1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Do you consider yourself an audiophile?

Discussion in 'music, bands, clubs & festies' started by Doctor Carrot, Apr 5, 2010.

?

Are you an audiophile?

  1. Yes

    20 vote(s)
    10.6%
  2. No

    70 vote(s)
    37.2%
  3. Audiophiles are deluded bullshitters

    98 vote(s)
    52.1%
  1. Orang Utan

    Orang Utan Sub-Sub-Librarian

    how is random? it's the opposite of random. it's quite specific.

    how much did you spend on your leads then? must have been hundreds.
     
  2. alan_

    alan_ Well-Known Member

    I have spent fuck all and frequently wire things up with random bits of wire. I have already said that I do not condone the promotion or use of these items but there seems to be a lack of neutral scientific data/testing. As soon as I get into specifics with a poster on here he fucks me off
     
  3. existentialist

    existentialist ...and the horse you rode in on.

    Nobody's saying you did. But you're asking the Performing Physics Monkeys of Urban to dance for you, and yet you seem unwilling to provide them with a tune to dance to.
     
    Enviro likes this.
  4. Saul Goodman

    Saul Goodman It's all good, man

    See what I did there? :p
     
  5. alan_

    alan_ Well-Known Member

    Yes you changed some words of mine for some reason of yours
     
  6. Saul Goodman

    Saul Goodman It's all good, man

    I can bench press 10,000Kg. Prove that I can't.
    If people make ridiculous claims, the onus is on them to support their assertions with evidence.
     
  7. alan_

    alan_ Well-Known Member

    Oh I see what you are doing, good one. Thing is I dont give a fuck what you can bench press or whether you can shit the eiffel tower and as a result I dont go about giving opinions or making statements regarding the validity of such. With this in mind why should I have to prove or disprove anything. On the other hand I was questioning a few people on this thread about opinions they had shared and asked if they had the wherewithal to back it up.
     
  8. Saul Goodman

    Saul Goodman It's all good, man

    The audiofools making the ridiculous claims need to back up those claims.
    If someone claims to have discovered a cure for cancer, it's they who have to prove that it works. Others don't have to prove it doesn't.
     
  9. alan_

    alan_ Well-Known Member

    I agree with you but conversely if someone claims that it does not work then they too should validate that claim
     
  10. BigTom

    BigTom Well-Known Member

    Nobody stepped up to take the $1m Randi foundation prize for proving audiophile claims, so for me that means we can take it as read that they wouldn't pass a proper test, or why wouldn't one of these companies have taken an easy million dollars?

    Ars Technica did try and guess what, no difference. I've seen plenty of similar tests in the past (and if you google it you'll find more), there are probably peer reviewed ones but I don't have access to university systems to search for them. You don't need to test every example of a thousand dollar cable to know that none of them will make any difference at all.
     
    BassJunkie likes this.
  11. Saul Goodman

    Saul Goodman It's all good, man

    Not necessarily. I can easily prove that a £20,000 power lead is no better than a decent, bog standard one, but I'm fucked if I'm paying 20 grand to prove what every sane person already knows.
     
    BigTom likes this.
  12. existentialist

    existentialist ...and the horse you rode in on.

    You would be lucky to find such a thing. But the reasons why the expensive power lead makes no difference are covered by electrical and electronic engineering theory, and don't need "proving" on a case by case basis.
     
  13. 8ball

    8ball I am Spasticus

    I had an expensive lead for my guitar. It was way better than the cheap one.
    I also had some £6.99 earphones that were way better than the £2.99 ones.

    I think 'better stuff' blurs into 'audiophile-land' quite gradually.

    Of course, they never said the better earphones were better because of ley lines, or cosmic signal respositioning.
    Though the crap earphones did say 'digital' on them.
     
    existentialist likes this.
  14. existentialist

    existentialist ...and the horse you rode in on.

    And the law of diminishing returns comes into play. There are limits to where cost economies can be made on simple items like these, so quality has to take a huge hit to make an appreciable saving. Ut, once you've got to the point of using basic standard cable, plugs, etc, you're already pretty close to as good as it can be, given the limitations of the kit at each end of the lead. There's a few improvements, mostly (in the case of leads) in terms of the mechanical integrity of the connections, but those run out pretty quickly. It is conceivable that ultra-pure low-oxygen copper (etc) might make tiny improvements, but most of these claimed improvements are way below the threshold at which we can detect them, anyway.
     
  15. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    Possibly because you conflated a balanced cable, with a pair of balanced microphones.
     
  16. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    Not really.

    The materials used in various leads all have measurable capacities, and well-measured tolerances, which make it possible to analyse the transmissive capabilities of bell wire or 2.5mm earth wire, and see whether they perform markedly-differently to OFC copper wire with set electron polarity and PTFE sheathing that has been prayed over by Tibetan Shavite monks.

    The variance in performance never outweighs the (small) variance in tolerances.

    There used to be an excellent Italian audio site out there where the site owner tirelessly tested this stuff. Wish I could remember the name. He did all the double-blind stuff you could shake a stick at, and always came up with the same results.
     
  17. 8ball

    8ball I am Spasticus

    Well, I'm not buying anything with 'digital' written on them again - they sound like shit.

    I just tried listening to them again to check. I'm blown away each time by how utterly shit they are. It's like they're actually trying. I used to keep losing the things and I've just gone through some stuff and I've got two pairs of the bastards too! :mad:

    AVOID!!

    EIGHT QUID!! CHRIST ON A FUCKING BIKE!!

    Right, there's a programme about puppies just starting, I'm going to crack a can open, watch a bit of that and calm down...
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2016
  18. beesonthewhatnow

    beesonthewhatnow going deaf for a living

    Was busy and on a phone.

    Right.

    You mentioned the Grateful Dead, who, like may acts you'll see from the 70's did indeed use two microphones* for the singers. Yes, it was for cancellation, but of ambient/PA noise, not electrical interface. Two very different things.

    Splitting the cores on a signal cable will at best make no difference and at worst make things terrible. It's junk science.





    *Most of the ones you see though weren't doing it for noise reduction purposes, it was a simple way to get a signal split for recording, as anything available to do this at the time was either expensive, shit, or both :D Nowadays we usually have cheap (relatively) and reliable 3 way transformer isolated splits on every signal input, for FOH, monitors and OB/recording.
     
  19. alan_

    alan_ Well-Known Member

    No I didn't. I didnt say a pair of balanced mikes, my words were "a balanced pair of mikes" which is something very much different. This was mentioned only to indicate that interference can be phase cancelled with (in this instance) a gap of 6cm.
     
  20. alan_

    alan_ Well-Known Member

  21. alan_

    alan_ Well-Known Member

    I could not even access that page properly due to hijacking pop ups and ads
    as for the "no difference", if I haven't made it clear (my bad) I am concerned exclusively with analogue and not digital
     
  22. BigTom

    BigTom Well-Known Member

    I had no problems with either page using opera with adblock on, apologies I would have found something else if I had.

    There's been plenty of digital as well as analogue stuff on this thread, you'll also find plenty of double blind trials of analogue stuff if you care to look for it. I feel like you have avoided the point of my post and would guess you don't care to look for it and would fund other reasons to dismiss any others I found, even if I could be bothered to do so.
     
    existentialist likes this.
  23. alan_

    alan_ Well-Known Member

    Thanks I did get it in the end by a few CTRL/R. It does seem strange that no one has taken up Mr Randi on his offer if their claims stack up. We do not know the conditions in which the money would be paid out. Would there be a listening panel? Would a simple majority suffice? What would be the experience criteria expected of the listening panel (LP)? Would the LP have to undergo a qualification exercise? Is a musician input more relevant than a non musician? Is everyone given ear test in order that we have the basic physical attributes for the task. Who could fuck an applicant off if not suitable? Perhaps the listening panel should comprise of the first X number of people walking past the door. Where would this door be? Outside RAM on Marylebone St. or gathered randomly from a typical London High St.

    As for digital signals. I do not think they have the same set of problems. Ie Bits is Bits. The problems start to compound at DAC or ADC stage
     
  24. beesonthewhatnow

    beesonthewhatnow going deaf for a living

    It really isn't strange at all

    Bingo.

    Yes, we do.

    The conditions and criteria for testing cables/other hifi bits are extremely easy to define and have been done so many times. On this thread.

    Finally we agree on something.

    Not really, not anymore.
     
    BigTom likes this.
  25. alan_

    alan_ Well-Known Member

    could you perhaps refer me to that post/s so that I dont have to search 50 odd pages. Thanks
     
  26. beesonthewhatnow

    beesonthewhatnow going deaf for a living

  27. alan_

    alan_ Well-Known Member

  28. fishfinger

    fishfinger تپلی

    The post that beesonthewhatnow linked to was a description of a single blind test. I would take issue with it as a double blind test would be better. This can be done using an ABX comparator ABX test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  29. beesonthewhatnow

    beesonthewhatnow going deaf for a living

    :facepalm:

    Click the link.
     
    fishfinger likes this.
  30. alan_

    alan_ Well-Known Member

    I did click the link. That’s why I thought you were joking. You linked to a post saying change the cables without the knowledge of the subject and don’t ask leading questions. This is stating the obvious. In fact you are still joking aren't you? How many subjects do you think necessary? What sort of percentages do you think start to show bias? Do the subjects need vetting?

    I am sure Mr Randis test would cover all of this as every time you see him on TV he seems to employ a rigorous methodology. It is almost as rigorous as the one outlined by Crispy
     

Share This Page