Cables Make a Difference

[Audiosouse]

I think it is very clear that your intent was to comment on my post. Are you truly that disingenuous?

And here I thought the Earth revolved around the sun! Let's pretend I called it $2K or $7K or any other number you like better and call it a day.

And yes, I have read many reviews and articles here.... many of my purchases, including the Parasound C1/A51, Denon 3910 and 5910, Emotiva DMC/MPS-1, etc., are a direct result of information I have received from here. What's your point?

Point is, as displayed above, you can't post without dropping a name. Why not just discuss the thread?

They seem to review some fairly high end pieces here, so why should I only discuss my affordable gear? I'm not going to be an apologist for having some nice toys.

Nor should you. I agree they are high end, but nothing compared to most other sites making one believe that without a $20K budget (is that number ok with you? Sure hope you don't own anything near that price lest you think I'm talking about you again ) everything will sound like crap.

 

[Audiosouse]

Hey, that sign looks familiar...

I actually live near Hell, so "Hell Freezing Over" is quite normal to me actually

That must be a great conversation starter! So many uses. Where you from? Oh...near Hell.

 

[Sleestack]

And here I thought the Earth revolved around the sun! Let's pretend I called it $2K or $7K or any other number you like better and call it a day.

Point is, as displayed above, you can't post without dropping a name. Why not just discuss the thread?

Nor should you. I agree they are high end, but nothing compared to most other sites making one believe that without a $20K budget (is that number ok with you? Sure hope you don't own anything near that price lest you think I'm talking about you again ) everything will sound like crap.

It wasn't just the $5K figure, but nice try.

Name dropping? You asked if I read reviews and I commented on 3 pieces I specifically bought because of articles on this site. One of those products is also considered a "value" piece. Would you prefer that we talk about products without mentioning their names?

Some people have nicer stuff than you.. get over it or do something about it. Its not that difficult.

 

[Audiosouse]

Some people have nicer stuff than you.. get over it or do something about it. Its not that difficult.

I prefer to think of it as just more expensive, not nicer.

 

[Steve1000]

This, IMHO, is exactly the practical benefit of coming to grips with the merits of the objectivist point of view. More peace of mind, less upgraditis, money better spent, a better-informed and more expert hobbyist, much higher fidelity to the extent that the music experience can be substantially more gratifying, and more time and money for music enjoyment itself.

Plus there's some pretty stunning and amazing stuff out there, often shunned by the subjectivist camp, such as digital EQ, portable audio, lossy compression, etc., that one could invest in instead of expensive cables. Or for that money the industry continues to push the envelope for good sound at a low price in a small speaker for another room; for less than the price of expensive cables, one can set up a very enjoyable and unobtrusive setup in an area of one's home not suitable for full-blown state-of-the-art hifi.

One may only need to try a few DBTs at hydrogen audio to snap the picture into focus. Of course as a practical matter there is only so much DBT listening one can do; at some point it does require a conscious decision to trust in others' knowledge and learning, and perhaps to change one's point of view in the face of mounting evidence.

But where this really matters is when listening; having far less concern for things like exotic resistors, capacitors, wires, amplifiers, etc. and more concern for real/substantial issues has increased my ability to enjoy the music. If one chose to go even further, and aquire knowledge of what really affects sound, via credible sources of data, one can[as I do] improve things that are known/provable to have real improvement(s) on the sound to achieve a sound quality that is considerably beyond what could have been accomplished without this knowledge.

-Chris

 

[miklorsmith]

An honest show of hands: how many of you hardcore subjectivist guys out there are just going thru the motions and playing the role, even though you know it's BS?

Thoughtful post, Rob. As one that would probably be labeled a "hardcore subjectivist" here, I'll give it a whirl. For reference, I would probably be an "annoying pragmatist" at AA.

I specifically post contrarian opinions sometimes here, even when I'm not 100% sure about the view. Radical? Maybe. I'd bet when you get down to it, very few of us are 100% sure of many things. When a lopsided pile-on view is represented, I sometimes feel compelled to voice the other side, just for the sake of representation. In these instances, you could probably say I'm "playing the role", even though I very seldom would advocate a position I know to be BS.

As a personal philosophy, I do believe equipment Makes A Difference, (MAD) having heard many, many examples. Of course, this is on a sliding scale where speakers would be a definite 10/10 on a MAD scale, where magnets and wooden knobs rate a 1/10. I understand that I do not understand the deep physics of sound, and few people really do.

Even those that do are assuming a lot. Knowledge can be a barrier. Many people with training and real skills probably get into a trap of assuming they know more than they really do. I believe there are elements in sound reproduction we (humans) do not fully understand. I don't have to define them or try peel their pedals.

This is one of the advantages of the subjectivist view. I imagine objectivism can be a maddening pursuit of theoretical knowledge with varying degrees of correlation to practical experience. Even jneutron alludes to this from time to time and as far as I can tell, he's the most educated among us (in this area).

Knowing I do not "know" the answers, I end up using my personal MAD scale when deciding where to spend my time, energies, and money. I believe electronics rate fairly high on the MAD, probably in the area of 4 - 8 out of 10. I think acoustics are very high and will soon be having Ethan W. deck out my whole room in his finest regalia. Comparing $$ with MAD leads to most of my personal decisions.

So, I suppose the question of whether I tout the subjectivist view even though I know it's BS should be answered in the negative. The premise of its being BS is your opinion, not mine. I doubt many people buying equipment and singing their praises truly believe it's hooey. Sleestack says he hears some things making a difference and others not. Me too. So biases my views.

Slee - I believe your statements about which gears you are comparing contributes to the discussion. Everyone - great thread. Slee/Souse - chill!

 

[pikers]

Interesting you chose to use the word "believe". Belief has no place here.

...Just don't claim it performs better, because frankly, we know better.

Well, we know a cable can measure better than another. That's true. To assert that those instruments can pick up on microdynamics (I hear that guitar pluck a little better now; listen to the vibration of the drum's rim; it wasn't there before...) - doesn't happen. It isn't designed to listen for subtleties; it's designed to look for similarities and difference in how the actual signal is transferred. To say that those boxes take into account as much peripheral information as the human brain, well, not even the most advanced supercomputer can do that.

Placebo exists. Some people may be smart enough to recognize its presence and take it into account. Do not condemn those who can perceive minute sonic differences if in fact you cannot.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Well, we know a cable can measure better than another. That's true. To assert that those instruments can pick up on microdynamics

I am not sure what you are driving at here. I want to know as I may have to correct misinformation.


(I hear that guitar pluck a little better now; listen to the vibration of the drum's rim; it wasn't there before...) - doesn't happen.


What doesn't happen, or what happens?



It isn't designed to listen for subtleties; it's designed to look for similarities and difference in how the actual signal is transferred. To say that those boxes take into account as much peripheral information as the human brain, well, not even the most advanced supercomputer can do that.


HUH? Need more clarification here to. Doesn't sound good.



Placebo exists. Some people may be smart enough to recognize its presence and take it into account.


By doing what? How do you control bias???



Do not condemn those who can perceive minute sonic differences if in fact you cannot.

What minute differences? Please quantify it. We want to know more, that is why we are here. We want to know who you are referring to who may have superhuman capability in hearing.
'Minute sonic differences' is meaningless.

 

[Nick250]

Mtry, I am not saying I agree or disagree with you in this thread, but using the all encompassing "we" in your posts seems inappropriate to me. You, me and everyone else in this forum speak only for ourselves. Just my opinion

 

[pikers]

Well, we know a cable can measure better than another. That's true. To assert that those instruments can pick up on microdynamics

I am not sure what you are driving at here. I want to know as I may have to correct misinformation.


(I hear that guitar pluck a little better now; listen to the vibration of the drum's rim; it wasn't there before...) - doesn't happen.


What doesn't happen, or what happens?



It isn't designed to listen for subtleties; it's designed to look for similarities and difference in how the actual signal is transferred. To say that those boxes take into account as much peripheral information as the human brain, well, not even the most advanced supercomputer can do that.


HUH? Need more clarification here to. Doesn't sound good.



Placebo exists. Some people may be smart enough to recognize its presence and take it into account.


By doing what? How do you control bias???



Do not condemn those who can perceive minute sonic differences if in fact you cannot.

What minute differences? Please quantify it. We want to know more, that is why we are here. We want to know who you are referring to who may have superhuman capability in hearing.
'Minute sonic differences' is meaningless.

I realize you probably demand a thesis on why or how we can hear small dynamic differences, but the research is already out there.

Controlling bias? Admittedly unscientific in my approach... I'm simply all too aware that outside influences that have nothing to do with my auditory capabilities influence my perception of cable differences.

Why do I detect them then? Well, I didn't say all differences were superior, but I have heard marked upgrades in sound quality fomr going from one inerconnect to another. Why? Maybe one simply did its job, and the other one didn't; hard to say. Comparing two $200 interconnects and preferring one with ZERO bias or inclination to like one over the other in play, and preferring one over the other at the end... Stuff like this happens every day, and it drives pure objectivists nuts, because they can't explain it! And, I suppose I can't either, but that's the point. Who cares, as long as you're happy at the end of the day.

 

[jneutron]

I realize you probably demand a thesis on why or how we can hear small dynamic differences, but the research is already out there.

It is??? Where, please...so far, all the research I have found and read does not achieve that which you seem to think.

Hint: if it doesn't include differential ITD and IID vs frequency and amplitude localization research, it's useless for soundstage reproduction...It may be good for monophonic sensitivity, but that's it..
Cheers, John

 

[mtrycrafts]

Mtry, I am not saying I agree or disagree with you in this thread, but using the all encompassing "we" in your posts seems inappropriate to me. You, me and everyone else in this forum speak only for ourselves. Just my opinion

Well, I figured others want to learn as well, besides me. Next time, I will just ask such questions that I want to know.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I realize you probably demand a thesis on why or how we can hear small dynamic differences, but the research is already out there.

Controlling bias? Admittedly unscientific in my approach... I'm simply all too aware that outside influences that have nothing to do with my auditory capabilities influence my perception of cable differences.

Why do I detect them then? Well, I didn't say all differences were superior, but I have heard marked upgrades in sound quality fomr going from one inerconnect to another. Why? Maybe one simply did its job, and the other one didn't; hard to say. Comparing two $200 interconnects and preferring one with ZERO bias or inclination to like one over the other in play, and preferring one over the other at the end... Stuff like this happens every day, and it drives pure objectivists nuts, because they can't explain it! And, I suppose I can't either, but that's the point. Who cares, as long as you're happy at the end of the day.

You are still not making sense for me to understand your post, at all.

So, since you know about bias, how do you control it so you are not imagining things when compariong two of anything for a difference? If you are not controlling bias, you may be imagining things without you knowing, so your claims don't hold much merit.
So any speculation on your part about differences is just that.

I think you are confusing preferences and an ability to differentiate audible differences. No your explanation doesn't drive objectivists nuts. You explaind only your preference, nothing about audible differences. That, you have not established.

 

[MDS]

I think you are confusing preferences and an ability to differentiate audible differences. No your explanation doesn't drive objectivists nuts. You explained only your preference, nothing about audible differences. That, you have not established.

Sure he did - he talked about "microdynamics".

 

[Kurt C.]

Well, we know a cable can measure better than another. (stuff deleted)Placebo exists. Some people may be smart enough to recognize its presence and take it into account. Do not condemn those who can perceive minute sonic differences if in fact you cannot.

If readers of this thread haven't already done so, I highly recommend that you give this summary of the issue, written by John Dunlavy (who needs no introduction to a serious audiophile). It is the only link in the audio principles section of audioholics.com marked as a "MUST READ" . He addresses in a straightforward and clear manner most of the issues being discussed here.

 

[jneutron]

Hmmm

If readers of this thread haven't already done so, I highly recommend that you give this summary of the issue, written by John Dunlavy (who needs no introduction to a serious audiophile). It is the only link in the audio principles section of audioholics.com marked as a "MUST READ" . He addresses in a straightforward and clear manner most of the issues being discussed here.

Read it..interesting, thanks.

One can only hope that as more is learned about how we hear, and what we hear, that people like JD will revisit the issue.

He does not understand fully all the aspects of the auditory interface..as that changes, perhaps his conceptual understanding will as well..

Does he not understand that the human hearing mechanism adapts to the stimulus, and that that adaptation requires time???

Would you trust a DVM that took 5 minutes to settle into an accurate reading..to take a reading in 5 or 15 seconds? Imagine if you did not realise the meter required such..

What next...the Fred Davis paper, with it's errors???

Sigh
Cheers, John

PS...perhaps it's time to pull the sheets off this sleepy forum??

 

[mtrycrafts]

Read it..interesting, thanks.

One can only hope that as more is learned about how we hear, and what we hear, that people like JD will revisit the issue.

He does not understand fully all the aspects of the auditory interface..as that changes, perhaps his conceptual understanding will as well..

Does he not understand that the human hearing mechanism adapts to the stimulus, and that that adaptation requires time???

Would you trust a DVM that took 5 minutes to settle into an accurate reading..to take a reading in 5 or 15 seconds? Imagine if you did not realise the meter required such..

What next...the Fred Davis paper, with it's errors???

Sigh
Cheers, John

PS...perhaps it's time to pull the sheets off this sleepy forum??

No, John, I think it is time for you to publish

And, maybe you are right, it takes time to adapt to sound. How does that happen with a constantly changing, dynamic musical signal?

And, I hope that your paper will include some DBT listening demonstrating audible differences that would concern a listener

 

[jneutron]

No, John, I think it is time for you to publish

And, maybe you are right, it takes time to adapt to sound. How does that happen with a constantly changing, dynamic musical signal?

And, I hope that your paper will include some DBT listening demonstrating audible differences that would concern a listener

Hi mtry, how are you?

I need to embellish a tad.

There are three mechanisms of adaptation to aural stimulus..

1. Automatic gain ranging..the ability of our hearing mechanism to adjust to the level of the sound. One can easily imagine sitting in a quiet room, listening to soft music, hearing all the details...then, going outside and revving the Harley for five minutes...then, going back into the room, listening to the exact same music at the exact same level, but finding that it takes half an hour for your hearing to become sensitive again to that which you previously enjoyed.. This is also what happens with visual acuity vs light intensity..

2. Frequency based gain ranging..the annoying thing that happens when one sets an eq 15 khz band just a bit higher to make the highs more brilliant...then, an hour later, it isn't as sizzling as it was when you first adjusted it..you have adjusted to the change in level a bit..

3. Localization stimulus interpretation. In the natural environment, we use timing delay and intensity levels to interpret where a sound source is in the space around us. When we are presented a horribly flawed soundfield, as stereo speakers by design project, the human brain is forced to adapt to that incorrect stimulation to "figure out" where the audible images are coming from. Modification of that flawed soundfield forces the brain to adjust it's interpretation algorithms, to re-establish localization.

It is number 3 that I point out is not understood in the world of audio..

So far, I have seen very little attention paid to the complex relationship between those two items and stereoscopic reproduction.

To all who read this..an experiment.

First, you need a soundcard that has only one D/A converter. The output section must mux the analog output. This forces the channels to have an 11 uSec delay..my soundcard has a built in 11 uSec delay on the left channel.

With headphones, listen to either a wave file or directly off a disk...(not an mp3 if you can avoid it, as losses can get in the way..)

Is the image centered??? Mine isn't. It is slightly to the right, an artifact of the 11 uSec delay..(yes, when I reverse the phones, the image does move to the other side..and yes, when I hot wire the channels together to force mono, it is in the middle regardless of headphone orientation.)

To center the image, I have to use the balance control. When I do this, the image indeed shifts to the center, but there is a problem...when I do this, the image goes all to "heck". It becomes less focussed...I use the mouse to adjust it...click on the control, turn your head away, sweep the control side to side, both extremes, then bring it back to center the image..suprise, it always requires the same level shift..and, all the frequencies DO NOT center at the same time..

This is because we do not have the same sensitivity to IID shifts across the audio band. In point of fact, both ITD and IID sensitivity vary across the entire range of human hearing, and they do not track..meaning, it is not possible to use IID to correct for ITD errors on more than one frequency band simultaneously.

Given the fact that a 1 foot diameter source localization error band, center stage ten feet away...is bounded by IID levels of .06dB, and ITD levels of about 5 uSec, do you really think anybody is looking with test instrumentation...what we can hear???

From what I have read so far, from the experts..they do not have much more than a rudimentary understanding of localization issues.

Dunlavey: hmmm..

If I trick an individual into believing that he has seen a ghost...have I proven that ghosts do not exist???

I expect far more scientific work than that. All he has proven is that the "test instruments" can be fooled.

As for papers...hmm..several things are required..

1. A paper explaining the mathematics of localization of a sound source, with emphasis on differential ITD and IID as it applies to image reconstruction. This is consistent with radar and sonar theory. It will establish the boundary math for reconstruction, ie, it will establish the constraints necessary for reconstruction spacial fidelity. For example, to establish a virtual image 10 feet away, on axis, to within one foot, interchannel ITD must be less than 5 uSEc deviant, and IID less than .06 dB deviant. I could plant the 2 axis plots here, but I do not believe anyone will understand them. (my apologies if that is an incorrect statement, I am working to create 3-D graphs which will encompass all of it.)

2. A paper establishing the susceptibility of present electronics to these levels of deviations..this paper has to establish the test methods required to spot these susceptibilities as well as the equipment required, including the equipment specifications. (note that current state of the art load resistors are incapable of presenting the load parameters necessary to do this). I've explained some of these susceptibilities and test methods on forums, and with various individuals over the years...nothing has been done..

3. A paper which properly tests human hearing capability with respect to well defined differential ITD and IID stimulus, over the entire range of human hearing...until these parameters are controlled up to and including the actual cones, the testing done will be meaningless.. garbage in, garbage out.

All of this, is of course, unnecessary for the the vast bulk of the human race, as there is a very small percentage of humans who even care about the coherent soundstage image to that degree.. I, for example, just enjoy the artist, or the movie, without worrying about confining myself to one point in space..others choose to do so, and that is just fine..

Cheers, John

PS..as you can see, the final proof of my assertions takes a long path, requiring advancing human audibility understandings and electronic test methods..I always welcome the "show me proof" stance you take..this is how it should be..

 

[pikers]

You are still not making sense for me to understand your post, at all.

So, since you know about bias, how do you control it so you are not imagining things when compariong two of anything for a difference? If you are not controlling bias, you may be imagining things without you knowing, so your claims don't hold much merit.
So any speculation on your part about differences is just that.

I think you are confusing preferences and an ability to differentiate audible differences. No your explanation doesn't drive objectivists nuts. You explaind only your preference, nothing about audible differences. That, you have not established.

I established it by preferring one over the other. If there wasn't a difference, there would be no preference...

 

[pikers]

If readers of this thread haven't already done so, I highly recommend that you give this summary of the issue, written by John Dunlavy (who needs no introduction to a serious audiophile). It is the only link in the audio principles section of audioholics.com marked as a "MUST READ" . He addresses in a straightforward and clear manner most of the issues being discussed here.

Good for him...