Peter Larsen:
If YOU can't hear the difference, maybe you should get a new hobby, because then your are simply not up to the task of listening to hifi.
Uh oh....
If YOU can't hear the difference, maybe you should get a new hobby, because then your are simply not up to the task of listening to hifi.
Uh oh....
al7478:Peter Larsen:
If YOU can't hear the difference, maybe you should get a new hobby, because then your are simply not up to the task of listening to hifi.
Well thats a winner!
I knew it would be a killer ;-)
If YOU can't hear the difference, maybe you should get a new hobby, because then your are simply not up to the task of listening to hifi.
Well thats a winner!
I knew it would be a killer ;-)
chebby
Well-known member
- Jun 2, 2008
- 1,257
- 34
- 19,220
Peter Larsen:....maybe you should get a new hobby, because then your are simply not up to the task of listening to hifi.
That is a dead giveaway about our relative attitudes to hifi systems.
To you, listening to hifi is a 'task' that one must be qualified for.
To me it is a pleasurable and absorbing pass-time in which minutiae - like speakers & cartridges running-in when new - simply does not bother me. So long as things sound at least as good or better over time then it's win win.
When I bought my NACA5 speaker cable I simply plugged it in and enjoyed the improvement. Maybe it started to sound even better still after a few days or hours. But really who would care? (Or worse, waste time measuring it rather than listen to it!)
Maybe I put a disk in one day and thought... "ooh that sounds particularly nice today" but that can be due to factors like my mood, low levels of background noise, a particularly good recording, or even the planets aligning! It may indeed be because my cables had finally been 'conditioned' and it may just be me getting used to it as someone else suggested. Maybe it was the CDP or the amp sounding better over time. I still cannot see why all the fuss about defining and measuring exactly what goes on with new equipment when it warms up or burns in or whatever.
But ultimately I upgrade major components to get better, more enjoyable sound and I use whatever cable is recommended then forget about it. (Naim 5 pin DIN connector and NACA5 speaker cable and Chord Crimson 0.5m for the DAC). Cables are a necessary evil. They cannot 'improve' the sound, but merely do it the least damage and not introduce any unwanted 'character' of their own, hopefully. The best cables presumably add nor subtract exactly nothing.
Like most cable debates.
That is a dead giveaway about our relative attitudes to hifi systems.
To you, listening to hifi is a 'task' that one must be qualified for.
To me it is a pleasurable and absorbing pass-time in which minutiae - like speakers & cartridges running-in when new - simply does not bother me. So long as things sound at least as good or better over time then it's win win.
When I bought my NACA5 speaker cable I simply plugged it in and enjoyed the improvement. Maybe it started to sound even better still after a few days or hours. But really who would care? (Or worse, waste time measuring it rather than listen to it!)
Maybe I put a disk in one day and thought... "ooh that sounds particularly nice today" but that can be due to factors like my mood, low levels of background noise, a particularly good recording, or even the planets aligning! It may indeed be because my cables had finally been 'conditioned' and it may just be me getting used to it as someone else suggested. Maybe it was the CDP or the amp sounding better over time. I still cannot see why all the fuss about defining and measuring exactly what goes on with new equipment when it warms up or burns in or whatever.
But ultimately I upgrade major components to get better, more enjoyable sound and I use whatever cable is recommended then forget about it. (Naim 5 pin DIN connector and NACA5 speaker cable and Chord Crimson 0.5m for the DAC). Cables are a necessary evil. They cannot 'improve' the sound, but merely do it the least damage and not introduce any unwanted 'character' of their own, hopefully. The best cables presumably add nor subtract exactly nothing.
Like most cable debates.
chebby:
Peter Larsen:....maybe you should get a new hobby, because then your are simply not up to the task of listening to hifi.
That is a dead giveaway about our relative attitudes to hifi systems.
To you, listening to hifi is a 'task' that one must be qualified for.
To me it is a pleasurable and absorbing pass-time in which minutiae - like speakers & cartridges running-in when new - simply does not bother me. So long as things sound at least as good or better over time then it's win win.
When I bought my NACA5 speaker cable I simply plugged it in and enjoyed the improvement. Maybe it started to sound even better still after a few days or hours. But really who would care? (Or worse, waste time measuring it rather than listen to it!)
Maybe I put a disk in one day and thought... "ooh that sounds particularly nice today" but that can be due to factors like my mood, low levels of background noise, a particularly good recording, or even the planets aligning! It may indeed be because my cables had finally been 'conditioned' and it may just be me getting used to it as someone else suggested. Maybe it was the CDP or the amp sounding better over time. I still cannot see why all the fuss about defining and measuring exactly what goes on with new equipment when it warms up or burns in or whatever.
But ultimately I upgrade major components to get better, more enjoyable sound and I use whatever cable is recommended then forget about it. (Naim 5 pin DIN connector and NACA5 speaker cable and Chord Crimson 0.5m for the DAC). Cables are a necessary evil. They cannot 'improve' the sound, but merely do it the least damage and not introduce any unwanted 'character' of their own, hopefully. The best cables presumably add nor subtract exactly nothing.
Like most cable debates.
Its not a task for me either, my post was never complaining, it was simply a statement that cable burn in exist. I don't bother spending time with cable burn in, thats the reason I tried a semi scientific approach, where I didn't let my ears get used to the sound before burn in. That way I had some sort of proof that if the cable sounded better after burn in, well then burn in exists. But as always people attacked the messenger with cable voodoo prejudice and stating between the lines that I, and others who actually can hear a difference, are imagining things.
Peter Larsen:....maybe you should get a new hobby, because then your are simply not up to the task of listening to hifi.
That is a dead giveaway about our relative attitudes to hifi systems.
To you, listening to hifi is a 'task' that one must be qualified for.
To me it is a pleasurable and absorbing pass-time in which minutiae - like speakers & cartridges running-in when new - simply does not bother me. So long as things sound at least as good or better over time then it's win win.
When I bought my NACA5 speaker cable I simply plugged it in and enjoyed the improvement. Maybe it started to sound even better still after a few days or hours. But really who would care? (Or worse, waste time measuring it rather than listen to it!)
Maybe I put a disk in one day and thought... "ooh that sounds particularly nice today" but that can be due to factors like my mood, low levels of background noise, a particularly good recording, or even the planets aligning! It may indeed be because my cables had finally been 'conditioned' and it may just be me getting used to it as someone else suggested. Maybe it was the CDP or the amp sounding better over time. I still cannot see why all the fuss about defining and measuring exactly what goes on with new equipment when it warms up or burns in or whatever.
But ultimately I upgrade major components to get better, more enjoyable sound and I use whatever cable is recommended then forget about it. (Naim 5 pin DIN connector and NACA5 speaker cable and Chord Crimson 0.5m for the DAC). Cables are a necessary evil. They cannot 'improve' the sound, but merely do it the least damage and not introduce any unwanted 'character' of their own, hopefully. The best cables presumably add nor subtract exactly nothing.
Like most cable debates.
Its not a task for me either, my post was never complaining, it was simply a statement that cable burn in exist. I don't bother spending time with cable burn in, thats the reason I tried a semi scientific approach, where I didn't let my ears get used to the sound before burn in. That way I had some sort of proof that if the cable sounded better after burn in, well then burn in exists. But as always people attacked the messenger with cable voodoo prejudice and stating between the lines that I, and others who actually can hear a difference, are imagining things.
I can understand if you guys were argue about "hearing different in cables" but burn-in? If you bought a pair and it sound better after 1 week or 2 then..."bonus!" Afterall, you bought them because you like them in the first place.
Thaiman:
I can understand if you guys were argue about "hearing different in cables" but burn-in? If you bought a pair and it sound better after 1 week or 2 then..."bonus!" Afterall, you bought them because you like them in the first place.
Well said the voice of reason or Elvis ah ha ah ha
I can understand if you guys were argue about "hearing different in cables" but burn-in? If you bought a pair and it sound better after 1 week or 2 then..."bonus!" Afterall, you bought them because you like them in the first place.
Well said the voice of reason or Elvis ah ha ah ha
al7478:
Thaiman: Afterall, you bought them because you like them in the first place.
Are you sure...?
Yes, but I also like lots of other things too!
Thaiman: Afterall, you bought them because you like them in the first place.
Are you sure...?
Yes, but I also like lots of other things too!
Just to throw a spanner in the works
At what stage does the 'burn in' process go too far and degrade the sound? Necessitating the purchase of new connects, and then starting the whole process over again?
At what stage does the 'burn in' process go too far and degrade the sound? Necessitating the purchase of new connects, and then starting the whole process over again?
the_lhc:
al7478:One of the reasons these threads are so contntious, Mr Larson, is that you cannot prove you are not imagining things.
You missed the corollary. You cannot prove he IS imagining things.
Didnt miss a thing, im well aware of it.
But, having made no claim at all about the existence or not of burn in, there is no burden of anything on me.
al7478:One of the reasons these threads are so contntious, Mr Larson, is that you cannot prove you are not imagining things.
You missed the corollary. You cannot prove he IS imagining things.
Didnt miss a thing, im well aware of it.
But, having made no claim at all about the existence or not of burn in, there is no burden of anything on me.
al7478:the_lhc:al7478:One of the reasons these threads are so contntious, Mr Larson, is that you cannot prove you are not imagining things.
You missed the corollary. You cannot prove he IS imagining things.
Didnt miss a thing, im well aware of it.
But, having made no claim at all about the existence or not of burn in, there is no burden of anything on me.
True, however if you're adopting a neutral stance, as you appear to be, it behoves you to present both sides of the argument, in order to maintain that balance.
You missed the corollary. You cannot prove he IS imagining things.
Didnt miss a thing, im well aware of it.
But, having made no claim at all about the existence or not of burn in, there is no burden of anything on me.
True, however if you're adopting a neutral stance, as you appear to be, it behoves you to present both sides of the argument, in order to maintain that balance.
I'm not on the fence here, I think burn in is a valid theory but............
Standard scientific procedure requires those that say something DOES happen to provide proof. It is NOT the responsibility of others to prove that it DOES NOT.
Standard scientific procedure requires those that say something DOES happen to provide proof. It is NOT the responsibility of others to prove that it DOES NOT.
It also behoves me to point out when people are just saying:
"i heard this so believe me and dont you dare disagree, despite the fact i just started a thread in a net forum where the subject is highly conentious, and i have no way of proving anything".
To clarify, I'm slightly toward the cynical end of the spectrum. I freely admit this is based on very little, which is why i say slightly. The experiences i do have, however, indicate that cables can do nothing more than very slightly fine tune the sound to a point where i may not even notice it in my home. I could, therefore, audition a cable and report that it makes no difference. Then WHF may review it in their super duper test rooms and say it makes quite a difference. I would contend that they would probably be right, but there is still no point me either passing on my findings** or even using the cable myself if i cant hear the difference. In other words, im in a real world listening environment. Debates on cables often ignore the existence of the real world.
I may take the plunge and try some stuff. But what id probably do is just buy what WHF reccommend at my level (or a compromise betwenn the level of my kit and what i feel i can afford). This is contrary to the endless hobbyists who seem to disregard the fact that their tests arent representative or well conduced or verifiable*, and that silly little real world consideration of money again; We all make choices about what we can afford, and we all value things differently.
* Very often, at least.
** After-thought - maybe i should pass on any findings as i will test in a real world environment, and maybe this would be useflul to others who wont be listening in fancy rooms. And maybe this undermines a lot of what ive said above...hmmm...
Oh, and down with cable threads of all kinds!
"i heard this so believe me and dont you dare disagree, despite the fact i just started a thread in a net forum where the subject is highly conentious, and i have no way of proving anything".
To clarify, I'm slightly toward the cynical end of the spectrum. I freely admit this is based on very little, which is why i say slightly. The experiences i do have, however, indicate that cables can do nothing more than very slightly fine tune the sound to a point where i may not even notice it in my home. I could, therefore, audition a cable and report that it makes no difference. Then WHF may review it in their super duper test rooms and say it makes quite a difference. I would contend that they would probably be right, but there is still no point me either passing on my findings** or even using the cable myself if i cant hear the difference. In other words, im in a real world listening environment. Debates on cables often ignore the existence of the real world.
I may take the plunge and try some stuff. But what id probably do is just buy what WHF reccommend at my level (or a compromise betwenn the level of my kit and what i feel i can afford). This is contrary to the endless hobbyists who seem to disregard the fact that their tests arent representative or well conduced or verifiable*, and that silly little real world consideration of money again; We all make choices about what we can afford, and we all value things differently.
* Very often, at least.
** After-thought - maybe i should pass on any findings as i will test in a real world environment, and maybe this would be useflul to others who wont be listening in fancy rooms. And maybe this undermines a lot of what ive said above...hmmm...
Oh, and down with cable threads of all kinds!
raym87:I'm not on the fence here, I think burn in is a valid theory but............
Standard scientific procedure requires those that say something DOES happen to provide proof. It is NOT the responsibility of others to prove that it DOES NOT.
However when we're talking about an individual's experience (ie what he hears in his head) it isn't possible to prove anything, one way or the other. If individual A swaps a cable and says "that sounds better to me", how on earth is anyone going to prove that it doesn't sound better to individual A any more than individual A can prove that it does sound better to him, A can only go by his own ears, the rest of us have only got his word for it. Nobody can prove anything.
Standard scientific procedure requires those that say something DOES happen to provide proof. It is NOT the responsibility of others to prove that it DOES NOT.
However when we're talking about an individual's experience (ie what he hears in his head) it isn't possible to prove anything, one way or the other. If individual A swaps a cable and says "that sounds better to me", how on earth is anyone going to prove that it doesn't sound better to individual A any more than individual A can prove that it does sound better to him, A can only go by his own ears, the rest of us have only got his word for it. Nobody can prove anything.
the_lhc:raym87:I'm not on the fence here, I think burn in is a valid theory but............
Standard scientific procedure requires those that say something DOES happen to provide proof. It is NOT the responsibility of others to prove that it DOES NOT.
However when we're talking about an individual's experience (ie what he hears in his head) it isn't possible to prove anything, one way or the other. If individual A swaps a cable and says "that sounds better to me", how on earth is anyone going to prove that it doesn't sound better to individual A any more than individual A can prove that it does sound better to him, A can only go by his own ears, the rest of us have only got his word for it. Nobody can prove anything.
Which one could argue makes these threads utterly pointless.
Standard scientific procedure requires those that say something DOES happen to provide proof. It is NOT the responsibility of others to prove that it DOES NOT.
However when we're talking about an individual's experience (ie what he hears in his head) it isn't possible to prove anything, one way or the other. If individual A swaps a cable and says "that sounds better to me", how on earth is anyone going to prove that it doesn't sound better to individual A any more than individual A can prove that it does sound better to him, A can only go by his own ears, the rest of us have only got his word for it. Nobody can prove anything.
Which one could argue makes these threads utterly pointless.
I know a lot of these cable debates are based on subjective opinions, but do they need to be? Surely, there must be some way to scientifically measure how the performance of the equipment is being affected (or not) by changing the cables? Someone made a remark about the bass being deeper after a cable change, so surely if the low frequencies in the room are indeed now lower, that must be measurable?
Similar with HDMI cables (I know, I know! Sorry!) a computer website I visit mentioned that is has equipment that lets them capture individual frames being produced, for use as screenshots in reviews, or so they can check the frame rate and resolution. Couldn't similar technology be used to capture invidual frames being produced by differing HDMI cables, then we'd be able to see (or not) the differences between the two captures?
I just think that there must be ways of scientifically measuring most of the things that are commonly debated, and I'm curious as to why it's never been tried!
Similar with HDMI cables (I know, I know! Sorry!) a computer website I visit mentioned that is has equipment that lets them capture individual frames being produced, for use as screenshots in reviews, or so they can check the frame rate and resolution. Couldn't similar technology be used to capture invidual frames being produced by differing HDMI cables, then we'd be able to see (or not) the differences between the two captures?
I just think that there must be ways of scientifically measuring most of the things that are commonly debated, and I'm curious as to why it's never been tried!
ElectroMan
Well-known member
- Nov 20, 2008
- 30
- 0
- 18,540
I think with HDMI and other digital cables, all you would need to do is to measure if the digits that went in one end came out the other intact!
ElectroMan:
I think with HDMI and other digital cables, all you would need to do is to measure if the digits that went in one end came out the other intact!
please someone correct me if im wrong, but isnt the contention of those who say HDMIs differ, that they differ regardless of the fact that all the bits are intact...?
I think with HDMI and other digital cables, all you would need to do is to measure if the digits that went in one end came out the other intact!
please someone correct me if im wrong, but isnt the contention of those who say HDMIs differ, that they differ regardless of the fact that all the bits are intact...?
al7478:ElectroMan:
I think with HDMI and other digital cables, all you would need to do is to measure if the digits that went in one end came out the other intact!
please someone correct me if im wrong, but isnt the contention of those who say HDMIs differ, that they differ regardless of the fact that all the bits are intact...?
Partially ~ JITTER is the main one (Meaning all bits are intact, but not spaced exactly right)
I think with HDMI and other digital cables, all you would need to do is to measure if the digits that went in one end came out the other intact!
please someone correct me if im wrong, but isnt the contention of those who say HDMIs differ, that they differ regardless of the fact that all the bits are intact...?
Partially ~ JITTER is the main one (Meaning all bits are intact, but not spaced exactly right)
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
How To How do I get my sound working through my DAC? Need some advice!- Started by Yoran
- Replies: 31
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram