advertisement


Why have actives not made bigger inroads in to HiFi?

Tony L said:
PS If you want to start easy with something that should sound different in even quite modest systems try say NAC A5 vs. Kimber 4 or 8TC. Real chalk and cheese, I don’t even need to be in the listening room to tell them apart, it is well evident outside the room. Interconnects can be almost as big, e.g. a typical studio coax does sound very different to Kimber solid-core weave etc.
Click to expand...
I'll take the Pepsi challenge with Van Den Hul and QED/Nordost any day.
 
Arkless Electronics said:
No you couldn't as there is non. I have zero interest in any ones subjective opinion on this. If you hear a difference between mains cables it's down to a lively imagination. Even if 1000 people claim to hear it. Never underestimate the power of suggestion and expectation bias.
And for the sake of Tony's earlier post, no I am not accusing any one of lying about it. I'm sure that the effects of expectation bias can be so powerful that people really do hear differences... which are not actually there.
Click to expand...
Double lol!
 
Julf,

Clever Hans was indeed clever, but he has nothing on Johann Sebastian bok bok bok...


Joe
 
Julf said:
Blind or double blind? Two words: Clever Hans...
Click to expand...

Just single blind, which is all that is required, e.g. dark room (I far prefer listening in the dark), person undergoing test leaves room, system changed, re-enter room and listen. Repeat until bored. I know exactly what I heard, I know exactly what others heard, and when results are 100% there is a difference to my satisfaction. I view it as absolute proof and to be honest I wouldn’t buy kit or services from people who arrogantly dismiss empirical evidence and user-experience when it doesn’t fit their pre-set ideology. I have no interest in dealing with ideologues.

Again for clarity: I am not saying all cables sound different. Some brands and models however do repeatedly and provably so. The ones that do tend to have very markedly different materials, construction and electrical properties, so gven a good ear ad genuinely revealing system it comes as no surprise these things are clearly audible. It may also be worth pointing out the test system in question was very serious high-end, a far better system than most folk have access to. It also needs to be said I had no dog in the race. The vast majority of cables we listened to were not mine and I had no interest in buying them as they wouldn’t even have fitted in my own system (which was all DIN being Naim). My conclusions, as usual, were almost always the same sighted or blind, i.e. I could identify the cable in system regadless of whether I could see it or not. Once I latched onto the traits I could spot it with ease, and in the case of say NAC A5 vs Kimber 8TC from the other end of the flat. It doesn’t get more blind than that!

PS Always worth noting that when shyster ideologues like James Randi put up money to prove there are no differences they insist on cables that measure identically and refuse any that don’t as they know they’d lose the bet! There was a very heated exchange a while back when Michael Fremer was refused the challenge as he wanted to use cables he knew he could tell apart with 100% accuracy as, unsurprisingly, the cabes in question measured differently, as so many in the real-world audio market do. This is just basic science, not magic!
 
Tony L said:
.... from people who arrogantly dismiss empirical evidence and user-experience when it doesn’t fit their pre-set ideology. I have no interest in dealing with ideologues.
Click to expand...

That rules out a lot of hifi!
On another thread there was a link to an interview with Derek Hughes... what a nice guy, very knowledgeable and always prepared to accept an alternative view. Quite rare in the hifi business.
 
Tony L said:
Just single blind, which is all that is required, e.g. dark room (I far prefer listening in the dark), person undergoing test leaves room, system changed, re-enter room and listen. Repeat until bored.
Click to expand...

So the people who changed the system are in the room when you listen? Are you familiar with Clever Hans?

I know exactly what I heard
Click to expand...

If I only got a quid every time someone says that... :)

PS Always worth noting that when shyster ideologues like James Randi put up money to prove there are no differences they insist on cables that measure identically and refuse any that don’t as they know they’d lose the bet! There was a very heated exchange a while back when Michael Fremer was refused the challenge as he wanted to use cables he knew he could tell apart with 100% accuracy as, unsurprisingly, the cabes in question measured differently, as so many in the real-world audio market do. This is just basic science, not magic!
Click to expand...

That might be a somewhat one-sided characterization.
 
S-Man said:
That rules out a lot of hifi!
On another thread there was a link to an interview with Derek Hughes... what a nice guy, very knowledgeable and always prepared to accept an alternative view. Quite rare in the hifi business.
Click to expand...

In theory higher fidelity equipment should have very little "own sound" and as a result sound more alike.

So the correct phrasing should be "That rules a lot of lowfi!" :D
 
May I suggest to those who fear that active speakers will deprive them of forever faffing with their systems that they transfer said faffing to room treatment? Much more to be gained there than with changing sources, amps, cables and cable lifters combined.
 
tuga said:
In theory higher fidelity equipment should have very little "own sound" and as a result sound more alike.
Click to expand...
Some very expensive amplifiers and speakers measure far from accurate. People like it, but should realise that it is an effect
 
Emlin said:
May I suggest to those who fear that active speakers will deprive them of forever faffing with their systems that they transfer said faffing to room treatment? Much more to be gained there than with changing sources, amps, cables and cable lifters combined.
Click to expand...
But usually with a low WAF, even more than the hifi. And less sexy than a shiny new amp. And rarely with any resale value.
 
tuga said:
In theory higher fidelity equipment should have very little "own sound" and as a result sound more alike.

So the correct phrasing should be "That rules a lot of lowfi!" :D
Click to expand...
If there was general agreement on what "hIgh fidelity" means it would help. Some, particularly electronics engineers, say fidelity to the measured electrical signal, others to the recording studio/venue sound and others to the emotional experience. There are long and bitter threads devoted to this, particularly on diyAudio. I have to confess to contributing to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top