Forum menu
Straw man argument. Irrelevant.
Any number of people in front of a music system will agree on what it consists of and that there is music coming from it. Their ears are receiving and brains interpreting in different ways, what all agree is actually there.
People who hear voices where no one is present and see things that others present do not, are hallucinating.
BIG difference.
http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html
That tells you pretty much all you need to know.
And Woppit your lack of awareness of your own massive hypocrisy is really quite hilarious. Do keep it up. 🙂
I am glad you're amused. I don't understand the hypocrisy charge, though. Please explain.
Makes no difference what you use. Expensive cabling is a huge waste of money.
Talk to anyone in the profession, who does not have a vested interest in selling expensive cables.
Most of the high end audio setups I have seen demonstated use mains cable.
I agree that Nordost cable and the like are probably a waste of money with much of the "differences" being wish-fulfillment. I say "probaby" because I haven't actually heard a comparison demo, though I have heard it being used in systems that I didn't think much of, pretty or impressive-looking though they were...
The difference between audio cable and mains-wiring cable is obvious however. Inability to hear any difference would be like listening to a Harley Davison chugging past and then a Bentley purring by and saying that they sound exactly the same because they are after all, both powered by internal combustion. In my experience.
Having said all that, I do own a mostly NAIM-based system using their relatively inexpensive cable designed for best use with their own equipment, and it outperforms many other makes of equipment that I've heard at HiFi shows costing absolutely STRATOSPHERIC amounts of wonga. Go figure, as they say... 8)
Whoppit he may be saying your view is an act of faith or a belief in something you cannot prove. You wont listen to the evidence because you know from personal experience...please dont say you need it spellingout more than that as to what he is alluding too.
Why dont you all take your super ears and do the challenge not only will you be able to prove your point you will have a million.
I am aware that the measurements taken so far by the established methodology indicate what they indicate and I cannot "prove" that there is a difference between the reproductive qualities of audio cable and mains-wiring cable in this way.
I have, however, demonstrated it.
To my mind, this raises some interesting questions as to what method needs to be developed so that this can be explained.
Unfortunately, there was no one else present at the time, for independent verification but I am confident that such would have been forthcoming.
I would suggest that the likes of grum and IanMunro should try out their own demo which would be easily arranged and cost only pennies. They may find the results interesting.
Just a friendly suggestion, no offense intended.
The thing about speaker cables is that the results from obsessing over them are going to be far less effective, by orders of magnitude, than from getting rid of passive crossovers (audiophiles would die if they realised how much distortion is caused by the inductors in a crossover) and using line level active crossovers and amplifiers wired directly to speakers.
If you prefer the sound of skinny cables to decent cables then you're probably enjoying the mid-bass hump due to an increase in woofer Qts as a result of the series resistance. Cables do make a difference but as long as resistance and capacitance are low (as with 13A mains cable) then that's the job done.
I'm not convinced that's really an answer to anything Woppit. I could arrange my own test, but I know that research shows our perception is clouded by various factors. Unless it was a proper double blind test there would be no point.
BTW I'm not disputing that there can be noticeable differences between different types of cable, it's just that once the basic physics needs of the cable are met any further supposed gains are based on myth. And the claims for AC power leads improving the character of the sound are laughable.
Again:
The total number of correct answers was 73 out of 149, which amounts to 49% accuracy. That is no more accurate than flipping a coin, and therefore, no statistically significant detection of power cable differences.Test participants were asked to rate themselves as to how much of an audiophile they considered themselves to be. The scale was 1 to 5 where 1 = ?I?m not an audiophile at all? and 5 = ?I?m a hardcore tweak.? (?Tweak? is the word Manny chose; I would not have used such terminology, which I find belittling in this context). The self-proclaimed hardcore audiophiles got 48% correct; the rest got 50% correct. Again, no significant differences based on whether or not a listener felt he was an audiophile or not.
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html
I'm not disputing that there can be noticeable differences between different types of cable
Oh. I thought you were. Many on here are, without actually trying it out, bizarrely.
Care to explain why I'm a hypocrite, BTW?
I am not convinced that the intelligentsia of scorn such as crikey and his fellow-travellers have ever been exposed to a real HiFi system and what it can do. Although the level of wit is, of course, very polished indeed...
Up until August last year, I don't think I'd ever owned a HiFi set up worth more than £500 in total. Don't get me wrong, I love good audio, but in the same way that there are people out there who are keen cyclists but don't feel the need to buy an Ibis Mojo, I was happy with what I had.
Then I moved into a house which had been originally been fitted out as a luxury serviced apartment next door to a 5* hotel, but the hotel decided it wanted a long term let rather than having to manage a serviced apartment. One of the major attractions was a £25k Linn multi room set up (5 zones) with the lounge having a 5.1 type set up).
The system was incredible. Watching movies in the lounge was a joy, and playing BF3 in the cinema room used to give me PTSD.
I've moved out of the house now, and I'm back to some fairly basic kit. I think I noticed the difference the first few times I watched a movie or listened to some music. I even considered buying some 2nd hand Linn (or equivalent) kit for a week or so.
But now I'm back to being (almost) completely happy with my basic set up. Yeah, I can hear that it's not as good as the Linn set up, but £25k? No chance.
Perhaps my ears aren't as special as audioophiles' though.
(NB - I'm prepared to spank £5k on bicycle(s), so I have no appreciation of true value, and would have happily spent the money on hifi stuff because i like it, but I just couldn't get the money/experience factor to balance out. Like I said though, maybe my ears are just shit)
I guess my (long winded) point is that the law of diminishing returns seems to be huge in audio kit. In saying that, some of the 2nd hand Linn kit I looked at seemed to hold its value well, so not necessarily pissing money up against the wall, if components were purchased with care then it could be an investment.
Why dont you all take your super ears and do the challenge not only will you be able to prove your point you will have a million
the challenge involves two specific cables and a power amplifier of which Mr Woppit has no experience.
He has said that he uses Naim amplification.
There is something funny about the design of most Naim amplifiers that means that they are particularly sensitive to speaker cables, and they may go unstable unless they have a couple of metres or so of cable with adequate inductance, such as Naims own cable.
So it is quite feasable that he can hear differences between cables.
Why dont you all take your super ears and do the challenge not only will you be able to prove your point you will have a million.
I believe you're getting confused here between "I can aurally tell the difference between a specific cable costing thousands and a sensibly priced good quality audio cable," which is what the challenge is, and "I can aurally tell the difference between sensibly priced good quality audio cable and mains flex," which is what the Wopster is claiming.
I don't know the veracity of his claim, but you can't use "the James Randi organisation says you can't hear a difference in any cabling" as a basis for evidence, because it simply isn't true. The challenge is for one very specific cable, not all cabling, and continually dragging it up is misleading.
But even your 'cheap' audio cables I bet cost a lot more than some electric strimmer power cord, which they are functionally identical to in use. And what about the power cable?
Can you really not see it? It's pretty obvious, and Junkyard spelled it out to you. You vehemently espouse a rational, evidence based approach to life, especially on matters of religion, yet here you are suggesting that personal experience trumps everything, including physics.
(audiophiles would die if they realised how much distortion is caused by the inductors in a crossover
what levels are you suggesting - I think there is a lot more distortion in the actual voice coils in a speaker.
I suspect that the enthusiasm for expensive cabling and the like is the result of having reached the point where, due to being minted, a person has reached the point where they have spent as much as can be spent on high-end equipment (amps and so forth) but still have the upgrade bug but, like having a bad cold, can't shift it. It's got to the point where the search becomes the object and they've forgotten all about listening to the music but can't stop thenselves.
Let it all out Woppit, it's better once you admit you have a problem. 😛
You vehemently espouse a rational, evidence based approach to life, especially on matters of religion, yet here you are suggesting that personal experience trumps everything, including physics.
If you're going to quote me, you'd best be accurate.
I never suggested anything of the kind.
Let it all out Woppit, it's better once you admit you have a problem
Whatever.
I suspect that the enthusiasm for expensive [s]cabling[/s] bike components and the like is the result of having reached the point where, due to being minted, a person has reached the point where they have spent as much as can be spent on high-end equipment ([s]amps[/s] carbon cranks and so forth) but still have the upgrade bug but, like having a bad cold, can't shift it. It's got to the point where the search becomes the object and they've forgotten all about [s]listening to the music[/s] actually riding the bikes but can't stop thenselves.
FTFY
🙂
So you want to reproduce what's actually on the CD as faithfully as possible - maybe. Then again maybe not
If you wanted to do that you would buy some reference monitors with a flat frequency response, as used in audio production, and not an 'audiophile' set up. The sound you would hear wouldn't necessarily be very pleasant to listen to though, which is why for recreational listening you buy equipment that flatters the sound and makes it 'nice', rather than what it truly sounds like.
I admire and agree with Mr Woppits approach to religion, but this has proved most interesting, especially the bit about 'developing a method to explain it', which has similarities to the way religious types deal with calls for evidence; your experiments can't demonstrate x therefore your experiment is questionable, not x.
This is one of those myths propagated by the audiophile magazines to keep you stuck in the cycle of hi-fi upgrading rather than buying some far better value (but still expensive) active studio monitors and being blown away by the sound. Aiming for perfection in the frequency, time and space domains will achieve fantastic sound - you don't need to 'flatter' recordings. If studio monitors were tiring to listen to you couldn't spend all day mixing and mastering on them.
the bit about 'developing a method to explain it', which has similarities to the way religious types deal
Yes. However, if something is demonstrably happening, then it would behove (let us say) science, to figure out 1: a way of measuring it and 2: derive an explanation.
It seems to me.
If you wanted to do that you would buy some reference monitors with a flat frequency response, as used in audio production, and not an 'audiophile' set up. The sound you would hear wouldn't necessarily be very pleasant to listen to though, which is why for recreational listening you buy equipment that flatters the sound and makes it 'nice', rather than what it truly sounds like.
Fail.
It all depends which 'reference' monitors you use.
I mentioned Harbeth, which are a derivative of the range of monitors designed at BBC research Department. In the same tradition these speakers are still voiced by the designer comparing the speakers performance to real sounds, like human voice, and then tweaking the speakers crossovers (active or passive) to achieve the closest match.
This contrasts to many modern reference speakers that are basically just designed by computer.
I bet when the band, or whatever, were in the studio making the recording they sounded pretty good - if you have an accurate playback system then they should also sound the same and therefore pretty good.
One upshot of playback systems progressing as far as they have is the irritation I get when trying to play a CD of Led Zeppelin's "Since I've Been Loving You" from "Led Zep 3".
SURELY they didn't decide to keep the track with Bonham's squeeky old metal-linked Ludwig bass drum pedal?
"Dah-duh-dum, SQUEEKASQUEEKASQUEEKASQUEEK..." Drives me right round the bend.
😯
Just have a search for websites that explain why music producers use monitors. There is a good reason they don't use your 'audiophile' set ups.
Clearly, though you can write, you seem unable to read.
Let met re-phrase that - what [b] objectively measurable[/b] property of the QED cable makes it so much better than the mains cable? I don't recall you mentioning anything except a lot of waffle about what you thought you heard, without any suggestion of a ABX test.
I've a bit of research on pyschoacoustics and sound reproduction, and it seems striking how many professional commentators are so profoundly ignorant on the subject. For instance, I've never seen What Hi-Fi carry out an objective test on a single piece of equipiment. It's really not that hard to do ABX testing, or even to have a bash at seting up an anechoic chamber with a reference mike and a spectrum analyser.
After quite a bit of research, the conclusion I came to was that speakers are most important, and that active speakers (i.e. without a passive crossover) are technically better, particularly when it comes to bass control.
Electronics are so good these days it seems very likely that differences that are measurable in the lab are actaully not audible in an ABX test. The very few reported ABX tests of expensive kit vs cheap kit (with similar objective measurements) appears to confirm this.
By all means buy the expensive stuff - it probably sounds better in the same way that branded painkillers work better (and measurably so).
There is a good reason they don't use your 'audiophile' set ups.
you are just talking bs. The main difference between domestic speakers and the monitors they use in studios is in the voil coils and the tolerance they have to being driven hard.
Many 'audiophiles' use ATC, Harbeth or PMC speakers, which are basically studio monitors. The Harbeth 40.1 has a bass heavy response in a domestic environment as it is designed to be used at head height in a studio.
I personally use Quad amplifiers, a more powerful derivative of what Phillips used to use when monitoring their classical recordings.
I also use LS3/5as, which were actually BBC grade 2 monitors designed for monitoring in a outside broadcast van, although mine are upgraded with more-lossy cabinets and external crossovers which bring them closer to grade 1.
After quite a bit of research, the conclusion I came to was that speakers are most important, and that active speakers (i.e. without a passive crossover) are technically better, particularly when it comes to bass control
room is most important...
you are just talking bs
Are you really proposing the entire music production industry has it got it wrong by using reference monitors, or are you denying they actually use them? Either way, I grow weary of your disillusion, but admire your persistance.
Sorry, what's an ABX test?
Are you really proposing the entire music production industry has it got it wrong by using reference monitors, or are you denying they actually use them? Either way, I grow weary of your disillusion, but admire your persistance.
try reading my posts - you are implying that an 'audiophile' setup is somehow inferior to what they use in a studio - in some cases this may be true but in many it is not - often there is b*gger all difference and the 'audiophile' system may actually use many of the same components, as I am trying to point out but you seem to keep ignoring.
Thanks to this thread, I've been doing a fair bit of reading about ABX hi-fi testing.
It seems people can't reliably tell the difference between just about any piece of hi-fi equipment in an ABX test.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
(passed tests are more frequent for speakers than any other component, but even then there are plenty of fails)
Dear djcombes,
I do understand the objective argument and agree with it. However, the little experiment I conducted way back in 1980 was so obvious in sound difference that I am left thinking that whatever is going on, it should be measureable and therefore, explainable. That current methodology cannot do this, is interesting at least. I am talking here about the difference between audio cable and mains cable, not expensivwe "Nordost"-type cable.
I offer the suggestion that other fans of objectivity such as we, try it out themselves, if only for a laugh and that they might find the results as interesting as I did.
I hope this (slightly tedious to go over again) re-iteration is less of a "waffle" for you.
AlexSimon - doesn't have speakers in any of them though does it? Ultimately that's what's going to make the difference IMO.
Woppit, we've established that there are too many factors that affect our perception for it to be 'objective' unless it's an ABX test.
I believe you're getting confused here between "I can aurally tell the difference between a specific cable costing thousands and a sensibly priced good quality audio cable," which is what the challenge is, and "I can aurally tell the difference between sensibly priced good quality audio cable and mains flex," which is what the Wopster is claiming.
Yet under double blind conditions, people can't tell the difference between "good quality" speaker cable, and coathangers.
Are you therefore suggesting that mains flex performs worse than coathangers in this application?
From a HiFi point of view, the idea that the most important part of the system is the speakers is a very "1970's" point of view.
In terms of reproducing accurately from the source, the most important point of the system is said to be the front-end (turntable/CD player/whatever) and in descending order through the system until the speakers are reached. This is because, if at any point information is lost in transferring between the seperate bits of equipment, no subsequent piece (however excellent) can get it back...
Yes, there are plenty of ABX speaker tests. Most of the ones picked in that thread (all 43 of them!) are chosen because they display 'failed' tests. But there are some that fail on speakers.
There's another thread which highlights 'passed' tests.
http://www.head-fi.org/t/513481/are-blind-tests-bogus-examples-of-blind-tests-with-positive-results
Although the 'blindness' of some of these is debated.
It seems people can't reliably tell the difference between just about any piece of hi-fi equipment in an ABX test.
There was a large scale test where people compared a CD player to a Townsend Rock turntable.
In one of the tests people were played the CD player and then they were played the CD player again at a slightly louder volume, instead of it being the turntable. They all thought the louder version was better.
There was a speaker cable test where they got reliable results that the fatter speaker cable sounded better than the thinner cable. However, the fatter cable has less resitence, and so the sound is louder.
When level matched there was no longer a reliable preference.
Wharfedale did a sighted test with 3 pairs of identical Wharfdale diamond speakers, although they told the listeners that they had differences. One set was painted red, one yellow, one white.
They got reliable results that everyone thought that the red pair sounded warm, the while pair bright, and the yellow pair lean.
I am fully aware of the placebo effects, the need to level match (I have a sound meter, thanks), the shortness and unreliable nature of audio memory, etc.
So when I found that speaker cables affected my power amp, in probably the same manner as Mr Woppit, you can be sure that I spent a fair amount of rigour investigating it, before coming to my final conclusion.
Also, my speaker and amps setup is probably worth £7000 and I wire it up with speaker cables that cost at most £8 a metre - what's the problem - this is probably the same or less than a lot of forum members that are always recommending that low-quality outfit that begins with richer.
grum - Member
AlexSimon - doesn't have speakers in any of them though does it? Ultimately that's what's going to make the difference IMO.Woppit, we've established that there are too many factors that affect our perception for it to be 'objective' unless it's an ABX test.
Yes, I know. However, the difference was so marked that I am (as I have already said, several times) confident that anybody else would be able to hear it also.
So what would the hi-fi of a complete sceptic look like?
Would it be...?
Choose speakers first (what criteria?).
Match a cheap amplifier to the requirements of the speaker.
Connect any source.
Use inexpensive commercial studio cable throughout.
Can someone give an example of a system like this?
Or is it still really subjective?
As it cannot be proved to be a fact scientifically under test conditions I conclude it is not true. If you wish to conclude it is still true due to personal perceptions then this would mean religious belief by personla perception is also true as that cannot be proved under experimental conditions.
"room is most important."
obviously, but you try treating the living room to optimise reverberation times, and see what your missus makes of it. I can't even get the speakers located in the right place.
One reason why I think computational approaches in which multiple speakers and DSPs are used to correct the room response are interesting. Obviously not as good as getting the room right in the first place, but still interesting.