Imho

[RickH]

Sometimes less is better than more. Please allow me to restate a few of the points that I failed to communicate effectively. I will try to keep this brief.
1. There is a point of diminishing returns on anything you purchase. I believe
that many of the "high end" cable manufacturers would lead you to believe
that point is much farther away than your own intuition would.
I have sat in meetings where very expensive "brand name" cables were
being marketed. To my surprise there was far less talk regarding the sonic
attributes of the cable versus how "sexy" it was. And I quote the term "sexy".
2. I believe that it is important to use a high quality cable in a high quality
system. I also believe however, that a chain is only as strong as its weakest
link. I am however, wary of those who promise dramatic sonic improvements in
any system by virtue of using a specific brand of cable.
3.Personal taste in music and the ultimate reproduction of the same are a matter of perception. No ones perception is good-bad-right-wrong. It's
your reality and you are entitled to it. Sure, you can measure it. But frequency counters,VOM's and 0scilloscopes don't appreciate music.
They simply give numbers. I'm not damning test equipment. To some degree
factors such as excessive capacitance might be a good indicator that the wire being tested does not lend itself to audio applications. But I have been
involved in double blind tests,(I was once associated with a manufacturer of
subwoofers), where the majority of the participants chose "romex" over some
very expensive cables with great market acceptance. I should note that we were not listening to a subwoofer during this test. So I guess what I'm
trying to say is this. There is a large mark up in audio video equipment.
The smallest margin is in large lcd or plasma flat screens. The largest mark up
is in.....you guessed it, cable. The normal mark is between 75 and 85%.
The next highest is speakers. Usually 50- 75%. Audio cable is an area where dealers stand to make incredible profits...and they do. So it benefits the
manufacturer and the dealer to push these items as hard as possible.
It's big business. And except,for a few truly passionate manufacturers,
it is all done in a manner that evokes your emotions, good or bad.
Because after a certain point, in order to get the kind of dollars some of these
people get...theres only one way they can get you to fork over ludicrous
amounts of dollars. "sell the sizzle". Believe me....Iv'e been there.
Sorry for the "diatribe". p.s. I do not feel attacked in any way. If you have strong opinions, voice them. I respect your opinions and am not afraid to swap my thoughts for those that I percieve to be better founded. The older I get , the more I find myself doing exactly that. Thanks for the tremendous
forum and the privilege to present my opinions along with yours!

 

[mtrycrafts]

Actually, it may be "testable" but not "measurable", right?

No, that is wrong. And, just the opposite is true. It is measured but still not audible.

I mean, how is it possible for someone to cry at a specific scene in a movie and someone else to laugh?

Is this what we are talking about when comparing two components? Its emotional impact? Your play analogy is about an artistic event's interpretation, not it being compared to another one of the same play but just a slightly small difference here or there, right?


I'm not questioning that we can accurately measure certain aspects of sound, but I've never seen anything that can measure personal perception (correct me if I'm wrong).

Measure it with a yardstick? No, but we can test personal perception. that is the whole idea. And, it is a perception of differences if detectable in components, not an artistic differences of perception.



Not really: what I've said is that perception can't be quantified, and you're saying that since the signal is the same, the perception must be as well.

And, since the tester is the same, same listener, that perception is testable indeed, between components. If you cannot perceive a difference between two components, consistently, how can your perception be reliable for differences anymore that just guessing and speculating?
In reality, that is what controlled testing accomplishes, consistency of perception and reliability of that perception.


If you doublecheck what I wrote, you'll note I didn't advocate spending more to increase percieved value, merely that percieved value may vary without regard to measurable criteria.

Yes, you did.



As a matter of fact, I've seen several posts on this forum saying things to this very end (albiet I can't think of an instance when you've done this-you're much more precise in your written staements than most poeple in forums like this).l

Well, that is good to know, thanks That is that I am more precise. I know if not, it will bite back Doesn't take too many bites to get the idea
And, I still cannot recall anyone on this board call others lying on this. But, I have been know to be wrong, from time to time



No, I've just been to the ABX website, and I'm not comfortable with the statistical criteria they've accepted for proof one way or the other.

What statistics will you accept? after all, 95% confidence level is the minimum in good science, no? That web site has only a few of the DBT. there are published papers in magazines over the past 30 years. I have been know to list a number from time to time.




There are lies, damn lies, and statistics; I have yet to see a test that isn't constructed (by either side) to support the position necessary (trust me on this...I *really* have seen data bent to the needs of the end user-some still in court).

Bryan

The statistics is straight forward. 9 of 10, 12 of 16, 15 of 20. Do you have a problem with bias controlled protocols per say, DBT?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Well then I'll argue how well HP is curing my dementia

I think you will have to apply directly to the brain cells Good luck. Let me know how it works. I may need to do it too

 

[mtrycrafts]

Generally yes, but it is not necessarily so, mtry. While I usually support your positions on these matters, mistakes (and plain ol' faked research/results) are a frequent visitor to those things scientifically measured. Flyv65 made a good, hinted-at-point about the need to question scientific measurements/results. Repeatability and verifiability are important. I'm not so certain we've had much beyond peer review on some of this acoustic research.

'Supporting' and 'proving' are sometimes very different critters. Psychoacoustic methodologies, anyone?

I am talking about being repeatable and verifiable not a one time event.
If one makes a mistake, it will certainly will show up when another tries to replicate it.
Yes, I have heard about faked research, so far not in audio but then I haven't heard of all the research

 

[pikers]

Talk to to Mtry about double blind testing, he'll fill you in.

With misinformation and opinion.