-
Do you stream hi-res music or download hi-res tracks? We want your opinions!
interconnect upgrade
- Thread starter tosh
- Start date
Hi, do you want input or output? geddit?
I would say try the Atlas - it's an award winner. However, see a decent hifi store who may lend you both (or more) to help you make up your mind.
You could also get some (run in) bargains off eBay. I recently saw Equators at £30 there (although not the Equator 2). You could always sell again on eBay if not happy.
Enjoy, and let us know what you decide.
I would say try the Atlas - it's an award winner. However, see a decent hifi store who may lend you both (or more) to help you make up your mind.
You could also get some (run in) bargains off eBay. I recently saw Equators at £30 there (although not the Equator 2). You could always sell again on eBay if not happy.
Enjoy, and let us know what you decide.
[quote user="Keith McAlpine"]Bear in mind that all reasonably made interconnects will sound the same.[/quote]
Please ignore this post. Listen for yourself and you will easily hear that the cables have their own sonic character.There are certain people on this forum who state that they all sound the same. They say that either because they have not demo'd any , their systems are not up too much, or they just don't know anything about hi fi but unfortunately think that they do. As soon as you demo those 2 cables you will be able to tell that they will make your system sound quite different.Anyone who says otherwise really is talking rubbish.
Please ignore this post. Listen for yourself and you will easily hear that the cables have their own sonic character.There are certain people on this forum who state that they all sound the same. They say that either because they have not demo'd any , their systems are not up too much, or they just don't know anything about hi fi but unfortunately think that they do. As soon as you demo those 2 cables you will be able to tell that they will make your system sound quite different.Anyone who says otherwise really is talking rubbish.
[quote user="Keith McAlpine"]Bear in mind that all reasonably made interconnects will sound the same.[/quote][quote user="Fraziel"]As soon as you demo those 2 cables you will be able to tell that they will make your system sound quite different.[/quote]
Hmmmmm..... I am open-minded about this.
As a (lapsed) electronics engineer I can buy the argument that the differences between interconnects pale into insignificance compared to differences between the major components. But on the other hand, lots of people are convinced so there must be something in it. In practice, I have in the past invested in reasonable interconnects, speaker cable on the grounds that it can't do any harm.
What I'd like to know is whether there is any credible, published research into whether they do make a difference? - I mean controlled conditions, double blind, large enough sample for the stats to have relevance etc...
Hmmmmm..... I am open-minded about this.
As a (lapsed) electronics engineer I can buy the argument that the differences between interconnects pale into insignificance compared to differences between the major components. But on the other hand, lots of people are convinced so there must be something in it. In practice, I have in the past invested in reasonable interconnects, speaker cable on the grounds that it can't do any harm.
What I'd like to know is whether there is any credible, published research into whether they do make a difference? - I mean controlled conditions, double blind, large enough sample for the stats to have relevance etc...
To the original question, I think the answer is to listen to a few ic's to hear the difference, if any. Any decent hifi shop should be happy to demo the differences.
A question like this will always raise a few contradicting answers, so it's best to see for yourself! I was sceptical (thought I knew better - Bsc(Hons) Electronics etc!) too. When telling a dealer (7oaks) how sceptical I was, he offered to demo a few - I obviously took him up on his offer and was quite shocked to hear the difference!
But - see for yourself - thats the only way to know for sure!
A question like this will always raise a few contradicting answers, so it's best to see for yourself! I was sceptical (thought I knew better - Bsc(Hons) Electronics etc!) too. When telling a dealer (7oaks) how sceptical I was, he offered to demo a few - I obviously took him up on his offer and was quite shocked to hear the difference!
But - see for yourself - thats the only way to know for sure!
[quote user="Fraziel"]Listen for yourself and you will easily hear that the cables have their own sonic character.[/quote]
Bear in mind that those that snootily consider themselves to be golden eared audiophiles haven't yet been able to score any better than chance when double blind tested on cables. There was even a famous case when a panel from a magazine couldn't even tell the difference between a valve and a tweaked transistor amplifier costing a fraction of the price.
Your ears adapt to the sound you are listening to so if you are listening for an improvement (or degradation) you will hear one. If a £2 interconnect has the same electrical characteristics as a £500 one (no reason why it shouldn't) it will sound the same.
There are some excellent well made cables available for around a fiver on Ebay. No need to spend more.
Bear in mind that those that snootily consider themselves to be golden eared audiophiles haven't yet been able to score any better than chance when double blind tested on cables. There was even a famous case when a panel from a magazine couldn't even tell the difference between a valve and a tweaked transistor amplifier costing a fraction of the price.
Your ears adapt to the sound you are listening to so if you are listening for an improvement (or degradation) you will hear one. If a £2 interconnect has the same electrical characteristics as a £500 one (no reason why it shouldn't) it will sound the same.
There are some excellent well made cables available for around a fiver on Ebay. No need to spend more.
[quote user="Higs"]lots of people are convinced so there must be something in it.[/quote]
Like Homeopathy?
Like Homeopathy?
Hold on - I thought you said you weren't another alias of the repeatedly-banned Oldphrt...? Or was that 'Nigel Proctor' who said that?
Maybe it's just a coincidence that there are so many 'voices' here trotting out the same arguments - sooner or later homeopathy, an attack on religion, and the terms 'audiophool' and 'snake oil' will surface.
Maybe it's just a coincidence that there are so many 'voices' here trotting out the same arguments - sooner or later homeopathy, an attack on religion, and the terms 'audiophool' and 'snake oil' will surface.
[quote user="Andrew Everard"]
Hold on - I thought you said you weren't another alias of the repeatedly-banned Oldphrt...? Or was that 'Nigel Proctor' who said that?
Maybe it's just a coincidence that there are so many 'voices' here trotting out the same arguments - sooner or later homeopathy, an attack on religion, and the terms 'audiophool' and 'snake oil' will surface.
[/quote]
It's a reality/scientific versus woolly-minded belief debate so all the usual examples of the latter are invariably going to crop up.It's not just on this board but on all of them.
Hold on - I thought you said you weren't another alias of the repeatedly-banned Oldphrt...? Or was that 'Nigel Proctor' who said that?
Maybe it's just a coincidence that there are so many 'voices' here trotting out the same arguments - sooner or later homeopathy, an attack on religion, and the terms 'audiophool' and 'snake oil' will surface.
[/quote]
It's a reality/scientific versus woolly-minded belief debate so all the usual examples of the latter are invariably going to crop up.It's not just on this board but on all of them.
[quote user="Keith McAlpine"]There was even a famous case when a panel from a magazine couldn't even tell the difference between a valve and a tweaked transistor amplifier costing a fraction of the price.[/quote]
This is a myth that is going round the internet growing as it does in the telling.
[quote user="Keith McAlpine"]those that snootily consider themselves to be golden eared audiophiles[/quote]
Isn't more snooty to say all your listening test (which yield results showing different sonic cable charactoristics) are rubbish and at the same time saying "I don't need to test something because I know I am right" ?? I mean come on now !??
What I find fascinating is work done by people like Jon Risch is being ignored ( despite him providing data and procedural information so that you can repeat his experiment ) and myths, exaggeration's and hearsay are so readily taken.
Even blind test done by us-Joe public are rubbished if they show a difference between cables.
I have read many American forums which while failing to find a flaw in the procedural methodology of the blind testing still rubbish the results and people involved.
The really annoying thing is they claim that their view is firmly routed in science and at the same time demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of scientific methodology.
To my knowledge no professional body has done any actual testing of cable (within an audio context) with scientific papers produced and published.
[quote user="Keith McAlpine"]Your ears adapt to the sound you are listening to so if you are listening for an improvement (or degradation) you will hear one. [/quote]
By the same token you can convince yourself what you are actually hearing doesn't exist because it does not fit in to your understanding of how cables work. Clearly claiming a psychosomatic foundation for all cables difference is not helpful and indeed flies in the face of results obtained by individuals doing there own blind testing.
The "Golden ears" group are accused of operating as if they are religious zealots with all their listening tests while their accuses cling to the notion that it not even necessary to test cables because of their theory says there is no difference. Who has (out of the two groups) actually demonstrated an absolute belief in something? I find that every time I encounter people with "Anti Golden ears", I am reminded of the people who developed "the intelligent design" idea with their ability to selectively take certain scientific details and reject others details less convenient to their understanding of reality.
This is a myth that is going round the internet growing as it does in the telling.
[quote user="Keith McAlpine"]those that snootily consider themselves to be golden eared audiophiles[/quote]
Isn't more snooty to say all your listening test (which yield results showing different sonic cable charactoristics) are rubbish and at the same time saying "I don't need to test something because I know I am right" ?? I mean come on now !??
What I find fascinating is work done by people like Jon Risch is being ignored ( despite him providing data and procedural information so that you can repeat his experiment ) and myths, exaggeration's and hearsay are so readily taken.
Even blind test done by us-Joe public are rubbished if they show a difference between cables.
I have read many American forums which while failing to find a flaw in the procedural methodology of the blind testing still rubbish the results and people involved.
The really annoying thing is they claim that their view is firmly routed in science and at the same time demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of scientific methodology.
To my knowledge no professional body has done any actual testing of cable (within an audio context) with scientific papers produced and published.
[quote user="Keith McAlpine"]Your ears adapt to the sound you are listening to so if you are listening for an improvement (or degradation) you will hear one. [/quote]
By the same token you can convince yourself what you are actually hearing doesn't exist because it does not fit in to your understanding of how cables work. Clearly claiming a psychosomatic foundation for all cables difference is not helpful and indeed flies in the face of results obtained by individuals doing there own blind testing.
The "Golden ears" group are accused of operating as if they are religious zealots with all their listening tests while their accuses cling to the notion that it not even necessary to test cables because of their theory says there is no difference. Who has (out of the two groups) actually demonstrated an absolute belief in something? I find that every time I encounter people with "Anti Golden ears", I am reminded of the people who developed "the intelligent design" idea with their ability to selectively take certain scientific details and reject others details less convenient to their understanding of reality.
[quote user="Anton90125"][quote user="Keith McAlpine"]There was even a famous case when a panel from a magazine couldn't even tell the difference between a valve and a tweaked transistor amplifier costing a fraction of the price.[/quote]
This is a myth that is going round the internet growing as it does in the telling.
[/quote]
Sorry, but you're wrong Anton. It was Stereophile magazine that was fooled by a chap called Carver in the US. He produced a soundalike transistor amplifier that their listening panel couldn't distinguish from a much more expensive Conrad Johnson valve amplifier. He apparently sold large numbers of amplifiers on the back of this.
[quote user="Anton90125"] The "Golden ears" group are accused of operating as if they are religious zealots[/quote]
Many of them claim that they can hear differences that can't be measured. That is outside the realms of science so it is almost a kind of religious faith. If interconnects really sounded different they would measure differently (they don't) and tests could be performed that would establish, once and for all, the perfect interconnect. Very few double blind tests have been done simply because it isn't in the interests of the self-serving hi-Fi press or their clients, the cable companies, to do so.
This is a myth that is going round the internet growing as it does in the telling.
[/quote]
Sorry, but you're wrong Anton. It was Stereophile magazine that was fooled by a chap called Carver in the US. He produced a soundalike transistor amplifier that their listening panel couldn't distinguish from a much more expensive Conrad Johnson valve amplifier. He apparently sold large numbers of amplifiers on the back of this.
[quote user="Anton90125"] The "Golden ears" group are accused of operating as if they are religious zealots[/quote]
Many of them claim that they can hear differences that can't be measured. That is outside the realms of science so it is almost a kind of religious faith. If interconnects really sounded different they would measure differently (they don't) and tests could be performed that would establish, once and for all, the perfect interconnect. Very few double blind tests have been done simply because it isn't in the interests of the self-serving hi-Fi press or their clients, the cable companies, to do so.
[quote user="Fingers Lee"]
It's a reality/scientific versus woolly-minded belief debate so all the usual examples of the latter are invariably going to crop up.It's not just on this board but on all of them.
[/quote]
Is interesting that you imply that reality = science. Most scientists would take issue with this as it implies that we have discovered and understand every thing and that there is nothing else left.
Clearly this is not so. Science has at its core the notion that all its ideas about reality are only limited models and such models are only the runs in a ladder of a process (Scientific method) which requires that all theories be tested. If enough testing is done, a divergence with reality will occur which will require a new theory (model) to explain these divergences. The theory will also make predictions which would form the basis of the next round of testing. Even here there is an element of belief/faith until the new tests are completed and the predictions are confirmed or proved wrong.
As I have said before, the real believers are those that accept a theory/hypothesis without testing it. They believe with an absolute faith and persecute anyone who has tested the theory and find it wanting. And despite this belief they claim this is done in the name of science.
What will be their equivalent of the Spanish inquisitions and the comfy chair?.
It's a reality/scientific versus woolly-minded belief debate so all the usual examples of the latter are invariably going to crop up.It's not just on this board but on all of them.
[/quote]
Is interesting that you imply that reality = science. Most scientists would take issue with this as it implies that we have discovered and understand every thing and that there is nothing else left.
Clearly this is not so. Science has at its core the notion that all its ideas about reality are only limited models and such models are only the runs in a ladder of a process (Scientific method) which requires that all theories be tested. If enough testing is done, a divergence with reality will occur which will require a new theory (model) to explain these divergences. The theory will also make predictions which would form the basis of the next round of testing. Even here there is an element of belief/faith until the new tests are completed and the predictions are confirmed or proved wrong.
As I have said before, the real believers are those that accept a theory/hypothesis without testing it. They believe with an absolute faith and persecute anyone who has tested the theory and find it wanting. And despite this belief they claim this is done in the name of science.
What will be their equivalent of the Spanish inquisitions and the comfy chair?.
[quote user="Anton90125"] As I have said before, the real believers are those that accept a theory/hypothesis without testing it. [/quote]
I has been suggested, because my ears told me there was no difference, I must be tone deaf and my opinion should be ignored.
Do you agree?
I has been suggested, because my ears told me there was no difference, I must be tone deaf and my opinion should be ignored.
Do you agree?
[quote user="Fingers Lee"]It was Stereophile magazine that was fooled by a chap called Carver in the US. He produced a soundalike transistor amplifier that their listening panel couldn't distinguish from a much more expensive Conrad Johnson valve amplifier. He apparently sold large numbers of amplifiers on the back of this.[/quote]
Where did you read this "fact". Did Stereophile admit to it? I can not find anything on the Stereophile site. They may deny it happened due to embarrassment or more likely simply because it never happened. How do we get to the truth of this?
Until it is proven as a definite occurrence, it can only be treated as a myth. If you can provide proof that it did happen then I will accept it.
Working on the big assumption that the event actually append, is it fair to extrapolate that some people can be tricked therefore all people can be? No - it doesn't work does it?
[quote user="Fingers Lee"]That is outside the realms of science so it is almost a kind of religious faith. If interconnects really sounded different they would measure differently (they don't)[/quote]
If there is a phenomenon that lies outside theory then it may never be measured because we don't know what to look for. An example of this is the Dark Energy which is believed (there that word again) to permeate the Universe. No theory predicted it and it only by accident that its effects have been made visible. What is Dark energy? no ones knows because there is no theory that accurately describes it. Given that its 74% of the universe it a pretty big thing to miss but we did miss it because we weren't expecting to see it.
[quote user="Fingers Lee"]Very few double blind tests have been done simply because it isn't in the interests of the self-serving hi-Fi press or their clients, the cable companies, to do so.[/quote]
This is quite contentious as there is no proof to justify this assumption. This suffers from all the problems typical of conspiracy theories. It funny that measurements are required to prove that cables sound different and yet someone is prepared to entertain the notion that such a conspiracy is possible without an iota of proof.
[quote user="Fingers Lee"]Very few double blind tests have been done [/quote]
The only thing that can be gleamed from this is the lack of DBT sanctioned by professional bodies. Out of interest what do you (as a subscriber to this conspiracy theory ) believe is the methodology used by What Hifi when testing cable?
Where did you read this "fact". Did Stereophile admit to it? I can not find anything on the Stereophile site. They may deny it happened due to embarrassment or more likely simply because it never happened. How do we get to the truth of this?
Until it is proven as a definite occurrence, it can only be treated as a myth. If you can provide proof that it did happen then I will accept it.
Working on the big assumption that the event actually append, is it fair to extrapolate that some people can be tricked therefore all people can be? No - it doesn't work does it?
[quote user="Fingers Lee"]That is outside the realms of science so it is almost a kind of religious faith. If interconnects really sounded different they would measure differently (they don't)[/quote]
If there is a phenomenon that lies outside theory then it may never be measured because we don't know what to look for. An example of this is the Dark Energy which is believed (there that word again) to permeate the Universe. No theory predicted it and it only by accident that its effects have been made visible. What is Dark energy? no ones knows because there is no theory that accurately describes it. Given that its 74% of the universe it a pretty big thing to miss but we did miss it because we weren't expecting to see it.
[quote user="Fingers Lee"]Very few double blind tests have been done simply because it isn't in the interests of the self-serving hi-Fi press or their clients, the cable companies, to do so.[/quote]
This is quite contentious as there is no proof to justify this assumption. This suffers from all the problems typical of conspiracy theories. It funny that measurements are required to prove that cables sound different and yet someone is prepared to entertain the notion that such a conspiracy is possible without an iota of proof.
[quote user="Fingers Lee"]Very few double blind tests have been done [/quote]
The only thing that can be gleamed from this is the lack of DBT sanctioned by professional bodies. Out of interest what do you (as a subscriber to this conspiracy theory ) believe is the methodology used by What Hifi when testing cable?
[quote user="Anton90125"] Where did you read this "fact". Did Stereophile admit to it? I can not find anything on the Stereophile site.[/quote]
It's all over the net and of course it isn't on the stereophile site.
It's also not listed on Snopes as an urban legend. Why do you not believe it?
[quote user="Anton90125"]
[quote user="Fingers Lee"]That is outside the realms of science so it is almost a kind of religious faith. If interconnects really sounded different they would measure differently (they don't)[/quote]
If there is a phenomenon that lies outside theory then it may never be measured because we don't know what to look for.
[/quote]
The fact that some people hear it and others don't shows that the variability is probably in the listener rather than the equipment being listened to so we know exactly what to do to prove or disprove it. We can do double blind tests with those with the golden ears and rigorous controls in place to see if it's a purely psychological effect in humans.The question is who on earth will have the necessary will and money to do it.
It's all over the net and of course it isn't on the stereophile site.
[quote user="Anton90125"]
[quote user="Fingers Lee"]That is outside the realms of science so it is almost a kind of religious faith. If interconnects really sounded different they would measure differently (they don't)[/quote]
If there is a phenomenon that lies outside theory then it may never be measured because we don't know what to look for.
[/quote]
The fact that some people hear it and others don't shows that the variability is probably in the listener rather than the equipment being listened to so we know exactly what to do to prove or disprove it. We can do double blind tests with those with the golden ears and rigorous controls in place to see if it's a purely psychological effect in humans.The question is who on earth will have the necessary will and money to do it.
[quote user="Keith McAlpine"][quote user="Anton90125"] As I have said before, the real believers are those that accept a theory/hypothesis without testing it. [/quote]
I has been suggested, because my ears told me there was no difference, I must be tone deaf and my opinion should be ignored.
Do you agree?[/quote]
No Not at all. Provided it is restricted to the level of an opinion and is not an insult in disguise then I believe you should have any opinion you like and express it as such.
You could argue black is white
I would say Fair enough but imo black is black and white is white
If you call me an idiot for saying black is black (and not black is white) then my response will take form appropriate to an insult and I will pitch at the right level as I see fit
Keep it civil and I will be civil
As for whether you are tone deaf- I am not qualified to comment. I have never met you, tested your hearing (or really in a position to understand any results I might have got if I did test you given that I am not a doctor or a biologist ).
I can however understand why some might query your hearing capabilities as you do claim not have heard the difference between cables while I (and others) have heard big differences. These difference being much greater then anything possible with a placebo effect as suggested by some others. This difference having survived blind testing ( a fact that is repeatedly ignored )
You have every right to feel offended that some one can downgrade your hearing but you should also remember that you are doing the same by suggesting that what we hear is in the mind.
[quote user="Keith McAlpine"]As I have said before, the real believers are those that accept a theory/hypothesis without testing it.[/quote]
This was not directly targeted against you but I was trying to highlight how the metaphysical nature of belief (which as been used against people who hear cable differences) is an even more valid description of those that blindly (and selectively ) accept a theory (Cables sounding the same based on said theory) without any testing/auditioning.
I has been suggested, because my ears told me there was no difference, I must be tone deaf and my opinion should be ignored.
Do you agree?[/quote]
No Not at all. Provided it is restricted to the level of an opinion and is not an insult in disguise then I believe you should have any opinion you like and express it as such.
You could argue black is white
I would say Fair enough but imo black is black and white is white
If you call me an idiot for saying black is black (and not black is white) then my response will take form appropriate to an insult and I will pitch at the right level as I see fit
Keep it civil and I will be civil
As for whether you are tone deaf- I am not qualified to comment. I have never met you, tested your hearing (or really in a position to understand any results I might have got if I did test you given that I am not a doctor or a biologist ).
I can however understand why some might query your hearing capabilities as you do claim not have heard the difference between cables while I (and others) have heard big differences. These difference being much greater then anything possible with a placebo effect as suggested by some others. This difference having survived blind testing ( a fact that is repeatedly ignored )
You have every right to feel offended that some one can downgrade your hearing but you should also remember that you are doing the same by suggesting that what we hear is in the mind.
[quote user="Keith McAlpine"]As I have said before, the real believers are those that accept a theory/hypothesis without testing it.[/quote]
This was not directly targeted against you but I was trying to highlight how the metaphysical nature of belief (which as been used against people who hear cable differences) is an even more valid description of those that blindly (and selectively ) accept a theory (Cables sounding the same based on said theory) without any testing/auditioning.
[quote user="Keith McAlpine"][quote user="Fraziel"]Listen for yourself and you will easily hear that the cables have their own sonic character.[/quote]
Bear in mind that those that snootily consider themselves to be golden eared audiophiles haven't yet been able to score any better than chance when double blind tested on cables. There was even a famous case when a panel from a magazine couldn't even tell the difference between a valve and a tweaked transistor amplifier costing a fraction of the price.
Your ears adapt to the sound you are listening to so if you are listening for an improvement (or degradation) you will hear one. If a £2 interconnect has the same electrical characteristics as a £500 one (no reason why it shouldn't) it will sound the same.
There are some excellent well made cables available for around a fiver on Ebay. No need to spend more.[/quote]
ok ok ok hold it right there son, there is a big difference between a cable made out of iron and one made out copper and and made out of gold ,the diference ( not in price ) is the capability to conduct electricity in a better and more efficient way with minimal loss of signal, therefore a s&*t copper cable will not sound better then a good copper cable and so on.... plus we do not get use to the sound of the interconnects we listen to thats just silly ,our senses are capable of dettecting the slightest changes in sound ,taste ,smell and sight .... so get your hears cleaned and start listening not hearing
Bear in mind that those that snootily consider themselves to be golden eared audiophiles haven't yet been able to score any better than chance when double blind tested on cables. There was even a famous case when a panel from a magazine couldn't even tell the difference between a valve and a tweaked transistor amplifier costing a fraction of the price.
Your ears adapt to the sound you are listening to so if you are listening for an improvement (or degradation) you will hear one. If a £2 interconnect has the same electrical characteristics as a £500 one (no reason why it shouldn't) it will sound the same.
There are some excellent well made cables available for around a fiver on Ebay. No need to spend more.[/quote]
ok ok ok hold it right there son, there is a big difference between a cable made out of iron and one made out copper and and made out of gold ,the diference ( not in price ) is the capability to conduct electricity in a better and more efficient way with minimal loss of signal, therefore a s&*t copper cable will not sound better then a good copper cable and so on.... plus we do not get use to the sound of the interconnects we listen to thats just silly ,our senses are capable of dettecting the slightest changes in sound ,taste ,smell and sight .... so get your hears cleaned and start listening not hearing
[quote user="sex"]there is a big difference between a cable made out of iron and one made out copper and and made out of gold ,the diference ( not in price ) is the capability to conduct electricity in a better and more efficient way with minimal loss of signal[/quote]
OK, which is best and which is worst out of your examples?
[quote user="sex"]so get your hears cleaned[/quote]
LOL
OK, which is best and which is worst out of your examples?
[quote user="sex"]so get your hears cleaned[/quote]
LOL
in order from worst to best iron, steel, copper ,oxigen free copper ,silver ,gold there are many silvers and coppers for eletrical use wich differ one aother but its a long story
[quote user="Anton90125"] You have every right to feel offended that some one can downgrade your hearing but you should also remember that you are doing the same by suggesting that what we hear is in the mind.[/quote]
I don't understand why. The power of our minds to deceive us and delude us is truly awesome and common to all of us. The key is in understanding how, just like our other senses, our hearing isn't perfect and can quite easily be deceived or open to suggestability from visual clues. I intend no insult and make no exception for myself, after all, isn't stereo itself just an illusion?
What other explanation could there be if the dramatic differences some hear can't be heard by others or measured, not even with equipment far more sensitive than our ears?
I don't understand why. The power of our minds to deceive us and delude us is truly awesome and common to all of us. The key is in understanding how, just like our other senses, our hearing isn't perfect and can quite easily be deceived or open to suggestability from visual clues. I intend no insult and make no exception for myself, after all, isn't stereo itself just an illusion?
What other explanation could there be if the dramatic differences some hear can't be heard by others or measured, not even with equipment far more sensitive than our ears?
can i make an example ...im a chef and have been for almost 10 yeats when i started i could not differ the taste and smel of a shallot onion from a spanish onion but now i can.......... i can because i trained my taste and smell senses every day so now i suggest that if some one spends time training his hearing they could then hear thing that you could not
[quote user="sex"]if some one spends time training his hearing they could then hear thing that you could not[/quote]
Stick to onions and lay off the tripe.
Stick to onions and lay off the tripe.
[quote user="sex"]in order from worst to best iron, steel, copper ,oxigen free copper ,silver ,gold there are many silvers and coppers for eletrical use wich differ one aother but its a long story[/quote]
Wrong. Gold is a worse conductor than copper.
Wrong. Gold is a worse conductor than copper.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Using great Amplifier with Digital input OR Analogue output from Streamer- Latest: The_Lecht_Rocks
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram