The sound of speaker cables

[Wylie Williams]

I recall in olden days Consumer Reports tested speakers with a method
that compared speakers under test with their reference(AR3a). It was an
elaborate system that they considered scientific, to see how closely other
speakers could mimic the sound of the AR, but I wondered how it was able to
distinguish a speaker with better resolution than the AR3a.
This if prefatory to a conversation with an audiophile friend today. I
mentioned that I was not quite pleased with my system's sound. He asked
"Haven't you listened to those Tara Labs cables the rep loaned you? ( I have
some expensive ones on loan, and some much cheaper ones I own and use) I
replied that I had but hadn't heard enough difference to be sure it was
real. Certainly no significant improvement to my ears.
His reply was that the problem is probably that my speakers are too low on
the food chain to discern the difference, and offered to loan me his when he
goes out of town soon. He says I'll hear the difference then.
This raises an interesting point about all those listening tests we hear
about. Maybe the speakers in the tests have too little resolution to allow
differences to be heard.
Have any of the subjectivist RAHE members (surely some exist) had the
experience of discovering that a some point getting better speakers started
making a difference in being able to hear dfferences in the sound of speaker
cables?

Wylie Williams

[Bruce Abrams]

What you describe is probably the single biggest reason to spend as much as
you can on speakers. Unless your electronics are grossly underpowered or
broken, different speakers will always sound far more different than will
cables, or most any other electronic component. OTOH, it is folly to
suggest that even the highest resolution speakers (whatever they are) will
allow you to hear a difference where none exists.


"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
et...
> I recall in olden days Consumer Reports tested speakers with a method
> that compared speakers under test with their reference(AR3a). It was an
> elaborate system that they considered scientific, to see how closely other
> speakers could mimic the sound of the AR, but I wondered how it was able
to
> distinguish a speaker with better resolution than the AR3a.
> This if prefatory to a conversation with an audiophile friend today. I
> mentioned that I was not quite pleased with my system's sound. He asked
> "Haven't you listened to those Tara Labs cables the rep loaned you? ( I
have
> some expensive ones on loan, and some much cheaper ones I own and use) I
> replied that I had but hadn't heard enough difference to be sure it was
> real. Certainly no significant improvement to my ears.
> His reply was that the problem is probably that my speakers are too low on
> the food chain to discern the difference, and offered to loan me his when
he
> goes out of town soon. He says I'll hear the difference then.
> This raises an interesting point about all those listening tests we hear
> about. Maybe the speakers in the tests have too little resolution to
allow
> differences to be heard.
> Have any of the subjectivist RAHE members (surely some exist) had the
> experience of discovering that a some point getting better speakers
started
> making a difference in being able to hear dfferences in the sound of
speaker
> cables?
>
> Wylie Williams
>

[Nousaine]

"Wylie Williams" wrote:

I recall in olden days Consumer Reports tested speakers with a method
>that compared speakers under test with their reference(AR3a). It was an
>elaborate system that they considered scientific, to see how closely other
>speakers could mimic the sound of the AR, but I wondered how it was able to
>distinguish a speaker with better resolution than the AR3a.
>This if prefatory to a conversation with an audiophile friend today. I
>mentioned that I was not quite pleased with my system's sound. He asked
>"Haven't you listened to those Tara Labs cables the rep loaned you? ( I have
>some expensive ones on loan, and some much cheaper ones I own and use) I
>replied that I had but hadn't heard enough difference to be sure it was
>real. Certainly no significant improvement to my ears.

Let me refresh my recollection here. Aren't you an audio retailer? Don't you
have 20+ years of experience?

>His reply was that the problem is probably that my speakers are too low on
>the food chain to discern the difference, and offered to loan me his when he
>goes out of town soon. He says I'll hear the difference then.
>This raises an interesting point about all those listening tests we hear
>about. Maybe the speakers in the tests have too little resolution to allow
>differences to be heard.

Sure that's the oft-heard response: YOU or your SYSTEM aren't GOOD ENOUGH.
Tell me why no retailer or manufacturer has been able to produce a replicable
experiment that shows that their wire has ANY effect, let alone a POSITIVE
effect on sound quality?

>Have any of the subjectivist RAHE members (surely some exist) had the
>experience of discovering that a some point getting better speakers started
>making a difference in being able to hear dfferences in the sound of speaker
>cables?

you might get a response; but not one that is at a level above anecdote. Trying
to make a testable proposition a popularity contest is a good try but it isn't
'evidence.'

[Steven Sullivan]

Wylie Williams > wrote:
> I recall in olden days Consumer Reports tested speakers with a method
> that compared speakers under test with their reference(AR3a). It was an
> elaborate system that they considered scientific, to see how closely other
> speakers could mimic the sound of the AR, but I wondered how it was able to
> distinguish a speaker with better resolution than the AR3a.
> This if prefatory to a conversation with an audiophile friend today. I
> mentioned that I was not quite pleased with my system's sound. He asked
> "Haven't you listened to those Tara Labs cables the rep loaned you? ( I have
> some expensive ones on loan, and some much cheaper ones I own and use) I
> replied that I had but hadn't heard enough difference to be sure it was
> real. Certainly no significant improvement to my ears.
> His reply was that the problem is probably that my speakers are too low on
> the food chain to discern the difference, and offered to loan me his when he
> goes out of town soon. He says I'll hear the difference then.
> This raises an interesting point about all those listening tests we hear
> about. Maybe the speakers in the tests have too little resolution to allow
> differences to be heard.


Actually it's one of the handful of same old point 'audiophiles' use in
such arguments, but it doesn't get around the need for bias controls.

Also, tests of audibel difference can and have been done using the claimant's
own system, where they'd *already* claimed they heard a difference, sighted.
The famous 'Sunshine Audio test is one such example. And ABX tests
incorporate the idea of switching back and forth between A and B in the
belief that you hear a difference (if you don't believe you hear a
difference 'sighted', then continuing the test can only reveal whether
there was a bias towards perceiving 'sameness') . Then you test whether this
difference is real, by testing whether 'X' is identifiable as A or B.



--
-S.

[Arny Krueger]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message
et
> I recall in olden days Consumer Reports tested speakers with a
> method that compared speakers under test with their reference(AR3a).
> It was an elaborate system that they considered scientific, to see
> how closely other speakers could mimic the sound of the AR, but I
> wondered how it was able to distinguish a speaker with better
> resolution than the AR3a. This if prefatory to a conversation with an
> audiophile friend today. I mentioned that I was not quite pleased
> with my system's sound. He asked "Haven't you listened to those Tara
> Labs cables the rep loaned you? ( I have some expensive ones on loan,
> and some much cheaper ones I own and use) I replied that I had but
> hadn't heard enough difference to be sure it was real. Certainly no
> significant improvement to my ears. His reply was that the problem is
> probably that my speakers are too low on the food chain to discern
> the difference, and offered to loan me his when he goes out of town
> soon. He says I'll hear the difference then. This raises an
> interesting point about all those listening tests we hear about.
> Maybe the speakers in the tests have too little resolution to allow
> differences to be heard. Have any of the subjectivist RAHE members
> (surely some exist) had the experience of discovering that a some
> point getting better speakers started making a difference in being
> able to hear dfferences in the sound of speaker cables?

Once upon a time I asked a speaker cable audible differences proponent
something like: "What is the cheapest speaker that can be used to hear
differences between cables". He said "NHT 2.5i". So, I ran right out and
bought a set of NHT 2.5i speakers (pretty good speakers by the way).
Needless to say, I still couldn't hear differences between different brands
of speaker cable that had similar DC resistance.

Guess I should have bought the 3.3s, instead!

;-)

[Graeme Nattress]

(Nousaine) wrote in message >...
>
> Sure that's the oft-heard response: YOU or your SYSTEM aren't GOOD ENOUGH.
> Tell me why no retailer or manufacturer has been able to produce a replicable
> experiment that shows that their wire has ANY effect, let alone a POSITIVE
> effect on sound quality?
>

Surely if cables sounded different, then that difference must be a
NEGATIVE one? I can see how bad corroded rusty cables that are falling
apart could introduce a bad sound, and a decently constructed set of
cables produce a neutral sound (no change from decent cable to decent
cable) but I have no eay of conceiveing of a way a cable can make
sound better! Unless I start believeing in magic, ofcourse...

Also, unless the cable is so broken that it makes the sound bad, and
there is a slight, subtle difference in the cable sound, then your
brain will self-correct for it in minutes, and you won't hear the
sound again.

Spending money on cables is money that you didn't spend on your
speakers. Any change in sound from cables (if it indeed exists, which
I doubt to any meaningful extent) is certainly not worth paying money
for.

[Nousaine]

(Graeme Nattress)

(Nousaine) wrote in message
>...
>>
>> Sure that's the oft-heard response: YOU or your SYSTEM aren't GOOD ENOUGH.
>> Tell me why no retailer or manufacturer has been able to produce a
>replicable
>> experiment that shows that their wire has ANY effect, let alone a POSITIVE
>> effect on sound quality?
>>
>
>Surely if cables sounded different, then that difference must be a
>NEGATIVE one? I can see how bad corroded rusty cables that are falling
>apart could introduce a bad sound, and a decently constructed set of
>cables produce a neutral sound (no change from decent cable to decent
>cable) but I have no eay of conceiveing of a way a cable can make
>sound better! Unless I start believeing in magic, ofcourse...

This is a very good point but one that cable manufacturers have already seized
upomn. "Our cables sound better BECAUSE they lift MORE veils."

>
>Also, unless the cable is so broken that it makes the sound bad, and
>there is a slight, subtle difference in the cable sound, then your
>brain will self-correct for it in minutes, and you won't hear the
>sound again.

This is an incredibly concrete point. Humans sonically acclimatize quickly;
otherwise you couldn't stand to listen to TV or make a phone call.

>
>Spending money on cables is money that you didn't spend on your
>speakers.

And this is the straw that broke the wire camel's back. I'd add that its money
you didn't spend on more/better programs too.


Any change in sound from cables (if it indeed exists, which
>I doubt to any meaningful extent) is certainly not worth paying money
>for.

In my 1 1995 piece "Wired Wisdom" in the canadian Sound & Vision I have a
resource deployment side-bar that compares how I spent a thousand dollars in
three months on live and recorded music INSTEAD of a thousand on speaker cables
that were sonically indistinguishable from $18 worth of zip cord.

[Wylie Williams]

"Nousaine" > wrote in message
> you might get a response; but not one that is at a level above anecdote.
Trying
> to make a testable proposition a popularity contest is a good try but it
isn't
> 'evidence.'

I appreciate your comment and I fully understand that I will not get
"evidence". I am aware of the evidence concept, but I am not soliciting
evidence at tids time, just unreliable unscientfic anecdotal impressions.

Wylie Williams

[Wylie Williams]

Thank you gentlemen for your responses. I have seen you express your
positions before, and you may be right. I haven't heard the expected
differences from high priced speaker wire myself , but I thought some others
may have some experiences to report. I was not surprised to see your
posts: what has surprised me is that the RAHE newsgroup apprently has no
members who are in the group that you would consider typical misguided high
end audiophiles contributing their opinion. I thought that the vast
majority of audiophiles were in that camp, but they seem to be absent on
RAHE when this subject comes up. Are they absent from RAHE?

Hellooooooo, are you out there?

Wylie Williams

[Howard Ferstler]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message >...
> I recall in olden days Consumer Reports tested speakers with a method
> that compared speakers under test with their reference(AR3a).

Their reference for a while was the AR-LST. Consumer Reports actually
reviewed the AR-3a at one time a few decades back and felt that its
treble and upper midrange output was not adequate to generate flat
power. The gist of that review was one reason that Roy Allison ended
up doing a very involved article on power response in wide- and
narrow-dispersing speakers for the JAES.

> It was an
> elaborate system that they considered scientific, to see how closely other
> speakers could mimic the sound of the AR, but I wondered how it was able to
> distinguish a speaker with better resolution than the AR3a.

Again, it was the LST. It achieved a 95% accuracy score on a private
test they did, which is why they selected it.

> This if prefatory to a conversation with an audiophile friend today. I
> mentioned that I was not quite pleased with my system's sound. He asked
> "Haven't you listened to those Tara Labs cables the rep loaned you? ( I have
> some expensive ones on loan, and some much cheaper ones I own and use) I
> replied that I had but hadn't heard enough difference to be sure it was
> real. Certainly no significant improvement to my ears.
> His reply was that the problem is probably that my speakers are too low on
> the food chain to discern the difference, and offered to loan me his when he
> goes out of town soon. He says I'll hear the difference then.

Actually, all that matters is whether they are clean with the speakers
you are using. Unless you plan on purchasing those speakers he is
going to loan to you, the test would be pointless. If there are no
audible differences with your existing speakers and you intend to keep
those speakers, then the wires are, for all intents and purposes,
identical sounding.

> This raises an interesting point about all those listening tests we hear
> about. Maybe the speakers in the tests have too little resolution to allow
> differences to be heard.

With the tests I did, I mainly used Dunlavy Cantatas. I also have used
some NHT M6 satellites, some Waveform MC satellites, some NHT ST4
towers, and my own Allison IC-20 models. Are any or all of those
adequate? There are a number of different design philosophies involved
with those speakers, needless to say.

> Have any of the subjectivist RAHE members (surely some exist) had the
> experience of discovering that a some point getting better speakers started
> making a difference in being able to hear dfferences in the sound of speaker
> cables?

With all the speakers I used, the cables all sounded identical. In
order to amplify the differences as much as possible, I sometimes used
excessively cheap and long 16 AWG lamp cord, and compared it to short
sections of 12 AWG wire (similar to thick Monster stuff, with the very
fine thread bundles), as well as to some 12-foot sections of Dunlavy
LCR Ultra cable, which sold for almost a thousand bucks a set.

Howard Ferstler

[normanstrong]

"Bruce Abrams" > wrote in message
...
> What you describe is probably the single biggest reason to spend as
much as
> you can on speakers. Unless your electronics are grossly
underpowered or
> broken, different speakers will always sound far more different than
will
> cables, or most any other electronic component. OTOH, it is folly
to
> suggest that even the highest resolution speakers (whatever they
are) will
> allow you to hear a difference where none exists.

Speaker choice has a greater effect on sound output than any other
choice you might make. However, I have not noticed much correlation
between speaker sound quality and speaker price. So you can't simply
buy your way to better sound. Doubling the price of your speakers is
just about as likely to result in worse rather than better sound. It
is for this reason that professionals are rarely willing to evaluate a
speaker unless they know its identity.

Norm Strong

[Arny Krueger]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message

> "Nousaine" > wrote in message

>> you might get a response; but not one that is at a level above
>> anecdote. Trying to make a testable proposition a popularity contest
>> is a good try but it isn't 'evidence.'
>
> I appreciate your comment and I fully understand that I will not get
> "evidence". I am aware of the evidence concept, but I am not
> soliciting evidence at tids time, just unreliable unscientific
> anecdotal impressions.

Which begs the question, why solicit unreliable unscientific anecdotal
impressions? One could just make them up for one's self, were a large
number of them to be desired. Furthermore, large numbers of them are
available on the google archives.

[Leonard]

Ref: ...at some point getting better speakers started
making a difference in being able to hear differences
in speaker cables?

Ah..yes...Mr. Williams, this is really not relevant here.
..or is this a big "tongue in cheek" issue? Good! I admire
how you've tweaked this ole warhorse of an idea.

The responses you gather here are from a contingent that
is somewhat "ego" involved with this "cable difference"
thingy! Subjectivism...amps improving, speakers improving
and perhaps all this work does make for a wider set of
variables in the hobby! Possible..but one must contend with
the mindset that "all is the same"...and this "audio manifesto"
has been set in stone within the mental processes of those
controlled by pre-conceived processes. The ego has gotten
involved and begins to protect itself with a form of "Objectivist"
slew..in a field called Audio! Once the sound reaches the ear/mind
construct and all of its "devious workings"...it all becomes
"Subjective" and nothing else. That Subjectivism has a billion
variables and cannot be rectified by any form of Objectivism. That
struggle has been going on here for decades. It has provided much
entertainment for those of us who observe, it provides much
"fodder" for this interesting NewsGroup. It cannot be resolved,
only discussed. The Objective template will not fit over the
Subjective rational. Period!!

To the "newbie" in this ole Audio structure I recommend as before:

If a cable sounds more right to you...get it. If an Amp has some
quality that sounds right to you..get it. ...ad infinitum. No
one lives with the variables that you have within your ear/mind
construct. Beware of those that would suggest that "your
decision" is somehow faulty. Do be open-minded, but trust your
own whims!

Also, if you prefer a certain brand of Speaker or Amplifier for
no good reason..however, to you it seems better, then by all
means put a spotlight on the Logo when you listen...be happy
with your decision...your audio illusions will be more
realistic. That is what it is all about!! Feed those
illusions..they are deeply inside and are subjective..unique to
you! As mentioned before, the music will bloom and flair just a
bit more. Enjoy the music! Enjoy the illusion our ear/mind
construct creates for us. Always...it is Subjective!

Leonard...

__________________________________________________ ___________________________


On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:16:10 +0000, Wylie Williams wrote:

> I recall in olden days Consumer Reports tested speakers with a method
> that compared speakers under test with their reference(AR3a). It was an
> elaborate system that they considered scientific, to see how closely
> other speakers could mimic the sound of the AR, but I wondered how it
> was able to distinguish a speaker with better resolution than the AR3a.
> This if prefatory to a conversation with an audiophile friend today. I
> mentioned that I was not quite pleased with my system's sound. He asked
> "Haven't you listened to those Tara Labs cables the rep loaned you? ( I
> have some expensive ones on loan, and some much cheaper ones I own and
> use) I replied that I had but hadn't heard enough difference to be
> sure it was real. Certainly no significant improvement to my ears. His
> reply was that the problem is probably that my speakers are too low on
> the food chain to discern the difference, and offered to loan me his
> when he goes out of town soon. He says I'll hear the difference then.
> This raises an interesting point about all those listening tests we hear
> about. Maybe the speakers in the tests have too little resolution to
> allow differences to be heard.
> Have any of the subjectivist RAHE members (surely some exist) had the
> experience of discovering that a some point getting better speakers
> started making a difference in being able to hear dfferences in the
> sound of speaker cables?
>
> Wylie Williams

[All Ears]

Leonard,

Wise words from your side, thanks for placing things in their appropriate
boxes..

KE

"Leonard" > wrote in message
...
> Ref: ...at some point getting better speakers started
> making a difference in being able to hear differences
> in speaker cables?
>
> Ah..yes...Mr. Williams, this is really not relevant here.
> ..or is this a big "tongue in cheek" issue? Good! I admire
> how you've tweaked this ole warhorse of an idea.
>
> The responses you gather here are from a contingent that
> is somewhat "ego" involved with this "cable difference"
> thingy! Subjectivism...amps improving, speakers improving
> and perhaps all this work does make for a wider set of
> variables in the hobby! Possible..but one must contend with
> the mindset that "all is the same"...and this "audio manifesto"
> has been set in stone within the mental processes of those
> controlled by pre-conceived processes. The ego has gotten
> involved and begins to protect itself with a form of "Objectivist"
> slew..in a field called Audio! Once the sound reaches the ear/mind
> construct and all of its "devious workings"...it all becomes
> "Subjective" and nothing else. That Subjectivism has a billion
> variables and cannot be rectified by any form of Objectivism. That
> struggle has been going on here for decades. It has provided much
> entertainment for those of us who observe, it provides much
> "fodder" for this interesting NewsGroup. It cannot be resolved,
> only discussed. The Objective template will not fit over the
> Subjective rational. Period!!
>
> To the "newbie" in this ole Audio structure I recommend as before:
>
> If a cable sounds more right to you...get it. If an Amp has some
> quality that sounds right to you..get it. ...ad infinitum. No
> one lives with the variables that you have within your ear/mind
> construct. Beware of those that would suggest that "your
> decision" is somehow faulty. Do be open-minded, but trust your
> own whims!
>
> Also, if you prefer a certain brand of Speaker or Amplifier for
> no good reason..however, to you it seems better, then by all
> means put a spotlight on the Logo when you listen...be happy
> with your decision...your audio illusions will be more
> realistic. That is what it is all about!! Feed those
> illusions..they are deeply inside and are subjective..unique to
> you! As mentioned before, the music will bloom and flair just a
> bit more. Enjoy the music! Enjoy the illusion our ear/mind
> construct creates for us. Always...it is Subjective!
>
> Leonard...
>
>
__________________________________________________ __________________________
_
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:16:10 +0000, Wylie Williams wrote:
>
> > I recall in olden days Consumer Reports tested speakers with a method
> > that compared speakers under test with their reference(AR3a). It was an
> > elaborate system that they considered scientific, to see how closely
> > other speakers could mimic the sound of the AR, but I wondered how it
> > was able to distinguish a speaker with better resolution than the AR3a.
> > This if prefatory to a conversation with an audiophile friend today. I
> > mentioned that I was not quite pleased with my system's sound. He asked
> > "Haven't you listened to those Tara Labs cables the rep loaned you? ( I
> > have some expensive ones on loan, and some much cheaper ones I own and
> > use) I replied that I had but hadn't heard enough difference to be
> > sure it was real. Certainly no significant improvement to my ears. His
> > reply was that the problem is probably that my speakers are too low on
> > the food chain to discern the difference, and offered to loan me his
> > when he goes out of town soon. He says I'll hear the difference then.
> > This raises an interesting point about all those listening tests we hear
> > about. Maybe the speakers in the tests have too little resolution to
> > allow differences to be heard.
> > Have any of the subjectivist RAHE members (surely some exist) had the
> > experience of discovering that a some point getting better speakers
> > started making a difference in being able to hear dfferences in the
> > sound of speaker cables?
> >
> > Wylie Williams

[Bob Marcus]

"Wylie Williams" > wrote in message >...

> I have some idea what speaker cable differences
> I have heard (not much) but I have never had a great system, or even
> listened very carefully for speaker cable differences in it. I tend to
> notice only big differences, and let subtleties pass me by. I figure that
> RAHE has more people, with better ears, and more experiernce with higher end
> systems than me or my small circle of acquaintances, so there might be
> useful feedback. I'd like to hear it.

Well, if you want lots of subjective impressions from people who THINK
they have better ears, there are places on the Web where you can find
lots more of them than you will here. (And you don't have to worry
about DBT harangues, because those sites are censored.)

But why should you believe that other people's subjective impressions
are any better than yours? Suppose they could hear something that you
couldn't. Why spend extra money on your own system for an "advantage"
that you can't hear?

bob

[Wylie Williams]

"Bob Marcus" > wrote
>
> But why should you believe that other people's subjective impressions
> are any better than yours? Suppose they could hear something that you
> couldn't. Why spend extra money on your own system for an "advantage"
> that you can't hear?
>
Bob,
I suppose that my subjective impressons are about as good as most. No
"golden ear" but normal hearing, I think, though not tested in many years.
However, I have a very limited number of subjective impression experiences,
and I believe that there are many audiophiles out there who have impressions
to pass on about systems and cables I have never ever seen, much less heard.
I've asked for reports, but received nothing.
The lack of response begins makes me wonder if RAHE fails to attract many
audiophile subjectivists. I don't see why that should be, as the name "high
end" should attract thousands. Or maybe they come, read, and depart after
seeing that there is a strong objectivist tenor to discussions on RAHE.
Wylie

[Steven Sullivan]

Wylie Williams > wrote:
> "Bob Marcus" > wrote
> >
> > But why should you believe that other people's subjective impressions
> > are any better than yours? Suppose they could hear something that you
> > couldn't. Why spend extra money on your own system for an "advantage"
> > that you can't hear?
> >
> Bob,
> I suppose that my subjective impressons are about as good as most. No
> "golden ear" but normal hearing, I think, though not tested in many years.
> However, I have a very limited number of subjective impression experiences,
> and I believe that there are many audiophiles out there who have impressions
> to pass on about systems and cables I have never ever seen, much less heard.
> I've asked for reports, but received nothing.
> The lack of response begins makes me wonder if RAHE fails to attract many
> audiophile subjectivists. I don't see why that should be, as the name "high
> end" should attract thousands.
> Or maybe they come, read, and depart after
> seeing that there is a strong objectivist tenor to discussions on RAHE.


Maybe they do. So? There are plenty of forums where subjectivists dominate the
discussion, to the extent even of *banning* skeptical posts on some.

Maybe some people just want to have their beliefs and purchases validated,
rather than actually discuss high fideltiy audio reproduction?



--
-S.

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo > wrote:
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> > Maybe they do. So? There are plenty of forums where subjectivists
> dominate the
> > discussion, to the extent even of *banning* skeptical posts on some.
> >
> > Maybe some people just want to have their beliefs and purchases validated,
> > rather than actually discuss high fideltiy audio reproduction?
> >

> I think you will find they have banned the discussion because they have
> degenerated into endless, pointless debate just as here. And they have
> decided that the hobby and/or interest in recorded sound has more to offer
> than that. So they have banned the dbt debates about speaker cables and
> amplifiers, et. al.


What they have done in effect is decide: we don't care about standards
of proof for claims made; and we much prefer to ignore scientific reasoning
and methods, and existing data. And so, instead of just banning the posting of
arrant nonsense as fact, we will ban any *rebuttal* of it as well. It's
treated as if it were a *religious* or *poilitical* debate, rather than
a technical one. And that's because for at least one side, it *does*
appear to be a matter of faith, to the point of even being *hostile*
to the pursuit of *evidence*.

The words 'baby' and 'bathwater' come to mind.



--
-S.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
t

> I think you will find they have banned the discussion because they
> have degenerated into endless, pointless debate just as here.

It appears that the discussion has then turned to weighing one pointless
debate, being the debate as to whether speaker cables as a rule even have an
audible effect on sound quality; against another pointless debate, being the
debate as to which speaker cables sounds better.

> And they have decided that the hobby and/or interest in recorded sound
> has more to offer than that.

Ironically, the so-called objectivist position is exactly that: The audio
hobby has more to offer than endless arguments over trivial items like
speaker cables. While the so-called subjectivists waste their time splitting
hairs, mainstream audio has moved on to situations where neither speaker
cables nor power amplifiers are relevant.

> So they have banned the dbt debates about speaker cables and amplifiers,
et. al.

Same basic situation.

Ironically, I sit here typing while I enjoy listening to music loaded on a
Nomad Jukebox 3, without the use of either power amplifiers or speaker
cables. Now playing: Toscanini conducting the NBC symphony orchestra playing
Movement 1 of Beethoven's 9th symphony. Yes, mid-1950's MONOPHONIC
recordings!

The horror, the humanity!

;-)

The love of music...

In all seriousness, while some audiophiles rattle on and on and on about
power amplifiers and speaker cables, modern music lovers have moved on,
adopting new technologies that dispense with both.

BTW, I have both the Toscanini and Walter Beethoven cycles stored on my NJB3
in uncompressed (.wav file) format with plenty of room left over for many
other (about 50 CDs ) wonderful recorded works such as the Raxos 3-disc
cycle of Paganini guitar and violin music, and the Billy Joel 4-disc boxed
set.

[Leonard]

Ref: Practice, Practice, Practice...

Ludovic...

There are some fundamentals to be learned from your sparse comments.

Some years ago, while reading a book on Philosophy, I ran into the
following phrase: "...wisdom is the seasoning of the intellect...".

This statement has always remained in the recesses of my mind. What
it implies is that one could have excessive, pure intellect, but with
no controlling factor over it...it becomes non-contributive and not
a factor. The raw intellect could mislead..not a good thing!

This seasoning of the intellect is in those very comments you made:

"...And that includes trusting those who hear more and practicing,
practicing and practicing again till one learns to as well as they
do". This ability of our mental processes to establish a "value
system" that can reject "X" while accepting "Y" is key to building the
Wisdom referred to above. The practice, practice, practice enables
this value system to hear and select those inputs that are critical to
the current mission of the process. In this case, determining the
sound factors that are positive in establishing this criteria. The raw
intellect being there is a positive thing..however, without the
judgement and control of this factor we call Wisdom, it can be wasted.
Much "Seasoning" is needed!! As we age there seems to be more
"seasoning" applied. Oddly enough, certain physical attributes of our
system starts to decay and falter as aging sets in.

Apparently, the above mentioned "system" that we are blessed with,
applies to all areas of human sensory processes. Interesting comments
regarding the olfactory processes sensing various odors that
represent certain bodily problems. The implication is that young
trainees have to develop/refine this sensory analysis. But, be wary of
these kinds of ideas...it implies some individuals have superior
interpretations of what they hear! I fear that is the case and that
this is not distributed in a Socialistic manner. Some have worked at
it...and actually perceive the real world a bit better! Others do not
believe or care..resulting in varying views of the audio world.

But, so be it!
Good comments, thanks for taking the time to put them here on this
particular Newsgroup. Perhaps, a bit of "seasoning" here!

Leonard...
__________________________________________________ _________________________

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 04:29:16 +0000, ludovic mirabel wrote:

May I add that keeping an open mind (and ears)is the
> prerequisite to enriching it? That is exemplified by the process of
> learning how to use the stethoscope by an aspiring
> physician/respirologist/cardiologist. And that includes trusting those
> who hear more and practicing, practicing and practicing again till one
> learns to hear as well as they do.
> Even the nose and the olfactory centre in the brain have to be
> educated before one learns to recognise the smell of diabetic or uremic
> coma across the room.
> All that providing that one really cares.
> Ludovic Mirabel
__________________________________________________ ___________________

> Leonard > wrote in message news:<sCN0b.158406$Oz4.43614@rwcrnsc54>...
>> Mr.Williams...
>>
>> I concur with your feelings..you also pinpointed the "is" factor.
>> Perhaps, there is a contention on the issue of "better" ears..perhaps,
>> the term should be "different".
>>
>> What we are confronting here is simply this:
>>
>> With all the improvements..in all areas of endeavor...the lines that
>> defined the old "rules" are getting a bit blurred. When this happens
>> there is a "mindset" out there that, previously having taken a hard
>> stance on some issue, finds its position untenable and getting even
>> more so. To protect the ego, one finds a rather hard-line effort to
>> justify all in Objective terms...in a domain that in the end,is
>> Subjective in nature! This is the essence of the semantic struggle we
>> see in this NewsGroup. It is fun...observe the squirming, slight
>> altering of previous dogmas..a "gangland" effect..all are lined up
>> professing the "party line" on this Newsgroup. Strength in numbers!!
>> All concurring that the borders are still there..all is well? Right?
>> Maybe a "Zorgian" slip? Let us kill them! We have the numbers!
>>
>> A drama unfolds..as technical progress runs roughshod over the borders
>> of the old concepts. Stay tuned folk! Nothing ever superior to 16bit...
>> all truth represented there, but..what..drat!..time..change the subject!
>> Let us speak of cables!!
>> Wylie, your desires regarding mature adults are understood..but, do be
>> aware that other "mindsets" do have the "final answer"...not realizing
>> the word "final" has fleeting borders!! In this Universe, perhaps that
>> word represents a non-entity..no such thing exists! We are faced with
>> fearful change!! Finality.."poof". A concept not resident in reality?
>> Again, thanks for the subtle tugging on all to "think"!
>> Leonard...
>> P.S. As to the cable issues..I have heard a lot of wire that sounded
>> different to me..not necessarily "better". A few have sounded
>> superior to me..case closed!
>>
> May I add that keeping an open mind (and ears)is the
> prerequisite to enriching it? That is exemplified by the process of
> learning how to use the stethoscope by an aspiring
> physician/respirologist/cardiologist. And that includes trusting those
> who hear more and practicing, practicing and practicing again till one
> learns to hear as well as they do.
> Even the nose and the olfactory centre in the brain have to be
> educated before one learns to recognise the smell of diabetic or
> uremic coma across the room.
> All that providing that one really cares.
> Ludovic Mirabel

[Wylie Williams]

"Leonard" > wrote
> Wylie, your desires regarding mature adults are understood..

Leonard, I see that I was not clear. When I said "I work on the assumption
that all RAHE partcipants should be treated as mature adults", I saw the
emphasis on "should be treated as". Maybe they are; maybe not. It's too
easy to become irritated and start treating people as inferiors and/or
defectives, which leads to writing in a nasty snide tone that lowers the
quality of the discourse. Not that I am above it, just that I know that if
you treat people with disrespect the general tendency is that their
intellectual side closes down, their emotional side takes over. Exchanges of
ideas seldom prosper in that atmosphere.

Wylie Williams

[Richard D Pierce]

In article >,
Wylie Williams > wrote:
> The discussion was about my attitude when I write posts. I try as best
>I can to write posts phrased to be free of condescension and sneering, on
>general principles. Fortunately (or unfortunately) I haven't come across
>many statements I wish to contradict. I hope that when I have made a
>contrary statement I have done so in an honest but diplomatic way.

One needs to understand that a passioned argument against what a
person says is not a passioned attack on who a person is An
unfortunate number of people are either incapable or unwilling
to differentiate between the two.

> If I were far more knowledgeable I would have more opportunity to
>contradict, as I would see the incorrectness in more posts. I hope that in
>such circumstances I could maintain an appropriately polite tone to my
>replies.

Not being knowledgeable is not a bad thing. We all suffer from
it to varying dgrees across varying disciplines.

Not being knowledgable and holding forth on topics about which
one is not knowledgeable is a bad thing, and occurs all to
frequently in the high-end audio realm. I would merely point to
a number of articles published, for example, in the Absolute
Sound, of a supposed technical nature that are so absurdly wrong
technically that they would make for superb practical jokes were
it not for the fact that the authors, who knew absolutely
nothing that the expounded at length on, were serious.

Not being knowledgeable, and declaring that one does not like
being told they are wrong, is basically an admission that the
person has no interest in becoming knowledgeable in the topic.

My hope is that this last is not true of anyone. Alas, I have
seen it written in these very fora, on more than one occasion.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

[S888Wheel]

>Not being knowledgable and holding forth on topics about which
>one is not knowledgeable is a bad thing, and occurs all to
>frequently in the high-end audio realm. I would merely point to
>a number of articles published, for example, in the Absolute
>Sound, of a supposed technical nature that are so absurdly wrong

>technically that they would make for superb practical jokes were
>it not for the fact that the authors, who knew absolutely
>nothing that the expounded at length on, were serious.

Fine. Then actually point to them. Maybe then we can get an idea what you are
refering to.