Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Speaker Cable Directionality

19 views
Skip to first unread message

Brianonei

unread,
Jun 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/7/98
to

Anyone see the article in speaker Builder Magazine regarding speaker cable
directionality? Volume 19, Number 1-- May 1998.

Stephen Lampen, Technology Development Manager of Belden, the leading
manufacturer of speaker cables for private label distributers produced an
experiment that concluded that loudspeaker cables have no directionality.

Anyone see the article? Anyone care to comment on the methodology or any other
aspects of the experiment?

Personally, I was glad to see they manufactured the test wire from one block of
99.95% pure copper and that they drew all the wire in one direction so the
influence of drawing could be a factor in the experiment.

Drawbacks-- small sample-- just 22 experiments.

Yet, I was glad to see someone perform an experiment on loudspeaker wire
directionality.

Sincerely,

Brian O'Neill
US Enclosures

Sander deWaal

unread,
Jun 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/7/98
to

On 07 Jun 1998 09:32:39 GMT, bria...@aol.com (Brianonei) wrote the
following:

>Anyone see the article in speaker Builder Magazine regarding speaker cable
>directionality? Volume 19, Number 1-- May 1998.
>
>Stephen Lampen, Technology Development Manager of Belden, the leading
>manufacturer of speaker cables for private label distributers produced an
>experiment that concluded that loudspeaker cables have no directionality.

<snip>

While I didn't read the article, I could come up with
one reason that validates wire direction.
If a shielded cable is used, with 2 lead wires in it,
the shielding would be connected at just 1 side to ground.
This side then, should be connected to the amplifier's end.
Why? To prevent RF noise from coming in via the speaker's
outputs of the amp, via capacitive, or NFB paths, to the amp's
input.
Why not shielding on both ends?
Because the audio signal is fed through both leads, one of
them is grounded.
Connecting both sides of the shield to ground, would create
a loop.
Any kinds of noise could be induced into this loop.

NB.: This effect may be too subtle to be heard, but I've
experienced at least one occasion where it *was* audible,
and readily measurable, too.
This amp wasn't one of the best, w/r/t/ RF rejection, but it
was a nice experiment to conduct.

_
Sander deWaal
postm...@pegasus.demon.nl
www.pegasus.demon.nl
_______________________________________________

Brianonei

unread,
Jun 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/8/98
to

Sander... good point.

I do know that the test related in the article used a single 16 gauge wire in a
premium jacket (no independent shielding).

Brian O

Arny Krüger

unread,
Jun 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/8/98
to

Sander deWaal wrote in message <3589c2ac...@news.demon.nl>...

>
>While I didn't read the article, I could come up with
>one reason that validates wire direction.
>If a shielded cable is used, with 2 lead wires in it,
>the shielding would be connected at just 1 side to ground.
>This side then, should be connected to the amplifier's end.
>Why? To prevent RF noise from coming in via the speaker's
>outputs of the amp, via capacitive, or NFB paths, to the amp's
>input.

In a high-EMI environment, stuff like this happens. But it has nothing to do
with crystelline structures or any of the other pseudo-science that is so
common in the High End.

>Why not shielding on both ends?
>Because the audio signal is fed through both leads, one of
>them is grounded.
>Connecting both sides of the shield to ground, would create
>a loop.

Because we use AC power lines, low frequency EMI is always a big situation.
The best solutions are alongs the lines of optical/digital or balanced
analog.

Arny Krüger

unread,
Jun 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/8/98
to

Brianonei wrote in message
<199806070932...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...


>Anyone see the article in speaker Builder Magazine regarding speaker cable
>directionality? Volume 19, Number 1-- May 1998.
>
>Stephen Lampen, Technology Development Manager of Belden, the leading
>manufacturer of speaker cables for private label distributers produced an
>experiment that concluded that loudspeaker cables have no directionality.
>

>Anyone see the article? Anyone care to comment on the methodology or any
other
>aspects of the experiment?
>
>Personally, I was glad to see they manufactured the test wire from one
block of
>99.95% pure copper and that they drew all the wire in one direction so the
>influence of drawing could be a factor in the experiment.
>
>Drawbacks-- small sample-- just 22 experiments.

Hey, we got Rochlin telling us that 7 experiments are enough... ;-)

>
>Yet, I was glad to see someone perform an experiment on loudspeaker wire
>directionality.
>


One serious problem for the wire directionality crew is that Lampen knows
some science and practice and looks at things from a practical, scientific
view.

Sander deWaal

unread,
Jun 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/11/98
to

On Mon, 8 Jun 1998 06:44:31 -0400, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
wrote the following:

>Sander deWaal wrote in message <3589c2ac...@news.demon.nl>...

>>While I didn't read the article, I could come up with
>>one reason that validates wire direction.
>>If a shielded cable is used, with 2 lead wires in it,
>>the shielding would be connected at just 1 side to ground.
>>This side then, should be connected to the amplifier's end.
>>Why? To prevent RF noise from coming in via the speaker's
>>outputs of the amp, via capacitive, or NFB paths, to the amp's
>>input.

>In a high-EMI environment, stuff like this happens. But it has nothing to do
>with crystelline structures or any of the other pseudo-science that is so
>common in the High End.

Agreed. And I don't think this kind of technobabble was
present in the article, nor in my post.
But thanks for remembering me :-)

>>Why not shielding on both ends?
>>Because the audio signal is fed through both leads, one of
>>them is grounded.
>>Connecting both sides of the shield to ground, would create
>>a loop.
>
>Because we use AC power lines, low frequency EMI is always a big situation.
>The best solutions are alongs the lines of optical/digital or balanced
>analog.

Agreed again, but the article was about speaker cables,
not interconnects or digital connections.

James M. Cate

unread,
Jun 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/12/98
to


Arny Krüger wrote:

> Brianonei wrote in message
> <199806070932...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> >Anyone see the article in speaker Builder Magazine regarding speaker cable
> >directionality? Volume 19, Number 1-- May 1998.
> >
> >Stephen Lampen, Technology Development Manager of Belden, the leading
> >manufacturer of speaker cables for private label distributers produced an
> >experiment that concluded that loudspeaker cables have no directionality.
> >
> >

> One serious problem for the wire directionality crew is that Lampen knows
> some science and practice and looks at things from a practical, scientific
> view.

_______________________________

One problem mentioned in the article is that when Mr. Lampen approached two
other audio publications, they told him that they would not accept the article
because they considered it "too controversial." - Is this also the reason that
publications such as Stereophile and Fi refuse to publish blind test results?
-- It would seem that an occasional controversial article would be good for
circulation, rather than a negative.
JimCate


Barry Rothman

unread,
Jun 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/12/98
to


Fred E. Davis wrote:

> After R. A. Greiner's speaker cable article was published in Audio magazine
> in 1989, they took a six-figure hit in advertising revenue. Because of
> that, there was extreme reluctance to publish my article in 1993.......

So, contrary to what people like Mr. Nousaine and Mr. Ferstler would have us
believe, midfi publications, just like high end publications, are in it for the
money? Gee, and from their comments here damming the high end press, you would
think that SR and Audio were ready for Sainthood or something. Perhaps, then, Audio
and SR have their own axe to grind, and their reviewers, like Mr. Nousaine, properly
support their key advertising base - midfi manufacturers, just like these guys
accuse Stereophile and TAS of doing. Interesting what a small world it really is -
after all, business is business at any price tag.

Kind of also makes me sit back and start counting how many recievers get sold at say
$500 a pop, versus $2,500 preamps and $2,500 power amps. I'll just bet that the
total spent in the US on receivers dwarfs the amount spent on high end preamp/power
amp combos. So, you tell me, who has the bigger axe to grind, the high end press or
the midfi press. Seems to me that the midfi portion of the industry has alot more
at stake here.

And, while we're on the subject, you know those nice executives and engineers at
Harmon Kardon, who make those nice receivers that Mr. Nousaine says sound as good as
any piece of high end gear. Well, I was wondering, since they work for Harmon
International, which also owns Mark Levinson and Revel, which type of system do
these nice guys have in their homes. Is it a nice shiny receiver, or is it pair of
nice Levinson monoblocks, a 380s preamp, #39 CD player, etc.


Brian L. McCarty

unread,
Jun 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/12/98
to

In article <3581E702...@pop3.concentric.net>, Barry Rothman <

brot...@pop3.concentric.net> writes:
> Well, I was wondering, since they work for Harmon International,
> which also owns Mark Levinson and Revel, which type of system do
> these nice guys have in their homes. Is it a nice shiny receiver, or
> is it pair of nice Levinson monoblocks, a 380s preamp, #39 CD player,
> etc.


The answer to this is probably determined by whether or not Harman employees
can purchase Levinson products with their employee discount.

Peter Corey

unread,
Jun 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/12/98
to Fred E. Davis

On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 02:16:03 GMT
Fred E. Davis wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 20:51:48 -0500, "James M. Cate" <jim...@ix.netcom>
> wrote:
>
> >One problem mentioned in the article is that when Mr. Lampen approached two
> >other audio publications, they told him that they would not accept the article
> >because they considered it "too controversial." - Is this also the reason that
> >publications such as Stereophile and Fi refuse to publish blind test results?
> >-- It would seem that an occasional controversial article would be good for
> >circulation, rather than a negative.
>

> After R. A. Greiner's speaker cable article was published in Audio magazine
> in 1989, they took a six-figure hit in advertising revenue. Because of

> that, there was extreme reluctance to publish my article in 1993, about
> nine months after my manuscript had been submitted. In order to get it
> published, the names of audiophile cable manufacturers (as opposed to
> generic cables, such as Belden) had to be disguised. Everyone who wrote in
> response to that article received the list from me, since I never had any
> qualms about naming the manufacturers. For those who missed it, here's the
> list again (pricing is only approximate):
>
> 1. Cable A: Mark Levinson HF10C. This isn't sold any more, but
> you can bet that two conductors with 0.25" diameter
> of copper *each* (about 4000 strands per conductor)
> it won't be cheap, but it *is* flexible!
>
> 2. Auto Jumper Cables. Cheap, from Caldors I think. Not flexible.
> But they come with nifty alligator clips.
>
> 3. Cable B: Krell "The Path". I don't think these are sold now
> either, but the construction is quite similar to #8.
> They were borrowed, and I'll bet $$$$.
>
> 4. Cable C: AudioQuest Green "Litz". About $25 per foot.
>
> 5. Cable D: Kimber 16LPC. $10 per foot.
>
> 6. Spectra-Strip 843-138-2601-064 Ribbon Cable. About $3.00 per foot.
>
> 7. Belden 9718. About $0.58 per foot. Also similar but in a round
> jacket is Belden 8477 at $1.15 per foot.
>
> 8. Cable E: Music Interface Technologies CVT. $2600 for two,
> ten-foot cables. $130 per foot.
>
> 9. Cable F: Kimber 8LPC. $6.00 per foot.
>
> 10. Cable G: Kimber 4PR. $1.00 per foot. Cheap for 'speaker cable.'
>
> 11. Spectra-Strip 843-191-2801-036 Ribbon Cable. About $0.59 per foot.
>
> 12. Belden 19123. 18 AWG lamp cord. About $0.70 per foot.

Fred ;
As you know there has been significant improvement in cable since then .
I'm hurt that in this "update" you failed to mention my recently introduced
"Remote Controlled Frequency Response Shaping Cable ".
See " Recommended Components " April issue of Stereophile magazine .
These allow the unique ability to configure the RCL components for maximum
performance with a wide diversity of systems from the listeners location .
Further more , with regards to price ( sales having been somewhat
disappointing ) I'll be happy to donate a pair to any interested ,
dedicated enthusiast in the interest of advancing the state of " Hi End "
Self Delusion .
^ __
0 || --

Reply to :
pc...@bellevue.org
FAX: 1-2BU TNM YSHU


Fred E. Davis

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

Peter Corey

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 02:16:03 GMT
Fred E. Davis wrote:

Fred ;


As you know there has been significant improvement in cable since then .
I'm hurt that in this "update" you failed to mention my recently introduced
"Remote Controlled Frequency Response Shaping Cable ".

( See " Recommended Components " April issue of Stereophile magazine ) .


These allow the unique ability to configure the RCL components for maximum
performance with a wide diversity of systems from the listeners location .
Further more , with regards to price ( sales having been somewhat

disappointing ) I'll be happy to donate a pair to dedicated enthusiasts

Gene Steinberg

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

In article <3581E702...@pop3.concentric.net>,
brot...@pop3.concentric.net wrote:

>So, contrary to what people like Mr. Nousaine and Mr. Ferstler would have us
>believe, midfi publications, just like high end publications, are in it for the
>money?

No, again you have this issue mixed up. Nobody denies that consumer audio
magazines are run by profit-making organizations. But people like you
spread the false notion that reports of double-blind tests are done to
advance a magazine's editorial mission or hidden agenda, not simply to
report on a set of tests and the results of those tests.

Actually such tests tend to piss off advertisers, because they show that a
lot of claims about audible differences are empty and unproven.

You'd find, actually, that if Nousaine came out with a positive blind
test, he'd get it published a lot faster. But he's not going to manipulate
a test simply to generate a sale.

In other words, your conclusion about this matter is at a polar opposite
to the real facts.

Peace,
Gene

Barry Rothman

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to Brian L. McCarty


Brian L. McCarty wrote:

So you mean that if they could afford it, they would purchase the high end
gear, suggesting that it must sound better? Here is where the truth comes out.
If you can't afford it, by all means purchase a decent receiver so you can enjoy
listening to music. But, if you can afford it, buy well made, good quality high
end gear. Thank you, Brian. You've helped illuminate the fundamental
difference between mid fi and high end.


Brian L. McCarty

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

In article <35828ADA...@pop3.concentric.net>, Barry Rothman <

brot...@pop3.concentric.net> writes:
> So you mean that if they could afford it, they would purchase the
> high end gear, suggesting that it must sound better? Here is where
> the truth comes out. If you can't afford it, by all means purchase
> a decent receiver so you can enjoy listening to music. But, if you
> can afford it, buy well made, good quality high end gear. Thank
> you, Brian.


I think that's a reach in logic. In fact, the opposite is true. These
engineers would be prefectly satisfied with the "standard" Harman offerings
from an audio standpoint, and would by the "high end" products only if the
price were the same or lower than the standard offerings. Not from any
"sound's better" desire, but the same "ego stroke" that drives most of the
"high end" sales.


James M. Cate

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to


Gene Steinberg wrote:

> In article <3581E702...@pop3.concentric.net>,

These are excellent comments. To anyone without the subjectivist "mind"set, they
would be so obvious as to be almost a waste of cyberspace. But not to the people you
are dealing with.JimCate

James M. Cate

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

Fred,
That's an interesting story. Thanks for the information. -- This is analogous to
the editorial policies of Stereophile that folks like Zip, et. al. defend so
strongly.
- What the subjectivists don't understand in this whole matter is that, if we
had access to more meaningful information, including comparative, objective and
blind listening tests of both mid and high-end components, the state of the state of
the art would advance more rapidly. If consumers had access to more useful test
results, information about components offering substantial, audible improvements,
and cost-effective improvements, would result in those products enjoying more sales,
thereby achieving higher production volumes and greater manufacturing economies,
etc. -- It's sometimes referred to as a "free market economy."
But apparently there is a conspiracy among folks who would not benefit from
such an open, competetive market, and who want, instead, to supress or ridicule that
kind of information. - In fact, some of them are regular contributors to this
newsgroup.
JimCate

George M. Middius

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

James M. Cate offers to give the Steinborg a Queen's
blowjob.

>Gene Steinberg wrote:

>>>So, contrary to what people like Mr. Nousaine and Mr. Ferstler would
>>>have us believe, midfi publications, just like high end publications,
>>>are in it for the money?

>> No, again you have this issue mixed up. Nobody denies that consumer audio
>> magazines are run by profit-making organizations. But people like you
>> spread the false notion that reports of double-blind tests are done to
>> advance a magazine's editorial mission or hidden agenda, not simply to
>> report on a set of tests and the results of those tests.

Welcome to the Steinborg's world, where false is
true and true is false.

>> Actually such tests tend to piss off advertisers, because they show that a
>> lot of claims about audible differences are empty and unproven.

Actually, in actual reality (try it sometime, Gene),
most ABXist rituals would piss off the midfi
manufacturers, because careful listeners would be
able to identify the better gear easily.

>> You'd find, actually, that if Nousaine came out with a
>> positive blind test, he'd get it published a lot faster. But
>> he's not going to manipulate a test simply to generate a sale.

Tell the whole story, cyborg. If Nousaince were to
put aside his instruments of discomfort and
distraction, and actually witness a true-to-life ABX
torture ritual that revealed the truth, he'd have to
rewrite his resume, make entirely new set of
high-end pottery to bake in his "audio reporter"
oven, and figure out how to persuade the publishers
of real-fi magazines (Stereophile, Fi, etc.) to
trust him and pay him money for an article. Look at
it this way: If you were publishing a left-leaning
political magazine, and one day Rush Limbaugh or
William Buckley offered you an article on the
virtues of funding abortions for low-income mothers,
would you just accept it at face value?

>> In other words, your conclusion about this matter is at a
>> polar opposite to the real facts.

When a cyborg says a normal is ignoring "real
facts," it actually means it is angry that a human
dares to talk about his desire to arrive at a
workable audio solution using his own wits. Right,
Jamie?

>These are excellent comments. To anyone without the subjectivist
>"mind"set, they would be so obvious as to be almost a waste of
>cyberspace. But not to the people you are dealing with.JimCate

Congratulations, Gene. You've imparted that warm
fuzzy feeling to the most mindless assimilee in your
entire hive. What an act you folks ;-) do on R.A.O.

George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply

George M. Middius

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

Queen Jamie Catie, Magnificent Idiot, reveals the
latest conspiracy from the Hive.

> - What the subjectivists don't understand in this whole matter is that, if we
>had access to more meaningful information, including comparative, objective and
>blind listening tests of both mid and high-end components, the state of the state of
>the art would advance more rapidly.

A normal person knows that engineering advances
are driven by technology. The best performing
devices are not always on the market, for a
variety of reasons.

Since you're an objectivist, Jamie, please tell us
how you deployed the rituals of ABXism to help you
choose your own stereo system.

>If consumers had access to more useful test
>results, information about components offering substantial, audible improvements,
>and cost-effective improvements, would result in those products enjoying more sales,
>thereby achieving higher production volumes and greater manufacturing economies,
>etc. -- It's sometimes referred to as a "free market economy."

But consumers do have access to your holy "test
results" in other technology-driven markets, and
nobody gives a hoot. The "safest" cars are
Mercedes -- does everybody buy one? The "best"
wines, as judged by chemical analysis, come from
South America. Do they dominate the American and
European markets? The "best" analgesic is Tylenol
-- does that brand dominate the market?

Wait, someone is saying that the results of these
"tests" are suspect because those who conduct the
tests have an axe to grind, an iron in the fire,
or an ideological agenda. Of course, that can't
possibly be true of the ABXists because, after
all, they're "scientists" ;-) who only want
"knowledge" ;-) and "truth" ;-).

> But apparently there is a conspiracy among folks who would not benefit from
>such an open, competetive market, and who want, instead, to supress or ridicule that
>kind of information. - In fact, some of them are regular contributors to this
>newsgroup.JimCate

Another conspiracy is uncloaked by the ever-
resourceful Queen Catie. My god, if the audio
business is a conspiracy, I suppose the hospitals
are all in cahoots too -- else why would some
patients die when all diseases can be cured? Not
to mention the candy makers and the sugar
producers, who conspire to drive up the price of
sugar, which drives up the price of candy, which
in turn drives up the price of sugar, etc. And how
about aircraft and automobile manufacturers? If it
weren't for them, we 'd have "better"
transportation in the form of a comprehensive
network of high-speed, high-convenience, high-
comfort rail lines, including a station within a
few blocks of every residence in the USA. It's all
a conspiracy! One day you'll all see, and then
you'll wish you'd bet on a winner. Right, Jamie?

MtryCraft

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

"James M. Cate" <jim...@ix.netcom> wrote:
>Date: Sat, Jun 13, 1998 1:51 AM
>Message-id: <3581DB33...@ix.netcom>

>Arny Krüger wrote:

>> Brianonei wrote in message
>> <199806070932...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>> >Anyone see the article in speaker Builder Magazine regarding speaker cable
>> >directionality? Volume 19, Number 1-- May 1998.

> >snips
> >
I think this may need to be amended to No 3 as I loked at No1 and the current
issue No2 and did not see this.

>-- It would seem that an occasional controversial article would be good for
>circulation, rather than a negative.

>JimCate

Certainly would be the case with any other consumer area. I guess audio is a
different breed. Don't want to kill the 'golden goose.'

MtryCraft

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
>Date: Sat, Jun 13, 1998 12:31 PM
>Message-id: <gsteinberg-13...@ip88.tucson3.az.pub-ip.psi.net>

>snips


>You'd find, actually, that if Nousaine came out with a positive blind
>test, he'd get it published a lot faster. But he's not going to manipulate
>a test simply to generate a sale.


He just has to find a Vulcan and he may have a positive :-)

MtryCraft

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

"James M. Cate" <jim...@ix.netcom> wrote:
>Date: Sat, Jun 13, 1998 4:58 PM
>Message-id: <3582AFB9...@ix.netcom>

> It's sometimes referred to as a "free market economy."

> But apparently there is a conspiracy among folks who would not >benefit
from
>such an open, competetive market, and who want, instead, to supress or
>ridicule that
>kind of information. - In fact, some of them are regular contributors to

They like it free as long as they are the only players and competitors.

Marc Blank

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

James M. Cate wrote:

> Fred,
> That's an interesting story. Thanks for the information. -- This is analogous to
> the editorial policies of Stereophile that folks like Zip, et. al. defend so
> strongly.

> - What the subjectivists don't understand in this whole matter is that, if we
> had access to more meaningful information, including comparative, objective and
> blind listening tests of both mid and high-end components, the state of the state of
> the art would advance more rapidly.

The way I see it is that the state of the art is advanced by people who believe that
improvements can be made. The standard objectivist argument here regarding almost all
components is that they are already effectively perfect. If this approach had been used
in the early days of CD, where would we be?

- Marc


Gene Steinberg

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

In article <3582C71E...@eidetic.com>, Marc Blank
<mbl...@eidetic.com> wrote:

>The way I see it is that the state of the art is advanced by people who
believe that
>improvements can be made. The standard objectivist argument here
regarding almost all
>components is that they are already effectively perfect. If this
approach had been used
>in the early days of CD, where would we be?
>

No, the standard objectivist argument is that real improvements can be
demonstrated in double-blind, level matched tests.

In fact, if you look at high-end audio in general, most manufacturers
simply provide more expensive versions of existing technology, or bring
back older technology to a new audience or older hobbyists who want to own
the stuff that they had fun with in their youth. You see tube amps, SETs,
stuff based on decades' old technology.

How is that advancing the state of the art?

How do high-buck cables that sound no difference from zip cord advance the
state of the art?

Or magic bricks?

Or CD pens?

Or products that self-destruct prematurely?

Peace,
Gene

Gruvmyster

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

Gene wrote:

>No, the standard objectivist argument is that real improvements can be
>demonstrated in double-blind, level matched tests.
>
>In fact, if you look at high-end audio in general, most manufacturers
>simply provide more expensive versions of existing technology, or bring
>back older technology to a new audience or older hobbyists who want to own
>the stuff that they had fun with in their youth. You see tube amps, SETs,
>stuff based on decades' old technology.
>
>How is that advancing the state of the art?

The same way a marble sculptor advances art, when there is
injection-molded plastics which would render a far more perfect
rendition.

>How do high-buck cables that sound no difference from zip cord advance the
>state of the art?
>
>Or magic bricks?
>
>Or CD pens?
>
>Or products that self-destruct prematurely?

Yup! You nailed it. I see those arguments all the time. I find bricks
made of red clay refine the sound far more than any other color.

CD pens? Have you tried blue, now that green is passe?

I see this tired argument dragged out as an example of the "problem"
with subjectivists. I don't see it much anywhere else.

"peace",

Doug
--
"Theory should be study, not doctrine."-- Carl von Clausewitz


Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

dhau...@mail.idt.net (Gruvmyster) writes:

>Gene wrote:
>
>>No, the standard objectivist argument is that real improvements can be
>>demonstrated in double-blind, level matched tests.
>>
>>In fact, if you look at high-end audio in general, most manufacturers
>>simply provide more expensive versions of existing technology, or bring
>>back older technology to a new audience or older hobbyists who want to own
>>the stuff that they had fun with in their youth. You see tube amps, SETs,
>>stuff based on decades' old technology.
>>
>>How is that advancing the state of the art?
>
>The same way a marble sculptor advances art, when there is
>injection-molded plastics which would render a far more perfect
>rendition.

WHOA! Hold on there, buddy! There is a sensuality about a marble
scupture which cannot be rendered in other materials. We are not
talking here about reproductions, but about the *original*
performance!


>>How do high-buck cables that sound no difference from zip cord advance the
>>state of the art?

Not one bit (pun intended).


--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering


James M. Cate

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to


Poor, deluded George M. Middius wrote: >

- What the subjectivists don't understand in this whole matter is that, if we had
access to more meaningful information, including comparative, objective and>blind

listening tests of both mid and high-end components, the state of the state of>the art
would advance more rapidly.

> A normal person knows that engineering advances
> are driven by technology. The best performing
> devices are not always on the market, for a
> variety of reasons.
>

As a practicing patent attorney, it's my experience that engineering advances are
primarily driven by marketplace influences, rather than technology. And when advances in
technology, and the absence of audible technological advances, are not acknowledged by
reviewers who are afraid to publish objective, comparative test result, then sales hype
and technogobble marketing hype tends to control and censor any communication of the
relevant facts to the public.

> Since you're an objectivist, Jamie, please tell us
> how you deployed the rituals of ABXism to help you
> choose your own stereo system.
>

I didn't. Because, thanks to your and your buddies, the results of ABX tests comparing
stereo components have generally been suppressed and put down. In fact, I can't find any
of them in Stereophile, Fi, etc. -- Thanks for nothing, Georgie.

> >If consumers had access to more useful test
> >results, information about components offering substantial, audible improvements,
> >and cost-effective improvements, would result in those products enjoying more sales,
> >thereby achieving higher production volumes and greater manufacturing economies,
> >etc. -- It's sometimes referred to as a "free market economy."
>
> But consumers do have access to your holy "test
> results" in other technology-driven markets, and
> nobody gives a hoot.

Well now, Georgie, I don't think we would all go along with that strange theory of
yours. -- If we want to know which cars can accelerate from 0 to 60 in under 10 seconds,
we can find that information in several auto magazines. If we want to know which mortgage
companies offer the best mortgage rate in any particular week, we can check figures in
the Sunday papers. If we want to compare repair records of TV sets, autos, refrigerators,
etc., etc., we can check back issues of Consumer Reports at the local library, or on the
web. And under current laws, advertisers are free to provide comparisons between their
products and competing brands, so long as they can verify the results. And it goes on,
and on, George, except with respect to high-end audio.

> Wait, someone is saying that the results of these
> "tests" are suspect because those who conduct the
> tests have an axe to grind, an iron in the fire,
> or an ideological agenda. Of course, that can't
> possibly be true of the ABXists because, after
> all, they're "scientists" ;-) who only want
> "knowledge" ;-) and "truth" ;-).

You can reminisce about the non-scientific life if you wish, George, but I don't think
you would prefer it for long. -- No electricity, no lights, no audio, no autos, no AC,
etc. It gets old pretty fast, George.

> > But apparently there is a conspiracy among folks who would not benefit from
> >such an open, competetive market, and who want, instead, to supress or ridicule that

> >kind of information. - In fact, some of them are regular contributors to this
> >newsgroup.JimCate
>
> Another conspiracy is uncloaked by the ever-
> resourceful Queen Catie. My god, if the audio
> business is a conspiracy, I suppose the hospitals
> are all in cahoots too -- else why would some
> patients die when all diseases can be cured? Not
> to mention the candy makers and the sugar
> producers, who conspire to drive up the price of
> sugar, which drives up the price of candy, which
> in turn drives up the price of sugar, etc. And how
> about aircraft and automobile manufacturers? If it
> weren't for them, we 'd have "better"
> transportation in the form of a comprehensive
> network of high-speed, high-convenience, high-
> comfort rail lines, including a station within a
> few blocks of every residence in the USA. It's all
> a conspiracy! One day you'll all see, and then
> you'll wish you'd bet on a winner. Right, Jamie?
>

George, consider your reputation. Is what you are saying that Stereophile would be glad
to publish meaningful, blind test results if only they thought it might benefit their
readers? Do you really believe that, George?.

> Remove "jiffy" to reply

--Thanks, but no thanks. - You can keep your jiffy as is.

JimCate


Marc Blank

unread,
Jun 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/13/98
to

Gene Steinberg wrote:

> In article <3582C71E...@eidetic.com>, Marc Blank
> <mbl...@eidetic.com> wrote:
>
> >The way I see it is that the state of the art is advanced by people who
> believe that
> >improvements can be made. The standard objectivist argument here
> regarding almost all
> >components is that they are already effectively perfect. If this
> approach had been used
> >in the early days of CD, where would we be?
> >
>

> No, the standard objectivist argument is that real improvements can be
> demonstrated in double-blind, level matched tests.
>
> In fact, if you look at high-end audio in general, most manufacturers
> simply provide more expensive versions of existing technology, or bring
> back older technology to a new audience or older hobbyists who want to own
> the stuff that they had fun with in their youth. You see tube amps, SETs,
> stuff based on decades' old technology.
>

This is very misleading, Gene. It's true that tube amps (including, of
course, SET's) are BASED on old technology, but so are cars (the wheel, I
believe, having been perfected long ago). The question is not whether the
basis is old, but in how it is used. With newer materials (for example, with
transformers) and a willing market, engineers can make improvements in older
technologies that can provide worthwhile benefits. Please don't tell me that
newer is always better, or that technology automatically improves quality.

> How do high-buck cables that sound no difference from zip cord advance the
> state of the art?
>

> Or magic bricks?
>
> Or CD pens?
>
> Or products that self-destruct prematurely?
>

> Peace,
> Gene

It's funny you mention these straw-men, because, in the main, I (and most
subjectivists I know) don't believe in magic bricks or CD pens.

Also, what is most annoying about mass-market consumer electronics, IMO, is
that they are built like shit. I haven't had a telephone in my house last
more than a year lately, but I'm sure those awful, old-technology Western
Electric phones I used in the 50's are still working....

- Marc


George M. Middius

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Queen Jamie Catoe engages her Delud-O-Borg™ module
and wanders into her Royal Hall of Mirrors.

>> Since you're an objectivist, Jamie, please tell us
>> how you deployed the rituals of ABXism to help you
>> choose your own stereo system.

>I didn't. Because, thanks to your and your buddies, the results of
>ABX tests comparing stereo components have generally been
>suppressed and put down. In fact, I can't find any of them in
>Stereophile, Fi, etc. -- Thanks for nothing, Georgie.

My pleasure. Tomorrow I shall cause the earth to
open up and swallow you whole.

>> Wait, someone is saying that the results of these
>> "tests" are suspect because those who conduct the
>> tests have an axe to grind, an iron in the fire,
>> or an ideological agenda. Of course, that can't
>> possibly be true of the ABXists because, after
>> all, they're "scientists" ;-) who only want
>> "knowledge" ;-) and "truth" ;-).

>You can reminisce about the non-scientific life if you wish, George,
>but I don't think you would prefer it for long. -- No electricity, no
>lights, no audio, no autos, no AC, etc. It gets old pretty fast, George.

Jamie, Your Idiotic Majesty, please forgive me, but
I didn't hear the telltale clanking as you engage
your BorgNonSequitur™ module. If you've achieved
silent running & switching, I'm sure the Krooborg
would love to learn of this new advance in
technology.

>> Another conspiracy is uncloaked by the ever-
>> resourceful Queen Catie.

>George, consider your reputation. Is what you are saying that Stereophile would be glad


>to publish meaningful, blind test results if only they thought it might benefit their
>readers? Do you really believe that, George?.

Your BorgNonSequitur module is still in control, I
see. Note to God: Idiots are funny. Keep 'em coming!

George M. Middius

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Queen Jamie Catie engages her Delud-O-Borg™ module

and wanders into her Royal Hall of Mirrors.

>> Since you're an objectivist, Jamie, please tell us


>> how you deployed the rituals of ABXism to help you
>> choose your own stereo system.

>I didn't. Because, thanks to your and your buddies, the results of
>ABX tests comparing stereo components have generally been
>suppressed and put down. In fact, I can't find any of them in
>Stereophile, Fi, etc. -- Thanks for nothing, Georgie.

My pleasure. Tomorrow I shall cause the earth to


open up and swallow you whole.

>> Wait, someone is saying that the results of these


>> "tests" are suspect because those who conduct the
>> tests have an axe to grind, an iron in the fire,
>> or an ideological agenda. Of course, that can't
>> possibly be true of the ABXists because, after
>> all, they're "scientists" ;-) who only want
>> "knowledge" ;-) and "truth" ;-).

>You can reminisce about the non-scientific life if you wish, George,
>but I don't think you would prefer it for long. -- No electricity, no
>lights, no audio, no autos, no AC, etc. It gets old pretty fast, George.

Jamie, Your Idiotic Majesty, please forgive me,


but I didn't hear the telltale clanking as you
engage your BorgNonSequitur™ module. If you've
achieved silent running & switching, I'm sure the
Krooborg would love to learn of this new advance
in technology.

>> Another conspiracy is uncloaked by the ever-
>> resourceful Queen Catie.

>George, consider your reputation. Is what you are saying that Stereophile would be glad


>to publish meaningful, blind test results if only they thought it might benefit their
>readers? Do you really believe that, George?.

Your BorgNonSequitur module is still in control, I

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

Marc Blank <mbl...@eidetic.com> writes:

>Also, what is most annoying about mass-market consumer electronics, IMO, is
>that they are built like shit. I haven't had a telephone in my house last
>more than a year lately, but I'm sure those awful, old-technology Western
>Electric phones I used in the 50's are still working....

Funny you should choose that product, since all psychologists and
students of management theory are familiar with the 'Hawthorne
Experiment', a massive series of studies conducted by Elton Mayo et
al, at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works telephone factory from
1924 to 1932. The study was set up because WE were at that time unable
to make two identical telephones!

Gene Steinberg

unread,
Jun 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/14/98
to

In article <35831C14...@eidetic.com>, Marc Blank
<mbl...@eidetic.com> wrote:

>This is very misleading, Gene. It's true that tube amps (including, of
>course, SET's) are BASED on old technology, but so are cars (the wheel, I
>believe, having been perfected long ago). The question is not whether the
>basis is old, but in how it is used. With newer materials (for example, with
>transformers) and a willing market, engineers can make improvements in older
>technologies that can provide worthwhile benefits. Please don't tell me that
>newer is always better, or that technology automatically improves quality.

I see little evidence that taking an obsolete technology and building a
product that cost 10-20 times more than the original versions (yet seldom
performs any better) advances technology in the audio industry.

And I see little evidence that an SET amp provides performance even
comparable to the cheapest solid state receiver. So where do you gain here
in terms of advancing the state of the art?

You'll find many of the real advances come from those mass market
manufacturers high-enders love to hate, because they've brought good
quality audio down to an affordable price point.

Also, how many of those high-end companies have come up with anything
approaching a CD or a DVD?

Peace,
Gene

Jay B. Haider

unread,
Jun 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/15/98
to

gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:

>And I see little evidence that an SET amp provides performance even
>comparable to the cheapest solid state receiver.

That depends, Gene, if you're interested in what's actually on the
source material, warts and all, or if you want everything rose-tinted
with euphonic colourations. Both are equally valid preferences, Gene.
(Audio IS an entirely hedonistic hobby, no?)
Frankly, though, given a choice between a Cary/Audio Note SETA and
a modern receiver, if I'd have to listen to it without opportunity for
resale, I'd take the receiver anyday. But that's my personal
preference.

>those mass market
>manufacturers high-enders love to hate, because they've brought good
>quality audio down to an affordable price point.

Who exactly are you talking about here, Gene, the producers of
'mid-fi' separates (Adcom, Rotel, Parasound, Denon etc.), or those
industrial conglomerates who hawk garish-looking, expensive,
disposable, soon to be obsolete A/V receivers with cheap amps that
would melt if one tried to hook a Martin-Logan up to any channel?

>Also, how many of those high-end companies have come up with anything
>approaching a CD or a DVD?

How many non-high end companies have come up with anything
worthwhile on the DVD medium? Thus far, not many. When I see DVD-Audio
widespread, maybe I'll care.

Jay B. Haider
FU-Berlin, 1998-????
"When you're wrong, don't be upset, but rather rejoice, for you're
about to learn something." -Dr James Herod
"Vanity; stupidity; duplicity; lack of ability: these need not impede
a successful political career" - Bagehot, from "The Economist"

Gruvmyster

unread,
Jun 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/15/98
to

Stewart wrote:

>dhau...@mail.idt.net (Gruvmyster) writes:

>>>How is that advancing the state of the art?

>>The same way a marble sculptor advances art, when there is
>>injection-molded plastics which would render a far more perfect
>>rendition.

>WHOA! Hold on there, buddy! There is a sensuality about a marble
>scupture which cannot be rendered in other materials. We are not
>talking here about reproductions, but about the *original*
>performance!

So was I. Just think, Stewart: if an artist carves out a mold, the
finished plastic product would be much more perfect. No hidden flaws
in the marble, veins of other material, etc...

I find a sensuality about tube gear...:-)

>>>How do high-buck cables that sound no difference from zip cord advance the
>>>state of the art?

>Not one bit (pun intended).

Wait a minute! You're talking digital here, aren't you! No wonder the
marble analogy didn't fly!:-)

Gene Steinberg

unread,
Jun 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/15/98
to

> That depends, Gene, if you're interested in what's actually on the
>source material, warts and all, or if you want everything rose-tinted
>with euphonic colourations. Both are equally valid preferences, Gene.
>(Audio IS an entirely hedonistic hobby, no?)

The point I made was strictly one as to whether the high-end had been in
the forefront of new technology in audio, and the fact is that in general
it isn't. Many high-end products are simply expensive reworkings of 40/50
year old designs, or snake oil products without an ounce of proven audible
benefit. The entire high-end industry is tarnished by that stuff, because
there are indeed good high end products that perform well and provide
reliable performance.

But when it comes to major developments in audio, you generally won't find
it from those sources, however good the products might otherwise be.

Peace,
Gene

Stewart Pinkerton

unread,
Jun 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/15/98
to

dhau...@mail.idt.net (Gruvmyster) writes:

>Stewart wrote:
>
>>dhau...@mail.idt.net (Gruvmyster) writes:
>
>>>>How is that advancing the state of the art?
>
>>>The same way a marble sculptor advances art, when there is
>>>injection-molded plastics which would render a far more perfect
>>>rendition.
>
>>WHOA! Hold on there, buddy! There is a sensuality about a marble
>>scupture which cannot be rendered in other materials. We are not
>>talking here about reproductions, but about the *original*
>>performance!
>
>So was I. Just think, Stewart: if an artist carves out a mold, the
>finished plastic product would be much more perfect. No hidden flaws
>in the marble, veins of other material, etc...
>
>I find a sensuality about tube gear...:-)

And you completely miss the point that tube gear is not a part of the
original performance, but merely part of the *reproduction* chain. Of
course, that's the problem, most tube gear *does* colour the sound and
thereby provide a 'contribution' to the performance, rather than being
transparent as a good amp should be.

ShLampen

unread,
Jun 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/17/98
to

In article <199806070932...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, bria...@aol.com
(Brianonei) writes: >Yet, I was glad to see someone perform an experiment on
loudspeaker wire >directionality. Would anyone be interested in a similar test
regarding oxygen-free copper??
Steve Lampen
Technology Development Manager
Belden Wire & Cable Co.
Richmond, Indiana
www.belden.com


ShLampen

unread,
Jun 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/17/98
to

In article <6lgf3r$7bk$1...@excalibur.flash.net>, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
writes: >One serious problem for the wire directionality crew is that Lampen
knows >some science and practice and looks at things from a practical,
scientific >view. Actually, nothing would have made me happier than if we
could have proved that directionality really did exist. Because then we would
be the only manufacturer who knew how to do it and we'd be even richer than our
current $800 million/year. Unfortunately, even those who said that there was a
significant difference in a particular direction were unable to align all the
wires in that direction. I was also surprised that only 22 volunteers returned
their results. (We passed out 78 sample packets.) This was before I was
net-savvy. Next time, I will not have any trouble finding volunteers!!!

Anonymous

unread,
Jun 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/19/98
to

On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, George M. Middius wrote:

> Actually, in actual reality (try it sometime, Gene),
> most ABXist rituals would piss off the midfi
> manufacturers, because careful listeners would be
> able to identify the better gear easily.


Then explain why High-End manufacturers don't rush to capitalize on the (implied)
"fact" that their products sound better (which first means they sound audibly different)
in _carefully_ (your word) controlled listening tests, why?


Anonymous

unread,
Jun 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/19/98
to

On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Marc Blank wrote:

> James M. Cate wrote:
>
> The way I see it is that the state of the art is advanced by people who believe that
> improvements can be made. The standard objectivist argument here regarding almost all
> components is that they are already effectively perfect. If this approach had been used
> in the early days of CD, where would we be?


Show that early problems with the CD had to do with the medium itself (which has not
changed since its introduction) and not with the ignorance of some people recording
on it or implementing the technology in the hardware to play it.

ShLampen

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

In article <199806131848...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mtry...@aol.com
(MtryCraft) writes:

>I think this may need to be amended to No 3 as I loked at No1 and the current
>issue No2 and did not see this.

Absolutely correct. It is in THREE:1998, and you will not be able to miss it
because it says in red letters across the top "Can We hear DIRECTIONALITY in
Speaker Wire?"

ShLampen

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

In article <3581DB33...@ix.netcom>, "James M. Cate" <jim...@ix.netcom>
writes:

>One problem mentioned in the article is that when Mr. Lampen approached two
>other audio publications, they told him that they would not accept the
>article
>because they considered it "too controversial." - Is this also the reason
>that
>publications such as Stereophile and Fi refuse to publish blind test results?

>-- It would seem that an occasional controversial article would be good for
>circulation, rather than a negative.

I think it is more interesting than that. I propose a double-blind test on a
cable parameter. I ask Magazine X. They say , "No. Too controversial." But,
as you point out, controversy would INCREASE sales, wouldn't it??? So what's
the fear: advertisers pulling out. But wait! What if the test shows that
directionality exists? Then NO PROBLEM. So I concluded from this that the
magazines HAD ALREADY CONCLUDED that directionality DIDN'T EXIST as this
conclusion would cost them advertising dollars.

HOW'S MY LOGIC?

Howard Ferstler

unread,
Jun 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/23/98
to

I think you have hit the nail right on the head.

Howard Ferstler

0 new messages