What is wrong with Audiophiles?
thyname,
I saw your amplifier, at least one that to me looks exactly like yours, at a recent show. Its looks exude confidence, for sure. How often do you, in real life, have to use the screen on the front? It looks like it would attract fingerprints like crazy. Otherwise, very nice. |
atdavid I am not trying to sell anything Cleeds. I am not making exceptional claims Cleeds ...No matter. This remains a hobbyist’s group, where no one is obligated to conduct listening tests or scientific research to suit your sensibilities. If that’s what you seek - and it appears that you do, because you keep repeating your preference for such testing - then perhaps you are in the wrong forum. Of course, you can conduct your own testing, and then report your results here. But for some reason, you exempt yourself from the requirement you impose on others. |
So what is your purpose in life @atdavid ? Just to correct your friends? I have only seen negative comments from you in here.... this is crap, snake oil, placebo, does not do anything, and so on. Which is great, you are saving the phools their money. But what do you suggest instead? What is your own system? |
| Post removed |
I am not trying to sell anything Cleeds. I am not making exceptional claims Cleeds. However, I have probably lost track of the number of times audiophile "friends" have made such claims, but when they let me switch things without knowing what was switched, suddenly their super-human hearing claims disappear. Unlike the clique on here with their "everything matters" mantra, I am very careful about the types of products I call out .... you would also think I have some experience with these things .... |
atdavid It is not just that there is no reasonable evidence that this expensive cable provides an improvement (or change), it is that there is little to nothing that passes for evidence for any high end cable. Such an easy test to do ...If the testing is so-ooo easy to do, why don’t you conduct the tests and report the results? Please be sure to describe the test protocols. Of course, the truth is that conducting a scientifically valid, double blind listening test is not so easy in practice. And because this is a hobbyist’s group, it’s not our job to conduct such testing for your benefit. |
glupson2,936 posts11-18-2019 6:39pm "The color black doesn’t absorb infrared light anyway."Where does infrared light get stored after being absorbed by whatever color that absorbs it? >>>>I’m still thinking about the question. 🤔 |
Cables can induce such hatred. "Don't hate me because I am a cable lols". I used to work with a guy who graduated from CalTech who was one of the smartest engineer I knew. He told me his brother was an avid audiophile. They used to have an argument that cables don't make any difference. The CalTech engineer was so adamant that speaker cables don't make any difference and came up with all sort of theories trying to explain why cables should not make any difference. Yeah ... some people trying to use logic to explain why some people would pay for a $70K cables. Don't they know better? Give me that test. I'll prove you wrong America. |
The $70,000 cable performs much better at inducing a placebo effect in the listener. Then the insecure audiophile can rest easy knowing he has done all that he can,, until next year when they release the $80,000 cable! That’s how the dealerships get you, you need to spend 20% of your system cost on cables… What a load of who Ha! |
| Post removed |
atdavid I don’t mean "audiophilia" evidence, I mean evidence that would show up under any level of scrutiny .... i.e. some blind testing. I don’t care if you keep in the system 30 second, 30 minutes, or 30 days ...1 ... just one test that can pass for anything that would be considered "evidence" in a normal world that that $70,000 cable can perform noticeably better than one that costs 1/10 or even 1/100th the price. Here is the thing .... you won’t be able to provide it. You will provide all sorts of ad-hoc evidence, specious claims, etc. but not one real "test". Not one. So you can use all the superlatives, and adjectives, and flowery language that you want, but it does not make you right as you won’t be able to provide proper test results. That is not my issue, that is yours. >>>>Geez Louise, talk about having your mind already made up. That is eerily similar to the standard Cargo Cult challenge, “It won’t pass a controlled double blind test!” |
I don't mean "audiophilia" evidence, I mean evidence that would show up under any level of scrutiny .... i.e. some blind testing. I don't care if you keep in the system 30 second, 30 minutes, or 30 days ...1 ... just one test that can pass for anything that would be considered "evidence" in a normal world that that $70,000 cable can perform noticeably better than one that costs 1/10 or even 1/100th the price. Here is the thing .... you won't be able to provide it. You will provide all sorts of ad-hoc evidence, specious claims, etc. but not one real "test". Not one. So you can use all the superlatives, and adjectives, and flowery language that you want, but it does not make you right as you won't be able to provide proper test results. That is not my issue, that is yours. clearthink971 posts11-18-2019 1:32pm |
From the movie Patton, there is a scene in which Patton and the Morocco president on the stands watching the marching of Morocco military men wearing beautiful uniforms. Patton turned to the Morocco president and said something to the following "It's beautiful. A perfect combination of military and Hollywood." |
Rolex keeps better time than someone else's $50 atomic clock linked Casio, then don't be surprised when someone calls you out on it.Don't put words in my mouth lols, I never said anything about the Rolex lols. Already you failed in your first attempt. With the $70K audio cable, there is no verified evidence that it provides superior audio, and hence most of the price is "jewellery"I could think of a few things ... I'll roll it up like a pretty little necklace and wear it on my neck to show it off lols. And maybe go to a wedding with it lols. $400K on a Ferrari, or $1.9mil on a BugattiActually that's $19mil Bugatti, not $1.9mil :-) Extra zero's make me horny. Your list really got in my way lols. |
atdavid"With the $70K audio cable, there is no verified evidence that it provides superior audio, and hence most of the price is "jewellery". This is one of the grandest, boldest, most illogical arguments ever made in this esteemed audio forum. Having already claimed "there is no verified evidence," our contributor then feels entitled, justified, and safe is pronouncing one of his Special Conclusions: " Most of the price is jewelry." Nonsense! There is actually substantial, significant, abundant, evidence regarding the performance and sonic characteristics of this cable but it’s not the type of evidence atdavid can grasp or digest his style is to assess all evidence unilaterally, e.g. "This evidence here is repeatable and verifiable; that evidence over there is unscientific" so of course he alone decides what is "valid" and what is not. Of course nothing stops atdavid from collecting, assessing, and analyzing his own evidence and then presenting it to the forum for review, and discussion but if he were to do aactually do that then his position hear as a Determiner of Truth would be lessened and diminished! Repeatable! Verifiable! Testable! This is his refrain and all he’ll say if you don’t meet his demands or requirements is something like "Oh it’s fine if you want to waste you’re money just don’t make claims about how it sounds unless you want me to attempt one of my public humiliations against you here!" |
Let's be real for a moment. $70K cables exist for the sole purpose of providing something to buy for a person looking to drop $70K on a product that cannot be optimized in any way, shape, or form beyond a price point of a few thousand. E.g. top-of-the-line Audioquest, top-of-the-line Inakustik. And BEWARE gk's Melanesian ploys. |
I understand your attempted analogy, but the $400K Ford GT has some verifiable, significant and usable differences compared to the Fiesta. At issue is whether the $70K audio cable provides any audible difference compared to a much less expensive cable, in any audio system, even a $1million dollar system. While an aspect of the $400K is "jewellery", the most significant aspect of it is not. With the $70K audio cable, there is no verified evidence that it provides superior audio, and hence most of the price is "jewellery". There is little evidence it advances the state of the art or that there is trickle down effect in technology. If you are someone who likes audio jewellery, AND you won $70mil, sure you may be tempted to spend $70K on a cable. If you are someone who is focused just on the quality of sound above all else, then I doubt you would be tempted. Contrary to what many on here claim, I don't see a whole lot of envy of someone able to spend $70K on a cable, no more than I see envy that results in insults for someone spending $400K on a Ferrari, or $1.9mil on a Bugatti. Heck, you don't see much of that at all on someone spending $20K+ on a Rolex either .... but if you start to claim that your $20K+ Rolex keeps better time than someone else's $50 atomic clock linked Casio, then don't be surprised when someone calls you out on it. andy2750 posts11-18-2019 12:31pmI understand where OP is coming from. But from another perspective, there are a lot of people with a lot of money. For those who are driving Toyota Corolla, they probably have the same feeling toward those who are buying a $19 million dollar Bugatti Chiron or even a $350K Ferrari. |
That was a great list ... have some more things to add to it. Sound familiar?
|
The trouble with the OP’s rant is he folds those who use Green Markers in with those who use or might cover $70,000 cables. He’s obviously just another disgruntled tweakaphobe and anti-audiophile. Is it just me or is it getting crazier out there? Besides, at the shows everything is acceptable. The cable manufacturers are invited to the show, nobody has to pay for $70,000 cables. Hel-loo! |
I understand where OP is coming from. But from another perspective, there are a lot of people with a lot of money. For those who are driving Toyota Corolla, they probably have the same feeling toward those who are buying a $19 million dollar
Bugatti Chiron
or even a $350K Ferrari. I on the other hand appreciate those who willing to do the research to make a $70K cables. It's the human spirits we should celebrate. It's what advances the human race. It's like Ford selling a $18 thousand dollar Fiesta but also at the same time selling a $400 thousand dollar Ford GT. I am sure the company selling the $70K cables also selling some low end cables that people can afford at 800 dollar. Imagine this. What would you do if you won a $70Million dollar lottery? I am willing to bet you may be tempted to get the $70K cables ... or at least some very high end cables you never thought you would buy because of the cost. There are a lot of millionaires in the world and I want them to buy as many $70K cables as possible. The profits will be used to make better lower end cables that will benefit those audiophiles with modest spending power. |
| Post removed |
Here is a simple challenge for you geoff ... Go find a spectrum for the laser diode in a CD ... should be easy. Now look at that spectrum. There is not visible red in the spectrum of the laser, and yes, that cheap laser diode, like all laser diodes are pretty much monochromatic unless designed otherwise. It is not a super sharp wavelength single mode, but even a dirt cheap multi-mode is monochromatic. There may be leakage in the 700-720nm, but it is almost none and would required a dark room to see. Many transports added a red diode inside the assembly to give people comfort "something" was happening. Since the optical detector is focused on the spot, minor stray light is not much of an issue. Look at the second half of this video and how hard it is for the person to even detect the CD laser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df70YVAg-iI Many green inks will absorb 780nm. That proves nothing at all except that people who promote things like using green ink (as opposed to some other color) don’t understand much about absorption spectrum of dies and inks. Let’s not forget the optics are also focused, so most scattered light is rejected. And you are wrong, almost all black inks will absorb 780nm. Again easily proven, just look up absorption spectrums of black inks and dyes. The "color-wheel" only tells you what happens when the light is visible. It tells you nothing about what happens to light on a colored substance when you use non-visible light. You are guessing at what happens and guessing wrong. All the ad-hominems in the world will not change that You Are Wrong. You keep slinging ad-hominems, I will keep slinging verifiable facts. Let’s see who most people believe. |
You are incorrect. The CD laser actually appears red 🚨 to the naked eye 👁 as a safety feature. So, obviously there must be RED light in the laser spectrum. Which means, now follow me here, the wavelength of the laser spectrum must be well below 700 which is where visible red starts. Thus, it’s reasonable to conclude the lower portion of the CD laser bandwidth extends down to 650 nm. That’s why I say the laser bandwidth is around 650-850 nm. And that is also why I say most of the scattered light is invisible. The cheap little laser and photodetector are not monochromatic, all of which fits perfectly into the proposition I stated. The other obvious reason we know there is visible red in the scattered laser light is because the color green or turquoise (cyan) absorbs the color red, and that’s why a green marker around the outer edge improves the sound and why coloring the CD tray turquoise improves the sound. It absorbs red light. The color wheel applies to visible 👀 light only. As I said BLACK anywhere on the CD hurts the sound. It can be easily demonstrated experimentally. But don’t let me stop you, I always enjoy hearing from Cargo Cultists to see what kind of ridiculous things they come up with. 🤗 |
1) The semiconductor laser used in CD players has a nominal wavelength that varies about +/- 10nm, i.e. it could be between 770-790nm, however, the bandwidth is very narrow, and will be down >40db within 5nm of the nominal wavelength, and typically within 2-3nm. So that CD laser diode output is worst case about 765-795. There will be no, almost no visible light in a 780nm laser diode. 2) Saying "colors" only affect light in the visible spectrum or that "black" does not absorb infrared light is also incorrect. Ink color indicates what colors in the visible spectrum is reflected (black poorly reflects everything) or not absorbed. It does not indicate what happens in the near-IR (780nm). You can’t say carte-blanche what will happen in the near infrared. Most black inks absorb Very Well in the near infrared (780nm). For green, it would be more variable. geoffkait18,317 posts11-18-2019 5:38amBoxer, black should never (rpt never) be used on CDs except for the inner edge. The color black on the outer edge hurts the sound. The color black doesn’t absorb infrared light anyway. Also, the color black should not be used for the label side where it also hurts the sound. Unfortunately, some CDs have a black label. And the colors used in the graphics of CD labels affect the sound because they influence the scattered light. The color Black should always be used for the inner edge. As fate would have it no colors, including black, can affect the invisible infrared scattered light which, as I mentioned is 75% of the scattered laser light. The bandwidth of the CD laser is around 650-850 nm. Nominal wavelength 780 nm. Colors only affect light in the visible portion of the spectrum. A color’s complementary color absorbs that color. So, Turquoise (Cyan) absorbs Red, for example. |
Not sure I agree with your detective work, Teo. for one thing Red Book CD Standard was developed by Philips AND SONY. It became the International standard for CDs in 1987. Standard[edit] The Red Book specifies the physical parameters and properties of the CD, the optical "stylus" parameters, deviations and error rate, modulation system (eight-to-fourteen modulation, EFM) and error correction facility (cross-interleaved Reed–Solomon coding, CIRC), and the eight subcode channels. These parameters are common to all compact discs and used by all logical formats, such as CD-ROM. The standard also specifies the form of digital audio encoding: 2-channel signed 16-bit Linear PCM sampled at 44,100 Hz. Although rarely used, the specification allows for discs to be mastered with a form of emphasis. The first edition of the Red Book was released in 1980 by Philips and Sony;[1][2] it was adopted by the Digital Audio Disc Committee and ratified by the International Electrotechnical Commission Technical Committee 100, as an International Standard in 1987 with the reference IEC 60908.[3] The second edition of IEC 60908 was published in 1999[4] and it cancels and replaces the first edition, amendment 1 (1992) and the corrigendum to amendment 1. The IEC 60908 however does not contain all the information for extensions that is available in the Red Book, such as the details for CD-Text, CD+G and CD+EG.[5][6] Enter your text ... |
FYI, for most folks, is that in the original Philips CD player design..which was the basis for all digital signal reproduction of audio signals in the environment of home playback ..for almost two decades....that the clock and timing is recovered from the optical reading of the disc. So, in effect, the optical read quality combined with the mechanical perfection of spin, combined with the quality of the disc itself, in build, disc plastic, labels, optics, etc...becomes, at a minimum... the digital clock jitter itself. Which in turn, affects the signal reconstruction and becomes the sound quality that we hear and heard. So, in original non buffered design in cd players (early 80’s to the late 90’s) and associated dacs..the quality of the discs and playback..and all of the hardware, becomes the quality of the music you hear. Bits are not bits in this case, due to the way the hardware/software worked. And that is how green markers made a difference for such systems. And how mechanical isolation, disc mats, etc..all contributed to making for better digital audio. As a legacy system, and how discs are read now, some of that still has an effect in physical disc read, in some systems. |
Boxer, black should never (rpt never) be used on CDs except for the inner edge. The color black on the outer edge hurts the sound. The color black doesn’t absorb infrared light anyway. Also, the color black should not be used for the label side where it also hurts the sound. Unfortunately, some CDs have a black label. And the colors used in the graphics of CD labels affect the sound because they influence the scattered light. The color Black should always be used for the inner edge. As fate would have it no colors, including black, can affect the invisible infrared scattered light which, as I mentioned is 75% of the scattered laser light. The bandwidth of the CD laser is around 650-850 nm. Nominal wavelength 780 nm. Colors only affect light in the visible portion of the spectrum. A color’s complementary color absorbs that color. So, Turquoise (Cyan) absorbs Red, for example. So what be done? As it turns out I used to have a product up until the beginning of the year called DARK MATTER a CD label spray that absorbs invisible infrared scattered light. Then, Dark Matter in conjunction with Green/Turquoise marker for the outer CD edge and my Codename Turquoise masking for the CD tray surface provided a very effective means of reducing scattered laser light. Earlier this year I introduced New Dark Matter that replaced (1) Dark Matter, (2) coloring the CD and (3) covering the CD tray. NOTE: I still use the color BLACK on the inner edge since that particular application of black is not related to light absorption. New Dark Matter is a set of ultra thin plastic squares that are attached to the upper portion of the CD tray using ultra thin double-sided adhesive squares. Thus NDM is exposed to the scattered laser light during play. Since NDM absorbs light of ALL wavelengths it absorbs the infrared as well as the visible scattered light. NDM can be used for SACD, DVD and Blu Ray discs since it absorbs scattered light of all wavelengths. |
True. And in a scientific study conducted from Audio Science Forums recently, 56.67% of the current prison population for sentences related to robbery of gas stations and Seven Eleven stores, identified themselves as audiophiles having spent all their money on cables. Further, it was confirmed that study was conducted blind, in a controlled ABX environment spanning a statistically meaningful sample of the US prison population |
