|
|
|
|
clarifying conditions for $4k challenge
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:11:56 GMT, (Buster Mudd)
wrote:
Note that any cable which does *not* have a flat FR is *by definition*
not a competent cable.
It's not an accurate cable, certainly. But conceivably it could be a
perfectly competantly designed cable with intentionally euphonic
innaccuracies, no? Regardless of whether one believes this is a
desireable practice in audio, one has to admit that it is an available
practice in audio.
In an engineering context, a cable that distorts the signal beyond tolerance
(in this case measured by audibility) is incompetent. But you're right that
an audiophile may be perfectly happy with such a cable.
You've hit upon a philosophical difference of opinion among audiophiles.
Some tend to hold that amps and cables SHOULD be transparent, leaving the
speakers and room as the primary variables. Others like either the challenge
or the result of mixing less neutral components.
However, it's no big deal to match the FR of
any particularly weird cable with a couple of buck's worth of passive
components. Are you suggesting that this is somehow cheating?!
yes, actually, it does seem like cheating. If you have to fudge the
product, by introducing more hardware into the test apparatus in order
to level the playing field (so to speak), you are no longer comparing
A to B.
I certainly understand how critically important level matching at a
single reference frequency is...but if having done so, frequency
response anomalies are evident, one would have to concede that the
two
products under test probably sound different.
And if the 'boutique' cable is non-flat, then would you agree that it
is *by definition* inferior?
I would agree, absolutely. I am aware that there are some listeners
(or, heaven forfend, some cable designers) that might disagree, but
that is their prerogative. Again, I thought your contention was that
those who claim they can hear the difference between 2 different
speaker cables (or interconnects) are only imagining those
differences.
Well, you were wrong, then, weren't you? :-)
I didn't realize that a precondition of the test was that
the cables actually had to sound identical.
No. A precondition of the test is that WE have to know that the cables
actually sound identical. What others believe is up to them.
If there's an audible difference between cable A & cable B, that
difference must be audible ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. If all other
things are NOT equal, you're not really comparing Cable A to Cable B,
your comparing Cable A (+X) to Cable B (where X is some other variable
that, if I understand you correctly, causes Cable A to ...duh! sound
like Cable B!)
Nope, we are making sure that ultra-cheap cable A has the same gross
LCR characterictics as ultra-expensive cable B. Check any 'boutique'
cable adverts, you will *never* see basic FR differences referenced as
having anything to do with the claimed sonic superiority of those
cables
Again, I didn't think the $4k challenge was contingent upon specific
claims of various manufacturers, I thought it was directed at claims
of listeners who contend they can discern an audible difference
between say, Home Depot 12awg zip cord & the boutique cable of their
choice. What the marketing spin doctors have said in advertisements or
"technical papers" about that boutique cable of choice should be
immaterial in a test designed simply to prove or disprove whether or
not the listener's claim is valid, no?
Well, it's not *really* aimed at an individual listener's claim. It's really
aimed at the claim that the companies making high-priced cables are offering
anything that can't be had for a few bucks.
bob
__________________________________________________ _______________
|