Objectivist or Subjectivist? Give Me a Break
- Thread starter Jeff Fritz
- Start date
I'm pretty familiar with statistics, and I'm pretty sure you didn't describe anything that would have statistical value. That's not anti-audiophile, it's pro-facts.
Tim
I'm not sure why trying to distinguish illusion from reality is "anti-audiophile". The likelihood that there are "real" aspects of audio reproduction that are poorly (or not at all) appreciated by so-called "objectivists" doesn't change the likelihood that much of what audio "subjectivists" claim is illusion.
At their website, Audience gathered a number of reviews for the Au24 cable.
Why not run a statistical analysis? Should be interesting to plot these authentic reviews from leading audiophile reviewers - they are neutral, warm, emphasize bass, give correct bass, etc:
"Relaxed, neutral presentation without any injected drama" -- "less 'audiophile' and more 'music lover'"; "definitely in the smooth, round, musical realm" but also "considerably more linear than that of some similarly priced cables"; remarkable bass performance from such tiny cables.
The woody warmth of the Peggy and Yale Gordon Center for the Performing Arts clearly embraced Russell’s notes, supporting and sustaining his guitar’s sound. Detail, warmth, truth -- what’s not to like?
The Au24 speaker cables reproduced Swallow’s loosey-goosey bass line with impact and precision. And swing? They sure didn’t sound as if they were storing any energy. In that respect, based on the way they caught Swallow’s drive and slam, they were mighty close to the state of the art.
This is what the Au24s give: the ease, "lift," tactile immediacy, and coherence of live music, and the uncanny presence of a performer. You are sitting back toward the middle of the hall, where the edges have been softened a bit by air and the room and where the orchestra’s separate voices have come together. The soloist is standing before you, and, as frequently happens during the experience of live music, you find yourself smiling.
The result is natural reproduction as heard in real life without added emphasis or editorializing. The Au24 cables may not sound as exciting at first but the virtues become apparent as the listener becomes familiar with them. Perhaps even more importantly, the musical overtones arrive in their proper time relationship with the fundamentals. This creates a more convincing illusion of reality and improves sound staging. For example, when properly recorded, a drummer’s cymbals will now be placed back with the rest of the drum kit instead of appearing to emanate from the speakers.
These wires don't highlight any aspect of the frequency spectrum - unless of course, you already have a deficiency in some area thereof. Then you will notice a "highlight" but perhaps later come to realize that it wasn't that at all. The Au24s just lay it all out in proper proportion and do so at modest listening levels. I know, I always harp on this but it's only fair to come back to what I consider my vision when assembling my system.
The Au24 had a slightly warmer tonal balance—, double basses and cellos were reproduced with more authority, and a more realistic weight and resonance. Images were a bit more dimensional with the Au24s, and slightly more solid and dense. Part of it was a slightly better resolution of inner detail. The xylophone at the opening of "Dance of the Rose Maidens" was more distinctive with the Au24s, with a slightly woodier bite and a better sense of the instrument's shape and configuration.
The reason that they don't stand out is that they do absolutely nothing more to one aspect of the sound than to all the others; and nothing to one part of the frequency range more than another part. In other words, they are exceptionally even-handed. They manage to produce an increased amount of detail, without making the music too bright. They produce the 'right amount' of bass without becoming boomy. The music appears to be much more layered, rich in tone without being 'sweet'. Clarity is spot on, that is clear without being over analytical
"We usually associate an increase in detail or resolution with some unwanted side effect, such as dryness, thinness, brightness, or some other negative "-ness" that is a definite compromise. Get more of "this", but less of "that". With the new "e" cable, there is more of the "this", but no less of the "that". There is an increase of smoothness, detail and resolution all across the frequency range without any sense, even a subtle one, that any compromise has been made. But make no mistake, for a small increase in cost the higher level of musical enjoyment is substantial."
On acoustic bass the leading edge of notes seem crisper and tightly controlled. The initial slap heard before the thud of a kick drum is more apparent. Sibilants are not exaggerated but seem clearer and more natural. Sounds seem to emanate with clarity from a more focused space within the soundstage. Harmonics are portrayed without excessive bloom which will probably make for a good match with tube based systems such as mine. I suppose this all hinges on getting leading edge transient information timed properly so that the ear/brain mechanism can interpret it as more lifelike.
"The Audience Au24 interconnects and speaker cables are commendably neutral and natural, and they help you forget about chasing the pot o' gold at the end of the audiophile rainbow. These are attributes that the best cable should embody.
Why not run a statistical analysis? Should be interesting to plot these authentic reviews from leading audiophile reviewers - they are neutral, warm, emphasize bass, give correct bass, etc:
"Relaxed, neutral presentation without any injected drama" -- "less 'audiophile' and more 'music lover'"; "definitely in the smooth, round, musical realm" but also "considerably more linear than that of some similarly priced cables"; remarkable bass performance from such tiny cables.
The woody warmth of the Peggy and Yale Gordon Center for the Performing Arts clearly embraced Russell’s notes, supporting and sustaining his guitar’s sound. Detail, warmth, truth -- what’s not to like?
The Au24 speaker cables reproduced Swallow’s loosey-goosey bass line with impact and precision. And swing? They sure didn’t sound as if they were storing any energy. In that respect, based on the way they caught Swallow’s drive and slam, they were mighty close to the state of the art.
This is what the Au24s give: the ease, "lift," tactile immediacy, and coherence of live music, and the uncanny presence of a performer. You are sitting back toward the middle of the hall, where the edges have been softened a bit by air and the room and where the orchestra’s separate voices have come together. The soloist is standing before you, and, as frequently happens during the experience of live music, you find yourself smiling.
The result is natural reproduction as heard in real life without added emphasis or editorializing. The Au24 cables may not sound as exciting at first but the virtues become apparent as the listener becomes familiar with them. Perhaps even more importantly, the musical overtones arrive in their proper time relationship with the fundamentals. This creates a more convincing illusion of reality and improves sound staging. For example, when properly recorded, a drummer’s cymbals will now be placed back with the rest of the drum kit instead of appearing to emanate from the speakers.
These wires don't highlight any aspect of the frequency spectrum - unless of course, you already have a deficiency in some area thereof. Then you will notice a "highlight" but perhaps later come to realize that it wasn't that at all. The Au24s just lay it all out in proper proportion and do so at modest listening levels. I know, I always harp on this but it's only fair to come back to what I consider my vision when assembling my system.
The Au24 had a slightly warmer tonal balance—, double basses and cellos were reproduced with more authority, and a more realistic weight and resonance. Images were a bit more dimensional with the Au24s, and slightly more solid and dense. Part of it was a slightly better resolution of inner detail. The xylophone at the opening of "Dance of the Rose Maidens" was more distinctive with the Au24s, with a slightly woodier bite and a better sense of the instrument's shape and configuration.
The reason that they don't stand out is that they do absolutely nothing more to one aspect of the sound than to all the others; and nothing to one part of the frequency range more than another part. In other words, they are exceptionally even-handed. They manage to produce an increased amount of detail, without making the music too bright. They produce the 'right amount' of bass without becoming boomy. The music appears to be much more layered, rich in tone without being 'sweet'. Clarity is spot on, that is clear without being over analytical
"We usually associate an increase in detail or resolution with some unwanted side effect, such as dryness, thinness, brightness, or some other negative "-ness" that is a definite compromise. Get more of "this", but less of "that". With the new "e" cable, there is more of the "this", but no less of the "that". There is an increase of smoothness, detail and resolution all across the frequency range without any sense, even a subtle one, that any compromise has been made. But make no mistake, for a small increase in cost the higher level of musical enjoyment is substantial."
On acoustic bass the leading edge of notes seem crisper and tightly controlled. The initial slap heard before the thud of a kick drum is more apparent. Sibilants are not exaggerated but seem clearer and more natural. Sounds seem to emanate with clarity from a more focused space within the soundstage. Harmonics are portrayed without excessive bloom which will probably make for a good match with tube based systems such as mine. I suppose this all hinges on getting leading edge transient information timed properly so that the ear/brain mechanism can interpret it as more lifelike.
"The Audience Au24 interconnects and speaker cables are commendably neutral and natural, and they help you forget about chasing the pot o' gold at the end of the audiophile rainbow. These are attributes that the best cable should embody.
Cables are a product that is not easy to advertise. There is no valid technical correlation between accepted measurements and their sound quality, the advertisement must attract the prospective client attention to persuade him to try it in his system. And as all of them have the same limitation, each must try to be more miraculous than the competing cables. So it is very easy to pick hyperbolic and even ridiculous sentences in their marketing literature and reviews to attack the others opinions. What do we learn from such writings? A nice joke book, but nothing that can help us to understand the cable performance or why and how people fine tune their systems with appropriate cables. And yes, many times audiophiles are hyperbolic - it is part of their hobby jargon. As they are adapted to this system of communication, and automatically scale what they read the message arrives undisturbed.
BTW, hyperbolic and eye catching sensationalist advertisement is not exclusive of cable manufacturers - even brands known for their serious and competent research in speakers need to set new standards in accuracy, refinement and seat-of-the-pants excitement (who knows what they mean with it?) for marketing purposes.
BTW, hyperbolic and eye catching sensationalist advertisement is not exclusive of cable manufacturers - even brands known for their serious and competent research in speakers need to set new standards in accuracy, refinement and seat-of-the-pants excitement (who knows what they mean with it?) for marketing purposes.
I think that should be "perceived sound quality", or "experiential quality" perhaps - didn't we earlier establish that placebo is 'real', but it is confusing to still call it "sound" quality.
This is completely untrue. It is true of crap measurements like power response of a circuit (without phase or impulse response information), SNR, THD, measurements using single-tone probes, power spectrum measurements of speakers on one axis, or a lot of things, but this is not true.
It is, however, true that in order to learn what you need to know, you must presently perform your own measurements and have good grounding in both signal processing and psychoacoustics.
The industry, by and large, does not seem to want good measurements, and frankly I'm not surprised, but please do not confuse what you see on the short-form spec sheet with what is a scientifically accepted measurement.
If you think you can get industry to walk the walk, tell me how.
Cables are a product that is not easy to advertise. There is no valid technical correlation between accepted measurements and their sound quality, the advertisement must attract the prospective client attention to persuade him to try it in his system. And as all of them have the same limitation, each must try to be more miraculous than the competing cables. So it is very easy to pick hyperbolic and even ridiculous sentences in their marketing literature and reviews to attack the others opinions. What do we learn from such writings? A nice joke book, but nothing that can help us to understand the cable performance or why and how people fine tune their systems with appropriate cables. And yes, many times audiophiles are hyperbolic - it is part of their hobby jargon. As they are adapted to this system of communication, and automatically scale what they read the message arrives undisturbed.
BTW, hyperbolic and eye catching sensationalist advertisement is not exclusive of cable manufacturers - even brands known for their serious and competent research in speakers need to set new standards in accuracy, refinement and seat-of-the-pants excitement (who knows what they mean with it?) for marketing purposes.
But this isn't advertising. These are the evaluations of established reviewers in the industry, excerpted by the manufacturer - who didn't notice that the cables are truly multipurpose, going by the reviews.
Reviews like these would only have any real value if they were part of a comprehensive double blind testing in which the reviewer compared, for example, the expensive "high-end" cable against a standard electrical cable from the local hardware store, and their reviews of both cables, together with the statistics of their success at reliably distinguishing them, were published.
I can understand why the "high-end" manufacturers and the audio magazines where they advertise will never want to do that (follow the money...), but what I can never understand is why some *consumers* ("audiophiles") are also happy to go along with this. Why would one want one's buying choices to be influenced by the writings of somebody who has no demonstrated ability to discriminate between "high-end" cables and electrical wires from Lowes?
Chris
Because the review is the sound. Sound-wise, all cables are the same, and it is only the branding and 'reviews' that create the cables' 'house sound' and mystique. Deep down, I think some audiophiles suspect this but are happy to go along with the self-administered placebo.
If all cables were then they should sound the same. We all know that the former isn't true so neither should be the latter. You don't have to leave the existing standard EE principles and measurements (TL theory) to prove that either.
Well, actually, that's only true if the cable is poorly designed.
The claims made for many varieties of audiophile cable would imply that the wire between your telephone (assuming you have a land line, yes, I know, that's old-fashioned) and a central office 2 miles away could not support communication. I refer specifically to a large variety of "grain" and other misunderstandings in how a signal passes down a cable.
Let me ask you something: How far do you think an electron moves down a 12 gauge wire conducting 10 amps DC?
Clearly every cable is different from every other cable by definition. Even two cables of the same type, but that doesn't mean they have to sound any different.
If I substitute various bits of my car with ultra-expensive versions, will I notice any difference in the way it drives? A gasket made of gold? Battery acid based on sulphur extracted from Mount Vesuvius?
If I substitute various bits of my car with ultra-expensive versions, will I notice any difference in the way it drives? A gasket made of gold? Battery acid based on sulphur extracted from Mount Vesuvius?
It is true that there can be small differences between cables due to easily quantifiable and measurable differences in resistance, capacitance and inductance. If the reviewers were required to establish their credentials by demonstrating an ability to discriminate between cables with different R, C, L characteristics in double blind tests, then their reviews of specific cables might be of more worth. And it would add to the value of the review if they (or the manufacturer) supplied data on the measured characteristics of the cable.
Another aspect that I find puzzling is that if different cables really do have audibly different signatures, then it is surely obvious that one should try to correlate these differences with the measurable quantities, so that one could try to home in on "better sounding" cables by selecting/designing them to enhance the measurable characteristics that correlate with the improved sound? And yet many audiophiles seem to be remarkably incurious about *why* their prefered cable sounds better. I suppose this comes back to an earlier comment I made, that some audiophiles have an almost theological need to believe that these questions cannot be adressed by science.
Chris
Touchingly naive. The data would all look the same, with minor variations, and anyone could come along and duplicate those characteristics at about $0.10 per foot.
The audible differences between cables are not due to R, L and C. They are due to energy field absorption or quantum effects.
I think that the real world changes of the signal due to R, L and C in a normal audio system would be tiny - we can simulate it to confirm that - so no one could learn to distinguish between them, anyway. The cable is just a tiny element in a chain of hundreds of components, electrical connections, and $0.10-per-foot cable in the recording studio, pressing plant etc. Can we find an authoritative audio design text book that teaches prospective audio designers what to look for in a cable, beyond the obvious shielding and mechanical aspects? I don't think so. Audio cable 'design' lives in a technical vacuum, because there is nothing to know or learn about it, beyond the obvious. Everything else is just flummery.
Last edited:
Not if they continue to "hear" a difference, no. It would satisfy those who already believe that cables sound the same.
Tim
Electronics engineers go to college and university, pass exams, get qualifications. As far as I am aware, there is no literature on the audbilitiy of cables, and no electronics engineer could refer you to a text book on the subject, nor find any information on how to design a cable that sounded better than another. For unqualified people to come along and tell the engineer that there is something about electronics that he doesn't know, yet for there to be no way he can learn about it - because there is no literature on the subject, nor any teacher of the subject - is a bit of a conundrum.
One of the difficulties in obtaining a doctorate is finding a subject that is in some way original and can contribute to the sum of human knowledge. So has anyone, ever, gained a doctorate through the study of the audibility of cables? Why not? It's a wide open field.
I think we know the answer.
One of the difficulties in obtaining a doctorate is finding a subject that is in some way original and can contribute to the sum of human knowledge. So has anyone, ever, gained a doctorate through the study of the audibility of cables? Why not? It's a wide open field.
I think we know the answer.
And a further point is that if these supposed subtleties in cable construction were real, and important, they would surely have come to light in a much more dramatic way in some of the other branches of electronic and electrical engineering, where the frequencies, currents, voltages, etc. can be hugely more demanding and exacting. Why would these kinds of effects only ever have been encountered by audiophiles connecting simple pieces of home electronics together?
Chris
Last edited:
Similar threads
Members online
- carrera
- orfeo_monteverdi
- Robh3606
- unboxed
- MarkusBarkus
- strapper211
- kennyb123
- enochRoot
- moby2004
- BCRich1960
- jbrrp1
- jelt2359
- df@acosticdreams
- ticktock
- SoupRKnowva
- Moiz Audio
- PhoenixSF
- theclipper
- Carlosoptico
- gadawg58
- Kingsrule
- TrackingAngle
- jimbones
- willgall
- mu6
- WillBthr
- jadis
- GuillaumeB
- ptman
- SlapEcho
- Treehaus Audiolab
- alwayslearning
- Alex G
- Imperial
- gian60
- Rexp
- hlg995
- John T
- XV-1
- Ssti845
- austinpop
- jazdoc
- engadin
- hopkins
- Sharok
- dminches
- Argonaut
- gestalt
- andromedaaudio
- hornfly
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |