or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › any suggestions for cables?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

any suggestions for cables? - Page 26

post #751 of 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by xianthax View Post

Couple off hand:

http://www.cns.bu.edu/~shinn/resources/pdfs/2011/2011JASA_Ihlefeld.pdf
http://asadl.org/jasa/resource/1/jasman/v98/i5/p2878_s4?bypassSSO=1

You can find plenty more in 10 minutes...
Thanks for providing the links. I tried looking up the second 1995 paper on multichannel sound from ASA's archive. But all they have is the same abstract as your link, albeit as part of the list of other talks in that years meeting. The abstract says nothing that is in conflict with Dr. Toole's work, nor is a listening test. Would you please quote the relevant portions from the article?

The first link is a strange citation by you given the rest of your quote below:
Quote:
One the biggest things lacking in his review, and where he is hand waving, is usage of data only pertaining to speech and speech intelligibility in his discussion of source localization. This limits his discussion to pertinent frequencies present in speech and related roll off characteristics of speech intelligibility (which is pretty steep on the high end). e.g. he's ignoring everything under a few hundred hertz and everything over 5-6khz in that discussion.

First quickly addressing your point, localization is an orthogonal (independent) characteristics from intelligibility. As such, it is addressed separately by Dr. Toole and researchers in general. See this table for example from Dr. Tool’s paper:

So not sure why you mix the notion of direction and location of speech with whether we understand it.

More curious is the citation of that paper as I mentioned. You say the problem with Dr. Toole’s paper is that he only focuses on speech (he doesn’t really but let’s run with it for now). And that he is ignoring everything below a “few hundred hertz” and above 5-6 Khz. Here is the experiment conditions for the paper you cited:

C. Stimuli
Experiment 1 separately presented either low-frequency noise (termed “Lo,” centered at 750 Hz) or high-frequency noise (termed “Hi,” centered at 6 kHz), which were created by band-pass filtering tokens of broadband pink noise. The filters had 3-dB down points at 500 Hz and 1 kHz for the Lo noise and 4 and 8 kHz for the Hi noise (24 dB/octave frequency roll-off). Experiment 2 presented the Lo and Hi noises simultaneously, with the Lo and Hi components gated on and off together.”


[Bolding mine.] They go on to then determine whether in listening tests people can tell the angle of such noises. How is it that you say speech analysis is not of value but noise tests with similar frequency ranges as you stated is??? While you think about that, here is the conclusions from the first experiment they ran:

”Overall, listeners’ responses were less accurate for more lateral sources than for sources closer to the median plane (responses tend to fall farther from the gray lines, denoting the simulated source angles, in panels F and G than in panels A–E). For sources at 0 degree azimuth, responses were generally close to 0 degree [Fig. 1(A)]. Responses for sources at 15 degree, 30 degree, and 45 degree azimuth were laterally biased [in Figs. 1(B)–1(D), responses fall outside the gray lines].”

Translating in English, we are able to tell the direction of sounds that are directly in front of us better than when they move to either side. Dr. Toole states the same thing in his Book, Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms: http://www.amazon.com/Sound-Reproduction-Acoustics-Psychoacoustics-Loudspeakers/dp/0240520092/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358617723&sr=1-1&keywords=floyd+toole

”Direction: Identifying the direction from which sound appears to be coming. Because of the ear locations, we are much better at localizing in azimuth than we are in elevation, and we are more precise close to the median plane (a vertical forward/back plane running through the head) than we are to the sides.”

So as you see, it is hard to connect your objections to the citations you keep providing. Would you please come back with the quote on the second paper and in the future explain as I have done above where the disagreement lies? If you are just googling and have not read the references, then please don't give them to us this way. It takes time to do the analysis I just did and we could be spending it more productively smile.gif.

As to not worrying about low frequencies in Dr. Toole’s paper, surely you must be kidding. He has an entire section dedicated to it ("7, “ONE ROOM, TWO SOUND FIELDS.). As we get down to 400 Hz or so, the acoustic model in the room starts to change. We move from a situation where reflections and psychacosutics rule to modal behavior. So yes, you most definitely want to ignore what happens below “a few hundred hertz” when we deal with psychoacoustics effects. The wavelengths become large enough such that the distance between your ears no longer matters, and HRTF goes out the window. It makes no sense to say these topics should be talked about in the same sentence. If these are new concepts, then it would easily explain why you are having trouble with his teachings.

I will address the rest of your post in another reply later.
post #752 of 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

kbarnes701, as I've said before,
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

At least couple forum members openly support him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Having a guy named TerryJ parroting the same failed arguments as a certain well-known poster is old news around here. It all becomes clear if you check out other forums where they both post.

 

Yes, thanks. You did warn me :)  I have taken the appropriate action now ;)

post #753 of 873
A meta-analysis is not a review paper. There are some obvious starting commonalities, but the methods, goals, and form of the papers are different.
post #754 of 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

So true. However, if people start to believe that 8ft of cable really IS 8 ft of cable, as it surely is, it becomes very difficult to convince them to part with hundreds, or even thousands of dollars on so-called 'exotic' equipment. This is why the concept has to be defended so vigorously, albeit so pointlessly. 

More or less every post I have ever seen from Ethan has been helpful - he even helps people design and make their own treatments...
Those are pretty interesting thoughts put together. Let's see if I get the reasoning right. If a cable vendor came here and sold $10,000 speakers cables, he can post measurements of the mechanical structure of said cable once every day of the week and twice on Sunday, claiming that it sounds much better than your ordinary cable. All he would have to do to have you stop anyone from challenging him would be if he taught you how to solder connectors to your own zip cord?

Mind you, I appreciate the sympathy you have for Ethan. Other than when I dispute his acoustic science he is an upstanding gentleman and I have a very professional relationship with him. But that doesn't mean I won't critique what he says about acoustic science in light of the fact that he never once volunteers to run a blind test for products he manufactures. He spends a ton of money on lab tests and such but a listening test seems out of the question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

Amir, it's tempting to chastise you because this is at least the third time I've explained to you why blind tests are not needed with products that make an obvious and measurable difference.
Imagine deserving a beating to ask whether an absorber, a diffuser or a blank wall sounds better. Surely they don't all sound the same, right? Fact that they measure different is a neither here nor there. Instead, we are supposed to buy the product and if it doesn't work, then go through the trouble of returning it. And somehow come up with our blind testing apparatus when he won't do it. And when you don't bother returning that large package to him, you get counted under the statistics of happy buyers. Is this how we conduct efficacy tests?

Now it is not like such listening tests have not been done. They are widely published in peer review journals, and strongly disagree with his opinion. Not only that, we can explain with science why. When we have such information in cables, amps or whatever, we demand peer reviewed, double blind tests if someone dares to say otherwise. Yet if I ask about it in this forum the answer is, " he even helps people design and make their own treatments." Gosh, what can I teach you to build Keith? biggrin.gif

Meanwhile you give high five to someone who is casting doubt on peer reviewed journal paper of a world class researcher full of the testing and science we demand, while defending informal forum posts from some who does not. I don't know what credibility we have left as a group the next time we chase someone on cable, amps or whatever.

Again, nothing wrong with empathy. Start with the first page of this thread and read forward and you find many people who need to show more of that toward their fellow audiophiles who share this wonderful hobby with us. wink.gifsmile.gif
post #755 of 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Mind you, I appreciate the sympathy you have for Ethan. Other than when I dispute his acoustic science he is an upstanding gentleman and I have a very professional relationship with him. But that doesn't mean I won't critique what he says about acoustic science in light of the fact that he never once volunteers to run a blind test for products he manufactures. He spends a ton of money on lab tests and such but a listening test seems out of the question:
Imagine deserving a beating to ask whether an absorber, a diffuser or a blank wall sounds better. Surely they don't all sound the same, right? Fact that they measure different is a neither here nor there. Instead, we are supposed to buy the product and if it doesn't work, then go through the trouble of returning it. And somehow come up with our blind testing apparatus when he won't do it.
Amir, can you please cite the blind tests upon which Toole bases his first reflection preference assertions? Near as I can tell, Ando is the primary source for this and his test procedure does not mention blind conditions.
post #756 of 873
Ethan does not claim his products have magical unmeasurable qualities nor does he deny many similar products, even DIY efforts, can perform similarly.

No surprise the false equivalencies, poor analogies, and absent logic still run rampant.
post #757 of 873
When I was experimenting with first reflection absorption panels the differences were small, my previous pair of speakers sounded a little better with the panels at the first reflection point. After buying new speakers with different tweeters and design, I kept using the panels at first. Later I tried a set up process that recommends removing the panels and other treatment while adjusting positions, toe in and rake angle. Then after you are satisfied with your speakers sound you reinsert the treatments and listen for any improvements or not.

The bass traps still helped some but putting the absorption panels back in the first reflection point didn't improve anything, only diminished the soundstage width, seemed less dynamic sound and weaker treble.

So I guess this may have been a change that could of been measured, but what if the response measured better with the panels in place but the music sounds better to me without them?

Also I know everyone's hearing is not identical, lots of folks have a bit of hearing loss in the higher frequency range, so just right to me might be too hot or too much treble for a young man with ideal hearing range. So a set up that measures flatter may not be better to everyone.

Building a system that sounds great to you takes time and patience and it is a personal thing. I wish it was just one easy way to get great results but it just isn't that easy!

Plus I bet a lot of folks would fail a double blind test if one was conducted using my previous speakers with and without absorption panels. But so what, DBT is not an important factor to consider if all your after is better sound.
post #758 of 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

More curious is the citation of that paper as I mentioned. You say the problem with Dr. Toole’s paper is that he only focuses on speech (he doesn’t really but let’s run with it for now). And that he is ignoring everything below a “few hundred hertz” and above 5-6 Khz. Here is the experiment conditions for the paper you cited:

Comparing initial conditions for papers with different hypothesis has no meaning.

Here is the conclusion from the linked article:
Quote:
VI. CONCLUSIONS
1. In virtual reverberant simulations, perceived lateral angles of sources more than 45* from the median plane are biased toward the median plane, an effect that grows with increasing distance (as D/R decreases). More medial sources tend to be biased laterally; this lateral bias decreases with increasing distance.
2. The localization bias caused by reverberation is greater for low-frequency sounds than for high-frequency sounds.
3. Listeners do not always weight low- and high-frequency localization cues optimally in a reverberant space. In the most reverberant stimulus condition (1.7 m simulated source distance), localization accuracy, as measured by RMS error, is poorer for noises containing both low-frequency and high-frequency components than for a narrowband, high-frequency noise alone, and better than for a narrowband, low- frequency noise alone.

Compare to Toole's conclusions.
post #759 of 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Imagine deserving a beating to ask whether an absorber, a diffuser or a blank wall sounds better. Surely they don't all sound the same, right? Fact that they measure different is a neither here nor there. Instead, we are supposed to buy the product and if it doesn't work, then go through the trouble of returning it. And somehow come up with our blind testing apparatus when he won't do it. And when you don't bother returning that large package to him, you get counted under the statistics of happy buyers. Is this how we conduct efficacy tests?

There is no argument to be made to support the sale of snake oil products and your constant effort to put room treatments in that camp is ludicrous.

Ethan's right, you don't need DBT to prove "effect", proving that is about as simple as it gets in this hobby.
Preference is debatable, but that's not the main point here and never was.
But that's not convenient for you is it?

I don't know of many people on these forums that buy room treatments that haven't done some amount of homework prior to purchasing like doing in-room measurements, or at least some level of modeling before hand.
Most seem to go in with eyes wide open.

Suggesting to someone that buying a $1000 cable instead of a $20 one will have the same acoustical impact as a bass trap is the crux of the argument and it is simply unsupportable.

You can put all the lipstick you want on that pig....
post #760 of 873
You gotta admire Amirm. The engineer in him knows 99% of these audiophile cable claims are hogwash. Yet he never outright dismisses them and avoids deeper discussion on this subject. He carefully presents some documentation that supports the ludicrous claims yet he is simply the messenger in these cases and offers no personal endorsement.

That's the audiophile store owner side coming out! While he doesn't currently sell snake oil cables, he is very careful not to shut the door on the possibility.

Hey, I'm not being critical at all here. The all mighty dollar rules above anything - even science. If owned such a business I might do exactly the same thing. I just find his approach very clever.
post #761 of 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post

You gotta admire Amirm. The engineer in him knows 99% of these audiophile cable claims are hogwash. Yet he never outright dismisses them and avoids deeper discussion on this subject. He carefully presents some documentation that supports the ludicrous claims yet he is simply the messenger in these cases and offers no personal endorsement.

That's the audiophile store owner side coming out! While he doesn't currently sell snake oil cables, he is very careful not to shut the door on the possibility.

Hey, I'm not being critical at all here. The all mighty dollar rules above anything - even science. If owned such a business I might do exactly the same thing. I just find his approach very clever.

 

I hear what you are saying, but it isn't very 'clever' when some poor schmo' believes it all and goes out and spends hundreds, or even thousands of dollars, on exotic amps, exotic DACs, snake-oil cables etc etc when he could have spent less on treatments and gained a real improvement in sound quality. Or, if he wanted to spend big bucks on something, he could have spent it on speakers as well as treatments - things that make a difference IOW.  To even suggest that a $500 (or more!) 'magic interconnect' can make an audible difference (let alone improvement) to someone's SQ is dishonest IMO, but fortunately perfectly legal. That's the real issue I have with all of this 'audiofool' nonsense - someone who doesn't understand the science wastes money that he has in all probability worked very hard for. There's a difference between 'smart' business practice and 'sharp' business practice. 

 

EDIT: if that came across as me being snippy with you, I do apologise - it was not meant to. I do understand where you're coming from in your post.


Edited by kbarnes701 - 1/20/13 at 12:17pm
post #762 of 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post

You gotta admire Amirm. The engineer in him knows 99% of these audiophile cable claims are hogwash. Yet he never outright dismisses them and avoids deeper discussion on this subject. He carefully presents some documentation that supports the ludicrous claims yet he is simply the messenger in these cases and offers no personal endorsement.
Deeper discussion? On cables? Surely you must be joking. Is there some insight you all have that Arny's of the world have not had in the multiple decades they have raging these wars? Are any of you smarter? What is it that you think you can say that has not been said a million times? Did someone just cleanse the Internet from all of that data but didn't tell me? biggrin.gif

Just because some people here find it useful to rehash these things in these monthly threads, it doesn't mean I have to. I find it boring, and the conduct in it from some members totally unprofessional.

Fortunately for me, they immediately jump into, "spend your money on speakers and acoustics." And then the fun starts when they can't back their views of that with science -- the very thing they say they want to discuss with cable folks. If the most important things are speakers and acoustics, why would you want to keep steering the discussion toward cables? If we get the acoustics right, *everyone* benefits --- whether you believe in cables or not. No one learns a thing about that field from discussing my preference for where and how I post.
Quote:
That's the audiophile store owner side coming out! While he doesn't currently sell snake oil cables, he is very careful not to shut the door on the possibility.
Father is having his friend over. He calls his son and gives him an expensive vase to carry to the other side of the room. Before the kid walks away, he whacks him hard on the back of the head. The kid starts to cry as he carries on the task. The friend, surprised, asks, "what did you do that for?" Father says, "just in case he breaks the vase." Friend says, "but hasn't yet." Father says, "it won't do any good if I punish him after he breaks it!" biggrin.gif

So please reserve your negative commentary for when someone actually does something.
Quote:
Hey, I'm not being critical at all here. The all mighty dollar rules above anything - even science. If owned such a business I might do exactly the same thing. I just find his approach very clever.
You think it is clever due to faulty data. I don't know why people think AVS Forum is where you go and get customers for high-end products. Most of the high-end guys left this forum a few years ago and the few that are left are not exactly booking trips to come to Seattle to buy a product from us which per above, we don't even carry! The rest of your assumptions are more faulty than this. Why not spend five minutes at my company web site and learn what we really do? It is not hard. It is in my signature. You can read the articles, read my background and why I started to the company. Then once you have the right data, come and argue the point again. For now, how about giving me the web site for the place you shop? I like to see if they carry premium cables and where you have raged a war with their founder.

I expect more from you Glimmie. Please don't go looting the stores because some others are doing it for the same cause. You too are in the industry and need to set an example for professionalism.
post #763 of 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I don't know why people think AVS Forum is where you go and get customers for high-end products. Most of the high-end guys left this forum a few years ago and the few that are left are not exactly booking trips to come to Seattle to buy a product from us which per above, we don't even carry!
Then why do you continue to shill for audio gears you sell that measure lower jitter than average in the market?
Quote:
Why not spend five minutes at my company web site and learn what we really do?
I'm not sure what relevant audio info there is to pick up from there when you won't talk about audibility issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm's company web site 
Invariably, by the time I get to this point of the argument with someone, the conversation turns into “yes but… is it audible?” As unfair as it might be, I am going to punt that question.
post #764 of 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I don't know why people think AVS Forum is where you go and get customers for high-end products.

Have you considered that you don't get any customers from AVS due to the way you act on here?
post #765 of 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

There is no argument to be made to support the sale of snake oil products and your constant effort to put room treatments in that camp is ludicrous.

Ethan's right, you don't need DBT to prove "effect", proving that is about as simple as it gets in this hobby.
Preference is debatable, but that's not the main point here and never was.
But that's not convenient for you is it?

I don't know of many people on these forums that buy room treatments that haven't done some amount of homework prior to purchasing like doing in-room measurements, or at least some level of modeling before hand.
Most seem to go in with eyes wide open.

Suggesting to someone that buying a $1000 cable instead of a $20 one will have the same acoustical impact as a bass trap is the crux of the argument and it is simply unsupportable.

You can put all the lipstick you want on that pig....

You mean people do due diligence on room treatments...as long as the topic of whether or not it is preferred by blind tests is removed from investigation? If so then I'd agree. It is not accepted to question under what circumstances it may do good or harm.

When all and sundry go straight to the default position 'absorb first reflection points' then that is not a main point? The question is 'is that in fact a 'proper' default position', which makes it a main point methinks.

It would be great if you could actually find (by directing us) to where someone, anyone, has said that buying a $1000 cable instead of a $20 one will have the same acoustical impact as a bass trap

I would join you in condemning a statement like that, it is transparently false.
post #766 of 873
Amir is repeating a construct of his own imagination, a strawman he has created and continues to use to derail discussions. I created a thread directly targeted at the issues of blind testing room acoustics and how to illuminate our own preferences such that we can evaluate them against others in the framework of available data such as that from Toole. It received much thoughtful discussion from many it most of the members Amir has accused of ignoring that topic. As far as I can see, this is yet another blatant lie from Amir.
post #767 of 873
"Imagine deserving a beating to ask whether an absorber, a diffuser or a blank wall sounds better. "

such a statement clearly outlines the lack of experience this user has with respect to acoustics - as well as a lack of respect for the topic.

'treatments' are modifications to a bounded acoustical space to achieve the desired response at a particular receiver position in 3space (technically, 4space) based on the particular userr's design requirements.



lol - go on, tell me what "sounds better". this guy is clueless beyond repair.
post #768 of 873
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1439769/any-suggestions-for-cables/690#post_22841409
Quote:
Analyses of measured impulse responses in rooms intended for speech show that early reflections can increase the effective signal-to-noise ratio by up to 9 dB

it's easy for someone not versed on the subject to misunderstand the context, as continually displayed here.

discussing UNAMPLIFIED speech room studies of which have such poor direct signal SNR that the perceived gain of the early reflections summing with the direct signal adds to intelligibility in the context of being heard. gain is NOT the only attribute of which to define speech intelligibility!!

if you or your salesroom is located adjacent to a train yard, may i suggest focusing on sound isolation prior to turning your attention to internal room acoustics.

fortunately for the majority of AVS folks, we have amplified setups of which the key and fundamental aspect to control is the volume knob.


can someone please expand on your experiences within ANY BBC CID, LEDE/RFZ, NE, FTB, or Ambechoic control room you have had the pleasure of being in of which had poor speech intelligibility? - as all have attenuated early-reflections that are destructive to speech intelligibility.

if early reflections are so beneficial to speech intelligibility, surely those that mix and produce speech content would employ high-gain, sparse, early arriving indirect specular reflections within their acoustical models.

amazing - so everyone from Beranek to Schroeder to D'Antonio to Puetz to Davis to Mapp to so many others, their entire careers are wrong??

FACTS.
Edited by localhost127 - 1/21/13 at 7:43am
post #769 of 873
lol - and the discrediting of ethan w. merely because he sells such product is laughable, as he is usually the first to recommend to a user how to DIY said products.

...
post #770 of 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post


It would be great if you could actually find (by directing us) to where someone, anyone, has said that buying a $1000 cable instead of a $20 one will have the same acoustical impact as a bass trap

I would join you in condemning a statement like that, it is transparently false.

Sure. ignore the point and focus on the analogy, that's atypical. rolleyes.gif

No one is saying that doing DBT's on room treatments couldn't distinguish preference, and really the only reason that would be able to happen is there's an audible "effect". When all tangible evidence points to something not having an audible effect,( i.e. the cable analogy) DBT's are a must to prove otherwise.

That has been the basis of this argument plain and simple.

However, in what is typical behavior the "magic cable" camp obfuscates and creates false arguments.
post #771 of 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

"Imagine deserving a beating to ask whether an absorber, a diffuser or a blank wall sounds better. "

such a statement clearly outlines the lack of experience this user has with respect to acoustics

Agreed, but this isn't a specialist's forum, it mostly gets posts from people who come here for more introductory information.
Quote:
- as well as a lack of respect for the topic.

I think we have to be patient with people while they pick up enough knowlege to understand whether this topic is the size of an apple, a breadbox, or a house. ;-)
Quote:
'treatments' are modifications to a bounded acoustical space to achieve the desired response at a particular receiver position in 3space (technically, 4space) based on the particular userr's design requirements.

lol - go on, tell me what "sounds better". this guy is clueless beyond repair.

I suspect that those of us who are patient with these people help transition some of them to a sufficient lack of cluelessness that they actually start respecting the science and the art.

We were once all newbies, right? We didn't get born this way, did we? ;-)
Edited by arnyk - 1/21/13 at 8:24am
post #772 of 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Agreed, but this isn't a specialist's forum, it mostly gets posts from people who come here for more introductory information.

this is an EXCUSE. merely a means to maintain mediocrity. a means for those with a "little" information (eg, those who know just enough to be dangerous) to fake an attempt to represent themselves as qualified experts to the novices who venture here asking the intra-ductory questions.


just how far shall we dumb things down? are you the authoritative entity that dictates where the bar is set?

maybe we should set the same low standards for discussing the other highly complex topic such as sound isolation. surely we need to cater to the lowest common denominator. rolleyes.gif


this is the audio theory/science sub-forum; could you please point me to the "specialists forum"?
Edited by localhost127 - 1/21/13 at 8:29am
post #773 of 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by localhost127 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Agreed, but this isn't a specialist's forum, it mostly gets posts from people who come here for more introductory information.

this is an EXCUSE. merely a means to maintain mediocrity. a means for those with a "little" information (eg, those who know just enough to be dangerous) to fake an attempt to represent themselves as qualified experts to the novices who venture here asking the intra-ductory questions.

Wow!

When did AVS stop accepting posts from clueless newbies?

That one went sailing right by me!
Quote:
just how far shall we dumb things down?

I think we get to pursue our own visions. My vision of AVS is that of a mixed environment, one in which newbies get respect and people who want to pursue deeper involvements somehow coexist.

Quote:
are you the authoritative entity that dictates where the bar is set?

I'm so clueless I was unaware of any bar! Furthermore, my observations of how this place works and the traffic that it receives has failed to discern any such bar.

Could anybody point the bar out to me?

I want to see it for myself! ;-)

Quote:
maybe we should set the same low standards for discussing the other highly complex topic such as sound isolation. surely we need to cater to the lowest common denominator. rolleyes.gif

I'm under the impression that we each individually get to choose which posts and threads that we reply to. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this!

Quote:
this is the audio theory/science sub-forum; could you please point me to the "specialists forum"?

My point exactly!
post #774 of 873
good luck in your attempt to maintain mediocrity.
post #775 of 873
Ultimately you have to play to your audience or you'll loose them. It's not "dumbing down", (that's condescending and assumes inability to learn) it 's giving information that matches the current level of knowledge. You don't give War & Peace to first grader....

This is a silly tangent frankly.
post #776 of 873
can someone direct me to the specialist's forum?
post #777 of 873
Suggestion:
Once congress is done with Lance and cycling is cleaned up by his testimony for less jail time ...
How about congress taking on the question: do cables matter? All in the name of protecting the public from bogus claims.
post #778 of 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

Sure. ignore the point and focus on the analogy, that's atypical. rolleyes.gif

It's very easy in these situations to fall into a game condition. You know, just score points but not for a second advance or have a meaningful discussion. My initial thought was just to carry on and have fun and score points (I was talking about me, not having a dig at you necessarily).."Oh so in fact no-one has ever said what you claimed' you know, fun like that. And it would have been true mind...just useless.

So for now at least, I will again try to actually advance the conversation with the hope that at least some might also engage (there are a few incapable of that admittedly)

I DO think the statement of yours I responded to is somehow very important in these discussions. Esp in the light of you now admitting it was an 'analogy'. In honesty it was more a deflection.

In honest discourse subjects remain seperate (if seperate). So questioning one area (treatments) has no bearing whatsoever with cables or promoting cables, which you have now admitted was an exageration. It is one of the funniest things going around if people think I (for example) am a proponent of expensive cables given my system.

It has been suggested by localhost for example (who I think is/was very active on GS, we have talked in the acoustics forum there??) that this should be a place where people can get all the knowledge on treating a room (paraphrased). Yeah I agree. Except what does not really happen is that they get exposed to ALL the 'data', some sets of data do not make it in the door. (bigus, I might have missed your thread you spoke of, could you link please??) That is ironic really when only a few pages ago we had an education of primary and secondary sources, and how (thru whatever mechanism) secondary sources can be corrupted.


Quote:
No one is saying that doing DBT's on room treatments couldn't distinguish preference, and really the only reason that would be able to happen is there's an audible "effect". When all tangible evidence points to something not having an audible effect,( i.e. the cable analogy) DBT's are a must to prove otherwise.

I think arny actually said a while back that dbt's are only useful for small differences and made no acknowledgment of their use for preference? If true then there is at least one counter example.

A thought experiment, and no-one ever responds to these which might be telling, let's say *you* are on holidays in california, right up the road from harmon. And that it is easily done that you can sit thru a round of dbt on room treatments. Let's then assume you, as do 'the others', mark down FR treatment and prefer no FR absorption.

What then is the mental processes that follow? Do you or are you able, in the light of your own personal experience to modify your previous stance? Would you then be able to came back here and say 'well, any blanket trite recommendation to 'treat your room' has to start to be loaded with a bunch of caveats and urge the person to be a bit more incisive than 'treat your room and FR points' (the latter is almost always the explicit recommendation)

Or, would *you* be like the ML owner who marked down his own speakers and then thru a hissy fit when he finds out, or the audessy owner who marked down audessy as 'worse' and accuse harmon of rigging the game?

Be like the cable believer who resorts to 'DBTs introduce stress' that skews the results.

MY point is that for all I know, you may be perfectly correct that toole's conclusions are totally wrong in every case(I'm not particularly making the argument they are above criticism) BUT I am waiting on something more solid than 'it can't be because it is not what I believe'.

Where I personally find excitement, interest and satisfaction IS precisely those areas I hit up against where my instinctive gut reaction is to discount. Boy, there are the fascinating problems to nut out, and there are the areas most ripe for a greater understanding in life. The anomaly, the intellectual (that also gives personal or mental insight) problem.

Back to LHost..HOW can this be a clearing house for data and knowledge about how and what to treat with room treatment if the high priests simply refuse to let in the door for discussion things they 'simply don't agree with'?
Quote:

However, in what is typical behavior the "magic cable" camp obfuscates and creates false arguments.

See, here it is again. You just got thru telling us it was an analogy, an exageration, not actually true that people are saying a 10 thou cable makes as much difference as room treatments. Who (in this debate over dbts findings of toole) is part of the 'magic cable' camp? I have spent thirty dollars on all my cabling. That is is an active five way with all the speaker and IC requirements it brings, well I am willing to wager that *you* have spent more on cables than I. Should I laugh at you and call *you* a magic cable believer?

Equally, I am willing to bet that my room is far more heavily treated than yours is.

So no, I am not some magic cable believer (so what, and I'd agree with you. It should make no difference at all if we are rationally discussing these findings) nor am I anti room treatment. I accept for many reasons any and all 'findings of dbt's' that you guys do that cables make 'no difference', nor amps for that matter.

However I don't automatically reject some dbt findings simply because I have done something else, or just because I have 'always' thought differently. No (and it can be hard!) I eventually learn a lot from the fertile boundaries where outside data and personal data collide.
post #779 of 873
Quote:
You just got thru telling us it was an analogy, an exageration, not actually true that people are saying a 10 thou cable makes as much difference as room treatments.

You really think so? You really are not aware of the bull... that's floating out there waiting to hit the unsuspecting:

Not only cables:
Quote:
I noticed right away that the soundstage was much deeper and wider and the whole music more lively, some more treble details as well. And, surprisingly, the bass was much more defined with much greater impact. Well done, happy camper I thought. But what I didn't realize though is that I had not turned my subwoofer back to "on" !!!!!!! The difference in the lower-mid and bass is such that I am now at a point where I do not need my subwoofer for most of the music I listen to exception made of bad -ass
That about an "audio rack...http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=26849
Quote:
Everything is better compared to the older USB I first tried when I got the DAC but discarded it and went with the Macbook mini toslink connection instead....Now with the new USB cable I decided to try, the music is more dynamic, bass is strong and no longer anemic, and the soundstage is wider.
http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=27045
Quote:
At this level of equipment it is simply mandatory to get high grade audio only cables. The differences are like different speakers, and I've just replaced the XLR or speaker cables at separate times and not at the same time.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?fcabl&1357081939&&&/WOW-they-are-important-but-in-what-order
Quote:
The HiDiamond transmits the feeling of being connected to a real performance in the way the other cables were not able to do. By this I mean that the instruments and voices are fleshed out and made real in a way that brings them right into your listening room and connects them to you on an emotional level through the feeling of being at the actual performance.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?fcabl&1329409676&openflup&34&4#34
Sounds like equivalent to room treatment to me...
Quote:
However, with the right components, the bass can be really surprisingly punchy and well-shaped.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?fcabl&1331829098&openflup&5&4#5

and so on yadda yadda yadda....
post #780 of 873
ahh, ok. see it. I meant and assumed it was clear in this thread. I am labelled as 'one of them' I'd assume, as of course would be amir. Can you show where either myself of amir (for example) makes the claim that a 10 thou cable (whatever, get the intent) makes as much difference as treatments?

No one HERE is making that claim. However it is being conveniently used to say 'hey, look over THERE' and so avoid the discussion.
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 › any suggestions for cables?