or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Stupid question regarding speaker wire...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stupid question regarding speaker wire... - Page 5

post #121 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

they contained woofer wires

Ok, I just choked on my coffee. Happy now?
post #122 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikoo View Post

Can anyone here tell me why the iphone is such as success?
All of the measurements of the first 3 generations of the iphones were worse than competing HTC phones that were running Windows and Android. Even then iphones sold more. Can anybody explain why it was claimed to be superior? No. It was not marketing. Apple never pushed it. In fact the success of the first generation iphone pushed apple to be more creative and do a better marketing job.

Usability and the advantage of being the first entrant. iphone did lots of things first in a usable manner. The difference between an iphone and a windows phone did not require a dbt when iphone first hit the market. i would know, i bought one.
post #123 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

they contained woofer wires which were quite a bit thicker than the high frequency wires

I have woofer wire buried around my house to keep my woofers from straying.
post #124 of 206
^^^

a true sign of a discerning audiophile!
post #125 of 206
Quote:


I am also here because I am learning.

Good. Here's something that will help you. It's an explanation of why sighted listening comparisons—whether done by audiophiles or reviewers—are unreliable.

And here's some research on the relationship between measurements and listener preferences.

Enjoy!
post #126 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Because audio reviewers all have their heads so far up their asses that they can't hear anything clearly. So they just make stuff up.

A question back at you: How come these reviewers can hear the differences between all these components when they know which is which, but the minute you throw a cloth over the top so they can't read the labels, their hearing goes to pot?

Because the sound is "veiled"....duh
post #127 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi View Post

Do you really think every little girl with a pink iphone knows anything about specs?

Nope. and that is the very heart of my position. Specs and measurements don't make a better product. A feel - a connection - to the human brain makes it a better product. Even little babies feel comfortable in working an iphone. What else can I say?
post #128 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie View Post

Usability and the advantage of being the first entrant. iphone did lots of things first in a usable manner. The difference between an iphone and a windows phone did not require a dbt when iphone first hit the market. i would know, i bought one.

Usability. Yes.
First entrant. No.
I should know. I had smart phones before iphone and then the iphone when it came out.

There were a lot of Windows phones made by HTC, Siemens and other taiwanese companies that were better spec wise such as support for A2DP stereo bluetooth, multi-tasking, task manger, etc. Yet the iphone beat them all. Simply because Apple understood how to connect to the human brain. you cannot put than in a spec. Not yet.
post #129 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikoo View Post

Nope. and that is the very heart of my position. Specs and measurements don't make a better product. A feel - a connection - to the human brain makes it a better product. Even little babies feel comfortable in working an iphone. What else can I say?

Seems like we keep agreeing then.
post #130 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFXguy View Post

Ok, I just choked on my coffee. Happy now?

I am so glad that you recovered Or is this a stealth message from the supernatural universe?
post #131 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikoo View Post

Nope. and that is the very heart of my position. Specs and measurements don't make a better product. A feel - a connection - to the human brain makes it a better product. Even little babies feel comfortable in working an iphone. What else can I say?

That simplistic imagined technique may work wonders for end users amazed at technology that seemingly defies their understanding; but that is hardly the process by which such technology comes into existence.

And just as the remainder of the Apple experience is enabled by a very robust foundation based upon FreeBSD and OpenBSD UNIX, and the seemingly magical resistance to malware is provided by a very solid and mature 'anything by non-technical' technique referred to as "sandboxing" that has been fundamental to the UNIX platform for some 20+ years now, all of the seemingly intuitive advancements in human-machine interfacing are absolutely the product of "specs and measurements", as anyone who has actually worked on the R&D side of such technology well knows.

So, if one wishes to willfully remain in the realm where what happens in the physical universe is imagined to be due to serendipity and mysticism and that such is beyond the realm of science to both develop and implement, then you simply ignore the myriad legions of engineers who have invested quite a bit of time and money utilizing precisely those "specs and measurements" to which you willfully chose to remain ignorant.

And to repeat, claims that the capabilities of the ear-brain system are beyond any ability to measure and observe said behavior to a greater degree of acuity and precision is simply unaware of the myriad measurement systems effective for use over the full range of the EM spectra, of which human hearing is but a miniscule portion.

And then you can explain the ability for us to measure very precisely that which the ear is unable to intelligently distinguish as discrete signals in what is described by the Haas corollary within the larger context of the Henry Precedence Effect. And then you will be kind enough to explain how it is routinely possible to render embarrassed 'golden eared' audiophools, who, much to their confounded amazement, look on with gaping mouths and empty thoughts when we demonstrate the Franssen Effect and as they routinely choose a speaker with no sound emanating from it as the apparent source of the signal.

No one to my knowledge has proposed using "specs and measurements" to the exclusion of hearing. But they BOTH provide a necessary augmentation to the limits of the other, and as such anyone that argues the necessary exclusion of one with regards to the other is a fool.
post #132 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikoo View Post

Usability. Yes.
First entrant. No.
I should know. I had smart phones before iphone and then the iphone when it came out.

There were a lot of Windows phones made by HTC, Siemens and other taiwanese companies that were better spec wise such as support for A2DP stereo bluetooth, multi-tasking, task manger, etc. Yet the iphone beat them all. Simply because Apple understood how to connect to the human brain. you cannot put than in a spec. Not yet.

You had? well so did I. I had a windows phone that worked with a pen. Pen's tip was too big for the "start" menu. so i was growing one of my nails in order to be able to hit the "Start" menu when i need. now compare that with the iphone experience we got. Iphone was not the "first" smart phone but it was the first "decent" smart phone. that was why i mentioned the "first entry".
post #133 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi View Post

Not sure what your link to car speakers that you wire yourself was for but according to the interview, they use their own proprietary designed wire. Funny, a while back there was a post about why use good cables since internal gear wiring is of lesser grade, and I posted a picture of the inside of my Stratos which is wired with beefy German made Greneberg wire. I guess they were looking inside their Bose Lifestyle.

What on earth are you talking about? I didn't link to car speakers. The link embedded in my post doesn't come from me!

And to answer my rhetorical question, Dynaudio doesn't use anything fancy for their internal wiring.
post #134 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

What on earth are you talking about? I didn't link to car speakers. The link embedded in my post doesn't come from me!

And to answer my rhetorical question, Dynaudio doesn't use anything fancy for their internal wiring.

LOL, I guess this site hyperlinked the word Dynaudio for some reason in your post and it goes to car speakers.

I know it's nothing special, but Wilfred claims it to be proprietary.

Odd though, only your post contains a hyperlink for the word Dynaudio
post #135 of 206
Yep, I think it was hyperlinked by this site. Not by me, that's for sure. I don't know why it picked mine of all the posts that mentioned Dynaudio. When I first read your reply, I had no idea what you were referring to, but when I went back to my post, I did see the hyperlink.
post #136 of 206
Quote:


I know it's nothing special, but Wilfred claims it to be proprietary.

Are you calling him a liar??!!
post #137 of 206
Quote:


Specs and measurements don't make a better product. A feel - a connection - to the human brain makes it a better product.

But you are taking the wrong lesson from this.

The problem is not that technical specs aren't good enough to measure this. The problem is that it is unrelated to the technical performance of the product. That's what tech specs measure—technical performance. To the extent that consumer reaction to a product is influenced by factors other than technical performance, tech specs won't capture that.

But when we are talking about the sonic output of a piece of audio gear, we are talking specifically about its technical performance. We aren't interested in whether the consumer is going to be wowed by the colors of the LEDs on the front, or impressed by the price tag, or convinced by the Stereophile review (written by someone who was wowed by the colors of the LEDs on the front and impressed by the price tag). We are interested in its technical performance. And the right measurements can tell us pretty much everything we need to know about that.
post #138 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post


That simplistic imagined technique may work wonders for end users amazed at technology that seemingly defies their understanding; but that is hardly the process by which such technology comes into existence.

And just as the remainder of the Apple experience is enabled by a very robust foundation based upon FreeBSD and OpenBSD UNIX, and the seemingly magical resistance to malware is provided by a very solid and mature 'anything by non-technical' technique referred to as "sandboxing" that has been fundamental to the UNIX platform for some 20+ years now, all of the seemingly intuitive advancements in human-machine interfacing are absolutely the product of "specs and measurements", as anyone who has actually worked on the R&D side of such technology well knows.

So, if one wishes to willfully remain in the realm where what happens in the physical universe is imagined to be due to serendipity and mysticism and that such is beyond the realm of science to both develop and implement, then you simply ignore the myriad legions of engineers who have invested quite a bit of time and money utilizing precisely those "specs and measurements" to which you willfully chose to remain ignorant.

And to repeat, claims that the capabilities of the ear-brain system are beyond any ability to measure and observe said behavior to a greater degree of acuity and precision is simply unaware of the myriad measurement systems effective for use over the full range of the EM spectra, of which human hearing is but a miniscule portion.

And then you can explain the ability for us to measure very precisely that which the ear is unable to intelligently distinguish as discrete signals in what is described by the Haas corollary within the larger context of the Henry Precedence Effect. And then you will be kind enough to explain how it is routinely possible to render embarrassed 'golden eared' audiophools, who, much to their confounded amazement, look on with gaping mouths and empty thoughts when we demonstrate the Franssen Effect and as they routinely choose a speaker with no sound emanating from it as the apparent source of the signal.

No one to my knowledge has proposed using "specs and measurements" to the exclusion of hearing. But they BOTH provide a necessary augmentation to the limits of the other, and as such anyone that argues the necessary exclusion of one with regards to the other is a fool.

That is quite a post. I am impressed. As everybody over here knows i am a newbie to the audio world. Specs and measurements develop over time as newer approaches are used to improve them. Better products are made and they establish the specs & measurements that actually work, depending on success in the market. It is like chicken or egg conundrum.
I am in no shape disparaging research activities, but like everything else it has to be done by a passionate leader who wants to make progress and a difference. All new ground breaking approaches will be jeered and sneered at until it is proven successful. The smart phone community using windows phone did exactly that with the first iphone.
post #139 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikoo View Post

Nope. and that is the very heart of my position. Specs and measurements don't make a better product. A feel - a connection - to the human brain makes it a better product. Even little babies feel comfortable in working an iphone. What else can I say?

Come on, a baby is happy with just about anything to slobber on. Not to say that Apple doesn't spend a significant amount of time on the user interface and ergonomics of the unit...which are scientifically based and am sure they are measured and repeatable. But then the typical Apple user I know spends little brain power with their toys...there's a guy in our office who had, just had to have an ipad....what does he do with it? Plays frikkin' solitaire.
post #140 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi View Post

...

I know it's nothing special, but Wilfred claims it to be proprietary.
...

What is so special about a proprietary product? After all, it can be claimed to be for a number of reasons without actually being truly so.
post #141 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Come on, a baby is happy with just about anything to slobber on.

Some babies maybe - but not all. and what does this have to do with the OP's ? ????????
post #142 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyfi View Post

I know it's nothing special, but Wilfred claims it to be proprietary.

Could be just marketing hype...introducing another diversion so that folks will not see the real reason why the speakers sound better. Keeps him ahead of the competition.
post #143 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

That simplistic imagined technique may work wonders for end users amazed at technology that seemingly defies their understanding; but that is hardly the process by which such technology comes into existence.

And just as the remainder of the Apple experience is enabled by a very robust foundation based upon FreeBSD and OpenBSD UNIX, and the seemingly magical resistance to malware is provided by a very solid and mature 'anything by non-technical' technique referred to as "sandboxing" that has been fundamental to the UNIX platform for some 20+ years now, all of the seemingly intuitive advancements in human-machine interfacing are absolutely the product of "specs and measurements", as anyone who has actually worked on the R&D side of such technology well knows.

So, if one wishes to willfully remain in the realm where what happens in the physical universe is imagined to be due to serendipity and mysticism and that such is beyond the realm of science to both develop and implement, then you simply ignore the myriad legions of engineers who have invested quite a bit of time and money utilizing precisely those "specs and measurements" to which you willfully chose to remain ignorant.

And to repeat, claims that the capabilities of the ear-brain system are beyond any ability to measure and observe said behavior to a greater degree of acuity and precision is simply unaware of the myriad measurement systems effective for use over the full range of the EM spectra, of which human hearing is but a miniscule portion.

And then you can explain the ability for us to measure very precisely that which the ear is unable to intelligently distinguish as discrete signals in what is described by the Haas corollary within the larger context of the Henry Precedence Effect. And then you will be kind enough to explain how it is routinely possible to render embarrassed 'golden eared' audiophools, who, much to their confounded amazement, look on with gaping mouths and empty thoughts when we demonstrate the Franssen Effect and as they routinely choose a speaker with no sound emanating from it as the apparent source of the signal.

No one to my knowledge has proposed using "specs and measurements" to the exclusion of hearing. But they BOTH provide a necessary augmentation to the limits of the other, and as such anyone that argues the necessary exclusion of one with regards to the other is a fool.

So the shape of the iphone, the software interface of the iphone, the design to anticipate how the user will request a new action, how to respond to that action, the interaction of the applications within the system, the transitions from one screen to the other was all very well documented (by somebody other than apple) before the iphone came out. Is that what you are trying to tell me here?
post #144 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikoo View Post

So the shape of the iphone, the software interface of the iphone, the design to anticipate how the user will request a new action, how to respond to that action, the interaction of the applications within the system, the transitions from one screen to the other was all very well documented (by somebody other than apple) before the iphone came out. Is that what you are trying to tell me here?

The answer to All except for the utterly asinine non sequitur issue regarding "by someone other than Apple" issue is a resounding YES! Whether the environment was distributed for public review or was kept internal to Apple has no bearing on the defined software and hardware development process.

The precise nature of the human factors engineering as well as how each function transitions to another, etc., in a GUI is PRECISELY defined by documented procedure calls within the OS and then exploited by apps, as anyone would know if they have every worked in software and/or OS engineering.

But only you could then take the fundamental issue and morph it into a ridiculous issue of 'who' developed it?

The issue is the asinine notion of serendipitous intuition versus "specs and measurements" and subsequently planned design.

But then, anyone who gives a crap about the topic of cables and asserts the validity of an asinine statement such as the ears being more acute and accurate than any measurement system belongs in the middle of debating the nature of cables, as they sure have not spent any productive time studying physics or software engineering.
post #145 of 206
Now this is asinine. How wonderful.
Question is whether apple followed industry standard specs and measurements or did they make their own up? Now that is has proven to work, everybody is jumping on that bandwagon. Where were all those folks before?

YOU are misunderstanding my complete picture. I am asking if the outside world does not know the parameters are what will they measure against? The product will probably fail on the known parameters. Now with apples success, we have newer parameters to add to the mix.
post #146 of 206
WTF cares?

Let's see, the MacOS runs on the Mach kernel on top of what is essentially FREE/OpenBSD in an Intel Roadmap compliant hardware base, and when they choose, occasionally utilize open I/O protocols - that is when not cutting the legs out from established users who have invested in what had been completely compliant peripherals based upon the open Java standard all because the control freak Steve Jobs had yet another personal spat with another in the industry.

Add to that that the original Motorola 68xxx SCSI based platform was almost entirely literally an IBM technology clone and which the Quadras were literally RS/6000 clones manufactured by IBM and of which the Mac Quadra servers introduced in the mid 90s literally ran IBM's AIX v4.1.4 and not the MacOS.

And lets see, Apple's iPhone surely runs on a proprietary communications protocol rendering it totally incompatible with the various telephony standard protocols. Oh wait... oops...

Let's try this again... Apple, while again innovating on top of a GUI interface which they did not develop, is literally forcing the rest of the universe to adapt to 3G and 4G technology, just as they earlier forced the world to adapt Motorola, Intel, and other radically left-field technologies. Drat, hmm...so apparently Apple has simply once again pursued another another slight tangent in the derivative GUIfied universe...

What would the world do without Apple's ~14% of the installed consumer computer marketshare.

And contrary to your assertion, I have a feeling the majority of the ~86% of the world neither knows nor cares about 'Apple's standards'. Nor do they care about Microsoft's or anyone else's. The devices are simply tools; or in the case of Netbooks and tablets, overpriced, underpowered platforms that are utterly unable to run any significant apps that have failed to live up to the promises of hardware convergence, leaving more than a few lugging around a cell phone, a tablet and a laptop - and in the special enlightened case of the iPad, several adapters and/or a dock in order to facilitate the simple connection of their oh so portable device as a result of an enlightened decision to omit a simple micro-USB port that would have very simply enabled near universal IO functionality with the rest of the world. Now THAT's enlightened!

Apple is just another player in a large dynamic marketplace. Deal with it.
post #147 of 206
Lol. I agree with your sentiments whole heartedly about the control freak jobs, the back stabbing jobs, et al.

But the question still remains : if a products fails known specs and measurements, is it a poor performer and not worth going after?
post #148 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikoo View Post

But the question still remains : if a products fails known specs and measurements, is it a poor performer and not worth going after?

Its a near meaningless question.

One does not fail measurements, measurements are a tool, not a standard.
And if you mean, if a device deviates sufficiently from industry standard specifications and then if, as a result, it no longer offers interoperable functionality - it simply means that it is limited to a niche market that limits its acceptance and growth. Which Apple illustrates well.
post #149 of 206
30% market share with 4 models in the mkt in as many years is not a niche.
post #150 of 206
"Tim Cook: iPhone Has 5% Of Mobile Phone Marketshare Worldwide"


Whoopie...

I really don't care what the local 'neighborhood' penetration is - especially considering the Much larger world market where cell phones play an even larger societal role and considering the absurd price differential for Apple products that will insure their niche performance for years to come..


And thanks to Apple's elitist marketing schema for computers they are literally squandering that market opportunity as well.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Stupid question regarding speaker wire...