Everything sounds the same

[marce]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

Wonderful. Much better than hijacking somebody else' thread. You might even want to grant Sal co-authorship and ask Chris to make this a sticky.

Troll ?

[marce]

12 minutes 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. 

Isn't the whole point of forums debate.

It may help here to look up the etymology of forum its had a quite definite meaning in the English language for a few years now.

Is it such a crime to sprout the endless arguments against the endless anecdotal evidence, and further looking round very few threads are polluted as many put it and most OT arguments quite often start with the regular vernacular accusation of being a troll, and hence the debate spirals down to the usual arguments and thus audio repreduction moves forward in skips and hops...?

[marce]

Being an Audiophile is no laughing matter, one cannot joke, the road to audio nirvana is a hard and unforgiving road, not only do you have to fret at the horrendous sound your system produces, but constantly be upgrading to get the next day and night improvement, you have to turn your back on conventional physics and be solid in your beliefs, especially in cables, whilst those clever sods use their measurements, knowledge and physics to pull you down...

Oh how hard is the path I have chosen.

[marce]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I think this is kind of a key thing.  Folks get the impression "the other side" must not have any fun, because their experience is that the folks on "that side" are always cross and arguing.  But it really isn't that way at all for 99.9% of the folks who come here.

 

How to keep on having fun and not let the .1% who can't live without arguing set the tone is something we ought to be conscious of when commenting.  

 

In my experience people love learning, but do not enjoy being mocked or told they're ignorant.  So if you intend to enlighten or to learn, your effectiveness does depend on your tone.  Maybe sarcasm or acerbity is easy, but I think making an effort to engage at the level of friends sharing a hobby is well worthwhile.

I do... Just getting cynical, quite often people ask what might be the cause of perceived differences, that's usually when the fun starts, one technical comment usually draws the the subjective trolls out from under their bridges with the usual, system not up to it, hearing not up to it etc. etc. ?

[marce]

My wife, in the living room instantly noticed when I upgraded our salt without telling her, she said her egg sarnie tasted more real, with smoother yolk and clearer whites... 

[marce]

3 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

On an audiophile website it is impossible to have subjective trolls. There is no *real* objectivity of consequence when the goal is to enhance the experience of a recorded musical event.

 

I rest my case your honour... ?

[marce]

11 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I thought the negative comments about mansr's cooking, baking, salt choices etc. were terribly unfair.

 

AFAIK, he lives in England.

 

Freakin' England !!

 

That is a very low bar to food.  In fact, they don't really even eat food (except for colonial imports).

 

And, yes, of course I have proof.  Let us start with the ancient Romans:

 

"Poor Britons, there is some good in them after all -- they produced an oyster."
Saullust, Roman historian, referring to the oyster beds in East Anglia.

Excuse me I live in England, I can cook up a lovely dish of tripe and pig trotters...

[marce]

11 hours ago, Albrecht said:

if you're part of the anti-audiophile 1%. Otherwise, - the vast majority of folks who read and participate here enjoy the benefits of learning about equipment and methodologies that enhance the listening experiences of recordings.

Learning about equipment involves at least a small understanding of the underlying electronic engineering and physics, like cooking you have to learn some basics.

[marce]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

To be serious for a sec, "stupid USB cable debates" is where the action is - I'll spell it out again:

 

* Certain interference and noise artifacts are the hardest thing for the mind to ignore

* Insufficient integrity of areas such as cabling are some of the worst offenders for allowing these artifacts to be audible

* It's extremely difficult at the moment to slap some monitoring device on part of a system, and point to precisely the waveform or number that says, we have a problem ...

* Which means that people who live and die by measurements think the other lot are nutters; OTOH the "nutters" are pragmatic, and by lots of fiddling and experimenting actually work out a 'useful' solution.

 

This is how it is, I'm afraid. Until enough people properly understand that it's vital that certain types of integrity are in place for quality playback to be realised then this sort of mudslinging will continue, endlessly ...

 

 

And thus all the electronic advancements since digital audio was first introduced have passed Fas42 by...

[marce]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

  In that case, he isn't the only one, as there have been quite a few verified findings in other areas of the Forum that people like yourself refuse to accept because they haven't been submitted to, and verified by your Technical Committees.

Sorry no there is anecdotal comments, not verified findings you are wrong and need to learn how science advances, you have to investigate and produce a theory, not just say it is so and hope everyone believes, that the emperor has some new clothes.

It isn't my  technical committees its hundreds of years of research in physics and electronics, to ignore it because it does not support your viewpoint is ignorance.

[marce]

55 minutes ago, mansr said:

And some don't realise that the recipe calls for Himalayan Quantum Salt only because it was published by the manufacturer of said product, and any old salt would work just as well.

That's just rubbing sodium chloride in the wound...

[marce]

What is the real thing though.... 

[marce]

How do you think audio equipment is designed, by engineers, especially the digital side of the playback chain. 

As to the rest, again because quite often the physics dose not back up your reality, then the physics is wrong!

Often the questions asked are what is the mechanism that is causing the perceived change in sound, often asked by a someone who is curious, if the reply is contrary to the belief then the fun starts. Instead of dissing measurements and science look into it or provide a possible mechanism yourself for why something causes a change.

[marce]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

in order to continue in keeping this thread away form the usual automotive analogies, here is some more verification of English cooking:

 

“You cannot trust people who have such bad cuisine. It is the country [Great Britain] with the worst food after Finland.”
French President Jacques Chirac in a remark on the eve of the G8 summit in 2005

Have you seen our salt, micro-grain so you can load the veg before 3/4 hour boiling till grey...

[marce]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

WHEN WILL YOU AND MANSR GET IT THAT THIS IS THE JOB OF QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO PERFORM !!!.

 

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

I have little doubt that if Peter had the time and inclination that he could do exactly that with the reports by myself, Manishander and others.

The truth is out there...

Anyway back to the topic in question:

Due to my unbreakable objective belief, the constant return to this thread has overcome my expectation bias and now everything sounds the same to me, grainy due to my passionate love of SMPS's, a soundfield flatter than my paint (and that's Dulux flat matt pro. but I digress), I suppose having mundane hearing/system/dog/cat etc. allows me to enjoy the music...

[marce]

7 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

Just remember that in the earlier days of digital, few engineers paid attention to jitter.  And there was a time in doctors who were concerned with sterilizing surgical tools were ridiculed.  Now look where we are.

 

I can also assure you that attention to detail in parts selection and circuit topology makes more differences in preamp/amp SQ than have been correlated by measurements taken (by either the designers or reviewers).

Such is only controversial to those who have neither designed nor experienced first-hand the differences that careful parts choices can make.  There are reasons why a Caddock MK132 resistor will sound different than a Holco, or why one film cap dielectric will convey the tune in a more natural way than another that leaves you cold.  But good luck trying to make such choices on the measurement bench.  Ask any successful speaker or electronics designer... 

Can we ask pro-audio kit designers in this?

[marce]

7 hours ago, rando said:

 

At some distant point heels were dug in on what very well may be a real and unexplained phenomena.  I won't bother trying to clock all the stages before it lost course as a noble pursuit.  

Nope, been trying to figure out a mechanism for 10 years nearly, no joy so far, even asked a number of qualified engineers who level of knowledge is greater than mine, no joy.

[marce]

7 hours ago, elcorso said:

I admire how many people blindly believe in large statistics ...

 

It will be then that the Weed is very good for health? So many consumers and how they speak well of it!

 

Some want DBT, other measures of oscilloscopes ... It seems that the ears were put as an ornament ...

 

Always my big question is and will be, have you had the opportunity to listen to any of the products disdained by the EE ? Or simply discard them because it is theoretically "impossible" that they work for what they were created?

 

It sounds like envy of the bad ...!

 

I do not see any of these petulants EE listing the products created by them that have helped to better listen to music.

 

On the other hand, listening to music is an art and a pleasure, never a test of applied electronics ... But if you want to torture yourself with that, it's up to you.

 

Carpe Diem,

 

Roch

Reproducing music is engineering, listening to music is pastime and creating music is art,there is a difference.

If something is theoretically impossible, what do you do dismiss physics as a load of coblers...

Envy of the bad, very childish retort, go to the corner of the class.

The rest is the usual hard core audiophile response, empty of content and name calling and you call us trolls... LOL

[marce]

3 hours ago, Superdad said:

 

Right.  And yet both Galileo and Newton were considered heretics at the time.  I think you are supporting my point.    The pioneers are the ones that end up with arrows in their backs.

I’m not in the least arguing against scientific rigor in audio engineering. There certainly are a lot of very questionable, overpriced products on the market—and not just in the space of tweaks and cables. But there are plenty of basic elements—including passive parts—that make distinctly audible differences which conventional measurements to-date have failed to reveal or show correlation.  I don’t think these are unmeasurable things, I just think that the tools and methods are not focused on the right factors.  Think basic microscopy versus genome decoding.

 

I encourage anyone to—at the next audio show attended—approach the chief engineer at any established and respected firm and ask them if they have made any parts selections or circuit topology decisions based on listening tests. I promise you will get quite a nice earful about such.

I disagree, the effects of passive components in analogue (and digital circuitry) is well known documents can be measured and even simulated (spice, SIV software) with some of the higher range software you can use the actual PCB data to simulate the parasitic elements added.

[marce]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

At least you disagree.

 

 

Some times it depends on the avatar.

Why are you picking an argument over my posts, strange answers. The effects of components in circuitry is well documented, recorded, measured and explained in tomes such as :

https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=the+art+of+electronics+horowitz+hill&index=aps&tag=googhydr-21&ref=pd_sl_4kh84msmb0_b&adgrpid=51566209165&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=259123406124&hvpos=1t1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8687281316590379588&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1006458&hvtargid=kwd-317266418583

 

[marce]

51 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Interesting.

So what you explicitly claim is that your engineering leads to fine products you don't need to listen to before they are shipped to the customer. Am I right ?

Measuring is sufficient. Correct ?

 

 

It was a specific answer to a specific comment, rather more generic in meaning than you have read into it.

[marce]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

At least you disagree.

 

 

Some times it depends on the avatar.

My reply was a reply to the quoted post, if you read both then it is obvious what I was saying.

[marce]

4 hours ago, davide256 said:

And so it goes on ... electronics degrees trying to make what goes on inside the human head for hearing conform to what they know how to measure outside the head. Not impressed, wrong area of competency to govern decision. This should be governed by audiologists and educated music professionals using empirical testing methods. The simplistic measurements available to audio engineers don't match the sensitivities of the human ear and brain.

We are talking about an electronic system, perception is a totally different field of study. What goes on in your head is different to the fidelity of your playback system. There are often audiologists in the design teams where sound reproduction is involved, but again they understand how we hear not how we perceive our world as a whole, and that is important..

A digital front end can't be designed without measurements, come to think about neither can the analogue section, that is a fact...

[marce]

3 hours ago, look&listen said:

Please do not feed self identified troll! he only want to sow & feed off confusion, dissension & chaos. 'logic' is irrelevant, only tactic. Brings no value to forum. 

 

IMO, member Ignore list key to sane use of CA forums. Hover over troll's avatar & popup has Ignore button at bottom for easy use. What is Alex's time worth? So little to waste on useless typing to feed twisted emotions?

?

[marce]

37 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

"You probably ought to remember" 

Now that's not an arrogant statement in any way. Care to elaborate or cite evidence or name some of these audio engineers not in audio?

 

Also, - just because some of these engineers main income source is outside HEA development, - they may in fact still be "in" audio development outside their main gig. Of course, - you are correct that there is no money being made by luxury goods manufacturers, - the 1% are only leeches.

Search on Linkedin.