How much does it cost to be an audiophile?

[davide256]

I suspect that any system where the owner says cables don't matter, I would find to be (a) a cringe worthy sound or (b) a system where someone else did the leg

work in selecting the cables.

[Nordkapp]

Wrong. My system sounds awesome, I did all the leg work and cables kinda matter-to a point. 

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

And yet in the instance described you still hear a difference by changing the cable

 Perhaps the shielding on the particular cable isn't as good as the replacement cable?

Not all Coax style interconnects have 2 layers of screening which can result in less hum ingress from nearby mains cables.

 Neither do they all have the same % of actual screening coverage. This is often specified in the data sheets for the type of cable used.

[Jud]

26 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Yes, and????

 

Don't play thick, George.  I've been clear in saying nothing else I tried worked, and that putting new cables in the same configuration as the old did work.

 

@mansr also mentioned a very prosaic electrical reason that balanced cabling (which could easily cost less than the cables they replace) can eliminate ground hum if that's a problem.

 

There's no more good reason to say a change of cables can never be the solution than to say they will always make a difference.  Both positions are doctrinaire and neither is scientifically accurate.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

...I can hear George thinking....

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

...I can hear George thinking....

 

He probably has a stock of his previous answers to choose from ?

[fas42]

1 hour ago, davide256 said:

I suspect that any system where the owner says cables don't matter, I would find to be (a) a cringe worthy sound or (b) a system where someone else did the leg

work in selecting the cables.

 

An audiophile further afield from me doesn't have the slightest interest in cables; this is the one who uses premium speaker drivers, DEQX, does lots of modding of power supplies. The cabling is by all standards atrocious - long runs of cheap and nasty cable, the sort of stuff you use on a midfi cheapie, it goes all over the floor, under carpets, criss crosses, an electrician's breakfast. Yet, at its peak the setup was capable of producing damn fine sound; not fully competent, but quite superior to many high reaching audiophile rigs I've come across.

 

Which says what? That everything doesn't have to be ideal, but if enough boxes are ticked then highly involving, satisfying sound can be extracted - it's a case of accumulating enough 'quality points'; if the interim total is sufficient, then the end goal is definitely discernible.

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, davide256 said:

I suspect that any system where the owner says cables don't matter, I would find to be (a) a cringe worthy sound or (b) a system where someone else did the leg

work in selecting the cables.

Yes, if folks have a mid fi souce a cable change will have limited effect.

[esldude]

11 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Yes, if folks have a mid fi souce a cable change will have limited effect.

Or the way some talk, with a good enough cable there are no mid-fi sources.

[crenca]

2 hours ago, davide256 said:

I suspect that any system where the owner says cables don't matter, I would find to be (a) a cringe worthy sound or (b) a system where someone else did the leg

work in selecting the cables.

 

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Don't play thick, George.  I've been clear in saying nothing else I tried worked, and that putting new cables in the same configuration as the old did work.

 

@mansr also mentioned a very prosaic electrical reason that balanced cabling (which could easily cost less than the cables they replace) can eliminate ground hum if that's a problem.

 

There's no more good reason to say a change of cables can never be the solution than to say they will always make a difference.  Both positions are doctrinaire and neither is scientifically accurate.

 

Jud,

 

Is not your example just the exception that proves the rule?  You seem to be arguing a rhetorical point about absolutist language, and your point is a mere truism of sorts.  What @gmgravesis saying, and what the essence of the Great Cable Debate is about, is this Audiophile subjectivist axiom that cables have properties and a "sound" that is not reasonable on any other known rational ground (e.g. standard electrical engineering that otherwise specs these standards out).  The post above by @davide256 is just one example. 

[Summit]

8 hours ago, Jud said:

 

And to possibly train yourself to consciously recognize what was perhaps only subconsciously noticed before.

 

Don't expect quick results.  Academic work indicates a week of training is probably not enough. (In the experiment I'm thinking of, memory was tested for a trope common to Western but not South Asian music.  As expected, Western test subjects did better than South Asian.  A week of training did not enable the South Asian subjects to do any better.)

 

I agree and like to add some examples on experience and the ability to recognize “small” difference ?

 

An experienced ornithologist can identify many hundreds of different kind of birds by their appearance and/or sound. An inexperienced person can identify just some birds that have some special characteristics or are very common to them.

 

An experienced herpetology can identify many hundreds of different kind of snakes by their appearance. An inexperienced person can identify a few that have some special characteristics or that are very common.

 

Most bird parents can identify their chicks in a group with hundreds of other chicks by sound and/or appearance after just one day. Not even very experienced ornithologist can do that.

 

An experienced guitarist can normally hear the difference between many different makes and models of guitars. An inexperienced person can hear if that it’s an acoustic or electric guitar, and that’s it.

 

An experienced philatelist can identify a Penny black stamp from a fake. An inexperienced person can’t.

 

To a person that lives in, let’s say Sudan, not all Sudanese people “look the same”. To a person that lives in, let’s say Laos, not all Laotians or Asian people “look the same”. To a person that doesn’t lives in, let’s say Sudan, many people, besides those with special characteristics, general can appear very similar. The reason is not because of xenophobic, it’s because our brain are not used to identify small difference that we normally aren’t compelled to identify and instead fall back to (general for the observers) more at a first glance characteristics.    

 

The list of example could be very long, but I guess I have made my point clear. There is a big difference between those that have a lot of experience of something, to also be able to see or hear the difference between individuals, stamps or instruments, compared to those that lack the experience. To expect that people that aren’t very experienced to listen and identify relatively small SQ change made by switching one gear or component in an audio system with many gear is really IMO no proof that something isn’t audibly for a more experienced audiophile. But even an experienced audiophile can’t identify small SQ change caused by audio gear in a short ABX, if played in an unfamiliar audio system and with music not well known.   

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

[pkane2001]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

So, having gone through the difficult exercise of setting it up well enough to confirm audbility what have you achieved in terms of getting normal systems sounding better ... ummm, absolutely zip!

 

Ummm, I think you missed the point of the exercise, Frank. It is to learn what each distortion may sound like, alone, or in combination with others at various levels.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

42 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Ummm, I think you missed the point of the exercise, Frank.

 

 

Let us know how that works out for ya ? (Good Luck)

[manisandher]

12 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

As said previously, if that 100:1 could be reproduced by @manisandher  one more time it would be approaching conclusive (for want of a better word and avoiding "proof"). As it is, IMO, it is very significant (p=0.01).

 

Hi David, I'm totally confident I could reproduce the results - the bit-identical difference we applied in the ABX remains readily audible to me (and to all the other XXHighEnd users around the world... without exception).

 

But as for repeating the ABX, I'm not sure. No one has managed to explain what exactly was inadequate in the way it was conducted (other than the possibility of my having heard and correctly decoded key strokes through 2 totally closed doors and a corridor!), and how any such inadequacies would be addressed in a repeat.

 

It's funny that Mans is still banging on about the possibility of my having achieved the p=0.01 result through sheer chance. Taken out of context, I think it's valid. I mean, had a person been dragged randomly off the street and achieved the same result, it would indeed be 'interesting' and perhaps nothing more. But that's not what happened. There's context here. I invited Mans to my place because I was confident that I could demonstrate that what I was hearing was real - either he would hear it for himself (he couldn't) or I would prove it in a test (I did).

 

Does anyone really think I would have invited Mans to my place if I wasn't 100% confident that I was hearing what I was hearing?

 

Mani.

[Jud]

10 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

Jud,

 

Is not your example just the exception that proves the rule?  You seem to be arguing a rhetorical point about absolutist language, and your point is a mere truism of sorts.  What @gmgravesis saying, and what the essence of the Great Cable Debate is about, is this Audiophile subjectivist axiom that cables have properties and a "sound" that is not reasonable on any other known rational ground (e.g. standard electrical engineering that otherwise specs these standards out).  The post above by @davide256 is just one example. 

 

Hi, crenca.  I agree that esoteric physics is unnecessary.  What I am also saying, though, is that merely because esoteric physics is unnecessary, it doesn’t mean those who say cabling can never make a difference are correct.  Both sides in this doctrinal argument can be wrong, and then we make no progress.

 

By progress, I mean helping people to improve their systems and avoid  snake oil.  Think about @mansr's response earlier in the thread: ground currents can occur in systems, but can be addressed (often inexpensively) by balanced cables.  Or if for some reason balanced cables aren't a reasonable alternative, there may be issues of system configuration or cable dressing that might improve things, again for not a lot of money.

 

@JohnSwenson kicked off one of the most popular topics on the site when he told people how to make (or what to look for in) a good, economical DC power cable.  Someone coming into that thread saying you needed some ultra-expensive quantum linear DC power cable would run into a very skeptical audience, because they'd been armed with correct information beforehand.  And (this is important) it came from someone who didn't say "You're all deluded idiots if you hear any differences," but rather someone who gave solid, simple electrical reasons why differences might occur in the real world environments we have where ground currents and various other forms of low level noise exist.

 

It's really just as simple as not automatically treating folk as deluded or fools as a knee-jerk reaction when there may be a perfectly simple electrical explanation for what they're experiencing, and in the process helping them to avoid the snake oil explanations they can fall prey to when they're met with contempt rather than assistance.

[Jud]

11 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

Hi David, I'm totally confident I could reproduce the results - the bit-identical difference we applied in the ABX remains readily audible to me (and to all the other XXHighEnd users around the world... without exception).

 

But as for repeating the ABX, I'm not sure. No one has managed to explain what exactly was inadequate in the way it was conducted (other than the possibility of my having heard and correctly decoded key strokes through 2 totally closed doors and a corridor!), and how any such inadequacies would be addressed in a repeat.

 

It's funny that Mans is still banging on about the possibility of my having achieved the p=0.01 result through sheer chance. Taken out of context, I think it's valid. I mean, had a person been dragged randomly off the street and achieved the same result, it would indeed be 'interesting' and perhaps nothing more. But that's not what happened. There's context here. I invited Mans to my place because I was confident that I could demonstrate that what I was hearing was real - either he would hear it for himself (he couldn't) or I would prove it in a test (I did).

 

Does anyone really think I would have invited Mans to my place if I wasn't 100% confident that I was hearing what I was hearing?

 

Mani.

 

Obviously you don't have months to spare to do this, but it would be interesting to see how long it would take for you to train someone to reliably hear the changes you (and other XXHE users) do.

[davide256]

11 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

Jud,

 

Is not your example just the exception that proves the rule?  You seem to be arguing a rhetorical point about absolutist language, and your point is a mere truism of sorts.  What @gmgravesis saying, and what the essence of the Great Cable Debate is about, is this Audiophile subjectivist axiom that cables have properties and a "sound" that is not reasonable on any other known rational ground (e.g. standard electrical engineering that otherwise specs these standards out).  The post above by @davide256 is just one example. 

Funny how things stay the same... in the 80's it was all the engineers saying that Denon and Technics TT measured better, that a Linn Sondek LP12 had no measured basis for sounding better... which to me just demonstrated there was very weak correlation between what mattered to human hearing and the measurements they were using to draw conclusions from.

[beerandmusic]

On 5/26/2018 at 10:49 PM, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

On any journey, flying first class costs money (so I am told).

My only "experience" was when my wife volunteered my 'services' to attend to a passenger on a flight. As a show of appreciation the stewards placed my wife in first class and gave her free champagne. How is that fair??

 

you can  have a journey just by buying and selling used stuff and never have to pay much at all, and as technology improves and new products come out, you can get better and better for less....and if you are really good, you can have a journey where you actually profit from the buying and selling....i know that i have made far more money on stereo equipment than i have invested, and it has been a journey for sure.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

It's really just as simple as not automatically treating folk as deluded or fools as a knee-jerk reaction when there may be a perfectly simple electrical explanation for what they're experiencing, and in the process helping them to avoid the snake oil explanations they can fall prey to when they're met with contempt rather than assistance.

 

48 minutes ago, davide256 said:

Funny how things stay the same... in the 80's it was all the engineers saying that Denon and Technics TT measured better, that a Linn Sondek LP12 had no measured basis for sounding better... which to me just demonstrated there was very weak correlation between what mattered to human hearing and the measurements they were using to draw conclusions from.

 

 

I appreciate your irenic and reasoned explanation Jud, I really do.  I admit that such patient and considerate dialogue has its place not only here, but in all of human endeavour and relating.  I suppose for someone like yourself (a lawyer if memory serves - retired probably?) it is central and crucial not only personally but professionally - how else is conflict mitigated, if not resolved?

 

To answer my own question:  lots of different ways, most of which I don't readily understand (and that's ok).  In other words patient and reasoned "dialogue", free from "knee jerk reaction" is only one tool in the box, and is not applicable in every situation, every job.  Indeed dialogue is probably one of the most overused and abused tools in the shed (to mix metaphors just to keep it interesting) second only to the venerable knee jerk reaction itself.  

 

To the modern man and consciousness, dialogue itself rises to a sacred level.  It and only it can solve all that ills man and the universe.  Just watch any Star Trek episode.  I am not a modern man however, and in the venn diagram of life the overlap of Reason and Dialogue is actually pretty small.

 

I say all this so that you understand the below, which is my response to @davide256 ?:

 

 

 

[gmgraves]

16 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

And yet in the instance described you still hear a difference by changing the cable

What are you trying to prove? You know as well as I do, that when we discuss interconnect sound, ground loops are not what we're discussing!

[gmgraves]

14 hours ago, crenca said:

I suspect that any system where the owner says cables don't matter, I would find to be (a) a cringe worthy sound or (b) a system where someone else did the leg

work in selecting the cables.

Lemme fix this for you: "I suspect that any system where the owner says interconnects don't matter, I would find to be owned by someone who has done his due diligence and knows that short runs of coax designed to be conductors and not filters in all probability cannot alter the sound of his system, so he buys well made competent cables rather than useless expensive ones."

There that's better!

[gmgraves]

15 hours ago, Jud said:

@mansr also mentioned a very prosaic electrical reason that balanced cabling (which could easily cost less than the cables they replace) can eliminate ground hum if that's a problem.

Nobody is arguing about ground loops, but yes, that's one of the things balanced connections exist for, to eliminate ground loops

[Jud]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

I am not a modern man however, and in the venn diagram of life the overlap of Reason and Dialogue is actually pretty small.

 

Reasonable exploration of simple electrical explanations has benefits not only for the person asking the question, but for everyone who pays attention to and is informed by the answer.

 

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

I say all this so that you understand the below, which is my response to @davide256 ?:

 

 

 

 

And you know what happened to him in the movie, right? 

 

[Jud]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Nobody is arguing about ground loops, but yes, that's one of the things balanced connections exist for, to eliminate ground loops

 

Yup.  So it's one of the things we miss out on when we dismiss accounts of changes in sound due to cables rather than engaging and trying to figure out a reasonable explanation for what may be going on.  If this happened more often and was heard to work by those asking the questions, do you think it might manage to shrink the snake oil market more than dismissal and ridicule (which to me only serve to drive people into the clutches of those who act friendlier, for a price)?