Cable Break-in/adjustment period

DarqueKnight

Matt34 wrote: »

Even self proclaimed "golden ears" have limitations that can be shown through these studies.

In over two decades of being in this hobby, I have never met or read of an audiophile making a claim to having "golden ears" or some other superhuman ability to hear things that other "normal" humans cannot hear. Do you know of any?

I don't know whether the term "golden ears" originated inside or outside of the audiophile community, but now it is extensively used derisively by naysayers to ridicule the supposedly imaginary ability of audiophiles to distinguish between audio components.

I'm sure there are some lunatic fringe individuals in the audiophile community who would make wild claims to having superhuman hearing, but they must be given no more credance than a lunatic in any other field of endeavor. It is unfortunate that those outside of the audiophile community want to apply the deviant proclivities of the lunatic fringe to the mainstream.

The audiophile's ability to discern differences in audio equipment is based on training, experience, personal perceptions and biases rather than superhuman hearing ability. Indeed, some audiophiles have impaired hearing, but are still able to discern differences in audio equipment.

Blind tests are inherently unfair in evaluative situations that require extended personal experience for accurate results. For example, if I were blindfolded and alternately given rides in a Cadillac Escalade and a Ford Expedition, there is an extremely high probabilty that I could not tell which vehicle I was in. However, if I were allowed to take both vehicles home and drive them every day for a month, I would be able to write a detailed report on the performance differences between them. There would also be a much higher probability that I would be able to discern between them while riding blindfolded after a month of getting acquainted with the characteristics of each vehicle.

As we all know, the enjoyment of reproduced music is a subjective process. Hence:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

...how can the application of a test designed to remove the basic tenets of a subjective based process be rationally justified?

and

DarqueKnight wrote: »

At its most basic, reproduced music is a form of "counterfeiting". Therefore, when you ask someone to differentiate between two pieces of music reproduction equipment, you are asking them to identify the differences between two counterfeits.

In blind trials, there is not enough time given to study the counterfeits in order to make an accurate assessment. Another drawback is that the observer often does not have any interest in, or sufficient experience with the differentiating factors between the counterfeits. Currency counterfeiters have gotten so good that our currency had to have a major overhaul. If you put two excellent counterfeit bills in front of two experienced treasury agents for 5 minutes and ask them to identify the differences they probably will have some difficulty. On the other hand, if they are given the bills and allowed to spend some time with them, they will most likely be able to make a list of differences and also tell you the counterfeiter who produced them.

At the current state of the art, identifying audible differences in hi-fi equipment is like trying to pick out the most beautiful woman in the Miss Universe pageant. In many cases, it is like trying to pick out the differences between identical twins. Most people have difficulty differentiating between a pair of 5 year old identical twins that they have no familiarity with. However, their mother can tell the difference. She can tell the difference even if they both show up at her door wearing cloaks and ski masks. Does the mother possess some superior visual and auditory attributes? No, she just has the advantages of familiarity and experience with her twins. Some mothers learn to differentiate their infant twins not only by sight, but also by sound and smell. Now, if you ask this woman to pick out the differences in someone else's five year old identical twins, what do you think would be the most probable outcome? Would her inability to differential between another woman's twins call into question her ability to differentiate between her own? Some mothers have difficulty differentiating between their own twins until a few weeks or a even a few months have passed. However, I know of no case, either personally or in the literature, where a mother didn't soon learn to differentiate between her twins. Conversely, some, perhaps many, fathers often have difficulty differentiating between their twins even after the twins reach adulthood!

Matt34 wrote: »

So you think the extensive studies by Dr. Toole on human audio perception is simple-minded science? Even self proclaimed "golden ears" have limitations that can be shown through these studies.

I am not familiar with Dr. Toole's studies. Please name some of the self proclaimed "golden ears" that have been discredited by Dr. Toole's studies.

Matt34 wrote: »

DBT is quick changing because it has been shown that acute audio memory is not as good as we would like to believe.

Short term acute memory is not very good. Long term memory is generally excellent. This is true of any human sense. The longer the period of time a sensory stimulus is experienced, the easier that stimulus becomes identifiable among other stimuli.

In order for a test to be accurate and relevant, it has to have a high degree of similarity to the actual, real world event or phenomenon that it is evaluating. Rapid switching of audio gear is not the way that most audiophiles listen to music. Unless there are gross differences between audio components, (e.g. loudspeakers), a rapid switching DBT will not provide accurate results. It can't due to the nature of human memory, human subjective preferences and the often subtle differences between two high quality, high performance audio components.

Matt34 wrote: »

I agree specifications are not the end all be all but if your serious about this hobby you can't ignore years of research into the limits of human audio perception either.

Then by your criteria, I am not serious about this hobby because years of research into the limits of human audio perception have nothing whatsoever to do with what I hear when I sit down to listen to my music on my audio system in my room with my ears.

Matt34 wrote: »

My claim is that you, the golden ear, cannot ask me to believe you without tests controlled by modern science.

Name one time in your personal experience that an audiophile (or "golden ear" as you call us) has asked you to believe or accept anything? I don't see audiophiles going around injecting themselves into naysayer's discussions.

Indeed, it is the seemingly starved-for-attention naysayer who always injects himself or herself into the audiophile's discussion with other audiophiles. This thread is evidence of that: An audiophile began a discussion on a topic he was researching (cable break-in). A few hours later, an idiot pops up out of nowhere proclaiming that the subject of the audiophile's discussion is "all bull" because of the wisdom he had recently acquired from Audioholics.com.

If the audiofool thought that the audiophile's discussion topic was "bull", why join in? Why not stay over at Audioholics.com where kindred spirits exist in droves and where everything sounds the same?

comfortablycurt

DarqueKnight wrote: »

In over two decades of being in this hobby, I have never met or read of an audiophile making a claim to having "golden ears" or some other superhuman ability to hear things that other "normal" humans cannot hear. Do you know of any?

I don't know whether the term "golden ears" originated inside or outside of the audiophile community, but now it is extensively used derisively by naysayers to ridicule the supposedly imaginary ability of audiophiles to distinguish between audio components.

I'm sure there are some lunatic fringe individuals in the audiophile community who would make wild claims to having superhuman hearing, but they must be given no more credance than a lunatic in any other field of endeavor. It is unfortunate that those outside of the audiophile community want to apply the deviant proclivities of the lunatic fringe to the mainstream.

The audiophile's ability to discern differences in audio equipment is based on training, experience, personal perceptions and biases rather than superhuman hearing ability. Indeed, some audiophiles have impaired hearing, but are still able to discern differences in audio equipment.

Blind tests are inherently unfair in evaluative situations that require extended personal experience for accurate results. For example, if I were blindfolded and alternately given rides in a Cadillac Escalade and a Ford Expedition, there is an extremely high probabilty that I could not tell which vehicle I was in. However, if I were allowed to take both vehicles home and drive them every day for a month, I would be able to write a detailed report on the performance differences between them. There would also be a much higher probability that I would be able to discern between them while riding blindfolded after a month of getting acquainted with the characteristics of each vehicle.

As we all know, the enjoyment of reproduced music is a subjective process. Hence:



and





I am not familiar with Dr. Toole's studies. Please name some of the self proclaimed "golden ears" that have been discredited by Dr. Toole's studies.



Short term acute memory is not very good. Long term memory is generally excellent. This is true of any human sense. The longer the period of time a sensory stimulus is experienced, the easier that stimulus becomes identifiable among other stimuli.

In order for a test to be accurate and relevant, it has to have a high degree of similarity to the actual, real world event or phenomenon that it is evaluating. Rapid switching of audio gear is not the way that most audiophiles listen to music. Unless there are gross differences between audio components, (e.g. loudspeakers), a rapid switching DBT will not provide accurate results. It can't due to the nature of human memory, human subjective preferences and the often subtle differences between two high quality, high performance audio components.



Then by your criteria, I am not serious about this hobby because years of research into the limits of human audio perception have nothing whatsoever to do with what I hear when I sit down to listen to my music on my audio system in my room with my ears.



Name one time in your personal experience that an audiophile (or "golden ear" as you call us) has asked you to believe or accept anything? I don't see audiophiles going around injecting themselves into naysayer's discussions.

Indeed, it is the seemingly starved-for-attention naysayer who always injects himself or herself into the audiophile's discussion with other audiophiles. This thread is evidence of that: An audiophile began a discussion on a topic he was researching (cable break-in). A few hours later, an idiot pops up out of nowhere proclaiming that the subject of the audiophile's discussion is "all bull" because of the wisdom he had recently acquired from Audioholics.com.

If the audiofool thought that the audiophile's discussion topic was "bull", why join in? Why not stay over at Audioholics.com where kindred spirits exist in droves and where everything sounds the same?

Excellent post DK.

You always manage to say things exactly how they should be said.

AudioGenics

now is your chance.....

Golden Ears Audio Training Program Vol 1-4 Package - IN STOCK

F1nut

if your serious about this hobby you can't ignore years of research into the limits of human audio perception either.

That makes no sense. Human audio perception is quite acute and is yet to be fully understood.

dragon1952

jvc wrote: »

now is your chance.....

Golden Ears Audio Training Program Vol 1-4 Package - IN STOCK

There are millions of tone-deaf people in the world, and that's just one example. Why is it so hard to believe that not everyone processes sound the same way. I guarantee you my wife couldn't tell the difference between low-fi and hi-fi. And my brother, who is a musician, couldn't either. And not everyone's memory works the same. Everyone has two eyes, but not everyone sees the same, or perceives what they see the same. But the "Golden Ears" moniker that is placed on those who say they can detect difference implies that everyone's hearing and hearing perception is exactly the same, so one group couldn't possibly hear something that the other group couldn't. Why the hell not?

Matt34

DarqueKnight wrote: »

In over two decades of being in this hobby, I have never met or read of an audiophile making a claim to having "golden ears" or some other superhuman ability to hear things that other "normal" humans cannot hear. Do you know of any?

I don't know whether the term "golden ears" originated inside or outside of the audiophile community, but now it is extensively used derisively by naysayers to ridicule the supposedly imaginary ability of audiophiles to distinguish between audio components.

I'm sure there are some lunatic fringe individuals in the audiophile community who would make wild claims to having superhuman hearing, but they must be given no more credance than a lunatic in any other field of endeavor. It is unfortunate that those outside of the audiophile community want to apply the deviant proclivities of the lunatic fringe to the mainstream.

The audiophile's ability to discern differences in audio equipment is based on training, experience, personal perceptions and biases rather than superhuman hearing ability. Indeed, some audiophiles have impaired hearing, but are still able to discern differences in audio equipment.

Blind tests are inherently unfair in evaluative situations that require extended personal experience for accurate results. For example, if I were blindfolded and alternately given rides in a Cadillac Escalade and a Ford Expedition, there is an extremely high probabilty that I could not tell which vehicle I was in. However, if I were allowed to take both vehicles home and drive them every day for a month, I would be able to write a detailed report on the performance differences between them. There would also be a much higher probability that I would be able to discern between them while riding blindfolded after a month of getting acquainted with the characteristics of each vehicle.

As we all know, the enjoyment of reproduced music is a subjective process. Hence:



and





I am not familiar with Dr. Toole's studies. Please name some of the self proclaimed "golden ears" that have been discredited by Dr. Toole's studies.



Short term acute memory is not very good. Long term memory is generally excellent. This is true of any human sense. The longer the period of time a sensory stimulus is experienced, the easier that stimulus becomes identifiable among other stimuli.

In order for a test to be accurate and relevant, it has to have a high degree of similarity to the actual, real world event or phenomenon that it is evaluating. Rapid switching of audio gear is not the way that most audiophiles listen to music. Unless there are gross differences between audio components, (e.g. loudspeakers), a rapid switching DBT will not provide accurate results. It can't due to the nature of human memory, human subjective preferences and the often subtle differences between two high quality, high performance audio components.



Then by your criteria, I am not serious about this hobby because years of research into the limits of human audio perception have nothing whatsoever to do with what I hear when I sit down to listen to my music on my audio system in my room with my ears.



Name one time in your personal experience that an audiophile (or "golden ear" as you call us) has asked you to believe or accept anything? I don't see audiophiles going around injecting themselves into naysayer's discussions.

Indeed, it is the seemingly starved-for-attention naysayer who always injects himself or herself into the audiophile's discussion with other audiophiles. This thread is evidence of that: An audiophile began a discussion on a topic he was researching (cable break-in). A few hours later, an idiot pops up out of nowhere proclaiming that the subject of the audiophile's discussion is "all bull" because of the wisdom he had recently acquired from Audioholics.com.

If the audiofool thought that the audiophile's discussion topic was "bull", why join in? Why not stay over at Audioholics.com where kindred spirits exist in droves and where everything sounds the same?

I don't see how the vehicle analogy has anything to do with audio perception, nor your twins analogy. Visual recognition has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

So you are saying that if someone doesn't prescribed to your ideals that they don't belong here? You are not open to debate because you have been listening to audio for 20 years in your room, with your equipment and your ears?

If one is interested in learning about human perception of audio as well as loudspeaker-room interaction there is no better source than Toole's AES articles. This book is a good summation of his AES published research.

http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/0240520092/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219085129&sr=1-1

Home audio is a very subjective hobby, I agree, but when people use that to pass along junk science to sell and/or endorse products that is where the line has to be drawn.

Matt34

dragon1952 wrote: »

There are millions of tone-deaf people in the world, and that's just one example. Why is it so hard to believe that not everyone processes sound the same way. I guarantee you my wife couldn't tell the difference between low-fi and hi-fi. And my brother, who is a musician, couldn't either. And not everyone's memory works the same. Everyone has two eyes, but not everyone sees the same, or perceives what they see the same. But the "Golden Ears" moniker that is placed on those who say they can detect difference implies that everyone's hearing and hearing perception is exactly the same, so one group couldn't possibly hear something that the other group couldn't. Why the hell not?

It has been shown through DBT using both experienced/trained listeners and untrained listeners that we all do hear mostly the same. Of course they're are variations but in the end it does average out.

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/loudspeaker-preferences-of-trained.html

Matt34

F1nut wrote: »

That makes no sense. Human audio perception is quite acute and is yet to be fully understood.

It is acute but audio memory is not. There is a very good basis of research done but just like any science it is ever evolving.

dragon1952

Matt34 wrote: »

It has been shown through DBT using both experienced/trained listeners and untrained listeners that we all do hear mostly the same. Of course they're are variations but in the end it does average out.

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/loudspeaker-preferences-of-trained.html

Agreeing on which loudspeaker sounds the best, although still subjective, is a lot easier than detecting subtle changes that might be introduced by a cabling change. Detecting changes that might be present relies heavily on audio memory, which you imply is not good in any of us. For all of us, I would say it definitely improves by hearing the same thing over and over and becoming very familiar with it. But it also can be much better in some people than others to begin with, and it can be improved on with practice. If human audio memory were as you (and many others) imply, then everyone would score pretty much the same on audio memory tests like this http://jakemandell.com/tonedeaf/
If you take the test and go to the next screen to see your results, you will find a rating scale something like this:
>90 Exceptional
>80 Very Good
>70 Normal
>60 Low-normal
<55 Possible pitch perception or memory deficit

If the next 100 people who read this took the test, the results would very likely be all over the place. I've heard the argument before that 'our' (humans) audio memory is very poor, thus we can't even remember what we heard long enough to be able to detect changes. Well everyone's audio memory isn't the same. Some have exceptional memory and some have very poor. The test above is also extremely difficult so that "excellent musicians rarely score above 80% correct". Listening in our own systems for hours a day, and listening to the same things over and over make it much easier. And if the tone examples in the test were pieces we were very familiar with, it would be a piece of cake to score in the 'exceptional' range. I scored 77.8 on an extremely difficult memory test that I just took for the first time, yet I can't hear a change in a system I listen to for hours each day? And even though I score a 77.8, I'm no better than someone who scores under 55? I couldn't possibly perceive a difference that a 55 couldn't? I guess not, because we all hear the same right? A guy can have 20/10 vision and be referred to as an eagle eye, but the same guy scores 80 or 90 on the audio memory test and he can't have a golden ear because that's evidently a fallacy and there's no such thing.

dragon1952

Here's another interesting link. I believe the term 'those with less discriminating ears' is used, implying there are people with less discriminating ears. Another term that is used is 'training'. http://psychexps.olemiss.edu/InstrOnly_Page/pitchmemory.htm

comfortablycurt

dragon1952 wrote: »

If human audio memory were as you (and many others) imply, then everyone would score pretty much the same on audio memory tests like this http://jakemandell.com/tonedeaf/
If you take the test and go to the next screen to see your results, you will find a rating scale something like this:
>90 Exceptional
>80 Very Good
>70 Normal
>60 Low-normal
<55 Possible pitch perception or memory deficit

That's a cool test. I've never seen anything like that before.

I just took it...I got an 88%!!:D

So, I'm very good...and damn close to being exceptionally tone savvy!

dudeinaroom

Matt34 wrote: »

It has been shown through DBT using both experienced/trained listeners and untrained listeners that we all do hear mostly the same. Of course they're are variations but in the end it does average out.

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/loudspeaker-preferences-of-trained.html

Is it just me, or is that like saying 10% of the class got A's,15% got B's 50% got C's 15% got D's and the last 10% failed, so lets just give everyone a C?????? man I'm happy every thing is not science, and percentage based.

Matt34 wrote: »

It is acute but audio memory is not. There is a very good basis of research done but just like any science it is ever evolving.

SO the other day when I popped in a tape that I did not know and heard my moms voice for the first time in 20 year it was I fluke that I knew who it was. Or the fact that some you know and are familiar with can also pick out you voice, and vice versa. It would seem that if audio memory is crap, I'd never have "play time" with my, because with the lights off, I might think It was my grandma. I guess I just have super human hearing memory.

Just to clear this up once and for all CABLES DO NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE.:rolleyes: do a search on my user name Find a post labeled pbj there are a couple others thread also on what I think I might of possibly heard. 3 sets of cables, tested 2 at a time with instantaneous switching, same source, same amp, same pre, same speakers. We do not know every thing about electricity, crap I believe the we just found out that diamonds can be used for high voltage transmission, BUT wait aren't diamonds an insulator? How do we know that there is not some other electrical property that we can not measure with conventional tools? Also have any of these people that have ran tests on cables set an a set of results(virgin cable) and a b set(after being burned in by conventional use). and are they just measuring inductance,capacitance, and impedance? Are they using an oscilloscope while playing music sowind both the signal form the source, and the opposite end of the cable in question.

All right I'm done for now, some one send me and amp, I'm jonesin' for some high end.

Later,
dude

AudioGenics

...with ear training and regular practice
improvements can be made in our hearing ability
to be able to recognize the details in sound.

Interpretation and judging of what subjectively is good or bad,
musical or unmusical is for those that want to debate.

DarqueKnight

Matt34 wrote: »

I don't see how the vehicle analogy has anything to do with audio perception, nor your twins analogy.

I'm not surprised. Here'e something else to fly over your head:

Debating with a colorblind person about the beauty of the color red would be pointless.

Matt34 wrote: »

You are not open to debate because you have been listening to audio for 20 years in your room, with your equipment and
your ears?

I am not open to reading and arguing about a lot of drivel, scientific or otherwise, that adds no value toward the aesthetic and aural aspects of my listening pleasure.

Since you are so keen on "debate", why did you not answer the following questions?:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

In over two decades of being in this hobby, I have never met or read of an audiophile making a claim to having "golden ears" or some other superhuman ability to hear things that other "normal" humans cannot hear. Do you know of any?

DarqueKnight wrote: »

I am not familiar with Dr. Toole's studies. Please name some of the self proclaimed "golden ears" that have been discredited by Dr. Toole's studies.

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Name one time in your personal experience that an audiophile (or "golden ear" as you call us) has asked you to believe or accept anything? I don't see audiophiles going around injecting themselves into naysayer's discussions.

Matt34 wrote: »

Home audio is a very subjective hobby, I agree, but when people use that to pass along junk science to sell and/or endorse products that is where the line has to be drawn.

Really? You're drawing the line on junk science? When I read that I immediately laughed out loud as I got a mental image of Deputy Barney Fife with his hands on his hips giving one of his famous "law and order" speeches.

Let me ask you something, who appointed you and your naysayer cohorts as guardians of the public? Why do you think we need to be protected from the big bad audio con men? Why is it any of your concern if someone wants to spend $7,000 of their own money on interconnects?

The way you people harp on audiophile spending practices, one would swear the money was coming out of your pockets. You should try to find something you enjoy doing in your own life. Then, how others spend their time and money wouldn't bother you so much.

I really think it is rather pathetic, sick and laughable the way you people get your feathers ruffled over the "junk science" in audio, yet many of you have no problem subscribing to psychic hotline services, contributing to the billions of dollars squandered each year on lottery tickets and casino gaming, or buying hideously overpriced diamond jewelry for your sweethearts or for yourself.

Actually, what do you people realistically hope to accomplish with your anti-audio-junk-science crusade? Even if it were true that audiophile products were basically all the same, it still wouldn't matter. People still smoke even though the dangers of cigarette smoking are supported by decades of scientific and anecdotal evidence. Likewise, people would still like a lot of this audiophile stuff and be willing to pay a premium for it simply because it is "pretty".

This thread was started by someone making a sincere inquiry about a process that might enhance his listening pleasure. It is really a pity that an audiophile, audiophile aspirant, or other genuinely curious person can't ask a simple question in a public forum without a squadron of naysayer goons slithering out of a skunk's **** and showing up to show everyone the error of their ways and to share their superior insights and wisdom backed by years of subjectively meaningless scientific peer-reviewed published research.

I don't need scientific journal approval to know whether I like something or not. I feel sorry for those who do.

megasat16

DK, Your long posts are valuable to someone who want to try different gears and experience themselves with new toys and listen carefully to see if different gears and cables / wires make a difference.

But to those who want to hold their ground based on their beliefs that cables / wires / amplifiers / speakers makes no difference without actually trying anything, it seems pretty much no value to them.

The funny thing about science and scientific research is the result always changes every-time the experiment is conducted...The proof? Look at the recommendations of the supplemental vitamins such as Vitamin E and others....

Every people claiming they are scientifically sound needs to use "Tried and True" method instead of saying what was right and what was wrong based on what they know or heard before (since it seems to be always changing).

The real funny part - the scientists has no clue what they are dealing with. Everyone is really doing what they think is right based on what they know. Very few people has ingenuity to come up with new innovations and very few can think outside the box. Even some scientists do not have adequate resources and time to R&D new ideas...

So, think of this way - these scientists "naysayers" are either 1.) short of funding or resources or 2.) lack off ideas / open-mind to test and experiments themselves....so they are firmly holding their believe based on what they previously knew. They eventually forget the world around them is changing (be it good or bad) with time...

megasat16

jvc wrote: »

...with ear training and regular practice
improvements can be made in our hearing ability
to be able to recognize the details in sound.

Interpretation and judging of what subjectively is good or bad,
musical or unmusical is for those that want to debate.

From your posts in the thread, I think I can safely say you are not debating for believing / non-believing groups.

You seems to have a good time by amusing others with short sentences, and quotes to patents, controversial theories.

May I hope to hear a practical theory from you about these cables debates and whether the dielectric could make a difference in sound or not?

AudioGenics

megasat16 wrote: »

From your posts in the thread, I think I can safely say you are not debating for believing / non-believing groups.

You seems to have a good time by amusing others with short sentences, and quotes to patents, controversial theories.

May I hope to hear a practical theory from you about these cables debates and whether the dielectric could make a difference in sound or not?

Where there is much desire to learn,
there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions;
for opinions in good men is but knowledge in the making.
..........John Milton

I love to play music and prefer to listen to live concert performances.
I love to play with my stereo and listen to recorded music.
If my stereo did not have cables it would not work.

If God made everything the same
I know I would not have as much fun.

....I'm staying on the sidelines from heated debates and arguments...

'Le bon Dieu est dans le detail' ....generally attributed to Gustave Flaubert (1821-80) and possibly attributed to Michelangelo, the architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, and the art historian Aby Warburg

DarqueKnight

megasat16 wrote: »

So, think of this way - these scientists "naysayers" are either 1.) short of funding or resources or 2.) lack off ideas / open-mind to test and experiments themselves....so they are firmly holding their believe based on what they previously knew. They eventually forget the world around them is changing (be it good or bad) with time...

I think of them as people who fall into one or more of the following categories:

1. Starved-for-attention shallow thinkers who read a bunch of crap on the Internet and elsewhere and think that regurgitating it to disinterested parties makes them look smart.

2. People who have deep seated anger issues and just like to irrationally argue...about anything.

3. People who have no interest whatsoever in quality music reproduction and can't tell the difference between the objective world of the electronic project hobbyist and the subjective world of the reproduced music enthusiast. For the objectivist, the numbers are an end to themselves. For the subjectivist, the numbers are just a means to an end.

4. Well meaning, yet clueless, individuals who have a "savior" complex which compels them to attempt to "rescue" the unenlightend and gullible from the abuses of greedy audio snake oil salesmen.

I just think it is ludicrous, ridiculous and counter-productive to try to reduce any subjective phenomenon to a set of quantitative and objective criteria. You can mathematically "prove" with tests and measurements that a particular woman's face and body are perfectly symmetrical and balanced and that she has near flawless skin and hair and is therefore "beautiful". Now, what about those for whom absolute physical symmetry is not "beautiful"? Some men like a measure of asymmetry or even exaggeration in one or more physical areas. All the scientific studies, measurements and "proof" will not make a woman more appealing to them just because she conforms to a scientific quantitatively verifiable ideal.

Even if we all wanted to be objectivists, we have the very real problem that everything that humans can audibly perceive from audio reproduction equipment cannot be quantified with current laboratory meaurement tools. When we finally are able to quantify audio equipment performance down to the quantum level, we will then have to solve the problem of correlating measured performance with variable human perception.

I wish the objectivists and naysayers good luck with all that.

AudioGenics

Information is not knowledge.
I don't believe in mathematics.
......albert einstein

megasat16

jvc wrote: »

I love to play music and prefer to listen to live concert performances.

....I'm staying on the sidelines from heated debates and arguments...

I think I already figured that part before you said it.

jvc wrote: »

Information is not knowledge.
I don't believe in mathematics.
......albert einstein

I am pretty sure you know about the thread to post QUOTEs.

Please share these precious quotes in the thread they belong to and enjoy listening to music and amuse yourself.

comfortablycurt

Keiko wrote: »

Go to bed with itchy ****. Wake up with stink on finger.

Man who farts in Church sits in own pew.

Boink woman on ground get piece on Earth.

STFU Chen!

Kfucious

LMAO!!

I especially like the last line...

Boink woman on ground get piece on Earth.

That's just good entertainment.:)

Matt34

DarqueKnight wrote: »

3. People who have no interest whatsoever in quality music reproduction and can't tell the difference between the objective world of the electronic project hobbyist and the subjective world of the reproduced music enthusiast. For the objectivist, the numbers are an end to themselves. For the subjectivist, the numbers are just a means to an end.

Nope, I'm just interested in the real, quantifiable parameters of sound reproduction.

Your obviously a very close minded individual and can not back your statements with anything of value so instead take adolescent pop shots at anyone that doesn't agree with you or put them on your ignore list. Talk about sticking your head in the sand.

Flash21

Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is THE BEST.
- Frank Zappa

:rolleyes:

Matt34

megasat16 wrote: »

DK, Your long posts are valuable to someone who want to try different gears and experience themselves with new toys and listen carefully to see if different gears and cables / wires make a difference.

But to those who want to hold their ground based on their beliefs that cables / wires / amplifiers / speakers makes no difference without actually trying anything, it seems pretty much no value to them.

The funny thing about science and scientific research is the result always changes every-time the experiment is conducted...The proof? Look at the recommendations of the supplemental vitamins such as Vitamin E and others....

Every people claiming they are scientifically sound needs to use "Tried and True" method instead of saying what was right and what was wrong based on what they know or heard before (since it seems to be always changing).

The real funny part - the scientists has no clue what they are dealing with. Everyone is really doing what they think is right based on what they know. Very few people has ingenuity to come up with new innovations and very few can think outside the box. Even some scientists do not have adequate resources and time to R&D new ideas...

So, think of this way - these scientists "naysayers" are either 1.) short of funding or resources or 2.) lack off ideas / open-mind to test and experiments themselves....so they are firmly holding their believe based on what they previously knew. They eventually forget the world around them is changing (be it good or bad) with time...

I'm all for conducting tests on your own, but you have to control basis somehow. It is a very real a strong phenomenon that will skew the results if not taken into consideration. Sean Olive, Dr. Toole and others had probably one of the best R&D facilities available to anyone in the world while at Harmon International and I can say with certainty, funds were not an issue.

DarqueKnight

Matt34 wrote: »

Nope, I'm just interested in the real, quantifiable parameters of sound reproduction.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm just interested in what sounds good to me.

Matt34 wrote: »

Your obviously a very close minded individual and can not back your statements with anything of value so instead take adolescent pop shots at anyone that doesn't agree with you or put them on your ignore list. Talk about sticking your head in the sand.

I find it interesting that you would accuse me of closed-mindedness and not substantiating my statements with anything of value when I asked you twice to substantiate your comments and you ignored the questions. This is typical naysayer-troll behavior. For the record, I am not sticking my head in the sand. I am regularly sticking my head in an exotic, lush, detailed, weighty, wide, deep, tall, and fully three-dimensional stereo sound stage. However, you wouldn't know anything about that, now would you?

I have been a member of this forum for over eight years and have had respectful disagreements with some of the members here. All my posts are available for review. Typical of someone with an angry, emotionally wounded, infantile mentality, you foolishly assume that I ignore people simply because they do not agree with me. No, nothing could be further from the truth. I ignore people when they consistently demonstrate that they are just here to troll and have nothing of any real value to contribute. I illustrated that with this earlier analogy, but I am sure it will also fly over your head like all the others:

DarqueKnight wrote: »

You should understand that I believe that two can't walk together unless they have the game goal. Two travelers can take different paths to get to the same destination and they can discuss ad infinitum on whether it is best to travel to Los Angeles by rail or by air. Each transportation method has its advantages and disadvantages. However, each traveler can have a mutually beneficial discourse because they are trying to get to the same place. Now, what if another traveler tries to inject himself into the discussion by railing against mechanized transport and that it would be better to get to New York by walking or by horse driven carriage because it is so much better for the environment? First, the first two travelers are not interested in going to New York. They want to go to Los Angeles. Second, they want to get there by mechanized and professionally guided transport.

As I stated earlier, I enjoy the camaraderie, advice, and information derived from interaction and discussion with other individuals who have the same hobbyist goals or who aspire to the same goals...even when they have disagree with my viewpoints.

What concern of yours is it who I ignore or chose to talk to? Don't I have the right to mutually associate with whomever I chose? Do you want to deny me my right of association just as you want to deny me my right to squander a small fortune on dubious audiophile tweaks? I'll admit that trolls have a certain amount of entertainment value, but I sincerely hope that the trend of ignoring them will catch on like a California wildfire.

Since you are unwilling or intellectually unable to properly respond to my inquires respectfully submitted, I no longer find you appealing. Accordingly, your status has been officially upgraded to "ignored" status. Have a nice life and remember to "measure twice" and "cut once".

AudioGenics

megasat16 wrote: »

May I hope to hear a practical theory from you about these cables debates and whether the dielectric could make a difference in sound or not?

A "Practical" Theory regarding cable debates is like discovering the Unified Field Theory.

It is an individual's right to make up their own mind and choice.

Yes... it is possible that Dielectric materials and components could make a difference in sound.

dielectric materials : electric field behavior inside various materials.
dielectric constants : examples 1.00054/AIR -- 1.6/foamed polypropylene.
(relative static permittivity : optical)
reference EIA,TIA,ANSI,IEEE

CoolJazz

jvc wrote: »

Yes... it is possible that Dielectric materials and components could make a difference in sound.

At RF frequencies, it's known as velocity factor.

So it's an accepted, if not DBT , known and corrected for effect at high frequencies. And as I stated previously on this thread, its a known and accounted for effect at DC as capacitors develop a "memory". Audio frequencies are between those two extremes....


CoolJazz

AudioGenics

CoolJazz wrote: »

At RF frequencies, it's known as velocity factor.

So it's an accepted, if not DBT , known and corrected for effect at high frequencies. And as I stated previously on this thread, its a known and accounted for effect at DC as capacitors develop a "memory". Audio frequencies are between those two extremes...CoolJazz

Vp = 1 / SQRT (dielectric constant)

AudioGenics

Matt34 wrote: »

I'm all for conducting tests on your own, but you have to control basis somehow. It is a very real a strong phenomenon that will skew the results if not taken into consideration. Sean Olive, Dr. Toole and others had probably one of the best R&D facilities available to anyone in the world while at Harmon International and I can say with certainty, funds were not an issue.

A focus of Dr. Toole's research at Harman International was on the acoustics and psychoacoustics of sound reproduction in smaller rooms, such as those in consumer's homes and listening environments.

Most notably, he established methods for objective and subjective evaluations that have been used to correlate the relationships between technical measurements of audio components and listeners' perceptions.

...Sean Olive...
He directs the Corporate R&D group, and oversees the subjective evaluation of new audio products

DarqueKnight

Keiko wrote: »

If the naysayers are so interested in all the "rocket science" try nasa.com. Why do these self righteous genius's waste time on an audio forum?

If they went to "nasa.com" or any other place where a large group of technically competent people exists, they know they would be either:

1. Eaten alive, as in chewed up and spit out,
2. Totally ignored,
3. Immediately Banned just for being so ignorant,

Or all of the above.

Audio forums are attractive targets for these sociopaths because of the supposedly delusional, gullible and technically incompetent mental condition of the audiophile.