Speaker Cables and Interconnects, your opinion

[Stewart]

This debate has been ranting on for years but what is everyone's opinion on
the differences between adequately engineered and constructed speaker cables
and IC's?



Do you think copper/silver wire as long as its of adequate gauge with good
connections and adequate shielding can alter the signal enough to give rise
to actual audible differences?. Can some of these wires be magic and make
the signal better than it actually is? does cheaper wire degrade the signal?



All hi-fi mags boast that different brands of cables with radically
different price ranges with similar construction and specifications sound
totally different. is this fact or fiction in your opinion?



I am a non-believer for the record.

[George M. Middius]

Stewart said:

> This debate has been ranting on for years but what is everyone's opinion on
> the differences between adequately engineered and constructed speaker cables
> and IC's?

I think everybody should buy the ones they want to have.

> Do you think copper/silver wire as long as its of adequate gauge with good
> connections and adequate shielding can alter the signal enough to give rise
> to actual audible differences?. Can some of these wires be magic and make
> the signal better than it actually is? does cheaper wire degrade the signal?

You ask many questions but your language shouts "I am geek!"

> All hi-fi mags boast that different brands of cables with radically
> different price ranges with similar construction and specifications sound
> totally different. is this fact or fiction in your opinion?

I don't believe hi-fi mags "boast" anything of the sort. Perhaps
you're confusing advertising copy with reviews.

You are focusing, to the best of your ability, on the basic function
that cables perform -- carrying an electrical signal. This is a
pointless way of looking at the cable & wire market. Try to find an
analogy to help you understand. My favorite one is flatware. It
comes in gold, silver, stainless steel, and even plastic. All of the
designs enable you to get the food from your plate to your mouth. I
think you can take it from there.


> I am a non-believer for the record.

That is your right. As with all things you buy for your own
enjoyment, suit yourself.

Will you be returning to an educational institute in the near future
to finish your education in using English?

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
"Stewart" > wrote:

> This debate has been ranting on for years but what is everyone's opinion on
> the differences between adequately engineered and constructed speaker cables
> and IC's?
>
>
>
> Do you think copper/silver wire as long as its of adequate gauge with good
> connections and adequate shielding can alter the signal enough to give rise
> to actual audible differences?. Can some of these wires be magic and make
> the signal better than it actually is? does cheaper wire degrade the signal?
>
>
>
> All hi-fi mags boast that different brands of cables with radically
> different price ranges with similar construction and specifications sound
> totally different. is this fact or fiction in your opinion?
>
>
>
> I am a non-believer for the record.

What would it take to change your mind?

Stephen

[chris]

All wires without failure do is transfer the signal from one place to
another. In doing so they will change the original signal from the source by
the time it gets to the destination.
The real difference is by how much that signal has been changed.
As a slightly general rule of thumb the very cheap wire shipped with the box
will usually change the signal to a greater degree than a better designed
cable (it is a fact of life that a better designed cable will use better
materials and will cost some what more than the cheap solution shipped with
the box).
What difference these cable make depends on a lot of factors, wire geometry
,dielectric properties, wire material, the terminations, impedance,
inductance, capacitance, phase shift, the output impedance and the input
impedance of the units etc. This is why one expensive cable can sound
excellent on one system, and more crap on another.

This is why some many people spend so much time talking about the different
combinations.
as a general rule you should try and get a cable that matches the two units
best. sometime this is an expensive option sometimes not and it depends on
what you can hear and the value you place on it.
Most of us some personal theories on what should be best but this is based
on whatever personal bias we have.

I to was once a non believer in "cable make a difference" but they do !!
and I had arrogantly thought that all wires were pretty much the same, Not
that any of my lecturers ever said it was so. but in life we all are capable
of learning if we keep our minds open.

I would for a start read the toms of info on the web about cables including
Jon Reich and Chris Van Haus along with others and learn.

Quick Rules of thumb
for interconnects thin wires seem to be better + low capacitance and low
inductance.
for speaker cable, low inductance, the capacitance does not really matter
that much, mega thick wire are not always necessary. my personal view is to
go for a low characteristic impedance, more of the signal gets though.

but at the end of the day its what you like the sound of not the $$'s

Good auditioning Chris

"Stewart" > wrote in message
...
> This debate has been ranting on for years but what is everyone's opinion
on
> the differences between adequately engineered and constructed speaker
cables
> and IC's?
>
>
>
> Do you think copper/silver wire as long as its of adequate gauge with good
> connections and adequate shielding can alter the signal enough to give
rise
> to actual audible differences?. Can some of these wires be magic and make
> the signal better than it actually is? does cheaper wire degrade the
signal?
>
>
>
> All hi-fi mags boast that different brands of cables with radically
> different price ranges with similar construction and specifications sound
> totally different. is this fact or fiction in your opinion?
>
>
>
> I am a non-believer for the record.
>
>
>
>

[Robert Morein]

"Stewart" > wrote in message
...
> This debate has been ranting on for years but what is everyone's opinion
on
> the differences between adequately engineered and constructed speaker
cables
> and IC's?
>
>
>
> Do you think copper/silver wire as long as its of adequate gauge with good
> connections and adequate shielding can alter the signal enough to give
rise
> to actual audible differences?. Can some of these wires be magic and make
> the signal better than it actually is? does cheaper wire degrade the
signal?
>
>
>
> All hi-fi mags boast that different brands of cables with radically
> different price ranges with similar construction and specifications sound
> totally different. is this fact or fiction in your opinion?
>
>
>
> I am a non-believer for the record.
>
It is very easy to make a speaker cable which will degrade signal. Excessive
spacing of the conductor pair is a mistake that has been made in expensive
cables, but never in cheap ones.

As for the rest of it, I conducted the following personal experiment.
I hooked up an old KLH Research 9 speaker via 35 feet of 16 gauge zipcord,
and compared it to a 12 foot run of a fairly inexpensive speaker cable. The
35 foot run of zipcord sounded noticeably muddier than the 12 cable.

This suggests to me that some differences arising from speaker cables may be
within a factor of 10 of audibility. I suspect that if zipcord can degrade
the signal that much, there may be more to this than total nonsense.

I reacted by tripling the 23' runs in my main speaker setup with parallel
zipcord. I have not investigated whether exotically constructed speaker
cables can sound better. But I think some might be within that factor of 10
that may become audible under some circumstances, with some speakers.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Stewart" > wrote in message
...
> This debate has been ranting on for years but what is everyone's opinion
on
> the differences between adequately engineered and constructed speaker
cables
> and IC's?

**Usually, there is not much difference between them.

>
>
>
> Do you think copper/silver wire as long as its of adequate gauge with good
> connections and adequate shielding can alter the signal enough to give
rise
> to actual audible differences?.

**Under certain conditions, yes.

Can some of these wires be magic and make
> the signal better than it actually is?

**Not possible. ALL cables degrade the signal. Every single one. What is
needed, is to find a cable which does as little damage as is possible, in a
given system.

> does cheaper wire degrade the signal?

**Not per se. Cables which do not audibly alter a signal do not necessarily
need to be expensive. Again, it depends on the system.

>
>
>
> All hi-fi mags boast that different brands of cables with radically
> different price ranges with similar construction and specifications sound
> totally different. is this fact or fiction in your opinion?

**Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

>
>
>
> I am a non-believer for the record.

**Fair enough. Have you done a blind listen to some different cables?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message


> **Fair enough. Have you done a blind listen to some different cables?

Good question to ask Morien.

Morein tells us again and again that

(1) Morien is a reliable critic of scientific methodology,

(2) Morein has a strong background in engineering, and

(3) Morien has a sophisticated personal laboratory.

But somehow Morien can't get it together to do level-matched,
time-synchronized listening tests of *anything*.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> It is very easy to make a speaker cable which will degrade signal.

This is true, but the question in audio is never whether there is *any*
degradation, but whether the degradation is audible. Audio measurement
technology has progressed to the point where they are incredibly sensitive -
10 to 100 to perhaps even 1,000 times more sensitive than the human ear. I
have a simple audio laboratory and I can measure all kinds of bizarre
things, such as the microphonics of interconnects. So what?

Science tells us that for a listening test to be a reliable indicator of
audibility, it must have a minimum of three variables under control:

(1) The listening test must be adequately level-matched
(2) The listening test must be time-synchronized
(3) The listening test much be bias-controlled.

Morein tells us again and again that:

(1) Morien is a reliable critic of scientific methodology,

(2) Morein has a strong background in engineering, and

(3) Morien has a sophisticated personal scientific laboratory.

So, there is no logical, theoretical or practical reason why Morein's
listening tests would not meet at minimum the three simple requirements
stated above. If he doesn't do things right, its because he's got a lazy
ass, pure and simple.

> Excessive spacing of the conductor pair is a mistake that has been
> made in expensive cables, but never in cheap ones.

AFAIK, that's true. The benefit of putting the conductors close together is
that it increases mutual inductance between the conductors, which ironically
decreases series inductance that can lead to high frequency losses in the
audio band. These losses are *always* measurable, but whether or not they
are audible depends on the application.

> As for the rest of it, I conducted the following personal experiment.
> I hooked up an old KLH Research 9 speaker via 35 feet of 16 gauge
> zipcord, and compared it to a 12 foot run of a fairly inexpensive
> speaker cable. The 35 foot run of zipcord sounded noticeably muddier
> than the 12 cable.

So what experimental controls did Morien apply to this listening test? None
are stated. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that none were applied.
How does this square with Morein's claims of technical competence and
ability?

> This suggests to me that some differences arising from speaker cables
> may be within a factor of 10 of audibility.

Any engineer will tell you that a factor of 8 or 10 is a reasonable safety
factor. Therefore, this would be a moot issue if there were *any* reliable
support for Morein's claims at all.

> I suspect that if zipcord
> can degrade the signal that much, there may be more to this than
> total nonsense.

However, since the suspicions are based on unreliable listening tests, they
are merely vain speculation.

There are definitely some speakers that make special demands on speaker. For
example some planar and ribbon speakers have really bizarre impedance curves
at 10 KHz and above, significantly a range where its not unusual for a
speaker cable to have appreciable series inductance. On balance, most more
conventional speakers like my NHT 2.5i pair are themselves inductive loads
at 10 KHz and above. This tends to balance out the speaker cable's
inductance in this range.

> I reacted by tripling the 23' runs in my main speaker setup with
> parallel zipcord.

Note that Morein's main speaker setup seems to involve a pair of legacy
Acoustat speakers, a line of planar speakers that are well-known for their
bizarre and wildly atypical impedance curves.

> I have not investigated whether exotically
> constructed speaker cables can sound better.

One well-known and readily-available kind of cable that minimizes series
inductance is coaxial cable. Belden has some coax that is designed for use
with medium-wave radio transmitters that has 10 or 11 gauge center
conductors, very heavy pure copper braid shielding, and a good combination
of low capacitance and inductance. I think it runs around $1 a foot from
Belden distributors. I've posted the Belden part number here a number of
times in the past.

> But I think some might
> be within that factor of 10 that may become audible under some
> circumstances, with some speakers.

Morein arguably has all of the resources to make a credible claim of speaker
cable reliability. For some reason he has failed to get his act together to
do this for years and years.

However, if he develops these claims with the wildly-atypical Acoustat
speakers that he uses, they will still be largely irrelevant to the rest of
us who have more typical kinds of speakers.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>**Fair enough. Have you done a blind listen to some different cables?
>
>
> Good question to ask Morien.
>
> Morein tells us again and again that
>
> (1) Morien is a reliable critic of scientific methodology,
>
> (2) Morein has a strong background in engineering, and
>
> (3) Morien has a sophisticated personal laboratory.
>
> But somehow Morien can't get it together to do level-matched,
> time-synchronized listening tests of *anything*.


Just wondering about one thing, Arny: when you use the permutations
"Morien" and "Morein", is this indicative of your methadology when
attempting to do scientific trials?

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> **Fair enough. Have you done a blind listen to some different
>>> cables?
>>
>>
>> Good question to ask Morien.
>>
>> Morein tells us again and again that
>>
>> (1) Morien is a reliable critic of scientific methodology,
>>
>> (2) Morein has a strong background in engineering, and
>>
>> (3) Morien has a sophisticated personal laboratory.
>>
>> But somehow Morien can't get it together to do level-matched,
>> time-synchronized listening tests of *anything*.
>
>
> Just wondering about one thing, Arny: when you use the permutations
> "Morien" and "Morein", is this indicative of your methadology when
> attempting to do scientific trials?

Returning the "complement" Singh, what's a "methadology"?

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>**Fair enough. Have you done a blind listen to some different
>>>>cables?
>>>
>>>
>>>Good question to ask Morien.
>>>
>>>Morein tells us again and again that
>>>
>>>(1) Morien is a reliable critic of scientific methodology,
>>>
>>>(2) Morein has a strong background in engineering, and
>>>
>>>(3) Morien has a sophisticated personal laboratory.
>>>
>>>But somehow Morien can't get it together to do level-matched,
>>>time-synchronized listening tests of *anything*.
>>
>>
>>Just wondering about one thing, Arny: when you use the permutations
>>"Morien" and "Morein", is this indicative of your methadology when
>>attempting to do scientific trials?
>
>
> Returning the "complement" Singh, what's a "methadology"?


Oh, I'm sorry, I made a misspelling at six o'clock in the morning. Does
this mean you're weaselling out of the question as usual?

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> **Fair enough. Have you done a blind listen to some different
>>>>> cables?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good question to ask Morien.
>>>>
>>>> Morein tells us again and again that
>>>>
>>>> (1) Morien is a reliable critic of scientific methodology,
>>>>
>>>> (2) Morein has a strong background in engineering, and
>>>>
>>>> (3) Morien has a sophisticated personal laboratory.
>>>>
>>>> But somehow Morien can't get it together to do level-matched,
>>>> time-synchronized listening tests of *anything*.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just wondering about one thing, Arny: when you use the permutations
>>> "Morien" and "Morein", is this indicative of your methadology when
>>> attempting to do scientific trials?
>>
>>
>> Returning the "complement" Singh, what's a "methadology"?

> Oh, I'm sorry, I made a misspelling at six o'clock in the morning.

OK, and I made a misspelling at 5:38 in the morning.

> Does this mean you're weaselling out of the question as usual?

Returning the "complement" Singh, what is "weaselling"?

Singh, your inability to grasp the obvious remains near-perfect. Go forth
and continue to screw up!

[Smeghead]

Well thanks for all the opinions guys!

I've demoed different wire and IC's in the past and have never really
noticed much difference, maybe it's me? anyway now I'm putting this issue to
rest for good! my £5/m cable will remain.

And yes George I am probably slightly tinged with geekyness especially as
I've made a post to an audio newsgroup ;-) nothing wrong with that though. I
built and designed me own speakers and sub, that probably says it all! I
still have the old social skills though. And sorry for my English, I do
apologise profusely. I speak a mix of English and old Norse so my dialect
get's in the way of grammar/wording etc, if I decide to take English
lessons I'll let you know ;-) I'm sorry I've deeply offended you in this
way. I hope you make a full recovery.

Onyweye tanchts ageen fur aww ih yoor apeeneyuns, it's aww bun brawlie
interesteen.
I'm awa noo tae geen ta gref a bank tae dell twartrie muckile styumpies. ;-)

Stew.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "trotsky" > wrote in message
>
>
>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>"trotsky" > wrote in message

>>>
>>>
>>>>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message

>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>**Fair enough. Have you done a blind listen to some different
>>>>>>cables?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Good question to ask Morien.
>>>>>
>>>>>Morein tells us again and again that
>>>>>
>>>>>(1) Morien is a reliable critic of scientific methodology,
>>>>>
>>>>>(2) Morein has a strong background in engineering, and
>>>>>
>>>>>(3) Morien has a sophisticated personal laboratory.
>>>>>
>>>>>But somehow Morien can't get it together to do level-matched,
>>>>>time-synchronized listening tests of *anything*.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Just wondering about one thing, Arny: when you use the permutations
>>>>"Morien" and "Morein", is this indicative of your methadology when
>>>>attempting to do scientific trials?
>>>
>>>
>>>Returning the "complement" Singh, what's a "methadology"?
>>
>
>>Oh, I'm sorry, I made a misspelling at six o'clock in the morning.
>
>
> OK, and I made a misspelling at 5:38 in the morning.


Actually, moron, you misspelled the name thrice while spelling it
correctly only once. And that's not taking into account the dozens of
other times. It just makes me think your attention to detail is awfully
suspect.


>>Does this mean you're weaselling out of the question as usual?
>
>
> Returning the "complement" Singh, what is "weaselling"?
>
> Singh, your inability to grasp the obvious remains near-perfect. Go forth
> and continue to screw up!


I gave you two chances to come clean, and you stayed filthy both times.
Let's just assume attention to detail in your "science" isn't all that
important.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
> > It is very easy to make a speaker cable which will degrade signal.
>
> This is true, but the question in audio is never whether there is *any*
> degradation, but whether the degradation is audible. Audio measurement
> technology has progressed to the point where they are incredibly
sensitive -
> 10 to 100 to perhaps even 1,000 times more sensitive than the human ear. I
> have a simple audio laboratory and I can measure all kinds of bizarre
> things, such as the microphonics of interconnects. So what?
>
> Science tells us that for a listening test to be a reliable indicator of
> audibility, it must have a minimum of three variables under control:
>
> (1) The listening test must be adequately level-matched
> (2) The listening test must be time-synchronized
> (3) The listening test much be bias-controlled.
>
The above is correct.
Arny, once again, you fail to distinguish between informal discourse between
people trading experiences, and publishable work. I make no claim that my
statement constitutes publishable work.

> Morein tells us again and again that:
>
> (1) Morien is a reliable critic of scientific methodology,
>
> (2) Morein has a strong background in engineering, and
>
> (3) Morien has a sophisticated personal scientific laboratory.
>
> So, there is no logical, theoretical or practical reason why Morein's
> listening tests would not meet at minimum the three simple requirements
> stated above. If he doesn't do things right, its because he's got a lazy
> ass, pure and simple.
>
Logically, then, your rules of discourse would prevent anybody who can't do
the tests from informal discourse such as I engaged in. Arny, you're just
out of sync with the values of our society. Free speech isn't simply the
right to make politically charged statements; it also allows and encourages
people to trade personal observations, as I have done.


> > Excessive spacing of the conductor pair is a mistake that has been
> > made in expensive cables, but never in cheap ones.
>
> AFAIK, that's true. The benefit of putting the conductors close together
is
> that it increases mutual inductance between the conductors, which
ironically
> decreases series inductance that can lead to high frequency losses in the
> audio band. These losses are *always* measurable, but whether or not they
> are audible depends on the application.
>
> > As for the rest of it, I conducted the following personal experiment.
> > I hooked up an old KLH Research 9 speaker via 35 feet of 16 gauge
> > zipcord, and compared it to a 12 foot run of a fairly inexpensive
> > speaker cable. The 35 foot run of zipcord sounded noticeably muddier
> > than the 12 cable.
>
> So what experimental controls did Morien apply to this listening test?
None
> are stated. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that none were
applied.
> How does this square with Morein's claims of technical competence and
> ability?
>
Since I made no claim that my observation constituted publishable work, you
cannot infer that my standards for publishable work would be deficient. But
yours are, because,

*****ARNY KRUEGER IS A BAD SCIENTIST*****

> > This suggests to me that some differences arising from speaker cables
> > may be within a factor of 10 of audibility.
>
> Any engineer will tell you that a factor of 8 or 10 is a reasonable safety
> factor. Therefore, this would be a moot issue if there were *any* reliable
> support for Morein's claims at all.
>
> > I suspect that if zipcord
> > can degrade the signal that much, there may be more to this than
> > total nonsense.
>
> However, since the suspicions are based on unreliable listening tests,
they
> are merely vain speculation.

I used the word "suspect", which in this case is synonymous with
speculation.

Arny, no need to degrade my informal observation with the stink of your
****ed up mind.

>
> However, if he develops these claims with the wildly-atypical Acoustat
> speakers that he uses, they will still be largely irrelevant to the rest
of
> us who have more typical kinds of speakers.
>
Arny, the post clearly states the comparison was made with KLH Research
10's, which are similar to AR3's.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Robert Morein wrote:


> As for the rest of it, I conducted the following personal experiment.
> I hooked up an old KLH Research 9 speaker via 35 feet of 16 gauge zipcord,
> and compared it to a 12 foot run of a fairly inexpensive speaker cable. The
> 35 foot run of zipcord sounded noticeably muddier than the 12 cable.

If the signal was too strong and required a larger gauge, yes, you would notice
a difference between 12 and 35 feet. 16 gauge is really small wire when you
get down do it. All that poofy insulation does is look good.

Try the same test with 12 gauge electrical wire. Watch as the "improvements"
of the expensive wire are rendered moot by larger gauge 5-10 cents a foot
electrical wire.

> This suggests to me that some differences arising from speaker cables may be
> within a factor of 10 of audibility. I suspect that if zipcord can degrade
> the signal that much, there may be more to this than total nonsense.

35 ft at 16 gauge is very likely to cause problems with bass. Actually, it's
not bass, but low impedance. Most speakers have a sharp impedance dip at the
bottom end(opposite for electrostatics) that is roughly half of their nominal
rating. Really old wire may also have corroded or loosened connectors. This
may or may not be easily visible.

[Robert Morein]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>
> > As for the rest of it, I conducted the following personal experiment.
> > I hooked up an old KLH Research 9 speaker via 35 feet of 16 gauge
zipcord,
> > and compared it to a 12 foot run of a fairly inexpensive speaker cable.
The
> > 35 foot run of zipcord sounded noticeably muddier than the 12 cable.
>
> If the signal was too strong and required a larger gauge, yes, you would
notice
> a difference between 12 and 35 feet. 16 gauge is really small wire when
you
> get down do it. All that poofy insulation does is look good.
>
> Try the same test with 12 gauge electrical wire. Watch as the
"improvements"
> of the expensive wire are rendered moot by larger gauge 5-10 cents a foot
> electrical wire.
>
Possibly, but I don't think there is any conclusive evidence that 12 gauge
wire is efficient. I'm just not willing to take a position on it, because
the treble was also affected.
Look at it this way: If, in fact, I detected a difference typical of that
between 12 gauge and 16 gauge wire, it's not reasonable to assume that all
the degradation was wrung out by going to 12 gauge. 12 gauge has twice as
much copper in it as 16 gauge. So I cut the degradation by a factor of two.
That doesn't mean it went away, or became irrelevant.

It suggests that whatever the mechanism is that degraded the treble requires
additional attention. Biwire the treble with Litz, perhaps? Or CAT-5
twisted? Or maybe just surplus multiple conductor telephone cable?

Just because many or most of the high end offerings are incorrectly
engineered does not PROVE that there is no avoidable loss in 12 gauge wire.

> > This suggests to me that some differences arising from speaker cables
may be
> > within a factor of 10 of audibility. I suspect that if zipcord can
degrade
> > the signal that much, there may be more to this than total nonsense.
>
> 35 ft at 16 gauge is very likely to cause problems with bass. Actually,
it's
> not bass, but low impedance.

I noticed bass, but I also noticed treble. Bass degradation is an accepted
phenomena, which as you say, is solved by piling on more copper. The treble
degradation is the more interesting phenomena.

Most speakers have a sharp impedance dip at the
> bottom end(opposite for electrostatics) that is roughly half of their
nominal
> rating. Really old wire may also have corroded or loosened connectors.
This
> may or may not be easily visible.
>
The 35 foot zip I used was tinned by me and terminated with high quality
bananas. As a matter of course, I check the tightness every time I insert
them.

The speaker used for the test was a single KLH Research 10. Despite the
fancy name, it was a dynamic speaker that closely resembled the AR3a.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Robert Morein wrote:

> Possibly, but I don't think there is any conclusive evidence that 12 gauge
> wire is efficient. I'm just not willing to take a position on it, because
> the treble was also affected.
> Look at it this way: If, in fact, I detected a difference typical of that
> between 12 gauge and 16 gauge wire, it's not reasonable to assume that all
> the degradation was wrung out by going to 12 gauge. 12 gauge has twice as
> much copper in it as 16 gauge. So I cut the degradation by a factor of two.
> That doesn't mean it went away, or became irrelevant.

True. There are a few online resources and calculators for loss. Most consider
5% to be acceptable loss. I can hear down to about 2-3% myself(Arny's site is
very good for determining this threshold, btw) - then plug that value in.

For my speakers, 20ft and 10 gauge resulted in 2% loss - or below a side-by-side
comparison's ability to be heard. At least to my ears. That also was at the
speaker's worst impedance/heaviest load, so normal operation is closer to
..5%-1% loss.

> It suggests that whatever the mechanism is that degraded the treble requires
> additional attention. Biwire the treble with Litz, perhaps? Or CAT-5
> twisted? Or maybe just surplus multiple conductor telephone cable?

It's mostly mass. OTOH, all of those individual cat-5 strands are too far
apart to count as one wire. They also - well, you need well over 50 to get
the same gauge as larger electrical wire.

If losses and shielding are paramount, that Coax Anry recommended does
work. It's a PITA to work with, since it has a 10-gauge core, but it
is worlds better than 99% of the "speaker wire" that you find advertized.

At $1 a foot, it's cheap as well. I personally think the big coax cable
looks simmilar to a typical high-end speaker cable.

> Just because many or most of the high end offerings are incorrectly
> engineered does not PROVE that there is no avoidable loss in 12 gauge wire.

We never said it did. OTOH, the levels at which human and personal hearing
fails to tell the difference not only are well known, but can be tested on
a person-by-person basis.

> I noticed bass, but I also noticed treble. Bass degradation is an accepted
> phenomena, which as you say, is solved by piling on more copper. The treble
> degradation is the more interesting phenomena.

This is a bit odd. There may be a big impedance dip at the crossover, though.
I would suspect that the tweeter is sucking a lot more power at the low end
due to a second-rate crossover design. I've seen $2000 speakers(not Gregs! lol)
that have $15 cheap crossovers in them.

> The 35 foot zip I used was tinned by me and terminated with high quality
> bananas. As a matter of course, I check the tightness every time I insert
> them.
>
> The speaker used for the test was a single KLH Research 10. Despite the
> fancy name, it was a dynamic speaker that closely resembled the AR3a.

I like to cover all bases since this is a public forum and most people
lurk instead of post.

Oh - if it was "lamp cord" - it may(doubtful) have been the 95% pure
copper variety that they sometimes sell. The other 5% is other metal
to make the wire stronger. Copper for wires normally comes from the
foundry in 99.99% pure ingots/slabs. All wire manufacturers use the
same stuff as re-smelting it would be prohibitive. Marketing claims
aside, it's all the same wire from the same dozen or so sources.

Now, other metals like Silver, that's a whole other story.

[Robert Morein]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
> > Possibly, but I don't think there is any conclusive evidence that 12
gauge
> > wire is efficient. I'm just not willing to take a position on it,
because
> > the treble was also affected.
> > Look at it this way: If, in fact, I detected a difference typical of
that
> > between 12 gauge and 16 gauge wire, it's not reasonable to assume that
all
> > the degradation was wrung out by going to 12 gauge. 12 gauge has twice
as
> > much copper in it as 16 gauge. So I cut the degradation by a factor of
two.
> > That doesn't mean it went away, or became irrelevant.
>
> True. There are a few online resources and calculators for loss. Most
consider
> 5% to be acceptable loss. I can hear down to about 2-3% myself(Arny's
site is
> very good for determining this threshold, btw) - then plug that value in.
>
[snip]
My compliments on a very rational post.

I agree that mass of copper is the single most important parameter.
I do feel that the questions of skin effect, dielectric memory, and
microphonics are left open. I don't know whether they count or not, but I
don't want to rule them out.

There is a standard electromagnetics homework problem which is to compute
skin effect. It is quite significant at audio frequencies.

If the coax Arny recommends has a polyethylene dielectric, dielectric
effects would be reduced as compared to vinyl, which has slow electret
properties.

There is a strong physical argument that the best speaker cable would be
made out of very large diameter material with low conductivity, such as a
conductive plastic, since skin effect would then be minimized. Of course, it
would never sell :).

I upgraded my main system in a very utilitarian way.
In my main system, where I have 23' runs to the mains, I replaced single
runs of Radio Shack zipcord with triple runs.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Robert Morein wrote:

> There is a standard electromagnetics homework problem which is to compute
> skin effect. It is quite significant at audio frequencies.

Most people can't actually hear this. Solid wire is a bit better, which
is one of the advantages of that COAX cable. It's also heavily shielded.
But, it is a real bear to work with. There's no way you are going to pull
it in anything but its own seperate conduit. Me? I like solid wire
myself and find it actually a bit easier to work with as far as connectors
go, as well as easier to hide along walls and baseboards.

Best of all would be fiber-optic and transmitters plus a small amplifier
for each speaker I guess, but that's a lot of money. OTOH, it's not
THAT bad compared to some of the boutique cables, which should tell you
how full of it they are. You want zero loss? It exists if you have
a few thousand lying around. I hear Mercedes is using something simmilar
lately. Go figure.

> If the coax Arny recommends has a polyethylene dielectric, dielectric
> effects would be reduced as compared to vinyl, which has slow electret
> properties.

I don't know, but I suspect it does, as the smaller versions I have seen
are like this. It's serious stuff intended for professional RF and video use,
which is way beyond what audio requires.

> There is a strong physical argument that the best speaker cable would be
> made out of very large diameter material with low conductivity, such as a
> conductive plastic, since skin effect would then be minimized. Of course, it
> would never sell :).

I don't know :) Have you seen how large some of the high-end boutique
cables are?

[Smeghead]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
> > There is a standard electromagnetics homework problem which is to
compute
> > skin effect. It is quite significant at audio frequencies.
>
> Most people can't actually hear this. Solid wire is a bit better, which
> is one of the advantages of that COAX cable. It's also heavily shielded.
> But, it is a real bear to work with. There's no way you are going to pull
> it in anything but its own seperate conduit. Me? I like solid wire
> myself and find it actually a bit easier to work with as far as connectors
> go, as well as easier to hide along walls and baseboards.
>
> Best of all would be fiber-optic and transmitters plus a small amplifier
> for each speaker I guess, but that's a lot of money. OTOH, it's not
> THAT bad compared to some of the boutique cables, which should tell you
> how full of it they are. You want zero loss? It exists if you have
> a few thousand lying around. I hear Mercedes is using something simmilar
> lately. Go figure.
>
> > If the coax Arny recommends has a polyethylene dielectric, dielectric
> > effects would be reduced as compared to vinyl, which has slow electret
> > properties.
>
> I don't know, but I suspect it does, as the smaller versions I have seen
> are like this. It's serious stuff intended for professional RF and video
use,
> which is way beyond what audio requires.
>
> > There is a strong physical argument that the best speaker cable would be
> > made out of very large diameter material with low conductivity, such as
a
> > conductive plastic, since skin effect would then be minimized. Of
course, it
> > would never sell :).
>
> I don't know :) Have you seen how large some of the high-end boutique
> cables are?
>

Very good discussion chaps,

How much do the hundreds of feet of wire used in windings of voice coils and
inductors affect sound quality, in comparison with the few feet of speaker
cable used?, the drive unit windings in my own speakers are made from
aluminium. (morel) I've never seen any aluminium core speaker cables 8-) I
built the crossovers using striped solid core copper 2.5mm T&E, (used to
wire homes etc for say a ring main of wall sockets). then epoxy coated. a
pic or two for anyone whose interested
http://gallery11185.fotopic.net/show_collection.php?id=28726

Stew.

[Bob-Stanton]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> It suggests that whatever the mechanism is that degraded the treble requires
> additional attention. Biwire the treble with Litz, perhaps? Or CAT-5
> twisted? Or maybe just surplus multiple conductor telephone cable?
>...
>
> I noticed bass, but I also noticed treble. Bass degradation is an accepted
> phenomena, which as you say, is solved by piling on more copper. The treble
> degradation is the more interesting phenomena.
>


If the difference between cables was clearly audible, the difference
between cables should be easily measurable. Do you have any
measurements that show why these cables sounded different?

Bob Stanton

[Arny Krueger]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
ink.net

> Robert Morein wrote:

>> There is a standard electromagnetics homework problem which is to
>> compute skin effect. It is quite significant at audio frequencies.

Skin effect is merely a minor distraction from the more significant source
of high frequency losses, which is series inductance. Anybody who makes a
big issue out of skin effect without paying attention to series inductance
which is always more significant, is missing the point.

> Most people can't actually hear this.

Whether all sources of high frequency losses taken together cause an audible
difference depends on the speaker. High frequency losses in speaker cable
are low for most speakers because most speakers are about as inductive as
the cable. Put two inductors in series and the voltage division remains
constant as frequency increases. It's not so much a matter of most people
not hearing it, so much as its a matter of most people not having an audible
effect to hear.

> Solid wire is a bit better,
> which is one of the advantages of that COAX cable.

Solid versus stranded wire has only mechanical effects. Both inductance and
skin effect are based on magnetism affecting the operation of the conductor.
Magnetism doesn't care about stranding and it doesn't care about insulation
around strands. Magnetic lines of force pass through copper and insulation
with the greatest of ease. Various kinds of thin insulation applied to
strands in wire; whether enamel, epoxy, cotton, or silk change the inductive
and skin effect story only a tiny amount, insofar as they slightly increase
the diameter of the conductor.

>It's also heavily shielded. But, it is a real bear to work with.

Nahh. You get some coax with a nice stranded center conductor and pliable
insulation, and its not that hard to deal with. After all interconnect
wiring is all based on coaxial construction.

>There's no way you are going to pull it in anything but its own separate
conduit.

Anybody who goes out of their way to put coax speaker wiring in its own
conduit seriously misses the point. A piece of coax is, electrically
speaking, its own little conduit.

> Me? I like solid wire myself and find it actually a bit easier to work
> with as far as connectors go, as well as easier to hide along walls
> and baseboards.

If you want an easy-to-hide speaker cable, something flat seems to be in
order. There are two common ways to make a flat cable, one being to use
stranded wire and go sideways, the other to stack thin conductors made out
of foil. It turns out that 100-conductor computer ribbon cable is roughly
equivalent to 12 gauge wire. It goes under most rugs with nary a bulge.
Costs under $2 a foot at any big electronic parts distributor.

> Best of all would be fiber-optic and transmitters plus a small
> amplifier for each speaker I guess, but that's a lot of money. OTOH,
> it's not THAT bad compared to some of the boutique cables, which
> should tell you how full of it they are. You want zero loss? It
> exists if you have a few thousand lying around. I hear Mercedes is
> using something similar lately. Go figure.

Bus-oriented car wiring is a whole 'nuther thing. Most new cars already rely
on digital a digital bus to control things like locks and windows. Extending
that to audio is mostly a matter of building on what is already there. OEM
car audio equipment already does things like customize itself to the actual
car it is in by receiving binary keys from the car or other parts of the
audio system.

It's not uncommon to put the amplifiers on the speakers in OEM audio, in
order to save on heavy wire. Switchmode power supplies are a no-no in
automotive applications, so any really high powered applications depend on
low-impedance speakers.

For a number of years I've suggested that home audio companies develop a
powered digital bus for speakers, sort of like a USB or Firewire on
steroids. Speakers would be physically wired arbitrarily in daisy-chain or
star configurations. A switch on the speaker would customize it for its role
in the system - left, right, surround, center, sub etc.

Now that wireless networking is becoming common, speakers could use wiring
only for power. A 55 megabit net is more than enough to transmit many
channels of high-quality audio.

Perhaps we could put a fuel cell in each speaker and power them by
converting isobutane or hydrogen to electricity in each speaker. A small
lithium-ion battery would power the logic during stand-by operation.

>> If the coax Arny recommends has a polyethylene dielectric, dielectric
>> effects would be reduced as compared to vinyl, which has slow
>> electret properties.

Electrets are only significant for audio if they are charged. Until the
electret properties of some plastic insulation materials were understood,
wire makers would inadvertently make well-charged electrets. Now that the
process is understood, no savvy wire maker would be caught doing that.

> I don't know, but I suspect it does, as the smaller versions I have
> seen are like this. It's serious stuff intended for professional RF
> and video use, which is way beyond what audio requires.

It's all about speaker cable series inductance and the very few speakers
where cable series inductance actually matters. If a speaker cable vendor
talks about the high frequency performance of his product and doesn't talk
about inductance, he might was well hang an "I'm stupid" or a "I think you
are stupid" sign on himself. However, if he doesn't also admit that speaker
cable series inductance is a non-issue with most speakers because they
themselves are inductive, he's also hanging up one of those two signs or
both. Ditto for the "eggspherts" that write for the ragazines and audio
sites. Coax isn't the only way to manage series inductance, but it is a
readily-available off-the-shelf way to manage it.

>> There is a strong physical argument that the best speaker cable
>> would be made out of very large diameter material with low
>> conductivity, such as a conductive plastic, since skin effect would
>> then be minimized. Of course, it would never sell :).

Again, someone hasn't done their home work. Large diameter taken too far,
and its easy to take it too far, gets you back into series inductance
issues. Series inductance is always a bigger issue than skin effect with
speaker cable. Anybody who tries to rattle your chain with scare stories
about skin effect is either exposing their ignorance, or trying to pull the
wool over your eyes.

> I don't know :) Have you seen how large some of the high-end boutique
cables are?

Some are big enough that they sacrifice getting the lowest possible series
inductance. A clear case of throwing the baby out with the wash water, along
with you throwing away with your money. Frankly, if people want to change
high prices for a product with zero practical benefits, that's one thing.
But charging high prices for a product with clearly substandard performance
is something else. Needless to say, lots of "audio eggspherts" in the high
end ragazines and audio sites want to do both!

[Robert Morein]

"Smeghead" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> > > There is a standard electromagnetics homework problem which is to
[snip]
>
> Very good discussion chaps,
>
> How much do the hundreds of feet of wire used in windings of voice coils
and
> inductors affect sound quality, in comparison with the few feet of speaker
> cable used?, the drive unit windings in my own speakers are made from
> aluminium. (morel) I've never seen any aluminium core speaker cables 8-)
I
> built the crossovers using striped solid core copper 2.5mm T&E, (used to
> wire homes etc for say a ring main of wall sockets). then epoxy coated. a
> pic or two for anyone whose interested
> http://gallery11185.fotopic.net/show_collection.php?id=28726
>
> Stew.
>
This is an imporant question. There is a major distinction to be made.

Inductance in a speaker coil is a major parameter of the driver. Inductance
is another name for the energy stored in the magnetic field that moves the
coil. When a driver is designed for flat response, the inductance is
integral to the design. There is no "loss" attributable to the inductance of
a speaker coil, because it is all accounted for during the design of the
driver.

Inductance in a speaker cable does cause loss of high frequencies, but it
can be compensated for. The distributed inductance and capacitance of the
cable form a simple filter. By using a tone control or an equalizer, the
user constructs an approximate inverse filter. In theory, a dedicated filter
could completely null out inductance in a speaker cable.

Now, without taking a position on whether skin effect and dielectric memory
are audible, these phenomena are not in the same class. They are nonlinear,
which means that no inverse filter can be made. Whatever happens to the
signal after it's passed through the cable cannot be reversed.

The common argument is that these effects are small. Maybe, but they are
qualitatively different. No study of speaker cables would be complete unless
they were studied as separate phenomena.

Joseph Oberlander mentions a threshold of several percent "loss" for
audibility. This should be a clue that something other than distributed LC
is going on here. In terms of sheer signal level, a difference of a few
percent is completely inaudible. On the other hand, DISTORTION of a few
percent can be very audible.

But LC is incapable of producing "distortion", as audio people use the term.
All it can do is tilt the frequency response.

This suggests that there may be a phenomena in the cable that produces
audible distortion. Three candidates are known:

1. Skin effect
2. Dielectric memory
3. Microphonics

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> "Smeghead" > wrote in message
> ...

>> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...

>>> Robert Morein wrote:

>>>> There is a standard electromagnetics homework problem which is
>>>> to [snip]

>> Very good discussion chaps,

>> How much do the hundreds of feet of wire used in windings of voice
>> coils and inductors affect sound quality, in comparison with the few
>> feet of speaker cable used?, the drive unit windings in my own
>> speakers are made from aluminum. (morel) I've never seen any
>> aluminum core speaker cables 8-)

You need to wind or unwind speaker inductors and voice coils more. There
typically aren't 100's of feet of wire in either one (subwoofer and very low
midrange crossover coils a possible exception). But there are up to several
dozen feet of wire in many of them.

>> I built the crossovers using striped solid core copper 2.5mm T&E,
>> (used to wire homes etc for say a ring main of wall sockets). then
>> epoxy coated. a pic or two for anyone whose interested
>> http://gallery11185.fotopic.net/show_collection.php?id=28726

These pictures shed very little light on the construction of the crossovers.
But tell the truth, were there 100's of feet or were there several dozen
feet of wire in those crossovers? Or was this a subwoofer or low midrange
application. You must know the exact number, right?

Most speakers are simple 2-ways with a crossover at some frequency in the
midrange. A few dozen feet of wire in a crossover like that, if there's an
inductor at all.

> This is an important question. There is a major distinction to be made.

> Inductance in a speaker coil is a major parameter of the driver.
> Inductance is another name for the energy stored in the magnetic
> field that moves the coil.

Inductance is orthogonal to energy, not a measure of it. Inductance is a
measure of the ability of something to store energy, but no way is it
another name for energy stored in the magnetic field that moves the coil.

> When a driver is designed for flat
> response, the inductance is integral to the design. There is no
> "loss" attributable to the inductance of a speaker coil, because it
> is all accounted for during the design of the driver.

Some naive person might wish that inductance is "accounted for" or that
drivers are all designed for flat response, but these are
over-simplifications. Speakers don't as a rule have flat response, and
frankly inductance of the voice coils may be one reason why.

> Inductance in a speaker cable does cause loss of high frequencies,
> but it can be compensated for. The distributed inductance and
> capacitance of the cable form a simple filter. By using a tone
> control or an equalizer, the user constructs an approximate inverse
> filter. In theory, a dedicated filter could completely null out
> inductance in a speaker cable.

Again the writer ignores a simple fact - a simple voltage divider made up of
two ideal inductors has a constant voltage output without regard to
frequency. Also true for capacitors, at least down to the lowest
frequencies.

If you hook an inductive load called a speaker to an inductive source called
an amplifier driving a speaker cable, the two inductances tend to compensate
for each other to a surprising degree. Of course there's no absolute
guarantee that the speaker is inductive, specific cases being planar and
ribbon speakers, whether electrostatic or electromagnetic.

> Now, without taking a position on whether skin effect and dielectric
> memory are audible, these phenomena are not in the same class. They
> are nonlinear, which means that no inverse filter can be made.

Actually, skin effect is linear. If an audio signal flows through a cable
with significant skin effect, the losses due to skin effect create no new
signals at other frequencies. It fails the basic definition of a nonlinear
circuit.

Dielectric memory is also generally linear. If an audio signal flows through
a cable or capacitor with significant dielectric memory effect, the
dielectric memory effect creates no new signals at other frequencies. If
fails the basic definition of a nonlinear circuit.

Furthermore, nonlinear effects can be compensated for. Just like my previous
example with inductors, a voltage divider made up of two similar nonlinear
elements will have a constant voltage output over a wide range of voltages.
The two nonlinearities can compensate for each other.

> Whatever happens to the signal after it's passed through the cable
> cannot be reversed.

Falsified on the grounds upon which it was claimed.

> The common argument is that these effects are small. Maybe, but they
> are qualitatively different. No study of speaker cables would be
> complete unless they were studied as separate phenomena.

Not only are they small, they are linear and they can be compensated for,
even if they are nonlinear.

> Joseph Oberlander mentions a threshold of several percent "loss" for
> audibility. This should be a clue that something other than
> distributed LC is going on here. In terms of sheer signal level, a
> difference of a few percent is completely inaudible. On the other
> hand, DISTORTION of a few percent can be very audible.

Nonlinear distortion as little as 0.1% can be heard under ideal conditions
for easy detection. Nonlinear distortion as high as 5 or 10% can be
undetectable under ideal conditions for masking. Thing is, nonlinear
distortion due to speaker cables and interconnects is generally much less
than 0.1%. Often, its below 0.001%. Often, its unmeasurable even with the
finest commercially-available equipment.

> But LC is incapable of producing "distortion", as audio people use
> the term. All it can do is tilt the frequency response.

Or produce shelves. Or, the L's and C's can be nonlinear themselves. But,
the L's and C's in speaker cable have a high degree of inherent linearity.

> This suggests that there may be a phenomena in the cable that produces
> audible distortion. Three candidates are known:

> 1. Skin effect

Nope, it's a linear effect.

> 2. Dielectric memory

Nope, its also almost always linear.

> 3. Microphonics

It's not a distortion at all, but an interfering signal. If its a
microphonic effect that is due to the same signal that is passing through
it, then it can act like an acoustical effect causing feedback. And that's
because it starts out with sound and vibrations being caused by the speaker.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:02:23 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>Inductance in a speaker coil is a major parameter of the driver. Inductance
>is another name for the energy stored in the magnetic field that moves the
>coil.

Yuck! If Inductance was another name for energy it would have the
units of energy. Don't let Dick see this whatever you do.

[George M. Middius]

Goofy said:

> Yuck! If Inductance was another name for energy it would have the
> units of energy. Don't let Dick see this whatever you do.

Somebody had his spinach this morning......

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:47:57 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Goofy said:
>
>> Yuck! If Inductance was another name for energy it would have the
>> units of energy. Don't let Dick see this whatever you do.
>
>Somebody had his spinach this morning......
>
>
>

At least I did not have Olive Oil. . .

[Smeghead]

>
> You need to wind or unwind speaker inductors and voice coils more. There
> typically aren't 100's of feet of wire in either one (subwoofer and very
low
> midrange crossover coils a possible exception). But there are up to
several
> dozen feet of wire in many of them.
>
> These pictures shed very little light on the construction of the
crossovers.
> But tell the truth, were there 100's of feet or were there several dozen
> feet of wire in those crossovers? Or was this a subwoofer or low midrange
> application. You must know the exact number, right?

First i'm no expert on this subject so i apolagise for any stupid questions
etc.

I must admit I have no experience in winding voice coils or inductors. I'm
just a diyist looking to learn more. we all have to start somewhere. The
bass driver has a second order filter with a 2.0 mh inductor, combined with
the drivers voice coil, this must be past the hundred feet mark
http://www.colomar.com/cgi-bin/inductor_proc I'm not sure of the exact gauge
that was used in the inductor but I would think it would be around one
hundred feet + of wire used in this part of the circuit alone.

It's distortions and any phase issues caused by the metal and insulation of
wire that I am most interested in, frequency response can be tailored within
reason in the design and testing stage of the speaker so that's not too much
of an issue as far as I can see. if speaker cable is of adequate gauge and
just a few feet in length then the frequency response of the speaker should
stay more or less the same. For instance this 6mm2 conventional cable
http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=1416 apparently ruins the
sound stage, gives a lack of "insight" and lack of detail.
This is the kind of claims that makes me wonder what else must be going on,
if these differences are real. If I used the afore mentioned cable (2ft per
driver at least) between the binding post ,crossover, drive units then this
would according to the review give the same undesirable quality's to the
speaker which cant be easily accounted for in the design. I cant see how a
cable could affect the width of soundstage.

Stew.

[George M. Middius]

Goofy said:

> >Somebody had his spinach this morning......

> At least I did not have Olive Oil. . .

Now yer cookin'.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:02:23 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>This suggests that there may be a phenomena in the cable that produces
>audible distortion. Three candidates are known:
>
>1. Skin effect
>2. Dielectric memory
>3. Microphonics

Don'r worry about dielectric properties for speaker cables.

Take a speaker of R=10 Ohms, an amplifier giving V=10 Volts (RMS)
you get I=1 amp and Power = 10 Watts.

Now take the same 10 Volts out of the amp at 20,000Hz (worst case) and
see what current is needed to charge and discharge the capacitance of
the cable.
Say the capacitance is 50pF/metre and we have 20 metres (LoT's) of
cable =1000pF
Call 2*PI = 5.
The reactance of the capacitor is X=1/(2 pi f C j)= 1/(5*2e4*1e-9) =
1/1e5*1e-9) = 1/(1e-4 )
The current charging this capacitance is I = V/X = 10 * 1e-4 = 1e-3 =
1 milliamp. This is all you have to play with.

You are going to have to be very creative to distort this 1 milliamp
in some way, enough for it to create a distorted voltage across the
output impedance of the amp,sufficient to be audible against your 10
Watts signal, even if you used the worst dielectric on Earth.

Say you manage to distort this 1 milliamp by 10% (very generous
indeed) and the output impedance of the amplifier is 0.1 Ohm
(generous) The amplitude of the distortion is then 10 microvolts and
the distortion power at the speaker W=V^2/R =10e-9 Watts. A
signal/Distortion of 1000,000,000

Yep, the idea is total ********.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Robert Morein wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander mentions a threshold of several percent "loss" for
> audibility. This should be a clue that something other than distributed LC
> is going on here. In terms of sheer signal level, a difference of a few
> percent is completely inaudible. On the other hand, DISTORTION of a few
> percent can be very audible.

I meant "loss" as in exactly that - as all signals degrade in strength as
the wires get longer. For most people, 1-2% is below their tolerance.
5%, otoh, most people can actually hear.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Smeghead wrote:

>
> I must admit I have no experience in winding voice coils or inductors. I'm
> just a diyist looking to learn more. we all have to start somewhere. The
> bass driver has a second order filter with a 2.0 mh inductor, combined with
> the drivers voice coil, this must be past the hundred feet mark
> http://www.colomar.com/cgi-bin/inductor_proc I'm not sure of the exact gauge
> that was used in the inductor but I would think it would be around one
> hundred feet + of wire used in this part of the circuit alone.
>
> It's distortions and any phase issues caused by the metal and insulation of
> wire that I am most interested in, frequency response can be tailored within
> reason in the design and testing stage of the speaker so that's not too much
> of an issue as far as I can see.

The metal is a moot point as it's all the same basic copper wire. As for
the insulation and possible shielding, the simple fact is that if you are
really worried, just get some good heavy gauge coax. They use it for low signal
loss on microphones and video signals, so audio is a non-issue. It works
very well.

if speaker cable is of adequate gauge and
> just a few feet in length then the frequency response of the speaker should
> stay more or less the same. For instance this 6mm2 conventional cable
> http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=1416 apparently ruins the
> sound stage, gives a lack of "insight" and lack of detail.

It's a typical review - they don't know what they are really hearing, as
you can measure the differences between the cables and the effects are
well below human hearing. They do the same thing with 24/96 vs the older
technology - the reality is that 99.9% of people who are of an age where
they can afford to buy a CD player and listen critically(ie - at least
a teenager) have already suffered enough hearing loss that they can't
hear any difference between CD and 24/96.

Our ears are very poor compared to most other animals. Ther's no getting
around it. Thankfully, this also is a blessing, as some very common materials
produce good sound. If humans heard to 30-40Khz like dogs, 90% of what is
out there in audio reproduction would sound like junk to us. The rest would
cost a fortune.

> This is the kind of claims that makes me wonder what else must be going on,
> if these differences are real.

They really aren't unless they are either using too little metal(gauge) or
have very ugly speakers. Most good speakers have a couple of impedance dips
or rises, but these are never more than half their rated value. Usually, a
typical 8 ohm speaker will have a 5 ohm bottom end. Maybe 4.

Oddly enough, some of the more "high-end" speakers have some terrible
characteristics due to odd materials and techniques. If your speaker
or crossover is made wrong and you are needing to pull 2 ohms, say, from
60 to 80hz, 18 gauge wire isn't going to cut it.

For the other 95%+ of the time, it's meaningless. The reviewers are
making stuff up in their own minds.

ie: reviews are crap. Good wire or coax can be had for less than $1 a foot.

[Arny Krueger]

"Smeghead" > wrote in message

>> You need to wind or unwind speaker inductors and voice coils more.
>> There typically aren't 100's of feet of wire in either one
>> (subwoofer and very low midrange crossover coils a possible
>> exception). But there are up to
> several
>> dozen feet of wire in many of them.
>>
>> These pictures shed very little light on the construction of the
>> crossovers. But tell the truth, were there 100's of feet or were
>> there several dozen feet of wire in those crossovers? Or was this a
>> subwoofer or low midrange application. You must know the exact
>> number, right?
>
> First i'm no expert on this subject so i apolagise for any stupid
> questions etc.
>
> I must admit I have no experience in winding voice coils or
> inductors. I'm just a diyist looking to learn more. we all have to
> start somewhere. The bass driver has a second order filter with a 2.0
> mh inductor, combined with the drivers voice coil, this must be past
> the hundred feet mark http://www.colomar.com/cgi-bin/inductor_proc
> I'm not sure of the exact gauge that was used in the inductor but I
> would think it would be around one hundred feet + of wire used in
> this part of the circuit alone.

Agreed.


> It's distortions and any phase issues caused by the metal and
> insulation of wire that I am most interested in, frequency response
> can be tailored within reason in the design and testing stage of the
> speaker so that's not too much of an issue as far as I can see.

Air core inductors are well known for their absence of nonlinear distortion
and general ideal performance as an inductor. The inductor is going to cause
some phase shift if used in a crossover, but that's what its supposed to do!

> if speaker cable is of adequate gauge and just a few feet in length then
> the frequency response of the speaker should stay more or less the
> same.

Agreed.

> For instance this 6mm2 conventional cable
> http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=1416 apparently ruins
> the sound stage, gives a lack of "insight" and lack of detail.

Somebody is letting their imagination get the best of them.

>This
> is the kind of claims that makes me wonder what else must be going
> on, if these differences are real.

The perceptions of audible differences are no doubt real enough to the
person perceiving them. Hence the concept of "reliable audible differences".
IOW, differences that are audible in level-matched, time-synchronized,
bias-controlled listening tests.

>If I used the afore mentioned
> cable (2ft per driver at least) between the binding post ,crossover,
> drive units then this would according to the review give the same
> undesirable quality's to the speaker which cant be easily accounted
> for in the design.

These are generally the kind of "audible differences" that "go away" when
reliable listening test procedures are used.

>I cant see how a cable could affect the width of soundstage.

Not two feet of a reasonable gauge, agreed.

[Arny Krueger]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
nk.net

> They do the same thing with 24/96 vs.
> the older technology - the reality is that 99.9% of people who are of
> an age where they can afford to buy a CD player and listen
> critically(i.e. - at least a teenager) have already suffered enough
> hearing loss that they can't hear any difference between CD and 24/96.

*Everybody* is unable to hear any difference between recordings made at
24/96 and 16/44, but otherwise identical. Hearing loss has nothing to do
with it. Of course the people pushing 24/96 go out of their way to ensure
that the recordings released at 24/96, SACD and 24/192 differ markedly from
those released at 16/44 in other ways. In many cases recordings released on
SACD are devoid of any significant content over 22 KHz because that
information wasn't captured by the original recording.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

>
> *Everybody* is unable to hear any difference between recordings made at
> 24/96 and 16/44, but otherwise identical. Hearing loss has nothing to do
> with it. Of course the people pushing 24/96 go out of their way to ensure
> that the recordings released at 24/96, SACD and 24/192 differ markedly
from
> those released at 16/44 in other ways. In many cases recordings released
on
> SACD are devoid of any significant content over 22 KHz because that
> information wasn't captured by the original recording.
>

You have no realisitc conception of what *everybody* is able ,
or not able, to hear.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Joseph Oberlander]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> nk.net
>
>
>>They do the same thing with 24/96 vs.
>>the older technology - the reality is that 99.9% of people who are of
>>an age where they can afford to buy a CD player and listen
>>critically(i.e. - at least a teenager) have already suffered enough
>>hearing loss that they can't hear any difference between CD and 24/96.
>
>
> *Everybody* is unable to hear any difference between recordings made at
> 24/96 and 16/44, but otherwise identical.

There are a few people with exceptional hearing that goes a bit above 20Khz.
Of course, that's not myself of anyone here, so it's really a moot point.

[Arny Krueger]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
ink.net
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
>> nk.net
>>
>>
>>> They do the same thing with 24/96 vs.
>>> the older technology - the reality is that 99.9% of people who are
>>> of an age where they can afford to buy a CD player and listen
>>> critically(i.e. - at least a teenager) have already suffered enough
>>> hearing loss that they can't hear any difference between CD and
>>> 24/96.
>>
>>
>> *Everybody* is unable to hear any difference between recordings made
>> at 24/96 and 16/44, but otherwise identical.
>
> There are a few people with exceptional hearing that goes a bit above
> 20Khz. Of course, that's not myself of anyone here, so it's really a
> moot point.

Surprisingly ability to hear above 20 KHz doesn't relate to this issue.
People who can hear isolated sounds > 20 KHz, can't hear sounds > 16 Khz
when concurrrently presented with other sounds < 16 Khz. It's called
"concurrent masking", and it's a well-known psychoacoustic effect. Since
music *always* contains a broad spectrum of sounds, concurrent masking it
always in effect this way.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> *Everybody* is unable to hear any difference between recordings made
>> at 24/96 and 16/44, but otherwise identical. Hearing loss has
>> nothing to do with it. Of course the people pushing 24/96 go out of
>> their way to ensure that the recordings released at 24/96, SACD and
>> 24/192 differ markedly
> from
>> those released at 16/44 in other ways. In many cases recordings
>> released
> on
>> SACD are devoid of any significant content over 22 KHz because that
>> information wasn't captured by the original recording.
>>
>
> You have no realistic conception of what *everybody* is able ,
> or not able, to hear.

And I suppose that your preference for added noise and distortion makes you
some kind of an expert in this field?

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>
> >> *Everybody* is unable to hear any difference between recordings made
> >> at 24/96 and 16/44, but otherwise identical. Hearing loss has
> >> nothing to do with it. Of course the people pushing 24/96 go out of
> >> their way to ensure that the recordings released at 24/96, SACD and
> >> 24/192 differ markedly
> > from
> >> those released at 16/44 in other ways. In many cases recordings
> >> released
> > on
> >> SACD are devoid of any significant content over 22 KHz because that
> >> information wasn't captured by the original recording.
> >>
> >
> > You have no realistic conception of what *everybody* is able ,
> > or not able, to hear.
>
> And I suppose that your preference for added noise and distortion makes
you
> some kind of an expert in this field?
>

What field? Oh, yes, the field of knowing exactly what each and every other
person can and cannot perceive. Neither you nor I would have knowledge of
that.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Everybody* is unable to hear any difference between recordings
>>>> made at 24/96 and 16/44, but otherwise identical. Hearing loss has
>>>> nothing to do with it. Of course the people pushing 24/96 go out of
>>>> their way to ensure that the recordings released at 24/96, SACD and
>>>> 24/192 differ markedly
>>> from
>>>> those released at 16/44 in other ways. In many cases recordings
>>>> released
>>> on
>>>> SACD are devoid of any significant content over 22 KHz because that
>>>> information wasn't captured by the original recording.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You have no realistic conception of what *everybody* is able ,
>>> or not able, to hear.
>>
>> And I suppose that your preference for added noise and distortion
>> makes you
>> some kind of an expert in this field?

> What field?

Since you are so secretive about your (PRESUMABLY NON-EXISTENT) education
and work experience sockpuppet Yustabe, who the heck knows?

> Oh, yes, the field of knowing exactly what each and every
> other person can and cannot perceive.

Typical sockpuppet Yustabe lying, deceptive half-truth. I make no claims
about what people will perceive, but I can determine what people can't
possibly perceive based on just listening.

>Neither you nor I would have knowledge of that.

I'm not as stupid and ignorant about audio as you seem to be, sockpuppet
Yustabe. So don't put me down at your lying, deceptive, ignorant, arrogant,
anonymous Usenet dweeb level.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> *Everybody* is unable to hear any difference between recordings
> >>>> made at 24/96 and 16/44, but otherwise identical. Hearing loss has
> >>>> nothing to do with it. Of course the people pushing 24/96 go out of
> >>>> their way to ensure that the recordings released at 24/96, SACD and
> >>>> 24/192 differ markedly
> >>> from
> >>>> those released at 16/44 in other ways. In many cases recordings
> >>>> released
> >>> on
> >>>> SACD are devoid of any significant content over 22 KHz because that
> >>>> information wasn't captured by the original recording.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> You have no realistic conception of what *everybody* is able ,
> >>> or not able, to hear.
> >>
> >> And I suppose that your preference for added noise and distortion
> >> makes you
> >> some kind of an expert in this field?
>
> > What field?
>
> Since you are so secretive about your (PRESUMABLY NON-EXISTENT) education
> and work experience sockpuppet Yustabe, who the heck knows?
>
> > Oh, yes, the field of knowing exactly what each and every
> > other person can and cannot perceive.

> Typical sockpuppet Yustabe lying, deceptive half-truth. I make no claims
> about what people will perceive, but I can determine what people can't
> possibly perceive based on just listening.
>

You cannot determine whether any particular person can or cannot hear a such
difference. You are making things up out of thin air.

> >Neither you nor I would have knowledge of that.
>
> I'm not as stupid and ignorant about audio as you seem to be, sockpuppet
> Yustabe. So don't put me down at your lying, deceptive, ignorant,
arrogant,
> anonymous Usenet dweeb level.
>

You are stupid and ignorant at all levels, but particularly
so when it comes to logic and common sense.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote
>>> in message ...
>>>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Everybody* is unable to hear any difference between recordings
>>>>>> made at 24/96 and 16/44, but otherwise identical. Hearing loss
>>>>>> has nothing to do with it. Of course the people pushing 24/96 go
>>>>>> out of their way to ensure that the recordings released at
>>>>>> 24/96, SACD and 24/192 differ markedly
>>>>> from
>>>>>> those released at 16/44 in other ways. In many cases recordings
>>>>>> released
>>>>> on
>>>>>> SACD are devoid of any significant content over 22 KHz because
>>>>>> that information wasn't captured by the original recording.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no realistic conception of what *everybody* is able ,
>>>>> or not able, to hear.
>>>>
>>>> And I suppose that your preference for added noise and distortion
>>>> makes you
>>>> some kind of an expert in this field?
>>
>>> What field?
>>
>> Since you are so secretive about your (PRESUMABLY NON-EXISTENT)
>> education and work experience sockpuppet Yustabe, who the heck knows?
>>
>>> Oh, yes, the field of knowing exactly what each and every
>>> other person can and cannot perceive.
>
>> Typical sockpuppet Yustabe lying, deceptive half-truth. I make no
>> claims about what people will perceive, but I can determine what
>> people can't possibly perceive based on just listening.
>>
>
> You cannot determine whether any particular person can or cannot hear
> a such difference. You are making things up out of thin air.
>
>>> Neither you nor I would have knowledge of that.
>>
>> I'm not as stupid and ignorant about audio as you seem to be,
>> sockpuppet Yustabe. So don't put me down at your lying, deceptive,
>> ignorant,
> arrogant,
>> anonymous Usenet dweeb level.
>>
>
> You are stupid and ignorant at all levels, but particularly
> so when it comes to logic and common sense.

OSAF, pure and simple. In fact Yustabe, you're one of the most simple-minded
posters on RAO, which is really saying quite a bit. You're ashamed of just
about every facet of your life. How pathetic could you appear to be? Most
people on Usenet lie about how great their lives are, but your Usenet life
is already a zero. How miserable is your real life?

[S888Wheel]

> You're ashamed of just
>about every facet of your life. How pathetic could you appear to be? Most
>people on Usenet lie about how great their lives are, but your Usenet life
>is already a zero. How miserable is your real life?


Once again Arny makes sociopathic attacks based on personal mallicious
fantasies about the lives of others. Arny, it is public record by your own
admissions that you are a chronic underachiever and a fairly stupid person. Why
would you attack the lives other people whom you know nothing about? Does it
ease the pain of your miserable existance? Arny don't you understand that if
you are willing to invent lies to use as mallicious attacks against others that
it is only common sense to keep personal information out of your reach? They
take people off the streets where they can come into contact with other normal
people and put them in rubber rooms for good reasons.

[George M. Middius]

S888Wheel said to ****-for-Brains:

> would you attack the lives other people whom you know nothing about? Does it
> ease the pain of your miserable existance?

Correctly diagnosed.

> Arny don't you understand that if
> you are willing to invent lies to use as mallicious attacks against others that
> it is only common sense to keep personal information out of your reach?

Krooger doesn't recognize any interest other than his own. He
honestly, truly believes that there is only one side to every issue.
For instance, Krooger has klaimed that in your lawsuit, you had an
obligation to argue his case for him. This shows he cannot distinguish
between his own interest and anybody else's. He has also klaimed to
deplore personal attacks in place of substantive discussion -- about
audio or other subjects -- but he has also admitted he sees himself as
a "master baiter" and "expert troll". This shows that he sees Usenet,
or any online forum, as his personal playpen, and that he feels
entitled to say anything to anybody in order to amuse himself. Another
example is his stubborn refusal to understand the difference between
the designer of electronic equipment and the consumer. By inventing
such a farfetched rationale, Turdy can ignore his own inability
appreciate high-quality audio equipment. This shows, among other
things, that he is intensely bitter about his failure to achieve
anything in electronics despite a lifelong interest in it.

Telling Mr. **** that doing something is against your self-interest is
like trying to teach algebra to a nest of cockroaches. It is simply
beyond his understanding.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> S888Wheel said to ****-for-Brains:
>
> > would you attack the lives other people whom you know nothing about?
Does it
> > ease the pain of your miserable existance?
>
> Correctly diagnosed.
>
> > Arny don't you understand that if
> > you are willing to invent lies to use as mallicious attacks against
others that
> > it is only common sense to keep personal information out of your reach?
>
> Krooger doesn't recognize any interest other than his own. He
> honestly, truly believes that there is only one side to every issue.
> For instance, Krooger has klaimed that in your lawsuit, you had an
> obligation to argue his case for him. This shows he cannot distinguish
> between his own interest and anybody else's. He has also klaimed to
> deplore personal attacks in place of substantive discussion -- about
> audio or other subjects -- but he has also admitted he sees himself as
> a "master baiter" and "expert troll". This shows that he sees Usenet,
> or any online forum, as his personal playpen, and that he feels
> entitled to say anything to anybody in order to amuse himself. Another
> example is his stubborn refusal to understand the difference between
> the designer of electronic equipment and the consumer. By inventing
> such a farfetched rationale, Turdy can ignore his own inability
> appreciate high-quality audio equipment. This shows, among other
> things, that he is intensely bitter about his failure to achieve
> anything in electronics despite a lifelong interest in it.
>
> Telling Mr. **** that doing something is against your self-interest is
> like trying to teach algebra to a nest of cockroaches. It is simply
> beyond his understanding.
>

What you have described is a classic example of a sociopath.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Marc Phillips]

Yustabe said:

>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> S888Wheel said to ****-for-Brains:
>>
>> > would you attack the lives other people whom you know nothing about?
>Does it
>> > ease the pain of your miserable existance?
>>
>> Correctly diagnosed.
>>
>> > Arny don't you understand that if
>> > you are willing to invent lies to use as mallicious attacks against
>others that
>> > it is only common sense to keep personal information out of your reach?
>>
>> Krooger doesn't recognize any interest other than his own. He
>> honestly, truly believes that there is only one side to every issue.
>> For instance, Krooger has klaimed that in your lawsuit, you had an
>> obligation to argue his case for him. This shows he cannot distinguish
>> between his own interest and anybody else's. He has also klaimed to
>> deplore personal attacks in place of substantive discussion -- about
>> audio or other subjects -- but he has also admitted he sees himself as
>> a "master baiter" and "expert troll". This shows that he sees Usenet,
>> or any online forum, as his personal playpen, and that he feels
>> entitled to say anything to anybody in order to amuse himself. Another
>> example is his stubborn refusal to understand the difference between
>> the designer of electronic equipment and the consumer. By inventing
>> such a farfetched rationale, Turdy can ignore his own inability
>> appreciate high-quality audio equipment. This shows, among other
>> things, that he is intensely bitter about his failure to achieve
>> anything in electronics despite a lifelong interest in it.
>>
>> Telling Mr. **** that doing something is against your self-interest is
>> like trying to teach algebra to a nest of cockroaches. It is simply
>> beyond his understanding.
>>
>
>What you have described is a classic example of a sociopath.

That about sums it up.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> You're ashamed of just
>> about every facet of your life. How pathetic could you appear to be?
>> Most people on Usenet lie about how great their lives are, but your
>> Usenet life is already a zero. How miserable is your real life?
>
>
> Once again Arny makes sociopathic attacks based on personal malicious
> fantasies about the lives of others.

It takes a real numskull to confuse questions, complete with explicit
question marks, with claims about the lives of others.

> Arny, it is public record by
> your own admissions that you are a chronic underachiever and a fairly
> stupid person.

Where did I say that?

>Why would you attack the lives other people whom you
> know nothing about?

It takes a real numskull to confuse questions, complete with explicit
question marks, with claims about the lives of others.

> Does it ease the pain of your miserable existence?

The best revenge is living well.

>Arny don't you understand that if you are willing to
> invent lies to use as malicious attacks against others that it is
> only common sense to keep personal information out of your reach?

Do you think that if you repeat the same lies often enough, they will become
true?

> They take people off the streets where they can come into contact
> with other normal people and put them in rubber rooms for good
> reasons.

I see you still revel in the same tired old fantasies, sockpuppet wheel. Do
you really think that things like this still happen?

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>The best revenge is living well.

Living in front of your computer is NOT living well.

Boon

[dave weil]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 17:21:19 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>>> You're ashamed of just
>>> about every facet of your life. How pathetic could you appear to be?
>>> Most people on Usenet lie about how great their lives are, but your
>>> Usenet life is already a zero. How miserable is your real life?
>>
>>
>> Once again Arny makes sociopathic attacks based on personal malicious
>> fantasies about the lives of others.
>
>It takes a real numskull to confuse questions, complete with explicit
>question marks, with claims about the lives of others.

No, it takes a real numskull to assume that people can't see the venom
dripping from those "questions".

What a horrid life you must lead. (venom clearly indicated and not run
from)

[dave weil]

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 17:21:19 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> Arny, it is public record by
>> your own admissions that you are a chronic underachiever and a fairly
>> stupid person.
>
>Where did I say that?

You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, remember?

Maybe you're claiming to be the Forrest Gump of RAO...

[George M. Middius]

Marc Phillips said:

> >The best revenge is living well.

> Living in front of your computer is NOT living well.

Nor is having your assets seized to satisfy a court judgment.

Maybe what Arnii means by "living well" is "staying out of jail".

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

> Arny said:
>
>> The best revenge is living well.
>
> Living in front of your computer is NOT living well.

Agreed.

So do try to get out more, eh Phillips?

[Joseph Oberlander]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> OSAF, pure and simple. In fact Yustabe, you're one of the most simple-minded
> posters on RAO, which is really saying quite a bit. You're ashamed of just
> about every facet of your life. How pathetic could you appear to be? Most
> people on Usenet lie about how great their lives are, but your Usenet life
> is already a zero. How miserable is your real life?

My original point was that while there is a measurabel difference between
16 and 24 bit, just like different wires, our ears completely fail to
hear the difference.(as long as quality is maintained - 20 gauge wire
isn't going to work with your maggies)

[S888Wheel]

Arny said

>>> You're ashamed of just
>>> about every facet of your life. How pathetic could you appear to be?
>>> Most people on Usenet lie about how great their lives are, but your
>>> Usenet life is already a zero. How miserable is your real life?
>>

I said

>> Once again Arny makes sociopathic attacks based on personal malicious
>> fantasies about the lives of others.
>

Arny said

>
>It takes a real numskull to confuse questions, complete with explicit
>question marks, with claims about the lives of others.

Indeed it would. Are you still beating your wife Arny??? Just a question not a
claim. Right?

I said

>
>> Arny, it is public record by
>> your own admissions that you are a chronic underachiever and a fairly
>> stupid person.

Arny said

>
>Where did I say that?

On RAO but not in those exact words.

I said

>
>>Why would you attack the lives other people whom you
>> know nothing about?

Arny said

>
>It takes a real numskull to confuse questions, complete with explicit
>question marks, with claims about the lives of others.
>

It takes a complete lack of imagination to be so painfully redundant.

I said

>
>> Does it ease the pain of your miserable existence?
>

Arny said

>
>The best revenge is living well.

Please try to live well and maybe your sociopathic behavior will go a way. In
the mean time, does it ease the pain of your miserable existance?

I said

>
>>Arny don't you understand that if you are willing to
>> invent lies to use as malicious attacks against others that it is
>> only common sense to keep personal information out of your reach?

Arny said

>
>Do you think that if you repeat the same lies often enough, they will become
>true?

Failure to answer the question noted.

I said

>
>> They take people off the streets where they can come into contact
>> with other normal people and put them in rubber rooms for good
>> reasons.

Arny said

>
>I see you still revel in the same tired old fantasies, sockpuppet wheel. Do
>you really think that things like this still happen?

What do you think Arny? Do you think mentally ill people who are proven to be a
threat to society are not taken off the streets ever?

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>> Arny said:
>>
>>> The best revenge is living well.
>>
>> Living in front of your computer is NOT living well.
>
>Agreed.
>
>So do try to get out more, eh Phillips?

I bet you gave duh-Mikey goosebumps with that feeble IKYABWAI.

Boon

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>
> > Arny said:
> >
> >> The best revenge is living well.
> >
> > Living in front of your computer is NOT living well.
>
> Agreed.
>
> So do try to get out more, eh Phillips?
>
>

A Google search at 10 PM indicates 33 posts for Arny today, with 9 for
Marc.
I came in at 11.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Marc Phillips]

Yustabe said:

>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>> "Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>
>> > Arny said:
>> >
>> >> The best revenge is living well.
>> >
>> > Living in front of your computer is NOT living well.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> So do try to get out more, eh Phillips?
>>
>>
>
>A Google search at 10 PM indicates 33 posts for Arny today, with 9 for
>Marc.
>I came in at 11.

My average is 4, and Arny's is closer to 20. Of course I had the day off
today, because of the holiday, and it was a dull, gray day here. I did go to
the movies, though!

Boon

[trotsky]

Marc Phillips wrote:
> Yustabe said:
>
>
>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>>>
>>>>Arny said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The best revenge is living well.
>>>>
>>>>Living in front of your computer is NOT living well.
>>>
>>>Agreed.
>>>
>>>So do try to get out more, eh Phillips?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>A Google search at 10 PM indicates 33 posts for Arny today, with 9 for
>>Marc.
>>I came in at 11.
>
>
> My average is 4, and Arny's is closer to 20. Of course I had the day off
> today, because of the holiday, and it was a dull, gray day here. I did go to
> the movies, though!



What'd you see?

[George M. Middius]

Gayipus said:

> > I did go to the movies, though!

> What'd you see?

Boonie already told me he saw "Hors du Placard: les Grandes Folles
de Chicago". Have you seen it too, Greg?

[Marc Phillips]

Greg said:

>Marc Phillips wrote:
>> Yustabe said:
>>
>>
>>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>>>>
>>>>>Arny said:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The best revenge is living well.
>>>>>
>>>>>Living in front of your computer is NOT living well.
>>>>
>>>>Agreed.
>>>>
>>>>So do try to get out more, eh Phillips?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>A Google search at 10 PM indicates 33 posts for Arny today, with 9 for
>>>Marc.
>>>I came in at 11.
>>
>>
>> My average is 4, and Arny's is closer to 20. Of course I had the day off
>> today, because of the holiday, and it was a dull, gray day here. I did go
>to
>> the movies, though!
>
>
>
>What'd you see?

Took the kids to see "School of Rock." Little more formulaic than I thought,
but still funny funny funny. Joan Cusack was really good.

Boon

[George M. Middius]

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > Krooger doesn't recognize any interest other than his own. He
> > honestly, truly believes that there is only one side to every issue.
> > For instance, Krooger has klaimed that in your lawsuit, you had an
> > obligation to argue his case for him. This shows he cannot distinguish
> > between his own interest and anybody else's. He has also klaimed to
> > deplore personal attacks in place of substantive discussion -- about
> > audio or other subjects -- but he has also admitted he sees himself as
> > a "master baiter" and "expert troll". This shows that he sees Usenet,
> > or any online forum, as his personal playpen, and that he feels
> > entitled to say anything to anybody in order to amuse himself. Another
> > example is his stubborn refusal to understand the difference between
> > the designer of electronic equipment and the consumer. By inventing
> > such a farfetched rationale, Turdy can ignore his own inability to
> > appreciate high-quality audio equipment. This shows, among other
> > things, that he is intensely bitter about his failure to achieve
> > anything in electronics despite a lifelong interest in it.

> > Telling Mr. **** that doing something is against your self-interest is
> > like trying to teach algebra to a nest of cockroaches. It is simply
> > beyond his understanding.

> What you have described is a classic example of a sociopath.


Krooger's silent acceptance of this post confirms that he agrees with
Socky's summary.

This sudden spate of self-awareness is more evidence that Krooger has
finally returned to therapy.