[DougA]

After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are ready
for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power
cords and speaker cables.)

This is the gear we chose:

YBA Passion 200
Focal Electra 1027 Be
Ayre CX-7

Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make personal
recommendations?

douga

[Serge Auckland]

"DougA" wrote in message
...
After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are
ready
for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power
cords and speaker cables.)

This is the gear we chose:

YBA Passion 200
Focal Electra 1027 Be
Ayre CX-7

Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make
personal
recommendations?

douga

Assuming the OP is asking a serious question, certain answers come to mind:-

1) Are the cables from CD to amplifier already XLR balanced or conventional
phono unbalanced? If already balanced, then why is the OP wanting to change
them? What possible improvement could result? If the cables are unbalanced,
then why does the OP think that balanced operation will result in an
improvement? Balanced operation comes from professional studio practice
where cable runs are many many times longer than in a domestic environment,
and balancing is used to reject hum and to some extent rf interference from
long runs. In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less than
10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement.

2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is
thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible
benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a power
supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a stabilised
supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances.
With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high order,
so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables.

3) Loudspeaker cables need to be thick enough so that they do not drop
significant volts and of low enough inductance (but not too low) and
capacitance so they don't upset the power amplifier. Note, incidentally,
that any competent power amp should be unconditionally stable into any load,
but not all amps are unconditionally stable. For example, NAIM amps in the
past needed a minimum amount of inductance for stability. What the cable is
made of, what its construction is, and how much it costs has no bearing on
the sound, which will not differ from ordinary cable. I normally use 30 amp
cable, the sort used in car headlamp wiring, as it's cheap and perfect for
the job.

S.

[Chung]

Serge Auckland wrote:
"DougA" wrote in message
...
After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are
ready
for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power
cords and speaker cables.)

This is the gear we chose:

YBA Passion 200
Focal Electra 1027 Be
Ayre CX-7

Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make
personal
recommendations?

douga

Assuming the OP is asking a serious question, certain answers come to mind:-

1) Are the cables from CD to amplifier already XLR balanced or conventional
phono unbalanced? If already balanced, then why is the OP wanting to change
them? What possible improvement could result? If the cables are unbalanced,
then why does the OP think that balanced operation will result in an
improvement? Balanced operation comes from professional studio practice
where cable runs are many many times longer than in a domestic environment,
and balancing is used to reject hum and to some extent rf interference from
long runs. In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less than
10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement.

2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is
thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible
benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a power
supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a stabilised
supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances.
With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high order,
so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables.


To amplify the point, if the user questions the quality of the power
cord that comes with the electronics, he probably should not buy the
electronics from that manufacturer. It is much harder designing good
electronics than picking a power cord, so shipping a product with a
audibly sub-optimal power cord is a clear sign of incompetence, no?

3) Loudspeaker cables need to be thick enough so that they do not drop
significant volts and of low enough inductance (but not too low) and
capacitance so they don't upset the power amplifier. Note, incidentally,
that any competent power amp should be unconditionally stable into any load,
but not all amps are unconditionally stable. For example, NAIM amps in the
past needed a minimum amount of inductance for stability. What the cable is
made of, what its construction is, and how much it costs has no bearing on
the sound, which will not differ from ordinary cable. I normally use 30 amp
cable, the sort used in car headlamp wiring, as it's cheap and perfect for
the job.

In the US, 12-gauge speaker cable is commonly available and does the job.

[bob]

On Mar 3, 12:11 pm, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:
"DougA" wrote in message

...



After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are
ready
for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power
cords and speaker cables.)

This is the gear we chose:

YBA Passion 200
Focal Electra 1027 Be
Ayre CX-7

Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make
personal
recommendations?

douga

Assuming the OP is asking a serious question, certain answers come to mind:-

1) Are the cables from CD to amplifier already XLR balanced or conventional
phono unbalanced? If already balanced, then why is the OP wanting to change
them? What possible improvement could result? If the cables are unbalanced,
then why does the OP think that balanced operation will result in an
improvement? Balanced operation comes from professional studio practice
where cable runs are many many times longer than in a domestic environment,
and balancing is used to reject hum and to some extent rf interference from
long runs. In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less than
10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement.

2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is
thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible
benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a power
supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a stabilised
supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances.
With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high order,
so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables.

3) Loudspeaker cables need to be thick enough so that they do not drop
significant volts and of low enough inductance (but not too low) and
capacitance so they don't upset the power amplifier. Note, incidentally,
that any competent power amp should be unconditionally stable into any load,
but not all amps are unconditionally stable. For example, NAIM amps in the
past needed a minimum amount of inductance for stability. What the cable is
made of, what its construction is, and how much it costs has no bearing on
the sound, which will not differ from ordinary cable. I normally use 30 amp
cable, the sort used in car headlamp wiring, as it's cheap and perfect for
the job.

Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking
for!

If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like
AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles
happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation
for cables is:

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/

bob

[MC]

2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is
thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible
benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a
power
supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a stabilised
supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances.
With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high
order,
so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables.

Well said. I don't know why some audiophiles think the last 3 feet of cable
are magical. There may be 100 miles of power cables of one kind or another
between your stereo and the power plant. And, as you say, the power supply
of the amplifier very effectively isolates everything else from the power
line.

[DougA]

Assuming the OP is asking a serious question, certain answers come to
mind:-

1) Are the cables from CD to amplifier already XLR balanced or
conventional
phono unbalanced? If already balanced, then why is the OP wanting to
change
them? What possible improvement could result? If the cables are
unbalanced,
then why does the OP think that balanced operation will result in an
improvement? Balanced operation comes from professional studio practice
where cable runs are many many times longer than in a domestic
environment,
and balancing is used to reject hum and to some extent rf interference
from
long runs. In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less than
10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement.

Yes, they are balanced but the cable I bought with the system are cheap and
after demoing some Acoustic Zen Silver references XLRs, I was awed by the
depth, detail, soundstage and extra music they offered. There are many
reasons to use balanced on short runs, I only that the CD players that I
tested without the balanced XLR connectors didn't sound as good.


2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is
thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible
benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a
power
supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a stabilised
supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances.
With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high
order,
so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables.

Again, I tried a few expensive cables and was blown away by the difference
they made. I want to believe that a cord is a cord but my ears won't let
me.

3) Loudspeaker cables need to be thick enough so that they do not drop
significant volts and of low enough inductance (but not too low) and
capacitance so they don't upset the power amplifier. Note, incidentally,
that any competent power amp should be unconditionally stable into any
load,
but not all amps are unconditionally stable. For example, NAIM amps in the
past needed a minimum amount of inductance for stability. What the cable
is
made of, what its construction is, and how much it costs has no bearing on
the sound, which will not differ from ordinary cable. I normally use 30
amp
cable, the sort used in car headlamp wiring, as it's cheap and perfect for
the job.

In a blind test with reg wire and expensive cable I was blown away with the
difference.


S.

[Ed Seedhouse]

On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking
for!

Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for?

If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like
AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles
happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation
for cables is:

Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will
tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. People who will
tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of
course, pretty generally ignored.

Just one person's opinion.

[Eeyore]

DougA wrote:

After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are ready
for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power
cords and speaker cables.)

This is the gear we chose:

YBA Passion 200
Focal Electra 1027 Be
Ayre CX-7

Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make personal
recommendations?

What gives you the idea that you can upgrade a cable ?

It's all mostly bunkum. Some cable type can make audible differences *when used
for speaker connections* for perfectly scientific reasons such as cable
resistance and inductancebut it's related solely to cable size and construction
and doesn't requite a fortune spending.

There are no reasons whatever why one decent cable used to connect a CD player
to an amp will sound (or measure) any different to another decent one. I
personally buy the ones on ebay that cost a few pounds each.

Similarly a power cord is quite incapable of making any difference at all. There
is however a huge industry that plays to ppls' gullibility.

Graham

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 7:39�am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking
for!

Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for?

If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like
AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles
happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation
for cables is:

Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will
tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. *People who will
tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of
course, pretty generally ignored.

Just one person's opinion.

i am always leary of anyone or any group of people who believe they
have a monopoly on "the truth." Just another person's opinion.

Scott

[bob]

On Mar 4, 10:39 am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking
for!

Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for?

Not that kind of truth.

"I tried cable X and it sounded amazing!" is (probably) truthful
advice. Bad, but truthful. People who believe in high-priced cables
(and even people who think they don't believe in high-priced cables)
can be truly amazed by what they hear.

If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like
AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles
happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation
for cables is:

Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will
tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. People who will
tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of
course, pretty generally ignored.

Which would indicate that truthful advice is indeed NOT what they are
seeking, wouldn't it?

But, as I suggested above, you don't really mean "truthful" here. What
you mean is, "technically sound." So, to answer a restated version of
your initial question: No, I do not believe that the OP is searching
for technically sound advice. That is why I referred him to places
where he can find the technically unsound advice he is seeking.

bob

[Serge Auckland]

"DougA" wrote in message
...
Assuming the OP is asking a serious question, certain answers come to
mind:-

1) Are the cables from CD to amplifier already XLR balanced or
conventional
phono unbalanced? If already balanced, then why is the OP wanting to
change
them? What possible improvement could result? If the cables are
unbalanced,
then why does the OP think that balanced operation will result in an
improvement? Balanced operation comes from professional studio practice
where cable runs are many many times longer than in a domestic
environment,
and balancing is used to reject hum and to some extent rf interference
from
long runs. In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less
than
10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement.

Yes, they are balanced but the cable I bought with the system are cheap
and
after demoing some Acoustic Zen Silver references XLRs, I was awed by the
depth, detail, soundstage and extra music they offered. There are many
reasons to use balanced on short runs, I only that the CD players that I
tested without the balanced XLR connectors didn't sound as good.


2) Power cords are power cords are power cords. As long as the cable is
thick enough that it won't heat up with the load, there is no possible
benefit from replacement cables. Note that in the equipment there is a
power
supply that rectifies and smooths the mains, and, if there is a
stabilised
supply, very effectively isolates the equipment from mains disturbances.
With competent design, even power supply ripple is rejected to a high
order,
so absolutley no improvement will be noticed by changing mains cables.

Again, I tried a few expensive cables and was blown away by the difference
they made. I want to believe that a cord is a cord but my ears won't let
me.

3) Loudspeaker cables need to be thick enough so that they do not drop
significant volts and of low enough inductance (but not too low) and
capacitance so they don't upset the power amplifier. Note, incidentally,
that any competent power amp should be unconditionally stable into any
load,
but not all amps are unconditionally stable. For example, NAIM amps in
the
past needed a minimum amount of inductance for stability. What the cable
is
made of, what its construction is, and how much it costs has no bearing
on
the sound, which will not differ from ordinary cable. I normally use 30
amp
cable, the sort used in car headlamp wiring, as it's cheap and perfect
for
the job.

In a blind test with reg wire and expensive cable I was blown away with
the
difference.


S.

And I am very happy for you, and if you want to spend your money completely
needlessly, there are no end of people out there ready and willing to
relieve you of it.

You have asked for personal opinions and recommendations:- As there is NO
audible difference between cables, any perceived differences are entirely of
your own construction, therefore, listen to as many as you can/want to, then
buy what sounds best to *you*. There isn't a bad choice to be made, except
to your wealth.

S.

[erich]

Yes, they are balanced but the cable I bought with the system are cheap and
after demoing some Acoustic Zen Silver references XLRs, I was awed by the
depth, detail, soundstage and extra music they offered. There are many
reasons to use balanced on short runs, I only that the CD players that I
tested without the balanced XLR connectors didn't sound as good.

I am very curious about this demo. Was it conducted using an ABX double
blind methodology, or was some other method used? There are people out
there offering substantial monetary rewards to anyone who can demonstrate
they hear differences under repeatable conditions.

The basics of the matter are that so long as the cable meets basic
electrical criteria such as appropriate resistance, inductance,
capacitance, length and sheilding there is no repeatable measurement
showing that a person can hear the difference. The situation in the audio
industry with 'exotic' cable claims is such that it is ripe for some
enterprising attorney general to blow the lid off the whole thing.

Personally I buy my cables from Ram Electronics. They have fairly priced
examples for a wide range of applications. The customer service can be a
bit flakey at times, but to will make things right if they make a mistake.

[Ed Seedhouse]

On 4 Mar 2007 17:54:43 GMT, wrote:

On Mar 4, 7:39?am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will
tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. eople who will
tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of
course, pretty generally ignored.

Just one person's opinion.

i am always leary of anyone or any group of people who believe they
have a monopoly on "the truth." Just another person's opinion.

Well if I ever felt I had any monopoly on "truth", life has disabused me
in no uncertain terms, many times. In fact over the last 63 years I
have actually discovered that I am embarassingly easy to fool.

In fact I am so easy to fool that I have taken to requiring quite strong
evidence for any particular belief and to trying to ignore beliefs for
which there is no evidence.

Since I also rather think that I am no different from anyone else in
this respect, and indeed have what it to me quite convincing evidence
that this is so, I tend to be suspicious of anyone's opinion if they
cannot point to actual evidence in favour of their opinions. And I find
that those who believe in, among other things, astrology and competently
made speaker wires that differ greatly in sound, tend not to be able to
provide any actual evidence for their beliefs I am afraid I remain
rather suspicious that they are fooling themselves.

[Ed Seedhouse]

On 4 Mar 2007 22:00:44 GMT, "bob" wrote:

"I tried cable X and it sounded amazing!" is (probably) truthful
advice.

I'd go along with you if you said ""I tried cable X and I sincerely
believe it sounded amazing!" is (probably) truthful advice." But I
would be highly doubtful of anyone who made the statement as you quote
it.

Bad, but truthful.

As I have reformulated it above, I can agree.

Which would indicate that truthful advice is indeed NOT what they are
seeking, wouldn't it?

I try to assume that they are until I see evidence to the contrary. But
you may be right.

[MC]

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...

...I tend to be suspicious of anyone's opinion if they
cannot point to actual evidence in favour of their opinions. And I find
that those who believe in, among other things, astrology and competently
made speaker wires that differ greatly in sound, tend not to be able to
provide any actual evidence...

Bingo! There is actually a connection.

A philosopher -- I think it was Paul Thagard -- pointed out that the problem
with astrology is not that it doesn't work, it's that its advocates don't
care how it might work. That's why it is not simply a false theory.
Astrologers simply have no interest in causal mechanisms.

And the same seems to be the case with the $1000 power cords. If you think
a $1000 power cord improves the sound, why not investigate -- rigorously,
with the best possible science, and not just by tossing out a few
speculations -- *how* and *why* it improves the sound? Presumably, that
would be the path to fundamental new discoveries about audio. But nobody
wants to take that path.

[Eeyore]

DougA wrote:

In a normal domestic environement, with cable runs of less than
10 metres (33 feet) balanced operation will give no improvement.

Yes, they are balanced but the cable I bought with the system are cheap and
after demoing some Acoustic Zen Silver references XLRs, I was awed by the
depth, detail, soundstage and extra music they offered.

Clearly your ears needed a good washing out in that case.

Silver wire may sound sexy but won't influence the sound one iota.

It appeals to ppl who are impressed by 'shiny things' though !

Graham

[Eeyore]

erich wrote:

The basics of the matter are that so long as the cable meets basic
electrical criteria such as appropriate resistance, inductance,
capacitance, length and sheilding there is no repeatable measurement
showing that a person can hear the difference.

Oh come one !

You know very well that gold plated connectors makes the sound 'shine'.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Mar 4, 7:39?am, Ed Seedhouse
wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob"
wrote:

Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the
OP was looking for!

Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for?

If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult
places like AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find
like-minded audiophiles happy to tell him everything he
wants to hear.

Certainly there's enough diversity at AudioAsylum for a person to get a
balanced view.

Other forums like AudioHolics seem to be more interested in facts, as
opposed to unsupported opinions.

Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of
people who will tell you that what you want to believe
is the truth.

Why, its just good salesmanship!

People who will tell you the actual truth
are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of course,
pretty generally ignored.

Just one person's opinion.

i am always leary of anyone or any group of people who
believe they have a monopoly on "the truth." Just another
person's opinion.

One such group of people that certain vocal audiophiles blithely and proudly
ignore are called "scientists".

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On Mar 4, 10:39 am, Ed Seedhouse
wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob"
wrote:

Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the
OP was looking for!

Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for?

Not that kind of truth.

"I tried cable X and it sounded amazing!" is (probably)
truthful advice. Bad, but truthful. People who believe in
high-priced cables (and even people who think they don't
believe in high-priced cables) can be truly amazed by
what they hear.

If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult
places like AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find
like-minded audiophiles happy to tell him everything he
wants to hear. My own recommendation for cables is:

Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of
people who will tell you that what you want to believe
is the truth. People who will tell you the actual truth
are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of course,
pretty generally ignored.

Which would indicate that truthful advice is indeed NOT
what they are seeking, wouldn't it?

There are clearly any number of people who do or should know better, who
cynically do that which is profitable, not that which is in the best and
most complete analysis, right.

But, as I suggested above, you don't really mean
"truthful" here.

As these things are commonly defined, the difference between truth and a lie
is just just the speaker's state of mind. If someone swears to tell the
truth, but everything they know is based on false information, in a common
sense of the word, they are still telling the truth.

What you mean is, "technically sound."

More to the point - reliable information.

So, to answer a restated version of your initial
question: No, I do not believe that the OP is searching
for technically sound advice.

I subscribe to the thinking that there is no need to assume malevolence,
when simple ignorance provides a sufficient explanation. OTOH, if you find
strong evidence of malevolence, well that is a sufficient explanation, too.

That is why I referred him
to places where he can find the technically unsound
advice he is seeking.

Some people seem to be dedicated to finding audio advice in the worst way.
After all, it is their money, and their time. Conspicious consumption
probably finds its highest point in aggressive wastage.

[Arny Krueger]

"DougA" wrote in message


In a blind test with reg wire and expensive cable I was
blown away with the difference.

Please tell us the full, detailed story.

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:39???am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking
for!

Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for?

If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like
AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles
happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation
for cables is:

Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will
tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. ?People who will
tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of
course, pretty generally ignored.

Just one person's opinion.

i am always leary of anyone or any group of people who believe they
have a monopoly on "the truth." Just another person's opinion.

I've always been leery of Leary, much less people who are *always* leary.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[[email protected]]

On Mar 5, 3:20�pm, "MC" wrote:
"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message

...

...I tend to be suspicious of anyone's opinion if they
cannot point to actual evidence in favour of their opinions. *And I find
that those who believe in, among other things, astrology and competently
made speaker wires that differ greatly in sound, tend not to be able to
provide any actual evidence...

Bingo! *There is actually a connection.

A philosopher -- I think it was Paul Thagard -- pointed out that the problem
with astrology is not that it doesn't work, it's that its advocates don't
care how it might work. *That's why it is not simply a false theory.
Astrologers simply have no interest in causal mechanisms.

That philosopher, quite frankly , was out to lunch. Really, how many
computer users have any idea how semi-conducters and software really
work? does that mean computers don't really work? It does not matter
if the users know how something works or not. It really doesn't matter
if anyone knows "how" something works.


And the same seems to be the case with the $1000 power cords. *If you think
a $1000 power cord improves the sound, why not investigate -- rigorously,

Becuase some people are quite happy just enjoying the benefits of
technology without needing to know how things work. Would you make
this demand on any other hobbyist?

with the best possible science, and not just by tossing out a few
speculations -- *how* and *why* it improves the sound?

The best possible scince? That is a joke. Audio does not have access
to the best possible science.

*Presumably, that
would be the path to fundamental new discoveries about audio. *But nobody
wants to take that path.

You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science,
well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most
often debated by audiophiles. That is the reality of the situation.
Hardly any ground for anyone thinking they have the "truth.

Scott

[[email protected]]

On Mar 6, 3:47?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:39???am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 3 Mar 2007 19:22:51 GMT, "bob" wrote:

Something tells me this is not the sort of answer the OP was looking
for!

Truthful advice is not what the OP was searching for?

If I'm right about that, he might do better to consult places like
AudioAsylum or Audiogon, where he will find like-minded audiophiles
happy to tell him everything he wants to hear. My own recommendation
for cables is:

Anywhere you go it is always easy indeed to find lots of people who will
tell you that what you want to believe is the truth. ?People who will
tell you the actual truth are much rarer, much more valuable, and, of
course, pretty generally ignored.

Just one person's opinion.
i am always leary of anyone or any group of people who believe they
have a monopoly on "the truth." Just another person's opinion.

I've always been leery of Leary, much less people who are *always* leary.


I think you have found a spelling error on my part. In 19 posts it
seems to be the only thing on this thread based in fact so far. To bad
it has nothing to do with the subject.

Scott

[MC]

wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 3:20?pm, "MC" wrote:
[analogy between astrology and cable subjectivism was here]

A philosopher -- I think it was Paul Thagard -- pointed out that the
problem
with astrology is not that it doesn't work, it's that its advocates don't
care how it might work. That's why it is not simply a false theory.
Astrologers simply have no interest in causal mechanisms.

That philosopher, quite frankly , was out to lunch. Really, how many
computer users have any idea how semi-conducters and software really
work? does that mean computers don't really work? It does not matter
if the users know how something works or not. It really doesn't matter
if anyone knows "how" something works.

It certainly is necessary for SOMEONE to know how computers work, or else we
wouldn't have them! The individual users don't have to know, but the
engineers do. The problem is astrology is that there are no engineers.
Nobody in the whole astrology community has any concrete proposals as to how
astrology works.

And the same is true of the $1000 power cord market. Supposing these things
to improve the sound quality -- Given that this is contrary to the
predictions of current electronic theory (on which the whole rest of the
amplifier is based), it would be VERY interesting to investigate WHY they
improve sound quality. But no one does.

And the same seems to be the case with the $1000 power cords. If you
think
a $1000 power cord improves the sound, why not investigate -- rigorously,

Becuase some people are quite happy just enjoying the benefits of
technology without needing to know how things work. Would you make
this demand on any other hobbyist?

See point already made. I

with the best possible science, and not just by tossing out a few
speculations -- *how* and *why* it improves the sound?

The best possible scince? That is a joke. Audio does not have access
to the best possible science.

I don't think you are serious.

You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science,
well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most
often debated by audiophiles. That is the reality of the situation.
Hardly any ground for anyone thinking they have the "truth.

The truth is that audio technology is based 99.999999% on science. Have you
ever designed an amplifier? Did you do it by applying principles of
electrical engineering? If not, then how?

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Mar 5, 3:20?pm, "MC" wrote:
"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message

...

...I tend to be suspicious of anyone's opinion if they
cannot point to actual evidence in favour of their
opinions. And I find that those who believe in, among
other things, astrology and competently made speaker
wires that differ greatly in sound, tend not to be able
to provide any actual evidence...

Bingo! There is actually a connection.

A philosopher -- I think it was Paul Thagard -- pointed
out that the problem with astrology is not that it
doesn't work, it's that its advocates don't care how it
might work. That's why it is not simply a false theory.
Astrologers simply have no interest in causal
mechanisms.

It turns out that Paul Thagard's paper about the matter is online

http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/PH29A/thagard.html

It says:

A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific
if and only if: [228]

1. it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period
of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but

2. the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory
towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate
the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering
confirmations and disconfirmations.

That philosopher, quite frankly , was out to lunch.

Pot:kettle:Black.

Really, how many computer users have any idea how
semi-conducters and software really work? does that mean
computers don't really work? It does not matter if the
users know how something works or not. It really doesn't
matter if anyone knows "how" something works.

And the same seems to be the case with the $1000 power
cords. If you think a $1000 power cord improves the
sound, why not investigate -- rigorously,

Becuase some people are quite happy just enjoying the
benefits of technology without needing to know how things
work. Would you make this demand on any other hobbyist?

The fallacy with this argument is that the community of people who are
relevant is not just limited to hobbyists.

with the best possible science, and not just by tossing
out a few speculations -- *how* and *why* it improves
the sound?

The best possible science? That is a joke. Audio does not
have access to the best possible science.

This is false - Audio has the same access to science as anything else.
There's no hedge around the best science that excludes questions about
audio. Some of the best scientists are also audiophiles.

Presumably, that
would be the path to fundamental new discoveries about
audio. But nobody wants to take that path.

Most so-called high end audio cable science fails to be scientific because
it disagrees with established science.

You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best
possible science, well legitimate science period has not
chimed in on the topics most often debated by
audiophiles.

It surely has.

That is the reality of the situation. Hardly
any ground for anyone thinking they have the "truth.

This is just plain wrong.

Scott

[[email protected]]

On Mar 7, 8:12�pm, "MC" wrote:
wrote in message

... On Mar 5, 3:20?pm, "MC" wrote:

[analogy between astrology and cable subjectivism was here]

A philosopher -- I think it was Paul Thagard -- pointed out that the
problem
with astrology is not that it doesn't work, it's that its advocates don't
care how it might work. That's why it is not simply a false theory.
Astrologers simply have no interest in causal mechanisms.

That philosopher, quite frankly , was out to lunch. Really, how many
computer users have any idea how semi-conducters and software really
work? does that mean computers don't really work? It does not matter
if the users know how something works or not. It really doesn't matter
if anyone knows "how" something works.

It certainly is necessary for SOMEONE to know how computers work,

No one said otherwise. try to remain relevant please. My post was in
response to a comment that stated "its advocates don't care how it
might work. That's why it is not simply a false theory." It does not
matter if "advocates know how something works. End user's knowledge
does not manifest itself in the inner workings of mechanisms.

or else we
wouldn't have them! *The individual users don't have to know, but the
engineers do.

Never said otherwise.

*The problem is astrology is that there are no engineers.

LOL that is NOT the problem with astrology. I think this may be
indicative of a bizaare engineering-centric mind set that dominates
rec.audio.highend. I don't know that there is a "problem" with
astrology. I don't believe in it's predictive powers but I don't see
that there is a problem with it. I mean it's not like people are
refusing legitimate medical treatment as a result. I don't know, I
don't follow it but it looks to me like a fairly harmless source of
entertainment, even amoung those who really believe in it. REALITY
does not rely on the varification of engineers to be.

Nobody in the whole astrology community has any concrete proposals as to how
astrology works.

I wouldn't know. I don't really pay any attention to it.


And the same is true of the $1000 power cord market.

How do you know?

*Supposing these things
to improve the sound quality -- Given that this is contrary to the
predictions of current electronic theory (on which the whole rest of the
amplifier is based), it would be VERY interesting to investigate WHY they
improve sound quality. *But no one does.

What particular theories tell us that the quality of power coming to
any component will have no affect on the sonics of that component?


And the same seems to be the case with the $1000 power cords. If you
think
a $1000 power cord improves the sound, why not investigate -- rigorously,

Becuase some people are quite happy just enjoying the benefits of
technology without needing to know how things work. Would you make
this demand on any other hobbyist?

See point already made. *I

I have.It seems to agree with my point that users do not need know how
things work.


with the best possible science, and not just by tossing out a few
speculations -- *how* and *why* it improves the sound?

The best possible scince? That is a joke. Audio does not have access
to the best possible science.

I don't think you are serious.

I don't think you have anything meaningful to offer and are just
posturing now. Feel free to prove me wrong.


You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science,
well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most
often debated by audiophiles. That is the reality of the situation.
Hardly any ground for anyone thinking they have the "truth.

The truth is that audio technology is based 99.999999% on science.

Where did you come up with that number? What facts and figures suport
it? Again I think you are just posturing with no facts to support your
assertions.

*Have you
ever designed an amplifier?

No, Have you?

*Did you do it by applying principles of
electrical engineering? *If not, then how?

You are confusing "science" and "engineering."Please feel free to cite
any real scientific research done on the issues commonly debated by
audiophiles such as amplifier sound, CD sound LP sound, cable sound
etc.

Scott

[[email protected]]

with the best possible science, and not just by tossing
out a few speculations -- *how* and *why* it improves
the sound?
The best possible science? That is a joke. Audio does not
have access to the best possible science.

This is false - Audio has the same access to science as anything else.

It seems that you know very little about the nature of funding
scientific research.

There's no hedge around the best science that excludes questions about
audio. Some of the best scientists are also audiophiles.

Yeah but they are paid to do research on things other than audio.
Again I think you are unaware of or simply ignoring the nature of
funding for scientific research.


Presumably, that
would be the path to fundamental new discoveries about
audio. But nobody wants to take that path.

Most so-called high end audio cable science fails to be scientific *because
it disagrees with established science.

What "cable science" are you refering to and what specific
"established science" are you refering to and how exactly do they
disagree?


You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best
possible science, well legitimate science period has not
chimed in on the topics most often debated by
audiophiles.

It surely has.

Prove it. Cite the legitimate scientific research, you know peer
reviewed published studies that have examined audiophile issues such
as amplifier sound, CD sound, LP sound, cable sound and the like. If
real scientific research "surely has" chimmed in on those topics it
should be easy enough to cite the peer reviewed published scientific
studies.


That is the reality of the situation. Hardly
any ground for anyone thinking they have the "truth.

This is just plain wrong.

Prove it. Talk is cheap.

Scott

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best
possible science, well legitimate science period has not
chimed in on the topics most often debated by
audiophiles.

Actually it has. Being science, it often doesn't tell audiophiles what they
want to hear.

It surely has.

Prove it.

See below.

Cite the legitimate scientific research, you
know peer reviewed published studies that have examined
audiophile issues such as amplifier sound,

Please check the JAES JASA, and IEEE archives.

CD sound,

Please check the JAES JASA, and IEEE archives.

LP sound,

Please check the JAES JASA, and IEEE archives. In fact I just recently
cited a bunch of them for your beneft, Scott.

cable sound and the like.

Please check the JAES JASA, and IEEE archives.

If real scientific
research "surely has" chimed in on those topics it
should be easy enough to cite the peer reviewed published
scientific studies.

No need for me to redo what myself and others have done, and been ignored
and even insulted for doing.

I've been posting cites of peer-reviewed articles for the last 10 or so
years that I've been posting on Usenet, and so have others.

Google finds 280 Usenet mentions of the JAES by myself, alone.

Google finds 164 Usenet mentions of the JAES for RAHE.

Google finds 384 Usenet mentions of the JAES for RAO.

Google finds 180 Usenet mentions of the JAES for RAP.

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message


You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best
possible science, well legitimate science period has not
chimed in on the topics most often debated by
audiophiles.

Actually it has. Being science, it often doesn't tell audiophiles what they
want to hear.

I suspect he is now going to ask which independent research labs have tested X particular
brand of high end audio gear against X brand of 'midgrade' gear or somesuch, as if that was
the sort of thing scientists did, and as if *basic* research findings, such as tends to
published in the JAES had no bearing on such questions. Or perhaps I'm confusing Scott's
tropes with Mirabel's.

(When JAES papers employ DO consumer gear, they tend not to publish the brand names, becasue
they aren't usually running a particular comparison for it's own sake, but to elucidate a more
general property -- e.g., Olive's speaker comparison studies for Harman, where one of the
'losing' models was described as having won awards in audiophile magazines, but not directly
identified).

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[[email protected]]

On Mar 9, 11:05�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best
possible science, well legitimate science period has not
chimed in on the topics most often debated by
audiophiles.

Actually it has.

I disagree.


It surely has.
Prove it.

See below.

OK


Cite the legitimate scientific research, you
know peer reviewed published studies that have examined
audiophile issues such as amplifier sound,

Please check the JAES JASA, and IEEE archives.

I have. I didn't find any studies that put the age old debates in
audiophilia to the test.


CD sound,

Please check the JAES JASA, and IEEE archives.

I have. Didn't find anything that put the common debates to the test.


*LP sound,

Please check the JAES JASA, and IEEE archives.

I have. Didn't find anything that put the common debates regarding LP
sound to the test.


cable sound and the like.

Please check the JAES JASA, and IEEE archives.

See above for the same answer.


If real scientific
research "surely has" chimed in on those topics it
should be easy enough to cite the peer reviewed published
scientific studies.

No need for me to redo what myself and others have done, and been ignored
and even insulted for doing.

IOW you still have nothing.


I've been posting cites of peer-reviewed articles for the last 10 or so
years that I've been posting on Usenet, and so have others.

Google finds 280 Usenet mentions of the JAES by myself, alone.

Google finds 164 Usenet mentions of the JAES for RAHE.

Google finds 384 Usenet mentions of the JAES for RAO.

Google finds 180 Usenet mentions of the JAES for RAP.

"mentioning" peer reviewed articles isn't the same as citing relevant
peer reviewed *research* that directly investigates the specific
topics I refered to. Heck half the time it is "mentioned" it is
probably "mentioning" the utter lack of such studies.
You can try to create more audio urban lengend by insisting things
exist. Until you produce a record of actual *peer reviewed research
that directly investigates the topics debated by audiophiles" you are
not doing anything more than creating audio urban legend. Show me the
actual studies.

Scott

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message


You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best
possible science, well legitimate science period has
not chimed in on the topics most often debated by
audiophiles.

Actually it has. Being science, it often doesn't tell
audiophiles what they want to hear.

I suspect he is now going to ask which independent
research labs have tested X particular brand of high end
audio gear against X brand of 'midgrade' gear or
somesuch, as if that was the sort of thing scientists
did, and as if *basic* research findings, such as tends
to published in the JAES had no bearing on such
questions.

In a sense, that's been going on for some time.

One of the problems is that the persons in question aren't degreed engineers
and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the enginering profession in
any way.

For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and damnation that has
ever been leveled at the LP format can be found in the JAES archives,
written the chief scientists of companies that were leading producers of LP
media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing lacks specfics that lay
people have been quick to demand, and it is written up in such a way that it
generates minimal excitment.

The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher sample rates than 44
KHz was old when the SACD was new, but remains unrebutted.

Nobody should be surprised when people who lack appropriate respect for
basic engineering principles fail to perceive engineering papers as they
were intended to be understood.

(When JAES papers employ DO consumer gear, they tend not
to publish the brand names, becasue they aren't usually
running a particular comparison for it's own sake, but to
elucidate a more general property -- e.g., Olive's
speaker comparison studies for Harman, where one of the
'losing' models was described as having won awards in
audiophile magazines, but not directly identified).

Exactly. And when Olive says that some other testing methodolgy suits a
particular need better, that information is reformulated for Usenet as
totally discrediting the use of any other means in any other context.

[bob]

On Mar 12, 6:14 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
One of the problems is that the persons in question aren't degreed engineers
and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the enginering profession in
any way.

For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and damnation that has
ever been leveled at the LP format can be found in the JAES archives,
written the chief scientists of companies that were leading producers of LP
media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing lacks specfics that lay
people have been quick to demand, and it is written up in such a way that it
generates minimal excitment.

The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher sample rates than 44
KHz was old when the SACD was new, but remains unrebutted.

Nobody should be surprised when people who lack appropriate respect for
basic engineering principles fail to perceive engineering papers as they
were intended to be understood.

The problem goes much deeper than this. To believe, for example, that
different brands of measurably similar cables can be audibly
different, you have to believe that physicists' understanding of how
electrical signals pass through wires is fundamentally wrong. It is
scientific denialism, pure and simple.

bob

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message


You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best
possible science, well legitimate science period has
not chimed in on the topics most often debated by
audiophiles.

Actually it has. Being science, it often doesn't tell
audiophiles what they want to hear.

I suspect he is now going to ask which independent
research labs have tested X particular brand of high end
audio gear against X brand of 'midgrade' gear or
somesuch, as if that was the sort of thing scientists
did, and as if *basic* research findings, such as tends
to published in the JAES had no bearing on such
questions.

In a sense, that's been going on for some time.

One of the problems is that the persons in question aren't degreed
engineers
and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the enginering profession
in
any way.

For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and damnation that has
ever been leveled at the LP format can be found in the JAES archives,
written the chief scientists of companies that were leading producers of
LP
media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing lacks specfics that
lay
people have been quick to demand, and it is written up in such a way that
it
generates minimal excitment.

Then it is hardly "hellfire and damnataion" is it?

The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher sample rates than 44
KHz was old when the SACD was new, but remains unrebutted.

And did it deal with poor impulse response, pre-ripple, and other transiant,
dynamic factors involved in *audio* reproduction? Or did it just deal with
frequency response? Not too many audiophiles will claim we can physically
hear beyond 20khz. Straw man.


Nobody should be surprised when people who lack appropriate respect for
basic engineering principles fail to perceive engineering papers as they
were intended to be understood.

One poor example. Is that all you have?


(When JAES papers employ DO consumer gear, they tend not
to publish the brand names, becasue they aren't usually
running a particular comparison for it's own sake, but to
elucidate a more general property -- e.g., Olive's
speaker comparison studies for Harman, where one of the
'losing' models was described as having won awards in
audiophile magazines, but not directly identified).

Okay, that's about the fourth time Steven or you has trotted out that
canard. So far as I know....nobody is asking that brand names be used and
identified...only that real *audio* issues be addressed, ones that are
somewhat controversial in the audio communicty. Ones that you are sure and
constantly promote as non-existant, despite their apparent continuing
existance.


Exactly. And when Olive says that some other testing methodolgy suits a
particular need better, that information is reformulated for Usenet as
totally discrediting the use of any other means in any other context.

That's a choice of test technique...not basic scientific research. But it
*is* important nontheless as part and parcel of the scientific method in the
social sciences. For it suggested what many of us suspect....that in
general it easier to do AB tests than ABX tests, preference tests rather
than identification tests when it comes to music. So pointing that out is
not out of bounds, even in conjunction with a specific test. The fact is,
in evaluating loudspeakers the preference test was more discriminating than
the identification test, which is why he ended up using it.

[MC]

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Mar 12, 6:14 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Nobody should be surprised when people who lack appropriate respect for
basic engineering principles fail to perceive engineering papers as they
were intended to be understood.

The problem goes much deeper than this. To believe, for example, that
different brands of measurably similar cables can be audibly
different, you have to believe that physicists' understanding of how
electrical signals pass through wires is fundamentally wrong. It is
scientific denialism, pure and simple.

Precisely my point, somewhat earlier. If these cables really do affect
sound quality, then some major law of physics needs to be discovered.
Nobody seems to be trying to discover it. I think it's not there.

[DougA]

We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects.
A review can be read he
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm

Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks
mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion"
that cannot be quantified and measured.

Has anyone here tried high end cables in their home systems or are all the
arguments based on theory?

Are you saying that all of the high end magazines and reviewers who rave
about cables are full of beans? Are bought by the high end cable companies?
All audiophiles are wasting their money on high end cables?

"DougA" wrote in message
...
After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are
ready
for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power
cords and speaker cables.)

This is the gear we chose:

YBA Passion 200
Focal Electra 1027 Be
Ayre CX-7

Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make
personal
recommendations?

douga

[Chung]

DougA wrote:
We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects.
A review can be read he
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm

We're happy for you that you are in a strong enough financial position
to spend that kind of money on cables.


Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks
mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion"
that cannot be quantified and measured.

Ever wonder why those feeling cannot be backed up by measurements and
therfore explained? Surely we can measure better than our ears can
detect, no? For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure
signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency responses to
gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution, etc. A cable is really among the
simplest of electronic gear. If we don't understand how a cable works in
audio, what chance do we have of designing complex systems, like
cellular communication systems for instance?


Has anyone here tried high end cables in their home systems or are all the
arguments based on theory?

A lot of us have tried high-end cables. Some of us have tried controlled
testing: via carefully controlled listening tests or via measurements.
By the way, theory is an excellent place to base ones aruments on.


Are you saying that all of the high end magazines and reviewers who rave
about cables are full of beans?

In short, yes.

Are bought by the high end cable companies?

That I am not sure about. The raving can be simply due to lack of
understanding of the effects of perception bias, or lack of appreciation
for the importance of controlled testing when differences are subtle.
Ever read a review of cables where they actually show (a) measurement
results, or (b) controlled listening test results?

All audiophiles are wasting their money on high end cables?

Well, yes. But if you find happiness in high-end cables and do not mind
the expense, who are we to judge?


"DougA" wrote in message
...

After spending months in our selection of a two channel system, we are
ready
for the next step and want to upgrade our cables (XLR for CD to Amp, power
cords and speaker cables.)

This is the gear we chose:

YBA Passion 200
Focal Electra 1027 Be
Ayre CX-7

Could someone point in the direction of cable FAQs, reviews or make
personal
recommendations?

douga

[Ed Seedhouse]

On 14 Mar 2007 23:40:06 GMT, DougA wrote:

Are you saying that all of the high end magazines and reviewers who rave
about cables are full of beans? Are bought by the high end cable companies?
All audiophiles are wasting their money on high end cables?

I think you are all just as gullible as me. One caveat though - if you
think you cannot be easily fooled then I conclude you are even more
gullible than I.

Those of us who recognize how easily human beings in general (and
ourselves in particular) are fooled tend to insist on properly
controlled comparisons before they reach such conclusions. Those who
don't, I think, are living in a fool's paradise.

I do admit to the bias of thinking audio magazine reviewers are
especially easy to fool, but I have as evidence their own words.

[MC]

"DougA" wrote in message
...
We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects.
A review can be read he
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm

Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks
mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and
passion"
that cannot be quantified and measured.

Ah, audio interconnects. Some of us were talking about power cables.
Interconnects are much more subject to minor degradation.

With audio interconnects, there's a real possibility that your old cable had
dirty contacts, or weren't connected firmly, or something like that.
High-end cables ought not to be better than mid-range cables, provided they
are in good condition. You might try cleaning the old cable and putting it
back in. Better yet, get someone else to *either* do this or not, and see
if you can tell, by listening, whether they did it.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 14, 7:49?pm, Chung wrote:
DougA wrote:
We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR interconnects.
A review can be read he
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm
Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of cables you folks
mention, I was able to hear and feel more of the "music, rhythm and passion"
that cannot be quantified and measured.

Ever wonder why those feeling cannot be backed up by measurements and
therfore explained?

How do we know it *can't* be backed up by measurements?

Surely we can measure better than our ears can
detect, no?

Indeed we can.

For instance, our test equipment can routinely measure
signal to noise ratios in excess of 120 dB, frequency responses to
gigahertz's with 0.01 dB of resolution, etc.

OK so has anyone done tests showing that cables have no measurable
effect within these tolerances? I was under the impression that there
were readily measurable differences between various cables. Are you
suggesting that SOTA measurements fail to detect any measurable
differences between cables?

A cable is really among the
simplest of electronic gear. If we don't understand how a cable works in
audio, what chance do we have of designing complex systems, like
cellular communication systems for instance?

What does that have to do with anything? Just because they can be made
quite simply does not mean they are all free from distortion.

Scott

[Arny Krueger]

"DougA" wrote in message


We ended up purchasing the AZ Silver Reference XLR
interconnects.

Given the pricing, I can see that a consortium of buyers might be required.
;-)

A review can be read he
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...cousticzen.htm

Dispite all the talk of laws of physics and logic of
cables you folks mention, I was able to hear and feel
more of the "music, rhythm and passion" that cannot be
quantified and measured.

I suspect that one has to conjur up quite a bit of passion in order to pay
just under $1,000 per meter for interconnects. Once you've conjured all that
passion up, it probably doesn't dissipate immediately after the sale.

Has anyone here tried high end cables in their home
systems or are all the arguments based on theory?

I've definately auditioned a variety kinds of high end and tweek home-made
cables in what should be the ideal envrionment - systems belonging to people
who advocate this sort of thing.

Are you saying that all of the high end magazines and
reviewers who rave about cables are full of beans?

In private its common to use a bit stronger language, but you've obviously
got the basic idea. ;-)

Are bought by the high end cable companies?

I doubt that there is much outright bribery. OTOH, how many high end
reviewers are using cables (and other equipment) that were "loaned" to them
by the vendor?

I know a bit of personal information about some high end reviewers - most
don't make a pile of money doing high end reviews. If they actually bought
all the equipment they use to review high end gear, their reviewing
operations would probably be major cost centers for them. "Loaned" equipment
is often a major source of capitalization for their reviewing operations.

All audiophiles
are wasting their money on high end cables?

Only the ones who actually fall for this scam. Not all do. Don't get me
wrong, I think that at least some of the people who promote this sort of
thing are doing so sincerily.

Of course, their sincerity doesn't prevent them from suspending disbelief,
being hard to convince of basic scientific principles, and in the case of
the vendors - marking up inexpensive raw materials in well, highly
imaginative ways. ;-)