Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[Piggyback41]

Nothing of the sort.

ASR is just a forum where, if someone says they saw Bigfoot, we demand good photographic evidence and won't take no for an answer.

On some forums they will not ask for photos, they'll take your word for it. They ask you what kind of conversation you had with Bigfoot, what he smelled like, whether he likes Taylor Swift or not. The guy demanding photos gets banned. ASR is the antidote to that kind of forum, but for some people the cure is worse than the disease.

Subjectivity is shot down in ASR even though none of our brains and ears are connected to any measuring device... So yeah, some faith is required.

Science should seek subjectivity, not sit there smug and idle, waiting for subjectivists who aren't armed with scientific gear to prove things.

(I see robots... oooo no, what's wrong with our biology!)

 

[krabapple]

But it's true though isn't it. If you lot don't like colouration, remove your wrinkly ears and install the contraption in Sgt. Ear Ache's avatar.

Straw men famously lack brains, but yours here is particularly dopey.

Sgt. Earache doubtless is well aware that speakers introduce coloration.

Some here have the goal of minimizing unwanted coloration in their system.

Which is a far more productive endeavor than 'auditioning' cables, because its results aren't always imaginary.

 

[krabapple]

Gentlemen!! Remember what happens when you wrestle a pig? You get dirty and the pig loves it.

Don't allow yourself to be baited by obvious trolls.

Jim

Moderators, execute your prime function.

 

[Piggyback41]

Some here have the goal of minimizing unwanted coloration in their system.

That's funny, your ears do that...

Which is a far more productive endeavor than 'auditioning' cables, because its results aren't always imaginary.

Not true. Under certain conditions cable changes are not imaginary.

 

[kemmler3D]

So yeah, some faith is required.

Not really. Read the measurements, then read the subjective reports, then listen for yourself. At the end of the day, only your own opinion of the gear should matter to you.

If you want to make a statement here, (especially of the X sounds warmer/clearer than Y variety) but can't back it up with anything more than a subjective report, then yes, at ASR this is considered worthless, or nearly worthless. It's nothing personal, that's just not what the site is about.

 

[Piggyback41]

Moderators, execute your prime function.

Quick mods leave krabapple in bliss ignorance!**

 

[Piggyback41]

Read the measurements, then read the subjective reports, then listen for yourself.

And that's the words I need to hear. I agree with this. A bit of everything, of course. Well, it's up to you, if you go full measurements or subjectivity etc. But yes, it's down to the individual. I just think ASR is a bit hitler about measurements. But, if that's what this place is about...

ASR is about audio SCIENCE (that is what is in the name anyway), the biology is a part of the audio equation. For subjectivity to be nearly worthless is insultive, since subjectivity comes from biology.

Science should explain subjectivity not ignore it.

 

[Chrispy]

And that's the words I need to hear. I agree with this. A bit of everything, of course. Well, it's up to you, if you go full measurements, etc. But there you go.

ASR is about audio SCIENCE, the biology is a part of the audio equation. For subjectivity to be nearly worthless is insultive.

Science should explain subjectivity not ignore it.

Much subjectivity has been dismissed due to scientific explanation, but many audiophiles refuse such. Of course the subjective is part of it, those that suggest "full measurements" are the only criteria is just weird.

 

[kemmler3D]

Science should explain subjectivity not ignore it.

Actually I think we all agree on this.

If you hear something it will show up in a measurement, somewhere, somehow. Or it's caused by placebo / expectation bias. What is interesting is when you hear something that doesn't show up in the normal measurements, and you have to look for a more interesting explanation than is typical.

The black box we have to deal with is individual differences in perception and hearing. But ultimately 99% of the time, a standard spinorama and distortion plot can explain a lot about what people hear from their gear. 1% of the time, we need additional measurements.

This is also why blind testing is needed. That's the only way you can tell for sure whether it's coming from the gear, or the mind of the listener.

In fact, this is the basic idea behind Toole's work, the Harman curve, etc. which is held in high regard around here. To use blind testing to explain subjectivity.

 

[DonR]

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Hitchens' Razor

 

[Chrispy]

Not true. Under certain conditions cable changes are not imaginary.

What kind of circumstances does this actually become important other than inadequate/broken wire/cable?

 

[Mart68]

And that's the words I need to hear. I agree with this. A bit of everything, of course. Well, it's up to you, if you go full measurements or subjectivity etc. But yes, it's down to the individual. I just think ASR is a bit hitler about measurements. But, if that's what this place is about...

ASR is about audio SCIENCE (that is what is in the name anyway), the biology is a part of the audio equation. For subjectivity to be nearly worthless is insultive, since subjectivity comes from biology.

Science should explain subjectivity not ignore it.

Lots of testing has been done on the 'biological' aspect. What we can and can't hear, what we like and dislike. Some of that research is not in the public domain but a lot is and it is taken into account here. It isn't ignored at all.

You seem to be criticising something without full knowledge of what it is you are criticising.

 

[kemmler3D]

What kind of circumstances does this actually become important other than inadequate/broken wire/cable?

AFAIK it's mostly tube amps with weird impedances and cables with really excessive capacitance... right?

 

[Chrispy]

AFAIK it's mostly tube amps with weird impedances and cables with really excessive capacitance... right?

The tube amp thing I would think would fall more under the inadequate category, tho....altho I can think of Naim amps that were just horribly designed to start with in that respect.

 

[Piggyback41]

Much subjectivity has been dismissed due to scientific explanation, but many audiophiles refuse such. Of course the subjective is part of it, those that suggest "full measurements" are the only criteria is just weird.

What about science that backs up some of this subjectivity? I'm sure there must be some science out there backing that up. My cable change on my subwoofer was and still is very audible, volumes the same (on AVR), same songs, same gain on the subwoofer. This new cable is shielded to high frequencies and I have 2mW/m2 1.8ghz signals at the cable from the cell tower near me, that's already billions of times higher than normal natural background microwave levels, I believe QED when they talk about micro timing caused by RFI. It's not just about the cable, it's also how the cable serves the components it's attached to.

Weird, yes, it's like they want to be robots. I really do think ASR has many of them. They can do what they want, but dismissing subjectivity like some religious cult is indeed bonkers in itself.

I'm not extreme, I don't dismiss measurements, I will search hard to find measurements that back up my subjective experiences, if there is no proof after hard searching... it will make me wonder... but maybe there's no measurements for it yet. Of course, I'm against kidding myself as well.

For me, audio science is interesting, when it confirms subjectivity.

 

[Chrispy]

What about science that backs up some of this subjectivity? I'm sure there must be some science out there backing that up. My cable change on my subwoofer was and still is very audible, volumes the same (on AVR), same songs, same gain on the subwoofer. This new cable is shielded to high frequencies and I have 2mW/m2 1.8ghz signals at the cable from the cell tower near me, that's already billions of times higher than normal natural background microwave levels, I believe QED when they talk about micro timing caused by RFI. It's not just about the cable, it's also how the cable serves the components it's attached to.

Weird, yes, it's like they want to be robots. I really do think ASR has many of them. They can do what they want, but dismissing subjectivity like some religious cult is indeed bonkers in itself.

I'm not extreme, I don't dismiss measurements, I will search hard to find measurements that back up my subjective experiences, if there is no proof after hard searching... it will make me wonder... but maybe there's no measurements for it yet. Of course, I'm against kidding myself as well.

For me, audio science is interesting, when it confirms subjectivity.

So you needed a shielded cable for a sub....that's unusual? QED sounds like they're full of it....

 

[thegeton]

Under certain conditions cable changes are not imaginary.

Prove it.

 

[kemmler3D]

My cable change on my subwoofer was and still is very audible, volumes the same (on AVR), same songs, same gain on the subwoofer.

Of course, I'm against kidding myself as well.

So, if your old cable was working properly, and the new one is too, there aren't many scientifically plausible ways it can affect the sound.

However, it's not uncommon for old cables to not be working properly. It's said to be very common that if cables are left in place for a long time and then replaced, a layer of oxidation gets disrupted/removed and the new cable sounds better because there's actually less resistance (and therefore higher gain) due to removing the oxidation.

Maybe it's possible the cell tower was causing some kind of interference, too. That would certainly be possible to measure if you could hear it in the sub.

It's also very common to listen closer to our systems when we replace something. And so things that we might have ignored for weeks or even years are suddenly noticeable. we focus harder on those "changes" and suddenly we hear big differences where there are none. In fact there was a thread recently about switching DACs where OP came back and confirmed that the treble spike they'd heard with the new DAC seemed to go away again on its own... hmm...

So we certainly need to account for subjectivity, but in one-off reports, it more often leads us off the path, than back onto it.

 

[Piggyback41]

Lots of testing has been done on the 'biological' aspect. What we can and can't hear, what we like and dislike. Some of that research is not in the public domain but a lot is and it is taken into account here. It isn't ignored at all.

That's like garlic to some of the vampires here though, that's my point.

 

[Doodski]

Under certain conditions cable changes are not imaginary.

I've assembled several thousand RCA interconnects when I was starting up a company and was taking on work just to keep busy and get started and I've owned several different brands and up to about $350 per cable pair. I had a Ruby that sounded different but it was a phono cable with a DIN connector on it and I chopped that off and mounted some MIT RCA ends. It sounded brighter but it was virtually the same as any other cable I compared it to. I think the cable sounded different because it was intended for phono use. Other than that all the cables/interconnects that I've handled they where all the same including those light gray colored cheap RCAs. Yes, I had all MIT cables on my tri-amp'd active crossover home audio system but that was for system integrity and connection integrity and not for sound quality.