Jump to content
IGNORED

The Great Cable and Interconnect Swindle: An Etiology


Recommended Posts

I suppose I don't have the lack of ethics that allow me to be a dentist or a high end cable maker. I can live with that.

 

The disgusting part is they can live with what they do. Unfair advantage, no problem. It simply is an opportunity. An opportunity to screw your fellow man, but hey like that is a wet dream for such people. Sorry, such people don't look like role models I approve of my friends.

 

It appears that the cable debate simply moved to a new thread.

 

elsdude- Why do you insist on continually presenting your opinions as fact. The fact is, you don't know whether cables sound different, or not. If it were fact, then there would be no debate. Please present your factual, definitive evidence, or stop the attacks.

Link to comment
Even if they believe in what they are doing, they know the parts cost of their products. Taking a reasonable profit for knowledge, manufacture etc is fine. The kinds of profits these cable makers enjoy are obscene, ethically disgusting, and they cannot fail to know what their profit margins are. I would be tremendously ashamed to offer products with profit margins they have. I simply could not sleep were I to do what they do.

 

Call in the profit police!

 

Reasonable profit??? Heard of the free market and supply and demand?

 

Instead of get all upset over it, you can choose not to buy them. Just a suggestion.

 

Your energies are better directed at the Fed.

Link to comment
Actually, Dennis has subjectively experienced differences in sound, but hasn't been able to obtain any test results that would substantiate differences. He has performed numerous tests, and has been very good about "taking requests" for various types of testing. He's been brave enough to assume his subjective preferences could be fooling him. So I think the stated basis of your criticism is mis-aimed.

 

I don't think I'm wrong in stating that he (and others) uses definitive words/statements instead of saying, in my opinion(s).

 

I have no problem with people sharing their "opinions".

Link to comment
I could respond to much in this post. But the first little bit is probably enough. Quite simply it is wrong and doesn't make any sense. To get a measurement regime properly oriented, one's theoretical perspective must be comprehensive......really,.....I mean REALLY!? Where did this idea come from?

 

This is very much in the direction of we can know nothing till we know everything kind of thinking. Since we don't know everything we don't know nothing. That is not at all correct.

 

Here we go again with this nonsense. You don't see it both ways.

 

You say, you know everything, though you really don't know everything i.e., "cables don't matter, cables all sound the same".

 

I could respond to much in this post. But the first little bit is probably enough.

 

No it's not enough. Please do respond to the entire post, because I think 50000 makes some excellent points.

Link to comment

 Originally Posted by chg 

It appears that the cable debate simply moved to a new thread.

 

elsdude- Why do you insist on continually presenting your opinions as fact. The fact is, you don't know whether cables sound different, or not. If it were fact, then there would be no debate. Please present your factual, definitive evidence, or stop the attacks.

Read my null testing thread. Their is not a difference that is audible between the interconnects I tested interconnects. That is a fact. I am not the only one who has done such things. I can provide them if you wish. One I have linked to is an MIT grad student measuring audio performance of cables for his thesis. He found nothing to explain how they could sound different. In other words, my opinion has been informed by facts.

 

It seems we differ on our definition of fact. A few measurements don't make fact.

 

Instead of reply in my own words, I'll just reference what Jud said earlier;

 

Originally Posted by Jud

If you were failing to measure something significant (and I'm not saying you are), then of course the fact of a null in what you did measure wouldn't matter...

That, to me, is one of the fascinating open questions of the Null Test. The possibility is that it be measuring "everything"; that known and that unknown. Hopefully this thread can add credence to the test or explore if there are flaws in it.

 

This debate is becoming so incredibly ridiculous it baffles the mind. No matter what very good argument is given by those questioning the testing methods, understanding, viability of whether "cables make a difference" they're instantly dismissed. If one cannot gain any insight from some of the very well written/thought-out points of view posted (such as those numbered 141-143), then I have to believe that there is something else going on in the minds of some of these objectivists. Is it boredom? An obsessive love for testing? Addiction to argument? I'm beginning to conclude that the cable objectivists are just a confused, fearful, distrusting (of their own senses), argumentative bunch. At what point do you stop questioning perceptions (or lack thereof) and simply trust your senses?

Link to comment
CHG and 5000 you guys are having a wonderful roll in the straw men you are attacking. If only it had some relevance.

 

5000 your understanding of objectivity is truly astounding.

 

Name calling again. When faced with logical criticisms that's what many of you seem to resort to. The fear of your countless hours of objective work comes crashing down.

 

I appreciate the time, effort, and work you've put into the subject, but I believe you may be too biased to research properly. No offense.

 

FWIW, I consider myself an objectivist, but not to the point of ignorance.

Link to comment

I hate to inject Barry's good name into a lowly cable debate, but maybe some of you cable opponents can learn something. If you read Barry's recent interview you may notice that when asked to explain why some things sound different i.e., resolutions, disc types, etc. he admits that he can't always account for why, but he trusts what he hears. This is a man who understands music listening. Measurements can't account for everything and in the end he trusts his ears.

 

Another point: I think it's important that if a member here makes the statement "I tried cable X, or file type Y and heard no difference" that he/she should describe the system that was used in coming to that conclusion. The conclusion means nothing without knowing the test system. Was the conclusion the result of a listening session on a stock Honda sound system, at freeway speeds, with the windows down? Was it with a pair of $200 Audioengine? Or, was it during a listening session in Bob Ludwig''s studio? I think I'm more likely to believe the statements from those with a resolving system vs. someone listening on a pair of $20 Logitech USB speakers.

Link to comment
I think it's important that if a member here makes the statement "I tried cable X, or file type Y and heard a difference" that he/she should describe the experiment that eliminates expectation bias that was used in coming to that conclusion.

 

Touche

 

But I think that many of us have heard differences that were so obvious that "expectation bias" was not a factor. Is there a point at which expectation bias can/should be ignored? Should it be employed in every single daily activity no matter the significance?

 

Paul beat me to it...

Link to comment
See the only problem is there are a whole host of ways that objective measurement techniques far outstrip the hearing ability of anyone. I do mean anyone. That isn't the same as saying everything is known about hearing. It is to say in quite a few ways measurements outstrips everyone and anyone's hearing.

 

So everything is not known about hearing, but apparently you know that it's just enough to make you and your measurements right. What do you think the percentage is? We know/can measure 50%? 99%? I bet it's a fraction of what you think. The fact is, we are unable to measure all aspects of human hearing and may never be able to measure all aspects. I could swear that you would probably get more enjoyment looking at a book full of measurements and no music, rather than a room full actual beautiful music.

 

It is to say in quite a few ways measurements outstrips everyone and anyone's hearing. You need to get comfortable with the idea that in some significant ways human hearing is at best a second best way to evaluate fidelity.

 

You've got to be joking with this statement. Do you realize how complex the human ear is? You think machines can mimic/measure the complexities of human hearing? That's like saying a computer can exceed the full complexities of the human brain. How about vision? Is there a machine/measurements that fully mimic the complexities of the human eye? How about taste?

 

Do you realize how many respected designers, engineers, musicians you insult with replies like this?

 

Again, I appreciate the work you've done on the subject, but I for one, would be much more receptive if you just explained what your working on, maybe share some results/theories/opinions, and do so in a neutral, less biased way.

Link to comment

Here's an interesting video of a musician who seems to have experienced a similar phenomenon of being able to hear subtleties that others can't. First he describes the differences, then when asked to demonstrate the differences he says, "it's probably going to sound the same". He likely (based on past experience) doesn't have much confidence in the female interviewer noticing anything. Is he imagining differences, or is it because he is an experienced musician with a better ear/understanding of different guitar tones?

 

Skip to the 11:40 mark.

 

Link to comment
chg,Of course there are differences...

 

The point was that he hears differences, that others may not. Judging by his initial response (before comparing) it appears that he had no expectation that she would hear any differences. He's probably had a lot of instances where he comments to someone about a particular sound/tone only to find that others might say it sounds the same. And if you watch the rest of the segment he says, "I can tell as a player". It had nothing to do with whether different models of guitar sound different. I was hoping most would get the gist of the story.

Link to comment
For example, when picking out speakers, I only did a (single) blind test at the very end, when trying to choose between two different price-points in a very similar line by one manufacturer. Otherwise, the differences I was hearing were fairly obvious to me. Why did I think this might be anything other than self-deception?

 

The speakers I was comparing were constructed very differently, and different measurements and physical characteristics. It is not unreasonable to think that bigger speakers might sound better than smaller ones, etc. There are easily quantifiable, measurable differences.

 

Most of the above can be said of cables also.

 

With power cords (for example), it is much more counter-intuitive to suspect that there are going to be audible differences...

 

Power cords? Bad example!

 

I thought you were staying away from cable debates (for mental health reasons)? Probably not a bad idea actually.

Link to comment

Barrows said;

 

1. Pro audio has the best measuring equiment: No, this is often not the case. And, as mentioned by another poster, considering the quality level of some (most) of the recordings produced by pros, I do not think it wise to consider "pro audio" as some kind of benchmark which audiophiles shoudl aspire to.

 

Well, you did pretty well. You added some more.

 

Indeed. What do the pros know. They only do it for a living. But ... you know... they get all they want so they really don't understand, you know... about a life like Frank's. I mean, when you've loved and lost the way Frank has, then you, uh, you know what audio is about.

 

I have absolute admiration for the work of Barry and Cookie, but why is it that they are the only ones audiophiles keep referring to? How about Steve Hoffman? Alan Parsons? Bob Clearmountain?

 

The difference is that one is for work (to get the job done) and the other is for leisure and enjoyment.

 

Here's what Alan Parsons said;

 

"Pro sound people have different expectations; they are only concerned that a piece of gear works and allows them to do their job. Hi-fi people spend huge amounts of money for tiny improvements, and pro sound guys will say, “I can spend half as much and get the results I need.”

Link to comment
barrows,

I have a sneaking suspicion that prufrock's POV is influenced by the post count of 'his' thread and perhaps this latest post is just stoking the flames with another outragous statement whenever things seem to slow down :)

 

"poke the beast and it Roars !"

 

That's how it's looking to me also. Needling is the term that came to my mind.

 

And then posts like this looks like he's trying to turn an audio site into a psych site.

 

I am suggesting that what you like, and the reasons that led to you liking it, may be not as clear cut as you might imagine. Every time you go to the supermarket and pick something off the shelf, there are a whole range of factors that influenced your decision that you were almost certainly completely unaware of. Companies spend a lot of time, effort and money on researching colours shapes etc that may give them the edge. The "you" that you think is you, is only the tip of the iceberg.
Link to comment
I have absolute admiration for the work of Barry and Cookie, but why is it that they are the only ones audiophiles keep referring to? How about Steve Hoffman? Alan Parsons? Bob Clearmountain?

 

Also;

 

Bob Ludwig

Tony Faulkner (Quad ESL,Wilson).

The Mormon Tabernacle recording studio (Wilson).

SnowGhost (in Montana)(Wilson,VTL, EMMlabs).

Link to comment
You are right - most of the time pro stuff recognizes the concept of "good enough", and that in chasing some crazy non-audible 0.00001% ideal, you have to make compromises in other, more relevant areas.

 

Exactly. And the job to be done is reproducing music accurately.

 

I agree with him. I guess I am actually not a real audiophile - I admire good engineering, that accomplishes the result in an elegant, efficient manner without pretensions. And I just like to enjoy my music.

 

Thanks Paul and Barrows for saving me the trouble of writing a response. I couldn't have said it better. I think Julf understood the post, but chose to twist it around.

 

I mean no disrespect, but I think it's a waste of time debating with Julf. He will never change his mind, he never admits when he's wrong, and when faced with information he can't counter he either ignores, or acts like he doesn't understand what the poster is saying. So what's the use? The best we can do is just not engage, and simply put up with his frequent snide remarks.

Link to comment

O.K., maybe a little out of line on my part, but it's a bit frustrating when I see people take the time to reply, often times making very good points, only to be dismissed so quickly and rudely. I'm not saying everyone has to believe the same thing, but at least acknowledge and accept when a member makes a valid point in opposition to yours.

 

It is funny how some people here on CA always seem to have to resort to ad hominems when their arguments don't hold water.

 

That's funny. I've been thinking the same thing, but the other way around.

 

No hard feelings.

Link to comment
I conjecture that's because those types basically want to study specs rather than actually listen to gear - but of course that is only a guess.

 

...And to make matters worse when a DBT does not go their way I have even seen it where rather than accept it they try to find flaws in the methodology. One can't help but get the feeling they are not after the truth but merely want confirmation of preconceived ideas.

 

I believe you're on to something. That's how it looks to me as well.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...