Paul R

  • Content count

    12,080
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul R

  • Rank
    Ph.D. Level Member

Recent Profile Visitors

17,272 profile views
  1. It sure makes the hobby a lot more fun when when one decides upon a clear methodology to making decisions about "corrosive" topics like cables. Congratulations are in order for plowing your way through the muck to the *fun* side!
  2. Ah- typical internet troll then. YOU don't care what people think about what you say or do online, just so long as you get attention. (*sigh*) Whatever you are, you are definitely not hear to share in the enjoyment of the hobby. There is this gasbag site a few IPs over that you might want to check out...
  3. Oh, I picked up one of the Emotive DACs when they first came out. It actually did sound very good, but the build quality and QA was unacceptable. For instance, when the player changed the sample rate, the DAC would emit a horrendous full volume - tweeter killing - POP! DAC went back, and I eventually convinced them to refund my money for it. I won't buy another Emotive product, no matter how good they make them. Why do I wan to fund someone who may be a genius, but who is a careless one? The people arguing with you so intently are just being silly IMNSHO. They seem to be looking to "make points." Dennis and a few others have made some great points, but most of the others, not so much. -Paul
  4. Yes, and they are very sensitive to auditory input as well. The sound of someone coughing can be very frustrating to them, like nails scratching across a blackboard to most people. Autistic people often seem to extraordinary perceptions. -Paul
  5. Rather sloppy thinking there, don't you think? Especially from someone so prone to snipe at other people. Double blind testing does address bias in Pharma, but it is far from perfect. First you have to address the test statistically, because the result of any drug test in any individual can be due to simple random coincidence. Secondly, blind testings big glaring fault is that it makes falsifying data much harder to detect, and thus leads to fraud. And of course, don't forgot how it encourages publication bias, specifically in Pharma testing! Double blind testing is decidedly useful - but is far from perfect or indeed, "the" answer to any of the questions. Even when the subject happens to be audiophile cables. -Paul
  6. As the parent of an adult autistic child, I can tell you, the kids watch every person trying to communicate with them very closely, and modify their behavior and responses accordingly. Autistic people are not dumb by any measure, but they are certainly wired differently. We can learn a lot from them.
  7. Thought I answered that... yes, you loose a LOT going to the TV first, even if you use the ARC functionality, much less if you feed the audio back through optical. TV's don't do all the processing an AVR can do, nor do they usually accept most of the newer file formats that provide lossless or HD audio. Feed the HDMI to the receiver, then drive the TV from the receiver. -Paul
  8. Tunnel vision - that was quite stupid of me. Sorry! Still, an Onkyo and a set of the less expensive speakers referenced above, you could probably squeak through at the $3K mark. -Paul
  9. Depends upon your definition of nice. Adding a pair of good Atmos speakers is about $500. You can do it for quite a bit less, and still have sound that works just great for video. Amos requires 8 speakers doesn't it? 5.1.2 being the minimum? In any case, you can go pretty cheap and have very satisfying sound for video. There are dozens of choices, from companies like Definitive Technology (Look at the BP9020 with atoms speakers, around $2600), NHT - media 3way tower with built in Atmos speakers,or even the ELAC speaker systems. You could even consider one of the Sony or Samsung Atmos enabled sounder systems. It doesn't make sense to hold video to audiophile standards. All the audio is going to sound better than it technically should. The why of that is arguable, but that audio always seems to sound better with video is pretty well established. Spend the money to get matched voices in the speakers, and good clean amplification. Position them carefully, and pay attention mostly to how the center or vocal tracks sound. Go UHD 4K and lossless high res audio. Be happy! (Well, it works for me! )
  10. it all depends on what you call expensive I suppose - you can do a nice Atmos capable movie system for under $3K easily. Or even less than that to be honest. The Sony gear sounds great for movies though. -Paul
  11. In some cases, perhaps. In other cases, definitely do. For example, I can pretty easily tell the difference between a set of Nordost White Lightening cables, and a set of Kimber Kable Ascent 8TC speaker cables, in my system in my room. With non-rigorous blind testing, I can hit that at 100%, non rigorous being I don't know which cable is connected, but my wife does. That's after careful level matching and being driven from the same source using a A/B selector. I have not checked the physical characteristics of each cable, but I am relatively sure they are quite different in measurement and geometry. That's a pretty clear case to me of different speaker cables can sound different. Now, where I think some kind of predictive bias or expectation bias or something is probably coming into play is that I can tell the difference between a burned in set of the Nordost White Lightening cables, and a new or unused set. That not only puzzles me, it irritates the dickens out of me that I can tell last all, much less with very good precision. But not in a blind test. Both my wife and I will spontaneously notice if the music sounds different, and both of us randomly changed those cables about teasing each other. I didn't measure the sound in the room, but I missed a change she made only once, and she never missed even one. How - annoying. That doesn't mean much in terms of anything that can be extrapolated to a general conclusion, but it does mean something clued both my wife and I into some kind of change. It could well have been predictive, or it could well have been some small factor changed enough to let us identify that there was a difference. But A/B on testing, blind or sighted, did not replicate the results. See the conundrum? It is why I tell people to just listen to cables, but be cautious about spending a lot of money on cables. I usually try to steer them to spending money on better speakers, a better DAC, doing some room changes, or if all else fails, just spend the money on more music. (grin) -Paul
  12. Replace the Marantz. If you have not heard Atmos, you have a real treat in store. And one that isn't all that expensive. Marantz sounds pretty good for music, but if this is for Movies - think Sony or Onkyo. This UHD 4K, HDMI 2.2, and Atmos. -Paul
  13. It is a bit of fun conundrum, ain't it? There is no reason for there to be a difference, yet, under at least some conditions, people can reliably identify differences in say, speaker cable. Changing the conditions they are listening under almost always leads to the same people no longer being able to reliably identify differences. I just saw that Jud already mentioned what I was going to mention, but this sure strikes me as a possible example of a predictive pattern matching behavior. -Paul