Re: Speaker cables

[James Boyk]

For the record, and speaking only of the logic of the situation (and
undoubtedly beating a dead horse), let's note that the fact that two
cables cannot be told apart does NOT show that other cables might not be
distinguishable; it shows simply that *those two* can't be told apart in
*that* system. The only way to show that "Cables cannot be told apart"
is to audition all possible pairs of cables in all possible systems.
Since this cannot be done, the statement cannot be proved. By contrast,
if two cables ARE distinguishable in ANY particular system, then the
truth of the statement "Cables can be told apart" HAS been established.

The same situation obtains with many other things in audio; e.g., CDs.
If you've never heard a CD whose sound was satisfactory, you can NOT say
that it's impossible for a CD to be satisfactory; but the moment you
hear even one satisfactory CD, you HAVE established that it's possible
for a CD to be good enough.

In other words, this kind of "decision process" is "asymmetrical." ONE
example proves a statement, but even MANY examples do NOT prove the
opposite. I have a feeling that a lot of argument arises because this
asymmetry is not kept in mind.

(In both cases, however, after a certain amount of experience, and
purely as a matter of human judgment, you start to get strong
suspicions; but that's not the same thing as proof. Often, we have to go
without proof. After all, there's no Law of Nature saying that we get to
have certainty. If anything, the reverse.)

James Boyk

[James Boyk]

Scott, I'm sure that you understand the points I was making in previous!

jb

[LeBaron & Alrich]

James Boyk > wrote:

> Scott, I'm sure that you understand the points I was making in previous!

That a negative conjecture is unprovable.

--
ha

[James Boyk]

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
> That a negative conjecture is unprovable.

This is too broad.

James Boyk

[LeBaron & Alrich]

James Boyk > wrote:

> LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
> > That a negative conjecture is unprovable.

> This is too broad.

It's concise. Think about it.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[James Boyk]

Well, goodness, I've had scope traces & FFT's for years that showed
differences between two particular cables I tried. Now, it's true that I
used cables of the same physical length (10'), rather than same
resistance; so one is 100 m-ohms and the other is 130. I think one can
make an argument for doing it either way; and I'd be happy----sometime,
when I have the time---to re-do it so the R is the same. The difference
I heard was easily measurable too. The cables' FFT curves separated at
about 12kHz and one was -1 dB rel. to the other at 25kHz. That's as I
remember it; I did this a long time ago. The response I measured was
from power amp input to speaker terminals, so the absolute response is
that of amp+cable, which of course does not affect the issue. The amp
was a Dyna St70, the speaker an LS3/5A. This combination was at the time
a very popular one, and I happened to have these items in my lab. The
only thing I know of that one might want to do another way is to make
the lengths unequal so that the R's will be equal; on the other hand, in
practical use, that's not what one would do.

As a separate matter, I do wonder why you're obsessing about this issue,
though, if you'll pardon me for saying so. Putting the same energy into
making recordings--or better yet, making music in a chorus; there are
choruses for everyone--would surely be more satisfying.

James Boyk

[Nousaine]

James Boyk wrote:



>
>Well, goodness, I've had scope traces & FFT's for years that showed
>differences between two particular cables I tried. Now, it's true that I
>used cables of the same physical length (10'), rather than same
>resistance; so one is 100 m-ohms and the other is 130. I think one can
>make an argument for doing it either way; and I'd be happy----sometime,
>when I have the time---to re-do it so the R is the same. The difference
>I heard was easily measurable too. The cables' FFT curves separated at
>about 12kHz and one was -1 dB rel. to the other at 25kHz. That's as I
>remember it; I did this a long time ago. The response I measured was
>from power amp input to speaker terminals, so the absolute response is
>that of amp+cable, which of course does not affect the issue. The amp
>was a Dyna St70, the speaker an LS3/5A. This combination was at the time
>a very popular one, and I happened to have these items in my lab. The
>only thing I know of that one might want to do another way is to make
>the lengths unequal so that the R's will be equal; on the other hand, in
>practical use, that's not what one would do.
>
>As a separate matter, I do wonder why you're obsessing about this issue,
>though, if you'll pardon me for saying so. Putting the same energy into
>making recordings--or better yet, making music in a chorus; there are
>choruses for everyone--would surely be more satisfying.
>
>James Boyk

Obsessing? Please. I've conducted those experiments over the years BECAUSE some
individuals claimed they would be able to identify wires by sound alone. Yet,
none have even in their personal reference systems. Even the designer of
regionally distributed interconnects and speaker wire was unable to idenitfy
his own design when bias controls were implemented. This particular experiment
was repeated for this individual where he brought his own playback equipment.
He failed to reliably recognize his own baby's cry each time.

Far from obsessing over this I just stopped worrying about wire-sound. I think
those who are truly interested in improving sound quality and quality system
through-put should do likewise.

IOW keep your mind open to real sonic effect but don't open the window so wide
that you let BS in.

[James Boyk]

Nousaine wrote: IOW keep your mind open to real sonic effect
but don't open the window so wide that you let BS in.

Thanks; I'll try not to.

James Boyk

[LeBaron & Alrich]

James Boyk > wrote:

> Nousaine wrote:
> > But it does show that the 'effects' are fleeting at best.

> It shows no such thing.

> And do you *really* believe that the difference between 24-ga. cable an
^^^^^^^

> say 12-ga. cable would never under any circumstances be audible?

He's not talking religion here; he's talking about people's claims of
their imagined perceptual acuity falling substantially short of their
professed capabilites when subjected to the light of science.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"