HypnoToad Posted June 21, 2019 Posted June 21, 2019 Reminds me of a late, very talented and intelligent race driver who swore that a box of crystals would realign the molecules in his car, thereby making it go faster. http://blog.rarespares.net.au/post/2016/04/19/Motoring-Myths-The-Brock-Polarizer.aspx
Mat-with-one-t Posted June 21, 2019 Posted June 21, 2019 On 06/11/2018 at 9:29 AM, SteveLuck said: https://www.listeningpost.co.nz/Products/Cables-Interconnects-Leads/Digital-Interconnects/Coaxial-Cables/Nordost-Odin-2-Reference-Digital-Interconnect-__I.114423__C.191965__N.27756 $15,000 Digital!!!! Interconnect. That's even less sense than a silly money analogue cable - think i'd want solid gold core for that money. Expand Not only transmits “0” and “1”, but also “0.5” and “1.5”
Assisi Posted June 21, 2019 Posted June 21, 2019 (edited) On 21/06/2019 at 5:27 AM, jeromelang said: The materials that these supports are made of will affect the magnetic fields that arise as a result of current coursing through your cables - and that will always lead to adverse sonic changes. Expand @jeromelang, Do you know what the clamps are made of and why that will affect the “magnetic fields?” I don’t know what the clamps are made of. I have three. They are clamps and they are not about lifting cables. Mine are clamping the plug coming out of the wall and the plugs going into the DAC and the Pre. All sockets are already off the floor so they do not need to be lifted. The actual power cables themselves are on a wooden floor. I made the post that you quoted primarily because there is some confusion between clamping and just lifting. Have you tried them? For me the sonic result is definitely not adverse. Rather the result is noticeably favourable. John Edited June 21, 2019 by Assisi
Grant Slack Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 On 21/06/2019 at 6:38 AM, HypnoToad said: Reminds me of a late, very talented and intelligent race driver who swore that a box of crystals would realign the molecules in his car, thereby making it go faster. http://blog.rarespares.net.au/post/2016/04/19/Motoring-Myths-The-Brock-Polarizer.aspx Expand Hello there and thanks for the link to the article. I remember the Brock Polarizer! What I think is relevant here, is the rational way that the industry responded to Peter Brock's "product". It got really short shrift. No patience. No 'try it first and see'. I don't think GMH, Alan Moffat et al felt that their lack of experience in the polariser meant that they were not in a position to intelligently decide on its merits. If Brock had said to GMH "are you making decisions from long personal experience of the Polarizer, i.e. do you actually know what you are talking about, or are you just making decisions based on no experience?", I don't think they would have found that to be irresistible logic. But where is that clean, rational response here, in respect of audiophile products? Instead, we find our brows being beaten by the Peter Brock type, who have tried it and say it works for them, "and therefore you shouldn't castigate it". Regards, Grant 1
Volunteer sir sanders zingmore Posted June 22, 2019 Volunteer Posted June 22, 2019 On 22/06/2019 at 1:17 AM, Grant Slack said: Hello there and thanks for the link to the article. I remember the Brock Polarizer! What I think is relevant here, is the rational way that the industry responded to Peter Brock's "product". It got really short shrift. No patience. No 'try it first and see'. I don't think GMH, Alan Moffat et al felt that their lack of experience in the polariser meant that they were not in a position to intelligently decide on its merits. If Brock had said to GMH "are you making decisions from long personal experience of the Polarizer, i.e. do you actually know what you are talking about, or are you just making decisions based on no experience?", I don't think they would have found that to be irresistible logic. But where is that clean, rational response here, in respect of audiophile products? Instead, we find our brows being beaten by the Peter Brock type, who have tried it and say it works for them, "and therefore you shouldn't castigate it". Regards, Grant Expand Welcome to the “post truth” world
Guest Muon N' Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) OR, welcome to reality, it is not a new aspect of the human condition/position. Edited June 22, 2019 by Muon N' new not now...
Assisi Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) On 22/06/2019 at 1:17 AM, Grant Slack said: But where is that clean, rational response here, in respect of audiophile products? Instead, we find our brows being beaten by the Peter Brock type, who have tried it and say it works for them, "and therefore you shouldn't castigate it". Expand @Grant Slack, Like all good stories, there are two sides. Your position is just one side and in itself is an opinion. The opposite side is one in that a person like myself who offers what some perceive is just an opinion is then castigated for not providing the factual objective evidence such as measurements and testing etc. I consider that the story is often one sided. There are posts that are an opinion on a particular experience and to paraphrase your words“…Instead, the poster finds their brows being beaten…” I know that for a fact as it has happened to me numerous times. I post my opinions from time to time as I am confident and satisfied about the respective experience. I am not overly fussed about the responses but I am regularly surprised that often people do not ask of themselves what is happening and why? To me. it is their missed opportunity. I am aware that many SNA members do not post opinion about their experiences because they do not appreciate the responses. Often the put down responses come from supposed experts who have not experienced whatever the opinion post was about. Many people read posts and never or rarely post themselves. Even those who do not post may learn something from just reading posts. If everything in audio was about facts then to me it would be boring activity. At the end of it all it is about the irrational and unknown and the result is an emotional experience. Paul McGowan had this to say a few days ago. It is quiet apt, I think. Some of the comments are very interesting. Have a read https://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/the-quiet-few/ John Edited June 22, 2019 by Assisi words 1 1
Ittaku Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) On 22/06/2019 at 1:17 AM, Grant Slack said: But where is that clean, rational response here, in respect of audiophile products? Instead, we find our brows being beaten by the Peter Brock type, who have tried it and say it works for them, "and therefore you shouldn't castigate it". Expand The horse has bolted, the ship has sailed, and all the reviewing magazines are unwittingly complicit in furthering the status quo as they're unable to review something that gets advertising revenue and say it doesn't do anything. Our hobby is doomed unless the lawmakers somehow get involved and demand hard evidence in the absence of established science. That seems unlikely to ever happen. The opportunity was there when the foolery started decades ago from the magazines to be sceptical but instead they are more or less responsible for elevating their standing to be thought of as somehow mainstream thinking. Edited June 22, 2019 by Ittaku 4
MLXXX Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) On 21/06/2019 at 4:59 AM, FR DRew said: I'll admit to being a sceptic when it comes to power cables. Surely if a power supply is properly designed, with suitable filtering and capacity, then the mains lead shouldn't make any difference at all? It befuddles me that when the mains draw on a class A amplifier is supposed to be constant, then somehow, a change in mains cord should produce improved dynamics? Exactly how if the current draw is always constant? Not saying that it can't happen, just that the scientist in me can't explain it... Expand I don't think any scientist could! As far as I can see, it's just part and parcel of audiophile lore for some audiophiles. In the same breath as the claim of improved dynamics, there may also be a claim of an improved "sound stage" and a reduced "noise floor". The common factor in these sorts of audiophile claims is that no measurements will be used to corroborate the subjective impressions. Unlike the example "a box of crystals would realign the molecules in his car, thereby making it go faster", which could be tested by measurement of the car speed, there is no method in use for measuring (audiophile) dynamics, (audiophile) sound stage, or (audiophile) noise floor. For example, one might imagine that "improved dynamics" would mean that the maximum measured sound level would be a little higher and/or that the minimum measured sound level would be lower, when playing a particular CD track. And that these would be quickly measured as a confirmation of the subjective impression (and to guard against misleading other people). But as far as I can see that is not how the particular segment of the audiophile community typically conduct their audiophile affairs. It is sufficient for the audiophile to report "enhanced dynamics" as their personal experience in their audiophile "journey". There is no desire to undertake a measurement of the actual dynamic range. And no expectation that will be attempted. Edited June 22, 2019 by MLXXX
Guest Muon N' Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) On 22/06/2019 at 1:17 AM, Grant Slack said: But where is that clean, rational response here, in respect of audiophile products? Instead, we find our brows being beaten by the Peter Brock type, who have tried it and say it works for them, "and therefore you shouldn't castigate it Expand audiophile noun [ C ] uk/ˈɔː.di.əʊ.faɪl/ us/ˈɑː.di.oʊ.faɪl/ a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about equipment for playing recorded sound, and its quality: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/audiophile So by definition most all gear discussed on these forums are audiophile components, and at a reasonable estimate maybe 99.7% of members are audiophiles. That's a generous figure as well, as why would someone that has no concern by that definition even join here, I allowed that buffer to accommodate some that want to off load gear that was gifted to them and have no interest. When will the misuse and abuse of this term end Edit" I could have quoted from posts of a fair few in this thread where the term is misused over and over again. If people can't or refuse to research a simple term/word for It's correct use......well, what can it say about other statements and how much research or thought has occurred there. Or is it simply a motivated misuse based in inherent biases from the persons position? To quote someone well known "Why is this so" Edited June 22, 2019 by Muon N'
LHC Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 On 22/06/2019 at 3:14 AM, Assisi said: If everything in audio was about facts then to me it would be boring activity. Expand 'Facts' has to be based entirely on the truth, and not simply someone masquerading their own opinion as facts. That means facts have to be supported by all evidential data (i.e. no cherry-picking) and cannot be error-ridden (i.e. can stand up to scrutiny).
MLXXX Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 On 22/06/2019 at 4:02 AM, Muon N' said: To quote someone well known "Why is this so" Edited 1 hour ago by Muon N' Expand I think you mean, "Why is it so?". I suspect many millenials would not be aware of the late professor's pet phrase. The older "audiophiles" might remember it.
Guest Muon N' Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 On 22/06/2019 at 5:31 AM, MLXXX said: I think you mean, "Why is it so?". I suspect many millenials would not be aware of the late professor's pet phrase. The older "audiophiles" might remember it. Expand Semantics He maybe have used both workings if I recall correctly. You mean older people
MLXXX Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 On 22/06/2019 at 5:41 AM, Muon N' said: He maybe have used both workings if I recall correctly. Expand It's possible Prof Julius Sumner Miller uttered the words you mention, at some stage in his TV programs or lectures, but the phrase he is famous for is: "Why is it so?". From Wikipedia: During the 1980s, Miller appeared in a famous series of Australian television commercials for Cadbury chocolate, using his stock phrase "Why is it so?", demonstrating a simple scientific principle, and describing how each block of chocolate "embraces substantial nourishment and enjoyment," and contained "a glass and a half of full-cream dairy milk." The ads were sufficiently popular to be played for some years after his death. The well-loved and respected professor died in 1987. 1
Guest Muon N' Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 On 22/06/2019 at 6:28 AM, MLXXX said: It's possible Prof Julius Sumner Miller uttered the words you mention, at some stage in his TV programs or lectures, but the phrase he is famous for is: "Why is it so?". From Wikipedia: During the 1980s, Miller appeared in a famous series of Australian television commercials for Cadbury chocolate, using his stock phrase "Why is it so?", demonstrating a simple scientific principle, and describing how each block of chocolate "embraces substantial nourishment and enjoyment," and contained "a glass and a half of full-cream dairy milk." The ads were sufficiently popular to be played for some years after his death. The well-loved and respected professor died in 1987. Expand How's your weekend progressing, well I hope Mine OK, a tad cool though.
Assisi Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 On 22/06/2019 at 4:17 AM, LHC said: 'Facts' has to be based entirely on the truth, and not simply someone masquerading their own opinion as facts. That means facts have to be supported by all evidential data (i.e. no cherry-picking) and cannot be error-ridden (i.e. can stand up to scrutiny). Expand @LHC, When I used the word “facts” it was in the context of what I said in the first paragraph of my full post. “…factual objective evidence such as measurements and testing etc.” This maybe would accord with your definition of facts. I am not in a position or interested in undertaking measurements etc to substantiate the validity of my experiences. My experiences are true and real to me in my situation. That is why I post about some of them. They are no less valid than the posts from people who say that they do not experience the same outcome as I do. For me it is all about the system changes that give enhanced listening pleasure. John 2
rantan Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 On 22/06/2019 at 6:53 AM, Assisi said: @LHC, When I used the word “facts” it was in the context of what I said in the first paragraph of my full post. “…factual objective evidence such as measurements and testing etc.” This maybe would accord with your definition of facts. I am not in a position or interested in undertaking measurements etc to substantiate the validity of my experiences. My experiences are true and real to me in my situation. That is why I post about some of them. They are no less valid than the posts from people who say that they do not experience the same outcome as I do. For me it is all about the system changes that give enhanced listening pleasure. John Expand Great post John and I sincerely hope you continue to post your experiences on this forum. As you well know there are many pathways to Nirvana.
andyr Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 On 22/06/2019 at 3:36 AM, Ittaku said: The horse has bolted, the ship has sailed, and all the reviewing magazines are unwittingly complicit in furthering the status quo as they're unable to review something that gets advertising revenue and say it doesn't do anything. Our hobby is doomed unless the lawmakers somehow get involved and demand hard evidence in the absence of established science. That seems unlikely to ever happen. The opportunity was there when the foolery started decades ago from the magazines to be sceptical but instead they are more or less responsible for elevating their standing to be thought of as somehow mainstream thinking. Expand Aah, Con ... I take it you are not a fan of the late lamented 'Peter Belt'? And
Ittaku Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 On 22/06/2019 at 7:01 AM, andyr said: Aah, Con ... I take it you are not a fan of the late lamented 'Peter Belt'? Expand Nein
MLXXX Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) On 22/06/2019 at 3:36 AM, Ittaku said: The horse has bolted, the ship has sailed, and all the reviewing magazines are unwittingly complicit in furthering the status quo as they're unable to review something that gets advertising revenue and say it doesn't do anything. Our hobby is doomed unless the lawmakers somehow get involved and demand hard evidence in the absence of established science. That seems unlikely to ever happen. The opportunity was there when the foolery started decades ago from the magazines to be sceptical but instead they are more or less responsible for elevating their standing to be thought of as somehow mainstream thinking. Expand The problem as I see it is that various parts of the audio reproduction chain have improved to such an extent that differences are minor if audible at all. However a small hard core of individuals refuse to accept that. They feel a need to spend huge sums on a CD transport, external DAC, preamplifier and on monoblock power amplifiers. They may pay $20,000 rather than $2,000 because they feel they ought to to get the "best" quality. There's a certain amount of peer pressure to spend up big. Some manufacturers cater for that hard core. And many review magazines do. If the hard core audiophile is into vinyl as well, then there's a bottomless pit into which to drop dollars. Perfection can never be achieved because grooves in vinyl tracked mechanically will inevitably result in audible harmonic and intermodulation distortion. And yet for true believers in vinyl, the quest must continue. The more expensive arm, the more expensive cartridge, the more expensive phono preamplifier, the more expensive disc cleaner. There is no end to the elusive search for "vinyl perfection"! Edit: And to be true to the thread topic I should also mention "tweaks". There are audiophiles who cannot accept that a basic power cord or a basic audio interconnect could possibly be good enough. They will insist on expensive alternatives. And review magazines, and advertiser blurb, will readily encourage them in that direction. As for legal action to prevent fraud, there are many witnesses prepared to say they hear a difference. Do we prosecute fortune tellers in Australia? Edited June 22, 2019 by MLXXX 1
Ittaku Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) On 22/06/2019 at 7:32 AM, MLXXX said: The problem as I see it is that various parts of the audio reproduction chain have improved to such an extent that differences are minor if audible at all. However a small hard core of individuals refuse to accept that. They feel a need to spend huge sums on a CD transport, external DAC, preamplifier and on monoblock power amplifiers. They may pay $20,000 rather than $2,000 because they feel they ought to to get the "best" quality. There's a certain amount of peer pressure to spend up big. Some manufacturers cater for that hard core. And many review magazines do. If the hard core audiophile is into vinyl as well, then there's a bottomless pit into which to drop dollars. Perfection can never be achieved because grooves in vinyl tracked mechanically will inevitably result in audible harmonic and intermodulation distortion. And yet for true believers in vinyl, the quest much continue. The more expensive arm, the more expensive cartridge, the more expensive phono preamplifier, the more expensive disc cleaner. There is no end to the elusive search for "vinyl perfection"! Expand At the very least, different electronic components do actually alter the signal and whilst you may debate how audible the differences are, they measure differently. What we're really talking about here are the accessories that have no known scientific mechanism for altering the audio signal and have never once been shown to make a measurable difference, let alone a scientifically confirmed audible one. You're doing a disservice to the former by comparing them to the latter. That's a different debate entirely. Edited June 22, 2019 by Ittaku 3 1
MLXXX Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) On 22/06/2019 at 7:46 AM, Ittaku said: At the very least, different electronic components do actually alter the signal and whilst you may debate how audible the differences are, they measure differently. What we're really talking about here are the accessories that have no known scientific mechanism for altering the audio signal and have never once been shown to make a measurable difference, let alone a scientifically confirmed audible one. You're doing a disservice to the former by comparing them to the latter. That's a different debate entirely. Expand Spending $20,000 instead of $2,000 for a difference a particular audiophile would be unable to hear (themselves) in a blind comparison, but which results in a different audio output as measured with sensitive test instruments is indeed different to: Spending $18,000 on a power cord that makes no measurable difference to the audible output even with sensitive test instruments. This in turn is, arguably, different to: Spending $18,000 on a doll crafted by an artisan to resemble a particular audiophile, and enchanted by a mystic to imbue that audiophile with a better listening experience if the doll is under the same roof as the audiophile. The degree of apparent waste of money and the degree of possible deceptive vendor conduct are questions that that may lie on a continuum, though there may be no provable deception in a court of law, and individual audiophiles may feel they have spent their money wisely in any of the three scenarios. In the case of the doll, I am not sure a prosecution of a retailer for deceptive conduct would succeed if a group of audiophiles testified that they had heard an improved sound stage, a lower noise floor, and a better dynamic range whenever their personal hand-crafted sound dolls were under the same roof as themselves. I presume any believer in sound dolls would refuse to participate in a blind test. It's the way the more outlandish tweaks can survive "scrutiny", i.e. by avoiding it! The dolls could easily provide a placebo benefit, but that would of course only work if the audiophile were made aware that the doll was under the same room as him or her. Edited June 22, 2019 by MLXXX 2
Ittaku Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 On 22/06/2019 at 8:18 AM, MLXXX said: Spending $20,000 instead of $2,000 for a difference you canno tpersonally hear in a blind comparison, but which results in a different audio output as measured with sensitive test instruments is indeed different to: Spending $18,000 on a power cord that makes no measurable difference to the audible output even with sensitive test instruments. This in turn is, arguably, different to: Spending $18,000 on a doll crafted by an artisan to resemble you and enchanted by a mystic to imbue you with a better listening experience if the doll is under the same roof as you. The degree of apparent waste of money and the degree of possible deceptive conduct is a question lie on a continuum, though they may be no provable deception in a court of law, and individual audiophiles may feel they have spent their money wisely in any of the scenarios. In the case of the doll, I am not sure a prosecution for of a retailer for deceptive conduct would succeed if a group of audiophiles testfied that they had heard an improved sound stage, a lower noise floor, and a better dynamic arrange whenever their personal hand-crafted sound dolls were under the same roof as themselves. I presume any believer in sound dolls would refuse to participate in a blind test. It's the way the more outlandish tweaks can survive "scrutiny", i.e. by avoiding it! The dolls could easily provide a placebo benefit, but that will of course only work if the audiophile is made aware that the doll is under the same room as him or her. Expand Except that I can hear the difference b/w $2000 and $20000 amplifiers in blind tests and no doubt so can many others. Yes I've partaken in such experiments.
HypnoToad Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 On 22/06/2019 at 7:32 AM, MLXXX said: There are audiophiles who cannot accept that a basic power cord or a basic audio interconnect could possibly be good enough. Expand Even when their electricity has traveled tens, hundreds or even thousands of miles through aluminum alloy wires, a few feet of pure copper or silver power cable wrapped in some mystical sheath with gold plated connectors will cure all ills picked up on the way, much better than a well designed low noise PSU unit inside their components? There is enough people to attest that they can hear a difference to keep the gravy train going. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/13/russ_accessories/ . 1
Recommended Posts