Never seen anyone make this claim. Strawman 1.
Never seen anyone make this claim. Strawman 2.
Hint: you should make some close reading of your own posts. Could be enlightening!
fo.q tape
- Thread starter MarkieW
- Start date
NickofWimbledon
pfm Member
Hi @Octavian - thanks for the response.
1. I am slightly surprised that you have never seen anyone suggest that all speaker cable changes are pointless Woo, because I have seen a lot of them in the last c.40 years. If you read recent posts here, for example, it was asserted by @Arkless Electronics directly, and it is entirely consistent with comments by him and others elsewhere in this thread (provided that you accept that 'woo' and, for example, 'bollox' are effectively synonyms in this context). See also previous threads about cables?
Would it help for me to go back and quote the original assertions directly? Your not having noticed any such comments probably says a lot about the distractingly vigorous/ insulting exchanges here, and the sheer length (for which my own lack of writing discipline is of course partly to blame) of the thread. However, since people on this very site have added comments of this sort that are still visible to you, it is hard to see this as a 'straw man'.
2. The same comment applies to your second 'straw man'. The tagline of a contributor stating 'you are not an evaluation device' may be start - it is hard not to put one of his posts in this category, or you can look at the current thread on ASR testing of a Naim Atom and other threads on the Naim site for more examples people stating that if something cannot be measured/has not been measured with a useful result then it only exists in the minds of the listeners, with an implicit implication that we know everything that we would need to measure and have done so to sufficient accuracy. Do you need me to dig out some examples?
3. I usually re-read my own posts before posting, though that is largely in a partially successful attempt to reduce embarrassing typos and the like. I have now been back over lots of my verbosity again, which was not the most interesting way to spend time.
Where have I made a sweeping generalisation that won't apply to many systems/ rooms/ ears without mentioning that point? If you can point me to clear examples, I will be happy to expand or correct as necessary.
4. At the margin, I prefer not to quote other people's posts with the sole intention of disagreeing or showing them to be wrong. There are exceptions of course, but I worry that doing that just contributes to the combative/ adversarial flavour of this thread. To me, it already has more insulting or overly-personal comments than is ideal, and I am not trying to add to the sense that someone needs to WIN this discussion or prove themselves (to whom?) somehow superior or more rational or possessed of better hearing.
If you are genuinely interested, or have specific examples where you reckon I have gone much further than good sense and the facts can justify, I am quite willing to do some cut-and-paste work and to discuss specific comments. However, i am not sure that this level of looking backward will be terribly interesting to 99% of those on the site. My posts are often far too long already, and attaching all potentially relevant comments for discussion/ dissection would make that a lot worse.
1. I am slightly surprised that you have never seen anyone suggest that all speaker cable changes are pointless Woo, because I have seen a lot of them in the last c.40 years. If you read recent posts here, for example, it was asserted by @Arkless Electronics directly, and it is entirely consistent with comments by him and others elsewhere in this thread (provided that you accept that 'woo' and, for example, 'bollox' are effectively synonyms in this context). See also previous threads about cables?
Would it help for me to go back and quote the original assertions directly? Your not having noticed any such comments probably says a lot about the distractingly vigorous/ insulting exchanges here, and the sheer length (for which my own lack of writing discipline is of course partly to blame) of the thread. However, since people on this very site have added comments of this sort that are still visible to you, it is hard to see this as a 'straw man'.
2. The same comment applies to your second 'straw man'. The tagline of a contributor stating 'you are not an evaluation device' may be start - it is hard not to put one of his posts in this category, or you can look at the current thread on ASR testing of a Naim Atom and other threads on the Naim site for more examples people stating that if something cannot be measured/has not been measured with a useful result then it only exists in the minds of the listeners, with an implicit implication that we know everything that we would need to measure and have done so to sufficient accuracy. Do you need me to dig out some examples?
3. I usually re-read my own posts before posting, though that is largely in a partially successful attempt to reduce embarrassing typos and the like. I have now been back over lots of my verbosity again, which was not the most interesting way to spend time.
Where have I made a sweeping generalisation that won't apply to many systems/ rooms/ ears without mentioning that point? If you can point me to clear examples, I will be happy to expand or correct as necessary.
4. At the margin, I prefer not to quote other people's posts with the sole intention of disagreeing or showing them to be wrong. There are exceptions of course, but I worry that doing that just contributes to the combative/ adversarial flavour of this thread. To me, it already has more insulting or overly-personal comments than is ideal, and I am not trying to add to the sense that someone needs to WIN this discussion or prove themselves (to whom?) somehow superior or more rational or possessed of better hearing.
If you are genuinely interested, or have specific examples where you reckon I have gone much further than good sense and the facts can justify, I am quite willing to do some cut-and-paste work and to discuss specific comments. However, i am not sure that this level of looking backward will be terribly interesting to 99% of those on the site. My posts are often far too long already, and attaching all potentially relevant comments for discussion/ dissection would make that a lot worse.
So many words, such eloquence! As a non native speaker of English I am truly impressed.
But yes, please provide the examples. More matter with less art, as someone famous once said.
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
I think you mischaraterize jezs view, it's not that cables don't ever make a difference its that any difference they can make can be achieved with a resistor and a capacitor for a few pence. So in the big scheme cables are pointless. Buy an eq if you want to change the frequency response, because that's all they can offer.
NickofWimbledon
pfm Member
@Octavian - that's kind - few call me eloquent. Lack of brevity is the issue, but we all know that short and simple answers to compel questions tend to be (to say the least) questionable.
Let's start with some (but not all) posts by actual industry professional @Arkless Electronics here.
You can also look at the ASR/ Atom page on this site - see @Purité Audio, another professional - who describes what ASR does as 'separate the actual measured performance from the marketing' and ( perhaps less contentiously and with admirable clarity) that 'an electrical component is defined by its measurements'. If you look at ASR's methodology,
On this thread we have the parallel between what is being suggested and 'pixies at the bottom of the garden' from someone wh has not tried it or anything like it only a page away from the statement 'you are not a sound quality evaluation device', and a parallel to a financial scam involving a Nigerian Prince. None related directly to the product that started the thread, but it would be hard to misunderstand, and hard not to call the implied view a generalisation. A page further we have 'Not one high end company puts any of this shit in their products' - fair comment perhaps if they mean this specific product only, but that seems not to be the thrust of the point.
'Cables and fuses' are described as 'foo' on the next page. A few pages later it is explained of cable manufacturers that 'a lot of them cannot make cable they just buy it from a big manufacturer like BICC and package it up...' That does describe Naim A4, I think, at least back in the 90s...
On the Racks thread I noted the comment that 'racks are of course complete and utter foo nonsense'.
One point that I suggest we bear in mind is that these people are not all idiots! If you look across many posts, several of the more vigorous nay-sayers and objectivist have worthwhile and specific points to make and may well also have a more nuanced view than the headlines or individual quotes suggest.
Scanning this and the next 2 or 3 most obvious sites seems likely to find some more examples. However, this must be dull reading for anyone who has looked at this thread or the ASR/ Atom thread or 'Amir versus Danny' or lots of others on the most obvious other forums.
Can you be more specific about what you disagree with?
Let's start with some (but not all) posts by actual industry professional @Arkless Electronics here.
You can also look at the ASR/ Atom page on this site - see @Purité Audio, another professional - who describes what ASR does as 'separate the actual measured performance from the marketing' and ( perhaps less contentiously and with admirable clarity) that 'an electrical component is defined by its measurements'. If you look at ASR's methodology,
On this thread we have the parallel between what is being suggested and 'pixies at the bottom of the garden' from someone wh has not tried it or anything like it only a page away from the statement 'you are not a sound quality evaluation device', and a parallel to a financial scam involving a Nigerian Prince. None related directly to the product that started the thread, but it would be hard to misunderstand, and hard not to call the implied view a generalisation. A page further we have 'Not one high end company puts any of this shit in their products' - fair comment perhaps if they mean this specific product only, but that seems not to be the thrust of the point.
'Cables and fuses' are described as 'foo' on the next page. A few pages later it is explained of cable manufacturers that 'a lot of them cannot make cable they just buy it from a big manufacturer like BICC and package it up...' That does describe Naim A4, I think, at least back in the 90s...
On the Racks thread I noted the comment that 'racks are of course complete and utter foo nonsense'.
One point that I suggest we bear in mind is that these people are not all idiots! If you look across many posts, several of the more vigorous nay-sayers and objectivist have worthwhile and specific points to make and may well also have a more nuanced view than the headlines or individual quotes suggest.
Scanning this and the next 2 or 3 most obvious sites seems likely to find some more examples. However, this must be dull reading for anyone who has looked at this thread or the ASR/ Atom thread or 'Amir versus Danny' or lots of others on the most obvious other forums.
Can you be more specific about what you disagree with?
NickofWimbledon
pfm Member
If true, wouldn't that make all expensive cables Foo?
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
It would make all expensive cables expensive and offering no improvement in sound quality whatsoever.
It is difficult to determine what will and will not bring an actual improvement in sound quality, but a little technical knowledge will certainly help.
Keith
It is difficult to determine what will and will not bring an actual improvement in sound quality, but a little technical knowledge will certainly help.
Keith
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
But not listening, of course.
Where are the specific examples?
Perhaps you wanted to write something more about the ASR methodology?
Anyway, 'an electrical component is defined by its measurements' is a perfectly rational proposition, based on the state of our current technical understanding. It is not at all the same as saying that 'we know all that we will ever need to know about the acoustics/ hearing'.
The problem is most likely my poor command of the English language, but I do not understand anything of the paragraph quoted above. No doubt it is brilliant.
I quite agree on the 'utter foo and nonsense' wrt. cables and racks. Which is not the same as saying that they are the same as 'pixie dust and crystal-healing'. Pixie dust and crystal healing belong to the supernatural, cable differences do not. To my knowledge it is possible to design a pathological amplifier - cable -loudspeaker combination which could cause audible differences - ergo: there are differences between cables. I could also push a cow from the upper floor of a skyscraper and so prove that cows can indeed fly.
NickofWimbledon
pfm Member
I think I misunderstand you. Do you believe that that there are situations in which an expensive and carefully chosen cable sounds better than a sensibly-designed cheap cable?
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
How do we decide when and if the measurements relate to sound quality? There's a truism in science: 'correlation isn't causation'. I presume measurements are 'verified' by listening tests, but doesn't this open up a whole world of trouble with blind tests, expectation bias, audio memory, listener fatigue and so-on?
As long as there is proper evidence of this. Cables and racks are foo because there is no evidence of their significance.
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
Unsighted ( level matched if necessary) comparisons remove expectation bias.
If the measurements suggest no audible difference and the unsighted comparison corroborates then… there is no difference.
Keith
If the measurements suggest no audible difference and the unsighted comparison corroborates then… there is no difference.
Keith
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
Purité Audio
Trade: Purite Audio
Thanks,
Keith
Keith
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Well quite. We’re attempting to map a quantitative measurement to a qualitative assessment. But as Keith points out, if this is done blind, and no difference is found, then we can’t attribute that parameter to a role in perceived sound quality. But then again, even if a blind test shows* a correlation with measurements, that’s not causation.
But then again, again, do manufacturers really conduct statistically valid blind tests on their measurements? I rather doubt they do.
My point, really, is that even if we stick rigorously to the blind listening test methodology advocated by the objective side, we still have no way of proving that the measured performance relates to reported listening. So how can we be confident that the measurements are telling us what we think they are? Is it not more likely that we measure what we measure because we can, and we talk ourselves into believing that the measurements tell us something meaningful about sound quality?
*Edit: and let's not lose sight of the fact that blind tests just ask the listener to say 'different/not different', there's no qualitative aspect to a blind test. So assuming the blind test shows (to a statistically valid degree) a 'different' result, then you're still left with taking on trust any subjective report as to what the actual audible difference in sound quality is.