Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
JYC
 
Posts: n/a
Default audio coax cable

The coax cable going from my audio-video component to the sub-woofer has
arrows printed on the insulation . Do i really have to connect it with the
arrows pointing to the sub ? Or is it just a marketing gimmick ?

Thanx
JYC

  #2   Report Post  
Bromo
 
Posts: n/a
Default audio coax cable

On 12/27/03 2:07 AM, in article jdaHb.145650$8y1.433106@attbi_s52, "JYC"
wrote:

The coax cable going from my audio-video component to the sub-woofer has
arrows printed on the insulation . Do i really have to connect it with the
arrows pointing to the sub ? Or is it just a marketing gimmick ?


It certainly can't hurt. I have seen this on a lot of cables, and I don't
buy in, though a lot of people do. One thing I think everyone can agree on
is that is won't hurt one bit.
  #3   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default audio coax cable

It all depends, do you have a dog? The arrows tell you which way to
connect to avoid the highs coming back from the sub, it's to complex to
explain here. If you have a dog, the high subs from the sub would bother
it to no end and domestic peace would be interrupted. Before arrows, an
untold number of dogs were driven insane from these signals we don't here.
Bty, the arrows need to be broken in for no less then 72 hours for best
high trapping effect.

The coax cable going from my audio-video component to the sub-woofer has
arrows printed on the insulation . Do i really have to connect it with the
arrows pointing to the sub ? Or is it just a marketing gimmick ?

Thanx
JYC

  #4   Report Post  
Penury
 
Posts: n/a
Default audio coax cable

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 07:07:59 GMT, "JYC" wrote:

The coax cable going from my audio-video component to the sub-woofer has
arrows printed on the insulation . Do i really have to connect it with the
arrows pointing to the sub ? Or is it just a marketing gimmick ?


Hi JYC:
If you're referring to interconnect cable, there might be a reason
for the arrow.
Some cables (including the ones I make for myself), have two
conductors plus a shield, with the shield connected at the input of
the device only. This will sometimes minimize hum as this arrangement
is (semi) balanced.
Therefore, if this is the case with your cable, the arrow would
point to the end with the shield connected to the terminal.

-=Bill Eckle=-

Vanity Web pages at:
http://www.wmeckle.com
  #6   Report Post  
Bruno Putzeys
 
Posts: n/a
Default audio coax cable

If it's really a coax it's a gimmick. However, there is a variety of cable
called "pseudo-balanced" that has the shield unconnected on the receiving
end. In that case the arrows denote that.

"JYC" wrote in message
news:jdaHb.145650$8y1.433106@attbi_s52...
The coax cable going from my audio-video component to the sub-woofer has
arrows printed on the insulation . Do i really have to connect it with the
arrows pointing to the sub ? Or is it just a marketing gimmick ?

Thanx
JYC

  #7   Report Post  
Robin
 
Posts: n/a
Default audio coax cable

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 07:07:59 +0000, JYC wrote:

The coax cable going from my audio-video component to the sub-woofer has
arrows printed on the insulation . Do i really have to connect it with
the arrows pointing to the sub ? Or is it just a marketing gimmick ?

Thanx
JYC




extensive tests were carried out and reported in electronics and Wireless
world a few years ago.

They clearly showed that in the audio spectrum, good mains cable was as
far as you needed to go to ensure quality.

Anyone selling gold or silver cable is really selling 'quality'
impossible to measure. And consider sensitive electronic equipment
measures distortion human ears cannot detect.
  #8   Report Post  
Robin
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

The most distorting element of a hifi is not the amp, not the recording
or the tansfer to digital.

Its the speakers.

What can be done about this.

every thing else ( ultra linear amps, low resistance speaker cables etc)
is like painting go faster stipes on a car...

  #9   Report Post  
Bromo
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

On 1/2/04 1:37 PM, in article 8UiJb.195924$8y1.640799@attbi_s52, "Robin"
wrote:

The most distorting element of a hifi is not the amp, not the recording
or the tansfer to digital.

Its the speakers.


I have to disagree. I think in order of impact, you will have:

1. The source material (the music recordings)
2. The room acoustics
3. The speakers
4. The amp
5. The preamp
6. The source player

And provided that there is nothing wrong or mismatched with the previous
things, that should be the "in general" rough order.

This also means that if you spend a lot of money on speakers, but have
highly clipped/compressed recordings - it is wasted money. And if your room
has a lot of bad resonances that aren't tamed, speaker money is watsed
money. And so on.

  #10   Report Post  
Graeme Nattress
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

Bromo wrote in message news:jsKJb.214635$8y1.771783@attbi_s52...
On 1/2/04 1:37 PM, in article 8UiJb.195924$8y1.640799@attbi_s52, "Robin"
wrote:

The most distorting element of a hifi is not the amp, not the recording
or the tansfer to digital.

Its the speakers.


I have to disagree. I think in order of impact, you will have:

1. The source material (the music recordings)
2. The room acoustics
3. The speakers
4. The amp
5. The preamp
6. The source player

And provided that there is nothing wrong or mismatched with the previous
things, that should be the "in general" rough order.

This also means that if you spend a lot of money on speakers, but have
highly clipped/compressed recordings - it is wasted money. And if your room
has a lot of bad resonances that aren't tamed, speaker money is watsed
money. And so on.


Surely the order of impact would be strictly on the basis of which
components produce the most distortion to the signal, and that would
mean that Speakers would be top of the list. The room may or may not
interact with the speakers in the bad way - that's dependent on too
many factors to list, and it can have both positive and negative
consequences. If the source player is a CD, then it probably goes
right to the bottom of the list with it's practically zero distortion,
along with the amp / preamp electronics etc. Whichever has least
distortion should go bottom. Ok, lets put cables at the bottom because
they make no difference at all. If you're looking at vinyl playback,
I'd put the record player system right up there with the speakers in
top position - I reckon it's hard to generalise which does more damage
to the sound - perhaps someone has figures for this. Again, the amps
would most probably go down around the bottom again in a vinyl system,
with the pre-amp doing a bit more damage this time.

If you expand to look at the recording you've got to decide wether the
goal of your hi-fi is to accurately reproduce the recording, or to
reprodoce the "musical event". If you're reproducing the recording,
then it's quality hardly matters in the precedence order of the rest
of the hi-fi chain. If you're after the musical event, then the most
damage will come with the microphone, followed by the recording /
mixing equipment etc, but I don't think you can include this on a
level scale with the reproducing part of the chain - the amps and
speakers at home.

From recent experience at a music recording session, there is just so
much difference between the live event and even the immediate studio
playback, that it would seem that almost anything you do after that is
just going to minimise the damage to that initial recording, but
almost nothing you do will "put back" that which was lost between the
singer's voice and the microphone.

Graeme



  #13   Report Post  
Nick Georges
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

Ok...I'll bite.

IMO, the #1 component is defiantly the room.
I've got great speakers...and they sound like crap because of my room.
I will quote from something else I read recently; "a great room can make
a marginal system sound magical, and a bad room can make a great system
sound horrendous".

Not verbatim, but you get the idea..and it is true as I've lived both
ends of this spectrum in the past year.

in my last house, I ran a system I put together for $1200. It was the
cats ass. Completely pleasing and then some.
In my current house, I built a system costing 5x this...and it is
nothing but frustration. Again, the room is putting all of my upgraded
components and speakers to waste.

My other rule of thumb is "crap in, crap out"...so source and material
are high on that list.

I'd go:
1. room
2. speakers
3. source/material
4. amp

and I'd leave it there as a premap is just not even necessary in a
purely digital domain...which is where I live. If you are listening to
LPs and tapes, then i'm sure it has a place on the list.

  #14   Report Post  
Klaus Rampelmann
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

If you read the original message carefully, you will see that the
questioner mentioned "a hifi", which is commonly understood as a
system for reproducing recorded music. As such, a hifi does not
include the sound carrier, although the latter may be heavily
distorted.

The questioner also asked for elements that introduce distortion.
Until now, I was convinced that the listening room introduces timbral
colorations, not distortion, but I may be wrong :-)

For the rest, I would suggest that, unless we are talking of (some)
tube amps or ss amps driven to overload, that the amplification
elements produce distortion well below the threshold of audibility.

For the source components I would agree in that they produce audible
amounts of distortion as long as we are talking about vinyl record
playback gear.

So we appear to be left with the speakers as main producer of
distortion and hence the weakest link. Close, but no banana. The
weakest link in the chain is the listener :

"The listener is the heart of the high-fidelity system, and is noted
for having high distortion, poor frequency response, marginal
stability, and arbitrarily variable performance characteristics.
Listener instability is the most common form of defect in a
high-fidelity system, which is why manufacturers recommend that the
ears be checked periodically by a qualified service agency to ensure
that they meet their specifications. Defective ears may be cleaned
with anti static spray or a mild washday detergent containing a
wetting agent, or may be replaced by a microphone and an oscilloscope
or, in cases where there is little interest in music, by a camera and
a well-equipped dark-room." J.Gordon Holt in Audio Magazine 1959

Klaus

Bromo wrote in message news:jsKJb.214635$8y1.771783@attbi_s52...
On 1/2/04 1:37 PM, in article 8UiJb.195924$8y1.640799@attbi_s52, "Robin"
wrote:

The most distorting element of a hifi is not the amp, not the recording
or the tansfer to digital.

Its the speakers.


I have to disagree. I think in order of impact, you will have:

1. The source material (the music recordings)
2. The room acoustics
3. The speakers
4. The amp
5. The preamp
6. The source player

And provided that there is nothing wrong or mismatched with the previous
things, that should be the "in general" rough order.

This also means that if you spend a lot of money on speakers, but have
highly clipped/compressed recordings - it is wasted money. And if your room
has a lot of bad resonances that aren't tamed, speaker money is watsed
money. And so on.


  #15   Report Post  
Lawrence Leung
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

I agree that the listener could be the "weakest link", even I don't think
listener belong to a "HiFi system"...

I don't know, when you put up a system for yourself, should you have all
components balanced? (I don't mean the balance and single end)

Say you have a $5,000.00 system, you would not want to spend $2,000 on CD-
Player, $1,500 on Preamp, $2,000 on Amp, somewhat one or two hundred
dollars on cables, and spend $300 on speakers? Then, sure the speakers are
the weakest link!

My point is, keep all components at the same level, say 30% of your budget
on speakers, you may not get the best speakers, but hey, what can you
expect? It is just a matter of whether you like the sound of American
speakers (Soliloquy), European speakers (Cabasse), or Asian speakers
(Yamaha)?

Again, I'm a cable guy, I believe in cables make difference.

Yesterday, I listened between two pairs of nice pure copper and
silver/copper hybrid interconnect cables. Man! The difference is so
significant, my six years old daugther can pass the blind test.

Lawrence Leung



  #16   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:13:54 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote:

My point is, keep all components at the same level, say 30% of your budget
on speakers, you may not get the best speakers, but hey, what can you
expect? It is just a matter of whether you like the sound of American
speakers (Soliloquy), European speakers (Cabasse), or Asian speakers
(Yamaha)?


Keeping all the components at the same quality level nowadays means
spending *at least* 50 % of the budget on speakers - and nothing at
all on cables!

Again, I'm a cable guy, I believe in cables make difference.

Yesterday, I listened between two pairs of nice pure copper and
silver/copper hybrid interconnect cables. Man! The difference is so
significant, my six years old daugther can pass the blind test.


Care to try? We hear lots of such comments, but not one single person
has actually been able to do it under blind conditions.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #18   Report Post  
Bruce Abrams
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

"Lawrence Leung" wrote in message
news:m%uKb.140820$VB2.540126@attbi_s51...
I agree that the listener could be the "weakest link", even I don't think
listener belong to a "HiFi system"...

I don't know, when you put up a system for yourself, should you have all
components balanced? (I don't mean the balance and single end)

Say you have a $5,000.00 system, you would not want to spend $2,000 on CD-
Player, $1,500 on Preamp, $2,000 on Amp, somewhat one or two hundred
dollars on cables, and spend $300 on speakers? Then, sure the speakers are
the weakest link!

My point is, keep all components at the same level, say 30% of your budget
on speakers, you may not get the best speakers, but hey, what can you
expect? It is just a matter of whether you like the sound of American
speakers (Soliloquy), European speakers (Cabasse), or Asian speakers
(Yamaha)?


In general, I'd suggest that more than 30% of the total be spent on speakers
if the goal is to build a system that will be static for years to come.
OTOH, if the goal is to get the best source, pre-amp and amplifier you'll
ever need, so that any and all future expenditures are on speakers, then I'd
agree with you. I constructed my own system in exactly this way. My
Plinius 8200 (175 wpc, plenty of current and probably the most amp I'll ever
need) lists for $2,000, the Modulus 3A at $2,495 and the Sony NS900V at
$550. The speakers are Paradigm Studio 100s and represent, IMHO, the best
value speaker available, performing on a par with many 4 and 5 thousand
dollar speakers. The point is that I believe that I've built my system in
such a way as to future proof the electronics so the only link I'm likely to
change will be my speakers.

Again, I'm a cable guy, I believe in cables make difference.


I don't allow more than a couple of bucks for cables.

  #19   Report Post  
Lawrence Leung
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in
:

Keeping all the components at the same quality level nowadays means
spending *at least* 50 % of the budget on speakers - and nothing at
all on cables!

Again, I'm a cable guy, I believe in cables make difference.

Yesterday, I listened between two pairs of nice pure copper and
silver/copper hybrid interconnect cables. Man! The difference is so
significant, my six years old daugther can pass the blind test.


Care to try? We hear lots of such comments, but not one single person
has actually been able to do it under blind conditions.


Care to tell me the procedure of your blind test? As far as I know, that
included a lot of dizzy, head spinning steps so that by the time you can
actually listen to the music, you would not be able to tell the difference,
and this is the purpose of the test, a very very bias test.

Tell me, when you listen to music, any music, what is your procedure? Mine
is, turn on everything, put the CD inside the CD-Player and sit back. Music
from speakers, and enjoy.

So, if we want to test the cable, shouldn't we use the same steps?

I blind-folded you, same song/music, same equipments, same volume level,
play for a few minutes. Change cable, play same segment of song/music, see
if you can tell the difference.

The blind test that I heard was not a listening test, it was a memory test!

Hey, as I said, my six years old daugther can tell the difference the first
time, if you can't, nothing anyone can do.

Lawrence Leung

  #20   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

Lawrence Leung wrote:
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in
:


Keeping all the components at the same quality level nowadays means
spending *at least* 50 % of the budget on speakers - and nothing at
all on cables!

Again, I'm a cable guy, I believe in cables make difference.

Yesterday, I listened between two pairs of nice pure copper and
silver/copper hybrid interconnect cables. Man! The difference is so
significant, my six years old daugther can pass the blind test.


Care to try? We hear lots of such comments, but not one single person
has actually been able to do it under blind conditions.


Care to tell me the procedure of your blind test? As far as I know, that
included a lot of dizzy, head spinning steps so that by the time you can
actually listen to the music, you would not be able to tell the difference,
and this is the purpose of the test, a very very bias test.



Perhpas you shoudl describe the test *you* are thinking of here, because
it certainly doesn't resemble an ABX.

Tell me, when you listen to music, any music, what is your procedure? Mine
is, turn on everything, put the CD inside the CD-Player and sit back. Music
from speakers, and enjoy.


Yes, that works well for listening to music. As described, it's
not at all adequate for verifying audible difference between cables,
though.

So, if we want to test the cable, shouldn't we use the same steps?


Only if you include provisions for perceptual bias.

I blind-folded you, same song/music, same equipments, same volume level,
play for a few minutes. Change cable, play same segment of song/music, see
if you can tell the difference.


The blind test that I heard was not a listening test, it was a memory test!


So is *any* comparison of the 'sound' of two cables, done sighted or otherwise.


Hey, as I said, my six years old daugther can tell the difference the first
time, if you can't, nothing anyone can do.



Actually, young children have better high-requency hearing than adults, so
you shoudl have written , 'even *I* could hear it*.




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director



  #21   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:06:29 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in
:

Keeping all the components at the same quality level nowadays means
spending *at least* 50 % of the budget on speakers - and nothing at
all on cables!

Again, I'm a cable guy, I believe in cables make difference.

Yesterday, I listened between two pairs of nice pure copper and
silver/copper hybrid interconnect cables. Man! The difference is so
significant, my six years old daugther can pass the blind test.


Care to try? We hear lots of such comments, but not one single person
has actually been able to do it under blind conditions.


Care to tell me the procedure of your blind test? As far as I know, that
included a lot of dizzy, head spinning steps so that by the time you can
actually listen to the music, you would not be able to tell the difference,
and this is the purpose of the test, a very very bias test.


The procedure is standard, and has been for several years:

For 95% confidence level, you need to score at least 16 correct out of
20 attempts. Hardly 'dizzy, head spinning steps'.

Tell me, when you listen to music, any music, what is your procedure? Mine
is, turn on everything, put the CD inside the CD-Player and sit back. Music
from speakers, and enjoy.


Fine, that's what we all do.

So, if we want to test the cable, shouldn't we use the same steps?

I blind-folded you, same song/music, same equipments, same volume level,
play for a few minutes. Change cable, play same segment of song/music, see
if you can tell the difference.

The blind test that I heard was not a listening test, it was a memory test!


No, it can be switched as fast as you like, no memory required, and
you always have A or B available as a known reference. What's the
problem, Lawrence?

Hey, as I said, my six years old daugther can tell the difference the first
time, if you can't, nothing anyone can do.


My bet is that she can't, unless she *knows* which cable is connected.
And neither can you. The difference is that I am putting cold hard
cash behind my opinion. The interesting thing is that in 4 years or
so, no one has even *tried* to collect. Ever wonder why?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #22   Report Post  
---MIKE---
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

Lawrence, If a six year old can hear a difference between two cables,
then one of the cables must be defective.


-MIKE
  #25   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end

Lawrence Leung wrote:
As a matter of fact, when we compared between copper and silver/copper, we
not only compared the high frequency, we compared the bass as well. Sure,
the copper interconnect gave much more bass than the hybrid, while the
hybrid gave more detail on mid and high range.



Sure enough, yopu'll hear differences when you expect to.


Theortically, it is supposed to be that way, and now, my daugther and I
confirmed it with a blind test. Nothing fancy, just pop into the CD, use
one interconnect, after about 3 minutes, then stop the music, change
another interconnect, and as simple as this, totally difference sound!


Marketing copy is not theory. Theoretically, they should sound the same.


You don't believe it, try it yourself! Still can't tell the difference?
Consult your doctor to have a hearing test... just kidding...


Try it again under bias-controlled conditions. Don't hear the difference
any more? Consult a perceptual psychologist. You'll learn why. No kidding.


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director



  #26   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:15:29 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote:

As a matter of fact, when we compared between copper and silver/copper, we
not only compared the high frequency, we compared the bass as well. Sure,
the copper interconnect gave much more bass than the hybrid, while the
hybrid gave more detail on mid and high range.


And yet, if you don't *know* which one is connected, you'll find that
they both sound the same................

Theortically, it is supposed to be that way,


Absolute nonsense! No such theory exists.

and now, my daugther and I
confirmed it with a blind test. Nothing fancy, just pop into the CD, use
one interconnect, after about 3 minutes, then stop the music, change
another interconnect, and as simple as this, totally difference sound!


Please explain how this is a blind test.

You don't believe it, try it yourself!


I have done, lots of times.

Still can't tell the difference?
Consult your doctor to have a hearing test... just kidding...


OK, so Tom Nousaine, Arny Kreiger, I and about a dozen experienced
audiophile friends of mine need hearing tests, and not one single
person has evan *attempted* to collect the $4,000 pool which awaits
anyone who can tell cables apart under blind conditions. Doesn't this
strike you as strange?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #28   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:15:29 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote:

As a matter of fact, when we compared between copper and silver/copper,

we
not only compared the high frequency, we compared the bass as well. Sure,
the copper interconnect gave much more bass than the hybrid, while the
hybrid gave more detail on mid and high range.


And yet, if you don't *know* which one is connected, you'll find that
they both sound the same................

Theortically, it is supposed to be that way,


Absolute nonsense! No such theory exists.


But that doesn't keep you from using silver-coated copper cables in your own
system, does it Stewart?

From Stewart's system web site:
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/stewart_p/stewart_p.htm

"Interconnects are home-brewed unshielded twisted pair made from 0.6mm
solid-core Teflon-coated silver-clad OFHC copper (just standard MIL-spec
hookup wire), while connectors are either Neutrik XLR or Deltron
Teflon/alloy RCA jacks. The treble ribbons on the speakers are wired with
the same twisted-pair, the resistance of this skinny wire is used to bypass
an internal switch and resistor which are normally used to set the treble
level. The bass panels are wired with Naim NACA5, no reason other than the
dealer offered it free with my previous Magnepan MG1C speakers."

So here's the primary disparager of anything other than Home Depot wire on
RAHE building his own interconnects of silver-clad copper, and using
expensive NAIM cables for the bass panels of his speakers.

Tell me Stewart, why don't you sell those expensive cables and
interconnects, and simply replace them with Home Depot 12 gauge, and Rat
Shack interconnects. You'd have money in your pocket, perhaps enough to buy
a "universal" hi-rez player. In that case, you would then be "living" your
oft-professed standards, and you'd have a better base on which to disparage
high-rez. Until then, it is indeed difficult to take some of your
protestations seriously.

  #29   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:06:38 GMT, "=?iso-8859-1?q?J=F3n?= Fairbairn"
wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) writes:
OK, so Tom Nousaine, Arny Kreiger, I and about a dozen
experienced audiophile friends of mine need hearing tests,
and not one single person has evan *attempted* to collect
the $4,000 pool which awaits anyone who can tell cables
apart under blind conditions.


Just out of interest, how low quality does cable have to be
before you can detect it? I'd expect that if you connect the
speakers with something crazy like thin coax it would be
noticable, but it would be an interesting datapoint to try
DBTs with a few things to see what can be heard.


Aside from silliness like 'bell wire' with several ohms resistance, I
have *never* heard any difference under blind conditions, even with
unobtainium conductors of Golden Section dimensions insulated with
rarest Chinese silk hand-rolled on the thighs of Cuban virgins.....

I wouldn't expect the results to be different from DBTs with
various series resistors, inductors and parallel capacitors,
(what values of those are detectable?) but it still might
be worth doing from a didactic point of view.


With levels matched to +/- 0.1 dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz, experience
suggests that 'wire is wire'. If you can prove different, there's a
$4k pot waiting to be collected.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #30   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:30:02 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:15:29 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote:

As a matter of fact, when we compared between copper and silver/copper,

we
not only compared the high frequency, we compared the bass as well. Sure,
the copper interconnect gave much more bass than the hybrid, while the
hybrid gave more detail on mid and high range.


And yet, if you don't *know* which one is connected, you'll find that
they both sound the same................

Theortically, it is supposed to be that way,


Absolute nonsense! No such theory exists.

But that doesn't keep you from using silver-coated copper cables in your own
system, does it Stewart?


Sure, it's just standard MIL-spec hookup wire, of which I have a
couple of 100 foot reels, Why would I pay money for anything else?

Clearly, you fail to understand the *joke* of describing that cable in
'audiophile' terms, when it's just standard hookup wire.

From Stewart's system web site:
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/stewart_p/stewart_p.htm

"Interconnects are home-brewed unshielded twisted pair made from 0.6mm
solid-core Teflon-coated silver-clad OFHC copper (just standard MIL-spec
hookup wire), while connectors are either Neutrik XLR or Deltron
Teflon/alloy RCA jacks. The treble ribbons on the speakers are wired with
the same twisted-pair, the resistance of this skinny wire is used to bypass
an internal switch and resistor which are normally used to set the treble
level. The bass panels are wired with Naim NACA5, no reason other than the
dealer offered it free with my previous Magnepan MG1C speakers."

So here's the primary disparager of anything other than Home Depot wire on
RAHE building his own interconnects of silver-clad copper, and using
expensive NAIM cables for the bass panels of his speakers.


How desperate are you, Harry? The Naim was free of charge, and so was
the other wire, since it's just standard hookup wire that I used
professionally. As noted ad nauseam in previous posts, it's used for
basic EE reasons, nothing to do with the bull**** that gets spewed
about MIT, Siltech, Transparent, Tara Labs, Cardas etc etc.

Tell me Stewart, why don't you sell those expensive cables and
interconnects, and simply replace them with Home Depot 12 gauge, and Rat
Shack interconnects. You'd have money in your pocket, perhaps enough to buy
a "universal" hi-rez player.


That's pretty frickin' stoopid, considering that I already *have* the
cables I use, now isn't it? I can't sell homebrew cables. BTW, I *do*
use 'freeby' interconnects and speaker cable in the kitchen and PC
systems, which don't have the peculiar hardwired cabling associated
with the TV and main music systems.

In that case, you would then be "living" your
oft-professed standards, and you'd have a better base on which to disparage
high-rez.


What the heck has any of this to do with 'high-rez'?

Until then, it is indeed difficult to take some of your
protestations seriously.


What you *really* mean is that you're desperately reaching, because
you have no rational rebuttal to my 'high-rez' arguments.............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #31   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

Aside from silliness like 'bell wire' with several ohms resistance, I
have *never* heard any difference under blind conditions, even with
unobtainium conductors of Golden Section dimensions insulated with
rarest Chinese silk hand-rolled on the thighs of Cuban virgins.....


I tried to get some cables made from unobtainium but every dealer says they
can't get them.
  #32   Report Post  
Jón Fairbairn
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

(Stewart Pinkerton) writes:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:06:38 GMT, "=?iso-8859-1?q?J=F3n?= Fairbairn"
wrote:
Just out of interest, how low quality does cable have to be
before you can detect it? I'd expect that if you connect the
speakers with something crazy like thin coax it would be
noticable, but it would be an interesting datapoint to try
DBTs with a few things to see what can be heard.


Aside from silliness like 'bell wire' with several ohms resistance, I
have *never* heard any difference under blind conditions, even with
unobtainium conductors of Golden Section dimensions insulated with
rarest Chinese silk hand-rolled on the thighs of Cuban virgins.....


Um, Stewart, I think you need to read my post without
engaging your seek-and-destroy anti-DBT-ites mechanisms! I
don't for a minute believe that there is an audible
difference between any of the commericially available cables
(with the possible exception of snake oil with added
detrimental bogosity).

I wouldn't expect the results to be different from DBTs with
various series resistors,


... I should probably have included thermistors and other
nonlinear devices here ...

inductors and parallel capacitors,
(what values of those are detectable?) but it still might
be worth doing from a didactic point of view.


With levels matched to +/- 0.1 dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and
10kHz, experience suggests that 'wire is wire'.


Yes, but the question was about what isn't wire. Your first
paragraph implies that bell wire can be heard, which goes
some short way towards answering my question, but where is
the limit of detectability for that sort of sillyiness? How
little resistance -- in particular current dependent
resistance -- can be detected? How much
inductance/capacitance?

If you can prove different, there's a $4k pot waiting to
be collected.


Attractive though $4k may be, I'm not given to
circle-squaring exercises.

--
Jón Fairbairn


  #34   Report Post  
Lawrence Leung
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in
:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:15:29 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote:

Clearly, you fail to understand the *joke* of describing that cable in
'audiophile' terms, when it's just standard hookup wire.


Hey! Mr. Pinkerton, first of all I thought you only stuborn on that "wire
is wire" nonsense. But not once but a lot of time you accused people
cannot understand your English or joke, well, might be you don't know how
to make people understand!

That's pretty frickin' stoopid, considering that I already *have* the
cables I use, now isn't it? I can't sell homebrew cables. BTW, I *do*
use 'freeby' interconnects and speaker cable in the kitchen and PC
systems, which don't have the peculiar hardwired cabling associated
with the TV and main music systems.


You have no right to call people or even people's opinion "frickin'
stoopid", I never call your "wire is wire" theory "frickin' stoopid". I
think you owe him an apology.

In that case, you would then be "living" your
oft-professed standards, and you'd have a better base on which to
disparage high-rez.


What the heck has any of this to do with 'high-rez'?

Until then, it is indeed difficult to take some of your
protestations seriously.


What you *really* mean is that you're desperately reaching, because
you have no rational rebuttal to my 'high-rez' arguments.............


Have you published any science paper? Have you published any book? In
regarding to audiophile topic(s)? There are millions of real audiophiles
in the world are agreeing on cable theory, only you and your dozen
experienced audiophile refuse to accept.

Have a nice day!

Lawrence Leung
  #35   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:30:02 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 00:15:29 GMT, Lawrence Leung
wrote:

As a matter of fact, when we compared between copper and

silver/copper,
we
not only compared the high frequency, we compared the bass as well.

Sure,
the copper interconnect gave much more bass than the hybrid, while the
hybrid gave more detail on mid and high range.

And yet, if you don't *know* which one is connected, you'll find that
they both sound the same................

Theortically, it is supposed to be that way,

Absolute nonsense! No such theory exists.

But that doesn't keep you from using silver-coated copper cables in your

own
system, does it Stewart?


Sure, it's just standard MIL-spec hookup wire, of which I have a
couple of 100 foot reels, Why would I pay money for anything else?

Clearly, you fail to understand the *joke* of describing that cable in
'audiophile' terms, when it's just standard hookup wire.


Looks like a straight-forward exposition of what you have in your
description on the web site, which I've quoted in full below. I'm no dummy
when it comes to humor; I still do not see any humor in your description.

From Stewart's system web site:
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/stewart_p/stewart_p.htm

"Interconnects are home-brewed unshielded twisted pair made from 0.6mm
solid-core Teflon-coated silver-clad OFHC copper (just standard MIL-spec
hookup wire), while connectors are either Neutrik XLR or Deltron
Teflon/alloy RCA jacks. The treble ribbons on the speakers are wired with
the same twisted-pair, the resistance of this skinny wire is used to

bypass
an internal switch and resistor which are normally used to set the treble
level. The bass panels are wired with Naim NACA5, no reason other than

the
dealer offered it free with my previous Magnepan MG1C speakers."

So here's the primary disparager of anything other than Home Depot wire

on
RAHE building his own interconnects of silver-clad copper, and using
expensive NAIM cables for the bass panels of his speakers.


How desperate are you, Harry? The Naim was free of charge, and so was
the other wire, since it's just standard hookup wire that I used
professionally. As noted ad nauseam in previous posts, it's used for
basic EE reasons, nothing to do with the bull**** that gets spewed
about MIT, Siltech, Transparent, Tara Labs, Cardas etc etc.

Tell me Stewart, why don't you sell those expensive cables and
interconnects, and simply replace them with Home Depot 12 gauge, and Rat
Shack interconnects. You'd have money in your pocket, perhaps enough to

buy
a "universal" hi-rez player.


That's pretty frickin' stoopid, considering that I already *have* the
cables I use, now isn't it? I can't sell homebrew cables. BTW, I *do*
use 'freeby' interconnects and speaker cable in the kitchen and PC
systems, which don't have the peculiar hardwired cabling associated
with the TV and main music systems.


Not stupid at all. The Naims have high value on the resale market...you
could sell them and finance all the Home Depot and Rat Shack wire you would
need, with plenty left over. And since you seem to feel that audiophiles
are sheep who will pay anything for the right description of wire, I'm sure
you could figure out how to sell your home brew cables to some true
believer. Right?

So you sell them, you have money left over for your hi-rez player, and your
home depot/rat shack cable adds credibility to your verbal excursions here
on RAHE. Moreover, you wouldn't then have to keep defending your
audiophile cables "ad nauseam" now, would you?

In that case, you would then be "living" your
oft-professed standards, and you'd have a better base on which to

disparage
high-rez.


What the heck has any of this to do with 'high-rez'?


The fact that you don't yet have such a machine to gain much experience,
thereby undercutting badly your attempts to diss the formats here on RAHE.

Until then, it is indeed difficult to take some of your
protestations seriously.


What you *really* mean is that you're desperately reaching, because
you have no rational rebuttal to my 'high-rez' arguments.............


No, Stewart, I'm a marketing man. I'm just trying to add to your
creditability! ;-)


  #36   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

Lawrence Leung wrote:

Have you published any science paper? Have you published any book? In
regarding to audiophile topic(s)? There are millions of real audiophiles
in the world are agreeing on cable theory, only you and your dozen
experienced audiophile refuse to accept.


What exactly is "cable theory" as applied to audio? How do you come up
with "millions"?


Have a nice day!

Lawrence Leung

  #37   Report Post  
Lawrence Leung
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

chung wrote in :

Lawrence Leung wrote:

Have you published any science paper? Have you published any book? In
regarding to audiophile topic(s)? There are millions of real
audiophiles in the world are agreeing on cable theory, only you and
your dozen experienced audiophile refuse to accept.


What exactly is "cable theory" as applied to audio? How do you come up
with "millions"?


Cable theory? Go to your local book store and start looking for it, they
have plenty; Or search the Net, plenty of independent individual gave out
objective point of view on cables.

Millions? Minus you, we have millions.

Lawrence Leung

  #38   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

Lawrence Leung wrote:
chung wrote in :

Lawrence Leung wrote:

Have you published any science paper? Have you published any book? In
regarding to audiophile topic(s)? There are millions of real
audiophiles in the world are agreeing on cable theory, only you and
your dozen experienced audiophile refuse to accept.


What exactly is "cable theory" as applied to audio? How do you come up
with "millions"?


Cable theory? Go to your local book store and start looking for it, they
have plenty;


I didn't find any last time I checked the EE sections at the Stanford,
Cal and Harvard bookstores. Can you give me some titles?

Or search the Net, plenty of independent individual gave out
objective point of view on cables.


I have also seen plenty of independent individuals gave out objective
views on incarnation, creationism, big-foot, UFO's, etc. Some even claim
that Elvis still walks among us.

BTW, do you think those individuals have the *same* theory on cables?
What about Stewart's theory, which is shared by a lot of people, that
there is absolutely no need to pay more than Radio Shack cables?


Millions? Minus you, we have millions.


Still waiting to hear from you how you arrived at "millions". I guess we
won't hold our collective breath...


Lawrence Leung

  #39   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default weakest Link in the Chain

On 9 Jan 2004 01:28:19 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Stewart wrote:

What the heck has any of this to do with 'high-rez'?

The fact that you don't yet have such a machine to gain much experience,
thereby undercutting badly your attempts to diss the formats here on RAHE.


Not at all, since I have listened to several players and several
formats, and I'm very familiar with the technology behind the various
formats. OTOH, I am very much behind DVD-A simply because of its
multi-channel capability.

Until then, it is indeed difficult to take some of your
protestations seriously.


What you *really* mean is that you're desperately reaching, because
you have no rational rebuttal to my 'high-rez' arguments.............


No, Stewart, I'm a marketing man.


Aaaaaah, all is explained!

I'm just trying to add to your creditability! ;-)


Credibility enhanced by association with a marketing man - fascinating
concept...........................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gallons of Snake Oil malcolm Audio Opinions 3 February 17th 04 09:41 AM
Some serious cable measurements with interesting results. Bruno Putzeys High End Audio 78 December 19th 03 04:27 AM
cabling explained Midlant Car Audio 8 November 14th 03 04:07 AM
Digital Audio Cable Question(s) Hugh Cowan High End Audio 11 October 8th 03 07:15 PM
science vs. pseudo-science ludovic mirabel High End Audio 91 October 3rd 03 09:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:19 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"