436 posts / 0 new
Last post
Covenanter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 10:16
Posts: 1335
RE: more 'snake oil'

When I first started reading this CB I thought I was a "voice in the wilderness".  I am pleased to find that I am not!

Chris

Marantz PM8005 / SA8005 / KEF R700s / AKG K702

Alec's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 13 hours ago
Joined: 08/10/2007 - 21:06
Posts: 6087
RE: more 'snake oil'

CB?

Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
RE: more 'snake oil'

Alec wrote:

CB?

Cosmopolitan Bible?

 

 

gregvet's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 11 hours ago
Joined: 24/12/2008 - 02:55
Posts: 746
RE: more 'snake oil'

Dynamight wrote:

Alec wrote:

CB?

Cosmopolitan Bible?

 

Complete Snakes**t ?

Covenanter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 22 min ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 10:16
Posts: 1335
RE: more 'snake oil'

Comment Board

Marantz PM8005 / SA8005 / KEF R700s / AKG K702

Crossie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 3 days ago
Joined: 04/08/2009 - 13:08
Posts: 558
RE: more 'snake oil'

+1 Idc

Thanks for a rational, well written and intelligent analysis of the value of  "double blind" testing.

IMHO it is the speakers that make the difference, every thing else is peripheral to varying degrees, with surfaces way down the list at the vanishingly small to absolutely no effect end of the spectrum.

fr0g's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 15 hours ago
Joined: 07/01/2008 - 18:38
Posts: 2954
RE: more 'snake oil'

+2

IDC is pretty much spot on imo.

The day I stopped chasing the rainbows of SQ improvements with cables, stands, expensive sources etc was the day I started to enjoy music a whole lot more.

So now I run some actives (ADMs) and a pair of Dali Ikon6 from a cheap AV processor utilising the DACs in that. They previously ran from £2000 worth of Amp and DAC, and if I am honest...there's little or no difference in SQ.

 

I think people want their equipment to be better than the cheaper alternatives so much, that it actually is.

So long as your amp can drive your speakers to a level you like without clipping and so long as your bits arrive intact then the only thing that really matters is the quality of the speakers.IMO.

jerry klinger's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 weeks 15 hours ago
Joined: 26/06/2010 - 10:13
Posts: 351
RE: more 'snake oil'

Paul Hobbs wrote:

Aparently (Chineese water snake) snake oil is higher in Omega 3 than Salmon.  The problem with the name came from 'snake oil salesmen' not actually including snake oil in the products they sold. 

I expect snake oil would work quite effectively in an LP12 bearing well.

Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
RE: more 'snake oil'

Nah - too much sibilance.

SteveR750's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 2 days ago
Joined: 11/03/2005 - 23:46
Posts: 3080
RE: more 'snake oil'

fr0g wrote:

I think people want their equipment to be better than the cheaper alternatives so much, that it actually is.

So long as your amp can drive your speakers to a level you like without clipping and so long as your bits arrive intact then the only thing that really matters is the quality of the speakers.IMO.

Audio inverted snobbery?

And what about what your ears tell you? Or is it just about clipping, and amp power etc. 

Sorry Frog, but this is the least logical post I have read for ages, and in all time from you.

Captain Duff's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: 26/07/2012 - 18:09
Posts: 126
RE: more 'snake oil'

Crossie wrote:

+1 Idc

Thanks for a rational, well written and intelligent analysis of the value of  "double blind" testing.

IMHO it is the speakers that make the difference, every thing else is peripheral to varying degrees, with surfaces way down the list at the vanishingly small to absolutely no effect end of the spectrum.

 

Yes, I agree that with digital the differences in sources can often be small in relation to price and so therefore it makes a lot of sense to see speakers a priority and work backwards (which is the opposite of what traditionally is recommended), however the old rule of rubbish in rubbish out is still very much a good one when it comes to analogue sources like turntables, arms and cartridges where the audible differences between cheap and expensive can be extreme.

Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
RE: more 'snake oil'

SteveR750 wrote:

fr0g wrote:

I think people want their equipment to be better than the cheaper alternatives so much, that it actually is.

So long as your amp can drive your speakers to a level you like without clipping and so long as your bits arrive intact then the only thing that really matters is the quality of the speakers.IMO.

Audio inverted snobbery?

And what about what your ears tell you? Or is it just about clipping, and amp power etc. 

Sorry Frog, but this is the least logical post I have read for ages, and in all time from you.

It was pretty logical for me, I agree with every word of it.
fr0g's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 15 hours ago
Joined: 07/01/2008 - 18:38
Posts: 2954
RE: more 'snake oil'

SteveR750 wrote:

fr0g wrote:

I think people want their equipment to be better than the cheaper alternatives so much, that it actually is.

So long as your amp can drive your speakers to a level you like without clipping and so long as your bits arrive intact then the only thing that really matters is the quality of the speakers.IMO.

Audio inverted snobbery?

And what about what your ears tell you? Or is it just about clipping, and amp power etc. 

Sorry Frog, but this is the least logical post I have read for ages, and in all time from you.

 

No, the point is, if you believe one thing is better than another, then it is "to you". It's a proven psychological phenomenon. As idc's post earlier correctly states that blind testing reveals less differences than sighted.
And it isn't that people "make it up". They do genuinely hear differences where there are none.

And of course the power/clipping is an oversimplification, but any differences due to other factors than lack of power/current are usually tiny compared to changes in speakers or listening environment.

As for trying to change the sound by swapping cables and supports...utter waste of time imo.

idc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 02/01/2008 - 15:36
Posts: 7765
RE: more 'snake oil'

fr0g wrote:

 

....

 

And it isn't that people "make it up". They do genuinely hear differences where there are none.

........

 

I want to clarify something. People genuinely do hear differences with sighted tests and they are real differences to them. It is what causes the differences that is the issue. If you can show inherantly a certain hifi product like a cable cannot affect SQ, the cause of hearing a difference is then elsewhere.

 

For example

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/dav/aaua/2004/00000090/00000006/art00005

"Product sound quality judgments are based on perception of both acoustical characteristics and various non-acoustical factors."

http://www.wu.ac.at/werbung/download/publikationen/97cems.pdf

"The consumers’ prejudices, i.e. their simplified evaluations of Japan’s and Singapore’s respective ability to produce CD-players influence the consumers’ assessments of quality. This influence is sufficiently strong so as even to distort objectively like qualities (sound quality of a CD-player) in the consumers’ minds"

 

 

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 1 min ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 12446
RE: more 'snake oil'

fr0g wrote:

No, the point is, if you believe one thing is better than another, then it is "to you". It's a proven psychological phenomenon. As idc's post earlier correctly states that blind testing reveals less differences than sighted.

And it isn't that people "make it up". They do genuinely hear differences where there are none.

And of course the power/clipping is an oversimplification, but any differences due to other factors than lack of power/current are usually tiny compared to changes in speakers or listening environment.

As for trying to change the sound by swapping cables and supports...utter waste of time imo.

The problem I have with this, is not this view per se, but the fact that it stops any further investigation and experimentation. This unshakable belief that one is right, with no room for doubt whatsoever, doesn't entertain the possibility of being wrong!

Just like us poor deluded souls who think  differences exist because we've heard them, those on the other side of the debate, have a mindset that almost certainly precludes the hearing of a difference, even if there is one. It will most likely be written off as expectation bias etc. In other words, it could be argued that "negative" expectation bias is at work here; except it isn't seen as such, as it's put down to being "impossible".

IDC, if I remember correctly (btw no malice intended),  used to have a different view, and heard beneficial differences of mains cables, until he submerged himself in the whole area of "correct" testing and and expectation bias. Now he will (probably as soon as he sees this) make exceedingly informed and well written arguments to support his side of the debate, and there is nothing wrong with that; but it is my worry that it's like studying only one side of the argument and so is building in an imbalance.

I suspect that if a survey was done on here, the people who can hear differences are in the majority, with sceptics joining the darkside almost weekly. Now this doesn't prove anything in itself, but imo shows that this issue is far from being an "open and shut" case.

What I have said above is simply my view and is meant to be thought provoking rather than confrontational....and I expect I will be told I'm completely misguided!

Cno

 

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

Pages

Log in or register to post comments