Jump to content

Yesterday a mains cable sceptic had to revise his thoughts.


Fourlegs

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Audinista said:

Thanks Flashie, the system is indeed quite balanced, there is some small room-induced hump in 100-150 Hz region in my listening position and the upper midrange is slightly lit with Zingalis, but nothing dramatic. It works well with some music and I mostly listen low level.

I'm afraid I can't help you with the explanations Flashie. I tried to get to the mechanisms of it, but my now practically redundant engineering degree with one-year course in electronics many and many a year ago were clearly not enough. I think for most manufacturers it is still guesses, tries and errors dressed in pseudoscientific gibberish they feel necessary for marketing reasons. 

But by the end of the day we are not manufacturers, we are music lovers, so I find it to be much more productive to try and educate my tastes and understanding of music and learn to trust my ears (or rather my brain) rather that searching for scientific confirmations. If I suddenly got the meaning of the interaction in a string quartet playing Beethoven, do I really need to worry what causes it on molecular level?

This way it becomes very simple. Just forget about science and hire some reputable aftermarket cables that don't cost you an arm and a leg and listen to the music. You may well feel there is no improvement and no difference, or the difference is insignificant and musically meaningless, it often happens when changing cables. Then great, you saved yourself some dosh. If you feel that the enhancement is worth it, then prepare to spend some O.o. You may imagine the taste of a Marmite for as long as you wish but isn't it much easier to just take a bite? 

Naysayers will tell you it is all psychoacoustics and you need to be double blind to hear things clearly.  In my humble opinion this is not entirely correct even though we all know we do adjust to the sound. But even if it's (highly unlikely) the case, if psychoacoustics plays major part in it, do we need to worry as long as it lasts? If psychoacoustics brings tears to my eyes when listening to Elgar or Simone, so be it.:D  But it's not, the effect is real. 

Peace, A.

Thanks for this. It’s sort of what I expected and usually I’m in the try-it subjectivist camp, I’m just struggling to go there on mains cables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bokke said:

If you take out the prejudice, they all are, I promise.

We disagree. Politely. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
12 minutes ago, andrew s said:

"euphoric distortion".

I think the word you were groping for was "euphonic”. :geek:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DomT said:

What ‘bits’ do you think are changing in multitrack recording when reducing the reverb send to a vocal track?

I am not an expert on  music recording  but something must change for it to be captured.

I process a lot of astronomical spectra which are digital 1D files. If I filter the spectrum without changing the number of samples each digital sample chages value.

Similarly,  if you have a music file and don't change the sample rate,  length or number of tracks then if you make a change only the digital values can change.

If you add a track when you mix it down to two tracks the "numbers" will be different compared to if you mixed if down without, assuming the same sample rate etc. 

If this is not your understanding what does change?

Regards Andrew 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tony_J said:

I think the word you were groping for was "euphonic”. :geek:

I think there’s something quite charming about euphoric distortion. Mind you, sibilance has a ring to it and I understand cheap transformers are causing a bit of a buzz.

Edited by TheFlash
  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, andrew s said:

I am not an expert on  music recording  but something must change for it to be captured.

I process a lot of astronomical spectra which are digital 1D files. If I filter the spectrum without changing the number of samples each digital sample chages value.

Similarly,  if you have a music file and don't change the sample rate,  length or number of tracks then if you make a change only the digital values can change.

If you add a track when you mix it down to two tracks the "numbers" will be different compared to if you mixed if down without, assuming the same sample rate etc. 

If this is not your understanding what does change?

Regards Andrew 

The audio quality does not change if you record one, two or fifty tracks. The audio quality does not change if you use effects or not. A stereo file is produced at the end of the process for consumers. 

What numbers are you referring to? There are none that matter. The only thing that matters is the end resulting stereo file and it’s bit depth Shadders is confused and is confusing others. Nothing to see here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tony_J said:

I think the word you were groping for was "euphonic”. :geek:

Yes, indeed my apologies. Regards Andrew 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TheFlash said:

This is actually quite a helpful review from ASR for once!

Interesting. 

Just two quotes from this review: 

When measuring: 

1)   "Now let's use Audioquest's cable... Clearly the cables make no difference either."

When listening:

2)  "I then switched to generic cord. Instantly I could tell the sound was improved with the generic cable! Not a typo. The generic cable sounded better."

Just another confirmation that measurements often fail to detect any difference even when we can hear it clearly.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DomT said:

it’s bit depth Shadders is confused

Hi,

No. Repeating the lie does not make it true. I  have never mentioned bit depth. I did state that the bits change.

Regards,

Shadders.

Edited by Shadders
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DomT said:

The audio quality does not change if you record one, two or fifty tracks. The audio quality does not change if you use effects or not. A stereo file is produced at the end of the process for consumers. 

What numbers are you referring to? There are none that matter. The only thing that matters is the end resulting stereo file and it’s bit depth Shadders is confused and is confusing others. Nothing to see here.

Are at cross purposes? A digital audio file is a series of numbers is it not. An accurate digital system will maintain them throughout and pass them on to a DA converter. If any change is made to these numbers then the system is not accurate and the audio quality is compromised.

If one version of a peice of music differs from another then the numbers in the file must be different (although they may have the same quality).

Regards Andrew 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

No. Repeating the lie does not make it true. I  have never mentioned bit depth. I did state that the bits change.

Regards,

Shadders.

You can deliberately misquote me by using half the sentence if you like. Some people would says that your distortion of the truth is in fact you telling a lie. Here is what a I wrote that you then misquoted:AAE584CD-56E9-44E2-89A9-0ADE374F3C36.thumb.jpeg.03675fa18d16148e969d5e68264e2c8d.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Are at cross purposes? A digital audio file is a series of numbers is it not. An accurate digital system will maintain them throughout and pass them on to a DA converter. If any change is made to these numbers then the system is not accurate and the audio quality is compromised.

If one version of a peice of music differs from another then the numbers in the file must be different (although they may have the same quality).

Regards Andrew 

You are confused as to how DAWs work, they don’t work like you think they do, and it’s distracting this thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DomT said:

You can deliberately misquote me by using half the sentence if you like. Some people would says that your distortion of the truth is in fact you telling a lie. Here is what a I wrote that you then misquoted:AAE584CD-56E9-44E2-89A9-0ADE374F3C36.thumb.jpeg.03675fa18d16148e969d5e68264e2c8d.jpeg

Hi,

I did not deliberately misquoting you. You claim i am confused and only bit depth was mentioned by you.

Regards,

Shadders.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

I did not deliberately misquoting you. You claim i am confused and only bit depth was mentioned by you.

Regards,

Shadders.

It’s in black and white that you deliberately misquoted me. You are more confused than I thought.  And you still haven’t said what bits you think change 😂😂😂😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...