best wishes,
PD
Thank you.
I don't really feel like writing about my problems or the problems of my loved ones. I can say that I do not see my life as "survival". No matter how much external circumstances change, the essential nature of people remains unchanged always. We live as we always have. We buy groceries, cook meals, take care of the elderly and try to help the little ones grow up.
I don't know Ukrainian composers' very well. I have been listening to Valentin Silvestrov for years, but this is most likely an exception. Of his music, my favourite is Silent Songs cycle.
As a newcomer to the forum I don't write much about what I listen to, maybe I will write more. But I'm unlikely to surprise anyone, I listen to what many listen to. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert. A lot of jazz, modern, not traditional. On the unusual side, I've been loving Grateful Dead since the '70s.
Quote from: Bachtoven on July 25, 2023, 10:03:16 PMWhere are the "insights"? All I see are chimpanzees flinging their feces at each other.
What's wrong with chimpanzees? They are like everyone else trying to defend what they consider to be their territory and join forces to attack outsiders.
Quote from: Bachtoven on July 25, 2023, 10:03:16 PMWhere are the "insights"? All I see are chimpanzees flinging their feces at each other.
...enters the baboon. :)
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 25, 2023, 10:13:27 PMBach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert.
Nice! Good to get more people that like the classics here (I'm being sincere and not sarcastic btw).
Quote from: DavidW on July 26, 2023, 06:17:01 AMNice! Good to get more people that like the classics here (I'm being sincere and not sarcastic btw).
I've only been coming in here for a short time, but I've already learnt a lot of interesting things outside of the classics. For example, I've discovered Koechlin, some others.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 25, 2023, 10:13:27 PMThank you.
I don't really feel like writing about my problems or the problems of my loved ones. I can say that I do not see my life as "survival". No matter how much external circumstances change, the essential nature of people remains unchanged always. We live as we always have. We buy groceries, cook meals, take care of the elderly and try to help the little ones grow up.
I don't know Ukrainian composers' very well. I have been listening to Valentin Silvestrov for years, but this is most likely an exception. Of his music, my favourite is Silent Songs cycle.
As a newcomer to the forum I don't write much about what I listen to, maybe I will write more. But I'm unlikely to surprise anyone, I listen to what many listen to. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert. A lot of jazz, modern, not traditional. On the unusual side, I've been loving Grateful Dead since the '70s.
That's o.k. Write about what you like. :)
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 26, 2023, 07:11:42 AMI've only been coming in here for a short time, but I've already learnt a lot of interesting things outside of the classics. For example, I've discovered Koechlin, some others.
Koechlin is someone whose music I need to explore.
PD
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 26, 2023, 07:11:42 AMI've only been coming in here for a short time, but I've already learnt a lot of interesting things outside of the classics. For example, I've discovered Koechlin, some others.
If MI was still here to read this, I bet he would be pleased!
(https://i.imgur.com/obdlFDh.jpg)
Yeah... if you spent $1300 on headphones that measure like pure garbage, you're an audiophile.
Quote from: Bachtoven on July 25, 2023, 10:03:16 PMWhere are the "insights"?
Do we need a "
insight into the insights into Audio Gear Debate thread" thread? ;D
Quote from: Zauberschloss on July 29, 2023, 09:26:12 AM(https://i.imgur.com/obdlFDh.jpg)
Yeah... if you spent $1300 on headphones that measure like pure garbage, you're an audiophile.
Dictionary definition of the term "audiophile" is a bit obsolete, because the definition is from the era before massive audio snake oil business (which emerged in the 80's I believe). That has changed things, made them more nuanced and complex.
The statements of those unable to discern sound quality are reminiscent of the reasoning of the visually impaired about painting.
Quote from: Zauberschloss on July 29, 2023, 09:26:12 AM(https://i.imgur.com/obdlFDh.jpg)
Yeah... if you spent $1300 on headphones that measure like pure garbage, you're an audiophile.
That is if an audiophile would buy headphones in the first place.
Quote from: Zauberschloss on July 29, 2023, 09:26:12 AM(https://i.imgur.com/obdlFDh.jpg)
Yeah... if you spent $1300 on headphones that measure like pure garbage, you're an audiophile.
There fixed it for you. ;D
Quote from: Irons on July 30, 2023, 05:10:28 AMThat is if an audiophile would buy headphones in the first place.
I consider myself an
eco-audiophile. I have 200 euros headphones + 50 euros DIY headphone adapter cross-feeder connected to my amp. I think the sound quality is pretty damn good for the money. Good frequency response and spatial properties made even better with adjustable crossfeed. No listening fatigue due to excessive channel separation at low frequencies. The bang for the buck solution that allows me to just enjoy music!
Speaking of headphones, I am currently using top Sennheiser wi-fi earphones and iPhone standard wire earphones. The former sound incomparably better than the latter, with amazing resolution, ability to convey the smallest details, etc. At the same time, I have no problem listening to music through standard iPhone earphones. Most often I use the earphones outdoors, and at home I listen audio through Naim system. But I can also listen to some albums on my tiny macbook air M2, which, by the way, sounds amazing. I love great sound reproduction on sophisticated well thought sound system including also fine cables, linear power supply, vibration control, and so on, but if I have to choose between a great interpretation played on a budget device, or rubbish played on a mega system with fantastic sound, I'll choose the former without a doubt.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 30, 2023, 08:17:00 AMThe former sound incomparably better than the latter, with amazing resolution, ability to convey the smallest details, etc.
You are comparing the two.
Quote from: DavidW on August 03, 2023, 04:59:19 PMI'm getting some bargain speakers tomorrow. I've set up a spare room as a den, the only problem is that while I'm happy with the tv, I could do better than tv audio.
Be careful. Do the measurements. They may well show you that your audio is already perfect and nothing needs to be improved. If you still can't resist the marketing tricks of slick salesmen, never buy cables for more than a dollar per 100 feet. Get a cable from an old desk lamp or toaster so you don't have to pay that either. All cables sounds the same, remember! :o
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 03, 2023, 09:27:02 PMBe careful. Do the measurements.
People are not
expected to do measurements themselves unless they want to do them out of interest and to fine-tune their system to its full potential. These speakers are not sold at unreasonable high price with claims of mystical reasons of superiority. Were is the scam?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 03, 2023, 09:27:02 PMThey may well show you that your audio is already perfect and nothing needs to be improved.
Audio is never perfect. It can only be good enough for the price. If the purchase has been informed, this means also good enough for the ears. Smart people know when to stop wasting money when something is good enough.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 03, 2023, 09:27:02 PMIf you still can't resist the marketing tricks of slick salesmen, never buy cables for more than a dollar per 100 feet. Get a cable from an old desk lamp or toaster so you don't have to pay that either. All cables sounds the same, remember! :o
Proper speaker cable (https://www.amazon.com/KabelDirekt-Speaker-Wire-Audiophiles-Systems/dp/B07BBV1J4Z/ref=sr_1_24?crid=180KZT6SD2OJV&keywords=speaker%2Bcable&qid=1691161190&s=electronics&sprefix=speaker%2Bcable%2Celectronics%2C219&sr=1-24&th=1) typically costs about $0.50-$1 per feet depending on how many feet are bought and what gauge is needed. While the cable from an old toaster is probably fine (if nothing else is available), it may not be long enough for the speaker installation. The critical thing about speaker cables is the resistance, because it dictates the final damping ratio and frequency response error, but using thick enough standard speaker cable for the speaker impedance and the cable length is enough to ensure the cable does its job as expected. If the minimum speaker impedance is for example 4Ω in the case of a "6Ω speaker", and the cable is 14-gauge, the maximum cable length is about 45 feet and for 16-gauge cable it is 30 feet. If your speakers are rated 4 Ω or higher and the cables are 12 feet long, even 18-gauge cables are fine, but saving a few dollars on cables makes very little sense, so better go for the thicker option rather than the thinner.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on August 04, 2023, 07:53:51 AMI'm so blessed that my ears cannot truly tell the difference between 480p and 4k.
It doesn't matter, numbers are not important for music appreciation.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 04, 2023, 08:08:33 AMIt doesn't matter, numbers are not important for music appreciation.
As a listener you don't have to concern yourself with numbers. The person designing the equipment has to use device specifications, engineering formulas and measurements to design equipment. The artistry involves understanding what measurements (frequency response, distortion, slew rate, linearity, output impedance) reflect perceived sound quality.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on August 04, 2023, 07:53:51 AMI'm so blessed that my ears cannot truly tell the difference between 480p and 4k.
That was very Drogulus like, a blink and you could just miss it! ;D
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 04, 2023, 08:58:35 AMAs a listener you don't have to concern yourself with numbers. The person designing the equipment has to use device specifications, engineering formulas and measurements to design equipment. The artistry involves understanding what measurements (frequency response, distortion, slew rate, linearity, output impedance) reflect perceived sound quality.
A sculptor must understand the properties of the stone from which he carves his work. And yet his art involves more than just understanding the physical properties of the material or some related measurements.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on August 04, 2023, 07:53:51 AMI'm so blessed that my ears cannot truly tell the difference between 480p and 4k.
I hope your eyes can... ...I think the fact that there is such a huge visual difference between 480p and 1080p and with large screens even between 1080p and 2160p makes many believe Hi-res audio has to be audibly better than 16/44.1, but CD-quality 16/44.1 already is the same for audio 8K is for video.
May I steal that one, @71dB?
I wonder how this system measures?
Quote from: Irons on August 05, 2023, 12:33:11 AMI wonder how this system measures?
Can't make out the brands/models that he's showing. What kind of speakers is he showing?
PD
Quote from: Irons on August 05, 2023, 12:33:11 AMI wonder how this system measures?
Tube amplification, turntable, archaic Altec speakers and an LP recorded in the early 60's. Measurements will be awful, you don't even have to try. It is only by virtue of my inexorable and perverse audiophilia that I will insist that this set sounds more natural, more organic, and immeasurably better than today's conventional standard designs with perfect measurements 8)
Quote from: Valentino on August 04, 2023, 10:59:57 PMMay I steal that one, @71dB?
Not sure what's there to steal, but go ahead. 8)
Quote from: Irons on August 05, 2023, 12:33:11 AMI wonder how this system measures?
No digital and three too many turntables.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 05, 2023, 03:05:22 AMTube amplification, turntable, archaic Altec speakers and an LP recorded in the early 60's. Measurements will be awful, you don't even have to try. It is only by virtue of my inexorable and perverse audiophilia that I will insist that this set sounds more natural, more organic, and immeasurably better than today's conventional standard designs with perfect measurements 8)
That is the whole point. Sure, measurements have a place but they are not the be all and end all. Life isn't like that. Sometimes excellence cannot be measured.
Quote from: Irons on August 05, 2023, 12:33:11 AMI wonder how this system measures?
Poorly, there is no question. The question is whether the owner is an audiophile fraud who believes s/he can hear things that don't exist or that measurements do not predict sound.
Quote from: Irons on August 06, 2023, 04:44:11 AMSometimes excellence cannot be measured.
Engineering excellence can always be measured. People very often prefer specific types of distortion and may even enjoy gear for non-audio reasons.
Quote from: Fëanor on August 06, 2023, 03:48:16 AMNo digital and three too many turntables.
I think there is a cd player there but yeah. Youtubers thinking that you can truly appreciate the sound of their gear through a youtube video never ceases to amuse me!
Quote from: Irons on August 06, 2023, 04:44:11 AMThat is the whole point. Sure, measurements have a place but they are not the be all and end all. Life isn't like that. Sometimes excellence cannot be measured.
It can be. Audio gear that has measurable distortion can "sound good," because it is possible to take pleasure in the nuanced distortion of the signal. That can be a legitimate source of pleasure, that's why guitarists cherish their Marshal tube amps. But my view is that the nuance should come from the performer, his or her instrument, and the space in which the performance took place. I don't want sound gear to layer it's own nuance on top of that. It should be neutral, and neutrality is entirely measurable.
Quote from: Irons on August 05, 2023, 12:33:11 AMI wonder how this system measures?
I must admit that those speakers are pretty cool looking (besides sounding). Any idea what model they are?
PD
Quote from: Irons on August 06, 2023, 04:44:11 AMThat is the whole point. Sure, measurements have a place but they are not the be all and end all. Life isn't like that. Sometimes excellence cannot be measured.
+1
Quote from: DavidW on August 06, 2023, 05:41:51 AMI think there is a cd player there but yeah. Youtubers thinking that you can truly appreciate the sound of their gear through a youtube video never ceases to amuse me!
Listening with one's eyes. People are strange.
Quote from: DavidW on August 06, 2023, 05:41:51 AMI think there is a cd player there but yeah. Youtubers thinking that you can truly appreciate the sound of their gear through a youtube video never ceases to amuse me!
Of course, YouTube can't convey the actual sound quality. Nevertheless, if you take two sound sets, one of well-matched components and one of poorly matched components, and demonstrate their sound, you can hear the difference even on YouTube. A well-trained ear will be able to distinguish the important parameters of sound even in this case.
Who never ceases to amaze me are those who trust instrument measurements but don't trust their ears. But that's not unusual. People need external validation all the time. They don't trust themselves, they don't know how to hear themselves, so they seek and trust external approval. In what they do, how they dress, where they live, who they live with, who they vote for. Approval in what they listen to and in what quality of sound. The instrument says it's good, so it's good! And even if they don't like the sound, they don't dare to object, they don't argue with the meters. ;D
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 06, 2023, 09:11:36 PMWho never ceases to amaze me are those who trust instrument measurements but don't trust their ears.
But that's not unusual. People need external validation all the time. They don't trust themselves, they don't know how to hear themselves, so they seek and trust external approval. In what they do, how they dress, where they live, who they live with, who they vote for. Approval in what they listen to and in what quality of sound. The instrument says it's good, so it's good! And even if they don't like the sound, they don't dare to object, they don't argue with the meters. ;D
Measuring devices don't suffer from placebo effect, subjectivity and confirmation bias. Humans do. That's why I am sceptical about what my ears tell me and I want the measurements confirm it.
I want the quality to be on the recording. It it the job of music producers, mixers and masters to come up with recordings that sound good on audio gear that measures well. It doesn't make sense to have crappy recordings and spend $100.000 on exotic gear that shapes the sound into something pleasant. At least it doesn't make sense to me, because only a small portion of people can afford spending that much money on audio gear. Science and engineering should help improving people's lives and finding ways to offer good sound for people for less money is one way to do that.
As for who I vote for or what music I listen to, I completely trust my own judgement. Anyone who has read my posts here concerning my music taste and my political opinions know this about me.
Quote from: 71 dB on August 07, 2023, 12:20:15 AMMeasuring devices don't suffer from placebo effect, subjectivity and confirmation bias. Humans do. That's why I am sceptical about what my ears tell me and I want the measurements confirm it.
I want the quality to be on the recording. It it the job of music producers, mixers and masters to come up with recordings that sound good on audio gear that measures well. It doesn't make sense to have crappy recordings and spend $100.000 on exotic gear that shapes the sound into something pleasant. At least it doesn't make sense to me, because only a small portion of people can afford spending that much money on audio gear. Science and engineering should help improving people's lives and finding ways to offer good sound for people for less money is one way to do that.
As for who I vote for or what music I listen to, I completely trust my own judgement. Anyone who has read my posts here concerning my music taste and my political opinions know this about me.
Are you saying you trust music producer ears more than your own? Well, it may happen, see my previous comment. Where do you think the huge number of poorly recorded and bad sounding albums come from, especially in recent times? Ever heard about loudness war?
Nowhere did I say that $100,000 equipment should sound good. Quite often a poorly matched set of mega-expensive components sounds bad. I'm referring to the selection of ordinary components for the average listener. I'm over with trusting others opinions here or seeking support from measurements. My ears is the only thing which ultimately matters for me. It would be not correct but this is how I hear things.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 06, 2023, 09:11:36 PMA well-trained ear will be able to distinguish the important parameters of sound even in this case.
Where do ears receive training for this type of thing?
Quote from: 71 dB on August 07, 2023, 12:20:15 AMI want the quality to be on the recording. It it the job of music producers, mixers and masters to come up with recordings that sound good on audio gear that measures well. It doesn't make sense to have crappy recordings and spend $100.000 on exotic gear that shapes the sound into something pleasant. At least it doesn't make sense to me, because only a small portion of people can afford spending that much money on audio gear. Science and engineering should help improving people's lives and finding ways to offer good sound for people for less money is one way to do that.
I think I've said it before but will again, (for emphasis): given the listener's system is any much better than a table radio the quality of the recording is the main determinant of sound quality.
At best one's system may mask certain recording defects, but if does that it will only degrade the sound of excellent recordings.
Quote from: Fëanor on August 07, 2023, 04:38:29 AMI think I've said it before but will again, (for emphasis): given the listener's system is any much better than a table radio the quality of the recording is the main determinant of sound quality.
This is wrong. One can have a small desktop system, with DAC, pre, and active monitor speakers with small drivers, and such a system would likely sound better than a tabletop radio - a nice Sangean model, say. But a nice, big pair of three-way floorstanders driven by an appropriate amplifier would almost certainly sound better than either - and such a system would likely measure better as well.
Quote from: Todd on August 07, 2023, 04:35:21 AMWhere do ears receive training for this type of thing?
Time is a great teacher.
Quote from: Todd on August 07, 2023, 05:00:28 AMSo, no training then.
If you mean formal training, then no, it is not required. As is the case with the development of other types of perception. All it takes is experience and time for natural growth.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 07, 2023, 06:05:28 AMAll it takes is experience and time for natural growth.
Hearing degrades with age.
Quote from: Todd on August 07, 2023, 06:08:26 AMHearing degrades with age.
It's very possible. Some physical parameters degrade, like the ability to hear high frequencies. But the perception of music does not degrade at all. Because music is not about frequencies at all.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 07, 2023, 06:17:22 AMIt's very possible.
It is more than possible; it happens to everyone.
Seems utterly impossible to move on the narrative of this thread.
Quote from: Irons on August 07, 2023, 06:24:15 AMSeems utterly impossible to move on the narrative of this thread.
What is the narrative - that some people believe in magic and rational people point out that magic is fake?
Quote from: Todd on August 07, 2023, 06:28:06 AMWhat is the narrative - that some people believe in magic and rational people point out that magic is fake?
If you don't mind, I'd put it another way. Some people believe what they hear, others are afraid to believe what they hear.
Quote from: Irons on August 07, 2023, 06:24:15 AMSeems utterly impossible to move on the narrative of this thread.
The purpose of this thread is to create a sandbox where this pointless activity can continue and not infiltrate discussions on the board.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 07, 2023, 06:57:42 AMThe purpose of this thread is to create a sandbox where this pointless activity can continue and not infiltrate discussions on the board.
This. People will be free to post about their expensive digital cables and non-linear gear and how the gear does things it actually can't in the "What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?". That is now a safe space.
Quote from: Todd on August 07, 2023, 07:00:07 AMThis. People will be free to post about their expensive digital cables and non-linear gear and how the gear does things it actually can't in the "What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?". That is now a safe space.
Never heard about non-linear gear. However, I have several not expensive Linear Power Supply Unites, they were made to order locally. Big improvement in the sound. In general, anything to do with electrical power lines is not the first thing that those who want to optimise the sound of audio think about, unfortunately. It is in these lines that all sorts of noises and interfereces happen to affect the sound quality most negatively.
Quote from: Fëanor on August 07, 2023, 04:38:29 AMI think I've said it before but will again, (for emphasis): given the listener's system is any much better than a table radio the quality of the recording is the main determinant of sound quality.
At best one's system may mask certain recording defects, but if it does that it will only degrade the sound of excellent recordings.
Let me phrase that in this way: The transition from poor sound quality to good sound quality in audio systems happens when the quality of the recording becomes the main determinant of sound quality. ;D
Quote from: 71 dB on August 07, 2023, 07:47:21 AMLet me phrase that in this way: The transition from poor sound quality to good sound quality in audio systems happens when the quality of the recording becomes the main determinant of sound quality. ;D
There is some truth in that but a tad oversimplification.
Quote from: 71 dB on August 07, 2023, 07:47:21 AMLet me phrase that in this way: The transition from poor sound quality to good sound quality in audio systems happens when the quality of the recording becomes the main determinant of sound quality. ;D
Yes, that happened for me several decades ago. Still, equipment changes have made a further improvements nevertheless.
Quote from: Fëanor on August 08, 2023, 03:42:16 AMYes, that happened for me several decades ago. Still, equipment changes have made a further improvements nevertheless.
I had the same. Each successive improvement in the sound system has been tangible. It is also interesting that some archive recordings, for example from the 30s of the last century, which were impossible to listen to on ordinary hi-fi equipment, suddenly started to sound more than convincing when played back on equipment belonging to the high end class. Even though hi-fi "improves" the sound, while high end not.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 08, 2023, 05:34:16 AMsuddenly started to sound more than convincing when played back on equipment belonging to the high end class
What does "convincing" mean?
Quote from: Todd on August 08, 2023, 05:41:32 AMWhat does "convincing" mean?
Nothing measurable, pure objectivists need no worry.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 08, 2023, 05:56:04 AMNothing measurable, pure objectivists need no worry.
I'm asking for a definition of the word that is clearly being misused in this context. It appears to be roughly of the same evaluative quality as "air", which audiophiles also misuse.
Quote from: Todd on August 08, 2023, 06:02:01 AMI'm asking for a definition of the word that is clearly being misused in this context. It appears to be roughly of the same evaluative quality as "air", which audiophiles also misuse.
Words are just words. They can only roughly describe the reality. Some great masters were silent almost entirely. Ramana Maharshi hardly spoke for about 20 years and then spoke only about insignificant things. Meher Baba was silent for most of his life.
I can say otherwise, some archival recordings that were impossible to listen to on conventional equipment could be quite listenable on high end equipment. I don't know if that helps.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 08, 2023, 06:35:09 AMWords are just words. They can only roughly describe the reality. Some great masters were silent almost entirely. Ramana Maharshi hardly spoke for about 20 years and then spoke only about insignificant things. Meher Baba was silent for most of his life.
Starts with a tautology and then moves to irrelevancies.
The takeaway is that audiophiles struggle with science and with language. An internet double whammy.
Quote from: Todd on August 08, 2023, 06:47:14 AMStarts with a tautology and then moves to irrelevancies.
The takeaway is that audiophiles struggle with science and with language. An internet double whammy.
I guess reducing reality to limited measurable numbers and some stale definitions is not only easy, but convenient for those who are unable or afraid to see what is.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 08, 2023, 06:54:05 AMI guess reducing reality to limited measurable numbers and some stale definitions is not only easy, but convenient for those who are unable or afraid to see what is.
(https://jacobrcampbell.com/assets/media/word-saldad-bowl-illustrator-graphic.png)
Quote from: Todd on August 08, 2023, 06:55:22 AM(https://jacobrcampbell.com/assets/media/word-saldad-bowl-illustrator-graphic.png)
I don't have funny pictures at hand. You win!
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 08, 2023, 07:01:19 AMI don't have funny pictures at hand. You win!
Add struggling with the internet itself to the list.
Quote from: Todd on August 08, 2023, 07:16:25 AMAdd struggling with the internet itself to the list.
I have nothing to struggle with ;)
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 08, 2023, 06:54:05 AMI guess reducing reality to limited measurable numbers and some stale definitions is not only easy, but convenient for those who are unable or afraid to see what is.
Being able to appreciate the meaning of measurements does not imply that a person has "reduced" anything to measurable numbers. Measurements are a description of audio performance which is more precise than subjective descriptions.
(And yes, I understand the pointlessness of pointing this out.)
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 08, 2023, 08:02:02 AMBeing able to appreciate the meaning of measurements does not imply that a person has "reduced" anything to measurable numbers. Measurements are a description of audio performance which is more precise than subjective descriptions.
(And yes, I understand the pointlessness of pointing this out.)
Any particular measurements are only concerned with certain parameter, for instance distortion. Or noise. Or something else. But there are no measurements that cover audio playback as a whole. So any measurement is selective, thus reduced. Humans can percept audio as a whole.
Quote from: Todd on August 07, 2023, 04:47:03 AMThis is wrong. One can have a small desktop system, with DAC, pre, and active monitor speakers with small drivers, and such a system would likely sound better than a tabletop radio - a nice Sangean model, say. But a nice, big pair of three-way floorstanders driven by an appropriate amplifier would almost certainly sound better than either - and such a system would likely measure better as well.
I didn't mean that you should take the "table radio" part seriously.
Quote from: Fëanor on August 09, 2023, 02:53:43 AMI didn't mean that you should take the "table radio" part seriously.
Uh-huh.
Quote from: Fëanor on August 09, 2023, 02:53:43 AMI didn't mean that you should take the "table radio" part seriously.
A table radio can provide an unforgettable musical experience. After all, what device the music comes from is of secondary importance, and even less important is the technical parameters of that device. No measurement can assess audio quality or point to a level of musical enjoyment.
Quote from: Harry on February 18, 2024, 10:43:56 AMreally worth the money,...
This is of course subjective. Most people simply don't need (nor could afford*) something this pricy and for crazy high-ender NAD may not be "good enough" and are willing to pay even more.
* It is not that people don't have that kind of money to spent. Most people just rather choose to travel, renovate their homes, buy stocks etc.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 19, 2024, 01:30:44 AMThis is of course subjective. Most people simply don't need (nor could afford*) something this pricy and for crazy high-ender NAD may not be "good enough" and are willing to pay even more.
* It is not that people don't have that kind of money to spent. Most people just rather choose to travel, renovate their homes, buy stocks etc.
Everything is subjective, and therefore it is no argument. Please do not start again a pointless and endless discussion about high end gear. And for the record, this NAD is a good piece of equipment, and I think this will serve well with most, subjective or objective. :)
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 19, 2024, 10:35:41 AMNot all speakers are good.
Correct, but that's sound quality problem, not a technical problem what is what I was preferring to.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 19, 2024, 10:35:41 AMThe same with cables.
Normal speaker cable is all you need given the gauge and length are good enough for the speaker impedance. Too thin or long cables cause problems for two reasons:
1) Electric damping provided by amp is reduced meaning less accurate sound
2) Frequency response changes due to speakers not having constant impedance over all frequencies
Note that electric damping doesn't have to be infinite or even "huge." It has to be strong enough. Very sensitive speakers with large low frequency woofers need more electric damping. As for the frequency response, having the frequency response error under 0.5 dB is considered adequate.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2024, 01:39:31 AMCorrect, but that's sound quality problem, not a technical problem what is what I was preferring to.
Normal speaker cable is all you need given the gauge and length are good enough for the speaker impedance. Too thin or long cables cause problems for two reasons:
1) Electric damping provided by amp is reduced meaning less accurate sound
2) Frequency response changes due to speakers not having constant impedance over all frequencies
Note that electric damping doesn't have to be infinite or even "huge." It has to be strong enough. Very sensitive speakers with large low frequency woofers need more electric damping. As for the frequency response, having the frequency response error under 0.5 dB is considered adequate.
Cables are more complex things that you think. But I have no problem if you see it your way.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 20, 2024, 04:33:21 AMCables are more complex things that you think. But I have no problem if you see it your way.
And so it is, after almost 50 years or so listening experience, I am aware of this, and acted accordingly.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 20, 2024, 04:33:21 AMCables are more complex things that you think. But I have no problem if you see it your way.
Yeah, it is a bit more complex than that, but I simplified things for a reason. What I said is the stuff that counts.
Quote from: Pohjolas Daughter on July 04, 2023, 10:34:43 AMFor some people, they don't listen to some music that intently (for whatever reasons and that's o.k.). For me, normally, I listen differently when I am auditioning components (or cables or other things) than when I am listening to music as I just want to enjoy the music once I get home. :) ;)
PD
There is a difference between people who listen critically and those who don't. Thing is, all of the objectivists are as critical in their listening as the subjectivists. Their ears are golden, too. There's no skill advantage for subjectivists, either.
Quote from: drogulus on February 20, 2024, 06:49:07 PMThere is a difference between people who listen critically and those who don't. Thing is, all of the objectivists are as critical in their listening as the subjectivists. Their ears are golden, too. There's no skill advantage for subjectivists, either.
In the case where the audeo set is too bad, listening becomes critical. It takes some level of fidelity of the playback system to stop paying attention to sound quality.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 20, 2024, 09:41:22 AMYeah, it is a bit more complex than that, but I simplified things for a reason. What I said is the stuff that counts.
Agree. I'm all about simplicity too, which is why I strive to remove wrong or bad quality components from an audio system.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 20, 2024, 08:47:04 PMAgree. I'm all about simplicity too, which is why I strive to remove wrong or bad quality components from an audio system.
Billionaires can remove and replace "wrong or bad quality components" with stuff made of diamonds, gold, snake oil and unicorn farts of course, but us normal people need to be more strategic and spend money where it counts the most.
Do you think expensive high end audio cables are used in studios? One would think studios where the music of the biggest stars in the World or the soundtracks of 300 million dollar movies are mixed should have top notch gear and in fact they do, but the cables are quite basic professional cables. Mechanically robust (because the installation has to be reliable), but no snake oil is needed. It is not that the people mixing there don't hear the finest differences in sound if there is any. Those people have really really good analytic hearing. They also have education and know about place effect and the importance of blind testing. How about you?
Quote from: 71 dB on February 21, 2024, 03:13:24 AMBillionaires can remove and replace "wrong or bad quality components" with stuff made of diamonds, gold, snake oil and unicorn farts of course, but us normal people need to be more strategic and spend money where it counts the most.
Do you think expensive high end audio cables are used in studios? One would think studios where the music of the biggest stars in the World or the soundtracks of 300 million dollar movies are mixed should have top notch gear and in fact they do, but the cables are quite basic professional cables. Mechanically robust (because the installation has to be reliable), but no snake oil is needed. It is not that the people mixing there don't hear the finest differences in sound if there is any. Those people have really really good analytic hearing. They also have education and know about place effect and the importance of blind testing. How about you?
Fortunately, I'm very far from being a billionaire. I have very limited resources, and for many years I have been trying to remove everything unnecessary from the sound within the limits available to me. My current system is quite modest, not a single diamond used, as far as I know, and I like the sound. Eventually, I got to the point where I could give attention not to the imperfections of the playback, but to the music. It was not easy, it took a lot of trial and error, but I am satisfied with the result.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 21, 2024, 04:05:35 AMFortunately, I'm very far from being a billionaire. I have very limited resources, and for many years I have been trying to remove everything unnecessary from the sound within the limits available to me. My current system is quite modest, not a single diamond used, as far as I know, and I like the sound. Eventually, I got to the point where I could give attention not to the imperfections of the playback, but to the music. It was not easy, it took a lot of trial and error, but I am satisfied with the result.
Imperfections aren't much of an issue in the 21st century. We are not dealing anymore with phonographs and shellac records. Digital audio matured to audible transparency quarter of a century ago etc. What imperfections we still have are connected to speakers, headphones and room acoustics, but affordable speakers and headphones can provide quite satisfactory sound. For me the impecfections are elsewhere, in the production, mixing and mastering of music. Whenever the sound is bad for me, it is those things to blame.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 21, 2024, 06:15:35 AMImperfections aren't much of an issue in the 21st century. We are not dealing anymore with phonographs and shellac records. Digital audio matured to audible transparency quarter of a century ago etc. What imperfections we still have are connected to speakers, headphones and room acoustics, but affordable speakers and headphones can provide quite satisfactory sound. For me the impecfections are elsewhere, in the production, mixing and mastering of music. Whenever the sound is bad for me, it is those things to blame.
In general, I liked the sound of LPs in the 20th century much more than the digital sound of the 21st. The main problem with LPs was that they could easily be damaged mechanically. CDs and digital files eliminated the problem of mechanical damage, but in return they provided lifeless sound.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 21, 2024, 07:00:41 AMIn general, I liked the sound of LPs in the 20th century much more than the digital sound of the 21st. The main problem with LPs was that they could easily be damaged mechanically. CDs and digital files eliminated the problem of mechanical damage, but in return they provided lifeless sound.
What you or me "like" tells nothing about transparency. You like the distortions introduced by LP format and because CDs and digital files lack those distortions (are more transparent), you like them less and find the sound lifeless. Nothing prevents digital formats having same distortions as LP, but you have to generate them separately to the mix/master. The problem is in the production, mixing and mastering as I said.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 21, 2024, 09:21:35 AMWhat you or me "like" tells nothing about transparency. You like the distortions introduced by LP format and because CDs and digital files lack those distortions (are more transparent), you like them less and find the sound lifeless. Nothing prevents digital formats having same distortions as LP, but you have to generate them separately to the mix/master. The problem is in the production, mixing and mastering as I said.
Are you saying that digitizing an original pre-80s analog recording makes it more "transparent" and sounds better? I prefer analog, just as I prefer analog photography rather than its digitization. Likewise, I would prefer real leather hand stitched shoes to plastic ones, and a natural cotton shirt to synthetic one. Even if leather and cotton are less practical.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 21, 2024, 10:32:16 AMAre you saying that digitizing an original pre-80s analog recording makes it more "transparent" and sounds better? I prefer analog, just as I prefer analog photography rather than its digitization. Likewise, I would prefer real leather hand stitched shoes to plastic ones, and a natural cotton shirt to synthetic one. Even if leather and cotton are less practical.
Of course I am not saying that. I'm saying the digitized version of an analog recording sounds
identical because it is audibly transparent (doesn't change anything).
Quote from: 71 dB on February 21, 2024, 11:15:48 AMOf course I am not saying that. I'm saying the digitized version of an analog recording sounds identical because it is audibly transparent (doesn't change anything).
Identical to what? Help me understand. I recorded something on tape. Then I digitized it. Does a digitized copy sound more identical than the analogue original? We probably understand the word "identical" differently.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 21, 2024, 07:00:41 AMIn general, I liked the sound of LPs in the 20th century much more than the digital sound of the 21st. The main problem with LPs was that they could easily be damaged mechanically. CDs and digital files eliminated the problem of mechanical damage, but in return they provided lifeless sound.
hear! hear!
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 21, 2024, 07:56:10 PMIdentical to what? Help me understand. I recorded something on tape. Then I digitized it. Does a digitized copy sound more identical than the analogue original? We probably understand the word "identical" differently.
Identical to what you digitize of course. If you digitize a tape, it will sound audibly identical to that tape for all the good and bad. Of course if you keep playing the tape it will wear off and start to sound worse and worse in time, but they are identical at the moment of digitizing. For me the word "identical" is well defined. I don't know why you struggle with it this much. Sure, English isn't your native language either, but the concept of something being identical to something else isn't that hard. Surely Ukrainian language has also such Word? According to Google translate the word is
Ідентичні. Very close to English (just written in cyrillic). Even the Finnish word for "identical" is almost identical (pun intented :D ):
Identtinen.
I struggle to understand how can you believe that a digital copy is no different from an analogue original and both are identical. Would you believe that a plastic 3D copy of Michelangelo's David is identical to the marble original?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 22, 2024, 03:16:24 AMI struggle to understand how can you believe that a digital copy is no different from an analogue original and both are identical. Would you believe that a plastic 3D copy of Michelangelo's David is identical to the marble original?
You're getting hung up on the word "identical". It's clear to me what is meant: transparent enough that there are no audible differences with proper testing (outputs gain matched with a voltmeter, randomized A/B trials). If differences remain then there is probably a problem with the ADC, the recording method (e.g. clipping), or an impedance mismatch.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 22, 2024, 03:16:24 AMI struggle to understand how can you believe that a digital copy is no different from an analogue original and both are identical. Would you believe that a plastic 3D copy of Michelangelo's David is identical to the marble original?
Do you also struggle to understand how you can pay your groceries with credit card or cash? Just as paying for groceries using whatever paying method is just a sign of transfer of monetary value from you to the grocery store, digital or analog recordings are just the information/data/signal for how to create the music. The music as sound waves is created by your speakers or headphones based on the information provided by your music recording. Your speakers and headphones have no way knowing whether the information comes from a vinyl LP, a C-cassette, a mp3 file or a CD. Electric current is received from the amp and it makes the drivers to move.
As for how I can believe how the digitazed version is no different from the original analog version, I don't need to believe anything, because I
know they are identical. How do I know it? Because I have education to know and understand these things. I studies electric engineering specializing to acoustics and signal processing in university. If such education doesn't give insight into these things, I don't know what does...
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 21, 2024, 07:00:41 AMIn general, I liked the sound of LPs in the 20th century much more than the digital sound of the 21st. The main problem with LPs was that they could easily be damaged mechanically. CDs and digital files eliminated the problem of mechanical damage, but in return they provided lifeless sound.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 22, 2024, 03:16:24 AMI struggle to understand how can you believe that a digital copy is no different from an analogue original and both are identical. Would you believe that a plastic 3D copy of Michelangelo's David is identical to the marble original?
That is a terrible analogy (pun not intended).
All audio starts analog. The microphone is typically a parallel plate capacitor (condenser in UK usage) where one of the plates is a flexible diaphragm. Sound waves cause the diaphragm to move, changing the capacitance and causing the voltage across the capacitor to vary. That voltage variation is proportional to the sound pressure level, and is an analog of the sound pressure.
You could send that voltage, amplified by appropriate electronic circuits, to a speaker, which causes the speaker cone to move according to the signal, reproducing the original sound. You can't get more live than that.
Now you want to record it for later playback. You sent the signal to a device that measures the voltage hundreds of thousands to times per second, with accuracy more than one in ten million, and store the numbers. Later you send the numbers to a device which performs he inverse function, producing an output voltage from the stream of numbers, updating the output more than a hundred thousand times per second with accuracy better than one in ten million. The output signal is indistinguishable from the input. Why does the output have any less life than the original input? Doesn't the life come from the sound, and the microphone signal it produces?
Now you do it a different way. You send the signal from the microphone to a cutting head which etches a groove in a rotating plate, where the wiggles of the groove correspond to the signal. They you make in impression of the plate and press it into vinyl. You play back with a stylus (a diamond chip) that rides in the groove and is connected by a reed-like cantilever to a magnet. The jiggling of the magnet produces a voltage in a pickup coil which is amplified and sent to the speaker. But on a fine scale vinyl is rough, producing background noise. The stylus has mass, it takes force to make it conform to the groove, which may cause it to bounce around in the groove, ride up the walls, and shave the sides of the groove. The cantilever is not perfectly rigid, it flexes and vibrates as it tries to transmit the motion of the stylus to the magnet. The cantilever has to hold up the tone-arm, which similarly may bounce around in response the large amplitude segment of the signal. The signal in the pickup coils is very weak and must be amplified with high gain, causing electronic noise to encroach on the signal. The output signal, viewed on an oscilloscope or analyzed by scientific equipment, is obviously different from the original, affected by background noise, distortion of various types. How does this degradation of the signal add "life?" Isn't all of the life present in the original microphone signal, which the digital recording and playback process preserves?
And what 71dB was getting it is that if you like the sound of an LP (that is, you like the obvious distortion) you can make a digital recording of the LP playback, and it will sound
exactly like an LP, with the surface noise, tracking error, harmonic distortion, rendered with exquisite fidelity.
There are digital recordings that sound awful and sterile to me, but it is not because the digital process suppresses the life of the signal. It is because produces have access to equipment which allows them to record with dozens, maybe hundreds of microphones and mix the sound artificially. This fails th capture the essence of the sound the way a minimal set of microphones in a good recording venue can.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 22, 2024, 03:16:24 AMI struggle to understand how can you believe that a digital copy is no different from an analogue original and both are identical. Would you believe that a plastic 3D copy of Michelangelo's David is identical to the marble original?
Both analog and digital recordings are just facsimiles of the real deal. The original isn't the analog recording, it was the actual performance. Which format has higher fidelity seems to be a silly debate, when so much of the sound isn't captured perfectly by the microphones, and then you play it back in a room with completely different acoustics.
Just listen to whatever format sounds good to you and enjoy what you have.
Quote from: DavidW on February 22, 2024, 09:38:08 AMJust listen to whatever format sounds good to you and enjoy what you have.
That's a good advice. 8)
Quote from: Spotted Horses on February 22, 2024, 08:50:13 AMThat is a terrible analogy (pun not intended).
All audio starts analog. The microphone is typically a parallel plate capacitor (condenser in UK usage) where one of the plates is a flexible diaphragm. Sound waves cause the diaphragm to move, changing the capacitance and causing the voltage across the capacitor to vary. That voltage variation is proportional to the sound pressure level, and is an analog of the sound pressure.
You could send that voltage, amplified by appropriate electronic circuits, to a speaker, which causes the speaker cone to move according to the signal, reproducing the original sound. You can't get more live than that.
Now you want to record it for later playback. You sent the signal to a device that measures the voltage hundreds of thousands to times per second, with accuracy more than one in ten million, and store the numbers. Later you send the numbers to a device which performs he inverse function, producing an output voltage from the stream of numbers, updating the output more than a hundred thousand times per second with accuracy better than one in ten million. The output signal is indistinguishable from the input. Why does the output have any less life than the original input? Doesn't the life come from the sound, and the microphone signal it produces?
Now you do it a different way. You send the signal from the microphone to a cutting head which etches a groove in a rotating plate, where the wiggles of the groove correspond to the signal. They you make in impression of the plate and press it into vinyl. You play back with a stylus (a diamond chip) that rides in the groove and is connected by a reed-like cantilever to a magnet. The jiggling of the magnet produces a voltage in a pickup coil which is amplified and sent to the speaker. But on a fine scale vinyl is rough, producing background noise. The stylus has mass, it takes force to make it conform to the groove, which may cause it to bounce around in the groove, ride up the walls, and shave the sides of the groove. The cantilever is not perfectly rigid, it flexes and vibrates as it tries to transmit the motion of the stylus to the magnet. The cantilever has to hold up the tone-arm, which similarly may bounce around in response the large amplitude segment of the signal. The signal in the pickup coils is very weak and must be amplified with high gain, causing electronic noise to encroach on the signal. The output signal, viewed on an oscilloscope or analyzed by scientific equipment, is obviously different from the original, affected by background noise, distortion of various types. How does this degradation of the signal add "life?" Isn't all of the life present in the original microphone signal, which the digital recording and playback process preserves?
And what 71dB was getting it is that if you like the sound of an LP (that is, you like the obvious distortion) you can make a digital recording of the LP playback, and it will sound exactly like an LP, with the surface noise, tracking error, harmonic distortion, rendered with exquisite fidelity.
There are digital recordings that sound awful and sterile to me, but it is not because the digital process suppresses the life of the signal. It is because produces have access to equipment which allows them to record with dozens, maybe hundreds of microphones and mix the sound artificially. This fails th capture the essence of the sound the way a minimal set of microphones in a good recording venue can.
Thanks for the lecture. I didn't go into it because I'm not interested in technical details. I have my experience. Decades of listening to LPs, then decades of CDs, now files, often streamed. The latter is much more convenient than the first and second. However, when I listened to LPs, I never thought about the sound quality, I only listened to the music, and was upset if there were too many clicks and scratches. With the transition to digital, I began to miss something in the sound. Many times I have heard the argument that people like me miss distortion, and that digital copy can add the distortion and everything will be fine. This argument seems stupid to me. I think you perfectly understand why. And if not, then I can't help ;)
Quote from: Spotted Horses on February 22, 2024, 08:50:13 AMThat is a terrible analogy (pun not intended).
It's funny nevertheless. :D
Quote from: Spotted Horses on February 22, 2024, 08:50:13 AMAll audio starts analog.
Electronic music starts as signals in electric circuits or as digitally synthesized signals in a computer/synthesizer. I make music with computer and the music has an analog form only when I play it back on speakers/headphones. Very rarely do I record acoustic sounds. That's because I can't sing or play any instrument.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on February 22, 2024, 08:50:13 AMYou sent the signal to a device that measures the voltage hundreds of thousands to times per second, with accuracy more than one in ten million, and store the numbers.
If we talk about PCM recording, the most common sampling rates are 44.1 kHz (music productions), 48 kHz (video productions) and 96 kHz (high-res music production). Analog to digital converter do employ extremely high sampling rates, even megahertses, but the bit depth is low, even just one bit. Typically 24 bit recording is used (PCM). Almost 17 million quantized signal levels are theoretically available, but half of those have to be allocated to negative signal values and also a lot of headroom is being used in order to avoid signal clipping. Given the headroom is 18 dB (3 bits), the effective amount of quantized voltage levels is 2^20 which is about 1 million. In practise, this is more than enough.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on February 22, 2024, 08:50:13 AMLater you send the numbers to a device which performs he inverse function, producing an output voltage from the stream of numbers, updating the output more than a hundred thousand times per second.
Internally digital-to-analog-converters "update" the signal level according to the sample rate which can be anything from typically 44.1 kHz (NOS) to hundreds of thousands of times per second (major oversampling). However, the output is an analog signal which is "updating" constantly as a continuous smooth band-limited signal thanks to reconstruction filter.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on February 22, 2024, 08:50:13 AMHow does this degradation of the signal add "life?" Isn't all of the life present in the original microphone signal, which the digital recording and playback process preserves?
There are digital recordings that sound awful and sterile to me, but it is not because the digital process suppresses the life of the signal. It is because produces have access to equipment which allows them to record with dozens, maybe hundreds of microphones and mix the sound artificially. This fails th capture the essence of the sound the way a minimal set of microphones in a good recording venue can.
It may very well add "life" to the sound from subjective point of view. The microphones are typically completely still while recording whereas people listening to a concert move their heads/body. Due to how vinyl works, it introduces all kind of fluctuation to the sound which may render the listening experience more "live."
I have been writing and developing
Nyquist plugins for Audacity sound editing software to make digitally synthesized sounds feel warmer and more live (but be so subtle the effect is almost subliminal). We can learn some things from analog sound, but that doesn't mean we need to get stuck with analog audio. We can take all the good digital audio has to offer and improve it (subjectively) with tricks learned from analog sound. Best of both world!
Quote from: DavidW on February 22, 2024, 09:38:08 AMBoth analog and digital recordings are just facsimiles of the real deal. The original isn't the analog recording, it was the actual performance. Which format has higher fidelity seems to be a silly debate, when so much of the sound isn't captured perfectly by the microphones, and then you play it back in a room with completely different acoustics.
Just listen to whatever format sounds good to you and enjoy what you have.
I pretty much enjoy what I have and don't care if others succumb to artificial substitutes or have never experienced the real thing. To each his own.
I've been hearing people say that analog is "more alive" or whatever for 40 years, but for me CDs were obviously better from the beginning. (But I understand: CD playback doesn't make people feel special, and attempts to tweak it were always rather pathetic.)
I never had very good record playback equipment back then, but now I that I do (Michell Gyro SE with SME 309 arm and various carts, cleaning machines, and other doodads), I'm more indifferent to the format than ever.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 22, 2024, 10:58:40 AMI pretty much enjoy what I have and don't care if others succumb to artificial substitutes or have never experienced the real thing. To each his own.
The only real thing is attending a live performance. Each and every recording, live and studio alike, analog and digital alike, is an artificial substitute.
Quote from: Florestan on February 22, 2024, 11:24:57 AMThe only real thing is attending a live performance. Each and every recording, live and studio alike, analog and digital alike, is an artificial substitute.
QFT
Quote from: Daverz on February 22, 2024, 11:16:41 AMI've been hearing people say that analog is "more alive" or whatever for 40 years, but for me CDs were obviously better from the beginning. (But I understand: CD playback doesn't make people feel special, and attempts to tweak it were always rather pathetic.)
I never had very good record playback equipment back then, but now I that I do (Michell Gyro SE with SME 309 arm and various carts, cleaning machines, and other doodads), I'm more indifferent to the format than ever.
I've always been a CD person. Kept a turntable until about 2001, but wound up pitching it because vinyl is just too much of a hassle.
But I honestly think that many CDs from the early years of the medium (say through 1988, I don't remember exactly, but early/mid 80s for sure) had really harsh and grating sound. I bought and still own a number I found to be lemons, and to this day avoid pre-1990 release CDs. I don't know the reason for this claimed acoustic anomaly, but I strongly believe in it.
Quote from: T. D. on February 22, 2024, 04:44:54 PMI've always been a CD person. Kept a turntable until about 2001, but wound up pitching it because vinyl is just too much of a hassle.
But I honestly think that many CDs from the early years of the medium (say through 1988, I don't remember exactly, but early/mid 80s for sure) had really harsh and grating sound. I bought and still own a number I found to be lemons, and to this day avoid pre-1990 release CDs. I don't know the reason for this claimed acoustic anomaly, but I strongly believe in it.
I have the same impression about early digital recordings, and find it applies to the LP releases of early digital recordings. I think it was a combination of shortcomings of early digital recording gear and the desire of the record labels to make the new recordings as "digital" as possible, which involved boosting extreme frequencies. I find the digital glare is sometimes tamed in subsequent masters (Karajan Gold series, for instance).
Quote from: T. D. on February 22, 2024, 04:44:54 PMI've always been a CD person. Kept a turntable until about 2001, but wound up pitching it because vinyl is just too much of a hassle.
But I honestly think that many CDs from the early years of the medium (say through 1988, I don't remember exactly, but early/mid 80s for sure) had really harsh and grating sound. I bought and still own a number I found to be lemons, and to this day avoid pre-1990 release CDs. I don't know the reason for this claimed acoustic anomaly, but I strongly believe in it.
I've never heard a Led Zeppelin CD that sounds comparable to the original vinyls. Same for almost all rock music from the late 60's and early 70's. Early ECM Records albums (70's) are transferred to compacts terribly. Coltrane sounds different on CDs than on vinyl. As for the classics, the situation is generally more satisfactory. I think that those who came into music at the same time with compacts and not before, mostly don't notice or don't know the difference.
Quote from: Florestan on February 22, 2024, 11:24:57 AMThe only real thing is attending a live performance. Each and every recording, live and studio alike, analog and digital alike, is an artificial substitute.
This is obvious and beyond question. Unfortunately, I can't hear Hans Hotter, Glenn Gould, and Grateful Dead live.
Quote from: Daverz on February 22, 2024, 11:16:41 AMI've been hearing people say that analog is "more alive" or whatever for 40 years, but for me CDs were obviously better from the beginning. (But I understand: CD playback doesn't make people feel special, and attempts to tweak it were always rather pathetic.)
I never had very good record playback equipment back then, but now I that I do (Michell Gyro SE with SME 309 arm and various carts, cleaning machines, and other doodads), I'm more indifferent to the format than ever.
For most of the 70's and 80's I listened to vinyls on a Michell turntable with a SME 309 tonearm. With a large powerful amplifier and corresponding huge speakers that took up a significant part of the room's space. This probably has something to do with my love for original vinyls. Equipment also played a role. Everything big and real, from album covers to sound.
Quote from: T. D. on February 22, 2024, 04:44:54 PMI've always been a CD person.
Same here. I am a CD/SACD/Blu-ray person.
Quote from: T. D. on February 22, 2024, 04:44:54 PMKept a turntable until about 2001, but wound up pitching it because vinyl is just too much of a hassle.
I have never owned a TT in my life, but I own half a meter of vinyls (100-150 I guess?) I have borrowed my dad's TT to digitize them, but that was long ago. Vinyl is indeed a hassle, but some people seems to enjoy all that hassle...
Quote from: T. D. on February 22, 2024, 04:44:54 PMBut I honestly think that many CDs from the early years of the medium (say through 1988, I don't remember exactly, but early/mid 80s for sure) had really harsh and grating sound. I bought and still own a number I found to be lemons, and to this day avoid pre-1990 release CDs. I don't know the reason for this claimed acoustic anomaly, but I strongly believe in it.
My views are a bit different. Yes, early CDs tend to be "harsh", because the know how of how to master for digital formats wasn't there yet, but on the other hand CDs of the 80s don't suffer at all from loudness war. Maybe this is more of a pop music thing, but often for 80s pop music for example the original release offers superior dynamics compared to "remastered" re-releases. For classical music 80s was problematic, but for pop music it is the other way around: 80s was the time pop music didn't suffer from loudness war.
That said, only a fraction of my CDs are from 80's, because I bought my first CD player in 1989 and I wasn't interested of music prior to mid 80s at all (except perhaps John Williams' movie scores). I was only into electronic dance music and forward-looking thinking music will become better and better in the future. Only almost a decade later did I get into classical music buying mostly cheap Naxos CDs of which only a few were from (late) 80s. Whenever I bought a classical music recording from the 80s or earlier, it was a "remastered" release and since loudness war doesn't concern classical music, the sound was good. some 15 years ago I became interested of pop/rock music from the 80s and 70s, but there aren't that many artists from that era I like (those few I like I REALLY like!). This has kept the percentage of "early" CDs in my collection small and frankly the "harshness" associated with them seems overblown to me. In general early CDs had "thin" sound suitable for vinyl. Boosting bass and reducing treble is likely to improve the sound of these discs reducing harshness.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 22, 2024, 09:24:41 PMI've never heard a Led Zeppelin CD that sounds comparable to the original vinyls. Same for almost all rock music from the late 60's and early 70's. Early ECM Records albums (70's) are transferred to compacts terribly. Coltrane sounds different on CDs than on vinyl. As for the classics, the situation is generally more satisfactory. I think that those who came into music at the same time with compacts and not before, mostly don't notice or don't know the difference.
Music genres have different requirements for how "analog" it should sound. I think punk/rock/metal music should have the most analog sound, because that's music of distortion. :D That's why digital releases of punk/rock/metal music should be vinyl rips of the music or be processed with vinyl simulation plugins to make them sound similar to vinyl. On the other hand, classical music and similar genres benefit the most from digital clean transparency. Other music genres are somewhere in between of these extremes.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 23, 2024, 02:59:43 AM[..]I have never owned a TT in my life,[..]
This explains a lot. Many people like to talk at length about things in which they have no personal experience. What can you do... :)
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 22, 2024, 09:24:41 PMI've never heard a Led Zeppelin CD that sounds comparable to the original vinyls. Same for almost all rock music from the late 60's and early 70's. Early ECM Records albums (70's) are transferred to compacts terribly. Coltrane sounds different on CDs than on vinyl. As for the classics, the situation is generally more satisfactory. I think that those who came into music at the same time with compacts and not before, mostly don't notice or don't know the difference.
Led Zeppelin was notorious for their disdain for the CD format. They didn't allow their catalog to be issued on CD for many years and evidently didn't get involved in the CD releases when they occurred. It they had the CD master might have been better. They should have just put a needle-drop of the original vinyl on the CD issues.
Quote from: T. D. on February 22, 2024, 04:44:54 PMI've always been a CD person. Kept a turntable until about 2001, but wound up pitching it because vinyl is just too much of a hassle.
But I honestly think that many CDs from the early years of the medium (say through 1988, I don't remember exactly, but early/mid 80s for sure) had really harsh and grating sound. I bought and still own a number I found to be lemons, and to this day avoid pre-1990 release CDs. I don't know the reason for this claimed acoustic anomaly, but I strongly believe in it.
I've heard that was due to a particular Sony ADC that was frequently used at the time. Many remasters are breathing new life into some of those recordings though.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on February 23, 2024, 05:49:26 AMLed Zeppelin was notorious for their disdain for the CD format. They didn't allow their catalog to be issued on CD for many years and evidently didn't get involved in the CD releases when they occurred. It they had the CD master might have been better. They should have just put a needle-drop of the original vinyl on the CD issues.
It seems to me that this is not so. LZ compacts came out quite early, from mid-80s for sure, and many times since then. But it's not about LZ only. I can't immediately remember which rock albums from 60s-70s were re-released on compacts well. In some rare cases, like Steven Wilson's remixes, but this is only now, many years later.
I suppose (hope) within time this debate will disappear up it's own backside. I think we all should listen to music in a format we enjoy most. For me that happens to be vinyl and I don't believe my ears are made of cloth so find it tiresome when I'm told "distortion makes vinyl attractive". Poppycock.
Quote from: Irons on February 23, 2024, 07:19:36 AMI suppose (hope) within time this debate will disappear up it's own backside. I think we all should listen to music in a format we enjoy most. For me that happens to be vinyl and I don't believe my ears are made of cloth so find it tiresome when I'm told "distortion makes vinyl attractive". Poppycock.
For me there are two formats to be avoided-- audio cassette and low bitrate mp3s. We live in a world where we can buy digital downloads, cds and lps at low cost. We live in a world where streaming is what we want, when we want it and sounds way better than radio. Life is good. 8)
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 23, 2024, 05:38:45 AMThis explains a lot. Many people like to talk at length about things in which they have no personal experience. What can you do... :)
I have personal experience. In my youth I heard tons of jazz played by my dad on vinyl + all those 100-150 vinyls I own which I ripped and cleaned in computer.
Quote from: DavidW on February 23, 2024, 08:55:46 AMWe live in a world where we can buy digital downloads, cds and lps at low cost.
I wish I could buy any CD at low cost... ::)
The Carpenters' "Ticket to Ride" SHM-CD is back in stock in WOWHD, put since it is a Japanese import CD, the asked price is 19 euros*. That's already expensive, but if I order it, 20 % VAT is added because it comes outside EU meaning 22.80 euros (about $25). Thanks to WOWHD offering free shipping on everything it isn't much more! About 23 euros isn't "insane", but I don't need a brand new Japanese SHM-CD! I'd rather collect a used normal CD for 5 euros, but since this albums has never been released on CD at huge amount of copies (The Carpenters fans don't like CD?), the used CD market is crazy and the asked prices on Ebay are shocking, as are the shipping costs! So, this Japanese import SHM-CD is actually the cheapest option for me! ???
* It's not like there has been a huge orchestra and choir required. It is decades old music needing only remastering. The Carpenters music should be released as cheap some 10 or so CD boxset containing most/all of their albums and then some, but no! They can do it with ABBA but The Carpenters is too "obscure" of a group for that. Maybe I need to become an ABBA fan?
Quote from: 71 dB on February 23, 2024, 09:26:11 AMI wish I could buy any CD at low cost... ::)
The Carpenters' "Ticket to Ride" SHM-CD is back in stock in WOWHD, put since it is a Japanese import CD, the asked price is 19 euros*. That's already expensive, but if I order it, 20 % VAT is added because it comes outside EU meaning 22.80 euros (about $25). Thanks to WOWHD offering free shipping on everything it isn't much more! About 23 euros isn't "insane", but I don't need a brand new Japanese SHM-CD! I'd rather collect a used normal CD for 5 euros, but since this albums has never been released on CD at huge amount of copies (The Carpenters fans don't like CD?), the used CD market is crazy and the asked prices on Ebay are shocking, as are the shipping costs! So, this Japanese import SHM-CD is actually the cheapest option for me! ???
* It's not like there has been a huge orchestra and choir required. It is decades old music needing only remastering. The Carpenters music should be released as cheap some 10 or so CD boxset containing most/all of their albums and then some, but no! They can do it with ABBA but The Carpenters is too "obscure" of a group for that. Maybe I need to become an ABBA fan?
That Carpenters SHM-CD is in stock at cdjapan for 1714 yen, approx USD 11.39 at time of posting.
https://www.cdjapan.co.jp/searchuni?term.media_format=cd&q=carpenters
Shipping from Japan is fierce, but if you cobble together an order of 6 (say) or more CDs that are hard to find elsewhere, the package becomes reasonable.
I occasionally order from cdjapan and am a satisfied customer. I maintain a "wishlist" (or "bookmarks" in their terminology) on the site.
Quote from: Irons on February 23, 2024, 07:19:36 AMI suppose (hope) within time this debate will disappear up it's own backside. I think we all should listen to music in a format we enjoy most. For me that happens to be vinyl and I don't believe my ears are made of cloth so find it tiresome when I'm told "distortion makes vinyl attractive". Poppycock.
No, it's not the distortion, it's limiting and compressing done for vinyl that some listeners believe is the way the music should sound. Objectively this is a reduction of fidelity.
The other factor already mentioned is the poor quality of some early CD releases.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 23, 2024, 09:26:11 AMMaybe I need to become an ABBA fan?
I never thought to see those words on this forum... don't let it be!! :P
Quote from: T. D. on February 23, 2024, 09:54:41 AMThat Carpenters SHM-CD is in stock at cdjapan for 1714 yen, approx USD 11.39 at time of posting.
https://www.cdjapan.co.jp/searchuni?term.media_format=cd&q=carpenters
Shipping from Japan is fierce, but if you cobble together an order of 6 (say) or more CDs that are hard to find elsewhere, the package becomes reasonable.
I occasionally order from cdjapan and am a satisfied customer. I maintain a "wishlist" (or "bookmarks" in their terminology) on the site.
I bought the Haitink Mahler Christmas live recordings from cd japan and the price was right and the shipping was so breathtakingly fast that I would have thought they were shipping domestically!
Quote from: T. D. on February 23, 2024, 09:54:41 AMThat Carpenters SHM-CD is in stock at cdjapan for 1714 yen, approx USD 11.39 at time of posting.
https://www.cdjapan.co.jp/searchuni?term.media_format=cd&q=carpenters
Shipping from Japan is fierce, but if you cobble together an order of 6 (say) or more CDs that are hard to find elsewhere, the package becomes reasonable.
I occasionally order from cdjapan and am a satisfied customer. I maintain a "wishlist" (or "bookmarks" in their terminology) on the site.
Thanks, good to know this. Looks quite English-friendly.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 23, 2024, 10:15:16 AMThanks, good to know this. Looks quite English-friendly.
I'm in US, so can't speak to what cdjapan does with VAT.
But for me it's an effective source for buying several Japanese imports at a time.
Quote from: DavidW on February 23, 2024, 10:12:06 AMI never thought to see those words on this forum... don't let it be!! :P
I never thought I'd say those words one day! :D
Quote from: T. D. on February 23, 2024, 10:31:59 AMI'm in US, so can't speak to what cdjapan does with VAT.
But for me it's an effective source for buying several Japanese imports at a time.
Well, since they ship outside EU, they have to add VAT to the total or I have to pay it to allow the package go through the customs.
I wish I could buy everything domestically in Finland or at least inside EU, but a lot of stuff is available outside if even there.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 23, 2024, 09:10:28 AMI have personal experience. In my youth I heard tons of jazz played by my dad on vinyl + all those 100-150 vinyls I own which I ripped and cleaned in computer.
I mean personal experience with my music, music which I love. For example, in 70s I had Keith Jarrett's album
My Song on LP. Then, few decades later, on the compact. Now as a digital file. I can compare my perception of this music on all three media and draw a conclusion about the sound and overall impression.
Or Glenn Gould's Goldbergs. Etc.
Quote from: DavidW on February 23, 2024, 10:12:06 AMI never thought to see those words on this forum... don't let it be!! :P
I like ABBA. I believe they are one of the best pop groups ever.
Quote from: Irons on February 23, 2024, 07:19:36 AMI suppose (hope) within time this debate will disappear up it's own backside. I think we all should listen to music in a format we enjoy most. For me that happens to be vinyl and I don't believe my ears are made of cloth so find it tiresome when I'm told "distortion makes vinyl attractive". Poppycock.
I wouldn't want to claim anyone's enjoyment of vinyl is in any way not valid. I only wish the LP crowd could declare a moratorium on claiming that digital sucks the life out of music, etc. A modern digital playback is demonstrably identical to the source, and I don't see how the life can be abolished from an audio recording without making some change in the audio signal.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 23, 2024, 11:27:53 AMI mean personal experience with my music, music which I love. For example, in 70s I had Keith Jarrett's album My Song on LP. Then, few decades later, on the compact. Now as a digital file. I can compare my perception of this music on all three media and draw a conclusion about the sound and overall impression.
Or Glenn Gould's Goldbergs. Etc.
Yeah, I don't have much experience with your music obviously. I also have some music on both vinyl and CD.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 23, 2024, 04:04:08 PMYeah, I don't have much experience with your music obviously. I also have some music on both vinyl and CD.
But you never had a turntable. So?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 23, 2024, 07:58:14 PMBut you never had a turntable. So?
I have never
owned a turntable of my own, but I have used turntables of other people. As I told, I have ripped/digitazed my vinyls with my dad's turntable (Thorens TD 160).
Quote from: 71 dB on February 24, 2024, 04:42:08 AMI have never owned a turntable of my own, but I have used turntables of other people. As I told, I have ripped/digitazed my vinyls with my dad's turntable (Thorens TD 160).
That's the point. People don't treat other people's stuff the way they treat their own. If you had a long experience of owning a turntable and listening to your music that way, maybe the attitude would be different. But that didn't happen, so there's nothing to talk about.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 24, 2024, 05:25:05 AMThat's the point. People don't treat other people's stuff the way they treat their own. If you had a long experience of owning a turntable and listening to your music that way, maybe the attitude would be different. But that didn't happen, so there's nothing to talk about.
How do you think I treated my dad's turntable?
I have enjoyed music for decades and I find it absurd to be told I have done it the wrong way just because I don't own my own turntable. Yes, I agree. there's not much to talk about with someone like you.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on February 23, 2024, 02:14:33 PMI wouldn't want to claim anyone's enjoyment of vinyl is in any way not valid. I only wish the LP crowd could declare a moratorium on claiming that digital sucks the life out of music, etc. A modern digital playback is demonstrably identical to the source, and I don't see how the life can be abolished from an audio recording without making some change in the audio signal.
I'm not one of the "LP crowd" that claims digital sucks the life out of music. I love my CD player and the pleasure it brings. A poster claimed further up this thread that digital sound has improved immeasurably over the years, this is very true. I just get slightly irked by folk who have not heard my vinyl system, and wouldn't surprise me have not heard a properly setup one - which does not mean expensive, claim from high that "it's the distortion you like".
Quote from: Irons on February 25, 2024, 12:40:59 AMI'm not one of the "LP crowd" that claims digital sucks the life out of music. I love my CD player and the pleasure it brings. A poster claimed further up this thread that digital sound has improved immeasurably over the years, this is very true. I just get slightly irked by folk who have not heard my vinyl system, and wouldn't surprise me have not heard a properly setup one - which does not mean expensive, claim from high that "it's the distortion you like".
They demand that no one else argue that digital sucks the life out of music, but they repeat over and over again that vinyl lovers simply love to listen to distortion. Funny... ;)
Quote from: Irons on February 25, 2024, 12:40:59 AMI'm not one of the "LP crowd" that claims digital sucks the life out of music. I love my CD player and the pleasure it brings. A poster claimed further up this thread that digital sound has improved immeasurably over the years, this is very true. I just get slightly irked by folk who have not heard my vinyl system, and wouldn't surprise me have not heard a properly setup one - which does not mean expensive, claim from high that "it's the distortion you like".
If the signal is different from original sound, there is distortion. Because of how analog audio formats work, it is near impossible to remove those distortions completely or at least lower them far beyond audibility. The strength of digital audio is the fact that getting distortions very tiny, inaudible, is quite easy.
If you like analog sound (audible distortions) while not liking digital sound (inaudible distortions), the only logical conclusion is you like the distortions. You may not hear the distortion as distortion. You probably hear it as part of the music, the "life" of music, because distortion modulates/correlates with music. That's why people may not realise there is distortion. Noise (doesn't correlate with the music) is easier to detect as something not part of the music.
Digital audio doesn't "suck life out of music." It does nothing to the music. It is audible transparent*. The problem is there probably wasn't life in the music to begin with! Analog audio adds it in the form of distortion and sounds more pleasing to you. That's why I speak for adding "life" to music in mixing and mastering. Classical music probably doesn't need it, but some other music genres probably do.
* Lossy digital formats such as mp3 aren't transparent obviously, but lossless formats are. So, when I talk about digital audio, I mean lossless digital formats of 44.1 kHz/16 bit or more.
Quote from: 71 dB on February 25, 2024, 03:04:47 AMIf the signal is different from original sound, there is distortion.
Facts have no place in audio proselytizing.
Let us all please refrain from ad hominem attacks.
btw that had nothing to do with Todd's post but the exchange between AS and 71 dB earlier (which has now been removed).
Having read the various points of view, I've been tempted to jump in here from a number of directions, having been a professional musician via synthesizer, vocalist, oboist and composer. But after some thought, l realized that l have neither the energy nor the motivation to set forth anything which would add significantly to what has already been posted.
Therefore, I shall limit my efforts and merely offer what seems to me the most important ( if obvious ) consideration:
Nobody who prefers their recordings to reside on vinyl is in any way injured by those who prefer a digital source.
Likewise, nobody who prefers digital media is in any way injured by those enjoying life at 33&1/3 RPM.
There is ample room for both. 8)
I'm quite impressed how good well engineered analog can sound, and that includes the stereo LP. E. g. the Deutsche Grammophon Original Source series:
(https://www.hifisentralen.no/forumet/attachments/img_4395-jpeg.957672/)
Of course cutting the laquer so close to the label is a challenge, especially for exotic high end vinyl playback equipment. I avoid those. I also digitize to 24/48 after the phono amplifier. If I didn't I could not play vinyl records with my main stereo, which would be a pity. So much for the purity of the analog audio signal 'round here.
I listen to a lot of records from the 1920s and 1930s (jazz, blues, old time, opera) that have been collected and transferred to CD.
A few years back there was a PBS documentary called American Epic (https://www.pbs.org/wnet/american-epic/about/) which told the story of early recording technology: The Acoustic Era (1877–1925) (singing into a horn) then The Electrical Era (1925–1945) (Western Electric microphone and amplifiers) which marked a huge improvement.
As an adjunct to the documentary Jack White and T-Bone Burnett got some musicians together to record 20 songs using the same equipment that was available in the 20s:
THE AMERICAN EPIC SESSIONS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Epic_Sessions) Starring: Alabama Shakes, The Americans, Ana Gabriel, Ashley Monroe, The Avett Brothers, Beck, Bettye LaVette, Bobby Ingano, Elton John, Frank Fairfield, Jerron "Blind Boy" Paxton, Los Lobos, Lost Bayou Ramblers, Nas, Pokey LaFarge, Raphael Saadiq, Rhiannon Giddens, Steve Martin and Edie Brickell, Taj Mahal, Jack White, and Willie Nelson and Merle Haggard.
I found this project fascinating and very enjoyable to listen to.
These technologies could be seen as crude but the music on these CDs I find easily appreciated; the singing, playing, comes across amazingly natural sounding. I prefer it to how recordings are made today, in which separate parts are isolated onto individual tracks, vocals overdubbed to an backing track, editing the performance, using multiple takes and creating a compilation final track from various performances. The recording process went from being musician driven to engineer driven but a new culture formed during the late 60s and beyond in which songwriters began using the studio as another instrument, and become expert at using technology as an extension of the songwriting process. A new art form was created, "the musical recording" which is distinct from a live musical performance and often impossible to recreate live without a lot of time, expense, people, and rehearsal.
In the desire to achieve perfection in sound reproduction, engineers created an unnatural environment for musicians, and simultaneously an unnatural sound landscape for the audience - all of which they attempted to mitigate with signal processing and effects.
So these debates about audio quality completely miss the point, IMO. I am less interested in audio quality than I am in musical performance quality since , for me at least, I can hear through audio quality and appreciate the performance in an old recording. But with new recordings, using state of the art technology and processing, what I often hear are pristine unnatural performances.
Quote from: Valentino on February 25, 2024, 09:13:47 AMI also digitize to 24/48 after the phono amplifier. If I didn't I could not play vinyl records with my main stereo, which would be a pity. So much for the purity of the analog audio signal 'round here.
Haha making both parties in the analog/digital debate wince!! >:D :laugh:
@San Antone I think it was old Knappertsbusch who called studio recordings with all their splicing together of "the best bits" a fraud.
A long time ago now.
Quote from: San Antone on February 25, 2024, 12:54:35 PMThe recording process went from being musician driven to engineer driven
It is possible to get direct to disc recordings even today. Emile Berliner Studios releases limited edition sets from time to time. Simon Rattle and the BPO released a Brahms symphony cycle in this manner a few years back. Paavali Jumppanen released a disc of Chopin, Kuusisto, and Boulez. There's the below Dvorak Ninth. And others. (Bernard Roberts' first LvB sonata cycle is direct to disc.) Perhaps these are all musician driven, or perhaps these and the Jack White project are luxury product gimmicks. Whether they better or worse musically than standard live recordings, 78s era live recordings, or modern studio recordings is all up to the listener. I listen to recordings made between 1903 and yesterday. Some sound awful, some great, and all sound like recordings - ie, none sound real. But surely the intent of recording is to get something out to everyone who wants to hear it. Except limited run gimmicks.
(https://emil-berliner-studios.com/fileadmin/_processed_/1/0/csm_231130_Bamberger-Symphoniker_Dvorak-D2D_3c366d0f57.jpg)
Quote from: AnotherSpin on July 09, 2023, 08:52:28 AMThis is exactly the case. You've driven a Yugo and you try to convince the owner of an Aston Martin that all cars drive the same way because they all have four wheels.
You can also, of course, recall the laws of physics and say something about wheel traction, friction or Newton's laws. All this is solemn true, but Yugo and Aston Martin are not the same thing, whatever the holder of universal objective knowledge Todd may claim... Lets talk about self-delusion now :-)
Ah! AnotherSpin, there we are. "You poor folks can't appreciated gigabuck equipment
so just be quite and leave us rich folk to our superior insights."
Thus are us poor folk nonplussed.
(... Just revising this interminable thread after a long while.)
Quote from: Fëanor on February 27, 2024, 12:11:55 PMAh! AnotherSpin, there we are. "You poor folks can't appreciated gigabuck equipment so just be quite and leave us rich folk to our superior insights."
Thus are us poor folk nonplussed.
(... Just revising this interminable thread after a long while.)
As has been said many times, it's not about the cost of the components at all. There are good budget components, and there are not particularly well-designed expensive components.
Quote from: Fëanor on February 27, 2024, 12:11:55 PMAh! AnotherSpin, there we are. "You poor folks can't appreciated gigabuck equipment so just be quite and leave us rich folk to our superior insights."
Thus are us poor folk nonplussed.
(... Just revising this interminable thread after a long while.)
"High-end" audio is mostly about snobbery and magical thinking.
If magical thinking sees reality as something beyond the world strictly encompassed by the relation of physical bodies, as something beyond phenomena, then I am in favour of such a high end ;)
Unlike the world of becoming, the world of being is metaphysical and is described not by theory from textbooks, but by knowledge. The high-end is a manifestation of the endless pursuit of the eternal in the realm of disposable things. Those who reduce the high end to cost are missing the point, unable to break free from the material.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 27, 2024, 09:12:25 PMThe high-end is a manifestation of the endless pursuit of the eternal in the realm of disposable things.
In other words, a wild goose chase. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on February 27, 2024, 11:55:24 PMIn other words, a wild goose chase. ;D
The same can be said for many, if not all, idealistic endeavours. But do they not, more than anything else, raise man above the mundane? :)
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 28, 2024, 01:34:32 AMThe same can be said for many, if not all, idealistic endeavours. But do they not, more than anything else, raise man above the mundane? :)
Granted, but I'm not sure that never-ending accumulation and replacement of material things is a sign that someone has raised above the mundane...
Quote from: Florestan on February 28, 2024, 02:08:29 AMGranted, but I'm not sure that never-ending accumulation and replacement of material things is a sign that someone has raised above the mundane...
Right. However, no one says that the ideal exists in separation from the material. It's good to know the balance.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 27, 2024, 12:31:22 PMAs has been said many times, it's not about the cost of the components at all. There are good budget components, and there are not particularly well-designed expensive components.
There a
great budget components. In fact today these often
surpass luxury components in
objective performance and in everyway excepting esthetics and sometimes ergonomics.
This is where objective performance measurement provides us peons with some leverage. But plutocrat audiophiles tend to dismiss objective evidence because it doesn't support their subjectivist bias ... and it's seriously challenging to their spending habits.
What I hear 'way too often is that expensive components
inevitably sound better if carefully chosen ... that it's too bad for folks like me that they can't appreciated the fact. Snobbery is only a cm. beneath the surface.
Quote from: Fëanor on February 28, 2024, 05:09:03 AMThere a great budget components. In fact today these often surpass luxury components in objective performance and in everyway excepting esthetics and sometimes ergonomics.
This is where objective performance measurement provides us peons with some leverage. But plutocrat audiophiles tend to dismiss objective evidence because it doesn't support their subjectivist bias ... and it's seriously challenging to their spending habits.
What I hear 'way too often is that expensive components inevitably sound better if carefully chosen ... that it's too bad for folks like me that they can't appreciated the fact. Snobbery is only a cm. beneath the surface.
No problem. You can hear whatever you want to hear and convince yourself that you thought you heard it ;)
My audio system these days is quite simple, and very far from your dreams of
plutocrat audiophile choices (marvellous wording, by the way). But that doesn't stop me at all from knowing that different audio components sound different, and our perception of music is far from corresponding directly to instrument measurements.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 28, 2024, 05:49:18 AMYou can hear whatever you want to hear and convince yourself that you thought you heard it
Audiophilia in a nutshell.
Quote from: Florestan on February 28, 2024, 02:08:29 AMGranted, but I'm not sure that never-ending accumulation and replacement of material things is a sign that someone has raised above the mundane...
Yeah it sounds very mundane. The true transcendent experience would be using cheap earbuds and being happy with the music.
Quote from: DavidW on February 28, 2024, 06:18:35 AMYeah it sounds very mundane. The true transcendent experience would be using cheap earbuds and being happy with the music.
In theory. You also need a device to connect the headphones to. And cheap headphones break quickly, so you have to buy new ones time after time.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on February 28, 2024, 06:44:32 AMIn theory. You also need a device to connect the headphones to. And cheap headphones break quickly, so you have to buy new ones time after time.
Actually I have $10 headphones from when I was a kid that still work! You just have to take care of your things. Also my Sony boombox from back then also still works as well as my radio alarm clock.
Quote from: DavidW on February 28, 2024, 06:18:35 AMYeah it sounds very mundane. The true transcendent experience would be using cheap earbuds and being happy with the music.
Actually, the true transcendent experience would be to give up technology altogether and listen only to live performances or to the sounds of nature. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on February 28, 2024, 02:08:29 AMGranted, but I'm not sure that never-ending accumulation and replacement of material things is a sign that someone has raised above the mundane...
Probably true but doesn't alter the fact that system upgrading is great fun. Expensive yes, but better then wasting money at the bookies or pub. Doesn't make you a bad person.
Quote from: Irons on February 28, 2024, 07:33:29 AMProbably true but doesn't alter the fact that system upgrading is great fun. Expensive yes, but better then wasting money at the bookies or pub. Doesn't make you a bad person.
Of course not, I never claimed that.
Quote from: DavidW on February 28, 2024, 06:51:27 AMActually I have $10 headphones from when I was a kid that still work! You just have to take care of your things. Also my Sony boombox from back then also still works as well as my radio alarm clock.
Cheap stuff is no longer made to last, otherwise no one would pay over and over again. Disposable is the key word. I can't remember how many times I had to buy headphones for my iPhones.
Still catching up on this thread, I'm not sure why you guys expend paragraphs and paragraphs on this stuff. It's like religion, it relies on faith, you're never going to convince them that it's not rooted in any reality.
Quote from: Atriod on March 01, 2024, 11:31:05 AMStill catching up on this thread, I'm not sure why you guys expend paragraphs and paragraphs on this stuff. It's like religion, it relies on faith, you're never going to convince them that it's not rooted in any reality.
Probably 99 % of everything I have wrote online has been complete waste of time.
Quote from: 71 dB on March 01, 2024, 03:04:16 PMProbably 99 % of everything I have wrote online has been complete waste of time.
For most people, the figure is 99.9%. :)
Quote from: Atriod on March 01, 2024, 11:31:05 AMStill catching up on this thread, I'm not sure why you guys expend paragraphs and paragraphs on this stuff. It's like religion, it relies on faith, you're never going to convince them that it's not rooted in any reality.
You mean faith in so-called "science"? ;)
So-called science?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube?wprov=sfti1
Quote from: Valentino on March 01, 2024, 10:32:43 PMSo-called science?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube?wprov=sfti1
I didn't quite understand your reference to tube equipment. I have enjoyed tube components such as those from Manley for long years. At one time, a huge leap in sound quality was achieved by replacing cheap rubbish Russian-made Svetlana tubes with high-quality NOS, such as those from Telefunken from early 60s.
I have found that anti-science audiophiles are more inclibed to use tubed equipment than other audiophiles. Tubes are science though.
Faith in science is invented by people of faith. Science is non-dogmatic. That's it's base.
Quote from: Valentino on March 02, 2024, 01:15:14 AMI have found that anti-science audiophiles are more inclined to use tubed equipment than other audiophiles.
This is pretty self-explanatory.
Quote from: Valentino on March 02, 2024, 01:15:14 AMTubes are science though.
Of course they are. Tubes were cutting edge applied science technology in early 20th century, but eventually science gave us something better, the transistor. In the future transistors are possibly replaced by something better (whatever AI-developed room temperature supragates they will be ::) ).
Quote from: Valentino on March 02, 2024, 01:15:14 AMFaith in science is invented by people of faith. Science is non-dogmatic. That's it's base.
Science is about the best available knowledge and understanding of things today and the desire to improve, deepen and even correct that knowledge and understanding with scientific process. The only "faith" I have with science is that it is the best guideline for humankind going forward when it comes to knowledge and understanding of the World around us.
Quote from: Valentino on March 02, 2024, 01:15:14 AMFaith in science is invented by people of faith. Science is non-dogmatic. That's it's base.
Science treats reality as the interaction of bodies or objects. And this is an extremely narrow and limited approach. Any child thinks in a more complex way.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 02, 2024, 03:22:40 AMScience treats reality as the interaction of bodies or objects. And this is an extremely narrow and limited approach. Any child thinks in a more complex way.
Your concept of science is extremely narrow and childish. If anything, children are victims of brainwashing by their parents.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 01, 2024, 09:43:29 PMYou mean faith in so-called "science"? ;)
To say so implies a critical misunderstanding of science. Science is
not a collection of facts or settled theories; it is a
process of skeptical (in the best sense) investigation including challenging existing theories and formulating new, testable hypotheses.
Science is that antithesis of faith.
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2024, 04:15:55 AMYour concept of science is extremely narrow and childish. If anything, children are victims of brainwashing by their parents.
True. Children come clean, they possess (or they are) unlimited and unbounded knowing. Then, in time, they became conditioned by parents and schools and society, with various bullshit, such as science, et al.
My reaction to this and the other thread is that I'm too much of a peasant for either. You rich folk are arguing about whether it is smarter to spend literally tens of thousands of dollars on room treatment or on cables. And I'm like:
(https://en.meming.world/images/en/thumb/2/2c/Surprised_Pikachu_HD.jpg/300px-Surprised_Pikachu_HD.jpg)
Rich people are just different.
Ultra-expensive cables will only do if they involve using a vacuum (eg, Stage III cables) or liquid (eg, Teo Liquid Cables).
Science.
Quote from: DavidW on March 02, 2024, 06:42:05 AMMy reaction to this and the other thread is that I'm too much of a peasant for either. You rich folk are arguing about whether it is smarter to spend literally tens of thousands of dollars on room treatment or on cables. And I'm like:
(https://en.meming.world/images/en/thumb/2/2c/Surprised_Pikachu_HD.jpg/300px-Surprised_Pikachu_HD.jpg)
Rich people are just different.
You don't have to be rich at all to be able to appreciate well-made things. Maybe even the opposite. The more money there is, the more rubbish there is in life.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 02, 2024, 06:07:26 AMTrue. Children come clean, they possess (or they are) unlimited and unbounded knowing. Then, in time, they became conditioned by parents and schools and society, with various bullshit, such as science, et al.
I don't know how seriously I should take this response. Nowadays it is hard to tell when other people are being serious or joking. So much mental ilness. So much ignorance. So much social media brainwashing people. So much toxicity...
My desire of be part of the discussion is very low. What is the point of saying anything?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 02, 2024, 06:07:26 AMTrue. Children come clean, they possess (or they are) unlimited and unbounded knowing. Then, in time, they became conditioned by parents and schools and society, with various bullshit, such as science, et al.
...he types on his computer, which is the culmination of three centuries of science and engineering. Why not write this insight on the wall of a cave with a charred stick?
Certainly we need to listen to the results to judge whether the design of an audio component is successful. The point is not to ignore the technical, but learn how the technical measurements and calculations are reflected in the experience. You can't design an audio component using mystical intuition. You have to design an audio component with analytical calculations and measurement of component performance. To paraphrase Einstein, you are shitting on the giant whose shoulders your are standing on.
"There are two equally dangerous extremes: to shut reason out, and to let nothing else in."
— Blaise Pascal
Quote from: 71 dB on March 02, 2024, 07:40:59 AMWhat is the point of saying anything?
There never is in an audiophile debate. It is a Sisyphean struggle. And the result is that both sides are just bitter after debating instead of excited about sharing their audio gear.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 02, 2024, 06:07:26 AMvarious bullshit, such as science, et al.
No science,
ergo no recording technology,
ergo no audiophiles... sometimes I do think the trade off was well worth it... ;D
Quote from: 71 dB on March 01, 2024, 03:04:16 PMProbably 99 % of everything I have wrote online has been complete waste of time.
Fwiw, imo there are no posts on this thread more persuasive than yours. And you have the great benefit of seeming to speak without guile or covert agenda, and with great knowledge at all times, which only adds to their weight.
Edit: to add that nonetheless I think the broad outline of what you wrote above is I think probably true for most of us ...
Quote from: DavidW on March 02, 2024, 09:02:41 AMThere never is in an audiophile debate. It is a Sisyphean struggle. And the result is that both sides are just bitter after debating instead of excited about sharing their audio gear.
I don't feel any bitterness. Only sympathy for colleagues hard-conditioned from the outside.
Quote from: Florestan on March 02, 2024, 09:07:15 AMNo science, ergo no recording technology, ergo no audiophiles... sometimes I do think the trade off was well worth it... ;D
Beethoven had never heard of recording technology. Neither had Mozart or Bach. They had never even seen a computer in their miserable and insignificant lives... ;D
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 02, 2024, 11:03:02 AMBeethoven had never heard of recording technology. Neither had Mozart or Bach. They had never even seen a computer in their miserable and insignificant lives... ;D
Because of technology development more people have probably listed to Beethoven, Mozart and Bach in the past minute than listened to them in the entirety of their lives.
A little bit of editing and the last two pages is a good Monty Python skit.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 02, 2024, 12:18:16 PMBecause of technology development more people have probably listed to Beethoven, Mozart and Bach in the past minute than listened to them in the entirety of their lives.
Yes, and thanks to the telegraph, radio, and now the internet, people are finding out bad news incomparably sooner than they used to. What's good about that? ;)
Quote from: Iota on March 02, 2024, 09:48:05 AMFwiw, imo there are no posts on this thread more persuasive than yours.
Thanks! :)
Quote from: Iota on March 02, 2024, 09:48:05 AMAnd you have the great benefit of seeming to speak without guile or covert agenda, and with great knowledge at all times, which only adds to their weight.
Agenda is an ambiguous term. We all have our reasons of doing things. I am not
paid to say anything and I don't have financial incentives to say these things. My "agenda" is to share science based information free of marketing bs.
Quote from: Iota on March 02, 2024, 09:48:05 AMEdit: to add that nonetheless I think the broad outline of what you wrote above is I think probably true for most of us ...
Maybe, but what I mean is that this is preaching to the choir. We have two treads here:
What audio gear do you have? and this one. True communication is difficult.
Quote from: 71 dB on March 03, 2024, 01:34:14 AMAgenda is an ambiguous term. We all have our reasons of doing things. I am not paid to say anything and I don't have financial incentives to say these things. My "agenda" is to share science based information free of marketing bs.
What I mean is there are all sorts of undercurrents going on in a sometimes combative atmosphere that are apart from the matter being discussed. You however exclusively address the point in hand, saying exactly what you have observed with the wide knowledge at your disposal, which gives your posts an authority which I respect and applaud.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 02, 2024, 08:26:50 AM...he types on his computer, which is the culmination of three centuries of science and engineering. Why not write this insight on the wall of a cave with a charred stick?
Certainly we need to listen to the results to judge whether the design of an audio component is successful. The point is not to ignore the technical, but learn how the technical measurements and calculations are reflected in the experience. You can't design an audio component using mystical intuition. You have to design an audio component with analytical calculations and measurement of component performance. To paraphrase Einstein, you are shitting on the giant whose shoulders your are standing on.
Julius Evola: "It was science that degraded and democratized the very notion of knowledge by establishing the uniform criterion of truth and certainty based on the soulless world of numbers and the superstition represented by the "positivist" method, which is indifferent toward everything that presents a qualitative and symbolic character in empirical data. It was science that precluded any appreciation of the traditional disciplines; through the mirage of evident phenomena that are accessible to everyone science has upheld the superiority of lay culture by creating the myth of the scholar and of the scientist. It was science that, by dispelling the darkness of "superstition" and of "religion," and by insinuating the image of natural necessity, has progressively and objectively destroyed any possibility of a subtle relationship with the secret powers of things. It was science that snatched away from man the voice of the sea, the earth, and the heavens and created the myth of the "New Age of Progress," opening doors for everybody and fomenting the great rebellion of the slaves. It is science that today, by providing the instruments for the control and employment of every force of nature according to the ideals of a demonic conquest, has engendered the most formidable temptation ever to confront man: that he may mistake his renunciation as an act of real power and something to be proud of, and mistake a shadow of power for the real thing."
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 03, 2024, 05:05:59 AMJulius Evola: ...
Never heard of him, but according to wikipedia, a fascist from Mussolini's regime, an unrepentant Nazi, an advocate for Fascist Italy's racial laws and after the war a neo-fascist (superfascista in his own terminology) until the end of his days. But his views on stereo systems were evidently full in insight, since he is quoted here.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 03, 2024, 06:26:44 AMNever heard of him, but according to wikipedia, a fascist from Mussolini's regime, an unrepentant Nazi, an advocate for Fascist Italy's racial laws and after the war a neo-fascist (superfascista in his own terminology) until the end of his days. But his views on stereo systems were evidently full in insight, since he is quoted here.
Yes, it's a popular demagogic technique to label the opponent instead of considering the arguments. The fact that you don't know Evola is fine. Independent thinkers are not specifically popular in times of decline. Evola's opinion on science was cited because the topic of science or scientific approaches has been brought up more than once in the thread.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 03, 2024, 06:50:53 AMYes, it's a popular demagogic technique to label the opponent instead of considering the arguments. The fact that you don't know Evola is fine. Independent thinkers are not specifically popular in times of decline.
On the contrary, neo-Nazis and Neo-fascists and Putin apologists are having their moment here in the U.S.
I read the paragraph and formed my opinion of it before looking up the ignominious author.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 03, 2024, 06:50:53 AMYes, it's a popular demagogic technique to label the opponent instead of considering the arguments. The fact that you don't know Evola is fine. Independent thinkers are not specifically popular in times of decline. Evola's opinion on science was cited because the topic of science or scientific approaches has been brought up more than once in the thread.
Good stuff.
From Wikipedia's entry for Julius Evola. Bolded type is my doing:
" Writings by Evola contain misogyny,[11] racism,[12] antisemitism,[13] and attacks on Christianity and the Catholic Church.[14]
Evola advocated for Fascist Italy's racial laws,[13] and eventually became Italy's leading "racial philosopher".[15] Autobiographical remarks by Evola allude to his having worked for the Sicherheitsdienst, or SD, the intelligence agency of the SS and the Nazi Party.[16][17] He fled to Nazi Germany in 1943 when the Italian Fascist regime fell, but returned to Rome under the puppet Salò government to organize a radical-right group.[18][19][20][21] In 1945 in Vienna, a Soviet shell fragment paralysed him from the waist down.[22]
On trial in 1951, Evola denied being a fascist and instead referred to himself as "superfascista" (lit. 'superfascist'). Concerning this statement, historian Elisabetta Cassina Wolff wrote that "It is unclear whether this meant that Evola was placing himself above or beyond Fascism".[23] Evola has been called the "chief ideologue" of Italy's radical right after World War II.[24] He continues to influence contemporary traditionalist and neo-fascist movements.[25][26][27][28] "
This rather repellent individual would probably rank near the bottom of my list of quotables, but perhaps others see strengths which elude me.
AS you frequently conflate science and nihilism. And your arguments seem to have been pulled from thinkers like Dostoevsky instead of anything contemporary. Perhaps you're an old soul born in the wrong time? :D
Quote from: LKB on March 03, 2024, 07:00:54 AMFrom Wikipedia's entry for Julius Evola. Bolded type is my doing:
" Writings by Evola contain misogyny,[11] racism,[12] antisemitism,[13] and attacks on Christianity and the Catholic Church.[14]
Evola advocated for Fascist Italy's racial laws,[13] and eventually became Italy's leading "racial philosopher".[15] Autobiographical remarks by Evola allude to his having worked for the Sicherheitsdienst, or SD, the intelligence agency of the SS and the Nazi Party.[16][17] He fled to Nazi Germany in 1943 when the Italian Fascist regime fell, but returned to Rome under the puppet Salò government to organize a radical-right group.[18][19][20][21] In 1945 in Vienna, a Soviet shell fragment paralysed him from the waist down.[22]
On trial in 1951, Evola denied being a fascist and instead referred to himself as "superfascista" (lit. 'superfascist'). Concerning this statement, historian Elisabetta Cassina Wolff wrote that "It is unclear whether this meant that Evola was placing himself above or beyond Fascism".[23] Evola has been called the "chief ideologue" of Italy's radical right after World War II.[24] He continues to influence contemporary traditionalist and neo-fascist movements.[25][26][27][28] "
This rather repellent individual would probably rank near the bottom of my list of quotables, but perhaps others see strengths which elude me.
I quoted Evola because right now I'm reading his book, published in 1934. Of course, he was not the only one who was skeptical about science.
Quote from: DavidW on March 03, 2024, 07:08:00 AMAS you frequently conflate science and nihilism. And your arguments seem to have been pulled from thinkers like Dostoevsky instead of anything contemporary. Perhaps you're an old soul born in the wrong time? :D
I don't know what Dostoevsky's ideas were, I don't read him for many years now and I remember his texts poorly.
Quote from: Iota on March 03, 2024, 03:49:37 AMWhat I mean is there are all sorts of undercurrents going on in a sometimes combative atmosphere that are apart from the matter being discussed. You however exclusively address the point in hand, saying exactly what you have observed with the wide knowledge at your disposal, which gives your posts an authority which I respect and applaud.
Well, thank you so much for these kind words! I'm not sure if I deserve all this praise, but I certainly welcome it! 8)
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 03, 2024, 07:17:29 AMI quoted Evola because right now I'm reading his book, published in 1934. Of course, he was not the only one who was skeptical about science.
This illustrates why I have always been sceptical about "book wisdow." The problem with books is they are about the opinions of their authors and should be taken as such, not word of God. Reading books is a good thing, but one should not accept everything without own critical thinking. Do you really agree with everything Evola wrote? If so why? Are you reading the book because you decided to agree with Evola regardless of what he wrote? Are you reading the book to have confirmation for your own opinions? What about those who are critical of Evola's thoughts?
Quote from: 71 dB on March 03, 2024, 08:56:48 AMThis illustrates why I have always been sceptical about "book wisdow." The problem with books is they are about the opinions of their authors and should be taken as such, not word of God. Reading books is a good thing, but one should not accept everything without own critical thinking. Do you really agree with everything Evola wrote? If so why? Are you reading the book because you decided to agree with Evola regardless of what he wrote? Are you reading the book to have confirmation for your own opinions? What about those who are critical of Evola's thoughts?
I read Julius Evola because: a) I am an curious person and I am eager to learn; b) I am attracted to an intelligent companion, even (and especially) if his views do not coincide with the thoughtless mainstream; c) this world is pretty screwed up and is heading for the end, and Evola has something to say about the reasons why. Of course, he does not write only about science.
Is science a word of God?
Quote from: 71 dB on March 03, 2024, 08:56:48 AMThis illustrates why I have always been sceptical about "book wisdom." The problem with books is they are about the opinions of their authors and should be taken as such, not word of God. Reading books is a good thing, but one should not accept everything without own critical thinking.
I've become more wary of being led by the arguments of clever people, not being sufficiently clever or well read myself to notice the flaws in what they're saying so persuasively, and diverted from what I really want to find out.
Quote from: steve ridgway on March 03, 2024, 10:04:42 PMI've become more wary of being led by the arguments of clever people, not being sufficiently clever or well read myself to notice the flaws in what they're saying so persuasively, and diverted from what I really want to find out.
Influence and conditioning by others is impossible to avoid. Unless you want to move to live on a desert island ;)
Ah, windup gramophones!
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 03, 2024, 09:28:29 PMI read Julius Evola because: a) I am an curious person and I am eager to learn; b) I am attracted to an intelligent companion, even (and especially) if his views do not coincide with the thoughtless mainstream; c) this world is pretty screwed up and is heading for the end, and Evola has something to say about the reasons why. Of course, he does not write only about science.
Yes, the World if pretty screwed up, I totally agree, but it is not because of science. It is because of greed, fear and ignorance.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 03, 2024, 09:28:29 PMIs science a word of God?
Science teaches us there is no such thing as word of God.
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2024, 04:49:09 AMYes, the World if pretty screwed up, I totally agree, but it is not because of science. It is because of greed, fear and ignorance.
Science teaches us there is no such thing as word of God.
1. Of course, science is not the reason, merely a tool, and a very limited one.
2. Science teaches but knows no thing for sure. God is not a thing.
Quote from: steve ridgway on March 03, 2024, 10:04:42 PMI've become more wary of being led by the arguments of clever people, not being sufficiently clever or well read myself to notice the flaws in what they're saying so persuasively, and diverted from what I really want to find out.
Especially public debaters because they know many tricks to weasel out of things they don't know well, they're sneaky that way.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 04, 2024, 05:18:20 AM2. Science teaches but knows no thing for sure. God is not a thing.
Agreed, science teaches the hows not the whys. That is up for philosophy and theology. You shouldn't feel threatened by science, it doesn't necessarily falsify your outlook on life.
Quote from: DavidW on March 04, 2024, 06:20:51 AMAgreed, science teaches the hows not the whys. That is up for philosophy and theology. You shouldn't feel threatened by science, it doesn't necessarily falsify your outlook on life.
Indeed. There is a long list of distinguished theist scientists.
Quote from: DavidW on March 04, 2024, 06:20:51 AMAgreed, science teaches the hows not the whys. That is up for philosophy and theology. You shouldn't feel threatened by science, it doesn't necessarily falsify your outlook on life.
I am not threatened by science, it provides a good tools to use in everyday life for simple tasks.
Quote from: Florestan on March 04, 2024, 06:25:11 AMIndeed. There is a long list of distinguished theist scientists.
They are distinguished by their science. That they share some beliefs with the undistinguished
macht nichts. $:)
Quine said philosophy is continuous with natural science. I interpret this as meaning that the methods by which people learn about the world differ only in the degree of precision and the scope of investigation. A scientist continues to learn at the same pace as a child does, and resists the urge to retire into "beliefyness" as so many adults do.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 04, 2024, 05:18:20 AM1. Of course, science is not the reason, merely a tool, and a very limited one.
2. Science teaches but knows no thing for sure. God is not a thing.
1. Limited in what sense and compared to what?
2. Science says our understanding can change given new evidence/information/knowledge. That doesn't mean science is clueless of things. The evidence for evolution for example is overwhelming, but small details about how evolution has happened may still be incomplete and requires further research. It is like criminal investigation. The evidence may be overhelming as for who did the crime, but how the criminal act exactly happened may never be solved.
As an atheists I don't believe in deities so God is not a thing for me, but I assumed for believers the
word of God (not God) is a thing.
Quote from: DavidW on March 04, 2024, 06:20:51 AMAgreed, science teaches the hows not the whys. That is up for philosophy and theology. You shouldn't feel threatened by science, it doesn't necessarily falsify your outlook on life.
Science is about quantity but not quality. It knows how many watts, ohms or decibels there are in a sound, but it knows nothing about the quality of the sound, there is no measure. That's why science doesn't distinguish the difference in sound quality of components or cables, but humans do.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 04, 2024, 10:12:39 AMScience is about quantity but not quality. It knows how many watts, ohms or decibels there are in a sound, but it knows nothing about the quality of the sound, there is no measure. That's why science doesn't distinguish the difference in sound quality of components or cables, but humans do.
This is an oversimplification. For example an analyser is likely to measure harmonic distortion much more accurately than any human. On the other hand there are sonic properties we humans are much better with because technology isn't on the same level (probably is in the future).
Humans suffer from expectation/confirmation bias, placebo effect etc. Those have to be carefully removed. Science knows this.
Quote from: 71 dB on March 04, 2024, 10:55:33 AMThis is an oversimplification. For example an analyser is likely to measure harmonic distortion much more accurately than any human. On the other hand there are sonic properties we humans are much better with because technology isn't on the same level (probably is in the future).
Humans suffer from expectation/confirmation bias, placebo effect etc. Those have to be carefully removed. Science knows this.
People suffer from biases/expectations formed by reading reviews and checking measurements. So they buy components with "correct" measurements and reviewed "well" that can't give them the quality of sound they would be satisfied with.
Quote from: DavidW on March 04, 2024, 06:20:51 AMAgreed, science teaches the hows not the whys. That is up for philosophy and theology. You shouldn't feel threatened by science, it doesn't necessarily falsify your outlook on life.
I think science does a fantastic job of explaining the material universe but can't deal with questions of meaning. My own experience of meaningful coincidences convinces me something more is going on, although I don't know what, I don't want to jump to any conclusions.
I'm not too concerned about the "meaning of it all". Others are, and that's fine by me. But to apply it to our simple audio gear muddles things.
Quote from: steve ridgway on March 04, 2024, 09:55:22 PMI think science does a fantastic job of explaining the material universe but can't deal with questions of meaning. My own experience of meaningful coincidences convinces me something more is going on, although I don't know what, I don't want to jump to any conclusions.
As a person who has been engaged in scientific research for most of my adult life, I find that at least as much 'meaning' comes from understanding how the world works through curiosity and scientific inquiry as comes from 'religion.'
Agree, science and religion are equally distant from the reality.
One tries to understand it, the other makes a fairytale of it.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 04, 2024, 08:19:54 PMPeople suffer from biases/expectations formed by reading reviews and checking measurements. So they buy components with "correct" measurements and reviewed "well" that can't give them the quality of sound they would be satisfied with.
I have never been dissatisfied with "correct measurements." Why would I be? If I am dissatisfied with the sound it is because the music was recorded, mixed and mastered badly. Just yesterday I listened to The Carpenters' Ticket to Ride CD and I wish I had the individual tracks so I could mix the songs myself. How it was done over 50 years is pretty bad (later albums of the band have better sound quality).
This thread has really, and I mean really, gone off-topic (just sayin').
But if the posters active here are OK with how te thread has evolved, by all means carry on. If not, a new thread (e.g. "Science and Religion") can be opened.
Quote from: ritter on March 05, 2024, 05:21:54 AMa new thread (e.g. "Science and Religion") can be opened.
Oh, santi numi, proteggeteci!
Quote from: ritter on March 05, 2024, 05:21:54 AMThis thread has really, and I mean really, gone off-topic (just sayin').
But if the posters active here are OK with how te thread has evolved, by all means carry on. If not, a new thread (e.g. "Science and Religion") can be opened.
That would be redundant. A certain branch of audiophilia is essentially a religion.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 05, 2024, 05:57:42 AMThat would be redundant. A certain branch of audiophilia is essentially a religion.
;D
Quote from: Valentino on March 04, 2024, 10:10:40 PMI'm not too concerned about the "meaning of it all". Others are, and that's fine by me. But to apply it to our simple audio gear muddles things.
Well that is one thing about AS and Poju, they're not really for small talk! While you might ask "honey how was your day?", they probably would ask "what is the meaning of the universe and our place in it?" :laugh:
Quote from: DavidW on March 05, 2024, 06:39:36 AMWell that is one thing about AS and Poju, they're not really for small talk! While you might ask "honey how was your day?", they probably would ask "what is the meaning of the universe and our place in it?" :laugh:
I can make it very small: two cables with similar measurements would sound different.
...at least if one knew which was which. If one didn't know it would be ever so slightly more difficult.
The more I read here, the more satisfied I feel with my " internal " stereo. Not only can I adjust tempo, balance and ensemble as I like, but the sound quality is always optimal. ;D
Quote from: LKB on March 05, 2024, 10:45:34 AMThe more I read here, the more satisfied I feel with my " internal " stereo. Not only can I adjust tempo, balance and ensemble as I like, but the sound quality is always optimal. ;D
You can also take it to 11 without damaging your hearing! 8)
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tenor.com%2FG14TSBu9gcMAAAAC%2Fthis-is-spinal-tap-this-goes-to11.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=2f34f419fc372e7572bd290609a67abde303333da1bd849af1da4b1e1ed15d64&ipo=images)
I should watch Spinal Tap again, haven't seen that one in a few decades...
fyi I changed the title, because that title that I came up with on the fly last summer is terrible and I'm really sick of seeing it.
Quote from: LKB on March 05, 2024, 10:45:34 AMThe more I read here, the more satisfied I feel with my " internal " stereo. Not only can I adjust tempo, balance and ensemble as I like, but the sound quality is always optimal. ;D
I'm sure you're aware that the internal stereo doesn't free you from the cable dilemma. You will have to consume at least 100 mL of avocado oil per day to be sure that the axons on your nerve cells are able to transmit audio satisfactorily. You might be able to get away with olive oil for chamber music, but I once tried to listen to Mozart on Canola oil and it was a disaster, sounded like W.F. Bach.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 05, 2024, 12:18:15 PMI'm sure you're aware that the internal stereo doesn't free you from the cable dilemma. You will have to consume at least 100 mL of avocado oil per day to be sure that the axons on your nerve cells are able to transmit audio satisfactorily. You might be able to get away with olive oil for chamber music, but I once tried to listen to Mozart on Canola oil and it was a disaster, sounded like W.F. Bach.
Well, your point is taken. However, considering the deleterious effects of avocado oil upon my aging positronic matrix, l must continue chugging along as best l can without it.
Now, if only that annoying Commander Maddox would let me be...
I can hear prices!
:P
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 05, 2024, 12:18:15 PMI'm sure you're aware that the internal stereo doesn't free you from the cable dilemma. You will have to consume at least 100 mL of avocado oil per day to be sure that the axons on your nerve cells are able to transmit audio satisfactorily. You might be able to get away with olive oil for chamber music, but I once tried to listen to Mozart on Canola oil and it was a disaster, sounded like W.F. Bach.
You're just going to give those people ideas...
Of course, diet, exercise, chronic conditions, aging, just plain mood, etc does very much effect our hearing. I don't think audiophiles like to talk about it much, particularly the effects of aging. Maybe the only reason that expensive cable sounded better was your blood sugar levels.
The bravest thing I think I ever read by a writer in a major audio magazine was a description of how he lost hearing in one ear during a stint as an artillery officer in 'Nam.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 04, 2024, 11:26:06 PMAgree, science and religion are equally distant from the reality.
What even is "the reality" to you?
Quote from: 71 dB on March 06, 2024, 01:39:18 AMWhat even is "the reality" to you?
It is simply knowing that I am, here and now. It is the only reality. The permanent in the fleeting, the one constant factor in every experience. All else is temporal and transient, that is unreal.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 06, 2024, 03:27:52 AMIt is simply knowing that I am, here and now. It is the only reality.
And yet the existence of other realities than your own being can be demonstrated by a very simple experiment: just bang your head as hard as you can against the nearest wall. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on March 06, 2024, 03:34:52 AMAnd yet the existence of other realities than your own being can be demonstrated by a very simple experiment: just bang your head as hard as you can against the nearest wall. ;D
You talk about experience, it comes and goes.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 06, 2024, 03:39:00 AMYou talk about experience, it comes and goes.
And yet every time that experiment is performed, the same result obtains, irrespective of who performs it on which wall. That's permanence in a nutshell. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on March 06, 2024, 03:44:53 AMAnd yet every time that experiment is performed, the same result obtains, irrespective of who performs it on which wall. That's permanence in a nutshell. ;D
Oh, really? I've never once banged my head against a wall, and neither has anyone I know, to my knowledge.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 06, 2024, 05:32:51 AMOh, really? I've never once banged my head against a wall, and neither has anyone I know, to my knowledge.
That's because you are afraid of reality. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on March 06, 2024, 06:05:22 AMThat's because you are afraid of reality. ;D
Nope, it's because I have no need to bang my head against the wall to prove anything to anyone :)
What is being described by AnotherSpin seems like a version of George Berkeley's philosophy of "immaterialism." I think it is nowadays studied for how ingeniously it develops an idea which gives no practical guidance on how one should live. Some time ago I was idly reading Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy, where he treated Berkeley at some length. It is hard to absolutely disprove the sophomoric idea that "the whole universe is just a dream I am having," but Russell does his best.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 06, 2024, 06:09:35 AMNope, it's because I have no need to bang my head against the wall to prove anything to anyone :)
But you're banging your head against the wall right now! ;D
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 06, 2024, 06:15:25 AMWhat is being described by AnotherSpin seems like a version of George Berkeley's philosophy of "immaterialism." I think it is nowadays studied for how ingeniously it develops an idea which gives no practical guidance on how one should live. Some time ago I was idly reading Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy, where he treated Berkeley at some length. It is hard to absolutely disprove the sophomoric idea that "the whole universe is just a dream I am having," but Russell does his best.
Oh I thought it was the adolescent identity development stage in psychology where you can't separate yourself from the rest of the world. >:D
Quote from: DavidW on March 06, 2024, 06:24:02 AMBut you're banging your head against the wall right now! ;D
Merely answering the questions. I could stop, but that would be not polite.
Quote from: DavidW on March 06, 2024, 06:26:06 AMOh I thought it was the adolescent identity development stage in psychology where you can't separate yourself from the rest of the world. >:D
Berkeley had his day in the early 20th century because there were echos of his ideas in the science of the time - Einstein's insight in Special Relativity that time and space are not absolute and the finding of quantum mechanics that a physical variable does not have a reality until it is measured. But those were observable phenomena whereas there is nothing in Berkeley that is observable or actionable in the real world. Bertrans Russell really ties himself in knots trying to argue against Berkeley's theory, which is surprisingly slippery.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 06, 2024, 06:30:16 AMMerely answering the questions. I could stop, but that would be not polite.
I didn't ask you any questions. :D
Quote from: Florestan on March 06, 2024, 06:35:45 AMI didn't ask you any questions. :D
Right, you just suggested I bang my head against the wall as hard as I can. My bad, I didn't hold back and replied. ;)
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 06, 2024, 06:46:38 AMyou just suggested I bang my head against the wall as hard as I can.
Well, you are the only reality and the wall is unreal --- what harm can it do to you then?
There are propositions that can't be falsified.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Braininvat.jpg)
I once saw Dan Dennett speak about his latest book (many years ago) and sitting next to him was Hilary Putnam, author of a well known argument invalidating all brain-vat/matrix/demon scenarios. All of them are equivalent to their negation and therefore meaningless.
Quote from: Florestan on March 06, 2024, 06:58:58 AMWell, you are the only reality and the wall is unreal --- what harm can it do to you then?
In order to find common ground, we need to agree on
who am I. Obviously we see this differently. And it seems to me that the disagreement is insurmountable for several different reasons.
I find the new thread title quite appropriate.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 06, 2024, 07:25:56 AMit seems to me that the disagreement is insurmountable for several different reasons.
We are in perfect agreement (pun). ;)
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 06, 2024, 06:32:41 AMBerkeley had his day in the early 20th century because there were echos of his ideas in the science of the time - Einstein's insight in Special Relativity that time and space are not absolute and the finding of quantum mechanics that a physical variable does not have a reality until it is measured. But those were observable phenomena whereas there is nothing in Berkeley that is observable or actionable in the real world. Bertrans Russell really ties himself in knots trying to argue against Berkeley's theory, which is surprisingly slippery.
I don't remember what Russell said about Berkeley. Did he mention that solipsism cannot be disproved in principle? I'm not going to go into detail, but what I'm saying is far from Berkeley. You can also mention Descartes and Schopenhauer, but the point is that this is not about philosophy at all.
Quote from: 71 dB on March 01, 2024, 03:04:16 PMProbably 99 % of everything I have wrote online has been complete waste of time.
General social media add another long string of digits after the decimal point. With just GMG then I disagree, I am always learning about new performances/music from the select threads I read, admittedly I skip plenty where I don't get much use out of them, this thread will be joining the ranks $:)
A few years ago I cut down all my personal online time to ~30 minutes a day. It's remarkable how different the world is when you're not constantly "plugged in." I see I now have another several pages to catch up on this thread, and what's the point really? Burning more time off my life that could be spent on something more productive/enjoyable. I am thankful for people that write long descriptions of music and sometimes I try, like the Eschenbach Mahler 5 that absolutely blew me away, then I start and decide to just listen to some music instead.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 06, 2024, 07:50:38 AMI don't remember what Russell said about Berkeley. Did he mention that solipsism cannot be disproved in principle? I'm not going to go into detail, but what I'm saying is far from Berkeley. You can also mention Descartes and Schopenhauer, but the point is that this is not about philosophy at all.
Yes, he was clear that it can't be absolutely disproved. Nothing in philosophy can be proved or disproved. The best you can do is point out all of the implausible assumptions you have to make if you want to believe Berkeley.
I had read a lot of philosophy in my younger days. Now it mostly seems pointless to me. The useful philosophy is that which gives you some guidance on how you should live. I generally find science a more useful resource in that regard.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 06, 2024, 06:15:25 AMWhat is being described by AnotherSpin seems like a version of George Berkeley's philosophy of "immaterialism." I think it is nowadays studied for how ingeniously it develops an idea which gives no practical guidance on how one should live. Some time ago I was idly reading Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy, where he treated Berkeley at some length. It is hard to absolutely disprove the sophomoric idea that "the whole universe is just a dream I am having," but Russell does his best.
Well it
could be a dream, a dream seems real enough when one is in it, but if one is unable to wake up or gain much control over it then it's effectively reality and is best treated as such.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 06, 2024, 08:32:34 AMI had read a lot of philosophy in my younger days. Now it mostly seems pointless to me.
My experience and sentiment exactly.
It seems like Berkeley's thinking has found a new life in the people who claim were are living in a simulation. ::)
(This site needs a better eyeroll emoji.)
Now I have to figure out how to relate this to audiophilia.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on March 06, 2024, 08:32:34 AMYes, he was clear that it can't be absolutely disproved. Nothing in philosophy can be proved or disproved. The best you can do is point out all of the implausible assumptions you have to make if you want to believe Berkeley.
I had read a lot of philosophy in my younger days. Now it mostly seems pointless to me. The useful philosophy is that which gives you some guidance on how you should live. I generally find science a more useful resource in that regard.
The same here. Also, I've found my answers elsewhere, and it helps me, in times of war too.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 06, 2024, 03:27:52 AMIt is simply knowing that I am, here and now.
You are? That sounds like a very self-centred view of reality. What about the time you were not born yet and the time after you have died?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 06, 2024, 03:27:52 AMIt is the only reality.
Oh really? Maybe you believe your mind is the only thing there is and we other people are just thoughts in your mind (Solipsism)?
Quote from: steve ridgway on March 06, 2024, 08:53:45 AMWell it could be a dream, a dream seems real enough when one is in it, but if one is unable to wake up or gain much control over it then it's effectively reality and is best treated as such.
Yes, it could be a dream. What a genius I am to have dreamed general relativity, quantum mechanics, microbiology, evolution and Brahms. What I pervert I must be to have dreamed Nazi Germany, the Taliban, chattel slavery in the United States and Paper Lace.
I believe in a Philosophy of 🧀.
I like 🧀, a lot.
With ham, or without. With wine, or water, or something stronger.
A pleasant helping of 🧀, accompanied by an appropriate beverage, along with a first-rate book in front of a cozy fireplace... BLISS!
There have undoubtedly been countless other philosophies, multitudes, around the world and throughout the history of our species. The point of commonality within them all is an attempt to define a perception of human existence and/or potential. And so, all of them offer a lense for seeking or investigating ways to attain some measure of contentment with a given individual's place in the universe.
But no philosophy is any better than its author, and all authors ( irrespective of intentions, insight or past performance ) are collections of blunders, experience, happenstance results, and the various foibles which either curse or anoint ( depending upon one's philosophy ) any creator.
So, no philosophy can be objectively correct as it is part opinion, part instinct, and necessarily constrained by its author's limitations.
And so the Philosophy of 🧀 has attained, for me, a personal primacy.
🧀 is at least partly true, satisfies, is at least somewhat consistent ( up to the expiration date ) and, when used in moderation, exacts no penalties.
Made myself hungry, that did. 😋
Quote from: LKB on March 06, 2024, 02:03:07 PMBut no philosophy is any better than its author, and all authors ( irrespective of intentions, insight or past performance ) are collections of blunders, experience, happenstance results, and the various foibles which either curse or anoint ( depending upon one's philosophy ) any creator.
So, no philosophy can be objectively correct as it is part opinion, part instinct, and necessarily constrained by its author's limitations.
And so the Philosophy of 🧀 has attained, for me, a personal primacy.
Yes, a bit of philosophical speculation can be fun for a while but the puzzle is never actually resolved and day to day existence goes on as normal.
Quote from: steve ridgway on March 06, 2024, 08:50:54 PMYes, a bit of philosophical speculation can be fun for a while but the puzzle is never actually resolved and day to day existence goes on as normal.
There is no puzzle outside of mind.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on March 06, 2024, 09:34:38 PMThere is no puzzle outside of mind.
I'll keep it inside my mind then :-X .
Ahhhh-haaaaa!!!
I can play dsf files on my PC..........in WINAMP!
(https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)(https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)(https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
That's fine, but do you have an audiophile Ethernet switch?
Quote from: Valentino on April 21, 2024, 10:29:23 PMThat's fine, but do you have an audiophile Ethernet switch?
I can't hear my Ethernet, so it's probably audiophile.
Quote from: drogulus on April 21, 2024, 09:27:54 AMAhhhh-haaaaa!!!
I can play dsf files on my PC..........in WINAMP!
(https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)(https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)(https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
It really whips the llama's ass!
Quote from: DavidW on April 22, 2024, 03:36:23 PMIt really whips the llama's ass!
That reminded me of:
https://youtu.be/79TVMn_d_Pk
:D