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

CCNJ wrote: »

You need a warm sounding power cord to tame the brightness of the.....

I feel responsible for starting this mess - although it has been very entertaining to say the least. I thought the quote above was funny because if my system was bright sounding, I would look to change speakers or electronics before experimenting with power cords.

With that said, this is a hobby and all of us are looking to optimize the sound quality of our systems. For me, speakers and electronics interest me the most so that's where I tend to experiment the most. Look at my sig - you people have cost me a pretty penny over the few short years that I joined this forum:eek:

I have begun to upgrade my cables and ICs but I never tested those changes in isolation so I can't comment on the various degrees of improvement that I received with each upgrade. For now I'm happy knowing that I am a step above a budget system and the sound is really pleasing to me. Maybe someday I will have time to do critical listening while swapping out individual components so I can join in on the great cable debate. For now, I will defer to those who have more experience in this area.

My last comment is that audio is very subjective and hearing sensitivity varies greatly. If you hear an improvement with an upgrade, and are happy with the sound of your rig, that is all that really matters.

Chris

This whole time I thought it fleshes-out jaw-dropping see-through-to-the-source-transparency. Only based on the leading-edge-transients and lit-from-within digital-ready dimentionality :cheesygrin:

Oh Wait! I have one...to the OP....

Hi my name is Polkfarmboy.....

Anyone? Plus your hearing increases exponentially while hammered thats a fact...

WilliamM2 wrote: »

I also found this quote from the study, which seems to differ from your claim of .003%:

In a number of cases, a preference was found for the slightly distorted sound.

They must have been using tube gear.

WELL its about stinking time! Lawrence, got anything else to derail this nonsensical BS? Please say Yea to the a fore mentioned! Hasn't this quandary gone on long enough?

Oh by the way ... Power Cables matter ! AAHHAHAHAHAHA

The dumbest things I've heard from "audiophiles" is when they start using terms like decay, microdynamics and attack when it comes to describing what they hear or have heard in a particular demo. I understand those terms and fully get the meaning but it's unneccesary. I find it even more ridiculous when it comes from folks that never even knew the term before, or let alone could understand what it meant before a magazine told them. Maybe I'm just old school but it either sounds good or it doesn't and I'm not sure it really needs the extra adjective or adverb that Stereophile and The Absolute Sound writers like to add to their oh so useless descriptions of every piece of gear they hear.

You HAVE to describe things, its normal but keep it based in reality and simple. If you sit in front of any piece of electronics, trying so very hard to hear something....you will.

I've sold a number of things in my travels and they do two things, sound good, sound bad, The nuances are opinion and can be summed up in simplicity. Sterile, Sharp, Harsh, Warm, Enveloping, Wide, Present, Hard, Sweet, Bitchin' Tubelar Wavey Crazy Man. Who knows, maybe I'm just boxed in and can't extrapolate anything outside my boundaries but when did Audio become so complicated?

Mark

Raif, May I ? ...I think this gentleman is grouped with the common misunderstood, that audible differences are of tonal quality and may or may not be noticed in the latest rendition of "Smoke on the water" in its entirety. One thing that seems to elude folks is the fact that regardless of whether it is an "in your face" difference to most, it is somewhat obvious to those that truly enjoy the hobby and revel in the slightest improvements in detail. Not to say the upgrades in quality are anything less then substantial in the experiences I have had but that some do not realize these differences due to audiological deficiencies. My wife's Master Thesis was based on the ability of the deaf to note and recognize differences in tonal substrate, however, as we sit here tonight she has an informally tested difficulty in identifying the changes in 200 to 700 hrtz.

Not to discount the clear abilities to identify changes in other frequencies but I have noticed a correlation between those that nay-say and those that seem to be lacking in sensitivity to specific frequency ranges.

In short...they simply can't hear well enough to notice the difference. In my view is and of itself grounds for dismissal of their unsubstantive claims and or arguments.

Oh .. BTW Power Cables DO make a difference!

BeefJerky wrote: »

Okay, I think I see the real issue here. You and I shouldn't even be discussing DBT/ABX at this time since you claim you don't even believe in the "placebo effect" when it comes to audio. However, it does appear that you believe it when it comes to medicinal purposes. So, just to clarify and make sure we are on the same page:
You do believe that the use of placebo is necessary in medicinal testing due the placebo effect. Specifically, there are cases where the brain/body can heal itself of disease, or even create disease based on expectations. Yet, you don't believe that your brain can alter your perception of hearing due to expectations or input from other senses. Really???

On the other hand, if your problem is more with my choice of term, I'm sure we can come up with something more to your liking. I'll admit that it may not be an optimal term for describing the effects of expectation upon one's perception of auditory stimuli. Nonetheless, it is used because it is referring the same affect of the patients body altering itself or its perception based on expectations. As of now, I haven't found a better term, but I'm certainly open to suggestions!

As for me assuming that there is no audible difference, you are correct in this case. There simply is no scientific evidence supporting the claims of power cable and digital cable enthusiasts. Really, there is no proof either way! An ABX/DBT could provide some evidence for or against my claims, just as has been done with other types of audio equipment. If I do test different cables, I actually would prefer to do it ABX or DBT style in an effort to abate my own expectations. It seems that one power cable believer is willing to join me in such a trial, and I hope others might as well. If a test does prove differences in power/digital audio cables, I am prepared to admit that my assumptions and expectations were wrong.

BeefJerky, again you did not address these statements I made in the quote below. You again tried to side step what I brought up. Do you not have a response for the issues brought up in the quote below? Try reading this again and respond:

headrott wrote: »

Again I don't believe "placebo effect" is applicable for sterephonic audio as it was intended for medical evaluations. It's similar to DBT's and their application for stereophonic audio. The term placebo is used for a false medication given to the patient receiving the placebo the idea that they were receiving the true medication. Since cables either do or do not make an audible difference there is not necessarily a secondary "false cable" (or placebo) to test if there is an audible difference between two cables, the term does not apply to a stereophonic audio situation (and that has been my point all along). You cannot assume that there is no audible difference because you don't think there is. Where is your proof that there is no audible difference? As you stated, you won't even try cables until you are shown proof there is a difference in them. You don't know if there is a difference or not as you have not discovered for yourself if there is one or not. As a mater of fact, you are refusing to until there is proof there is one. Do you see the illogical circular argument that makes?

Also, regarding this quote:

BeefJerky wrote: »

Okay, I think I see the real issue here. You and I shouldn't even be discussing DBT/ABX at this time since you claim you don't even believe in the "placebo effect" when it comes to audio. However, it does appear that you believe it when it comes to medicinal purposes. So, just to clarify and make sure we are on the same page:
You do believe that the use of placebo is necessary in medicinal testing due the placebo effect. Specifically, there are cases where the brain/body can heal itself of disease, or even create disease based on expectations. Yet, you don't believe that your brain can alter your perception of hearing due to expectations or input from other senses. Really???

On the other hand, if your problem is more with my choice of term, I'm sure we can come up with something more to your liking. I'll admit that it may not be an optimal term for describing the effects of expectation upon one's perception of auditory stimuli. Nonetheless, it is used because it is referring the same affect of the patients body altering itself or its perception based on expectations. As of now, I haven't found a better term, but I'm certainly open to suggestions!

As for me assuming that there is no audible difference, you are correct in this case. There simply is no scientific evidence supporting the claims of power cable and digital cable enthusiasts. Really, there is no proof either way! An ABX/DBT could provide some evidence for or against my claims, just as has been done with other types of audio equipment. If I do test different cables, I actually would prefer to do it ABX or DBT style in an effort to abate my own expectations. It seems that one power cable believer is willing to join me in such a trial, and I hope others might as well. If a test does prove differences in power/digital audio cables, I am prepared to admit that my assumptions and expectations were wrong.

First off, I never said I didn't believe in "placebo effect" when it comes to audio (an opinion), I said that it was not intended to be used for audio (a fact). So, by that logic, I believe (to make us on the "same page") I said that a placebo was intended to be used for medicinal purposes, whereas a placebo was not intended to be used for stereophonic audio testing. As in my quote above stating:

headrott wrote: »

Again I don't believe "placebo effect" is applicable for sterephonic audio as it was intended for medical evaluations. It's similar to DBT's and their application for stereophonic audio. The term placebo is used for a false medication given to the patient receiving the placebo the idea that they were receiving the true medication. Since cables either do or do not make an audible difference there is not necessarily a secondary "false cable" (or placebo) to test if there is an audible difference between two cables, the term does not apply to a stereophonic audio situation (and that has been my point all along).You cannot assume that there is no audible difference because you don't think there is. Where is your proof that there is no audible difference? As you stated, you won't even try cables until you are shown proof there is a difference in them. You don't know if there is a difference or not as you have not discovered for yourself if there is one or not. As a mater of fact, you are refusing to until there is proof there is one. Do you see the illogical circular argument that makes?

So, as you can (hopefully) see it is not the term choice or my lack of belief in placebo (for it's intended use). It is the methodology used for ABX, DBT's, and your use of placebo that I have issue with. You are applying these where they not intended to be applied. Make sense?

Greg

DarqueKnight wrote: »

In light of the fact that I accurately quoted the Petri-Larmi study that I referenced (AES 1980) and that the quotation was affirmed by the Petri-Larmi "smoking gun" paper that you erroneously referenced (IEEE 1980), would you like to revise your opinion regarding my research, comments and calculations regarding the audibility of signal noise reduction due to higher quality power cables?

Well keep waiting. As I said above, if it's 33 to 53 times greater than the threshold of audibility, why can't it be demonstrated? Should be easy, yet it's never done.

Okay, so after being away for a day, I see that I have missed quite a bit of good information in this thread. Therefore, I am not going to do my usual quote-fest; rather, I will just address certain posters and hopefully say what I feel I need to say. That said, if I missed something in particular, let me know and I will try to address it.

First, DK:
Your recent posts have been very informative. To say that they actually provided the information I was seeking would be an understatement. Sadly, I wasn't aware that there was a part 2 to your power line noise study since I didn't bother to read any of the replies that were made in the thread for part 1. I also don't recall anyone pointing part 2 out to me in this thread, however, if someone did I apologize for missing it.

Based on your FFT's of the audio output (even more so at the speaker input), there is a real difference in noise between the stock power cord and the upgraded one. This surprised me, but I cannot and will not deny the proof before my eyes. Based on your measurements and the references to the two Petri-Larmi studies, it seems that it is well within the threshold of hearing for some people. This seems quite reasonable since some do claim to hear differences in power cables, while others do not. It doesn't tell me whether I will be able to hear a difference, but it tells me that it is something that I should at least try. As you mentioned, it also may be dependent on my equipment. Mine is not exactly high-end (especially compared to some here), but there still may be a difference; possibly even a larger difference in terms of noise reduction compared to your study. I say this because I would imagine your higher-end monoblocks would have even better filtration in them in relation mine.

That said, I would still like to see a proper blind study done on the subject, if simply for curiosity's sake. At some point, there was another person here who seemed willing to join in on it, but I'm not sure if he still is. However, if there is still interest and the logistics can be worked out, I think it would be a fun and interesting experiment!

SDA1C:
I was going to point out that I still think the "night and day" or "in your face" difference some claim is overblown. However, SDA1C does bring up a good point. One person's definition of a large difference may not be the same as another's. For example, while an artist may be able to pick out miniscule details and meanings in art, someone like me would never notice them.

Headrott:
Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, your primary point of issue is that the placebo effect was not originally intended for use in the audio world, and therefore ABX/DBT's aren't applicable in that world either.

First, just because something wasn't originally intended for a particular use doesn't mean that it cannot actually be used for that. That is like saying: computers weren't originally intended for use in the home, so they shouldn't be used there. No, they weren't intended for that originally, but they have found purpose there.

It also turns out that placebo and ABX/DBT does have a valid use in the audio world. Bell Labs and many others would disagree with your contention that DBT/ABX shouldn't be used at all in audio. The real issue comes down to whether or not they are applicable for use with more complex forms of audio, such as stereophonic music reproduction. There seems to be evidence from both sides of the argument, so I don't expect to be able to conclusively prove my point. At the same time, there isn't any overwhelming evidence saying that it isn't, so I don't intend on changing my point of view either; at least not at this point in time.

So, until there comes a time when more conclusive evidence is available, I say we live and let live on the subject. Or, if you prefer the McCartney version: live and let die.

DK/Maximillian/Joe08867:
Max, I understand what digital means, and I also understand how the information is transferred between digital components. When I refer to a "digital cable," I am specifically referring to the cable that connects two digital components together; for example, the digital output of a CDP and the input of a DAC (both coaxial and fiber optic, maybe even HDMI). My belief is that the connecting cable would have to quite a bit out-of-spec to make any sort of audible difference. Furthermore, I contend that two different in-spec cables shouldn't affect the analog output from the DAC.

DK, there is a reason I mention your name in conjunction with this part of my reply. Have you done any studies on digital interconnect cables and differences in the analog outputs? If not, would it be something that you would be interested in doing? I ask because I am very curious on this, and I'd like to see whether my claims are correct or not. In addition, you have the equipment and knowledge to do something like this; many don't, including me. If I'm wrong, then it would be yet another type of cable that I would try in my system and with my ears.

CCNJ:
I actually thank you for "starting this mess." I have enjoyed the discussion thus far, and furthermore I learned something. Without your original comment, I may never have discovered DK's excellent study, and therefore missed out on that bit of knowledge. So, thanks!

Dorokusai:
I like your take on the subject. However, I can understand how some can get so engrossed in the hobby, and get to the point of noticing miniscule details that others might not. For example, I would notice a small difference in the way the transmission shifted in my or my mother's car. However, it would take a large change for her to notice. We're talking something like a loud clunk, or not even going into gear; maybe she'd notice something like a very hard shift, but I dunno.

Tommyt21:
"Can't we all just have a beer and get along"
I don't drink (or like) beer. However, if you hook me up with a good, strong margarita I'll be good to go. :cheesygrin:

This was fun for a while, now it's just boring. Bop on boppers.

And since you find DK's measurement "highly suspect" I assume you have done your own round of experiments. Care to share your indepth findings? Or are you just running your mouth again and making assumptions.

H9

DarqueKnight wrote: »

It's not always a case of not being able to hear well enough, but rather a case of not knowing how to listen. Many people have to learn how to properly perceive a stereophonic sound field. This was explicitly stated by some of the early researchers in stereophonic systems.

BINGO! I know I've had to rethink the way I listen to music at times, of course when I'm riding down the road I don't pay nearly as much attention when I'm sitting down with the rig for an hour with a glass of Mark, closing my eyes and hitting play. There is something to be said for a serious session of tunes.

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Are you really that dense? The study showed the ability to hear distortion artificially inserted into certain passages of music, not the audibility of power cords. I also find DK's measurements very suspect, as if the distortion an a power line wouldn't vary more than .06% over time, without changing a thing.

The Petri-Larmi study (the AES study, not the IEEE study) showed that trained and sensitive listeners using good equipment can hear the effects of extremely low levels of distortion.

In post 201 of this thread, I showed two FFT plots showing the effects of two different power cords on the signal going to the loudspeakers. Since the noise content in both speaker cable FFT plots was much higher than the noise content in the Petri-Larmi study, it should be clear that it is possible to hear a difference between the two power cords.