drivemusicnow

What about the expansive collection of evidence showing that peoples interpretation of what they hear can be massively distorted from reality? I may ignore a few "believers" who state there is a difference, but you're ignoring an entire branch of studies dedicated to human perception. the "fiendishly mislabeled subjectivists" would gladly ignore anything that is counter to their belief in a single input (their hearing of a difference) whereas a large number of alternative pieces of evidence suggest that no such difference is possible. Again, is it more likely that a known phenomenon of the brain being tricked is occurring, or is it more likely that blind testing, knowledge of human hearing, knowledge of how the brain can be tricked, and knowledge of signal transmission through a wire are ALL wrong. Occams Razor should guide this decision. I'm sorry, but if there was an audible difference, double blind testing would show this. Not even better, or "more transparent"... Just a difference. If one cannot tell a difference consistently when blinded, any difference at all, than what is the modification really worth? Typically, and I think I've even seen you admit to this, even cable believers will admit that there are a lot of BS products that exist/have existed within this industry. Green ink, and rocks you put on top of your stereo included. If some people were convinced that these worked based on thinking that they heard a difference, than the similar effect is at least feasible for other things isn't it? Can we at least come to the agreement that it is possible the changes are perceptual?

My apologies, I had originally written "measurable properties" and decided to specify which properties I was referring to. Unfortunately, I forgot to type capacitance which is, of course, a factor. Really? drez, I do agree with you. There is no problem to be researched regarding hardware. The research that still needs more widespread acceptance is that of why people use their hobbies and consumerism to create external societal signals, up to and including, declaring something to make a difference when it is known that it cannot. http://www.chicagobooth.edu/research/workshops/orgs-markets/archive/HeathPaper.pdf http://www.oeconomica.uab.ro/upload/lucrari/1020082/50.pdf

Actually, the earth has been known to be round for a very very very long time. It's a myth that exists that science firmly held onto the belief that the earth was flat. People have to understand the limits of human perception, and how the brain is really good at modifying inputs as it thinks they should be. Until people understand these limits, and how they can lead to confirmation bias, people will support the myth that cables, assuming equal resistance and inductance, change the sound.

Everyone responding to him missed his point. Mayhem stated that one DOES NOT need an understanding of recording in order to appreciate good sound. That's what he said, perhaps slightly awkwardly worded, but clear enough when one reads the words.

It's interesting to me how everyone gets hung up on the visual portion of that illusion. There are just as many auditory illusions without any visual components, including one or two presented by Dr. Poppy Crum in the "audiophile myths" presentation at the AES conference. I think if anyone hasn't watched this, they should (even if it flies in the face of their own beliefs, watch it, and then there are lots of downloadable files you can listen to and compare yourselves). Audio Myths Workshop video | EE Times Here is another set of auditory illusions Diana Deutsch's Audio Illusions : Related Sites I believe there to be a significant amount of evidence showing that our ears, (or brains interpretation of auditory signals to the person who wanted to draw that distinction) do, in fact, "lie to us". So where does that leave us? I've seen self proclaimed audiophiles attempt to explain these illusions of audiotory perception away... I've also seen the same people try to explain away the scientific method, the limits of human hearing, double blind testing, placebo effect/expectation bias, how medicine and audio are so different as to the methods used in one couldn't possibly apply to the other, and basic good testing practices because they don't provide data that confirms what they believe they're hearing. My opinion follows that of Occams Razor, and that with fewer assumptions, we probably have a better hypothesis. I think this is directly related to how people make choices, consciously and subconsciously, to define their own identity. http://www.chicagobooth.edu/research/workshops/orgs-markets/archive/HeathPaper.pdf http://www.oeconomica.uab.ro/upload/lucrari/1020082/50.pdf

Thanks for the link, I hadn't ever seen those before. I really wish I could blind test some LX521s, the NaOs, perhaps those Daudio dipoles and a few others to truly know what the cost differences achieve. I'd definitely also compare them to some Magnepans as well. Now that would be a worthwhile listening test.

I'm undecided on exactly which speaker I want to build, either choosing the LX521, going with the NaO Note II RS, or spending the time to figure it out myself, but I really like the dipole speaker concept. For more information, I recommend reading a bit from this blog in addition to the SL and NaO websites. Gainphile