Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of
bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL! *R* *H* -- The 19th-century clown Joseph Grimaldi, when old and incurably depressed, visited a doctor. The physician advised him to cheer himself up by seeing the great comedian Grimaldi. Whereupon his patient told him: Doctor, I am Grimaldi. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote
(in article ): Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL! *R* *H* Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound the same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! It's bad enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog audio can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros? Gimme a break! |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in article ): Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL! *R* *H* Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound the same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! It's bad enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog audio can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros? Gimme a break! I met Kimber in SLC in 1979 and thought that he was a nut case. I was as much as skeptic as anyone until a few months ago when a friend sent me two pairs of Panther interconnects and one pair of Panther speaker cables with a $600.00 price tag. He wouldn't accept a dime if I didn't see an appreciable difference and I had to run them for at least 100 hours before deciding. He had persuaded me to build a system he designed that is outstanding and I trust his opinion. I had nothing to lose but I was also intrigued and had wanted to try them. However, I wasn't convinced and was still ready to debunk them. The last thing that I wanted to do was spend $600 on a few cables. I ran them for over 100 hours and then switched back to my old cables expecting to hear nothing different. I had heard new things in some recordings and the overall bass seemed tighter and bigger but I attributed it to more intense listening as I was consciously judging them. I was surprised and shocked to hear a remarkable difference with the old cables and the terms of 'open sound stage' and 'deeper bass' are totally relevant with the new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. I'm not running out to spend another $2K for the rest of the system and the TV surround system. My system is conservatively worth $7K and the $600 is less than 10%. IMHO spending $500 for cabling a -$2K system is crazy and the money can be better spent on upgrading the components. Bob Walker |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:07:28 -0700, Walker wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in article ): Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL! *R* *H* Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound the same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! It's bad enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog audio can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros? Gimme a break! I met Kimber in SLC in 1979 and thought that he was a nut case. I know Ray. He does believe that cables have a "major affect on the sound of one's system" but, on the other hand, he did invent the IsoMike system and that's certainly no myth. I was as much as skeptic as anyone until a few months ago when a friend sent me two pairs of Panther interconnects and one pair of Panther speaker cables with a $600.00 price tag. He wouldn't accept a dime if I didn't see an appreciable difference and I had to run them for at least 100 hours before deciding. He had persuaded me to build a system he designed that is outstanding and I trust his opinion. I had nothing to lose but I was also intrigued and had wanted to try them. However, I wasn't convinced and was still ready to debunk them. The last thing that I wanted to do was spend $600 on a few cables. I ran them for over 100 hours and then switched back to my old cables expecting to hear nothing different. I had heard new things in some recordings and the overall bass seemed tighter and bigger but I attributed it to more intense listening as I was consciously judging them. I was surprised and shocked to hear a remarkable difference with the old cables and the terms of 'open sound stage' and 'deeper bass' are totally relevant with the new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. I'm not running out to spend another $2K for the rest of the system and the TV surround system. My system is conservatively worth $7K and the $600 is less than 10%. IMHO spending $500 for cabling a -$2K system is crazy and the money can be better spent on upgrading the components. Bob Walker A lot of people get deluded this way, so you're not alone. But believe me if you were to switch between your old cables and the new ones in a double-blind evaluation, you would not be able to tell one cable from the other. No one ever has been able to it. You see, the properties of wire are well known. Have been for decades. Between DC and about 100KHz, there is nothing that you can do to Interconnects less than 10 ft long or speaker cables less than 25 ft long without external components added to them that would affect the sound in any way. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Walker" wrote in message
... You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. I'm not running out to spend another $2K for the rest of the system and the TV surround system. My system is conservatively worth $7K and the $600 is less than 10%. IMHO spending $500 for cabling a -$2K system is crazy and the money can be better spent on upgrading the components. Huh? First you say it is worth the money, then you say spending $500 on cabling is crazy. Can you parse that out for me? Gary Eickmeier |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
In article ,
Sonnova wrote: On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in article ): Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL! *R* *H* Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound the same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! It's bad enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog audio can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros? Gimme a break! ..... well, they did not quite all sound the same by a considerable margin. These 'audiophile' cables more often than not tended to be either highly inductive or capacitive and consequently did affect the sound you heard. Consequently these cables sounded 'different' and different was often thought as better. Of course none of them worked as well as zip-cord. I'll never forget the first time I saw the frequency response of a pair of Appogee Duettas (or some such) you could have gone sking on the response curve it decreased that much to the high frequencies... they sure sounded 'different all right. cheers |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 7, 8:07*am, "Walker" wrote:
new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. Bob Walker Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 8, 3:06*am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:07*am, "Walker" wrote: *new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. Bob Walker Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. *Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the laws of physics. The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the paranormal. Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves something to be true it ceases to be "paranormal." I mean would quantum physics have qualified for the JREF challenge before physicists figured it out? I mean really, particles that are not really there until they are looked at? sounds pretty "magical" to me. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:07:28 -0700, Walker wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in article ): Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL! *R* *H* Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound the same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! It's bad enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog audio can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros? Gimme a break! I met Kimber in SLC in 1979 and thought that he was a nut case. I know Ray. He does believe that cables have a "major affect on the sound of one's system" Actually, one knows not what he believes versus what he advertises. but, on the other hand, he did invent the IsoMike system and that's certainly no myth. Isomike is no myth but it is not really a new idea. I was as much as skeptic as anyone until a few months ago when a friend sent me two pairs of Panther interconnects and one pair of Panther speaker cables with a $600.00 price tag. He wouldn't accept a dime if I didn't see an appreciable difference and I had to run them for at least 100 hours before deciding. He had persuaded me to build a system he designed that is outstanding and I trust his opinion. I had nothing to lose but I was also intrigued and had wanted to try them. However, I wasn't convinced and was still ready to debunk them. The last thing that I wanted to do was spend $600 on a few cables. So then Mr. Walker you did electrical measurements and blind listening tests, and what did you find? I ran them for over 100 hours and then switched back to my old cables expecting to hear nothing different. I had heard new things in some recordings and the overall bass seemed tighter and bigger but I attributed it to more intense listening as I was consciously judging them. I was surprised and shocked to hear a remarkable difference with the old cables and the terms of 'open sound stage' and 'deeper bass' are totally relevant with the new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. Sighted evaluations, no electrical measurements, the usual unsupported opinion song-and-dance. A lot of people get deluded this way, so you're not alone. It is not a delusion, it is an illusion. Delusion is a pathology, but illusion is normal human behavior. Mr. Walker's perceptions are in the range of normal human behavior, given that his evaluation methodology lacks a great deal. But believe me if you were to switch between your old cables and the new ones in a double-blind evaluation, you would not be able to tell one cable from the other. Agreed. No one ever has been able to it. You see, the properties of wire are well known. Have been for decades. Between DC and about 100KHz, there is nothing that you can do to Interconnects less than 10 ft long or speaker cables less than 25 ft long without external components added to them that would affect the sound in any way. If his old speaker cables were 24 gauge so-called "speaker cable", then he might have even heard an actual difference. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 8, 10:33*am, Scott wrote:
: Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. *Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically running a shell game with their so called challenge. Well then surely it is your duty to turn them in to the police for fraud, and we will shortly read about their conviction for a criminal offense. Any real demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the laws of physics. Yet JREF is indeed offering the money for anyone who can distinguish between two cables that, according to the laws of physics, sound different. The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the paranormal. Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves something to be true it ceases to be "paranormal." Really, you are only displaying your own misunderstanding of their offer. That is all taken care of in the rules. But it's fascinating to see how quickly the excuses come out. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
While browsing rec.audio.high-end I came across this interesting post by Arny Krueger )
(Possibly *snipped* for brevity): So then Mr. Walker you did electrical measurements and blind listening tests, and what did you find? I ran them for over 100 hours and then switched back to my old cables expecting to hear nothing different. I had heard new things in some recordings and the overall bass seemed tighter and bigger but I attributed it to more intense listening as I was consciously judging them. I was surprised and shocked to hear a remarkable difference with the old cables and the terms of 'open sound stage' and 'deeper bass' are totally relevant with the new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. Sighted evaluations, no electrical measurements, the usual unsupported opinion song-and-dance. Right. A scientific study with a sample of 1, a biased experimenter, no control sample, unreproducible results, and no environmental controls. IOW, an anecdote. *R* *H* -- The 19th-century clown Joseph Grimaldi, when old and incurably depressed, visited a doctor. The physician advised him to cheer himself up by seeing the great comedian Grimaldi. Whereupon his patient told him: Doctor, I am Grimaldi. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 03:05:43 -0700, Guenter Scholz wrote
(in article ): In article , Sonnova wrote: On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in article ): Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL! *R* *H* Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound the same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! It's bad enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog audio can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros? Gimme a break! .... well, they did not quite all sound the same by a considerable margin. These 'audiophile' cables more often than not tended to be either highly inductive or capacitive and consequently did affect the sound you heard. Consequently these cables sounded 'different' and different was often thought as better. Of course none of them worked as well as zip-cord. I'll never forget the first time I saw the frequency response of a pair of Appogee Duettas (or some such) you could have gone sking on the response curve it decreased that much to the high frequencies... they sure sounded 'different all right. cheers The only way that "audiophile' cables can sound "different" is for the manufacturer to add external components to the cables in the form of chokes, capacitors, and resistors. These either peak the response somewhere in the audible spectrum or roll it off. There is simply nothing you can do to a couple of reasonable lengths of wire ALONE between an amp and a pair of speakers that could have the slightest affect at audio frequencies. Maybe that's what those big blocks are on the ends of some "high-end" speaker cables - housing for large caps and inductors. Maybe those cables that are sold as powered, "active cables" actually have active filters in them. 8^) |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
In article ,
Sonnova wrote: On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 03:05:43 -0700, Guenter Scholz wrote (in article ): In article , Sonnova wrote: On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in article ): Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL! *R* *H* Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound the same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! It's bad enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog audio can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros? Gimme a break! .... well, they did not quite all sound the same by a considerable margin. These 'audiophile' cables more often than not tended to be either highly inductive or capacitive and consequently did affect the sound you heard. Consequently these cables sounded 'different' and different was often thought as better. Of course none of them worked as well as zip-cord. I'll never forget the first time I saw the frequency response of a pair of Appogee Duettas (or some such) you could have gone sking on the response curve it decreased that much to the high frequencies... they sure sounded 'different all right. cheers The only way that "audiophile' cables can sound "different" is for the manufacturer to add external components to the cables in the form of chokes, capacitors, and resistors. These either peak the response somewhere in the audible spectrum or roll it off. There is simply nothing you can do to a couple of reasonable lengths of wire ALONE between an amp and a pair of speakers that could have the slightest affect at audio frequencies. Maybe that's what those big blocks are on the ends of some "high-end" speaker cables - housing for large caps and inductors. Maybe those cables that are sold as powered, "active cables" actually have active filters in them. 8^) ..... I'd agree depending on what you call reasoanble. In many situations cable runs of 10's of feet is used. an inductor is a coil of wire. Heck, you can buy wire would resistors that are non-inductive and they are not very long.... Naim amps need a highly inductive speaker wire to keep it from oscillating into difficult ie capacitive loads. Wasn't Kimber cable braided flat so it could fit into carpets... many parallel strands of wire make a good capacitor. So, depending on the amp you could get noticable effects. We certainly noticed doing ABX texting. But most critical we found was level matching across the audible frequency spectrum and that proved next to impossible to do. it was not extremely difficult to identify a component when the, say, highs were off by as little as a few dB over a few octaves. cheers |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 8, 2:28*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 8, 10:33*am, Scott wrote: On Jul 8, 3:06*am, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On Jul 7, 8:07*am, "Walker" wrote: *new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. Bob Walker Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. *Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the laws of physics. As it should be as most exotic cable manufacturers make claims of magical properties outside the laws of physics. the question isn't claims by manufacturers. the question is audible differences between cables. There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an audible difference. * High source impedance devices requiring low capacitance cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that quickly come to mind. *But none of these require hi-dollar cables to address. According to Ed proving that will get you a million dollars form the JREF. I am skeptical that the JREF has actually made such an open challenge. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 8, 9:28*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an audible difference. * High source impedance devices requiring low capacitance cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that quickly come to mind. *But none of these require hi-dollar cables to address. These effects are only applicable in cables that exceed one half wavelength. The half wavelength of an electrical impulse oscillating at 100K will be 3000 meters at most. If electrons in a wire travel at 1/10 of the speed of light in a vacuum then the half wavelength of a 20Khz tone will be 750 meters. It becomes pertinant at radio frequences, where a 14 mhz signal is assumed to have a wavelength of about 20 meters in air. A 14khz electromagnetic wave in air will have a wavelenth a thousand times greater. Sorry, I don't think your gonna have any 750 meter cables in your home audio setup. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 9, 4:34*am, Scott wrote:
According to Ed proving that will get you a million dollars form the JREF. I am skeptical that the JREF has actually made such an open challenge. See http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html Randi has specifically stated this applies also to claims of audible differences between cables. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 21:34:16 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Jul 8, 2:28*pm, ScottW2 wrote: On Jul 8, 10:33*am, Scott wrote: On Jul 8, 3:06*am, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On Jul 7, 8:07*am, "Walker" wrote: *new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. Bob Walker Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. *Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the laws of physics. As it should be as most exotic cable manufacturers make claims of magical properties outside the laws of physics. the question isn't claims by manufacturers. the question is audible differences between cables. And every double-blind test of cables ever made has proven beyond any doubt, that there is no audible difference between either interconnects or speaker cables. I don't care if one pair under test is a $4000/pair of 1 meter Nordost Valhallas and the other is a $3 pair of 1 meter molded throw-away specials from Radio Shack. Nobody will be able to tell them apart in a non-sighted comparison. There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an audible difference. * High source impedance devices requiring low capacitance cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that quickly come to mind. *But none of these require hi-dollar cables to address. According to Ed proving that will get you a million dollars form the JREF. I am skeptical that the JREF has actually made such an open challenge. Don't know about the challenge, but even devices with high source impedances aren't going to make a difference over a meter or two. There is simply no way that a coaxial cable can have enough inductance, resistance, or capacitance to affect an audio signal in any audibly detectable way. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Guenter Scholz" wrote in
message .... I'd agree depending on what you call reasoanble. In many situations cable runs of 10's of feet is used. So what? an inductor is a coil of wire. An inductor is a coil of wire that has surprizingly little in common with a cable. In fact, cables minimize their inductance by simply having two conductors that are close to each other and have current flowing in them in opposite directions. Heck, you can buy wire would resistors that are non-inductive and they are not very long.... ???? Naim amps need a highly inductive speaker wire to keep it from oscillating into difficult ie capacitive loads. That is known as an amplifier that is very poorly designed. Wasn't Kimber cable braided flat so it could fit into carpets... Braided speaker cable was not an innovation of Kimber. many parallel strands of wire make a good capacitor. Simply not true. Most cables are formed of parallel strands of wire, and few if any of them are very good capacitors. So, depending on the amp you could get noticable effects. Only true of the very few amplifiers that are badly designed. Rare pathological exceptions are a poor basis for making up a rule. We certainly noticed doing ABX texting. ABX texting? Are you talking about cell phones???? But most critical we found was level matching across the audible frequency spectrum and that proved next to impossible to do. Sounds like a very pathological setup. it was not extremely difficult to identify a component when the, say, highs were off by as little as a few dB over a few octaves. No, its very easy to ear a few dBs over many octaves. But how do you hook up normal audio components in a normal audio system and obtain such incredibly large differences that are simply due to reasonable speaker cable, and nothing else? |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 20:03:38 -0700, Guenter Scholz wrote
(in article ): In article , Sonnova wrote: On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 03:05:43 -0700, Guenter Scholz wrote (in article ): In article , Sonnova wrote: On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in article ): Thanks for the straight forward analyses and debunking the huge mass of bull**** in high-end. The rag I subscribe to is one ecstatic review after another, thus rendering any basis of comparison virtually nil. Double blind testing is the only way to go, IMO, but who's going to fund it? The audio press? Not if the sales dept has anything to say about it. The mfg's? What are you smoking? Anyway, it is amusing reading the reviews of speaker cables: completely opened up the soundstage and revealed levels of detail I'd never heard before. Oh, really, you don't say? LOL! *R* *H* Yeah, I don't understand why these rags still foster the cable "myth". It should be common knowledge by now that cables and interconnects all sound the same. Yet I just read an article that suggested that USB cables (used in computer audio playback) have a "sound" and all are different! It's bad enough that these rags perpetuate the myth that cables carrying analog audio can have some effect on the sound, but USB cables carrying ones and zeros? Gimme a break! .... well, they did not quite all sound the same by a considerable margin. These 'audiophile' cables more often than not tended to be either highly inductive or capacitive and consequently did affect the sound you heard. Consequently these cables sounded 'different' and different was often thought as better. Of course none of them worked as well as zip-cord. I'll never forget the first time I saw the frequency response of a pair of Appogee Duettas (or some such) you could have gone sking on the response curve it decreased that much to the high frequencies... they sure sounded 'different all right. cheers The only way that "audiophile' cables can sound "different" is for the manufacturer to add external components to the cables in the form of chokes, capacitors, and resistors. These either peak the response somewhere in the audible spectrum or roll it off. There is simply nothing you can do to a couple of reasonable lengths of wire ALONE between an amp and a pair of speakers that could have the slightest affect at audio frequencies. Maybe that's what those big blocks are on the ends of some "high-end" speaker cables - housing for large caps and inductors. Maybe those cables that are sold as powered, "active cables" actually have active filters in them. 8^) .... I'd agree depending on what you call reasoanble. 2 meters for coaxial interconnects, 5 meters for speaker runs. In many situations cable runs of 10's of feet is used. an inductor is a coil of wire. Heck, you can buy wire would resistors that are non-inductive and they are not very long.... Naim amps need a highly inductive speaker wire to keep it from oscillating into difficult ie capacitive loads. Wasn't Kimber cable braided. Still, if you measure the cables characteristics per foot, multiply them by the length of the run and do the math for say, 100 Hz and 20 KHz, you'll find that you would have run most interconnects for more than 20 ft before you'd see even a 1 dB drop at 20 KHz. You're going to hear that? No. flat so it could fit into carpets... many parallel strands of wire make a good capacitor. So, depending on the amp you could get noticable effects. In some early solid state amps, some braided cables caused the output stages to become so unstable that they went into ultrasonic oscillation causing the amp in question (an Acoustat, if memory serves) to self destruct. The listeners in the room heard nothing untoward up until the very instant that thermal runaway made the amp go poof! We certainly noticed doing ABX texting. But most critical we found was level matching across the audible frequency spectrum and that proved next to impossible to do. it was not extremely difficult to identify a component when the, say, highs were off by as little as a few dB over a few octaves. cheers |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Sonnova wrote:
There is simply nothing you can do to a couple of reasonable lengths of wire ALONE between an amp and a pair of speakers that could have the slightest affect at audio frequencies. You could take a pair of wire cutters and snip one of the conductors. That would have an audible effect (i.e. the speakers would be silent). You could strip the insulation and make a short circuit. You'd hear that as the amp frying (or blowing a fuse if you're lucky) You could separate the two conductors and make a bunch of loops to create an inductor. That would have an audible effect. You could attach connectors with cold solder joints that are non-linear, and this would induce distortion. There are many things one can do to the wire to make things sound worse. Of course, what you meant is that there's nothing you can do to *improve* the signal transfer at audio frequencies. I can't disagree with you there. //Walt |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Scott" wrote in message
the question isn't claims by manufacturers. the question is audible differences between cables. If it wasn't for the numerous carefully-crafted self-serving bogus claims by vendors and reviewers, far fewer audiophiles would "hear" these generally non-existent "audible differences". |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Scott wrote:
On Jul 8, 3:06?am, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On Jul 7, 8:07?am, "Walker" wrote: ?new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. Bob Walker Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. ?Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the laws of physics. Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). There is also of course the whole realm of devices, treatments, and tweaks that have only the faintest (or no) rational basis for having the claimed audible effect in the first place, much less the substantial differences reported. In that category we can put the Belt's tweaks, Shakti stones, Mpingo discs, the Hallograph, the craziness at Machina Dynamica, LP demagnetizers, cryogenic treatment of CDs, and the like. So there are plenty of pairs of devices, including cables, or treatmetns, that would fit the requirements -- if measured performance does not predict an audible difference, yet the subject 'passed' the challenge, then they would be eligible for the million, because there would be no known physical cause. Last I heard, though, the challenge is being phased out, mainly because no one has ever managed to even pass the preliminary tests, and the 'big guns' of the flimflam world -- the Uri Gellers and the Sylvia Browns -- are far too canny to submit themselves to certain exposure as frauds. The JREF (whose money it is, not Randi's personally) wants to use it more actively. The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the paranormal. Michael Fremer made much the same objection during the Pear/Tara cables dustup. Randi replied: "We define "paranormal" as describing an event or a phenomenon that can actually be shown to occur, but has no explanation within scientific reasoning. Detecting differences between two varieties of excellent conductors of low-voltage electrical signals . speaker leads . via a direct auditory test, would fall within this usage. Regardless, we of course have the right to accept this claim as paranormal in nature, and we hereby do accept it as such. We will even create, for the purposes of this experimental protocol, a special category of "golden ears," just for [Fremer]". Fremer still objected: "But there are scientific explanations for sonic differences among cables, including (among others) inductance, resistance and capacitance, all of which can have an effect on frequency response. Effective shielding (or not) can and does affect measurable noise spectra due to the intrusion (or not) or RFI/EMI. The word "excellent" is meaningless IMO. In addition, as I described to you in my email, the 1/3 octave equalizer example indicates that hearing something that.s not measured does not indicate "paranormal" activity, ESP or any such thing. It indicates something scientifically verifiable but not at the time the observation is made and checked against available measurable standards. The word "paranormal" is loaded. I don.t like it. If I pass this test I will be declared to have "paranormal" abilities, which I deny. It will be like the "lucky coin" business with the amplifiers." And Randi replied: "Sir, I assure you that I'm quite familiar with such things as inductance, resistance, and capacitance as possible factors in performance. Well, let's leave out the designation "paranormal", then, since it seems that it intrudes on your sensitivity standards.....look forward to discussing the parameters, location, and time for a test. With great enthusiasm!"" In the end, the cable challenge disintegrated because Pear Audio -- a ridiculous review of whose cables (they were declared 'danceable', don't you know) sparked the dust-up --wouldn't lend Fremer a pair of their cables. So Fremer (who hadn't been the reviewer of the Pears in the first place) wanted to use his own Tara Labs cables. As of March 2008 Randi was still asking his readers if someone could lend them some Pear Cables to test. Randi has also called out challengers to claim the prize for demonstrating audible effects of LP demagnetizing. AFAIk Fremer hasn't taken him up on that one. Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves something to be true it ceases to be "paranormal." I mean would quantum physics have qualified for the JREF challenge before physicists figured it out? You're seriously equating the claims and effects that audiophiles tout, with quantum effects whose existence was confirmed repeatedly by multiple scientists doing careful experiments? -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 21:34:16 -0700, Scott wrote And every double-blind test of cables ever made has proven beyond any doubt, that there is no audible difference between either interconnects or speaker cables. ...except where any of the cables show a signficance measureable departure from flat 'frequency response'. As I recall one of the cables in Larry Greenhill's cable shoot-out did. Meaning only, again, that there's no great unknown property of cables we need to investigate in order to explain audiophile's reports of cable sound. It's always either imagination, or a measurable property of the system. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 9, 8:36*am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Jul 9, 4:34*am, Scott wrote: According to Ed proving that will get you a million dollars form the JREF. *I am skeptical that the JREF has actually made such an open challenge. Seehttp://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html which simply supports what I said earlier. From your link... "At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event." What, according to the JREF qualifies as such things? "2.2 What is the definition of “paranormal” in regards to the Challenge? Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “paranormal” as “not scientifically explainable; supernatural.”" Since any audible differences between cables will ultimately have a scientifically explanation the challenge is a farce. Randi has specifically stated this applies also to claims of audible differences between cables. Randi is an EE? He has done a lot of posturing on the subject. But so what? Doesn't change the basic facts about the challenge as stated by the JREF webpage you posted the link to. It is a trivial task to make cables sound different from one another. The challenge is a joke. Randi apparently had nothing better to do. Sad really. He used to be relevant. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Scott wrote:
On Jul 8, 2:28?pm, ScottW2 wrote: On Jul 8, 10:33?am, Scott wrote: On Jul 8, 3:06?am, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On Jul 7, 8:07?am, "Walker" wrote: ?new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. Bob Walker Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. ?Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the laws of physics. As it should be as most exotic cable manufacturers make claims of magical properties outside the laws of physics. the question isn't claims by manufacturers. the question is audible differences between cables. The question is claims by manufacturers that are echoed by the more excitable and credulous reviwer contingent in thye high-end publications. Pear Cables for example claimed that its published data show that it's cables would sound better than others, and a high end reviewer raved about how 'danceable' they sounded. There is no question that audible differnece CAN exist between cables. There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an audible difference. ? High source impedance devices requiring low capacitance cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that quickly come to mind. ?But none of these require hi-dollar cables to address. According to Ed proving that will get you a million dollars form the JREF. I am skeptical that the JREF has actually made such an open challenge. Feel free to apply for it, and see. You might also read a testimonial here of someone who actually went into a psychic' challenge with FREF, and came away impressed (and disabused of his 'psychic' notions'. Scroll down to 'a happy convert' http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/...ch-7-2008.html btw, the Randi/Fremer exchange in my preceding post were all from http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/...r-12-2007.html -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 9, 9:04 am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Scott wrote: On Jul 8, 3:06?am, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On Jul 7, 8:07?am, "Walker" wrote: ?new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. Bob Walker Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. ?Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the laws of physics. Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). And yet we found audible differences between CDPs under blind conditions. Which simply showed that not all the relevant things were being measured. And yet this same psuedo-scientific misinformation continues to be pawned off as true and supported by "science' to this day. There is also of course the whole realm of devices, treatments, and tweaks that have only the faintest (or no) rational basis for having the claimed audible effect in the first place, much less the substantial differences reported. In that category we can put the Belt's tweaks, Shakti stones, Mpingo discs, the Hallograph, the craziness at Machina Dynamica, LP demagnetizers, cryogenic treatment of CDs, and the like. So there are plenty of pairs of devices, including cables, or treatmetns, that would fit the requirements -- if measured performance does not predict an audible difference, yet the subject 'passed' the challenge, then they would be eligible for the million, because there would be no known physical cause. OK then do tell us about the "measured" performance of all the tweaks you just cited as paranormal. You are refering to measured performance. So it must be fair to assume someone has actually done some measurements. The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the paranormal. Michael Fremer made much the same objection during the Pear/Tara cables dustup. Randi replied: "We define "paranormal" as describing an event or a phenomenon that can actually be shown to occur, but has no explanation within scientific reasoning. So Fremer was right. Because it follows that any audible difference between cables will have a scientific explination. Detecting differences between two varieties of excellent conductors of low-voltage electrical signals . speaker leads . via a direct auditory test, would fall within this usage. There in lies the debate. But it seems that some simply debate by declaring they are simply right. Why Randi decided to jump into this is beyond me. It isn't a question of paranormal activity but a question of whether or not the distortions of any cable are audible. The dead moose in the room for everyone on the JREF side of this debate is that it is quite easy to make cables sound different. Regardless, we of course have the right to accept this claim as paranormal in nature, and we hereby do accept it as such. We will even create, for the purposes of this experimental protocol, a special category of "golden ears," just for [Fremer]". I suppose yoy have the right to misuse words for the sake of fueling the flames between objectivists and subjectivists if that is what you are into doing. But it doesn't change the *fact* that any audible differences between cables will have a scientific explination and none of this has anything to do with the paranormal. Fremer still objected: "But there are scientific explanations for sonic differences among cables, including (among others) inductance, resistance and capacitance, all of which can have an effect on frequency response. Effective shielding (or not) can and does affect measurable noise spectra due to the intrusion (or not) or RFI/EMI. The word "excellent" is meaningless IMO. According to Webster it does have meaning. I think I'm taking Webster over you. Not sure what relevance your unorthodox opinion about the meaning or lack of about that word has on any of this though. In addition, as I described to you in my email, the 1/3 octave equalizer example indicates that hearing something that.s not measured does not indicate "paranormal" activity, ESP or any such thing. It indicates something scientifically verifiable but not at the time the observation is made and checked against available measurable standards. The word "paranormal" is loaded. I don.t like it. If I pass this test I will be declared to have "paranormal" abilities, which I deny. It will be like the "lucky coin" business with the amplifiers." And Randi replied: "Sir, I assure you that I'm quite familiar with such things as inductance, resistance, and capacitance as possible factors in performance. Well, let's leave out the designation "paranormal", then, since it seems that it intrudes on your sensitivity standards.....look forward to discussing the parameters, location, and time for a test. With great enthusiasm!"" In the end, the cable challenge disintegrated because Pear Audio -- a ridiculous review of whose cables (they were declared 'danceable', don't you know) sparked the dust-up --wouldn't lend Fremer a pair of their cables. So Fremer (who hadn't been the reviewer of the Pears in the first place) wanted to use his own Tara Labs cables. As of March 2008 Randi was still asking his readers if someone could lend them some Pear Cables to test. Randi has also called out challengers to claim the prize for demonstrating audible effects of LP demagnetizing. AFAIk Fremer hasn't taken him up on that one. That is one side of it. But the fact still remains Randi never managed to put any audiophile claims to the preliminary test. He resolved nothing with all his grandstanding. He kinda made a bit of an ass of himself on the whole subject by painting people with an overly broad brush. Then when faced with his numerous misrepresentations of the facts he dismissed them as unimportant. Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves something to be true it ceases to be "paranormal." I mean would quantum physics have qualified for the JREF challenge before physicists figured it out? You're seriously equating the claims and effects that audiophiles tout, with quantum effects whose existence was confirmed repeatedly by multiple scientists doing careful experiments? No, I was asking a question in regards to the rules of JREF challenge. Certainly you realize that there was a time when many of the implications of quantum mechanics had not been confirmed by any experiemtnal evidence? Did you catch the part where I said "before physicists figured it out?" After further reading turns out they would have had to pay up on that one. They draw the line at physics as known at the time of the challenge. I guess they are banking on the belief that such future discoveries will not be a factor in any challenges. But now I have to ask. With all this grandstanding what is stopping so called skeptics from simply taking on these so called "voodoo" beliefs in audio by actually testing the objects that are found to be so objectionable? If objectivists want to debunk things....why not actually do it? I would expect things like Belt tweeks to be easy pickings. Personally I just don't care that much. If Peter Belt and his followers are having fun I see no point it trying to stop that. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 9, 11:35*am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Jul 8, 9:28*pm, ScottW2 wrote: There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an audible difference. * High source impedance devices requiring low capacitance cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that quickly come to mind. *But none of these require hi-dollar cables to address. These effects are only applicable in cables that exceed one half wavelength. * Nope, wrong. That the wavelengths are MUCH longer makes the lumped parameters important (why they're longer you also got wrong, but we'll deal with that separately) Take a high source impedance, oh 10kOhms. Hook a cable to that whose capacitance is, say, 200 pF. And let's say the load resistance is 100kOhms. That arrangement, all by itself, will result in a frequency response that looks like: 20 -0.8 ... ... 2030 -0.8 2560 -0.9 3230 -0.9 4060 -0.9 5120 -0.9 6450 -1 8130 -1.1 10200 -1.2 12900 -1.4 16300 -1.7 20500 -2.1 This is the simple attenuation due to the source impedance, distributed capacitance and load impedance. And the wavelengths are MUCH longer than this 10 foot cable used in this test. If your assertion were carried to it's logical extreme, you could assert that simple resistors and capacitors couldn't filter frequencies whose wavelength is bigger than the individual components. The half wavelength of an electrical impulse oscillating at 100K An impulse doesn't oscillate at such a frequency. An impulse, by its definition, is a broad-band phenomenon. will be 3000 meters at most. * Speed of light is roughly 3x10^8 meters/second. Since: c = f l and thus: l = c/f then if c=3x10^8 and f=1x10^5, then l = 3x10^8 / 1*10^5 thus l = 3x10^3, or 3000 for a FULL wavelength. There's no way that a half wavelength could ever be more than 1500 meters. If electrons in a wire travel at 1/10 of the speed of light in a vacuum then the half wavelength of a 20Khz tone will be 750 meters. * Wrong. Completely. The signal propogation velocity is NOT related to the electron drift velocity in a conductor. The drift velocity is, literally, a snail's pace: for currents like what we're talking about, it's measured in feet per HOUR. If your assertion were correct: that the electrons in the wire were zipping along at some 30,000,000 (3x10^7) meters per second, your assertion has some issues. For one, at that sort of velocity, relativistic effects are already significant. For another, an electron witn that sort of velocity has a kinetic energy of around 3000 eV: where did the 3000 volt accelerating potential that got them going that fast come from? The SIGNAL PROPOGATION velocity is something else entirely. Yes, it's related to the speed of light in a vacuum by something called the velocity factor for the conductor, which for caox cable is on the order of 0.5 or so. Thus, the signal velocity in a cable is on the the order of 150,000,000 meters per second. That wavelength at 20 kHz is not, as you suggested, 750 meters, but 7500 meters, or on the order of a mile. It becomes pertinant at radio frequences, where a 14 mhz signal is assumed to have a wavelength of about 20 meters in air. It's not ASSUMED to be anything: it is or it isn't. Sorry, I don't think your gonna have any 750 meter cables in your home audio setup. Irrelevant, since your assumptions are wrong. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
In article ,
Ed Seedhouse wrote: On Jul 8, 9:28*pm, ScottW2 wrote: There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an audible difference. * High source impedance devices requiring low capacitance cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that quickly come to mind. *But none of these require hi-dollar cables to address. These effects are only applicable in cables that exceed one half wavelength. The half wavelength of an electrical impulse oscillating at 100K will be 3000 meters at most. If electrons in a wire travel at 1/10 of the speed of light in a vacuum then the half wavelength of a 20Khz tone will be 750 meters. It becomes pertinant at radio frequences, where a 14 mhz signal is assumed to have a wavelength of about 20 meters in air. A 14khz electromagnetic wave in air will have a wavelenth a thousand times greater. Sorry, I don't think your gonna have any 750 meter cables in your home audio setup. ....... Ed, just to be argumentative, electrons typically travel at about 1 mm/sec in a good conductor like copper.... if you used single crystal wire (as vdHull advocated) you might get them going to ... I don't know, but say about 1 to 10 cm/sec. How will that affect your above argument? cheers |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote: "Guenter Scholz" wrote in message ..... snip the glib comments... an inductor is a coil of wire. An inductor is a coil of wire that has surprizingly little in common with a cable. In fact, cables minimize their inductance by simply having two conductors that are close to each other and have current flowing in them in opposite directions. .... well, I guess, it all depends on how the speaker cable is physically arranged; ie, how the individual strands are arranged etc Heck, you can buy wire would resistors that are non-inductive and they are not very long.... ???? FYI, a wire wound resistor is a small 1 cm or so cylinder with wire wound on it and it is used to provide resistance. There won't be more than about 10 cm or so of wire. The inductance this coil of wire causes can be problem some in certain applications... ie you don't need 10's of feet depending on the application - in this case - the amp. Wasn't Kimber cable braided flat so it could fit into carpets... Braided speaker cable was not an innovation of Kimber. ... fine, I'm getting old and don't remember the brand... many parallel strands of wire make a good capacitor. Simply not true. Most cables are formed of parallel strands of wire, and few if any of them are very good capacitors. Arnie, you'd be correct iff the wires were not individually insulated as is the case of the above speaker wire. nevertheless, even the strands of wire in your zip cord, not insulated as they are, will provide capacitance because of an effect known as the skin effect ... the gist of which is that depending on the frequency electrons do not travell uniformely in the wire We certainly noticed doing ABX texting. ABX texting? Are you talking about cell phones???? ..... ahh the typo argument... been there done that :-) If you truly haven't heard of ABX testing, you should inquire about it. But most critical we found was level matching across the audible frequency spectrum and that proved next to impossible to do. Sounds like a very pathological setup. you'd be suprised how poorly matched channels can be on older 'audiphile' tube stuff... No, its very easy to ear a few dBs over many octaves. But how do you hook up normal audio components in a normal audio system and obtain such incredibly large differences that are simply due to reasonable speaker cable, and nothing else? .... like I said, you use some of the 'audiphile' cables, a longer run does help, and then use your ABX box to switch between said and, say, zip cord to your hearts content. Suprising how difficult it is if your betting some money (beer) on your opinion :-) cheers |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:37:48 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Scott" wrote in message the question isn't claims by manufacturers. the question is audible differences between cables. If it wasn't for the numerous carefully-crafted self-serving bogus claims by vendors and reviewers, far fewer audiophiles would "hear" these generally non-existent "audible differences". Look, They're 'bling' pure and simple. Audio jewelry. Even I think that woven nylon jacketed speaker cable as big as a fire hose looks cool as do expensive interconnects. Were I so rich that the money these cables cost didn't mean anything more to me than pocket change, I'm sure my stereo would be fully cabled with the expensive spread. Mind you, I wouldn't expect any performance advantage, it would just make the system look cool. I have no problem with that attitude - as long as the rich buyer knows that he's only buying looks, expensive cable is harmless. But most audiophiles who invest megabucks in cable are buying it because they've been told that it "improves the sound" of their system and they believe it and the audio rags perpetuate that myth and I think THAT borders on the criminal. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 10:17:31 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): Scott wrote: On Jul 8, 2:28?pm, ScottW2 wrote: On Jul 8, 10:33?am, Scott wrote: On Jul 8, 3:06?am, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On Jul 7, 8:07?am, "Walker" wrote: ?new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. Bob Walker Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. ?Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the laws of physics. As it should be as most exotic cable manufacturers make claims of magical properties outside the laws of physics. the question isn't claims by manufacturers. the question is audible differences between cables. The question is claims by manufacturers that are echoed by the more excitable and credulous reviwer contingent in thye high-end publications. Pear Cables for example claimed that its published data show that it's cables would sound better than others, and a high end reviewer raved about how 'danceable' they sounded. There is no question that audible differnece CAN exist between cables. Not if they are ONLY wire there can't be. Even very long cables can only attenuate the top-end of the spectrum and even then it's not really noticeable unless one can actually hear 20 KHz and above well enough to discern a 1 to 2 dB roll off. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:35:59 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ): On Jul 8, 9:28*pm, ScottW2 wrote: There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an audible difference. * High source impedance devices requiring low capacitance cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that quickly come to mind. *But none of these require hi-dollar cables to address. These effects are only applicable in cables that exceed one half wavelength. The half wavelength of an electrical impulse oscillating at 100K will be 3000 meters at most. If electrons in a wire travel at 1/10 of the speed of light in a vacuum then the half wavelength of a 20Khz tone will be 750 meters. It becomes pertinant at radio frequences, where a 14 mhz signal is assumed to have a wavelength of about 20 meters in air. A 14khz electromagnetic wave in air will have a wavelenth a thousand times greater. Sorry, I don't think your gonna have any 750 meter cables in your home audio setup. Nor is anyone else. The entire notion of wire affecting audio frequencies in the lengths that people are apt to use is ridiculous. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:37:09 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Guenter Scholz" wrote in message .... I'd agree depending on what you call reasoanble. In many situations cable runs of 10's of feet is used. So what? an inductor is a coil of wire. An inductor is a coil of wire that has surprizingly little in common with a cable. In fact, cables minimize their inductance by simply having two conductors that are close to each other and have current flowing in them in opposite directions. Heck, you can buy wire would resistors that are non-inductive and they are not very long.... ???? Naim amps need a highly inductive speaker wire to keep it from oscillating into difficult ie capacitive loads. That is known as an amplifier that is very poorly designed. Wasn't Kimber cable braided flat so it could fit into carpets... Braided speaker cable was not an innovation of Kimber. many parallel strands of wire make a good capacitor. Simply not true. Most cables are formed of parallel strands of wire, and few if any of them are very good capacitors. Well, they ARE good capacitors, just very tiny ones. They may even have an affect on signals that pass through them, as long as those signals are on the order of 100 MHz of so. 8^) |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 08:37:41 -0700, Walt wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: There is simply nothing you can do to a couple of reasonable lengths of wire ALONE between an amp and a pair of speakers that could have the slightest affect at audio frequencies. You could take a pair of wire cutters and snip one of the conductors. That would have an audible effect (i.e. the speakers would be silent). Smartass! But you're right. You could strip the insulation and make a short circuit. You'd hear that as the amp frying (or blowing a fuse if you're lucky) You could separate the two conductors and make a bunch of loops to create an inductor. That would have an audible effect. It would have to be a lot of loops! You could attach connectors with cold solder joints that are non-linear, and this would induce distortion. There are many things one can do to the wire to make things sound worse. Of course, what you meant is that there's nothing you can do to *improve* the signal transfer at audio frequencies. I can't disagree with you there. Actually, what I meant was that there are no applications of fancy, expensive materials, no special "strand orientation" no high-tech dielectrics between cable elements, no super connectors, or any other of the hundred and one things that cable makers throw at their cable designs to justify the high prices, that actually would cause them to sound different (better or worse) than a cheap Radio Shack cable or a length of 14 gauge lamp cord for speaker cable. I'm not talking here about cables with molded or wood boxes on the ends filled with inductors, resistors and capacitors and are DESIGNED to alter the frequency response of the cable, I'm talking about cables made of nothing but copper wire and connectors - no matter HOW fancy. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:07:28 -0700, Walker wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 03:43:11 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner wrote (in article ): A lot of people get deluded this way, so you're not alone. But believe me if you were to switch between your old cables and the new ones in a double-blind evaluation, you would not be able to tell one cable from the other. No one ever has been able to it. You see, the properties of wire are well known. Have been for decades. Between DC and about 100KHz, there is nothing that you can do to Interconnects less than 10 ft long or speaker cables less than 25 ft long without external components added to them that would affect the sound in any way. Have any of you actually tried a set of these cables or are you simply going by what you've read or heard and accepted it as fact because it looks good on paper? It's a point of refining what is already highly refined and the difference is very subtle but obvious when you know your system. It's not going to make any difference with a Radio Shack system but it blends in with the upgraded parts of a high end system and doesn't become the weak link in the chain. There's nothing wrong with decent lamp cord and interconnects slightly better than those that come with stereos but neither are the OEM connectors, transformers, tubes, capacitors, resistors and coils etc on high end gear yet some of us can't wait to upgrade them. Why not the cables that connect them all? It's similar to a top level wine from the same vineyard and winery but a year apart. Any of us, even wine connoisseurs unfamiliar with that particular wine, will think that both wines are identical and so will the guy writing for the food magazine but those used to that wine will recognize the difference immediately. If a couple of you are interested and have enough experience with audiophile systems to report back on it here I'll agree to participate in a test at my house with my system and the recordings of my choice. I'll have the components outside the stand with easy access to the interconnects and the speaker wires are all on banana plugs. It's all tube gear and can't be turned off and on rapidly but this can't be a rapid test and will take time between changes. It may be weird and I'll only do it a few times but if I can't convince you with 80% accuracy from 10 changes over a couple of hours I'll buy you lunch. However, if I do hit 8/10 you'll buy me lunch and suffer my ridicule. Who knows; it might be over quickly with three wrong choices but even on blind guessing I'll probably hit 50% and not crap out before six tries. Worse thing that can happen to you, aside from buying lunch, is that you'll enjoy a couple of hours with a kick ass system and you might even say "Screw the test and I'm buying lunch but I just want to listen to music". I'm in Las Vegas and some of you will be coming here because that's what a lot of people do. Email me and we'll trade phone numbers and maybe set up something. If you don't have a car I'll come and get you and take you back to your hotel. There are only three options; I can tell the difference, I can't tell the difference or I just like going out to lunch. Bob Walker |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 9, 10:17*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Scott wrote: On Jul 8, 2:28?pm, ScottW2 wrote: On Jul 8, 10:33?am, Scott wrote: On Jul 8, 3:06?am, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On Jul 7, 8:07?am, "Walker" wrote: ?new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. Bob Walker Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. ?Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the laws of physics. As it should be as most exotic cable manufacturers make claims of magical properties outside the laws of physics. the question isn't claims by manufacturers. the question is audible differences between cables. The question is claims by manufacturers that are echoed by the more excitable and credulous reviwer contingent in thye high-end publications. *Pear Cables for example claimed that its published data show that it's cables would sound better than others, and a high end reviewer raved about how 'danceable' they sounded. There is no question that audible differnece CAN exist between cables. There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an audible difference. ? High source impedance devices requiring low capacitance cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that quickly come to mind. ?But none of these require hi-dollar cables to address. According to Ed proving that will get you a million dollars form the JREF. I am skeptical that the JREF has actually made such an open challenge. Feel free to apply for it, and see. * I don't need to apply. I have read the rules. I know that my application will be rejected. But tell you what. You have my permission to apply on my behalf. Give it a shot. see for yourself that this is not an open challenge of any claims of audible differnces between cables. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 9, 2:58*pm, "Walker" wrote:
It's similar to a top level wine from the same vineyard and winery but a year apart. And explain why double-blind taste testing of wines is de rigor in wine comparisons and is not accepted in the high end audio realm? Any of us, even wine connoisseurs unfamiliar with that particular wine, will think that both wines are identical and so will the guy writing for the food magazine but those used to that wine will recognize the difference immediately. And are more than willing to submit themselves to properly controlled blind testing. Your preconceived notions are showing. You might want to see to that. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 9, 11:59 am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 8, 9:34 pm, Scott wrote: On Jul 8, 2:28 pm, ScottW2 wrote: On Jul 8, 10:33 am, Scott wrote: On Jul 8, 3:06 am, Ed Seedhouse wrote: On Jul 7, 8:07 am, "Walker" wrote: new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. Bob Walker Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the laws of physics. As it should be as most exotic cable manufacturers make claims of magical properties outside the laws of physics. the question isn't claims by manufacturers. It is to me and it quite obviously is to the JREF challenge. If so then why are they bothering reviewers? Why not make the challenge to the cable manufacturers. maybe because it is silly to challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague assertions that are pretty much unchallengable? I guess the real question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value. Ads are sales pitches not documentaries. the question is audible differences between cables. My general opinion is that when audible differences between cables exist, the cause is a deficiency in the cable design or the equipment the cable connects. I'm not going to take you to task for any of your personal subjective opinions. But I hope you understand that such opinions are just that, personal and subjective as opposed to universal and objective. There are occacionally reasons where cables may make an audible difference. High source impedance devices requiring low capacitance cables or noise due to ground impedances (ground loops) are two that quickly come to mind. But none of these require hi-dollar cables to address. According to Ed proving that will get you a million dollars form the JREF. Really. So if I put together a system that hums due to a ground loop and then replace an interconnect with one with a much lower resistance ground path audibly reducing the hum....I'll win? By what Ed has represented yes. I suspect not. But I have actually read and understood the rules of the challenge. Apparently that gives me a "unique view" on the subject. I am skeptical that the JREF has actually made such an open challenge. They haven't. The challenge is about the magical claims of many hi- end cable manufacturers as your quote shows. 1. It isn't an open challenge. 2. There are no magical claims I know of. If you can cite any manufacturers claiming their cables perform better due to magic I'd like to see it. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 9, 12:37*pm, Dick Pierce
wrote: On Jul 9, 2:58*pm, "Walker" wrote: It's similar to a top level wine from the same vineyard and winery but a year apart. And explain why double-blind taste testing of wines is de rigor in wine comparisons and is not accepted in the high end audio realm? Um, it certainly is used in *some* cases. I'm pretty confident that the vast majority of wine tasting is not done with double blind protocols. I think a more interesting question would be how do the results of the double blind comparisons in wine tasting differ from the sighted ones. i don't think that question has ever been carefully studied. then my next question would be who buys wine by the bottle or glass blind? As for the lack of acceptance for blind protocols in high end audio, I use blind protocols in my auditions, does that mean I am not participating in the high end? Any of us, even wine connoisseurs unfamiliar with that particular wine, will think that both wines are identical and so will the guy writing for the food magazine but those used to that wine will recognize the difference immediately. And are more than willing to submit themselves to properly controlled blind testing. I know a few wine connoisseurs, none of which have done any double blind taste testing in building their wine collections. do you think that is a problem? |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
... "Walker" wrote in message ... You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and worth the money. I'm not running out to spend another $2K for the rest of the system and the TV surround system. My system is conservatively worth $7K and the $600 is less than 10%. IMHO spending $500 for cabling a -$2K system is crazy and the money can be better spent on upgrading the components. Huh? First you say it is worth the money, then you say spending $500 on cabling is crazy. Can you parse that out for me? Gary Eickmeier What I said was that the $600 was less than 10% of the value of my system and justifiable to the extent of being a minor part of it and that spending $500.00 is overkill on an over the counter system with $20.00 worth of Chinese parts. A gravel road with a small stretch of smooth pavement in the middle is still considered a gravel road. I spent over $500.00 for coils and caps alone upgrading my crossovers and if nothing else the quality of the cables are a much better match than lamp cord and off of the wall interconnects. I have a TV surround system with $6K worth of vintage Altec and JBL speakers. The receiver is a Sony ES and all of the stuff I use is connected either optical or DA and there's not a single analog interconnect. I'll upgrade their respective crossovers with the 1/2 the money of premium speaker cables and after that I'll add separate amps and get the drivers remagnetized. By that time the system will be worth around $20K and then I might consider new $2K speaker cables; again around 10% of the value of the system. Bob W |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Top 100 Reasons For Despising Arnie | Audio Opinions | |||
About Arnie K | Audio Opinions | |||
rec.audio.Arnie.Krueger | Audio Opinions | |||
*Thank Heaven For Arnie Kroo* | Audio Opinions |