Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Re: For The Record....

> Believe it or not, a lot of us were skeptical to the umpteenth degree until we
> heard the differences.

Again, it not your experiences that are being questioned but your incorrect projection of them onto hardware guided by the marketing of the audiophile industry.

>> ...but you do not want to work to see how it lines up with your experience.
> 100% false. Do you think I'm on PropHead just to make waves? If you do, you're
> wasting your time replying to my posts.

I reply to your posts to satisfy my interests in the smae way that you reply to my posts and the posts of others to satisfy yours. I certainly think about why you post because that is part of what interests me. Assuming I understand what you mean by making waves then no I do not think you post to make waves.

> Silly. But scientific information cannot, as far as I can tell, show that
> people cannot tell sonic differences between cables, preamps, amps, etc.

Oh but it can and easily so long as you understand the basis of science and how it works. This is late school level knowledge plus a bit of looking things up and can be done by pretty much anyone with a bit of interest.

> It can show that by measurements they SHOULD NOT be able to but not that they
> cannnot.

Again, science does not use experiments it uses established knowledge to predict. This is how science works 99.99999% of the time. It is why it was created and is the reason for the explosion in technological progress that has occurred over the last few hundred years.

Experiments are used when the predictions made by established scientific knowledge are incomplete or incorrect. This is not part of using science but creating scientific knowledge and is performed by a small fraction of usually very highly educated scientists.

Now the valid experiments performed by audiophiles concerning cables have no interest to science because they are repeats of what was established a long time ago. Repeating is a requirement for a period after something has been first observed but the need to publish reduces with each successful repeat.

Scientifically invalid experiments are by definition of no interest.

> It's simple. Science tells us that Amp A and Amp B cannot sound different
> (assuming stability, speaker load, etc etc) because the measurements are the
> same.

Not because the measurements are the same. For example, I have measured how much light was reflected from the surface of each amplifier and they were the same.

> We plug them in and they sound different.

What a surprise.

You do not use measurements to reason, you use established scientific knowledge/laws. Measurements can be helpful as a check of performance and as a diagnostic aid but they provide very limited information.

> So from my perspective, I don't know how you deny your experiences if they
> differ from your science textbooks.

It would be both very exciting and very rewarding financially if I could show physical laws to be at failing. Unfortunately I cannot and the established laws really do seem to hold when applied to the likes of cables.

> What if science told you that Coke cannot possibly taste different than Pepsi?
> Would you suffer with Coke? Does knowing so much about science make life less
> enjoyable for you?

Your example does not make any sense without an indication of the scientific knowledge/law that would lead to the prediction of coke and pepsi tasting the same. Would it require breaking well established knowledge/laws that has proved successful in countless cases for centuries (like the ones you would be breaking with your magic cables) or is it very recent with few repeat checks and very strong commercial interest like much that is currently going on in the field of biological and drug research?

>> One side has scientific knowledge and listening experience and the other side
>> has listening experience.
> Ah, so you're saying you have experimented with different cables, preamps,
> amps, CD players, etc? And the outcome followed known scientific principles in
> each case? Please share some of your experiences.

Your statements do not follow but concerning my experience with cables they are the same as everyone else with experience and some common sense: when you hear differences there is a problem with the equipment. The few times this has happened I have so far determined the cause although not always fixed it.

Perhaps I should add that I try to avoid confusing my variations in the perception of sound which occurs all the time with variations in sound caused by changes in the equipment.

> But doesn't it bother you just a little that there may be something to
> listening experiences not conforming to what science knows about the electrical
> properties of cables?

The chances are effectively zero although not zero. If the large cable companies with their knowledge, resources and strong interest cannot come up with a single example what do you think are the chances for you, tubeguy or myself? Is it worth bothering about unless, of course, you have a reason to believe?

> Have you seen any of Jneutron's posts about IID, etc?

I cannot recall any but if he knows what he is talking about I would tend to skip over his postings because that is not where my interest lies in this forum. (I do have a strong technical interest but I do not look to audiophile chat forums to satisfy it.)

But as indicated in my reply above, I would not project problems with other parts of the equipment or environment onto the cables. This is why I and others add the weasel word "normal" or some equivalent when referring to the equipment used to check the audible differences between cables.

> Are you SURE that science has explained all there is to know about a signal
> passing through different cables?

At audio frequencies changes that are so strong they are audible, have not been reported in the past and violate the long established laws governing the electrical and magnetic fields in cables? Yes I am as sure as it is possible to be given that science is ultimately only based on observation but to date there have been an enormous number of observations with no violations.

> I'm perfectly willing to accept that anyone and everyone could hear the
> differences I hear under the same circumstances (room, system, etc). The last
> thing I would hope any subjectivist would want is for this to be our
> imagination at work. If it is, so be it but I don't accept that at this time.

So you would consider your perception of sound to be perfectly correlated with the sound impinging on your ear and that it remains unaffected by experience, expectation, visual cues, tiredness, chemicals, etc... Mine are certainly changed by all these things and more. Clearly I must have a very active imagination.

Consider the oft reported case of audiophiles comparing cables and reporting differences when they think they are listening to different cables but are in fact listening to the same one again. Are such audiophiles truthfully reporting perceived differences or is everyone of them telling lies to champion the cause? Would you report differences? Would I report differences?

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Kimber Kable  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]