It's baaaaa-ack!
Showing 26 responses by frogman
OK, I am going to play cyber-psychoanalyst. Tobb, in spite of the fact that you have been a member here for over ten years, you have not previously taken part in discussions about cables. So, I will give you the benefit of the doubt as far as believing that you are not simply trying to stir up controversy about this "beaten to death" subject; on the other hand, after ten years, it's unlikely that you haven't gathered enough info on the subject to, at least, know where to look for opinions. Nonetheless, I will assume that your query is an honest one. So, in the spirit of trying to be helpful, and in case you don't recognize Chayro's (hope you don't mind, Chayro) sarcasm, look at his posting history about cables. You will not only see that his response here is, in fact, simply sarcasm, but you will find some genuinely good advise. Now, if you care to also play analyst, you will know my stance on the subject by this response. Good luck. |
Thanks Al, for, as usual, calming things down with some facts and common sense. Tobb, I meant no disrespect with my first response. It just seemed improbable to me that this subject could be brought up again; not much new that can be said about it. If you can't hear the difference (for whatever reason) in your current system, consider yourself fortunate and buy some new music instead. Regards. |
****It's interesting note that many are more concerned with the defense of their "beliefs" rather than the pieces of metal in question.**** Yes, on both sides of the question: those who spend the money and those who don't (won't). At the end of the day, it is probably those who look for value/reasonable cost who get it right; for whatever this is worth, since a hobby is just that, a hobby. |
The level of cynicism directed at those who believe they can hear differences in cables that others can't, or won't, is a fascinating phenomenon to me. It must be rooted in some kind of personal insecurity on the part of those who can' or won't; and in the case of the most common targets, audio reviewers, my long-held belief in "reviewer envy". Here, again, we have one more example of the cynics (Rok) jumping on an opportunity to put down a believer or reviewer. The question that I find most interesting is: Why does it matter so much to the non-believers, that others believe? The details of the Randi challenge, as described above, are totally incorrect. I think that Acman is correct in that the motivation for withdrawal of the challenge was probably "fear of failure", but for reasons that are not so obvious. The facts are (were) these: It was NOT Fremer (reviewer) who backed out of the challenge. The first obstacle was put up by (surprise!) Randi, who refused to let Fremer use his own reference cables (the logical choice) for comparison. Randi expressed a concern that Fremer's cables might be "tweaked" to provide Fremer with "cues" for their identity. Then, after some other nonsense put up by Randi, it was Pear (?) Cable's chief who then refused to supply the cables for comparison to some cheap Monster cable in a double blind test. You see, Randi's challenge was not about wether someone could distinguish between two sets of cables. It was supposed to be about wether someone could tell cheap Monster cable from a specific multi-thousand $ cable of Randi's choosing; I think it was Pear Cable. |
Rok, above you have some well thought-out comments and challenges to your stance, and you continue to ignore and disregard them. The easy answer at this point would be to simply say: "Man, you are out of your league; and I don't mean as far as your gear goes". But, hey, it's a rainy Sat afternoon and I have a few minutes of free time, so I will do the generous thing and try, once again, to point out the error of your ways :-) You wrote: ****Read my posts, and all the responses to my posts, from the beginning of this thread, and then tell me I am the name caller. Tell me I started it.**** I don't know what you consider "name calling", but I now it when I hear (read) it. Your first post: ****Could it be a variation of this: Mass hysteria manifesting as collective symptoms of disease is sometimes referred to as mass psychogenic illness or epidemic hysteria. Mass hysteria typically begins when an individual becomes ill or hysterical during a period of stress.[6] After this initial individual shows symptoms, others begin to manifest similar symptoms. Besides, peer pressure and wanting to belong to an elite group is a factor. Who wants to ADMIT he can't hear what EVERYONE else says they can hear? My system can resolve as well as yours!!! I have golden ears also!!! I am just as much an audiophile as anyone else!!! And so on and so on**** Oh, hell! Man, you are out of your league. |
****Don't try to save us! We will figure out what's best for us. **** Amen! Which goes back to my question: Why does it matter so much to non-believers, that some of us believe? Now, acknowledging that there will be many exceptions, a really interesting survey might be what percentage of non-believers are Democrat or Republican; same for believers. |
Sonofjim, you broke one of the cardinal rules: One variable at a time! Apparently the new amp is an improvement with "junk", but functional, cable. As far as making an assessment about how "good" the Monster junk is compared to your regular cables, the only way is to listen to both cables with your old amp. Only one variable, and you know the sound of that amp. |
****1. It gives technically astute people, who many of us admire and value the opinions of, a negative view of those of people active in high-end audio. The cable lie reflects poorly on all of us.**** The implication being that no believers are technically astute. Clearly, not the case. How does one explain the many clearly "technically astute " individuals who are believers. It is true that there is a lot of hype; but that, in no way, suggests that it is ALL hype. To suggest otherwise is the worst example of lack of astuteness. ****2. Active recruitment of new disciples into the cable cult tempts us to argue, to prevent others from swallowing the lie.**** I will ask the question again: why does it matter so much to you? Why not be secure in your belief (or lack thereof), and leave at that? |
Rok, read again. I think you have gotten yourself worked up to the point that you see (read) what you want to see. My comment said "no believers", NOT "no(n) believers". Interesting, no? BTW, one the fascinating (?) things about these forums is that posters (I include myself) sometimes get to play these little games; either for the hell of it, to exercise one's language skills, the joy of banter, or...whatever. Having said that, I don't believe for one minute that you are nearly as firm nor passionate in your ideas about this stuff as what you present in print. But that's cool; whatever floats your boat. Peace. |
OK, I'll play a little longer; ten minutes left in my Lifecycle workout (my Agon posting time). ****And how, pray tell, did you come to that conclusion? And what 'stuff' are you referring to?**** A couple of clues: 1.You, actually, have pretty good taste in music. So, not all is lost. There's hope. :-) Anybody who likes Sarah Vaughn the way that you do can't be all bad. That's the good news. 2. The bad news: You demonstrate a pattern of making provocative statements and misrepresenting or misinterpreting what others say (write). Then, when it is pointed out to you, you completely (conveniently) overlook it and move on to your next provocative comment. This has happened several times in this thread, including this most recent exchange. You are too transparent in this respect for there to be true passion about all this "stuff" (the subject at hand, if you have to ask). BTW, Sarah Vaughn's "Brazilian Romance" is a gem. Pretty good sound, too. But, a little bight; nothing a vintage MIT cable couldn't fix ;-) |
****I was looking for an Academic debate, but we could not get away from stereo systems, money and personal opinions. But, as Nonoise alluded, it ain't that important. I am PASSOINATE about MUSIC. That's it. The gear is just a means to an end. I wish we didn't need it. **** Rok, I agree completely; and you, perhaps inadvertently, made my point. The problem with attempts to discuss these things is that "academic" and "music" are as diametrically opposed as just about anything. In fact, "academic" is an adjective used by musicians to describe "music" that is dry, soul-less, boring... The two don't mix. Acrimony? No way! Wire is not important enough to merit acrimony in my book. Now, anybody that tells me that "Sassy" can't sing.... That's cause for acrimony. Peace. |
The mistake that is made is the assumption that science is capable of explaining these things at all. Who says it can? Or that it should? We are talking about the sound of music; human expression. In all the talk about wether differences in cables (and whatever else) can be heard or not, very little time is spent talking about music; what it is, and what a miracle it is that one can reproduce something that is capable of touching our emotions. Can a "scientific" explanation really be expected to fully explain that which is the result of the soul of a performer; and how it may touch any given listener's sensibilities? I don't mean to get overly metaphysical about this, but to make this leap is to not really understand just how deep and fragile music is. That it can travel, via electrons, through a maze of electronic componentry and come out the other end sounding anything like the original is truly miraculous. That it should be altered to some degree by any and all the parts of that maze should not be a surprise at all. Science has, for decades, been trying to analyze what it is that makes Stradivarius violins sound the way they do. They have analyzed every single aspect of their makeup; down to analysis of the varnish and glue used, in the hope of being able to replicate their sonic magic. They can't do it. |
Ok, here's a challenge, Rok. If you find yourself in the NYC area, you are welcome to come to my place for a listening session. Here is what I propose: We will listen to the same LP side in its entirety using one of the two wires that I sometimes use between my phono stage and my preamp; Nordost and Siltech. Then, I will step out of my listening room and you will swap the cable for the other; or leave the same one in. The phono stage will be situated in such a way that I won't be able to see which cable is connected. We will do this ten times. I will bet you my Columbia Six-Eye "Kind Of Blue" that I will be able to tell you at least nine out of ten times which cable is in the system. What do I get if I can do it? |
OK, Rock. My cable vs. the cheapo cable OF YOUR CHOICE! Let's tweak this challenge: you send me the cheapo, non-audiophile (generic, "came-in-the-box") cable of your choice and I will live with it for one week. Then you come over, and we do the test as stated above. Yes, my cable is store bought, and not tweaked. You win, you get my copy of KOB. I win, you stop your rants against cables and Coltrane; that's enough for me. We post the results. The invitation is open; just let me know. |
But not for long.... Oftentimes, when trying to understand a posters point of view, I find value in looking for patterns in a poster's over-all posting history. As with most things, not just audio, I like to read between the lines. This approach is hardly "scientific" and not applicable in all cases; but still, it can tell me a lot about a poster's priorities and viewpoint. I have been trying very hard to understand Irv's stubbornness re the position of the overwhelming majority of posters in this thread on the subject of cables. While his stance is fairly clear, there are also some inconsistencies and a convenient "out" when he leans on the idea that his premise is based on the "fact" that cables that are "properly designed for a given application" will sound the same. But, I don't want to revisit all that. In looking at his posting history, I notice two significant things. For me, one in particular speakes volumes about where a person's head is at. -This is far from Irv's only thread where he has taken the minority position of trying to debunk others' opinions about the audibility of differences in cables, and tweaks in general. - Even more importantly (for me) is that unlike the posting history of the overwhelming majority of other contributors to this discussion, he has not made a single contribution nor comment on the subject of music; not a one. Draw your own conclusions. |
Hi Irv, actually, I am not arguing. Arguing, discussing; whatever. I truly am trying to understand the other side of the argument; which, frankly, I don't see a lot of evidence of on your part. But, for the record, my reference to posting history was for ALL posting history. Yes, this thread is about cables, but this forum is about much more than cables; including music. See, from my vantage point it is almost impossible (pointless) to discuss any aspect of this hobby without, at least, some reference to music. I think that this is the core difference between the two mind-sets. BTW, the offer/challenge that I made to Rok earlier is to you as well; if interested. Might be fun, and at the very least some good music will be listened to. |
Rok, well, I declare! It appears that you are softening your stance; that's a good thing, IMO. A couple of thoughts: Logic will only get one so far. Music and logic don't always mix. Listen to 20th century classical serial music to hear the ultimate expression of logic in music, and note (pun intended) how in most cases (not all) it doesn't sound like music at all. And yes, I understand how from some logicians' viewpoint, one has nothing to do with the other. That's just not MY idea of logic ****Hell, I wish I could hear wire**** This may come as surprise to you, but don't worry about it. Just don't insist on telling us we can't; at least not in a provocative way, anyway. But really, don't worry about it. You can appreciate the beauty in Mariano's playing, and as far as I am concerned that matters a hell of a lot more than all the wire stuff. Now, ****BTW, just curious. Can any of you Ferengi(stng) hear the differences between two brands of 'mere mortal' wire? Say, monster and blue jeans?**** Yup, you better believe it. If you ever decide to take me up on my offer, we can make those the two control cables. Just let me live with them for a few days and let's listen to some 'Trane. No, wait! Sorry, some early Wayne Shorter. BTW, have you heard his record with Milton Nascimento "Native Dancer"? Beautiful! |
****Let us pray that 'early' shorter is not anything like 'current' shorter!**** I thought you said (in a different thread) that you had some early Shorter? So, you should know the answer; even if I don't agree with your implication. ****The mere mortal cables I mentioned, I was asking can you ID them when they are compared to each other? Or does a guru cable have to be involved?**** No, guru cable does not have to be involved. Just the two cheapos. |
Nonsense; with all due respect. It's frustrating how the obvious is always overlooked by the naysayers. It's not that recording engineers don't use better cables; actually, some do, and have expressed the benefits. It is that at the stage of the inevitable deterioration/ distortion of the music signal that recording engineers are working with, at the record/mix or mastering level, there is much more of the music still left intact. As a result, there is less PERCEIVED need to preserve that bit of fidelity that cabling inevitably mucks up. By the time we, as music consumers, listen to the product, which by then has seen all sorts of additional processing due to mastering, stamping, etc, if we lose another 3% (I hate attaching a % to these things; but, alas) it becomes unbearable.. I like food analogies: imagine you order a steak at a restaurant and it arrives pre-salted. You may or may not like salt on your meat, but a little bit is OK. Now, add a tiny pinch more salt, and you just can't eat it. I, likewise, have been to many top studios and heard playback over crappy little Yamaha monitors, and the immediacy and impact of the master tape can be stunning. Same recording over my expensive speakers sounds, well...., recorded. |
Irv, ****As for the rest of your post, it is completely analogous to the discussion of spirituality when discussing evolution**** We actually agree on something. But, the mistake that evolutionists make is believing that evolution precludes creationism. Clearly, this is not the place to have THAT debate, but I agree the analogy is there. You may find this to be interesting reading; even if, as I suspect, you will vehemently disagree. I think it illustrates aspects of this debate perfectly. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31iht-edbrown.1.5943349.html |