|   Here is a cable comparison theory... | Monstrous Mike
Nov 21, 2001 12:00 PM | | We are all familiar with the discussions that ensue when someone claims they bought a fancy new speaker wire or interconnect and brought it home and, lo and behold, the system now sounds better than before. It may have clearer bass, restrained mid-range, greater presence, whatever. The listener is simply trying to communicate to the rest of us how he perceives the improvement.
Some people say it is because better cables sound better due to an advanced technology of some sort and others say it could be due to psychoacoustic effects like some sort of expectation theory.
Well I have devised my own theory on this matter. Let's take an average audio guy and I'll call him Enrique. Enrique has been listening to Radio Shack 14 guage speaker wire for one year now on his $5000 home audio system. Since he comes into some unexpected cash, the upgrade bug has bitten him. He decides that he is going to pump $300-$500 into some new speaker wire from the myriad of companies offering substantial sound improvements with their products.
He chooses brand X based on comments and shared experiences on the Internet as well as some listening in the local audio store. Enrique arrives home and turns on the stereo just for one last listen to his Radio Shack wires. He then connects his new speaker wires and, with bated breath and heart pounding, plays the same CD at the same volume and listens to his new wires for the first time. Having no real expectation of anything great, he is surprised at how much more clear the sound is now. He tells his wife when she comes home that she now has a new 14 gauge clothesline in the backyard (made from the discarded Radio Shack speaker wires) <-- (subjectivists cheer here).
As we all know, when we are excited or anxious our heart beat increases, adrenaline flows and host of other physical changes occur. One of those changes is a sharpening of the senses. We are in the classic primal state of "fight or flight".
My contention is that Enrique's sense of hearing became more acute than usual right at the time when he was auditioning his new speaker wire and, as such, he concluded that this new wire did actually improve the sound of his system. I'll even go a step further and say that the event left such an impression on Enrique, that it is now very difficult to convince him of the possibility that different speaker wires of comparable gauge and length sound so similar as to be inaudible. |
| re: Here is a cable comparison theory... | HYFI61
Nov 21, 2001 2:55 PM | | That sounds like a good theory for that particular situation. What is the theory for when you walk into some ones home whose sound you are used to and you notice that some thing is quite different. It sounds like a whole new stereo. Whan you ask he says I just put in all Synergistic Reference cable. He never told you until after you noticed.
Thats the theory I am waiting for.
Nice thinking. |
| re: Here is a cable comparison theory... | mtrycrafts
Nov 21, 2001 9:21 PM | | "What is the theory for when you walk into some ones home whose sound you are used to and you notice that some thing is quite different"
Your hearing changed that day? Good as any other guesses.
". He never told you until after you noticed. "
Since you know this friend and most likely know that he likes to change things, you had a 50% chance of guessing correctly. After all, the other was nothing changed. Next time flip a coin, same probability. Your human evolution is built in to listen for differences, so it is very natural for your brain to fill in a blank with data that is not there.
No, you are trying too hard to convince yourself. Don't. Just believe what you want as we know facts mean nothing to you. |
| re: Here is a cable comparison theory... | HYFI61
Nov 22, 2001 4:53 AM | | Facts mean nothing to millions of religious people who believe in God also. Doesn't mean he does not exist. But nobody has proven that he does.
Oh but you don't believe in anything you don't have documents for and in God's case a picture. |
| re: Here is a cable comparison theory... | mtrycrafts
Nov 22, 2001 4:08 PM | | "Facts mean nothing to millions of religious people who believe in God also. Doesn't mean he does not exist. But nobody has proven that he does. "
This is correct. Wonder where the burden is, to prove a negative or a positive? Did you participate in that science survey with the lowest scores ever, recently published? Sure sounds like it.
No difference with the creation claims, right. Many believe.
"Oh but you don't believe in anything you don't have documents for and in God's case a picture."
Oh, my beliefs are not really relevant as long as you make the testable claims. And, I don't need his picture, just credible evidence. YOu wouldn't have some, would you? Many scientists believe in the supernatural. |
| re: Here is a cable comparison theory... | HYFI61
Nov 23, 2001 12:00 PM | | I am actually a bit sceptical on the God thing. I just use it as an example. Maybe not yourself, but many that do believe in God dont believe in sound differences of cable. They dont have to tell us who they are. We just know they are hipocrites. How could one possibly believe in one but not the other.
I don't know of the survey you speak of. |
| re: Here is a cable comparison theory... | mtrycrafts
Nov 23, 2001 6:49 PM | | I suppose it was not a survey, calling people up by phone but the science scores in schools are falling much, not improving. A good way to head into the 21st century. This was in th epaper and the news withing the last few days.
"How could one possibly believe in one but not the other."
That is easy. One chooses what to believe in and not for whatever reason. Many scientists believe in a diety. You figure that out. Human nature, I suppose. |
| I feel sorry for those that can`t hear..... | Cyclops
Nov 22, 2001 12:13 PM | | The difference in cables, don`t know what they are missing. Such is life. |
| And I feel sorry for... | Monstrous Mike
Nov 22, 2001 12:57 PM | | ...those who toss out wads of cash for exotic cabling. There are a thousand ways to better spend that money. Such is life... |
| I feel sorry for those that can`t hear..... | mtrycrafts
Nov 22, 2001 4:03 PM | | Please, instead, feel sorry for those who pretend to hear differneces and are so gullible. Must have been the same folks that take the science tests with the scores falling ever lower. |
| re: Here is a cable comparison theory... | Juggernaugh
Nov 23, 2001 2:35 AM | | Ingore this little lady. He is a coward and spouts information but will offer no information about his personal equipment or experience. In other words , a nerd. I have been on this forum in over a year but see that he or probabely SHE is still up to her old tricks. |
| It's like a scratched old record.... | HYFI61
Nov 23, 2001 12:12 PM | | still fun to play with. |
| "He is a coward " | mtrycrafts
Nov 23, 2001 6:55 PM | | "He is a coward and spouts information but will offer no information about his personal equipment or experience. "
"I have been on this forum in over a year "
It seems that you may be the "coward' not using a single moniker, right? Why are you hiding behind all these different names? You must have posted a few times before, certainly not with this name, "coward."
By the way, since when is my system, if I even have one, is relevant? Clueless poster.
And, your experience is what exactely? And, how can it be trusted that it is not biased and is in fact you have a reliable experience, not just another illusioned one, imagined one? |
| MODERATOR!!!!!!! Out of bounds | JoeW
Nov 23, 2001 7:15 PM | | >It seems that you may be the "coward' not using a single moniker, right? Why are you hiding behind all these different names? You must have posted a few times before, certainly not with this name, "coward."
This is a direct accusation. Why did you not include your evidence?
More slime and slide, which is saddly typical of you. |
| MODERATOR!!!!!!! Out of bounds | FLZapped
Nov 24, 2001 4:26 AM | | Joe,
Are you saying you support the type of posting that Juggernaugh made?
Are you saying hat Mtry has no right to rebuke it?
Does this mean we should all just hurl insults now and forget about the issues at hand?
Why aren't you calling Juggernaugh' posting out of bounds, it clearly is based on the opening request made when entering these message boards, isn't it??
-Bruce |
| MODERATOR!!!!!!! Out of bounds | JoeW
Nov 25, 2001 6:02 PM | | A direct accusation was made with NO suporting evidence. No supporting hypothosis. No anything. Just a naked accusation.
I find such behavior to be beyond reasonable acceptance. |
| MODERATOR!!!!!!! Out of bounds | FLZapped
Nov 26, 2001 8:38 AM | | And what about the original poster? Are you supporting the idea of some new moniker dropping out of thin air and opening with a volley of personal attacks and no way to identify the individual? I would say that is pretty cowardly and out of bounds, yet I hear no cry from you because you do not agree with Mtry, so to me it looks like that is OK as long as it supports your position. Is that what you want, Joe?
-Bruce |
| MODERATOR!!!!!!! Out of bounds | mtrycrafts
Nov 25, 2001 3:01 PM | | Let me see, Joe:
" I have been on this forum in over a year but see that he or probabely SHE is still up to her old tricks."
Yet a search shows no other posts under his current moniker, right?
"
Why are you hiding behind all these different names? You must have posted a few times before, certainly not with this name, "coward." "
Any denials from him? and "It seems that you may be "
is not a direct accusation, is it? And, if I am mistaken, I can admit that as well, but the evidence is not there yet.
I am waiting for you to jump on his misbehavior, Joe, or that is counter to your motives? |
| Ah yes, another TROLL....... | FLZapped
Nov 24, 2001 4:27 AM | | At least it's mackerel season...
-Bruce |
| And | mtrycrafts
Nov 21, 2001 9:26 PM | | after the change, you still don't know if there is a real audible difference as you didn't test it. You just assume there is and believe that just because he stated he changed something, there must be an audible difference. More assumptions, too many assumptions and not enough knowing. |
| And | HYFI61
Nov 22, 2001 4:59 AM | | No I believed it before he told me anything as he did not want to tell me how much the cables cost so I had to drag it out of him.
I also believe you are verry book smart but have had little practice in coming up with your own opinions by hands on trial and error. Tell me something to prove me wrong. |
| And | mtrycrafts
Nov 22, 2001 4:13 PM | | "I believed it before he told me anything as he did not want to tell me how much the cables cost so I had to drag it out of him. "
A lucky guess does not confirm anything.
"I also believe you are verry book smart but have had little practice in coming up with your own opinions by hands on trial and error. "
This isn't rocket science or cutting edge technology that needs original research, is it? You way overrate hands on experience in this.
"Tell me something to prove me wrong. "
What you should worry about is what you can demonstrate in a credible manner, not with a flawed hands on experience. |
| All anybody is asking | HYFI61
Nov 23, 2001 12:17 PM | | is for you to make 1 little statement like "Along with all my memorization of articles and books, I personaly have found it to be my experience that I could not hear anything when I tried myself." That would be the end of all the Bullshit. Both yours and mine. |
| All anybody is asking | JoeW
Nov 23, 2001 6:49 PM | | You dont really expect this guy to answer a question, or substantiate his opinions, do you? He appears to live in a fantasy kingdom, in which is is King.
He sets the standard of proof for others, but is not obliged to justify his standards and tests.
He makes claims left and right, but holds himself exempt from his own standards.
If you press him, he insists he has fully justified his opinions and substantiated his assumptions. He will call your reading abilities into question (even though he cant seem to cobble together a 6 word sentence)
He offers nothing, insists he has proven everything, and insults anyone who disagrees. The man (boy, whatever) is a prototypical jerk.
You'd think if objetivists wanted to be taken seriously, they would insist on a better spokesmodel. They seem content with this one. Go figure. |
| "fantasy kingdom" | mtrycrafts
Nov 23, 2001 6:57 PM | | That is most appropriate where you are coming from, Joe. Thanks for the input. |
| Typical | JoeW
Nov 23, 2001 7:08 PM | | Yepper. A sho nuff adolescent come back, if ever I heard one. |
| And | Juggernaugh
Nov 23, 2001 2:39 AM | | I think you are 100% correct. He's a nerd! Afraid to stand by his own personal experience and spouting a lot of stuff he or she has read. No nuts, a HO! |
| And | mtrycrafts
Nov 23, 2001 7:00 PM | | I am surprized you didn't change your moniker yet.
How is your personal experience? Illusions a plenty? |
| re: Here is a cable comparison theory... | Markw*
Nov 22, 2001 12:11 AM | | It's unlikely he plays the same music every time you go there. Being we have a short audio memory, it's entirely possible that he was playing a well recorded piece that you were either unfamiliar with or had not heard in a while and you simply "forgot" how great sounding his system was to begin with.
We humans are funny like that. |
| re: Here is a cable comparison theory... | HYFI61
Nov 22, 2001 4:49 AM | | Well I'm glad that as humans we are given the ability to create our own reality. But your music assumption is not correct. First of all the person is not known to change things. He had given away all his Cambridge gear and replaced it with about 20k worth of high end gear. The only thing he did not change was the Kimber PBJs and KCT8 speaker wire. As it happens with most people with high res systems, we tend to mostly play good recorded disks since the bad ones are rendered worse. You all can believe what you want to believe but I know what I heard. No my hearing did not get better that day. In fact I believe most peoples hearing only gets worse as time goes by not better. I am not as gullable and stupid as some would think, I just know that putting Synergistic cables into an expensive system produced better sound than the lowest of Kimber. Maybe these changes don't happen in all systems but it does in some. |
| Nobody ever said or implied you were gullable and stupid. | Markw*
Nov 22, 2001 7:27 AM | | "Well I'm glad that as humans we are given the ability to create our own reality."
Yes, to a certain extent we can. You are only human and thereby suceptible to the same psychological shortcomings as the rest of us. |
| Oh Mtry has! | HYFI61
Nov 23, 2001 12:03 PM | | If one can convince himself there is differences. One can convince himself there isn't. We all use the illusion to benifit each of us best. Accept for those who don't yet know it is an illusion. |
| Oh Mtry has! | mtrycrafts
Nov 23, 2001 7:02 PM | | "We all use the illusion to benifit each of us best"
Not correct. You seem to and all the yeasayers seem to. I just want the evidence that you all cannot deliver all these decades. |
| re: Here is a cable comparison theory... | mtrycrafts
Nov 22, 2001 4:24 PM | | "You all can believe what you want to believe but I know what I heard"
Belief has nothing to do with it. What can be recreated and demonstrated does. What you heard can be demonstrated. But, there is also a perception, what you think you heard. That, is unreliable as the human brain has many interesting capabiliites. It can fill in data that is not even there. It doesn't like voids so it creates and fills it in.
"No my hearing did not get better that day. "
How do you know this? Sheer guess as hearing changes constantly.
"In fact I believe most peoples hearing only gets worse as time goes by not better. "
Yes, you are correct but this is on the large scheem of time, not from day to day events. Today it can be worse and tomorrow back to normal but relative to yesterday, it got better.
". I am not as gullable and stupid as some would think, I just know that putting Synergistic cables into an expensive system produced better sound than the lowest of Kimber."
Nobody said you are stupid. Humans are gullible by nature. Some are more so than others. As to kbnowing about the cable, not quite as you have not conducted a bias controlled listening.
"Maybe these changes don't happen in all systems but it does in some."
But the evidence is not there to support this. Speculations yes. |
| re: Here is a cable comparison theory... | mtrycrafts
Nov 22, 2001 4:15 PM | | "We humans are funny like that."
Gullible too:) |
| OK, give me a shot at this... | Monstrous Mike
Nov 22, 2001 6:25 AM | | I believe that Jon Risch is someone whom you look up to for matters in audio, especially cabling. And as such, I'm sure you have read most of his posts at this forum, especially when he is sticking to someone like me or Mtrycrafts.
As you may know, Jon is not a fan of DBTs. Some of the key problems he has with DBTs include volume matching, audio memory and using the same track for comparisons. In other words, a lot of variables have to be constant for a comparison to have validity. So for you to walk into your friend's house after X days, listen to potentially different music at what is likely a different volume and also likely that you were standing in a different location, I find it hard to believe that any differences you heard could be solely as a result of the cable swap.
So what's my theory for your particular situation? I'll call it the "HYFI61 Corollary". I'll even concede the fact that you heard a sonic difference. When we change speaker wire, we usually have to move the speakers or turn them around to get at the terminals. My theory is that when he replaced them, they we not in the exact same position as before. We all know that even changing speaker placement by inches can affect the sonics of a room. As a matter of fact, was anything else different in the room? New drapes? Furniture in a different spot? Was it a day of high humidity? Was a door open or closed that was not before?
As Jon Risch would say, it's hard enough to get a blind comparison test right with perfect conditions but the conditions of your comparison would not even fly with him.
And as an afterthought, how about "HYFI61 Corollary #2". It could be that your friend's body language gave an indication that he was about to show you something new. He could invite you in, turn on the stereo and not even say anything, but could have had the "cat that swallowed the canary" look. Body language is subtle and good friends are obviously more in tune. You could have subconciously picked up on his enthusiasm and concluded he was expecting you to notice something different, just by listening.
Professor Mike signing off... |
| OK, give me a shot at this... | Jon Risch
Nov 22, 2001 9:57 AM | | [ As you may know, Jon is not a fan of DBTs. ]
This is at best, a misrepresentation of my views.
I have severe problems with poorly done subjective listening test DBT's. I have a severe problem with null results from any subjective listening test DBT's taken as gospel negatives.
I have an especially severe problem with null results from poorly done subjective listening test DBT's taken as gospel negatives. Which is what get's thrown out here all the time as "proof".
Properly done DBT's can be useful, and provide interesting data to analyze and mull over. Somehow though, the fact that they are done under blind conditions has elevated them REGARDLESS OF ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION to the level of some sort of Holy Grail.
RE your theory, I find it interesting that so much effort is put into coming up with excuses for why people hear things, rather than seeking out why they hear such things.
The ultimate audiophile or music lover experience of suddenly noticing low level or subtle details on a familiar recording you have heard hundreds of times, after changing out a component, has never been adequately dealt with (mtry's claims to the contrary not withstanding).
Once you have experienced this sort of epiphany, there is not really any way to convince you that you were deluded or heard a placebo effect. With objectivists left and right denying their own senses, it is no wonder they never even allow for such an event, it is dismissed and the self-delusion of no differences continues.
Jon Risch |
| OK, give me a shot at this... | Monstrous Mike
Nov 22, 2001 12:04 PM | | I apologize if I misrepresented any of your views. That was certainly not my intent.
My point with regard to the scenario HYFI61 presented is that there are a number of possibilities why he heard his friend's system "sound better". Like Sherlock Holmes used to say: "If we remove all of the possible wrong conclusions, then only truth must remain". To remove the one particular conclusion that the cables sound identical is obviously a difficult one to determine but so are some of the other possibilities that I presented.
While it may seem obvious, one cannot logically conclude that the new cables are superior until all of the other possibilities have been eliminated.
I think the real bone of contention is that some people just don't want to work through an investigation and are simply happy that they bought some new cable and it sounds better to them. Any further deducing beyond that is considered a waste of time. I respect that view but it does not change my opinion. If someone showed me an analysis of how all other possibilities could be disregarded, then I would conclude that the cables made a difference. |
| OK, give me a shot at this... | mtrycrafts
Nov 22, 2001 4:38 PM | | And you have no problems with sighted listening feedback to support your speculations. Interesting, Jon.
"RE your theory, I find it interesting that so much effort is put into coming up with excuses for why people hear things, rather than seeking out why they hear such things"
No, Jon, not excuses but well known facts, but to you. Need to read some psychology research why people are so gullible and their perceptions so easy to corrupt and confuse. Diane Deutsch has voluimes on this and test CDs to demonstrate it. So easy to fool you, not even funny.
"The ultimate audiophile or music lover experience of suddenly noticing low level or subtle details on a familiar recording you have heard hundreds of times, after changing out a component, has never been adequately dealt with (mtry's claims to the contrary not withstanding). "
Jon, it is for you to demonstrate that YOU can. You have not as you cannot. Nor offere any evidence that anyone has. Why?
"With objectivists left and right denying their own senses, "
There you go again, Jon. Distorting and making up stories, creating your own reality as usual. YOU HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE ABLE TO HEAR. That simple, Jon, you have the burden and cannot obfuscate it. |
| Hmmmmm. I'm beginning to see a pattern here. | Markw*
Nov 22, 2001 6:16 PM | | Any test, no matter how scientific and controlled it is, that fails to substantiate the belief that there are audiable difference in cables is inherently flawed, thereby invalid.
Conversly, any observation, no matter how uncontrolled or unscientific it may be, that alludes to audiable cable differnces, is valid and thereby gold in your book.
sure, jon.
I'm sure glad you are not a judge. Can you say "kangaroo court"?
The Taliban press corps has nothing on you.
Oh, just to avoid any confusion, please note that this is the real Markw*, not Kram. If I'm going to slam you I'll do it using my own moniker. I always have before and will continue to do so. |
| Hmmmmm. I'm beginning to see a pattern here. | mtrycrafts
Nov 22, 2001 10:42 PM | | "Any test, no matter how scientific and controlled it is, that fails to substantiate the belief that there are audiable difference in cables is inherently flawed, thereby invalid.
Conversly, any observation, no matter how uncontrolled or unscientific it may be, that alludes to audiable cable differnces, is valid and thereby gold in your book."
Now you see the real Jon:) |
| No, more like making up a pattern.... | Jon Risch
Nov 24, 2001 9:21 AM | | ...to fit your bias and POV.
[ Any test, no matter how scientific and controlled it is, that fails to substantiate the belief that there are audiable difference in cables is inherently flawed, thereby invalid. ]
I have not said any such thing. Of course, this is just your biased 'observation' and consequent opinion. However, if we looked at the scientific facts:
There are no professional journal peer reviewed listening test papers that came up with nulls or positives for audio cable differences.
There are only a few popular press amatuer listening test results that were published. These particular (all three) tests had known flaws.
Complete lack of characterization for two of them of WHAT their actual sensitivity was, so we don't even know what, IF ANYTHING, these tests were capable of detecting. In all three instances, the music was left to play on, this is a serious and fatal flaw in and of itself.
There were many other minor issues, but the gist of it is, these very few and limited listening tests just were not very good scinece.
All other accounts concerning speaker cables are surely in the realm of anecdotal accounts, not having been published in any valid traditional manner.
Just because a test is 'controlled' e.g., blind, or uses SOME scientific methods, does not automatically make it valid or a good well done test.
Note that there are NO professional journal OR popular press articles with nulls for interconnects, but what could be construed as blind listening test positives for interconnects in the popular press.
So going by the concepts and methods of science, do any of the objectivists allow that we have positives for intrerconnects? They should, but absolutely refuse to, all the while embracing and accepting anedotal accounts of NULLS as further evidence.
Is this the 'science' that you are so snobbish about, so proud of?
It is called hypocrisy, and many of the objectivists are guilty of it.
[ Conversly, any observation, no matter how uncontrolled or unscientific it may be, that alludes to audiable cable differnces, is valid and thereby gold in your book. ]
If you are referring to the listener suddenly noticing a new detail in the music when inseting a new component after many previous intent and focused auditions, I beg to differ.
This is an example of what is known as a triple blind situation. The listener does not even know he is being 'tested', that is, he has no possible foreknowledge of the previously unresolved musical details, and therefore, when he suddenly and unexpectedly hears it, it is something that he had no way of knowing that he should be listening for it.
Triple blind situations are invariably rather hard to ignore as evidence, as they have the ultimate benefit of not being subject to any sort of preconceived bias at all (which can still affect a DBT situation, despite the mistaken belief otherwise.).
How can you anticipate something about which you have no knowledge that it exists?
So rather than being in the nature of 'sighted' listening results, such experiences are actually some of the best kind of blind evidence.
[ The Taliban press corps has nothing on you. ]
This has no excuse, or any way of being defended. You are scum for implying any connection to the Taliban. Care to apoligize, or want to cement the certainty in everyone's mind?
Jon Risch |
| I'll stick to what I said. | Markw*
Nov 26, 2001 3:17 AM | | You see, I've been here for too long and have seen you in action too many times. I'm sure others who choose to stick around will see you for wnat you are also.
You either hear it, or you don't. Simple as that. Anything else is an excuse. But, for you, if ysomeone THINKS they hear sopmething it's considered cerdible evidence for you.
You're just doing your "impress the newbies with meaningless facts" dance again.
And th think, at one time I defended you on principle. Remember 007? |
| I'll stick to what I said. | FLZapped
Nov 26, 2001 9:23 AM | | That's the problem with Jon's arguments. He can't stick to the topic because he has no real answer. So instead, he tries to shift the burden of proof, introduce stray variables into the argument that are totally unrelated, anything but prove his position.
-Bruce |
| OK, give me a shot at this... | mtrycrafts
Nov 22, 2001 4:29 PM | | "but the conditions of your comparison would not even fly with him.
"
Sorry to disappoint you but these testimonials is what he relies on for evidence as he so fond of quoting satisfied customer feedback with not a hint of questioning their listening protocol.
As a matter of fact, I have yet to read a challange by him as to a testimonial's listeing protocols zero. No, anything flys with him to support his speculations. |
| OK, give me a shot at this... | HYFI61
Nov 23, 2001 12:11 PM | | I probably won't bring it up again since I can't invite you all over to his house. What I will do is keep on smiling and injoying my reality. Like the poster above said. You don't know what you are missing. I know that if I could ever afford to put cables like Synergistic Refference in my system, I would do it in a heartbeat.
Nice corollrys though. I do have a great sense of humer.
Rock on! or is it Keep on throwing stones! |
| Here is a human thought process question... | Musika
Nov 23, 2001 8:24 AM | | Whether or not you, personally, think there's a genuine difference between speaker cables, interconnects, CD players, room acoustics, vibration control devices, etc.........
Due to the thought process that most of us possess, we are naturally inclined to create threads at this site (such as this one) which are certain to create differences of opinion, the ensuing debates, and not much else. Why???
Are we a) too broke to buy upgraded equipment that may or may not change the sound of our audio systems, b) bored with our current primo systems, so seeking commaraderie with other bored audiophiles who have achieved their sonic nirvana, c) trying to impress each other with our vast amount of knowledge, d) just plain argumentative, or e) frustrated audio reviewers who don't really care about music at all? (All other possibilities for our behavior would be cute to read about.)
P.S. I am of the strong opinion that all cables are NOT created equal, can make a noticeable listening difference, and that this difference is not strictly psychological. Case in point: A 12-ft. run of KimberKable 8TC on bottom with a 12-ft. run of KK4TC on top sounds much more detailed and exciting than a 12-ft. run of bi-wired MIT T2 in my particular system. I am no longer hyped over this change in my system, I've reversed the 2 set-ups several times for fun and out of boredom, and I believe I'd feel the same [if I could find someone I trust enough to touch my gear] if I did a blind test. As per usual, I have absolutely no scientific proof that this difference I perceive is "real", and I don't care. My ears prefer the Kimber whether or not they actually should.
P.S.S. I am not affiliated with Kimber (or with any audio company, for that matter), and I have no way of benefitting in any way if you should fall for my "hype" or agree with my ears.
P.S.S.S. I wrote the above because I couldn't decide which CD to enjoy this morning, and I was bored. Also, I felt a desire to bond with my fellow...??? Have a nice day! |
| Here is a human thought process question... | mtrycrafts
Nov 23, 2001 7:10 PM | | "Are we a) too broke to buy upgraded equipment that may or may not change the sound of our audio systems, "
Why would anyone upgrade based on a illusionary sound difference? Wouldn't it be better to know if there are real differences and that is worth the extra pice?
"can make a noticeable listening difference, and that this difference is not strictly psychological. "
Then this can be tested, duplicated and repeated for the same outcome, right? Where is the evidence? A hearsay, a testimonial, an unsupported claim is not evidence.
"Case in point: A 12-ft. run of KimberKable 8TC on bottom with a 12-ft. run of KK4TC on top sounds much more detailed and exciting than a 12-ft. run of bi-wired MIT T2 in my particular system. "
Just another testimonial, unsupported claim, not factual evidence, right.
"if I did a blind test. "
So, you came to the conclusion based in an unreliable perception, a sighted listening? Has no meaning for audible differneces.
"As per usual, I have absolutely no scientific proof that this difference I perceive is "real", and I don't care. "
There is your answer and you don't care? Why is that? The truth may hurt? |
| Got facts? (nt) | JoeW
Nov 23, 2001 10:46 PM | | |
| Are you confused? (nt) | mtrycrafts
Nov 25, 2001 3:05 PM | | nt |
| Here is a human thought process question... | Musika
Nov 24, 2001 6:31 AM | | "Why would anyone upgrade based on a illusionary sound difference? Wouldn't it be better to know if there are real differences and that is worth the extra pice?"
I upgrade on a trial-only basis (30 days to decide for myself...me and my ears). As of this writing, that's my right and I enjoy it. Besides...if anyone offered me "scientific proof" that there are sound differences between cables, I would *still* have to hear it for myself as I don't believe every single thing I read. Do you? Also, I have little science-oriented skills, and even less science-oriented interest. For me, the "proof" is in the listening.
"Then this can be tested, duplicated and repeated for the same outcome, right? Where is the evidence? A hearsay, a testimonial, an unsupported claim is not evidence."
When did I ever claim to have factual evidence of anything? Speaking of tests...have you ever been tested for reading aptitude? Just curious...
"Just another testimonial, unsupported claim, not factual evidence, right."
Precisely! You aren't as incapable of reading what's written as I'd originally thought. I sincerely apologize for my having underestimated you.
"So, you came to the conclusion based in an unreliable perception, a sighted listening? Has no meaning for audible differneces."
Right again...if you don't believe what my ears are hearing, that is. My understanding is that you'll never believe what anyone's ears hear, including your own, without extensive scientific proof. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) That's your right, but I find it sad that you need "factual proof" in order to buy and enjoy whatever audio equipment you may be using. Are you a scientist doing your own reliable testing (pro or not), or do you believe that all printed "facts" are true?
"There is your answer and you don't care? Why is that? The truth may hurt?"
How can the "truth" hurt when I'm thoroughly enjoying the audio system that I've deemed appropriate for my ears? To answer your question...I don't care because I'm happy with what I've chosen, and I still have money with which to purchase necessities and other items. Is that too simple for you to comprehend? Now would you like for me to scientifically prove that I am satisfied with my system? Or maybe I should ignore my happiness and have all of my gear "tested" just in case it's all crap...Furthermore, in posting here, I was never seeking an answer of any kind. But thanks anyway for pointing out that I already had my "answer" with no help from you!
May the debate over ??? rage on... |
| Here is a human thought process question... | mtrycrafts
Nov 25, 2001 3:41 PM | | "Besides...if anyone offered me "scientific proof" that there are sound differences between cables, I would *still* have to hear it for myself as I don't believe every single thing I read. Do you? "
I guess then you test your stove if you get burned by p[lacing your hand on it when hot? Or you believe you parents? You try the psychic hotline to test its validity yourslef, right? You consult with people like Silvia Brown, to be sure, right? Measure the speed of sound yourself, or that is too basic?
"Also, I have little science-oriented skills, and even less science-oriented interest."
That is not a problem.
" For me, the "proof" is in the listening."
This is, without knowing some basics about human gullibility and bias. So easy to get fooled while listening. A urge you to read some basic stuff as the proof is not in a biased and unreliable listening for what you are after.
"When did I ever claim to have factual evidence of anything? "
Oh, you stated audible differneces.
"Right again...if you don't believe what my ears are hearing, that is. "
Not when it is based in an unreliable listening. Unfortunately, many will as they are not veresed when it can be reliable and not.
"My understanding is that you'll never believe what anyone's ears hear, including your own, without extensive scientific proof. "
Not when it is contrary to the prevailing evidence and there are no miracles, yet.
"That's your right, but I find it sad that you need "factual proof" in order to buy and enjoy whatever audio equipment you may be using. "
Let me correct you as you have a misconception here. There are many reasons for selecting a component, other than sonic benefits. That is a preference.
"or do you believe that all printed "facts" are true? "
All depends on the material and the area of concerne and what is known.
"How can the "truth" hurt when I'm thoroughly enjoying the audio system that I've deemed appropriate for my ears? "
Here you are right, I cannot disagree.
"To answer your question...I don't care because I'm happy with what I've chosen, and I still have money with which to purchase necessities and other items. "
Again, this is great, no problems.
"Now would you like for me to scientifically prove that I am satisfied with my system? "
Not at all. That is not testable, is it.
"Or maybe I should ignore my happiness and have all of my gear "tested" just in case it's all crap..."
Again, not at all. That is not why I posted you yours.
"...Furthermore, in posting here, I was never seeking an answer of any kind. But thanks anyway for pointing out that I already had my "answer" with no help from you!"
Well, you may not have your answer, if audible differences is the reason you picked one over the other. |
| Here is a human thought process question... | Musika
Nov 26, 2001 2:27 PM | | "I guess then you test your stove if you get burned by p[lacing your hand on it when hot? Or you believe you parents? You try the psychic hotline to test its validity yourslef, right? You consult with people like Silvia Brown, to be sure, right? Measure the speed of sound yourself, or that is too basic?"
Actually, in your example, I'm pretty sure I'd feel the heat emanating from the hot burner before touching it, hence preventing a fairly nasty incident. OUCH! (Excuse me, but I asked you a question which you conveniently neglected to answer: Do you believe every single thing you read?)
"This is, without knowing some basics about human gullibility and bias. So easy to get fooled while listening. A urge you to read some basic stuff as the proof is not in a biased and unreliable listening for what you are after."
How do you know what I'm after? If you're referring to "proof" (which I put in quotation marks for a reason: a loose definition of your version of proof), then I've already got it. But thanks anyway...
"Oh, you stated audible differneces."
Yes, I heard audible differences...with my ears. How does this pertain to having claimed factual evidence of anything? I never said that a given cable sounded different from another cable to you...or to anyone but me. I never even claimed that it was possible that it might sound different to anyone but me. Frankly, I don't care if anyone hears a difference or not. So, I cannot see your point there.
"Not when it is based in an unreliable listening. Unfortunately, many will as they are not veresed when it can be reliable and not."
Huh??? Are you saying that because I believe my own ears that others will, too??? My ego isn't nearly that huge, so I seriously doubt that possibility!
"Not when it is contrary to the prevailing evidence and there are no miracles, yet."
That's cool...but I still find it sad.
"Let me correct you as you have a misconception here. There are many reasons for selecting a component, other than sonic benefits. That is a preference."
I'm afraid there's no correction needed as I never said that the only factor in buying audio equipment is "sonic benefits". Other factors would include price, appearance, desire, etc. What I meant by my statement was that I think it's sad that you apparently need factual proof of any given component's sonic quality rather than depending on your own ears. Why would a fact be more reliable than your own ears when dealing in audio? That's the point I'm attempting to make.
"All depends on the material and the area of concerne and what is known."
Please re-read my question if you really want to answer this. I asked if you believe that *all* printed facts are true...
"Well, you may not have your answer, if audible differences is the reason you picked one over the other."
That's your opinion, which I can respect. However, it is not a fact, is it? If I say I have my answer, then I have my answer. By the way, "audible differences" is not the only reason I picked any given component over another. I have preferences, too...and limits.
Honestly, I am surprised at the number of times you didn't attempt an argument. I'm stunned, even... |
| re: the point you're trying to make? | woodman
Nov 26, 2001 8:00 PM | | You say:
"Why would a fact be more reliable than your own ears when dealing in audio? That's the point I'm attempting to make."
The simple fact is that all 5 of our senses will function in direct response to our Attitudes, Beliefs, and Expectations - much of which resides more in the sub-conscious than in the conscious mind. If we were evaluating sound reproduction when still children and as yet unaffected by all of the "messages" that bombard us relentlessly when we become adults - then, we could "trust our ears" as everyone that's campaigning for sound differences chants endlessly. But that's NOT the case. There's no adult that can be truly objective when listening, seeing, smelling, tasting, or touching anything. How do you suppose that "stage hypnosis" works? That's an extreme example but the exact same principle applies.
I have no quarrel with what anyone hears (or sees, etc) but when they come on a forum such as this and make claims, I have to point out to them that "trusting your senses" to tell you the ultimate truth is a fallacy and an excercise in futility.
woodman |
| re: the point you're trying to make? Well, woodman... | Musika
Nov 27, 2001 12:53 PM | | "I have no quarrel with what anyone hears (or sees, etc) but when they come on a forum such as this and make claims, I have to point out to them that "trusting your senses" to tell you the ultimate truth is a fallacy and an excercise in futility."
You should then have no quarrel with me. Nor should you feel that you must point anything out to me. It's not your duty. Really!
If you have a quarrel with me for coming onto this forum and saying that MY ears hear a difference between Cable "A" and Cable "B", then I can only assume that you'll have a quarrel with me over damned near everything. I don't care whether or not you agree with my ears or my thinking. Why do you care what I think of your "facts"?
And when you speak of being "truly objective" regarding the 5 senses, let me ask you: Do you need to perform a scientific test in order to determine whether or not your most recent fart stinks, or does your nose know "the truth"?
Some of you people will stop at nothing to try and be technically correct just for the sake of.......ego?????????????????????????????
If my ears enjoy the sounds they're hearing, why waste time verifying that this is valid info to enjoy? What if I'm "wrong" according to your so-called reliable tests? Ignorance is bliss...You must be miserable.
For those who refuse to give up their "facts": If it sounds good to your ears, enjoy it. That's my point. It's too simple, isn't it? I now understand why such a thing as WAR exists. Sad... |
| re: the point you're trying to make? Well, woodman... | FLZapped
Nov 27, 2001 2:43 PM | | [And when you speak of being "truly objective" regarding the 5 senses, let me ask you: Do you need to perform a scientific test in order to determine whether or not your most recent fart stinks, or does your nose know "the truth"? ]
Stinks relative to what? Hydrogen Sulfide, or a rose?
Ah, we're back to preception again, aren't we....
-Bruce |
| re: the point you're trying to make? Well, woodman... | Musika
Nov 28, 2001 9:41 AM | | "Stinks relative to what? Hydrogen Sulfide, or a rose?
Ah, we're back to preception again, aren't we...."
Yes! Just the way I like it...! (Out of your generous two choices, I'll pick...Hydrogen Sulfide.)
Who said: "Everything is relative."? |
| re: the point you're trying to make? Well, woodman... | FLZapped
Nov 28, 2001 10:09 AM | | Gee, maybe I should have offered up a Methyl-Esther-Keytone.....
-Bruce |
| My say here... | Monstrous Mike
Nov 28, 2001 9:40 AM | | What if the following was true?
A signal being received at the speaker terminals after travelling 10 feet through 16 gauge lamp cord is the exact same as the signal being received at the speaker terminals after travelling 10 feet through something like JPS Superlabs or Kimber or whatever.
Would you say "I don't care if it's technically the same signal, I hear a difference therefore I will spend the extra money".
To someone on the outside looking in, you're paying more money for the same thing. The fact that you heard a difference is somewhat of a mystery and perhaps that is worth exploring. You seem resistant to this point of view and that is most puzzling. |
| My say here... | Musika
Nov 28, 2001 10:27 AM | | "What if the following was true?"
"What if" being the key words...You have no proof of this (or of any similar) example??? If so, it still doesn't matter as I don't believe everything I read.
"Would you say "I don't care if it's technically the same signal, I hear a difference therefore I will spend the extra money"."
Absolutely! Without a doubt, I would! The idea remains: "I" hear a difference. Why can't you accept this as my personal right to be, in your opinion (I assume), "wrong"?
"To someone on the outside looking in, you're paying more money for the same thing."
If I'm not mistaken, people do such things every day. So what? For example...if generic is guaranteed to be the same thing as a brand name (as in a drug prescription, let's say), why does anyone opt to pay so much more for brand? Why do the brand names still exist if no one is paying extra $$$ for them? I guess it all comes down to choice. What do you think??? Do you believe in choices or not? Would you want anyone trying to tell you which cable is "better" when you have already decided for yourself (by whatever means)??? I doubt it.
"The fact that you heard a difference is somewhat of a mystery and perhaps that is worth exploring."
I like mystery. I don't like exploring. Why, for example, is a certain article of clothing more attractive to me than another? (Let's say that these two items are comparable in almost every way, but that one costs more than the other...perhaps one is produced by a more familiar designer than the other, but is made with the exact same materials.) Why might I pick the more expensive one (or not)? I don't know. I find one more appealing than the other. Why is it more attractive to me? It just IS. Is it because I'm a rich snob? No, because I may indeed choose the less expensive outfit. That, I believe, is called a preference. Why would there be such things as choices if we all wanted the same things? Are you physically and/or emotionally attracted to the same humans as every other person living on your street? Why should I question my own choice if I am the prospective buyer of that item, and I am using my own money with which to purchase it? I see that as a bigger waste of time than trying to explain my reasoning to you...and that's quite a hefty statement!
"You seem resistant to this point of view and that is most puzzling."
You seem equally resistant to my explanations of my behavior/preferences/beliefs, but it doesn't puzzle me. I think you just want something about which to be factually correct. I could be wrong, and I don't care if I am. Also, I have no interest in trying to convert you to my "puzzling" way of thinking as it couldn't possibly benefit me. If anything, my attempt to do so would probably cause more harm than good, so please proceed as you wish. Ask me anything regarding this topic; I'll answer as honestly as possible if I think it's appropriate.
I'm sorry you're puzzled. |
| My say here... | Monstrous Mike
Nov 28, 2001 1:50 PM | | Ignorance is bliss. In your own words, you're happy and Woodman must be miserable. Well, I actually strive for the opposite of that simple statement; knowledge is bliss.
Let me generalize what is puzzling to me; someone who uses their senses to form a conclusion without any supporting information.
Sensory information from ears, eyes, nose, etc. is simply data. Our brain uses complex processing to determine what we are experiencing. For example, I see the street magician make a coin disappear but my brain and my previous knowledge tells me he has tricked me somehow. I don't know how, but I can confidently conclude that the coin did not disappear but was deftly concealed.
I have no problem with someone's preferences. Some people will prefer to believe the coin actually disappeared. I would ask questions like: Where did it go? How did it get there? How come I can't do it? Can you make a 747 disappear?
Are we getting anywhere here? It sounds like you want to base cable differences solely on your hearing. I heard it, therefore it is. Well, that's not good enough for me. |
| My say here... | Musika
Nov 28, 2001 9:28 PM | | "Well, I actually strive for the opposite of that simple statement; knowledge is bliss."
That is your choice and I applaud you for thirsting after more knowledge. I do the same, but NOT in the area of scientific evidence of audible differences between cables and interconnects.
"Let me generalize what is puzzling to me; someone who uses their senses to form a conclusion without any supporting information."
Just to clarify, I don't do this in every area of my life! This *is* an audio forum, correct? I hope you understand that I'm not a total moron who would, for example, call 911 after I hear a loud noise resembling a gunshot only to realize one minute later that someone's car backfired in front of my house. If that's what you're thinking by being puzzled over why anyone would form a conclusion based solely upon their senses in *every scenario*, then I don't blame you! But I'm talking about hearing music via audio equipment. Are you?
"Sensory information from ears, eyes, nose, etc. is simply data. Our brain uses complex processing to determine what we are experiencing."
Yep...and I could actually be experiencing some great-sounding music right now, but am replying to you instead. But anyway...
"For example, I see the street magician make a coin disappear but my brain and my previous knowledge tells me he has tricked me somehow. I don't know how, but I can confidently conclude that the coin did not disappear but was deftly concealed."
But do you have scientific proof that he tricked you? From where does your confidence spring? Not from facts, I must say. Is your conclusion, based upon your brain and your previous knowledge (AND your senses), sufficient enough proof to support your theory of having been tricked? Are you 100% certain, without factual, scientific proof, that the magician actually did trick you? Or is it possible that your senses, lacking in factual proof, were the *real* tricksters? You're one of the ones who keep telling me how the senses cannot be relied upon when drawing a conclusion without benefit of fact. So how do you know the magician fooled you? How do you know for certain? (I see your point here with the example of the magician; but do you see my point in asking if you're truly convinced without factual proof...and, if you are, why???)
"Are we getting anywhere here? It sounds like you want to base cable differences solely on your hearing."
Yes and no...Your information is almost correct: I base my own personal cable preferences *primarily* upon my hearing. There are other factors such as cost, desire, available space, etc. If I hear something that sounds better to me when using a certain cable, I have no reason not to enjoy it. However, I am not advocating that anyone else does the same! I urge everyone to use whatever method(s) of determination that works for them, whether that's scientific proof, their own ears, a combination of the two, a psychic hotline...whatever works for *you*!
"I heard it, therefore it is. Well, that's not good enough for me."
Well, it is for me. And it's also good enough for me that it's NOT good enough for you. How's that? |
| Here is a human thought process question... | mtrycrafts
Nov 27, 2001 10:10 PM | | ""Why would a fact be more reliable than your own ears when dealing in audio? That's the point I'm attempting to make." "
Very simple, too simple for many. Your ears, hearing can be fooled very easilly. Not reliable in what you are trying to accomplish, differentiate audible differneces in a biased manner, sighted listening. Unreliable, not factual for differences. That simple, irrefutable. |
| Here is a human thought process question... | Musika
Nov 28, 2001 8:56 AM | | "Very simple, too simple for many. Your ears, hearing can be fooled very easilly. Not reliable in what you are trying to accomplish, differentiate audible differneces in a biased manner, sighted listening. Unreliable, not factual for differences. That simple, irrefutable."
I understand what you're saying, and I can't even disagree with it. In fact, I actually agree with you in this case. And I also feel that the wording I used ("Why would a fact be more reliable than your own ears when dealing in audio?") was poorly chosen. Of course a "fact" is probably without exception more reliable than anything! I set myself up for this one, so...
What I really want to say now is also very simple: you and I (amongst others on this board) obviously have differing opinions as to what matters the most regarding audio and the equipment (including cables and interconnects) that's used to allow us to hear and to hopefully enjoy it.
Once again...I honestly don't care if, when I hear a difference between cables, I "should" be hearing that difference based upon scientific fact. I don't care if it's a real or a perceived difference. I *do* care whether or not what I'm hearing is the best possible sound that my system is capable of producing as I alone hear it. Furthermore, I determine that the best possible sound (to date, at least) is indeed being heard by *me* with my own two ears. I do not rely upon factual scientific testing or upon anyone's relayed scientific facts, and I am 99% certain that I never will. If this makes me "wrong" at this forum, then so be it!
I never try to convince anyone that a certain interconnect or cable sounds different from or better than another one; I simply share my own listening experiences regarding that (since this *is* a "Cables & Interconnects" forum), and leave the rest up to the reader. I don't understand why you (and others who feel similar to how you feel on this topic) appear to continue to try and convince ME that I'm fooling myself if I think there's any audible difference between cables. Why do you care if I am indeed being tricked in this way? What do you stand to gain by converting my beliefs? I appreciate your thoughtfulness (I guess), but I fail to see why you even bother with it by now.
If anyone is attempting to sway anyone, it's the "no audible difference between cables and interconnects" gang. But why??? I have a right to my opinions, and a right to "blow" my money as I choose. So do you. We just make different choices (as far as I can tell), and we have differing opinions. C'est la vie.
I know I've tried to explain all of the above before in the simplest of terms, but for some reason it appears that many of our recent threads have been removed from this site. Do you or any of your mates have any facts to support the reason for the removal of certain topics (and the comments that followed)? I'm only curious; I'm not accusing you or anyone of doing anything that I consider unfair. I'd just like to know why some have vanished with no explanation that I've seen, and wonder if you know anything about it. How can our archives be untainted if the moderator decides to remove whatever he or she chooses? I find it unfair. Do you? I think we at the very least deserve an explanation and, if necessary, a warning before anything is simply removed. What do you think, Mtry? (Seriously...) |
| Here is a human thought process question... | FLZapped
Nov 28, 2001 9:39 AM | | You're one of the few people though who come here with at least some well grounded knowlege. If you go over to Audio Asylim and look, you'll see descriptions that make wire seem absloutly magical.
There are some around here, who would still want you to believe that a cable will smooth out the harness of the highs, will tighten the bass, will have better "pace" and "quickness", whatever they are....
So those of us in the "just the facts m'am" column are wondering. OK, how do you measure these thngs and quantify them? TRhey should be measurable if audible, right? Well, so far, that hasn't com about.
So what do you want measured? We can measure the usual LCR numbers, FR response into a typical load, and group delay, impluse response.
Shouldn't that be enough to tell one how a particular cable is goign to perform as a basline? hmmmmm....
Well, I guess one of the big problems is that beyond how the LCR numbers affect the sound, no one has yet correlated measurement into what we might hear. So I suppose this is the fertile ground for dispute.
As a matter of fact, there is at least one here who wants to include Dielectric absorption, magnetic field effects, surface flaws, miscellaneous dielectric effects, and triboelectric effects. Well, great. So far, only the triboelectric effects can be easily measured and quantified and even related to what we hear. The only problem is, so far, no one has shown that it is a problem outside of microphone cables.
As for the other stuff, the claimant hasn't come up with the first factual piece of information as to how we would measure them, nor atempted to model them. So far, just speculation without any evidence that if these things exist in any quantity, that they are audible.
So now lets fit this into the cottage industry called esoteric cables. many of the manufacturers use just such speculation to lure an unsuspecting, and trusting consumer to their product. They fill their head with technobabble and then whack them with a huge price tag after they have confused the hell out of them with their deception. Then when the consumer goes home, doesn't hear anything, and wants to return them, then they get the: OH! You need to burn them in. Keep them for about 45 days and you'll see that they improve remarkably - only prohblem is, the store's return policy is 30 days.
And just the fact that they are hangning on to them means they are less likely as time lasses to return them. Time heals all wounds(to the wallet?) Now is the cable changing or the user? That's where we get into the psychology of sound....
-Bruce |
| Part 2 | FLZapped
Nov 28, 2001 10:01 AM | | There have been many experiments over the years that point out how our brain will alter our perception of reality. A recent experiment was done which made the suggestion in various ways that Bugs Bunny is a part of Disney.
You should read the results:
http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2001archive/06-01archive/k061101.html
Sure says a lot about the power of suggestion now doesn't it.
Then there is another experiment that I have done personally. I have a by-pass switch on my EQ, right after I push the ol' button, things sound really bad. However, if I just sit down and start listening to the music, 10 minutes later, I have forgotten that I initially hated what I heard and even though I remember I had that moment, I cannot even accurately describe the difference.
So, you wonder why myself and others just can't choke down these etherial reports of how magical someone's new wire is because usually, they are just parroting what they've been told by someone else and really don't have a clue as to what it is they are describing.
So now you understand my position anyway. And if I didn't say it strong enough, I think the majority of esoteric cable companies are nothing but rip-off artists.
-Bruce |
| Part 2 | Musika
Nov 28, 2001 12:15 PM | | "So now you understand my position anyway. And if I didn't say it strong enough, I think the majority of esoteric cable companies are nothing but rip-off artists."
I assume you're talking to me, Bruce...not entirely sure...
You may be right. I won't argue your thought that "the majority of esoteric cable companies are nothing but rip-off artists" because I don't have any facts to show that they're not. Simple.
If you ARE talking to me, you'll see that I simply do not care. I repeat: I do not care.
Whether or not the power of suggestion has lead me to believe that a certain cable makes my system sound better to me than another certain cable, I still hear that my system sounds better TO ME. About that...I CARE.
As for the million dollar scientific words and such...I admittedly have no clue as to what you're saying. Not only do I not have any type of degree (or degree of knowledge to speak of) in the field of science; I also have zero interest in the topic. What you typed up sounded pretty impressive, alright, but it could be complete BS for all I know. (Please don't misinterpret that! I said it *could be* complete BS...not that it is, or that it even probably is...) So, all of your scientific knowledge is, sadly, wasted on the likes of me.
Also, I won't buy anywhere if they don't offer a 30-day return policy, and I only partially subscribe to the "burn-in" issue. My own personal rule of thumb is this: If I don't like what I've purchased "right out of the box", I'm not ever gonna like it to the extent that I'm willing to pay for it. I believe that a certain amount of "burn-in" could change a given component, but that nothing is going to change that drastically, if at all. So...back it goes if I don't like it right away. This method of mine foils 'em every time, and I didn't even have to think hard to come up with it.
And as for all the various terms used ("harsh", "timbre", "forward"...)...I don't know that anyone agrees on what these words really mean. I certainly don't understand it, and again...I don't care. Even if I did know what someone meant by using one of these terms, it could mean an entirely different thing to my ears, so I give it no meaning.
Despite the fact that I think I'm reasonably intelligent, my way of determining what type of audio equipment to buy (and to keep) is unbelievably simple and requires only a few things: money (but not a lot...relatively speaking, of course), patience, some working knowledge (in order to set it up correctly), and my ears' opinion. I hope I didn't leave anything out...
My new slogan: "That's right...I don't care." |
| Part 2 | FLZapped
Nov 28, 2001 6:37 PM | | And I'm unreasonable? If you don't care, then you are truely wasting your time here.
-Bruce |
| Part 2 | Musika
Nov 28, 2001 9:52 PM | | "And I'm unreasonable? If you don't care, then you are truely wasting your time here."
I said you were unreasonable days ago. What brought that up again? C'mon, Bruce...Is this the best you can do with my post??? I'm disappointed in you. "Monstrous Mike" at least put some thought into his efforts...
You know...even if I did "care", I'd be wasting my time here. What do you gain from this forum? I can't figure out why I'm even bothering with it when I could be doing so much more.
Obviously I care about many things (such as music). But honestly, I DON'T care whether or not there are indeed audible differences (scientifically proven ones, that is) between cables and interconnects of differing brands/prices/designs. Because of that I'm truly wasting my time here??? You're probably right; there are too many of you...I have little or no hope of overthrowing the kingdom. Oh, well...back to music... |
| |
