Looking for general advice re interconnects

[cheeseboy]

You need to point that at yourself - I have challenged you already just you me and some cables anywhere - I know you will eat those words. I have no fear of losing what so ever, you may make the excuse its your 'sonic illusion' and any other excuse supposidly proven by science you may care to make. But straight up I challenge you........

I'm taking everything thats been said to date and still I dare you....sadly not this sunday as there is a Grand Prix on..... but what do you say?

...and I challenged you to listen to the audio illusions. No need to go anywhere, just listen to them and tell me if your ears were fooled, yet you don't seem to have done that. wonder why?

i'd love to take you up on your offer, but I don't live in the uk...

 

[cheeseboy]

An audiophile Jehovas witness.

:rofl: awesome.

Or just 'audiophile'?

 

[Thompsonuxb]

You need to point that at yourself - I have challenged you already just you me and some cables anywhere - I know you will eat those words. I have no fear of losing what so ever, you may make the excuse its your 'sonic illusion' and any other excuse supposidly proven by science you may care to make. But straight up I challenge you........

I'm taking everything thats been said to date and still I dare you....sadly not this sunday as there is a Grand Prix on..... but what do you say?

...and I challenged you to listen to the audio illusions. No need to go anywhere, just listen to them and tell me if your ears were fooled, yet you don't seem to have done that. wonder why?

i'd love to take you up on your offer, but I don't live in the uk...

In one of the previous interconnects debate I did the test - was that the one that included slightly differing beats and you had to decide if they were the same I did one of them. But considering I understand the whole idea of music reproduction is the creation of an illusions it really has no bearing on this debate - simply because we are not trying to change anything all we are doing is trying to determine if cables DO make a difference.

The rest is another debate for another day - but respect, you don't live in the UK is probably the best reason not to accept this challenge - cause I won't be providing accomodation nor food......

 

[cheeseboy]

In one of the previous interconnects debate I did the test - was that the one that included slightly differing beats and you had to decide if they were the same I did one of them. But considering I understand the whole idea of music reproduction is the creation of an illusions it really has no bearing on this debate - simply because we are not trying to change anything all we are doing is trying to determine if cables DO make a difference.

ok, here they are again http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/audio-designline-blog/4033473/Audio-illusions-that-will-fool-your-ear-and-brain

the point being that you can't trust your ears to give you an accurate reading, therefore the test you propose is pretty useless and doesn't actually prove anything I'm afraid - it's just people in a room listening to music and changing cables, nothing more, nothing less. That's why nobody is interested in taking you up on your offer.

If you are seriously wanting to prove that there is a difference between cables, you're going to have to do a double blind test or something similar, as this thread has been talking about for ages, yet you can't seem to grasp. Now, if you want to set that up, I'm sure you'll have takers.

 

[pauln]

You need to point that at yourself - I have challenged you already just you me and some cables anywhere - I know you will eat those words. I have no fear of losing what so ever, you may make the excuse its your 'sonic illusion' and any other excuse supposidly proven by science you may care to make. But straight up I challenge you........

I'm taking everything thats been said to date and still I dare you....sadly not this sunday as there is a Grand Prix on..... but what do you say?

Sadly I'll miss the Grand Prix too (about time McLaren got their act together) - I'll be in Sweden working on a well known "Song Contest"

Where are you?

 

[Thompsonuxb]

In one of the previous interconnects debate I did the test - was that the one that included slightly differing beats and you had to decide if they were the same I did one of them. But considering I understand the whole idea of music reproduction is the creation of an illusions it really has no bearing on this debate - simply because we are not trying to change anything all we are doing is trying to determine if cables DO make a difference.

ok, here they are again http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/audio-designline-blog/4033473/Audio-illusions-that-will-fool-your-ear-and-brain

the point being that you can't trust your ears to give you an accurate reading, therefore the test you propose is pretty useless and doesn't actually prove anything I'm afraid - it's just people in a room listening to music and changing cables, nothing more, nothing less. That's why nobody is interested in taking you up on your offer.

If you are seriously wanting to prove that there is a difference between cables, you're going to have to do a double blind test or something similar, as this thread has been talking about for ages, yet you can't seem to grasp. Now, if you want to set that up, I'm sure you'll have takers.

wow.... this is what I don't get with some of you guys, thats the same test - stereo is an illusion in it self - creating a soundstage with real depth, height and width with singers and instruments placed in various positions, from 2 speakers in a fixed position. how does that relate to this debate.

If I changed my earphones would be closer to what we are trying to prove. i.e do we hear sonic differences in this tests, ..... not if the test/illusions itself changed

So were does this 'your ears can be fooled' come from I don't get it. We all know they can be fooled but we also can hear if something changes when we hear it . its a simple case of listen, nothing up my sleeves, nothing hidden in my coat.

 

[cheeseboy]

couldn't resist this, sorry... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a86KvYjyIbg

 

[cheeseboy]

wow.... this is what I don't get with some of you guys, thats the same test - stereo is an illusion in it self - creating a soundstage with real depth, height and width with singers and instruments placed in various positions, from 2 speakers in a fixed position. how does that relate to this debate.

If I changed my earphones would be closer to what we are trying to prove. i.e do we hear sonic differences in this tests, ..... not if the test/illusions itself changed

So were does this 'your ears can be fooled' come from I don't get it. We all know they can be fooled but we also can hear if something changes when we hear it . its a simple case of listen, nothing up my sleeves, nothing hidden in my coat.

ok I'm out, you clearly have no idea what we are talking about. I'll leave it up to somebody else to say the same thing over and over again and you can say the same things back to them over and over again.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

You need to point that at yourself - I have challenged you already just you me and some cables anywhere - I know you will eat those words. I have no fear of losing what so ever, you may make the excuse its your 'sonic illusion' and any other excuse supposidly proven by science you may care to make. But straight up I challenge you........

I'm taking everything thats been said to date and still I dare you....sadly not this sunday as there is a Grand Prix on..... but what do you say?

Sadly I'll miss the Grand Prix too (about time McLaren got their act together) - I'll be in Sweden working on a well known "Song Contest"

Where are you?

Birmingham.

 

[Overdose]

wow.... this is what I don't get with some of you guys, thats the same test - stereo is an illusion in it self - creating a soundstage with real depth, height and width with singers and instruments placed in various positions, from 2 speakers in a fixed position. how does that relate to this debate.

Not height.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

wow.... this is what I don't get with some of you guys, thats the same test - stereo is an illusion in it self - creating a soundstage with real depth, height and width with singers and instruments placed in various positions, from 2 speakers in a fixed position. how does that relate to this debate.

If I changed my earphones would be closer to what we are trying to prove. i.e do we hear sonic differences in this tests, ..... not if the test/illusions itself changed

So were does this 'your ears can be fooled' come from I don't get it. We all know they can be fooled but we also can hear if something changes when we hear it . its a simple case of listen, nothing up my sleeves, nothing hidden in my coat.

ok I'm out, you clearly have no idea what we are talking about. I'll leave it up to somebody else to say the same thing over and over again and you can say the same things back to them over and over again.

Go!.... and you guys talk about head in sand to me - seriously tell me what relavence that test has with listening to a a piece of music played on a single system were the only thing changed is the interconnects, nothing else - how will your ears be fooled ....

I told you Overdose... run their bare arms through an open flame.......

 

[Thompsonuxb]

wow.... this is what I don't get with some of you guys, thats the same test - stereo is an illusion in it self - creating a soundstage with real depth, height and width with singers and instruments placed in various positions, from 2 speakers in a fixed position. how does that relate to this debate.

Not height.

Lol..... thats another debate for another day...... I know through my amp/speaker/cd player the vocals are above the height of the speakers and alot of treble info even though my speakers are inverted - tweeter below mid driver......another day.

 

[Overdose]

wow.... this is what I don't get with some of you guys, thats the same test - stereo is an illusion in it self - creating a soundstage with real depth, height and width with singers and instruments placed in various positions, from 2 speakers in a fixed position. how does that relate to this debate.

Not height.

Lol..... thats another debate for another day...... I know through my amp/speaker/cd player the vocals are above the height of the speakers and alot of treble info even though my speakers are inverted - tweeter below mid driver......another day.

No really. Not height.

Stereo recordings are carried out in one plane only. To reproduce a vertical plane you would need recording and playback in two planes, ie microphones and speakers above and below each other.

A bit like surround sound but not.

 

[davedotco]

wow.... this is what I don't get with some of you guys, thats the same test - stereo is an illusion in it self - creating a soundstage with real depth, height and width with singers and instruments placed in various positions, from 2 speakers in a fixed position. how does that relate to this debate.

If I changed my earphones would be closer to what we are trying to prove. i.e do we hear sonic differences in this tests, ..... not if the test/illusions itself changed

So were does this 'your ears can be fooled' come from I don't get it. We all know they can be fooled but we also can hear if something changes when we hear it . its a simple case of listen, nothing up my sleeves, nothing hidden in my coat.

ok I'm out, you clearly have no idea what we are talking about. I'll leave it up to somebody else to say the same thing over and over again and you can say the same things back to them over and over again.

I bowed out on this guy a while ago, simply does not have the faintest idea about what is being discussed.

The U-Tube clip is amusing though, i have had a few dems go like that in my time......

 

[Thompsonuxb]

wow.... this is what I don't get with some of you guys, thats the same test - stereo is an illusion in it self - creating a soundstage with real depth, height and width with singers and instruments placed in various positions, from 2 speakers in a fixed position. how does that relate to this debate.

Not height.

Lol..... thats another debate for another day...... I know through my amp/speaker/cd player the vocals are above the height of the speakers and alot of treble info even though my speakers are inverted - tweeter below mid driver......another day.

No really. Not height.

Stereo recordings are carried out in one plane only. To reproduce a vertical plane you would need recording and playback in two planes, ie microphones and speakers above and below each other.

A bit like surround sound but not.

lol....o.k, this we can disagree on - I do have my speakers leaning back, front spikes on a pair of jenga blocks. but I'd have to invite you round to hear my set in action to prove this - that I won't do....

 

[Overdose]

wow.... this is what I don't get with some of you guys, thats the same test - stereo is an illusion in it self - creating a soundstage with real depth, height and width with singers and instruments placed in various positions, from 2 speakers in a fixed position. how does that relate to this debate.

Not height.

Lol..... thats another debate for another day...... I know through my amp/speaker/cd player the vocals are above the height of the speakers and alot of treble info even though my speakers are inverted - tweeter below mid driver......another day.

No really. Not height.

Stereo recordings are carried out in one plane only. To reproduce a vertical plane you would need recording and playback in two planes, ie microphones and speakers above and below each other.

A bit like surround sound but not.

lol....o.k, this we can disagree on .....

I see there's a common theme here.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

wow.... this is what I don't get with some of you guys, thats the same test - stereo is an illusion in it self - creating a soundstage with real depth, height and width with singers and instruments placed in various positions, from 2 speakers in a fixed position. how does that relate to this debate.

If I changed my earphones would be closer to what we are trying to prove. i.e do we hear sonic differences in this tests, ..... not if the test/illusions itself changed

So were does this 'your ears can be fooled' come from I don't get it. We all know they can be fooled but we also can hear if something changes when we hear it . its a simple case of listen, nothing up my sleeves, nothing hidden in my coat.

ok I'm out, you clearly have no idea what we are talking about. I'll leave it up to somebody else to say the same thing over and over again and you can say the same things back to them over and over again.

I bowed out on this guy a while ago, simply does not have the faintest idea about what is being discussed.

The U-Tube clip is amusing though, i have had a few dems go like that in my time......

whats being discussed... I thought it was interconnects and if they can make a difference to the sound you get from your hifi.

All I'm doing is proposing a very simple test to prove they do - no science, no jiggery pokery, just a simple listening test, were have I gone wrong?

from were I'm sitting you guys are the ones not looking at the core argument.

dragging up pointless scientific 'eveidence, irrelavent tests' to prove your point in the meantime ignoring what you can actually do to prove if there is a difference by just taking the time to listen. I actually accept some may not be able to hear difference (age, quality of system taken into consideration)

but seriously how hard is it?..... but o.k

or are you getting mixed up with this and the do amps sound the same thread?.

 

[davedotco]

wow.... this is what I don't get with some of you guys, thats the same test - stereo is an illusion in it self - creating a soundstage with real depth, height and width with singers and instruments placed in various positions, from 2 speakers in a fixed position. how does that relate to this debate.

If I changed my earphones would be closer to what we are trying to prove. i.e do we hear sonic differences in this tests, ..... not if the test/illusions itself changed

So were does this 'your ears can be fooled' come from I don't get it. We all know they can be fooled but we also can hear if something changes when we hear it . its a simple case of listen, nothing up my sleeves, nothing hidden in my coat.

ok I'm out, you clearly have no idea what we are talking about. I'll leave it up to somebody else to say the same thing over and over again and you can say the same things back to them over and over again.

I bowed out on this guy a while ago, simply does not have the faintest idea about what is being discussed.

The U-Tube clip is amusing though, i have had a few dems go like that in my time......

whats being discussed... I thought it was interconnects and if they can make a difference to the sound you get from your hifi.

All I'm doing is proposing a very simple test to prove they do - no science, no jiggery pokery, just a simple listening test, were have I gone wrong?

from were I'm sitting you guys are the ones not looking at the core argument.

dragging up pointless scientific 'eveidence, irrelavent tests' to prove your point in the meantime ignoring what you can actually do to prove if there is a difference by just taking the time to listen. I actually accept some may not be able to hear difference (age, quality of system taken into consideration)

but seriously how hard is it?..... but o.k

or are you getting mixed up with this and the do amps sound the same thread?.

The clue is in the word.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

wow.... this is what I don't get with some of you guys, thats the same test - stereo is an illusion in it self - creating a soundstage with real depth, height and width with singers and instruments placed in various positions, from 2 speakers in a fixed position. how does that relate to this debate.

If I changed my earphones would be closer to what we are trying to prove. i.e do we hear sonic differences in this tests, ..... not if the test/illusions itself changed

So were does this 'your ears can be fooled' come from I don't get it. We all know they can be fooled but we also can hear if something changes when we hear it . its a simple case of listen, nothing up my sleeves, nothing hidden in my coat.

ok I'm out, you clearly have no idea what we are talking about. I'll leave it up to somebody else to say the same thing over and over again and you can say the same things back to them over and over again.

I bowed out on this guy a while ago, simply does not have the faintest idea about what is being discussed.

The U-Tube clip is amusing though, i have had a few dems go like that in my time......

whats being discussed... I thought it was interconnects and if they can make a difference to the sound you get from your hifi.

All I'm doing is proposing a very simple test to prove they do - no science, no jiggery pokery, just a simple listening test, were have I gone wrong?

from were I'm sitting you guys are the ones not looking at the core argument.

dragging up pointless scientific 'eveidence, irrelavent tests' to prove your point in the meantime ignoring what you can actually do to prove if there is a difference by just taking the time to listen. I actually accept some may not be able to hear difference (age, quality of system taken into consideration)

but seriously how hard is it?..... but o.k

or are you getting mixed up with this and the do amps sound the same thread?.

The clue is in the word.

oh davedotco , don't be like that man, c'mon, honestly its not life or death....c'mon......

 

[pauln]

whats being discussed... I thought it was interconnects and if they can make a difference to the sound you get from your hifi.

All I'm doing is proposing a very simple test to prove they do - no science, no jiggery pokery, just a simple listening test, were have I gone wrong?

from were I'm sitting you guys are the ones not looking at the core argument.

dragging up pointless scientific 'eveidence' irrelavent tests to prove your point in the meantime ignoring what you can actually to do to prove if there is a difference by just taking the time to listen

how hard is it?.....I but o.k.

I'll try and make it simple:

The crux of the argument is that just listening can not prove anything - for all the reasons already given.

It's like saying the earth is flat because it looks flat and all the scientific evidence to the contrary is irrelevant jiggery pokery!

Our brains take in information from all our senses, discarding irrelevant information such as background noise, adding to what our ears are picking up to match what our eyes are telling us and presenting the result to other parts of the brain that recognises (from memory and association) those neural electrical impulses as something we call music or speech or a car crash or whatever.

There is no direct route for sound to get to the brain, only the electrical impulses travelling along the cochlear nerve created by the ear from acoustic energy get there. Humans are not like tape recorders, faithfully duplicating the acoustic energy picked up by a microphone. We simply don't work in that way.

You'll probably dismiss that as rubbish - that's up to you; you can delude yourself for as long as you want.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

o.k.....

But have you ever stood on a beach and looked out to sea...... you can actually see the curviture of the earth, it was only a matter of time but never mind.

I'm not dismissing anything in the way you guys seem to think I am, but all these things which seemingly get in the way of simply listening to a track played through a single system were only one part is changed to me is irrelavent - taking all things into consideration there is nothing wrong in trusting what we hear.

but enough..... I'm sure our paths will cross again on this very subject...... oh and if you're ever near Birmingham and there is no grand prix the weekend....

 

[davedotco]

Sorry Thompsonubx, but it appears to be a word you do not understand.

It is about a controlled test, where only the sound changes or does not, no other variables.

We exclude the visual input of seeing the cable being switched by making it blind, double blind by making sure the person conducting the test cannot influence the reults, checking that volume levels do not change when the cables are switched, etc, etc, then taking taking a number of tests so that they become more statistically viable.

That in it's simplest terms is a real test. Nothing changes bar the cable, so can you hear the difference or not, simple.

You may be able to do so, but if you could, reliably and consistently, then you would be a pretty rare individual. Most people taking the test under conditions similar to those given above cannot do so.

 

[pauln]

but enough..... I'm sure our paths will cross again on this very subject...... oh and if you're ever near Birmingham and there is no grand prix the weekend....

I do work there from time to time.

Anyway, as you listen "sighted" and you like what you hear that's all that matters really. If your brain thinks it sounds better, then it is better, even if the sound coming out of the speakers is no different.

When I listen to music stoned, it sounds miles nicer despite being exactly the same.

Now do I spend that £600 on an interconnect or.... :?

 

[busb]

I have to admit I do find this topic interesting - its one of the best in hifi and also one of the easiest to resolve.

imo - try various cable usually its no great spend anyway ( the best cable I have cost £25 - its a single coax and only a metre long, but its paid for itself in terms of satisfaction)

but all I can add to this thread is try the QED interconnects upto the Performance range - £40, its good.

There lies the contradiction - if it's easy to resolve, why hasn't it been? When I say "resolve", I do mean for all factions. Some arguments do go away, few people still proclaim the world is flat.

There is no contradiction - people are stubborn but its all down to just listening.

A few years ago I was into gaming during the last generation of consoles (Xbox & PS2) the biggest debate at the time on the forums I visited was frame rates the differences between 30fps & 60fps. At the time I argued the consoles were now powerful enough for all games to run at 60fps regardless of genre.

Some claimed they could see no difference between the two framerates. But on a decent tv it was clear the 60fps was cleaner, smother, brighter and more detailed - while by comparison 30fps was duller looking, jerkier with visual artifacts such as the moire effect etc. Now in the forums the 'I see no difference' brigade would argue the non difference - some I'm sure would put their naked forearms into an open flame rather than admit to differences - when all one had to do was run two games back to back to see the difference.

I think the interconnect argument is the same - if many of the naysayers would actually be willing to sit down in an uncontrolled test - no level setting nonesense - and listen to cables the argument would be settled without a problem ....actually did I say think?....no, I know it would be settled.

I'd be perfectly happy to sit with you & listen to IQs - whatever the outcome. Who wants to always spent time with those in agreement, afterall? Allthough I challenge the effectiveness of the DB ABX & have stated my reservations, I also think that Expectation Bias is one of the least contentious differences many people have. If one is willing to ackowledge its existence or its potential existence, steps can be taken to reduce it as I've already detailed.

I have participated in sighted comparsions in my home & elsewhere. They are generally kept short, otherwise they become tortuous or plain confusing. I once didn't swap cable but said I did. The perceived difference was considerable for no change! I wasn't exactly popular! My point is that we sometimes hear differences that do not exist. On the other hand Expectation Bias (also called Experimentor's Bias) is very wayward in that it does not always apply or more interestingly, get inverted where our expectation is reversed by experience. So it's just plain wrong to suggest that EB will always colour our experiences unless we fight it. There is a cognative bias for every situation & I'm sure more are being added but we need to believe in oursleves as well as always seek to challenge our mistrust. Like most, I do trust some over others! We also tend to quote the research or findings that support our world view which is often out of date.