Thanks for explaining. I have had many similar experiences over the years and all those subtle things can add up to something truly significant.
Regards. |
How is it possible that Almarg's observation was completely ignored. A case of "I believe what I believe and don't bother me with the facts?" |
I was referring to the Yorx comment. The right fuse could make that Yorx of yours sound like a Krell; but make sure you try it both ways.
Cheers. |
Tbg, why so quick to come to conclusions? If you know anything about my
feelings about these matters (and not that I would expect you to; or, want
to) you would know that I am far from skeptical about the perceived effects
of these tweaks. I am, and have always been, a believer in the idea that,
especially because of how much we still don't fully understand about the
record/playback process and how much we tend to underestimate the
complexity of music's sound, that just as with musical instruments, just
about ANYTHING we do has an effect on the perceived sound to some
degree. Wether any given listener can hear it or not is a different matter.
My comment re Almarg's was an observation about the lack of reaction to a
very credible comment about the subject; and, one that I would have
thought would, at least, inspire some commentary by the proponents of this
particular tweak.
****There is too much amplification in most live music which seems to be
what modern musicians prefer over being a good musician.****
Yikes! I suppose that if I were more cynical I would think that I might have
the answer to my question. Now, I had started to both praise Wolf's wit and
to question why he would make a comment like he did. However, I deleted
it as soon as enough bean kicked in and I realized that wit was the
operative word here. |
I disagree that the sound of live music is not a valid standard for judging a component's or system's sound because of the "influence of personal perception", and as Wolf wittily says : "ear wax and one's hat". Of course there will be much variability from one live situation to another; different venues, different instruments, and different performers. However, there is much that is consistent in the sound of live regardless of situation to allow a valid comparison. It is true that we each perceive sound uniquely due to our own physiology (or hat), but it is important to remember that these will be the same when judging the sound of a component or system, so a valid comparison is valid. That we each "hear differently" as is often pointed out is irrelevant. Unless, of course, if there is some psychological factor that alters our auditory system's characteristics due to the simple knowledge that we are listening to electronics vs live; after all, the Fedora in my closet does have the power to make me feel hipper than not :-) The problem, as I see it, is that most are not very familiar with the sound of live at all. |
Well, that explains a lot :-) |
Drubin, balance, as usual, is where the truth lies. What you say is true, but
it would also be intellectually sloppy to not balance one's perspective with
the probability that the scientific explanation has, indeed, not been found
yet. When one considers how much we are still learning about our
universe, that perspective is not unrealistic at all.
Now, why exactly, is it so important for the skeptics to want to "set the
record straight"? Why does it matter so much that some are
convinced that the perceived reasons are real? Many seem to take on the
role of "protectors of the naive". Please! Here's what I do know;
and without a doubt:
- None of this is essential for the enjoyment of music. That fact is the great
"balancer". It's great fun (for some) and can certainly add to the
enjoyment. It can also take away, if one is not careful; but, the true music
lover doesn't have to worry about that. If one can let obsession over tweaks
distract from enjoyment of the music, then I would question just how
important the music is to the listener.
- I don't have experience with "high-end" fuses, but being both a
musician and audiophile I can say that the parallels between the tweaking
that musicians and audiophiles do are many. The differences in sound that
many musicians concern themselves which are a result of tweaks to their
instrument are usually much more subtle than those that audiophiles
experience via tweaks; and, these differences are very real. Sound, being
both the exciter and the victim of resonances is affected by just about ANY
change that one makes to that which is creating the sound. How this
happens in the electrical domain I will leave to the more technically astute,
but it does not seem much of a stretch to me to assume that the
phenomenon is real. You think that it's weird that fuse direction might affect
perceived sound? What if I pointed out (as but one example) that some
very fine and successful saxophone players feel that wether the little screw
that secures the saxophone's neck in place is gold plated or is silver plated
makes an appreciable difference in the response and sound of the
instrument? To the player, anyway.
- The problem is when a musician who needs much more attention paid to
his intonation or other rudiment obsesses over the tiny changes to his
sound by having the little screw gold plated. I think the parallel to
audiophiles is obvious.
- Not everyone has the same hearing acuity or interest in hearing small
differences in sound like the ones being discussed.
|
Almarg, I agree with your premise, and perhaps I did not make my point sufficiently clear. I care very much, and as much as anyone, about learning the reasons why and eliminating, as much as possible, erroneous conclusions for the reasons why. My concern is that in my experience some will never be satisfied; even in the face of plausible explanations. This has been shown in other debates about the sound of everything from cables to amplifiers. Some simply can't hear the effect or won't hear it because they are so predisposed to not hearing it. So, why the apparent antagonism directed at those who do or claim they do? I suppose that when one comes from a place where, from experience, anything one does has an effect to some degree (however small), there is a built-in tolerance for believing and intolerance for skepticism. When one spends, literally, hours every day in the process of making sounds and studying what it takes to do that, one gains a certain respect for the complexity and fragility of musical sound that, I suppose, makes it much easier to accept the seemingly implausible. |
Excellent post, Al. I agree with you on every count, and can only say that it is a shame that you did not pursue electronic design in audio; it would have been to the audio world's benefit. |
Rok, I continue to marvel at how you and I can, in fact, agree :-)
**** The Naive, should not be protected, they should be informed.****
I tend to agree, but informed about all perspectives, not just the one that happens to coincide with our own.
****As long as electronic theory, is discussed in terms of audio equipment, "I can hear a difference" will prevail.****
Absolutely true, and that is because many (not all) of the effects that are discussed are very real and are there to be heard.
BTW, the proposal I made to you at least a year or so ago stands. If you are ever in the NYC area, and want to play :-), come over to my place and bring your favorite cable. Wait, you don't have a favorite; bring any cable. Give me one LP side with it in my system. You will then have the opportunity to swap out (or not) your IC for mine and play ten musical selections from a few LP's of mine that we agree upon. If I can't identify which IC is in the system at least nine out of ten times, I will give you my original Columbia 6 eye "Kind Of Blue" and another of your choice. However, if I am able to, you will be required to listen to Berg's "Lulu" in its entirety; while I listen to Mingus on my son's system. |
****I'll post once and once only.****
Well, la-di-da!
****And if they don't you know what that means.****
Do you really think those guys have the time or inclination to post in an audiophile forum about something like this? That they would not respond means nothing. |
Tonywinsc, in the case of the Monster IC's (and most similar IC's) directionality as shown by the arrows has to do with the fact that the shield is only connected (grounded) at one end and not the other. I think we are talking about something else as concerns fuses. |
One basic and apparently irreconcilable difference between the two schools of thought in this and other similar debates concerns the question of wether perceived audible differences in the sound of music can be explained via numbers, specs, and other results of the available test equipment and of electronic theory as we understand it today. The insistence on the part of one camp to rely entirely on these to explain all that the human ear/brain tells the other camp is possible is, in my opinion, flawed and does not honor the depth of the complexity of the sound of music (long-held ideas about things like the frequency response limits of the human ear/brain have been revised in recent times). To my way of thinking this also points to a contradiction and a hypocracy of sorts when one considers how much effort is often spent advocating the sanctity of subjectivity as concerns personal taste in music, or the mistaken idea that "there is no absolute when it comes to accuracy in the sound of music". Some want answers and explanations (I include myself) for these phenomena, but some are also not able to accept the very real possibility (and probability) that we simply don't have the understanding of all the interactions and cause/effect relationships that come into play around these issues; especially, because some of these relationships involve key aspects of the "sound" of music that probably can't be explained via science: emotional content and the relationship between that and those aspects of the sound of music that we do understand more fully; things like frequency response, harmonic distortion etc. If a person is of the mindset that this kind of thinking is a bunch of bs, that science always rules and that there is a clear demarcation line between the realm of science and the realm of human emotion and perception then any debate is pointless. I am always reminded of the monumental effort that some have put, via science, into trying to figure out why a Strad sounds the way it does and they have always come up empty handed. Some will claim that the sound of a Strad has, in fact, been replicated by modern violin makers; and, yet, the supposed "proof" of this can be heard to be false even over the speaker in my IPad.
Why there is resistance to acknowledging that what some do hear is very real FOR THEM I find very interesting, and makes me wonder how much of that is a sense of insecurity about possibly not being able to hear what others can; sometimes without even trying to see if they can. As with many things the answer can probably be found in the gray area between the black and the white; some personality types are more comfortable than others being in the gray. I understand the validity in wanting answers and I commend those with an evenhanded viewpoint (like Al's) which seeks to attribute the perceived phenomena to other variables. I found a recent comment by Al particularly interesting:
****All I can say is that it seems conceivable that a magnetic field could affect the signal, although not necessarily to an audible degree.****
That comment goes to a fundamental issue. In my opinion, anything that one does that affects the signal to any degree is potentially audible. Issues of probability or practicality aside the real question then becomes: where does one draw the line? Are we prepared to state that, without a doubt, we have a complete understanding of the capabilities of the human hearing mechanism; that science has taught us all that we need to know about it? Moreover, are we prepared to dismiss the obvious: that some listeners simply have, because of experience, training, or nature, a more acute listening ability than others?
Back to the issue of fuse directionality. As I have said I have no experience with high-end fuses; never mind their directionality. Frankly, I have little interest in trying them at this point in time since I have much bigger fish to fry as concerns the tuning of my system. However, I am comfortable with this (gray) possibility: if we are willing to concede that the tiny impact of "extraneous variables" like changes in contact integrity may be audible and may explain the experience of the believers; if the sound of music is that vulnerable to the effects of such seemingly unimportant physical variables (and I believe it is) then it makes sense to me that the inevitable gray areas in electrical theory would also have an effect. Or are these electrical theories absolutely ironclad; with absolutely no possibility of revision? Al? Logic tells me that they probably are not. |
Dismissive? Not at all. I am currently contemplating purchasing a new phono preamp and possibly new speakers; and, God knows, where those roads will take me cabling-wise. So, yes, I think it's a pretty good assumption that those changes will be more significant than new fuses, and since there are only so many hours in the day and I reserve a majority of those hours for music rather than equipment, well, fuses will have to wait? However, I must say that I find it telling that after several paragraphs of brilliant commentary :-) supporting your point of view, you choose to harp on that particular detail. Gray, anyone? |
Before we relegate Feng Shui to simply superstition it might be helpful to note that the magnetic compass (a verifiably effective and still in use instrument) was developed for use in Feng Shui. Chi is an important aspect in Feng Shui practice. |
****they say it's a science, NOT an art) ****
Does it really matter; assuming it works for some? |
