steve_1979
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
steve_1979
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
steve_1979 said:mikefarrow said:
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Steve talking wee again: nothing new there.
I haven't read through this, and quite frankly, I have no desire to do so. AFAIC, as long as one has half-decent cables, that's pretty much it. I got on fine with my QED 79 strand. As for measured differences, that's great if your ears are up to it, but most (if any) aren't. I think everything has been said, so maybe it's time to stop hurling insults/making points?
" You're not from around these parts are you boy " , they're at daggers drawn over 20 quids worth of cooper every few weeks when the real question is "are Steely Dan the most underrated band ever ?" midnight on a saturday night should you play my old school or wish you here , the answer is BOTH <S>
James
James
steve_1979
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
the record spot said:
I figured that if I keep cracking jokes at every opportunity sooner or later one of them might actually be funny.
Back to the debate regarding what cables professional studios used. Mogami claim virtually every major recording facility is wired with their cables to the point they are called "The Cable of the Pros".
Surprise surprise, the description of their cable technology is very similar to hi-fi cable manufacturers:
http://www.mogamicable.com/additional/technology.php
And while many of their testimonials do talk about the physical quality of the cables, a good many of them also talk about the difference in audio quality as well:
http://www.mogamicable.com/additional/testimonials.php
So there goes the argument that professionals choose cables solely based on the build quality of the cables.
Surprise surprise, the description of their cable technology is very similar to hi-fi cable manufacturers:
http://www.mogamicable.com/additional/technology.php
And while many of their testimonials do talk about the physical quality of the cables, a good many of them also talk about the difference in audio quality as well:
http://www.mogamicable.com/additional/testimonials.php
So there goes the argument that professionals choose cables solely based on the build quality of the cables.
Native_bon
Well-known member
- Nov 26, 2008
- 182
- 5
- 18,595
And u believe everything you see online.. I thought you could do better with pionting to a webstie?hifikrazy said:
I have no science or maths degree, and no interest to gain deep understanding on the technical side of the hobby. What I think I do have is a decent pair of ears and good listening skills which allows me to hear differences in cables (as many others apparently can too), so I find it plain insulting when people jump in accusing us of being gullible, succumbing to placebo effect and marketing hype, etc, etc.
Given my lack of technical knowledge, all I can do is point to the website of possibly the leading supplier of professional cabling, in response to some here who claimed that professionals don’t feel the need to use anything better than cheap and nasty cables so why should we, and that even if they choose better quality cables, it is merely for the physical quality and durability of the cables rather than the sonic quality.
Writing off all testimonials based on the “they must have been paid by the manufacturer argument" is just cynicism of the highest order. There are thousands of testimonials given by forum members here over the years regarding various products, which are given willingly for no financial return. When customers are thrilled with a product that they bought, they just like to share that with others. That’s just a natural thing to want to do, and it’s just a shame when they are routinely labeled as delusional and naïve when they do so. So why should professionals giving testimonials be labeled as corrupt bribe takers just because they choose to share their experience like common folk in forums?
What I have heard here from the cable sceptics is that common hi-fi enthusiasts and their family members lack credibility and are highly susceptible to placebo effect, audio professionals and musicians are qualified but subject to bias and bribery when they provide testimonials, dealers and hi-fi reviewers are commercially driven and hence also biased. So I guess only testimonials given by Jesus and the Pope would be credible but even theirs would be rejected by the sceptics on account that one walked the Earth before the invention of electricity, and the other is too old to have good hearing.
The thing is, while some of those pontificating here have shared their technical credentials (Maths degree and what not), the fact remains that those providing the testimonials are far more experienced in the field as their careers revolve around the subject, rather than somebody who took Electronics 101 back in University 20 years ago. There’s a serious lack of credibility when a reject at the American Idol auditions constantly criticises Aretha Franklin and other accomplished singers for not knowing how to sing.
Given my lack of technical knowledge, all I can do is point to the website of possibly the leading supplier of professional cabling, in response to some here who claimed that professionals don’t feel the need to use anything better than cheap and nasty cables so why should we, and that even if they choose better quality cables, it is merely for the physical quality and durability of the cables rather than the sonic quality.
Writing off all testimonials based on the “they must have been paid by the manufacturer argument" is just cynicism of the highest order. There are thousands of testimonials given by forum members here over the years regarding various products, which are given willingly for no financial return. When customers are thrilled with a product that they bought, they just like to share that with others. That’s just a natural thing to want to do, and it’s just a shame when they are routinely labeled as delusional and naïve when they do so. So why should professionals giving testimonials be labeled as corrupt bribe takers just because they choose to share their experience like common folk in forums?
What I have heard here from the cable sceptics is that common hi-fi enthusiasts and their family members lack credibility and are highly susceptible to placebo effect, audio professionals and musicians are qualified but subject to bias and bribery when they provide testimonials, dealers and hi-fi reviewers are commercially driven and hence also biased. So I guess only testimonials given by Jesus and the Pope would be credible but even theirs would be rejected by the sceptics on account that one walked the Earth before the invention of electricity, and the other is too old to have good hearing.
The thing is, while some of those pontificating here have shared their technical credentials (Maths degree and what not), the fact remains that those providing the testimonials are far more experienced in the field as their careers revolve around the subject, rather than somebody who took Electronics 101 back in University 20 years ago. There’s a serious lack of credibility when a reject at the American Idol auditions constantly criticises Aretha Franklin and other accomplished singers for not knowing how to sing.
hifikrazy said:
Well Jesus died 2000 years ago and the Pope believes in idiotic fairy stories [EDITED by MODS], so I doubt that the opinion of either them should be considered trustworthy
UNPUBLISHED DUPLICATE
Well Jesus died 2000 years ago and the Pope believes in idiotic fairy stories and runs an organisation of child abusers, so I doubt that the opinion of either them should be considered trustworthy
hifikrazy said:
Well Jesus died 2000 years ago and the Pope believes in idiotic fairy stories and runs an organisation of child abusers, so I doubt that the opinion of either them should be considered trustworthy
hifikrazy said:
Some sort of degree in science would have helped you to understand that basically any person is capable of seeing, hearing, believing stuff that simply is not there. There is nothing insulting about people pointing out that even you can be fooled. Especially because many of those people are happy and perhaps a little embarrassed to acknowledge that they themselves have been mistaken themselves before. To be very fundamental about such a matter as 'hearing subtle differences' when there are loads of double blind studies that contradict such findings (among people who had the same opinion as you do!), is quite frankly, a bit dumb.
hifikrazy said:
You shouldn't. If some of the proponents of cables could learn to express themselves using more appropriate descriptive language about what they heard then we'd get rid of most of the problems surrounding the whole topic. I've been through several - probably over a dozen cables now - and none, none has delivered a night and day change. Not one. Subtle, yes, but nothing of the scale that some claim.
Neither do I buy that it's my ears, or my inability to tell a difference (I find that kind of counter-argument a crock), or that my system isn't "resolving" enough, or that I use an AV amp so that's got some negative effect. Or some suchlike tosh. I find that pretty insulting.
Native_bon
Well-known member
- Nov 26, 2008
- 182
- 5
- 18,595
OK in the interest of sharing, let me attempt to describe the differences I hear with component and cable changes, even if it gets the predictable ROFL emoticon response.
A bit of background first… I’m no engineer or studio professional so I will not attempt to rationalize what I hear based on the technical aspects of cables. I’m also no musician, so forgive me if I don’t use the right words to describe the sound or materials of the instruments. I attend live concerts a lot – I have season tickets at our local philharmonic orchestra, go for a lot of intimate jazz club performances, and my wife plays the piano and guitar at home so when I listen to my system, I try to compare the reproduced sound to that of the real instruments.
I believe the components in my system are resolving enough to reproduce the details that are there on a recording even with stock cables. So when I substitute better cables for them, I will not claim to hear details that I never heard before. So if I were to quantify the improvement, you could even say there is zero improvement because they don’t add any more detail. However, what I find the better cables bring is that little bit more naturalness - the metal of a cymbal, the burnished brass tone of a saxophone, the skin of a drum, the wooden sound of drum sticks striking the side of a Japanese drum, the hammer of a piano striking the strings, the woodiness of a violin and acoustic guitar, the breathiness of a female voice, etc. It’s that ability to immediately cause my mind to envision the materials of that instrument, and that a singer’s voice is reproduced from their whole body and not just their mouth.
That little bit of improvement in naturalness and harmonic texture produces a large qualitative improvement in my enjoyment of the music. It’s the difference between merely listening to a song on my iPod dock, versus an experience that sometimes makes the hairs of the back of my neck and the goose bumps to develop (literally!).
I have no idea why a better cable (or component) can bring that sort of sonic improvement I mentioned above. Perhaps that little bit of extra resolution makes the difference… I really don’t know. I will admit that if you try to quantify the differences through some kind of measurement, they are probably subtle and not night and day like mentioned above. But that little bit extra does produce a night and day qualitative improvement, at least to me.
Throughout the 25 years I have been immersed in this hobby, I have owned dozens of different cables and home demo-ed dozens more. I have found that there is no formula that says the more expensive the cable, the better it sounds. But differences in sound are usually clearly audible between cables. I find that the differences that are immediately audible are things such as brightness, imaging (more or less defined), transparency/clarity, bass tautness (tighter or bloomier), and speed/dynamics.
Anyway, there you go. In the interest of honest sharing, that is my personal experience. You can tell me that it is merely my mind playing tricks with my hearing because it is technically impossible for cables to sound different, but I think there are enough of us sane and rational individuals (professionals or not) who hear similar differences to perhaps suggest that while measurements are important, not every nuance of sound that the human ear can detect can be captured on some measuring device.
A bit of background first… I’m no engineer or studio professional so I will not attempt to rationalize what I hear based on the technical aspects of cables. I’m also no musician, so forgive me if I don’t use the right words to describe the sound or materials of the instruments. I attend live concerts a lot – I have season tickets at our local philharmonic orchestra, go for a lot of intimate jazz club performances, and my wife plays the piano and guitar at home so when I listen to my system, I try to compare the reproduced sound to that of the real instruments.
I believe the components in my system are resolving enough to reproduce the details that are there on a recording even with stock cables. So when I substitute better cables for them, I will not claim to hear details that I never heard before. So if I were to quantify the improvement, you could even say there is zero improvement because they don’t add any more detail. However, what I find the better cables bring is that little bit more naturalness - the metal of a cymbal, the burnished brass tone of a saxophone, the skin of a drum, the wooden sound of drum sticks striking the side of a Japanese drum, the hammer of a piano striking the strings, the woodiness of a violin and acoustic guitar, the breathiness of a female voice, etc. It’s that ability to immediately cause my mind to envision the materials of that instrument, and that a singer’s voice is reproduced from their whole body and not just their mouth.
That little bit of improvement in naturalness and harmonic texture produces a large qualitative improvement in my enjoyment of the music. It’s the difference between merely listening to a song on my iPod dock, versus an experience that sometimes makes the hairs of the back of my neck and the goose bumps to develop (literally!).
I have no idea why a better cable (or component) can bring that sort of sonic improvement I mentioned above. Perhaps that little bit of extra resolution makes the difference… I really don’t know. I will admit that if you try to quantify the differences through some kind of measurement, they are probably subtle and not night and day like mentioned above. But that little bit extra does produce a night and day qualitative improvement, at least to me.
Throughout the 25 years I have been immersed in this hobby, I have owned dozens of different cables and home demo-ed dozens more. I have found that there is no formula that says the more expensive the cable, the better it sounds. But differences in sound are usually clearly audible between cables. I find that the differences that are immediately audible are things such as brightness, imaging (more or less defined), transparency/clarity, bass tautness (tighter or bloomier), and speed/dynamics.
Anyway, there you go. In the interest of honest sharing, that is my personal experience. You can tell me that it is merely my mind playing tricks with my hearing because it is technically impossible for cables to sound different, but I think there are enough of us sane and rational individuals (professionals or not) who hear similar differences to perhaps suggest that while measurements are important, not every nuance of sound that the human ear can detect can be captured on some measuring device.
steve_1979
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
hifikrazy said:
Please do note that in what follow I am talking about the validity and relevance of experiences and not about whether cables can in fact influence the sound that the speakers emit.
Let me first reply that there are in fact differences between peoples’ abilities to hear stuff. A while ago I saw a TV show in which they tested the ability of a well-known violin player to point out the lower or higher pitched sound. Towards the end of the experiment at which the differences between the sounds were absolutely minimal, the musician was far better at keeping the sounds apart, than the average person. This is something to take into account when we think about double blind tests: some people do have a better hearing than others.
Having said this, it is also clear from all the double blind tests that have been done, that people simply don’t recognize the differences between cables, when they don’t know which cable is connected. Whatever they have believed before, whether they are subtle or ‘night and day-differences’ suddenly can’t be heard anymore. This has implications. It means that any statement from anyone who says he can hear differences between cables is worthless as evidence of actual differences in sound being emitted. If one insists that those differences do exist, then we can call that the ‘argument from personal experience-fallacy’. It is no different than all those medical practitioners who thought that the practice of ‘bloodletting’ was basically beneficial. Now we know this isn’t true, because we can check it by conducting experiments, but smart people have believed in this practice for over 2000 years and their believes were founded upon their personal experiences.
Something such as a double blind test helps to understand the limited relevance of personal experience, and when it comes to the debate of what role cables play, I have to say that personal experiences are completely and utterly irrelevant. I’m not saying that one in general shouldn’t trust one’s senses. We are very well equipped to perceive a lot of things and we have little trouble in distinguishing the sound of a guitar from that of a violin. But experiments do show how our senses can deceive us and that actually happens quite a lot.
There is nothing stupid about that. Everyone is susceptible to it. The writer of the Sherlock Holmes (a character well known for his unmatched logical deduction-skills), Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who was also a physician, believed wholeheartedly in fairies based on a trick-photo shot by two young cousins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies. One of my uncles fully believes in his dowsing-skills and thinks he can locate water sources or find back golden rings with two very thin L-shaped metal wire rods. Because he doesn’t try to influence the direction of the rods, he is fully convinced that the motion of the rods relate to something else, and that something else could very well be a golden ring (which he did find once, of course proving that it all works really well).
The example of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle or the example of the medical practitioners who were involved in bloodletting, should also make one doubt the argument in which one says that experts X, Y and Z believe that cables do make differences. The opinions of experts can be insightful, but when there is so much doubt over such an issue, one must seek for consensus among experts and when it comes to cables I just see a lot of experts having different opinions.
It should be clear by now that I find personal experiences about cables of little value, and that also applies when people don’t experience a difference between cables. I, however, do sympathize with the latter group, because their experiences are backed up by numerous double blind studies, and that still remains the only way in which one can really properly assess whether people are actually able to hear differences between cables.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question How do I get my sound working through my DAC? Need some advice!- Started by Yoran
- Replies: 41
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram