Poll: Where are you along the cable divide?

[semente]

FYI Green pens did actually change the sound, some said it was better, some said it was worse. Prof. Johnson ran some tests and the green pen actually increases jitter. (a negative)

 

I wonder how that jitter manifested itself subjectively...what it sounds like.

 

(Philips) Bitstream chips (or a certain implementation of) are said to produce more jitter and yet they were accepted by the audiophile community as a real sonic leap forward when they came out (in comparison with resistor-ladder chips).

 

R

[Jud]

(Philips) Bitstream chips (or a certain implementation of) are said to produce more jitter and yet they were accepted by the audiophile community as a real sonic leap forward when they came out (in comparison with resistor-ladder chips).

 

R

 

I think it may have been more a matter of a leap to substantially lower cost, and sonics, depending on who you speak to, were either (1) worse and left as an afterthought due to the price issue, (2) comparable, or (3) better. I remember when the bitstream DACs first came out they were not the top of the line for audiophile DAC companies. In fact resistor ladder DACs are still by and large more expensive.

[wgscott]

We could stay on subject if objectivists would quit attacking Alex over the blind test that they refuse to believe in nearly every thread. It has been going on for four years, why?

 

Why does he need to bring it up in "nearly every thread", regardless of how off-topic or irrelevant it is?

 

But I do agree, it always goes nowhere.

[westy]

I am a big time cable believer.

We are connecting our equipment together with cables so it really matters.

Of course, the better the equipment the more likely better cables will improve the sound.

Remember, "Only as good as the weakest link."

 

Many times cost is not the most important factor, it's how a cable meshes with the equipment and that takes some trial and error.

 

Here is my ranking of cable importance.

 

1. Power cords, with this includes outlets, and dedicated lines for Audio equipment

2. Analog cables, includes interconnects and speaker cables

3. Digital cables , includes AES and spdif and usb

[Sal1950]

FYI Green pens did actually change the sound, some said it was better, some said it was worse. Prof. Johnson ran some tests and the green pen actually increases jitter. (a negative)

 

Yes I've read your review on the green pen. The whole fiasco is now looked back on as a complete comedy routine by most everyone. Tell me true, do you still treat optical discs this way. LOL

 

"I selected Chris Isaak's analog recorded Heart Shaped World as this is one of my best sounding non-audiophile pre-recorded cassettes, and I thought it would be good to have a back up copy as Nakamichi cassette deck parts are getting scarce. The CD untreated was pale in comparison, there was more resonance in Chris Isaak's voice and more wood sound on the box of his acoustic guitar on the cassette. However when I treated the CD I noticed CD Stoplight brought the CD much closer to the realism of the pre-recorded cassette. The greened CD sounds wonderful and quite enjoyable, not high resolution but neither is the cassette. The importance of this test was to compare two low resolution formats, one I enjoy (cassette) and one I historically have had problems listening to (CD). The fact that this CD sounded good enough that I have since played it again means that the combination of hardware improvements and the use of CD Stoplight might just mean I can occasionally enjoy a CD. "

green pen sacd

[sandyk]

Why does he need to bring it up in "nearly every thread", regardless of how off-topic or irrelevant it is?

 

But I do agree, it always goes nowhere.

 

Partly because people like yourself continually feel the need to bring my name in to discussions when there is no need to, just as your buddy Paul Raulerson, "the legend in his own mind" , has recently done in another thread in the General Forum.

[wgscott]

Partly because people like yourself continually feel the need to bring my name in to discussions when there is no need to, just as your buddy Paul Raulerson, "the legend in his own mind" , has recently done in another thread in the General Forum.

 

OK, if I promise never to bring it up again, will you also?

[sandyk]

OK, if I promise never to bring it up again, will you also?

 

I refuse to be censored by a full of himself Professor of an entirely different discipline.

The only guarantee you will get from me is that I will never contact your University or any other institution about your sarcastic online bullying , or engage in stalking you. I would never do that despite provocation.

If however you continue sniping at me on every opportunity, I will continue to respond in kind.

[wgscott]

Nobody is suggesting censorship (except perhaps a little self-restraint).

[Paul R]

Partly because people like yourself continually feel the need to bring my name in to discussions when there is no need to, just as your buddy Paul Raulerson, "the legend in his own mind" , has recently done in another thread in the General Forum.

 

(shrug) Well, I will join WGScott and promise never to bring it up again if you will also.

 

-Paul

[gmgraves]

Alex claims that two bit for bit identical RIPs of a CD, stored on the same media and played back over the same audio system will sound different one frm the other, if the ripper device is supplied with one of his DIY power supplies for one f the RIPs

 

 

OK, but it's still irrelevant to Interconnects. Nobody in this thread has expressed any doubts that different active components sound different or even that they would produce different sounding RIPs from the same analog source. He's needlessly muddying the waters with things that simply don't matter to this discussion.

[wgscott]

OK, if I promise never to bring it up again, will you also?

 

Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that you can't start your own threads on whatever topic suits you. (That would be censorship.)

 

I am suggesting we all simply restrain ourselves from bringing this disagreement into threads like this one, or any other on-going thread. If you feel like you need to make your point again, just start a new thread, so it won't derail the others. If you feel you need to respond to a provocation, do it in a new thread. If we all try to take the high road on this, it will make it much more pleasant for the 99% of folks who really want us all to just STFU.

[gmgraves]

Perhaps you should practice what you preach George ? You keep regurgitating the same stuff over and over again in every cable thread.

 

I think I do "practice what I preach". It doesn't bother me one bit that you or anyone else believes that interconnect sound is a real phenomenon. The fact that you're almost surely wrong doesn't faze me at all, Alex. Admittedly, when I first came here, I figured that I could easily set these "cable believers" straight with applications of physics and logic. But I soon found that I wasn't dealing with a rational belief system, but with people who had faith that what they were hearing was real. At that point, I stopped trying to convince any one. I'm sure that you hear what you think you hear, and I'm sure that it gives you great pleasure, but I'm not going to lie and say that I agree that what you think you hear is real, nor am I going to refrain from discussing this point with others on this forum; whether they agree with me or not.

 

And as for me "regurgitating the same stuff over and over again in every cable thread". Yeah, that's because the science hasn't changed and new people keep joining the conversation. Do you really have a problem with that? And your above comment brings to mind such phrases as "Those who live in glass houses..." and "Let he who is without sin..." and the ever popular "Pot, Kettle, Black..."

 

Since when have you guys stuck to the actual topic of threads such as the cable threads ?

 

That's not my point, Alex. The point is (as I understand it) you are arguing that there are DBT/ABX test results that support your stand on interconnect sound, and to prove it, it looks like you have brought-up tests done on bit perfect CD RIPs!!!!?????

 

Perhaps I should ignore insulting posts by certain members who keep insinuating that I am a liar ?

 

Well, that's up to you. But I, for one, don't think you are lying (or insane) and would never even intimate that you are a liar. Like I've said many times, I'm sure you believe you hear what you hear. Your only shortcoming in these debates is that you refuse to concede that what you hear might be a purely psycho-acoustic phenomenon and not a electronic one and I put that down to stubbornness and hubris on your part and it's not like you are the only audiophile in the world who has those traits .

 

I have said that as remote as that chance is, I am open to theories about why people hear interconnects, other than the results of bias and/or mass illusion. Someone posted a theory, quite recently, that some cables might affect the supersonic performance of some components and that is reflected down into the audio passband, and that is legitimately and intriguing possibility to me. It needs to be researched, but I for one would love to know.

 

Are YOU strong willed enough to ignore them, which many may take as an admission that you are incorrect ?

 

I'll defend my position, of course, but nobody here intimidates me. And the possibility that I'm incorrect is always there. I've been wrong before, and I'll doubtless be wrong again. When I'm proven wrong, I always concede the fact and generally go away having learned something. I don't take any of this personally, these days, and I don't consider anyone here an enemy. I know that there are some posters here who don't like me, but I figure that's their problem. I don't pretend to know anyone here well enough to either like or dislike them. I merely judge what they say, not the person behind the words.

 

sal posted a comment about Subjective reports in general, never having any support with measurements etc. All I did was post a few instances where I have provided this material.

 

I dunno. Subjective evaluation is the only way to characterize the sound of an audio component. Magazines like Britain's 'Hi-Fi News and Record Review' and The USA's 'Stereophile' run comprehensive suites of sophisticated computer-based measurements along with their subjective evaluations. They certainly tell us much about the electrical performance of the component under test, but if you try to correlate the measurements with the comments of the subjective reviewer you will find that rarely do the measurements match-up to the reviewer's description of the sound except in the broadest way. Listening is vital. Listening can unveil characteristics of a component's sound that measurements simply can't tell us, but one must keep a rational view of the subject and realize that the human mind is subject to all kinds of self delusion. It is therefore important to keep this in mind when making one's subjective evaluations. If you find yourself hearing things that are impossible, or even unlikely, then the possibility exists that one is imagining those things and they are not real. But, conversely, a person who is 100% "objective", by definition, cannot be an audiophile, because measurements can't "hear". And I don't believe that Sal is one of those because he "listens' to music. What Sal seems to do is to reject those audio concepts that he feels are unlikely or impossible dues to the lack of any firm scientific foundation for making such claims.

 

Then, as usual, somebody accuses me of lying !

 

Believe me, Alex, you are better off just ignoring those people who call you a liar. You'll never convince them otherwise, and you'd likely be very surprised at how little other people in the thread actually care who calls who, what!

[realhifi]

It would have been nice to simply have a poll with no comments. Very instructive to just see how people actually voted instead of hearing any rhetoric.

[sandyk]

I am suggesting we all simply restrain ourselves from bringing this disagreement into threads like this one, or any other on-going thread.

 

Professor Scott, perhaps both yourself and Paul Raulerson should practise what you preach ?

 

That's not my point, Alex. The point is (as I understand it) you are arguing that there are DBT/ABX test results that support your stand on interconnect sound, and to prove it, it looks like you have brought-up tests done on bit perfect CD RIPs!!!!?????

 

Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem too, and skip over posts by others ?

Sal posted about subjective reports in general, not just with interconnects, not being backed up by some kind of measurements or DBTs.

I simply provided a couple of instances where my reports did have those things.

 

I will not be responding to most of your replies simply because they are far too verbose, and far too numerous, rather like many members complained about in the curated threads.

You still haven't got it that I don't agree that cables of similar construction and length, as well as a good screening coverage, and having similar L,C,R measurements would sound different.

Cable differences are invariably due to their degree of susceptibility to RF/EMI and the interaction of different values of L,C.R with output and input devices.

I have seen similar remarks here by a qualified E.E. too, but you choose to brush them aside as well.

[kumakuma]

I am suggesting we all simply restrain ourselves from bringing this disagreement into threads like this one, or any other on-going thread.

 

Professor Scott, perhaps both yourself and Paul Raulerson should practise what you preach ?

 

Torn between this one:

 

 

And this one:

 

[kumakuma]

Rejected this one:

 

[gmgraves]

Professor Scott, perhaps both yourself and Paul Raulerson should practise what you preach ?

 

 

 

Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem too, and skip over posts by others ?

 

I tend to read posts that interest me. Yeah.

 

 

Sal posted about subjective reports in general, not just with interconnects, not being backed up by some kind of measurements or DBTs.

I simply provided a couple of instances where my reports did have those things.

 

OK, I stand corrected. Sorry about that.

 

I will not be responding to most of your replies simply because they are far too verbose, and far too numerous, rather like many members complained about in the curated threads.

 

I don't know what you mean by "the curated threads", but I'm fine with you not responding.

 

 

You still haven't got it that I don't agree that cables of similar construction and length, as well as a good screening coverage, and having similar L,C,R measurements would sound different.

Cable differences are invariably due to their degree of susceptibility to RF/EMI and the interaction of different values of L,C.R with output and input devices.

 

Whatever. I don't expect us to agree on this subject.

 

 

I have seen similar remarks here by a qualified E.E. too, but you choose to brush them aside as well.

 

I haven't brushed them aside, I just don't agree with their conclusions. And I have said so on CA.

[sandyk]

Kumakuma

> 5 years of the same from wgscott and Paul Raulerson, and more recently YOU, who continually accuses me of lying, and follows me around like a bad smell, has convinced me of your complete lack of sincerity.

Paul Raulerson needlessly attacked me yet again late last night (Au. time)

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/audible-difference-between-analog-interconnects-27856/index11.html

So much for extending an olive branch !

 

BTW, the approximate dates of the links that I have posted on numerous occasions where you were unable to see the word "Blind", were 19/8/2011, 18/11/2011,19/12/2011 and 30/01/2012

[sandyk]

Whatever. I don't expect us to agree on this subject.

 

 

What part of this statement don't you agree with ?

 

Cable differences are invariably due to their degree of susceptibility to RF/EMI and the interaction of different values of L,C,R with output and input devices.

[kumakuma]

Paul Raulerson needlessly attacked me yet again late last night (Au. time)

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/audible-difference-between-analog-interconnects-27856/index11.html

So much for extending an olive branch !

 

So you are rejecting Bill's suggestion today that we tone things down because of something Paul did yesterday?

[Paul R]

So you are rejecting Bill's suggestion today that we tone things down because of something Paul did yesterday?

 

 

Snort- if I had "attacked" you Alex, what bits of hair you have left would have jumped off your skull and fled for safety.

 

I do wish you would shut up with your paranoia though. In this case, nobody is out to get you. Get away from you perhaps...

[sandyk]

So you are rejecting Bill's suggestion today that we tone things down because of something Paul did yesterday?

 

I only saw it today as it was way past my bedtime when posted.

Put simply, I don't trust you in particular, as you deliberately regularly distort what I have to say, and have called me a liar on numerous occasions, despite several of the frequently posted links showing that the tests were non sighted. I don't trust Paul,because the post that I saw today due to time zone differences was a full on attack on my credibility, and as far as Bill Scott is concerned, I would need to see some proof that he is being sincere, and that won't happen overnight.

As far as I am concerned the subject is closed, and you simply aren't worth me wasting further time replying to.

Bye !

[sandyk]

Snort- if I had "attacked" you Alex, what bits of hair you have left would have jumped off your skull and fled for safety.

 

I do wish you would shut up with your paranoia though. In this case, nobody is out to get you. Get away from you perhaps...

 

That needless post clearly demonstrated your lack of sincerity in toning things down.

[Sal1950]

Snort- if I had "attacked" you Alex, what bits of hair you have left would have jumped off your skull and fled for safety.

.

I cry foul, that was below the belt!