Interconnect from CD player to amp which best on budget ?

[steve_1979]

I was feeling a bit lonely without a Groundhog-Day-like repeating cable pissing contest thread.

Thanks boys

Carry on.

I was starting to get a bit worried too but thanks to this thread equilibrium has been restored. All is well with the World.

 

[matt49]

The question is what's the mechanism that's making the changes happen?

The brain is a powerful and wondrous organ....and as mysterious as the outer reaches of the Universe.

But cables are really low-tech well understood electrical devices, they are also not a natural phenomenon about which we still have to learn things, we made them.

[baffled]Eh? Who's comparing brains and cables?[/baffled]

 

[pauln]

@LaurensB

That makes no sense.

If you are not sure how can you 'know'?

One can comment on one's own perception if there is a difference and that's it.

Which is why I say judge for yourself.

What's EE?

The two states of mind of "not being sure" and "knowing" do not happen at the same time. One follows the other (but not inevitably) after further investigation.

EE = Electrical/Electronics Engineer.

What is this suppose to mean?

Is this how one defends EE's......

Really Thompson, how do you find it so hard to understand plain English and simple logic?

That's plain English?.....prrrrft!

And your logic is flawed - read what you said, 'the two states of mind.... ' *crazy*

To anyone still reading best try for yourselves - have a listen then decide.

It think you're just a wind up merchant but in case you're not I'll try and explain what I mean with the aid of the optical illusion here:

https://playingintheworldgame.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/grey_square_optical_illusion.png

Someone tells you that the shades of grey in squares A and B are identical. You look at the picture and say of course they're not. That's your first state of mind.

Next, the person tells you that they can prove the shades are the same, so you become a little uncertain - second state of mind.

You decide to investigate for yourself so you download the image and load it into photoshop or similar where you cut a section of square A and paste it into a part of square B. Amazing! - they are indeed the exact same shade of grey. Now you know and that is your third state of mind.

 

[Laurens_B]

But cables are really low-tech well understood electrical devices, they are also not a natural phenomenon about which we still have to learn things, we made them.

No the're not!

Yes they are, I'm a scientist and you're a gullable idiot, who is easily parted from his money!

And you're too deaf to hear the difference, with equipment not good enough to show the difference!

If you haven't done an ABX blind test, then you are simply deluding yourself; so stop posting this nonsence, in case any newbies get brainwashed.

Have you tried any?

I don't need to, as it's simply impossible, which you would know, if you had even a modicum of basic knowledge.

Does that about cover it? *aggressive* *biggrin*

Now you spoiled it!

 

[Andrewjvt]

sorry drummer man

I actually think cables can make a slight difference with very good kit and not so much with cheaper kit. Im also not english so my way of writing may seem odd.

Im rubbish at replying on the forum it seems

but im also thinking why more real tests are not carried out with measurements??

 

[CnoEvil]

Now you spoiled it!

I very much doubt it.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

If we accept that the body chemistry varys from one individual to another - then Prozac is doing has it says on the box - the effects are real for that 40%.

No. That's the wrong answer. The correct answer is that the manufacturers have no justification for using this trial to claim that Prozac works by inhibiting serotonin re-uptake. BTW everything in that scenario was (a simplified version of) a true situation. The results are well known, and there's a mass of scientific literature on the subject for anyone who cares to read it.

If a follow up trial is ran and the sugar pill is used for that 40% to no affect, then it's proven to be real. Even more so if tests show the chemical changes promised by the drug actually took place within that 40%.

A follow-up trial would be meaningless because that 40% of people are now no longer ill.

But this is about context, you cannot compare a chemical issue within an individual that is resolved by a chemical treatment with the influence a visual cue can have on a person's perception of what they are hearing..

That makes no sense.

The point wasn't to compare the two things. The point was to establish whether we understand how the placebo effect works. You've now demonstrated that you don't. *bye*

[/quote]

What!?...

If 40% show improvement and test show the chemical reaction expected by the drug in that 40% is the case - then the manufacturer is well within its rights to publish its findings.

And suggesting further trials are pointless because the 40% is no longer ill....wow.

I understand placebo but more importantly recognise context.

Refer to that last quote of mine.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Lol.....

I must be winning.

Look, it's no big deal - I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Like I said have a listen for yourself in your own system within your budget. If you hear no difference - it's ok, honestly it is.

If you hear an improvement that's also good.

Like I said you don't have to break the bank or sell a kidney.

.

 

[CnoEvil]

But cables are really low-tech well understood electrical devices, they are also not a natural phenomenon about which we still have to learn things, we made them.

No they're not!

Yes they are, I'm a scientist and you're a gullable idiot, who is easily parted from his money!

And you're too deaf to hear the difference, with equipment not good enough to show the difference!

If you haven't done an ABX blind test, then you are simply deluding yourself; so stop posting this nonsence, in case any newbies get brainwashed.

Have you tried any?

I don't need to, as it's simply impossible, which you would know, if you had even a modicum of basic knowledge.

Does that about cover it? *aggressive* *biggrin*

 

[Thompsonuxb]

@LaurensB

That makes no sense.

If you are not sure how can you 'know'?

One can comment on one's own perception if there is a difference and that's it.

Which is why I say judge for yourself.

What's EE?

The two states of mind of "not being sure" and "knowing" do not happen at the same time. One follows the other (but not inevitably) after further investigation.

EE = Electrical/Electronics Engineer.

What is this suppose to mean?

Is this how one defends EE's......

Really Thompson, how do you find it so hard to understand plain English and simple logic?

That's plain English?.....prrrrft!

And your logic is flawed - read what you said, 'the two states of mind.... ' *crazy*

To anyone still reading best try for yourselves - have a listen then decide.

It think you're just a wind up merchant but in case you're not I'll try and explain what I mean with the aid of the optical illusion here:

https://playingintheworldgame.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/grey_square_optical_illusion.png

Someone tells you that the shades of grey in squares A and B are identical. You look at the picture and say of course they're not. That's your first state of mind.

Next, the person tells you that they can prove the shades are the same, so you become a little uncertain - second state of mind.

You decide to investigate for yourself so you download the image and load it into photoshop or similar where you cut a section of square A and paste it into a part of square B. Amazing! - they are indeed the exact same shade of grey. Now you know and that is your third state of mind.

What!?

 

[CnoEvil]

The question is what's the mechanism that's making the changes happen?

The brain is a powerful and wondrous organ....and as mysterious as the outer reaches of the Universe.

But cables are really low-tech well understood electrical devices, they are also not a natural phenomenon about which we still have to learn things, we made them.

[baffled]Eh? Who's comparing brains and cables?[/baffled]

Maybe he is part of the Sentient Programmes, so as a Gatekeeper, he can jump into any post and talk about cables. *diablo*

 

[matt49]

What!?...

If 40% show improvement and test show the chemical reaction expected by the drug in that 40% is the case - then the manufacturer is well within its rights to publish its findings.

Ironically the manufacturers also concealed all the tests that showed no improvement at all. Can you guess why?

Anyway, you made a classic error of the scientifically illiterate. Just because an effect is seen in trials and a method of action has been seen in the labs, it doesn't demonstrate that the method of action caused the trial effect. A conjunction does not equal a cause. Science 101.

And suggesting further trials are pointless because the 40% is no longer ill....wow.

You were suggesting that further trials should be done on the people who recovered. I've never read a single paper that's suggested that would be sane. But then you seem to know better than all the scientists ...

I understand placebo but more importantly recognise context.

No you don't. But based on your previous posting history, it's hardly a surprise.

 

[Covenanter]

But cables are really low-tech well understood electrical devices, they are also not a natural phenomenon about which we still have to learn things, we made them.

No they're not!

Yes they are, I'm a scientist and you're a gullable idiot, who is easily parted from his money!

And you're too deaf to hear the difference, with equipment not good enough to show the difference!

If you haven't done an ABX blind test, then you are simply deluding yourself; so stop posting this nonsence, in case any newbies get brainwashed.

Have you tried any?

I don't need to, as it's simply impossible, which you would know, if you had even a modicum of basic knowledge.

Does that about cover it? *aggressive* *biggrin*

Maybe but he is still correct.

Chris

 

[CnoEvil]

Maybe but he is still correct.

Chris

No he's not

Yes he is

Ad infinitum.

*smile*

 

[Covenanter]

Maybe but he is still correct.

Chris

No he's not

Yes he is

Ad infinitum.

*smile*

I know how it goes but it shouldn't.

Chris

 

[steve_1979]

Lol.....

I must be winning.

You've got them on the ropes now. *aggressive*

 

[CnoEvil]

You've got them on the ropes now. *aggressive*

PacquiaoUXB vs MattWeather....pay per view. *biggrin*

 

[Thompsonuxb]

What!?...

If 40% show improvement and test show the chemical reaction expected by the drug in that 40% is the case - then the manufacturer is well within its rights to publish its findings.

Ironically the manufacturers also concealed all the tests that showed no improvement at all. Can you guess why?

Anyway, you made a classic error of the scientifically illiterate. Just because an effect is seen in trials and a method of action has been seen in the labs, it doesn't demonstrate that the method of action caused the trial effect. A conjunction does not equal a cause. Science 101.

And suggesting further trials are pointless because the 40% is no longer ill....wow.

You were suggesting that further trials should be done on the people who recovered. I've never read a single paper that's suggested that would be sane. But then you seem to know better than all the scientists ...

I understand placebo but more importantly recognise context.

No you don't. But based on your previous posting history, it's hardly a surprise.

Matt49, what are you arguing -why would anyone post results that have no relevance or is a negative to their product?

What is the point of these trials?

Is it to prove something works?

And what does my scientific literacy have to do with anything?

I mean seriously you are saying only a single set of trials are required for products destined for human consumption?

The example you choose - depression is not a one pill fix - time does not stand still on this type of condition.

The very nature of depression or any other mental illness requires long term treatment.

I mean we're on a hifi forum talking about interconnects and you are getting hissy about medical trials for depression..... WTF!

Did I click on the wrong link?

 

[TrevC]

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
George Carlin.

Go ahead suckers, waste your hard earned cash. :O)

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Lol.....

I must be winning.

You've got them on the ropes now. *aggressive*

Lol....

That's the thing Steve1979, we always seem to het to the point when these guys try to derail a thread with....refer to their post.

Next it will be posting pictures from around the internet.

No on topic or relavent reply - it just takes the sport out of it.

I don't sell cables, I'm not trying to sell cables.
But if someone is curious I'm more than happy to share my experience.

I don't know what's their problem.

 

[pauln]

I don't know what's their problem.

The problem is that you don't seem to understand many of the simple statements people make. You commonly use the expression "that makes no sense" so people then use analogy and comparison to try to get their point across but that seems to confuse the f**k out of you even more. Do you know why Matt started talking about clinical trials of Prozac and why I posted the optical illusion thing? It's not about derailing the thread at all.

 

[SteveR750]

Yes it is the pacific

Excellent choice, I have a pair, and sound no worse or better than the twice the price chord crimsons I also own. Best part is they have a good fit onto the terminals, whereas the Chords are somewhat loose, which is of concern.

 

[SteveR750]

But do you know how the human auditory system works? If a 'placebo' works, then it works; that's the point. If it seems to a person that something is better then it really is better.You may not see it this way but we are after all allowed to make our own decisions. For myself, I think that cables can make a difference to the (perceived) nature of the sound produced by audio equipment. A rule-of-thumb used to be approximately 10% of the value of the equipment to be spent on interconnects. I think this seems reasonable.

This 10% of the value of the equipment?

Is that 10% of the price I paid for it?

Or 10% of the price I'd get if I sold it all now?

Or 10% of the price I'd have had to pay if I'd bought it all new?

Or 10% of the price I'd have had to pay if I'd bought it all new, adjusted for inflation?

Or the lowest of any of these figures?

Or the highest?

Or the average?

For my main system, I paid a total of about £9500 for it. Does that mean I should have spent £950 on cables instead of the £25 I actually did spend?

Over the last 5 years I've spent about £900 on 1500 vinyl and CD albums. Do you think I'd have gotten more enjoyment from my money if I'd spent it on cables instead of music?

Spend it all on LPds and CDs and nothing on system, vs all on system and nothing on music? What does that graph look like?

 

[SteveR750]

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

George Carlin.

Go ahead suckers, waste your hard earned cash. :O)

Sssh. You're wrecking the popcorn figures for this week.

 

[CnoEvil]

I know how it goes but it shouldn't.

Chris

Generally, I find it best not to "tilt at windmills".