I wonder if perhaps this can be an ongoing thread, where we post examples
we find online or in the print media, of particularly egregious examples
of audio mythology passed off as fact, by 'experts.

here's my exmaple for today:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/062104questions/

//

Home Theater Magazine
June 21 2004

20 Questions for. . .Don Bouchard
By Scott Messler

//

(result of search using the term 'blind' or 'controlled': no results)

//

In a nutshell:

Can you tell us a little about your background?
I started in the specialty A/V business in 1972. Since then, I've worked
for a number of audio companies, including Ohm Acoustics, Dahlquist, and
with Mark Levinson at Cello.

What brought you to Ultralink/XLO?
I had almost made the decision to semi-retire when a mutual friend of mine
and the Ultralink/XLO folks told me that they had something special going
on. He felt we were perfectly suited for each other, and he was right.

When it comes to two of the most controversial aspects of cable
marketing?cable directionality and cable burn-in?are they fact or fiction?
Fact, on both counts. Earlier we talked about copper-oxide impurities at
the juncture between the copper crystals in the matrix and how they have a
tendency to act as little diodes. Diodes pass current better in one
direction than another. This slight polarization characteristic makes the
cables do so, as well. It's subtle but noticeable as a bit more natural
and open sounding. Unfortunately, there's absolutely no way of telling
which direction is the best one in a predictable way on the spool. You
must listen to it?and do so before you mark it for directionality.

//

My favorite part of the article:

* Audio Technical Editor's Note: The scientific community as a whole may
not embrace all of Mr. Bouchard's explanations and conclusions.

--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy

Steven Sullivan wrote in
news:ZqHCc.176173$Ly.121769@attbi_s01:

I wonder if perhaps this can be an ongoing thread, where we post
examples we find online or in the print media, of particularly
egregious examples of audio mythology passed off as fact, by 'experts.


here's my exmaple for today:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/062104questions/

//

Home Theater Magazine
June 21 2004

20 Questions for. . .Don Bouchard
By Scott Messler

//

(result of search using the term 'blind' or 'controlled': no results)

//

In a nutshell:

Can you tell us a little about your background?
I started in the specialty A/V business in 1972. Since then, I've
worked for a number of audio companies, including Ohm Acoustics,
Dahlquist, and with Mark Levinson at Cello.

In marketing, no doubt.

What brought you to Ultralink/XLO?
I had almost made the decision to semi-retire when a mutual friend of
mine and the Ultralink/XLO folks told me that they had something
special going on. He felt we were perfectly suited for each other, and
he was right.

When it comes to two of the most controversial aspects of cable
marketing?cable directionality and cable burn-in?are they fact or
fiction? Fact, on both counts. Earlier we talked about copper-oxide
impurities at the juncture between the copper crystals in the matrix
and how they have a tendency to act as little diodes. Diodes pass
current better in one direction than another. This slight polarization
characteristic makes the cables do so, as well. It's subtle but
noticeable as a bit more natural and open sounding. Unfortunately,
there's absolutely no way of telling which direction is the best one
in a predictable way on the spool. You must listen to it?and do so
before you mark it for directionality.

//

I wonder if anyone has ever taken the time to explain to cable
directionality advocates, and this bozo in particular, that the signal
presented to the speakers is AC? If his micro-diodes really do exist to
the extent of affecting sound reproduction, reversing the cables would have
no effect.


My favorite part of the article:

* Audio Technical Editor's Note: The scientific community as a whole
may not embrace all of Mr. Bouchard's explanations and conclusions.


Nicely understated.

-- JS

And if cables make so much of a difference, why do cable companies make
so many different ones? Can't they tell you ahead of time that one is
made to kill highs or lows if that were truly the case?
If the cable is passing everything, why do they make another style/many
more styles? Wouldn't one, well designed cable work with any piece of
equipment? hmmmm.......
John

When it comes to two of the most controversial aspects of cable
marketing?cable directionality and cable burn-in?are they fact or
fiction? Fact, on both counts. Earlier we talked about copper-oxide
impurities at the juncture between the copper crystals in the matrix
and how they have a tendency to act as little diodes. Diodes pass
current better in one direction than another. This slight polarization
characteristic makes the cables do so, as well. It's subtle but
noticeable as a bit more natural and open sounding. Unfortunately,
there's absolutely no way of telling which direction is the best one
in a predictable way on the spool. You must listen to it?and do so
before you mark it for directionality.

I wonder if anyone has ever taken the time to explain to cable
directionality advocates, and this bozo in particular, that the
signal presented to the speakers is AC? If his micro-diodes
really do exist to the extent of affecting sound reproduction,
reversing the cables would have no effect.

And I wonder if it would do any good to point out to this same
quack that just mecause the diodes are "tiny," the voltage drop
across them will be large, a sizeable fraction of a volt, and
TRIVIALLY detectable and yet not a single person making the
claim about "tiny diodes" has ever presented a single instance
of such an easily performed measurement.

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

On 6/25/04 9:25 PM, in article Wf4Dc.156130$3x.95264@attbi_s54, "Dick
Pierce" wrote:

And I wonder if it would do any good to point out to this same
quack that just mecause the diodes are "tiny," the voltage drop
across them will be large, a sizeable fraction of a volt, and
TRIVIALLY detectable and yet not a single person making the
claim about "tiny diodes" has ever presented a single instance
of such an easily performed measurement.

However misguided - this would be an attempt to "explain" why a particular
cable would roll off the sound or sound different than another cable
(perhaps zip cord?).

"Bromo" wrote in message
...
On 6/25/04 9:25 PM, in article Wf4Dc.156130$3x.95264@attbi_s54, "Dick
Pierce" wrote:

And I wonder if it would do any good to point out to this same
quack that just mecause the diodes are "tiny," the voltage drop
across them will be large, a sizeable fraction of a volt, and
TRIVIALLY detectable and yet not a single person making the
claim about "tiny diodes" has ever presented a single instance
of such an easily performed measurement.

However misguided - this would be an attempt to "explain" why a particular
cable would roll off the sound or sound different than another cable
(perhaps zip cord?).

If a cable alters the sound in a frequency-related way, it's due to
inductance and capacitance effects, not "micro diodes".

Norm

On 26 Jun 2004 14:29:00 GMT, Bromo wrote:

On 6/25/04 9:25 PM, in article Wf4Dc.156130$3x.95264@attbi_s54, "Dick
Pierce" wrote:

And I wonder if it would do any good to point out to this same
quack that just mecause the diodes are "tiny," the voltage drop
across them will be large, a sizeable fraction of a volt, and
TRIVIALLY detectable and yet not a single person making the
claim about "tiny diodes" has ever presented a single instance
of such an easily performed measurement.

However misguided - this would be an attempt to "explain" why a particular
cable would roll off the sound or sound different than another cable
(perhaps zip cord?).

It would indeed - and it would fail most miserably, since it is
readily observable that plain copper wire is absolutely linear to less
than -160dB against reference level. You *claim* to be an engineer -
would you care to explain how such a mechanism might exist?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 6/26/04 6:26 PM, in article , "Norm Dresner"
wrote:

"Bromo" wrote in message
...
On 6/25/04 9:25 PM, in article Wf4Dc.156130$3x.95264@attbi_s54, "Dick
Pierce" wrote:

And I wonder if it would do any good to point out to this same
quack that just mecause the diodes are "tiny," the voltage drop
across them will be large, a sizeable fraction of a volt, and
TRIVIALLY detectable and yet not a single person making the
claim about "tiny diodes" has ever presented a single instance
of such an easily performed measurement.

However misguided - this would be an attempt to "explain" why a particular
cable would roll off the sound or sound different than another cable
(perhaps zip cord?).

If a cable alters the sound in a frequency-related way, it's due to
inductance and capacitance effects, not "micro diodes".

Fine - n0o issue by me. I have no idea what a micro diode might be - or how
it might affect the sound (since a diode that is shorted out would only
reduce the effective inductance by a micro-hair! :-) ) - or if it might do
so.

I do know that different cables if designed for it, might affect the sound.

On 6/27/04 1:50 AM, in article detDc.116491$eu.53540@attbi_s02, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

However misguided - this would be an attempt to "explain" why a particular
cable would roll off the sound or sound different than another cable
(perhaps zip cord?).

It would indeed - and it would fail most miserably, since it is
readily observable that plain copper wire is absolutely linear to less
than -160dB against reference level. You *claim* to be an engineer -
would you care to explain how such a mechanism might exist?

Nope - because of 2 reasons -

1. I have the belief that it doesn't matter
2. I have no clue as to what the mechanism would be if it did matter

"Bromo" wrote in message
...
On 6/26/04 6:26 PM, in article , "Norm
Dresner"
wrote:

"Bromo" wrote in message
...
On 6/25/04 9:25 PM, in article Wf4Dc.156130$3x.95264@attbi_s54, "Dick
Pierce" wrote:

And I wonder if it would do any good to point out to this same
quack that just mecause the diodes are "tiny," the voltage drop
across them will be large, a sizeable fraction of a volt, and
TRIVIALLY detectable and yet not a single person making the
claim about "tiny diodes" has ever presented a single instance
of such an easily performed measurement.

However misguided - this would be an attempt to "explain" why a
particular
cable would roll off the sound or sound different than another cable
(perhaps zip cord?).

If a cable alters the sound in a frequency-related way, it's due to
inductance and capacitance effects, not "micro diodes".

Fine - n0o issue by me. I have no idea what a micro diode might be - or
how
it might affect the sound (since a diode that is shorted out would only
reduce the effective inductance by a micro-hair! :-) ) - or if it might do
so.

I do know that different cables if designed for it, might affect the
sound.

I do not question that there is an effect that relates some cables with
their "sound". Even in the audio band, use of long runs of any type of
cable present inductive and/or capacitive loads which alter frequency
response -- resistivity can also affect "sound". For short lengths, only
grossly mismatching cable and application -- say 24 gage coax cable for
speakers vx 12 gage straight pair -- might be audible. It's been a long
time but I vaguely recall that the inductance of a piece of straight wire is
on the order of a microHenry per foot. This isn't normally audible until
you get to the highest frequencies but some people's hearing is good enough
to detect changes in that part of the spectrum. A uH/foot translates to .1
ohm/foot at 20 KHz so a 10 foot length of speaker cable would have an
impedence at 20KHz that's 1 ohm greater than its impedence at 20 Hz or even
200 Hz. I think something like this is within the range of audibility; I
know it's measurable because I've seen the potential difference that
develops along a speaker cable between the speaker's -terminal and the
amplifier's ground terminal on a 'scope.

Norm

"Norm Dresner" wrote in message
news:CnLDc.126994$Sw.106436@attbi_s51...
"Bromo" wrote in message
...

I do know that different cables if designed for it, might affect the
sound.

I do not question that there is an effect that relates some cables with
their "sound". Even in the audio band, use of long runs of any type of
cable present inductive and/or capacitive loads which alter frequency
response -- resistivity can also affect "sound". For short lengths, only
grossly mismatching cable and application -- say 24 gage coax cable for
speakers vx 12 gage straight pair -- might be audible. It's been a long
time but I vaguely recall that the inductance of a piece of straight wire
is
on the order of a microHenry per foot. This isn't normally audible until
you get to the highest frequencies but some people's hearing is good
enough
to detect changes in that part of the spectrum. A uH/foot translates to
...1
ohm/foot at 20 KHz so a 10 foot length of speaker cable would have an
impedence at 20KHz that's 1 ohm greater than its impedence at 20 Hz or
even
200 Hz. I think something like this is within the range of audibility; I
know it's measurable because I've seen the potential difference that
develops along a speaker cable between the speaker's -terminal and the
amplifier's ground terminal on a 'scope.

Norm

My own "subjectivist" experiences which were later borne out by improved
instrumentation started with a pre-amp/amp combination I had designed and
built that we felt sounded audibly superior to a previous kit-built one.
Both my wife and I were willing to swear that there was a difference in the
sound of a voiced "sibilant 'S'" as in the work Australia on a particular
recording. After I borrowed a really good constant-amplitude oscillator and
digital RMS AC voltmeter we measured a peaking of about .15dB in the
response of the more sibilant combination around 1-2KHz which is roughly
where the first few overtones of the spoken voice reside. The second
experience was that a new high-end amplifier sounded "crisper" than my old
one, which was particularly noticable in plucked guitar and harp string
sounds. The new amplifier has measurably higher slew rate and the waveform
at the start of those sounds is "measurably" steeper --as observed on a
'scope.

I was then convinced that subjective observation was only as valid as
measurement could confirm.

Norm

Bromo wrote:

If a cable alters the sound in a frequency-related way, it's due to
inductance and capacitance effects, not "micro diodes".

Fine - n0o issue by me. I have no idea what a micro diode might be -
or how it might affect the sound (since a diode that is shorted out
would only reduce the effective inductance by a micro-hair! :-) ) -
or if it might do so.


Hah, finally a reasonable and scientific view. You seem to be the real
debunker of the micro diodes theory. I have nothing to add.
I still do not know if cuprite really forms a semiconductor with pure
copper. I think the pure copper must be doped too. But I'm not a chemist or
physics guy.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

I was a cable skeptic, still remain so in some respects (as it pertains to
the $$$-reaches of audio) but having done a lot of work in measurement and
instrumentation I know that -- just moving a cable when you are trying to
measure microvolts will introduce an EMF that throws measurements off,
sometimes it's better to crimp vs solder, a poorly shielded cable in the
vicinity of a computer or switching power supply is going to drive the poor
audiophile batty (if they didn't start in that condition in the first
place.)

there's probably more to be gained by proper system grounding, making sure
that the connections fit snugly, avoid RFI/EMI sources -- things which can
be done for no outlay, connectors and the connection joint second, cables
third. too bad triax connectors cost a fortune.


"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
news:Wf4Dc.156130$3x.95264@attbi_s54...
When it comes to two of the most controversial aspects of cable
marketing?cable directionality and cable burn-in?are they fact or
fiction? Fact, on both counts. Earlier we talked about copper-oxide
impurities at the juncture between the copper crystals in the matrix
and how they have a tendency to act as little diodes. Diodes pass
current better in one direction than another. This slight polarization
characteristic makes the cables do so, as well. It's subtle but
noticeable as a bit more natural and open sounding. Unfortunately,
there's absolutely no way of telling which direction is the best one
in a predictable way on the spool. You must listen to it?and do so
before you mark it for directionality.

I wonder if anyone has ever taken the time to explain to cable
directionality advocates, and this bozo in particular, that the
signal presented to the speakers is AC? If his micro-diodes
really do exist to the extent of affecting sound reproduction,
reversing the cables would have no effect.

And I wonder if it would do any good to point out to this same
quack that just mecause the diodes are "tiny," the voltage drop
across them will be large, a sizeable fraction of a volt, and
TRIVIALLY detectable and yet not a single person making the
claim about "tiny diodes" has ever presented a single instance
of such an easily performed measurement.

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

On 6/28/04 6:46 PM, in article , "Ban"
wrote:

Bromo wrote:

If a cable alters the sound in a frequency-related way, it's due to
inductance and capacitance effects, not "micro diodes".

Fine - no issue by me. I have no idea what a micro diode might be -
or how it might affect the sound (since a diode that is shorted out
would only reduce the effective inductance by a micro-hair! :-) ) -
or if it might do so.


Hah, finally a reasonable and scientific view. You seem to be the real
debunker of the micro diodes theory. I have nothing to add.
I still do not know if cuprite really forms a semiconductor with pure
copper. I think the pure copper must be doped too. But I'm not a chemist or
physics guy.

Heh! Thanks! I do know that copper on Aluminum forms a galvanic connection
that becomes a diode over time - especially in a salt fog environment -
making the connection of dissimilar metals not so good for electronics.

IN some US houses built in the 1970's - this is a problem of mixing Aluminum
and copper wiring - and sometimes would cause fires (!).

If someone were to use aluminum wires on copper in a speaker system, I would
expect a measurable degradation after some time.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...right999ES.htm

Steven Sullivan wrote:
I wonder if perhaps this can be an ongoing thread, where we post examples
we find online or in the print media, of particularly egregious examples
of audio mythology passed off as fact, by 'experts.

here's my exmaple for today:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/062104questions/

//

Home Theater Magazine
June 21 2004

20 Questions for. . .Don Bouchard
By Scott Messler

//

(result of search using the term 'blind' or 'controlled': no results)

//

In a nutshell:

Can you tell us a little about your background?
I started in the specialty A/V business in 1972. Since then, I've worked
for a number of audio companies, including Ohm Acoustics, Dahlquist, and
with Mark Levinson at Cello.

What brought you to Ultralink/XLO?
I had almost made the decision to semi-retire when a mutual friend of mine
and the Ultralink/XLO folks told me that they had something special going
on. He felt we were perfectly suited for each other, and he was right.

When it comes to two of the most controversial aspects of cable
marketing?cable directionality and cable burn-in?are they fact or fiction?
Fact, on both counts. Earlier we talked about copper-oxide impurities at
the juncture between the copper crystals in the matrix and how they have a
tendency to act as little diodes. Diodes pass current better in one
direction than another. This slight polarization characteristic makes the
cables do so, as well. It's subtle but noticeable as a bit more natural
and open sounding. Unfortunately, there's absolutely no way of telling
which direction is the best one in a predictable way on the spool. You
must listen to it?and do so before you mark it for directionality.

//

My favorite part of the article:

* Audio Technical Editor's Note: The scientific community as a whole may
not embrace all of Mr. Bouchard's explanations and conclusions.

"Wayne Van Kirk" wrote in message
...
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...right999ES.htm


What is it specifically you object to?

1) the mod itself?
2) attention to power cords?
3) attention to interconnects?
4) the writer's conviction that this is the best SACD that he has heard?
(including the SCD-1 and the 777ES).
5) the writer's overuse of definitive rather than relative terminology?

If you were a SACD and CD enthusiast looking for a player in the "$2000 or
under" range, and read this reveiw. Would you rush out and buy? Or would
you go on the web, to forums and review sites, and see if there was a
consensus of opinion?

In other words, what's your beef?

Steven Sullivan wrote:
I wonder if perhaps this can be an ongoing thread, where we post
examples
we find online or in the print media, of particularly egregious examples
of audio mythology passed off as fact, by 'experts.

here's my exmaple for today:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/062104questions/

//

Home Theater Magazine
June 21 2004

20 Questions for. . .Don Bouchard
By Scott Messler

//

(result of search using the term 'blind' or 'controlled': no results)

//

In a nutshell:

Can you tell us a little about your background?
I started in the specialty A/V business in 1972. Since then, I've worked
for a number of audio companies, including Ohm Acoustics, Dahlquist, and
with Mark Levinson at Cello.

What brought you to Ultralink/XLO?
I had almost made the decision to semi-retire when a mutual friend of
mine
and the Ultralink/XLO folks told me that they had something special
going
on. He felt we were perfectly suited for each other, and he was right.

When it comes to two of the most controversial aspects of cable
marketing?cable directionality and cable burn-in?are they fact or
fiction?
Fact, on both counts. Earlier we talked about copper-oxide impurities at
the juncture between the copper crystals in the matrix and how they have
a
tendency to act as little diodes. Diodes pass current better in one
direction than another. This slight polarization characteristic makes
the
cables do so, as well. It's subtle but noticeable as a bit more natural
and open sounding. Unfortunately, there's absolutely no way of telling
which direction is the best one in a predictable way on the spool. You
must listen to it?and do so before you mark it for directionality.

//

My favorite part of the article:

* Audio Technical Editor's Note: The scientific community as a whole may
not embrace all of Mr. Bouchard's explanations and conclusions.

"Wayne Van Kirk"
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...right999ES.htm

A snippet from above link

Cables are another matter altogether. The unit requires two power cords,
and your choice is key. This must be done by ear, but when it's right
(the most natural and transparent), you'll know.

I guess we shall all have to call our local power companies up and ask
them to demonstrate the sound of the cables run from the generating
station, to the substation, to the transformers on the poles and then on
into our homes. Then we need to call the builders up and ask them to
audition their cable runs inside the house. And would some physicist
please tell those pesky electrons to stop being so noisy!
John

Midlant wrote:
"Wayne Van Kirk"
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Iss...right999ES.htm

A snippet from above link

Cables are another matter altogether. The unit requires two power
cords, and your choice is key. This must be done by ear, but when
it's right (the most natural and transparent), you'll know.

The most ridiculous thing about these overpriced tweaks is that the mods are
presented as the most economical thing to do and what the competitors do is
at least double the price. How can the interconnects of 250$/metre be a
bargain? Seems a bit high for me.
And when we have reached a transparent reproduction like any decent CD- or
DVD players, what will that tweak do if not worsen the sound? That tube
stage if it is audible at all will certainly introduce distortion that was
not contained in the original data. These Quacks are a nuisance and shame to
the audio-lover because they discredit our beautiful and satisfying hobby,
and make a laughing stock out of misguided colleagues.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

"I’ve heard $2000 speakers with off-the-rack wires that sounded worse
than little $100 Radio Shacks with good cables. Twenty years of striving
to make perfect-sounding recordings has taught me that WIRE IS A
COMPONENT JUST AS CRUCIAL AS SPEAKERS OR AMPS."

http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/twe...eakercable.php

WVK

In article ,
Wayne Van Kirk wrote:

"IÂ’ve heard $2000 speakers with off-the-rack wires that sounded worse
than little $100 Radio Shacks with good cables. Twenty years of striving
to make perfect-sounding recordings has taught me that WIRE IS A
COMPONENT JUST AS CRUCIAL AS SPEAKERS OR AMPS."

http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/twe...eakercable.php

Looks like a personal opinion to me, and, until wireless speakers become
common, he's correct in as much as wires are required for audio. It's
also conceivable that there are $2000 speakers bad enough or sensitive
enough to wire that an LX4 might be preferable.

That said, I don't think I'll buy any of his wires, although his
recordings are said to be good for sound quality.

Stephen

On 8 Jul 2004 14:38:14 GMT, in article , Wayne
Van Kirk stated:

"IÂ’ve heard $2000 speakers with off-the-rack wires that sounded worse
than little $100 Radio Shacks with good cables. Twenty years of striving
to make perfect-sounding recordings has taught me that WIRE IS A
COMPONENT JUST AS CRUCIAL AS SPEAKERS OR AMPS."

http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/twe...eakercable.php

WVK

Silly, yes, but they sell very nice amp stands at a reasonable price.

And they are a pleasure to deal with.

On 7/8/04 11:18 PM, in article N7oHc.50741$Oq2.19183@attbi_s52, "MINe 109"
wrote:

In article ,
Wayne Van Kirk wrote:

"IÂ’ve heard $2000 speakers with off-the-rack wires that sounded worse
than little $100 Radio Shacks with good cables. Twenty years of striving
to make perfect-sounding recordings has taught me that WIRE IS A
COMPONENT JUST AS CRUCIAL AS SPEAKERS OR AMPS."

http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/twe...eakercable.php

Looks like a personal opinion to me, and, until wireless speakers become
common, he's correct in as much as wires are required for audio. It's
also conceivable that there are $2000 speakers bad enough or sensitive
enough to wire that an LX4 might be preferable.

That said, I don't think I'll buy any of his wires, although his
recordings are said to be good for sound quality.

Also it might be noted that room acoustics really *do* make a measurable and
real difference in reproducing sound - might be good to treat the room
before buying kilobuck wires -- you might find there is no need!

The Beak:

"The 'Beak' was developed to control parasitic vibrations that occur on
top of a speaker cabinet. These resonances actually interfere with
speaker performance, specifically the lobbing action in tweeters.
Implementing a Beak on any speaker; can actually control and provide a
better interaction between speaker, tweeter and housing"

http://www.gcaudio.com/products/reviews/infototem.html

"Now let's talk about the Beaks.
Vincent Bruzzese says that the design of the Beaks was determined
with the help of a mainframe computer, and that every aspect of it (the
cutout on the underside and the fine grooves milled into the surface)
must be exactly the way they are. He adds that actual frequency
measurements have been run on speakers with and without Beaks, but he
has supplied neither the methodology nor the actual measurements. The
Beak is meant to be at once a resonator (the air space trapped under the
device) and--if we understand correctly--a diffraction device. It is
claimed that it improves the bottom end, and it also allows the tweeter
to go higher more linearly. How it does this is, for the moment,
anyone's guess,"

http://www.uhfmag.com/Issue56/Forest.html

WVK

"John Walton" wrote in message
...
I was a cable skeptic, still remain so in some respects (as it pertains to
the $$$-reaches of audio) but having done a lot of work in measurement and
instrumentation I know that -- just moving a cable when you are trying to
measure microvolts will introduce an EMF that throws measurements off,
sometimes it's better to crimp vs solder, a poorly shielded cable in the
vicinity of a computer or switching power supply is going to drive the
poor
audiophile batty (if they didn't start in that condition in the first
place.)

there's probably more to be gained by proper system grounding, making sure
that the connections fit snugly, avoid RFI/EMI sources -- things which can
be done for no outlay, connectors and the connection joint second, cables
third. too bad triax connectors cost a fortune.

Amen to all above. When you move a cable and an artifact is generated, that
is called "roll noise" by Belden, and it _is_ a sigificant problem with
microphone cables. There are low roll noise cables made specifically for
mics. I once talked to a Belden engineer about directivity claims on high
end cable. He told me that many audiophiles also believe the moon is made of
green cheese. He said there is NO directivity to coaxial or paired cable,
NONE.
My .02 worth,
Tom

Wayne Van Kirk wrote in news:cqmIc.58235$MB3.52570
@attbi_s04:

The Beak:

"The 'Beak' was developed to control parasitic vibrations that occur on
top of a speaker cabinet. These resonances actually interfere with
speaker performance, specifically the lobbing action in tweeters.
Implementing a Beak on any speaker; can actually control and provide a
better interaction between speaker, tweeter and housing"

http://www.gcaudio.com/products/reviews/infototem.html

"Now let's talk about the Beaks.
Vincent Bruzzese says that the design of the Beaks was determined
with the help of a mainframe computer, and that every aspect of it (the
cutout on the underside and the fine grooves milled into the surface)
must be exactly the way they are. He adds that actual frequency
measurements have been run on speakers with and without Beaks, but he
has supplied neither the methodology nor the actual measurements. The
Beak is meant to be at once a resonator (the air space trapped under the
device) and--if we understand correctly--a diffraction device. It is
claimed that it improves the bottom end, and it also allows the tweeter
to go higher more linearly. How it does this is, for the moment,
anyone's guess,"

http://www.uhfmag.com/Issue56/Forest.html

WVK



I think someone's phase plug fell off and they didn't know where it was
supposed to go.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

today's entries....

Mark Levinson is at it again, promoting his quack 'CDs hurt you' claim.
In the current TAS, there's a roundtable forum on SACD and DVD-A (guess what -- they're
*almost* as good as LP!) between Levinson, Valin, Pearson, and poor Doug Sax, who has to bear the
entire weight for the sane/sensible faction (he's the only one who sticks up for CD, and happily,
he makes the point very early on that analog *definitely* sounds different from the real thing).
Levinson at one point claims that PCM 'causes listener stress and confusion. Its' not an opinoin,
it's a physiological fact'.

No one calls him on this.

Valin also opines that he hears digital recordings as 'discontinuous' -- it sounds like 'steps'.
Whereas LPs, of course , sounds like 'waves'.

Similary, it is claimed (by Sax, unfortunately) that analog beats digital because it has 'at least
an octave' over CD, and a better noise floor. I presume he is comparing 1/4 inch tape to CD -- that
is, production analog to final product (Redbook 16/44) digital -- not LP to CD, or p[roduction
digital to production analog, but that's not clarified.

That said, I've also encountered this 'analog stomps digital' recently in another forum, this time
the claim not being restricted to Redbook, to wit:

"Well, in practice they aren't. The
best analog electronics money can
build or buy is light years ahead
of the best digital electronics
money can build or buy." - Dan Koren


Comments? I can't say I'm up on what
'the best analog electronics money can buy'
buys you these days, so perhaps others
here can educate me on the truth value
of Mr. Koren's statement. (Just on the
production side, I asked him how the very best
analog compares, measurably if not audibly,
to the best digital, in terms of
pitch stability and 'flutter'. No reply
so far.)







--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
today's entries....

Mark Levinson is at it again, promoting his quack 'CDs hurt you' claim.
In the current TAS, there's a roundtable forum on SACD and DVD-A (guess
what -- they're
*almost* as good as LP!) between Levinson, Valin, Pearson, and poor Doug
Sax, who has to bear the
entire weight for the sane/sensible faction (he's the only one who sticks
up for CD, and happily,
he makes the point very early on that analog *definitely* sounds different
from the real thing).
Levinson at one point claims that PCM 'causes listener stress and
confusion. Its' not an opinoin,
it's a physiological fact'.

No one calls him on this.

Valin also opines that he hears digital recordings as 'discontinuous' --
it sounds like 'steps'.
Whereas LPs, of course , sounds like 'waves'.

Similary, it is claimed (by Sax, unfortunately) that analog beats digital
because it has 'at least
an octave' over CD, and a better noise floor. I presume he is comparing
1/4 inch tape to CD -- that
is, production analog to final product (Redbook 16/44) digital -- not LP
to CD, or p[roduction
digital to production analog, but that's not clarified.

That said, I've also encountered this 'analog stomps digital' recently in
another forum, this time
the claim not being restricted to Redbook, to wit:

"Well, in practice they aren't. The
best analog electronics money can
build or buy is light years ahead
of the best digital electronics
money can build or buy." - Dan Koren


Comments? I can't say I'm up on what
'the best analog electronics money can buy'
buys you these days, so perhaps others
here can educate me on the truth value
of Mr. Koren's statement. (Just on the
production side, I asked him how the very best
analog compares, measurably if not audibly,
to the best digital, in terms of
pitch stability and 'flutter'. No reply
so far.)



Whatever your views, the article is worth reading simply for its provocative
thoughts. Among Sax's observations / opinions:

1) analog tape definitely colors the sound, but its distortions are euphonic
and actually "improve" the sound to some ears.

2) pcm is "fragile"...everything has to be right but at 96/24 its
first-generation sound is "very good, very good". However, any distortion
introduced into the digital process is negative...non-euphonic.

3) there is a large difference between a first generation digital source and
the production version..he calls "a great lie" the assertion that digital
copies sound like the original. He says flat out "they do not". Despite
that, he says that he has heard some CD's that sound "very, very good".

4) he prefers SACD as a medium, but for practical reasons as opposed to its
sound, which he considers different from (but not better than) PCM. He does
concur that the differences make it sound "more analog like" and "more
forgiving" (as opposed to PCM's "fragility") in creating a reproduction
medium.

5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very dangerous".
If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the component under
test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months" to discover
if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there".

5) on records - "everything you measure about the disk is worse, except that
it has very good phase relationships."

6) (perhaps his most controversial and far-out comment, but one his
experience as a "cutter" certainly should give him experience with) "I could
consistently take a very good tape and cut it in a certain spot of the disk
only, and A/B the tape to the disc, and the disc always sounded better." He
goes on to postulate that the mechanical action of the cutting/cartridge
playback "predigests" the sound to mechanical parameters so the speaker has
an easier time handling it.

7) finally, he talks about multi-track tape being the industry's preferred
storage format for multichannel hi-res, since it can be used easily to put
into any digital multichannel format (PCM, SACD, DD, DTS, etc). When asked
what the prevailing view in the industry is towards storing on tape, he says
"It's excellent. Analog tape is high resolution, which means two things.
One, the extended bandwidth over a conventional CD....and, two, more
low-level performance than a conventional CD." (Note to Steve's point
above...his comparison in defining tape's hi-rez is to conventional CD, not
to high-rez PCM or SACD.)

On 8/17/04 12:05 AM, in article , "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

today's entries....

Mark Levinson is at it again, promoting his quack 'CDs hurt you' claim.
In the current TAS, there's a roundtable forum on SACD and DVD-A (guess what
-- they're
*almost* as good as LP!) between Levinson, Valin, Pearson, and poor Doug Sax,
who has to bear the
entire weight for the sane/sensible faction (he's the only one who sticks up
for CD, and happily,
he makes the point very early on that analog *definitely* sounds different
from the real thing).
Levinson at one point claims that PCM 'causes listener stress and confusion.
Its' not an opinoin,
it's a physiological fact'.

No one calls him on this.

Well, you just did. IN a public forum that goes around the world. It is a
silly comment he made - though I would say that an overly bright sound does
make my jaw tighten, but u CD player and setup does not sound overly bright.

Valin also opines that he hears digital recordings as 'discontinuous' -- it
sounds like 'steps'.
Whereas LPs, of course , sounds like 'waves'.

I hate when people speculate about that sort of thing! :-)

B&D wrote in :

On 8/17/04 12:05 AM, in article , "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

today's entries....

Mark Levinson is at it again, promoting his quack 'CDs hurt you' claim.
In the current TAS, there's a roundtable forum on SACD and DVD-A
(guess what
-- they're
*almost* as good as LP!) between Levinson, Valin, Pearson, and poor
Doug Sax,
who has to bear the
entire weight for the sane/sensible faction (he's the only one who
sticks up
for CD, and happily,
he makes the point very early on that analog *definitely* sounds
different
from the real thing).
Levinson at one point claims that PCM 'causes listener stress and
confusion.
Its' not an opinoin,
it's a physiological fact'.

No one calls him on this.

Well, you just did. IN a public forum that goes around the world. It
is a
silly comment he made - though I would say that an overly bright sound
does
make my jaw tighten, but u CD player and setup does not sound overly
bright.

Valin also opines that he hears digital recordings as
'discontinuous' -- it
sounds like 'steps'.
Whereas LPs, of course , sounds like 'waves'.

I hate when people speculate about that sort of thing! :-)


The part that I noticed about the article is that every time Levinson says
something a bit off, the other people either ignore it and continue as if
he didn't say anything, or change the subject.

I did like the part about steps. It sure gave me a chuckle.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

Whatever your views, the article is worth reading simply for its provocative
thoughts. Among Sax's observations / opinions:


....snip to specific comment.....

5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very dangerous".
If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the component under
test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months" to discover
if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there".

Apparently you agree with this idea. My question is exactly how does the sound
of a component or medium change while you "live with it for several months"?

I can understand how operating functions or quirks might become familiar over
time and with usage and training. But how does the "sound" referenced to live
acoustical performance manage to change or adjust itself over time?

In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality of a system
seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared to a live
acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener re-adjusting
his internal bias.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

Whatever your views, the article is worth reading simply for its
provocative
thoughts. Among Sax's observations / opinions:


...snip to specific comment.....

5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very dangerous".
If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the component under
test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months" to
discover
if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there".

Apparently you agree with this idea. My question is exactly how does the
sound
of a component or medium change while you "live with it for several
months"?

I can understand how operating functions or quirks might become familiar
over
time and with usage and training. But how does the "sound" referenced to
live
acoustical performance manage to change or adjust itself over time?

In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality of a
system
seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared to a
live
acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener
re-adjusting
his internal bias.

Did I say I agreed with this? Where in my post? I simply reported what Mr.
Sax said. Some I may agree with; some I may not. This is simply an attempt
on your part to draw me into an argument; I pass.

Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
today's entries....


Similary, it is claimed (by Sax, unfortunately) that analog beats digital because it has 'at least
an octave' over CD, and a better noise floor. I presume he is comparing 1/4 inch tape to CD -- that
is, production analog to final product (Redbook 16/44) digital -- not LP to CD, or p[roduction
digital to production analog, but that's not clarified.



Well, I don't know what planet Doug gets his analog tape decks from,
but I've never encountered a 1/4" *or* 1/2" machine with a "better"
noise floor than Red Book CD.

But he's right about the extra octave, that's just a given. The issue
is whether or not this extra octave+ is audible to humans...or audible
beneath that aforementioned analog noise floor!

Harry Lavo wrote:

In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality of a
system
seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared to a
live
acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener
re-adjusting
his internal bias.

Did I say I agreed with this?**Where*in*my*post?**I*simply*reported*what
Mr. Sax said.**Some*I*may*agree*with;*some*I*may*not.**Thi s*is*simply*an
attempt on your part to draw me into an argument; I pass.
I have to say it takes 'chutzpah' to call Doug Sax a quack..

-- Richard

"Harry Lavo" wrote:



"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

Whatever your views, the article is worth reading simply for its
provocative
thoughts. Among Sax's observations / opinions:


...snip to specific comment.....

5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very dangerous".
If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the component under
test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months" to
discover
if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there".

Apparently you agree with this idea. My question is exactly how does the
sound
of a component or medium change while you "live with it for several
months"?

I can understand how operating functions or quirks might become familiar
over
time and with usage and training. But how does the "sound" referenced to
live
acoustical performance manage to change or adjust itself over time?

In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality of a
system
seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared to a
live
acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener
re-adjusting
his internal bias.

Did I say I agreed with this? Where in my post? I simply reported what Mr.
Sax said. Some I may agree with; some I may not. This is simply an attempt
on your part to draw me into an argument; I pass.

Oh so you don't agree. That's good. This is another of those Urban Legends that
is often heard and re-quoted without any evidentiary support whatever. This
kind of high-end bluster leads one to question much of the other stuff Sax says
as well.

Richard Dale wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:

In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality of a
system
seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared to a
live
acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener
re-adjusting
his internal bias.

Did I say I agreed with this???Where?in?my?post???I?simply?reported?what
Mr. Sax said.??Some?I?may?agree?with;?some?I?may?not.??Thi s?is?simply?an
attempt on your part to draw me into an argument; I pass.
I have to say it takes 'chutzpah' to call Doug Sax a quack..

Even a seasoned pro can emit the occasional quack now and then.
At this point I'm quite used to noted recording engineers making
'i hear it therefore it is true' claims.

But as I said in the first post, if you had to pick 'one of these
is not like the other' for that particular collection of audiophiles,
it would be Sax. he was by far the most sympathetic to digital
in general and redbook in particular (though Pearson also chimed
in that he's heard some astonishginly good 16/44 -- how big of him!)



--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Even a seasoned pro can emit the occasional quack now and then.
At this point I'm quite used to noted recording engineers making
'i hear it therefore it is true' claims.

Excuse me if I've lost the plot, but isn't that what they're paid to do?
Their work stand or falls by how good it sounds on the end user delivery
medium. Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have
my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a Doug
Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in
business for over 30 years, why is that?

-- Richard

Richard Dale wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Even a seasoned pro can emit the occasional quack now and then.
At this point I'm quite used to noted recording engineers making
'i hear it therefore it is true' claims.

Excuse me if I've lost the plot, but isn't that what they're paid to do?

Indeed.

Their work stand or falls by how good it sounds on the end user delivery
medium.

True. But their claims about audible difference do not.

Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have
my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a Doug
Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in
business for over 30 years, why is that?

So, business longevity means what what they say about audio is true?
Interesting idea.

Do you understand why and how Doug Sax or Mark Levinson could be *utterly wrong*
about , say, the physiological effects of PCM, or the degradative effects of
digital copying, and *still* produce good-sounding product?


--

-S.
"We started to see evidence of the professional groupie in the early 80's.
Alarmingly, these girls bore a striking resemblance to Motley Crue." --
David Lee Roth

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:



"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

Whatever your views, the article is worth reading simply for its
provocative
thoughts. Among Sax's observations / opinions:


...snip to specific comment.....

5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very
dangerous".
If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the component
under
test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months" to
discover
if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there".

Apparently you agree with this idea. My question is exactly how does
the
sound
of a component or medium change while you "live with it for several
months"?

I can understand how operating functions or quirks might become
familiar
over
time and with usage and training. But how does the "sound" referenced
to
live
acoustical performance manage to change or adjust itself over time?

In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality of a
system
seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared to
a
live
acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener
re-adjusting
his internal bias.

Did I say I agreed with this? Where in my post? I simply reported what
Mr.
Sax said. Some I may agree with; some I may not. This is simply an
attempt
on your part to draw me into an argument; I pass.

Oh so you don't agree. That's good. This is another of those Urban Legends
that
is often heard and re-quoted without any evidentiary support whatever.
This
kind of high-end bluster leads one to question much of the other stuff Sax
says
as well.

Can you respond without putting words into my mouth? Did I say I disagreed?
Where in the original post or the followup? Here is the only thing I said:
"I simply reported what Mr. Sax said." What part of that do you not
understand?

On 8/18/04 2:19 PM, in article , "Steven
Sullivan" wrote:

Even a seasoned pro can emit the occasional quack now and then.
At this point I'm quite used to noted recording engineers making
'i hear it therefore it is true' claims.

But as I said in the first post, if you had to pick 'one of these
is not like the other' for that particular collection of audiophiles,
it would be Sax. he was by far the most sympathetic to digital
in general and redbook in particular (though Pearson also chimed
in that he's heard some astonishginly good 16/44 -- how big of him!)

But the end goal of recording is to have something that sounds good - as is
the goal in amplifier design.

I have heard some wonderful CD's - and own a few in my collection. Nothing
wrong with the medium. There are better ones out there - but CD is pretty
darn good - convenient and usually inexpensive compared to the alternatives.

On 8/17/04 11:50 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote:

5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very dangerous".
If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the component under
test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months" to discover
if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there".

Apparently you agree with this idea. My question is exactly how does the sound
of a component or medium change while you "live with it for several months"?

Actually - I don't think the components age/break-in, but I have found that
listening to a CD player, for instance, you get to play a variety of your
music on it without bad time limits, and you can measure how much you want
to listen to music - and which music.

I have found with familiarity, I will listen to how a piece of equipment
brings out the music - the detail and enjoyment isn't always obvious at
first blush.

Kind of like cars, really, you have an idea it is the good car, but you
won't KNOW until you have about 5-10k on the odo...