Anyone heard the GBP7000 NAIM CD Player?

I keep coming back for further punishment :rolleyes:

I personally have never come across a scientist who says it can explain everything - and that's even the greater reason to continue the quest though. What does characterise it IME is:
a) Says quite a lot about the "what" or "how" of our universe, not very much about the "why"
b) When one question is answered it generally exposes the next one that was hiding behind it
c) Successive refinement, progressively explaining what we experience to a higher level of approximation
d) Make a better stab at the "what" and "how" questions than pretty much any other method (including farming reptiles for their oil)
Click to expand...

Is this endeavour a pleasurable one?

Is this endeavour a necessary one?

and with regard to point b), i would argue that for each question answered, it generally exposes another bakers dozen hiding behind it, multiplying into the galaxies exponentially.
point c) does further refinement bring one closer to infinity?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The point seems to me to be to try and prove an effect really exists before trying to explain what causes it. People should start by offering proof that cables really do sound different before launching into putative explanations of what causes the alleged difference. That proof has never been offered. "I use my ears" proves nothing. The first person to prove they can consistently identify differences between electrically identical cables will be a huge audio celebrity, free to cherry-pick any equipment they like in exchange for their endorsement. Come on, why aren't any of you up for that, then?

Is this endeavour a necessary one?
Click to expand...

Blimey Dino, you really have a downer on science old chap. It's a form of knowledge, therefore A Good Thing I would imagine (the social uses it's put to is a different question).

-- Ian
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right. So, what you're saying is that once they knew what they were supposed to be hearing, ie. after the blind test, they could suddenly hear the difference? Which proves that blind testing doesn't work?
Click to expand...

The way I interpret it is that under the blind testing conditions used for the test, the test was able to distinguish differences between the components, but unfortunately it was not good enough to allow the testers to distinguish which components they actually preferred.

On longer exposure it became obvious that they didnt prefer each others amps. Thats what I have been saying all along. IME, to really get a feel for whether you actually like a component enough to want to live with it takes quite a long time, and certainly longer than a simple blind test.

Whether this could be resolved by better experimental design e.g. longer tests periods, I am not sure.
 
The first person to prove they can consistently identify differences between electrically identical cables
Click to expand...

FWIW, a couple of weeks ago at my house when we were listening to the shunyata, the kimber and Tony's power cable, while Tony was outside taking a call we switched cables over to try and catch him out. As soon as he came back inside without being able to see the change we made, he said to us 'you've put the shunyata back in, haven't you? I can tell'

We were a bit disappointed that we didnt catch him out.

make of that what you will
 
Using a DBT to determine which component one prefers seems a bit extreme to me, but using one to determine whether one can hear a difference at all doesn't seem so odd, especially when we're talking about snake-oily things like cables.

-- Ian
 
Blimey Dino, you really have a downer on science old chap. It's a form of knowledge, therefore A Good Thing I would imagine (the social uses it's put to is a different question).
Click to expand...

Sorry Ian, i'm buggered now anyway, so i have nothing to lose.

My previous two questions where serious in intent. I'm not sure whether the jocular or serious points of my posts are decipherable anymore.

Anyway, - the social uses it's put to IS a different question. But, i live and breath in a society first and foremost, before i acquire any aspirations for immortality or reasoning genius and the deconstruction of space, time, and the satisfaction i would gain from witnessing the growing mountain of knowledge rising up before me. I can't avoid asking these damn questions no more than any other thinking human being can (i imagine), but i fuel my body before i fuel my brain, end of story. Knowledge might provide tasty morsels for the brain, but it starves the body of its own. And the brain is of no use without the body. How is the accumulation of knowledge able to be seperated from its social setting anyway. Is it a good thing? Well maybe compartmentalised in the deep recesses of my brain. But knowledge is not something we store in a grocery store to go and observe every weekend to satisfy our intellects cravings, it destroys the same damn grocery stores with which we feed our bodys and builds a lousy great supermarket on it. Hurray, bow to the god of knowledge and man in his infinite wisdom and domination of the planet, no in fact the universe. knowledge slowly bludgeons my soul to death, and i'd give up all the knowledge in existence for a quiet pasture of land and a few vegetables. then i could loo at the stars, give them names, and imagine they are gods. yes, what a loony bin i would be, deceived by the world, too stupid too unearth the knowledge which will unlock the secrets. I'd much rather be a thick ****er called Pete who digs holes for a living.

Do i have a downer on science, too damn right.


*stream of consciousness off*

as it is, i am not suicidal, prefer a simple life, and provide my brain in all its meagreness with enough sustenance to keep the bugger quiet, and chatting to you ****ers provides me with far more pleasure than all the science crap. :)

hehehe
easy tiger

:)
 
I would quote the Upanishads at you, about how one's only obligation is to the development of one's own intelligence, but I think this thread may implode if I slide in a discussion about Sufism at this point, it's gone round the houses enough...

-- Ian
 
Ian, so lets do it another way then, taking the information which is known, ie cap/int/resistance/dielectric strength, and then forumulate a brew based on the best possible components you have available to you, and using top construction tecniquies, would you then sell it un listened to?
The final testing is purely arual, it proves nothing other than the sound is passed our most stringent test. Tim's & yours truelys lug holes.
I offered no proof at all in the earlier post, just possible reasons why, It's not written in stone.
And I'm not trying to justify anything, when we do tests, we use a know reference, and make notes regarding each cable we compare against, how we arrive at the cable construction is our thang man.
So what you want me to say is that cable 'a' is different to cable 'b' because we changed the dielectric from pvc foam to air, or we used 3 layers to shielding which caused the sound to do 'x' over the previous version with only 2 in, a 100% surefire fashion.
Aint gunna happen mate, ever see Coke giving out the recipe ?, or Kentucky telling you their special greese formula :D

"The first person to prove they can consistently identify differences between electrically identical cables will be a huge audio celebrity, free to cherry-pick any equipment they like in exchange for their endorsement. Come on, why aren't any of you up for that, then?"

Well you can give a go if you like Ian, and then tell us all

:eek:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well you can give a go if you like Ian, and then tell us all
Click to expand...

Given that I can barely hear the differences in a sighted test, I may not be the best candidate...

I'm not accusing you of anything, btw, I have no doubt you honestly believe in the stuff you sell, and that you spend a lot of time developing it, and that your customers are happy with the results, and kudos to you for inviting a bunch of sceptics to Omiga to try things out.

Still like to see some proof that people can really hear a difference though. :)

-- Ian
 
Originally posted by sideshowbob
Given that I can barely hear the differences in a sighted test, I may not be the best candidate...

I'm not accusing you of anything, btw, I have no doubt you honestly believe in the stuff you sell, and that you spend a lot of time developing it, and that your customers are happy with the results, and kudos to you for inviting a bunch of sceptics to Omiga to try things out.

Still like to see some proof though. :)

-- Ian
Click to expand...

Ian, I know your not having a dig, and all the questions asked are very valid, and I'll be straight here I don't know all the answers, we know of some coralations for sure, and that things we've tried have had one than one unexpected result, we'll have some test kit put out, for you guys to try stuff, but it's not just about cables all things even remotely snake oilish :D
But the day is about a lot of z/g's & others meeting up and having a bit of fun, plus watching Paul Ranson trying his unbending techniquies on the couple hundred or so distorted spoons strew about the place. Tone
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Using a DBT to determine which component one prefers seems a bit extreme to me,
Click to expand...

As someone who is only interested in building a system which I am happy to live with made up of components I prefer, why on earth then should I be interested in carrying out DBT at all? (as all the pro DBT guys seem to be implying is necessary):confused:
 
I think most DBT advocates would say (and have said, in this thread), DBT is something the industry should engage in, to prove their claims of differences, not the punter (unless they really want to, like Lawrie).

-- Ian
 
I have just re-read the first few pages of the thread, and thats not what is implied at all, the discussion was about punters carrying out DBT on their expensive players.

Anyway, I am giving up on this thread now as we have done it to death.
 
Originally posted by sideshowbob
I think most DBT advocates would say (and have said, in this thread), DBT is something the industry should engage in, to prove their claims of differences, not the punter (unless they really want to, like Lawrie).

-- Ian
Click to expand...

I don't see how it makes any difference to the punter whether the industry proves their claims of differences or not. The red cable might be proven to be different from the green one, but with or without proof of this, the punter is still going to purchase the green one, if that is his preference? Even if the punter proves the differences himself, he is still going to go with his preference?

I think there is a lot of confusion here between 'difference' and 'better'. It is probably me that is confused! I believe i am right in thinking, that we cannot prove that which is 'better'! We can only prove differences, if we are lucky. But if purchasing audio equipment is ONLY about that which is 'better', then what have 'differences' got to do with anything? And, yes, that which is 'better' is subject to a multitude of diverse factors, which are unavoidable, but no amount of blind testing is going to confirm that which is 'better', if anything it just makes it even more confusing.
 
i'll agree with ian that for manufacturers DBTing is a good tool for voicing and quality control. however i would say that when purchasing kit you should decide which you prefer using the normal conditions you listen to something under. looking at it this way DBTing when purchasing kit is actually a bad thing as you are ignoring these 'supposed' psycho-accoustic effects which will undoubtedly effect you when you are sitting listening to music in full view of your kit. hey everybody's right.... nicely.
cheers


julian
 
I believe i am right in thinking, that we cannot prove that which is 'better'! We can only prove differences, if we are lucky. But if purchasing audio equipment is ONLY about that which is 'better', then what have 'differences' got to do with anything?
Click to expand...
You're almost making sense. But without a 'difference' there can be no 'better'.

It boils down to people claiming as fact what can only be opinion.

That flawed beast science knows quite a lot about cables and signal transmission, telephones under the Atlantic, the wire from your satellite dish, 1000M Ethernet, making ADSL work, the list is endless. And all those are much more difficult than a metre of baseband audio. But science appears unable to offer any explanation for cables sounding different when they have nominally equivalent electrical parameters. So it's over to the golden ears to substantiate their claims.

Or do you have no curiousity at all?

Of course if spending £400 on speaker cables makes you feel good about your music then that's money well spent. But it doesn't say anything about whether the cables have an effect on the sound.

Paul
 
Originally posted by Paul Ranson
Of course if spending £400 on speaker cables makes you feel good about your music then that's money well spent. But it doesn't say anything about whether the cables have an effect on the sound.

Paul
Click to expand...

has it occurred to you someone spending £400 on speaker cables might do so because they did actually experience a benefit (albeit perceived)? What if you hear no benefit in cables because your hearing is flawed. Its just a thought but one to consider.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top