being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

[69FireBird]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

Do wires that have batteries on them soiund better, i saw some one time and the seller in the store told me to believ him because of ac currents need a battery which is dc to bias or something, so what is really going on there, he had nice speakers and big amps and used big words and told me peopl witll tell me i am a dumbass for asking questions?

[SirNickity]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

117 posts in 2 days....

So, what's worse, obsessing over cables and power cords and their super obvious impact on sound quality, or obsessing over how senseless it is to obsess over cables and power cords and their super obvious impact on sound quality?

The only thing worse than either is people who complain about having to read these threads. As if anyone is asking non-willing participants to sit through it. If you're here reading this, it's because you want to be. Even if it's just a perverse pleasure you derive from it, or a feeling of superiority you get from "not being dragged into yet another pointless debate." Except, as soon as you post that one remark, you have been dragged into the pointless debate. Own up, buddy, you're one of us! :applause: Would ya like a beer?

Come to work with me for a day. The development of passive electronics, even ones used for low frequency in precision applications, needs to account for inductive effects of the leads since lower order harmonics WILL creep into the lower KHz range. The detail put into the geometry of the parts of components is almost as critical as hitting the component value itself.

It's stuff like this ^^ that makes these discussions interesting. Every now and then, I read a paragraph like that and think to myself, "self, that's a good point."

I don't think it's going to change my opinion this time though. While I agree precision instruments often show the discrepancies caused by such minor improvements as component lead length: 1) I don't think our ears are precision instruments in that regard (this is likely to be a potential subject of debate to some, but I believe they're easily fooled); 2) the frequencies aren't high enough for the more insidious parasitic effects to become problematic; 3) the voltages aren't low enough (nV) to require special accommodation to be well above the general noise floor.

I.e., audio signals change slowly, and by the time they're minimal enough to run afoul of minor chaotic influences, the negative effects are probably already dwarfed in (e.g.) Johnson noise, quantization error, driver non-linearity, the room, and the dust mites munching away at our ear hairs. Things that we haven't been able to completely eradicate yet.

So whatever difference that little audiophile tweak makes is so lost in the errors that are an order of magnitude higher, that it becomes a fruitless effort. When we have opamps sporting 200dB signal-to-noise ratio and 1kV/us slew rates, then maybe I'll give the ol' high-tech power cable a shot.

[Wolf]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

Gravity as a concept is a tautology, same as evolution. To dispute gravity - whether "proven" or not, it an idiots choice. The same with evolution.

A theory is just that - a theory. Fortunately for us, scientific theory is held to slightly more rigorous standards than the theory that a pleated diaphragm makes a ribbon tweeter capable of delivering aural orgasms. It is *unfortunate* that science has chosen the word "theory" to describe concepts which are very nearly proven beyond not only a reasonable doubt, but proven to the point that to deny is an idiots choice - since the word "theory" is so often tied up with stupid conspiracies, radical pseudo-science, and other such non-sense - almost always keyed to individuals who refute mainstream science possessing overwhelming data.

We all have our little pet "theories" that we believe science cannot or will not explain. Does not make it right, not does it make us exempt from specific and targeted questioning on our pet theories.

Glad my only theory on loudspeakers is that most of us would fail miserably at identifying, blind, the crap we all profess to enjoy the most. A long history of subjective sensory input experiments implies audiophiles or science deniers would fare particularly poorly. Just a theory, though

You're bordering on opening a door into a conversation that has no bearing being on TechTalk, Johnny. If it's a THEORY, it's not proven.
Extrapolating....
The Scientific Method has not gone through all 7 steps to 'prove' evolution. The 7th step is not conclusive. Fact is that none of us were there to say what happened, none of us truly can recollect what happened from memory, and none of us can truthfully state that the universe was not initiated by some outside force. It bothers me that science is taught in schools using evolution as the start of 'what is' when it is not proven by any stretch of the imagination. The simulations scientists run about the dawn of time cannot be error-free as they have not and cannot have measured all of the parameters to have an irrefutable basis stating what really happened. The fact that 1/10^30000 is the probability of it starting as it is supposed by scientists is an impossibility in mathematical theory where 1/10^17000 is the probability of what classifies as impossible.
Math says no.
Science has not sufficiently said so.
Can't prove the negative there.

Truth be told, you 'believe' that is what happened- whether you have any supposed objective data or not to support your subjective opinion on the genesis of everything. It cannot be objective.
(Notice I left religion out of that completely, and went through a logical process to get to my point- same as you. No offense is intended.
Mods- delete this if you see fit, but I feel I trod that line very well.)

Later,
Wolf

[andy19191]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

To ignore the FACT that power factor effects components. There is A LOT of data available on cable and the effect of impedance mismatches and/or signal transfer though wire.

Indeed there is and so why do you hold the beliefs you do? It requires only a modest level of technical competence and effort to determine the size of these effects for audio frequencies. I presume you haven't done this because you have faith they would show what you would like to see. But why do you have this faith? Doesn't it seem at all odd to you that, despite inducements of upto a million dollars, nobody has ever demonstrated an ability to distinguish audiophiles wires under normal conditions by listening alone over the 35 years or so since they were first introduced. You must know this and yet you believe something else that is so strong it makes this apparently compelling fact insignificant. I would genuinely like to know what it is.

[lorenmjones]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

Right on Wolf. I would say that it is clear that evolution in the sense of natural selection affecting change on life forms over time is pretty clearly demonstrated. It is tr extrapolation of that to try to explain the origin of life in the first place that becomes much more questionable.

You're bordering on opening a door into a conversation that has no bearing being on TechTalk, Johnny. If it's a THEORY, it's not proven.
Extrapolating....
The Scientific Method has not gone through all 7 steps to 'prove' evolution. The 7th step is not conclusive. Fact is that none of us were there to say what happened, none of us truly can recollect what happened from memory, and none of us can truthfully state that the universe was not initiated by some outside force. It bothers me that science is taught in schools using evolution as the start of 'what is' when it is not proven by any stretch of the imagination. The simulations scientists run about the dawn of time cannot be error-free as they have not and cannot have measured all of the parameters to have an irrefutable basis stating what really happened. The fact that 1/10^30000 is the probability of it starting as it is supposed by scientists is an impossibility in mathematical theory where 1/10^17000 is the probability of what classifies as impossible.
Math says no.
Science has not sufficiently said so.
Can't prove the negative there.

Truth be told, you 'believe' that is what happened- whether you have any supposed objective data or not to support your subjective opinion on the genesis of everything. It cannot be objective.
(Notice I left religion out of that completely, and went through a logical process to get to my point- same as you. No offense is intended.
Mods- delete this if you see fit, but I feel I trod that line very well.)

Later,
Wolf

[maynardg]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

Very well stated, Wolf. Extraordinary claims of fact or truth bring along with them an extraordinary evidential burden. By its nature, science will never actually prove beyond doubt. Doubt, in many ways, is the currency of science.

Some theory, though, will accumulate enough evidence to reach the operational status of fact. Meaning, you can depend on it to explain a very great deal even if you cannot state it will explain everything in all circumstances. Theory changes as evidence is accumulated, of course.

Individuals who offer a description or explanation of their personal experience, or a belief regarding the cause of such, should not held to the same standard. After all, they make no assertions that their experience is generalizable to others and their beliefs about cause have, at that point, the status of a personally held myth. I would consider these rather ordinary, rather than extraordinary claims.

I put many of the claims of others regarding pebbles, green pens, wires and the like in that category - as personal experience, belief, myth. Essentially unassailable and inconsequential. Inconsequential, that is, until someone asks me for money to see if I experience the same thing.

Then, such claims are quite assailable.

Now, there are claims that many on this board would make (for instance regarding caps), that are of interest to me and for which I will ask for evidence. You once stated that differences could be heard among caps in various positions in the XO circuit. That claim was of interest to me. And you offered evidence. I heard, with nearly 100% reliability, the difference between Solen and BPE caps in the shunt position in the woofer circuit. Evidence enough for me to accept that particular claim as likely true for me and my ears, and not a myth. Cause remains unclear to me, and I really don't have that much interest to care.

I'd love to put my fovorite Clarity SA's in that shunt position in the Last Hurrahs. But even on sale - they are costly, so I will use some Erses or Dayton 100uf poly caps I have on hand.

Now, because I have learned that you have the ears and time needed to reliably discern differences among caps, I trust the veracity of your claims in that domain far more than the claims of folks unknown to me.

So, how about it, Erse or Dayton in my shunt circuit??

You're bordering on opening a door into a conversation that has no bearing being on TechTalk, Johnny. If it's a THEORY, it's not proven.
Extrapolating....
The Scientific Method has not gone through all 7 steps to 'prove' evolution. The 7th step is not conclusive. Fact is that none of us were there to say what happened, none of us truly can recollect what happened from memory, and none of us can truthfully state that the universe was not initiated by some outside force. It bothers me that science is taught in schools using evolution as the start of 'what is' when it is not proven by any stretch of the imagination. The simulations scientists run about the dawn of time cannot be error-free as they have not and cannot have measured all of the parameters to have an irrefutable basis stating what really happened. The fact that 1/10^30000 is the probability of it starting as it is supposed by scientists is an impossibility in mathematical theory where 1/10^17000 is the probability of what classifies as impossible.
Math says no.
Science has not sufficiently said so.
Can't prove the negative there.

Truth be told, you 'believe' that is what happened- whether you have any supposed objective data or not to support your subjective opinion on the genesis of everything. It cannot be objective.
(Notice I left religion out of that completely, and went through a logical process to get to my point- same as you. No offense is intended.
Mods- delete this if you see fit, but I feel I trod that line very well.)

Later,
Wolf

[djg]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

I believe in Wolf.

[lorenmjones]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

Right on Wolf. I would say that it is clear that evolution in the sense of natural selection affecting change on life forms over time is pretty clearly demonstrated. It is the extrapolation of that concept to try to explain the origin of life in the first place that becomes much more questionable.

You're bordering on opening a door into a conversation that has no bearing being on TechTalk, Johnny. If it's a THEORY, it's not proven.
Extrapolating....
The Scientific Method has not gone through all 7 steps to 'prove' evolution. The 7th step is not conclusive. Fact is that none of us were there to say what happened, none of us truly can recollect what happened from memory, and none of us can truthfully state that the universe was not initiated by some outside force. It bothers me that science is taught in schools using evolution as the start of 'what is' when it is not proven by any stretch of the imagination. The simulations scientists run about the dawn of time cannot be error-free as they have not and cannot have measured all of the parameters to have an irrefutable basis stating what really happened. The fact that 1/10^30000 is the probability of it starting as it is supposed by scientists is an impossibility in mathematical theory where 1/10^17000 is the probability of what classifies as impossible.
Math says no.
Science has not sufficiently said so.
Can't prove the negative there.

Truth be told, you 'believe' that is what happened- whether you have any supposed objective data or not to support your subjective opinion on the genesis of everything. It cannot be objective.
(Notice I left religion out of that completely, and went through a logical process to get to my point- same as you. No offense is intended.
Mods- delete this if you see fit, but I feel I trod that line very well.)

Later,
Wolf

[r-carpenter]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

[johnnyrichards]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

No evolutionist is officially concerned with the origin of life, only what happened after that. It is not taught as the origin of life. Origin of life is a strawman injected by opponents of the "theory" to discredit evolution as not having the answers, when in point of fact it actually does answer the relevant questions. How life began is of interest to many, and we will be able to answer that sooner than later - but it is not taught as nor is it considered part of evolutionary theory.

[carlspeak]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

I believe in Wolf.

Others believe in Tony Gee.

[billfitzmaurice]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

Others believe in Tony Gee.

I believe I'll have another drink.

[carlspeak]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

I believe I'll have another drink.

Hopefully not of the koolaid Bill. ;)

BTW, I was NOT implying I'm a believer in TG! :eek:

[davepellegrene]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

You guys must not watch "Ancient Aliens". The crazy hair guy has it all figured out. My daughter has pointed out the fact that his hair was pretty normal when the show first started and as it progressed his hair kept getting wilder. I think he's one of them!

Dave

[davepellegrene]

Re: being an audiophile has given my friend brain rot :(

Darn, it's to cold here to try that one. Although I am doing some laminate work in my shop today with flammable glue! I'll either blow up or get really high! If you don't here back from me you'll know what happened!

Dave