Anyone heard the GBP7000 NAIM CD Player?

I too find it rather curious that people will make value judgements about these type of things despite having never actually heard the system in question.

Perhaps is Paul is able assess the sound of equipment without actually hearing it. I am surprised none of the manufacturers have employed him as chief tester. Think of all the time and money they would save when evaluating kit, no need for pesky DBT!


(Whoops, I said I wasnt going to post on this thread again!)
 
Originally posted by greg
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.
Click to expand...

Argh, so many pages and yet the point is still being missed. Of course people who buy £400 speaker cables perceive a difference. Nobody is questioning their perception. What's being questioned is whether there's any objective basis for that perception.

It's a really really simple point. As GrahamN said earlier, some people seem to be being wilfully dense.

-- Ian
 
Originally posted by PeteH
:D 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?
Click to expand...

No, wrong. At the start, the Nad owner had never heard of Micromega, and was still less impressed that it was French. As far as he knew it was treated with the utmost suspicion, he had no idea what he was supposed to be hearing, and he expected his NAD to walk it. Only when he took it home did he come to think it was so much better than his NAD.

If he'd been relying on the DBL test he'd never have known as the difference didn't show up noticeably. Like I said, the DBL was useless in that instance.

Cheers
 
Originally posted by sideshowbob
Of course people who buy £400 speaker cables perceive a difference. Nobody is questioning their perception.
Click to expand...

Paul is questioning their perception. His comment exactly does that - read it again. I am hardly suggesting its news to most people who have spent X on s/cables. The point I am trying to make is a simple one - science, measurement, listening or other - its all empirical. If an electrical measurement demonstrates no benefit and a particular human ear hears an emotional content not previously there (to his/her mind) then neither is absolute in both world pictures (was it you who referred to Wittgenstein). The emotional content may be in the finest signal variations and not due to frequency extension or otherwise.

This whole debate is completely endless due to the empirical nature of our experiences and opinions. The language of each is independent which makes Paul's attempts at absolutism <humour>absolutely</humour> pointless. Its his absolutism that motivates me to string this out as long as possible - perverse I know. :p
 
His comment exactly does that - read it again.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Paul can speak for himself, but no it doesn't. The perception that cables make a difference is not disputed, it's whether they really do make a difference.

The emotional content may be in the finest signal variations and not due to frequency extension or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Prove the signal variations exist before speculating any further. Prove that there is a phenomena to explain before trying to explain said phenomena. That's what the cable sceptics are saying. It's that simple. Nobody has proved that electrically similar cables sound different, so why construct elaborate scenarios explaining how the difference is created?

Edited to add:

The language of each is independent
Click to expand...

Tut tut, Wittgenstein would be turning in his grave (sorry, couldn't resist, but his private language argument is directed against precisely this sort of relativistic notion)

-- Ian
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by sideshowbob
I'm sure Paul can speak for himself, but no it doesn't. The perception that cables make a difference is not disputed, it's whether they really do make a difference.
Click to expand...
Ahh - but what's the difference between perception and reality? :p

Michael.
 
I feel this justifies a 500 page Philip K. Dick novel ... after all, most of his work revolves around reality, our perception of it, how they can differ and which of them matters.
 
Or, to refer to more recent popular culture:

If I'm perceiving a difference is that just what the Matrix is telling me? Is DBT really an idea dreamt up by the leaders of Zion to get people to question their reality? Is dat19 Neo? :yikes:

Michael.
 
"I refuse to prove that my cables will make your system sound better", says the snake oil vendor, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, you will hear nothing."
Click to expand...

Hitchers Guide To The Galaxy

which is where this thread has ended up................somewhere in the forth dimension,but entertaining and a thoroughly great read all the same

maybe Frank knows?
 
The tenets of faith are an absolute requirement for many of the claims that are made for many (probably most) of the "esoteric" hi-fi additions that you will find everywhere on the web. There is no real information, technical, scientific or otherwise, and the only terms you will hear will be of a subjective nature - for example "solid, sparkling, sweet, musical" will be contrasted with "muffled, veiled, grainy, harsh" - the very selection of the words is designed to sway you to their position, preferably subconciously.The marketing is often very subtle, and extremely persuasive, and there is no confusing techno-talk in there to confuse the non technical reader. While it may seem like Nirvana, the claims are nearly all completely false.

Faith (in the religious sense) is based on the premise that faith is God's proof that God's existence is truth and does not rely on facts. Indeed, if facts were available, then faith is not required - so in a sense, faith can be seen to be based on an absence of evidence - a fiction.

Believers may also qualify faith as either representing truth or they will represent it as being above and beyond our understanding. Truth becomes a consequence of faith which is the believer's recognition of the absence of evidence. Truth is therefore defined according to a circular perception.
Click to expand...

copyright Rod Elliot
 
Ahh - but what's the difference between perception and reality?
Click to expand...

I'm with W.V.O. Quine, in his essay On What There Is, "To be is to be the value of a bound variable", if that helps at all.

Ontological relativism is all well and good, but ultimately you have to pick an ontology in order to function. Philosophical realism (accepting there is a reality independent of one's perception of it) seems to me to be the least intellectually compromised ontology. It also seems to be the one we are genetically predisposed to accept; it's certainly the ontology by which we instinctively lead our daily lives, such that anyone who genuinely acted as if they didn't believe in it would probably be regarded by most people as mentally ill in some way.

Subjectivism is an intellectual dead-end. It answers nothing, and closes off the possibility of even asking the important questions (since any answer is equally valid). It's the curse of contemporary intellectual life, turning us into relativistic zombies, unable to reason.

-- Ian
 
Originally posted by greg
Its his absolutism that motivates me to string this out as long as possible - perverse I know. :p
Click to expand...
Good luck to you then mate and may the best rottweiler win! ;)

Meanwhile, I'll just retreat to the sidelines and get on with life. :SLEEP: Wake me up when the dream's over... :D
 
A little snippet for those in taoisum exotentialisum.

"Hypotheses are constructed as to why these concepts should provide improvements over existing techniques. These hypotheses are then tested by measurement and extensive listening. Often, even the most advanced technical understanding does not fully correlate with the sonic results. In these instances, the design process continues with more experiments and listening until a more thorough understanding of the interaction between the technology and sonic performance is reached. In many cases, this results in breakthroughs that increase our overall understanding of the digital playback process."

Whooo er..........................................

:rolleyes:
 
Subjectivism is an intellectual dead-end. It answers nothing, and closes off the possibility of even asking the important questions (since any answer is equally valid). It's the curse of contemporary intellectual life, turning us into relativistic zombies, unable to reason.
Click to expand...

I agree.

But perhaps the 'curse' of reason precedes the curse of subjectivism.

Hence subjectivism has its uses, depending on your perspective.

Of course such a position could be one of weakness, or intellectual deficiency. In defence of this one could say that there is 'nothing more wretched than man, nor more arrogant'.

I don't know.

'for doubting pleases me as much as knowing' - dante

'men who cannot read do not find it harder to get an erection, do they?' - horace

'accept all things in good part, just as they seem, just as they taste, day by day. the rest is beyond thy knowledge' - ecclesiastes

'everything is what it is, and not another thing' - wittgenstein

:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wonderful. Anyone who still claim this thread is boring has no love for poetry.

By that I am referring to Webster's definition of the word as the art of apprehending and interpreting ideas by the faculty of imagination; the art of idealizing in thought and in expression.
 
Originally posted by cookiemonster

'everything is what it is, and not another thing' - wittgenstein
Click to expand...
I like a man who can see the argument from both sides.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top