Deang Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Mark's comments predate Harley's paper by several years. I took the comments from a thread on this forum, it was part of an informal discussion, much like this one. I still believe it's well written and carries a good deal of validity. So you think there are only two people on this forum who think the choice of wire influences the sound - are you really that naive? Don, that one post of yours is a doozy. Pretty entertaining stuff. I really don't have time to clean up that mess. What I see here is a lot of people not paying very close attention to what's actually being said and just as many seemingly incapable of thinking through a good argument. Just because Harley was disrespected doesn't make him wrong. I hear a significant difference between conductive materials. I mean, if you can't hear the difference between silver and copper wire, do everyone a favor and get the hell out of the hobby and take up needlepoint or something. This is a pathetic debate. Mark deals with an issue, and because you guys can't remember that he dealt with it two pages ago, you bring it up again, pretending it wasn't dealt with. The state of this forum is deplorable. The majority of hard core audiophiles have left or don't bother posting. What is the point in being here and saying anything one might think regarding what they are hearing? It is normally met with sarcasm, cynicism or ridicule. Here it is in a nutshell - if you like the sound of gear loaded with cheap opamps and don't believe 99% of anything makes any real difference worth fussing over, and everything pretty much sounds the same -- then you're on the right track... ...but God help those who believe in the sonic superiority of discrete components or choose wire because it won't turn green in a month, or has a geometry that reduces noise, or has some measurable attribute that adds an iota of something to the sound that makes them happy. Edited February 6, 2014 by DeanG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Here it is in a nutshell - if you like the sound of gear loaded with cheap opamps and don't believe 99% of anything makes any real difference worth fussing over, and everything pretty much sounds the same -- then you're on the right track... ...but God help those who believe in the sonic superiority of discrete components or choose wire because it won't turn green in a month, or has a geometry that reduces noise, or has some measurable attribute that adds an iota of something to the sound that makes them happy. Classic reductio ad absurdum. I enjoyed it. Obviously, your mileage varied. I might add that it really re-enforced my faith in PWK about how only the ears count, and science can only offer a hope of explaining what they ears have heard. Only a hope...not a guarantee. Someday, maybe. But our science isn't there yet. In audio, physics meets metaphysics head on. We aren't ready for that yet and this discussion clearly illustrates that. Dave Edited February 6, 2014 by Mallette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) For me, it is simply not about dBs of FREQUENCY RESPONSE. And yet, after weeks of this debate, guys are still using FREQUENCY RESPONSE as some kind of rebuttal to what audiophiles, or me specifically, mean by subjective difference in components. Perhaps it's because many don't understand the limitations of a one dimensional view of a multi-dimensional experience..! Richard C. Heyser was one of the great minds in audio among other fields of interest and inventor of TDS(Time Delay Spectrometry). IMHO anyone genuinely interested in Sound Reproduction and the subjective vs objective nature of this field and desire a greater understanding of measuring and correlating/mapping that to the listening experience should study as much as possible his contributions to the field of sound reproduction. His own words, from the preface of the paper he was preparing at the time of his death, best express the compass he used in his research: “Perhaps more than any other discipline, audio engineering involves not only purely objective characterization but also subjective interpretations. It is the listening experience, that personal and most private sensation, which is the intended result of our labors in audio engineering. No technical measurement, however glorified with mathematics, can escape that fact.” To view his library of works: http://www.lib.colum.edu/archon/index.php?p=collections/findingaid&id=22&q=&rootcontentid=5944#id5944 I believe the anthologie is out of print but may still be available here: http://www.aes.org/publications/anthologies/ TIME DELAY SPECTROMETRY edited by John R. Prohs. Thirty-two articles of the works of Richard C. Heyser on measurement, analysis, and perception. Reprinted from the pages of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society and other publications in the field, including Audio magazine and IREE Australia. The anthology serves as a memorial to the author's work and as fundamental material for future developments in audio. It will undoubtedly provide the stimulus for expanded discussion. 280 pages miketn PS. Just as a FYI.... I spoke with Jim Hunter at the 2006 pilgrimage in Hope about PWK and Heyser (who also reviewed the Klipschorn in Audio Magazine) and according to him PWK held Heyser with the upmost of respect. Edited February 6, 2014 by mikebse2a3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Because "more clarity between instruments" is gibberish, like someone saying, "That hamburger is better" than another hamburger without providing the means to differentiate between them. Does it taste different than the other one? If that is so, then what tastes better - the meat, the bun, the condiments? Or does it look more appetizing, or does it smell better, or is it larger? The details must be accurately described to make a sensible comparison. Do you know what "subjective analysis" means? Yes, do you remember that you asked me how one could correlate measurements to sound quality? I answered that in the rest of my post. Did you finish reading it? Apparently not. Don, I feel you're going in circles. I'd say read through the last few pages more carefully. Since you enjoy mostly just slinging insults, I'll have to assume you think it's funny to be obtuse. If you don't understand the argument at this point, I doubt I can clear it up for you. Between the two of us, one of us is going in circles, and it ain't me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 So you think there are only two people on this forum who think the choice of wire influences the sound - are you really that naive? I think he missed me when he was counting Dean miketn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Perhaps it's because many don't understand the limitations of a one dimensional view of a multi-dimensional experience..! Richard C. Heyser was one of the great minds in audio among other fields of interest and inventor of TDS(Time Delay Spectrometry). IMHO anyone genuinely interested in Sound Reproduction and the subjective vs objective nature of this field and desire a greater understanding of measuring and correlating/mapping that to the listening experience should study as much as possible his contributions to the field of sound reproduction. His own words, from the preface of the paper he was preparing at the time of his death, best express the compass he used in his research: “Perhaps more than any other discipline, audio engineering involves not only purely objective characterization but also subjective interpretations. It is the listening experience, that personal and most private sensation, which is the intended result of our labors in audio engineering. No technical measurement, however glorified with mathematics, can escape that fact.” He also said,"I claim that it should be possible to measure audio systems and have those measurements correlate with what we hear from our audio systems..." http://karlnordstrom.ca/research/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Time-and-Frequency-in-Loudspeaker-Measurements.pdf He wrote this article 25 years ago. Since that time further improvements in measurement techniques have occurred. We are closer to doing that today, and in the future we will fulfill his prophesy completely. By using modern measurement techniques and modern materials to construct some of the components used in audio we have sound systems that are better than ever, and it's getting better all the time. Edited February 6, 2014 by Don Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It will be interesting when science can tell us more about what our ears already know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 He also said,"I claim that it should be possible to measure audio systems and have those measurements correlate with what we hear from our audio systems." I agree with the understanding that we aren't completely there yet and the ear/brain has the final say..! To have any advancements means we must continually improve our measurements and their proper applications to what we are trying to model. We must also continually improve our ability to properly listen and correlate that experience properly to our reproduction system(ie: complete chain from recording to listening enviroment.) Also note: I would disagree with anyone who doesn't understand the need to measure because we humans aren't perfect and can credit or blame the wrong things for what we hear/experience. A good example of this is how common it is to see listeners attributing problems to their loudspeakers that clearly are room acoustic issues. miketn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 . A good example of this is how common it is to see listeners attributing problems to their loudspeakers that clearly are room acoustic issues. And trying to cure those issues with cables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) I defy anyone to say this thread isn't extremely valuable and fruitful... This is precisely why I love this bunch and spend WAY too much time here by many ways of judging things. Dave Edited February 6, 2014 by Mallette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 . A good example of this is how common it is to see listeners attributing problems to their loudspeakers that clearly are room acoustic issues. And trying to cure those issues with cables. Or any other componet that makes up the reproduction system. Yes relying on the improper use of listening test or measurements can lead to many wrong paths and conclusions..! miketn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I defy anyone to say this thread isn't extremely valuable and fruitful... This is precisely why I love this bunch and spend WAY too much time here by many ways of judging things. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebse2a3 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 What would be an example of an "improper use of a listening test?" Relying on listening test of a loudspeaker performed under a unique set of enviromental acoustical conditions to be conclusive of the quality of the loudspeaker's reproduction and directly applicable when it is placed in another unique set of enviromental acoustical conditions. This is why someone might love the sound reproduction of a loudspeaker at a friends home only to bring the same system to their home and be extremely dissappointed. The loudspeaker didn't change but the acoustical conditions for the loudspeaker and listener did. The listener now has a choice and that is to work on the acoustical enviroment or find a loudspeaker that works best in their unique enviroment. miketn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) I don't think it's fruitful to denigrate someone just because they share in a minority opinion. I feel very much like Muel. They have been critiquing Mark's words from my website over at AVS. Leading the charge is Arny Krueger, the inventor of the ABX testing method. Every one is very sure they know everything there is to know about how the brain works. It's kind of sad. I dig good measurements, they're necessary and extremely beneficial. But sometimes it really is more like, "Oh, so that's why it sounds the way it does." How does that revelatory information change anything about what I already know is going to work and sound good to me? So Dave, you thought that last post was a bit over the top huh? I don't agree. Maybe you should spend more time up here with the meter police. I'm not a big advocate of high dollar wire or power cables, not by a long shot. But I have used wire that I thought had a detrimental effect on the sound. It was accidental, I didn't mean or want to hear it, but there it was. I normally recommend the Supra Classic from Madisound. It's a tin annealed copper wire, very much like PK used. I think it works good with compression drivers -- it sounds good, it certainly doesn't sound bad. It's not as cheap as coat hangers or lamp cord, but I think most here can handle a dollar a foot. I suggest you give it a try, you might accidentally hear something. Depending on where you live, a shielded type might be best. Edited February 6, 2014 by DeanG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NBPK402 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Couldn't the reason for the difference in sound of cables me nothing more than inductance, capacitance, and resistance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 So Dave, you thought that last post was a bit over the top huh? I don't agree. Maybe you should spend more time up here with the meter police. Yes, sir, I thought as much. I've thoroughly enjoyed the entire thread and all comers. I feel the discussion has been largely both lively and in the best tradition of the Klipsch Klan. I think for most of us the truth is in the middle. Certainly I come down pretty solidly in the subjectivist camp, hence, "If it sounds good, it IS good." However, like my mentor PWK I believe measurement should make every effort to determine WHY something sounds good and something else doesn't. If moving a chair in the room can change the sound, then why should something else one might not immediately think about? I've learned a bit here (not a lot, mind you, but some) but I believe the thread has provided an excellent stream of thing to think about for newer and less experienced audiophiles. That's important. I don't go into any listening room with any conscious bias except for crappy compositions, poorly performed and badly recorded. These things make more difference to me than any other components in a playback chain. You can fix everything else but you can't make bad music good, you can't make an icky pianist better, and you can't turn an over processed, multi-mike, mixer extravaganza into a Living Presence recording. That's my story, and I'm stickn' with it... Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 What IS the Hobby? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 What IS the Hobby? Airport in southwest Houston... Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 (edited) Lol. http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~apm3/diyaudio/Connections.html Bateman_Speaker_Amp_Interaction.pdf Edited February 6, 2014 by DeanG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 What IS the Hobby? I say again...this is a serious question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.