The problem is that the truth is denied by slick salesmen and their gullible victims.
|
Reading that text would certainly be educational.
|
And all of it good and perfectly rational engineering.
|
Right, I overlooked the tube cube.
|
And since we are at it, here are my systems:
Main system
Chromecast Audio/TV/BD player+Quad 33/606-2+Quad 2805+B&W PV1d/Antimode 8033
I still have a Quad FM3 tuner but it is no longer used (replaced by internet radio). Similarly, the Linn Sondek/SME combination sits idly, waiting to be sold off.
Home office system
PC+ODAC+Emotiva Control Freak+12 dB inline attenuators+Quad 405-2+Harbeth P3ESR. Mildly equalized with REW to cope with a slight bass hump from the proximity of the desktop.
Bedroom
Chromecast Audio/Ava Maestro 50/Wharfedale Diamond 9.0
The beauty of this system is that the tiny amplifier does not only have an optical input, but also an auto on/off. So it can sit out of sight in the wardrobe, turned on and off by the signal from the Chromecast.
Finally, I have a Tivoli Radio 2 for in my university office, with a computer into a Behringer UCA 202 external usb DAC as its source. I also take it with me on my extended research trips abroad. I cannot live without good music, but institutional accommodation never has an audio system and this is the largest/heaviest that I can take.
None of these use fancy cables.
|
Indeed, the science was settled ages ago and has not changed.
|
We need to distinguish between things that are a matter of taste (do you like candle light or halogen lights, or Bach or Metallica?), and things that are a matter of emperical reality (what is the colour temperature in degrees Kelvin of candle light or halogen light?). About matters of taste one can have an opinion, but not about the emperical facts. You cannot 'prefer' gravity, or a higher speed of sound. In that sense science is not democracy. Of course, establishing the facts may be tricky, but that is not the same as that they are a subject for opinion.
|
+1 Fortunately it is an innocuous hobby. Let's rejoice that as yet these quacks are not in charge of medical testing, even if the same arguments can increasingly be heard in that arena too.
|
This is, of course, interesting because we know from the measurements that there is a difference. Methodologicaly the problem is that you do not believe it is big enough to show up in a double blind listening test, and it is beyond the level where by common consent it is believed the limits are of human hearing acuity. So it could just be expectation bias. How do we decide that what you hear is real?
My real concern is when measurements show that there is nothing there, or even, that the audiophile marvel measures badly and is still praised by golden ears.
|
Isn't it odd that the majority of posts are about the things that have the least sonic signature: electronics and cables (not to mention fuses, grrrr...), and far less about what matters more: speakers and, above all, the room. Room interaction does not even have its own category. Why?
|
You do like shouting, don't you?
|
Talking of trolling - I note that many of your posts are nothing more than ridiculing the contributions of more scientifically inclined posters.
|
Not sure which pot and kettle. Like it or not, my contributions do have science based argument and substance.
|
Of course the science of audio reproduction is not the same as the enjoyment of listening to music. Art is not science. Does more accurate reproduction increase the enjoyment? For me, yes, and that is why I have spent quite a bit of money on it, and that is why I am interested in the science and technology behind it. But just as science can tell you little about art, art cannot tell you much about science.
Anyway, as you can see, I have opened a thread on room acoustics. I hope it will help people to make their systems sound a bit closer to what they hear in the concert hall.
|
