I agree that measurements can't describe the human experience of music but I assume the OP was interested in the mechanical reproduction of music.
Cables that measure the same but (seem?) to sound different
I have been having an extended dialogue with a certain objectivist who continues to insist to me that if two wires measure the same, in a stable acoustic environment, they must sound the same.
In response, I have told him that while I am not an engineer or in audio, I have heard differences in wires while keeping the acoustic environment static. I have told him that Robert Harley, podcasters, YouTuber's such as Tarun, Duncan Hunter and Darren Myers, Hans Beekhuyzen, Paul McGowan have all testified to extensive listening experiments where differences were palpable. My interlocutor has said that either it is the placebo effect, they're shilling for gear or clicks, or they're just deluded.
I've also pointed out that to understand listening experience, we need more than a few measurement; we also need to understand the physiology and psychological of perceptual experience, as well as the interpretation involved. Until those elements are well understood, we cannot even know what, exactly, to measure for. I've also pointed out that for this many people to be shills or delusionaries is a remote chance at best.
QUESTION: Who would you name as among the most learned people in audio, psychoacoustics, engineering, and psychology who argue for the real differences made by interconnects, etc.?
In response, I have told him that while I am not an engineer or in audio, I have heard differences in wires while keeping the acoustic environment static. I have told him that Robert Harley, podcasters, YouTuber's such as Tarun, Duncan Hunter and Darren Myers, Hans Beekhuyzen, Paul McGowan have all testified to extensive listening experiments where differences were palpable. My interlocutor has said that either it is the placebo effect, they're shilling for gear or clicks, or they're just deluded.
I've also pointed out that to understand listening experience, we need more than a few measurement; we also need to understand the physiology and psychological of perceptual experience, as well as the interpretation involved. Until those elements are well understood, we cannot even know what, exactly, to measure for. I've also pointed out that for this many people to be shills or delusionaries is a remote chance at best.
QUESTION: Who would you name as among the most learned people in audio, psychoacoustics, engineering, and psychology who argue for the real differences made by interconnects, etc.?
Showing 8 responses by djones51
QUESTION: Who would you name as among the most learned people in audio, psychoacoustics, engineering, and psychology who argue for the real differences made by interconnects, etc.?I would say James Johnston but he says the opposite. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/author/37302284200 |
"Measurements, e.g., resistance, inductance, capacitance, are, these days, easily made , recorded and compared but are gross and crude compared to the kinds of phenomena which may be discerned by the human ear and brain such as, say, timbre. The simple measurements aren’t going to help us predict how a device (cable) will contribute to SQ." Timbre is the fundamental plus the harmonics and can be measured. I’m not sure why it seems to take away enjoyment from listening to music if we can also understand, explain and measure what we hear. Take a single electric guitar note with a fundamental 96.5 hz and the harmonics 96.5 x 2 x3 x4 x5 etc.. These can be measured and shown on a FR plot, different instrument different measurements different timbre. If the resistance, inductance and capacitance of the wire differs by enough to alter the FR then it will affect the timbre. |
There's already tools to explain differences they're ABX and Double Blind listening tests. If a difference is heard by enough people better than chance then science looks for why. So far differences that are heard have been explained by existing measurement at such time if they can't be then science will find a way to measure it. Good example is the Purifi Transducers. The designers heard things they couldn't measure or explain so they invented a way to measure what they heard. |
Where people get lost in the woods is easily seen in this thread. As I mentioned before measurements of equipment can't explain the human perception of music. Think of it as a two systems, when sound hits the ear our system of perception from ear to brain is in control. We decide what we like and don't, it's the system of subjective preferences. The system of mechanical reproduction of sound is objective as it's ruled by electricity, mathematics, electronics, circuits etc.. which we construct. Some audiophiles like to merge these two realities as if they're one system. Since we can't "yet" measure our perceptions then we can't measure our equipment good enough because they don't always align and obviously our perception system is better than the mechanical system. Any test these engineers design can't be accurate because the test doesn't always agree with what I believe. Science can measure music reproduction systems better than our ears, they can design tests that tell us if what we hear is a difference in the mechanical system or a preference of our subjective system. There's nothing right or wrong about preferring one cable or speaker, amp, etc.. than another. Claiming that equipment that measures the same doesn't sound the same offering only anecdotes as proof doesn't get us anywhere or teach us anything besides everyone has an opinion. If done with properly controlled testing then we have something to go on. The only way social constructs work is if we all agree on the rules, natural physical phenomena is oblivious to our rules, under the right conditions electricity will stop your heart whether we believe or not. |
Actually all sdl4 posted was spurious data from someone trying to do research outside their area of expertise. This researcher has been debunked before and had a paper withdrawn when venturing into audiophile mythology. The only thing shown in the paper mentioned is there was a difference heard between sine waves using old equipment and unspecified methodology. |
The paper is misleading and a confused mess. For instance it was commented upon already, the post before mine, of the superiority of straight wire over monster. The paper does no such thing it uses 2 different cables through 2 different pathways which were never tested for distortion and noise and concluded the pathways sound different. The subjects were only given 2 choices there should have been a third choice , neither. Tests like this lead the respondents, the methodology is flawed. |