Wire and Cables - Like Coffee and Soda for Restaurants

[Gary A. Edelstein]

IMHO, wire and cables is overpriced at a lot of stores. This is
certainly true at the high end shops I've visited. Interestingly, it
is also true at some mainline retailers as well, including Best Buy.
Even some of these items are a bit overpriced at a place like Radio
Shack.

It seems to me the markup and profit margin is higher for these sorts
of accessory items than the meat and potato items the stores sell.
Hence the analogy to coffee and soda at restaurants, where they charge
a couple bucks for something that costs them a few cents.

The lesson here is savvy consumers shouldn't automatically buy all
their wire and cables at the store same store they purchase their
audio or home theater system. They should shop around. Some big box
department stores that have an electronics department, like Target or
Sears, might have the best price for some of these items. Even
locally owned shops that don't specialize in audio can have good
prices - a local downtown book store here has very good prices on
reasonably good cables.

So, I needed an optical (toslink) cable recently. I happened to be
walking past a high end store in my area and wanted to see if they had
one for what I viewed as a reasonable price. I asked the owner first
for a toslink cable. He didn't know what that was, so I said a
digital optical audio cable. OH, we only have one and it's $90. I
frowned and said that's a bit high. He said I must be a Radio Shack
sort of guy. I said bytes is bytes and left.

So, does anyone know of an A/B double blind test between cheap and
expensive toslink cables? Does anyone really think they can hear a
difference? I don't. I agree that a cheap toslink may be more easily
damaged, but if it is working OK, it won't matter.

Gary E
--
|Gary A. Edelstein
(remove NO SPAM and .invalid to reply)
|"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Walt Kelly's Pogo

[Arny Krueger]

"Gary A. Edelstein" > wrote
in message

> IMHO, wire and cables is overpriced at a lot of stores.

It is a known strategy of stores to use high margins for cables to offset
low margins for mainstream but highly competitive prices for such as
receivers.

> This is certainly true at the high end shops I've
> visited. Interestingly, it is also true at some mainline
> retailers as well, including Best Buy. Even some of these
> items are a bit overpriced at a place like Radio Shack.

Lots of people are looking for a buck where they can find it.

> It seems to me the markup and profit margin is higher for
> these sorts of accessory items than the meat and potato
> items the stores sell. Hence the analogy to coffee and
> soda at restaurants, where they charge a couple bucks for
> something that costs them a few cents.

In resturants you pay a lot for personal service. I don't think there is a
lot of profit in the buck or so you pay for a 32 oz soft drink at fast foot
resturants. I used to run a grill, and a $0.25 soda contained about $0.08
worth of ingredients. This may seem like pretty good markup, but there was a
lot of waste and labor in producing the finished product.

> The lesson here is savvy consumers shouldn't
> automatically buy all their wire and cables at the store
> same store they purchase their audio or home theater
> system.

Bulk 12 gauge Speaker wire from Home Depot is a well-known effective end run
on high priced speaker cables, for example.

> They should shop around. Some big box
> department stores that have an electronics department,
> like Target or Sears, might have the best price for some
> of these items. Even locally owned shops that don't
> specialize in audio can have good prices - a local
> downtown book store here has very good prices on
> reasonably good cables.

The local appliance, TV and audio stores don't stock good cheap cables any
more.

> So, I needed an optical (toslink) cable recently. I
> happened to be walking past a high end store in my area
> and wanted to see if they had one for what I viewed as a
> reasonable price. I asked the owner first for a toslink
> cable. He didn't know what that was, so I said a digital
> optical audio cable. OH, we only have one and it's $90.
> I frowned and said that's a bit high. He said I must be
> a Radio Shack sort of guy. I said bytes is bytes and
> left.

So far so good.

> So, does anyone know of an A/B double blind test between
> cheap and expensive toslink cables? Does anyone really
> think they can hear a difference? I don't. I agree that
> a cheap toslink may be more easily damaged, but if it is
> working OK, it won't matter.

Cable listening tests are a lot of work, but relevant measurements are
easier. I've done a lot of comparisions realted to coax versus toslink and
various lengths of toslink. Basically if it works reliably, the sound is
going to be as good as it gets.

[ScottW]

On Apr 30, 8:24 am, Gary A. Edelstein >
wrote:
> IMHO, wire and cables is overpriced at a lot of stores. This is
> certainly true at the high end shops I've visited. Interestingly, it
> is also true at some mainline retailers as well, including Best Buy.
> Even some of these items are a bit overpriced at a place like Radio
> Shack.
>
> It seems to me the markup and profit margin is higher for these sorts
> of accessory items than the meat and potato items the stores sell.
> Hence the analogy to coffee and soda at restaurants, where they charge
> a couple bucks for something that costs them a few cents.
>
> The lesson here is savvy consumers shouldn't automatically buy all
> their wire and cables at the store same store they purchase their
> audio or home theater system. They should shop around. Some big box
> department stores that have an electronics department, like Target or
> Sears, might have the best price for some of these items. Even
> locally owned shops that don't specialize in audio can have good
> prices - a local downtown book store here has very good prices on
> reasonably good cables.
>
> So, I needed an optical (toslink) cable recently. I happened to be
> walking past a high end store in my area and wanted to see if they had
> one for what I viewed as a reasonable price. I asked the owner first
> for a toslink cable. He didn't know what that was, so I said a
> digital optical audio cable. OH, we only have one and it's $90. I
> frowned and said that's a bit high. He said I must be a Radio Shack
> sort of guy. I said bytes is bytes and left.

He doesn't know that Radio Shack has also gotten into the game.
I needed a longer optical cable recently and went Radio Shack web
site.
Their gold series cables are pricey but I found a Belkin std cable
listed as in stock in a local store for $20.
I get to the store and only thing on the shelf is R/S Gold and Monster
Ultra....I give the clerk the part number and they find the Belkin
in the stock room in back. After entering the P/N in the computer
to see the price...he says, "Wow, I see why you wanted this one."
It was < 1/3 of the crap on the shelf that has very thick jackets and
is
harder to route IMO. It might be useful if you want your optical
cable
to be capable of being walked on.....I guess.

Now a friend just got a cheap HDMI to DVI cable and his new TV is
giving him an HDCP error so there is a reason for caution.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com

> Now a friend just got a cheap HDMI to DVI cable and his
> new TV is giving him an HDCP error so there is a reason
> for caution.

Might not be a problem with the cable?

[ScottW]

On Apr 30, 10:10 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com
>
> > Now a friend just got a cheap HDMI to DVI cable and his
> > new TV is giving him an HDCP error so there is a reason
> > for caution.
>
> Might not be a problem with the cable?

I see some cables advertised as HDCP compliant but others
with no mention of the issue and a quick search didn't find
a clear explanation of what changed in DVI stds etc that
create this issue. I see some folks saying power up sequence
is required for them to avoid the error (TV on first before the box).
Cable company has activated the DVI port on the box
but doesn't support it so they're no help.
TV tech support says its the box or the cable.
My older RP TV has DVI input (same cable company and model box)
so I tried it with a PC DVI cable I had and it
works fine. I don't see any real video improvement over component.
His plasma screen looks great on component in so he decided to use
that and gave up on the HDMI in but if he gets a new receiver that
supports it will come up again. If you know what causes this,
I'd be interested.

ScottW

[Walt]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Gary A. Edelstein" > wrote
>
>> So, does anyone know of an A/B double blind test between
>> cheap and expensive toslink cables? Does anyone really
>> think they can hear a difference? I don't. I agree that
>> a cheap toslink may be more easily damaged, but if it is
>> working OK, it won't matter.
>
> Basically if it works reliably, the sound is
> going to be as good as it gets.

Yep. All the cable is doing is allowing a stream of bits to go from one
box to another. If the bits arrive intact, there is no difference in
sound, regardless of what the snake oil salesmen may try to tell you.

That said, a crappy cable may introduce dropouts that cause the bits
*not* to arrive intact - then the input device's data correction /
interpolation kicks in, which *is* audible. Although a cable exhibiting
this sort of behavior is better termed "broken" than merely "crappy".

//Walt

[George M. Middius]

Walt smooches the Kroo-butt.

> All the cable is doing is allowing a stream of bits to go from one
> box to another.

Not "bits", but electrical impulses corresponding to the information
encoded in the bitstream.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

On Apr 30, 10:44 am, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Walt smooches the Kroo-butt.
>
> > All the cable is doing is allowing a stream of bits to go from one
> > box to another.
>
> Not "bits", but electrical impulses corresponding to the information
> encoded in the bitstream.

He was talking about optical cables.
(Insert appropriate Middiot style ridicule here).

ScottW

[dizzy]

Gary A. Edelstein wrote:

>It seems to me the markup and profit margin is higher for these sorts
>of accessory items than the meat and potato items the stores sell.

No kidding. You know something's wrong when the DVD-player's cables
costs more than a DVD player. 8)

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Walt wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> Gary A. Edelstein wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> So, does anyone know of an A/B double blind test between
>>> cheap and expensive toslink cables? Does anyone really
>>> think they can hear a difference? I don't. I agree that
>>> a cheap toslink may be more easily damaged, but if it is
>>> working OK, it won't matter.
>>
>> Basically if it works reliably, the sound is
>> going to be as good as it gets.
>
> Yep. All the cable is doing is allowing a stream of bits to go from
> one box to another. If the bits arrive intact, there is no
> difference in sound, regardless of what the snake oil salesmen may
> try to tell you.
> That said, a crappy cable may introduce dropouts that cause the bits
> *not* to arrive intact - then the input device's data correction /
> interpolation kicks in, which *is* audible. Although a cable
> exhibiting this sort of behavior is better termed "broken" than
> merely "crappy".
> //Walt


Ok, what is, or what should be a greater concern to the OP in his
post above ?


High mark-ups.

Failure to hear difference.

Defective cables.

Or all.

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Walt wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> Gary A. Edelstein wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> So, does anyone know of an A/B double blind test between
>>> cheap and expensive toslink cables? Does anyone really
>>> think they can hear a difference? I don't. I agree that
>>> a cheap toslink may be more easily damaged, but if it is
>>> working OK, it won't matter.
>>
>> Basically if it works reliably, the sound is
>> going to be as good as it gets.
>
> Yep. All the cable is doing is allowing a stream of bits to go from
> one box to another. If the bits arrive intact, there is no
> difference in sound, regardless of what the snake oil salesmen may
> try to tell you.



I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.


Is there a problem with this ?




> That said, a crappy cable may introduce dropouts that cause the bits
> *not* to arrive intact - then the input device's data correction /
> interpolation kicks in, which *is* audible. Although a cable
> exhibiting this sort of behavior is better termed "broken" than
> merely "crappy".
> //Walt

[whosbest54]

In article >,
says...
>
>I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
>Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
>Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
>hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
>upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.
>
>Is there a problem with this ?
>
See Section 3.2 of my RAO User Guide.

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://www.geocities.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://www.geocities.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> whosbest54 wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
>> Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
>> Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
>> hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
>> upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.
>>
>> Is there a problem with this ?
>
>
>
> See Section 3.2 of my RAO User Guide.
>
> whosbest54



Thank you for your section and here it is added with my comments:





***
3.2. Cables


" This issue boils down to whether specially manufactured, and often
more expensive cables, for connecting audio components to each other
and speakers to amplifier outputs, are better than mass produced, more
standard component connectors and regular speaker wire or electrical
wire ("zip cord"). "

" My opinion is if you use reasonably good component connectors and
keep the connections free of corrosion, you will not hear the difference
between them and the more expensive connectors. [...]

***



Without regards to cost, how did you determine that the reader reading
what you just stated won't not hear the difference between your mass
produced zipcord and the more expensive connectors ?



***
[...] In other words, special expensive cables don't hurt anything, but
they are a waste of your money. I use mass consumer grade RCA
phono plug connectors for my components and 12 gauge "zip" cord
for my speakers. If you have money to burn, then there is nothing
"wrong" with using them, especially if it makes you feel better about
your system. It's your money. " [...]
***


Your section, at least I thought , was about CABLES and more
specifically, about sonic improvements and about aftermarket cables
& wires.

Instead, you keep talking about money, burning money, feeling good
and also because you can't hear any differences.

Why is this?


Is this your propose idea for Rao as "RAO User Guide" ?


I came home tired from work today and then you made me read this
proposed section of yours for Rao. Do you have other on-line
nickname other than Whosbest, if you don't mind me asking.


***
" I've added a DVD player and Dolby Digital receiver and decided to
try the cheapest digital audio cable connection first. I used a good
quality, 3 foot, 75-ohm antenna wire connector made by my cable
company that wasn't beingused anymore, with good quality male
f-connectors at the end. I added cheap female f-connector to male
RCA phono plug converters ($2 apiece at Radio Shack, $2.50 for
gold plated) at each end. Worked great, with no noise, artifacts,
interference, etc. This may not work for you, but my message is,
don't always believe you need a special or expensive cable to make
a good connection. "
***


Expensive cable and cheapest digital again? And another cheap
female f-connector ?


I know that this is not a proper question, and I know that it might
rather be impolite, but are you the one who keep sending virus
to my computer ? I just spend 150 bucks again at Fry's to have my
computer fix and I'm getting tired of it.



-----------------


I have no recourse but to reject these propose section of yours.
Sorry.

[dizzy]

JBorg, Jr wrote:

>I know that this is not a proper question, and I know that it might
>rather be impolite, but are you the one who keep sending virus
>to my computer ? I just spend 150 bucks again at Fry's to have my
>computer fix and I'm getting tired of it.

Fix it for good.

http://www.ubuntu.com/

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr" > wrote in message

> " This issue boils down to whether specially
> manufactured, and often more expensive cables, for
> connecting audio components to each other and speakers to
> amplifier outputs, are better than mass produced, more
> standard component connectors and regular speaker wire or
> electrical wire ("zip cord"). "

This would depend on the criteria you use to establish what is better.

For example, MCM Electronics is selling-out Monster Cable DVI cables. Since
they are being sold for bottom prices and can reasonbly be expected to be no
worse than average, I recommended that a customer purchase a number of them.
When we received them, we found that they differed from other commodity
cables primarily in the application of a plastic braid sheath over the usual
cable insulation. This was obviously an attempt to have a stronger
appearance of being "high end". My customer, being ignorant of the ways of
audio's high end was concerned that the loose plastic sheath was indicative
of poor construction quality. They seem perform no better or worse than any
other DVI cable I've used in that application.

> " My opinion is if you use reasonably good component
> connectors and keep the connections free of corrosion,
> you will not hear the difference between them and the
> more expensive connectors. [...]

This is an established fact.

> Without regards to cost, how did you determine that the
> reader reading what you just stated won't not hear the
> difference between your mass produced zipcord and the
> more expensive connectors ?

News flash Borg - one compares apples and apples, and not apples and
oranges. Therefore your comparison of zipcord (which is cable) and "more
expensive connectors" (which is cable termination) is invalid.

> ***
> [...] In other words, special expensive cables don't hurt
> anything, but they are a waste of your money. I use mass
> consumer grade RCA phono plug connectors for my components and 12 gauge
> "zip" cord for my speakers. If you have money to burn, then there
> is nothing "wrong" with using them, especially if it
> makes you feel better about your system. It's your
> money. " [...] ***

Exactly. If you're shallow enough that you think that adding a plastic braid
mesh over a DVI cable that functions no different from a commodity cable
adds perceived value, then you you might get to be the Monster product
manager who had to sell the massive unsold production run of Monster DVI
cables to MCM Electronics for pennies on the dollar.

> Your section, at least I thought , was about CABLES and
> more specifically, about sonic improvements and about
> aftermarket cables & wires.

Wire of a certain configuration and weight of copper per foot is pretty much
what it is. At audio frequencies, there is considerable technical latitude
related to construction details. As long as there is end-to-end continuity
and an abscece of shorting between conductors with different functions, the
wire will work about as good as anything. A few rare counter- examples
exist, but few of them can be found in anybody's listening room.



> and also because you can't hear any differences.

> Why is this?

Absence of illusory perceptions.

> Is this your propose idea for Rao as "RAO User Guide" ?

Looks pretty sane to me, as opposed to say your typical "Jborg" post, which
is usually flipped-out and hysterical, bordering on insanity.

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>
>
>
>
>> " This issue boils down to whether specially
>> manufactured, and often more expensive cables, for
>> connecting audio components to each other and speakers to
>> amplifier outputs, are better than mass produced, more
>> standard component connectors and regular speaker wire or
>> electrical wire ("zip cord"). "


I didn't write the above. It's a part of a User Guide that poster
WhosBest is proposing for Rao.



> This would depend on the criteria you use to establish what is better.
>
> For example, MCM Electronics is selling-out Monster Cable DVI cables.
> Since they are being sold for bottom prices and can reasonbly be
> expected to be no worse than average, I recommended that a customer
> purchase a number of them. When we received them, we found that they
> differed from other commodity cables primarily in the application of
> a plastic braid sheath over the usual cable insulation. This was
> obviously an attempt to have a stronger appearance of being "high
> end". My customer, being ignorant of the ways of audio's high end was
> concerned that the loose plastic sheath was indicative of poor
> construction quality. They seem perform no better or worse than any
> other DVI cable I've used in that application.
>> " My opinion is if you use reasonably good component
>> connectors and keep the connections free of corrosion,
>> you will not hear the difference between them and the
>> more expensive connectors. [...]
>
>
>
> This is an established fact.
>
>
>
>> Without regards to cost, how did you determine that the
>> reader reading what you just stated won't not hear the
>> difference between your mass produced zipcord and the
>> more expensive connectors ?
>
> News flash Borg - one compares apples and apples, and not apples and
> oranges. Therefore your comparison of zipcord (which is cable) and
> "more expensive connectors" (which is cable termination) is invalid.


Are you this desperate?


Well then, without regards to cost, how did you "established" your fact
that a good component connectors free of corrosion will not have audible
differences between them and the more expensive connectors if you
state that comparing zipcord (which is cable) and connectors (which is
cable termination) is invalid ?





>> ***
>> [...] In other words, special expensive cables don't hurt
>> anything, but they are a waste of your money. I use mass
>> consumer grade RCA phono plug connectors for my components and 12 gauge
>> "zip" cord for my speakers. If you have money to burn, then there is
>> nothing "wrong" with using them, especially if it
>> makes you feel better about your system. It's your money. " [...] ***
>
> Exactly. If you're shallow enough that you think that adding a
> plastic braid mesh over a DVI cable that functions no different from
> a commodity cable adds perceived value, then you you might get to be
> the Monster product manager who had to sell the massive unsold
> production run of Monster DVI cables to MCM Electronics for pennies
> on the dollar.


I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with Monster cables, and unlike you who
willingly recommended them to your ignorant client and customer and
admitted by stating to realize later that Monster Cable were simply
attempting to have a stronger appearance of being "high end" and
perform no better or worse than any other DVI cable.


(see your own comments above.)

You make terrible advice and recommendation at the expense of
your ignorant client and customer. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.





>> Your section, at least I thought , was about CABLES and
>> more specifically, about sonic improvements and about
>> aftermarket cables & wires.
>
> Wire of a certain configuration and weight of copper per foot is
> pretty much what it is. At audio frequencies, there is considerable
> technical latitude related to construction details. As long as there
> is end-to-end continuity and an abscece of shorting between
> conductors with different functions, the wire will work about as good
> as anything. A few rare counter- examples exist, but few of them can
> be found in anybody's listening room.



As far as I know, we were not discussing defective wire construction
here, do you?



>> and also because you can't hear any differences.
>
>> Why is this?
>
> Absence of illusory perceptions.


You ARE dissembling what I wrote and responding out of context.


>> Is this your propose idea for Rao as "RAO User Guide" ?
>
>
> Looks pretty sane to me, as opposed to say your typical "Jborg" post,
> which is usually flipped-out and hysterical, bordering on insanity.


All you are is talk and make bad recommendation to your ignorant client
and customer. Norm Strong should take a note of these.


-----------


I still have no choice but to reject the rather perplexing Cable section
which
WhoBest proposes under "RAO User Guide."

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> dizzy wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>
>
>
>> I know that this is not a proper question, and I know that it might
>> rather be impolite, but are you the one who keep sending virus
>> to my computer ? I just spend 150 bucks again at Fry's to have my
>> computer fix and I'm getting tired of it.
>
> Fix it for good.
>
> http://www.ubuntu.com/


Thanks diz, that appears to be a legitimate link. But for now,
I still have Norton and their whole shebang.

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>> " My opinion is if you use reasonably good component
>>> connectors and keep the connections free of corrosion,
>>> you will not hear the difference between them and the
>>> more expensive connectors. [...]
>>
>>
>>
>> This is an established fact.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Without regards to cost, how did you determine that the
>>> reader reading what you just stated won't not hear the
>>> difference between your mass produced zipcord and the
>>> more expensive connectors ?
>>
>> News flash Borg - one compares apples and apples, and not apples and
>> oranges. Therefore your comparison of zipcord (which is cable) and
>> "more expensive connectors" (which is cable termination) is invalid.



Ok, I regret that was a flawed comparison on my part. So, disregard
the above. Could you point me where I have made the same mistake
before, btw.

Buh-bye


> -----------
>
>
> I still have no choice but to reject the rather perplexing Cable
> section which WhoBest proposes under "RAO User Guide."

[whosbest54]

In article >,
says...

>
>Is this your propose idea for Rao as "RAO User Guide" ?
>
The guide isn't proposed. I've had this page posted for years in pretty
much this form. It has been titled as unofficial from the start.

>Do you have other on-line
>nickname other than Whosbest, if you don't mind me asking.
>
As it states in my guide, "I've been a user of r.a.o for several years
(using my real name, not my AOL alias). My posts are mainly replies to
requests for assistance. I read some of the argumentative threads, but
generally do not participate in them."

So, yes, I have a real name and post under it as well.

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://www.geocities.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://www.geocities.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> whosbest54 wrote:
>> EddieM says...
>
>
>
>
>
>> Is this your propose idea for Rao as "RAO User Guide" ?
>>
> The guide isn't proposed. I've had this page posted for years in
> pretty much this form. It has been titled as unofficial from the
> start.



The guide isn't propose... the guide is unofficial... ok, and your
intention is to merely offer or to suggest your Guide to audiophiles
at Rao from the start as sign of kindness, good will and "guidance"
as you did, in your initial response, by pointing me to a web link
unto your RAO User Guide.


AND so, under that spirit, may I please have a moment of your
time by responding this time to a rather straightforward question
I ask you in reply to your Guide under Cable, section 3.2, were
you said:


" My opinion is if you use reasonably good component connectors
and keep the connections free of corrosion, you will not hear the
difference between them and the more expensive connectors.
In other words, special expensive cables don't hurt anything, but
they are a waste of your money. [...]"


And my question was:


Without regards to cost, how did you determine that the reader
reading what you just stated won't not hear the difference between
your mass produced zipcord and the more expensive connectors ?





>> Do you have other on-line
>> nickname other than Whosbest, if you don't mind me asking.
>>
> As it states in my guide, "I've been a user of r.a.o for several years
> (using my real name, not my AOL alias). My posts are mainly replies
> to requests for assistance. I read some of the argumentative
> threads, but generally do not participate in them."
>
> So, yes, I have a real name and post under it as well.
>
> whosbest54



--------

Now Playing:


Us And Them by Pink Floyd

DSOTM, Original Master Recording
Ultradisc ll, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>> Arny Krueger wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>> " My opinion is if you use reasonably good component
>>> connectors and keep the connections free of corrosion,
>>> you will not hear the difference between them and the
>>> more expensive connectors. [...]
>>
>>
>>
>> This is an established fact.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Without regards to cost, how did you determine that the
>>> reader reading what you just stated won't not hear the
>>> difference between your mass produced zipcord and the
>>> more expensive connectors ?
>>
>> News flash Borg - one compares apples and apples, and not apples and
>> oranges. Therefore your comparison of zipcord (which is cable) and "more
>> expensive connectors" (which is cable termination) is invalid.



Actually, Whosbest was as refering to "special expensive cables " when
he stated "connectors" while comparing for differences about cables.
I was responding in that context.


Here:

" My opinion is if you use reasonably good component connectors and
keep the connections free of corrosion, you will not hear the difference
between them and the more expensive connectors. In other words,
special expensive cables don't hurt anything, but they are a waste of
your money. [...]"



You may now return to your previous state of imperishable confusion.

[whosbest54]

In article >,
says...
>
>AND so, under that spirit, may I please have a moment of your
>time by responding this time to a rather straightforward question
>I ask you in reply to your Guide under Cable, section 3.2, were
>you said:
>
> " My opinion is if you use reasonably good component connectors
> and keep the connections free of corrosion, you will not hear the
> difference between them and the more expensive connectors.
> In other words, special expensive cables don't hurt anything, but
> they are a waste of your money. [...]"
>
>And my question was:
>
>Without regards to cost, how did you determine that the reader
>reading what you just stated won't not hear the difference between
>your mass produced zipcord and the more expensive connectors ?
>
In this sentence, I refer to reasonably good cables and more expensive
ones. I have that opinion because I'm not aware of any scientific
evidence proving otherwise.

Hey, if you think you hear a difference, go ahead. I'm not stopping you.
It's your money.

Just to clarify, in the guide the term 'component connectors' means cables
to connect audio components.

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://www.geocities.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://www.geocities.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

[Clyde Slick]

>
>. I used to run a grill,


Finally, we know what you did at Chrysler.

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
> Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
> Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
> hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
> upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.
>
> Is there a problem with this ?

You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they were all
*improvements* ?

Sounds like psychology at work to me.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> I know that this is not a proper question, and I know that it might
> rather be impolite, but are you the one who keep sending virus
> to my computer ? I just spend 150 bucks again at Fry's to have my
> computer fix and I'm getting tired of it.

Youre hopeless with computers too ?

Let me guess...... you don't use a 3rd party (not Miucrosoft) firewall and
anti-virus (and keep them updated) ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> But for now, I still have Norton and their whole shebang.

Utter POS.

Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> whosbest54 wrote:
>> EddieM says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> AND so, under that spirit, may I please have a moment of your
>> time by responding this time to a rather straightforward question
>> I ask you in reply to your Guide under Cable, section 3.2, were
>> you said:
>>
>> " My opinion is if you use reasonably good component connectors
>> and keep the connections free of corrosion, you will not hear the
>> difference between them and the more expensive connectors.
>> In other words, special expensive cables don't hurt anything, but
>> they are a waste of your money. [...]"
>>
>> And my question was:
>>
>> Without regards to cost, how did you determine that the reader
>> reading what you just stated won't not hear the difference between
>> your mass produced zipcord and the more expensive connectors ?
>>
> In this sentence, I refer to reasonably good cables and more
> expensive ones. I have that opinion because I'm not aware of any
> scientific evidence proving otherwise.



Please answer the question.



You admitted previously that, " My posts are mainly replies to
requests for assistance." Well, I'm in dire need of your kindness,
good will and guiding assistance to help me clarify the issues you
raise concerning cables and wires.


How did you establish, without restriction, proper designation for
"reasonably" constructed (and uncorroded) cables that will prove the
absence of subtle differences when compared?

What is your prescribe designation, in detail, as a price point
for "expensive" cables for audiophiles currently unemployed, and
for those audiophiles duly employed with gross yearly income of,
say, 120K per year?


You stated above that audiophiles won't hear the difference between
mass produced zipcord and the more expensive connectors because
you are not aware of any scientific evidence proving that there is
sound differences.

How did you "proved" that audiophiles will not hear any differences ?




> Hey, if you think you hear a difference, go ahead. I'm not stopping
> you. It's your money.



Money again. Your section, as I said at least I thought , was about
CABLES and more specifically, discussion of how and why there
might or might not be sound differences, as well as, sonic
improvements, if there is, about aftermarket cables & wires.

Instead, and still, you keep talking about money, money, money.

In your cable section, you contend using cheapest digital connection,
3 foot antenna that wasn't being use anymore, a good quality male
f-connector added with cheap female f-connector connected to a
plug converter at $2 a piece at radio Shack, $2.50 for gold plated,
that will work great without noise and interference.

Exactly what went in your mind as you sat down typing and formulating
entries into Rao User Guide ?




> Just to clarify, in the guide the term 'component connectors' means
> cables to connect audio components.

Arny ?


> whosbest54

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> whosbest54 wrote:
>> EddieM says...
>>
>>
>>
>> AND so, under that spirit, may I please have a moment of your
>> time by responding this time to a rather straightforward question
>> I ask you in reply to your Guide under Cable, section 3.2, were
>> you said:
>>
>> " My opinion is if you use reasonably good component connectors
>> and keep the connections free of corrosion, you will not hear the
>> difference between them and the more expensive connectors.
>> In other words, special expensive cables don't hurt anything, but
>> they are a waste of your money. [...]"
>>

snip..

>
> Just to clarify, in the guide the term 'component connectors' means
> cables to connect audio components.
>
> whosbest54


YooHoo Arny... if you're reading this, we really have got to put
an end to the unremitting confusion spewing out of your head. LoL !


Now Playing:

Push It (Salt-N-Pepa)
U.K. Remix by Shuv'd
Next Plateau Records, 1990

(Sang in tune of above.)

[whispering] ahhhh.... pusshh it... aahhh
pussh it... ahhh pusssh it goodd.... ahhhh
pusshhh it reallly goooddd... ....

[now enters melodic bass beat] Dum dada da
da da-da-da-da dumm Da! Da-da-da-da dum
da-da-da-da dumm! (repeat once)

(singing aloud)

UMMM Arny Baaaaby! Umm Baby Baaaaby!
Ummm Arny Baaaaby! Umm Arny Baby !
UMMM Baaby Baaaby! UMMM Arny Baaaby!

UMMM Arny Baaaaby! Umm Baby Baaaaby!
Ummm Arny Baaaaby! Umm Arny Baby !
UMMM Baaby Baaaby! UMMM Arny Baaaby!


(now enters Kroob.... singing in background...)

nowww puss****....nowww pussshhitt .. pus****
reallllly goood!....

nowww puss****....nowww pussshhitt .. pus****
reallllly goood!....

etc....

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr" wrote:
>
>> I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
>> Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
>> Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
>> hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
>> upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.
>>
>> Is there a problem with this ?
>
> You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they were all
> *improvements* ?

Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when listening to a
well recorded music and sound.


> Sounds like psychology at work to me.

No, listening training at work here. Is your stereo system that bad?


> Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr" > wrote in message
t...
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> JBorg, Jr" wrote:
>>
>>> I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
>>> Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
>>> Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
>>> hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
>>> upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.
>>>
>>> Is there a problem with this ?
>>
>> You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they were all
>> *improvements* ?
>
> Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when listening to a
> well recorded music and sound.

How do we know that you have even a clue about what the origional
performance sounded like, when it was recorded?

[whosbest54]

In article >,
says...
>
>Please answer the question.
>
I did. I think the User Guide is clear. As it states: "Suggestions for
improvements are welcome and appreciated." So, feel free to make
specific suggestions for improvements.

>
>Exactly what went in your mind as you sat down typing and formulating
>entries into Rao User Guide ?
>
"The Guide's purpose is to help readers of the r.a.o newsgroup
efficiently use the newsgroup and understand a few of the key issues
discussed therein without having to wade through thousands of posts."

also

"Here are brief overviews of a few of the issues, concentrating on home
audio, and my own opinion on them. Again, feel free to form your own."

Feel free to read it again before asking more questions.

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://www.geocities.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://www.geocities.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> whosbest54 wrote:
>> EddieM says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please answer the question.
>>
>>
> I did.


NO you didn't.


All you're showing thus far is being evasive, running away
lacking backbone and punctiliously snipping direct questions
I send your way concerning Rao User Guide -- just as you did
now.

I have decided to re-title this subthread to your attn. for this
very reason.

What is the matter with you ?


Here are those list of question thus presented to you in this thread
that you appear to be "neglecting" to give forth solid, man-to-man
responses:


******

1) Without regards to cost, how did you determine that the reader
reading what you just stated won't hear the difference between your
mass produced zipcord and the more expensive connectors ?


2) You keep talking about money, burning money,
feeling good and also because you can't hear any differences.
Why is this?


3) How did you establish, without restriction, proper designation for
"reasonably" constructed (and uncorroded) cables that will prove the
absence of subtle differences when compared?

4) What is your prescribe designation, in detail, as a price point
for "expensive" cables for audiophiles currently unemployed, and
for those audiophiles duly employed with gross yearly income of,
say, 120K per year?


5) You stated above that audiophiles won't hear the difference between
mass produced zipcord and the more expensive connectors [cables]
because you are not aware of any scientific evidence proving that there
is sound differences. How did you "proved" that audiophiles cannot hear
any differences ?


****************


> I think the User Guide is clear. As it states: "Suggestions
> for improvements are welcome and appreciated." So, feel free
> to make specific suggestions for improvements.


The following are improvements and specific suggestion for you.


FIRST and foremost:

1) MAKE a public apology to audiophiles at Rao newsgroup for posting
Rao User Guide periodically, over a period of time.

Your Guide is specious, deceptive, perplexing and ambiguous.

You are no better than Arny. You are a masquerading do-gooder
presenting yourself as an honest poster guise with honorable actions
and intentions who willingly mislead readers, lurkers and gullible
audiophiles accross this group.


2) REFRAIN from making further posting of your "Guide" to this group.


YOUR Guide is delusive. It is ostensively deceitful as manifested by
your *inability* to provide solid, man-to-man responses to my simple
questions.


Your Guide is fraudulent, surreptitious, and pretentious.




[i]
>> Exactly what went in your mind as you sat down typing and formulating
>> entries into Rao User Guide ?
>>
> "The Guide's purpose is to help readers of the r.a.o newsgroup
> efficiently use the newsgroup and understand a few of the key issues
> discussed therein without having to wade through thousands of posts."
>
> also
>
> "Here are brief overviews of a few of the issues, concentrating on
> home audio, and my own opinion on them. Again, feel free to form
> your own."
>
> Feel free to read it again before asking more questions.
>
>
>
>
> whosbest54

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr" wrote:
>>>
>>>> I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
>>>> Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
>>>> Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
>>>> hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
>>>> upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a problem with this ?
>>>
>>> You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they were all
>>> *improvements* ?
>>
>> Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when listening to a
>> well recorded music and sound.
>
>
> How do we know that you have even a clue about what the origional [sic]
> performance sounded like, when [sic] it was recorded?


That doesn't follow.


After you make it so, it will be listener training and skilled sound
engineer.

[whosbest54]

In article >,
says...
>
>2) REFRAIN from making further posting of your "Guide" to this group.
>
The guide itself hasn't been posted to RAO since the very first version
several years ago. Links to the guide are in my sig and that will
continue.

The Guide also states: "Flamers and trolls will be cheerfully ignored."

Feel free to have the last word if you'd like.

whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.

Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://www.geocities.com/whosbest54/

Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://www.geocities.com/whosbest54/rmb.html

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> whosbest54 wrote:
>> EddieM says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) REFRAIN from making further posting of your "Guide" to this group.
>>
> The guide itself hasn't been posted to RAO since the very first
> version several years ago. Links to the guide are in my sig and that
> will continue.


What about: #1)


> The Guide also states: "Flamers and trolls will be cheerfully
> ignored."


Disagree. Trolls should never be cheerfully ignore.


But yes! I'm inflamed! Flame! Flame! Flame!



> Feel free to have the last word if you'd like.

At the rate you snip a post, thank you for this guarantee



> whosbest54

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Gary A. Edelstein wrote:
>
>
>
> The lesson here is savvy consumers shouldn't automatically buy all
> their wire and cables at the store same store they purchase their
> audio or home theater system.


Totally agree. Shop around and compare. Get to know the sales rep.
at local audio barn and ask for some home component tryouts and
enjoyyyy. Make sure to return them.

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> But for now, I still have Norton and their whole shebang.
>
> Utter POS.


Hello.



I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
upgraded the wires supplied, or otherwise, with my components.


Is there a problem with this ?




> Graham


You talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?

[Clyde Slick]

Wire and Cables - Like Coffee and Soda for Restaurants


"at least" my audio experiences don't leave me with a dry mouth.

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >
> >> But for now, I still have Norton and their whole shebang.
> >
> > Utter POS.
>
> Hello.
>
> I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
> Nordost and MIT

Never heard of any of them.

In the *PRO* audio world no-one buys that kind of over-priced crap.


> over the years and yet, despite what you or what
> Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
> hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
> upgraded the wires supplied, or otherwise, with my components.
>
> Is there a problem with this ?

I was referring to Norton you utter nitwit !

The fact that you could hear differences between wires simply shows you were
buying lousy wires or lousy equipment.

Your assertion that the sound 'improved' each time is baseless. You heard a
difference maybe and assumed it must be 'better' because it cost you more.

Are you using tube amplification by any chance ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr" wrote:
> >
> >> I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
> >> Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
> >> Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
> >> hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
> >> upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.
> >>
> >> Is there a problem with this ?
> >
> > You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they were all
> > *improvements* ?
>
> Because it sounded better to me.

Define 'better'.


> Particularly, when listening to a well recorded music and sound.

Define 'well-recorded'.


> > Sounds like psychology at work to me.
>
> No, listening training at work here. Is your stereo system that bad?

Tell me how much time you've spent designing top-flight recording consoles and
messing about in high-end studios making it *sound right* ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr wrote
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>> JBorg, Jr" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
> >>>> Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
> >>>> Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
> >>>> hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
> >>>> upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there a problem with this ?
> >>>
> >>> You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they were all
> >>> *improvements* ?
> >>
> >> Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when listening to a
> >> well recorded music and sound.
> >
> >
> > How do we know that you have even a clue about what the origional [sic]
> > performance sounded like, when [sic] it was recorded?
>
> That doesn't follow.

Why not ?


> After you make it so,

So ? What do you mean by so ?


> it will be listener training and skilled sound engineer.

Which you clearly aren't.

Both Arny and I *are* sound engineers.

What are you ? A lawyer ? Refuse operative ?


Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brays his towering ignorance.

> > I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
> > Nordost and MIT

> Never heard of any of them.

They're American companies.

> In the *PRO* audio world no-one buys that kind of over-priced crap.

If you haven't heard of them, how do you know they're "over-priced" or
"crap"?



--

It's best to talk to Poopie in his own language:

Hee-haw! EEE-yaw! HNAWK!

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> But for now, I still have Norton and their whole shebang.
>>>
>>> Utter POS.
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
>> Nordost and MIT
>
> Never heard of any of them.
>
> In the *PRO* audio world no-one buys that kind of over-priced crap.
>
>> over the years and yet, despite what you or what
>> Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
>> hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
>> upgraded the wires supplied, or otherwise, with my components.
>>
>> Is there a problem with this ?
>
> I was referring to Norton you utter nitwit !


I cannot say that I'm 100% in love with your tone right now.


> The fact that you could hear differences between wires simply shows
> you were buying lousy wires or lousy equipment.


You never bought aftermarket wires for stereo? This evidence
tells me that you might be having money problem to improve your stereo
or you have lousy ears and inferior component complimenting the said
ears.



> Your assertion that the sound 'improved' each time is baseless. You
> heard a difference maybe and assumed it must be 'better' because it
> cost you more.

Why are you repudiating me to use the word "improved" to described
my experience. Okeyy, the sound didn't improved. The sound became
superior. Your assertion insinuating that money makes everything better
is bordering on psychopathy, btw.



> Are you using tube amplification by any chance ?


Not at this time. I do have Audio Research tube preamp at my disposal.



> Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
>>>> Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
>>>> Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
>>>> hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
>>>> upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a problem with this ?
>>>
>>> You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they were all
>>> *improvements* ?
>>
>> Because it sounded better to me.
>
> Define 'better'.


Immmproved! Oopps, I mean superior.


>> Particularly, when listening to a well recorded music and sound.
>
> Define 'well-recorded'.


Something recorded well? Like: This record is not compressed and is
well done! It is recorded superiorly.


>>> Sounds like psychology at work to me.
>>
>> No, listening training at work here. Is your stereo system that bad?
>
> Tell me how much time you've spent designing top-flight recording
> consoles and messing about in high-end studios making it *sound
> right* ?


What is your point? Spell it out.

You called me a nitwit. You said I'm hopeless and my compuetr
is POS, and that my stereo components are lousy 'cause I'm a liar
when I admitted that the sound produced by my stereo has "improved."
Therefore, I wasted my money for spending on wires that cost more
'cause you never bought or heard them in your system before.

> Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote
>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>> JBorg, Jr" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
>>>>>> Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
>>>>>> Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able
>>>>>> to hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime
>>>>>> I upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a problem with this ?
>>>>>
>>>>> You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they were all
>>>>> *improvements* ?
>>>>
>>>> Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when listening to a
>>>> well recorded music and sound.
>>>
>>>
>>> How do we know that you have even a clue about what the origional
>>> [sic] performance sounded like, when [sic] it was recorded?
>>
>>
>> That doesn't follow.
>
>
> Why not ?




Because sound recording and music reproduction-- is art.




>> After you make it so,
>
> So ? What do you mean by so ?


He has this reprehensible obsession of dissembling what he had said
during exchanges in desire to engrossed himself further into oblivion.

Will you promise to not have this obsession?



>> it will be listener training and skilled sound engineer.
>
> Which you clearly aren't.
>
> Both Arny and I *are* sound engineers.
>
> What are you ? A lawyer ? Refuse operative ?
>
>
> Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poopie brays his towering ignorance.
>
> > > I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
> > > Nordost and MIT
>
> > Never heard of any of them.
>
> They're American companies.

Figures.


> > In the *PRO* audio world no-one buys that kind of over-priced crap.
>
> If you haven't heard of them, how do you know they're "over-priced" or
> "crap"?

Because wire is basically wire. Increasing the price makes no earthly
difference.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>> JBorg, Jr" wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
> >>>> Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
> >>>> Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able to
> >>>> hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime I
> >>>> upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there a problem with this ?
> >>>
> >>> You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they were all
> >>> *improvements* ?
> >>
> >> Because it sounded better to me.
> >
> > Define 'better'.
>
> Immmproved! Oopps, I mean superior.

Define 'superior'. Or 'improved'. Try something that's not simply 'your opinion'
and can be heard reproducibly by other ppl.


> >> Particularly, when listening to a well recorded music and sound.
> >
> > Define 'well-recorded'.
>
> Something recorded well? Like: This record is not compressed and is
> well done! It is recorded superiorly.

Most 'records' aren't compressed in the first place.

Next ?


> >>> Sounds like psychology at work to me.
> >>
> >> No, listening training at work here. Is your stereo system that bad?
> >
> > Tell me how much time you've spent designing top-flight recording
> > consoles and messing about in high-end studios making it *sound
> > right* ?
>
> What is your point? Spell it out.

My point is that science holds all the answers. Ppl who believe one brand of
cable sounds 'better' than another are either simply deluding themselves. Wire
can be defined in terms of its resistance, inductance and capacitance. That's
all that matters. Provided that your wire meets certain fairly basic criteria
and every wire I've ever met does, then it's entirely incapable of sounding
different when used for interconnects.

It should be added that tube equipment is more fussy about cable capacitance due
to its poorer techical specs wrt output impedance. Tube gear may need very low
capacitance cables especially with long runs to avoid treble loss.

Loudspeaker cables are another matter. Here, cable resistance is the primary
'culprit' and wires of different gauges will affect the frequency response (and
hence the 'sound') to varying degrees. No argument there but the *brand* is
irrelevant. Ideally your speaker cable should be of large cross-sectional area
for minimum resistance and there should be no audible differences between
loudspeaker cables of the same gauge.

UK professional recording magazine Studio Sound found decades ago that the
'best' results were achieved with 4mm2 house wiring cable, the largest diameter
they checked at the time. Few plugs are capable of taking a larger cable.


> You called me a nitwit.

You show all the usual signs.


> You said I'm hopeless and my compuetr is POS,

I said Norton is a POS. Most IT pros will agree.


> and that my stereo components are lousy 'cause I'm a liar

I said no such thing.


> when I admitted that the sound produced by my stereo has "improved."
> Therefore, I wasted my money for spending on wires that cost more
> 'cause you never bought or heard them in your system before.

Do you also buy the additives that claim to make your car run on water or to
improve 'mileage' ? Do you know the meaning of the phrase 'snake oil' ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>> JBorg, Jr wrote
> >>>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>>> JBorg, Jr" wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest, Kimber Kable,
> >>>>>> Nordost and MIT over the years and yet, despite what you or what
> >>>>>> Arny's subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I was able
> >>>>>> to hear sonic improvement to my stereo system each and everytime
> >>>>>> I upgraded the wires supplied or otherwise, with my components.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is there a problem with this ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they were all
> >>>>> *improvements* ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when listening to a
> >>>> well recorded music and sound.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> How do we know that you have even a clue about what the origional
> >>> [sic] performance sounded like, when [sic] it was recorded?
> >>
> >>
> >> That doesn't follow.
> >
> > Why not ?
>
> Because sound recording and music reproduction-- is art.

No. They're both entirely and exclusively science / technology. Music
performance and production is art. There's a huge difference between these
things. A 'good' recording is the product of both art and technology.

Electrons obey scientific rules only.


> >> After you make it so,
> >
> > So ? What do you mean by so ?
>
> He has this reprehensible obsession of dissembling what he had said
> during exchanges in desire to engrossed himself further into oblivion.
>
> Will you promise to not have this obsession?

You're rambling.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>
>> Poopie brays his towering ignorance.
>>
>>>> I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest,
>>>> Kimber Kable, Nordost and MIT
>>
>>> Never heard of any of them.
>>
>> They're American companies.
>
> Figures.
>
>
>>> In the *PRO* audio world no-one buys that kind of
>>> over-priced crap.
>>
>> If you haven't heard of them, how do you know they're
>> "over-priced" or "crap"?
>
> Because wire is basically wire. Increasing the price
> makes no earthly difference.

Yes a higher price can make a difference, it can make more profits, or
not.

I find it very funny to see Monster Cable "overstock" selling for pennies on
the dollar in MCM fliers.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> "JBorg, Jr" wrote:
>
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote
>>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>>>> JBorg, Jr" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas,
>>>>>>>> audioquest, Kimber Kable, Nordost and MIT over the
>>>>>>>> years and yet, despite what you or what Arny's
>>>>>>>> subservient and bootlicking minions have said, I
>>>>>>>> was able to hear sonic improvement to my stereo
>>>>>>>> system each and everytime I upgraded the wires
>>>>>>>> supplied or otherwise, with my components.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there a problem with this ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may have heard *differences* but how do you
>>>>>>> know they were all *improvements* ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when
>>>>>> listening to a well recorded music and sound.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How do we know that you have even a clue about what
>>>>> the origional [sic] performance sounded like, when
>>>>> [sic] it was recorded?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't follow.
>>>
>>> Why not ?
>>
>> Because sound recording and music reproduction-- is art.
>
> No. They're both entirely and exclusively science /
> technology. Music performance and production is art.
> There's a huge difference between these things. A 'good'
> recording is the product of both art and technology.
>
> Electrons obey scientific rules only.
>
>
>>>> After you make it so,
>>>
>>> So ? What do you mean by so ?
>>
>> He has this reprehensible obsession of dissembling what
>> he had said during exchanges in desire to engrossed
>> himself further into oblivion.
>>
>> Will you promise to not have this obsession?
>
> You're rambling.
>

Even if he stopped doing that, he still wouldn't make sense.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
> > "George M. Middius" wrote:
> >
> >> Poopie brays his towering ignorance.
> >>
> >>>> I bought cables from WireWorld, Cardas, audioquest,
> >>>> Kimber Kable, Nordost and MIT
> >>
> >>> Never heard of any of them.
> >>
> >> They're American companies.
> >
> > Figures.
> >
> >
> >>> In the *PRO* audio world no-one buys that kind of
> >>> over-priced crap.
> >>
> >> If you haven't heard of them, how do you know they're
> >> "over-priced" or "crap"?
> >
> > Because wire is basically wire. Increasing the price
> > makes no earthly difference.
>
> Yes a higher price can make a difference, it can make more profits, or
> not.
>
> I find it very funny to see Monster Cable "overstock" selling for pennies on
> the dollar in MCM fliers.

Has the myth of 'magic cables' finally been laid to rest ? Is the sale on the
net too ?

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brays his ignorance to the world.

> Has the myth of 'magic cables' finally been laid to rest ?

No, and there will always be better cables than what you can afford, you
wrinkled old putz.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[vlad]

On May 13, 7:14 am, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net> wrote:
> Poopie brays his ignorance to the world.
>
> > Has the myth of 'magic cables' finally been laid to rest ?
>
> No, and there will always be better cables than what you can afford, you
> wrinkled old putz.
>
> --
>
> Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.


Translation:

There will always be a scam artisti who is ready to relieve fool from
his money :-)

vova

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poopie brays his ignorance to the world.
>
> > Has the myth of 'magic cables' finally been laid to rest ?
>
> No, and there will always be better cables than what you can afford, you
> wrinkled old putz.

The Middiot is finally revealed as a believer in mythical audiophoolery !

Do PLEASE tell me what exactly is better about them.

Graham

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>
>> Poopie brays his ignorance to the world.
>>
>> > Has the myth of 'magic cables' finally been laid to rest ?
>>
>> No, and there will always be better cables than what you can afford, you
>> wrinkled old putz.
>
> The Middiot is finally revealed as a believer in mythical audiophoolery !
>
> Do PLEASE tell me what exactly is better about them.

I saw a neat cable that is extremely thin and adhesive backed
you can put on dry wall and paint over it...it almost disappears.
Its a little pricey...but definitely better for hiding.

http://www.decorp.com/flat-speaker-cable.htm

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Poopie the Dunderheaded Donkey brayed:

> > No, and there will always be better cables than what you can afford, you
> > wrinkled old putz.

> The Middiot is finally revealed as a believer in mythical audiophoolery !

Poopster, you should reflect on the ramifications of running your mouth
off without knowing anything. Nearly every time you post on RAO, you're
revealed as a doddering, half-in-the-bag old fart who can barely
remember how to brush his teeth. This exchange is a case in point.

> Do PLEASE tell me what exactly is better about them.

If you don't know what the differences are, it's utterly stupid to claim
they're "mythical audiophoolery". Why aren't you ashamed of showing
everybody what a dimbulb you are?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Graham the Genius Audio Designer said:
>
> > Do PLEASE tell me what exactly is better about them [magic cables].
>
> If you don't know what the differences are, it's utterly stupid to claim
> they're "mythical audiophoolery".

First you have to establish that there are any meaningful differences. Since
copper = copper and PVC = PVC perhaps you'd care to enlighten us ?

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie the Pooped-Up Poop-Head poops himself.

> > If you don't know what the differences are, it's utterly stupid to claim
> > they're "mythical audiophoolery".

> First you have to establish that there are any meaningful differences.

No, you blithering idiot, you have to admit you're blind, dumb, and
stupid. Any moron can simply look at various cables and see differences.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because it sounded better to me.
>>>
>>> Define 'better'.
>>
>> Immmproved! Oopps, I mean superior.
>
> Define 'superior'. Or 'improved'. Try something that's not simply
> 'your opinion' and can be heard reproducibly by other ppl.



Well give me a specific outline or scheme that is more agreeable to
you and other people and maybe we can work something out. The
last thing I want to do is displease you.

How about these: exceptional, extraordinary, grander, impressive
outstanding, splended



>>>> Particularly, when listening to a well recorded music and sound.
>>>
>>> Define 'well-recorded'.
>>
>> Something recorded well? Like: This record is not compressed and is
>> well done! It is recorded superiorly.
>
>
> Most 'records' aren't compressed in the first place.


I was referring to CDs.


> Next ?


Next what ?




>>>>> Sounds like psychology at work to me.
>>>>
>>>> No, listening training at work here. Is your stereo system that
>>>> bad?
>>>
>>> Tell me how much time you've spent designing top-flight recording
>>> consoles and messing about in high-end studios making it *sound
>>> right* ?
>>
>> What is your point? Spell it out.
>
> My point is that science holds all the answers. Ppl who believe one
> brand of cable sounds 'better' than another are either simply
> deluding themselves. Wire can be defined in terms of its resistance,
> inductance and capacitance. That's all that matters. Provided that
> your wire meets certain fairly basic criteria and every wire I've
> ever met does, then it's entirely incapable of sounding different
> when used for interconnects.


If that is your point then explain scientifically why my stereo system
sounded sonically better after replacing the wires that either came
with the components or those I bought (though I don't have the
product # right now) specifically from Radio Shack, Target, and Best
Buy as compared to those aftermarket brands I mentioned earlier.




> It should be added that tube equipment is more fussy about cable
> capacitance due to its poorer techical specs wrt output impedance.
> Tube gear may need very low capacitance cables especially with long
> runs to avoid treble loss.
>
> Loudspeaker cables are another matter. Here, cable resistance is the
> primary 'culprit' and wires of different gauges will affect the
> frequency response (and hence the 'sound') to varying degrees. No
> argument there but the brand is irrelevant. Ideally your speaker
> cable should be of large cross-sectional area for minimum resistance
> and there should be no audible differences between loudspeaker cables
> of the same gauge.
>
> UK professional recording magazine Studio Sound found decades ago
> that the 'best' results were achieved with 4mm2 house wiring cable,
> the largest diameter they checked at the time. Few plugs are capable
> of taking a larger cable.
>
>
>
>> You called me a nitwit.
>
> You show all the usual signs.
>
>
>> You said I'm hopeless and my compuetr is POS,
>
> I said Norton is a POS. Most IT pros will agree.
>
>
>> and that my stereo components are lousy 'cause I'm a liar
>
> I said no such thing.
>
>
>> when I admitted that the sound produced by my stereo has "improved."
>> Therefore, I wasted my money for spending on wires that cost more
>> 'cause you never bought or heard them in your system before.
>
> Do you also buy the additives that claim to make your car run on
> water or to improve 'mileage' ? Do you know the meaning of the phrase
> 'snake oil' ?
>
> Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middiot" wrote:

> Graham the source of all enlightenment wrote:
>
> > > If you don't know what the differences are, it's utterly stupid to claim
> > > they're "mythical audiophoolery".
>
> > First you have to establish that there are any meaningful differences.
>
> No, you blithering idiot, you have to admit you're blind, dumb, and
> stupid. Any moron can simply look at various cables and see differences.

WHAT DIFFERENCES ???

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie the Constipated Donkey admits he's blind, dumb, and stupid.

> > No, you blithering idiot, you have to admit you're blind, dumb, and
> > stupid. Any moron can simply look at various cables and see differences.

> WHAT DIFFERENCES ???

So we agree -- you're dumber than the average moron.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>
> >>>> snip
> >>>>
> >>>> Because it sounded better to me.
> >>>
> >>> Define 'better'.
> >>
> >> Immmproved! Oopps, I mean superior.
> >
> > Define 'superior'. Or 'improved'. Try something that's not simply
> > 'your opinion' and can be heard reproducibly by other ppl.
>
> Well give me a specific outline or scheme that is more agreeable to
> you and other people and maybe we can work something out. The
> last thing I want to do is displease you.
>
> How about these: exceptional, extraordinary, grander, impressive
> outstanding, splended

You seem to be missing the point. These are subjective terms. What sounds
'exceptional' to you may sound rubbish to someone else.

That's why intelligent ppl pay attention to technical specs which are objective
and don't depend on an opinion that may not match your own.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > My point is that science holds all the answers. Ppl who believe one
> > brand of cable sounds 'better' than another are either simply
> > deluding themselves. Wire can be defined in terms of its resistance,
> > inductance and capacitance. That's all that matters. Provided that
> > your wire meets certain fairly basic criteria and every wire I've
> > ever met does, then it's entirely incapable of sounding different
> > when used for interconnects.
>
> If that is your point then explain scientifically why my stereo system
> sounded sonically better after replacing the wires that either came
> with the components or those I bought (though I don't have the
> product # right now) specifically from Radio Shack, Target, and Best
> Buy as compared to those aftermarket brands I mentioned earlier.

It probably didn't.

You however were expecting it to sound better, so it sounded better TO YOU. This
effect is readily demonstrable btw. I bet I could even convince you that a cheap
cable sounded better if you believed it was actually an expensive one.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > > No, you blithering idiot, you have to admit you're blind, dumb, and
> > > stupid. Any moron can simply look at various cables and see differences.
>
> > WHAT DIFFERENCES ???
>
> So we agree

We don't agree.

There are no differences in esoteric cables. They are made of the same materials
as cheap ones.

Graahm

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote
>>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:

>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they
>>>>>>> were all *improvements* ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when listening
>>>>>> to a well recorded music and sound.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do we know that you have even a clue about what the origional
>>>>> [sic] performance sounded like, when [sic] it was recorded?
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't follow.
>>>
>>> Why not ?
>>
>> Because sound recording and music reproduction-- is art.
>
>
> No. They're both entirely and exclusively science / technology. Music
> performance and production is art. There's a huge difference between
> these things. A 'good' recording is the product of both art and
> technology.


We were not discussing music performance. The issues were sound
recording and musical reproduction.


So please stay on topic. The question was:


"How do we know that you have even a clue about what the
original performance sounded like when it was recorded?"


It does requires technical skill, knowledge, and creativity to express
ideas and impression of what the outcome should be throughout
the recording and reproduction chain unto the listening room.



> Electrons obey scientific rules only.


Go on.... you're getting there.




>>>> After you make it so,
>>>
>>> So ? What do you mean by so ?
>>
>> He has this reprehensible obsession of dissembling what he had said
>> during exchanges in desire to engrossed himself further into
>> oblivion.
>>
>> Will you promise to not have this obsession?
>
>
> You're rambling.


What are you talkin about. Here, answer this question:

As you sat in your listening room, listening to a musical sound recording
that you have *never* participated in, how do you know that you have
even a clue about what the original performance sounded like when
it was recorded?



> Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>Eeyore wrote
>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> After you make it so,
>>>>
>>>> So ? What do you mean by so ?
>>>
>>> He has this reprehensible obsession of dissembling what
>>> he had said during exchanges in desire to engrossed
>>> himself further into oblivion.
>>>
>>> Will you promise to not have this obsession?
>>
>> You're rambling.
>>
>
> Even if he stopped doing that, he still wouldn't make sense.


What do you mean by rambling?

I hope you had a wonderfull Sunday mass.

Here, answer this question since you claim to be a recording
engineer:

As you sat in your listening room, listening to a musical sound recording
that you have *never* participated in, how do you know that you have
even a clue about what the original performance sounded like when
it was recorded?

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brays at the spectre of reality.

> > So we agree -- you're dumber than the average moron.

> There are no differences in esoteric cables.

You're a moron. Case closed.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote
> >>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>
> >>>> snip
>
> >>>>>>> You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they
> >>>>>>> were all *improvements* ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when listening
> >>>>>> to a well recorded music and sound.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How do we know that you have even a clue about what the origional
> >>>>> [sic] performance sounded like, when [sic] it was recorded?
> >>>>
> >>>> That doesn't follow.
> >>>
> >>> Why not ?
> >>
> >> Because sound recording and music reproduction-- is art.
> >
> >
> > No. They're both entirely and exclusively science / technology. Music
> > performance and production is art. There's a huge difference between
> > these things. A 'good' recording is the product of both art and
> > technology.
>
> We were not discussing music performance. The issues were sound
> recording and musical reproduction.

These are exclusivly science and technology areas. There is no art in either of
these other than the skill (art) of the designer and engineer.


> So please stay on topic. The question was:
>
> "How do we know that you have even a clue about what the
> original performance sounded like when it was recorded?"

From experience mainly.


> It does requires technical skill, knowledge, and creativity to express
> ideas and impression of what the outcome should be throughout
> the recording and reproduction chain unto the listening room.

The creativity in the recording process is exclusivley about musical production
and performance and not about technology.

Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>
>>>>>> snip
>>
>>>>>> Because it sounded better to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Define 'better'.
>>>>
>>>> Immmproved! Oopps, I mean superior.
>>>
>>> Define 'superior'. Or 'improved'. Try something that's not simply
>>> 'your opinion' and can be heard reproducibly by other ppl.
>>
>> Well give me a specific outline or scheme that is more agreeable to
>> you and other people and maybe we can work something out. The
>> last thing I want to do is displease you.
>>
>> How about these: exceptional, extraordinary, grander, impressive
>> outstanding, splended
>
> You seem to be missing the point. These are subjective terms. What
> sounds 'exceptional' to you may sound rubbish to someone else.


Who is this goddamn someone you keep referring to ?


> That's why intelligent ppl pay attention to technical specs which are
> objective and don't depend on an opinion that may not match your own.
>
> Graham

I was concidering a pair of speakers that had excellent specs ...
some years ago and detested the sound after listening awhile in
my system. What would be your recommended plan of action
with regards to this.

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> As you sat in your listening room, listening to a musical sound recording
> that you have *never* participated in, how do you know that you have
> even a clue about what the original performance sounded like when
> it was recorded?

You assume incorrectly that it was an individual performance. That is rarely the
case these days.

The recording you listen to is usually an amalgam of various individual tracks
and takes.

Graham

[Eeyore]

The Middiot wailed in despair:

> > > So we agree -- you're dumber than the average moron.
>
> > There are no differences in esoteric cables.
>
> You're a moron.

You're an idiot believer in audio voodoo.

The copper the esoteric freaks use is no different to any other copper. Their
PVC is no better than the cheapest. That's all there is that matters.

Then again you do seem to be very slow in picking up on simple facts.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> snip
> >>
> >>>>>> Because it sounded better to me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Define 'better'.
> >>>>
> >>>> Immmproved! Oopps, I mean superior.
> >>>
> >>> Define 'superior'. Or 'improved'. Try something that's not simply
> >>> 'your opinion' and can be heard reproducibly by other ppl.
> >>
> >> Well give me a specific outline or scheme that is more agreeable to
> >> you and other people and maybe we can work something out. The
> >> last thing I want to do is displease you.
> >>
> >> How about these: exceptional, extraordinary, grander, impressive
> >> outstanding, splended
> >
> > You seem to be missing the point. These are subjective terms. What
> > sounds 'exceptional' to you may sound rubbish to someone else.
>
> Who is this goddamn someone you keep referring to ?

Anyone.

You appear to believe that what you think sounds good will sound good to
everyone else. It ain't so.


> > That's why intelligent ppl pay attention to technical specs which are
> > objective and don't depend on an opinion that may not match your own.
>
> I was concidering a pair of speakers that had excellent specs ...
> some years ago and detested the sound after listening awhile in
> my system. What would be your recommended plan of action
> with regards to this.

Speakers (and microphones) are a case where more complicated measurements would
be required to 'describe them' fully since they are full of such huge flaws. In
this case, listening does make sense but that's no guarantee of accuracy of
reproduction at all. Indeed many listeners like an inaccurate sound it seems.
Else no-one would buy tube/valve amplifiers !

Graham

[Jenn]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> "JBorg, Jr" wrote:
>
> > As you sat in your listening room, listening to a musical sound recording
> > that you have *never* participated in, how do you know that you have
> > even a clue about what the original performance sounded like when
> > it was recorded?
>
> You assume incorrectly that it was an individual performance. That is rarely
> the
> case these days.
>
> The recording you listen to is usually an amalgam of various individual
> tracks
> and takes.
>
> Graham

But it's the same hall, same players, same instruments...

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My point is that science holds all the answers. Ppl who believe one
>>> brand of cable sounds 'better' than another are either simply
>>> deluding themselves. Wire can be defined in terms of its resistance,
>>> inductance and capacitance. That's all that matters. Provided that
>>> your wire meets certain fairly basic criteria and every wire I've
>>> ever met does, then it's entirely incapable of sounding different
>>> when used for interconnects.
>>
>> If that is your point then explain scientifically why my stereo
>> system sounded sonically better after replacing the wires that
>> either came with the components or those I bought (though I don't
>> have the product # right now) specifically from Radio Shack, Target,
>> and Best Buy as compared to those aftermarket brands I mentioned
>> earlier.
>
> It probably didn't.



How the hell did you learn about these things? Are we talkin mind
control or something?


> You however were expecting it to sound better, so it sounded better
> TO YOU.

How the did you knowww whether this the case?


> This effect is readily demonstrable btw.

How so, how so.


> I bet I could even convince you that a cheap cable sounded better
> if you believed it was actually an expensive one.


I'll bet you just plucked that out of your belly button.



> Graham

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:
>
> Poopster, you should reflect on the ramifications of running your mouth
> off without knowing anything. Nearly every time you post on RAO, you're
> revealed as a doddering, half-in-the-bag old fart who can barely


"at least" he still has a few teeth.

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>snip
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Because it sounded better to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Define 'better'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Immmproved! Oopps, I mean superior.
>>>>>
>>>>> Define 'superior'. Or 'improved'. Try something that's not simply
>>>>> 'your opinion' and can be heard reproducibly by other ppl.
>>>>
>>>> Well give me a specific outline or scheme that is more agreeable to
>>>> you and other people and maybe we can work something out. The
>>>> last thing I want to do is displease you.
>>>>
>>>> How about these: exceptional, extraordinary, grander, impressive
>>>> outstanding, splended
>>>
>>> You seem to be missing the point. These are subjective terms. What
>>> sounds 'exceptional' to you may sound rubbish to someone else.
>>
>> Who is this goddamn someone you keep referring to ?
>
> Anyone.
>
> You appear to believe that what you think sounds good will sound good
> to everyone else. It ain't so.


OKEY, TELL ME WHAT SHOULD I DO TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN
SOMETHING SOUND GOOD TO ME -- MUST SOUND GOOD TO YOU.

I WANT TO KNOW YOUR SPECIFIC CRITERIA WITH REGARD THIS
ALL IMPORTANT MATTER.


>>> That's why intelligent ppl pay attention to technical specs which
>>> are objective and don't depend on an opinion that may not match
>>> your own.
>>
>> I was concidering a pair of speakers that had excellent specs ...
>> some years ago and detested the sound after listening awhile in
>> my system. What would be your recommended plan of action
>> with regards to this.
>
> Speakers (and microphones) are a case where more complicated
> measurements would be required to 'describe them' fully since they
> are full of such huge flaws.


Oh, they have flaws regardless of these *scientifically* base excellent
specs. ACTUALLY, I LOVE THE WAY IT SOUNDED BUT I WAS
DISSUADED 'CAUSE IT COST MORE. What would be your
recommended plan of action ENLIGHT OF THIS?

I want to be intelligent like you.


> In this case, listening does make sense
> but that's no guarantee of accuracy of reproduction at all. Indeed
> many listeners like an inaccurate sound it seems. Else no-one would
> buy tube/valve amplifiers !
>
> Graham

[Clyde Slick]

Eeyore a scris:
>
> That's why intelligent ppl pay attention to technical specs which are objective
> and don't depend on an opinion that may not match your own.
>

not that tech specs would necessarily match any individual's opinion
of
how well they woould sound.

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > "JBorg, Jr" wrote:
> >
> > > As you sat in your listening room, listening to a musical sound recording
> > > that you have *never* participated in, how do you know that you have
> > > even a clue about what the original performance sounded like when
> > > it was recorded?
> >
> > You assume incorrectly that it was an individual performance. That is rarely
> > the case these days.
> >
> > The recording you listen to is usually an amalgam of various individual
> > tracks and takes.
>
>
> But it's the same hall, same players, same instruments...

Not always ! Classical recording is quite different to 'pop' of course.

Graham

[Clyde Slick]

Eeyore a scris:
>
> That's why intelligent ppl pay attention to technical specs which are objective
> and don't depend on an opinion that may not match your own.
>

not that tech specs would necessarily match any individual's opinion
of
how well they woould sound.

[Clyde Slick]

ScottW a scris:
> "Eeyore" > wrote in message

>
> I saw a neat cable that is extremely thin and adhesive backed
> you can put on dry wall and paint over it...it almost disappears.
> Its a little pricey...but definitely better for hiding.
>
but do they also hide treble, bass, inner detail, and imaging?
and various kinds of paint could affect the sound

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>
> >>> My point is that science holds all the answers. Ppl who believe one
> >>> brand of cable sounds 'better' than another are either simply
> >>> deluding themselves. Wire can be defined in terms of its resistance,
> >>> inductance and capacitance. That's all that matters. Provided that
> >>> your wire meets certain fairly basic criteria and every wire I've
> >>> ever met does, then it's entirely incapable of sounding different
> >>> when used for interconnects.
> >>
> >> If that is your point then explain scientifically why my stereo
> >> system sounded sonically better after replacing the wires that
> >> either came with the components or those I bought (though I don't
> >> have the product # right now) specifically from Radio Shack, Target,
> >> and Best Buy as compared to those aftermarket brands I mentioned
> >> earlier.
> >
> > It probably didn't.
>
> How the hell did you learn about these things?

About 40 years of taking an interest in audio, as a hobby initially and then
most of my working life in professional audio.


> Are we talkin mind control or something?

It's called psychology.


> > You however were expecting it to sound better, so it sounded better
> > TO YOU.
>
> How the did you knowww whether this the case?

It always is ! If you thought it was going to sound worse would you really have
connected it ?


> > This effect is readily demonstrable btw.
>
> How so, how so.

Controlled blind tests.


> > I bet I could even convince you that a cheap cable sounded better
> > if you believed it was actually an expensive one.
>
> I'll bet you just plucked that out of your belly button.

It has been done ! It's a hoot isn't it how gullible we are.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Poopster, you should reflect on the ramifications of running your mouth
> > off without knowing anything. Nearly every time you post on RAO, you're
> > revealed as a doddering, half-in-the-bag old fart who can barely

> "at least" he still has a few teeth.

Why are you bringing teeth into it? His brain is clearly half-gone.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Clyde Slick]

Eeyore a scris:
>
> There are no differences in esoteric cables. They are made of the same materials
> as cheap ones.
>
> Graahm

wrong!!!!
very wrong!!!!!!!!!
YOU KNOW LITTLE ABOUT MATERIALS.

[Eeyore]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> George M. Middius a scris:
> >
> > Poopster, you should reflect on the ramifications of running your mouth
> > off without knowing anything. Nearly every time you post on RAO, you're
> > revealed as a doddering, half-in-the-bag old fart who can barely
>
> "at least" he still has a few teeth.

The only ones I've lost were 2 wisdom teeth and 1 canine that were overcrowding
my jaw. I reckon I should have the 2 other wisdom teeth removed too actually.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>
> >>snip
> >>
> >>>>>>>> Because it sounded better to me.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Define 'better'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Immmproved! Oopps, I mean superior.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Define 'superior'. Or 'improved'. Try something that's not simply
> >>>>> 'your opinion' and can be heard reproducibly by other ppl.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well give me a specific outline or scheme that is more agreeable to
> >>>> you and other people and maybe we can work something out. The
> >>>> last thing I want to do is displease you.
> >>>>
> >>>> How about these: exceptional, extraordinary, grander, impressive
> >>>> outstanding, splended
> >>>
> >>> You seem to be missing the point. These are subjective terms. What
> >>> sounds 'exceptional' to you may sound rubbish to someone else.
> >>
> >> Who is this goddamn someone you keep referring to ?
> >
> > Anyone.
> >
> > You appear to believe that what you think sounds good will sound good
> > to everyone else. It ain't so.
>
> OKEY, TELL ME WHAT SHOULD I DO TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN
> SOMETHING SOUND GOOD TO ME -- MUST SOUND GOOD TO YOU.

You can't. It's very subjective. Expereinced audio engineers tend to be better
at his because they've heard so many varieties of equipment but even so......


> I WANT TO KNOW YOUR SPECIFIC CRITERIA WITH REGARD THIS
> ALL IMPORTANT MATTER.

My criteria ? I expect technical excellence first as can be readily measured.
All tube equipment fails this test of course because of inherent technical
limiatations of thermionic technology and its implementation so they should be
seen simply as an 'effect' not a reference.

Beyond that, one needs a damn good pair of ears, experience of what real
instruments sound like and the time to spend listening critically.


> >>> That's why intelligent ppl pay attention to technical specs which
> >>> are objective and don't depend on an opinion that may not match
> >>> your own.
> >>
> >> I was concidering a pair of speakers that had excellent specs ...
> >> some years ago and detested the sound after listening awhile in
> >> my system. What would be your recommended plan of action
> >> with regards to this.
> >
> > Speakers (and microphones) are a case where more complicated
> > measurements would be required to 'describe them' fully since they
> > are full of such huge flaws.
>
> Oh, they have flaws regardless of these *scientifically* base excellent
> specs.

It's not 'regardless' at all. The basic specs that can entirely describe the
performance of an amplifier or CD player are not adequate to the task of
describing a loudspeaker. There exist suitable more advanced measurement methods
but few are ever seen by the public.

For example a loudspeaker will sound different depending on where you are in
relation to it. It will also be affected by the room size, shape, carpeting,
curtains, ceiling and floor materials.


> ACTUALLY, I LOVE THE WAY IT SOUNDED BUT I WAS
> DISSUADED 'CAUSE IT COST MORE. What would be your
> recommended plan of action ENLIGHT OF THIS?

I think you mean 'in light' of this.

I'd suggest you don't waste money on snake-oil audio voodoo like over-priced
'magic cables' , upgrade gold-plated power leads and the like and keep the
savings available to spend on damn good kit.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> Eeyore a scris:
> >
> > That's why intelligent ppl pay attention to technical specs which are objective
> > and don't depend on an opinion that may not match your own.
>
> not that tech specs would necessarily match any individual's opinion
> of how well they woould sound.

That would depend how they formed that opinion of course.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > Poopster, you should reflect on the ramifications of running your mouth
> > > off without knowing anything. Nearly every time you post on RAO, you're
> > > revealed as a doddering, half-in-the-bag old fart who can barely
>
> > "at least" he still has a few teeth.
>
> Why are you bringing teeth into it? His brain is clearly half-gone.

And yours ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> Eeyore a scris:
> >
> > There are no differences in esoteric cables. They are made of the same materials
> > as cheap ones.
> >
> > Graahm
>
> wrong!!!!
> very wrong!!!!!!!!!
> YOU KNOW LITTLE ABOUT MATERIALS.

Come on then. Let's hear more.

Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote
>>>>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>>>>> snip
>>
>>>>>>>>> You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they
>>>>>>>>> were all *improvements* ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when listening
>>>>>>>> to a well recorded music and sound.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do we know that you have even a clue about what the
>>>>>>> origional [sic] performance sounded like, when [sic] it was
>>>>>>> recorded?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That doesn't follow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not ?
>>>>
>>>> Because sound recording and music reproduction-- is art.
>>>
>>>
>>> No. They're both entirely and exclusively science / technology.
>>> Music performance and production is art. There's a huge difference
>>> between these things. A 'good' recording is the product of both art
>>> and technology.
>>
>> We were not discussing music performance. The issues were sound
>> recording and musical reproduction.
>
> These are exclusivly science and technology areas. There is no art in
> either of these other than the skill (art) of the designer and
> engineer.


There is no art in sound recording and musical reproduction other than
the skillful art of the designer and (sound) engineer?



>
>> So please stay on topic. The question was:
>>
>> "How do we know that you have even a clue about what the
>> original performance sounded like when it was recorded?"
>
>
> From experience mainly.


What are you talkin about GRAHAM? HOW DO YOU EXPERIENCE
SOMETHING YOU NEVER PHYSICALLY SAW AND HEARD ?



>> It does requires technical skill, knowledge, and creativity to
>> express ideas and impression of what the outcome should be
>> throughout the recording and reproduction chain unto the listening
>> room.
>
> The creativity in the recording process is exclusivley about musical
> production and performance and not about technology.


So, when you claimed you were in the High-End studio, as sound
engineer, messing around with the controls, HOW did you came to
decide whether to turn the knob towards the right or left ?


WHAT ARE THE SCIENTIFIC LAWS IN SCIENCE WITH REGARD
TO YOUR DECISION IN TURNING THE KNOB ?


WHAT ARE THE SCIENTIFIC LAWS IN SCIENCE AND PRECISE
TECHNOLOGICAL CRITERIA IN REPRODUCING AN ACCURATE
AND AUTHENTIC SOUND OF A VIOLIN ?


> Graham



Make an effort to answer now.

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote
> >>>>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> snip
> >>
> >>>>>>>>> You may have heard *differences* but how do you know they
> >>>>>>>>> were all *improvements* ?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Because it sounded better to me. Particularly, when listening
> >>>>>>>> to a well recorded music and sound.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How do we know that you have even a clue about what the
> >>>>>>> origional [sic] performance sounded like, when [sic] it was
> >>>>>>> recorded?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That doesn't follow.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why not ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because sound recording and music reproduction-- is art.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No. They're both entirely and exclusively science / technology.
> >>> Music performance and production is art. There's a huge difference
> >>> between these things. A 'good' recording is the product of both art
> >>> and technology.
> >>
> >> We were not discussing music performance. The issues were sound
> >> recording and musical reproduction.
> >
> > These are exclusivly science and technology areas. There is no art in
> > either of these other than the skill (art) of the designer and
> > engineer.
>
> There is no art in sound recording and musical reproduction other than
> the skillful art of the designer and (sound) engineer?

In sound recording. Replicating the original signal by making an accurate
recording / playback device ? None whatever unless you call the equipment
designer's skill an 'art'.

Ditto reproduction. It's entirely science and technology. A loudspeaker is
nothing more or less than an electric motor with an acoustic output.

*Producing* a recording however is another matter. The record producer is rarely
a scientist/engineer and certainly has no need of those skills. His assistant,
the recording engineer will ensure that his production skills do not clash with
the technical capabilites of the equipment chain and as such must have certain
key technical skills.

Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>
>
>
>> As you sat in your listening room, listening to a musical sound
>> recording that you have *never* participated in, how do you know
>> that you have even a clue about what the original performance
>> sounded like when
>> it was recorded?
>
>
> You assume incorrectly that it was an individual performance. That is
> rarely the case these days.
>
> The recording you listen to is usually an amalgam of various
> individual tracks and takes.


YOU are out of order!



> Graham



Respond and addess the question.

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >
> >> "How do we know that you have even a clue about what the
> >> original performance sounded like when it was recorded?"
> >
> >
> > From experience mainly.
>
> What are you talkin about GRAHAM? HOW DO YOU EXPERIENCE
> SOMETHING YOU NEVER PHYSICALLY SAW AND HEARD ?

You have to extrapolate from previous experience. I expect I know a lot more
than you do about how real instruments sound for example.

How much time have YOU spent behind a mixing desk btw ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > The creativity in the recording process is exclusivley about musical
> > production and performance and not about technology.
>
> So, when you claimed you were in the High-End studio, as sound
> engineer, messing around with the controls, HOW did you came to
> decide whether to turn the knob towards the right or left ?

My choice in a production role.

You seem to be confusing music production (an artistic matter) with recording
and playback (a technological matter).


> WHAT ARE THE SCIENTIFIC LAWS IN SCIENCE WITH REGARD
> TO YOUR DECISION IN TURNING THE KNOB ?

With respect to a decision. None. Never said there was. How the equipment
responds to that turn of the knob is science though.

Does a race driver have to know how to build a gearbox before being allowed in a
car though ? Of course not. His driving skill is likewise 'art' and how the
vehicle responds to his inputs is science.


> WHAT ARE THE SCIENTIFIC LAWS IN SCIENCE AND PRECISE
> TECHNOLOGICAL CRITERIA IN REPRODUCING AN ACCURATE
> AND AUTHENTIC SOUND OF A VIOLIN ?

In the first instance, the equipment in the chain has to turn a sound pressure
into a voltage 'pressure' accurately and ditto in reverse at the reproduction
end.

These are science and technology issues to do with transducers and amplifiers.
There is no 'art' in this, unless as I said before you choose to call the
designer's technical skills an 'art'.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >
> >> As you sat in your listening room, listening to a musical sound
> >> recording that you have *never* participated in, how do you know
> >> that you have even a clue about what the original performance
> >> sounded like when
> >> it was recorded?
> >
> > You assume incorrectly that it was an individual performance. That is
> > rarely the case these days.
> >
> > The recording you listen to is usually an amalgam of various
> > individual tracks and takes.
>
> YOU are out of order!

It's a fact.

Outside of live classical recording, there almost never was a 'performance' that
sounds like the record. It's built up layer by layer out of individual
recordings of numerous instruments with many, many takes of each quite often
until you get 'that one' that's just so.

Graham

[Jenn]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > Eeyore wrote:
> > > "JBorg, Jr" wrote:
> > >
> > > > As you sat in your listening room, listening to a musical sound
> > > > recording
> > > > that you have *never* participated in, how do you know that you have
> > > > even a clue about what the original performance sounded like when
> > > > it was recorded?
> > >
> > > You assume incorrectly that it was an individual performance. That is
> > > rarely
> > > the case these days.
> > >
> > > The recording you listen to is usually an amalgam of various individual
> > > tracks and takes.
> >
> >
> > But it's the same hall, same players, same instruments...
>
> Not always ! Classical recording is quite different to 'pop' of course.
>
> Graham

Very nearly always.

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> My point is that science holds all the answers. Ppl who believe
>>>>> one brand of cable sounds 'better' than another are either simply
>>>>> deluding themselves. Wire can be defined in terms of its
>>>>> resistance, inductance and capacitance. That's all that matters.
>>>>> Provided that your wire meets certain fairly basic criteria and
>>>>> every wire I've ever met does, then it's entirely incapable of
>>>>> sounding different when used for interconnects.
>>>>
>>>> If that is your point then explain scientifically why my stereo
>>>> system sounded sonically better after replacing the wires that
>>>> either came with the components or those I bought (though I don't
>>>> have the product # right now) specifically from Radio Shack,
>>>> Target, and Best Buy as compared to those aftermarket brands I
>>>> mentioned earlier.
>>>
>>> It probably didn't.
>>
>> How the hell did you learn about these things?
>
> About 40 years of taking an interest in audio, as a hobby initially
> and then most of my working life in professional audio.


So after you have takin interest in audio over there in England for
40 years, you have confirmed "scientifically" that the aftermarket
cables & wires I bought did not sound sonically better to me?


You're out of order!


>> Are we talkin mind control or something?
>
> It's called psychology.


Big terms from you.


You're out of order!


>>> You however were expecting it to sound better, so it sounded better
>>> TO YOU.
>>
>> How the did you knowww whether this is the case?
>
> It always is ! If you thought it was going to sound worse would you
> really have connected it ?


You know, you cannot reply to another question by responding to your
own question.


You're out of order!


>>> This effect is readily demonstrable btw.
>>
>> How so, how so.
>
> Controlled blind tests.


LoL!



>>> I bet I could even convince you that a cheap cable sounded better
>>> if you believed it was actually an expensive one.
>>
>> I'll bet you just plucked that out of your belly button.
>
> It has been done ! It's a hoot isn't it how gullible we are.
>
>
> Graham


You and your belly button is out of order!

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > Eeyore wrote:
> > > > "JBorg, Jr" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > As you sat in your listening room, listening to a musical sound
> > > > > recording
> > > > > that you have *never* participated in, how do you know that you have
> > > > > even a clue about what the original performance sounded like when
> > > > > it was recorded?
> > > >
> > > > You assume incorrectly that it was an individual performance. That is
> > > > rarely
> > > > the case these days.
> > > >
> > > > The recording you listen to is usually an amalgam of various individual
> > > > tracks and takes.
> > >
> > > But it's the same hall, same players, same instruments...
> >
> > Not always ! Classical recording is quite different to 'pop' of course.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Very nearly always.

Agreed.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> My point is that science holds all the answers. Ppl who believe
> >>>>> one brand of cable sounds 'better' than another are either simply
> >>>>> deluding themselves. Wire can be defined in terms of its
> >>>>> resistance, inductance and capacitance. That's all that matters.
> >>>>> Provided that your wire meets certain fairly basic criteria and
> >>>>> every wire I've ever met does, then it's entirely incapable of
> >>>>> sounding different when used for interconnects.
> >>>>
> >>>> If that is your point then explain scientifically why my stereo
> >>>> system sounded sonically better after replacing the wires that
> >>>> either came with the components or those I bought (though I don't
> >>>> have the product # right now) specifically from Radio Shack,
> >>>> Target, and Best Buy as compared to those aftermarket brands I
> >>>> mentioned earlier.
> >>>
> >>> It probably didn't.
> >>
> >> How the hell did you learn about these things?
> >
> > About 40 years of taking an interest in audio, as a hobby initially
> > and then most of my working life in professional audio.
>
> So after you have takin interest in audio over there in England for
> 40 years, you have confirmed "scientifically" that the aftermarket
> cables & wires I bought did not sound sonically better to me?

It's quite easy to illustrate that they won't sound sonically better to ANYONE !
It doesn't matter who you are.

You might as well suggest that the colour blue looks better through glasses made
of Brand A perfectly optically pure glass compared to Brand B perfectly
optically pure glass..

There is a caveat that the equipment and connection was previously in good
working order of course.

Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because it sounded better to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Define 'better'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Immmproved! Oopps, I mean superior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Define 'superior'. Or 'improved'. Try something that's not
>>>>>>> simply 'your opinion' and can be heard reproducibly by other
>>>>>>> ppl.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well give me a specific outline or scheme that is more agreeable
>>>>>> to you and other people and maybe we can work something out. The
>>>>>> last thing I want to do is displease you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about these: exceptional, extraordinary, grander, impressive
>>>>>> outstanding, splended
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be missing the point. These are subjective terms. What
>>>>> sounds 'exceptional' to you may sound rubbish to someone else.
>>>>
>>>> Who is this goddamn someone you keep referring to ?
>>>
>>> Anyone.
>>>
>>> You appear to believe that what you think sounds good will sound
>>> good to everyone else. It ain't so.
>>
>> OKEY, TELL ME WHAT SHOULD I DO TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN
>> SOMETHING SOUND GOOD TO ME -- MUST SOUND GOOD TO YOU.
>
> You can't. It's very subjective. Expereinced audio engineers tend to
> be better at his because they've heard so many varieties of equipment
> but even so......


even so... even so...even so...

THERE IS something wrong with your brain.


It is out of order!


>> I WANT TO KNOW YOUR SPECIFIC CRITERIA WITH REGARD THIS
>> ALL IMPORTANT MATTER.
>
> My criteria ? I expect technical excellence first as can be readily
> measured. All tube equipment fails this test of course because of
> inherent technical limiatations of thermionic technology and its
> implementation so they should be seen simply as an 'effect' not a
> reference.


Why do you keep bringing your hatred about tubes to this?

TELL ME WHAT SHOULD I DO TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN
SOMETHING SOUND GOOD TO ME -- WOULD COINCIDE WITH
WHAT SOUND GOOD TO YOU.


And you keep talkin technical specs. YOU REMIND ME OF
MCKELVY and to some extent, Don Pearce the consulting guy
from over there in Britain.


> Beyond that, one needs a damn good pair of ears, experience of what
> real instruments sound like and the time to spend listening
> critically.


Hypocrite.


You're out of order!



>>>>> That's why intelligent ppl pay attention to technical specs which
>>>>> are objective and don't depend on an opinion that may not match
>>>>> your own.
>>>>
>>>> I was concidering a pair of speakers that had excellent specs ...
>>>> some years ago and detested the sound after listening awhile in
>>>> my system. What would be your recommended plan of action
>>>> with regards to this.
>>>
>>> Speakers (and microphones) are a case where more complicated
>>> measurements would be required to 'describe them' fully since they
>>> are full of such huge flaws.
>>
>> Oh, they have flaws regardless of these *scientifically* base
>> excellent specs.
>
> It's not 'regardless' at all. The basic specs that can entirely
> describe the performance of an amplifier or CD player are not
> adequate to the task of describing a loudspeaker. There exist
> suitable more advanced measurement methods but few are ever seen by
> the public.
>
> For example a loudspeaker will sound different depending on where you
> are in relation to it. It will also be affected by the room size,
> shape, carpeting, curtains, ceiling and floor materials.


You know, you definitely reminding me of McKelvy the Bug Eater
right now! And he's been out of order for a lonnngg time!


Hahahahahah ! LoL!


>> ACTUALLY, I LOVE THE WAY IT SOUNDED BUT I WAS
>> DISSUADED 'CAUSE IT COST MORE. What would be your
>> recommended plan of action ENLIGHT OF THIS?
>
> I think you mean 'in light' of this.
>
> I'd suggest you don't waste money on snake-oil audio voodoo like
> over-priced 'magic cables' , upgrade gold-plated power leads and the
> like and keep the savings available to spend on damn good kit.
>
> Graham


Money, money, money, money..... LoL!


You're out of order !

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> George M. Middius a scris:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Poopster, you should reflect on the ramifications of running your
>>> mouth off without knowing anything. Nearly every time you post on
>>> RAO, you're revealed as a doddering, half-in-the-bag old fart who
>>> can barely
>>
>> "at least" he still has a few teeth.
>
> The only ones I've lost were 2 wisdom teeth and 1 canine that were
> overcrowding my jaw. I reckon I should have the 2 other wisdom teeth
> removed too actually.



Heck, why not just have the whole brain remove. It will be cheaper
for all of us down the road.



> Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> Why do you keep bringing your hatred

No hatred whatever. I've worked with tubes almost all my life. They have a
place. Mainly as an 'effect' it has to be said.


> about tubes to this?

Because it's relevant. Some ppl choose to describe the known high level
distortions of tube circuitry as 'better' than circuits with no distortion.

I suppose some ppl also think that caviar tastes 'better' with brown sauce ? Who
can tell. There's nought queer as folk.


> TELL ME WHAT SHOULD I DO TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN
> SOMETHING SOUND GOOD TO ME -- WOULD COINCIDE WITH
> WHAT SOUND GOOD TO YOU.

It's simply not possible.

You idea of a 'good sound' is as likely to be as different to mine as your idea
of a 'good steak'.

What's 'better' ? Is it medium, rare or well-done ? With or without onion ?
French mustard or English ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> And you keep talkin technical specs.

Yes. It's the *ONLY* objective way to compare equipment. Renmarkably enough,
over the years Ive found an astonishingly good correlation between great
technical specs and great sound.

Likewise, poor technical specs are a reliable indicator of a poor sound (imho).

Any number of "I think it sounds better"s mean ABSOLUTELY ZERO. Furthermore
most products trading on such descriptions can be shown to be total scams.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie goes to the pawn shop to redeem his soul, but it was wholesaled
outta there some fifty-odd years ago.

> Any number of "I think it sounds better"s mean ABSOLUTELY ZERO.

You and your buddy Kroo**** simply hate it when Normals talk like humans
about music and the equipment we use to listen to it.

Poopie, your existence seems defined by envy and inferiority. The
occasional wild fantasy about being pursued by post-pubescent hotties
doesn't improve your persona. I'd tell you to get a life, but that would
probably cause duh-Scottie to have a fit of apoplexy.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poopie goes to the pawn shop to redeem his soul, but it was wholesaled
> outta there some fifty-odd years ago.
>
> > Any number of "I think it sounds better"s mean ABSOLUTELY ZERO.
>
> You and your buddy Kroo**** simply hate it when Normals talk like humans
> about music and the equipment we use to listen to it.

There is nothing normal about YOU whatsoever.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> The occasional wild fantasy about being pursued by post-pubescent hotties
> doesn't improve your persona.

Hey I caught a hot redhead mum turning round for a second peek at me the other
day. So was I of course <grin>. She lives only about 12 doors down from me too.
So you see it's not just the 20 somethings I have eyes for.

Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do we know that you have even a clue about what the
>>>>>>>>> origional [sic] performance sounded like, when [sic] it was
>>>>>>>>> recorded?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That doesn't follow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because sound recording and music reproduction-- is art.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No. They're both entirely and exclusively science / technology.
>>>>> Music performance and production is art. There's a huge difference
>>>>> between these things. A 'good' recording is the product of both
>>>>> art and technology.
>>>>
>>>> We were not discussing music performance. The issues were sound
>>>> recording and musical reproduction.
>>>
>>> These are exclusivly science and technology areas. There is no art
>>> in either of these other than the skill (art) of the designer and
>>> engineer.
>>
>> There is no art in sound recording and musical reproduction other
>> than the skillful art of the designer and (sound) engineer?
>
> In sound recording. Replicating the original signal by making an
> accurate recording / playback device ? None whatever unless you call
> the equipment designer's skill an 'art'.
>
> Ditto reproduction. It's entirely science and technology. A
> loudspeaker is nothing more or less than an electric motor with an
> acoustic output.
>
> *Producing* a recording however is another matter. The record
> producer is rarely a scientist/engineer and certainly has no need of
> those skills. His assistant, the recording engineer will ensure that
> his production skills do not clash with the technical capabilites of
> the equipment chain and as such must have certain key technical
> skills.


These things you mentioned above are the required technical skills
in the recording process. As I have said these are usually required
in visual and audio arts.



> Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>>>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>> How do we know that you have even a clue about what the
> >>>>>>>>> origional [sic] performance sounded like, when [sic] it was
> >>>>>>>>> recorded?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That doesn't follow.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why not ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because sound recording and music reproduction-- is art.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No. They're both entirely and exclusively science / technology.
> >>>>> Music performance and production is art. There's a huge difference
> >>>>> between these things. A 'good' recording is the product of both
> >>>>> art and technology.
> >>>>
> >>>> We were not discussing music performance. The issues were sound
> >>>> recording and musical reproduction.
> >>>
> >>> These are exclusivly science and technology areas. There is no art
> >>> in either of these other than the skill (art) of the designer and
> >>> engineer.
> >>
> >> There is no art in sound recording and musical reproduction other
> >> than the skillful art of the designer and (sound) engineer?
> >
> > In sound recording. Replicating the original signal by making an
> > accurate recording / playback device ? None whatever unless you call
> > the equipment designer's skill an 'art'.
> >
> > Ditto reproduction. It's entirely science and technology. A
> > loudspeaker is nothing more or less than an electric motor with an
> > acoustic output.
> >
> > *Producing* a recording however is another matter. The record
> > producer is rarely a scientist/engineer and certainly has no need of
> > those skills. His assistant, the recording engineer will ensure that
> > his production skills do not clash with the technical capabilites of
> > the equipment chain and as such must have certain key technical
> > skills.
>
> These things you mentioned above are the required technical skills
> in the recording process. As I have said these are usually required
> in visual and audio arts.

Designing accurate transducers and amplifiers is most certainly not a subject
covered by the visual and audio arts.

Without these you might as well return to the days of the wax cylinder or
shellac record played with a steel needle with all their attendant quality
defects.


Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:
> "JBorg, Jr" wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "How do we know that you have even a clue about what the
>>>> original performance sounded like when it was recorded?"
>>>
>>>
>>> From experience mainly.
>>
>> What are you talkin about GRAHAM? HOW DO YOU EXPERIENCE
>> SOMETHING YOU NEVER PHYSICALLY SAW AND HEARD ?
>
>
> You have to extrapolate from previous experience. I expect I know a
> lot more than you do about how real instruments sound for example.
>
> How much time have YOU spent behind a mixing desk btw ?



You have to extrapolate from all your previous HOCUS-POCUS
to get a clue in order to experience a complete and inclusive content
of all the recorded sound in history... hahahahah hahahah


LoL!


Please answer the question, Graham.



> Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > "JBorg, Jr" wrote:
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
> >>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "How do we know that you have even a clue about what the
> >>>> original performance sounded like when it was recorded?"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From experience mainly.
> >>
> >> What are you talkin about GRAHAM? HOW DO YOU EXPERIENCE
> >> SOMETHING YOU NEVER PHYSICALLY SAW AND HEARD ?
> >
> >
> > You have to extrapolate from previous experience. I expect I know a
> > lot more than you do about how real instruments sound for example.
> >
> > How much time have YOU spent behind a mixing desk btw ?
>
> You have to extrapolate from all your previous HOCUS-POCUS
> to get a clue in order to experience a complete and inclusive content
> of all the recorded sound in history... hahahahah hahahah
>
> LoL!
>
> Please answer the question, Graham.

I haven't a clue what you're asking any more.

Consider yourself placed in the idiot bin.

Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The creativity in the recording process is exclusivley about musical
>>> production and performance and not about technology.
>>
>> So, when you claimed you were in the High-End studio, as sound
>> engineer, messing around with the controls, HOW did you came to
>> decide whether to turn the knob towards the right or left ?
>
> My choice in a production role.

Ok.

> You seem to be confusing music production (an artistic matter) with
> recording and playback (a technological matter).


The only one appearing confused here is you. Probably because you
are now selectively snipping relevant parts in my previous post.
As I previously said, we are not discussing music performance here ie
not the act of creating music.



>> WHAT ARE THE SCIENTIFIC LAWS IN SCIENCE WITH REGARD
>> TO YOUR DECISION IN TURNING THE KNOB ?
>
> With respect to a decision. None. Never said there was. How the
> equipment responds to that turn of the knob is science though.


So, your answer is NO -- there is no scientific laws in science that
govern your decision to decide which way you turn the knob.


SO, who is deciding which way you turn the knob, GRAHAM ?


1) Science

2) A technical robot

3) a baboon

4) or, YOU


Take your pick.





> Does a race driver have to know how to build a gearbox before being
> allowed in a car though ? Of course not. His driving skill is
> likewise 'art' and how the vehicle responds to his inputs is science.


What are you takin about?


You're out of order!

>> WHAT ARE THE SCIENTIFIC LAWS IN SCIENCE AND PRECISE
>> TECHNOLOGICAL CRITERIA IN REPRODUCING AN ACCURATE
>> AND AUTHENTIC SOUND OF A VIOLIN ?
>
> In the first instance, the equipment in the chain has to turn a sound
> pressure into a voltage 'pressure' accurately and ditto in reverse at
> the reproduction end.


AFTER the equipment turned the sound pressure into voltage pressure
accurately, who is deciding to ensure that the sound produce by the
equipment is accurately portraying the authentic sound and timbre of
a violin towards the reproduction end?


1) the equipment

2) the baboon atop the equipment

3) an orang-utan watching nearby

4) or, YOU


Take your pick.


> These are science and technology issues to do with transducers and
> amplifiers. There is no 'art' in this, unless as I said before you
> choose to call the designer's technical skills an 'art'.


As I said, there are knowledge and skills required in visual and audio arts.


> Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>
>
>
>> Why do you keep bringing your hatred
>
> No hatred whatever. I've worked with tubes almost all my life. They
> have a place. Mainly as an 'effect' it has to be said.
>
>
>> about tubes to this?
>
> Because it's relevant. Some ppl choose to describe the known high
> level distortions of tube circuitry as 'better' than circuits with no
> distortion.
>
> I suppose some ppl also think that caviar tastes 'better' with brown
> sauce ? Who can tell. There's nought queer as folk.
>
>
>> TELL ME WHAT SHOULD I DO TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN
>> SOMETHING SOUND GOOD TO ME -- WOULD COINCIDE WITH
>> WHAT SOUND GOOD TO YOU.
>
> It's simply not possible.
>
> You idea of a 'good sound' is as likely to be as different to mine as
> your idea of a 'good steak'.
>
> What's 'better' ? Is it medium, rare or well-done ? With or without
> onion ? French mustard or English ?


Hypocrite.

Whats really better is to have your brain surgically removed out of your
skull and replaced it with raw steak teeming with maggots then filled to
the top of your forehead with brown sauce scraped from Arny's pants.



> Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> And you keep talkin technical specs.
>
> Yes. It's the *ONLY* objective way to compare equipment. Renmarkably
> enough, over the years Ive found an astonishingly good correlation
> between great technical specs and great sound.
>
> Likewise, poor technical specs are a reliable indicator of a poor
> sound (imho).
>
> Any number of "I think it sounds better"s mean ABSOLUTELY ZERO.
> Furthermore most products trading on such descriptions can be shown
> to be total scams.
>
> Graham


Specs agaiiinnn ? You need to talk to the Bugeater 'cause it's boring
and I'm done with that. We need original thoughts for Rao.


That's an order.

[George M. Middius]

Poopie gobbles like a crazed turkey.

> > You and your buddy Kroo**** simply hate it when Normals talk like humans
> > about music and the equipment we use to listen to it.

> There is nothing normal about YOU whatsoever.

Yet another lame IKYABWAI from the King of the Dimbulbs.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>


Summing up, Arny originally ask:

"How do we know that you have even a clue about what the origional
performance sounded like, when it was recorded?"

He ask this after I admitted to him that the upgraded cables & wires
I purchased for my component made sonic improvement particularly
when listening to well recorded CDs.

Graham and Arny lost the big picture, and along with it, both completely
lost their head and whatever is left inside it when I responded that
sound recording and music reproduction is a form of art.

Since both claimed to be sound engineer, I ask them:

" As you sat in your listening room, listening to a musical sound
recording that you have not participated in, how do you know
what the original performance sounded like when it was recorded?"

I shall await further responses from them.


>>
>>> The creativity in the recording process is exclusivley about musical
>>> production and performance and not about technology.
>>
>> So, when you claimed you were in the High-End studio, as sound
>> engineer, messing around with the controls, HOW did you came to
>> decide whether to turn the knob towards the right or left ?
>
> My choice in a production role.

Ok.

> You seem to be confusing music production (an artistic matter) with
> recording and playback (a technological matter).


The only one appearing confused here is you. Probably because you
are now selectively snipping relevant parts in my previous post.
As I previously said, we are not discussing music performance here ie
not the act of creating music.



>> WHAT ARE THE SCIENTIFIC LAWS IN SCIENCE WITH REGARD
>> TO YOUR DECISION IN TURNING THE KNOB ?
>
> With respect to a decision. None. Never said there was. How the
> equipment responds to that turn of the knob is science though.


So, your answer is NO -- there is no scientific laws in science that
govern your decision to decide which way you turn the knob.


SO, who is deciding which way you turn the knob, GRAHAM ?


1) Science

2) A technical robot

3) a baboon

4) or, YOU


Take your pick.




>> WHAT ARE THE SCIENTIFIC LAWS IN SCIENCE AND PRECISE
>> TECHNOLOGICAL CRITERIA IN REPRODUCING AN ACCURATE
>> AND AUTHENTIC SOUND OF A VIOLIN ?
>
> In the first instance, the equipment in the chain has to turn a sound
> pressure into a voltage 'pressure' accurately and ditto in reverse at
> the reproduction end.


AFTER the equipment turned the sound pressure into voltage pressure
accurately, who is deciding to ensure that the sound produce by the
equipment is accurately portraying the authentic sound and timbre of
a violin towards the reproduction end?


1) the equipment

2) the baboon atop the equipment

3) an orang-utan watching nearby

4) or, YOU


Take your pick.


> These are science and technology issues to do with transducers and
> amplifiers. There is no 'art' in this, unless as I said before you
> choose to call the designer's technical skills an 'art'.


As I said, there are knowledge and skills required in visual and audio arts.


> Graham

[Trevor Wilson]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> The Middiot wailed in despair:
>
>> > > So we agree -- you're dumber than the average moron.
>>
>> > There are no differences in esoteric cables.
>>
>> You're a moron.
>
> You're an idiot believer in audio voodoo.
>
> The copper the esoteric freaks use is no different to any other copper.
> Their
> PVC is no better than the cheapest.

**Not quite. Some cables use silver. Some use much better insulation than
PVC. PTFE, PE are common materials is better quality cables. Some cables use
fundamentally different construction to 'zip' cables too. The differences
are readily measurable and, under some circumstances, readily audible.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>
>>
>> Please answer the question, Graham.
>
> I haven't a clue what you're asking any more.


You've gone haywire in the sea of your own
confusion.



> Consider yourself placed in the idiot bin.

So says the hypocrite and a coward.


> Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>> In sound recording. Replicating the original signal by making an
>>> accurate recording / playback device ? None whatever unless you call
>>> the equipment designer's skill an 'art'.
>>>
>>> Ditto reproduction. It's entirely science and technology. A
>>> loudspeaker is nothing more or less than an electric motor with an
>>> acoustic output.
>>>
>>> *Producing* a recording however is another matter. The record
>>> producer is rarely a scientist/engineer and certainly has no need of
>>> those skills. His assistant, the recording engineer will ensure that
>>> his production skills do not clash with the technical capabilites of
>>> the equipment chain and as such must have certain key technical
>>> skills.
>>
>> These things you mentioned above are the required technical skills
>> in the recording process. As I have said these are usually required
>> in visual and audio arts.
>
> Designing accurate transducers and amplifiers is most certainly not a
> subject covered by the visual and audio arts.
>
> Without these you might as well return to the days of the wax
> cylinder or shellac record played with a steel needle with all their
> attendant quality defects.


Why are you changing the subject ?


> Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:



>> Please answer the question, Graham.
>
> I haven't a clue what you're asking any more.

Your befuddled mind betrays you.

HOW DO YOU EXPERIENCE SOMETHING YOU
NEVER PHYSICALLY SAW AND HEARD ?

Clear enough?

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> As you sat in your listening room, listening to a musical sound
>>>> recording that you have *never* participated in, how do you know
>>>> that you have even a clue about what the original performance
>>>> sounded like when it was recorded?
>>>
>>> You assume incorrectly that it was an individual performance. That
>>> is rarely the case these days.
>>>
>>> The recording you listen to is usually an amalgam of various
>>> individual tracks and takes.
>>
>> YOU are out of order!
>
> It's a fact.
>
> Outside of live classical recording, there almost never was a
> 'performance' that sounds like the record. It's built up layer by
> layer out of individual recordings of numerous instruments with many,
> many takes of each quite often until you get 'that one' that's just
> so.


Why are you making my point ?



> Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:







> It's quite easy to illustrate that they won't sound sonically better
> to ANYONE ! It doesn't matter who you are.



All you are is talk.




> Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote: Nothing, zero, zip, nada, nadir, tooiinnngg..
>
>
>
> I have duck egg
>
> I want some soap with duck eggs
>
> I would like to lay 3 eggs


> BRRuuhhmmpp!! UUmmmPPp... UMMmmmpp!!!

>
>
> That is the sound of me, Graham Eyesore, layinnngg
>
> 4 eggs overseas because the last one was twinnn.
>
> My eggs are extra-large and Jumbo size.
>
> I use no antibiotic

> I would like to lay 2 more eggs tommorow after I seeing
> my favorite cock.

[Clyde Slick]

Eeyore a scris:
> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> > The occasional wild fantasy about being pursued by post-pubescent hotties
> > doesn't improve your persona.
>
> Hey I caught a hot redhead mum turning round for a second peek at me the other
> day. So was I of course <grin>. She lives only about 12 doors down from me too.
> So you see it's not just the 20 somethings I have eyes for.
>
> Graham

was she a GMILF or a GGMILF?

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
> >
> > The Middiot wailed in despair:
> >
> >> > > So we agree -- you're dumber than the average moron.
> >>
> >> > There are no differences in esoteric cables.
> >>
> >> You're a moron.
> >
> > You're an idiot believer in audio voodoo.
> >
> > The copper the esoteric freaks use is no different to any other copper.
> > Their PVC is no better than the cheapest.
>
> **Not quite. Some cables use silver.

Pue silver or a few microns for show ? It's a few microns isn't it ?


> Some use much better insulation than PVC. PTFE,

PTFE is a very stiff material and is hardly 'better' in any sensible way aside
from being expensive which is doubtless used as some daft amrketing ploy by the
audio-voodooists.


> PE are common materials is better quality cables.

Polyethylene is used mainly for RF where it's foamed with air to provide a lower
dielectric constant (due to the air content) and hence lower capacitance. That
is its only purpose. Because it shrinks in horror from the heat of a soldering
iron it's a poor choice for soldered connections. Only very high impedance (read
tube typically) interconencts in audio will ever benefit from this construction
due to tube circuitry's sensitivity to capacitive loads.


> Some cables use fundamentally different construction to 'zip' cables too. The
> differences are readily measurable and, under some circumstances, readily
> audible.

Not for equipment interconnects. I've already mentioned that speaker cables can
sound different for the usual reason of cable resistance.

The only really interesting differences are to be found in professional audio
cables where for decades, screens of different constructions have been specified
depending on application for example and then you have really interesting cable
constructions for specific applications such as StarQuad.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> Eeyore a scris:
> > "George M. Middius" wrote:
> >
> > > The occasional wild fantasy about being pursued by post-pubescent hotties
> > > doesn't improve your persona.
> >
> > Hey I caught a hot redhead mum turning round for a second peek at me the other
> > day. So was I of course <grin>. She lives only about 12 doors down from me > too.
>
> > So you see it's not just the 20 somethings I have eyes for.
>
>
> was she a GMILF or a GGMILF?

I'm not familiar with the G prefix.

She was tall (nice) and slim too and had a very pleasant smile.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> We need original thoughts for Rao.

There is nothing original about your ideas. They're based in ignorance.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> JBorg, Jr wrote:
> >>> Eeyore wrote:
>
> Summing up, Arny originally ask:
>
> "How do we know that you have even a clue about what the origional
> performance sounded like, when it was recorded?"
>
> He ask this after I admitted to him that the upgraded cables & wires
> I purchased for my component made sonic improvement particularly
> when listening to well recorded CDs.

You're a fantasist.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > Outside of live classical recording, there almost never was a
> > 'performance' that sounds like the record. It's built up layer by
> > layer out of individual recordings of numerous instruments with many,
> > many takes of each quite often until you get 'that one' that's just
> > so.
>
> Why are you making my point ?

You had a point ? I thought you were aimlessly trolling.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> All you are is talk.

Say that to the mirror.

Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote: ...
>
>
>........ I would like to write about 2 eggs I promise
> before.
>
>UMMMpphhhh... uummmmmPP ahhh.
>
> There they are: 2 very large, humongous EGGS.
>
> They are good for the eating because I, Graham Eyesore,
> was raise without a cage and we don't use hormone.
>
>
> I'm very sore right now but still, I would like to see ...
>
> ... my favorite cock living only about 12 doors down from me
>
> So you see it's not just the eggs I have eyes for.
>
>

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> Summing up, Arny originally ask:
>>
>> "How do we know that you have even a clue about what the origional
>> performance sounded like, when it was recorded?"
>>
>> He ask this after I admitted to him that the upgraded cables & wires
>> I purchased for my component made sonic improvement particularly
>> when listening to well recorded CDs.
>
> You're a fantasist.
>
> Graham


AGAIN, All you are is talk who can not "walk the walk" who started
snipping relevant matter in my post. Could this be because *YOU*
are a *coward* a HYPOCRITE who love to run away with the *tail*
in-tuck like McKelvy, thebestguy, arnii and the rest of your variety?

Are you going to cite internal confusion brewing inside your head
again ?

Why did you ""**** SNIP***"" the rest of my post and appearing to
""" NEGLECT""" in giving forth some solid, MAN-TO-MAN responses
to my rather simple question I sent your way ?

YOU are exhausting my good poise.

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TAKE A PICK.


Here "it" is "AGAIN," slick:


*****

>>> The creativity in the recording process is exclusivley about musical
>>> production and performance and not about technology.
>>
>> So, when you claimed you were in the High-End studio, as sound
>> engineer, messing around with the controls, HOW did you came to
>> decide whether to turn the knob towards the right or left ?
>
> My choice in a production role.

Ok.

> You seem to be confusing music production (an artistic matter) with
> recording and playback (a technological matter).


The only one appearing confused here is you. Probably because you
are now selectively snipping relevant parts in my previous post.
As I previously said, we are not discussing music performance here ie
not the act of creating music.



>> WHAT ARE THE SCIENTIFIC LAWS IN SCIENCE WITH REGARD
>> TO YOUR DECISION IN TURNING THE KNOB ?
>
> With respect to a decision. None. Never said there was. How the
> equipment responds to that turn of the knob is science though.


So, your answer is NO -- there is no scientific laws in science that
govern your decision to decide which way you turn the knob.


SO, who is deciding which way you turn the knob, GRAHAM ?


1) Science

2) A technical robot

3) a baboon

4) or, YOU


Take your pick.




>> WHAT ARE THE SCIENTIFIC LAWS IN SCIENCE AND PRECISE
>> TECHNOLOGICAL CRITERIA IN REPRODUCING AN ACCURATE
>> AND AUTHENTIC SOUND OF A VIOLIN ?
>
> In the first instance, the equipment in the chain has to turn a sound
> pressure into a voltage 'pressure' accurately and ditto in reverse at
> the reproduction end.


AFTER the equipment turned the sound pressure into voltage pressure
accurately, who is deciding to ensure that the sound produce by the
equipment is accurately portraying the authentic sound and timbre of
a violin towards the reproduction end?


1) the equipment

2) the baboon atop the equipment

3) an orang-utan watching nearby

4) or, YOU


Take your pick.


********

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>
>> We need original thoughts for Rao.
>
> There is nothing original about your ideas. They're based in
> ignorance.
>
> Graham


I'm suggesting that so, whatever you say hypocrite.

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> > Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > You're a fantasist.
>
>
> AGAIN, All you are is talk who can not "walk the walk"

When you have 30 years in pro-audio maybe I'll pay attention to your inane
ramblings. Until then forget it.

Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Summing up, Arny originally ask:
>>
>> "How do we know that you have even a clue about what the origional
>> performance sounded like, when it was recorded?"
>>
>> He ask this after I admitted to him that the upgraded cables & wires
>> I purchased for my component made sonic improvement particularly
>> when listening to well recorded CDs.
>
> You're a fantasist.
>
> Graham



YOU need to TAKE A PICK and "choose"
so that I can deliver the conclusion and wrap things up.


Okey? goodnight.

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

Eeyore wrote:
> "JBorg, Jr" wrote:
>
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>
>>
>
>>> You're a fantasist.
>>
>>
>> AGAIN, All you are is talk who can not "walk the walk"
>
> When you have 30 years in pro-audio maybe I'll pay attention to your
> inane ramblings. Until then forget it.
>
> Graham




****!


TAKE A PICK MOTHER****ER


ANd shut the **** up ****in asshole f I dont give a****
about your flying **** pro audio and I don't give a flying rats ass
about your 30 years you spent there. ****


I'm not finiish yet

[Trevor Wilson]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> > > No, you blithering idiot, you have to admit you're blind, dumb, and
>> > > stupid. Any moron can simply look at various cables and see
>> > > differences.
>>
>> > WHAT DIFFERENCES ???
>>
>> So we agree
>
> We don't agree.
>
> There are no differences in esoteric cables.

**Not necessarily correct. Some esoteric cables exhibit lower inductance
than cheap cables.

They are made of the same materials
> as cheap ones.

**Not necessarily. Many esoteric cables employ materials like silver, PE and
PTFE in their construction.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eeyore]

"JBorg, Jr" wrote:

> ANd shut the **** up ****in asshole f I dont give a****
> about your flying **** pro audio and I don't give a flying rats ass
> about your 30 years you spent there. ****

You're an IDIOT of the grand order.

Pro-audio people *make* the reords you listen to. We know vastly more about how
to get it right than any snake-oil doused nitwit like you.

You'd be kicked out of a session in 2 seconds flat (assuming you ever got near
one!).

Graham

[Trevor Wilson]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote
>> >
>> > The Middiot wailed in despair:
>> >
>> >> > > So we agree -- you're dumber than the average moron.
>> >>
>> >> > There are no differences in esoteric cables.
>> >>
>> >> You're a moron.
>> >
>> > You're an idiot believer in audio voodoo.
>> >
>> > The copper the esoteric freaks use is no different to any other copper.
>> > Their PVC is no better than the cheapest.
>>
>> **Not quite. Some cables use silver.
>
> Pue silver or a few microns for show ? It's a few microns isn't it ?

**Some use pure silver, some are silver plated. In fact, due to
manufacturing constraints, all PTFE insulated wires are silver
plated/coated.

>
>
>> Some use much better insulation than PVC. PTFE,
>
> PTFE is a very stiff material and is hardly 'better' in any sensible way
> aside
> from being expensive which is doubtless used as some daft amrketing ploy
> by the
> audio-voodooists.

**PTFE is superior to PVC in a number of important ways. It can be
manufactured thinner, thus allowing lower inductance construction. It has
superior dielectric properties and is a more stable material than PVC. Those
superior characteristics may or may not translate to superior sounding
cables. That, however, is irrelevant. I was merely commenting on your
incorrect statement:

"The copper the esoteric freaks use is no different to any other copper.
Their PVC is no better than the cheapest."


>
>
>> PE are common materials is better quality cables.
>
> Polyethylene is used mainly for RF where it's foamed with air to provide a
> lower
> dielectric constant (due to the air content) and hence lower capacitance.
> That
> is its only purpose. Because it shrinks in horror from the heat of a
> soldering
> iron it's a poor choice for soldered connections. Only very high impedance
> (read
> tube typically) interconencts in audio will ever benefit from this
> construction
> due to tube circuitry's sensitivity to capacitive loads.

**And again, I was commenting on your incorrect statement:

"The copper the esoteric freaks use is no different to any other copper.
Their PVC is no better than the cheapest."

PE may or may not translate to better sound quality. It is, however, a more
stable plastic than PVC.


>
>
>> Some cables use fundamentally different construction to 'zip' cables too.
>> The
>> differences are readily measurable and, under some circumstances, readily
>> audible.
>
> Not for equipment interconnects. I've already mentioned that speaker
> cables can
> sound different for the usual reason of cable resistance.

**I made no mention of interconnects. I merely commented on your incorrect
statement:

"The copper the esoteric freaks use is no different to any other copper.
Their PVC is no better than the cheapest."


>
> The only really interesting differences are to be found in professional
> audio
> cables where for decades, screens of different constructions have been
> specified
> depending on application for example and then you have really interesting
> cable
> constructions for specific applications such as StarQuad.

**No argument from me.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>> Eeyore a scris:
>> > "George M. Middius" wrote:
>> >
>> > > The occasional wild fantasy about being pursued by post-pubescent hotties
>> > > doesn't improve your persona.
>> >
>> > Hey I caught a hot redhead mum turning round for a second peek at me the
>> > other
>> > day. So was I of course <grin>. She lives only about 12 doors down from me
>> > > too.
>>
>> > So you see it's not just the 20 somethings I have eyes for.
>>
>>
>> was she a GMILF or a GGMILF?
>
> I'm not familiar with the G prefix.

G: Grandmother
GG: Great Grandmother

ScottW

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >> Eeyore a scris:
> >> > "George M. Middius" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > The occasional wild fantasy about being pursued by post-pubescent hotties
> >> > > doesn't improve your persona.
> >> >
> >> > Hey I caught a hot redhead mum turning round for a second peek at me the
> >> > other day. So was I of course <grin>. She lives only about 12 doors down >> >
> from me too.
> >>
> >> > So you see it's not just the 20 somethings I have eyes for.
> >>
> >>
> >> was she a GMILF or a GGMILF?
> >
> > I'm not familiar with the G prefix.
>
> G: Grandmother
> GG: Great Grandmother

Definitely neither of those. Mid 30s I'd guess.

What amazes me is how ppl manage to raise ~ $850,000 equivalent to buy a house like
that at such a relatively youngish age !

Graham

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote
>> > Clyde Slick wrote:
>> >> Eeyore a scris:
>> >> > "George M. Middius" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > The occasional wild fantasy about being pursued by post-pubescent
>> >> > > hotties
>> >> > > doesn't improve your persona.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hey I caught a hot redhead mum turning round for a second peek at me the
>> >> > other day. So was I of course <grin>. She lives only about 12 doors down
>> >> > >> >
>> from me too.
>> >>
>> >> > So you see it's not just the 20 somethings I have eyes for.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> was she a GMILF or a GGMILF?
>> >
>> > I'm not familiar with the G prefix.
>>
>> G: Grandmother
>> GG: Great Grandmother
>
> Definitely neither of those. Mid 30s I'd guess.

Jailbait relative to your advanced age.

>
> What amazes me is how ppl manage to raise ~ $850,000 equivalent to buy a house
> like
> that at such a relatively youngish age !

Its called a mortgage. Since they're now going 40 years, the younger the
better.

ScottW

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" wrote
> >> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >> >> Eeyore a scris:
> >> >>
> >> >> > So you see it's not just the 20 somethings I have eyes for.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> was she a GMILF or a GGMILF?
> >> >
> >> > I'm not familiar with the G prefix.
> >>
> >> G: Grandmother
> >> GG: Great Grandmother
> >
> > Definitely neither of those. Mid 30s I'd guess.
>
> Jailbait relative to your advanced age.

LOL ! Just right I reckon actually.


> > What amazes me is how ppl manage to raise ~ $850,000 equivalent to buy a > house
> like that at such a relatively youngish age !
>
> Its called a mortgage. Since they're now going 40 years, the younger the
> better.

When I got one you could only borrow 2.75 times your annual income (I really wanted
3 times but no such luck) and you were expected to have a 10% cash deposit.

By that standard you'd have to have an income of $275,000 to buy that house.

Mind you, the good news is that my mortgage will be paid off in just over 10 months.

Graham

[JBorg, Jr[_2_]]

> Eeyore wrote:
>
>
>
> Pro-audio people *make* the reords you listen to. We know vastly more
> about how to get it right than any snake-oil doused nitwit like you.
>
> You'd be kicked out of a session in 2 seconds flat (assuming you ever
> got near one!).
>
> Graham



You know I'm not really good at this but it always seems how I react
to intolerance and tyranny particularly when we share interest
and appreciation with the reproduction of music and the realm of
high-end audio. How is it possible to be denied what we hear.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
> The only really interesting differences are to be found in professional
> audio cables where for decades, screens of different constructions have
> been specified depending on application for example and then you have
> really interesting cable constructions for specific applications such as
> StarQuad.

StarQuad isn't said to 'improve' the sound in any way - but simply to be
more immune to interference in a balanced circuit. Of course removing
interference will drastically improve the sound but I don't think it's
interference the solid gold teflon boys are on about. ;-)

--
*One nice thing about egotists: they don't talk about other people.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Eeyore]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
>
> > The only really interesting differences are to be found in professional
> > audio cables where for decades, screens of different constructions have
> > been specified depending on application for example and then you have
> > really interesting cable constructions for specific applications such as
> > StarQuad.
>
> StarQuad isn't said to 'improve' the sound in any way - but simply to be
> more immune to interference in a balanced circuit.

Which will improve the sound !


> Of course removing interference will drastically improve the sound

Ah good !


> but I don't think it's interference the solid gold teflon boys are on about.
> ;-)

I'm not sure I dare imagine what they're on about.

Hey, I was at an AES lecture last night. Bill Whitlock of Jensen transformers
presented an excellent lecture on audio interfacing and the inherent advantage
of balanced over unbalanced (and the science behind the reason why) and of
course he was keen to point out where transformers fit into this scheme of
things too. ;~)

Of course he was preaching to the converted in my case. I felt suitably
vindicated in the advice I've given.

He also made some rude noises about 'magic cables' too for good measure and the
fantasists that both promote and believe in them.

Graham

[Trevor Wilson]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> ScottW wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote
>> > Clyde Slick wrote:
>> >> Eeyore a scris:
>> >> > "George M. Middius" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > The occasional wild fantasy about being pursued by post-pubescent
>> >> > > hotties
>> >> > > doesn't improve your persona.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hey I caught a hot redhead mum turning round for a second peek at me
>> >> > the
>> >> > other day. So was I of course <grin>. She lives only about 12 doors
>> >> > down >> >
>> from me too.
>> >>
>> >> > So you see it's not just the 20 somethings I have eyes for.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> was she a GMILF or a GGMILF?
>> >
>> > I'm not familiar with the G prefix.
>>
>> G: Grandmother
>> GG: Great Grandmother
>
> Definitely neither of those. Mid 30s I'd guess.
>
> What amazes me is how ppl manage to raise ~ $850,000 equivalent to buy a
> house like
> that at such a relatively youngish age !

**Drug dealer. Or a lawyer.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[robert casey]

>
>
> So we agree -- you're dumber than the average moron.
>

Hey, it's still a step above imbecile and 2 steps above idiot... :-)

The only significant factor for speaker cables used in the typical home
is the resistance, lower is better. Wire designed for electricity
(house wire) at 15 or 20 amps would be a great choice, and running it
thru the walls is fine, as it's designed for that. Only thing, it's
usually solid. Stranded extension cord wire is good for inside the room.

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
> >
> > What amazes me is how ppl manage to raise ~ $850,000 equivalent to buy a
> > house like that at such a relatively youngish age !
>
> **Drug dealer. Or a lawyer.

Well... there's 12 of them in my road then.

Graham

[Clyde Slick]

Eeyore a scris:
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> > Eeyore a scris:
> > > "George M. Middius" wrote:
> > >
> > > > The occasional wild fantasy about being pursued by post-pubescent hotties
> > > > doesn't improve your persona.
> > >
> > > Hey I caught a hot redhead mum turning round for a second peek at me the other
> > > day. So was I of course <grin>. She lives only about 12 doors down from me > too.
> >
> > > So you see it's not just the 20 somethings I have eyes for.
> >
> >
> > was she a GMILF or a GGMILF?
>
> I'm not familiar with the G prefix.
>

you prefer older women, are you
up for grandmothers and great grandmothers?

[Jim Lesurf]

In article >, Eeyore
> wrote:


> "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

> >
> > StarQuad isn't said to 'improve' the sound in any way - but simply to
> > be more immune to interference in a balanced circuit.

> Which will improve the sound !


> > Of course removing interference will drastically improve the sound

> Ah good !

The above pre-supposes that the 'interference' *would* have been audible if
star-quad had not been used.

If the level of 'interference' was already low enough to be inaudible with
conventional cables then there may be no improvement in the sound -
'drastic' or otherwise - produced by changing to star-quad. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

[Eeyore]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> Eeyore a scris:
> > Clyde Slick wrote:
> >
> > > was she a GMILF or a GGMILF?
> >
> > I'm not familiar with the G prefix.
>
> you prefer older women,

You appear to have made some mistake here !


> are you up for grandmothers and great grandmothers?

The 'oldest' shag I've had was about 20 yrs older than me. B was nice. We were always great
friends.

A couple of yrs back I was amused to hear their ages added up to mine.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jim Lesurf wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
> > >
> > > StarQuad isn't said to 'improve' the sound in any way - but simply to
> > > be more immune to interference in a balanced circuit.
>
> > Which will improve the sound !
>
> > > Of course removing interference will drastically improve the sound
>
> > Ah good !
>
> The above pre-supposes that the 'interference' *would* have been audible if
> star-quad had not been used.

You only use star-quad in high interference level situations.


> If the level of 'interference' was already low enough to be inaudible with
> conventional cables then there may be no improvement in the sound -
> 'drastic' or otherwise - produced by changing to star-quad. :-)

Agreed. No question about it. The need for its use is very rare.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Jim Lesurf" > wrote in message

> In article >, Eeyore
> > wrote:
>
>
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

>>> StarQuad isn't said to 'improve' the sound in any way -
>>> but simply to be more immune to interference in a
>>> balanced circuit.

At least in principle.

>> Which will improve the sound !

>>> Of course removing interference will drastically
>>> improve the sound

If there is any audible interference to remove, and if the star-quad will
materially reduce the amount of audible interence removed. AFAIK, star
quad's configuration might be more effective against interference entering
the cable via a electrostatic field, than an electromagnetic field. I've
been told repeatedly by car sound folks that most interference in the audio
range enters via electromagnetic fields.

>> Ah good !

> The above pre-supposes that the 'interference' *would*
> have been audible if star-quad had not been used.

Yes, but when was the last time you had an otherwise good mic cable that was
picking up audible noise?

I routinely do live sound on an installed system that includes 150 foot
snakes. I've got problems with other musical equipment on stage picking up
audible interference from some dimmers driving dimmable compact flourescents
elsewhere in the room, but no problems with direct pickup by any of the
mics, mic cables or direct boxes.

> If the level of 'interference' was already low enough to
> be inaudible with conventional cables then there may be
> no improvement in the sound - 'drastic' or otherwise -
> produced by changing to star-quad. :-)

Exactly.

However star-quad could potentially change sound quality if the cables are
long enough, as it has about twice the capacitance per foot. For typical
mics, we're talking 100's of feet of mic cable before a change could be
reasonably expected.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Jim Lesurf > wrote:
> In article >, Eeyore
> > wrote:


> > "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

> > >
> > > StarQuad isn't said to 'improve' the sound in any way - but simply to
> > > be more immune to interference in a balanced circuit.

> > Which will improve the sound !


> > > Of course removing interference will drastically improve the sound

> > Ah good !

> The above pre-supposes that the 'interference' *would* have been audible
> if star-quad had not been used.

> If the level of 'interference' was already low enough to be inaudible
> with conventional cables then there may be no improvement in the sound -
> 'drastic' or otherwise - produced by changing to star-quad. :-)

Precisely. But the silver and teflon boys would say just because you can't
hear it it's still there and must effect things?

Star quad is wonderful stuff though. When TC1 (Studio 1 at BBC Television
Centre - and one of the largest in the world) was first commissioned, many
of the microphone circuits were unusable due to buzz from the lighting
dimmers. It was wired in normal screen pairs. So extension cables had to
be carefully run from those which were better - making a large rig a PITA.

Then it was rewired with star quad and the problem disappeared.

--
*Real men don't waste their hormones growing hair

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
> > The above pre-supposes that the 'interference' *would* have been
> > audible if star-quad had not been used.

> You only use star-quad in high interference level situations.

All my mic cables are star quad. It's not that much more expensive than
good ordinary stuff so why take a risk?

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Arny Krueger > wrote:
> I routinely do live sound on an installed system that includes 150 foot
> snakes. I've got problems with other musical equipment on stage picking
> up audible interference from some dimmers driving dimmable compact
> flourescents elsewhere in the room, but no problems with direct pickup
> by any of the mics, mic cables or direct boxes.

Pickup on cables is effectively influenced by the output level from the
mic. So in pop is far less likely to be audible than with a relatively
distant mic for a classical orch on the PP bits.

--
*Husbands should come with instructions

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Eeyore]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

> Pickup on cables is effectively influenced by the output level from the
> mic.

Utter nonsense.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> >
> > > The above pre-supposes that the 'interference' *would* have been
> > > audible if star-quad had not been used.
>
> > You only use star-quad in high interference level situations.
>
> All my mic cables are star quad. It's not that much more expensive than
> good ordinary stuff so why take a risk?

Fine.

Graham

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
> > Pickup on cables is effectively influenced by the output level from the
> > mic.

> Utter nonsense.

Eh? Signal to noise is the important fact here. The higher the signal
level the less the noise is apparent. Hence the need for more
sophisticated cables for mic level signals compared to line level.

Apart from in the middle of a desert - perhaps - all cables will pick up
some form of interference if you have sensitive enough equipment to
measure it.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" > wrote in
message
> "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
>
>> Pickup on cables is effectively influenced by the output
>> level from the mic.
>
> Utter nonsense.

Mic acoustic sensitivity ranges over about a 30 dB range. A 30 dB larger
signal is going to be about 30 dB less affected by a given level of noise
pickup.

In practice, the range is usually less, because less sensitive mics tend to
be used where the sound is louder. IOW, people tend to use Shure SM58 (one
of the lesser-sensitive mics) for close-micing loud vocals or instruments,
and not for far more distant XY pickup of a group.

[Eeyore]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
>
> > > Pickup on cables is effectively influenced by the output level from the
> > > mic.
>
> > Utter nonsense.
>
> Eh? Signal to noise is the important fact here. The higher the signal
> level the less the noise is apparent.

That's not what you said above though.

Accuracy in these matters is most important or the loonies will get funny ideas.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
> > "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
> >
> >> Pickup on cables is effectively influenced by the output
> >> level from the mic.
> >
> > Utter nonsense.
>
> Mic acoustic sensitivity ranges over about a 30 dB range. A 30 dB larger
> signal is going to be about 30 dB less affected by a given level of noise
> pickup.

Irrelevant to to Dave's statement.

Graham

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:16:31 GMT, Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote
>> > "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Pickup on cables is effectively influenced by the output
>> >> level from the mic.
>> >
>> > Utter nonsense.
>>
>> Mic acoustic sensitivity ranges over about a 30 dB range. A 30 dB larger
>> signal is going to be about 30 dB less affected by a given level of noise
>> pickup.
>
>Irrelevant to to Dave's statement.
>
>Graham

You missed the relevance of the word "effectively".

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[George M. Middius]

Don Pearce said:

> >> >> Pickup on cables is effectively influenced by the output level

> >Irrelevant to to Dave's statement.

> You missed the relevance of the word "effectively".

Since "effectively" is meaningless or misused in that sentence, the
sensible course would be to ignore it.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eeyore]

Don Pearce wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> >Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" wrote
> >> > "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Pickup on cables is effectively influenced by the output
> >> >> level from the mic.
> >> >
> >> > Utter nonsense.
> >>
> >> Mic acoustic sensitivity ranges over about a 30 dB range. A 30 dB larger
> >> signal is going to be about 30 dB less affected by a given level of noise
> >> pickup.
> >
> >Irrelevant to to Dave's statement.
>
>
> You missed the relevance of the word "effectively".

No.

The statement is still wrong. The signal level does not ever affect the level of
pickup. It affects the signal to noise RATIO and nothing else.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Don Pearce said:
>
> > >> >> Pickup on cables is effectively influenced by the output level
>
> > >Irrelevant to to Dave's statement.
>
> > You missed the relevance of the word "effectively".
>
> Since "effectively" is meaningless or misused in that sentence, the
> sensible course would be to ignore it.

Correct. The word is simply window dressing in that sentence.

The actual statement being made is " Pickup on cables is influenced by the
output level " which is 100% wrong.

Graham

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:49:57 GMT, Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>
>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >> "Eeyore" wrote
>> >> > "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Pickup on cables is effectively influenced by the output
>> >> >> level from the mic.
>> >> >
>> >> > Utter nonsense.
>> >>
>> >> Mic acoustic sensitivity ranges over about a 30 dB range. A 30 dB larger
>> >> signal is going to be about 30 dB less affected by a given level of noise
>> >> pickup.
>> >
>> >Irrelevant to to Dave's statement.
>>
>>
>> You missed the relevance of the word "effectively".
>
>No.
>
>The statement is still wrong. The signal level does not ever affect the level of
>pickup. It affects the signal to noise RATIO and nothing else.
>
>Graham

That's right. Two things are important here - one is the presence of
the word "effectively", and the other is the absence of the word
"level". Put those two factors together, and you have a good
statement, to the effect that pickup is less of a problem on cables
carrying large signals.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[George M. Middius]

Donkey said:

> > Since "effectively" is meaningless or misused in that sentence, the
> > sensible course would be to ignore it.

> Correct. The word is simply window dressing in that sentence.

Poopie, please don't agree with me.

BTW, are you a fan of Eddie Murphy?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:49:00 GMT, Eeyore
> wrote:

>> Pickup on cables is effectively influenced by the output level from the
>> mic.
>
>Utter nonsense.
Why not look for the truth in that statement, instead of being rude?
There is some.

What is the practical effect on s/n ratio if the signal is weak, so
more amplification is required at the receiving end?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Don Pearce > wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2007 12:16:31 GMT, Eeyore
> > wrote:

> >
> >
> >Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> "Eeyore" wrote
> >> > "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Pickup on cables is effectively influenced by the output
> >> >> level from the mic.
> >> >
> >> > Utter nonsense.
> >>
> >> Mic acoustic sensitivity ranges over about a 30 dB range. A 30 dB
> >> larger signal is going to be about 30 dB less affected by a given
> >> level of noise pickup.
> >
> >Irrelevant to to Dave's statement.
> >
> >Graham

> You missed the relevance of the word "effectively".

Precisely. Sorry if it wasn't clear what I meant to some.

--
*I'm not as think as you drunk I am.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Arny Krueger > wrote:
> "Eeyore" > wrote in
> message
> > "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
> >
> >> Pickup on cables is effectively influenced by the output
> >> level from the mic.
> >
> > Utter nonsense.

> Mic acoustic sensitivity ranges over about a 30 dB range. A 30 dB larger
> signal is going to be about 30 dB less affected by a given level of noise
> pickup.

> In practice, the range is usually less, because less sensitive mics
> tend to be used where the sound is louder. IOW, people tend to use
> Shure SM58 (one of the lesser-sensitive mics) for close-micing loud
> vocals or instruments, and not for far more distant XY pickup of a
> group.

These days there is at least a standard output level to refer to. Once
there was none and outputs varied enormously. Probably the least sensitive
mic I know is the STC lip ribbon - used by commentators in a noisy
environment. It's an ancient design but still effective in limited
applications. You'd probably set your mic gain at about 60-70 dB to get
full output from a loud commentator. Replace that mic by a Neumann U77 at
the same distance from the mouth and you'd need to reduce that gain by
about 70 dB...

--
*Half the people in the world are below average.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Donkey said:
>
> > > Since "effectively" is meaningless or misused in that sentence, the
> > > sensible course would be to ignore it.
>
> > Correct. The word is simply window dressing in that sentence.
>
> Poopie, please don't agree with me.
>
> BTW, are you a fan of Eddie Murphy?

Is that a trick question ? He's been in some entertaining films for sure.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Laurence Payne wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
>
> >> Pickup on cables is effectively influenced by the output level from the
> >> mic.
> >
> >Utter nonsense.
> Why not look for the truth in that statement, instead of being rude?
> There is some.

Not really. Removing the fluff you get "pickup is influenced by output level"

Graham

[Eeyore]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

> These days there is at least a standard output level to refer to.

From microphones ? What standard is that ?

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie gets cagey.

> > BTW, are you a fan of Eddie Murphy?

> Is that a trick question ? He's been in some entertaining films for sure.

Let me rephrase: Who's your favorite ogre?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poopie gets cagey.
>
> > > BTW, are you a fan of Eddie Murphy?
>
> > Is that a trick question ? He's been in some entertaining films for sure.
>
> Let me rephrase: Who's your favorite ogre?

Shrek of course ! LOL ! And Princess Fiona is my favourite animated redhead too.
I seem to recall a very shrewd and intelligent Donkey as well.


Graham

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
> > These days there is at least a standard output level to refer to.

> From microphones ? What standard is that ?

DIN something or other. I've got the details somewhere but can't be arsed
looking now.

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote
>> >
>> > What amazes me is how ppl manage to raise ~ $850,000 equivalent to buy
>> > a
>> > house like that at such a relatively youngish age !
>>
>> **Drug dealer. Or a lawyer.
>
> Well... there's 12 of them in my road then.

**Drug dealers?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Eeyore]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

> "Eeyore" wrote
> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" wrote
> >> >
> >> > What amazes me is how ppl manage to raise ~ $850,000 equivalent to buy
> >> > a house like that at such a relatively youngish age !
> >>
> >> **Drug dealer. Or a lawyer.
> >
> > Well... there's 12 of them in my road then.
>
> **Drug dealers?

Ppl with houses like that ! :~)

Graham

[Trevor Wilson]

"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" wrote
>> > Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> >> "Eeyore" wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > What amazes me is how ppl manage to raise ~ $850,000 equivalent to
>> >> > buy
>> >> > a house like that at such a relatively youngish age !
>> >>
>> >> **Drug dealer. Or a lawyer.
>> >
>> > Well... there's 12 of them in my road then.
>>
>> **Drug dealers?
>
> Ppl with houses like that ! :~)

**Sure.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[jasee]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> Eeyore > wrote:
>>> The above pre-supposes that the 'interference' *would* have been
>>> audible if star-quad had not been used.
>
>> You only use star-quad in high interference level situations.
>
> All my mic cables are star quad. It's not that much more expensive
> than good ordinary stuff so why take a risk?

I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good idea for
balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place to buy it (in
small amounts)?
Farnell list a couple of types, Maplin none.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"jasee" > wrote:

> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Eeyore > wrote:
> >>> The above pre-supposes that the 'interference' *would* have been
> >>> audible if star-quad had not been used.
> >
> >> You only use star-quad in high interference level situations.
> >
> > All my mic cables are star quad. It's not that much more expensive
> > than good ordinary stuff so why take a risk?
>
> I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good idea for
> balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place to buy it (in
> small amounts)?
> Farnell list a couple of types, Maplin none.

Search Maplin for "starquad".

Stephen

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 26 May 2007 08:30:29 -0500, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "jasee" > wrote:
>
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > Eeyore > wrote:
>> >>> The above pre-supposes that the 'interference' *would* have been
>> >>> audible if star-quad had not been used.
>> >
>> >> You only use star-quad in high interference level situations.
>> >
>> > All my mic cables are star quad. It's not that much more expensive
>> > than good ordinary stuff so why take a risk?
>>
>> I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good idea for
>> balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place to buy it (in
>> small amounts)?
>> Farnell list a couple of types, Maplin none.
>
>Search Maplin for "starquad".
>
>Stephen

Better still, search radiospares http://rswww.com for starquad. They
have 7 types listed.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
jasee > wrote:
> > All my mic cables are star quad. It's not that much more expensive
> > than good ordinary stuff so why take a risk?

> I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good idea
> for balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place to buy
> it (in small amounts)? Farnell list a couple of types, Maplin none.

Can't be bothered searching Maplin's dreadful site, but the last cat. of
theirs I have has lots in different colours. Try VU29

--
*I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[jasee]

MiNe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> "jasee" > wrote:
>
>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Eeyore > wrote:
>>>>> The above pre-supposes that the 'interference' *would* have been
>>>>> audible if star-quad had not been used.
>>>
>>>> You only use star-quad in high interference level situations.
>>>
>>> All my mic cables are star quad. It's not that much more expensive
>>> than good ordinary stuff so why take a risk?
>>
>> I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good
>> idea for balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place
>> to buy it (in small amounts)?
>> Farnell list a couple of types, Maplin none.
>
> Search Maplin for "starquad".

no results found :-(

If you search cables for "star quad" you get a few results but nothing with
"star quad" or even "starquad" for that matter in it and so suitable cable
(using FF)

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 26 May 2007 08:30:29 -0500, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>> I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good idea for
>> balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place to buy it (in
>> small amounts)?
>> Farnell list a couple of types, Maplin none.
>
>Search Maplin for "starquad".

I can't see it there either. I think Maplins USED to stock it.
Got a reference?

I'm sure Canford will supply. Do you actually HAVE a noise problem
with conventional mic leads? And good soldering skills? Making up a
lead with starquad is trickier than with conventional cable.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"jasee" > wrote:

> MiNe 109 wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "jasee" > wrote:
> >
> >> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> Eeyore > wrote:
> >>>>> The above pre-supposes that the 'interference' *would* have been
> >>>>> audible if star-quad had not been used.
> >>>
> >>>> You only use star-quad in high interference level situations.
> >>>
> >>> All my mic cables are star quad. It's not that much more expensive
> >>> than good ordinary stuff so why take a risk?
> >>
> >> I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good
> >> idea for balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place
> >> to buy it (in small amounts)?
> >> Farnell list a couple of types, Maplin none.
> >
> > Search Maplin for "starquad".
>
> no results found :-(
>
> If you search cables for "star quad" you get a few results but nothing with
> "star quad" or even "starquad" for that matter in it and so suitable cable
> (using FF)

I googled "maplin starquad" and found this:

http://www.maplin.co.uk/free_uk_delivery/Starquad_Professional_Microphone
_Cable_13262/Starquad_Professional_Microphone_Cable_13262.htm

Good luck!

Stephen

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 26 May 2007 09:14:04 -0500, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "jasee" > wrote:
>
>> MiNe 109 wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > "jasee" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> >>> In article >,
>> >>> Eeyore > wrote:
>> >>>>> The above pre-supposes that the 'interference' *would* have been
>> >>>>> audible if star-quad had not been used.
>> >>>
>> >>>> You only use star-quad in high interference level situations.
>> >>>
>> >>> All my mic cables are star quad. It's not that much more expensive
>> >>> than good ordinary stuff so why take a risk?
>> >>
>> >> I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good
>> >> idea for balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place
>> >> to buy it (in small amounts)?
>> >> Farnell list a couple of types, Maplin none.
>> >
>> > Search Maplin for "starquad".
>>
>> no results found :-(
>>
>> If you search cables for "star quad" you get a few results but nothing with
>> "star quad" or even "starquad" for that matter in it and so suitable cable
>> (using FF)
>
>I googled "maplin starquad" and found this:
>
>http://www.maplin.co.uk/free_uk_delivery/Starquad_Professional_Microphone_Cable_13262/Starquad_Professional_Microphone_Cable_13262.htm

Ah! A Google-expert! :-)

So, follow through. Click "View this product..." at the top of the
page and see what you get?

[Eeyore]

jasee wrote:

> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > Eeyore > wrote:
> >
> >>> The above pre-supposes that the 'interference' *would* have been
> >>> audible if star-quad had not been used.
> >
> >> You only use star-quad in high interference level situations.
> >
> > All my mic cables are star quad. It's not that much more expensive
> > than good ordinary stuff so why take a risk?
>
> I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good idea for
> balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place to buy it (in
> small amounts)?
> Farnell list a couple of types, Maplin none.

No surprise, it's a professional type cable.

What do you mean by small amounts ? If Farnell's too pricey try VDC.

http://www.vdctrading.com/products.asp?SubSectionID=1&ProductID=6

Graham

[Eeyore]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

> jasee > wrote:
>
> > > All my mic cables are star quad. It's not that much more expensive
> > > than good ordinary stuff so why take a risk?
>
> > I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good idea
> > for balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place to buy
> > it (in small amounts)? Farnell list a couple of types, Maplin none.
>
> Can't be bothered searching Maplin's dreadful site, but the last cat. of
> theirs I have has lots in different colours. Try VU29

Sorry, the product you are searching for is no longer available (discontinued).

Graham

[Eeyore]

MiNe 109 wrote:

> "jasee" > wrote:
> > MiNe 109 wrote:
> > > "jasee" > wrote:
> > >> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > >>> Eeyore > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>> The above pre-supposes that the 'interference' *would* have been
> > >>>>> audible if star-quad had not been used.
> > >>>
> > >>>> You only use star-quad in high interference level situations.
> > >>>
> > >>> All my mic cables are star quad. It's not that much more expensive
> > >>> than good ordinary stuff so why take a risk?
> > >>
> > >> I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good
> > >> idea for balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place
> > >> to buy it (in small amounts)?
> > >> Farnell list a couple of types, Maplin none.
> > >
> > > Search Maplin for "starquad".
> >
> > no results found :-(
> >
> > If you search cables for "star quad" you get a few results but nothing with
> > "star quad" or even "starquad" for that matter in it and so suitable cable
> > (using FF)
>
> I googled "maplin starquad" and found this:
>
> http://www.maplin.co.uk/free_uk_delivery/Starquad_Professional_Microphone
> _Cable_13262/Starquad_Professional_Microphone_Cable_13262.htm

LOL !

Just goes to show how useless their own site is.

Graham

[Eeyore]

jasee wrote:

> I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good idea for
> balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place to buy it (in
> small amounts)?

You don't use it in small amounts ! That's the whole point !

Graham

[Laurence Payne]

On Sat, 26 May 2007 14:40:32 GMT, Eeyore
> wrote:

>> I googled "maplin starquad" and found this:
>>
>> http://www.maplin.co.uk/free_uk_delivery/Starquad_Professional_Microphone
>> _Cable_13262/Starquad_Professional_Microphone_Cable_13262.htm
>
>LOL !
>
>Just goes to show how useless their own site is.

The site is fine. Search "star quad" and nothing comes up. This is
correct - Maplins don't stock it.

You can't blame Maplins for what comes up if you sneak in backwards
through an old Google link.

[tony sayer]

In article >, jasee
> writes
>MiNe 109 wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "jasee" > wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Eeyore > wrote:
>>>>>> The above pre-supposes that the 'interference' *would* have been
>>>>>> audible if star-quad had not been used.
>>>>
>>>>> You only use star-quad in high interference level situations.
>>>>
>>>> All my mic cables are star quad. It's not that much more expensive
>>>> than good ordinary stuff so why take a risk?
>>>
>>> I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good
>>> idea for balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place
>>> to buy it (in small amounts)?
>>> Farnell list a couple of types, Maplin none.
>>
>> Search Maplin for "starquad".
>
>no results found :-(
>
>If you search cables for "star quad" you get a few results but nothing with
>"star quad" or even "starquad" for that matter in it and so suitable cable
>(using FF)
>
>

http://www.canford.co.uk/commerce/productdetails.aspx?productid=30-430
--
Tony Sayer

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
> > I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good
> > idea for balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place
> > to buy it (in small amounts)? Farnell list a couple of types, Maplin
> > none.

> No surprise, it's a professional type cable.

Maplin have a reasonable selection of 'pro' cables including snakes. Or at
least did. And are one of the few that will cut it.

--
*The more I learn about women, the more I love my car

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
> > I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good
> > idea for balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place
> > to buy it (in small amounts)?

> You don't use it in small amounts ! That's the whole point !

I use it for a fishpole to radio transmitter cable. Or more accurately mic
to phantom box. So one for a short pole is only 4 metres long. But it can
still help if you're close to an interference emitting light etc.

--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Don Pearce > wrote:
> >Search Maplin for "starquad".
> >
> >Stephen

> Better still, search radiospares http://rswww.com for starquad. They
> have 7 types listed.

But do they sell by the meter? Jasee seems to want only a small amount.

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:38:15 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Don Pearce > wrote:
>> >Search Maplin for "starquad".
>> >
>> >Stephen
>
>> Better still, search radiospares http://rswww.com for starquad. They
>> have 7 types listed.
>
>But do they sell by the meter? Jasee seems to want only a small amount.

What you do with mic cable is buy a reel and put a connector on each
end. When you just want a small amount, you don't unwind it. When you
want a lot, you unwind it. Easy.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Don Pearce > wrote:
> >But do they sell by the meter? Jasee seems to want only a small amount.

> What you do with mic cable is buy a reel and put a connector on each
> end. When you just want a small amount, you don't unwind it. When you
> want a lot, you unwind it. Easy.

You've not been involved much with mic cables, have you? ;-)

--
*Just give me chocolate and nobody gets hurt

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:19:47 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Don Pearce > wrote:
>> >But do they sell by the meter? Jasee seems to want only a small amount.
>
>> What you do with mic cable is buy a reel and put a connector on each
>> end. When you just want a small amount, you don't unwind it. When you
>> want a lot, you unwind it. Easy.
>
>You've not been involved much with mic cables, have you? ;-)

More than I care to say. Actually I would modify what I wrote. I
divide the reel into two, and make a stereo pair wound on the reel. I
unwind that as needed. I leave a few feet hanging out of the middle so
I can plug into the mixer easily.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[jasee]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2007 08:30:29 -0500, MiNe 109
> > wrote:
>
>>> I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good
>>> idea for balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good
>>> place to buy it (in small amounts)?
>>> Farnell list a couple of types, Maplin none.
>>
>> Search Maplin for "starquad".
>
> I can't see it there either. I think Maplins USED to stock it.
> Got a reference?
>
> I'm sure Canford will supply. Do you actually HAVE a noise problem
> with conventional mic leads?

No, but as Dave says (I think) it doesn't hurt to be prepared if it's little
more expensive.

And good soldering skills? Making up a
> lead with starquad is trickier than with conventional cable.

It can't be worse than making up din leads!, xlr connectors are much more
tolererant

[jasee]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> jasee > wrote:
>>> All my mic cables are star quad. It's not that much more expensive
>>> than good ordinary stuff so why take a risk?
>
>> I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good
>> idea for balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place
>> to buy it (in small amounts)? Farnell list a couple of types, Maplin
>> none.
>
> Can't be bothered searching Maplin's dreadful site, but the last cat.
> of theirs I have has lots in different colours. Try VU29

'sorry no products found'. :-(
I think they used to stock the Van Damme stuff (which seems to be quite high
quality: neoprene/pvc) at quite a good price if google is anything to go by

[Eeyore]

Don Pearce wrote:

> "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
> > Don Pearce > wrote:
> >> >But do they sell by the meter? Jasee seems to want only a small amount.
> >
> >> What you do with mic cable is buy a reel and put a connector on each
> >> end. When you just want a small amount, you don't unwind it. When you
> >> want a lot, you unwind it. Easy.
> >
> >You've not been involved much with mic cables, have you? ;-)
>
> More than I care to say. Actually I would modify what I wrote. I
> divide the reel into two, and make a stereo pair wound on the reel. I
> unwind that as needed. I leave a few feet hanging out of the middle so
> I can plug into the mixer easily.

Just stay away from live sound will you ? You'd have lawsuits from all the ppl
who tripped over the reels.

Graham

[Eeyore]

jasee wrote:

> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > jasee > wrote:
> >
> >>> All my mic cables are star quad. It's not that much more expensive
> >>> than good ordinary stuff so why take a risk?
> >
> >> I've never heard of star quad until now, it looks like a very good
> >> idea for balanced micrphone leads in particulr, where's a good place
> >> to buy it (in small amounts)? Farnell list a couple of types, Maplin
> >> none.
> >
> > Can't be bothered searching Maplin's dreadful site, but the last cat.
> > of theirs I have has lots in different colours. Try VU29
>
> 'sorry no products found'. :-(
> I think they used to stock the Van Damme stuff (which seems to be quite high
> quality: neoprene/pvc) at quite a good price if google is anything to go by

VDC and Farnell both sell Van Damme.

VDC's (see my post ) price is about half Farnell's.

A no-brainer really.

Graham

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:11:54 GMT, Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>
>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
>> > Don Pearce > wrote:
>> >> >But do they sell by the meter? Jasee seems to want only a small amount.
>> >
>> >> What you do with mic cable is buy a reel and put a connector on each
>> >> end. When you just want a small amount, you don't unwind it. When you
>> >> want a lot, you unwind it. Easy.
>> >
>> >You've not been involved much with mic cables, have you? ;-)
>>
>> More than I care to say. Actually I would modify what I wrote. I
>> divide the reel into two, and make a stereo pair wound on the reel. I
>> unwind that as needed. I leave a few feet hanging out of the middle so
>> I can plug into the mixer easily.
>
>Just stay away from live sound will you ? You'd have lawsuits from all the ppl
>who tripped over the reels.
>
>Graham

The reels stay nicely tucked away under the desk - nobody is going to
trip over them.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Eeyore]

Don Pearce wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> >Don Pearce wrote:
> >> "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
> >> > Don Pearce > wrote:
> >> >> >But do they sell by the meter? Jasee seems to want only a small amount.
> >> >
> >> >> What you do with mic cable is buy a reel and put a connector on each
> >> >> end. When you just want a small amount, you don't unwind it. When you
> >> >> want a lot, you unwind it. Easy.
> >> >
> >> >You've not been involved much with mic cables, have you? ;-)
> >>
> >> More than I care to say. Actually I would modify what I wrote. I
> >> divide the reel into two, and make a stereo pair wound on the reel. I
> >> unwind that as needed. I leave a few feet hanging out of the middle so
> >> I can plug into the mixer easily.
> >
> >Just stay away from live sound will you ? You'd have lawsuits from all the ppl
> >who tripped over the reels.
>
>
> The reels stay nicely tucked away under the desk - nobody is going to
> trip over them.

Yes, you're clearly not familiar with live sound at all.

Graham

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:52:59 GMT, Eeyore
> wrote:

>
>
>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> >Don Pearce wrote:
>> >> "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
>> >> > Don Pearce > wrote:
>> >> >> >But do they sell by the meter? Jasee seems to want only a small amount.
>> >> >
>> >> >> What you do with mic cable is buy a reel and put a connector on each
>> >> >> end. When you just want a small amount, you don't unwind it. When you
>> >> >> want a lot, you unwind it. Easy.
>> >> >
>> >> >You've not been involved much with mic cables, have you? ;-)
>> >>
>> >> More than I care to say. Actually I would modify what I wrote. I
>> >> divide the reel into two, and make a stereo pair wound on the reel. I
>> >> unwind that as needed. I leave a few feet hanging out of the middle so
>> >> I can plug into the mixer easily.
>> >
>> >Just stay away from live sound will you ? You'd have lawsuits from all the ppl
>> >who tripped over the reels.
>>
>>
>> The reels stay nicely tucked away under the desk - nobody is going to
>> trip over them.
>
>Yes, you're clearly not familiar with live sound at all.
>

Only from the playing point of vie, I'm afraid.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Don Pearce > wrote:
> >> What you do with mic cable is buy a reel and put a connector on each
> >> end. When you just want a small amount, you don't unwind it. When you
> >> want a lot, you unwind it. Easy.
> >
> >You've not been involved much with mic cables, have you? ;-)

> More than I care to say. Actually I would modify what I wrote. I
> divide the reel into two, and make a stereo pair wound on the reel. I
> unwind that as needed. I leave a few feet hanging out of the middle so
> I can plug into the mixer easily.

Cable reels are a PITA - they take up far too much room - and long cables
are rarely needed anyway in my sort of job. If you had a long run you'd
use a snake since you'll likely need more than one circuit, even on a
basic single camera drama shoot.

The only drum I use regularly is for a stereo FX mic which gets run out
some way off. I use a single stereo cable on that - and tails to go
from a 5 pin XLR on the drum to the mixer. The reason for the drum is
simple - the cable gets filthy. ;-)

--
*Constipated People Don't Give A Crap*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Ian Bell]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
> Cable reels are a PITA - they take up far too much room - and long cables
> are rarely needed anyway in my sort of job. If you had a long run you'd
> use a snake since you'll likely need more than one circuit, even on a
> basic single camera drama shoot.
>


Except the commonest form of snake in live situations is on a reel.
Studiospares best selling snake is:

http://www.studiospares.com/pd_589080_CDRUM%20SNAKE%20324%2050m.htm

Ian

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 27 May 2007 00:31:46 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Don Pearce > wrote:
>> >> What you do with mic cable is buy a reel and put a connector on each
>> >> end. When you just want a small amount, you don't unwind it. When you
>> >> want a lot, you unwind it. Easy.
>> >
>> >You've not been involved much with mic cables, have you? ;-)
>
>> More than I care to say. Actually I would modify what I wrote. I
>> divide the reel into two, and make a stereo pair wound on the reel. I
>> unwind that as needed. I leave a few feet hanging out of the middle so
>> I can plug into the mixer easily.
>
>Cable reels are a PITA - they take up far too much room - and long cables
>are rarely needed anyway in my sort of job. If you had a long run you'd
>use a snake since you'll likely need more than one circuit, even on a
>basic single camera drama shoot.
>
>The only drum I use regularly is for a stereo FX mic which gets run out
>some way off. I use a single stereo cable on that - and tails to go
>from a 5 pin XLR on the drum to the mixer. The reason for the drum is
>simple - the cable gets filthy. ;-)

Your circumstances are different to mine. In a studio you can
generally just grab a cable of the right length for the job off the
rack and run it out. I don't have that kind of storage room, so all my
cables are as long as I think I will ever need them (although I did
have to join three end to end once). I don't want to store them in a
loose loop either - that takes too much space as well. So they live on
reels in a cupboard. Sure I could run them right off the reels when I
deploy them, but because they are long they would then be snaking all
over the floor.

So there is method in my madness - where needs must, you find the best
way.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Ian Bell > wrote:
> > Cable reels are a PITA - they take up far too much room - and long
> > cables are rarely needed anyway in my sort of job. If you had a long
> > run you'd use a snake since you'll likely need more than one circuit,
> > even on a basic single camera drama shoot.
> >


> Except the commonest form of snake in live situations is on a reel.
> Studiospares best selling snake is:

> http://www.studiospares.com/pd_589080_CDRUM%20SNAKE%20324%2050m.htm

Well I don't buy in any cables. And the same applies to snakes as singles
- on a drum they take up far more room - and take more time to rig and
derig. The other problem with a drum is if you wish to run out a little
more you have to go to the drum and unplug it before doing so. A snake etc
that is laid out in a figure of eight makes this simple.

--
*Remember: First you pillage, then you burn.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Bell" > wrote in message


> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

>> Cable reels are a PITA

Most people I know think so.

>> - they take up far too much room
>> - and long cables are rarely needed anyway in my sort of
>> job.

I don't know about that. My live sound snakes are 2 x 150, 1 x 100, 1 x 50.

>> If you had a long run you'd use a snake since
>> you'll likely need more than one circuit, even on a
>> basic single camera drama shoot.

> Except the commonest form of snake in live situations is
> on a reel.

??????????

> Studiospares best selling snake is:
>
> http://www.studiospares.com/pd_589080_CDRUM%20SNAKE%20324%2050m.htm

The exception does not prove a rule.