eggontoast said:
Yep, I was simplifying the example. Read further up the chain where I discussed the impedance of the source and sink.
Yep, I was simplifying the example. Read further up the chain where I discussed the impedance of the source and sink.
Thompsonuxb said:
Thompson, I have done my best to explain. The maths is the maths, and the physics is the physics. You are of course free to believe what you wish.
andyjm said:
believe!?..... its not about believe.
The maths stop at the outputs of the devices in use.
andyjm said:
Never been a problem for the average audiophile with too much time on their hands. No matter how revealing, there's always a block to common sense getting through. System not resolving enough, flaky science to be bought into, speakers / amp / source / your ears not quite good enough, the classic "be glad that you have saved some money" (always kills me that one) and a stack of others. Err, yeah...
I don't get your post Record spot....
Not sure, but me thinks andyjm see's it, ref his final post.
Taking the speaker resistance and internal source/amp resistance out of the equation dealing purely with the outputs of the devices used the math confirm what I'm saying. If we have a fixed resistance - i.e we have chopped up one cable into equal parts using the parts as speaker cables & interconnects they have a common resistance the signal being directly proportional from source output to amp input & amp output to speaker terminal using i=vr to break down our electrical signal.
I=1v/3ohms and I=10v/3ohm
they are directly proportional by x10
the speaker resistance across the crossover is irrelavent as its variable dependent on speaker and as nothing to do with whats being presented to it- but our source/amp output remains constant as does the resistance of our cables
change the interconnects with a different cable with a different composition and resistance (say 5ohms) it will change our electrical signal to our amp and whats been amplified or vica versa - what we can then argue is will it be audible.
To that I say yes.
Not sure, but me thinks andyjm see's it, ref his final post.
Taking the speaker resistance and internal source/amp resistance out of the equation dealing purely with the outputs of the devices used the math confirm what I'm saying. If we have a fixed resistance - i.e we have chopped up one cable into equal parts using the parts as speaker cables & interconnects they have a common resistance the signal being directly proportional from source output to amp input & amp output to speaker terminal using i=vr to break down our electrical signal.
I=1v/3ohms and I=10v/3ohm
they are directly proportional by x10
the speaker resistance across the crossover is irrelavent as its variable dependent on speaker and as nothing to do with whats being presented to it- but our source/amp output remains constant as does the resistance of our cables
change the interconnects with a different cable with a different composition and resistance (say 5ohms) it will change our electrical signal to our amp and whats been amplified or vica versa - what we can then argue is will it be audible.
To that I say yes.
At the very least, the technical debate here demonstrates to me that even the scientific aspect of this hobby is not as black and white as some here would make it out to be. It appears that there is still room for interpretation so those know it alls shouldn't be pontificating the topic as if their point of view is the God given truth.
hifikrazy said:
Hifi,
One of the problems with the net (and modern media in general) is that some guy who has looked up a technical term on Google is given the same credence as someone with an eductational background in the subject, and years of experience. There is no technical debate here, this stuff is not even electronics, it is basic electrical circuit theory 1.01.
You are free to believe who you choose, but there really is nothing to interpret.
I started a new topic in the Your system section and it seems to have vanished. It was just a photo of my newly modded Lenco tt. :shifty:
Note from Mods - this is a different issue due to problems with recent spamming - you've been added to the trusted group which should prevent this in future
Note from Mods - this is a different issue due to problems with recent spamming - you've been added to the trusted group which should prevent this in future
hifikrazy said:
The scientific aspect is black and white. It's the ones who'd choose to paint it grey that are the problem. Even this month's Editorial on Hi Fi World chooses to comment on the difference cables make (albeit carefully worded). I've never doubted that cables make a different, just the degree to which they make that difference.
And yet, no matter how many different systems I've been through, now in the latest one with a total value of around £4000 and the same findings yet again, with minimal differences between cables ranging from £8 up to £200+ it's the same old comments. "Man, those speakers....", or "not resolving enough", "it's your ears", or the like. Yet my sources originally sold for £1500 and £1000 respectively. Makes me laugh really, in an ironic way. Truth is, it's just tiresome!
the record spot said:
Why I say that it's not black and white is that it's clear that Thomsonuxb and Andyjm cannot even agree on the scientific aspect. I don't think it's as simple as saying the Earth is round and everybody will be in absolute agreement. At least you do acknowledge that cables can make a difference, whether it's to a lesser or greater degree. The ones I have a problem with is those who refuse to even accept the possibility with the same old boring cloaks and mirrors accusations... Now that is tiresome.
And I have no issues with the quality of your system. I could hear the difference in a cable upgrade in my very first system years ago consisting of a NAD 3020 (the original) so there is no doubt that quality of your components is plenty good enough to show out differences in cables.
Cables to me are a little bit like salt and pepper... That little bit of difference makes the dish a whole lot more palatable.
hifikrazy said:
I am not sure Thompson and I got as far as the scientific aspect. I had a go at explaining the answer to Thompson's questions descriptively and then in a simple worked example. With all due respect to Thompson, I don't think that he got it.
hifikrazy said:
*some* cables make a difference, some do not. It's very important to differentiate and it depends where on the system and what it's doing. You can't just say all cables make a difference, just as you can't say all cables don't make a difference.
Broner
Well-known member
And here we are back to what’s really wrong with the way you reason. You think you know, because you have switched your cables and you’ve heard a difference. According to yourself, there is even no doubt about it
What’s really tiresome is that people such as the editors of Whatshifi and yourself don’t seem to grasp the significance of what’s actually scientifically and technologically relevant, nor seem to understand what the limitations and validity are of one’s experience. Furthermore, anyone who hasn’t participated in a properly executed blind test with statistical significance and claims that cables do make an audible difference (between cables with basic adequate specifications), is making a statement that lacks substantiation (obviously, this also applies to you).
People can explain this to you a thousand times, and still you would go back to your basic premise that you won’t dare to question: ‘I’ve heard a difference, so cables do make a difference’.
cheeseboy said:
I agree that not ALL cables make a signficant difference. For me personally, I never buy any cable without doing a no obligation home audition. I do not have a bottomless wallet but do have a fierce wife so if anything, I do the home audition with a negative bias. Some of them get to stay because they are significantly better but many of them go back because some sounded worse and some sounded only marginally better and not worth the upgrade price.
Broner said:
People can explain this to you a thousand times, and still you would go back to your basic premise that you won't dare to let your ears hear any difference because there can't be any difference (or so you say based on your arrogant believe that you know all there possibly can about the subject).
I'm sure that most professors and PhD holders would not be arrogant enough to claim that they know everything there is to know about their area of expertise but somehow you guys have the arrogance to claim you know everything based on your Electrical 101 knowledge.
hifikrazy said:
That could equally be levelled the other way round. Are you arrogant enough to believe that even if you are proven to that a cable makes no difference, yet you hear a difference that your belief over-rides the proof presented to you?
hifikrazy said:
yes, but some make absolutely no difference whatsoever. There is room to have both (ie some cables make no difference, some make marginal changes, some improve) you don't have to staunchly take one side.
hifikrazy said:
had to address this one seperately. Yes they do, and they will even carry on to do so even if the evidence points to the opposite. It happens all the time in the academic world as professors and doctors rely on their work for their repuatation and will defend it even if they are wrong. In fact, they are probably the worst people for doing this. It can take quite a long time before views are changed and sometimes they have to wait for the current crop of older more established people to die before they can move on.
cheeseboy said:
Nope I'm not that arrogant to steadfastly stick to one belief if somebody can convince me otherwise, but nobody here has been able to show me the "proof" to convince me of that
professorhat
Well-known member
There is always two sides at work here:
(a) basic science says cables can't make a difference - unfortunately my elementary physics knowledge is not even good enough to know this by myself, so I have to take other people's word for it.
(b) Some people can hear a difference, but this is put down to the observer expectancy effect / placebo effect - whatever you want to call it. These effects are real so people should at least be willing to accept this may also be true, or it could be that the cables are actually making a difference somehow (in some manner which we have as yet not discovered).
It is a fact though that, even if there cannot be any differences, people's enjoyment of something can be increased just by a factor such as price (link - it's about wine, but the same principle applies). This is a real effect, not an imagined one. So whether (a) is right or wrong, something in (b) does actually somehow make a difference to sound - the question is if someone is willing to pay extra for hifi cables that give that effect (by whatever means it actually happens), should this be an issue that requires endless debate on this forum?
(a) basic science says cables can't make a difference - unfortunately my elementary physics knowledge is not even good enough to know this by myself, so I have to take other people's word for it.
(b) Some people can hear a difference, but this is put down to the observer expectancy effect / placebo effect - whatever you want to call it. These effects are real so people should at least be willing to accept this may also be true, or it could be that the cables are actually making a difference somehow (in some manner which we have as yet not discovered).
It is a fact though that, even if there cannot be any differences, people's enjoyment of something can be increased just by a factor such as price (link - it's about wine, but the same principle applies). This is a real effect, not an imagined one. So whether (a) is right or wrong, something in (b) does actually somehow make a difference to sound - the question is if someone is willing to pay extra for hifi cables that give that effect (by whatever means it actually happens), should this be an issue that requires endless debate on this forum?
hifikrazy said:
but therein lies the problem. What proof do you require?
People can prove that HMDI cables don't make a difference, yet people say "I hear/see differences and therefore do not believe that the cable has not made the difference".... This is the same as blind faith. If that's the stance then there is no way that ones mind can be changed as they already have the proof but have just chosen to ingore it in order to make things fit in to how they want it to.
It's the same we talk about blind testing - in that every blind test that's been done on speaker cables et al has basically boiled down to no better than guessing.
Like I've said before, people are quite happy to believe the science that enabled stereos to be made in the first place, yet when that exact same science is used to prove that something doesn't make a difference, all of sudden it's not valid! How does that work then?
Again, the brain is a poweful thing, and just because we see or hear something, doesn't mean it's happening in the "real world". People can convince themselves of many things and even alter their perceptions, which again, people are happy to accept when it's talking about things like wine, but when referred to in the same breath as cables, all of a sudden it's not valid again.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram