Everything sounds the same

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Sonicularity said:

I just taped a $20 bill to my DAC and it sounded fuller with more punch.  So there!

I just taped a $20 bill to my DAC.  However, I used multi-modal mapping to determine the exact place to tape.  It resulted in a $400 improvement in sound.  The music now has a visceral quality that was completely missing.

[esldude]

55 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

What kind of tape did you use?

 

I recommend a good pressure sensitive adhesive with plasticizer resistance.   Unless you never listen to rock music and have no clue that there is a band called The Who, then I would suggest something with a low-surface energy material.  If it doesn't cost over $100/meter, it is crap.

My approach is a little bit different though yours has merit.  

 

I use the permanent VHB tape which is stronger than most metal panels.  That is why doing the mapping to find the perfect spot is so important. 

 

What we are dealing with is molecular vibration.  A real phenomenon no voo doo here. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration

 

I use the infrared, Raman and UV spectroscopy to find the right point.  The multi in multi-modal mapping.  

 

Here is a good illustration of what you are dealing with here. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asymmetrical_stretching.gif

 

Now it might seem surprising the $20 bill is the thing for damping this.  But they are a unique combination of linen and cotton fibers.  I'm engaged in on going research to determine if the old bills are superior to the newer bills that have the anti-counterfeiting threads and the magnetic ink.  I suspect those upset slightly the perfect balance needed to dissipate the unwanted energy.  So there is room for possible future improvement.  

 

My apologies to the OP for my overly rational post.  I can start a new thread if the OP wishes. 

 

 

[esldude]

You are both wrong!

 

1 hour ago, audiobomber said:

This thread is proof that you don't even need an actual topic to start an argument in an audio forum.

 

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

I disagree.

[esldude]

3 hours ago, Jud said:

 

For 50% of those engaged in those conversations.  I like to aim higher.

Abraham Lincoln Quotes. You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

[esldude]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

That strikes me as an inefficient place to collect salt.

You wait for it to wash down to the coast and collect it there.  

[esldude]

2 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

Was this the $20 bill?

 

 

Could be just looking at it.  

[esldude]

5 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

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

 

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

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

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/

 

No, not for a $5 clock radio.  That would be appropriate with a $20 clock radio.  It is smart to keep your expenditures in proportion to not run out of resources prior to maximizing the benefits.

[esldude]

Just now, 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.

 

What an ironic statement!  ?

[esldude]

6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Guess what??  Many, many liberal arts majors (even the better ones) cannot "take percentages"!

I didn't even realize Yogi Berra went to college. 

 

 Baseball is 90% mental and the other half is physical.

[esldude]

6 hours ago, lasker98 said:

As 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:

"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."

How is that to be taken as a topic for intelligent discussion?

LOL. That's rich coming from you of all people. But since you asked, as I wrote in my earlier response:

"Getting sick of checking  recent activity and being bombarded with these inane topics."

How can you be 'off' a non-existent topic?

 

Is this some kind of koan?

 

With no topic all posts are off topic. 

 

The only posts that aren't off topic are the posts that don't happen. 

 

Actually I guess that fits the definition of a Catch 22.  

[esldude]

20 minutes ago, marce said:

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

Well like cooking you can have cookbook recipes.  You just have to read the recipe.  For great sound you can do something of the same.  Some people just read the wrong recipes.  Worse once they've read the recipes and even tried a few of them out, they think that is enough to make them top notch experts on cooking.  One can make the leap, but it takes more than just recipes and luck.  

[esldude]

5 hours ago, Nordkapp said:

The problem with that is 4 of 5 dentists are nuts. Trust me. I know first hand. 

 

[esldude]

Well there is the holistic approach (so yeah, you have to thru the WHOLE forum). 

 

There is the reductionist approach which tends to be divisive in every sense. 

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Richard Dale said:

My understanding is that Heliocentrism made falsifiable predictions about Geocentrism, which proved to be correct. So it wasn't Heliocentrism that was falsified, it was Geocentrism.

 

Popper may have argued that they were both theories because they were both falsifiable. Maybe Popper doesn't capture the idea of a theory giving better predicitions which more easily match reality, and which don't need lots of exceptions and caveats that are characteristic of a paradigm in crisis that is nearing the end of it's life. Geocentrism was beginning to give everyone big headaches at the time as far as I know.

I think you misunderstand slightly.  wgscott is referring to heliocentrism being falsifiable, but because it made correct predictions you learned it was correct.  If you can't imagine how a theory can be falsifiable, then you have no way to test its veracity.  Which is the problem with string theory, and multiple universes (though some interesting thought is out there currently about the multi-verse thing).  You can't do an experiment to test the predictions of those theories so you have no way to verify if they are true or false.  

 

Geo vs helio centrism actually has a more interesting and complex history than is normally appreciated.  Heliocentric predictions were very good without so many tacked on adjustments, but in fact geocentric methods developed over the centuries with its epicycles and other adjustments were more accurate at predicting planetary movements and other events. Improved accuracy wasn't in the corner of heliocentrism.  Heliocentrism could make predictions outside the scope of geocentrism.  But until Kepler came along and got everyone to abandon perfect circular orbits for elliptical orbits geocentrism was the version of higher accuracy.  Heliocentrism did have a small number of its own epicycles to adjust for discrepancies between assuming circular orbits which were in fact ellipses.  

[esldude]

21 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

In many respects I don't see commonly measured properties corresponding to important aspects of what we want to hear, such as ability to easily identify instruments.  There is academic work indicating the initial inharmonic attack (transient response) is critical to doing that, frequency response across the audible spectrum less so.  But what measurement are you sure to see regarding a speaker or amp? 

Is there any reason to think current systems are incapable reproducing this inharmonic attack?

[esldude]

17 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

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

No, he would perhaps conclude the distortion he is looking for is available in all the gear if that were the case.  When it is in the measurement gear itself. 

[esldude]

21 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Is there a reason to think some speakers and amp combinations are audibly better at this than others?

 

Do you know every measured characteristic of your speakers (in combination with your amplification) that is responsible for your preference for them? Does transient response relative to other speakers and amplification play any part in that? 

 

 

Obviously until all speakers are identical this could be a problem.  My prior comment was leaving out speakers as they are so much the weak link in the chain.  I should have mentioned that with the comment.  

[esldude]

9 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

@The Computer Audiophile, Can we please have @Julf back ?

I would very much like that.  However, I believe he'd not return even if allowed. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

 It could be interesting to see Julf and Mansr slugging it out to  become the Ayatollah of the hard line Objective mob. in C.A. (NOT !)  

Your biggest problem is that it is no mob.  It is no conspiracy.  It isn't a bunch of killjoys.  ?

[esldude]

7 minutes ago, Le Concombre Masqué said:

That was in one of my first posts and made someone laugh : wav made, repeatedly, consistently, reproducibly, a piece of furniture vibrate that flac did not. 

I won't debate why or what is better (I used a different sw by then and don't bother nowadays) but I still do think it's science albeit too primitive and wonder why simple tests are not done, replacing ears (not ears/brain) by recording quality microphones connected to recording quality equipment : waveforms have to look different, would not null phase opposed.

Maybe mansr could do that comparing 2 of the filters he designed?

On the other hand, objectivists could always object the difference comes from elsewhere (difference in temperature, hygrometry, pression what have you : ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμβαίνουσιν, ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ.
"Ever-newer waters flow on those who step into the same rivers."

And if you're freak enough to precisely control every factor, then you should be freak enough to be able to measure the tiniest aging of components have aged, the tiniest deformation of the drivers etc.

But... does it matter ?

Do you still have the FLAC and WAV file that did that?

[esldude]

16 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

XXHighEnd settings question was at the core of the red/blue pill thread. Lush efficacy has been questioned by many in a long thread. Lush^2 thread is hilarious, by the way. I love all the participants playing with all the thousands of possible setting combinations and finding that one particular setting helps with male voices, another with soundstage, another with string instruments, another with female voices, etc., etc. If this doesn't deserve some questioning, I don't know what does.

 

Yeah seriously.  I written before about the simple AM pocket radio test.  You can use it to pick up various kinds of interference near a computer.  No two computers are the same unless they are identical.  No two OS's are the same.  They have very different AM emissions.  I mean very different. Same OS on different hardware very different.  Same hardware different OS very different.  

 

Now this isn't related directly to audio output necessarily.  However, people have this idea if they have the same brand OS and the same playback software they can make these tiny little adjustments and all find out which peculiar settings are good for this or bad for that.  They believe some undetermined EM interference is responsible and they are adjusting that interference.  So Billy Bob's determined what settings are great for voice.  You can copy Billy Bob's results.  And this will be consistent across various computing machinery, versions of windows, and DACs if you all have the same USB cable.

 

I wouldn't even call that conjecture pie in the sky? 

[esldude]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

That was a long time ago. These days 5% or better is the norm. Even 1% resistors are so cheap that it hardly matters.

Yeah, I don't remember seeing anything for years that had worse than 5%.  Lots of inexpensive gear uses 1% and 2%.  

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, manisandher said:

 

I've had my Lush^2 for a few weeks now, but haven't posted about its sound. Why? Because I'm finding it really difficult to describe the sound.

 

BUT... let there be no doubt whatsoever that changing the shielding configuration of the Lush^2 definitely changes the sound.

 

@pkane2001, @mansr, @esldude, you're all bright guys. It's such a shame that instead of putting your respective intellects to use in trying to understand the possible mechanisms at play, you're all hell bent in telling those of us who hear differences that we must be imaging them.

 

I invited @mansr up to my place (paid for his train ticket, collected him from the station, fed him, etc) because I was sure I could demonstrate what I was hearing to him. I scored 9/10 in the blind ABX test. I sat him down in front of the system afterwards and pointed out exactly what I was hearing. He claimed he couldn't hear the differences I was hearing.

 

It seems to me that you guys have a massive bias against any evidence that contradicts your worldview... be that subjective listening impressions, or a p=0.01 in an ABX.

 

Mani.

I don't believe you are hearing many things you and others with similar ideas go on about so much.  Just being honest, not trying to be insulting.  I do believe you all are honestly perceiving it that way.  

 

The invite and subsequent activities you had with mansr are very, very interesting.  I'm not convinced you weren't hearing something or quite that you were.  I wish that activity could be extended and investigated more thoroughly.  I'm not beyond convincing.  What evidence there is from that episode is you were hearing something truly different.  I would like to know what it was. 

 

What I have more issue with most of the time are the explanations.  Some of which don't add up or make any sense.  It is possible they are true, but it takes some extra care and corroboration to accept in such cases.  The idea about adjustments being transferable across systems just because they use the same USB cable are one of those things.  In the face of other factors it makes very little sense.  Those who are comfortable and confident of what they hear aren't going to care.  Those who don't trust human hearing that far aren't going to be okay with it just on people saying it is so.  Such is the impasse. 

 

 

[esldude]

3 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

Nope, all my internet downloads go fiber into my NAS. No degradation. Perhaps the Australian photons are all jittery? They probably spin backwards ?

Should be okay as long as you don't use aethernet.