Sorry you see things that way JD.
That is not my intention at all. I just thought that this thread would make for an interesting topic of discussion.
PC > AVI Neutron Five 2.1
Sony NWZ-A847 64GB Walkman > Westone UM3x
However it is probably not quite as relevant as you'd imagine. If you have a team of people who have a good basic understanding of each of these sciences you only really need one true expert in each of these disciplines. Provided they can all work together as a team each of the sciences will get due consideration during the design process.
You're right, of course, and multi-disciplinary teamwork is the norm in many fields of science these days. I'm not aware of this happening in hi-fi, however. I guess hi-fi just isn't important enough commercially to be of interest to scientists or science funding bodies. So where scientists do get interested in hi-fi, it's usually as a hobby alongside their 'serious' scientific work (I'm thinking here of Jim Lesurf). One exception to this is the work of Lidia Lee and Earl Geddes on the audibility of distortion. A couple of their papers are available here:
I think that multi-disciplinary teamwork is more common with the large companies such as Yamaha and Sony. It's these types of companies where you often seem to get the biggest advancements in hifi technology too.
Thanks for the link BTW. It looks interesting. I'll have a read later.
What I don't understand is that people accept that other things like TV's and planes are designed and built using sound scientific engineering principals. But when it comes to hifi equiptment it must be designed using subjective voodoo for it to be any good.
To be fair though, a lot of the principles of hi-fi design are based on (theoretically) sound science. And one man's 'voodoo' is often another man's perfectly reasonable attempt to exclude any unwanted influences on the signal path, e.g. from distortion, noise, vibration...
...Clearly I'm not going to defend whatever 'theory' is behind magic stones though ...
I suspect what you actually have in your sights is the scientifically unjustified marketing hype used by manufacturers, much of which is either untestable, irrelevant or simply too vague.
To be honest I'm not really that interested in the 'snake oil' type of manufacturers that you speak of. They've been discussed many times before and it's obvious that they do what they do for monetary gain.
What interests me more are the people who are so quick to believe their bogus claims when science tells us that the claims must be fake. Why is this?
I'd expect any equipment of that importance (and the components in that equipment) to have been fully tested for hundreds of hours prior to be putting into proper use and therefore "burnt in". If you want to call it that.
By the way, before people mistakenly / purposefully get the wrong idea behind my statement, I'm fully aware that testing is not considered "burn in" by people in the aviation / medical equipment industries. Just pointing out why the analogy is flawed as there is a different requirement / motive behind the use of said equipment.
I hear that someone at Boeing recommended burning in the lithium batteries on the new Dreamliner
Pioneer tv + LX85, Sony HW15 Proj, Cyrus DAC XP+/Mono X300/CDXTSE2/PSXRx2, Vienna Acoustics Beethoven Baby Grands and Maestro centre, B&W CM1 surrounds /PV1D (9.1), CA BD751, Virgin TiVo, Inspire Rega t/t, Benz Glider MC, EAR 834P phono amp; Slee Novo Headphone Amp.TQ Black.
Absolutely. I also cannot think of any other pursuit that uses a fair degree of electronic/elctromechanical expertise that has the same degree of controversy. Some pretty powerful arguments have been put forth such as why would an esoteric mains lead that's considerably shorter than the house's ring mains or spur have any advantageous effect on sound SQ? The only possible explanation that springs to mind is that such a cable acts as a filter. If this is the case, they should then be sold as mains filtered leads? This also begs the question why amplifier (or other audio equipment) manufacturers are inadequately filtering the mains input.
It is worth remembeing that designing audio equipment takes a fair degree of objective scientific knowledge & experience. That does not exclude listening being part of the design process. A competent designer must use well-understood principles even if he/she has their own ideas or intuitions to add to the process. IMO, anyone interested in audio as well as music needs to explore the concept that the perception of SQ not only varies between individuals but is so highly processed by our brains that small differences can get magnified to the same extent that mood, state of alertness etc can effect our perceptions. If this was not the case, I contend that our equipment would probably do little more than produce noise.
So-called expectation bias can exaggerate perception but I also suggest some caution in accusing anyone of suffering from it - many hear differences (or say they hear differences) when not expecting to. So ABX v expectation bias may well be missing the point. A friend bought then brought round an expensive digital coax cable one evening. He claimed to hear far bigger differences (improvements) than I did. I can comfortably explain to myself that the differences were so small as to be insignificant. If someone had conducted a test on me where I was told that a cable had been changed, I had then said I heard minor differences but been told the cable had not been touched; I'd be neither surprised nor hurt. The owner of the cable doesn't share my knowledge that differences in SQ with adequately made digital coax cables are improbable - he expected to hear an improvement & I didn't. Does that render his experience bogus though?
HFN conducted a test of USB cables where the winner cost in excess of £6k. The conclusion was from unsighted blind tests & was assigned a score of 88%. The cable that came in 2nd with a score of 85% cost £50! Even if the test was completely valid (judging by the thread on PFM, many think not), the law of dimminishing returns kicks in early here!
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds - the pessimist fears this is true."
James Branch Cabell
MAIN: Apple TV2, Mac Mini & iTunes Match, CA Azur 751BD or Panasonic P42V20B into audiolab M-DAC, feeding a Primare A34.2 via XLRs, 2x 5m of Atlas Ascent 2 firing up Totem Arros.
ON THE HOOF: iPhone 5S/Sennheiser MM450.
I apologize if I come accross as having an 'attitude' or have offended you in anyway. I have tried to be as open and friendly as possible with all of my posts and am sorry if I have offended anyone.
Thanks for sticking up for us thickoes, mate. Thanks to you both, now we know our place and don't have to worry about understanding anything.
You know, I cry each time the electric light comes on when I flick the switch, it really is magic like what the man said.
LOL. Yes very funny.
But what I do disagree with is when someone who has no understanding of a subject tries to argue with some who does have a good understanging of the subject.
Shall I tell you how you're coming across, Steve? You come across as thinking that you are the sole arbiter of who knows what they're talking about in science-related matters. I have a degree in mathematics from a Russell University, an IQ of 147 and am a five day in a row undefeated champeen of Steve Wright in the Afternoon's Big Quiz. Can I play?
I'd be more impressed if that was your high break at snooker.
No, but I did score 182 at golf once.
Cambridge Audio StreamMagic 6 | 751BD | 651A | Diamond 9.1 | Minx Xi | Sonos Play:3
Moderator. mail: john.duncan.whf at the mail of g dot com
Steve, it's your agreeing with the whole "the dumb don't know any better, it's magic to them" thing. I suspect you had zero intention of doing so, but it seemed you were agreeing with Overdose's patronising summation of the situation.
I find it hard to imagine how anyone could genuinely have taken offence. But people are very quick to jump on anything they perceive as arrogance. AL suggests you're unfortunately being tarred with the same brush as Overdose, which seems right to me.
What classical music are you listening to?
Not that I'm commenting on whether I believe burning in cables makes a difference to the sound or not, but I think you've not grasped what people are after when they do things like burning in cables.
They are after an alteration in the way the equipment behaves from new by use. It is seemingly always for the better, 'burn in' never appears to be to the detriment of the equipment, so to use the analogies of the previous poster why would you risk using any other equipment that had not been properly optimised by 'burn in' of any wiring involved?
But they don't. They are built on a production line and then punted out to the customers.
Mac mini > AVI ADM9Ts
We only have a finite intelligence as a race and the only way to push the boundaries is to advance technology by using science to push beyond our own human abilities and once beyond our level of understanding and compreshension, anything can be deemed magic or by design of a higher power.
Granted there are some bright people around, but equally, there are many that simply have to accept what they are told about the way stuff works, as to them it may as well be magic because they simply do not have tha capacity to understand the technology in front of them.
This post is unbelievable. Oozing superiority and condescension.... I wonder how much of the technology you would understand if I just plonked you down in the flight deck?? I'm going to now set my hair on fire.
Quite a bit probably.
There are quite a lot of people here ready to take offence or jump on the bandwagon, but have any of you considered that there really are supposedly sane people that still believe in magic and others that believe that higher powers have had a hand in something that science has proven otherwise?
What a pr*t as they say here. In Oz it's somewhat more pithy.
Who made the nonsensical, but headline-grabbing, statement about the better the recording, the worse the performance?
Depends on the context, but modern recording and production techniques can hide an awful lot of ills, so perhaps this is the meaning of the statement.
Regardless, it is the quote in the OP that is the subject of discussion and its validity is not diminished by whatever the person making the statement has said or done, before or after.
So on one hand you explain away a statement with lack of context, and on the other you want to ignore the context of what a person has said before or after?
The quote from Spiny Norman is an isolated sentence written about something that may or may not have been said and which has no reference, it has no context. The quote in the OP is a standalone statement and needs no other context, it is fairly self explanatory, you either agree with its sentiments or not.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing