Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Investigations Into Cable Construction?
Okay, I've read many of the comments about whether or not there are
differences in the "sound" of cables. What I want to know is has anyone looked into many of the claims of how these cables are constructed? Many claim complex windings, extreme levels of purity (be they gold, silver, copper, etc.), and even to be cryogenically treated! Some of this stuff would seem to be beyond the capablilities of these companies, many of which are quite small. Has anyone actually cut some of these cables apart to see if they are actually made the way they are claimed to be? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
1 tiny human, cut into pieces
2 cups flour Onion, garlic Salt pepper garlic powder cayenne pepper hot sauce, etc. Oil for frying Mix milk, eggs, hot sauce in a bowl, add chopped onion and garlic. Season the meat liberally, and marinate for several hours. Place seasoned flour in a paper or plastic shopping bag, drop pieces in a few a time, shake to coat thoroughly, then deep fry in hot oil (350°) for about 15 minutes. Drain and place on paper towels. Miscarriage with Mustard Greens Why waste it? Otherwise, and in general, use ham or salt pork to season greens. The technique of smothering greens can be used with many vegetables; green beans work especially well. Meat is not necessary every day, don?t be afraid to alter any dish to vegetarian tastes. 1 premature baby, born dead Large bunch of mustard greens 2 white onions, 1 cup chopped celery Vegetable oil (or hog fat) Salt, pepper, garlic, etc. Lightly brown onions, celery, garlic and meat in large heavy pot. Add a little water and the greens (which should be thoroughly cleaned and washed). Smother slowly for at least 2 hours, adding small amounts of water when it star |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Bob wrote:
Okay, I've read many of the comments about whether or not there are differences in the "sound" of cables. What I want to know is has anyone looked into many of the claims of how these cables are constructed? Many claim complex windings, extreme levels of purity (be they gold, silver, copper, etc.), and even to be cryogenically treated! Some of this stuff would seem to be beyond the capablilities of these companies, many of which are quite small. Has anyone actually cut some of these cables apart to see if they are actually made the way they are claimed to be? That's a good question. I have oft asked about the MIT's with the boxes attached, what was in them. I have been told a few resistors. But, how are they (or how many) connected to the speaker cable, and, are the lower priced MIT's "degraded" purposely in sound as opposed to their higher priced offerings. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Bob wrote:
Okay, I've read many of the comments about whether or not there are differences in the "sound" of cables. What I want to know is has anyone looked into many of the claims of how these cables are constructed? Many claim complex windings, extreme levels of purity (be they gold, silver, copper, etc.), and even to be cryogenically treated! Some of this stuff would seem to be beyond the capablilities of these companies, many of which are quite small. Has anyone actually cut some of these cables apart to see if they are actually made the way they are claimed to be? Yes, as a matter of fact: http://cable.tcnerd.com/whymit.asp Now, this is a guy who sells MIT cables, trashing Transparent cables. He seems to think that MIT is better because they put more parts inside their little network boxes. (Note that one of the Transparent boxes was actually empty!) Of course, we're talking about parts that cost, what, maybe a few bucks apiece? In a cable that runs $10K per 8-foot pair. And there's not a word from this "electrical engineer" about what those parts actually do to the signal. Probably not a whole heck of a lot. bob |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Nousaine wrote:
TonyP wrote: That's a good question. I have oft asked about the MIT's with the boxes attached, what was in them. I have been told a few resistors. But, how are they (or how many) connected to the speaker cable, and, are the lower priced MIT's "degraded" purposely in sound as opposed to their higher priced offerings. Here's mmy experience. I used a pair of Monster brand 2.2s 'networked' cables for a listening experiment. The cables had networks that were deeply encased in potting compound that was found beneath the metal casings. A voltmeter and LCR meter didn't lend any interpretable results so the cable was dissected with a dremel tool to reveal the internal parts. This "network" had ONE component. What to guess what that was?........ a single 100-ohm power resistor (1 or 2 watts) wired across the input terminals. IOW it was a component with nearly zero electrical import and which, when it burns out, would pass unnoticed. It had no effect on the sound? I had always thought that anything added to wire would in effect, be like a tone control. I was just wondering, considering the price of cables with boxes and batteries attached being so high. They sure look impressive to say the least. And, they have their "following" which I am not a part of. Also, while I have your "ear", have you ever listened to Nordost Red Dawn or their super expensive Valhalla? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Bob wrote:
Okay, I've read many of the comments about whether or not there are differences in the "sound" of cables. What I want to know is has anyone looked into many of the claims of how these cables are constructed? Many claim complex windings, extreme levels of purity (be they gold, silver, copper, etc.), and even to be cryogenically treated! Some of this stuff would seem to be beyond the capablilities of these companies, many of which are quite small. Has anyone actually cut some of these cables apart to see if they are actually made the way they are claimed to be? From the I-just-made-this-up book "Zen, and the art of hi-fi" -- "Why do you question the world around you? Go, listen, if you prefer the sound of one component over the other, it does not matter WHY." If you want to run through double-blind tests to compare dozens of cables with a group of hundreds of subjective listeners and conclusions drawn from a statistical analysis of their ratings, I would love to read the results; who gives a rip what the internal construction of a cable is at that point? If some guy buys audio gear just to show to his friends (and a lot of high-end types do), why not sell him some cryogenically treated, ultra-pure, quantum-matched cables that were hand woven by a monk who has been living in a hut for his entire life and only makes two sets a year? Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go break in the power cord on my PC. I'll get an easy 20MHz in overclocking with the new piece! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
TonyP wrote:
Nousaine wrote: This "network" had ONE component. What to guess what that was?........ a single 100-ohm power resistor (1 or 2 watts) wired across the input terminals. IOW it was a component with nearly zero electrical import and which, when it burns out, would pass unnoticed. It had no effect on the sound? I had always thought that anything added to wire would in effect, be like a tone control. Just about anything you put in the signal path will affect the electrical signal in some measurable way. Whether it affects it enough to be audible is another story. The difference between two cables is often nothing more than a relative roll-off of a few tenths of a dB in the top octave. That's not likely to be audible. I was just wondering, considering the price of cables with boxes and batteries attached being so high. They sure look impressive to say the least. Well, yeah, that's the whole point. The fancy appearance and the gold-plated pricetag certainly suggest that these are very special products. And you know what they say about the power of suggestion... And, they have their "following" which I am not a part of. Also, while I have your "ear", have you ever listened to Nordost Red Dawn or their super expensive Valhalla? Not I. They cannot provide audibly better frequency response than the generic 12-gauge that I use now, so what would be the point? bob |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
S888Wheel wrote:
If a cable manufacturer is making cables as they say they are making them and the difference is an honest placebo effect then we can say that the manufacturer has duped himself. Not necessarily. Some manufacturers may believe their own claims of sonic improvement; others may well know that they are relying on the placebo effect to impress their customers. I doubt they're all dupes. There is no law against this. Probably true. While I don't subscribe to the high-end cable racket, I don't think you could make a fraud charge stick. There are enough happy customers out there who've tried the product and really do believe it sounds better to foil any fraud charge. OTOH if the manufacturer is simply charging extraordinary amounts of money for cheap product that is falsely advertised as something special and expensive to make then that manufacturer is committing fraud. Not necessarily. Charging a lot of money for something that costs you very little to produce is not fraud. Claiming your cables are made of rare materials when they're just plain old copper would be, however. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect a lot depends on how specific the advertising claims are. Most cable ads I've seem strike me as safely vague in their claims. In fact, there's no reason for manufacturers to be particularly specific in their claims. They can rely on the fact that many consumers are ready to believe that expensive products are special. bob |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
S888Wheel wrote:
Cable Construction? From: Jim Date: 12/28/2004 7:35 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Bob wrote: Okay, I've read many of the comments about whether or not there are differences in the "sound" of cables. What I want to know is has anyone looked into many of the claims of how these cables are constructed? Many claim complex windings, extreme levels of purity (be they gold, silver, copper, etc.), and even to be cryogenically treated! Some of this stuff would seem to be beyond the capablilities of these companies, many of which are quite small. Has anyone actually cut some of these cables apart to see if they are actually made the way they are claimed to be? From the I-just-made-this-up book "Zen, and the art of hi-fi" -- "Why do you question the world around you? Go, listen, if you prefer the sound of one component over the other, it does not matter WHY." If you want to run through double-blind tests to compare dozens of cables with a group of hundreds of subjective listeners and conclusions drawn from a statistical analysis of their ratings, I would love to read the results; who gives a rip what the internal construction of a cable is at that point? If some guy buys audio gear just to show to his friends (and a lot of high-end types do), why not sell him some cryogenically treated, ultra-pure, quantum-matched cables that were hand woven by a monk who has been living in a hut for his entire life and only makes two sets a year? If a cable manufacturer is making cables as they say they are making them and the difference is an honest placebo effect then we can say that the manufacturer has duped himself. There is no law against this. OTOH if the manufacturer is simply charging extraordinary amounts of money for cheap product that is falsely advertised as something special and expensive to make then that manufacturer is committing fraud.It matters a lot. Even if the cables do sound different it matters. "Sound different" doesn't mean "sound better." Buying cables for that kind of money without auditioning them, and hopefully many others, is a foolish decision. It's still my money, and I will part with it (or not) in a way that trades for what I percieve to be par value. For example, I borrowed a Synergistic Research Reference AC Master Coupler from the local high-end shop. I took it home, hooked it up, and found that the soundstage was somewhat more forward than without. In my system, that was a good thing. Next I took the cable back to the shop because for $500, the tweak didn't buy me an improvement that matched the cost. Bottom line with me is, just because some entity says "this is truth" I still do my own research before plunking down the cash. The test criteria is "does this sound better than that" and I wouldn't have it any other way. (I've been known to spend money on questionable stuff, like bi-wiring my main speakers. I think that cost me an extra $50 over "normal" wires. For my money I got a maybe/maybe-not improvement in sound, and some cool looking thick cables that go to the speakers. Pure vanity.) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
TonyP wrote:
Nousaine wrote: TonyP wrote: That's a good question. I have oft asked about the MIT's with the boxes attached, what was in them. I have been told a few resistors. But, how are they (or how many) connected to the speaker cable, and, are the lower priced MIT's "degraded" purposely in sound as opposed to their higher priced offerings. Here's mmy experience. I used a pair of Monster brand 2.2s 'networked' cables for a listening experiment. The cables had networks that were deeply encased in potting compound that was found beneath the metal casings. A voltmeter and LCR meter didn't lend any interpretable results so the cable was dissected with a dremel tool to reveal the internal parts. This "network" had ONE component. What to guess what that was?........ a single 100-ohm power resistor (1 or 2 watts) wired across the input terminals. IOW it was a component with nearly zero electrical import and which, when it burns out, would pass unnoticed. It had no effect on the sound? This was a 100-ohm resistor placed in parallel with the speaker terminals. At the very most it slightly lowers the resistive component of the speaker load. It had no effect on the sound because not one of 10 hardened enthusiasts was able to differentiate these cables from 16-guage autosound zip cord. Try the experiment yourself. Wire a 100-hm resistor across the speaker terminals of your system and see if it changes the sound. I had always thought that anything added to wire would in effect, be like a tone control. I was just wondering, considering the price of cables with boxes and batteries attached being so high. They sure look impressive to say the least. And, they have their "following" which I am not a part of. Then why do you care? At least they don't make the sound worse! Also, while I have your "ear", have you ever listened to Nordost Red Dawn or their super expensive Valhalla? Nope; and I don't intend to do so either. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Nousaine wrote:
TonyP wrote: Nousaine wrote: TonyP wrote: That's a good question. I have oft asked about the MIT's with the boxes attached, what was in them. I have been told a few resistors. But, how are they (or how many) connected to the speaker cable, and, are the lower priced MIT's "degraded" purposely in sound as opposed to their higher priced offerings. Here's mmy experience. I used a pair of Monster brand 2.2s 'networked'cables for a listening experiment. The cables had networks that were deeply encased in potting compound that was found beneath the metal casings. A voltmeter and LCR meter didn't lend any interpretable results so the cable was dissected with a dremel tool to reveal the internal parts. This "network" had ONE component. What to guess what that was?........ a single 100-ohm power resistor (1 or 2 watts) wired across the input terminals. IOW it was a component with nearly zero electrical import and which, when it burns out, would pass unnoticed. It had no effect on the sound? This was a 100-ohm resistor placed in parallel with the speaker terminals. At the very most it slightly lowers the resistive component of the speaker load. It had no effect on the sound because not one of 10 hardened enthusiasts was able to differentiate these cables from 16-guage autosound zip cord. Try the experiment yourself. Wire a 100-hm resistor across the speaker terminals of your system and see if it changes the sound. I have and heard nothing different. I had always thought that anything added to wire would in effect, be like a tone control. I was just wondering, considering the price of cables with boxes and batteries attached being so high. They sure look impressive to say the least. And, they have their "following" which I am not a part of. Then why do you care? At least they don't make the sound worse! Why do I care? Because I was curious. Can I be that? As for the reference to the 100 ohm resistor, reading about (and this is what I originally asked about) MIT's, they use more than 100 ohm resistors in their "network" boxes. Also, while I have your "ear", have you ever listened to Nordost Red Dawn or their super expensive Valhalla? Nope; and I don't intend to do so either. Thanks for the reply. Now... has anyone had a chance to listen to these super expensive cables? I would be interested in your thoughts. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Cable Madness SALE at AudioWaves | Marketplace | |||
Cable Madness SALE at AudioWaves | Marketplace | |||
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results. | High End Audio | |||
cabling explained | Car Audio | |||
Quad snake cable | Pro Audio |