Everything sounds the same

[pkane2001]

51 minutes ago, mansr said:

All components (and cables) sound exactly alike. There are no differences between a $5 clock radio and the finest system money can buy. If you have evidence to the contrary, you are not permitted to say so in this thread. We like our beliefs and wish to keep them undisturbed by reality.

 

I believe my $5 clock radio sounds better than yours when I power it from a $900 LPS.

 

[pkane2001]

Getting back on topic, can anyone suggest a better power cord to use with my $5 clock radio?

 

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, wwaldmanfan said:

There are a lot of different types of "salt" on the market. When one uses it as a condiment directly on food, the size of the salt crystals does change the experience of eating that dish.

 

I'm struggling to follow. Is "salt" a euphemism for a "usb cable"? And does "food" stand for "DAC"? "Eating that dish" is what, "listening"? Help me out here.

 

[pkane2001]

17 minutes ago, mansr said:

And "size of crystals" is sample rate.

 

Yes! It's all starting to make sense...

 

[pkane2001]

17 minutes ago, esldude said:

Nordost Red Dawn would seem an obvious choice.   Helps you get up and start the day better. 

 

https://nordost.com/products/power-cords/leif/red-dawn-power-cord-spec.php

 

So you wouldn't recommend Nordost ODIN 2 with 99.999999% oxygen free copper? All for under $17k for 1.25m length and speed of propagation at 88% of speed of light? I want my clock radio to sound just like my main system!

 

https://blinkhighend.com/shop/cables/nordost-cables/nordost-power-cords/nordost-norse-2-heimdall-power-cord/

 

[pkane2001]

8 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.

 

Abandon hope all ye who enter here

[pkane2001]

18 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

Is there some kind of "Idiotic Topic of the Day" contest going on I'm not aware of. Getting sick of checking  recent activity and being bombarded with these inane topics.

 

Easy on that off-topic button, buddy! You'll break it!

 

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, Confused said:

Where can I buy one of these $5 clock radios?

 

Here's an upgraded, high-end version: https://www.amazon.com/GPX-C224B-Alarm-Clock-Display/dp/B00J1GMB9C

 

[pkane2001]

28 minutes 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.

 

I'm after all of those things, but I refuse to abandon all reason and logic. What percentage am I in?

[pkane2001]

Just now, Albrecht said:

If you think that the 99% of people/audiophiles here have abandoned reason and logic, - then I humbly suggest a serious re-evaluation.

Did I say that?

[pkane2001]

28 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Sorry, the brain's pattern identification mechanisms do not work in this nice, neat way.  Otherwise instruments, which are far more sensitive to small differences, would inevitably be better at pattern identification. 

 

Physical property detection and pattern identification are very different things. One is limited by the sensitivity of the instrument, the other by the complexity of an algorithm.

 

Instrument sensitivity has nothing to do with its ability to do pattern detection, except if it’s unable to measure a difference. If there is no measured difference then no pattern detection is possible.

 

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

And which characteristic - ability to detect vanishingly low level signals, or pattern recognition - do you think is important when we listen to music?

 

When we are discussing listening to music through power cords and usb cables, most definitely the first.

[pkane2001]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

 

By the same logic, you should only own quite inexpensive measurement equipment.

 

No. Measurement equipment is... measured, and accuracy and sensitivity and limits are  listed. You’ll never want to buy a more expensive piece of measurement equipment than the cheapest one that does the job, and you’ll know this from the specs, without having to ‘audition’ it.

[pkane2001]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

 

I don't think perceived differences there (if they exist) lie in the realm of vanishingly small signals, and I'm quite sure you don't either.

 

Well, these have not been detected in measurements in audio realm. Just ask @PeterSt about Lush measurements, and you’ll hear excuse after excuse. I’m still waiting, Peter! 

 

 

They are vanishingly small because measurements don’t show them. John S. has even promised to build some specialized, more sensitive equipment capable of measuring these tiny differences. I’m still waiting on this one, also.

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

That's your personal opinion ONLY. I see very little advice on how to improve Computer Audio from the majority of the qualified Objective members, yourself included (with your vast background in this area),, who mainly post in the General Forum area. The vast majority of their posts appear to be put downs of other members, even other highly qualified members and equipment manufacturers , who they believe are incorrect with their reports, whether it be Power Supplies, Clocking, USB cables, high res/DSD vs. 16/44.1 , the audible differences between S/W players, audible differences between similar types of capacitors etc. etc.

I find this disappointing, as many are in a position to offer valuable advice to others if they chose to.

 

Esldude is one of the most helpful members on this and other forums. He’s knowledgeable and reasoned and only posts on things he knows and understands, unlike some others here... Alex! Please stop the attacks.

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Any bookmakers around to put some money to for who wil be the first ?

 

I know where I’d put my money on this

[pkane2001]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

The "finest scientific instruments" are quite often poor at recognising patterns in what they are monitoring. The human mind, conversely, is quite excellent at that - AI is a beautiful example of where it's been a long, hard slog to get it right, in spite of vast amounts of money and expertise thrown at it over decades 

 

Maybe it’s because the finest measurement instruments were never designed to recognize patterns?

 

 Hard long slug??? AI is making great progress. I’ve been involved in the field for all of my adult life. Just remember that we started measuring things with devices thousands of years ago and have been perfecting these for all that time. With AI we’ve been working on perfecting it only for the past 50-60 years. Give it a few more years to catch up 

[pkane2001]

8 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Please show where Dennis has posted any advice recently on actually improving Computer Audio.

 I also stated that Dennis was quite knowledgeable in this area, but just like you , it is invariably used to try and prove others wrong instead of how to improve computer audio.

 

I don’t need to prove anything to you Alex. Just stop the unwarranted attacks and insults.

[pkane2001]

21 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

I think Alex is right, there. Not mentioning names now, the guys we talk about do not improve a single bit on audio. If it were to them, audio would be in the 70's of the past century. This, while my rig improves a "double" each year easily. And not only mine - also those who are open to the appliances (what ever they might be).

 

Debunking everything and all, undoubtedly in the mind of those persons, is a good thing for the world. Proving it with schoolbooks is the worst (school is always a decade behind except maybe on history).

Them trolls STOP progress. Or they try to on behalf of some orgasm. I don't know.

 

But Peter... you do realize this thread is explicitly about ‘everything sounds the same’, right? And you accuse others of trolling?

 

[pkane2001]

57 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, they're working in a space which suits their 'skills'. Yet, they're pronounced to be final arbiters of what humans can sense.

 

Yes, because that’s the space which ‘suits their skills’.

 

58 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Indeed it is. But in the beginning there was great arrogance in the attitudes of those who thought they understood the problems ...

 

Dont confuse enthusiasm for arrogance. 

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

There's hardly anything left for myself. I must be a commercial troll. But all positive. A CPT. 

 

Fits the facts.

[pkane2001]

7 hours ago, PeterSt said:

 

Yes. And since it is allowed, hell is loose. Also, it is explicitly allowed, so I guess the one who allows it receives joy from it. And there you have a sick forum. Dirt.

 

You know how we try to shield our children  from reality, being careful not to shatter their beliefs in magic, fairytales and Santa Claus so as not to scar them emotionally? 

 

Well, this is nothing like that.  We are all adults here. Believe what you want, but please stop claiming that someone stating an opposing opinion is somehow attacking you, causing harm, killing joy, trolling.

 

We are all here to learn, share, teach, discuss. So, grow up, be an adult, discuss like an adult. Is that really too much to ask for?

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

For example, though, my Nelson Pass amps aren’t advertised as having the lowest possible “overall” distortion. and there are many many factors in play.

 

My Pass amps sound great also, but I know they are not as accurate as some of the cheaper, more conventional designs, and measurably so. The rub is between accuracy/lowest distortion and personal preference, as I think is usually the case on these fora. 

 

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Thought or actual experiment: can you distinguish a pure sine wave at 20 kHz from a square wave? 16 kHz? 10 kHz ... etc etc

 

What's the point of this experiment? A square wave is a collection of a fundamental and infinite (in theory) number of odd harmonics. Are you asking if harmonics above certain fundamental frequency are audible? 

[pkane2001]

10 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Paul, I have no idea where you see something to still learn from this forum. If you (and others) are happy with it as it is, then I won't tell you not to be. I only observe and it is through my eyes indeed.

Someone mentioned Hydrogen Audio. I see it worse in here by now. Through my eyes.

 

Now please continue and have as much joy as possible. 

I've learned quite a bit, actually. Often from others who disagreed with me. Conversation sharpens the mind.

 

But I understand that being involved in a commercial enterprise, you may not see disagreements and others questioning your products and designs as a positive.

[pkane2001]

Just now, PeterSt said:

 

Paul, try it for fun.

You can make it an 8KHz square just the same. I'll leave the further fun to Jonathan. But ... 

 

 

yes. That is what it comes down to. But you should still try. 

 

 

 

I've written software to test my own ability to hear frequencies and distinguish sounds, so this is actually a very easy test for me to perform, just need to add a square wave generator. I guess I'm still not sure what the point is.