Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Stereophile & Cable Theory
Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is
posted today at A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable"www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/A. Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict the opposite. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
oups.com Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is posted today at A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable"www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/A. That's just raw HTML from a web page. The correct URL is: http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/ Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict the opposite. Publishing such an unecessarily math-intensive article in a consumer publication has an obvious subtext - "It's all so complex that you can't possibly understand it, so believe whatever we say". If you want to read a series of articles that is compentetly written from a teaching/learning viewpoint, please check out Jim Lesurf's: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...rt6/page1.html http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...rt7/page1.html and http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/...ect/page1.html As I said in the HE2005 debate, one place where high end audio journalism falls flat on its face is quantification. the Hawksford article is obviously designed to raise a lot of concerns without proceeding far enough along the line of quantification. Had Hawksford carried the ideas he presented to a reasonable, properly-quantified conclusion, he would have had to print very un-Stereophile-like conclusion such as: "In practice it is questionable whether delays of the magnitudes shown would ever be audible. If so, the general advice would seem to be to choose reasonable large diameter wires with a close spacing in order to minimise the effects of resistance and inductance." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message snipped Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict the opposite. Publishing such an unecessarily math-intensive article in a consumer publication has an obvious subtext - "It's all so complex that you can't possibly understand it, so believe whatever we say". That seems to be the plan: the article will "dazzle 'em with science", than Atkinson, his minions and the snake oil merchants will swoop in and "baffle 'em with bull****". IOW, a typical $tereopile ploy. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hello Arny,
"Arny Krueger" wrote in : .... "In practice it is questionable whether delays of the magnitudes shown would ever be audible. If so, the general advice would seem to be to choose reasonable large diameter wires with a close spacing in order to minimise the effects of resistance and inductance." I agree. What that otherwise interesting article still misses is the answer to the question: will the differences introduced by a "suboptimal" cable be audible with respect to an optimal one? So far the science answer to this question has been basicly a simple no. Bye, P.S. May I suggest that you spend less time explaining again and again things like this and spend instead sometime organizing a bit better your otherwise excellent pcabx web site? That site is a wonderful source of many useful informations, but sometimes they are a bit difficult to find. For example I searched for a long time for some data about the safety limits for frequency response deviations audibility, and found only recently that your web site has a nice graph reporting all that is needed. BTW many thanks for writing and maintaining that site, even in its current "not so friendly" form. P.P.S. Another little question: do you know of a similar graph with the limit of audibility of pre-echo (ore pre-ringing, or whathever it is called)? Something like limit of audibility with respect to pre-delay vs level and/or frequency? I searched for this kind of information for a long time too, may be it is available in some "hidden" page of your site. -- Denis Sbragion InfoTecna Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404 URL: http://www.infotecna.it |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Denis Sbragion" wrote in message
6.1 P.P.S. Another little question: do you know of a similar graph with the limit of audibility of pre-echo (ore pre-ringing, or whathever it is called)? Something like limit of audibility with respect to pre-delay vs level and/or frequency? I believe that the phrase you are looking for is "temporal masking". Here's a fairly classic item about it: http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/~bosse/proj/node21.html More specifics: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc...al_masking.htm http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=23467 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Denis Sbragion" wrote in message 6.1... Hello Arny, "Arny Krueger" wrote in : ... "In practice it is questionable whether delays of the magnitudes shown would ever be audible. If so, the general advice would seem to be to choose reasonable large diameter wires with a close spacing in order to minimise the effects of resistance and inductance." I agree. What that otherwise interesting article still misses is the answer to the question: will the differences introduced by a "suboptimal" cable be audible with respect to an optimal one? So far the science answer to this question has been basicly a simple no. Bye, P.S. May I suggest that you spend less time explaining again and again things like this and spend instead sometime organizing a bit better your otherwise excellent pcabx web site? That site is a wonderful source of many useful informations, but sometimes they are a bit difficult to find. For example I searched for a long time for some data about the safety limits for frequency response deviations audibility, and found only recently that your web site has a nice graph reporting all that is needed. BTW many thanks for writing and maintaining that site, even in its current "not so friendly" form. P.P.S. Another little question: do you know of a similar graph with the limit of audibility of pre-echo (ore pre-ringing, or whathever it is called)? Something like limit of audibility with respect to pre-delay vs level and/or frequency? I searched for this kind of information for a long time too, may be it is available in some "hidden" page of your site. Its an utterly abysmal web sight. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is posted today at A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable"www.stereophile.com/re ference/1095cable/A. That's just raw HTML from a web page. The correct URL is: http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/ Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict the opposite. Publishing such an unecessarily math-intensive article in a consumer publication has an obvious subtext - "It's all so complex that you can't possibly understand it, so believe whatever we say". If you want to read a series of articles that is compentetly written No, I don't know what the hell "compentely" is, and I don't want to find out. Competent is good enough for me. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is posted today at A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable"www.stereophile.com/re ference/1095cable/A. That's just raw HTML from a web page. The correct URL is: http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/ Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict the opposite. Publishing such an unecessarily math-intensive article in a consumer publication has an obvious subtext - "It's all so complex that you can't possibly understand it, so believe whatever we say". If you want to read a series of articles that is compentetly written No, I don't know what the hell "compentely" is, and I don't want to find out. Competent is good enough for me. When can we expect to see evidence of this competence? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/29/2005 7:06 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message oups.com Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is posted today at A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable"www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/A. That's just raw HTML from a web page. The correct URL is: http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/ Why have a fundamental EM theory explanation to say "what if"? Yes, Maxwell was a genius; he predicted the existence of EM waves. The question still is can human ears tell the difference. No if humans could hear as well as dogs can sniff, there might be something to pursue. But last I checked, the only sense that humans excel in is vision. Dan |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:46:56 -0500, Dan wrote:
On 8/29/2005 7:06 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is posted today at A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable"www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/A. That's just raw HTML from a web page. The correct URL is: http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/ Why have a fundamental EM theory explanation to say "what if"? Yes, Maxwell was a genius; he predicted the existence of EM waves. The question still is can human ears tell the difference. No if humans could hear as well as dogs can sniff, there might be something to pursue. But last I checked, the only sense that humans excel in is vision. Not compared to eagles - but they have **** hi-fi! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:46:56 -0500, Dan wrote:
Why have a fundamental EM theory explanation to say "what if"? Yes, Maxwell was a genius; he predicted the existence of EM waves. The question still is can human ears tell the difference. No if humans could hear as well as dogs can sniff, there might be something to pursue. But last I checked, the only sense that humans excel in is vision. Well, I understand that "Middius" can smell a Vaseline/feces mixture from a mile off, which is pretty impressive. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
dizzy wrote: On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:46:56 -0500, Dan wrote: Why have a fundamental EM theory explanation to say "what if"? Yes, Maxwell was a genius; he predicted the existence of EM waves. The question still is can human ears tell the difference. No if humans could hear as well as dogs can sniff, there might be something to pursue. But last I checked, the only sense that humans excel in is vision. Well, I understand that "Middius" can smell a Vaseline/feces mixture from a mile off, which is pretty impressive. But only on the days when Sackman isn't using perfume. ;-) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Don Pearce said: DBT anybody? No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying $20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On 29 Aug 2005 07:44:08 -0700, George Middius wrote:
Don Pearce said: DBT anybody? No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying $20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course. OK, who's talking about: a) investing ANY money in a comparator b) taking hundreds of hours, or c) buying cables Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables. d |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
On 29 Aug 2005 07:44:08 -0700, George Middius wrote: Don Pearce said: DBT anybody? No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying $20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course. Thus George reveals several tenets of the anti-scientific, anti-intellectual religion he's been preaching on RAO for years: George Middius religious belief (1): To benefit from DBTs you have to do the tests yourself. George Middius religious belief (2): To do a DBT you have to buy a switchbox. George Middius religious belief (3): To do a DBT you have to invest 100's of hours. George Middius religious belief (4): The lowest cost usable cables cost at least $20. George Middius religious belief (5): The highest cost cables cost no more than $60. George has about 4 converts - Art Sackman, We can quickly conclude that despite George's spirited defense of Stereophile and John Atkinson, he never reads it. OK, who's talking about: a) investing ANY money in a comparator George Middius b) taking hundreds of hours, or George Middius c) buying cables George Middius Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables. George has a grip, its just not on anything that is discussed in polite company. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message On 29 Aug 2005 07:44:08 -0700, George Middius wrote: Don Pearce said: DBT anybody? No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying $20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course. snipped Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables. George has a grip, its just not on anything that is discussed in polite company. Pud pullers are Atkinson's favorite demographic; "George" is a natural. ;-) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The Krooborg is trying to muck up humanity again. No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying $20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course. George Middius religious belief (1): To benefit from DBTs you have to do the tests yourself. George Middius religious belief (2): To do a DBT you have to buy a switchbox. George Middius religious belief (3): To do a DBT you have to invest 100's[sic] of hours. George Middius religious belief (4): The lowest cost usable cables cost at least $20. George Middius religious belief (5): The highest cost cables cost no more than $60. Arnii, are you attempting to argue audio with me? The last time you tried this, they had to cart you off to a rest home for a few weeks. You might do better with your mental problems if you didn't let your buttons get pushed so easily. George has a grip, its just not on anything that is discussed in polite company. Phallic obsession noted. ;-) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... George has a grip, its just not on anything that is discussed in polite company. How nice of you to attend our little tea party. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:49:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: George has about 4 converts - Art Sackman, And? I'm still waiting for my name to be taken in vain again. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Don Pearce said: No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying $20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course. OK, who's talking about: a) investing ANY money in a comparator b) taking hundreds of hours, or c) buying cables Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables. Oh, you wanna be a audio enjuhnear? Why dint ya say so. Want some help applying for a job? I know several headhunters. Only thing is, junior cable wonk jobs don't pay much. Just so you know what you're getting into. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:37:55 -0400, George M. Middius wrote:
Don Pearce said: No thank you. For some reason, I don't see the wisdom in spending $400 or more on a comparator and investing hundreds of hours on "tests" to rationalize buying $20 cables instead of $60 cables. YMMV of course. OK, who's talking about: a) investing ANY money in a comparator b) taking hundreds of hours, or c) buying cables Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables. Oh, you wanna be a audio enjuhnear? Why dint ya say so. Want some help applying for a job? I know several headhunters. Only thing is, junior cable wonk jobs don't pay much. Just so you know what you're getting into. Never mind, George. Better luck next time, huh? d |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
George "Minus" Middius a écrit :
...Want some help applying for a job? I know several headhunters... In fact George knows only dickhunters so if you are looking for blowjobs... ;-) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
George "Minus" Middius a écrit :
...Want some help applying for a job? I know several headhunters... In fact George knows only dickhunters so if you are looking for blowjobs... ;-) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables. Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Art Sackman took a break from "choking the chicken" and wrote: Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables. Were you struck by lightning, Sack'O'****? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Get a grip, George - this is about cables, not buying cables. Stereophile is about buying cables, not cables. It's the thousand monkey effect - after zillions of lying, mindless posts, Art stumbles into cogency. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is posted today at A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable"www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/A. Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict the opposite. But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short wire is wire. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
The Bug Eater argues for Kroothanasia. In short Arnii is feces and should be flushed. Would you like to do the honors, Mickey? |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"George Middius" wrote in message ... The Bug Eater argues for Kroothanasia. In short Arnii is feces and should be flushed. Would you like to do the honors, Mickey? Yes George, I'd like to flush you, you are after all RAO's biggest turd. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote in message ink.net... But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short wire is wire. You hit the nail on the head!!!! DBT is a 'single bias' controlled comparison. That's what's wrong with it, it only controls one side of the biases. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short wire is wire. You hit the nail on the head!!!! DBT is a 'single bias' controlled comparison. That's what's wrong with it, it only controls one side of the biases. The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't help sales of high end snake oil. It is the standard for everyone doing research into subtle audible difference. The only people that have a problem with it are those that want things to be other than real. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Gault says:
"And not just audio. Any scientific pursuit from medicine to taste comparisons of soda uses DBT" The only thing medical drug research DBT tests have in common with audio component comparison is the name. The medical tests' subjects subjective responses are always compared with and validated by FACTS: outcome of the disease, laboratory and Xray results. Otherwise the positive responses (" I feel better") to a placebo, or quack mumbo jumbo would have equal validity with objective outcomes. Compare! Ludovic Mirabel |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Gault said: Any scientific pursuit from medicine to taste comparisons of soda uses DBT. Do you consider buying audio equipment for use in your home to be a "scientific pursuit"? If so, go for it -- take some "tests". Then you'll have "proved" that everything sounds the same. And the Krooborg guarantees you can do it without spending hundreds on a switchbox and devoting hundreds of hours to reach a statistically meaningful number of trials. What fun! This is surely why audio such a popular hobby. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Robert Gault" wrote in message ... wrote: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message thlink.net... But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short wire is wire. You hit the nail on the head!!!! DBT is a 'single bias' controlled comparison. That's what's wrong with it, it only controls one side of the biases. The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't help sales of high end snake oil. It is the standard for everyone doing research into subtle audible difference. And not just audio. Any scientific pursuit from medicine to taste comparisons of soda uses DBT. home listening is NOT science. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short wire is wire. You hit the nail on the head!!!! DBT is a 'single bias' controlled comparison. That's what's wrong with it, it only controls one side of the biases. The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't help sales of high end snake oil. It is the standard for everyone doing research into subtle audible difference. The only people that have a problem with it are those that want things to be other than real. Listening under test conditions is NOT how I conduct my everyday 'real' world listening. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is posted today at www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable. Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict the opposite. But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short wire is wire. Actually, at the time Dan Dugan of the AES was doing cable tests at the 1991 AES Convention, he subjected John Hunter of Sumiko to a series of bias-controlled tests comparing the cables distributed by Sumiko to others. John identified the cables to a statistically significant degree. When Dan wrote up his 1991 cable tests for the JAES, he omitted Hunter's results. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
John Atkinson wrote:
wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Malcolm Omar Hawksford's seminal article on cable theory is posted today at www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable. Those who state that the "laws of physics" don't allow for differences in cable performance at audio frequencies might be surprised to learn that the laws of physics predict the opposite. But naturally, there is not one single bias controlled comparison of cables where anyone, ever, heard a difference between normal cables. In short wire is wire. Actually, at the time Dan Dugan of the AES was doing cable tests at the 1991 AES Convention, he subjected John Hunter of Sumiko to a series of bias-controlled tests comparing the cables distributed by Sumiko to others. John identified the cables to a statistically significant degree. When Dan wrote up his 1991 cable tests for the JAES, he omitted Hunter's results. You wouldn't happen to have any evidence to support this allegation, would you, slimeball? :-D |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Stereophile & Cable Theory | Audio Opinions | |||
Cable Madness SALE at AudioWaves | Marketplace | |||
Does anyone know of this challenge? | High End Audio | |||
Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions | |||
Quad snake cable | Pro Audio |