Dumb things you've heard from "audiophiles"...

grimmace19

It sucks running out of popcorn after the 4th page...

Thanks for an entertaining morning fellas, I know where I stand and like Larry said "I know what cables did for my rig"

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

How would you know if there was an audible difference between cables, if you never listened to different cables? Why is the scientific measurement between speakers enough to convince there is an audible difference, but the EXACT same proof for cables isn't?

Let me reiterate that I am denying the audible differences of power cables and digital audio cables. I am not arguing against analog interconnects or speaker cables. This is simply due to the differences between analog and digital, as well as power supply isolation. Showing a difference in measurements of digital or power cables will not necessarily equate to differences in the final output, nevermind audible differences.

I can answer that for you, because you listened to the speakers in question and determined not only there was a difference, but then chose which one you prefered. You haven't done the same for cables.

If there wasn't a demonstrable scientifically-oriented difference between the speakers in question, I wouldn't have bothered auditioning them either.

You can't have it both ways. You can't ask for scientific evidence for both scenarios and arbitrarily dismiss one over the other when in the end you have to use your ears to determine which you prefer, because according to the measurements of both scenario's there is a measured difference. You are the definition of closed mindedness.

Once again, there is still no scientific evidence of audible differences or even measurable differences in the final output signal. You, and others, keep referring back to DK's post on power cables, yet it proves nothing that is contrary to my claims.

I would even go on to furthur assume that you didn't even engage in a blind ABX test to determine if the speakers did in fact sound different and not let your biases and self professed insecurities influence your perceptions.

I didn't need to. There was already adequate scientific evidence available to me.

Your whole scenario demonstrates an extreme bias you have as well as making correlations based on unscientific methods. The same methods you so stringently want others to follow but are unwilling to follow yourself or only when it's convenient for you.

Please read what I type before making baseless accusations such as this.

malvrich

pearsall001 wrote: »

The term "Critical" listening has got to be the dumbess, jackass phrase used in audio. I thought we were supposed to be after "Enjoyable" listening. Leave critical for the ER Docs.

I couldn't have stated this better. Critical listening has its place, but i don't generally put on music to critique it but to enjoy the sound of it. If I like the sound of a "grainy" amp or a "bloated" speaker then it's my business (and my pleasure). The money is spent toward your enjoyment of the equipment and the music.

halo71

To me this sorta says a lot. How can you deny what others are telling you, that have really high end gear when you don't? There are things I read that seem far fetched as well. I don't argue against what they are saying. Simply because I can't. I have not experienced that gear. I am not downing you at all, I for sure do not have high end gear. But I am not going to say they are crazy for spending the money on what they do simply because a study on paper says they are wrong. Because if I had the means....I'd surely be buying some higher end gear.

True. My expensive to me Onkyo receiver may be pocket change for others.

heiney9

Except when it IS demonstrated that a power cable in fact measures differently you dismiss the scientific evidence and refuse to take the next step you seem to have taken to determine which speakers you prefered and that is LISTENING after seeing there was scientific evidence they were different.

Why do you arbitrarily dismiss the power cable but not the speakers? Because you have a bias against believing power cables can sound different even though you have said several times if someone can show me the difference scientificially, I'll try them to see if I hear a difference.

You really have lost a lot of credibility with me because you won't actually stick to what you say you will do nor are you consistent in applying your logic. It's random to suit your arguement, not because you actually want to learn something new or experience something new. Your mind is made up 1000% about power cables.

H9

maximillian

BeefJerky wrote: »

Except that I'm primarily arguing against the differences from power cables and digital cables. I am not denying the existence of differences when it comes to analog interconnects or speaker cables. This is simply due to the difference between analog and digital, as well as the isolation that a proper power supply will have.

Speakers get their power from speaker wire which get their power from amplifiers which get their power from power cables. The amp may have decoupling caps for reserve power, but those run out often especially at high volume. So the surges in power seen on speaker cables also translates to the power cable.

Digital cables.... no such thing as digital. Take it from real EE's:
http://electronicdesign.com/article/articles/bob-s-mailbox6108

Everything is analog. You may pass digital signals over cables, but those signals degrade and are affected just like any analog signal. Experienced degradation of digital signals like you wouldn't imagine. Here's an example in first hand experience...

Trying to pass an EMI test and found out a different EE layed out a LCD driver chip's clock line just a little too long. Just to pass the test I decided to add some resistance to the clock line to add rise time. At one point I added too much and could visually see "noise" on the LCD tile because I passed the rise time tolerance of the clock signal. Backed it off, passed the test and the tile looked fine.

BeefJerky

halo71 wrote: »

To me this sorta says a lot. How can you deny what others are telling you, that have really high end gear when you don't? There are things I read that seem far fetched as well. I don't argue against what they are saying. Simply because I can't. I have not experienced that gear. I am not downing you at all, I for sure do not have high end gear. But I am not going to say they are crazy for spending the money on what they do simply because a study on paper says they are wrong. Because if I had the means....I'd surely be buying some higher end gear.

My having high-end gear or not doesn't really have much to do with scientific evidence (or lack of) in relation to audibility of power cables.

heiney9 wrote: »

Except when it IS demonstrated that a power cable in fact measures differently you dismiss the scientific evidence and refuse to take the next step you seem to have taken to determine which speakers you prefered and that is LISTENING after seeing there was scientific evidence they were different.

And yet you dance around the obvious point. His tests don't show audible differences or measurements in the final audio output. This key, because this is what my argument actually centers around. I'm not arguing differences between the power cables themselves, I'm arguing the lack of audibility. Until you actually acknowledge that this is the center of my contention, your just using straw-man arguments.

Why do you arbitrarily dismiss the power cable but not the speakers? Because you have a bias against believing power cables can sound different even though you have said several times if someone can show me the difference scientificially, I'll try them to see if I hear a difference.

Right, and there is still no scientific evidence of an audible difference from power cables. DK's post doesn't pretend that is what he's measuring, so why you do you keep trying to pretend it does?

You really have lost a lot of credibility with me because you won't actually stick to what you say you will do nor are you consistent in applying your logic. It's random to suit your arguement, not because you actually want to learn something new or experience something new. Your mind is made up 1000% about power cables.

Somehow I'm okay with your views on me. However, I have been consistent in my claims. You keep mentioning things that don't prove my claims wrong, particularly DK's post. Have you even read his post? I did.

BeefJerky

maximillian wrote: »

Speakers get their power from speaker wire which get their power from amplifiers which get their power from power cables. The amp may have decoupling caps for reserve power, but those run out often especially at high volume. So the surges in power seen on speaker cables also translates to the power cable.

How a cable affects an actual analogue audio signal (interconnects or speaker cables) is of no direct relevance to how a power cable will affect things.

Digital cables.... no such thing as digital. Take it from real EE's:
http://electronicdesign.com/article/articles/bob-s-mailbox6108

Everything is analog. You may pass digital signals over cables, but those signals degrade and are affected just like any analog signal. Experienced degradation of digital signals like you wouldn't imagine. Here's an example in first hand experience...

It has to do with how they are interpreted by the receiving end. A properly designed digital setup will not be affected by minute changes from any remotely decent digital audio cable. If it is, the engineers need a slap in the face. End-to-end analogue really is a different beast.

Trying to pass an EMI test and found out a different EE layed out a LCD driver chip's clock line just a little too long. Just to pass the test I decided to add some resistance to the clock line to add rise time. At one point I added too much and could visually see "noise" on the LCD tile because I passed the rise time tolerance of the clock signal. Backed it off, passed the test and the tile looked fine.

That's wonderful, but doesn't demonstrate any so-called difference between digital audio cables.

halo71

BeefJerky wrote: »

When did I ever claim that I had high-end gear???

You didn't, read what I said again.

BeefJerky

halo71 wrote: »

You didn't, read what I said again.

I did reread it, and edited my post about the same time you posted this. Sorry.

heiney9

Right, and there is still no scientific evidence of an audible difference from power cables. DK's post doesn't pretend that is what he's measuring, so why you do you keep trying to pretend it does?

How can you argue the lack of audibility when you've never tried to audibly hear the difference? That is the silliest thing I have ever read. To a person who has poor hearing they can look at the controlled measured frequency response (scientific evidence you require) of two speakers but will never be able to know if they can hear a difference. They measure to show a difference but until that person uses (in your world) a blind ABX test they won't know just by looking at a frequency plot.

You make an assumption that because the frequency response is different for two sets of speakers EVERYONE will hear the differences because the variation of frequency response MUST correlate to an audible difference for EVERYONE.

Again your bias is showing through because you won't apply the same assumption to the power cable.

H9

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

How can you argue the lack of audibility when you've never tried to audibly hear the difference?

I'm at least willing to do it, and a proper scientific way at that.

That is the silliest thing I have ever read. To a person who has poor hearing they can look at the controlled measured frequency response of two speakers but will never be able to know if they can hear a difference. They measure to show a difference but until that person uses (in your world) a blind ABX test they won't know just by looking at a frequency plot.

There are also other measurements one can look at beyond a simply frequency plot.

Different people will hear things differently, that is very true. Even if an ABX proves someone else can hear a difference in power cords, that doesn't mean I will. However, the fact that there is at least some audible difference is still enough for me to consider trying them. But as of now, there is no scientific evidence proving any audible difference.

You make an assumption that because the frequency response is different for two sets of speakers anyone will hear the differences because the variation of frequency response MUST correlate to an audible difference for EVERYONE.

Nope. However, if even a single person can't prove audibility, why should I bother? If at least someone can hear it, that shows there is at least some (albeit minute) audible difference, and it's worth my time and money to delve into.

Again your bias is showing through because you won't apply the same assumption to the power cable.

Sure I will. However, there are no measurements showing difference in the final output due to different power cables. There are also no DBT/ABX's to support claims either. My speakers at least have one of those two.

heiney9

Different people will hear things differently, that is very true. Even if an ABX proves someone else can hear a difference in power cords, that doesn't mean I will. However, the fact that there is at least some audible difference is still enough for me to consider trying them. But as of now, there is no scientific evidence proving any audible difference.

If different people hear things differently then how in the hell can scientific evidence prove something sounds different. By what standard are we using to make a measurement and then a correlation. By that statement you just admitted that there is a strong subjective aspect to this. So now what?

Your statement above is one huge contradiction. Unbelieveable, your logic is completely insane, I am in awe and speechless after reading the above quote. On one hand we all hear things differently, but you want a scientific method proving there is an audible difference for all...........I can't even begin to deternime where you get that sort of logic from. One of the sinle most illogical things I've ever read.

I'm out

H9

BeefJerky

heiney9 wrote: »

If different people hear things differently then how in the hell can scientific evidence prove something sounds different. By what standard are we using to make a measurement and then a correlation. By that statement you just admitted that there is a strong subjective aspect to this. So now what?

Nothing subjective about it. Either a person will hear a difference or not. We're not talking about describing how it is different, or which is preferred, as that actually would be subjective. Nope, we're simply talking about whether or not there is a difference. There are going to be things that no human can hear the difference in, which is the category that I claim power cables fall into. There will be things that some people will hear and others not. However, a study demonstrating that scenario still shows that there is some audible difference. It's not as complicated as you are making it out to be, and it is a purely objective study.

Your statement above is one huge contradiction. Unbelieveable, your logic is completely insane, I am in awe and speechless after reading the above quote. On one hand we all hear things differently, but you want a scientific method proving there is an audible difference for all...........I can't even begin to deternime where you get that sort of logic from. One of the sinle most illogical things I've ever read.

Nothing contradictory about it. However, it is clear that you will make every effort to twist my words around to make them into what you want them to be.

I'm out

Have fun! :cheesygrin:

WilliamM2

heiney9 wrote: »

If different people hear things differently then how in the hell can scientific evidence prove something sounds different. By what standard are we using to make a measurement and then a correlation.

By one single person demonstrating they can hear the difference in a controlled test. Is it really that hard to understand?

BlueFox

So, keep on babbling. All you are accomplishing is to dig yourself deeper into the hole of absurdity and irrelevance, and are becoming an object to be mocked, ridiculed, and scorned.

Deeper and deeper he gets. He has passed beyond absurdity and irrelevance, and is quickly reaching the point of no return.

DarqueKnight

BeefJerky wrote: »

And yet you dance around the obvious point. His tests don't show audible differences or measurements in the final audio output. This key, because this is what my argument actually centers around. I'm not arguing differences between the power cables themselves, I'm arguing the lack of audibility. Until you actually acknowledge that this is the center of my contention, your just using straw-man arguments.

Right, and there is still no scientific evidence of an audible difference from power cables. DK's post doesn't pretend that is what he's measuring, so why you do you keep trying to pretend it does?

Somehow I'm okay with your views on me. However, I have been consistent in my claims. You keep mentioning things that don't prove my claims wrong, particularly DK's post. Have you even read his post? I did.

Actually, I did discuss audibility. These quotes are from noise study #2:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Figure 12. FFT plot at input of left speaker with stock power cord.


Figure 14. FFT plot at input of left speaker with Statement SC power cord.

If you copy figures 12 and 14 and flip between them, you will see an increase in the noise density throughout the frequency range. You will also see an average 4 dB increase in noise magnitude. That means over twice as much noise power was being dumped into my extensively modified and esteemed SDA SRS 1.2TL speakers with the stock power cord than with the Statement SC power cord.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

It was interesting to "fall back" and listen with the stock power cords. It was not unpleasant, but I was very surprised at the amount of musical details on familiar recordings that went missing. I was constantly listening for details that were either hard to hear or simply weren't there anymore. The sound stage shrank quite a bit also.

In the FFT plots, the rms voltage level of the 60 Hz test tone is 70 volts. The average rms noise around 60 Hz was 0.11 volt with the stock power cord and 0.07 volt with the Statement SC power cord.

The questions now are:

1. In a 70 volt signal, is a noise amplitude of 0.11 volt audible?
2. In a 70 volt signal, is a noise amplitude of 0.07 volt audible?
3. In a 70 volt signal, is a 64% reduction in noise amplitude (0.11 volt to 0.07 volt) audible?

The journal article cited below offers some insight.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

The title of the paper is "Psychoacoustic Detection Threshold of Transient Intermodulation Distortion, by M. Petri-Larmi, M. Otala and J. Lammasniemi. It was published in the March 1980 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. The abstract is as follows:

"The audible threshold of transient intermodulation distortion (TIM) was determined for the six most sensitive subjects of the previously reported test series of 68 listeners. Improved equipment, carefully controlled listening environment, a digital TIM generator, and five recorded stereophonic music samples were used. The results show that in certain types of passages of music, a trained and sensitive listener can reliably detect extremely low values of distortion. Low distortion values were perceived only as changes in sound character, and not as distortion."

Some excerpts:

"The thresholds reported are for experienced, well-rehearsed subjects, and are therefore believed to be conservative. Further improvements in equipment and records may, however, yield lower thresholds in the future."

"The test records were selected on the basis of the experience gained from the previous investigation to represent technically excellent and audibly "clean" recordings."

"The subject was allowed to play the record for 15-30 minutes."

"Comprehensive auditory tests were performed for all the subjects."

"At the end of the learning period the subject was asked to indicate the distortion level he thought he could perceive in a blind A/B test."

"It can be noted that the reliable [distortion] detection threshold was 0.003% rms or 3% (peak), both for piano."

In the FFT plot of the speaker signal input, the noise is 0.11 volt or 0.16% of the total signal amplitude. Thirty-two years ago, a scholarly study showed that trained listeners using high quality media and equipment could detect noise as low as 0.003% of the total signal amplitude.

If it has been scientifically demonstrated that 0.003% noise is audible and the noise content in my study was 0.16% (over 53 times greater), is it reasonable to accept that my claim that an audible difference was realized when the power cords were switched?

With the better power cord, the noise content was 0.1%, which was over 33 times greater than the audibility threshold in the Petri-Larmi study.

maximillian

BeefJerky wrote: »

That's wonderful, but doesn't demonstrate any so-called difference between digital audio cables.

"Digital".... You keep using this word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Not all "Digital" cables are the same. They are constructed differently and thus have different impedance regardless of what their use is for. Calling them "Digital" cables doesn't completely describe them.

My little anecdote is to show that the trace of a digital signal line and its resistance (I added resistance with a resistor but wires, cables, traces all have impedance) has a great effect on how it carries the signal. So the construction of a digital cable (all different by different manufacturers) will effect how well the signal is carried because the cable's impedance could vary greatly between manufacturers. Whether or not that has an effect in your system depends on the rest of your system. Again, the blanket statement that "it's digital, it shouldn't matter" is incorrect because there is no such thing as "digital".

audiocr381ve

This kind of stuff is what makes Club Polk FUN. If we didn't have the occasional throw down, I probably wouldn't come around much. Just stay light hearted and keep the anti-panty bunch powder around.

halo71

^ +1

I got tired of arguing at another site. Being told that ALL SS amps sound exactly alike because it says so on paper. :rolleyes: My ears are f'ing liars! :evil: lol

heiney9

Actually I'm still waiting for specific answers to everything posed in this post

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?131666-Dumb-things-you-ve-heard-from-quot-audiophiles-quot-...&p=1756690&viewfull=1#post1756690

Why haven't you answered the very specific questions in detail? I would love to hear how you would set up a DBT and what scientific parameters you'd use as a basis for proper evaluation?

H9

DarqueKnight

I just want to clarify: even though my questions were directed to BJ, anyone should feel welcome to share their insights and knowledge.

Thanks.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

In the FFT plots, the rms voltage level of the 60 Hz test tone is 70 volts. The average rms noise around 60 Hz was 0.11 volt with the stock power cord and 0.07 volt with the Statement SC power cord.

The questions now are:

1. In a 70 volt signal, is a noise amplitude of 0.11 volt audible?
2. In a 70 volt signal, is a noise amplitude of 0.07 volt audible?
3. In a 70 volt signal, is a 64% reduction in noise amplitude (0.11 volt to 0.07 volt) audible?

In the FFT plot of the speaker signal input, the noise is 0.11 volt or 0.16% of the total signal amplitude. Thirty-two years ago, a scholarly study showed that trained listeners using high quality media and equipment could detect noise as low as 0.003% of the total signal amplitude.

If it has been scientifically demonstrated that 0.003% noise is audible and the noise content in my study was 0.16% (over 53 times greater), is it reasonable to accept that my claim that an audible difference was realized when the power cords were switched?

Scientific theory and evidence relating to why the noise amplitudes in my noise study could not have been audible would be very helpful to my understanding.

Joe08867

BeefJerky, when you say Digital cable do you mean fiber optic? I am not sure if you know what Digital cables are. You say it like there is no way a digital signal can degrade.

Also, I am unsure if I would have believed that there is an audible difference in power cables or any cables for that matter until I heard it for myself. You need to keep an open mind. Science and Maths will only get you so far. Sooner or later you need to light that candle.

No scientific study is ever gonna tell my ears what they hear. If I didn't hear a difference I would have said you guys are full of **** but I do hear a difference. And sometimes a substantial difference at that.

WilliamM2

DarqueKnight wrote: »

If it has been scientifically demonstrated that 0.003% noise is audible and the noise content in my study was 0.16% (over 53 times greater), is it reasonable to accept that my claim that an audible difference was realized when the power cords were switched?

With the better power cord, the noise content was 0.1%, which was over 33 times greater than the audibility threshold in the Petri-Larmi study.

I thought blind testing didn't work for audio? I see you are willing to accept it when it has the results you want.

If the Petri-Larmi study is correct, then it should be easy to demonstrate the difference a power cord can make, in a blind study, since the difference is 33 to 53 times greater than the audibility threshold.

heiney9

Wow,,,,,,,,,,,the silence is deafening!

Like I said, no amount of scientific proof is ever good enough for a naysayer.

H9

steveinaz

Yep...I just do what I do because, well, I can. Those who want to experiment, don't let "science" discourage you; especially since much of it is theory. If everything was so cut & dry, we'd all have the same system.

decal

You guys are more fun than a monkey's uncle !!!!!

pietro944

heiney9 wrote: »

If different people hear things differently then how in the hell can scientific evidence prove something sounds different. By what standard are we using to make a measurement and then a correlation. By that statement you just admitted that there is a strong subjective aspect to this. So now what?

Your statement above is one huge contradiction. Unbelieveable, your logic is completely insane, I am in awe and speechless after reading the above quote. On one hand we all hear things differently, but you want a scientific method proving there is an audible difference for all...........I can't even begin to deternime where you get that sort of logic from. One of the sinle most illogical things I've ever read.

I'm out

H9

......Hyperbole much?:eek:

heiney9

As much as you and the other guys in this thread. One good hyperbole deserves another...........don't you think. Let me guess you are on the naysayers side because while there is as much hyperbole coming from them.....you just decided to pick mine out. Love the selective posting that goes on.

H9

pietro944

heiney9 wrote: »

As much as you and the other guys in this thread. One good hyperbole deserves another...........don't you think. Let me guess you are on the naysayers side because while there is as much hyperbole coming from them.....you just decided to pick mine out. Love the selective posting that goes on.

H9

....says the kettle,to the black......btw,skippy.....when are you actually,totally,completely....OUT?....let us know:rolleyes: