Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Re: One thought

Posted by Soundmind (A) on August 26, 2004 at 11:46:32

In Reply to: One thought posted by Commuteman on August 26, 2004 at 10:58:58:

In answer to your specific question, if I understand you right, you would put a weighing system on different measured devitions or different audible deviations or ??? I'm not sure exactly you are referring to. Here's the problem I have. Either a deviation is audible or it isn't. It may be audible to some people but not to others. That's why selection of people with the most accute hearing for a first round of tests is desirable. If they can't hear something, it's likely nobody else can either. Is one audible deviation which is by at least my definition a distortion preferable over another? Maybe yes. A linear distortion, a deviation in frequency response can be compensated for, a non linear one can't. Many "audiophiles" will object that the use of equalization to correct a frequency response error is unacceptable because it brings other penalties and discussing that would just start another flame war so I'll stay away form that except to say I personally have no problem with it.

I am afraid that further exploration of this subject will just invite another flame war the way the last one and likely the one before it and the one before that did. I really don't want to instigate another one and I certainly don't want to participate in one.

I've stated my point of view as succinctly and completely as I can in this thread. I think it says the same things I said in my other postings, possibly in different words, in a different order, and maybe fills in a few gaps with what I would have considered easily inferable. I really have nothing further to contribute except perhaps a few observations. The method I outlined has nothing magical or clever or unusual in it. It's more or less what I would expect from a scientist or committee assigned to investigate it. If anyone wants to criticize it, tweak it, or substitute something they feel is better, I'm happy to listen but to nitpick it to death or just shoot it down without any alternative is to say the problem can't be solved. I don't accept that and that is a true naysayer position, one of nihilism. The best telecommunications laboratory in the world, Bell Telephone Laboratories probably solved this problem 50, 60, maybe even 70 years ago. It's probably published in some obscure province of AES, IEEE, or IRE or somewhere. They undoubtedly needed to know the answers to define the requirements for the telephone network and knowing them, they had unlimited funding, were unaccountable to anyone for spending it, and had armies of scientists looking for something to do to justify their generous salaries. Sometimes I get the feeling that there are people who for one reason or another have a vested interest in never seeing this problem solved. That's what I meant when I said that it seemed it was suggested that not only was the proposed methodology not acceptable but that no other methodology would be acceptable either.

So in the hope that I won't be called a troll again, I think I've said all I have to say about audio cables and will just read what other people have to say, when it seems interesting.

Good luck in your war and may the better side win.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---