Everything sounds the same

[fas42]

11 hours ago, Nordkapp said:

Actually it was. I am well aware of the stupid USB cable debate raging on.

 

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 ...

 

 

[kumakuma]

13 minutes 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 ...

 

 

 

Please provide evidence that even one of your statements is true. 

[Jud]

5 hours ago, marce said:

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. ?

 

You're right. I think the subjective folks probably feel the same about "objective trolls."    I suppose there's a way to talk to people so as not to make them feel defensive. I don't always manage it.

[MetalNuts]

18 hours ago, firedog said:

Just because someone posts a question it doesn't mean he's interested in anything somehow related. There's also a value in having a focussed discussion.
I'm normally fine with discussion and even meandering, but in the particular case in question the OP specifically said he didn't want to get into the cable debate, but wanted others' suggestions about cables. The OP wanted some suggestions of how different cables might sound. 

 

If I come onto  a food forum and ask for directions about how to fry chicken, it's rude to start lecturing me about why I should be a vegetarian. Do egos have to be so big and unrestrained online that that isn't obvious? That debate shouldn't be in that thread. 

I'm not sure how you jump from there to "propaganda" and attempts to "brainwash".  What should be common courtesy isn't brainwashing. Adults who feel passionately about a topic should be mature enough to deal with the fact that the OP isn't interested in the cable debate and refrain from turning his thread into something the opposite of what he wanted. They can have the debate somewhere else on the site. How is that brainwashing?

Did I misunderstand the title  and the context of the initial post of this thread?  Where are the words to let you think he wanted others' suggestion about cables in contradiction to the title?

[sandyk]

2 hours ago, MetalNuts said:

Did I misunderstand the title  and the context of the initial post of this thread?  Where are the words to let you think he wanted others' suggestion about cables in contradiction to the title?

 

It beats me why he even started such a thread. Perhaps he simply got sick of talking to himself ?

[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.  

[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...

[firedog]

6 hours ago, MetalNuts said:

Did I misunderstand the title  and the context of the initial post of this thread?  Where are the words to let you think he wanted others' suggestion about cables in contradiction to the title?

the post is a sarcastic reaction to another thread where the OP asked about USB cable suggestions and specifically asked not to debate cables, and the post became a debate about cables

[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...

[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.  

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, marce said:

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

 

  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.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, marce said:

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

 

True to a slight degree - the very best of current systems, in raw form, do a much better job than those of decades ago - but if one chances on an average ambitious rig the shortcomings will be obvious. I used to take seriously the exercise of using every opportunity to listen to systems being demo'ed, and the finessed examples in people's homes; in case I was missing something - but it became a pointless exercise ... the same flaws were always there, and there was a complete unawareness of what it could sound like - only a tiny minority, people like Peter, understood the possibilities ...

[mansr]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

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.  

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.

[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...

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, marce said:

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.

Ignorance, and a generous helping of hubris.

[fas42]

11 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Please provide evidence that even one of your statements is true. 

 

The most 'controversial' one is the first, and is the product of my experiences, what I've gleaned from articles and published material over the years, and the accounts of other enthusiasts - and common sense. The subtle buzzing of a mosquito somewhere in the room, the buzz and rub of a speaker driver poorly assembled can drive one mad - because the sound has no right to be there! Sometimes, only exposure to absence of the irritating component can make one aware of how damaging its presence was - one is otherwise so used to the almost universal presence of this artifact that one regards its presence as an essential part of the experience! A grotesque example of this is the instantly recognisable signature tonality of a conventional PA rig.

 

Most people are aware of the presence or absence of these annoyances in the sound, at some level - it's why, for example, it's trivially easy for someone who has no interest in hifi to always know they're listening to an audio system, rather than the "real thing".

[marce]

What is the real thing though.... 

[jabbr]

On 9/19/2018 at 2:25 AM, firedog said:

If I come onto  a food forum and ask for directions about how to fry chicken, it's rude to start lecturing me about why I should be a vegetarian. Do egos have to be so big and unrestrained online that that isn't obvious? That debate shouldn't be in that thread. 

This is exactly how it starts — why are you lecturing him about why he should be a vegetarian?

[jabbr]

3 hours 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.

 

Why do you care if he or anyone agrees that claims are “verified”. Clearly your own bar for verification is different from other people’s. Understand that certain claims go against other data that other people consider to be highly verified! At the very very least you need to understand your own observations are different than other people’s — what gives your own claims primacy?

 

For some people this is a hobby and the consequence of being wrong is having a bad sound day. For others it’s a profession, and the consequence of being wrong is being thrown out of their house and being forced to go in the government doll where it exists! Presented with such a choice I have little trouble betting on the side of Maxwell  Vastly better bet than on Belichick on any Sunday!

[Albrecht]

9 hours 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.

I don't really have a problem with that. But there really isn't much that you need to "learn" about the details of specific equipment pieces beyond a basic level of compatibility.

The goal is never to buy good/great individual pieces of equipment that are outside the context of an entire system.

The goal is to learn (about systems) through testing and experienced and repeated listening of different combinations of components to find a system synergy that delivers a faithfulness to the recording as far as one can determine.

 

The superiority and amazing quality of a Meitner DAC isn't going to be realized when plugged into a boombox. Of course, - no one does this, - but there certainly is a lot of unreasonable and unwarranted criticism that is purveyed by a tiny few disruptors here who are ignorant of the knowledge of repeated, comparative, listening experiences. They are speculators, - usually on the basis of some minute, and irrelevant measurement that has nothing to do with the final sound of the individual component or how/what that component affects the OVERALL SQ of the system.

This tells us all quite clearly that they are not curious, nor interested in "good sound" but in criticizing something that they know nothing about.

 

[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.

[PeterSt]

4 minutes ago, marce said:

Instead of dissing measurements and science look into it or provide a possible mechanism yourself for why something causes a change.

 

Ach so.

Danke.