Cables - no break in Tubes - once warm, no burn/break in; they just degrade over time from day one and sound best when new. "Burn in" for a day or so is best used to determine that the tube is stable and not about to fail. Speakers - yes; they are motors and some of the materials that flex need to break covalent bonds to perform optimally Cartridges - same as for speakers Turntables - yes, motor/platter bearings need to wear the metal surfaces over time to reduce micro-machined irregularities Electronics (DACs, preamps, amps, CD players) - no, (except for the CD motors, sled and rotational) but the electronics do need warm up to function optimally. People ear/brain system - yes, the biggest single audio component that is the most variable of the recorded/playback/listening experience. More "brain burn in" is always a good thing. No wonder many sip the etoh or smoke/vape the herb while listening.
Imagine you went to your doctor with a sore throat. The doctor says "Well, obviously you have cancer of the throat!"
You ask "why?"
The doctor says: "Because throat cancer can cause sore throats."
And
you say" But...can’t many other things cause sore throats, like maybe I
have a cold or a flu? Shouldn’t you show me how you have ruled out
those other causes"
Doctor: How DARE you be so dogmatic as to question my diagnosis!
Claims that remain controversial among the relevant experts (e.g. I’ve seen many EEs say why the technical claims made by audiophiles or expensive cable companies are nonsense), and where the explanations are dubious, and the evidence almost purely anecdotal.
>>>Two things, professor, claiming that many EEs say technical claims made by audiophiles or cable companies are dubious is not only second hand evidence but it’s also, you guessed it! an Appeal to Authority. What about the many EEs who say the claims are not (rpt not) dubious? You’re just going to ignore those, right? Furthermore, anecdotal evidence is still evidence. It is in fact empirical evidence. Hel-loo! Sorry, professor, care to try again?
Like I said, human ears are basically transducers like any other sensors but apparently better. And a human brain is the most complex machine by far than anything human has made. Apparently prof don't trust brain but would defer to some ineptitude machine.
Here's an prime example of what our ears can do that an instrument can't. A complex signal is sent but it's our ears that differentiate the information. Measurements can't do that on the fly: they have to deconstruct the signal to analyze it.
In that respect, yes, instruments are more exacting than our hearing but our ear/brain relationship can give hoot because they've already heard and deciphered it. That signal can only be measured in a gross manner if put on an equal time footing as our ears.
So it is with cables. We listen, on the fly, analyze instantly, and enjoy. Or not. It's our ears that are the final arbiter, and it's cables that can limit it.
Claims that remain controversial among the relevant experts (e.g. I've
seen many EEs say why the technical claims made by audiophiles or
expensive cable companies are nonsense), and where the explanations are
dubious, and the evidence almost purely anecdotal.
Just because somebody made claims you found dubious, does not mean the principal behind it is not true. I think you should stop attacking cable companies and read a bit more about electrical engineering. You know like doing something constructive.
I recently bought a Pass Lab XP10 and initially it sounds quite unacceptable to be honest. But after a couple of weeks, it's a lot more like it. I was able to measure the soundstage width and it's definitely wider after burn in.
And surely you have ample measurements to absolutely and fully prove all those assertions beyond the shadow of any doubt. Or are we going to have to trust hearsay based on information drawn from listening experiences using your, uhhhh, ears ?
Which is, as usual, drawn from a mischaracterization of my arguments.
I have been voicing reasons for skepticism when it comes to *controversial* claims about audibility - controversial in the sense they do not form a part of generally accepted, well established phenomena. Claims that remain controversial among the relevant experts (e.g. I've seen many EEs say why the technical claims made by audiophiles or expensive cable companies are nonsense), and where the explanations are dubious, and the evidence almost purely anecdotal.
Claims like cable burn-in, and even the purported sonic advantages often claimed by manufacturers and users of expensive cables, fall in to that category.
That's different from the gross differences in sound well known to be audible, credible both in terms of technical explanation, what we know of human hearing, and what is reliable via our experience.
So, for instance, the audibility of sonic difference between various musical instruments would easily fall in to those categories. The harmonic/distortion profiles of different instruments is measurable, and falls well within the realm understood as audible to humans. And we reliably detect these differences all the time.
There will be gross physical, audible differences in the audio profile produced by, say, a Fender bass vs an acoustic stand up bass.
It's not remotely controversial that we can capture and reproduce these audible differences in the recording/playback system. Nobody is mistaking Paul Chambers' double bass at the beginning of Kind Of Blue for Geddy Lee playing his electric Rickenbacker bass, and for good reasons.
That goes for a whole host of audible characteristics that occur between different bass instruments, the way they are played, the audible effects of how they were recorded, placed in the soundstage, eq'd, mastered, etc. All of those differentiating factors exist well within non-controversial, known realms of audibility.
Then there are all the audible influences that can be measured in terms of eq, room effects that cause "bloat" or "overhang," and various measurable phenomena that can interfere with bass signals, produce the subjective perception of homogenizing bass - "one note bass" - etc. These are all within the realm of what we know to be audible artifacts.
THEREFORE we have an entirely plausible case to stand on when we are discerning between different instruments on a playback system, between different bass instruments, between bass instruments recorded differently, between the qualities we can describe etc.
So...no...your "gotcha" relies on a naive look at the problem, not on some internal contradiction or fault in what I've been writing on here.
There are two impartial listeners as a beta tester for GroverHuffman cables. One is his wife and one is my wife, who doesn't care at all what wire is used or scientific analysis of it. They only compare wire as to whether they hear a difference and whether they prefer/like it or not/dislike/hate.
Cable burn-in is a must prior to our testing. As I have previously emphatically stated, we have tried brand newly made I/C and speaker cables against cables with at least 24 hour burn-in through use. A/C cables are subjected to connection to refrigerators for several days to a week prior to testing. So, when we hear very significant differences between the new cables and burned-in cables, we are not "out of our minds" or "foolish" or "wishing it so." As I also previously stated, low end cables such as Monster cable, Home Depot cable and Blue Jean cable that I've heard, do not burn-in with a significance. I couldn't tell the difference either between them new or with 100 hours on them. Their resolution just doesn't allow it.
Sure, some of you posters say all cable sounds basically the same. Funny how friends and acquaintances who frequent my music room don't want to leave because they are entranced by the sound of the music as much as the music itself. I say acquaintances because we host Toastmaster speechathons at our home with guests and guest speakers who don't know me or anything about audio equipment.
So, if the posters have either inferior audio systems, inferior acoustic environments, or inferior cabling, it is likely that there is no apparent burn-in of cabling. As to directionality, my cabling is only made directional after usage for a significant period. It is not made directional except for phono use (grounding).
@prof " Using my current Thiel 2.7 speakers this is true, but it was eve more true with my bigger 3.7 speakers. I could go to my friend’s place, listen to a system using $50,000 of Nordost cable and come home to bass reproduction that easily surpassed that system. When over the past couple years I auditioned a large variety of speakers, in systems using many of the top high end cable brands we could name, every time I came home and played the same bass torture tracks on my system, it distinguished itself in how controlled, beautifully pitched and even holographically placed the bass could appear. "
And surely you have ample measurements to absolutely and fully prove all those assertions beyond the shadow of any doubt ( really looking forward to seeing the measurements that define just how holographically placed the bass really is ). Or are we going to have to trust hearsay based on information drawn from listening experiences using your, uhhhh, ears ?
And one more little thing, is it just me or is anyone else detecting the acrid smell of burning hypocrite suddenly wafting through this thread, though it could well be that three day old burrito I had for lunch, I mean it looked OK....but you never know eh....
OK....silliness aside for a moment ( and frankly this is at root just foolish fun eh ). Are you going to the Toronto Audio Fest ? We will be sharing a room with Charisma Audio. Would really love it if you dropped in and said hi, seriously ( but please don’t tell me you are a Leaf fan....there are some bridges that are simply too far ).
Once one wraps their head around the perfectly acceptable concept of our hearing being better than a measurement (more exacting, differentiating, etc.)
Why accept something untrue?
Or, at least, we have to separate the untrue implications from the true implications in such a statement.
We have tools that measure the presence of frequencies you can not hear, and levels of distortion you can not hear. Why do you think we develop a huge number of measuring tools in the first place if our senses, including our hearing, were sufficient????
How is that x-ray vision of yours going?
Measurements only take you so far.
Agreed. Ultimately the point of any audio product lies in what we humans actually hear from that product. A good understanding of measurements and of human hearing can to a degree predict the sound one might hear from, say, a pair of speakers. But given all the complexities involved, and some of the unknowns, perfect prediction escapes us. So we can always be surprised. That’s why anyone should listen to whatever audio gear they produce, to make sure they didn’t go wrong somewhere in the design.
I’ve used Devore 0 speakers as an example a number of times for this: they’ve been attacked by some audiophiles/DIYers and speaker designers as "doing things wrong that are likely to produce bad sound" and yet when I and many others actually listen to them, I find the claims overblown in terms of actual results and I love the sound of the Devores.
But "it’s hard to sometimes predict results purely on measurements" is an entirely different thing than claims like "our ears are better/more sensitive than instruments." It really depends on what you are claiming to be able to hear. And on what grounds.
To simply pooh-pooh such statements as "tested by ear" betrays a dogmatically and hermetically sealed mindset.
No, it’s an eyes-open LACK of dogmatism, where we admit to the fallibility of our senses. It is rather dogmatism to cling to the idea that your perception is infallible, or a golden standard unsullied by the (well known) problems of bias and error.
Imagine you went to your doctor with a sore throat. The doctor says "Well, obviously you have cancer of the throat!"
You ask "why?"
The doctor says: "Because throat cancer can cause sore throats."
And you say" But...can’t many other things cause sore throats, like maybe I have a cold or a flu? Shouldn’t you show me how you have ruled out those other causes"
Doctor: How DARE you be so dogmatic as to question my diagnosis!
Now...who is actually being dogmatic there? It’s not the person who is acknowledging the variables involved, and that the doctor’s claim doesn’t seem to have taken those variables seriously enough, when deciding he can’t be in error.
It is just as strange and mixed up to try to portray someone who is pointing to the simple fact that your method is ignoring existing variables, and why you seem to have unwarranted confidence, as if the person raising these cautions is the "dogmatist." It’s literally got things the wrong way around.
blueranger Hey here is something to think about. All the naysayers need to think about what lays beyond known physics. The unknown. People are hearing differences and the current testing equipment cannot pick up on the differences. AB testing is a farce. You have to evaluate for long periods of time to notice the small differences.
>>>Actually, neither burn in or wire directionality disobeys any known laws of physics. So, you can forget about what might or might not happen in the future. It’s irrelevant.
Once one wraps their head around the perfectly acceptable concept of our hearing being better than a measurement (more exacting, differentiating, etc.) then "testing by ear" is one of the final steps one takes.
Measurements only take you so far. Refining be ear is what every make of audio gear, that I’ve read about, does, bar none. Show me a piece of gear, or cable, that was made just to meet a spec so as to satisfy some safety standard and I’ll show you an average sounding product, if that.
To simply pooh-pooh such statements as "tested by ear" betrays a dogmatically and hermetically sealed mindset.
And, as pointed out over and over again, the signal is always there. It's there every time you play something just as it's always been there with the original cables used in the recording, but which masked what you could hear.
Using a better designed cable simply reveals more of original signal that's always been there.
That's not a hard concept to wrap one's head around.
Hey here is something to think about. All the naysayers need to think about what lays beyond known physics. The unknown. People are hearing differences and the current testing equipment cannot pick up on the differences. AB testing is a farce. You have to evaluate for long periods of time to notice the small differences.
A bog standard cable should at the very least be adept at transmitting something as simple as pitch and duration but dealing with more complex timbre, transient vibrato and envelope modulation is a much more difficult undertaking and requires something more refined than a bog standard cable because these qualitative items demand a better phase coherence and freedom from reactive elements such as skin effect than a bog standard cable can offer.
So you claim.
I don’t see anything to support your claim.
So....any cable can transmit a one note bass but not necessarily a musical tone which is the fine, tonally textured bass that Nonoise refers to and which musical lovers strive to hear as completely as possible when they listen to their systems.That requires something much more refined than bog standard ( which meets the existing theoretic specs and the attendant testing protocols but really sucks at presenting the qualitative aspects of music ).
This is clearly false.
I have "bog standard" belden speaker cables and it’s simply, and hilariously, false that they are producing "one note bass" or incapable of transmitting complex bass passages, or tonally distinct bass. In fact I have found that in terms of definition and all the tonal qualities we audiophiles often seek in accurate bass, such qualities are a distinguishing feature of the sound I get at home. Using my current Thiel 2.7 speakers this is true, but it was eve more true with my bigger 3.7 speakers. I could go to my friend’s place, listen to a system using $50,000 of Nordost cable and come home to bass reproduction that easily surpassed that system. When over the past couple years I auditioned a large variety of speakers, in systems using many of the top high end cable brands we could name, every time I came home and played the same bass torture tracks on my system, it distinguished itself in how controlled, beautifully pitched and even holographically placed the bass could appear.
Audiophile pals, musicians, and a friends who review high end audio all have been blown away by what they hear at my place, despite the "bog standard" cables in place.
So, please, don’t give me this about the things "bog standard" cables "can’t do."
Secondly, it’s clearly false in that "bog standard" cables are used all the time to transmit musical information, bass included, accurately and as tunefully as they musician desires. No one needs to use Teo Audio or Nordost cables between their bass guitar and their bass amp. A standard quality cable does this quite fine. As do "bog standard" cables that connect instruments direct in to mixing boards, or via microphone to mixing boards, through all sorts of other "bog standard" cables in the chain of recording, mixing, mastering for most music sources.
If "bog standard" cables could not transmit and preserve the type of nuance you are talking about, IT WOULDN’T BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE IN THE RECORDINGS that used bog-standard cables.
And, yes, your subjective anecdote about the belden cable meant nothing. It’s ludicrous to leap from your own subjective emotional involvement to some objective idea belden cables are incapable of transmitting musically relevant information. I have gobs of emotional connection to the music coming through my system, and to how it sounds.
All your claims only serve to underline how many poor arguments one encounters justifying audiophile cables (and burn in, etc).
I looked at the Darwin website and it seemed to be full of all the
dubious justifications as any other high end cable manufacturer. In the
"why you should buy Darwin" page, they say they "painstakingly tested
by ear..."
Although I agree some (especially online) cables makers are a bit of a suspect, but to say there is a massive world wide conspiracy is something altogether.
Prof, do yourself a favor and check out the specs on a set of Darwin Truth II ICs and a pair of Blue Jean Cables ICs and you'll get it.
Hardly.
I looked at the Darwin website and it seemed to be full of all the dubious justifications as any other high end cable manufacturer. In the "why you should buy Darwin" page, they say they "painstakingly tested by ear..."
That's hardly a good start, especially when the very process of "testing by ear" is the one being disputed. That's like a homeopath saying "We painstakingly tested our remedies by ingesting!" Kind of leaves out the problem of bias.
They go on to make all the dubious claims we see repeated in this forum, but with no other support for the claims than "we just said it" or "we heard it."
The Darwins are well within spec and yet they sound demonstrably better.
When you know which cable you are using, right?
I still see no plausible argument given for why a lower cost, competently built cable would produce "one note bass" while passing a huge variety of (musical) bass signals. It's just a claim wafting in the air.
Please don’t pollute audio discussions with pharma blind tests. There is no similarity whatsoever between drug tests and audio tests. In other words, for you philosophy majors out there, and master debaters, it’s a Strawman argument. This is just more philosophical quackery. 🦆 🦆 🦆
Gotta say that is a very odd thing for a fundamentalist to bring up.
That was lame the other times you tried that approach; it doesn't get any better with time.
You couldn't accurately articulate the position I have argued if you tried. (because if you could, anyone would see that "fundamentalist" pot-shot couldn't stick and you'd look foolish).
Let's me repeat:1. If you think cable burn in is false, then there is a massive world wide conspiracy. 2. If you're right, then everybody in the world is wrong. Just take your pick and move on.
I admit it makes me curious how someone can take such a dogmatic stance where they simply won't allow reason or evidence to intrude on their claim.
Take a look at the false dichotomy Andy2 seems completely dedicated to propounding.
Let's apply it to other areas of inquiry.
As I've mentioned before in a previous thread: My son was part of a large scientific study researching the efficacy of a new allergy therapy.
The study followed strict scientific principles to control for variables. We were "blinded" as to whether he was receiving the study drug or a placebo, and we had to keep a journal on any symptoms. The researchers running the test were "blinded" to who was receiving the study drug vs placebo.
Now...what could possibly be the rational for this?
Imagine we had said "Look, why are we not allowed to know if my son is on the real drug or placebo? Neither he nor we would LIE about his experience while on the drug. And why would the researchers have to be blinded in the study. Why would they deliberately LIE when interpreting the results? The only explanation for why you think we have to accept the blind controls are that you assume there is some CONSPIRACY TO LIE by the patients and researchers when interpreting the results. And if you think ANY of the conclusions we would make without blind testing are wrong, then EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS WRONG."
Does this hysterical response actually constitute a sound, informed argument?
Or...do you think maybe that is missing a third option for why research uses blind testing?
Maybe...one that Andy refuses to account for in his drum-beating for his false dichotomy?
My pleasure, and btw your comments started the ball rolling on that deluge of verbiage, and then that listening session I mentioned earlier kicked it into overdrive.
Its funny, that "mystery" cable was not bad at all, in fact it had a very good voicing, but the head scratching part was trying to figure out what was missing and why, because it was so uninvolving ( almost like listening to bad digital ).
And then it came back to your comment about one note bass.
Most people could not tell the sound difference from 10 Gauge speaker
cable from Home Depot from a cable costing thousands from some esoteric
speaker cable manufacturer.
Most people probably can't tell the difference between different type of wine, coffee, music and so on. We are talking about high end audio. It takes a bit of experiences.
There is no way that speaker cables need a burn in. Anyone who says cables need a "Burn In" is out of their mind. All that a conductor does is allow a current path from point A to point B. The distance between the negative and positive conductors and the gauge of the cable does make a huge difference. The type of materials as in the conductor, how they are wound and insulator make a difference. As frequencies go through the speaker cable you have natural capacitive and Inductive reactances occurring as frequencies rise and fall over the wire length as they travel through the cable. The reactances can have slight frequency cancellations and as it will mimic a filter at the higher frequencies.
The higher the frequency rises the more frequency radiation off the speaker cable will happen.
A properly wound / spaced cable may sound slightly brighter because it will pass higher frequencies better.
The most noticeable difference in higher powered systems would be a current capability of the speaker wire.
The current capability will be noticeable in the low end punch or majesty of the lows. The Power amp can better control the speaker back emf (Damping Factor) through a cable with a higher current capacity. Since there are no active components in a Speaker Cable there is nothing to burn in. It is simply an electrical conductor. Most people could not tell the sound difference from 10 Gauge speaker cable from Home Depot from a cable costing thousands from some esoteric speaker cable manufacturer. You would be best to concentrate your efforts on the active components of the system. Speakers, Pre-Amp, Power Amp or receiver.
Room Acoustics and Speaker positioning have a much greater affect on sound considering you have large enough conductor from the PA to the speakers. (Distance matters because of increased resistance) Even having stands or floor isolation (Spikes) from tower speakers can help.
Don't take anyone's word for it. Many people are out to make a fast buck. Go listen and decide if you can tell a difference and if the cost is worth the price mark up. I personally like my system with 10 Gauge speaker cable at 12ft length. Nothing expensive.
@prof
"May I ask (just in case you were serious): How in the world do you think a cable could cause "one note bass?"
(That is a cable that wasn't flat out defective)." Seems we may have gotten to a " the rub " moment.
So
here is the thing, a note in very strict terms is simply pitch and
duration. Things that could be seen as more or less just quantitative
thingees. Which is something that even the cables you would most likely
favour could easily transmit ( much like a wire can transmit something like a telegram
signal ). The thing is, the stuff that folks who listen to with stereos is
usually music, and music is much more complex than simple pitch and duration
because it is the province of musical tone. And yeah musical tone is a
close relative of the note but it has this qualitative aspect that is a
critical difference.
A simple tone, or pure tone, has a sinusoidalwaveform.
A complex tone is a combination of two or more pure tones that have a
periodic pattern of repetition, unless specified otherwise"
A
bog standard cable should at the very least be adept at transmitting
something as simple as pitch and duration but dealing with more complex
timbre, transient vibrato and envelope modulation is a much more
difficult undertaking and requires something more refined than a bog
standard cable because these qualitative items demand a better phase
coherence and freedom from reactive elements such as skin effect than a
bog standard cable can offer. And furthermore this ability has be applied to a very
broad band signal whereas most cable tech/theory/application tends to
concern itself with very narrow bandwidths ( a strategy which communication electronics uses to neatly
avoid the problems that phase coherence and reactive elements bring to
the table.). So....any cable can transmit a one note bass but not necessarily a musical tone which is the fine,tonally
textured bass that Nonoise refers to and which musical lovers strive to
hear as completely as possible when they listen to their systems.That
requires something much more refined than bog standard ( which meets the
existing theoretic specs and the attendant testing protocols but really
sucks at presenting the qualitative aspects of music ).
Btw
we had a cable listening session the other day and just for giggles we
plugged in a bog standard Belden based cable that we happen to have
around ( it was from a company we all know but will not be mentioned
here to protect the innocent, and the guilty ) Bottom line , it gave all
the quantitative stuff you and your oscilloscope could hope for, but
the qualitative stuff that draws you into the musical event was sadly
missing. Read it was not involving, or fun, or foot tapping, it sucked (
and yeah that is seriously subjective and you will most likely scream bloody
murder....but here is the thing....you can always go back to listen to
telegraph wires....and we can go back to our subjective bliss... ).
Let's me repeat:1. If you think cable burn in is false, then there is a massive world wide conspiracy. 2. If you're right, then everybody in the world is wrong. Just take your pick and move on.
Geoff, odd that a "lone wolf" can participate in a "carefully orchestrated smear campaign." Who exactly is the lone wolf orchestrating with? Also, interesting to lump outsiders with anti-audiophiles. "Outsiders" would seemingly have little interest in the peculiarities of audiophiles while "anti-audiophiles" would be expected to play a more proactive role in actually subverting the audiophile tweaking (or twerking?) rituals. There seems to be a lot of psychology at play here. Nobody ever said being an audiophile is a bowl of seedless grapes.
Outsiders and anti audiophiles frequently claim audiophile tweaks and audiophile rituals are weird or bizarre. It’s part of a carefully orchestrated smear campaign carried out under the pretense of protecting gullible audiophiles and argued with all the gusto of an English or Philosophy student. Apparently no approval from the top is needed to go after audiophiles, the besmircher can be a lone wolf or homegrown anti audiophile.
@prof " Admittedly with the lack of seriousness in the thread, combined with many of the weird things claimed in the audiophile domain, we can get in to a Poe’s Law situation.. "
Gotta say that is a very odd thing for a fundamentalist to bring up.
maritime51, I think that the Irish, after going through what they did, stood up for whoever was being oppressed at the time simply because they could relate.
Prof, do yourself a favor and check out the specs on a set of Darwin Truth II ICs and a pair of Blue Jean Cables ICs and you'll get it. The Darwins are well within spec and yet they sound demonstrably better.
So, no, I don't mean for you to chose a wire that has the wrong specs for the job. For you to infer that that was what I implied is intentionally misleading. You're better than that. Or are you?
It's those small differences (when strictly adhering to only measurements) that accounts for some of the differences in sound. Adding in construction techniques and materials used accounts for what doesn't fall into the measurements.
And, leave out the mentioning of great lengths needed to incur a measured difference as I know that when it comes to measurements. I wish I didn't need to add that caveat (but had to leave it in).
As for your last statement, I'd say your hackles are up.
Uh, Nonoise, my Irish ancestors got drunk and woke up in the Florida Territories. No, really. And, being Irish, they VOLUNTEERED to fight in every war since. 👀
Do you think that a 30 something gauge, single silver wire IC in a basically air dielectric can’t sound demonstrably different form a run of the mill, copper stranded Blue Jeans IC?
Do you mean is it possible to choose a wire that simply has the wrong specs for the job demanded of it, such that it will alter the signal vs one with sufficient specs? Of course that’s the case. Choose a 50 foot long 30 awg speaker wire vs a 10 awg wire and of course it's possible to experience audible attenuation at certain frequencies.
That is so obvious I’d hoped I didn’t have to add that caveat (which is why I left it out).
I’d presumed you were talking about sonic differences between cables assuming they all have similar specifications necessary for where you are going to use them.
Presuming that is what you meant, can you explain how a non-defective cable would alter the sound to "one note bass?"
I get that you *think* you have heard this; I’m asking what could possibly explain it (aside from incompetence in choosing the right cable for the job?)
Andy2, you’d be surprise to know that what you say is what I do when listening for auditory clues of music I’m familiar with. I don’t prejudge the cables. I look for differences in presentation.
It can be done one right after the other or even weeks or months apart when the clues I listen for are still, and always there. It’s easy to notice.
Nice clay animation. The joke they should have asked the devil is:What's the difference between "lace curtain Irish" and "shanty Irish"?
The lace curtain Irish takes the dishes out of the sink before they pee.
And yes, I'm part Irish. My grand mother watched her great uncles, Larkin, Allen and O'brien hang in Fenian's Arch in Manchester Square, which started the Easter Uprising. Back then they were known as the Irish Republican Brotherhood.
Nonoise, Why do you need "auditory memories" when you listen to two components side by side, one after another? NOT one after another in a week or months?
If what you mean by flat out defective, it doesn’t need to be that to mess with the signal. I’ve lots of cables laying around of many types and each one sounds different.
Some are close sounding in most areas and some vary a lot. Do you think that a 30 something gauge, single silver wire IC in a basically air dielectric can’t sound demonstrably different form a run of the mill, copper stranded Blue Jeans IC?
Where’s my Barolo?
And Andy2, you’re arguing the same point of view I am but stubbornly limiting yourself to just your way of seeing things. Step back and take a breath. But, if it’s the last word you need to have, then by all means, you can have it.
I see you posted whilst I typed so allow me another dragon of yours to slay. Your stipulation about how components factor in has nothing to do with me as my observations are with equipment already broken in. They are a constant in all of this. Stop with the Red Herrings.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
