or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › why am i not impressed more?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

why am i not impressed more? - Page 3  

post #61 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by luismanrara View Post

The differences he has noticed are more than enough to justify his purchase.

Welcome to the hobby.

The emperor's new clothes look MARVELOUS. Their expense was more than justified.
post #62 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Maybe you should trust your ears before you trust any reviewers.

No one should trust their ears unreservedly, when the listening is done 'sighted'.
post #63 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poundhound View Post

no guys, i only used the universal player as a transport. the apollo i hooked it up using an older, inexpensive, and i do believe non-shielded rca interconnect.

So, what you really compared was your receiver's DAC, to the Rega's DAC.

Unless of course you also expect transports to sound different.
post #64 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by atdamico View Post

My,my. What a kinder, more gentle place this has become since the mod shut down a few threads

I remember the days when a post that one wire sounded different than another evoked a veritable sh**storm.

But, Drecar, can you offer any explanation as to why wire from Canare would sound different than wire from Kimber?

I have felt much better now that I'm taking my homeopathic tourettes medication.
post #65 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by atdamico View Post

Perhaps someday, someone will come along that can actually answer the question as to why, exactly, such differences exist beyond anecdotal evidence.

'Someone' might one to determine WHETHER they exist as audible phenomena first. So far , the evidence says they don't, assuming non-exotic design. In fact the conditions under which cables will tend to sound different, aren't a mystery.
post #66 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

I have felt much better now that I'm taking my homeopathic tourettes medication.

So what medication **&&&%$%^^^ are you **&$%###^&& taking exactly **&#%$@%^. I believe I could use a *&%$%^& dose as well
post #67 of 147
Hehehe....
post #68 of 147
Well the two of us could go to Costa Rica and get some senoritas to unstress us
post #69 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by atdamico View Post

If you have spent any time on this site at all you will know that in the past a post like this would have started a huge argument.

I have changed out cables dozens of times over the course of the last 20-30 years. I have tried everything from aftermarket power cords, to bi-wiring, to monster, to Goertz, to you name it. I have used cheap cables, expensive cables on everything from my guitar amps, to guitar cords, to speaker cable and inter-connects in both my HT system and two channel music systems. I have spent a considerable time in recording studios, and actually was a roadie/engineer for several bands many many years ago. But I have to say I have never heard any difference in cable regardless of what I used or heard. This would seem to jibe with the many, in depth, posts that the "scientists" have posted. This has led me to believe, perhaps incorrectly that, given quality construction, there is no difference in SQ between cables. Consequently, I am always open minded when somebody comes along and posts that they heard differences. My goal is not to challange, when the statement is made, but to question as to what the differences are and why. Your answer is generally what has been posted. No reason, no explanation, just a simple: "I hear one"

Perhaps someday, someone will come along that can actually answer the question as to why, exactly, such differences exist beyond anecdotal evidence.


For me the differences are really not that important once a certain level of build/constuction quality is achieved. Why people claim to hear a diffrence when one should not exist, I don't worry about that too much either. My main reason for this, is I don't have any idea what the original sound sounded like and how that compares to what an audio system is producing. Second is how the music that I listen to is not true to how the music was played. I mean how does a vocalist harmonize with herself? When I read professional reviews about home audio gear the only useful information for me is whether or not the item being reviewed is a quality one.

I am sorry to disappoint you with my description of my experience. One question for you though, is Canare Cable widely used in Pro Audio?
post #70 of 147
Canare, Belden, Mogami, and I'm sure there are others.
post #71 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by drecar View Post

...One question for you though, is Canare Cable widely used in Pro Audio?

Well, when I was playing and setting up the dates were from 1967 to about 1972 so, no. I don't believe that they existed back then and I couldn't tell you what we used. Frankly, this was the 60's and early 70's so what with the amount of herbs, and other things, my memory really isn't at all too clear. I call them the "lost years" I know I had one hell of a time but for the life of me can't remember the details. I did backstage work at, what was called the Civic Arena, and is now called the igloo, in Pittsburgh. I ran cable and setup mixing boards, etc. for the Doors, CTA, Steppenwolf, and too many bands to name. We did a lot of mixing in studios for many local "burg" bands, but the brands, quality, etc of the cable wasn't high on our list. Although we were

Over the last 20 years or so, I have personally experimented with most everything out there and consequently I am in the camp of (provided quality construction) a cable is a cable. I have wasted thousands of dollars on exotic aftermarket power cords for my Fender, Vox, and Peavy amps. No SQ difference. I even went the DIY route. Seriously, I can plug my Gibson 56 Paul into any of my amps with whatever cord my hand hits in my cord box and it all sounds the same.

I am no expert and don't claim to be. Hell, I wanted to hear a difference. The horrible sound couldn't be coming from me it must be inferior cables. Nope, its me all right

I am always amazed at the improvments that people claim with cables. They can be smooth, clear, open, tight, airy, transparant, and any other adjective you care to use. I just wish they would post some data on how they were able to get the SQ to be more, smooth, clear, open, tight, airy, transparant, etc. Then I could mimic them. But despite many wars, arguments, locked threads, venom, nobody has ever been able to demonstrate why any difference could, should, or does exist. Though they all swear to it.
post #72 of 147
Quote:


When I read professional reviews about home audio gear the only useful information for me is whether or not the item being reviewed is a quality one.

I wouldn't automatically assume that any given "professional" reviewer would know a quality component if it jumped up and bit him on the arse.
post #73 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

I wouldn't automatically assume that any given "professional" reviewer would know a quality component if it jumped up and bit him on the arse.

Yes, indeed. One has to consider the source. For example, who is the professional reviewer? What magazine does he do his reviews for? How much experience does he have? What do his other reviews reveal about his judgments, or biases/prejudices?

For that matter, the same thing applies to comments from folks on this or any other internet forum. Sometimes you get comments from folks you seem to have a lot of experience with high fidelity, or have been in the audio business, or even in the recording business for a long time. Sometimes you can review a person's public profile and learn about their experience or what equipment they have. On the other hand, sometimes there's no information about the the person posting comments, other than the fact that they have an user name and strong opinions.

I would tend to trust someone who has been hired by a quality magazine in the field who has done a number of reviews over someone on an internet forum who just has a user name, especially given that on an internet forum there are far fewer restrictions or safeguards then there are in the publishing field regarding spewing absolute BS. But in either case, one should carefully consider what evidence there is to establish the source knows what they are talking about.
post #74 of 147
Quote:


I would tend to trust someone who has been hired by a quality magazine in the field who has done a number of reviews over someone on an internet forum who just has a user name

Well, anyone who trusts an anonymous poster on an Internet forum is an idiot. The whole point of an Internet forum is to present multiple perspectives, many of which are probably a total crock. The value of such a forum is that you will encounter a broader range of perspectives than you will find in any audio magazine. But it's up to each reader to decide for himself whether any given poster is saying something that makes sense.

OTOH, there is danger in assuming that the perspective of "someone who has been hired by a quality magazine" is any less of a total crock. He deserves just as much skepticism as the anonymous Internet poster--and arguably moreso, because magazines tend to have a uniformity of outlook which prevents stupid ideas from being challenged, as they are here.
post #75 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

He deserves just as much skepticism as the anonymous Internet poster--and arguably moreso . . . .

Wow. We'll just have to disagree on this one.
post #76 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty View Post

On an internet forum there are far fewer restrictions or safeguards then there are in the publishing field regarding spewing absolute BS.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

You haven't been reading "The Absolute Sound' or 'Stereophile' all these years, have you?
post #77 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by drecar View Post

One question for you though, is Canare Cable widely used in Pro Audio?



Yes. Because we buy it in bulk, its cheap. It has a nice tough jacket on it. And they dont make crazy claims. We also use Belden, Mogami, Whirlwind,and Rapco all for the same reasons.
post #78 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post


You haven't been reading "The Absolute Sound' or 'Stereophile' all these years, have you?

Yes, I have been reading Stereophile for a few years. And you guys sound like the audio-populist version of John Edwards.
post #79 of 147
Ooooooohhhhhhhhh...he said John Edwards.
post #80 of 147
Quote:


on an internet forum there are far fewer restrictions or safeguards then there are in the publishing field regarding spewing absolute BS.

Gee, how did I miss this tidbit? In much of the publishing field there are no "restrictions or safeguards...regarding spewing absolute BS" at all. The power of the press belongs to the man who owns one.

And lest anyone think we're getting far afield from the original post--"Why am I not impressed more?"--the OP should at least consider the possibility that reading too many "quality magazines" had given him an exaggerated expectation of what a CD upgrade could deliver.
post #81 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Gee, how did I miss this tidbit? In much of the publishing field there are no "restrictions or safeguards...regarding spewing absolute BS" at all. The power of the press belongs to the man who owns one.

Really? You really believe that? This is good stuff. What is the basis for this statement? And just to be clear, we are talking about U.S. publications, I assume.
post #82 of 147
The lack of peer review comes to mind. But then you'd have those nasty scientist types saying things like....ummm, most of what you said is woo-woo.
post #83 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

The lack of peer review comes to mind. But then you'd have those nasty scientist types saying things like....ummm, most of what you said is woo-woo.

The lack of peer review (whatever that may mean in the magazine context) is hardly a basis for saying that in much of the publishing field there are NO restrictions on publishing absolute BS. Come on, Chu. I'm not saying that there isn't some erroneous information being purveyed in audio magazines or other magazines in other fields for that matter. But to say there are no restrictions or limitations whatsoever, including none that are implicitly imposed by U.S. law, internal editorial standards, the marketplace, etc.?

We started talking about where you likely to get more baloney, from a long-standing publication, or from an anonymous poster on an internet forum, and I think the present discussion -- i.e., the advancing of the notion that there are absolutely no restrictions on what these magazines are publishing -- just supports my earlier point.
post #84 of 147
Quote:


Really? You really believe that? This is good stuff. What is the basis for this statement? And just to be clear, we are talking about U.S. publications, I assume.

Well, you're the one who made the positive claim here, so let's put the burden of proof where it belongs: What "restrictions or safeguards" prevent Harry Pearson and Robert Harley from "spewing absolute BS"?

The only meaningful constraints they face are market forces: They have to write things that some number of people want to read, and they have to find advertisers interested in reaching those people. But they don't have to find a lot of people willing to read it, just enough to sustain the magazine. And in a nation where a majority of adults do not believe of evolution, it's possible to find several tens of thousands of people willing to believe any pseudoscientific rot you want to throw at them.

The advertisers are checks against your saying anything bad about their products, but they aren't checks against your "spewing absolute BS" that puts their products in a positive light, which is the general case. Similarly, libel law is a constraint only on that minute slice of "absolute BS" that actully defames someone. Given that the publishers' economic interests align almost perfectly with those of their advertisers, this is no constraint at all.

So I'll repeat the question: What "restrictions or safeguards" prevent Harry Pearson and Robert Harley from "spewing absolute BS"?
post #85 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty View Post

Yes, I have been reading Stereophile for a few years. And you guys sound like the audio-populist version of John Edwards.

Stereophile can sling the audiophile BS with the best of them, but they at least dilute it with some objective measures and science; The Absolute Sound.
remains the absolute BS champ, among the 'majors' at least.
post #86 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty View Post

We started talking about where you likely to get more baloney, from a long-standing publication, or from an anonymous poster on an internet forum, and I think the present discussion -- i.e., the advancing of the notion that there are absolutely no restrictions on what these magazines are publishing -- just supports my earlier point.


Hydrogenaudio.org, a web forum devoted to audio, has Terms of Service that are rather more stringent about audio truth-claims, than any audio magazine.
post #87 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by atdamico View Post

Well, when I was playing and setting up the dates were from 1967 to about 1972 so, no. I don't believe that they existed back then and I couldn't tell you what we used. Frankly, this was the 60's and early 70's so what with the amount of herbs, and other things, my memory really isn't at all too clear. I call them the "lost years" I know I had one hell of a time but for the life of me can't remember the details. I did backstage work at, what was called the Civic Arena, and is now called the igloo, in Pittsburgh. I ran cable and setup mixing boards, etc. for the Doors, CTA, Steppenwolf, and too many bands to name. We did a lot of mixing in studios for many local "burg" bands, but the brands, quality, etc of the cable wasn't high on our list. Although we were

Over the last 20 years or so, I have personally experimented with most everything out there and consequently I am in the camp of (provided quality construction) a cable is a cable. I have wasted thousands of dollars on exotic aftermarket power cords for my Fender, Vox, and Peavy amps. No SQ difference. I even went the DIY route. Seriously, I can plug my Gibson 56 Paul into any of my amps with whatever cord my hand hits in my cord box and it all sounds the same.

I am no expert and don't claim to be. Hell, I wanted to hear a difference. The horrible sound couldn't be coming from me it must be inferior cables. Nope, its me all right

I am always amazed at the improvments that people claim with cables. They can be smooth, clear, open, tight, airy, transparant, and any other adjective you care to use. I just wish they would post some data on how they were able to get the SQ to be more, smooth, clear, open, tight, airy, transparant, etc. Then I could mimic them. But despite many wars, arguments, locked threads, venom, nobody has ever been able to demonstrate why any difference could, should, or does exist. Though they all swear to it.

I never believed for a nano second that a power cord could change how a component could sound. It did not make any sense how a 36'' cord inline with an unknown amount of miles of electric cable was gonna do anything but transmit the current where it needed to go.

I also find the diction of the audiophile amusing. Maybe there should be a dictionary/glossary of terms because I dont know what any of it means.

Maybe people hearing differences has somthing to do with the mechanics of hearing that may not be fully understood, just guessing though. I know some people can hear the high pitch of a CRT being turned on and some cant.

Canare claims star quad design reject interference. Better yet its not $200/ft.

Sounds like you had alot of fun in the old daze.
post #88 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by drecar View Post

Maybe people hearing differences has something to do with the mechanics of hearing that may not be fully understood, just guessing though. I know some people can hear the high pitch of a CRT being turned on and some cant.


CRT hum is ~15-16 kHz -- well within normal hearing range. No new science required.
post #89 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

And in a nation where a majority of adults do not believe of evolution, it's possible to find several tens of thousands of people willing to believe any pseudoscientific rot you want to throw at them.

The more I respond to you, the more you go down another fork in the road and favor us with other viewpoints and opinions that will help others evaluate the reasonableness of the opinions and judgments you keep offering on the specific issues relevant to this site. With your latest comment, I think I've accomplished enough of this for today.
post #90 of 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Hydrogenaudio.org, a web forum devoted to audio, has Terms of Service that are rather more stringent about audio truth-claims, than any audio magazine.

Yes, and from what I understand about that site, it appears like a number of contributors to this forum belong on that forum instead of this one -- and we would all be better off.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › why am i not impressed more?