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.)
“...a seemingly poorly designed room CAN sound amazing.” Maybe to your ears, but the sound by objective measures is not amazing. Distortion can sound subjectively good, but its not correct and is something to be avoided.
A room with one side wall absent cannot by definition sound amazing. Using conventional two-channel dynamic drivers, imaging will be hopelessly messed up in such a case. Unless one is listening in the extreme near-field, which defeats the purpose of setting up a six-figure ‘big’ system in a large room.
I’m guessing at least half of the posters here would go ballistic at the sight of the word ‘correct’. But there are correct and incorrect ways to set up a room; there’s no getting around the laws of physics.
“Some of the supposedly best designed rooms are often horrible sounding.” No. A correctly constructed and outfitted room will sound right, by definition.
To focus on something relatively minor like cables, while ignoring the laws of acoustics, is something else to be avoided.
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.
It may simply be my taste, or lack of thereof, but those speakers were not that impressive to me. In fact, I was puzzled by all the praises they got at Capital Audio Fest 2019.
"So, is there any strong objection to my insistence that working with comparison of entire sets of cables is the best method of demonstrating their capacity to change systems?"
What will a set of cables for a receiver consist of?
"The objection that cables are hooked up to components should be seen as a moot point. Try listening without components, just cables."
Did you want to say...
The objection that cables are hooked up to components should be seen as a moot point. Try listening without cables, just components.
There is only so much time I give to mockery. I now turn my attention back to reviewing; several exciting products to work on. I have in right now a pair of speakers that I am calling a new genre, a class D amp, and a set of cables (You will note the consistency of method in reviewing sets) that are all top quality. As 2021 commences I am building rigs that have advanced quite nicely over my former reference.
Blessings to all my combatants and the community. :)
I was referring to your problem with evolution Doug as well. Maybe you missed the part where I admitted there were floods. A flood does not equal God. Back then...yeah, for sure. Now we have science. So all the religious undertones laced with geology proves a flood happened. Congratulations! I guess the Pandemic is God’s bidding as well? I answered the cable question. They all sound different, especially in different systems. Try before you buy.
So, is there any strong objection to my insistence that working with comparison of entire sets of cables is the best method of demonstrating their capacity to change systems?
The objection that cables are hooked up to components should be seen as a moot point. Try listening without components, just cables.
I find that behind these objections lies one central thing, distrust of the cable makers. It is suggested that there is little evidence (oddly similar objection to the debate re: Flood and the geologic evidence), but if you open your eyes, you will see data from the cable makers. But, of course, this is waived away as "marketing".
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. I am reviewing a set of cables now where L,R,C is everything.
So, it seems to me that if the cable makers are damned, then we have no basis to move forward. In that case, I say, keep on spinning your wheels! :)
Oh, that's precious, the person with a degree in Anthropology saying, "
Anyone with a true understanding of basic science would recognize crazy twisted tales supported by shoehorned data using “lack of evidence” as a main postulate for a proof." There is not much more twisting of thin/debated data than in Anthropology. For you to be saying that of Clarey's book is laughable.
The book is not based on twisted science, nor "yet to be discovered evidence." It have said several times that the work relies up on the oil industry's data from the field, the wells drilled though the rocks globally, even down to several thousand feet, both on land and oceans, which allows analysis of the sea floor spreading as partial evidence of a global event. That is how the thickness, composition, etc. of the rock layers are known, and that the even was global. That's not "twisted", nor, "yet to be discovered evidence."
I don't give a rip what "most religious scholars" think. Many of these people are completely screwed up. The "religious" person today is typically biblically illiterate, as has been demonstrated here. I am not interested in popularity, nor fawning over desperate attempts to salvage an already falsified theory.
We would expect there to be all flavors of theologians and believers who are liberal, biblically ignorant, and scientifically ignorant of the Flood. Plenty of that on display here.
The community will note that my detractors continuously assert that I am pushing a biblical story, a Bible account. They desperately want the community to think this is non-science, mere stories, etc, that cannot be supported. It's their only chance at trying to get you to disregard it. Not so; I am promoting a scientific work that analyzes the lithography of the earth by using several hard sciences in order to do precisely what is done in the prevailing theory, attempt to reconstruct events of the past. It is easily seen that I am not relying upon Bible passages, but upon science and data from the oil industry. The data from the rocks is either going to support uniformitarian presuppositions, or it's going to support catastrophism, and it supports the latter, clearly, powerfully indicating a global Flood event. The data has been accessed now, through oil industry well drilling, and it's just too bad for someone has a problem with it. All the gyrations and objections are not changed by the data.
Plate tectonics was opposed by secular scientists for decades - until the evidence became overwhelming and they were forced to accept it. The same is happening now in regards to a global deluge.
Notice how these people just cannot let it go? Every time I try to return the thread to the topic of audio, they just cannot shut up. They cannot stomach the idea that I have data, have answered the critics, and am gaining credibility.
Life writes strange stories. I became a Bible scholar scientist on an Internet audio thread about aftermarket power cords.
glupson 01-11-2021 6:26pm
I believe there was a global flood at some point somewhere. I am just not sure how big that globus was.
Not having read the above mentioned book, are the findings that support global flood from all over the Earth, or they are limited in locations? Anybody knows?
Finally, as for cables...they all sound different and a seemingly poorly designed room CAN sound amazing. I’ve experienced countless cable comparisons and room types. Some of the supposedly best designed rooms are often horrible sounding.
Anywho, were there floods or even a global flood event....very possible and for various reasons. Did people pass down stories of such events...sure. Does any of this mean the Bible is a science book that should be taken literally? No. Most religious scholars will tell you the stories are allegorical, not fact. Unless of course you get your science from the institute cited below!
I have a degree in Anthropology, Biology and a minor in Chemistry. I am religious. I also do not understand people who twist science or use yet to be discovered evidence as proof for Bible Stories. Anyone with a true understanding of basic science would recognize crazy twisted tales supported by shoehorned data using “lack of evidence” as a main postulate for a proof. I attended lectures by S J Gould regarding Punctuated Equilibrium. Brilliant man....not a religious, former geologist for Chevron, but smart. Oh, and let’s not forget Peer Review....oops! https://ncse.ngo/yes-noahs-flood-may-have-happened-not-over-whole-earth
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.
Finding the right cord or cords for each piece of gear can make a bigger difference somtime than buying or upgrading it can be a much easier and less expensive route to take especially with a good dealer involved.
My perspective on cables begins with the hard won recognition (Read putting thousands of dollars into cables temporarily, comparison of sets, reviews of sets of cables, and constant system building with those sets.) that cable manufacturers indeed know quite a bit about signal and power transmission. From that stems the suggestion that it may be beneficial if audiophiles would humble themselves to take the cable makers' suggestion to use an entire set.
What is accomplished of value in terms of assessing with intent to drive a system toward a desired sound by mixing cables? Nothing. No baseline, no means of assessment of what any particular cable is doing. It's pretending to act like you know what you're doing. Then, consider the irony that the cable mixer rails against the manufacturers as though they don't know what they are doing! This is the epitome of hubris.
My point is simply that, quite apart from ABX, which I have done and successfully selected the proper cables with far greater than 50% accuracy, as outlined in my review of the Audio by Van Alstine ABX Comparator), if one wishes to lay to rest the issue of perception of cable changes, swapping out one or two is not the ideal. Comparison of sets is the ideal, which imo most do not pursue due to the cost and work involved. That's understandable, but it's not supportable to suggest that mixing cables is advantageous.
One could, theoretically compare two discrete sets of mixed cables, and that might ( I would suspect with less certainty) reveal significant enough differences between the two mixed sets to convince in regards to efficacy of cables. But, that is of little advantage to the audiophile, who would gain no understanding of the contribution of any of the cables. The far more sensible option would be to compare entire sets, from which a baseline sound is found, then other cables can be swapped in purposefully. I have done this with many sets of cables to the degree that I know the innate sonic character of particular sets of cables, and can select from particular cables to tune systems. How is that supposed to be done with mixed cables, when you have no understanding of the sound of the cables?
Much of what I see happening in this hobby is considered proper form, but I see it as thoughtless consumerism. How else do you explain someone buying a cable in isolation from the set and thinking they have any idea of what it will do?
In order to properly assess cables and properly present them as having audible changes regardless of what measurements show, I would seek the maximum impact, not the minimum. Imo, that begins with putting some trust in at least a handful of cable makers who you regard as legit, design savvy, etc., then working with a full set to gain a baseline that is not fluid, and finally rotating out sets to hear fundamental differences.
This has been my MO for reviewing as well, but with the addition that I build many systems in assessment, as opposed to few systems.
I believe that were these principles to be followed, the debate could be resolved with more finality than the machinations that happen incessantly.
The principles and oil field data is global, and the book emphasizes that the same stratification that is seen in the more thoroughly presented continents is consistent throughout the world. The detailed analysis of the deposition layers is specific to North America, South America and Africa. The same data could be presented about whichever continent one wishes, but in order to make the case, these three were analyzed in painstaking detail.
One might think that at some point the floundering attempts to discredit would peter out, and the conversation return to the topic of cables.
All these flowery words about the ear, human perception, etc. is meaningless. All these devices do is recreate an analog waveform.
It is you that confuse the microphone waveform translated digitally with the initial waveform perceived by the human ears which is not a set of microphone...
Unable to answer any meaningful objection to my affirmation that timbre is a complex phenomenon for the human ears NEVER integrally and perfectly seized by a microphone, you attack ad hominem:
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 you in the first place that invoked Nyquist theorem to ridicule supposedly ignorant turntable audiophiles...Ignoring yourself elementary fact about timbre perception...More than that, you even mock a mathematician woman who at the end of an article in scientific american dont decrete the same truth than you about digital and analog, and conclude in a neutral way, accusing her to not understand Nyquist theorem.... Remember?
The initial timbre live event is always imperfectly recorded and after that perfectly translated, yes by virtue of Nyquist theorem, from analog microphones to digital, mixed, and retranslated to analog and or digital, and RECREATED in the listener room...
There is 2 important moment for timbre perception: the initial event and the listeners acoustical rooms...Nyquist theorem has nothing to do directly with timbre perception...
Then turntable people has all right to say that they prefer timbre experience from a turntable with their specific room/system/ears without being accused of ignorance or delusion....
In a word, 2 ears are not equal to 2 microphones, even if the waveform is perfectly translated by Nyquist theorem to digital........
Ears need a room to perceive natural timbre, be it a normal room with speakers or or an headphone room... Because timbre is NOT the abstract accuracy of a note pitch only but also something linked to the complex material properties of a specific instrument evaluated in a room....
"Further, I have attempted to return the discussion to the topic at hand."
What an attempt...
"I’m deeply religious, reading a great scientific book right now called Carved in Stone which uses petroleum industry data to assess the Earths lithography. Yup, there was a global Flood. Mockers will always mock what they do not understand, and a favorite trick is to use a false dichotomy between religion and science."
By the way, reading what you wrote in subsequent posts, the book and the findings you conveyed do not support "global flood". I am not saying it did not happen, but only that three continents do not make a globe.
The community can see clearly that 1. I responded to the initial negative comments by others in regard to religion and audio. 2. I presented a book that has scientific backing (A degreed geologist, oil industry data from wells drilled, analysis of plate tectonics, etc.) which attempts to show a coherent analysis of the Flood and supports it with lithographic evidence.
Further, I have attempted to return the discussion to the topic at hand.
"Of course, glupson, you will default to the most extreme, invalid comparisons, completely ignoring the context. What else would be expected of you? Pathetic."
It is a bit strange that a person who brought Biblical stories about the great flood into the thread about aftermarket power cords is complaining about me going to extremes and ignoring the context. Are you practicing for a sit-down comedy show?
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 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.
The problem here is NOT about the reproduction of a waveform coming from microphones...Nyquist theorem is a THEOREM first about Fourier translation not about human perception first... Matter closed...
The problem is that TIMBRE is also a mathematical modelling concept in acoustic and this modelling concept is there for an acoustician which try to understand a very complex concrete event JUDGED and evaluated by the human ears/brain and pertaining to the way a complex materials (a stradivarius) reproduce a musical tone in a specific acoustical dimension... The musical event consist in the fact that the note is not only a pitch accuracy but a more complex phenomenon, the sound of a stradivarius making his note is not the sound of a cheap violin producinfg the same note.... In the case of a stradivarius producing a note in a church, versus a cheap violin....
Then because no live musical event can be reproduced WITHOUT some lost of information, the fact that high resolution digital could reproduce to the perfection the analog waveform of any microphones, this fact cannot erase the fact that the microphones cannot register TOTALLY the concrete timbre event, for the very reason by which each microphones type has his own’s limitations and by reason of their specific locations.... All these choices, i will recall also mixing choices , alter the ORIGINAL timbre experience of the musical living event...
Take the Nyquist theorem, put it on a shelve for a second and think about reality :Timbre.....
Acoustic is the study of what human ears experience....Then timbre is NOT a "flowery word" save for someone ignoring acoustic....It is not only a brain/ears specific experience but a very mathematically complex concept for which science use not only Fourier analysis but many other complex tools...
I apologize to answering a post way above after dinosaurs, floods and cables discussion....
Every cable vendor blathers on and on about how their cables improve signal conduction. If that is true, then they don't need to work together as a loom. It is almost like they are not being completely truthful.
The argument for a "full loom" is that they "work together" or "work together better" than unmatched cables. Given that digital cables, ICs, SCs, and PCs are all performing different tasks, and the components they are hooked up to may come from different companies, with different impedances, and also performing different functions, please explain with detailed, specific arguments from electronic engineering why a full loom is ipso facto better.
Of course, glupson, you will default to the most extreme, invalid comparisons, completely ignoring the context. What else would be expected of you? Pathetic.
"I am uninterested in the pedigree of systems you have heard, and of the potential manufacturing problems of some cable makers, as I believe these are tangential, and not pertinent to my point. :)"
It would mean that buying a $100 receiver and $100 set of speakers and connecting them with the world’s best speaker cables would make it all sound fantastic. The pedigree of systems cables are tested on is not tangential, it may be more relevant than those cables themselves. As many who have tried different cables would tell you.
Not having interest in relevant variables during any kind of testing renders the results irrelevant.
audio2design, I will clarify my question; have you ever compared entire sets of cables in a single listening session, swapping them with intent to see what the differences are?
It seems to me from your answer that you have not, but have conducted blind comparisons of particular cables. Is that correct?
I am uninterested in the pedigree of systems you have heard, and of the potential manufacturing problems of some cable makers, as I believe these are tangential, and not pertinent to my point. :)
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.
Are you taking the position that there is no discernible difference between cables, i.e. that if there is no measurable difference, then there Is no difference?
How many sets of cables have you handled? How many sets of cables have you compared in order to stake your claim?
You are suggesting the cable manufacturers are lying, "marketing". Correct? So, you give no credence to the suggestion that cable makers may know something about signal transmission? As if they do not design their individual products with such considerations in mind. I find that to be a simplistic argument.
My point is that the argument is between measurements and perception of differences as heard by the listener. If you want to demonstrate that there are differences, quite aside from the measurements, wouldn’t it make sense to swap out a full loom of cables versus just one or two?
Imo, your arguments regarding the "marketing" etc. are irrelevant to my suggestion.
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.
The period of glaciation was after the Flood, also seen clearly in the record. Read the book and learn.
No comment on this?
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?
The Black Sea is one geographical region that may have endured post glacial flooding, thereby fostering the Noah story found in the Bible. Mesopotamians also had a great flood myth. An Ark makes no sense whatsoever....I’m religious as well, but I am also a scientist. We don’t need fantastical stories to embrace a higher being!
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. It was an
untreated three-walled room with one side completely open to the rest of
the house. Irredeemable by objective acoustic measures, yet he claimed
that it was a great sounding room.
I believe he posts at Agon under multiple names :-)
The only cables that sound the same are the same! Which works for your world view regarding expectations for your audio system is personal. Everything else is blather!
Harley is the audiophile world’s ultimate subjectivist. 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. This proves to be quite convenient for him.
Just one example: I remember being dismayed at seeing self-published pictures of his previous listening room, which was his living room. It was an untreated three-walled room with one side completely open to the rest of the house. Irredeemable by objective acoustic measures, yet he claimed that it was a great sounding room.
The workings and mechanics you describe are correct but I just don't have the capacity right now to address everything brought up lately. Much, to much going on for me to be even handed, thoughtful and even snarky without outright losing it. But, that's just me speaking for me.
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.
@twoleftears , I disagree. No matter how I think critically about things, and how reliable the evidence is, I'll determine, for myself, when to contribute to this discussion on religion.
Truth be told, I'm really at a loss as to why you'd raise this. I'm under no obligation to respond to anyone here on that.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
