Why cables can be expensive

[Richard Dunn]

I've looked at Subjectivist but I'm afraid it is the very embodiment of all that is wrong with audio IMO. I stress IMO - others will enjoy that approach but it simply doesn't appeal to me.

So listening to music is not part of your hobby, you just measure the music and equipment reproducing it do you? Because that is all objectivity is - as soon as you sit and listen to music and make qualitative judgements on what you are hearing then you are being a subjectivist.

 

[RobHolt]

The box in this case is a computer recording digital audio running high res mastering software - much like any recording studio would use so I'd say it will be performing a perfectly proper audio function.

That box produces a sound file - a regular recording and it reveals nothing but silence.
There is no music at all as it has cancelled entirely. The two recording are therefore identical. If you want to delve down into the incredibly low noise floor (lower than any amp) and hunt around for stuff of course you can do so but that isn't going to be audible to our poor old ears even if it does exist.

I think that such a test is more subtle and revealing of differences than the human ear.
Ears aren't particularly good. Response alters will SPL, tiny changes of position will alter what the ear receives, ear distortion is high and the noise floor is poor. It only works reasonably well because of the immense brain processing power behind it doing all the processing. Aural memory is also appalling with reliability failing within minutes if not sooner.

 

[RobHolt]

So listening to music is not part of your hobby, you just measure the music and equipment reproducing it do you? Because that is all objectivity is - as soon as you sit and listen to music and make qualitative judgements on what you are hearing then you are being a subjectivist.

No, I look for differences as objectively as possible. That means that if someone recommends what sounds like an unlikely tweak, or aspect of design I will want to test by removing as much bias as possible.

Where I know that differences exist, then of course we turn to preference and that is subjective by nature.

Where I fundamentally differ with The Subjectivist is in the wholesale rejection of blind testing and an over reliance on what I'd regard as dangerously lax audio assessment methods. There are other fundamental issues on which I'd have fundamental disagreements but those apply to most audiophile forums. For example, if a listener complained that his system sounded too bright or forward, most audio subjectivists would start recommending cable changes, or swapping metal supports for wood, or replacing one perfectly good SS amp for another. I'd tell them to but an amp withe some tone controls and adjust the balance, or go for digital EQ.
Quite fundamental differences so I'd last about 5 minutes over there ...
But people like what they like and all have their place.

I'm to bed but keep posting and we can continue tomorrow.

 

[Richard Dunn]

The box in this case is a computer recording digital audio running high res mastering software - much like any recording studio would use so I'd say it will be performing a perfectly proper audio function.

That box produces a sound file - a regular recording and it reveals nothing but silence.
There is no music at all as it has cancelled entirely. The two recording are therefore identical. If you want to delve down into the incredibly low noise floor (lower than any amp) and hunt around for stuff of course you can do so but that isn't going to be audible to our poor old ears even if dies exist.

I think that such a test is more subtle and revealing of differences than the human ear.
Ears aren't particularly good. Response alters will SPL, tiny changes of position will alter what the ear receives, ear distortion is high and the noise floor is poor. It only works reasonably well because of the immense brain processing power behind it doing all the processing.

But ears are what we use, and I am sure bats would sneer at us for having bad hearing. BUT that just misses the point, quality has two rules, *your* level and *your* ability to perceive differences. I was taught this in the 70's by a guy who I am sure is now dead as he was in his 60's then, who I used to see every year at the Spring Heathrow show when I was working for Acoustic Research. He came into the room every year and switched on his hearing aid and twiddled the knob and pronounced that this new speaker is not much good or that one is better, and do you know what - he got it right every time. His level of hearing excellence was at a very low level, but that was all he had, yet for him the qualitative differences between products were of equal importance to him as they were to me or others.

This man taught me a lot about the arrogance I see written across all these forums.

 

[Richard Dunn]

No, I look for differences as objectively as possible. That means that if someone recommends what sounds like an unlikely tweak, or aspect of design I will want to test by removing as much bias as possible.

Where I know that differences exist, then of course we turn to preference and that is subjective by nature.

Where I fundamentally differ with The Subjectivist is in the wholesale rejection of blind testing and an over reliance on what I'd regard as dangerously lax audio assessment methods. There are other fundamental issues on which I'd have fundamental disagreements but those apply to most audiophile forums. For example, if a listener complained that his system sounded too bright or forward, most audio subjectivists would start recommending cable changes, or swapping metal supports for wood, or replacing one perfectly good SS amp for another. I'd tell them to but an amp withe some tone controls and adjust the balance, or go for digital EQ.
Quite fundamental differences so I'd last about 5 minutes over there ...
But people like what they like and all have their place.

You seem to be infatuated with frequency rsponse, do you think that is all that music is?

You would not be removed, only people who continually practice ad hominem are removed as that is the *only* rule apart from spamming. And the removal list is minute compared with other forums, I think it is two or three people. Oh there is one other who was removed but that was just disgust at his business practices and private mail threats.

 

[Mescalito]

Do you actually have any hi-fi, do you actually listen to music, or do you just play with your test gear?

You are basically just ** ********* **** ***, as you prove in the above post and as you have also proved in the past, so there is no point in trying to communicate with you.

For mods - you choose not to remove personal insults aimed at members so you condone and create this situation, you create the environment that these so called discussions occur in so you get the forum you create!!

Yes Richard, I have hifi. More importantly, I have 1100 LPs & over 10, 000 CDs, collected over a period of 40 years, to play on it. Music is my passion, really.

Why is it that you react so badly to people who disagree with you, Richard? On forum after forum, you put forward opinions & views which you cannot substantiate. When challenged, you scream ad hominem.

But to get back to the subject, I don't want to get into a circular pissing contest, but until you can justify your claims regarding cable differences with anything other than subjective opinion, I will choose to not trust your motives.

Oh, and if you just want a forum (and I use the word here in it's broader sense) where like minded people go to be irrational, go to church. Blind faith and belief in the supernatural is not only acceptable there, but actually a pre-requisite.

Chris

Chris

 

[Mescalito]

Quite simply - gobble-de-gook breeds gobble-de-gook. Here is a classic example, on subject if tangental.

Null hypothesis
For the periodical, see Null Hypothesis: The Journal of Unlikely Science.
Main article: Statistical hypothesis testing

The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are falsifiable using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis, typically proposes a general or default position, such as that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or that a potential treatment has no effect. The term was originally coined by English geneticist and statistician Ronald Fisher. It is typically paired with a second hypothesis, the alternative hypothesis, which asserts a particular relationship between the phenomena. Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson formalized the notion of the alternative. The alternative need not be the logical negation of the null hypothesis and is the predicted hypothesis you would get from the experiment. The use of alternative hypotheses was not part of Fisher's formulation, but became standard.

Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true. If the data is very improbable (usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time), then the experimenter concludes that the null hypothesis is false. If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis, then no conclusion is made. In this case, the null hypothesis could be true or false; the data gives insufficient evidence to make any conclusion.

For instance, a certain drug may reduce the chance of having a heart attack. Possible null hypotheses are "this drug does not reduce the chances of having a heart attack" and "this drug has no effect on the chances of having a heart attack". The test of the hypothesis consists of administering the drug to half of the people in a study group as a controlled experiment. If the data show a statistically significant change in the people receiving the drug, the null hypothesis is rejected.

The choice of null hypothesis is critical. Consider the question of whether a tossed coin is fair (i.e. that on average it lands heads up 50% of the time). A potential null hypothesis is "this coin is not biased towards heads". The experiment is to repeatedly toss the coin. A possible result of 5 tosses is 5 heads. Under this null hypothesis, the data are considered unlikely (with a fair coin, the probability of this is 3%). The data refutes the null hypothesis: the coin is biased.

Alternatively, the null hypothesis, "this coin is fair" allows runs of tails as well as heads, increasing the probability of 5 of a kind to 6%, which is no longer statistically significant, preserving the null hypothesis.

This example illustrates one hazard of hypothesis testing: evaluating a large number of true null hypotheses against a single dataset is likely to spuriously reject some of them because of the inevitable noise in the data. However, formulating the null hypothesis before collecting data, rejects a true null hypothesis only a small percent of the time.

Testing for differences
In scientific and medical research, null hypotheses play a major role in testing the significance of differences in treatment and control groups. This use, while widespread, offers several grounds for criticism, including straw man, Bayesian criticism and publication bias.

The typical null hypothesis at the outset of the experiment is that no difference exists between the control and experimental groups (for the variable being compared). Other possibilities include:

that values in samples from a given population can be modeled using a certain family of statistical distributions.
that the variability of data in different groups is the same, although they may be centered around different values.

Example
Given the test scores of two random samples of men and women, does one group differ from the other? A possible null hypothesis is that the mean male score is the same as the mean female score:

H0:μ1 = μ2
where:

H0 = the null hypothesis
μ1 = the mean of population 1, and
μ2 = the mean of population 2.
A stronger null hypothesis is that the two samples are drawn from the same population, such that the variance and shape of the distributions are also equal.

Directionality
Quite often statements of null hypotheses appear not to have a "directionality", namely, that values are identical. However, null hypotheses can and do have "direction"—in many instances statistical theory allows the formulation of the test procedure to be simplified, thus the test is equivalent to testing for an exact identity. For instance, when formulating a one-tailed alternative hypothesis, application of Drug A will lead to increased growth in patients, then the true null hypothesis is the opposite of the alternative hypothesis i.e. application of Drug A will not lead to increased growth in patients. The effective null hypothesis will be application of Drug A will have no effect on growth in patients.

In order to understand why the effective null hypothesis is valid, it is instructive to consider the above hypotheses. The alternative predicts that exposed patients exposed experience increased growth compared to the control group. That is,

H1:μdrug > μcontrol
where:
μ = the patients' mean growth.
The effective null hypothesis is H0:μdrug = μcontrol .

The true null hypothesis is.
The reduction occurs because, in order to gauge support for the alternative, classical hypothesis testing requires calculating how often the results would be as or more extreme than the observations. This requires measuring the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis for each possibility it includes and second to ensure that these probabilities are all less than or equal to the test's quoted significance level. For reasonable test procedures the largest such probability occurs on the region boundary HT, specifically for the cases included in H0 only. Thus the test procedure can be defined (that is the critical values can be defined) for testing the null hypothesis HT exactly as if the null hypothesis of interest was the reduced version H0.

Fisher said, "the null hypothesis must be exact, that is free of vagueness and ambiguity, because it must supply the basis of the 'problem of distribution,' of which the test of significance is the solution", implying a more restrictive domain for H0. According to this view, the null hypothesis must be numerically exact—it must state that a particular quantity or difference is equal to a particular number. In classical science, it is most typically the statement that there is no effect of a particular treatment; in observations, it is typically that there is no difference between the value of a particular measured variable and that of a prediction. The majority of null hypotheses in practice do not meet this "exactness"criterion. For example, consider the usual test that two means are equal where the true values of the variances are unknown—exact values of the variances are not specified.

Most statisticians believe that it is valid to state direction as a part of null hypothesis, or as part of a null hypothesis/alternative hypothesis pair.[6] The logic is quite simple: if the direction is omitted, then if the null hypothesis is not rejected it is quite confusing to interpret the conclusion. For example, consider an H0 that claims the population mean = 10, with the one-tailed alternative mean > 10. If the sample evidence obtained through x-bar equals −200 and the corresponding t-test statistic equals −50, what is the conclusion? Not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis? Surely not! But we cannot accept the one-sided alternative in this case. Therefore, to overcome this ambiguity, it is better to include the direction of the effect if the test is one-sided. The statistical theory required to deal with the simple cases dealt with here, and more complicated ones, makes use of the concept of an unbiased test.

Sample size
Statistical hypothesis testing involves performing the same experiment on multiple subjects. The number of subjects is known as the sample size. The procedure depends on the size. Even if a null hypothesis does not hold for the population, an insufficient sample size may prevent its rejection. Minimum sample size depends on the statistical power of the test, the effect size that the test must reveal and the desired significance level. The significance level is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis holds in the population. The statistical power is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it does not hold in the population (i.e., for a particular effect size).

Richard,

That is only gobbledygook to someone unfamiliar with statistical methods.

It really is not rocket science. "A" level mathematics, back when I took them.

But Robs cancelling experiment has nothing whatsoever to do with the null hypothesis. His choice of name for the experiment is unfortunate, really. He is not dealing with a population or a statistical universe.

It is, though, you must admit, pretty compelling evidence that cable swapping, in this instance at least, introduces absolutely no change in the output signal.

Chris


Chris

 

[Richard Dunn]

Yes Richard, I have hifi. More importantly, I have 1100 LPs & over 10, 000 CDs, collected over a period of 40 years, to play on it. Music is my passion, really.

Why is it that you react so badly to people who disagree with you, Richard? On forum after forum, you put forward opinions & views which you cannot substantiate. When challenged, you scream ad hominem.

But to get back to the subject, I don't want to get into a circular pissing contest, but until you can justify your claims regarding cable differences with anything other than subjective opinion, I will choose to not trust your motives.

Chris

So how do you judge the reproduction of that music. Do you sit and tell yourself numbers in your head and try to quantify its quality objectively, or do you sit normally and enjoy your music subjectively like a normal human being. So when you come to that opinion about your music do you then reject it because it is subjective and you have no proof apart from your own ears?

Your second paragraph is pure off topic ad hominem and should be removed, it just makes me wonder why you are so fascinated in me that you are so obsessed by it - do you fancy me or something?

Off course I can justify them, everything I say can be heard, the only controversy in this matter is whether *you* can hear it.

 

[Richard Dunn]

Oh, and if you just want a forum (and I use the word here in it's broader sense) where like minded people go to be irrational, go to church. Blind faith and belief in the supernatural is not only acceptable there, but actually a pre-requisite.

Chris

Don't be silly that is complete nonsense. A reality is what my senses observe, that is why I have them. My eyes and ears , smell and touch tell me things about my environment, that is the *very* reason we have music as it stimulates some of our sensual awareness to create pleasure. Religion or God has never done that, if it had I might accept it as a reality, where as music *is* a reality and my senses and brain make qualitative responses and I write about them. So it has absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural or blind faith or belief it is as natural as drinking water.

 

[Mescalito]

So how do you judge the reproduction of that music. Do you sit and tell yourself numbers in your head and try to quantify its quality objectively, or do you sit normally and enjoy your music subjectively like a normal human being. So when you come to that opinion about your music do you then reject it because it is subjective and you have no proof apart from your own ears?

Your second paragraph is pure off topic ad hominem and should be removed, it just makes me wonder why you are so fascinated in me that you are so obsessed by it - do you fancy me or something?

Off course I can justify them, everything I say can be heard, the only controversy in this matter is whether *you* can hear it.

Richard,

The 2nd paragraph is not more ad hominem. It is an observation. An observation I can back up easily by referring to many of your posts on many fora. At some stage, you've been banned from most of the major hi-fi fora for absolutely rabid ad hominem rants at people who don,t buy your touchy-feely audiophoolery.

I am not fascinated by you, Richard, but when you start promoting what, in my opinion, is a wrong-headed and possibly self serving view of the world of hi-fi, I will always challenge that view. I will ask you for evidence to back your assertions. To date, on this and several other fora, you have been totally unable to come up with any.

And using the fact that you assert you can hear these imaginary differences does not cut it, Richard.

I assert that I can smell the orange blossom in California from mainland Scotland. Do you believe me? Of course you don't. You assert you can hear differences in cables with similar electrical properties. Do I believe you? Of course I don't

Chris

 

[Richard Dunn]

Richard,

The 2nd paragraph is not more ad hominem. It is an observation. An observation I can back up easily by referring to many of your posts on many fora. At some stage, you've been banned from most of the major hi-fi fora for absolutely rabid ad hominem rants at people who don,t buy your touchy-feely audiophoolery.

I am not fascinated by you, Richard, but when you start promoting what, in my opinion, is a wrong-headed and possibly self serving view of the world of hi-fi, I will always challenge that view. I will ask you for evidence to back your assertions. To date, on this and several other fora, you have been totally unable to come up with any.

And using the fact that you assert you can hear these imaginary differences does not cut it, Richard.

I assert that I can smell the orange blossom in California from mainland Scotland. Do you believe me? Of course you don't. You assert you can hear differences in cables with similar electrical properties. Do I believe you? Of course I don't

Chris

More of the same! apart from the last paragraph it is all pure off topic ad hominem and also not factually correct. You cannot challenge my logic so you resort to insult and personal comment. Tell me where I am banned.

Regarding the last paragraph - do you really believe that you can equate the two things, if so you are clutching at straws.

All you can say with any certainty is that you can't hear it, but the arrogance involved here makes it that your perceived reality has to be everyone elses as no one could possibly be able to do something you cant.

 

[Mescalito]

So how do you judge the reproduction of that music. Do you sit and tell yourself numbers in your head and try to quantify its quality objectively, or do you sit normally and enjoy your music subjectively like a normal human being. So when you come to that opinion about your music do you then reject it because it is subjective and you have no proof apart from your own ears?

QUOTE]

Nah, Richard, I just get down and groove. And do you know what, if the music is good enough, I groove almost as much when listening to it on my laptop speakers as I do on my full rig. And yes, my response to music is entirely subjective. But there should be no emotion or art in the process of designing and building hi-fi. Skill, yes, but emotion? art?

A bit of hi fi is the sum of it's component parts and their skilful arrangement. No more, no less. The behaviour of these components is entirely understood in terms of the physical laws they obey.

Chris

 

[Mescalito]

More of the same! apart from the last paragraph it is all pure off topic ad hominem and also not factually correct. You cannot challenge my logic so you resort to insult and personal comment. Tell me where I am banned.

Regarding the last paragraph - do you really believe that you can equate the two things, if so you are clutching at straws.

Richard,

The last paragraph is NOT ad hominem. It is merely an illustration of the untenability of your argument.

As for challenging your logic....give me a break. Your assertions are the very essence of illogic. All available evidence points to the fact that electrically similar cables cannot be differentiated. Your argument is that because YOU say you can hear a difference, there is a difference. Yet when asked for verifiable evidence of this, either physical or statistical, you cannot. We are asked to take you assertions on blind faith.

Some of us have actually taken part in blind cable tests. I can tell you that my personal experience is that the very real differences I thought I perceived when I knew which interconnect was in use just vanished when I did not. And this story has been the same every time this kind of test is carried out.

As far as I am aware, you are not banned from anywhere at the moment. But to my certain knowledge you were the subject of a fairly recent PFM ban for totally losing the plot.

And I believe (correct me if I am wrong), that you only showed up at PFM after the 'wam banned you.

And yes, the 2 illustrations in my last paragraph are completely analogous. Both assert ridiculous unproven abilities. Both can checked independantly using standard, well known methods. Both would be found to be false.


Chris

 

[Mescalito]

More of the same! apart from the last paragraph it is all pure off topic ad hominem and also not factually correct. You cannot challenge my logic so you resort to insult and personal comment. Tell me where I am banned.

Regarding the last paragraph - do you really believe that you can equate the two things, if so you are clutching at straws.

All you can say with any certainty is that you can't hear it, but the arrogance involved here makes it that your perceived reality has to be everyone elses as no one could possibly be able to do something you cant.

Richard,

If these differences you claim to hear are real and not constucts of your mind, they must have a cause. Since we are dealing with entirely understood physical phenomena, it should be possible to (i) Model the phenomena & hence make precise predictions about it's behaviour, and (ii) measure the phenomena. We can do neither.

This means we have an effect without a cause. And that, Ricahrd, is witchcraft.

And Richard, with regard to your last paragraph, do you have any idea at all how ridiculous that is. The whole thrust of my position is to take perception out of the argument. I personally could not give a monkeys if your perception requires trick cables for you to enjoy your music. What I object to is you stating, as a so called "expert", that cables make an objective difference. If I want to change my perceptin of a piece of kit, a couple of large single malts will do just as valid a job as your wanky wires.

Chris

Chris

 

[Richard Dunn]

Richard,

If these differences you claim to hear are real and not constucts of your mind, they must have a cause. Since we are dealing with entirely understood physical phenomena, it should be possible to (i) Model the phenomena & hence make precise predictions about it's behaviour, and (ii) measure the phenomena. We can do neither.

This means we have an effect without a cause. And that, Ricahrd, is witchcraft.

And Richard, with regard to your last paragraph, do you have any idea at all how ridiculous that is. The whole thrust of my position is to take perception out of the argument. I personally could not give a monkeys if your perception requires trick cables for you to enjoy your music. What I object to is you stating, as a so called "expert", that cables make an objective difference. If I want to change my perceptin of a piece of kit, a couple of large single malts will do just as valid a job as your wanky wires.

Chris

Chris

Your infatuation and obsession is just too weird, you are going around in meaningless circles. You don't even understand what ad hominem is - look it up, it is a very easy definition. You seem to listen to music normally yet you cannot equate to what you are doing logically.

So you think music is witchcraft and yet you enjoy it - go figure, sorry for me it is normality. I think you are just stuck in an ego groove you cannot back out of - and that is ad hominem if you dont recognise it.

 

[Mescalito]

Your infatuation and obsession is just too weird, you are going around in meaningless circles. You don't even understand what ad hominem is - look it up, it is a very easy definition. You seem to listen to music normally yet you cannot equate to what you are doing logically.

So you think music is witchcraft and yet you enjoy it - go figure, sorry for me it is normality. I think you are just stuck in an ego groove you cannot back out of - and that is ad hominem if you dont recognise it.

No Richard, I don't think music is witchcraft. Music is an artform and an experience wfich exists entirely independently of it's means of delivery.

I do, however, think effect without cause is witchcraft.

And a difference perceived when a cable with similar electrical properties is substituted for another is an effect without a cause.

And Richard, I know exactly what argumentum ad hominem is. As do you, But your personal ad hominem filter appears to be sensitive in one direction only.



Chris

 

[Richard Dunn]

This whole argument boils down to some very simple things. Firstly you cannot prove a negative, you can only prove that you have not heard or observed it, not that it cannot exist. That is what is known as an open mind. Secondly if you try to do it then the only way is to start to refer to the person who has observed it and challenging them personally (ad hominem) as (once again) you cannot prove a negative.

This has been observed in the scientific world for centuries. Darwin observed and made a subjective assessment of what he observed. It was latter found to able to be proved to a large extent. Same with current particle physics discoveries, if you had pronounced on what would be observed in the future over 50 years ago it would have been scoffed at, and if your logic had been applied no one would have pursued the process, because applying your logic, if you cannot prove it or measure it then it doesn't exist. This is just taking things on a scientific level, but hi-fi is not scientific apart from in a gross sense, why because we are reproducing an art form, and the assessment of the pleasure that art form gives can only be personal and subjective.

The science involved with hi-fi is at a gross level and only applies to designers, manufacturers, testers and repairers of that equipment. It is about as much use to the end user as dildo at a Jehova Witness meeting. The end user is only interested in the result, the art form. So yes some of us need to be technical, some of us need to own test gear, some of us need to know why we string components together in a specific sequence. But that is where it ends, if you wish to improve the pleasure of the reproduction of that art form, then you have to go into the subjective, if you rely on component spec to relate to music as opposed to production, reliability and function then you are up a gum tree - and all amps and cables etc sound the same! Components either in quantity or quality change the *music* so your only way of pursuing that music is by changing and listening i.e. subjective.

That is how all hi-fi design is done, unless you are just plain daft like Walker was, which is why his tube amps sounded completely different to his SS amps and he hadn't a clue why. Though many who subjectively design also deny it as some form of ego based white coat-ism. But the daftest of the lot are the end users, the hi-fi enthusiast who buy test gear and learn how to use it so they an spout numbers on forums like this, what is the point apart from ego and providing the ability to talk down to normal mortals. And in here we have a case to point - and a completely fatuous, pointless and conflict creating discussion because some idiots wish to think they are technical or some sort of pretend designers. They are just wanna-be's and should be treated as such.

 

[RobHolt]

You seem to be infatuated with frequency rsponse, do you think that is all that music is?

You would not be removed, only people who continually practice ad hominem are removed as that is the *only* rule apart from spamming. And the removal list is minute compared with other forums, I think it is two or three people. Oh there is one other who was removed but that was just disgust at his business practices and private mail threats.

Not an infactuation by any means but but it does have serious influence over my enjoyment of music on a system, and i think that goes for others too given the amount of questions we get on the topic of system tonal balance.

When I said I wouldn't last 5 minutes on Subjectivist I wasn't implying that you'd ban me, simply that I'd feel so entirely out of place that I'd get nothing positive from the experience and give up.

You might have noticed that I stay away from all main audio forum rooms other than ZG and have done for the past six months. I find myself completely at odds with much that gets posted, and to be honest I now get bored going over the same old ground.

However if you think I could help any of your chaps over there on specifics like servicing ESLs, TT set up and other purely technical things I'm happy to chip in to answer a specific question as i've been around the block many times.

 

[Richard Dunn]

Not an infactuation by any means but but it does have serious influence over my enjoyment of music on a system, and i think that goes for others too given the amount of questions we get on the topic of system tonal balance.

When I said I wouldn't last 5 minutes on Subjectivist I wasn't implying that you'd ban me, simply that I'd feel so entirely out of place that I'd get nothing positive from the experience and give up.

You might have noticed that I stay away from all main audio forum rooms other than ZG and have done for the past six months. I find myself completely at odds with much that gets posted, and to be honest I now get bored going over the same old ground.

However if you think I could help any of your chaps over there on specifics like servicing ESLs, TT set up and other purely technical things I'm happy to chip in to answer a specific question as i've been around the block many times.

All real experience that is not just based on bullshit would be very welcome.

 

[Alan Brown]

I will stick my head above the parapet here & exchange with the big boys, with no technical knowledge at all...

Sticking purely with digital I/Cs I have always believed there is no difference between 'competently designed' cables (there - that specious descriptive expression). Stanley Beresford stated recently that different qualities affect bandwidth, but in general his comments always seemed to back up this general view which I shared. I used Stanley's excellent digital I/Cs happily for a couple of years. Ones and zeros, right?

I recently tried a left-field digital I/C which I got really cheap on ebay, made by a manufacturer I was also familiar with, out of nothing more than boredom. It was not top of the range, but it was cheaper than chips. I was astonished at the difference of character this cable produced - I can't say for sure an overall improvement, but a different tonal balance and a far improved mid range.

I still on balance prefer Stanley's cable though, it revealed less musical detail through the midrange but it's overall balance was more correct.

I then tried the better cable from the range, which revealed the strengths I heard in the midrange previously but in everything. I could swap back through the two previous cables and clearly discern the differences. I now have a new digital I/C, which, through various trades etc has cost me nought.

So digital I/Cs can sound different. I have three here that do. I do not understand why that is a problem for anyone else, or why I must be psycho-analysed as to where I have unwittingly been duped - they do differ. I do not know why, and neither do you lot. If your testy gear doesn't detect it, then RD is probably right. It's the same music, the same ones & zeros (perhaps more of them now) - different presentation.