Rok2id:
Funny in that reading your first posts here @ AA (which started all of 8 months ago) it is apparent that you did not know zip about Hi-fi.
Now (8 months later;-) are you implying that you do? |
dekay.
which post gave you that impression? |
dekay.
but you are correct just a rookie seeking truth. |
The problem is there is no truth in this subject. Just subjective opinion. And there is nothing wrong with subjective opinion |
"Which post"?...
Specifically your first two queries.
How does opining (as if you know what you are talking about in a
definitive manner) about items you have most likely not experienced in
the real world equate to "seeking truth"? |
dekay.
how do you know what my real world experiences are? I know all the essential truths about audio equipment. Working forty years in electronics will do that. Now maybe you are better versed in the pathetic, absurd drivel that passes for debate and truth on this site. But you don't have to read my posts. So if you will ignore me, I can assure you I can and will ignore you. But be clear, I will opinin as I please. |
I'm definitely with Al on this one - granted that there are differences, the prices of wire are truly absurd compared to the amount of the audible difference made. I agree with Elizabeth; wire should constitute no more than 5% of the entire system budget, and for me that percentage goes down the greater the total cost of the system. |
some guy offered a million dollars if one of the so-called audio gurus at stereophile, could pick the 'high end' cables vs lamp cord in a blind test. that million is still on the table. anyone need a quick million? the guru called in sick. :) |
>>audio gurus at stereophile<<
Oxymoron |
Now maybe you are better versed in the pathetic, absurd drivel that passes for debate and truth on this site. Rok2id, do you think you would you find other sites more congenial ? You've certainly given audiogon a chance, with 4 threads and 28 answers since starting to post in May 2010. Best, John |
" I know all the essential truths about audio equipment. Working forty years in electronics will do that."
I really don't know what your background is Rok2id and frankly it isn't important. If you have come to this site with preconceived notions and are attempting to "set things right" in a search for truth, you are quite frankly in the wrong place. If you are new to this hobby, or at least have limited experience listening to the gear and the effects that seasoned listeners have spent years doing, how can you be so certain in your beliefs?
The main theme of this thread and many that you will find on this site is to use your ears, trust them. Over time you will realize that it really is the most important factor in finding your truth, after all that is what matters most. All most of us really want is reproduced music that is satisfying to us personally. As stated above skepticism is a good thing but if your skepticism isn't balanced with curiosity it is nothing more than cynicism and really, what is the point of that? |
I have concluded that you are all correct. This is not my sort of place. I will move on. I did get some information on speaker placement and external sites. I thank you for that. |
I hope my post didn't discourage you Rok2id, it wasn't my intention. I really believe in what I said. I've been in this hobby a long time and prior to the internet much of what I learned was far more gradual than it is now with the vast amount of information and experiences available. The improvements and knowledge I've gained over the past 10 years would have never been realized if not for this site and others. I never believed half of what I read because it just didn't make any sense to me. This is the point, you really have to listen. I am absolutely convinced now that measurements of electronic equipment DO NOT tell the whole story of what we hear. If you remain entrenched in your belief system based on your knowledge of electronic theory without listening you are not giving it a chance, no curiosity. How can you be so certain that what you believe is right? You really can't but then again maybe you aren't curious enough to find out first hand. If you still don't believe it after comparing then at least you can speak with greater authority and self satisfaction. |
'If you have come to this site with preconceived notions and are attempting to "set things right" in a search for truth, you are quite frankly in the wrong place'.
I came to this site to talk about stereo equip and music. I agree, I am in the wrong place.
'All most of us really want is reproduced music that is satisfying to us personally'
I have that now. |
I am not discouraged. I just asked a simple question.
If the signal,i.e., the information on two different cables going to identical speakers in the same enviroment is the same. Why would the sound out of the speakers be different?
I was told 'you have to have faith'. As far as I am concerned, that ended the argument. You can't argue with faith.
I don't think you have fully understood the implications of the philosophy that permeates this site.
I do not have some sort of personal 'belief system' when it comes to hifi equipment. I follow the science. The people I learned from are all dead, and they had no agenda. They just loved the equipment and music. So do I. BTW I don't think there is anyone on this site more curious than I am. Hence my question in the first place. |
"I was told 'you have to have faith'. As far as I am concerned, that ended the argument. You can't argue with faith."
No YOU WERE TOLD TO TRY LISTENING ! |
"faith is believing what you know ain't so".Mark Twain |
I have faith in the fact that this is an idiotic thread about a subject that has become "argumentum ad nauseam". |
Rja
i'm sorry you were forced to read it. |
You were told to listen for yourself and decide for yourself. If your music sounds better, then you have your answer. Try a few different cables and see for yourself.
That really is the only answer possible. The rest of this stuff is noise really my friend. Just listen. This is quite the opposite of faith. You are requiring first hand experience of something you must hear to act on. Nothing about this hobby should ever be faith based. It should be based on actual experience with the given item.
After having experience you will decide if there are improvements or differences. |
The original poster thinks there are sonic differences between cables. That's great, if he's happy why should I try to convince him otherwise?
Why waste everyone's time on a subject that has been argued repeatedly without ever reaching a conclusion?
I say believe what you want to believe and leave everyone else alone! We're talking music reproduction here but it's getting too close to religion for me. |
Rja
'I say believe what you want to believe and leave everyone else alone'!
which is exactly what I will do. |
The person that suggested you must have faith is on the side of not hearing a difference. Read a few of his threads on cables and that will be verified. I agree with Grannyring, listen for yourself. That is the only way. Assuming that we know how to measure everything that the human hearing mechanism can distinguish is incredibly arrogant. Fortunately, at one time, someone proved that the world is not flat. All of the scientists and people who knew beyond any doubt otherwise, thought him a fool for holding such beliefs without ever investigating themselves. Again, listen for yourself. It can be done with little to no investment other than time and an open mind. |
"The original poster thinks there are sonic differences between cables. That's great, if he's happy why should I try to convince him otherwise"
Rja, I don't think you read through this thread carefully, I didn't read anywhere where anyone was trying to convince anyone about anything but their personal experiences. The Truthsayers were the disbelievers that essentially stated its all a bunch of hogwash based on an implied group think philosophy (Rok2id's "I don't think you have fully understood the implications of the philosophy that permeates this site." comment) What kind of bulls..t is that? I am personally insulted by that remark. Look around this site, different folks with different ideas and different tastes. I'm not trying to convince anyone, just relaying MY personal experiences as did the OP in his opening.
The point isn't to prove a point but to relay personal experiences. It isn't an article of faith it is trusting the two apendages on either side of your head and not relying TOTALLY on measurements that may but may not totally explain what we are hearing.
The real guys with the religion are the guys that buy into the science with the BELIEF that all that we hear can be measured, end of story. I don't care if they believe that all I'm here to do is share what I can hear without trying to prove anything to anybody. |
Lord, my burden is great
you have a stereo system. You decide for some reason that the sound you hear can be 'better'. You must have a shortcoming that you can describe i.e. lack of a certain freq response, no soundstage, noise/distortion, lack of dynamic range etc.....
1.why would you conclude the cable is at fault?
2. which cable do you buy? do they have what problems the cable fixes printed on the package?
3.If cable #1 $500 improves your sound does that mean cable#2 $600 will improve it more?
4. can you reach a point where you undo some of the earlier improvements?
5. do the makers say what effect their product will have on your system?
just curious, do you believe that lifting the cables off the carpet improves the sound? |
Rok21d
You really DO have a hard time listening don't ya? I'm outta here. |
Lifting the cables off the carpet not only helps the sound, it costs nothing. |
Tubegroover
'I'm outta here'
Me2 enjoyed it. |
Rokid
I believe these folks really hear a difference. I also believe I don't. Quite frankly, I'm jealous as hell. I'm 52 and my hearing and eye sight just can't be as good as they used to be. I also enjoy single malt scotch, but for the life of me, I don't taste any of the fruits, herbs and spices some of the reviewers claim to taste. (They all taste different nuances in the same scotch by the way) I just enjoy it for what I get out of it. If I told you a beautiful sunset and a naked model in my lap made the scotch taste better, you wouldn't laugh at me, right?
I think some of the items we discuss on this board are like the sunset and model. Maybe the scotch doesn't taste better, but the experience is more enjoyable.
Don't leave the forum, you have a lot of support for your thoughts and questions, if not your technique. |
Paul_graham
'If I told you a beautiful sunset and a naked model in my lap made the scotch taste better'
now I do believe this. with unshakeable faith! :) |
Paul Graham your post REALLY made my smile of the day, thanks! Now I'm REALLY outta here. |
Rok2id:
Still posting?
Not a person of your word it would seem. |
|
Grannyring, I couldn't agree more. The problem I've found is that you have the people that have tried different cables, noticed a difference and then tell others to try it.
You then have others that claim they never need to try anything but just trust the "science" behind it all.
Very very few I find, try it, and find they notice no differences and then still follow the "science" crowd.
I personally don't think you have to spend a ton to get good/great results. Changing out PC, ICs, etc can be fun once you have other set items in your system such as amp, pre, source to just see what differences they make. If someone then finds that it didn't make a difference to them when they tried a few different cables then all the power to them, at least they tried it and then got to their opinion that way.
I just try and encourage someone before they just say "well Roger Russell says this, or science says that" to just pick up a pair of IC's or cables on here, and see if you notice anything. if you don't, thats fine and just sell the cables to the next person, at least then you would have "evidence" to support your claims, rather than just discouraging others from trying something. |
I agree with Almarg about price correlation. I am absolutely convinced cable change makes an immediately audible difference, speaker interconnect and power, but price is no guide at all to quality.
Everyone I am sure, is aware of the cost content of expensive cables. Most of the cost is marketing, dealers markups etc. Logically smaller manufacturers that don't spend on advertising and sell direct, can be cheaper.
lou Hinkley from Daedalus Audio was over in the UK visiting last week and we tried out Boulder cables new speaker cable, designed for his speakers, against my Virtual Dynamic revelation cables. The boulder cables cost what $1200 for a 6ft single run, the Virtual Dynamics cost I believe about $7000. I bought them much much cheaper, second hand. They were clearly different, but neither of us could say which was better.
More than any other area in HiFi, I believe price is little if any guide to benefit, where cables are concerned.
I have a sneeking suspicion that cable manufacturers produce more and more expensive lines, quietly astonished at what they can get away with. Unfortunately, some of us customers buy on the basis of price, not quality, if it is too cheap, they won't consider it. |
Very interesting. I'm a cable designer and manufacturer, so feel free to think less of me than you might of another poster. And go on and believe that anything I say is only done in order to sell you my cables.
I have personally found that paying more for cables gets a better cable - at least in terms of resolution. You won't find any $200 cables that have the resolution of say a Stealth Indra or Nordost Valhalla.
The thing I think that is missing in these "Tis/Tisn't" debates in audio forums is an understanding of how the ear/brain processes what arrives at the ear. Some put it that all sound is invented in our brains. Of course, sound waves really do arrive at our ear, but what our brain chooses to 'hear' is an abstraction from that.
Our beliefs can indeed cause us to hear something that isn't there. The brain will fill in missing harmonics when the rest of the sound convinces the brain that they must be there.
This kind of thing is caused by the need for the brain to unravel from a single waveform the presence of multiple sources of sound. It does this from its auditory memory of timbres/objects, and from time-domain factors which tell it about the location of different sound sources.
Those that go completely deaf, after having hearing, are well aware of how the brain can invent sound - most that have suffered this still hear music playing in their head from time to time, just the same as if it was real.
Once you are able to manufacture audio gear that can faithfully reproduce timbre, so that the brain can identify a violin from a cello, Ella from Jacintha, a large drum from a small one, the next thing to get right is accuracy in the time domain. If the time relationships in a sound are unnatural then the brain is quickly fatigued trying to make sense of what it hears, and the music sounds confused. If the time relationships are accurate then the brain can make complete sense of what it hears, with singers/players/instruments occupying distinct and real spaces. These time-domain issues are two-fold; signal-smearing, and phase distortions.
Unlike equipment design, cable design to get accurate timbre is not tough, but time-domain accuracy is hard, and every design is a trade-off. What audiophiles perceive as dynamics or tonal issues with cables are all just time-domain issues (if the cable is competently designed). With steady state signals, wires perform well. But with rapidly changing signals, wires suffer self-interference and external interference problems. The effects are small, but the brain is very sensitive to them.
So when assessing cables, look out for certain things... If the cable creates a tonal shift then this is actually (unless the cable is incompetently designed) a time-domain issue. To assess whether the time-domain performance is actually an improvement, listen for dynamic linearity, subtle musical nuance, soundstage clarity and a sense of ease (when your brain is finding it easy to make sense of what it is hearing). This is a major reason why we often associate good soundstaging with good reproduced sound, when it isnt important to us at a real concert. |
Rok2id:
Hopefully you did serve with the 2nd (per your moniker) as otherwise would be exceedingly lowlee and trollee.
Now the Shill(s) have arrived.
Bye... |
To Antipodes_audio
I thank you for a very interesting post. I will have to reread it many times until my puny brain can comprehend it all. But one question I have is this: can you give me any information on the manufactoring process. What do you do to achieve the different properties of the cables. You mentioned that more expensive cables perform better than cheaper ones, then the question is what do you do or fail to do to achieve the different price points. These price differences in electronic equipment and speakers are more readily apparent, but cables sort of look like cables. :)
thank you |
To Dekay
G company 702nd. Uijongbu 75-76 and 89-90 where you ever there? |
Who's the shill?
Rok2id, that's easy. In our case it is the cost of the materials that makes almost all of the difference. I suspect most are like us too, in that the higher priced cables have a lower percentage mark-up over materials cost than our cheaper cables. And our percentage mark-ups are much the same as equipment manufacturers have. There are some people with crazy mark-ups for sure though - I could name a few and quote some verifiable facts to support that - but don't tar everyone with that brush. |
04-13-11: Antipodes_audio
In our case it is the cost of the materials that makes almost all of the difference. Antipodes_audio, can you explain why and how more expensive materials will tend to reduce (to a degree that is significant at audible frequencies) the "two-fold time-domain issues" that you mentioned as being key, namely "signal-smearing and phase distortions"? Thanks. Regards, -- Al |
We apply our best thinking on time-domain issues to all of our cables, so the difference isn't always that.
With the speaker cables the cost difference is simply using twice as much silver wire, and solid, high purity wire that has good sound characteristics costs real dollars. More so when there a couple of added stages where we apply gold and platinum to the silver wire. So no time-domain issues between the speaker cables, just more grip and articulation in the bass, and a bit more ease, in systems that need high current transmission. Both use the same wire, same insulation and same geometry (kind of).
With the interconnects, the Reference achieves better resonance control (which is an important time-domain issue) through using solid gold wires together with the silver wires. There is one gauge of wire that we need to have in the mix to get a balanced result with the Komako, that if we replace with gold wires, gives us a significantly better result. Applying the gold and platinum to the silver wire is good bang for the buck, but substituting this particular silver wire with a gold one makes a huge difference. And, of course, gold is many times more expensive than silver. We have many customers that bought Komako interconnects and then tried out the Reference in our upgrade program, and everyone so far has returned the Komako, not the Reference (for a refund). Many have come back to say they were astounded that the resolution and refinement could get that much better.
I am sounding like an advertisement, sorry. I was an enthusiast like the rest of you here, posting under the moniker Redkiwi for many years, until deciding to commercialise what came out of a lot of cable experimentation, and would prefer to interact in these forums as an enthusiastic audiophile (whose hobby got out of control) rather than to promote the business. But it is necessary to disclose my interest when I do that.
My purpose was just to put forward the view that time-domain issues are critical to the way we hear, and for what we hear to sound natural. And that achieving excellent time-domain performance in a cable is not easy. (And its not cheap either).
Electrical engineers are very inclined to a reductive view of physics, dismissing many known issues as irrelevant at audio frequencies. By that they mean they are too small to be heard. Convenient when making a competent product, but how exactly do they know we can't hear them? As I say our ear/brain is incredibly sensitive to time issues, as that system is constantly separating out what we hear, its direction and its location, and that system is far more dependent on time-domain accuracy than timbral accuracy. Not only are (some) EEs reductive about physics, they also make gross and unsubstantiated assumptions about how humans hear. |
To Antipodes_audio:
Thanks for the very detailed discussion. It increased my understanding of the wire question. My next question is this: A commonly held opinion on this site, states that you have to have a system that is capable (expensive enough?) of allowing a person 'hear' the effects of wire. Is that true, or can wire be heard on so-called 'Lo or mid-fi' systems? Assuming the listerner has normal hearing.
Thank You |
Antipodes_audio, thank you for the comprehensive response. Electrical engineers are very inclined to a reductive view of physics, dismissing many known issues as irrelevant at audio frequencies. By that they mean they are too small to be heard. Convenient when making a competent product, but how exactly do they know we can't hear them? As I say our ear/brain is incredibly sensitive to time issues, as that system is constantly separating out what we hear, its direction and its location, and that system is far more dependent on time-domain accuracy than timbral accuracy. I am in agreement with this, up to a point. However, I would respectfully submit that there is a flip side to this line of reasoning. If we cant clearly draw a line defining the boundaries of audibility, we also cant predict when the point of overkill will be exceeded, and when the wrong parameters are being focused on. It would seem safe to say that the chirp of a bird ten miles distant will be inaudible. Similarly, it would seem safe to say that one femtosecond of time smear will be inaudible, and will be swamped by other inaccuracies in the system as well. So there would seem to be finite limits to the extent to which reason, common sense, and technically informed a priori judgment should be deemed inapplicable to audio. That applies to the cable designer, as well as to the consumer. How does the designer determine what design approaches to investigate, develop, and try out, when the point demarcating overkill for any given parameter is so nebulous? How does he know that he is focusing on the right parameters in the first place? How does he know that applying comparable focus and investment of time and resources to development of less expensive approaches wont yield results that are just as good or possibly even better? Reasoned, technically informed judgment, common sense, technical knowledge, and experience all have their place. And along the lines of a comment you made in your initial post above, it would seem safe to assume that those qualities, and just as importantly the motivations, of different designers will differ. Regards, --Al |
I cant believe that this is still talked about or debated. Anyone with any hearing left can hear the difference in all cables, if they just relax, and listen, its that easy. So many of the responses are about what you have read , or how you can measure such things, instead of just listening. They indeed make a difference, and if you cant hear it, you should get out of the hobby. |
To Chrissain:
'They indeed make a difference, and if you cant hear it, you should get out of the hobby.'
Is your decision final, or do I have a right to appeal? |
Almarg
I tend to agree. We don't know, and we can't know - we can only cautiously make assumptions. I reckon that is why we have to rely to some degree on what we think we hear when we listen to something, rather than expect a scientific explanation or measurement for it. For example we can do a null test on something and get a sqiggly line error function, but the debate remains as to whether anyone can hear it, and if they can then whether it is musically meaningful. The trouble is that the ear/brain is what we must satisfy, but it doesn't have a digital read-out or have consistent and verifiable results, and it is subject to error and bias. Beyond a certain point we have to design by ear, and be prepared to alter our belief-sets in response to that. |
That's why they call it Psycho-acoustics 8^). |
Rok2id
The more questions you ask, the less answers I see and understand. This is science right? Where are the tests, what instrument do they use and what are the results??? These are fair questions. From what I read in this forum, "believers" are saying their ears hear a difference and there is no electrical instrument to measure the difference....or WHY there is a difference. Is it possible the human ear and brain notice a real difference that no electrical instrument has yet been invented to measure??? Fair question!!
Antipodes_audio's answer was complete bullshit in respect to your question, in my opinion. |
To Paul_graham:
This is getting to be like the Greek philosophers debating the number of teeth in a horse's head. Maybe someone should count. Or in this case, experiment. |
