advertisement


Bullsh** claims by manufacturers? - share your best ones.....

narabdela said:
Perhaps you could add an "imo" into that sentence. Even then it would be a tad impolite. This isn't a cable thread.(hopefully)
Click to expand...

If starting the facts is impolite for you than I have no words. Your answer though, is in fact impolite.
Also, I was answering on a post from the first side, just quoting is working strange right now and was not posted.

And I encourage you to try it by yourself.
 
....features a special crystalline material that has two 'active' properties. First, it generates negative ions that eliminate static. Second, it converts thermal energy into far infrared....combines this remarkable material with nano-sized ceramic particles and carbon powder for their additional piezoelectric damping properties.
Click to expand...

All in a cable lifter that...err.... holds your cables off the floor. I mean, WTF?
 
Arkless Electronics said:
No difference at all between interconnects as expected. Science predicts this and is of course right. Speaker cables, well the resistance can have an effect and so they need to be thick. Other than that no difference.
Click to expand...
Blind tested with the family & friends of course, yes?
Surely not just listening with a bias towards the negative, I mean, it's just not science.

I have blind tested cables in the past, in fact, the freebie piece of string that comes with equipment & a sensibly priced Chord cable, if you hear no difference, either your brain is elsewhere in the room or your system Is shite at presenting detail.

Go into detail, why a chord cobra plus interconnect cable will allow through precisely the same signal, with zero difference to the piece of string cable given free with cheap cd players.
 
It was 'Pure, Perfect Sound-Forever'; the 'Pure, Perfect Sound' bit referring to the approximation that lossy conversion to 16bit/44.1KHz digital data was somehow relative to the reality that is analog.

The hyphen before 'Forever' could only be interpreted as a separation between the marketing concept of the sound being 'Pure' and 'Perfect' relative to the concept of the storage medium not being susceptible to wear during play; that is, assuming such a disc was properly clamped in when the playback mechanism wound up to 500rpm.
 
Last edited:
Ragaman said:
Blind tested with the family & friends of course, yes?
Surely not just listening with a bias towards the negative, I mean, it's just not science.

I have blind tested cables in the past, in fact, the freebie piece of string that comes with equipment & a sensibly priced Chord cable, if you hear no difference, either your brain is elsewhere in the room or your system Is shite at presenting detail.

Go into detail, why a chord cobra plus interconnect cable will allow through precisely the same signal, with zero difference to the piece of string cable given free with cheap cd players.
Click to expand...
Deaf or your system isn’t ‘resolving ‘enough how many times have I heard this BS trotted out, honestly I despair.
Re Stephen Toy it was his ‘cat piss protectors’ that were most amusing.
Keith
 
Craig B said:
It was 'Pure, Perfect Sound-Forever'; the 'Pure, Perfect Sound' bit referring to the approximation that lossy conversion to 16bit/44.1KHz digital data was somehow relative to the reality that is analog.
Click to expand...

Not everyone would agree that 16/44.1 is 'lossy'. Quality of implementation may vary, but mathematically there is little argument about loss.
 


starvation.jpg
 
JensenHealey said:
Not everyone would agree that 16/44.1 is 'lossy'. Quality of implementation may vary, but mathematically there is little argument about loss.
Click to expand...

Well, for sampling analogue signals at 44.1 ksamples/second the sampling theorem requires that you lose all content above 22.05 kHz, so it could be argued as being lossy. (There's a much more complex story about quantization to 16 bits I won't go into.) Of course humans are not known to hear above 20 kHz for any significant parts of their lives, so the question is whether the loss matters or not.

And that brings me to the thread title and my own pet peeve about claims from audiophile sector manufacturers.

After we dismiss "fake science" claims we have "fake engineering" claims. Engineers know that even if something can be changed it is not always useful to do so. Some manufacturers claim that any change matters, however technically tiny. They attempt to justify why it matters and why their particular product is the one that's right.

Thus we have the "audiophile myth" that absolutely everything matters and is worth paying for. It's always "night and day!", isn't it?

Many claims I see that are soundly based technically have such a small impact that after some checks on magnitude I see that they can't possibly matter in practice. There are known audibility thresholds for certain effects (but not all). These thresholds do vary with test method. So, it is valid to keep an open mind and question whether humans can hear smaller changes than they reveal. However, it is often the case that for real music "test signals", the thresholds of audibility are much higher than for the published test signals.

Ignoring the clearly inaudible cases there are ones where the audibility of a change reaches "maybe". My view (which will not be shared by all, I am sure) is that even if a change is small but audible: (i) there are changes that do fall below my threshold of what matters; and (ii) there is not always an obvious preference to be had anyway even if the audiophile sector position is that one must be preferred.
 
Craig B said:
It was 'Pure, Perfect Sound-Forever'; the 'Pure, Perfect Sound' bit referring to the approximation that lossy conversion to 16bit/44.1KHz digital data was somehow relative to the reality that is analog.
Click to expand...

"Lossy" is a meaningless word in this context since anything in sound recording - analog or digital - is ultimately lossy.
 
John Phillips said:
Well, for sampling analogue signals at 44.1 ksamples/second the sampling theorem requires that you lose all content above 22.05 kHz, so it could be argued as being lossy. (There's a much more complex story about quantization to 16 bits I won't go into.) Of course humans are not known to hear above 20 kHz for any significant parts of their lives, so the question is whether the loss matters or not.
Click to expand...
Yes. It is worth mentioning though that the "perfect" argument can be tightened up a little bit in information theory terms as regards analogue channels with a noise floor above -90dB and no spectral information above 20Khz. These do seem to exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top