But a signal on a wire to great accuracy is not one of them.
Harley quote
Regarding two aftermarket power cables: "These differences in the shapes of the musical waveforms are far too small to see or measure with even the most sophisticated technology, yet we as listeners not only routinely discriminate such differences, we sometimes find musical meaning in these differences."
Nonsense. Just because people claim to "routinely discriminate" differences doesn't mean it's true or they're right. Apparently many have witnessed UFOs but that doesn't mean they actually saw extraterrestrial visitors, does it? Some have seen/heard a deity speaking to them "routinely"; does that imply that they are surely communing with an unseen/unmeasurable spiritual force(s)? Can we not put a little more effort into confirmatory reality-testing first when "the most sophisticated technology" can find nothing in 2020? (Of course, speaker cables can measure differently as per here, here, even if not necessarily audible in many cases by the time we connect amp to speaker.)
ARCHIMAGO
Nonsense. Just because people claim to "routinely discriminate" differences doesn't mean it's true or they're right. Apparently many have witnessed UFOs but that doesn't mean they actually saw extraterrestrial visitors, does it? Some have seen/heard a deity speaking to them "routinely"; does that imply that they are surely communing with an unseen/unmeasurable spiritual force(s)? Can we not put a little more effort into confirmatory reality-testing first when "the most sophisticated technology" can find nothing in 2020? (Of course, speaker cables can measure differently as per here, here, even if not necessarily audible in many cases by the time we connect amp to speaker.)
ARCHIMAGO
Showing 22 responses by audio2design
To me NoNoise, the problems are all related. Whether a belief adherence to how our world works due to religion even in the face of massive evidence to counter, whether choosing to ignore even your brand of partisan election official, or claiming you are not influenced by bias in listening, or mistaking preference for accuracy. The outcomes are different, but the mental process to get there, and arguably the precursors are the same. |
Regarding two aftermarket power cables: "These differences in the shapes of the musical waveforms are far too small to see or measure with even the most sophisticated technology, yet we as listeners not only routinely discriminate such differences, we sometimes find musical meaning in these differences." There are two type of people who make these statements: 1) Those who try to equate the relatively simple two dimensional aspect of signal transmission (time and amplitude) with either vastly more complex things like sound fields, or with completely unrelated things. 2) People who don’t have a good handle on electricity, electronics, physics, math, or related as well as no concept about what we can measure and to what precision. They probably also discount every experiment that pokes a hole in their magical view of human perception too. 3) Marketers. We no doubt will find out new things about the physical properties of material and electrical conduction, but we can already measure the results (i.e. the actual conduction) to precision well beyond human perception. What's funny is these people will be the first to put down or attempt to discredit scientists and engineers who have done the work, --unless-- what those scientists and engineers say agrees with what they already believe. |
While Archimago is absolutely right in everything he states, I am sure many people here will never let their strong conviction be swayed by reality. When one is convinced of one's own superiority, then one tends to put more faith in what they believe than what can be proven. It is absolutely unquestionable beyond any shadow of a doubt that digital, especially anything approaching high res can far far more accurately reproduce an ANALOG waveform than can a vinyl playback system or reel-to-reel. And let's be honest, that is all they are doing, recreating an analog waveform. No more, no less. All these flowery words about the ear, human perception, etc. is meaningless. All these devices do is recreate an analog waveform. Simple case in point. Record a record on a high end system to digital and play it back on a technically accurate DAC (not expensive, technically accurate) and you will have a very hard time differentiating them if you can at all. Take a high res digital track, and convert it to vinyl (or reel-to-reel), using whatever process you want, and you will always be able to quickly tell the two apart. If audiophiles applied basic logic, they would understand this means that vinyl is nothing more than the sum of its colorations and if you like it (I often do), there is nothing wrong with that, but just treat it as what it is. |
Is it a great scientific book because it supports the beliefs you already have, or is it a great book because it had undergone rigorous peer review for accuracy and reasonableness of its conclusions? I could go into this in some detail, but I will only offer this quote, from the author of that book, as my counterpoint and let others decide the likely accuracy of said book.
Is this relevant to a discussion of audio? It is, because it illustrates how we allow our beliefs to influence what information we decide to accept or not, even if the vast vast balanced of data and knowledge is counter to our beliefs. It is good to question everything, including yourself. |
So basically a troll. Maybe you should change your moniker to allnoise? nonoise6,656 posts01-11-2021 12:57amPoor, poor audio2design. Taken down a few notches from a surfeit of hubris and he's all aflutter and talking like a street punk, showing his true colors. |
Oh no, you opened that can .. douglas_schroeder2,813 posts01-11-2021 1:50pmdjones51, I wondered who would step into the doo doo.
This is how even a highly educated person can allow their beliefs to cloud their mind. There is enormous evidence for moving tectonic plates and that the shape of the land has changed considerably over billions of years. We still see plate movement. Far far far far more likely that sediment is the result of tectonic land shift, things formally underwater, no above, and vice versa. It has long been accepted that a large portion of North America used to be a sea (under water). But if he is using a flood (that only lasted 40 days and nights) to justify there being sandstone in many places that are now land, they that sandstone should be literally everywhere, but have you heard of the Canadian Shield? Vast expanse of igneous rock not a hint of sandstone. Since he claims the flood was recent, there is no way it would have eroded away either. Again, this portends to audio. We have vast amounts of information that shows that digital, especially high res digital is vastly superior to vinyl, its not even close, vastly superior at recreating an analog waveform. However, because some really like vinyl, and it sounds better to them, they are unable to let go of the belief that it must be superior at analog reconstruction even though all the evidence says otherwise. To support that claim, they literally make up things about digital (even a few PhDs), and assign qualities to vinyl/analog that are simply not at all true. |
And again this an awesomely representative post of how people will twist information to suit their outcome. The good Dr. uses where it suits him an absolutely literal interpretation of the bible. However, when it does not suit him, he makes it a whole year event. This is the same thing audiophiles do. If an "expert" says something that disagrees with their world view, they totally discount him/her. If they say something that agrees, then they will quote it ininfinitum. If volcanoes were spewing enough to create those levels of layer deposition, everyone would be dead, many times over unless purely a localized event (even continent wide) and we know when those were. Runaway subduction of sea floor ... lovely, we will just ignore the massive tsunamis that would result, which with that level of subduction even surface waves would be enormous. Of course, if there is massive subduction, water does not just appear out of no where, so that only causes localized flooding, but if you are going to ignore reality why not go all in. |
Real science ... even including the statement "we really don't know", which does not mean we will never know, just "we don't really know now". https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/12/marine-fossils-may-instead-represent-early-land-dwellers Your good doctor just chooses to believe these things happened and happened recently. That he associates with the charlatan Ken Ham .... well that says it all. |
nonoise6,659 posts01-11-2021 7:46pmA person's religious beliefs and views should never be conflated with their, say, audio views. To use that as some kind of proof that since one is questionable or suspect, the other might as well be is ridiculous. I didn't go after someone's audio views based on their religious beliefs, but I may go after someone's lack of reading comprehension based on their posts. Very clearly, I used it to illustrate how people often will let their beliefs, religion, audio, or otherwise dictate their perception of reality. Not reality, but their perception of it. |
As crazy as things are NoNoise, they really don’t worry me much. A little fear of the people is good for government. What worries me more is that Trump almost won again, not because people really like him (other than a select group), but because the democrats once again ran (railroaded in) an establishment candidate who I see doing little to advance much of anything. Don’t forget though, that many people liked quite a few of the things that Trump did or wanted to do, including stronger border controls, reduced unskilled immigration, standing up to countries that are not trading fairly, reducing bureaucratic overhead and over regulation (yes he made some stupid moves there too). Even lowering corporate taxes was a great idea for competitiveness and ended up repatriating huge sums of money. Those things were not just wanted by his hard line supporters but a very clear majority of Americans. Unfortunately, for every good thing, there were 2 crazy things. So 4 years of a candidate that will tell most of the people what they want to hear while likely going against what most of the people actually want (and I don’t mean just traditional Repubs). A very significant majority are not okay with what happened in Washington and the majority accept the Repub election results. I have to disagree with you on one thing, where this conversation went is exactly where you are worried. Beliefs before reality. It got us into this mess. |
He believes that the ear/brain interface is endowed with magical powers, and that sound quality transcends any attempt to qualify it by any type of objective measure. I believe he posts at Agon under multiple names :-) |
Some of the know something about signal transmission. A lot of them don't appear to. Whether they know something about it or not, what is definitely true is that many, possibly even a majority create marketing material that is full of exaggerations about material differences and geometry differences if not, for lack of a better word, making up how electricity and basic physics work. However, there is a huge difference between a small difference in electrical transmission and something that is truly audible. I can detect far smaller differences in cable transmission with equipment than what can be heard. It is not even close. I have been working in professional audio since the late 80s. I have many audiophile friends, many with fairly significant financial means, and my own system is certainly no slouch. I have lost count of the number of time my friends have said these new cables are a huge difference, only for me to show that blind, they couldn't tell the difference from their old cables, or in most cases, much cheaper. We are talking over the years, 50-75. There have been cases with audible speaker cables, and a quick check with the test equipment has shown excessive inductance, capacitance, and even in some cases resistance. For interconnects, we have found the odd poor solder connection too. |
So, here's another attempt to return to the topic; what of my discussion of using full sets of cables as the only legitimate way to work with cables, and to resolve the seeming impasse between measurements and experience? I think that is totally misdirected and there is no basis for this. IF, and that is a big if with the exception of speaker cables with excessive inductance, capacitance or resistance, there is a readily audible difference between cables, then the only way that is going to happen is through an interaction between the source, the cable, and the load. Hence what works for one set of equipment, will not for another. The concept of a full loom is pure marketing. |
I will give 10:1 odds that people who use the same words, over and over in their posts, like fourier transform, or nyquist, have probably no real practical work where they have had to use fourier transforms or given serious consideration to how their system will be impacted by nyquist limits and subharmonic modulation. When your only tool is a hammer, you keep pulling it out of the bag. Problem is, someone only told them it was a hammer. It was really a wrench. |
It is not hubris that I have forgot more about electrical engineering and physics than most of these cable charlatans know it's just fact based on their own writings. Far greater than 50%? Is that 51%, 60%? because if the claimed substantial change is there it should be much > 75% not 50%. Were the levels matched to 0.1db,? How? This concept of full loom to me is just silly and ignores the very real and substantial impact of component interaction as the only thing that will generate real sonic differences. |
The claim is made that the cable makers are not taking into account the interactions between cables and components. Perhaps for the most obscure makers, but I do not see that contention supported in regard to the larger, more science-driven cable makers. There are 0 standards in components in audio, therefore no interface standards, therefore a one size fits all is pretty much impossible at least for "perfect" operation. Some general tunings can be done, i.e. like Kimber and others reducing speaker cable inductance, but that also increases capacitance which can have impacts on high bandwidth amplifiers, so, one size fits all, does not work, and bringing up L, C, and R does not matter unless you understand what they do and how they interact with other components. |
rja2,238 posts01-18-2021 4:41pmPlease Audiogon, make them stop! It hurts less with a good single malt. |
douglas_schroeder2,860 posts01-18-2021 6:58am"Diminishing returns " is the subjective excuse by budget Audiophiles for not putting more into their system. It's an excuse for Lower Fi. Pretending you're doing all that, without doing it. :( Diminishing returns is the term used by audiophiles with more money than common sense in order to justify that there will always be an improvement when in reality at some point there is no audible improvement, and many changes are only different, not better. That point comes somewhat early(ish) in electronics, quite a bit later in speakers and acoustics. |
cleeds3,579 posts01-23-2021 12:16pm audio2designDiminishing returns is the term used by audiophiles with more money than common sense in order to justify that there will always be an improvement ...The concept of diminishing returns is a well-established principle. It is a very real thing, not some imaginary factor.... in reality at some point there is no audible improvement, and many changes are only different, not better.You contradict yourself. If a change results in a difference, then it's possible to establish whether it is better or worse, both objectively (at least in theory) and subjectively. Apparently what I wrote was too nuanced for you to understand Cleeds. My apologies. I am sure it was clear to most. |