Frankly, the scientists have failed this hobby badly. Why do we listen to them at all? Amplifiers started out as single-ended triode, driving high impedence efficient speakers. But scientific theory said push-pull would cancel distortion, that transistors would have less distortion, that CDs would be perfect because the maths said so. So now we are headed back to where we started - single-ended triode valves, high impedence efficient speakers. I suspect we will ditch digital at some point and use lasers to read analogue wave forms off disks again. So just where do you get your faith that some very basic prep school science theory can tell us all cables sound the same? |
Jostler3, perhaps if you read my post with a little care you would appreciate that I made none of the claims you protest about. Before you call me ignorant, perhaps you should get checked out for Alzheimers, because there were indeed scientists (not marketers) at the time that proclaimed that Nyquist's theory was proof that there was nothing wrong with the digital standard (my reference to the maths), and of course they were wrong. Furthermore, if you were not so anal you might have realised that I am a scientist and was complaining that it is the application of prep school scientific theory that mars this debate, and that this was in direct rebuttal of the original posters ludicrous suggestion that all cables sound the same (something you manage to accuse me of despite me making no such statement in my post) - or are you British and suffering from foot in mouth right now. |
Well done Jostler3 - you have proven my point. |
Jostler3 - you are dragging me off point into an irrelevancy. I am not interested in whose ***** is bigger, just trying to make a simple point that you are failing to comprehend. What kind of scientist are you if you have no powers of observation? I am NOT claiming Nyq'ies maths are wrong. I am NOT claiming that push-pull amps do not show lower measured distortion that single-ended. I am NOT claiming that transistor amps do not have lower measured distortion than valves. What I am saying is that it is notable that most significant scientific breakthroughs in this area in the last 40 to 50 years have seemed to many of us to take us down unmusical paths, and that recently people have appreciated this to the extent that you can put together a system based on the vinyl LP, single-ended valve amplification, and high sensitivity and high impedence speakers that is at least as truthful to the music as any CD, SS amp, inefficient low impedence speaker system. I am a scientist and believe in the scientific method. But it dismays me when scientists have such blind faith in the theories they understand as to deny experienced phenomena - such as Stevenmj's engineer friend who believes all speaker cables sound the same. That is the topic of this thread. My point is that we have seen this closed-minded approach from scientists for years - ie. "digital interconnects cannot sound different". I am suggesting their closed-minded views based on a meagre understanding of what goes on in an audio system are not worth listening to. Their universe is too small a place to have the debate in. Though your ego drives you to prove I am ignorant and you are a scientific guru, and so you have chosen to misinterpret my post to your satisfaction - I do not care. I do not propose to feed your ego any further by continuing to explain my first post to you, or respond to your irrelevant challenges. |
Stevemj, I prefer a sound that is closer to what I hear at live events. As it happens, I have so far needed valve amplification (but not necessarily single-ended), and good cables (amongst other things your engineer mate (and my engineer mates too) would laugh at) to get that. Whether these items are preserving something that solid state and standard cables do not, or whether they are adding an artificial version is a matter of opinion. But the acid test is our ears (and perhaps our souls), not the test instruments that you apparently believe in. If my system was adding distortions then I would presumably hear it as a persistent coloration. I can tell you I abhor persistent colorations as they irritate me intensely over time, and therefore reduce my enjoyment of the music. But the distortions introduced by solid state (excepting a few hideously expensive products) and by bad cables are observed by me as persistent and highly unmusical. So in my version of reality, it is my dislike of the distortions introduced by solid state and bad cables that are the reason why I prefer valves and good cables. Your suggestion that it might be the reverse suggests an unwarranted faith in the measurement tools in common use. Just to add a caveat, I am not a rampant valve nut, I have never been happy with any valve preamp I have heard, but just do not get on with solid state power amps. So here's the point Stevemj, try listening with your soul (to the music and how it moves you) with some different cables. Since this is the objective (ie. the effect of music on your soul), why accept the opinion of your engineer mate when you can hear the real deal for yourself. I am sure the science helps someone designing gear (but as stated above, it may hinder as well). But, if you are like me and the issue is selecting what to buy, put all the scientific claims to one side, and just listen. Your experience may be different from mine, but I have found the scientific claims (not just from the manufacturer, but also from the engineer mates) have little, if any, correlation with what works. This must frustrate those that would prefer to talk about the science behind the equipment rather than the music experience, but count me out of that pointless exercise. |
It seems to me that we are all scientists in our different approaches. We observe, and we theorise, we test our theories, in order to achieve something. But I sometimes wonder if we are trying to achieve the same thing. It seems that some wish to just prove they are erudite, or that their beliefs are irrefutable. What I see happening is this: I report that I hear differences between something eg. cables, or that I find this valve amplifier sounds more like the real thing than that SS amplifier. This is my observation, I use this forum to share it and to benefit from the observations that others report. I am interested in those reports that are different from my own experience, because it causes me to listen again. I have my own theories, but keep the theorising alive because I believe there is still much to be learnt (is that not the essence of a scientist?). I am comfortable with this. But then I see posters that do not report their observations, they report their beliefs, and then claim the scientific high ground - eg. "I know lots of audio engineers and they tell me that cables are BS - so you are a poor sad fool that is being repeatedly fleeced by the marketers." So how am I meant to interpret this? Let's consider three plausible possibilities. The first is to assume that this is the sort of scientist that wishes to ridicule others' reported observations, rather than report their own. The second is that these scientists have found a theory that fits all the facts - just by adding one more theory to the existing scientific knowledge ie. that anything not explained by existing theory and measurement is delusion. How convenient - we can wrap up the whole audio science into a neat little parcel and then condescendingly dump it on the audio forums on the net. So this is the sort of scientist that is very uncomfortable with anything that cannot be explained by existing theory, and cannot bear the thought that this might mean that existing theory is flawed or inadequate. Therefore reported experiences that do not fit their belief have to be ridiculed, lest the unthinkable becomes plausible. The third possibility is that these posters are so sure of their beliefs that they altruistically wish to save me from the horrendous costs of my delusions. Being quite so sure about a subject like audio does not fit terribly well with my concept of science, but if I were to be charitable and assume the last of the three is true, then my answer is simply "thanks, but no thanks - your theories do not explain my reality, and so they are inadequate for me - and I do not share your need for an argument over existing scientific theory". But, in any case, my money is on number 2, with number 1 a close second and number 3 a distant last. |
Adamanteus - because we export a lot of meat and we are one of a diminishing number of countries that have healthy livestock, we are doing just fine right now - thanks for asking. But in the longer term it is difficult to see how a tiny isolated country like ours can keep its best talent at home. It is hard to see how we can progress beyond being a big farm and a tourist spot. On the bright side we are clean, green and healthy - and the power supply to the stereo is pretty unpolluted too. Shame about the scarcity of high-end audio gear and our lower disposable incomes. |
Jostler - the issue for me is that 20 years of experimentation in this hobby tells me the reliance on measurement such as Stevemj suggests above is just ludicrous. I am not saying you should just accept what I say, and only wish to put my view forward. But I don't agree with you that someone expressing their opinions on this forum is adding a lot of value by presenting scientific evidence to support it. For example, I could argue that Cardas cables are the best, and that this is because of the scientific theory that supports the use of insulating every strand and using strands of different thickness. I could equally argue that Harmonic Technology cables are the best because the purity of the copper used is higher than that used by Cardas. Stevemj might argue that they are both the same because his oscilloscope cannot tell the difference between them. All of the above is meaningless while we do not have a unified theory that explains audio. You may think we do have a unified theory and Stevemj may think that the unified theory is utterly encompassed by what he can measure, but my experience leads me to think we do not. So in my opinion, argument based on sub-sets of a unified theory, as in my examples on cables above, cannot tell a complete enough story to support anything at all. More likely they will be used to justify an opinion already held. On one of your other points, we all have expectations before we listen to something, even in a blind test. But with 20 years of trying countless components, cables and tweaks there are too many surprises - sounds heard that do not match the expectations at all - to believe for a moment that it is all imagined. It also tells me that any suggestion that cables all sound the same is just ridiculous. So it is my opinion that the instruments and theories espoused by the nay-sayers are inadequate to the task. How come you have more trust in the existing science than the evidence of your own ears? How does Stevmj know that his instruments are not the audio equivalent of a black and white camera - pretty accurate in many respects, but failing to measure something that is quite important about the real thing ie. color in this analogy. A key difference between you and me is that my experience and my take on that experience says there is more going on than Stevemj is comprehending. So why don't I just leave this issue as a difference of opinion? Why do I feel the need to argue with people like Stevemj? Why do I find it necessary to indulge in this discussion when I do not believe the likes of Stevemj have anything valuable to contribute? I will tell you the answer. It is because I have observed the likes of Stevemj and others of his ilk on this forum and on others, continuously contributing nothing positive at all, and instead apparently getting their jollies by side-tracking debates onto their private agenda to ridicule anything that does not match their belief-set, and to pander to their feeble egos. The beligerent, monotonous rantings that the science they learnt at prep school says something cannot be so is hard to explain any other way. These opinions from the likes of Stevemj are not presented as observations but as condescending jibes at those with other opinions. It is hard to conclude that these people are much more than attention-seeking children unleashed with an adult's rights. It is hard to accept them as scientists when they apparently have minds like steel traps - once they have read a couple of science books, nothing else exists. |
On your final point, I think it is the right of any poster to figure out their strategy for discerning which recommendations to take notice of. I think I have explained why I would not rely on a "scientific" explanation as the basis that I use, but understand that is what you wish to do. But I don't think that your arguments warrants the kind of "put up or shut up" attacks that posters get from the "scientists". If we don't put up scientific explanations then you have every right to ignore our opinions, but I object to the ridicule that goes on and cannot believe it is motivated in the way you describe. |
Now that we are into apologies - I wish to thank the kind words of my supporters here and apologise for my perhaps over-passionate response to what I felt was an unwarranted attack from Jostler. I keep getting suckered into these debates whenever I see the so-called scientists getting on their high horse when they seem to have little to be proud of in respect of their contribution to the audio field for the last few decades. I have seen how sites like Audioreview get bogged down in this stuff due to the likes of Mtrycraft. Perhaps I stupidly think that I can stop that nonsense destroying this site if I pounce on it fast. Perhaps I should take Dekay's advice and just ignore posts like Stevemj's. As for you Jostler, I merely disagree, and I really don't have a problem with that. |
Thanks Detlof, and your post means a lot to me. Being not in control of my passion I often feel a bit of regret when it lets loose and I am left hoping people recognise it for what it is and tolerate it. This is not me feigning humility, just explaining that my emotional outbursts are often followed by sheepishness (no sheep jokes please). |
