• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Comparing the tone of three different "boutique" cables

#141
ok, I sometimes have a lack of tact when it comes to arguing a certain point without getting under someone's skin (case in point: the arrogance comment)..if i have, I'm sorry?...but once again, i'm not saying these cables are different or not (i've never owned, heard or used any of the 3 mentioned)...I'm not ignoring what technology we do have, i'm simply stating that sometimes we try to explain away the things we haven't experienced, and it's possible that one experience CAN BE (not necessarily is) different not because of psychoacoustics and what we think we should hear, but because some people, believe it or not, can hear things better than others.

I'm all for double blind tests...but if I haven't participated in such a test, should I go off the word of some stranger, some "audiophile" who's been tested? You can name whatever person took the test, I don't care, because regardless of his accomplishments, another "audiophile" (or as i like to call them: another HUMAN) who didn't take the test might hear the difference, simply because their ears are more sensitive to the differences than yours and the others. I've heard great audio engineers (based on their prior work) who've had conflicting views and opinions on sound/equipment/etc...bass builders and players all have similar arguments about what sounds "better", or "warmer" or <insert colorful adjective>...why is this any different?
 
#142
kuys said:
A cable is a cable is a cable.

Hearing a difference in a boutique cable is simply a trick the of human brain and the psychology of brand expectations.
Click to expand...

He's not saying that. He's saying that we do need to not fall into the same trap that previous generations did - We can't just say that "a cable is a cable", just as they used to be able just say that "the universe revolves around the earth".

Just like we can point to graphs and say
"everything's is...the same... so it's the same", they pointed to the sky and said
"everything goes...around us..so they go around us".

And he's right. That's why science works, because things don't just stay the same. People constantly test things over

EDIT: I think i'm getting johndough's argument, am i right?
 
#143
Execut1ve said:
no John, I think you're missing the point. Have you ever done any programming? The advantage of computers is NOT that they can do more difficult calculations than humans can... the advantage is that they can do them much faster. Consider for example numerical integration. I can integrate a nasty analytical function using Simpson's Rule (the one where you chop the function into pieces and approximate each piece with a parabola) but I can only divide it into say 10 pieces. Thus my answer isn't going to be all that accurate. A computer, on the other hand, can integrate that same function but chop it into 100, 1000, or 10^23 pieces. It can do that because it does those calculations much faster and doesn't mind doing them over and over again, whereas I can only integrate so many times before I get too tired. The computer's answer will be much more accurate because it can divide the function into many more pieces. Another thing - computers don't make careless errors either :)

All that to say: maybe there is new science happening here and there truly is an objectively measurable difference, but there probably isn't. And your illustration was poorly chosen and technically incorrect :)
Click to expand...

man am i sorry i dragged myself into one of these kinda arguments, i'm not staying up all night arguing this, but I won't stand for being misquoted...when did i say they could do 'more difficult' calculations...see? maybe you thought u remembered what i said, but you didn't. just like one person's memory could be better than yours, one person's ear...i'm tired or saying it, really.

I said exactly what you said...they are great because they do things faster. We might get tired, we might make errors (key word: might), but the fact of the matter is, whatever formula we tell the computer to do, it had damn well better be the right formula or you're gonna get 10^23 pieces of bullsh*t. we tell them what to do...and thus they are still limited by our thought processes.

and yes, I have computer programming experience, so put away your measuring stick please.
 
#144
bassk81976 said:
He's not saying that. He's saying that we do need to not fall into the same trap that previous generations did - We can't just say that "a cable is a cable", just as they used to be able just say that "the universe revolves around the earth".

Just like we can point to graphs and say
"everything's is...the same... so it's the same", they pointed to the sky and said
"everything goes...around us..so they go around us".

And he's right. That's why science works, because things don't just stay the same. People constantly test things over

EDIT: I think i'm getting johndough's argument, am i right?
Click to expand...

The reason I say a cable is cable is....wait for it....because a cable IS a cable.

The variables have been measured and tested. The argument about the sun revolving around the world is a total fallacy. We aren't talking about a 14th century peasant mindset. We live in the modern age were variables can be tested by objective machines. That is not ancient religious dogma. His argument doesn't make logical sense.
 
#145
bassk81976 said:
He's not saying that. He's saying that we do need to not fall into the same trap that previous generations did - We can't just say that "a cable is a cable", just as they used to be able just say that "the universe revolves around the earth".

Just like we can point to graphs and say
"everything's is...the same... so it's the same", they pointed to the sky and said
"everything goes...around us..so they go around us".

And he's right. That's why science works, because things don't just stay the same. People constantly test things over

EDIT: I think i'm getting johndough's argument, am i right?
Click to expand...
it sounds like you get his argument, but you're still wrong ;) this part is particularly bothersome:

Just like we can point to graphs and say
"everything's is...the same... so it's the same", they pointed to the sky and said
"everything goes...around us..so they go around us".

are you seriously comparing these graphs, which are precise measurements done in a totally scientific manner, with pointing at the sky and saying the sun revolves around the earth? come on, dude. compare apples to apples.
 
#146
bassk81976 said:
He's not saying that. He's saying that we do need to not fall into the same trap that previous generations did - We can't just say that "a cable is a cable", just as they used to be able just say that "the universe revolves around the earth".

Just like we can point to graphs and say
"everything's is...the same... so it's the same", they pointed to the sky and said
"everything goes...around us..so they go around us".

And he's right. That's why science works, because things don't just stay the same. People constantly test things over

EDIT: I think i'm getting johndough's argument, am i right?
Click to expand...

Couldn't have said it better myself bassk :-), maybe next time i'll type my argument in binary code...since the superior computers use that...oh wait, who created the binary code system again? :-P

I'm going to sleep...
 
#147
johndough247 said:
man am i sorry i dragged myself into one of these kinda arguments, i'm not staying up all night arguing this, but I won't stand for being misquoted...when did i say they could do 'more difficult' calculations...see? maybe you thought u remembered what i said, but you didn't. just like one person's memory could be better than yours, one person's ear...i'm tired or saying it, really.

I said exactly what you said...they are great because they do things faster. We might get tired, we might make errors (key word: might), but the fact of the matter is, whatever formula we tell the computer to do, it had damn well better be the right formula or you're gonna get 10^23 pieces of bullsh*t. we tell them what to do...and thus they are still limited by our thought processes.

and yes, I have computer programming experience, so put away your measuring stick please.
Click to expand...
while you are right that people program these computers, you said it yourself:

"We might get tired, we might make errors..."

EXACTLY!
 
#150
Again, anything I'm "claiming" can be independently tested by nearly anyone reading this forum. The claims of the sun and planets revolving around the earth were tested by an increasingly large and sophisticated population of scientists, and those early claims were debunked--and successive generations of scientists have continued to test the nature and motions of the planets and stars. They will freely admit the vast amount we do not know about bodies far from our own solar system; but the shape of the earth (round) and the motion of the system (heliocentric) have been tested, and tested, and tested, and found to be reliable by any measure, across generations and across cultures.

You may say "perhaps there are other dimensions we have not discovered, in which the shape of the earth is not round, and the motion of the system is not what we had thought!" And who can argue that? There's really nothing that can be said to someone who thinks the infiniteness of imagination is a realistic argument against science.

Note this distinction: a scientist may still believe in God, or in some ineffable Great Otherness that has no measurable form, or they may at least be open to the possibility of such a thing. Believing in the possibility of the unknown is not the same as refusing the validity of science.
 
#151
oh..couldn't let this one go...apples vs. apples. ok.

Marie Curie (look her up if you don't know her) was a nobel prize winning physicist and chemist from the late 1800's - early 1900's. I'm quite sure the tests she conducted were done in a scientific manner for that time, but guess what she discovered my friends: she was the unlucky person to discover radiation. by the time she realised what was happening it was too late cause she died from radiation poisoning due to her scientific experiments. again, nobel prize winning scientist...died because of something science didn't show her, didn't warn her about yet.

To put all your money on current technology and methodologies, and ignore the possibility of A) unknown forces and B) fallacies in current testing...is not very wise. Mind you, i said POSSIBLE fallacies and unknown forces. don't want to be misquoted again.

Good night all! :-D
 
#152
i 100% agree with you, bongo. It is the constant testing, debunking, and retesting of scientific truths that makes science continue to be a relevant field today. I myself am not casting any doubt on your findings, i think that they are INCREDIBLY interesting.

I guess i'm mainly just being philosophical, when i really need to shut up and go back to lurking... :ninja:

it also takes a lot of balls to buy one of the helio-whatever 150 dollar cables that you bought, i remember the thread where they were first mentioned, and the pr guy who replied to the email said he wasn't at liberty to disclose what made them better, to just trust him that they were better. Bull.
 
#153
Prior to Curie's tests, radiation had not been tested much. Audio waves have been tested to the nth degree, by tens of thousands of people, using a broad range of tools--including human ears.

Similarly, human ears (and the associated mental mechanisms) have been tested, quite extensively.
 
#154
John:

I didn't misquote you... read my quote and compare. IMO the "there could be new science at work" argument is pretty weak because it always applies. Everything we think we know is subject to being corrected by the more advanced science of next year, that goes without saying.

It bugs me when people disparage those curious enough to measure things that haven't been measured and compare what hasn't been compared. And it really bugs me when it happens to someone who isn't a professional scientist but to someone who is simply curious about the world around them and wants to learn. IMO that is something to be admired, not mocked.

It goes without saying that next year we could discover some new quantity or new way of measuring which shows the cables really are different in sound... that's blindingly obvious, and I don't think bongo or any other poster has made an assertion to the contrary. Nevertheless bongo's measurements represent probably the best methodology we have for comparing cables. I applaud his efforts.

Out of curiosity, is there a reason you so passionately want to validate the view that the cables really are different?
 
#155
And BTW, I have no interest in "being right" on an individual level. I have no ego attached to these results--and in fact I had to let go of some ego in order to publish them here. My only interest is in using objective tools to test subjective claims.
 
#156
I'm not refusing the validity of science...based on your graphs, YES, the frequency response of the cable, based on your setup and your program, is just about the same. Seems like thats what you wanted me to say...congrats.

But is science ever truly valid if the mere concept of science is to experiment? to keep testing things in different ways to see if the result is always the same? I accept your point that frequency response analysis as we know it is one way of testing sound...can't we settle on the notion that that's not the only way; that more ways may be achieved over time?
 
#160
As i've said before, I don't own any of the cables, I dont have any "high-quality" cables...hell, i'd like for bongo's analysis to be the definite word!! would save me some money and curiousity lol...really, i'm not taking a side...and i'm not upset, this is still in my mind a friendly conversation...no need to get bent outta shape Execut1ve...sorry if my opinions bug you, but that's all they are...an opinion.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back