Everything sounds the same

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

Weak satire and not really relevant.
 

No one said you aren't "allowed"  to post what you want. 
 

The question you should be asking yourself: why do you feel compelled to continue to devote reams of posts on the same topic, year after year, thread after thread, when the available evidence suggests you've convinced no one from the other "camp"?

Sort of ironic for an "evidence based" objectivist.

To most of us the arguments are old and tiresome - no matter what we think about the actual topic.

That's why I suggested writing a "sticky" instead of continually arguing the same point, which apparently brings absolutely no added value to the site each time it is argued. Instead, you can just point newbies to the sticky if you wish to educate them. 
 

Beyond that, when someone starts a thread by stating he wants a discussion about the sound of various USB cables, and specifically isn't interested in hearing from those who don't think the differences exist (maybe because he doesn't want to re-read the same argument again, and not because he is lacking in "education") - then it is disrespectful and rude to derail his thread and turn it into another "can cables make a difference?" argument.
 

And that is true even if you are CORRECT. First you may be correct, but there isn't exactly a way for you to prove you are correct to those who don't accept your ideas of proof. And to the OP it is irrelevant, as apparently he hears differences and that's what is important to him. He's not interested in you telling him he's imagining it.

It's not a moral imperative for you to convince everyone to accept your point of view - you need to learn to accept that sometimes people have a point of view, won't accept what you consider proof of your POV, aren't interested in being convinced otherwise, you can't convince them, and it is tiresome to most of the community here to read about it again and again.

OK let's set a hypothetical case.  Let's say that some newbie reads Mansr's sarcastic remark that everything sounds alike and believes it? Unlikely, but this is just an example, so it really doesn't matter. He reads that remark and says to himself, "well if everything sounds the same, then I'll just stick with my dad's old console stereo from the early 1960's. No need to spend any money on Hi-fi!" Yes, absurdly hypothetical but the point is that newbies come here all the time, read some of the nonsense posted here (as well as some of the wisdom) and have no idea what is right and what is wishful thinking. it is the duty of everyone here (in my estimation) to give both sides of the story in any controversial discussion. If I say cables have no sound, those who believe that there is need to voice their opinion that I'm wrong, and why. It is then up to the newbie, given two sides of an argument to then go off on his own realizing that there are possibly two equally sincere points of view on the subject and research the topic on his own.  

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

And nothing I wrote contradicts your position. It makes no sense every time someone asks about cables to write the same endless arguments over and over again.It’s a topic that’s been beaten to death hundreds of times here.  That’s why I suggested Mansr, Sal, and others write a sticky thread with their position and simply refer people to it. Or set up a cable debate thread and debate it there. Refer newbies to it. No reason to continually hijckack multiple threads Into  the same argument. Especially when the OP in the other thread was obviously aware of the argument and specifically asked that his question not be turned into such a debate. 

Good Idea, but it seems to me that these threads invariably take on a lifetime of their own, they wander off topic (not pointing any fingers, I'm as guilty as the next person on that account!) and it seems almost impossible to get them back on topic (until Chris shuts them down, of course). People talk about what they're passionate about, it seems and there are 4 or 5 subjects that this crew circles back to time and time again. I doin't see how we're going to stop it. Chris can't monitor every topic continually, shutting the topic down at the first incipient signs of a cable debate, or whatever raises people's passions.

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Wrong. The spread in the food is very different for the larger grains vs the smaller, no matter the total weight is equal.

Indeed you are no cook. Nobody cares. But of course you are telling the cook that you know better.

Good thread.

Now, we're arguing about SALT????!!!!

[gmgraves]

34 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

At least you won't shoot your foot off.

No, he'll shoot his eye out!*

 

*With apologies to Jean Shephard

[gmgraves]

21 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

s far as I can tell there is no topic, which leads me to conclude everything is off topic. Here's your initial post, which appears to be only a series of idiotic statements:

You have, of course heard of sarcasm?

[gmgraves]

18 minutes ago, mansr said:

Even the Vatican conducts thorough investigations into claims of miracles, usually finding a mundane explanation. Although they'd very much like a real one, they also don't want to make a mistake. Perhaps the faithful in the field of audio could take a cue from their Catholic brethren.

Then there is the "science" of Creationism. Whereby the scientific method is turned on it's ear. In normal science a phenomenon is observed and science works to explain that phenomenon with rational results through experimentation. In Creation "science", a wished for (and irrational) result is already "established" (that God created the universe in six days in the year 4004 BC and that Adam and Eve were the first two humans on earth), and the "scientists" work toward proving it's true "through research". Their most usual method of research is to discard any evidence that leads in another direction other than the Genesis explanation of the creation. It's all very pat. Mention to them that if the universe was created 6 thousand years ago, as they insist, how come we can see the light from stars that are more than 4 billion years old, they reply with "That's easy. The Lord created the universe with that light already on it's way to us." They also will tell you that the earth was created with dinosaur bones already in the ground to "test our faith". 

Kind of reminds me of the "white papers" that audio snake-oil manufacturers put on their web-sites to try and explain why their myrtle wood blocks, cryo-treated digital clocks, and LP "demagnetizers" improve sound. 

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

George, don't you realise that all science is intrinsically flawed ...

Not as intrinsically flawed as is that irrational construct known as religion. 

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Creationism isn't science because the hypothesis isn't disprovable. In normal science a phenomenon is observed and they a hypothesis is generated and experiments are designed to disprove the hypothesis. Observations alone don't constitute science regardless of the statistics e.g "everybody knows"

What do you think the quotes around the words science and scientist are for? Creation science isn't trying to disprove anything, they are trying to prove something so silly and so naive that it's right up there with proving Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. And a lot of these audio tweak sellers are not too far removed from Creation Science. I.E. they have an answer, and the've worked backwards to try to curve fit the facts to fit that answer. Interesting point about Creation Science. These people hire actual scientists, i.e. people with actual degrees in scientific disciplines such as geology, paleontology, archeology, sociology, etc. But these people aren't doing any real research, but I suspect they are doing more science than the audio voodoo-ist! 

[gmgraves]

10 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

For a long time I have been fascinated with the parallels between these two sets of believers.

 

Interesting tidbit:  I've only received credible threats to my well-being and job from two sets of people:  Creationists (for publishing stuff on evolution in Science), and audiophiles (for posting here).

 

Many so-called subjectivists (I hate those terms "subjectivist" and "objectivist") aren't too far from the creationism clowns. They are both trying to prove things that simply don't exist. 

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

Religion is an early form of science - it attempts to explain why things are as they are ... such as, why is the universe there. As far as I'm aware, current science still hasn't quite got a secure hold on the latter ...

Religion has always been what it still is, an attempt by one group of people (priests) to hold dominion over the hoi-polloi. It has nothing to do with science. Using religion to explain natural events like earthquakes, storms, thunder and lightening, floods, and the stars in the sky are merely tools to reinforce the power of the gods and further ingrain in the populace, by association, the power of the priestly class. IOW, one ignores or crosses the priests at one's peril because they say that they can summon the wrath of the gods.

 

OTOH, science is Deus ex machina. Early scientists like Archimedes, Hippocrates, Pythagoras and Socrates looked for logical explanations for natural phenomena and how to use the natural world to improve life. They did not sit around invoking the gods to their bidding. Problems like measuring the volume of irregular shapes, moving water uphill, mechanical advantage, the shape of the earth and it's circumference are all the work of early science and with nary a god in sight. The Hippocratic Oath invokes no gods in order to heal, it relies solely on the expertise of the physician to prescribe remedies found in nature through diet, exercise, and herbalism.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

What's the difference? The idea that humans, of all animals, can hear things that elude the finest scientific instruments is nothing short of preposterous.

 Do you actually believe that? or are you just waxing contrariness in order to create controversy? While I fundamentally agree that concrete, measurable data is needed to explain why certain things sound the way that they do, I also know that some things that can be measured make no difference to the sound of an audio component, and some things that can be heard are simply not represented by the measurements. For instance, you have two amplifiers that measure, identically. They have the same power, the same frequency response and both have vanishing levels of distortion. On paper, there should be no discernible difference between the two amps, yet listening shows that they sound distinctly different from one another. How do you measure that? The differences, it turns out, might be in the power supplies or the types of coupling and bypass capacitors used in each, Those things won't show up in the standard measurement suite, yet they are easily heard. 

I'm all for measurements, they are crucial, but just as crucial is a discerning ear. Measurements might tell you "why" but you ears will almost always tell you "what". I'm not forgetting the role that expectational and confirmational bias plays in all this, that's why when the measurements tell you one thing and your ears tell you something completely different, caution must be taken to avoid being fooled. But clearly to me, both measuring and listening are important.  John Atkinson's technical review of the Schiit Yggdrasil said that the thing didn't perform very well. Had I heeded that review, I wouldn't own one now. But, I have compared it to DACs such as the MSB Diamond DAC IV, the Benchmark DAC3 DX, The dCS Vivaldi, the AudioGD R2R7, etc. And NO DAC that I have tried has come within a country mile of the Yggdrasil in terms of overall musicality. 

[gmgraves]

16 hours ago, mansr said:

What does that even mean?

Musicality means sounding like real acoustical instruments playing in a real space with people listening in that music in that space where the performance is taking place!

I find it interesting that someone would have to explain that to you.

[gmgraves]

16 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

No, the problem isn't measuring differences, rather in knowing what differences are meaningful -- knowing what is meaningful.

 

For example, looking at a very low level, each amplifier, certainly different brands, but even each amplifier of the same brand, will have very subtle electrical differences. All components have nonlinearities and shot/flicker noise patterns. On paper every amplifier has its own measurable pattern. Such differences are employed in forensic analysis but doesn't mean that he devices will have audible differences.

 

Think about two perfect mirrors: the surface pattern will have microscopic differences. Two "perfect" diamonds -- easily distinguished under a microscope, etc.

 

Let's say I have two indistinguishable recordings and cut and splice them in various places -- forensic analysis will unequivocally determine that the recording has been edited yet audibly flawless...

 

Amplifiers -- any two resistors from the same batch will have slightly different values, as will capacitors and all components etc.

Yes, of course. After all, unless one uses precision resistors (unlikely even in uber expensive components) resistors are going to measure their given value within 5%, 10% or even 20% of their marked value, with 10%ers being the most common. Also both resistance and capacitance values vary with temperature. But also keep in mind that until the 1970's, values of components used in electronic circuits (even audio components) were figured using a slide-rule and the values calculated were more closely associated with "guesstimates" than actual calculations. I was always amazed at how some older engineers could whip out a "slip-stick", play with it for a minute or so and announce: "We need a 47, 324.236 Ω resistor in that spot" (OK, I'm exaggerating, but you get the point). Often I didn't see how they even came up with 47K, much less the rest of it (other than the fact that 47K is a standard resistor size). But what it does show is that most audio circuits  hell, most circuits period are simply not that critical. But yes, unless one is using very  precision, temperature compensated parts, two amps of the same make and model are very likely to sound subtly different. But since there is no way for the listener to know which is more "correct", it doesn't really matter.

 

I once "resto-moded" a pair of Dynaco Mark III power amps (60W/ea) using the William Zane Johnson (Audio Research) modification. when I finished the two amps each sounded slightly different, but with each playing, I couldn't tell that was true.

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, marce said:

People still use 5% resistors, 1% is pretty standard these days, and better in critical positions, and if you use SMD you can get 4 resistors in a package where they are temp matched and kept at the same temp as each other for critical feedback, I will dig out a data sheet when back at mu work comp.

Well, I have to admit that I haven't looked under an audio component's skirt for quite a while. If they use 1% resistors generally in this equipment, why would solid-state amps and preamps (and DACs) still need to warm-up for an hour or so before one does critical listening? 

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, PeterSt said:

All cables will color, so our hunt should be for the one doing that the least.

 

Can you explain the mechanism for this "coloration" that all cables do? I'd really like to know. It can't be Capacitive and/or Inductive reactance because there's not enough of either in a USB cable (unless it is very long) and that only affects frequency bandpass, which is not a "coloration" per se. Also USB cables don't carry sound, they carry digital signals. When one rips a music disc with an outboard disc drive, there doesn't seem to be any lost data. When I install an app from a DVD, it runs perfectly, so no data has been lost, Keyboard and mouse inputs work perfectly. So how does a USB cable know that the data it's carrying is music, and therefore it has to be altered in some way in order to color the sound? How does this coloration manifest itself? I've never experienced it. Let me rephrase that. I've never "noticed" that I was experiencing this coloration. 

The pictures that Alex posted were so fuzzy, I couldn't even tell what I was looking at! and I have a brand new 32" top-of-the-line Dell monitor! What are those pictures supposed to be showing, and has anybody correlated the pictures with sound. So which pictures represent the least colored delivery of the signal, and which is the most colored? And would one go about correlating  what one sees with what one hears? A slippery slope at best.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Here you go again! All you are repeatedly saying is that to improve sound quality one must improve sound quality. Very helpful...not!

Glad to see that someone other than me has caught on to Frank's circular reasoning, endlessly repeated nonsense, and self contradiction. This is one merry-go-round that I'm glad I stepped off of!

[gmgraves]

2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

You have to admire his stamina though... 3000+ posts essentially saying the same thing but in different words. 

Sometimes different words, but often the same words, over and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, ad nauseam, ad infinitum!

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, tmtomh said:

but in that case, you're not really saying anything that has any particular informational value.

That's the basic problem with all of Frank's posts, NONE of them have any informational value! They go on endlessly about his "method", but except from saying that he replaces RCA jacks and plugs by soldering his interconnects directly and that he removes extraneous parts from his components, and dresses his cables, he has said nothing of any use to anybody and has taken more than 3000 posts to say that nothing! 

[gmgraves]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

I had the same thought in the final sentence.  But a pretty good bot - his posts are not word salad, maybe a composed salad like a Nicoise??

Ah! That's why his ramblings are so fishy. The tinned tuna will do it every time.

[gmgraves]

14 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

And don't forget the anchovies!

I never would! It's too bad that we Americans can't generally get real Mediterranean anchovies the way the Italians and people from the Cote d'Azure pack them. They are so much better than the anchovies one generally applies to US pizzas. Which, while they are ok on a pizza are just too salty and fishy for use elsewhere.  In my experience, not all salad Nicoise have anchovies, but they all seem to have a local canned tuna, that again, tastes nothing like StarKist or Chicken-of-the-Sea.

The best anchovies I've ever tasted were fresh ones in a local restaurant in Cefalu on the north coast of Sicily. Fried in olive oil, they were so crisp and well seasoned that one just ate the whole thing! Delicious.

Speaking of pizza, southern Italy literally ruined me for pizza. There are so few pizzas that I can eat since I tasted a real one, that I don't eat it very often. New York and New Jersey have the best pizzas in the US (IMHO, I might add). Here in Reno, there are two Pizza places that make pizza that is close to real NY pizza and close to the real Neapolitan "Pizza Margarita" The New York style is called (very originally) "NY Pizza" and the Neapolitan style is from a chain called "Grimaldi's". Interesting because Grimaldi is the name of the Royal House of Monaco, which is in France, not Italy. Go Figure!   

[gmgraves]

13 hours ago, tmtomh said:

One area where I do agree with Frank, at least to a degree, is about interconnects. I'm not ready to solder mine, because I don't believe contact noise/problems are an issue in properly looked-after RCA connections using decent interconnects. But I am a strong believer in using RCA interconnects with gold-plated or otherwise highly conductive, oxidization-resistant connectors, and with connectors that connect rather tightly to the RCA jacks of one's equipment. And I've also found that the odd RCA interconnect will start giving me trouble after several years, which has prompted me to buy a new set every 5-10 years or so. (I buy stuff like BlueJeans cable - so trivially expensive to replace, if one amortizes the cost over the years of service the cables provide.)

 

Gold isn't the best conductor, If you want that, you go with silver. but gold doesn't corrode, part of it's value throughout history is it's incorruptibility. This also, BTW, is what makes it desirable and extremely useful in electronics. A thin layer of gold deposited on connector parts. is enough to insure that the connectors do not corrode. Silver, for all of it's great conductivity turns black with silver oxide if left in the air. Silver oxide, deposited on mating connector parts forms DIODES; i.e. rectifiers. Not exactly what you want in a connector used to pass an AC signal like audio. 

I bet you'll find that if you take the time, every year or so to give your current cable connectors and their mating sockets, a good clean with DeToxIT (or equivalent), you can save yourself some money over buying new cables. Of course, cables do go bad occasionally, and those have to be replaced.

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

Actually I think silver oxide is not a bad conductor.  Most silver tarnishing includes a fair amount of silver sulfide which is a semi-conductor at best.  Silver chloride is also usually part of the silver tarnish.  

 

What else is a semiconductor? A diode. Diodes rectify (i.E. they permit current to travel in only one direction) Not what you want in an audio connection. No, gold is the best interface between two connector surfaces.

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

Really?

"Here is everyday help for all of us because we live in a toxic world.  Contains the programmed frequencies to neutralize the residue from low level toxins plus the residue from many in the mid range."

 

Or did you mean DeoxIT?

I obviously meant DeOxIT. So I misremembered what the stuff is called. so crucify me!

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

It's a common belief that gold solves the problem - unfortunately, it doesn't. In the days when I was investigating this area I attempted to use the supposed capability of gold alone to improve the integrity of connections - it always failed. I find silver works, but only in the form of the silver greases and paints made for creating conductivity.

If your surfaces are clean, it most assuredly does solve the "problem" - usually. not good enough for your particular neurosis? clean the connections good and apply a drop or two of Stabilant 22. It used to be sold by Dayton-Wright as a product called "Tweek". Stabilant has both NASA and US Military "Mil-Spec" numbers. It also has an SAE designation and is used in the motor industry. This stuff is real. A combination of clean, gold, mating surfaces on your audio connectors and Stabilant 22 applied should be better than a soldered interconnect. I keep a 15ml bottle handy at all times. It works!

http://tinyurl.com/y9vl4hz7

[gmgraves]

12 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

DeToxit is probably better for SQ...

 

removes jitter AND it's a floor cleaner!

It's also a breath mint. Very versatile stuff, that DeToxit!