@phasemonger phrasemonger, thank you for the information!Here is a direct link to the article - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267327268_The_Body-Image_Theory_of_Sound_An_Ecological_Appr... So scientists don't understand what sound is, just as they don't understand what electricity is. This obviously follows from this article. Those who are sure that everything can be measured, and everything immeasurable is just snake oil should read the article carefully. |
Well, suggesting they are clowns, is giving them too much credit as that would require they be creative and have imagination - something that is clearly lacking. @georgehifi ”I know you are, but what am I...” - classic childish response. @prof Comparing swapping a cable and listening for the difference is nothing like homeopathy or astrology. The result is tangible, and immediate. A singular variable. Problem is, when you are incapable of deciding for yourself if it makes a difference, be that for the better or worse, that shows a complete lack of confidence in your own judgement. It speaks to a insecurity of your own abilities. If you were to arrive in someone’s listening room, and be blown away by the sound quality of the system, would you ask for specs and measurements in order toco firm what you are hearing? imaginewhat innovations would exist in the world if people all thought as you. There would be very few. Sorry, I forgot, imagination is something you have been deprived of. This refusal to be open minded about possibilities beyond your own myopic outlook on the world is the kind of closed minded, fearful thinking that had women burned at the stake for being “witches” How many of the technological advancements that we take for granted now would’ve viewed as magic a few centuries ago? I’m a pragmatist at heart. Science and math were at the core of my education. I however dropped out of pre med to pursue a career in the creative world. Left and right sides of my brain are in balance. My first child really suffered with teething. Loads of crying and fevers. When the second arrived, someone suggested them wear an amber necklace to help alleviate the pain. So, bought the $20 necklace and had them wear it. No teething issues. Perhaps he would have been spared the pain just because of his make up. Perhaps the necklace helped. Either way, I don’t care. He was spared the pain for whatever reason. When someone has a child who is starting teething, I share my story with the caveat I have no idea if it works or not, but it’s harmless and is $20. Not one child that tried the necklace suffered from the teething. Again, who knows what the cause was, could all be a fluke. I suppose you have zero faith in Shiatsu, Acupuncture, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Biodynamic Farming either? Again, I have yet to see a single post where someone who bought SR’s product were slamming it and claiming they were ripped off. |
My suggestion would be to steer clear of the two clowns :-) My posts have stayed on topic, both the topic of the thread and addressing the arguments other posters have given, and my posts contain no abuse. I also posted that I would be happy to see SR's products validated. On the other hand, you drop in only to sling ad hominem and name calling, which others are now adopting, and you claim it's "the other guy" who's game is off-topic insulting posts? What's that thing about pots and kettles again...? Here's a hint: if you really care about keeping the level of discourse higher, if someone has a point of view different from your own, try actually explaining why you disagree rather than simply slinging insults. |
perkri First this: Well, suggesting they are clowns, is giving them too much credit as that would require they be creative and have imagination - something that is clearly lacking. Perhaps ask yourself why you are resorting to such insults. Does it really help in discussions like these? For my part, I’ve been addressing the character of your arguments, not your character. Comparing swapping a cable and listening for the difference is nothing like homeopathy or astrology. The result is tangible, and immediate. A singular variable. No, your impression that you are hearing a difference between cables is no more or less "tangible" than someone’s impression they feel better after taking a homeopathic pill. It’s simply a subjective impression in both cases. Which is open to the question: what is *causing* that subjective impression. You are leaping to the conclusion that your impression of hearing a difference was due to the efficacy of the cable altering the audio signal, just as the person taking the homeopathic (inert) pill leaps to the conclusion that their feeling better was caused by the objective efficacy of the homeopathic pill. You say you are a pragmatics with some education in science and math, so it is quite surprising that you do not seem to recognize the influence of uncontrolled variables here, PARTICULARLY that of human bias and imagination, something that is well documented. Here’s a list of cognitive biases (which by nature skew interpretation of experience/data): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases Example of bias in action, where wine experts described the "differences" between a red and a white wine they were tasting, but it was in fact the same wine, simply colored different to make them believe they were tasting two different wines: https://lions-talk-science.org/2014/12/08/how-fancy-labels-fool-us-the-neuroscience-behind-bias/ Do you think somehow that you are not prone to cognitive bias, or that audio is somehow magically immune from the variable? It’s not: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html And if you’ve ever been involved in blind testing, it can be very educational in that aspect. I have had many different cables in my system and have done blind testing: you can pretend to someone in such a test that you are switching devices or cables and ask them to rate which one they like better, while not changing a thing. The mere fact they believe a different cable is now in use, and listening for a difference, can cause them to rate one cable higher over another, hear differences that aren’t there. I’ve done similar blind tests with plenty of people with video cables too, where they are just SURE that one cable is producing a sharper, better picture over the other, yet their guesses are pure random chance. In other words: if you have two cables that are identical in performance, so long as we are assuming they will sound different, or even simply "seeing if we can hear the difference," we can end up "hearing" a difference that isn’t objectively there. Sorry, but that really is a bug in human psychology. Bias distortion is such an important feature of our psychology that science has adopted in to it’s core methods ways of controlling for bias! Which, again, makes it strange to me that you have some background in science, yet don’t seem to recognize this issue when it comes to audio evaluations. Further: you have depicted me as the one who is dogmatic and close minded. And yet in my very first post, to use Synergistic Research as an example, I expressed that I am both OPEN to SR’s products working as claimed, I explain what type of evidence would open up my belief in the claims, and that I would be HAPPY to have the claims demonstrated as true. Does that actually, really strike you as close-minded? Meanwhile, you never answered my question as to what could change YOUR mind about a subjective-based claim that "X tweak makes a difference," whether for instance you’d accept evidence based on measurements or listening tests controlling for bias. What is your answer? Are you open minded to such evidence your subjective impression could be wrong? And can you reply, I hope, without insults, please? Thank you. |
So scientists don't understand what sound is, just as they don't understand what electricity is. This obviously follows from this article. Those who are sure that everything can be measured, and everything immeasurable is just snake oil should read the article carefully. The answer is very simple. Once you get your mind around it. https://youtu.be/5FELdBsixGg?t=110 |
And if you’ve ever been involved in blind testing You blind test idea is completely ridiculous the way you wanted to use it in your audio agenda... I lived through many hundreds incremental changes in my 2 years full time installation of embeddings controls, in the mechanical electrical and especially acoustical dimensions... You want to reduce any claim of improvement to a singular borderline change that you could debunk one at a time? Sorry but i dont needed your blind test fallacy in my audio journey... Like i already said blind test is a serious STATISTICAL methodology in science not a tool for the disciple of the James Randy sunday club... There are 2 falsehoods i see percolating in the audio industry... ---One is a sin by OMISSION by the electronic design marketing companies when they suggest: buy our own electronic design and your audiophile experience is assured and warrented... This is half truth nevermind the real S.Q. value of the product because audiophile experience is ALSO mostly tributary of the controls of many psycho acoustical factors outside the scope of the electronic design of any piece of electronic gear speakers included.... ---The other sin is by FALSIFICATION of science by abuse of some aspect of technology... Some tried to convince people that audiophile experience is reducible ONCE AND FOR ALL to the measures of some known chosen parameters... This is completely false because audiophile experience is generally tributary of many psychoacoustical factors outside of the scope of these selected chosen parameters... I know what i speak about i designed my own listening experiments for 2 years without buying any upgrades nor any tweaks but using peanuts cost materials and products to act on some aspect of these complex psychoacoustical factors...With complete success...I even devised on psychoacoustic principle my own mechanical equalizer inspired by Helmholtz...Peanuts costs.... Psychoacoustic is a science the most important one for audio... Dr. Floyd Toole noted: Technical measurements are demonstrably precise, repeatable events. Hearing perception is not. Obviously, the perceived event is definitive – if it does not sound good, it isn’t good. The task is to correlate what we measure with what we perceive – This is psychoacoustics. I will add that generally this CORRELATION PROCESS cannot be abolished by a once and for all set of measures in engineering because it will be the erasing of psychoacoustical science itself.....Is it not saimple to understand especially for a "prof" ? 😁😊 I will let speak 2 acousticians for me here: « Since the primary purpose of our music and movie systems is our own entertainment in accurately reproducing the “real” event, ultimately it is our perceptions that become our point of reference. Accuracy is thus defined by our perception of the reproduction of the event, and a microphone can’t tell us that. Sure, the microphone has it’s uses; measuring a room’s response can help integrate and optimize the low-frequency response, at least to a point. While the quality of the low-frequency response is certainly important to our perception of accuracy, it is not all that matters. These measurements will not tell us anything about how the speakers present the soundstage. We will have no clues toward the spaciousness of the soundscape. Capturing that information would require far more sophisticated measurements and a lot more knowledge than the average consumer has access to. In fact, when Dr. Floyd Toole reviewed this article, he summed up the issue with typical consumer room measurements, which use a single Omni-directional microphone and an FFT analyzer as “dumb” relative to human hearing. It lacks the sophisticated signal processing to detect sound and provide us with information that our ears can quickly accommodate. The purpose of this article is not to be damning of measurements, because they have their place, and they can be fun and helpful. However, there is also no denying that there has become an over-reliance on the perceived objectivity of measurements and a diminished reliance on what our own ears tell us about the accuracy of our system. This shift is to the detriment of good sound. Many consumers would be far better served spending time training their ears as to what good sound is. Learning to hear what different room reverberation times sound like, what specific changes in tone sound like, or experiencing the “real” event first hand. How can we know what a trumpet is supposed to sound like if we have never heard one live and unaided by electronic amplification? The key takeaway here should be that a flat in-room response is not a guarantee of good sound; this is not necessarily a desirable trait, and if this is achieved based solely on in-room measurements without regard for many other important factors in good sound reproduction, is more likely to lead to a bad sounding system.» https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/accurate-microphone-or-ears A final remark about the reason why some people insult you here: Some are tired of your arrogant pretense and the way you treat adults here like children.... I myself propose arguments not insults and i will wait for answers... But to this day save for youre own appropriation of science authority i dont see any serious thinking....Your agenda is classical skeptic sunday class for children....You divided falsely the crowds here in 2 gangs: subjectivist ignorant audiophiles and yourself, enlightened "objectivist" spirits.... This fabricated division has nothing to do with science nor with sound thinking and common sense.... |
I would like to step away from audio for a moment to address something else raised here. Any parents or grandparents please DO NOT use teething necklaces they have been labeled dangerous by the FDA as children have died from strangulation and choking using these things. There is also absolutely no evidence to suggest they do anything. This has nothing to do with one side or the other in these silly arguments over audio reproduction this is a real and serious issue. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/fda-warns-against-use-teething-necklaces-b... |
So scientists don’t understand what sound is, just as they don’t understand what electricity is. This obviously follows from this article. Those who are sure that everything can be measured, and everything immeasurable is just snake oil should read the article carefully. Putting aside that rather rash conclusion... ...this speaks to a conundrum that I never see answered once people start resorting to the "things that can’t be measured" defense of tweak products and other gear. If we are talking about unmeasurable phenomena....how did any company in question identify and solve the problem in the first place?Dreams? Communal trance? Consulting oracles? The typical audiophile gear, cables included, come with a technical story from the manufacturer. "Here’s a technical problem that can undermine the performance of X item; Here’s how we solve that problem." And you are told about "skin effect," "radiation," "electrical interference," "dielectrics" "active shielding" and on and on. In other words, all type of phenomena that we know through being able to detect with instruments and measure. Then they lay out some claim about how they have technically addressed the problem. But then if there is any skepticism of the claim, you get fall backs to "Well, not everything is measurable you know! Stop looking to measurements!" Well, HOW did the manufacturer know it was the specific technical problem in the first place, if he never could identify and detect it by measuring it? Pure conjecture and imagination? SR for instance talks about how you will hear a significant increase in frequency linearity with one of their cables. That would be measurable, right? Can we not presume they measured these differences? If you don’t think so, how in the world would they have determined it was an increase in frequency linearity that was causing the perception in the first place? You can’t have it both ways: claim to identify a technical problem by appeal to measurable phenomena, claim to solve the problem, but then have people throw up their hands on demands for measurements "hey, this stuff can’t be measured!" Can anyone appealing to the "don’t ask for measurements, this stuff can’t be measured" stuff answer this conundrum? |
...this speaks to a conundrum that I never see answered once people start resorting to the "things that can’t be measured" defense of tweak products and other gear.You just distorted here the fundamental audio problem which is related to psychoacoustic.... It is not that they are things that cannot be measured .... it is the fact that in psychoacoustic the CORRELATION PROCESS between measures parameters and listening experiments cannot be replaced by ONLY MEASURES...The correlation process between measures and listening is an ONGOING process... This is called science.... Are you able to think? You can’t have it both ways: claim to identify a technical problem by appeal to measurable phenomena, claim to solve the problem, but then have people throw up their hands on demands for measurements "hey, this stuff can’t be measured!"You just have reduced here for the benefit of your own warring agenda against " ignorant audiophiles" the complex psychoacoustical chain of events and experiments to a false alternative... Audio experience must be correlated to measuring process BUT CANNOT be reduced to it.... Quit binary propaganda and think.... IT is ridiculous to be against measurements and ridiculous to claim that audio experience and experiments must be and can be reducible to ONLY measurements...Listening experiments are ESSENTIAL ALSO.... PSYCHOACOUSTIC is the main science in audio ......Awake yourself before pretending awaking others... |
I think this pretty well covers the reasons why. https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/opinion/1536-the-four-surprising-reasons-why-some-reviewers... |
| Post removed |
To hear some say that they've never tried a product and then go onto compare it with homeopathic products and the like is silly. SR products are out there for the sampling but that doesn't seem to meet the ever changing goalposts as now they want scientific documentation before they even consider listening to it? That's what's called dealing in bad faith. When someone as steeped in audio who should have easy access to what they claim doesn't work (what with all their connections in the field) refuses to even listen to it speaks volumes to their inauthentic stance. Going off into the weeds chasing red herrings and strawmen, arguing about something else other than the subject and conflating those results with the subject is again, doing so in bad faith. Just listen to it. All the best, Nonoise |
Thanks to anton_stepichev and to phasemonger... I just ordered the book about sounds hearing... I am also interested by linguistic and phonology ....Then two birds with one stone...The author of this article wrote also about speech perception of tone in the yoruba language... Speech perception and musical perception are linked by evolution.... It will be interesting reads....I like books perhaps more than music.....It was my work to advise how to read.... I will read it waiting prof answers to my posts..... 😁😊 But it is more easy to attack cables customers here they are easy targets, than reply to sound arguments.... In psychoacoustic science "measurement explain all" make no sense....I even doubt that he understand that.... Audio experience is for us a psychoacoustic phenomena and experience and experiment first and last, and is not MAINLY an electrical design property easy to deduce from dials readings with some measuring apparatus... Then distrusting hearing ability to learn in a set of audio listenings experiments and promoting instead blind test is ridiculous like it is ridiculous to buy a "tweaks" because his marketing publicity advocate quantum effects.... Stupidity has many faces....But many see it with only one face.... It is the Bible straw and beam story..... |
@prof I did not make the diamond analogy, you did. A diamond has intrinsic value as a gemstone, so if somebody sold a rock as a diamond that is clearly fraud and a crime. Audiophile cables and fuses are sold to improve the sound of the Audiophile's system. These items are in fact cables and fuses so there is no fraud wrt what they are. The value is dependent on what the listener hears....i.e., what makes them happy. As you say, "snake oil is a euphemism for deceptive marketing." That opens a huge door covering many products and industries. However, a fuse is still a fuse and a cable still a cable. Even if the SR stuff makes no measurable difference, cannot be selected in blind listening tests, and costs a fraction of the selling price to build, - if the buyer/user perceives the advertised level of improvement then so what? Does that validate the marketing? Maybe not, who knows? Would I pay their prices for cables or fuses - no way. Do I believe the value to me in sonic improvements to my system would justify the prices - not in my world. Do I believe in the seemingly weird science and technology they use to justify the performance of the tweaky products they sell - nope. However, I do not begrudge those who do believe in the value and want to spend the money. On the other side of the coin, I also appreciate the folks like Gene who present opposing viewpoints and especially when they make technical arguments supported with measurements. Amir Majidimehr over at Audio Science Review provides measurements and has a way of reporting facts as he believes them to be, without judging the product or manufacturer. That is the great thing about free speech and free enterprise, we do our research and vote with our wallets - nobody can make me pay for Ted's Ferrari. |
@djones Interesting re: FDA. It does have some curious responses to things at times. I heard a comedian on the radio, part of his routine was a bit where he suggested that all warning labels should be removed from everything, and those still alive after three years, deserves to be here. https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/food/5642404/are-kinder-joy-eggs-banned-in-the-us/ |
nonoise, To hear some say that they’ve never tried a product and then go onto compare it with homeopathic products and the like is silly. SR products are out there for the sampling. Homeopathic remedies are out there for sampling too. Do the anecdotal reports of users entail that claims for how the homeopathic pills work are true? Is that really good enough? If so, I guess you simply reject science and it's methods, at least for medicine. But if cognitive bias plays a role in why people think medically inner substances change their disease status, why could similar bias not play a role in evaluating audio?(It does). Please understand: asking if there is a certain type of evidence for a claim is NOT the same as saying the claim is not true. I’d hope such distinctions wouldn’t actually have to be pointed out, but it seems required dishearteningly often in these conversations.
Well, that’s interesting. Ted Denny is telling us his products produce measurable results, and is even offering to pay to have his products measured as demonstration. I say kudos to Ted! Now there is something wrong with the desire to demonstrate a product’s objective performance via measurements? Are you against Denny’s efforts to show measurable results for his products? If so, why?
Can you show me where I have claimed SR’s products don’t work?Or are you making things up? Again. (Hint: I haven’t - look at my first post on the subject). |
But if cognitive bias plays a role in why people think medically inner substances change their disease status, why could similar bias not play a role in evaluating audio?(It does).Your habit to reduce ALL audible effects to be deceptive illusions or only BIASES if not measured or accountable by measures is linked to the false assumption and prejudice that consist to reduce any psychoacoustical experience and phenomenon to an electrical design property.... IT IS FALSE..... it contradict audio science in general and psychoacoustic science in particular.... MEASURES MUST BE CORRELATED TO HEARING..... HEARING EXPERIENCE CANNOT BE REDUCED TO MEASURES ONLY... If it was so, psychoacoustic science would be erased as a fundamental science and replaced by only physical acoustic....But the human subject is for the time being one of the main subject of science.... Human are not robots.... Are you able to think? Your stategy to link audiophile experience of sound to homeopathy which you already discarded or to astrology, is a pure propaganda piece.... You would make me smile if it was not reflecting a tragedy.... |
But by acknowledging the stupid parents role in the death of their children is a step in the right direction. Perhaps you can come up with some test for intelligence that is universally acknowledged as fair, accurate and without cultural bias. Of course we will know it is a viable test when it confirms that you are a genius. As nonoise points out just listen. If you are not willing to listen and compare you have nothing to add or to say. Arguing from a total lack of experience is completely unscientific. |
Everything humans can hear can be measured. If not then psychoacoustics is a waste of time. If we can’t measure it then we sure as hell can’t study it. What do you think psychoacoustics is? Tarot card reading? Dr. Floyd Toole noted: Technical measurements are demonstrably precise, repeatable events. Hearing perception is not. Obviously, the perceived event is definitive – if it does not sound good, it isn’t good. The task is to correlate what we measure with what we perceive – This is psychoacoustics. This means that correlating measures when it is possible with hearing is essential BUT reducing hearing experience and concept to only a limited already known sets of measures, especially a limited sets imported from electrical design, that is FRAUDULENT and a negation of psychoacoustic science...Psychoacoustic and audio experience are not reducible to a small part of electrical design .... For example in creating the imaging experience and the listener envelopment experience electrical design measures are not the most important measures the important one are linked to the timing of the different wavefronts coming from the speakers.... All measures are not possible and dont all come from electrical design anyway....Sometimes the EARS are the most accurate measuring apparatus... Only ignorant will negate this fact.... Is it not very simple to understand? If not, quit posting about that.... Or go on and stick to the easy bashing of cables customers groups...And pay to be member of the skeptic sunday Jame Randi scientist club...They need members.... |
mitch2, I fail to see the disanalogy.
To be more specific, remember we are talking about what the listener BELIEVES he hears. So the conversation we are having concerns the line of thought you seem to be floating: "Ok, IF a product produces no actual change in a signal, or can't be demonstrated to do so, 'so what' so long as someone BELIEVES he hears a difference. That's all that matters, right?" So if someone's happy belief is all that matters, it doesn't matter on what that belief is based, deception or otherwise? That would imply that selling someone a fake diamond is just fine, so long as you can deceive them in to believing it's real. "Hey, they are happy giving me thousands of dollars, even though they could have bought the same thing for $40, because they think it's real. If they are happy what does it matter?" Is that really the logic you would endorse? Back to a diamond/cable analogy. A seller of gems has two cheap diamonds, exactly alike that he his showing "John" who is buying a ring for his soon to be fiance. The seller makes the claim that one is far more valuable, far more rare and harder to find, having come from deep in hard to reach mines, in an exotic country. Hence warranting the much higher price. He even uses influencing tactics "see how the more rare gem reflects light in a more beautiful manner?" which causes John to look at it differently "Yes, I think I see what you mean!" So John buys the second diamond, playing 3 times as much money having been led to believe false claims about how it is different from the cheaper gem, which was exactly the same. Does this deception strike you as just fine, so long as John remains ignorant of the truth? Do we just do away with the very notion of "scam?" Similarly, take a situation where a cable salesman demonstrates to John two cables, both of which are in fact the same in any materially/sonically relevant way. That is, there is zero performance difference, no change to the signal. BUT, the salesman gives a big impressive patter about the provenance of the much more expensive cable, justifying it's cost on the grounds it WILL change the signal in an audible way, and do so on the impressive sounding technical story given by the salesman. The salesman uses influential priming like "can you hear how the background seems darker? The highs smoother?" etc. John comes to believe he his hearing a difference that does not exist, and which has been made on false technical claims. He pays 4 times more for the expensive cable, deceived that he is getting a different, higher quality performance than the cheaper cable. As in the diamond example: Are you perfectly fine with this deception? So long as someone can be convinced by deception in to believing "it is different" that's all that matters? In the diamond example, wouldn't it be better if people had information as to the real nature of the diamonds, so they can at least make advised,informed choices? Sure, perhaps there will be those who say "look, ultimately I don't care whether there is a real difference, but so long as I BELIEVE or FEEL like one is more rare than the other, I'm happy to pay for that belief." But surely many others will not feel that way, and would want to be informed if there is an actual difference or not between the high priced and lower priced diamonds. Knowledge is power, right? Why would uninformed choices be better than informed choices? Having the information out there allows those who want to be informed to be informed, when deciding how to spend their money. Why should it be any different for audio gear? Some may say "I don't care about any objective verification that I'm getting better performance by spending much more money on a cable" but plenty of people DO care, so if we have the information available, the people who do care can use it, the people who don't can ignore it.
Neither do I begrudge how anyone spends his money. The point I see in this conversation has to do with the value of knowing the facts about what you are buying. For me: If it turns out a cable truly alters the sonic signal, that's great to know and gives me information on what I'm buying. If it turns out there's no evidence it alters the signal at all vs a cheaper cable, I still may enjoy buying the more expensive cable for various reasons (e.g. the way it looks, feels, or even for the fact I seem to perceive better sound from that cable, and am happy to avail myself of that effect, whether imaginary or not. But at least I'm able to make informed choices on what I'm actually getting for my money). Cheers! |
@prof This is not a rash conclusion. The article logically shows that the currently known methods cannot determine ALL the characteristics of sound in the way that a person perceives it, and most importantly - this will never be possible as long as audio engineers and acoustics are trying to make up music from its parts. @prof If we are talking about wires, then all these explanations are made either out of ignorance of the basics of audio engineering, or specifically for the technocratic majority, so as not to frighten the buyer with "mysticism and other anti-science". @prof If you could read Essien's article carefully, you would have understand that there are things in a musical signal that can be measured, and there are things that we can only perceive subjectively. Scientists initially failed to create a correct theory that would explain all the nuances of human perception. Therefore, a qualified amp engineer only measures distortion, Linearity, and power. He does this to make sure that he has a reliable "framework" for everything else that is more important. More important is what we can only determine by ear - the results of manipulations with wires and their directions, various materials, and other tricks familiar to audiophiles. These manipulations significantly affect the perception of music, but they do not affect the technical characteristics to the extent that they become noticeable by ear and it would make sense to measure them By the way, you came up with the last phrase in a fit of emotion. Personally, I am not against measurements when it comes to power frequency, noise and other technical things. I'm just saying that not everything can be measured. This is the same thing that follows from the Essien article. @prof No. When discussing the sound of cables, we can only talk about entangible changes in the sound, here we mean the coloration: “…the accentuation (or darkening) of certain frequency regions of the sound range, which is marked by our perception”.. The distortion of the electrical signal in the cable is so small that no person is able to catch them. You seem to understand the basics of electricity. I have a counter question - can you calculate how much the signal level in the acoustic cable should be changed so that an ordinary person can hear the difference, if it is known that a person is able to determine the difference in the volume change of at least 1 dB (psychoacoustics data), the output voltage of the amplifier =10 volts, and the speaker resistance =4 ohms? |
@prof Measurements have their place. They are where the journey begins, not where it ends. I am not a manufacturer of audio gear, I am a consumer. I have an audience of one. A unique and highly specific audience. Me. If I hear something I like, I don’t care what causes it. As I am the beginning, middle, and end of my listening experience, the reason why it works or doesn’t is irrelevant. If I were a manufacturer, then those numbers may be of interest to some. Curious, two capacitors, different manufacturers with identical measurements will not have the same sonic signature. Two tubes, different manufacturers with the same measurements will not have the same sonic signature. It is not difficult to find two uniquely different amplifiers that have the same measurements, and yet sound vastly different. Measurements. What measurements? What standards? History is full of examples of scientists who theorized a particular reason for a phenomenon. Then they sought to prove their thesis. In the margins of their notes, you can see how they modify their calculus in order to have the equation validate their thesis. Measurements and the scientific method. I have no problem with measurements. But like I said, they are where the journey begins. And what do the measurements mean sonically in my system? This hobby is one small part of what I do with my time. More so during the last year as CV19 has shut down my day job. Have you ever designed and built a speaker? Listened to how the volume of the enclosure, the size and length of the port, the crossover design, crossover point, damping and stuffing effect the sound? There are all kinds of equations to aide in this process. In the past year, I have built some 2 dozen unique speakers. A purely creative and exploratory process. Doing, and listening. No preconceived notions of what should generate a better result. Just listening. A handful of stuffing behind the driver in a 300ltr enclosure, will effect the sound quality. There is no measurements that will predict those nuanced effects and if I will like or dislike the sonic effect. I need to hear it to know if I like it. Do any of Stereophiles measurements tell you how the gear will sound? |
Prof is just using sophistry to further his trolling, having what he thinks is fun. He’s never been successful at it but one has to give him credit for perseverance. Ever notice how most of his discussions are off in the weeds and straw man arguments, which he accuses others of? Then he gets way too semantical and turns phrases and wordings on their heads. Must have been a hot shot back on the debating team. All the best, Nonoise |
Some people think that intelligence can be measured... There is some correlation yes between some measuring test and some aspect of intelligence but we CANNOT measure intelligence...It is the same thing in psychoacoustic...But simple mind cannot even fathom the essential questions in psychoacoustic they think that all is solved and exposed in a book or 2 about some aspect of engineering.... Then why not cables effects, and all audible experience...All reduced to measures... A.I. tomorrow will give them some kind of "proof"... What i just said is anyway false, tomorrow is already today for the technocratic cult....The idolatry of technology is the opposite of science... I am retired and i speak too much here ......But i like to partake my audio experience.... |
04-15-2021 3:09pmOh yeah children choking to death because their parents are dumber than rocks is freaking hilarious. I heard a comedian on the radio.... Guess the state is required to keep kids safe from their idiotic parents. Especially from those dangerous chocolate eggs. Assault rifles are AOK however. Parents who don’t/can’t monitor properly. Easier to have children than it is to get a drivers license. And we all see how great drivers are... |
perkri, If I hear something I like, I don’t care what causes it. Ok, perfectly fine. But why begrudge that it may be of interest to someone else who cares? That’s what seems to happen whenever someone starts asking about certain types of evidence around here. We don’t get simply "Well, I personally don’t care about objective verification, but that's fine if you do" but rather we get scorn dumped on us for caring, for even bringing it up, for caring about such evidence and why, and we get insulted and painted as muckrakers. Can we perhaps stop this and understand audiophiles have different interests, criteria and approaches and that’s ok? As I am the beginning, middle, and end of my listening experience, the reason why it works or doesn’t is irrelevant. Ok, so you have put your scientific curiosity aside. Again, a fine personal choice, but we shouldn’t therefore pretend that those careful empirical methods, and the knowledge built by those methods, have no say in the realm of audio, as if audio is in it’s own epistemic bubble from the rest of empirical reality and pure subjectivity gets us the right answers.
Which is begging the question. Again...what is the demonstration for this claim? That people believed they heard a difference between such amplifiers? That goes right back to the question of bias and variables. That you don’t care to be careful in that regard doesn’t mean others aren’t justified in noting the problems in such accounts, when trying to understand the facts.
Perhaps that’s because you aren’t terribly concerned with measurements, as your post indicates, and so haven’t been rigorous about correlating the measurements to what you are hearing. Maybe if you got a little more rigorous, you’d find out that X amount of stuffing changed Y measurement correlating to what you hear. So why would I take the word of someone who says "measurements don’t predict this" from someone who doesn’t seem all that interested in measurements or "why it happens?" Do any of Stereophiles measurements tell you how the gear will sound? The measurements often tell me at least something about the sound of a product, especially speakers, and often enough correlate to what I myself heard in that product. Does it tell me *precisely* in all ways how the speaker sounds? No. But it often does correlate with some relevant characteristics. Same with the Soundstage measurements. (For instance the measurements of the PMC speakers not long ago in Stereophile correlated very well with Kal Rubinson’s impressions of the speaker’s particular lack of warmth, and my own when I listened to that speaker). It would be absolutely bizarre if measurements could not be correlated to predicting to some degree how something sounds. It would make my job as a sound designer literally impossible. All day long I’m using EQ and effects which have been designed on the knowledge of what to measurably, technically change in a sound file to achieve X type of sound! That goes for "spaciousness" "warmth" " clarity" "dullness" "punch" "soundstaging" "imaging" you name it! We are manipulating it all day long BECAUSE people have correlated these things to measurements, and thus create a great variety of modules and plug-ins that we work with to predictably manipulated sound character. |
The problem with Kinder Eggs is that current USA variation is missing the point. It does not have yellow in the middle. No yolk, no egg. I am heartbroken. Also, for whatever reason, toys in USA version are never as sophisticated as some of the European ones. "...useless pebbles wrapped around a child’s neck." Kinder Eggs are potential risk with probably very low complication rate. The real deal is in those little and very strong magnets, some shaped like small little balls, and even more so in button cell batteries. Kids love them. For certain crowd, add toothbrushes too. |
And the best way to save children from their stupid parents will be a dismantling of the traditional family unit! All for the sake of such a small number of victims whose parents were born that way (stupid) so the fault isnt really with them but with the system. Right? My sons survived pebbles, kinder eggs, assault rifles and we have had no accidents yet after 2 years playing with IEDs. God Bless America! |
My sons survived pebbles, kinder eggs, assault rifles and we have had no accidents yet after 2 years playing with IEDs. God Bless America! Cool. I know guys who survived speeding through crowded neighborhoods and driving drunk. No accidents. So I guess that stuff is ok and doesn't really pose a danger. |
If we are bragging, I used to buy smuggled Kinder Eggs and have, so far, survived them. I also survived assault rifles and a minefield. I Will Survive - Gloria Gaynor (1978) - YouTube For some time, at least. |
The video has been pulled. Darn, I wanted to see it. At the 2018 AXPONA Ted had a room set up with his stuff using Magico speakers. He demoed a song with his HFT thingies and his small bass boxes and then removed them. I couldn't hear a difference regarding the HFTs but I did think I could hear a small difference with the little bass cubes. Then he shut off the Atmosphere thing in the middle and WHOA! The soundstage collapsed and the entire presentation went flat and dry. I looked around the room and everyone I could see looked shocked. It was not a subtle difference. I am a skeptic about tweaks but this was unmistakable. I could easily hear a difference. I don't know what the Atmosphere does but it does something. I can't make heads or tails regarding the explanation on his website but I really want to hear that thing again. |
At the 2018 AXPONA Ted had a room set up with his stuff using Magico speakers. He demoed a song with his HFT thingies and his small bass boxes and then removed them. I couldn't hear a difference regarding the HFTs but I did think I could hear a small difference with the little bass cubes. Then he shut off the Atmosphere thing in the middle and WHOA! The soundstage collapsed and the entire presentation went flat and dry. I looked around the room and everyone I could see looked shocked. It was not a subtle difference. I am a skeptic about tweaks but this was unmistakable. I could easily hear a difference. All his stuff is like that. Some more dramatic than others. But all works beautifully. However, just as we aren't able to prove with measurement everything we are able to hear, so also we are not all experienced or skilled at recognizing every aspect of the music that we hear. Not playing word games, but words are involved. There is a very real debate as to whether we hear first, or have the words first, or if these two seemingly unrelated things somehow happen together. But when you think about it- music. What is the difference between music and any other sound? We joke about it with music we don't like, rap or whatever, and say, "That's not music." But seriously, where does this idea come from, that certain patterns of pressure waves are music while others are not? It is very common for people to take things for granted, then use these assumptions to leap to others. The scientists did this years ago with MP3. They tested and measured and found "masking" and other supposed phenomena meant we can compress files down to a fraction, throwing away huge chunks of data, because measurement PROVES people cannot hear it. We laugh at this today, because today we all can hear it. Probably pretty much everyone could hear it even back then. Although I remember well the mockery I got for saying this, so maybe not. Anyway, point is that even though we do indeed "hear" everything, in the sense of the sound volume is loud enough to register, there are large chunks of what we "hear" that we do not have words for, therefore we do not recognize them, and so in a very fundamental way we do not hear them at all- in the sense that we recognize the patterns for what they are. This higher level hearing is what we call listening. There is a vast difference between having good hearing and being a good listener. Hearing we can test with tones and meters. Listening we test with things like HFT and Atmosphere. When you get to the point where you are able to hear all these things, then you will know. These abilities do not just happen. Sometimes might take quite a while and a good deal of effort to get there. When you do though then everything I just said will be crystal clear. Until then, go and listen. You will see. |
@prof Unless you have proof of fraud, you are left with overstated marketing hype. How are you going to prove anything when there are so many happy customers and impressed professional reviewers? Why even argue about it? Let them hear what they hear, believe what they believe, and be happy with their cables and tweaks. If you don't believe the SR claims, don't buy the products. Why have a dog in the fight? |
Hi Mitch, As if it isn’t clear enough: I’m not accusing anyone or any company of "fraud." You brought up the subject of "IF <--- note the "If" - a company sold a product that doesn’t do what it claims, but some people believe it and pay for it, what’s the harm?" I was curious how the logic of your take on that has implications in other consumer areas. But I guess you don’t want to play that out to see the implications. As I have said a billion times here: I’m fully supportive of anyone buying whatever they want for whatever reason! If someone doesn’t give a damn about objective verification, tries a product, "hears" something that makes him happy and he wants to pay for it...GREAT for that person! Nobody should be forced in to any particular method of buying gear. Follow your bliss. So you seem to have made some incorrect inference about my attitude. All I’m saying is: what’s wrong with anyone testing a product using objective data, relevant to the claims made for the product? As I said, isn’t the more information we have for a product the better, given the wide range of approaches many audiophiles bring to the hobby? If you don’t care about certain objective data, don’t bother with it. If you do, then it’s nice to have it available. As for SR’s products: Anyone who likes the products and buys them on their own subjective impressions, enjoy! Personally I’d prefer to see some of the claims objectively verified by another technically competent party, before I would be ready to buy such things. Which is why I’d like to see Gene take up SR’s offer. That would be fun and possibly very interesting. And like I said, I would actually like it if SR’s products had some objective verification. That would be cool, and it would increase my own interest in the products...who knows maybe even purchasing one of them. But, again, that’s my personal criteria for certain products, and I begrudge no one who takes a different approach. (I’m not going to insult people as "clowns" etc as I have received from others on this thread. I respect anyone’s right to practice the hobby in the way they enjoy). Cheers! (I think I’m outta this thread. If Gene measures the stuff I’m sure there will be another thread on the outcome). |
