|
|
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:18:22 -0800, Andy Evans wrote:
For that reason it's much more important to have academic qualifications and memberships of professional bodies. You can't argue with those. Yeah, right. I suppose there are no charlatans with qualifications or memberships of professional bodies, hmm? |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:53:08 +0000, Nick Gorham wrote:
Andy Evans wrote: Apart from in Medicine, "consultant" is pretty meaningless since it has been hijacked by anyone with any qualifications who sets up in business as a person people should ask advice from. There's no guarantee of status or even competence - strictly caveat emptor. For that reason it's much more important to have academic qualifications and memberships of professional bodies. You can't argue with those. Again, you clearly don't work in IT Andy :-) By the time someone has obtained an IT qualification, it's already out of date. IT, especially the fault finding end, is all about aptitude and experience, and being more than slightly mad. ;-) |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
On 20 Dec, 16:21, "Serge Auckland"
wrote: "borosteve" wrote in message ... Why is it that most of the contributors to this group seem to be some sort of anti- hifi sound quality brigade who seem to think that all cd players sound the same and that measurements and specs of components are king? Have we reverted back to the 1970's when all you had to worry about was how many watts your speakers could handle? Come on guy's if you really don't like quality sound *give it a rest and talk about something else on another group! Maybe there's a group about saddo's who just post controvertial stuff to annoy everyone? Maybe their's a group about nerds who just like to see their own posts on a screen!! Borosteve. Speaking only for myself, I am most definitely *not* anti hifi sound, but anti the non-scientific and engineering based opinions which, when analysed objectively, i.e. using measurements, do not prove what is being alleged. For many years (even before the '70s) audio engineering professionals were aware of the limits of perception of human hearing, and that, provided the equipment measured below that threshold, then any reduction in distortions, noise, frequency response errors etc. would not be perceived. For amplifiers we reached those figures many many years ago, consequently, until we started seeing designs which deliberately introduce audible distortions, the only difference between amplifiers was one of loudness, subject of course to the amplifier being used within it's design parameters for level and load impedance. So, what's the point of discussing amplifier sound? When CD was launched, it *was* *"pure, perfect sound forever", compared with the limitations of vinyl, cassettes and FM radio. There was certainly a question about the quality of the first CDs, some of which were made from equalised and compressed disk-cutting masters out of ignorance of the new medium, but that is a separate issue. *D-A conversion did improve from the first 14bit x 4 oversampling, but we have had 24 bit 96k or better converters for years now, so CD playback quality would be pretty much a dead issue, if it wasn't for CD production now having gone silly with over-levels, clipping etc. It seems that CD players can sound different in their handling of these over-levels, and *that is an interesting area for study, but it needs instrumentation and measurements, not subjective opinions if we're ever to characterise and understand fully the processes involved. In my view, the valid subjects for discussions of sound quality are loudspeakers, which are still far behind complete transparancy, vinyl reproduction, which will never be transparent, and data-reduced digital formats which *can* be transparent, but seldom are. Measurements give a repeatable, verifiable indication of performance. Double-blind controlled listening tests can highlight differences which may have escaped measurement, but note that *everything* can be measured. If something is audible, then it is measurable. It may be difficult to measure, and perhaps new instruments have to be invented. As a case in point, measurements of data-reduced formats could not be done with the conventional analogue-based equipments, so new analysers had to be invented. The converse, that everything measurable is audible is *not* true as there are clearly understood thresholds of hearing. So, when someone posts a purely subjective view of what something sound like, you can expect those of us with a more engineering-based view of audio to comment. Otherwise, people might go on believing that cables sound different..... S. --http://audiopages.googlepages.com but cables do sound different.. |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
On 21 Dec, 03:32, Eeyore
wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: borosteve wrote: Why is it that most of the contributors to this group seem to be some sort of anti- hifi sound quality brigade who seem to think that all cd players sound the same and that measurements and specs of components are king? Have we reverted back to the 1970's when all you had to worry about was how many watts your speakers could handle? Come on guy's if you really don't like quality sound *give it a rest and talk about something else on another group! Maybe there's a group about saddo's who just post controvertial stuff to annoy everyone? Maybe their's a group about nerds who just like to see their own posts on a screen!! Well, we could talk about the misuse of the apostrophe, for a start. Pluralisation by apostrophe ! Often called the greengrocer's apostrophe. Seen recently in a pub *(honestly) .... " Fish and Chip's ". http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian....ostGrocers.htm Graham If I want a lesson in ****ing gramma and spelling I'll ask for one ok **** head!! |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
On 21 Dec, 09:23, "David Looser" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... Reviewers who talk of differences in pace, rhythym, speed, darkness and the like are simply blowing nonsense out of their backsides. If the they found no differences, they'd be out of a job, so they make them up and call them non-scientific names and claim they can't be measured so as to ensure their next pay check. Charlatans, the lot of them. Agreed 100%. I remember the first time I met this sort of thing in a review, it was for the original Linn Sondeck turntable. After describing the "sound" of this turntable in the sort of overblown language previously only seen from wine reviewers, the reviewer went on to claim that *any* system using this turntable would sound better than any other system that didn't. So all the deficiencies of a cheap arm, cartridge, amp or speakers apparently mattered less than the supposed inferiority of all other turntables. That was the day I stopped buying Hi-Fi magazines. David. Oh dear someone's spelt Sondek wrong, ooohh!!! |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
"borosteve" wrote in message
... On 20 Dec, 16:21, "Serge Auckland" wrote: "borosteve" wrote in message ... Why is it that most of the contributors to this group seem to be some sort of anti- hifi sound quality brigade who seem to think that all cd players sound the same and that measurements and specs of components are king? Have we reverted back to the 1970's when all you had to worry about was how many watts your speakers could handle? Come on guy's if you really don't like quality sound give it a rest and talk about something else on another group! Maybe there's a group about saddo's who just post controvertial stuff to annoy everyone? Maybe their's a group about nerds who just like to see their own posts on a screen!! Borosteve. Speaking only for myself, I am most definitely *not* anti hifi sound, but anti the non-scientific and engineering based opinions which, when analysed objectively, i.e. using measurements, do not prove what is being alleged. For many years (even before the '70s) audio engineering professionals were aware of the limits of perception of human hearing, and that, provided the equipment measured below that threshold, then any reduction in distortions, noise, frequency response errors etc. would not be perceived. For amplifiers we reached those figures many many years ago, consequently, until we started seeing designs which deliberately introduce audible distortions, the only difference between amplifiers was one of loudness, subject of course to the amplifier being used within it's design parameters for level and load impedance. So, what's the point of discussing amplifier sound? When CD was launched, it *was* "pure, perfect sound forever", compared with the limitations of vinyl, cassettes and FM radio. There was certainly a question about the quality of the first CDs, some of which were made from equalised and compressed disk-cutting masters out of ignorance of the new medium, but that is a separate issue. D-A conversion did improve from the first 14bit x 4 oversampling, but we have had 24 bit 96k or better converters for years now, so CD playback quality would be pretty much a dead issue, if it wasn't for CD production now having gone silly with over-levels, clipping etc. It seems that CD players can sound different in their handling of these over-levels, and that is an interesting area for study, but it needs instrumentation and measurements, not subjective opinions if we're ever to characterise and understand fully the processes involved. In my view, the valid subjects for discussions of sound quality are loudspeakers, which are still far behind complete transparancy, vinyl reproduction, which will never be transparent, and data-reduced digital formats which *can* be transparent, but seldom are. Measurements give a repeatable, verifiable indication of performance. Double-blind controlled listening tests can highlight differences which may have escaped measurement, but note that *everything* can be measured. If something is audible, then it is measurable. It may be difficult to measure, and perhaps new instruments have to be invented. As a case in point, measurements of data-reduced formats could not be done with the conventional analogue-based equipments, so new analysers had to be invented. The converse, that everything measurable is audible is *not* true as there are clearly understood thresholds of hearing. So, when someone posts a purely subjective view of what something sound like, you can expect those of us with a more engineering-based view of audio to comment. Otherwise, people might go on believing that cables sound different..... S. --http://audiopages.googlepages.com but cables do sound different.. Don't be silly..... S. -- http://audiopages.googlepages.com |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
On Dec 23, 7:53�pm, Nick Gorham wrote:
Andy Evans wrote: Apart from in Medicine, "consultant" is pretty meaningless since it has been hijacked by anyone with any qualifications who sets up in business as a person people should ask advice from. There's no guarantee of status or even competence - strictly caveat emptor. For that reason it's much more important to have academic qualifications and memberships of professional bodies. You can't argue with those. Again, you clearly don't work in IT Andy :-) -- Nick Well, I used to be a jazz musician - so IT is just like that! |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
Silk wrote: Andy Evans wrote: For that reason it's much more important to have academic qualifications and memberships of professional bodies. You can't argue with those. Yeah, right. I suppose there are no charlatans with qualifications or memberships of professional bodies, hmm? Muses and thinks of recent examples of a certain doctor causing innocent people to get jailed. Graham |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
borosteve wrote: "Serge Auckland" wrote: So, when someone posts a purely subjective view of what something sound like, you can expect those of us with a more engineering-based view of audio to comment. Otherwise, people might go on believing that cables sound different..... S. --http://audiopages.googlepages.com but cables do sound different.. Speaker cable DC resistance can certainly result in subtle frequency response anomalies. Simple interconnects should never sound different unless the equipment in question has a very high output impedance (e.g some tube/valve kit) and the cable has very high capacitance, in which case there may be some treble loss. Graham |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
borosteve wrote: Eeyore wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: borosteve wrote: Why is it that most of the contributors to this group seem to be some sort of anti- hifi sound quality brigade who seem to think that all cd players sound the same and that measurements and specs of components are king? Have we reverted back to the 1970's when all you had to worry about was how many watts your speakers could handle? Come on guy's if you really don't like quality sound give it a rest and talk about something else on another group! Maybe there's a group about saddo's who just post controvertial stuff to annoy everyone? Maybe their's a group about nerds who just like to see their own posts on a screen!! Well, we could talk about the misuse of the apostrophe, for a start. Pluralisation by apostrophe ! Often called the greengrocer's apostrophe. Seen recently in a pub (honestly) .... " Fish and Chip's ". http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian....ostGrocers.htm Graham If I want a lesson in ****ing gramma and spelling I'll ask for one ok **** head!! How about a lesson in being civil ? Graham |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
In article
, borosteve wrote: On 21 Dec, 03:32, Eeyore wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote: borosteve wrote: Why is it that most of the contributors to this group seem to be some sort of anti- hifi sound quality brigade who seem to think that all cd players sound the same and that measurements and specs of components are king? Have we reverted back to the 1970's when all you had to worry about was how many watts your speakers could handle? Come on guy's if you really don't like quality sound give it a rest and talk about something else on another group! Maybe there's a group about saddo's who just post controvertial stuff to annoy everyone? Maybe their's a group about nerds who just like to see their own posts on a screen!! Well, we could talk about the misuse of the apostrophe, for a start. Pluralisation by apostrophe ! Often called the greengrocer's apostrophe. Seen recently in a pub (honestly) .... " Fish and Chip's ". http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian....ostGrocers.htm Graham If I want a lesson in ****ing gramma and spelling I'll ask for one ok **** head!! If you are so thick as to not understand the simple laws on apostrophe use it puts the rest of your argument into question. And adequately proved by your later statement that 'cables do sound different'. Of course it is possible to make a cable to modify an audio signal but only charlatans sell them to satisfy the gullible. -- *It's not hard to meet expenses... they're everywhere. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:29:36 -0800, Andy Evans wrote:
Well, I used to be a jazz musician - so IT is just like that! A lot of shouting and bashing of keyboards. :-) |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:20:32 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
Silk wrote: Andy Evans wrote: For that reason it's much more important to have academic qualifications and memberships of professional bodies. You can't argue with those. Yeah, right. I suppose there are no charlatans with qualifications or memberships of professional bodies, hmm? Muses and thinks of recent examples of a certain doctor causing innocent people to get jailed. A highly qualified serial killer also springs to mind. And that's before we start on highly qualified politicians. |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:02:45 -0800, borosteve wrote:
Oh dear someone's spelt Sondek wrong, ooohh!!! The extra "c" is a modification, you fool. ;-) |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
Silk wrote: Eeyore wrote: Silk wrote: Andy Evans wrote: For that reason it's much more important to have academic qualifications and memberships of professional bodies. You can't argue with those. Yeah, right. I suppose there are no charlatans with qualifications or memberships of professional bodies, hmm? Muses and thinks of recent examples of a certain doctor causing innocent people to get jailed. A highly qualified serial killer also springs to mind. How would that make him a charlatan ? And that's before we start on highly qualified politicians. Charlatans the lot of them. Graham |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
Silk wrote: Eeyore wrote: Silk wrote: Andy Evans wrote: For that reason it's much more important to have academic qualifications and memberships of professional bodies. You can't argue with those. Yeah, right. I suppose there are no charlatans with qualifications or memberships of professional bodies, hmm? Muses and thinks of recent examples of a certain doctor causing innocent people to get jailed. A highly qualified serial killer also springs to mind. How would that make him a charlatan ? And that's before we start on highly qualified politicians. Charlatans the lot of them. Graham |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:23:58 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
How would that make him a charlatan ? Someone who makes out he's trying to cure you, turns round and kills you. Can't get much more charlatan than that. :-) And that's before we start on highly qualified politicians. Charlatans the lot of them. Graham |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
Bob Latham wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: If you are so thick as to not understand the simple laws on apostrophe use it puts the rest of your argument into question. That to me is a quite ridiculous argument. You are saying that someone who is ignorant in one area of life even in knowledge considered basic and elementary by the majority means he cannot be the world's best expert in another. I'm quite sure most people (if not everyone) have some weak areas for all sorts of reasons *least* of all because they are thick. It's not an encouraging sign though. And adequately proved by your later statement that 'cables do sound different'. That is your opinion, you may be right. What worries me about this is that some of you guys are so convinced that your knowledge of science is so good that you *know* they cannot sound different so you never really tried it. How about those who are so confident of their ears that they choose to ignore the science ? I'm a lot more concerned about them. And they make a lot of noise too. Aside from incompetently designed amplifiers that oscillated with low inductance cables (was it Naim ?) can we agree that cables DO NOT affect ...... 1. Distortion. 2. Signal to noise ratio or dynamic range And that alleged improvements in such aspects as 'speed', 'pace', 'depth', 'soundstaging', 'granularity', and the like are imaginary poppycock ? That leaves their effect on frequency response. As far as this is concerned it would be easy to put scientific limits on it. Could you hear a 1dB difference at some frequency ? Possibly ? 0.1dB ? Pretty damn unlikely I'd say. Graham |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:01:56 +0000, Bob Latham wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News) wrote: If you are so thick as to not understand the simple laws on apostrophe use it puts the rest of your argument into question. That to me is a quite ridiculous argument. You are saying that someone who is ignorant in one area of life even in knowledge considered basic and elementary by the majority means he cannot be the world's best expert in another. I'm quite sure most people (if not everyone) have some weak areas for all sorts of reasons *least* of all because they are thick. And adequately proved by your later statement that 'cables do sound different'. That is your opinion, you may be right. What worries me about this is that some of you guys are so convinced that your knowledge of science is so good that you *know* they cannot sound different so you never really tried it. That of course reminds me of people saying the world cannot be round otherwise it stands to reason we would all fall off on the other side. Cheers, Bob. Well said, Bob. Most of these so-called objectivists are nothing more than hypocrites. If they really believed what they spout they'd all have £50 CD players from Tesco's, £100 NAD (or whatever ) amps and use £2 interconnects and bell wire/mains cable for their speaker connections. After all, these all "measure" as well as £2k CD players/amps or expensive interconnects/speaker cables. They also, of course, would choose their wines or whiskies via double blind tastings!! The truth is that their "knowledge of science" as you put it, is anything but knowledge. A good scientist knows that any scientific "fact" is merely a working hypothesis that cannot be disproven to agree with the state of scientific data at the time. The people we are talking about here are not scientists but engineers with an overblown faith in technology. Malcolm |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
In article , Eeyore
wrote: Aside from incompetently designed amplifiers that oscillated with low inductance cables (was it Naim ?) More precisely, the problem was that the amp(s) tended to oscillate with a capacitative load of a given order. Low inductance per length cables tend to also have high capacitance per meter. They also make it easier for the amp to be affected by load (loudspeaker) capacitance. It is easy enough to avoid the problem by a mix of sensible amp design and the simple use of a series inductor. But the Naim amp(s) in question did oscillate into some capacitative loads. So simply using some cables caused problems. The amp(s) would be OK if the total load did not look like a suitable capacitance at HF. The simple solution would be to fit output inductors if you want the rest of the amp design to stay the same. But that might look like you'd not made the amp stable in the first place perhaps didn't know what you were doing... :-) So the 'solution' was to tell people that 'high inductance' cables of at least a given minimum length were needed and that this 'sounded better'. ;- IIRC This all surfaced when Monitor Audio started selling interwoven cables with a claimed 'low characteristic impedance' - i.e. lots of capacitance per length and low inductance per length. I was told that Naim amps started going off like firecrackers when people used this. But I haven't experienced that, although I have in the distant past watched on a scope bursts of oscillations from an old Naim amp when used to drive a load without having a length of cable inductance to protect it. Indeed, I think I also saw the problem with the MA cables IIRC. This was discussed in the trade at the time, but for some reason never appeared in the magazines... :-) Wasn't listening at the time, but it would not surprise me if the results did 'sound better' when the oscillations were stopped. 8-] I assume/hope, though, that later Naim amps did not do this, and that lessons were learned, even if never acknowledged in public! I wonder how much of the wine tasting of 'cable sounds' grew out of that, written by reviewers who had no idea what was happening. :-) Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
Malcolm wrote:
Well said, Bob. Most of these so-called objectivists are nothing more than hypocrites. If they really believed what they spout they'd all have £50 CD players from Tesco's, £100 NAD (or whatever ) amps and use £2 interconnects and bell wire/mains cable for their speaker connections. After all, these all "measure" as well as £2k CD players/amps or expensive interconnects/speaker cables. What about those of us who have measured things and done listening tests and can demonstrate that a £2 interconnect in normal use is sonically perfect? -- Eiron. |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
Malcolm wrote: Bob Latham wrote: Dave Plowman (News) wrote: If you are so thick as to not understand the simple laws on apostrophe use it puts the rest of your argument into question. That to me is a quite ridiculous argument. You are saying that someone who is ignorant in one area of life even in knowledge considered basic and elementary by the majority means he cannot be the world's best expert in another. I'm quite sure most people (if not everyone) have some weak areas for all sorts of reasons *least* of all because they are thick. And adequately proved by your later statement that 'cables do sound different'. That is your opinion, you may be right. What worries me about this is that some of you guys are so convinced that your knowledge of science is so good that you *know* they cannot sound different so you never really tried it. That of course reminds me of people saying the world cannot be round otherwise it stands to reason we would all fall off on the other side. Cheers, Bob. Well said, Bob. Most of these so-called objectivists are nothing more than hypocrites. If they really believed what they spout they'd all have £50 CD players from Tesco's, £100 NAD (or whatever ) amps and use £2 interconnects and bell wire/mains cable for their speaker connections. Well .... my CD player dates from the period (1988) when there were definite differences betwen models, so buying an upmarket one (Denon DCD1710) was a valid choice then. I DO use inexpensive interconnects, although they're more like about £3.50 on ebay. Nicely made too. These are the very ones. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/HQ-Twin-Phono-...QQcmdZViewItem NAD amps are very respectable. Bell wire would be a silly choice for speaker cables. I don't see any of the science and technology types suggesting anyone use it. What makes the biggest difference by far is the loudspeaker of course. Graham |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
Eiron wrote: Malcolm wrote: Well said, Bob. Most of these so-called objectivists are nothing more than hypocrites. If they really believed what they spout they'd all have £50 CD players from Tesco's, £100 NAD (or whatever ) amps and use £2 interconnects and bell wire/mains cable for their speaker connections. After all, these all "measure" as well as £2k CD players/amps or expensive interconnects/speaker cables. What about those of us who have measured things and done listening tests and can demonstrate that a £2 interconnect in normal use is sonically perfect? It's electrically as perfect as a $1000 interconnect too. Since the sound is made by electrical circuits, it seems pretty obvious to me that an electrically 'perfect' connection would work really well. Graham |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
Malcolm wrote: The truth is that their "knowledge of science" as you put it, is anything but knowledge. A good scientist knows that any scientific "fact" is merely a working hypothesis that cannot be disproven to agree with the state of scientific data at the time. The people we are talking about here are not scientists but engineers with an overblown faith in technology. Whereas you, it would appear, appear to believe that your hearing trumps scientific measurement and knowledge. The human ear is a terribly unreliable measuring instrument. Add to that personal bias and the subjectivists must be seen as offering nothing but empty hollow opinion. Graham |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:02:26 +0000, Eeyore
wrote: Bell wire would be a silly choice for speaker cables. I don't see any of the science and technology types suggesting anyone use it. It's so frequently mentioned - surely it must be some sort of a standard? Or is just the only taget than expensive cables can honestly claim to beat? When I attended a "testing" session at a Hi-Fi magazine, the only choice apart from esoteric speaker cable was a vastly over-long quantity of bell wire. It did, indeed soak up a little volume. The only cable effect I heard in the whole session. www.laurencepayne.co.uk/cables.html |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
Laurence Payne wrote: Eeyore wrote: Bell wire would be a silly choice for speaker cables. I don't see any of the science and technology types suggesting anyone use it. It's so frequently mentioned - surely it must be some sort of a standard? The only place I've seen bell wire used for speaker cables is what's supplied with nasty $100 'midi systems' and their ilk. Or is just the only taget than expensive cables can honestly claim to beat? Correct. NO 'magic cable' will beat ordinary 2.5 or 4mm2 copper wire. Decades ago, UK pro-audio magazine Studio Sound proved the point backed up with with scientific and audible testing. When I attended a "testing" session at a Hi-Fi magazine, the only choice apart from esoteric speaker cable was a vastly over-long quantity of bell wire. It did, indeed soak up a little volume. The only cable effect I heard in the whole session. It's entirely scientifically predictable that the extra DC resistance of bell wire will have an audible effect when driving a loudspeaker whose impedance varies with frequency (as they do). No surprise at all. Graham |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:33:11 +0000, Eiron wrote:
Malcolm wrote: Well said, Bob. Most of these so-called objectivists are nothing more than hypocrites. If they really believed what they spout they'd all have £50 CD players from Tesco's, £100 NAD (or whatever ) amps and use £2 interconnects and bell wire/mains cable for their speaker connections. After all, these all "measure" as well as £2k CD players/amps or expensive interconnects/speaker cables. What about those of us who have measured things and done listening tests and can demonstrate that a £2 interconnect in normal use is sonically perfect? Then please feel free to carry on listening to your £2 "sonically perfect" interconnect with its "measured things". Malcolm |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:07:33 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
Malcolm wrote: The truth is that their "knowledge of science" as you put it, is anything but knowledge. A good scientist knows that any scientific "fact" is merely a working hypothesis that cannot be disproven to agree with the state of scientific data at the time. The people we are talking about here are not scientists but engineers with an overblown faith in technology. Whereas you, it would appear, appear to believe that your hearing trumps scientific measurement and knowledge. We are not measuring here - we are listening to music - or at least I am. The human ear is a terribly unreliable measuring instrument. Add to that personal bias and the subjectivists must be seen as offering nothing but empty hollow opinion. Graham Again, I'm not "measuring" - I'm listening to music. Everyone has their own prejudices (or "personal bias" as you call it) - so what? Malcolm |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
Malcolm wrote: Eeyore wrote: Malcolm wrote: The truth is that their "knowledge of science" as you put it, is anything but knowledge. A good scientist knows that any scientific "fact" is merely a working hypothesis that cannot be disproven to agree with the state of scientific data at the time. The people we are talking about here are not scientists but engineers with an overblown faith in technology. Whereas you, it would appear, appear to believe that your hearing trumps scientific measurement and knowledge. We are not measuring here - we are listening to music - or at least I am. You're drawing a conclusion based on what you (believe you) hear. That is effectively using your ear as a measuring tool in the same way as estimating a distance (or comparing distnces) by sight uses your eyes as a measuring tool. The human ear is a terribly unreliable measuring instrument. Add to that personal bias and the subjectivists must be seen as offering nothing but empty hollow opinion. Again, I'm not "measuring" - I'm listening to music. Semantics. You're drawing a conclusion about the equipment not the music. Everyone has their own prejudices (or "personal bias" as you call it) - so what? Well .... may I ask if you believe that expensive 'esoteric' equipment interconnects (NOT loudspeaker cables) offer any advantage ? The ear is very easily fooled btw. The most convincing demonstration I know involves cannabis. Consumption of cannabis will hugely improve the sound. Startlingly so in fact. That's becauae what you hear is interpreted by your brain. Quite simply your ears aren't 'accurate'. I'm sure that simple enthusiasm also affects hearing too, so your costly investment in interconnects does indeed sound 'better' to YOUR ears (but not mine of course). Graham |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
Malcolm wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:33:11 +0000, Eiron wrote: Malcolm wrote: Well said, Bob. Most of these so-called objectivists are nothing more than hypocrites. If they really believed what they spout they'd all have £50 CD players from Tesco's, £100 NAD (or whatever ) amps and use £2 interconnects and bell wire/mains cable for their speaker connections. After all, these all "measure" as well as £2k CD players/amps or expensive interconnects/speaker cables. What about those of us who have measured things and done listening tests and can demonstrate that a £2 interconnect in normal use is sonically perfect? Then please feel free to carry on listening to your £2 "sonically perfect" interconnect with its "measured things". Thanks. I shall. Please feel free to suggest a method of demonstrating the differences between interconnects. I'm quite willing to give it a try. -- Eiron. |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
In article ,
Bob Latham wrote: If you are so thick as to not understand the simple laws on apostrophe use it puts the rest of your argument into question. That to me is a quite ridiculous argument. Exactly as meant, then. You are saying that someone who is ignorant in one area of life even in knowledge considered basic and elementary by the majority means he cannot be the world's best expert in another. I'm quite sure most people (if not everyone) have some weak areas for all sorts of reasons *least* of all because they are thick. And adequately proved by your later statement that 'cables do sound different'. That is your opinion, you may be right. What worries me about this is that some of you guys are so convinced that your knowledge of science is so good that you *know* they cannot sound different so you never really tried it. That of course reminds me of people saying the world cannot be round otherwise it stands to reason we would all fall off on the other side. Of course I've tried different cables. Use lots of cables at work under much more arduous conditions than a home Hi-Fi. If cables made a difference then the long runs I use would make it all the more obvious. It's not something new claiming cables sound different - it's been going on now for over 40 years. -- *Nostalgia isn't what is used to be. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
In article , Bob Latham
wrote: In article , Eeyore wrote: I *think*, poor deluded soul that I am, that I have experienced sound staging differences with interconnects and tonal balance changes with speaker leads. A change in frequency response of the system may affect such perceptions - so may simply be due to the cable having a high enough series impedance to alter this in the relevant manner. That leaves their effect on frequency response. As far as this is concerned it would be easy to put scientific limits on it. Could you hear a 1dB difference at some frequency ? Possibly ? 0.1dB ? Pretty damn unlikely I'd say. This depends on circumstances IMHO. I would say that 1db is just about perceptible as a volume control change but could easily be missed. However, raise the level of the bass driver on a speaker by 1 db leaving the mid and tweeter where they were and there is no missing that. The whole balance of the speaker is different. Comment as above. Changes in frequency response may not be noticed as such. Instead, they may alter some other aspect of how we percieve the results. Also if the effect is slightly different for the two channels. Although how significant that might be will depend on circumstances as the room will have far more effect than any normal choice of something like cables. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
In article , Malcolm
wrote: On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:07:33 +0000, Eeyore wrote: Malcolm wrote: The truth is that their "knowledge of science" as you put it, is anything but knowledge. A good scientist knows that any scientific "fact" is merely a working hypothesis that cannot be disproven to agree with the state of scientific data at the time. The people we are talking about here are not scientists but engineers with an overblown faith in technology. Whereas you, it would appear, appear to believe that your hearing trumps scientific measurement and knowledge. We are not measuring here - we are listening to music - or at least I am. Actually, you were also presenting your opinions as if they were unarguable 'fact' and stating your beliefs about the nature of the "knowledge of science". So far as I know, the scientific *evidence* wrt cables is in accord with http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM...kracables.html and http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/cables/lscables.html and that whenever a well controlled comparison has been done, no-one has been able to distinguish one cable from another apart from the fairly well understood exceptions of the kinds noted in the above. As you say, 'science' works on the basis that our understanding is 'provisional' and may change *when we have new and reliable evidence*. But that does not mean we ignore the evidence we have, and 'science' bases views on what evidence we have, taking its assessed reliability into account. Merry Christmas, :-) Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
I think there's a gulf between those who buy equipment and those that
build it. Those that build use whatever is in the drawer in terms of wire, connectors, chassis etc. What's important to them is the design, layout and part selection. Those that don't live with a bench and a warm soldering iron do whatever is left for them to do - change cables, tubes, interconnects, stands and little wooden feet. Because they are equally intelligent and musical, they create what is within their capacity to create, and then judge the results. Hence the whole culture of cables, tweaks etc. I don't see anything wrong with this in moderation, though a lot of money is being asked for some pretty meaningless stuff. But in terms of the greatest degree of change you can make to an existing system, you really have to get inside the chassis. Though even as I write this I realise that in a digital age, kits and DIY builds are getting ever more complex. "Maybe not for youngsters who grew up with digital technology...." I hope to hear from somebody!!! |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 22:55:00 +0000, Eeyore wrote:
Malcolm wrote: Eeyore wrote: Malcolm wrote: The truth is that their "knowledge of science" as you put it, is anything but knowledge. A good scientist knows that any scientific "fact" is merely a working hypothesis that cannot be disproven to agree with the state of scientific data at the time. The people we are talking about here are not scientists but engineers with an overblown faith in technology. Whereas you, it would appear, appear to believe that your hearing trumps scientific measurement and knowledge. We are not measuring here - we are listening to music - or at least I am. You're drawing a conclusion based on what you (believe you) hear. What you hear is what you hear - end of story - there's no "belief" involved. That is effectively using your ear as a measuring tool in the same way as estimating a distance (or comparing distnces) by sight uses your eyes as a measuring tool. Only if you're trying to determine differences of some sort - if you're just listening to music there's no "measurement" of any sort involved. The human ear is a terribly unreliable measuring instrument. Add to that personal bias and the subjectivists must be seen as offering nothing but empty hollow opinion. Again, I'm not "measuring" - I'm listening to music. Semantics. You're drawing a conclusion about the equipment not the music. Everyone has their own prejudices (or "personal bias" as you call it) - so what? Well .... may I ask if you believe that expensive 'esoteric' equipment interconnects (NOT loudspeaker cables) offer any advantage ? I don't know (since I've never listened to any) and I don't care (since I couldn't afford them anyway). It is up to every individual to make their own decisions based on their own prejudices, wealth, perceptions, hearing etc etc. If you want to choose on the basis of electrical specifications, that's fine by me. If Joe Bloggs wants to choose by a listening test of some sort, that's fine by me also. Your chosen method will be wrong in Joe Blogg's eyes (or rather ears) and vice versa. As you're both happy with your choice, what's the problem? The ear is very easily fooled btw. The most convincing demonstration I know involves cannabis. Consumption of cannabis will hugely improve the sound. Startlingly so in fact. That's becauae what you hear is interpreted by your brain. Quite simply your ears aren't 'accurate'. I'm sure that simple enthusiasm also affects hearing too, so your costly investment in interconnects does indeed sound 'better' to YOUR ears (but not mine of course). Graham There is nothing new here - it has been well known for many years. I seem to remember reading about 30 years ago something to the effect that £5 of malt whiskey will improve any hi-fi system by £1000. So what? People's perceptions differ by mood, time of day, substances ingested - and a myriad of other reasons. None of which mean that one cannot tell the difference in musical quality (albeit of differing types) between the Spice Girls and a late Beethoven String Quartet or between a Tesco £100 midi system and a SME/Linn/Arcam/Naim/Rega/Quad (add other makers to choice) hi-fi setup. Malcolm |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:14:32 +0000, Eiron wrote:
Malcolm wrote: On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:33:11 +0000, Eiron wrote: Malcolm wrote: Well said, Bob. Most of these so-called objectivists are nothing more than hypocrites. If they really believed what they spout they'd all have £50 CD players from Tesco's, £100 NAD (or whatever ) amps and use £2 interconnects and bell wire/mains cable for their speaker connections. After all, these all "measure" as well as £2k CD players/amps or expensive interconnects/speaker cables. What about those of us who have measured things and done listening tests and can demonstrate that a £2 interconnect in normal use is sonically perfect? Then please feel free to carry on listening to your £2 "sonically perfect" interconnect with its "measured things". Thanks. I shall. Please feel free to suggest a method of demonstrating the differences between interconnects. I'm quite willing to give it a try. As far as I'm concerned it's up to every individual to determine the best interconnect (or any other hi-fi component) for themselves on the basis of whatever rationale they choose - be it price, electrical specfications, colour, listening tests etc. What I object to are the "objectivists" insisting that their chosen rationale is the only one and (even worse) failing to follow it themselves in their chosen hi-fi equipment. Malcolm |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
Malcolm wrote: Eeyore wrote: Malcolm wrote: Eeyore wrote: Malcolm wrote: The truth is that their "knowledge of science" as you put it, is anything but knowledge. A good scientist knows that any scientific "fact" is merely a working hypothesis that cannot be disproven to agree with the state of scientific data at the time. The people we are talking about here are not scientists but engineers with an overblown faith in technology. Whereas you, it would appear, appear to believe that your hearing trumps scientific measurement and knowledge. We are not measuring here - we are listening to music - or at least I am. You're drawing a conclusion based on what you (believe you) hear. What you hear is what you hear - end of story - there's no "belief" involved. You're 100% mistaken if you think you hearing hears things the same from one day (or even hour) to the next. What you heard on any given occasion may nor be readily reproducible. So 'belief' does come into it. For heaven's sake, even you *mood* can affect how you hear things ! It certainly can with me. The point I'm making is is that your hearing is unreliable. It can play tricks on you. And that's the primary problem with subjectivism. Graham |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
Malcolm wrote: Eeyore wrote: Well .... may I ask if you believe that expensive 'esoteric' equipment interconnects (NOT loudspeaker cables) offer any advantage ? I don't know (since I've never listened to any) and I don't care (since I couldn't afford them anyway). It is up to every individual to make their own decisions based on their own prejudices, wealth, perceptions, hearing etc etc. Yet there is nothing about those high price cables that is capable of making them any better ! That's why the makers have to resort to pseudo-science to explain why you should buy one. It is a simple fact that a conductor is a conductor is a conductor. There is no such thing as copper that sounds better. Any suggestion otherwsie is .... well fraudulent actually. The ONLY thing that can affect interconnect performance is cable capacitance and that's simply determined by physical construction such as the distance between conductors (conductor and screen typically). And typical cable capacitance is simply not going to make an audible effect with modern well-designed equipment. Your gullibility is distressing to me. Graham |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
In article , Malcolm
wrote: On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:01:56 +0000, Bob Latham wrote: [snip] Most of these so-called objectivists are nothing more than hypocrites. If they really believed what they spout they'd all have £50 CD players from Tesco's, £100 NAD (or whatever ) amps and use £2 interconnects and bell wire/mains cable for their speaker connections. After all, these all "measure" as well as £2k CD players/amps or expensive interconnects/speaker cables. They also, of course, would choose their wines or whiskies via double blind tastings!! Quite an interesting mix of the use of three debating tactics... false dichotomy, ad hom, and straw man. Plus, of course the vagueness of referring to "they", etc, to avoid being specific, but to make sweeping assertions regardless. :-) The truth is that their "knowledge of science" as you put it, is anything but knowledge. A good scientist knows that any scientific "fact" is merely a working hypothesis that cannot be disproven to agree with the state of scientific data at the time. The people we are talking about here are not scientists but engineers with an overblown faith in technology. Well, I doubt a "good scientist" would think that a "fact" is the same as an "hypothesis". I also doubt they would regard it as being part of the scientific method to pre-assume that every hypothesis *will* be "disproven* in advance of any evidence to that effect. So they would be unlikely to dismiss an idea on the basis of such a belief. Your wording seems to be based on this pre-assumption, although maybe this is simply that your wording is so convoluted as to become ambiguous or vaguely sweeping. An academic scientist might talk about an hypothesis being tested by collecting relevant and assable *evidence*, and then seeing if that agrees with or clashes with the hypothesis. The process would then be on a case by case basis of assessment. Not a blanket presumption of the kind you assert. Usually, conclusions follow evidence, not pre-assume it! :-) Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html |
What a sad excuse for a group this is...
"Jim Lesurf" Eeyore Aside from incompetently designed amplifiers that oscillated with low inductance cables (was it Naim ?) More precisely, the problem was that the amp(s) tended to oscillate with a capacitative load of a given order. It is easy enough to avoid the problem by a mix of sensible amp design and the simple use of a series inductor. But the Naim amp(s) in question did oscillate into some capacitative loads. So simply using some cables caused problems. The amp(s) would be OK if the total load did not look like a suitable capacitance at HF. The simple solution would be to fit output inductors if you want the rest of the amp design to stay the same. But that might look like you'd not made the amp stable in the first place perhaps didn't know what you were doing... :-) So the 'solution' was to tell people that 'high inductance' cables of at least a given minimum length were needed and that this 'sounded better'. ;- ** A film cap of approximately 0.01 to 0.1 uF connected *directly* across the speaker terminals will induce parasitic or even continuous HF oscillation ( typically in the MHz range) in many amps ( valve and SS ) which are not designed to be "unconditionally stable". In some cases, the HF oscillation is severe enough to cause overheating of the output devices and eventual failure of the amp if allowed to continue. However, connecting such a cap direct to the speaker terminals is a crazy thing to do to an audio amp and falls well outside normal operating conditions - so many amp makers did ( and still do) not consider it important to make their products immune from this kind of abuse. The arrival of high capacitance / low inductance woven speaker cables ( like Tocord ) caused a few amp makers to issue warnings against their use - notably Naim and Phase Linear. A great many other less pretensions makes and models of amp would also burst into HF oscillation when such cables were used - a rather serious problem that resulted in many hi-fi dealers removing the cable from sale as they could never be sure if the customer's amp could tolerate the high effective capacitance. The fix is ridiculously simple for anyone technically minded, just add a zobel network (say 0.022uF and 10 ohms in series ) across the actual loudspeaker's terminals - ie at the far end of the cable. This loads the cable ( really a 8 ohm transmission line) with close to its characteristic impedance at HF and hence neutralises the parallel capacitance. ........ Phil |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk