Back to (the ultimate) basics

[Gray]

I've been reading the polar opposite opinions of posters on amp /cable sound differences and marvelling at their diverse conclusions.

It's clear there's bias, in SOME cases those able to spend a fortune (expect to) hear an improvement, whereas SOME bargaineers / skinflints are convinced there could be no worthwile difference by spending what, to them, is too much.

All of which is understandable of course.

But it's obvious that some genuinely don't hear what others do.

Amongst the argument there's the odd sarcastic comment about cotton buds, no one would like to think their hearing was defective but:

I noticed reduced HF / slight muffling, so had ears syringed.

Over the years I've upgraded every component / cable, filled stands with sand, acousticly treated the room (which was boring, messy, expensive but effective) you name it. But having the earoles blasted was like your every best upgrade all at once.

How good? First music I heard, a song I've never particularly liked, 'Break my stride' by Matthew Wilder, Radio 2 on Humax Freesat box via Cyrus 8 to PMC 21 was an absolute clear, detailed, tuneful joy - never would have thought I could enjoy that song as much.

Worth remembering too that anyone's hearing is their own brain's interpretation of sound waves which might well explain those polar differences?

Though my case was extreme the moral of the story?

You could benefit from getting a nurse to squirt in your ears.

(Some people would pay a lot of money for that but it's free!)

 

[keeper of the quays]

I've been reading the polar opposite opinions of posters on amp /cable sound differences and marvelling at their diverse conclusions.

It's clear there's bias, in SOME cases those able to spend a fortune (expect to) hear an improvement,  whereas SOME bargaineers / skinflints are convinced there could be no worthwile difference by spending what, to them, is too much.

All of which is understandable of course.

But it's obvious that some genuinely don't hear what others do.

Amongst the argument there's the odd sarcastic comment about cotton buds, no one would like to think their hearing was defective but:

I noticed reduced HF / slight muffling, so had ears syringed.

Over the years I've upgraded every component / cable, filled stands with sand, acousticly treated the room (which was boring, messy, expensive but effective) you name it. But having the earoles blasted was like your every best upgrade all at once.

How good? First music I heard, a song I've never particularly liked, 'Break my stride' by Matthew Wilder, Radio 2 on Humax Freesat box via Cyrus 8 to PMC 21 was an absolute clear, detailed, tuneful joy - never would have thought I could enjoy that song as much.

Worth remembering too that anyone's hearing is their own brain's interpretation of sound waves which might well explain those polar differences?

Though my case was extreme the moral of the story?

You could benefit from getting a nurse to squirt in your ears.

(Some people would pay a lot of money for that but it's free!)

 

hopi candles pretty good too!

 

[ID.]

And get a colonoscopy while you're at it.

 

[MeanandGreen]

That those who can't hear differences in cables are deaf? Or that on paper specs of an amplifier don't tell us what we need to know?

 

[MajorFubar]

I suffer intermittently from Eustachian Tube Dysfunction which affects the hearing in my left ear for varying amounts of time and gives me a lot of pain. All the medical profession could offer me were nasal sprays or invasive surgery (e.g.: grommet in the ear). I finally found relief by buying one of these a couple of years ago. No invasive surgery, works wonders. The price is a complete rip off because it's nothing but a small battery-powered air-pump; totally stinks of captive market syndrome, because no-one else makes a similar alternative (plus it's also gone up in price by 25% for no obvious reason since I bought mine). Still, what price do you put on relief from pain and getting your hearing back? Why this isn't offered by the NHS to patients initially instead of invasive surgery is a total mystery to me.

 

[keeper of the quays]

What a brilliant gadget! I had no idea these were about...be nice if there was a gadget for tinnitus!

 

[RobinKidderminster]

I suffer intermittently from Eustachian Tube Dysfunction which affects the hearing in my left ear for varying amounts of time and gives me a lot of pain. All the medical profession could offer me were nasal sprays or invasive surgery (e.g.: grommet in the ear). I finally found relief by buying one of these a couple of years ago. No invasive surgery, works wonders. The price is a complete rip off because it's nothing but a small battery-powered air-pump; totally stinks of captive market syndrome, because no-one else makes a similar alternative (plus it's also gone up in price by 25% for no obvious reason since I bought mine). Still, what price do you put on relief from pain and getting your hearing back? Why this isn't offered by the NHS to patients initially instead of invasive surgery is a total mystery to me.

No ear problems here but as a scuba diver I would hold my nose and gently blow to 'pop' my ears. In no way critisising your post, which has certainly helped you and apparently others, I wonder if the principle is not the same. I guess you used to try this simple method - is this device in some way better, working in a different way. I am smiling imagining a Heath Robinson solution using a plastic tube.

 

[MajorFubar]

What a brilliant gadget! I had no idea these were about...be nice if there was a gadget for tinnitus!

I can't promise anything of course because there are multiple acknowledged causes for tinnitus, and in fact I'm not even sure we truly know all the causes for tinnitus in any case, but the ear popper cured mine completely.

 

[MajorFubar]

No ear problems here but as a scuba diver I would hold my nose and gently blow to 'pop' my ears. In no way critisising your post, which has certainly helped you and apparently others, I wonder if the principle is not the same. I guess you used to try this simple method - is this device in some way better, working in a different way. I am smiling imagining a Heath Robinson solution using a plastic tube.

It is a similar principle, but when the ET is blocked, doing that doesn't work, not least because you can't swallow at the same time, which is required to open the ET at the back of your throat. With the ear popper, the instructions advise you to swallow water at the same time so the mucus or fluid build-up in the ET can be dislodged and exit down the back of your throat.

 

[Covenanter]

What a brilliant gadget! I had no idea these were about...be nice if there was a gadget for tinnitus!

This isn't first hand knowledge but a musician friend of mine with tinnitus has told me that modern digital hearing aids can help. It's certainly worth consulting a hearing expert.

Chris

 

[drummerman]

No ear problems here but as a scuba diver I would hold my nose and gently blow to 'pop' my ears. In no way critisising your post, which has certainly helped you and apparently others, I wonder if the principle is not the same. I guess you used to try this simple method - is this device in some way better, working in a different way. I am smiling imagining a Heath Robinson solution using a plastic tube.

It is a similar principle, but when the ET is blocked, doing that doesn't work, not least because you can't swallow at the same time, which is required to open the ET at the back of your throat. With the ear popper, the instructions advise you to swallow water at the same time so the mucus or fluid build-up in the ET can be dislodged and exit down the back of your throat.

Now what am I going to have for lunch ... ?

 

[Gray]

That those who can't hear differences in cables are deaf? Or that on paper specs of an amplifier don't tell us what we need to know?

[/quote

No I most certainly don't think those who can't hear cable differences are deaf.

The post was reflecting on the fact that, undeniably, some hear what others don't and wondering what the reason was for that.

Speaking as a sceptical person that has heard a speaker cable difference I can confirm (obviously) that, immediately prior to my hearing transformation I would have had no chance of hearing that difference.

Extreme though perhaps my case was, many people's hearing must be somewhere on a scale between absolutely perfect (doubtful) and borderline defective - which may explain a lot of the differences of opinions.

And how about the individual frequency response plots that audiologists can do for people - wouldn't it be interesting to compare one with that same person's subjective opinion of a system's tonal balance, especially transducer differences?

In fact we could choose speakers with a response curve opposite to our own to acheive a flatter response - easy to see how wrong that same speaker would appear to others.