[Arny Krueger]

"graham" wrote in message

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message ...

First of all, Ed, it's not a "claim", it's a PROVEN
fact. If I said that I can fly like Superman, that's a
claim, If I said that the earth was flat, that's a
claim. If you say that you can audition 10 different
pairs of 1 meter interconnects, ranging in price from
$0.99 to $4000 and they all "sound different from one
another", THAT too is a claim. But when Arny, or I or
someone else tells you that every controlled listening
test ever published where said interconnects were pitted
against each other, came to the unambiguous conclusion
that that there was no discernable sonic difference
between any of them, and show you electrical
transmission theory that proves that these different
interconnects can have NO audible effect on any waveform
in the audio passband, that is not a claim but a fact.

... I have a question ... " every controlled listening
test ever published " Since you & Arny "claim" to know
or have data about all of them ...

What we know is mostly outcomes. These tests have been going on for decades,
and nobody has listed all the names, or consolitdated all the data. However,
if there were exceptions, they would be known.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:23:45 -0800, graham wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

First of all, Ed, it's not a "claim", it's a PROVEN fact. If I said that I
can fly like Superman, that's a claim, If I said that the earth was flat,
that's a claim. If you say that you can audition 10 different pairs of 1
meter interconnects, ranging in price from $0.99 to $4000 and they all
"sound
different from one another", THAT too is a claim. But when Arny, or I or
someone else tells you that every controlled listening test ever published
where said interconnects were pitted against each other, came to the
unambiguous conclusion that that there was no discernable sonic difference
between any of them, and show you electrical transmission theory that proves
that these different interconnects can have NO audible effect on any
waveform
in the audio passband, that is not a claim but a fact.

... I have a question ... " every controlled listening test ever published "
Since you & Arny "claim" to know or have data about all of them ...

Well, I have certainly read about dozens, participated in more than a few
myself, and I have never SEEN the results of any which said anything other
than that no statistically significant results were forthcoming that would
lead anyone to conclude that there is any difference between the sound of
interconnects, regardless of cost or origin.




... How many humans partipated in the actual listening part of it?
I want a total (live bodies) in all the tests .... a breakdown
of males & females would be helpful ...

Well in the ones in which I have participated, there were generally six to
eight participants, all of them male.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:23:56 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:15:24 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

Sure, interconnects, if they're at least 20 ft long,
they will most assuredly degrade sound.

Simply not true. Constructing a blameless interconnect
that is 20 or even 50 feet long is no a big problem.

So, a 20 ft or a 50 ft long interconnect will NOT
attenuate frequencies above 10 KHz at all?

No audible attentuation by a 20-50 foot cable constructed by typical,
ordinary means, driven by a typical SS line level source.

Do the math. typical shielded cable has 35 pf/Ft. 50 feet is like a
parallel capacitance of 1750 pF. For a 10 Kohm load, the series inductance
is negligable. For a 100 ohm source impedance, the equvialent RC circuit is
3 dB down at over 900 KHz, 1 dB down at about 450 KHz, and less than 0.1 dB
down at 50 KHz.

Speaker cables which
are too long or of insufficient wire size for the length
of the run or the power that they are carrying will
likewise degrade the sound.

But, there is a lot of copper in the world and forming
it into a good long speaker wire is not rocket science.

That's not my point. My point is that while it is
possible to construct scenarios where interconnects or
speaker cables MIGHT alter the waveform being passed
through them in some way, if cable is selected for it's
suitability to the task, these scenarios are unlikely in
the average circumstances.

Then we agree that it is unlikely that even 20-50' cables will have
negligable audiboe effects if used reasonably.




Yes, that's my contention.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Noble" wrote in message


I can tell you for sure that a 6 inch length of it (the
bad cable) made a decent CD player sound horrible, and
changing it to pretty much anything else made it better.

What is known about the technical properties of this wire?

Everyone who has listened to this cable (and I've made
reasonably blind tests, not perfect by any means) hears
it as defficient.

Thing about blind is that it is like being pregnant in the sense that no
test is reasonably blind and valid. It's either completely blind or not
valid.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:08:31 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:58:07 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):
But none of this is transferable to audio.

Actually, the cool thing is, ALL of it is tranferable
to audio. And when you do, you find out that though
exactly the same physics are at work, the vast differences
in frequency render many factors that are of vital
importance in one region of the spectrum largely or
wholely irrelevant in another.
I think that you are confusing the issue. I understand what you are saying,
and yes, on a purely theoretical level, everything that is happening at UHF
and VHF frequencies also happens at audio frequencies, an would affect
those
frequencies IF the impedance factors of the audio cable are magnified
enough
to be deleterious at audio passband frequencies. But they aren't.

Which is very clearly NOT what I said.

Since, for example, shunt capacitive reactance goes as
the reciprocal of the first power of frequency, a capacitance
which might have a significantly LOW impedance at 500 MHz
may well end up with an insignificantly HIGH impedance
at 10 kHz.

I said NOTHING about "magnifying impedance factors of
the audio cables."

I'm sure that you would agree that the average 1 meter interconnect (for
instance) would need to have Xc and Xl factors at 20 or even 50 KHz that
are
many orders of magnitude larger than are probable with ~30 inches of
coaxial
cable.

Now who is confused. Since I never made any assertions about
changing those impedance elements, why bring it up.

The entire point, which you seem to have completely missed,
is that the factors that ARE significant at 500 MHz, AREN'T
significant at 10 kHz.

We are not communicating. That is precisely what I'm saying as well.

However, unlike you, I never said they went away or, in your
words, that "none of this is transferable to audio." It's
hardly theoretical at all: in fact, the same rules that make
the issues siugnificant at 500 MHz make them insignificant
at 10 kHz.

Of course, but for all practical purposes, they can be ignored as a factor in
audio cable, so why mention it?

You're implication, by saying "none of this is applicable to
audio," suggest that the two domains live be different rules.

Not at all, nor did I say that they live by different rules. I meant only
that the effects that Bill noted at UHF/VHF frequencies do not occur at audio
frequencies in any amount significant enough that they either could or would
affect the audio signal passing through them in any way, much less in the
ways that VHF and UHF RF signals are affected by these same parameters. So,
essentially, Bill's EXPERIENCES with Cable TV signals (VSWR, skin effect,
etc.) are what are not transferable to audio cable, not the rules.

In fact, I would venture to say that in order to act as a single pole
low pass or peaking filter in that portion of the audio passband below 10
KHz
(where it is most likely to be heard) would require that the cable
manufacturer add external resistors, capacitors and inductors, meaning that
there is unlikely to be any way that the cable itself could provide enough
reactance to be audible.

As the lawyers say, true but irrelevanmt. Since that was NEVER
my claim nor even my implication, why are you confusing the
issue by going there?

Audio frequencies are so low that
things such as cable capacitance and inductance, which are HUGE at VHF
and
UHF frequencies are so insignificant at audio frequencies that in the
case
of
most domestic interconnect runs ( a meter or so), they are not even a
factor.

And, in this particualr styatement, on both a theoretical
AND a practical difference, you're dead wrong. Your claim:

cable capacitance and inductance, which are HUGE at VHF and
UHF frequencies are so insignificant at audio frequencies

Is, in fact, quite incorrect: the meat of the matter is that
the magnitude of the capacitances and inductances is frequencyu
independent: their reactances, hoever, ARE frequency dependent.

Yes I know. I'm talking about for all practical purposes.

Look we are in complete agreement on this issue. Why the argument?

I shan't say "they are not even a factor," rather their
magnitude can render them insignificant.

Semantics, again. What are we trying to do here,

I don't know what you are trying to do, because you're
in essence making the claim that audio frequencies follow
different rules than RF does. That's the essence of your
statement:

"none of this is applicable to audio"

Sigh! None of the OP's experiences with Cable TV cable are applicable, not
the engineering.

That on both a theoretical and a practical level, is
sinmply wrong. It's the fact that it is ALL just as
applicable to audio frequencies as it is to RF frequencies
is what makes effects that are significant at RF insignificant
at audio frequencies. Not absent, not different, but insignificant.


Yes, I know. We are in complete agreement here.

explain why cables aren't sonically significant to a
general audience, or show-off how much we
know?

Or, maybe, spread flasehoods aresulting from how much
one DOESN'T know?

Consider my little reflection gedanken in another part of
this thread: a signal reflecting back and forth over 100
times MIGHT be fatal to a high-frequency signal in the
hundreds of megahertz, but at audio frequency range, it's
gone within 50 billionths of a second. Even if we look at
the "phase shift" of the final echo at -100dB, at 1 kHz,
it corresponds to a phase shift of less than 2 millidegrees.
Again, moving your head the distance corresponding to the
thickness of a single sheet of paper will generate phase
shifts many times greater than that.

Yes, of course, but again, I have to wonder how helpful that is to those
posting here and asking these questions about interconnect and speaker
cable
"sound".

How helpful is it to declare that "none" of the fundamental
physics of signal propogation at RF "is applicable to audio?"

It wouldn't be helpful at all. But since I wasn't asserting that and
certainly never said that (as your quotes intimate), it's totally irrelevant.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:27:58 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Bill Noble" wrote in message


I can tell you for sure that a 6 inch length of it (the
bad cable) made a decent CD player sound horrible, and
changing it to pretty much anything else made it better.

What is known about the technical properties of this wire?

Everyone who has listened to this cable (and I've made
reasonably blind tests, not perfect by any means) hears
it as defficient.

Thing about blind is that it is like being pregnant in the sense that no
test is reasonably blind and valid. It's either completely blind or not
valid.



The only thing that I can figure is that this cable has a bad connection.
Either a cold solder joint or one (or both) of the RCAs (I'm assuming that
this notorious cable has RCAs rather than XLRs or BNCs or something even more
exotic) are corroded or extremely dirty.

[Steven Sullivan]

Bill Noble wrote:
at the risk of sounding crude, bovine fecal matter - my bias when I started
was that cables did not make much if any difference. I was in fact
astounded that there was an audible difference.

Again, bias can be unconscious.


No, I'm not going to do a
double blind test, I am not interested in proving the point,

Then stop trying. The fact is , you can't draw a reliable
conclusion one way or the other from such an 'experiment' as yours.


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Bill Noble wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:34:44 -0800, Bill Noble wrote
(in article ):

you see, those who wish to believe there are no differences are just as
religious in damming those who have made reasonable experiments to prove
otherwise.


two points, then I will stand down on this discussion - it comes around from
time to time and it will never end.

1. when doing the testing of these cables in my living room, I had swapped
from one cable to another (these were all 3 meter cables, XLR connectors,
from preamp to power amp), and was listening again - I had been using one
set for most of the day. my daughter (about 15 at the time) had been
outside, walked into the room, stopped, and said "you changed the cables
again, I liked the other ones" - now she did NOT see me change the cables.
Yes, this is not a fully controlled test, but it might just hint at the
reality of this.

Usually in these stories, it's the wife, not the daughter.


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Feb 22, 8:35=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

OK. mea culpa. It wasn't clear to me. For instance: "Well I have no objec=
tion
to anyone making such a claim". What claim?

I don't have any objection to anyone claiming that they can hear a
difference in sound between different cables, which if I recall
rightly you said you did have a problem with.

I only begin to have a problem with them when, after making such a
claim in an open forum they then object to people explaining why they
almost certainly don't hear those differences.

I also don't object if people claim they know a leprechaun personally,
although that would of course be off topic here. But if they object
to my expressing my belief, in response, that I don't believe
leprechauns exist, then I have a problem with them because they aren't
being fair.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:27:58 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Bill Noble" wrote in message


I can tell you for sure that a 6 inch length of it (the
bad cable) made a decent CD player sound horrible, and
changing it to pretty much anything else made it better.

What is known about the technical properties of this
wire?

no answer from the OP

Everyone who has listened to this cable (and I've made
reasonably blind tests, not perfect by any means) hears
it as defficient.

Thing about blind is that it is like being pregnant in
the sense that no test is reasonably blind and valid.
It's either completely blind or not valid.

The only thing that I can figure is that this cable has a
bad connection. Either a cold solder joint or one (or
both) of the RCAs (I'm assuming that this notorious cable
has RCAs rather than XLRs or BNCs or something even more
exotic) are corroded or extremely dirty.

Seems like a cable would have to be either broken or demon-posessed ;-)
to behave as has been said.

If someone is trying to formulate high end cable wisdom from a broken cable,
let us let them play alone!

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:07:36 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 22, 8:35=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

OK. mea culpa. It wasn't clear to me. For instance: "Well I have no objec=
tion
to anyone making such a claim". What claim?

I don't have any objection to anyone claiming that they can hear a
difference in sound between different cables, which if I recall
rightly you said you did have a problem with.

I have a problem with it only from an academic perspective. IOW, I don't care
if someone claims that they see ghosts or even if they claim to have
discussions with God, but I do have a problem with snake-oil salesmen who
sell these deluded individuals special glasses that claim to allow them to
see the ghosts "better" or walkie-talkies with which to better converse with
The Almighty.

I only begin to have a problem with them when, after making such a
claim in an open forum they then object to people explaining why they
almost certainly don't hear those differences.

Of course. If someone wants to purchase expensive cables, and if these cables
make them happier with their systems, more power to them. But from a logical
standpoint, it is virtually impossible for non-defective cables to have any
sonic effect on the audio signal passing through them unless they contain
other components than just wire and connectors. Then of course, they are no
longer cables but are filters.

I also don't object if people claim they know a leprechaun personally,
although that would of course be off topic here. But if they object
to my expressing my belief, in response, that I don't believe
leprechauns exist, then I have a problem with them because they aren't
being fair.

The commonality here being that while we cannot PROVE that leprechauns don't
exist (nor ghosts, nor conversations with God) because you cannot prove a
negative, we can prove that the likelihood of their existence is extremely
small. In a similar manner, although we cannot prove that these people do not
hear differences in cable, we can likewise prove that the probability that
they can hear these differences is vanishingly low, by simply applying the
scientific method (a combination of electrical theory, mathematics, and
scientifically designed tests).

[Andrew Barss]

Bill Noble wrote:
: you see, those who wish to believe there are no differences are just as
: religious in damming those who have made reasonable experiments to prove
: otherwise.

But did you read the post which showed that this test was irrelevant to
the issue at hand?

: There is nothing anyone could do, there is no possible test
: involving human subjects that will ever be found suitable to the
: non-believers.

Huh? I don;t believe there is any difference between cables (of the sort
under discussion), but a properly done experiment would change my mind.
And I'm sure I'm not alone in that. It would need to be a very well done
experiment, of course.

-- Andy Barss

[Walt]

Andrew Barss wrote:

: There is nothing anyone could do, there is no possible test
: involving human subjects that will ever be found suitable to the
: non-believers.

Huh? I don;t believe there is any difference between cables (of the sort
under discussion), but a properly done experiment would change my mind.
And I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

Well, it would take more than one experiment at this point, but I think
you're correct that just about everyone on the "our" side would change
their mind if a series or properly done experiments were to contradict
the assertion that cables do not make an audible difference.

That's the main difference between science and non-science - the claim
is falsifiable. The claim that "There is no audible difference between
cable A and cable B" is testable, and *could* be shown to be false. The
fact that many tests have been performed and none have contradicted the
null hypothesis allows us to say that there is no experimental evidence
that cables make an audible difference.

Of course, this could change with more research, but for now the onus is
on those who claim that cables make a difference to back up their
assertion with some evidence; thus far, there is none.

//Walt

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:49:20 -0800, Walt wrote
(in article ):

Andrew Barss wrote:

There is nothing anyone could do, there is no possible test
involving human subjects that will ever be found suitable to the
non-believers.

Huh? I don;t believe there is any difference between cables (of the sort
under discussion), but a properly done experiment would change my mind.
And I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

Well, it would take more than one experiment at this point, but I think
you're correct that just about everyone on the "our" side would change
their mind if a series or properly done experiments were to contradict
the assertion that cables do not make an audible difference.

Absolutely. If you could use the scientific method to prove to me that, for
instance, there is a such thing as "cable sound", it would certainly have me
believing that more research into conductor theory was needed because that
would mean that we don't know everything that needs to be known about the
effects of wire upon a signal passing through it. Since I'm surely not the
only person who feels this way, and since there is no evidence that
government or university-level research into wire properties is being
conducted, I have to assume that any empirical evidence that would lead
researchers to rethink the known properties of wire, simply does not exist.

That's the main difference between science and non-science - the claim
is falsifiable. The claim that "There is no audible difference between
cable A and cable B" is testable, and *could* be shown to be false. The
fact that many tests have been performed and none have contradicted the
null hypothesis allows us to say that there is no experimental evidence
that cables make an audible difference.

If there were, as I alluded to above, there would be ongoing research into
the properties of electrical conductors and connectors by those people most
likely to find the answers: Government labs (such as Sandia,
Lawrence-Livermore, etc.) and universities (MIT, Stanford, etc.). Any
breakthroughs would have been reported in scientific journals and would be
generally available information. The fact is, one can read paper after paper
about conductor theory from the IEEE, the AES, or other sources where such
breakthroughs are apt to alter the way procedures and business are conducted,
and none are forthcoming. AKAIK, basic conductor theory and practice hasn't
changed significantly for more than half a century.

Of course, this could change with more research, but for now the onus is
on those who claim that cables make a difference to back up their
assertion with some evidence; thus far, there is none.

My point is that those who do serious research would have to be convinced
that there is a POINT to additional research. They would have to be satisfied
that such research is warranted. IOW, if it could be proved that audio cables
sound different from one another at such low frequencies as characterize an
audio signal, then what are the implications for conductors at those much
higher frequencies upon which our national security and data infrastructures
rely? The very fact that no problem with properly designed and purposed
conductors has ever been shown in any scientific way is the biggest clue to
this question. If audio is somehow changed by passage through a short length
of coax, would this phenomenon also affect the integrity of other forms of
communication as well? Doesn't the fact that on an electrical basis,
conductors ALWAYS perform as predicted by theory and the mathematics behind
it? Wouldn't someone in other fields than audio have noticed by now that our
knowledge of the behavior of conductors is somehow incomplete? Doesn't the
fact that no government or industrial entity anywhere in the world (other
than audio cable manufacturers, of course, and they don't count) has noticed
raise a whole slew of red flags about this subject?

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:49:20 -0800, Walt wrote
(in article ):

Andrew Barss wrote:

There is nothing anyone could do, there is no possible
test involving human subjects that will ever be found
suitable to the non-believers.

Huh? I don;t believe there is any difference between
cables (of the sort under discussion), but a properly
done experiment would change my mind. And I'm sure I'm
not alone in that.

Agreed. One experiment would convince me that it was worthwhile to
personally do another experiment to prove that the first wasn't a fluke or a
fraud. This is only because we've seen so much hype and confusion in the
past.

Well, it would take more than one experiment at this
point, but I think you're correct that just about
everyone on the "our" side would change their mind if a
series or properly done experiments were to contradict
the assertion that cables do not make an audible
difference.

There seems to be zero liklihood of anybody from the "pro cable sound" to
actually do a decent experiement. They still think they can haggle, when in
fact they've been bankrupt all these years.

Absolutely. If you could use the scientific method to
prove to me that, for instance, there is a such thing as
"cable sound", it would certainly have me believing that
more research into conductor theory was needed because
that would mean that we don't know everything that needs
to be known about the effects of wire upon a signal
passing through it.

Right. We could compare the wild assertions of the "pro cable sound" group
to be like swampland in Florida, except the swamp they are selling is in a
continent that hasn't been discovered yet.

Since I'm surely not the only person
who feels this way, and since there is no evidence that
government or university-level research into wire
properties is being conducted, I have to assume that any
empirical evidence that would lead researchers to rethink
the known properties of wire, simply does not exist.

In fact cables operating at audio frequencies are very well understood.

Furthermore, if audio's high end were *so* interested in component
interfacing, why haven't they gone for wall-to-wall balanced I/O with say,
XLR connectors? Balanced I/O at least has reliably observable technical
advantage and a connector system that is the gold standard for professional
audio, not to mention a brilliant track record of success. I daresay that
*every* recording of significance from the last 30 years has passed through
at least one run of balanced cable with XLR connectors on it.

[Robert Peirce]

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

If there were, as I alluded to above, there would be ongoing research into
the properties of electrical conductors and connectors by those people most
likely to find the answers: Government labs (such as Sandia,
Lawrence-Livermore, etc.) and universities (MIT, Stanford, etc.).

Those people have to get funding. Since it is generally assumed there
is nothing knew to be learned, additional funding is not likely to be
forthcoming. If it were available there is the additional worry that
following that path might be a career ender.

This sort of thing happens in many areas of scientific research. It is
unfortunate, but it sometimes takes a very long time for a new idea to
catch on.

My point is that those who do serious research would have to be convinced
that there is a POINT to additional research. They would have to be satisfied
that such research is warranted.

In this case, the science is settled and there is general consensus that
nothing new is to be learned.

Doesn't the
fact that no government or industrial entity anywhere in the world (other
than audio cable manufacturers, of course, and they don't count) has noticed
raise a whole slew of red flags about this subject?

No. Often it is the mavericks, such as those who do not count, who
notice something not quite right and try to figure out why that is.

That being said, I personally agree that the science actually is
settled, but that doesn't mean the lack of research proves it.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:47:34 -0800, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

If there were, as I alluded to above, there would be ongoing research into
the properties of electrical conductors and connectors by those people most
likely to find the answers: Government labs (such as Sandia,
Lawrence-Livermore, etc.) and universities (MIT, Stanford, etc.).

Those people have to get funding. Since it is generally assumed there
is nothing knew to be learned, additional funding is not likely to be
forthcoming. If it were available there is the additional worry that
following that path might be a career ender.

This sort of thing happens in many areas of scientific research. It is
unfortunate, but it sometimes takes a very long time for a new idea to
catch on.

My point is that those who do serious research would have to be convinced
that there is a POINT to additional research. They would have to be
satisfied
that such research is warranted.

In this case, the science is settled and there is general consensus that
nothing new is to be learned.

Doesn't the
fact that no government or industrial entity anywhere in the world (other
than audio cable manufacturers, of course, and they don't count) has
noticed
raise a whole slew of red flags about this subject?

No. Often it is the mavericks, such as those who do not count, who
notice something not quite right and try to figure out why that is.

That being said, I personally agree that the science actually is
settled, but that doesn't mean the lack of research proves it.


One can't prove a negative, but OTOH, it is a good indicator that there is no
compelling reason to extend cable research any further than it has already
gone. For instance, no one seems to have noticed that one brand of cable TV
coax gives a better picture than another over the same long run. Nobody in
telecommunications has noted any superiority of one CAT 5 cable brand over
another, or one type of powerline cable over another, so it seems that the
anomalies between cable brands noticed by audiophiles has no corollary in
other fields which use wire.

BTW, that brings me to another point. Expensive line cords. Have you seen
some of these IEC lines cords being sold for hundreds of dollars? They're as
big as a baby's arm! I don't get this one at all. These manufacturers are
trying to say that after traveling, perhaps, hundreds of miles and passing
through dozens of transformers along the way, not to mention the several
hundred feel of Romex in you home, that your mains supply is going to be
somehow miraculously improved by traversing the final 2 meters of it's long
journey (to the component using it) through a $900 power cord? Gimme a break!
Are people THAT gullible?

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:47:25 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:49:20 -0800, Walt wrote
(in article ):

Andrew Barss wrote:

There is nothing anyone could do, there is no possible
test involving human subjects that will ever be found
suitable to the non-believers.

Huh? I don;t believe there is any difference between
cables (of the sort under discussion), but a properly
done experiment would change my mind. And I'm sure I'm
not alone in that.

Agreed. One experiment would convince me that it was worthwhile to
personally do another experiment to prove that the first wasn't a fluke or a
fraud. This is only because we've seen so much hype and confusion in the
past.

Well, it would take more than one experiment at this
point, but I think you're correct that just about
everyone on the "our" side would change their mind if a
series or properly done experiments were to contradict
the assertion that cables do not make an audible
difference.

There seems to be zero liklihood of anybody from the "pro cable sound" to
actually do a decent experiement. They still think they can haggle, when in
fact they've been bankrupt all these years.

Absolutely. If you could use the scientific method to
prove to me that, for instance, there is a such thing as
"cable sound", it would certainly have me believing that
more research into conductor theory was needed because
that would mean that we don't know everything that needs
to be known about the effects of wire upon a signal
passing through it.

Right. We could compare the wild assertions of the "pro cable sound" group
to be like swampland in Florida, except the swamp they are selling is in a
continent that hasn't been discovered yet.

Since I'm surely not the only person
who feels this way, and since there is no evidence that
government or university-level research into wire
properties is being conducted, I have to assume that any
empirical evidence that would lead researchers to rethink
the known properties of wire, simply does not exist.

In fact cables operating at audio frequencies are very well understood.

That's my point. Audio is EASY! If a couple of feet of coax can change the
integrity of a signal of so low a passband frequency, what are the
implications for the integrity of far more important signals at much higher
frequencies?

Furthermore, if audio's high end were *so* interested in component
interfacing, why haven't they gone for wall-to-wall balanced I/O with say,
XLR connectors? Balanced I/O at least has reliably observable technical
advantage and a connector system that is the gold standard for professional
audio, not to mention a brilliant track record of success. I daresay that
*every* recording of significance from the last 30 years has passed through
at least one run of balanced cable with XLR connectors on it.

True, but I've heard "professionals" say that there are differences in the
sound of balanced cables too. One well-known recording engineer insists on
custom balanced cables from Kimber for his microphone runs because this brand
"sounds better" to him. I don't say anything, but privately, my response is
"balderdash and poppycock!"

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:47:25 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

In fact cables operating at audio frequencies are very
well understood.

That's my point. Audio is EASY! If a couple of feet of
coax can change the integrity of a signal of so low a
passband frequency, what are the implications for the
integrity of far more important signals at much higher
frequencies?

Good point. If audio was problematical for cables, then AM radio would be
impossible, and everything running higher than that would be science
fiction. It would be like 1925.

Furthermore, if audio's high end were *so* interested in
component interfacing, why haven't they gone for
wall-to-wall balanced I/O with say, XLR connectors?
Balanced I/O at least has reliably observable technical
advantage and a connector system that is the gold
standard for professional audio, not to mention a
brilliant track record of success. I daresay that
*every* recording of significance from the last 30
years has passed through at least one run of balanced
cable with XLR connectors on it.

True, but I've heard "professionals" say that there are
differences in the sound of balanced cables too.

There are always a few people who don't get it.

One
well-known recording engineer insists on custom balanced
cables from Kimber for his microphone runs because this
brand "sounds better" to him.

Is Kimber giving him the cables?

I don't say anything, but privately, my response is "balderdash and
poppycock!"

I smell a shill.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:16:41 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:47:25 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

In fact cables operating at audio frequencies are very
well understood.

That's my point. Audio is EASY! If a couple of feet of
coax can change the integrity of a signal of so low a
passband frequency, what are the implications for the
integrity of far more important signals at much higher
frequencies?

Good point. If audio was problematical for cables, then AM radio would be
impossible, and everything running higher than that would be science
fiction. It would be like 1925.

Furthermore, if audio's high end were *so* interested in
component interfacing, why haven't they gone for
wall-to-wall balanced I/O with say, XLR connectors?
Balanced I/O at least has reliably observable technical
advantage and a connector system that is the gold
standard for professional audio, not to mention a
brilliant track record of success. I daresay that
*every* recording of significance from the last 30
years has passed through at least one run of balanced
cable with XLR connectors on it.

True, but I've heard "professionals" say that there are
differences in the sound of balanced cables too.

There are always a few people who don't get it.

One
well-known recording engineer insists on custom balanced
cables from Kimber for his microphone runs because this
brand "sounds better" to him.

Is Kimber giving him the cables?

Now THAT I simply have no way of knowing.

I don't say anything, but privately, my response is "balderdash and
poppycock!"

I smell a shill.

If this guy was quoted as saying that in print (perhaps in Kimber's
literature of on their website- but I don't see any such testimonials), I'd
say that he was absolutely a shill.

But why mention it to me in a private phone conversation? He went out of his
way to say to me that one of the reasons why his recordings sound as good as
they do is because he uses Kimber cable for all of his analog interconnects;
microphones, recording desk to D/A, and all monitoring tasks. I asked if he
really believed that cables made THAT much of a difference, and he said yes.
I then asked if he'd done an ABX test with other balanced cables to ascertain
this "fact" and he answered that he had compared Kimber's product with others
and found it superior sounding. He did not say that he had done a proper DBT.
Debating the guy on cables was not the purpose of my phone interview with
him, so I didn't belabor the point.

[David[_17_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
I have been privy to several such double-blind tests.

Which begs the question 'Why?'

Why would any right minded person waste their time not only once but several
times to prove a point that they already knew to be fact?

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:02:32 -0700, David wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
I have been privy to several such double-blind tests.

Which begs the question 'Why?'

Why would any right minded person waste their time not only once but several
times to prove a point that they already knew to be fact?



Because, they were held at audio club meetings or Hi-Fi shows at which I was
expected to be an active participant. Not my idea, to be sure, but then I
wasn't adverse to the proposition either. I'm usually open-minded enough to
be "up" for being proven wrong. So far, I haven't been - proven wrong about
cables and interconnects, that is.

[willbill[_3_]]

16 Feb 2010 00:40:19 GMT, Audio Empire wrote:

I have to say that I know Noel Lee (Monster Cable) George Cardas, and Ray Kimber.
I feel strongly that they honestly BELIEVE that cable makes a difference.

Agreed.

BTW, when it comes to interconnects, I happen to agree with them.

But the difference(s) are at best small and subtle.

I don't think that all of these cable manufacturers are knowingly
trying to bilk the public.

Agreed.

That doesn't mean, of course, that their products aren't bogus, it just means
that these men are sincere in their efforts to make the best products possible.

Agreed.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:04:32 -0800, Walt wrote

When an audio salesman tells you that you should spend as much money on
interconnects as components, *run* do not walk away.

Oh, I agree. Better yet, ask him to let you borrow a bunch of different
interconnects or speaker cables and try them in your home system and see what
he says. A few will let you - provided you are able to leave a credit-card
deposit, but most won't.

Rather than mess around with the whole trial thing, if the price
is reasonabl, why not just make a small purchase and actually
try some specific cable?

The main difference, when it comes to "standard" (low volt, unbalanced) RCA
interconnect cables, is the connector itself. Get some with Canare RCAP
connectors and you'll understand.

You can special order (non-returnable), or order ones that are returnable.
I personally think that the cables in BJC's (see ref below) "Digital Audio" section
are especially good for both coax digital RCA, as well as coax analog RCA.

Try some with Belden 1694A; the price is especially reasonable. And the 1694A
uses Belden's "Duofoil" which I think is pleated (their "Duobond" is pleated, but
bonded to the insulation that separates the center from the outer shield) which
should be slightly more bendable than Canare's RG-6 (non pleated foil). Lots of
outer colors (black, red, white, green, blue, yellow, purple...) to choose from.

They also cover up the useful end of the Canare connector with this dumb
plastic thing. Which makes it difficult (to grip) for tight 5.1 RCA connections,
but this can be cut off without any problem, just be sure to get useful colors
for the outer wire and getting rid of the dumb plastic thing will help improve
both access and grip.

See: http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/...udio/index.htm

Try a small initial order. A stereo pair should be under $40 (9' or less)
which is pretty decent for 4 high end Canare RCA connectors;
let your ears be your guide.

And by the way, I have no connection whatsoever with BJC,
nor with monoprice.

I think that their standard cables (returnable) can be cut to either
the nearest foot or the nearest half foot. Call them up on the
..5 foot thing in order to be sure that they really are returnableable.

And FWIW, when it comes to speaker cable I have no real comment,
other than that www.monoprice.com has spools (50' and longer) of zip
in 12 gage at reasonable price (as well as 14 and 16 gage), that seem
to be good value.

Bill

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:02:02 -0700, willbill wrote
(in article ):

16 Feb 2010 00:40:19 GMT, Audio Empire wrote:

I have to say that I know Noel Lee (Monster Cable) George Cardas, and Ray
Kimber.
I feel strongly that they honestly BELIEVE that cable makes a difference.

Agreed.

BTW, when it comes to interconnects, I happen to agree with them.

People are free to believe what they like, but I must tell you that the deck
is stacked strongly against you being correct in your belief. As has been
stated here many times, the collected body of scientific knowledge WRT
electrical conductors coupled with the untold numbers of double-blind
listening tests (double-blind tests are THE "gold standard" when it comes to
eliminating biases based on looks, cost, foreknowledge of what one is
listening to, and other so-called "sighted" biases) that have been conducted
over the last 25-30 years are consistent in their conclusions. The results of
these tests, held all over the audio world, on all kinds of interconnects,
have concluded definitively and absolutely that even the most hard-nosed and
fervent belief in the "sound" of interconnects evaporates into thin-air when
the believer is faced with the realization that he/she is unable, under any
circumstances, to recognize the slightest sonic difference between any two
pairs of audio interconnects, regardless of materials, build quality, or
price when he/she doesn't know which interconnect they are listening to at
any given time. This has been found to be the case whether the interconnects
in question are directly a/b'd or compared long-term.

However, there are exceptions. It is possible to make interconnects that have
a sonic signature. Unfortunately, when this is done (rarely) the cable maker
is "cheating". What the manufacturer has done is to add external components
to his wire to form "filters" to alter it's frequency response. One can
either build cables which attenuate certain portions of the audio spectrum or
filters which "peak" (make louder) certain portions of the audio spectrum.
But these are no longer strictly "interconnects" they are random tone
controls. Random because not being active filters, their effect on the signal
passing through them will vary from component to component depending upon the
source and destination impedances of the components being connected together.




But the difference(s) are at best small and subtle.

Very true, So small and so subtle that they have zero audible effect in the
audio passband.

I don't think that all of these cable manufacturers are knowingly
trying to bilk the public.

Agreed.

That doesn't mean, of course, that their products aren't bogus, it just
means
that these men are sincere in their efforts to make the best products
possible.

Agreed.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:04:32 -0800, Walt wrote

When an audio salesman tells you that you should spend as much money on
interconnects as components, *run* do not walk away.

Oh, I agree. Better yet, ask him to let you borrow a bunch of different
interconnects or speaker cables and try them in your home system and see
what
he says. A few will let you - provided you are able to leave a credit-card
deposit, but most won't.

Rather than mess around with the whole trial thing, if the price
is reasonabl, why not just make a small purchase and actually
try some specific cable?

Two reasons: 1) They're all the same and 2) even if they weren't all the
same, how would you know which was telling the truth? If there is a
difference in interconnect sound, it would be because the cables are changing
something in the signal, I.E. at least some of them are NOT transmitting the
signal that they are supposed to be conducting in a way that does not alter
it in some way. I mean, I think we can all agree that the ideal cable simply
conducts the signal from one component to the other without altering it in
any way. If one hears a difference between two cables, that would mean that
at least ONE of them is altering that signal in some way, and that would,
ostensibly, be undesirable, would it not? Here's the rub: How would the
listener know which is (the more) correct? You cannot measure any
differences. There are no changes in specifications that you can look at and
say "Ah-ha! this one is altering the signal passing through it and this one
isn't.

Luckily, You don't have to. All differences between interconnects (and
speaker cables) which are merely designed as conductors and not filters
(which is to say, most of them), are, thankfully, imaginary. They are the
result of expectation bias and sighted bias (this interconnect pair is $500
and that one is $50. The $500 pair must sound better than the $50 pair
because it costs ten-times as much - and so it will).


The main difference, when it comes to "standard" (low volt, unbalanced) RCA
interconnect cables, is the connector itself. Get some with Canare RCAP
connectors and you'll understand.

Not hardly. While it is possible for connectors to get corroded and to
degrade the connection (sometimes to the point of actually forming a diode
causing distortion to be generated - but this is very rare), it is really the
only connector-related issue in audio. Most RCA connections are fairly
gas-tight and remain clean. In this case, the differences in build quality
are really the only variable and this is only because better made male and
female RCAs tend to be more reliable in the long run and maintain tighter and
thus cleaner connections. One way to minimize all potential connector
problems is to clean all connecting surfaces with something like DeoxIT and
coat them with Stabilant (used to be marketed to the audiophile community
under the name "Tweek". Now, you have to get it from industrial sources)
before mating. Many audiophiles feel that this ritual should be done as
preventive maintenance periodically on one's entire system, and this is fine
if it makes one feel better, but I feel that, on engineering principles, its
unnecessary. As long as the connections are treated when they are made, and
left undisturbed, the bond between male and female connectors should remain
gas-tight and thus will not deteriorate. Of course, whenever one breaks a
connection, it should be needless to mention that one should clean and treat
the surfaces before re-mating them. There is even a MIL-Spec that covers this
for military and aerospace connectors, so it is not just more audio
mythology. It may not make an audible difference in the short run, but it
is, nonetheless, good practice.

You can special order (non-returnable), or order ones that are returnable.
I personally think that the cables in BJC's (see ref below) "Digital Audio"
section
are especially good for both coax digital RCA, as well as coax analog RCA.

Try some with Belden 1694A; the price is especially reasonable. And the
1694A
uses Belden's "Duofoil" which I think is pleated (their "Duobond" is pleated,

but
bonded to the insulation that separates the center from the outer shield)
which
should be slightly more bendable than Canare's RG-6 (non pleated foil). Lots

of
outer colors (black, red, white, green, blue, yellow, purple...) to choose
from.

Yes, but any decently constructed audio cables are just as good as any
others. The Internet is filled with companies selling well made and
inexpensive audio interconnects. CablesForLess.com, for instance, has some
very nice, well constructed cables for about $25 for both 3 and 5 ft pairs.
No need to spend any more. There are of course, other sites that are just as
good, all selling well made cables ranging from $10 to $30 a pair and all
more than adequate. Of course, if you WANT to spend hundreds or even
thousands of dollars for a pair of interconnect cables, have at it. Just as
long as you understand the difference between "bling" and function, then
you're not being ripped-off. 8^)

They also cover up the useful end of the Canare connector with this dumb
plastic thing. Which makes it difficult (to grip) for tight 5.1 RCA
connections,
but this can be cut off without any problem, just be sure to get useful
colors
for the outer wire and getting rid of the dumb plastic thing will help
improve
both access and grip.

See: http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/...udio/index.htm

I know these people, their products are, price-wise, at the high-end of
"reasonable" and are of similar quality to many other interconnect sets
available from a myriad of sources on the internet. IOW, they're fine and you
can spend you money in many much more foolish ways.

[willbill[_3_]]

20 Mar 2010 21:54:26 GMT, Audio Empire wrote:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:02:02 -0700, willbill wrote

snip

The main difference, when it comes to "standard" (low volt, unbalanced) RCA
interconnect cables, is the connector itself. Get some with Canare RCAP
connectors and you'll understand.

Not hardly. While it is possible for connectors to get corroded and to
degrade the connection (sometimes to the point of actually forming a diode
causing distortion to be generated - but this is very rare),

That isn't what I meant.

OTOH good contact and good metal are important
features of connectors, so thanks for making that point,

it is really the
only connector-related issue in audio. Most RCA connections are fairly
gas-tight and remain clean. In this case, the differences in build quality
are really the only variable and this is only because better made male and
female RCAs tend to be more reliable in the long run and maintain tighter and
thus cleaner connections. One way to minimize all potential connector
problems is to clean all connecting surfaces with something like DeoxIT and
coat them with Stabilant (used to be marketed to the audiophile community
under the name "Tweek". Now, you have to get it from industrial sources)
before mating. Many audiophiles feel ...

snip

I don't bother with stuff like "Tweek"

Anyhow, what I meant about the Canare RCAP RCA
connectors is that they are spring loaded: so easy to grip
and easy to pull out.

When one uses RCA cables to any extent, as I do,
pulling cables out makes it is torture to switch
equipment around. And a big equipment change
is beyond agony.

And when your RCA connectors feature death grip
on the equipment connections, and the RCA connectors
themselves are hard to get a grip on, it is a grim situation.

If you subscribe to either Stereophile or The Absolue Sound,
take a close look at several of the high end cable ads.
Note that some of them, but not all, actually use RCA
connectors similar to the Canare RCAP. Meaning that
they have a shape that is easy to grip when removal
time arrives. Whether they have a death grip is harder
to judge from a picture.

snip again

See: http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/...udio/index.htm

I know these people, their products are, price-wise, at the high-end of
"reasonable" and are of similar quality to many other interconnect sets
available from a myriad of sources on the internet. IOW, they're fine and you
can spend you money in many much more foolish ways.

The Canare RCAP RCA connectors are expensive, close to $4 each
from a place that sells them separately, like www.markertek.com

So the RCA cables in the above ref are not as expensive
as you think.

Another advantage of bluejeanscable is that they make their
RCA cables to either the nearest foot or half foot.

Bill

[Arny Krueger]

"David" wrote in message

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
I have been privy to several such double-blind tests.

Which begs the question 'Why?'

Why would any right minded person waste their time not
only once but several times to prove a point that they
already knew to be fact?

Becasue right-minded people don't think that one test settles the issue for
all time?

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I have to say that I know Noel Lee (Monster Cable) George
Cardas, and Ray Kimber. I feel strongly that they
honestly BELIEVE that cable makes a difference.

History says the same about any number of quack doctors, many who caused
injury and/or death to their patients.

I don't
think that all of these cable manufacturers are knowingly
trying to bilk the public.

But there's an excellent chance that they are very happy with the sumptious
lifestyle that their commercial activities support. In the case of Noel Lee,
we're talking opulence on a legendary (makes it to Forbes magazine) level.

That doesn't mean, of course,
that their products aren't bogus, it just means that
these men are sincere in their efforts to make the best
products possible.

"Best possible" is a judgment call. Their judgement is has been called into
question by many.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 08:00:14 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I have to say that I know Noel Lee (Monster Cable) George
Cardas, and Ray Kimber. I feel strongly that they
honestly BELIEVE that cable makes a difference.

History says the same about any number of quack doctors, many who caused
injury and/or death to their patients.

Yes Arny, but that's not what I'm getting at. Some other poster opined that
these people are "criminal". I'm merely pointing out that these guys have no
criminal intent, therefore they aren't trying to cheat us. That their "snake
oil" doesn't really DO anything is more or less beside the point.

I don't
think that all of these cable manufacturers are knowingly
trying to bilk the public.

But there's an excellent chance that they are very happy with the sumptious
lifestyle that their commercial activities support. In the case of Noel Lee,
we're talking opulence on a legendary (makes it to Forbes magazine) level.

True enough. But think about it. Is the "Head Monster" really any different
here than say some evangelical TV preacher living in the lap of luxury from
the donations of his followers? We're talking about belief systems here. The
TV evangelist's followers send him money because they truly believe that his
"product" is worthwhile. Noel Lee's customers have put him in the dough
because true believers also believe that his products have worth. In truth,
when you buy Monster products you are getting a quality made product. And
while these products won't make your stereo sound any better, at least one
will have the security of knowing that these products aren't likely to fail
either.

That doesn't mean, of course,
that their products aren't bogus, it just means that
these men are sincere in their efforts to make the best
products possible.

"Best possible" is a judgment call. Their judgement is has been called into
question by many.

I dunno about that. One thing about expensive cables that I don't think
anyone can deny is the fact that they are well made and they do seem to get
better build quality with each passing generation of them (competition is
such that they have to do something to justify the outrageous prices). No,
they are no better, electrically, than cheap or even home-made interconnects
and speaker cables, but as one who remembers well when an audiophile had no
choice but to make his own interconnects, I appreciate (to a certain extent)
the build quality of a decently made commercial cable. Where I differ from
most audiophiles that I know is that I put no worth AT ALL in the notion that
either interconnects or speaker cables have any effect on the sound of my
system, and I think that superior build quality can be had for no more than
about $30 per 1-meter pair and above that, one is paying for bling and merely
gilding the lily.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 06:31:24 -0700, willbill wrote
(in article ):

20 Mar 2010 21:54:26 GMT, Audio Empire wrote:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 07:02:02 -0700, willbill wrote

snip

The main difference, when it comes to "standard" (low volt, unbalanced)
RCA
interconnect cables, is the connector itself. Get some with Canare RCAP
connectors and you'll understand.

Not hardly. While it is possible for connectors to get corroded and to
degrade the connection (sometimes to the point of actually forming a diode
causing distortion to be generated - but this is very rare),

That isn't what I meant.

OTOH good contact and good metal are important
features of connectors, so thanks for making that point,

it is really the
only connector-related issue in audio. Most RCA connections are fairly
gas-tight and remain clean. In this case, the differences in build quality
are really the only variable and this is only because better made male and
female RCAs tend to be more reliable in the long run and maintain tighter
and
thus cleaner connections. One way to minimize all potential connector
problems is to clean all connecting surfaces with something like DeoxIT and
coat them with Stabilant (used to be marketed to the audiophile community
under the name "Tweek". Now, you have to get it from industrial sources)
before mating. Many audiophiles feel ...

snip

I don't bother with stuff like "Tweek"

It's good practice and it works. The Aerospace industry and NASA use it as
does the automotive industry. I've had it cure electrical gremlins in cars
and it insures a perfect connection in audio equipment. I'll guarantee that
it makes more difference than does one audio interconnect brand over another.

snip

[David[_17_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"David" wrote in message
Why would any right minded person waste their time not
only once but several times to prove a point that they
already knew to be fact?

Becasue right-minded people don't think that one test settles the issue
for
all time?


The point wasn't about the one test, it was why did he do the test
originally anyway when science proved it to be pointless.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 08:00:14 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

I have to say that I know Noel Lee (Monster Cable)
George Cardas, and Ray Kimber. I feel strongly that they
honestly BELIEVE that cable makes a difference.

History says the same about any number of quack doctors,
many who caused injury and/or death to their patients.

Yes Arny, but that's not what I'm getting at.

Well, as you say they are your personal friends. I wouldn't expect you do
say anything actually critical about them, particularly in public.

Some other
poster opined that these people are "criminal".

The argument that most if not all of their products are fraudulent has some
merit. It is a matter of public record , that every time their products are
tested to the same high standards as is used for medical treatment, their
claims are not found to be true.

I'm merely pointing out that these guys have no criminal
intent,

That's a claim that requires mind reading or a court case to determine.
Given that we have murderers and drug dealers to deal with first...

therefore they aren't trying to cheat us.

That would be a personal declaration, not a well-supported fact.

their "snake oil" doesn't really DO anything is more or
less beside the point.

That their snake oil doesn't do what it claims is exactly the point.

I don't
think that all of these cable manufacturers are
knowingly trying to bilk the public.

But there's an excellent chance that they are very happy
with the sumptious lifestyle that their commercial
activities support. In the case of Noel Lee, we're
talking opulence on a legendary (makes it to Forbes
magazine) level.

True enough. But think about it. Is the "Head Monster"
really any different here than say some evangelical TV
preacher living in the lap of luxury from the donations
of his followers?

I'm not in favor of that, either. If you want to put Noel Lee in the same
category as Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Baaker, be my guest.

That doesn't mean, of course,
that their products aren't bogus, it just means that
these men are sincere in their efforts to make the best
products possible.

"Best possible" is a judgment call. Their judgement is
has been called into question by many.

I dunno about that. One thing about expensive cables that
I don't think anyone can deny is the fact that they are
well made and they do seem to get better build quality
with each passing generation of them (competition is such
that they have to do something to justify the outrageous
prices).

That would be strongly dependent on how you determine build quality. Let's
face it, the high end cable manufacturers sell legacy products that lack
state of the art features like:

Balanced interconnects.
Robust latching connectors.

Just to mention two. I can buy a 20' mic cable for $5 that outperforms any
RCA cable ever made or that will ever be made based on techical performance
of the resulting interface. The high end audio world has nothing that can be
logically mentioned, technically in the same sentence as a Speakon
connnector.

No, they are no better, electrically, than cheap
or even home-made interconnects and speaker cables, but
as one who remembers well when an audiophile had no
choice but to make his own interconnects, I appreciate
(to a certain extent) the build quality of a decently
made commercial cable.

The pro sound equivalents start out with superior mechanical and/or
electrical designs.

Where I differ from most
audiophiles that I know is that I put no worth AT ALL in
the notion that either interconnects or speaker cables
have any effect on the sound of my system, and I think
that superior build quality can be had for no more than
about $30 per 1-meter pair and above that, one is paying
for bling and merely gilding the lily.

It is audio jewelry, and about as technically outmoded as vacuum tubes and
LPs. But some audiophiles seem to worship them, too!

[bob]

"Audio Empire" wrote in


I have to say that I know Noel Lee (Monster Cable)
George Cardas, and Ray Kimber. I feel strongly that they
honestly BELIEVE that cable makes a difference.

I believe one of them was recently quoted in The Absolute Sound saying
that wires make more difference than any component. Either/or:

1) Lying fraudster

2) Dumb as dirt

Your choice.

bob

[Walt]

bob wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in

I have to say that I know Noel Lee (Monster Cable)
George Cardas, and Ray Kimber. I feel strongly that they
honestly BELIEVE that cable makes a difference.

I believe one of them was recently quoted in The Absolute Sound saying
that wires make more difference than any component. Either/or:

1) Lying fraudster

2) Dumb as dirt

Your choice.

I'll go for 3) you need to parse the statement carefully:

"wires make more difference [to our company's bottom line and the profit
margin of many retailers] than any component"

//Walt

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:13:53 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in


I have to say that I know Noel Lee (Monster Cable)
George Cardas, and Ray Kimber. I feel strongly that they
honestly BELIEVE that cable makes a difference.

I believe one of them was recently quoted in The Absolute Sound saying
that wires make more difference than any component. Either/or:

1) Lying fraudster

2) Dumb as dirt

Your choice.

bob


It was Bill Low of Audioquest. IIRC. He made that comment wrt his new
$4200/meter silver wire interconnects, the idea of which is laughable from
get-go. I've never met Low, and have no "impressions" of his sincerity with
which to venture a guess as to his level of "honesty."

But let's face it, no matter what these guys' motives for being in the cable
business are, all have convinced themselves on some level that they are
selling decent products that make a difference in the sound of audio. If they
didn't have that conviction at some level, I don't think that they could be
in that business (even crooks self-delude themselves into a rationale for
their crimes).


And some, like Ray Kimber have actually made a contribution to the world.
Kimber has invented a marvelous microphone technique called "IsoMike" and
although physically cumbersome, it works and works well, combining the flat
frequency response of omni-directional microphones with the good stereo
qualities of a pair of X-Y cardioids. Ray also puts a lot of the proceeds
from his business into the performing arts department of Weber State
University in Ogden Utah.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:44:52 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 08:00:14 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

I have to say that I know Noel Lee (Monster Cable)
George Cardas, and Ray Kimber. I feel strongly that they
honestly BELIEVE that cable makes a difference.

History says the same about any number of quack doctors,
many who caused injury and/or death to their patients.

Yes Arny, but that's not what I'm getting at.

Well, as you say they are your personal friends. I wouldn't expect you do
say anything actually critical about them, particularly in public.

No, don't get me wrong, I did not say that they were personal friends. I said
that I knew them and I have known them and people in their organizations for
years. I see them at Audio shows, the CES, etc. It's not a personal
relationship.

Some other
poster opined that these people are "criminal".

The argument that most if not all of their products are fraudulent has some
merit.

It has lots of merit. These people are selling cables on the premise that
they will make your stereo sound better. This is wrong. They will not and
they cannot effect the sound of one's audio system. But they firmly believe
that cables do make a difference.


It is a matter of public record , that every time their products are
tested to the same high standards as is used for medical treatment, their
claims are not found to be true.

Absolutely. No difference is heard between cables because no difference
between cables exists.

I'm merely pointing out that these guys have no criminal
intent,

That's a claim that requires mind reading or a court case to determine.
Given that we have murderers and drug dealers to deal with first...

Sure. But my personal opinion, gleaned from talking with these gents, is that
they are sincere.

therefore they aren't trying to cheat us.

That would be a personal declaration, not a well-supported fact.

Just my opinion, you understand. It certainly seems that they they think they
are giving good value for the money. And even though I don't agree, I can't
help but to notice that they do.

their "snake oil" doesn't really DO anything is more or
less beside the point.

That their snake oil doesn't do what it claims is exactly the point.

Only peripherally to the point I was making.

I don't
think that all of these cable manufacturers are
knowingly trying to bilk the public.

But there's an excellent chance that they are very happy
with the sumptious lifestyle that their commercial
activities support. In the case of Noel Lee, we're
talking opulence on a legendary (makes it to Forbes
magazine) level.

True enough. But think about it. Is the "Head Monster"
really any different here than say some evangelical TV
preacher living in the lap of luxury from the donations
of his followers?

I'm not in favor of that, either. If you want to put Noel Lee in the same
category as Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Baaker, be my guest.

Well, I do.

That doesn't mean, of course,
that their products aren't bogus, it just means that
these men are sincere in their efforts to make the best
products possible.

"Best possible" is a judgment call. Their judgement is
has been called into question by many.

I dunno about that. One thing about expensive cables that
I don't think anyone can deny is the fact that they are
well made and they do seem to get better build quality
with each passing generation of them (competition is such
that they have to do something to justify the outrageous
prices).

That would be strongly dependent on how you determine build quality. Let's
face it, the high end cable manufacturers sell legacy products that lack
state of the art features like:

Balanced interconnects.
Robust latching connectors.

Most of them do sell balanced versions of their cables WITH XLRs. It's not
their fault that the home audio industry has long ago settled on the lowly
RCA connector as the standard. I mean, if all they made were cables with
Lenko connectors on them who are they gonna sell em' to, owners of the
original Mark Levinson preamp of 35 years ago?

Just to mention two. I can buy a 20' mic cable for $5 that outperforms any
RCA cable ever made or that will ever be made based on techical performance
of the resulting interface. The high end audio world has nothing that can be
logically mentioned, technically in the same sentence as a Speakon
connnector.

I agree. But again, these cable manufacturers didn't decide to standardize on
RCAs. That was decided decades before the first boutique cable was ever made.


No, they are no better, electrically, than cheap
or even home-made interconnects and speaker cables, but
as one who remembers well when an audiophile had no
choice but to make his own interconnects, I appreciate
(to a certain extent) the build quality of a decently
made commercial cable.

The pro sound equivalents start out with superior mechanical and/or
electrical designs.

Of course they do. I've always thought that XLRs were superior to RCAs (heck,
1/4" TRS balanced phone plugs are superior to RCAs!). But you can't use 'em
with audio components, almost all of which come equipped with RCAs. Even if
you do see the occasional high-end preamp or integrated with XLRs, you have
to use adaptors to connect them with other components which likely DON'T have
XLRs. My Krell KAV-300iL amp, for instance, has a pair of XLRs on one of the
inputs. I use it for my phono input (from my outboard phono preamp). I have
to use a male XLR to a female RCA adapter to do that (which, of course,
unbalances the input). Conversely, I could purchase a cable pair that was
terminated with male XLRs on one end and male RCAs on the other, but I
already had the adaptor plugs, so...

Where I differ from most
audiophiles that I know is that I put no worth AT ALL in
the notion that either interconnects or speaker cables
have any effect on the sound of my system, and I think
that superior build quality can be had for no more than
about $30 per 1-meter pair and above that, one is paying
for bling and merely gilding the lily.

It is audio jewelry, and about as technically outmoded as vacuum tubes and
LPs. But some audiophiles seem to worship them, too!

I hope your not going to try to tell me that there is no difference between
the sound of a CD and the sound of an LP or that there is no difference
between the sound of a tube amp and the sound of a solid-state amp, because
they sound quite different (although good tube amps and good solid state amps
are much closer nowadays than they used to be. They still offer two different
views of what what they amplify).

[bob]

On Mar 22, 3:00=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

It was Bill Low of Audioquest. IIRC. He made that comment wrt his new
$4200/meter silver wire interconnects, the idea of which is laughable fro=
m
get-go. I've never met Low, and have no "impressions" of his sincerity wi=
th
which to venture a guess as to his level of "honesty."

Nope. I'm pretty sure it was Cardas. It was a back-page interview, not
a discussion of a specific product.

But let's face it, no matter what these guys' motives for being in the ca=
ble
business are, all have convinced themselves on some level that they are
selling decent products that make a difference in the sound of audio. If =
they
didn't have that conviction at some level, I don't think that they could =
be
in that business (even crooks self-delude themselves into a rationale for
their crimes).

So your vote is "dumb as dirt." Thank you.

bob

[bhu108]

Originally Posted by Audio Empire

I have to wonder where all of this mythology about interconnects and speaker
cable comes from.

When I first got out of college, many years ago, I went to work as an
engineer at Lockheed Missiles & Space Company's Cable Laboratory where I
spent three years. In the process of specifying all of the cable and
connectors for the Polaris Poseidon Missile, I learned pretty much all there
is to know about both cable and connectors and their application to
everything from low voltage DC to UHF AC and everything in between. It turns
out that both are very well understood and very well characterized areas of
electronics and as theory goes, the principles are quite simple. There are no
"unknowns" about designing specific cables for specific applications, there
is no voodoo, no magic, and there have been no "breakthroughs" in the last 50
years to account for the kinds and prices of cable that are being marketed by
audio snake-oil salesmen. I will also guarantee you that IF any breakthroughs
in this area have occurred, they did not emanate from companies like Nordost,
AudioQuest, Kimber, et al.

The bottom line is that for DC through about 100KHz, wire is easy. Almost
anything that is a decent conductor from aluminum to copper to silver will
work equally well in any practical sense. Above about 10 KHz, length becomes
a problem with coaxial cable and small signals. Any interconnect using
coaxial cable will start attenuating frequencies above 10 Khz at some cable
length. But this length is pretty long. If you have your preamp in the den,
and your high-powered tube power-amps in the garage, 80 ft away, then you
need to choose your interconnects for extra-low shunt capacitance and low
resistance. But, if your components are located on the same shelf next to one
another, or, are on different shelves of the same cabinet, where they are
only a meter or two away, Any audio cable will work equally as well as any
other, and none will have ANY effect whatsoever on the resultant sound.

Several things are for sure, cables, whether interconnects or speaker cables,
which alter the signal passing through them are not doing their job. At best
they are "fixed tone controls" and at worst they are a fraud. As far as plain
cables are concerned (IOW, just plain wire or coaxial cable with the proper
connectors and terminations on each end), no double-blind test has EVER been
able to distinguish a cheap or home made interconnect from an expensive one.
Also, no double-blind listening test has ever been able to tell the
difference between a properly sized (for the power being transferred) length
of zip-cord and any exotic speaker cable either.

My advice is to buy on build quality. Nothing is more frustrating than an RCA
to RCA interconnect that has failed. Cheap, molded ones tend to be
unreliable, well made ones tend to last longer. If your equipment has
gold-plated female RCA connectors on it, by all means buy interconnects that
have gold-plated male RCAs on them. The beauty of gold is not that it's a
great conductor of electricity, it isn't. But what it is, is non-corrosive
making the connection surfaces clean, thus maximizing the surface contact
area. While correctly designed cables make no difference in the sound, dirty
or loose connections can. Keep your connector interfaces clean by using cable
cleaners and contact enhancers such as DeOxit and Stabilant* and keep your
connections tight. Forget the fancy, expensive stuff (unless you have money
to burn and just like the bling factor. I don't think that most expensive
interconnects and speaker cable are any worse than honest, well made and
inexpensive ones, they just aren't any better), buy decently made cables and
enjoy your audio system.

*Stabilant contact enhancer used to be sold by Dayton-Wright as "Tweek".
While Tweek is no longer available, Stabilant 22A (which is what Tweek was)
is available in bulk form from a number of online suppliers. Google is your
friend. Believe me, this stuff is NOT mouse-milk like green-pens for CDs, it
really enhances contact area on two mating surfaces by filling in the
microscopic voids in the metal. Nostrums like this which sport Mil-Spec
numbers, SAE part numbers, and NASA part numbers (as Stabilant does) are
unlikely to be frauds. It works on several levels. Not only does it increase
surface area of mating connectors, but it forms a film between them that
keeps corrosion OUT, insuring a gas-tight connection. It isn't cheap, but a
15 ml bottle will last many years.

I personally have done 4 double blind listening test sessions on interconnects and cables with friends and at the Puget Sound Audio Society (PAS) gatherings so you are speaking for yourself when you say there have been no double blind tests on interconnect and cables
being somewhat of a cheapskate, I was reluctant to "buy"in on spending lots of money on cables and interconnects. So my first tests (1989) where negatively biased and only single blind as I had my friends assist me with
Tara Lab's Space & Time Ommni speaker cable and 2 other less pricey Tara Lab cables that I got on demo from Hawthorne Stereo which is a very nice "been around for ever" audio store in the Seattle area. The guy told me how to correctly connect the Ommni's as they were directional. that got a rise out of me with a response of "your kidding right" ? he said "no" and if you want to have some fun after you done it correctly reverse the cables end for end. Well 2 audio geeks and their somewhat not interested girl friends all could hear the difference with speaker cables in a decent mid fi system consisting of KEF reference 104ab speakers, NAD pre and NAD 150WPC amps (the NAD was the weak points of this system) , Denon tt with ADC LMF arm, Denon 303 MC cart. with Denon head amp and Kyocera 710 CD player, fair quality interconnects, 14 gauge lamp cord type cable and Signet speaker cable. The difference was consistant and significant with each listener. I opted for the more expensive $300 Tara Lab Ommni cables. Yes we did flip the Ommni's end for end and it did sound weird almost like out of phase. I listened to the cables for 3 days before making the plunge (I know $300 for speaker cable is nothing these days in audiophile-dom)
I worked in the high tech industry (Sun Microsystems) and told a couple of the super geeks about my find and the directional thing (this was in 1989) and got laughed at .... I happened to have the demo cables with me to go back to the store.... So I made him a $100 bet that he could hear the difference in good speaker cable and could hear the end for end difference as well and sent him home with the cables.. What do you think happened? He handed me the cable the next day said he didn't have time to listen to them, maybe some other time. Three week later there was a company party at his house his system (little Maggies, nice) was sporting Tara Ommni cables (no I never got my $100) but his wife ratted him out about how he was blown away and kept the her and kids up late testing cable.
At a PAS meeting (this was about 1995) , Audioquest shows up with a bunch speaker cable and several nice JVC getto blasters rigged to handle cable changing. This was amazing! double blind listening test with $200-300 portable JVC stereos (this was about 1995) then on to the club reference system again consistent significant listening tests.
Yeah there is some real good BS in Audiophile-dom but it does really come don to the sound. Science and engineering are great but they too have had their share of ego, BS and colossal mistakes derived from accepted theory. Bumble bees could not theoretically fly till 1969 etc. I work in stereo back 1975-76 just after college, while waiting for a career job opened up. I would read all the great spec's on gear only to hear disappointing harsh sound, a high noise floor, and poor sound stage. From then on I went for the reality of listening first. So if Shunk Mook wood disc's makes your system sound consistently better (no i have never tested or heard these) so be it, we will figure out the whys latter and enjoy the sound. I have recently taken some recording classes... welcome to the world of pro audio! May audiophile and pro-audio worlds never meet but some part are getting closer.

Thanks for the heads up on Stabilant 22A.