Dick Smith & Jaycar Speaker Cable
Martin Porter
points. I'm wondering if anyone out there has tried them and has any
comments they care to share. Are they worth trying out? How do they
compare to brand-name "audiophile" speaker cable?
--
Regards,
Martin
Wildwally
I dare anyone to a double blind test if they can tell the difference between
so called audiophile cable and dick smith/jaycar cable. The only people that
benefit from audiophile cable are people that sell the stuff !!!!!!!!!!
Wildwally
Martin Porter <m.po...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:iP_o7.16318$c5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Wildwally
they are a cable wholesaler who also sell to the public in any quantity.
Martin Porter <m.po...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:iP_o7.16318$c5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Trevor Wilson
"Martin Porter" <m.po...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:iP_o7.16318$c5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
**There is very little difference between speaker cables, in most systems.
Money is almost always better spent elsewhere.
--
Grumblebum
http://www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
"Martin Porter" <m.po...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:iP_o7.16318$c5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
**There is very little difference between speaker cables, in most systems.
paul packer
Or in my opinion in interconnects. I recently compared two quite
expensive (by my standards, which aren't high in this area)
interconnects with each other and with a "giveaway" cable. Honestly, I
couldn't hear any difference whatsoever. In fact, I've never been able
to hear the slightest difference between interconnects. How is it
others hear night and day differences?
Trevor Wilson
"paul packer" <pac...@terrigal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3ba4990e...@news.terrigal.net.au...
>
> Or in my opinion in interconnects. I recently compared two quite
> expensive (by my standards, which aren't high in this area)
> interconnects with each other and with a "giveaway" cable. Honestly, I
> couldn't hear any difference whatsoever. In fact, I've never been able
> to hear the slightest difference between interconnects. How is it
> others hear night and day differences?
**I cannot say. I could speculate, however. Please do not take what I am
about to say, as insulting.
The possibilities include:
* Your system is of too low resolution.
* Your hearing acuity is of too low resolution.
* Your room may dominate any flaws in the system, so much that subtle
changes are inaudible.
* You are too inexperienced in listening.
* You are comparing cables of very similar construction and thus sound
differences are too small to be audible.
It is important to realise that interconnects are just 'fine tuning'
adjustments, to a high resolution system. They will not profoundly alter the
sound of a system. For those who spend many ours each day listening, a
change in cables may be readily audible, however. To a listener unfamiliar
with that same system, the changes may be inaudible.
You're up Gosford way, right? I'll send you a couple of pairs of cables,
which I think sound quite different (not night and day, mind you, but
different) and you can tell me (or anyone else) what you think. I am not
interested in selling you any cables. This may be educational, for you. Or
not.
BTW: What does your system comprise?
--
Trevor Wilson
http://www.rageaudio.com.au
Ivan Smith
"Martin Porter" <m.po...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:iP_o7.16318$c5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
A Word of warning about special OFC speaker cables:
I own a matched pair of lengths of very expensive OFC speakers cables which
I bought in the mid-90's.
In 1999 I bought a new HT Receiver (well two actually - A NAD first) and
they both distorted like crap. I couldn't work it out until I did a bit or
research and it turned out to be the impedence/capacitance of the cable was
just wrong.
I switched to 'figure 8' 16g wire from, of all places, Tandy, and now it's a
rocking system.
Watch your capacitance with modern transistor amps!
Ivan
paul packer
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>"paul packer" <pac...@terrigal.net.au> wrote in message
>news:3ba4990e...@news.terrigal.net.au...
>>
>> Or in my opinion in interconnects. I recently compared two quite
>> expensive (by my standards, which aren't high in this area)
>> interconnects with each other and with a "giveaway" cable. Honestly, I
>> couldn't hear any difference whatsoever. In fact, I've never been able
>> to hear the slightest difference between interconnects. How is it
>> others hear night and day differences?
>
>**I cannot say. I could speculate, however. Please do not take what I am
>about to say, as insulting.
>
>The possibilities include:
>
>* Your system is of too low resolution.
My system comprises: Sennheiser 580 headphones. Marantz PM 4000 amp.
Sony CD 300 CD player. Sony 440 minidisc. Not exactly low resolution.
>* Your hearing acuity is of too low resolution.
Possible. I'm 55 and beginning to experience tinitus. But I still hear
cymbals etc very well.
>* Your room may dominate any flaws in the system, so much that subtle
>changes are inaudible.
>* You are too inexperienced in listening.
I've been in hi-fi since 1965. In the 70s I used to contribute to a
hi-fi magazine.
>* You are comparing cables of very similar construction and thus sound
>differences are too small to be audible.
>
Nope.
>It is important to realise that interconnects are just 'fine tuning'
>adjustments, to a high resolution system. They will not profoundly alter the
>sound of a system. For those who spend many ours each day listening, a
>change in cables may be readily audible, however. To a listener unfamiliar
>with that same system, the changes may be inaudible.
>
>You're up Gosford way, right?
Beyond Gosford. Beyond Wyong. Gorokan.
I'll send you a couple of pairs of cables,
>which I think sound quite different (not night and day, mind you, but
>different) and you can tell me (or anyone else) what you think. I am not
>interested in selling you any cables. This may be educational, for you. Or
>not.
A waste of good postage, I really think. I think I'm just one of those
people who can't hear subtle changes. I never could back in the days
of turntables either, with all the changing of mats, damping of arms
etc. Yet I recently changed amps and the Marantz made such an
improvement I'm going through my whole CD collection.
Thanks for the offer though.
Matthew Kirkcaldie
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> * You are too inexperienced in listening.
Well if that allows you to use cables costing eight bucks a metre
instead of 200 bucks a metre, while remaining very happy with your
system, then that's the kind of "experience" I don't want!
MK.
Trevor Wilson
> >
> >* Your system is of too low resolution.
>
> My system comprises: Sennheiser 580 headphones. Marantz PM 4000 amp.
> Sony CD 300 CD player. Sony 440 minidisc. Not exactly low resolution.
**It seems not.
>
>
> >* Your hearing acuity is of too low resolution.
>
> Possible. I'm 55 and beginning to experience tinitus. But I still hear
> cymbals etc very well.
**Ah, the ravages of age (sigh). Tinitus is making it's ugly appearance with
my hearing as well. I have also noted that I cannot detect what I could a
couple of years ago. I suspect this may be the flaw in your 'system'. I know
that I would not be able to reliably detect small cable differences, under
many circumstances. I could once, however.
>
> >* Your room may dominate any flaws in the system, so much that subtle
> >changes are inaudible.
> >* You are too inexperienced in listening.
>
> I've been in hi-fi since 1965. In the 70s I used to contribute to a
> hi-fi magazine.
**I think we can eliminate this one.
>
>
> >* You are comparing cables of very similar construction and thus sound
> >differences are too small to be audible.
> >
> Nope.
**Good.
>
>
> >It is important to realise that interconnects are just 'fine tuning'
> >adjustments, to a high resolution system. They will not profoundly alter
the
> >sound of a system. For those who spend many ours each day listening, a
> >change in cables may be readily audible, however. To a listener
unfamiliar
> >with that same system, the changes may be inaudible.
> >
> >You're up Gosford way, right?
>
> Beyond Gosford. Beyond Wyong. Gorokan.
>
> I'll send you a couple of pairs of cables,
> >which I think sound quite different (not night and day, mind you, but
> >different) and you can tell me (or anyone else) what you think. I am not
> >interested in selling you any cables. This may be educational, for you.
Or
> >not.
>
>
> A waste of good postage, I really think. I think I'm just one of those
> people who can't hear subtle changes. I never could back in the days
> of turntables either, with all the changing of mats, damping of arms
> etc. Yet I recently changed amps and the Marantz made such an
> improvement I'm going through my whole CD collection.
>
> Thanks for the offer though.
**No worries.
Ian Mitchell
Ctn
what do you think about the jaycar ofc monitor speaker cables for $5 a metre
compared to Nordost super flatline gold for $66 a metre?
I havent heard the Nordost but would they be considerable better?
peter
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:070p7.57027$bY5.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Trevor Wilson
"Ian Mitchell" <Ian.Mi...@citec.com.au> wrote in message
news:3BA674B3...@citec.com.au...
> Ah Trevor, they say that hearing is the last to go :-)
>
**As long as can get by without ViagraT, I really don't mind too much.
-:)
Trevor Wilson
"Ctn" <c...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:5Xup7.9936$Tv6....@news1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
> Hi Trevor,
>
> what do you think about the jaycar ofc monitor speaker cables for $5 a
metre
> compared to Nordost super flatline gold for $66 a metre?
**The Nordost is excellent cable, with excellent insulation (PTFE) and
intelligent construction. It provides a worthwhile decrease in inductance,
over most conventional cables. It is manufactured in the USA. The Jaycar
stuff is a conventional, multi-stranded, PVC insulated cable. It is
manufactured in either Taiwan or China. For most systems, it would be
impossible to justify the price difference, between the Nordost and the
Jaycar stuff.
>
> I havent heard the Nordost but would they be considerable better?
**For SOME systems, the Nordost may provide a worthwhile improvement in
sound quality. The improvement will be realted to several factors, the most
important of which is the impedance characteristic of the speaker.
Electrostatic speakers, typically, demonstrate difficult impedance curves,
at high frequencies. This is where low inductance cables (such as Nordost,
Goertz, etc) MAY provide tangible benefits.
Bottom line: Given the high cost of Nordost (and similar) cables, it would
be reasonable to expect any dealer to loan such cables.
Laz
what about dick smith harmony gold interconnects and jaycar interconnects
vs say 'monster brand' ones ?
laz
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:Uyvp7.63433$bY5.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Adam F
the tandy/rs ones i bought seemed ok for a while, but i've decided they're
the cause of a fair bit of hissing and humming (if i move them aroud i can
even hear 2day fm faintly!!!)
no exp with harmony gold as yet
adam f
"Laz" <larry31...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2Hzp7.1310$pk3....@ozemail.com.au...
Trevor Wilson
> what about dick smith harmony gold interconnects and jaycar interconnects
> vs say 'monster brand' ones ?
**It is my opinion that interconnects MAY make a substantial difference, to
a high resolution system. Particularly one owned by a dedicated listener.
Like all things in life, though, the Law of Diminishing Returns sets in,
after about $20.00 per set of cables. The Dick Smith and Jaycar stuff, is
actually pretty decent cable. Expect to spend at least $200.00 per pair, to
obtain a significant improvement, PROVIDED the rest of the system is up to
snuff.
IOW: You can probably spend your money more sensibly, elsewhere.
Laz
some of my systme uses the thin 'free' rca interconnects
and some of it is dse Hgold cables
i wasn't sure if it is worth upgrading
yamaha 992 amp
vaf DCX speakers
sony 7700 dvd player
laz
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:jhBp7.64138$bY5.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Trevor Wilson
> thanks
> some of my systme uses the thin 'free' rca interconnects
> and some of it is dse Hgold cables
> i wasn't sure if it is worth upgrading
> yamaha 992 amp
> vaf DCX speakers
> sony 7700 dvd player
**The Dick SMith/Jaycar stuff should be fine.
Rick
I have found the Dick Smith Harmony Golds have MUCH better connectors
than the Jaycar stuff.
The wire is if anything, reasonably equivalent.
I haven't done any real worthy listening tests between the two and at
this stage would say they are equal sounding.
Based on that, the DSE HG are much better value due to the connector
quality, IMHO.
Rick.
--
Rick Stadelmaier
Equinox Audio
http://www.equinoxaudio.com.au
equ...@pip.com.au
Sydney, Australia
paul packer
Don't forget the Sanyo branded interconnects at K Mart. They have a
feel of quality far beyond the Jaycar stuff. In fact they remind me
strongly of QED products, especially the plugs.
Patric Scully
wrote:
>trevor, rather than just speaker cables
>what about dick smith harmony gold interconnects and jaycar interconnects
>vs say 'monster brand' ones ?
>
>laz
Hi Larry
I have been following the thread, and think that you may find the
following of interest. Go to deja.com or Google groups. Do a search on
eith rec.audio.high-end or rec.audio.tech for John Dunlavy, or DAL,
or Dunlavy Audio Labs crossreferenced with cables and interconnects.
OR visit the DAL website, the address is on one of the recent posts by
John with respect to cables and interconnects. Read the papers.
And while your doing that, here is the concensus from the very long
threads on this topic, at least according to those who are in the
business of engineering high-end audio, rather than the snake-oil
salespeople.
For interconnects, Radio Shack Gold - available from TANDY, this is
the best interconnect available, proven over many instances of
properly designed and conducted tests of interconnects.
For speaker cables, even the most basic pvc insulated figure 8 or
"zip" cord of 12 AWG or lower is as good it gets.
Thus far, no one has been able to identify audible differences between
these cables and the most expensive high-end options in tests that are
properly conducted, i.e., double blind. Check out the threads, and you
will be surprised by results. Look up: Nousaine, Fred Davis, Dick
Pierce, Howare Ferstler, JJ, Steware Pinkerton, John Dunlavy, Steve
Lamken of Beldon Cables and see what they report. And read the
responses from those who have a vested interest in making heaps of
money from the cable business.
BTW, its ALL oxygen free copper, and its all four "nines", or 99.99%
pure. This is because the wire that these people use is just common or
garden copper cable, the same as is used in houses and all other
applications. The wire manufacturers DONT make/draw special wire for
the cable makers, the volumes would not justify even stopping a line
for even a few hours.
Happy listening.
regards
Patric Scully
The Soundman
Trevor Wilson
"Patric Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ba751a6...@news.por.starwon.com.au...
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 09:48:17 +0800, "Laz" <larry31...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >trevor, rather than just speaker cables
> >what about dick smith harmony gold interconnects and jaycar interconnects
> >vs say 'monster brand' ones ?
> >
> >laz
>
>
> Hi Larry
>
> I have been following the thread, and think that you may find the
> following of interest. Go to deja.com or Google groups. Do a search on
> eith rec.audio.high-end or rec.audio.tech for John Dunlavy, or DAL,
> or Dunlavy Audio Labs crossreferenced with cables and interconnects.
> OR visit the DAL website, the address is on one of the recent posts by
> John with respect to cables and interconnects. Read the papers.
**Well worth a read. If your system is of high resolution, it may well be
worth doing some (free) listening, too.
>
> And while your doing that, here is the concensus from the very long
> threads on this topic, at least according to those who are in the
> business of engineering high-end audio, rather than the snake-oil
> salespeople.
>
> For interconnects, Radio Shack Gold - available from TANDY, this is
> the best interconnect available, proven over many instances of
> properly designed and conducted tests of interconnects.
**That is nothing like consensus. It is the opinion of some people.
Interestingly, some of the people who can reliably pick different cables, do
not actually financially benefit from doing so.
>
> For speaker cables, even the most basic pvc insulated figure 8 or
> "zip" cord of 12 AWG or lower is as good it gets.
**Bad advice. SOME systems require the use of low inductance cables. 'zip'
cord, is high inductance and unsuitable. It is wrong to generalise. It would
be correct to state: "MOST systems will work satisfactorily, with 'zip'
cord."
>
> Thus far, no one has been able to identify audible differences between
> these cables and the most expensive high-end options in tests that are
> properly conducted, i.e., double blind.
**Wrong.
Check out the threads, and you
> will be surprised by results. Look up: Nousaine, Fred Davis, Dick
> Pierce, Howare Ferstler, JJ, Steware Pinkerton, John Dunlavy, Steve
> Lamken of Beldon Cables and see what they report. And read the
> responses from those who have a vested interest in making heaps of
> money from the cable business.
**99% of what is printed and said about audio cables is bullshit.
Nevertheless, there is that pesky 1%......
>
> BTW, its ALL oxygen free copper, and its all four "nines", or 99.99%
> pure. This is because the wire that these people use is just common or
> garden copper cable, the same as is used in houses and all other
> applications. The wire manufacturers DONT make/draw special wire for
> the cable makers, the volumes would not justify even stopping a line
> for even a few hours.
**Wrong. SOME cable manufacturers do use specific materials and specifically
drawn copper, for their products. That, of course, does not necessarily mean
it sounds better. Some manufacturers use Silver, silver plated copper,
carbon, mercury, gold, etc. Some cable manufacturers clearly use very
expensive construction techniques, for their products. This, in part,
explains the high prices. Naturally, that does not suggest better quality,
or sound. As always: caveat emptor.
More importantly: Listen for yourself.
Laz
HG ones ?
ie. looks, quality, sound?
laz
"paul packer" <pac...@terrigal.net.au> wrote in message
news:3ba728db...@news.terrigal.net.au...
how would the sanyo brand interconnects at kmart compare to the dick smith
HG ones ?
ie. looks, quality, sound?
laz
Patric Scully
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Patric Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
>news:3ba751a6...@news.por.starwon.com.au...
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 09:48:17 +0800, "Laz" <larry31...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>snip <<
>
>**That is nothing like consensus. It is the opinion of some people.
>Interestingly, some of the people who can reliably pick different cables, do
>not actually financially benefit from doing so.
That is NOT the issue Trevor. So far, there is NO evidence of anyone
doing better than chance, i.e., 50-50 identifying audible differences
between such as Home Depot 12 guage and ANY of the expensive, exotic
cables, under bias controlled conditions, e.g. double or single blind.
This is fact, unless Dunlavy, Davis, Pinkerton, Nousaine, JJ, Pierce,
and all the other reputable audio engineers are totally mistaken or
telling lies.
>
>>
>> For speaker cables, even the most basic pvc insulated figure 8 or
>> "zip" cord of 12 AWG or lower is as good it gets.
>
>**Bad advice. SOME systems require the use of low inductance cables. 'zip'
>cord, is high inductance and unsuitable. It is wrong to generalise. It would
>be correct to state: "MOST systems will work satisfactorily, with 'zip'
>cord."
With the exception of extremely poorly designed amplifiers such as
Naim, please name some of the systems that don't work with this
product. To the best of my knowledge, the systems that have a problem
with "low" inductance cables are prime examples of atrocious
engineering. Please define what you mean by "high inductance", and
while you are at it, identify the systems that don't work with zip
cord.
>
>>
>> Thus far, no one has been able to identify audible differences between
>> these cables and the most expensive high-end options in tests that are
>> properly conducted, i.e., double blind.
>
>**Wrong.
This is merely proof by assertion, Trevor. You are wrong. Give
examples, please of where the above has not been true. And then
explain why they have not claimed the US$1,000 that is awaiting the
successful party who can achieve this.
>
> Check out the threads, and you
>> will be surprised by results. Look up: Nousaine, Fred Davis, Dick
>> Pierce, Howare Ferstler, JJ, Steware Pinkerton, John Dunlavy, Steve
>> Lamken of Beldon Cables and see what they report. And read the
>> responses from those who have a vested interest in making heaps of
>> money from the cable business.
>
>**99% of what is printed and said about audio cables is bullshit.
>Nevertheless, there is that pesky 1%......
>
>>
>> BTW, its ALL oxygen free copper, and its all four "nines", or 99.99%
>> pure. This is because the wire that these people use is just common or
>> garden copper cable, the same as is used in houses and all other
>> applications. The wire manufacturers DONT make/draw special wire for
>> the cable makers, the volumes would not justify even stopping a line
>> for even a few hours.
>
>**Wrong. SOME cable manufacturers do use specific materials and specifically
>drawn copper, for their products.
Which ones, Trevor? Merely to claim that SOME cable manufacturers, is
not evidence. I am inclined to accept the word of Steve Lamken, who as
you know is a senior engineer in the company that produces an enormous
range of cable for audio, video and communications in the US, and the
world - Beldon - on this issue, as well as the other persons quoted.
>That, of course, does not necessarily mean
>it sounds better. Some manufacturers use Silver, silver plated copper,
>carbon, mercury, gold, etc. Some cable manufacturers clearly use very
>expensive construction techniques, for their products. This, in part,
>explains the high prices. Naturally, that does not suggest better quality,
>or sound. As always: caveat emptor.
Which of these companies employ excellent audio engineering in
constructing their products? AFAIK, the only company making cables
that can claim this is DAL. Or do you challenge this, Trevor. The
likes of Audioquest produce some of the badly engineered stuff, still
consistent with the rubbish white paper on cable design that they put
out a few years ago, which you challenged when I referred it before.
Have you read a copy, yet? MIT, produce cable that is seriously
rubbish, and Monster, although not terribly expensive, produce speaker
cable that is identical to the stuff from Home Depot in the US,
leading one to assume that it is in fact the same cable.
Trevor, I have followed your posting record on rec.audio.high-end over
the last year, and you have had your arguments as above refuted
consistently. Why will you, an engineer, not reject the spurious
claims that come from non bias controlled situations. All of the
literature in the cognitive domain, when dealing with testing and
factor analyis, insist that one tests ONLY for the quantity or quality
under investigation. Ergo, when doing a listening test, the ONLY valid
and reliable test is in fact one that ONLY tests the hearing, and no
other stimuli may be allowed into the test situation. If they are, the
test is by definition uselessl. And as an engineer you should know
that when scientific, technical and engineering test are carried out,
only the quantity being tested is measured, and varied.
>More importantly: Listen for yourself.
True, but one should ONLY listen, without sight or coaching about what
is being heard. Anything else is quite literally useless. Absolutely
Again, Trevor, please produce the evidence for your claims above. The
evidence that you and others have singularly failed to do on other
newsgroups when challenged.
>
>
>--
>Trevor Wilson
>http://www.rageaudio.com.au
>
>
regards
Patric Scully
The Soundman
Ctn
Wow are you saying that a Jaycar interconnect is as good as say (im not
pushing it
when i say) some branded 200 dollar interconnect?
Peter
"Patric Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ba8c5c...@news.por.starwon.com.au...
Trevor Wilson
> Hi Trevor,
>
> Wow are you saying that a Jaycar interconnect is as good as say (im not
> pushing it
> when i say) some branded 200 dollar interconnect?
**I'm not sure if you are answering Patric, or me. I can certainly attest
that the Dick Smith/Jaycar stuff, is easily as good as SOME $200.00 cables.
JasonB
Jaycar/DS does this mean I go there, buy some banana plugs & wire and DIY,
or do they come already assembled.
Jason
(Hi-Fi Newbie)
Trevor Wilson
"JasonB" <jas...@sachs.com.au> wrote in message
news:9ob78n$c66me$1...@ID-105656.news.dfncis.de...
> Can someone just clear this up for me. When we say "interconnects" from
> Jaycar/DS does this mean I go there, buy some banana plugs & wire and DIY,
> or do they come already assembled.
**Interconnects are generally regarded as line level cables. ie: Cables
which do not carry large currents and are used between CD players, cassette
decks, preamp/power amps, etc. An interconnect is, by definition,
pre-assembled with RCA connectors. If is it referred to as 'interconnect
cable' then that may be sans RCA connectors.
Speaker cables are, well, speaker cables.
Richardson
jas...@sachs.com.au wrote on 20/9/01 8:44 AM:
Pre-assembled stuff they sell, for eg: DS' Harmony brand
JasonB
Reason I ask is that I look through the Jaycar 2001 Catalogue and I see
separate bits but not bits together. Guess I should go and do the urban
crawl and look for myself : )
Jason
JasonB
from my DVD to TV (S-video/scart) and as you say speaker cables are speaker
cables.
On that note does anybody have anything against the banana plugs that Jaycar
sell?
Jason
Trevor Wilson
> I think this has clearup my confusion. I have interconnect (Jaycar
actually)
> from my DVD to TV (S-video/scart) and as you say speaker cables are
speaker
> cables.
>
> On that note does anybody have anything against the banana plugs that
Jaycar
> sell?
**Yep. They're all crap. Well, except those locking ones. They're OK.
Over-priced, but OK.
I like the $3.00 ones from Farnell (well, that's how much they used to be).
Excellent connection properties and low price.
Richardson
Ohh, and im getting a diagonal checkerboard pattern which drifts in the one
direction over the image when I use my svideo connections. Is this just
cheap interconnects?
John
Trevor Wilson
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 05:45:04 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Patric Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:3ba751a6...@news.por.starwon.com.au...
> >> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 09:48:17 +0800, "Laz" <larry31...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>snip <<
>
>
>
>
> >
> >**That is nothing like consensus. It is the opinion of some people.
> >Interestingly, some of the people who can reliably pick different cables,
do
> >not actually financially benefit from doing so.
>
> That is NOT the issue Trevor. So far, there is NO evidence of anyone
> doing better than chance, i.e., 50-50 identifying audible differences
> between such as Home Depot 12 guage and ANY of the expensive, exotic
> cables, under bias controlled conditions, e.g. double or single blind.
**There is evidence, Patric. What there is not, is a rigorous, scientific
study. I have conducted enough single blind tests, to suggest that all
cables are not alike. Further, it is easily possible to prove
mathematically, that SOME speakers perform better with low inductance
cables, than with high inductance ones (zip cord).
Examine the following impedance curves:
www.rageaudio.com.au/kappa9.jpg
and
www.rageaudio.com.au/accu.jpg
Factor in the follwing inductance characteristics, combined with long(ish)
speaker cable runs.
12 AWG (Manhattan 39059) 0.25 uH/ft 24 pF/ft 0.0036 ohm/ft
12 AWG (Belden 8477) 0.28 uH/ft 23 pF/ft 0.004 ohm/ft
12 AWG (Belden 9718) 0.23 uH/ft 22 pF/ft 0.0033 ohm/ft
(lamp cord construction - similar to RS MegaCable)
MIT CVT 0.22 uH/ft 151 pF/ft 0.004 ohm/ft
(approx. 13 AWG)
Dunlavy Z6 0.025 uH/ft 645 pF/ft 0.0028 ohm/ft
(11 AWG)
Goertz MI-1 (13 AWG) 0.004 uH/ft 480 pF/ft 0.004 ohm/ft
(Alpha-Core) (about 0.1uH for 25 feet)
Kimber 16LPC 0.07 uH/ft 61 pF/ft 0.0025 ohm/ft
(11 AWG)
Twisted pair flat cable 0.04 uH/ft 685 pF/ft 0.0026 ohm/ft
(Amphenol Spectra-Twist 843-138-2601-064)
(11 AWG)
These numbers have been run by Fred Davis, who's credentials are beyond
reproach, unlike that of Steve Lampen, whose errors are legend on the
Usenet.
I can assure you, that audible differences will occur, between (say) the
Goertz Mi-1 and an equivalent 'zip' cable of reasonably long(ish) length,
when connected to an appropriately difficult speaker system. That is not
opinion. It is measureable, provable fact. Facts which Dunlavy, Pinkerton,
Johnson, Pierce and Kreuger do not deny.
> This is fact, unless Dunlavy, Davis, Pinkerton, Nousaine, JJ, Pierce,
> and all the other reputable audio engineers are totally mistaken or
> telling lies.
**They're not telling lies. Sometimes they leave out the entire story,
however.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> For speaker cables, even the most basic pvc insulated figure 8 or
> >> "zip" cord of 12 AWG or lower is as good it gets.
> >
> >**Bad advice. SOME systems require the use of low inductance cables.
'zip'
> >cord, is high inductance and unsuitable. It is wrong to generalise. It
would
> >be correct to state: "MOST systems will work satisfactorily, with 'zip'
> >cord."
>
> With the exception of extremely poorly designed amplifiers such as
> Naim, please name some of the systems that don't work with this
> product.
**Naim amplifiers, not only work satisfactorily with zip cable, they require
it. It is the other, low inductance, high capacitance ones, which Naim
products cannot cope with. The issue of speaker cables, has little to do
with the amplifier (with the almost sole exception of the incompetently
designed, Naim) and EVERYTHING to do with the length of the speaker cable,
it's inductance and resistance and the impedance characteristic of the
loudspeaker system.
To the best of my knowledge, the systems that have a problem
> with "low" inductance cables are prime examples of atrocious
> engineering.
**I agree. Which is why I am careful to mention loudspeakers and their
importance for choosing speaker cables.
Please define what you mean by "high inductance", and
> while you are at it, identify the systems that don't work with zip
> cord.
**Please see the above list. Goertz is (very) low inductance. Zip cable is
high inductance. Everything else, is somewhere in the middle. Only Naim
products (AFAIK) cannot cope with low inductance cables. Pretty much
everything works with zip cable. Some speakers perform poorly with long
lengths of zip cable, due to high frequency attenuation.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Thus far, no one has been able to identify audible differences between
> >> these cables and the most expensive high-end options in tests that are
> >> properly conducted, i.e., double blind.
> >
> >**Wrong.
>
> This is merely proof by assertion, Trevor. You are wrong.
**So, you are proving me wrong by YOUR assertion? Stalemate.
Give
> examples, please of where the above has not been true. And then
> explain why they have not claimed the US$1,000 that is awaiting the
> successful party who can achieve this.
**US$1,000.00 would not even cover the costs associated with such a trip.
Further, if you read into the challenge, you will note that any measurable
differences betwen cables, automatically invalidate the test. It is
trivially simple to show that low inductance cables, can measure better than
high inductance cables, when connected to some loudspeakers.
>
> >
> > Check out the threads, and you
> >> will be surprised by results. Look up: Nousaine, Fred Davis, Dick
> >> Pierce, Howare Ferstler, JJ, Steware Pinkerton, John Dunlavy, Steve
> >> Lamken of Beldon Cables and see what they report. And read the
> >> responses from those who have a vested interest in making heaps of
> >> money from the cable business.
> >
> >**99% of what is printed and said about audio cables is bullshit.
> >Nevertheless, there is that pesky 1%......
> >
> >>
> >> BTW, its ALL oxygen free copper, and its all four "nines", or 99.99%
> >> pure. This is because the wire that these people use is just common or
> >> garden copper cable, the same as is used in houses and all other
> >> applications. The wire manufacturers DONT make/draw special wire for
> >> the cable makers, the volumes would not justify even stopping a line
> >> for even a few hours.
> >
> >**Wrong. SOME cable manufacturers do use specific materials and
specifically
> >drawn copper, for their products.
>
> Which ones, Trevor?
**NBS
Apature.
Tara Labs.
Goertz.
Nordost.
There are many others. These products (and many others) utilise materials
and construction techniques, which are unique to specialist audio cables.
They are not seen in any other industry.
Merely to claim that SOME cable manufacturers, is
> not evidence. I am inclined to accept the word of Steve Lamken, who as
> you know is a senior engineer in the company that produces an enormous
> range of cable for audio, video and communications in the US, and the
> world - Beldon - on this issue, as well as the other persons quoted.
**YIKES! Read up on some of the nonsense sprouted by Lampen. He is a SALES
ENGINEER, not a proper engineer. If he is, then he needs a serious refresher
course. He has shown time and time again, that he lacks fundamental
understanding of cable practice, generally and Belden products,
specifically. I know, because I approached him about some Belden products.
>
> >That, of course, does not necessarily mean
> >it sounds better. Some manufacturers use Silver, silver plated copper,
> >carbon, mercury, gold, etc. Some cable manufacturers clearly use very
> >expensive construction techniques, for their products. This, in part,
> >explains the high prices. Naturally, that does not suggest better
quality,
> >or sound. As always: caveat emptor.
>
> Which of these companies employ excellent audio engineering in
> constructing their products?
**IMO, Goertz manufacture the finest speaker cable on the planet. It is
specifically designed to address the issue of low inductance and low
resistance. It meets both targets admirably. Nordost does a reasonable job
of this too. DAL are also excellent.
AFAIK, the only company making cables
> that can claim this is DAL. Or do you challenge this, Trevor.
**Not at all. The DAL cables possess excellent characteristics. Not up to
the standards of Goertz, but excellent, nevertheless.
The
> likes of Audioquest produce some of the badly engineered stuff, still
> consistent with the rubbish white paper on cable design that they put
> out a few years ago, which you challenged when I referred it before.
> Have you read a copy, yet?
**Nope.
MIT, produce cable that is seriously
> rubbish,
**MIT produce quite a few cables, which are rubbish.
and Monster, although not terribly expensive, produce speaker
> cable that is identical to the stuff from Home Depot in the US,
> leading one to assume that it is in fact the same cable.
**It probably is. AFAIK, Monster manufacture nothing. They buy product which
is manufactured and branded to their requirements. However, whilst some
Monster products are very ordinary, some of their products are excellent.
>
> Trevor, I have followed your posting record on rec.audio.high-end over
> the last year, and you have had your arguments as above refuted
> consistently.
**I doubt that, very much. In the first instance, I have not posted to RAHE,
for at least 12 months. The nature of that group precludes the use of my
cable internet connection. Prior to that, I was a regular contributor. I
welcome ANY references, where you can demonstrate that my opinions of low
inductance cables, combined with certain loudspeakers, ahs been shown to be
incorrect.
Why will you, an engineer, not reject the spurious
> claims that come from non bias controlled situations.
**First off, I'm not an engineer. Trevor Lees is an engineer. I am a
(qualified) tech. Whilst I don't reject non-bias controlled experiments, I
don't automatically accept them, either. A bias controlled situation, is
often a good place to start, so that a DBT may be instigated. I have
performed some informal (but blind) tests on calbes, which have led me to
beleive that we are all missing something. I have no idea what it is,
however. My test was simple. I loaned two sets of (interconnect) cables to
some 20 or 30 people, for them to use in their systems, for several days.
Both cables are sealed at the ends.
Both cables look identical from the outside.
Both cables use identical insulation and conductor area.
Both measure identically, WRT inductance, capacitance and resistance.
One cable uses silver plated conductors.
Around 90% of listeners prefer the silver plated cables. I have no idea why.
All of the
> literature in the cognitive domain, when dealing with testing and
> factor analyis, insist that one tests ONLY for the quantity or quality
> under investigation. Ergo, when doing a listening test, the ONLY valid
> and reliable test is in fact one that ONLY tests the hearing, and no
> other stimuli may be allowed into the test situation. If they are, the
> test is by definition uselessl. And as an engineer you should know
> that when scientific, technical and engineering test are carried out,
> only the quantity being tested is measured, and varied.
**Agreed.
>
> >More importantly: Listen for yourself.
>
> True, but one should ONLY listen, without sight or coaching about what
> is being heard. Anything else is quite literally useless. Absolutely
**Agreed.
>
> Again, Trevor, please produce the evidence for your claims above. The
> evidence that you and others have singularly failed to do on other
> newsgroups when challenged.
**If I had someting to sell (which I don't), then I may be persuaded to
instigate some exhaustive (and expensive) tests. As it is, there is little
financial incentive for me to do so. I just carry on, in my own way.
JasonB
right. Is this what your talking about the Deltron 4mm, Wide Cable Entry.
The Gold Screw Termination ones are at most $3.79 ea, which seems to fit
with your "used to be $3.00" line.
Jason
remarkabel
Patric Scully wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 05:45:04 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Patric Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:3ba751a6...@news.por.starwon.com.au...
> >> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 09:48:17 +0800, "Laz" <larry31...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>snip <<
>
> >
> >**That is nothing like consensus. It is the opinion of some people.
> >Interestingly, some of the people who can reliably pick different cables, do
> >not actually financially benefit from doing so.
>
> That is NOT the issue Trevor. So far, there is NO evidence of anyone
> doing better than chance, i.e., 50-50 identifying audible differences
> between such as Home Depot 12 guage and ANY of the expensive, exotic
> cables, under bias controlled conditions, e.g. double or single blind.
> This is fact, unless Dunlavy, Davis, Pinkerton, Nousaine, JJ, Pierce,
> and all the other reputable audio engineers are totally mistaken or
> telling lies.
Hang on, Patric. How do you (or Dunlavy et al) prove negative? I think what you
mean to say is that there is no extant evidence of such. There may well be
evidence that you (and Dunlavy et al) are unaware of. However I am really only
being petty because I agree substantively with what you say....sorry :-)
Laz
dear trevor and patric,
thank you both for the very intersting points of view
i've got some more reading to do...
patric-from what i read in your post you suggest that the radio shack
(tandy) gold cable is a good interconnect to use ?
better than DSE harmony gold ?
on a related point-what brands of video (RG59/RG6) have either of you used ?
I have been looking at a variety of cables to run about 12m between a dvd
and a projector
i can get belden rg59 cable and solder on neotech 75 ohm pca plugs
or i get get canare brand rg59 cable with crimp on 75 ohm rcap plugs
i have been told the canare is better 9 though it costs more), also that the
crimping gives a better connection than soldering.
what are your thoughts on this ?
laz
Laz
i was looking at www.tandy.com.au
which ones are radioshack gold cables ?
they seem to be tandy brand -is that the same ?
http://www.tandy.com.au/shop/viewproduct.asp?sku=1004085&sn=tva
http://www.tandy.com.au/shop/viewproduct.asp?sku=1005398&sn=tva
http://www.tandy.com.au/shop/viewproduct.asp?sku=1004083&sn=tva
http://www.tandy.com.au/shop/viewproduct.asp?sku=1004086&sn=tva
thanks
laz
"Laz" <larry31...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_Jjq7.1138$cu4....@ozemail.com.au...
Welly
still the most important component in the hi fi chain. Join the 21st century
(or even the late 20th century). the australian point of view seems to be
that "If it measures good it must be good".
give me a fucking break
I'm glad I didn't buy ME when I was buying an amplifier, or else I might be
spouting the same shit !
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:070p7.57027$bY5.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Martin Porter" <m.po...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:iP_o7.16318$c5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > Dick Smith and Jaycar both sell their own OFC speaker cable at various
> price
> > points. I'm wondering if anyone out there has tried them and has any
> > comments they care to share. Are they worth trying out? How do they
> > compare to brand-name "audiophile" speaker cable?
>
> **There is very little difference between speaker cables, in most systems.
> Money is almost always better spent elsewhere.
>
>
> --
> Grumblebum
> http://www.rageaudio.com.au
>
>
>
Welly
> Money is almost always better spent elsewhere.
This is from representattives of a country that still thinks speakers are
still the most important component in the hi fi chain. Join the 21st century
(or even the late 20th century). the australian point of view seems to be
that "If it measures good it must be good".
give me a fucking break
I'm glad I didn't buy ME when I was buying an amplifier, or else I might be
spouting the same shit !
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:FB0p7.57204$bY5.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Patric Scully
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Patric Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
>news:3ba8c5c...@news.por.starwon.com.au...
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 05:45:04 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> snip heaps
>**There is evidence, Patric. What there is not, is a rigorous, scientific
>study. I have conducted enough single blind tests, to suggest that all
>cables are not alike. Further, it is easily possible to prove
>mathematically, that SOME speakers perform better with low inductance
>cables, than with high inductance ones (zip cord).
Trevor, AFAIK, no one is claiming that differences don't exist, and
where they do that they can be measured. The issue is whether they are
are audible in bias controlled, single factor LISTENING tests. So far,
there is NO evidence that as stated, differences between 12 AWG
standard zip cord and exotic high end can reliably be identified in a
bias controlled single factor listening test. In the cases where the
"I can hear differences" crowd agree to participate in such tests,
their ability to identify these differences magically disappears when
the visual and cognitave stimuli are removed. Then the argument
becomes "But differences can be heard with SOTA equipment". However,
no manufacturere of exotic cables has either specified such a system
for this purpose or been willing to participate in a bias controlled
single factor listening test. Vide the meta thread on this topic on
rahe. Which is not to say that people hear differences. They do, even
when NO difference exists. Even John Dunlavy admits to hearing these
differences, where actually NONE exists. Expectation effect, Trevor,
something that is widely available in Behavioral Science since the
30's, to my certain knowledge.
>Factor in the follwing inductance characteristics, combined with long(ish)
>speaker cable runs.
>
>12 AWG (Manhattan 39059) 0.25 uH/ft 24 pF/ft 0.0036 ohm/ft
>
>12 AWG (Belden 8477) 0.28 uH/ft 23 pF/ft 0.004 ohm/ft
>
>12 AWG (Belden 9718) 0.23 uH/ft 22 pF/ft 0.0033 ohm/ft
>(lamp cord construction - similar to RS MegaCable)
>
>MIT CVT 0.22 uH/ft 151 pF/ft 0.004 ohm/ft
> (approx. 13 AWG)
>
>Dunlavy Z6 0.025 uH/ft 645 pF/ft 0.0028 ohm/ft
> (11 AWG)
>
>Goertz MI-1 (13 AWG) 0.004 uH/ft 480 pF/ft 0.004 ohm/ft
> (Alpha-Core) (about 0.1uH for 25 feet)
>
>Kimber 16LPC 0.07 uH/ft 61 pF/ft 0.0025 ohm/ft
> (11 AWG)
>
>Twisted pair flat cable 0.04 uH/ft 685 pF/ft 0.0026 ohm/ft
> (Amphenol Spectra-Twist 843-138-2601-064)
> (11 AWG)
>
>These numbers have been run by Fred Davis, who's credentials are beyond
>reproach,
Audible differences, identified in bias controlled listening tests?
NOT.
BTW, the figures you give for series inductance are in the less than
micro Henry range. Given that these cables are connected to speakers
with inductance values in their crossover networks and voice coils
that are many many orders of magnitude greater, in the milli Henry
range. Just like the loop resistance of cables is miniscule compared
to the resistance of the inductors and voice coils. Check out the
actual figures demonstrated by Dick Pierce on many occasions, which
show differences in SPL of hundredths and thousands of a dB, are you
seriously suggesting that these differences can be heard? At the
lengths of cable one finds even in an abnormal domestic situation?
Like with 10 to 20 metre speaker cable runs?
>unlike that of Steve Lampen, whose errors are legend on the
>Usenet.
Interesting that he is a credible member of the AES, if as you state
his errors are legend. Examples, please?
>I can assure you, that audible differences will occur, between (say) the
>Goertz Mi-1 and an equivalent 'zip' cable of reasonably long(ish) length,
>when connected to an appropriately difficult speaker system.
You state this as a hypothetis, using the epiteth (say). When was this
demonstrated in a bias controlled listening test? You appear to be the
only one in possession of this information.
>That is not opinion. It is measureable, provable fact. Facts which Dunlavy, Pinkerton,
>Johnson, Pierce and Kreuger do not deny.
Measurable, provable, yes, no one denies this. What is denied is that
thus far no one has done better than chance in identifying AUDIBLE
differences in bias controlled conditions. And they state this ALL the
time. Check out what they actually say, and stop trying to confuse the
issue introducing measureablity. It is not the issue, audibility is.
>**They're not telling lies. Sometimes they leave out the entire story,
>however.
where is your evidence for this.
>**Naim amplifiers, not only work satisfactorily with zip cable, they require
>it. It is the other, low inductance, high capacitance ones, which Naim
>products cannot cope with. The issue of speaker cables, has little to do
>with the amplifier (with the almost sole exception of the incompetently
>designed, Naim) and EVERYTHING to do with the length of the speaker cable,
>it's inductance and resistance and the impedance characteristic of the
>loudspeaker system.
Agreed, my mistake.
> Please define what you mean by "high inductance", and
>> while you are at it, identify the systems that don't work with zip
>> cord.
>
>**Please see the above list. Goertz is (very) low inductance. Zip cable is
>high inductance.
As I stated above, cables cannot be classified as "high" inductance
when connected to a loudspeaker system. There contribution to the loop
impedance is miniscule, even where there is NO inductor in circuit.
The inductance of voice coils that I have measured is many many orders
of magnitude greater that that of a cable. And the issue is
AUDIBILITY, not measureability.
>Pretty much
>everything works with zip cable. Some speakers perform poorly with long
>lengths of zip cable, due to high frequency attenuation.
Which speakers, at what lengths of cable, and what level of high
frequency attenuation? Please be specific, and the issue remains
whether the effects are audible, in bias controlled tests.
>> This is merely proof by assertion, Trevor. You are wrong.
>
>**So, you are proving me wrong by YOUR assertion?
It is not an assertion. It is not possible to PROVE a negative. When
doing testing, when analysing the data one does not try to prove the
null hypothetis, merely find whether to accept or reject it. In this
case, the null hypothetis is that difference between cables of similar
size are not audible. It is conceded that audible differences can be
observed between 12 AWG cable and 24AWG cables, at lengths that would
be considered reasonable in a domestic audio situation. But these
differences are audible differences in SPL, given that for a
particular cable configuration, such as zip or figure 8 as one would
refer to it in Australia, the significant difference is in the
resistance. Series inductance and shunt capaciitance vary minimally
between the thick and the thin, and produce effects that are not
audible under bias controlled conditions.
>
>**US$1,000.00 would not even cover the costs associated with such a trip.
>Further, if you read into the challenge, you will note that any measurable
>differences betwen cables, automatically invalidate the test. It is
>trivially simple to show that low inductance cables, can measure better than
>high inductance cables, when connected to some loudspeakers.
If one can identify audible differences that are statistically
significant under bias controlled single factor listening tests, then
it is an easy $US1000. But so far, no one has been able to claim it,
as you obviously know.
No argument about measuring differences. As you know, my position is
that if a factor exists, it can be measured. At least in the domain of
Newtonian physics.
>> Which ones, Trevor?
>
>**NBS
>Apature.
>Tara Labs.
>Goertz.
>Nordost.
>
>There are many others. These products (and many others) utilise materials
>and construction techniques, which are unique to specialist audio cables.
>They are not seen in any other industry.
Some facts, at last.
>
>**YIKES! Read up on some of the nonsense sprouted by Lampen. He is a SALES
>ENGINEER, not a proper engineer.
So you contend that sales engineers are not proper engineers. This is
a serious error of fact and an insult to such people. In fact, every
sales engineer that ever worked for me, or with whom I came into
contact during my many years in industrial marketing, was a qualified
engineer. If they were not qualified, they were referred to as
Technical Sales Representative. This is in a career in industrial
marketing that went from 1971 to 1988, in Europe and the US.
> If he is, then he needs a serious refresher
>course. He has shown time and time again, that he lacks fundamental
>understanding of cable practice, generally and Belden products,
>specifically.
So why is he still employed by BELDON, and why is he apparently a
respected member of the AES?
>I know, because I approached him about some Belden products.
More assertions, Trevor. Why not quote specific examples, if you can.
>
>**IMO, Goertz manufacture the finest speaker cable on the planet. It is
>specifically designed to address the issue of low inductance and low
>resistance. It meets both targets admirably. Nordost does a reasonable job
>of this too.
So why do they refuse to subject their products to proper bias
controlled listening tests. If their products do produce audible
differences compared with Home Depot 12 awg zip cord, then this would
be a major asset in their marketing communications. For they would
indeed be the first to demonstrate such a quality.
>DAL are also excellent.
Dunlavy claims that they are the ONLY company making cables that are
properly engineered in accordance with physical realities - see the
DAL website. He also claims that so far no one can reliably identify
audible differences between his cables and comparably sized zip cord
in bias controlled tests. He also admits to "hearing differences" in
listening tests, even where the same cable was being tested.
As a marketing person, if I had a product that actually met the claims
that the likes of Canare, Nordost, Goertz et al make, I would welcome
the opportunity to demonstrate this. Particularly when the opportunity
exists to have head to head listening tests with such as DAL products.
>**Not at all. The DAL cables possess excellent characteristics. Not up to
>the standards of Goertz, but excellent, nevertheless.
So why have they not accepted the open challenge to test them against
the cables produced by DAL.
In my professional opinion, they have not accepted this challenge
because they know that there claims would not stand up to the rigor of
bias controlled listening tests. Otherwise why pass up such an
opportunity to demonstrate superiority over a competitor such as DAL.
>**I doubt that, very much. In the first instance, I have not posted to RAHE,
>for at least 12 months. The nature of that group precludes the use of my
>cable internet connection. Prior to that, I was a regular contributor.
Must be confusing r.a.h.e with r.a.tech. Apologies
> I welcome ANY references, where you can demonstrate that my opinions of low
>inductance cables, combined with certain loudspeakers, ahs been shown to be
>incorrect.
Given that there are no documented cases of people identifying audible
differences between cables of similar size, i.e. similar resistance,
in bias controlled listening tests, it would seem that the burden of
proof rests with you who asserts that such differences are audible.
>
> Why will you, an engineer, not reject the spurious
>> claims that come from non bias controlled situations.
>**First off, I'm not an engineer. Trevor Lees is an engineer. I am a
>(qualified) tech.
What on earth has Trevor Lees got to do with this discussion?
>Whilst I don't reject non-bias controlled experiments, I
>don't automatically accept them, either. A bias controlled situation, is
>often a good place to start, so that a DBT may be instigated.
Trevor, Double Blind Testing is the most stringent form of bias
controlled testing, by definition. Single blind is partially bias
controlled. Any other form of testing, that has other stimuli than
those that impinge on the ears, is by definition not bias controlled.
Such tests are neither valid or reliable, and for the purposes of
fact, they are absolutely useless. And that is NOT an assertion, it is
something that is drilled into every one that ever had to carry out
research that required valid, reliable results on which people could
depend.
>I have performed some informal (but blind) tests on calbes, which have led me to
>beleive that we are all missing something. I have no idea what it is,
>however. My test was simple. I loaned two sets of (interconnect) cables to
>some 20 or 30 people, for them to use in their systems, for several days.
>
>Both cables are sealed at the ends.
>Both cables look identical from the outside.
>Both cables use identical insulation and conductor area.
>Both measure identically, WRT inductance, capacitance and resistance.
>One cable uses silver plated conductors.
>Around 90% of listeners prefer the silver plated cables. I have no idea why.
None of the above qualifies as a bias controlled listening test. As
such the outcomes are neither valid or reliable and are meaningless in
any discussion of fact. It is well proven that people will claim to
hear differences between cables, even when no cable change has taken
place in a test at all.
BTW, this eliminates ALL the arguments about SOTA equipment, switching
effects, etc.
It is know as expectation effect, of which the placebo effect is one
well known example.
>--
>Trevor Wilson
>http://www.rageaudio.com.au
Patric Scully
wrote:
>snip
>
>dear trevor and patric,
>
>thank you both for the very intersting points of view
>
>i've got some more reading to do...
>
>
>patric-from what i read in your post you suggest that the radio shack
>(tandy) gold cable is a good interconnect to use ?
>better than DSE harmony gold ?
Not so you would hear any difference, according to what I have heard.
Nor would I expect any audible differences. The main advantage is that
they are well engineered and constructed, and as such will stand up to
normal use better than cheaper items that have been know to fail
mechanically due to shoddy materials. I use the Radio Shack Gold
interconnects when I can get them, for the reasons stated. And I have
NOT heard any difference between them and other substantially more
expensive options.
>on a related point-what brands of video (RG59/RG6) have either of you used ?
Just what is available at Jaycar or Altronics. If cables are made to
the specification that goes with the type, no difference should be
identifiable.
>
>I have been looking at a variety of cables to run about 12m between a dvd
>and a projector
>i can get belden rg59 cable and solder on neotech 75 ohm pca plugs
>or i get get canare brand rg59 cable with crimp on 75 ohm rcap plugs
>i have been told the canare is better 9 though it costs more),
Better in what way? IMO, you should go with the Beldon cable. If it is
good enough for the communications and military industries, it should
be good enough for your needs. Save your money.
>also that the crimping gives a better connection than soldering.
Not true. When implemented correctly, both give gas tight connections
between conductor and connector. Crimping is preferred in most cases
because it can be done more quickly than soldering. The only snag is
that the cost of getting the correct equipment for such as your needs
far outweighs the cost of time spent soldering.
I have been involved with cable termination for the last 41 years,
light current and heavy current, low, high and extra high voltage
applications. We used to solder the joints, then technology allowed us
to use crimping equipment. Both worked equally well, crimping cost
much less due to time saved, plus the skill level required for
crimping is way below that required for a successful solder joint.
>
>what are your thoughts on this ?
>
>laz
>
>
>
>
regards
Patric Scully
The Soundman
Patric Scully
wrote:
>patric
>i was looking at www.tandy.com.au
>
>which ones are radioshack gold cables ?
>they seem to be tandy brand -is that the same ?
In Australia I don't think so. TANDY Australia severed relations with
Radio Shack some four or five years ago. Also, there are no TANDY
shops in the Pilbara where I currently live so I don't know what the
current state of play is with their products. For myself, I choose to
use interconnects that are identfied as Radio Shack. But if the TANDY
ones are made to the same specification as Radio Shack, they will
indeed be o.k. to use.
>http://www.tandy.com.au/shop/viewproduct.asp?sku=1004085&sn=tva
>
>http://www.tandy.com.au/shop/viewproduct.asp?sku=1005398&sn=tva
>http://www.tandy.com.au/shop/viewproduct.asp?sku=1004083&sn=tva
>http://www.tandy.com.au/shop/viewproduct.asp?sku=1004086&sn=tva
>
>thanks
>
>laz
Patric Scully
wrote:
>
>
>Patric Scully wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 05:45:04 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
>> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Patric Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
>> >news:3ba751a6...@news.por.starwon.com.au...
>> >> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 09:48:17 +0800, "Laz" <larry31...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>snip <<
>>
>> >
>> >**That is nothing like consensus. It is the opinion of some people.
>> >Interestingly, some of the people who can reliably pick different cables, do
>> >not actually financially benefit from doing so.
>>
>> That is NOT the issue Trevor. So far, there is NO evidence of anyone
>> doing better than chance, i.e., 50-50 identifying audible differences
>> between such as Home Depot 12 guage and ANY of the expensive, exotic
>> cables, under bias controlled conditions, e.g. double or single blind.
>> This is fact, unless Dunlavy, Davis, Pinkerton, Nousaine, JJ, Pierce,
>> and all the other reputable audio engineers are totally mistaken or
>> telling lies.
>
>Hang on, Patric. How do you (or Dunlavy et al) prove negative?
As you will see in my response to Trevor's recent post, we don't
because we cannot.
> I think what you mean to say is that there is no extant evidence of such.
Yes, that is true.
>There may well be evidence that you (and Dunlavy et al) are unaware of.
This is possible, but a reasonable man (sic) would say that if it were
so, we would likely have heard about it by now, n'cest pas?
>However I am really only being petty because I agree substantively with what you say....sorry :-)
This is a newsgroup, after all, and you are not being offensive IMO.
No problem
Trevor Wilson
"Welly" <wels...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:4Glq7.22560$c5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > **There is very little difference between speaker cables, in most
systems.
> > Money is almost always better spent elsewhere.
>
> This is from representattives of a country that still thinks speakers are
> still the most important component in the hi fi chain.
**Er, that's because, along with the room, they are. Anyone who thinks
otherwise, is an idiot. BTW: Australia is not the only country which thinks
this way. It is a universally accepted truism.
Join the 21st century
> (or even the late 20th century). the australian point of view seems to be
> that "If it measures good it must be good".
**Not at all. If it measures good, it has the CHANCE of sounding good
(accurate). A products which measures badly, can never sound good
(accurate).
>
> give me a fucking break
**OK.
>
> I'm glad I didn't buy ME when I was buying an amplifier, or else I might
be
> spouting the same shit !
**Perhaps. Then again, maybe you've missed on buying one of the finest
amplifiers available today. Of course, if you've performed an honest, side
by side listening test, with an ME compared to a competitive product, you
have obviously made the right decision. Gongratulations.
Trevor Wilson
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 00:52:04 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Patric Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:3ba8c5c...@news.por.starwon.com.au...
> >> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 05:45:04 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> >> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> snip heaps
>
>
>
> >**There is evidence, Patric. What there is not, is a rigorous, scientific
> >study. I have conducted enough single blind tests, to suggest that all
> >cables are not alike. Further, it is easily possible to prove
> >mathematically, that SOME speakers perform better with low inductance
> >cables, than with high inductance ones (zip cord).
>
> Trevor, AFAIK, no one is claiming that differences don't exist, and
> where they do that they can be measured. The issue is whether they are
> are audible in bias controlled, single factor LISTENING tests. So far,
> there is NO evidence that as stated, differences between 12 AWG
> standard zip cord and exotic high end can reliably be identified in a
> bias controlled single factor listening test.
**Well, Patric, I'm telling that there is evidence. What there is not, is a
well documented and controlled listening test. There is evidence, however.
In the cases where the
> "I can hear differences" crowd agree to participate in such tests,
> their ability to identify these differences magically disappears when
> the visual and cognitave stimuli are removed. Then the argument
> becomes "But differences can be heard with SOTA equipment". However,
> no manufacturere of exotic cables has either specified such a system
> for this purpose or been willing to participate in a bias controlled
> single factor listening test. Vide the meta thread on this topic on
> rahe. Which is not to say that people hear differences. They do, even
> when NO difference exists. Even John Dunlavy admits to hearing these
> differences, where actually NONE exists. Expectation effect, Trevor,
> something that is widely available in Behavioral Science since the
> 30's, to my certain knowledge.
**No argument from me.
>
>
>
> >Factor in the follwing inductance characteristics, combined with
long(ish)
> >speaker cable runs.
> >
> >12 AWG (Manhattan 39059) 0.25 uH/ft 24 pF/ft 0.0036 ohm/ft
> >
> >12 AWG (Belden 8477) 0.28 uH/ft 23 pF/ft 0.004 ohm/ft
> >
> >12 AWG (Belden 9718) 0.23 uH/ft 22 pF/ft 0.0033 ohm/ft
> >(lamp cord construction - similar to RS MegaCable)
> >
> >MIT CVT 0.22 uH/ft 151 pF/ft 0.004 ohm/ft
> > (approx. 13 AWG)
> >
> >Dunlavy Z6 0.025 uH/ft 645 pF/ft 0.0028 ohm/ft
> > (11 AWG)
> >
> >Goertz MI-1 (13 AWG) 0.004 uH/ft 480 pF/ft 0.004 ohm/ft
> > (Alpha-Core) (about 0.1uH for 25 feet)
> >
> >Kimber 16LPC 0.07 uH/ft 61 pF/ft 0.0025 ohm/ft
> > (11 AWG)
> >
> >Twisted pair flat cable 0.04 uH/ft 685 pF/ft 0.0026 ohm/ft
> > (Amphenol Spectra-Twist 843-138-2601-064)
> > (11 AWG)
> >
> >These numbers have been run by Fred Davis, who's credentials are beyond
> >reproach,
>
> Audible differences, identified in bias controlled listening tests?
>
> NOT.
**Nope. Tell you what: You pay for a test and we'll see what happens.
>
> BTW, the figures you give for series inductance are in the less than
> micro Henry range.
**Yes.
Given that these cables are connected to speakers
> with inductance values in their crossover networks and voice coils
> that are many many orders of magnitude greater, in the milli Henry
> range. Just like the loop resistance of cables is miniscule compared
> to the resistance of the inductors and voice coils. Check out the
> actual figures demonstrated by Dick Pierce on many occasions, which
> show differences in SPL of hundredths and thousands of a dB, are you
> seriously suggesting that these differences can be heard?
**Sure. I note that you have snipped my references. I'll re-post them, at
this point and commend you to look at them, with scientific calculator in
hand. Punch in the numbers, then get back to me.
www.rageaudio.com.au/kappa9.jpg
Just to referesh your memory:
XL = 2 * pi * f * L
Where:
XL is Inductive reactance, in Ohms
f is frequency, in Hz
L is inductance in Henries
Let's plug in a 20 foot (yeah I know) speaker cable. Connect it to the
second example, I quoted. You'll note an impedance dip of around 0.55 Ohms
at around 16kHz. From our equation, above, you'll note that the inductive
reactance of Belden 8477 is around 0.56 Ohms. That equates to a 6dB drop in
output at 16kHz. Do you think that will be audible to a critical listener? I
do.
Now let's look at the Goertz.
It's inductive reactance, over 20 feet, is around 0.008 Ohms. That equates
to an inaudible drop at 16kHz.
So, Patric, it appears low inductance speaker cables are useful for some
loudspeakers. What say you?
At the
> lengths of cable one finds even in an abnormal domestic situation?
**I have found long(ish) runs, using difficult speakers, in many situations.
Where possible, however, I attempt to shorten the cable lengths, as much as
possible, however. 20 feet is unusual.
> Like with 10 to 20 metre speaker cable runs?
**Very rare, but not unheard of. In these instances, the value of low
inductance cables will be even more pronounced. Almost any electrostatic
speaker would demonstrate severe HF loss, with such runs of regular zip
cable.
>
> >unlike that of Steve Lampen, whose errors are legend on the
> >Usenet.
>
> Interesting that he is a credible member of the AES, if as you state
> his errors are legend. Examples, please?
**Sadly, my old outgoing posts were lost in crash, some time ago.
Nevertheless, if you read his posts, you will note he shows a fundamental
lack of UNDERSTANDING of the issues surrounding cables. He can parrot book
information, quite satisfactorily and he certainly knows how to read the
characteristics of the Belden range of cables. Just read his posts with a
critical view and you'll see what I mean.
>
>
>
> >I can assure you, that audible differences will occur, between (say) the
> >Goertz Mi-1 and an equivalent 'zip' cable of reasonably long(ish) length,
> >when connected to an appropriately difficult speaker system.
>
> You state this as a hypothetis, using the epiteth (say).
**Read the figures, quoted above. This ain't no hypothesis. It is measurable
and easily audible to a critical listener (and probably a goodly few not so
critical ones).
When was this
> demonstrated in a bias controlled listening test?
**With a 6dB drop at 16kHz, I can't say that I'd even bother with a bias
controlled listening test. Would you?
You appear to be the
> only one in possession of this information.
**I seriously doubt it. Present my figures to Pierce, Pinkerton, Kreuger and
Nousaine. Then ask them. I know what their answer will be. I know, because
they have already agreed with me. Such a loudspeaker system, will demand the
use of low inductance cables.
>
> >That is not opinion. It is measureable, provable fact. Facts which
Dunlavy, Pinkerton,
> >Johnson, Pierce and Kreuger do not deny.
>
> Measurable, provable, yes, no one denies this. What is denied is that
> thus far no one has done better than chance in identifying AUDIBLE
> differences in bias controlled conditions. And they state this ALL the
> time. Check out what they actually say, and stop trying to confuse the
> issue introducing measureablity. It is not the issue, audibility is.
**If you had taken the time to dust off your scientific calculator, you
might have saved me all this nonsense. You think a 6dB drop at 16kHz is
inaudible?
>
>
> >**They're not telling lies. Sometimes they leave out the entire story,
> >however.
>
> where is your evidence for this.
**I just showed it to you. SOME loudspeaker systems demand the use of low
inductance cables.
>
>
>
> >**Naim amplifiers, not only work satisfactorily with zip cable, they
require
> >it. It is the other, low inductance, high capacitance ones, which Naim
> >products cannot cope with. The issue of speaker cables, has little to do
> >with the amplifier (with the almost sole exception of the incompetently
> >designed, Naim) and EVERYTHING to do with the length of the speaker
cable,
> >it's inductance and resistance and the impedance characteristic of the
> >loudspeaker system.
>
> Agreed, my mistake.
>
> > Please define what you mean by "high inductance", and
> >> while you are at it, identify the systems that don't work with zip
> >> cord.
> >
> >**Please see the above list. Goertz is (very) low inductance. Zip cable
is
> >high inductance.
> As I stated above, cables cannot be classified as "high" inductance
> when connected to a loudspeaker system.
**Of course they can. Goertz is low inductance, whilst zip cable is about as
high as a standard cable can get (inductance-wise). Therefore, zip cable is
high inducatance.
There contribution to the loop
> impedance is miniscule, even where there is NO inductor in circuit.
**I see. Did you even bother to perform any calculations, with the speakers
I provided references to? If not, why not?
> The inductance of voice coils that I have measured is many many orders
> of magnitude greater that that of a cable. And the issue is
> AUDIBILITY, not measureability.
**I think 6dB at 16kHz is audible to quite a number of listeners, don't you?
Hell, 1dB at 16kHz would be audible to a critical listener.
>
>
> >Pretty much
> >everything works with zip cable. Some speakers perform poorly with long
> >lengths of zip cable, due to high frequency attenuation.
>
> Which speakers, at what lengths of cable, and what level of high
> frequency attenuation? Please be specific, and the issue remains
> whether the effects are audible, in bias controlled tests.
**I have been specific. I even provided references (which you conveniently
snipped). Is that enough, or do you want more?
>
>
> >> This is merely proof by assertion, Trevor. You are wrong.
> >
> >**So, you are proving me wrong by YOUR assertion?
>
> It is not an assertion. It is not possible to PROVE a negative. When
> doing testing, when analysing the data one does not try to prove the
> null hypothetis, merely find whether to accept or reject it. In this
> case, the null hypothetis is that difference between cables of similar
> size are not audible. It is conceded that audible differences can be
> observed between 12 AWG cable and 24AWG cables, at lengths that would
> be considered reasonable in a domestic audio situation. But these
> differences are audible differences in SPL, given that for a
> particular cable configuration, such as zip or figure 8 as one would
> refer to it in Australia, the significant difference is in the
> resistance. Series inductance and shunt capaciitance vary minimally
> between the thick and the thin, and produce effects that are not
> audible under bias controlled conditions.
**Correct. Inductance DOES vary dramatically, between cables which have been
specifically manufactured for low inductance and those which are not,
however. Those differences will, most certainly, be audible, under the
circumstances, I have quoted.
>
>
>
> >
> >**US$1,000.00 would not even cover the costs associated with such a trip.
> >Further, if you read into the challenge, you will note that any
measurable
> >differences betwen cables, automatically invalidate the test. It is
> >trivially simple to show that low inductance cables, can measure better
than
> >high inductance cables, when connected to some loudspeakers.
>
> If one can identify audible differences that are statistically
> significant under bias controlled single factor listening tests, then
> it is an easy $US1000. But so far, no one has been able to claim it,
> as you obviously know.
**Correct. And that is largely because the measurable differences must be ou
tside the accepted limits of audibility. I have shown that the differences
between low inductance cables and high inductance, zip cables, is easily
significant, within the audible range. Thus, such a test is automatically
disqualified, according to the parmeters of the test. I know. I already
asked. Further, I have found that an ME amplifier would be disqualified from
the test, for pretty much the same reasons. ME amp, do not use an output
inductor. As such, their output impedance is resistive, from 20hz to 50kHz.
Thus they display no frequency anomalies, within the audible band, when
driving loads such as the ones I have previously quoted. IOW: The challenge
is stacked.
>
> No argument about measuring differences. As you know, my position is
> that if a factor exists, it can be measured. At least in the domain of
> Newtonian physics.
**I prefer Einsteinian physics, myself. Newton was wrong.
>
>
>
>
> >> Which ones, Trevor?
> >
> >**NBS
> >Apature.
> >Tara Labs.
> >Goertz.
> >Nordost.
> >
> >There are many others. These products (and many others) utilise materials
> >and construction techniques, which are unique to specialist audio cables.
> >They are not seen in any other industry.
>
> Some facts, at last.
**No, Patric, I have supplied facts all along. I did not expect to have to
do the calculations for you, that's all.
> >
>
> >**YIKES! Read up on some of the nonsense sprouted by Lampen. He is a
SALES
> >ENGINEER, not a proper engineer.
>
> So you contend that sales engineers are not proper engineers.
**Not at all. I contend that Steve Lampen is not a proper engineer. Either
that, or he has forgotten everything he has learned. Quite possible, given
some of the engineers I've encountered. Some of them pass their exams
without a true understanding of the nature of what they are dealing with.
This is
> a serious error of fact and an insult to such people. In fact, every
> sales engineer that ever worked for me, or with whom I came into
> contact during my many years in industrial marketing, was a qualified
> engineer. If they were not qualified, they were referred to as
> Technical Sales Representative. This is in a career in industrial
> marketing that went from 1971 to 1988, in Europe and the US.
**I would like to see proof of Steve Lampen's qualifications. I doubt he has
any.
>
> > If he is, then he needs a serious refresher
> >course. He has shown time and time again, that he lacks fundamental
> >understanding of cable practice, generally and Belden products,
> >specifically.
>
> So why is he still employed by BELDON, and why is he apparently a
> respected member of the AES?
**I'm unsure why you choose to spell Belden incorrectly, in caps. However,
that is your right to do so.
>
> >I know, because I approached him about some Belden products.
>
> More assertions, Trevor. Why not quote specific examples, if you can.
**Not easy, given my last hard disk crash.
>
>
>
> >
> >**IMO, Goertz manufacture the finest speaker cable on the planet. It is
> >specifically designed to address the issue of low inductance and low
> >resistance. It meets both targets admirably. Nordost does a reasonable
job
> >of this too.
>
> So why do they refuse to subject their products to proper bias
> controlled listening tests.
**Dunno. Don't care. I'm not Mr Goertz. You'll need to proffer that question
to the proper people.
If their products do produce audible
> differences compared with Home Depot 12 awg zip cord, then this would
> be a major asset in their marketing communications. For they would
> indeed be the first to demonstrate such a quality.
**I doubt it. I've demonstrated many times. It is a trivially simple
exercise. Further, it can be proven mathematically.
>
> >DAL are also excellent.
>
> Dunlavy claims that they are the ONLY company making cables that are
> properly engineered in accordance with physical realities - see the
> DAL website. He also claims that so far no one can reliably identify
> audible differences between his cables and comparably sized zip cord
> in bias controlled tests. He also admits to "hearing differences" in
> listening tests, even where the same cable was being tested.
**Dunlavy may claim what he wishes. He is a REAL engineer. One who has not
forgotten what he has learned. Ask him about my quoted examples. He will
concur with what I've stated.
>
> As a marketing person, if I had a product that actually met the claims
> that the likes of Canare, Nordost, Goertz et al make, I would welcome
> the opportunity to demonstrate this. Particularly when the opportunity
> exists to have head to head listening tests with such as DAL products.
**I never, once stated, that there would be any audible difference between
DAL cables and goertz. I am restricting my comments to zip cables.
>
>
> >**Not at all. The DAL cables possess excellent characteristics. Not up to
> >the standards of Goertz, but excellent, nevertheless.
>
> So why have they not accepted the open challenge to test them against
> the cables produced by DAL.
**You're asking the wrong person. I have no association with Goertz, other
than admiring the deisgn.
>
> In my professional opinion, they have not accepted this challenge
> because they know that there claims would not stand up to the rigor of
> bias controlled listening tests. Otherwise why pass up such an
> opportunity to demonstrate superiority over a competitor such as DAL.
**You are entitled to your opinion. There are other possible reasons.
>
>
>
>
>
> >**I doubt that, very much. In the first instance, I have not posted to
RAHE,
> >for at least 12 months. The nature of that group precludes the use of my
> >cable internet connection. Prior to that, I was a regular contributor.
>
> Must be confusing r.a.h.e with r.a.tech. Apologies
**You are forgiven. Please provide any reference where I have been proven
wrong WRT the audibility of cables on RAT then. I await your reference.
>
> > I welcome ANY references, where you can demonstrate that my opinions of
low
> >inductance cables, combined with certain loudspeakers, ahs been shown to
be
> >incorrect.
>
> Given that there are no documented cases of people identifying audible
> differences between cables of similar size, i.e. similar resistance,
> in bias controlled listening tests, it would seem that the burden of
> proof rests with you who asserts that such differences are audible.
**No Patric. You said:
"Trevor, I have followed your posting record on rec.audio.high-end over
the last year, and you have had your arguments as above refuted
consistently."
Please feel free to provide these mythical references.
>
> >
> > Why will you, an engineer, not reject the spurious
> >> claims that come from non bias controlled situations.
>
> >**First off, I'm not an engineer. Trevor Lees is an engineer. I am a
> >(qualified) tech.
>
> What on earth has Trevor Lees got to do with this discussion?
**You called me an engineer. The only person, who regularly claims
electrical engineering status, in this group, ir Trevor Lees. I am not an
engineer.
>
> >Whilst I don't reject non-bias controlled experiments, I
> >don't automatically accept them, either. A bias controlled situation, is
> >often a good place to start, so that a DBT may be instigated.
>
> Trevor, Double Blind Testing is the most stringent form of bias
> controlled testing, by definition. Single blind is partially bias
> controlled. Any other form of testing, that has other stimuli than
> those that impinge on the ears, is by definition not bias controlled.
> Such tests are neither valid or reliable, and for the purposes of
> fact, they are absolutely useless. And that is NOT an assertion, it is
> something that is drilled into every one that ever had to carry out
> research that required valid, reliable results on which people could
> depend.
**That is fair enough. It is my contention that a non-DBT may be a good
starting place. That comment does not invalidate DBTs.
>
> >I have performed some informal (but blind) tests on calbes, which have
led me to
> >beleive that we are all missing something. I have no idea what it is,
> >however. My test was simple. I loaned two sets of (interconnect) cables
to
> >some 20 or 30 people, for them to use in their systems, for several days.
> >
> >Both cables are sealed at the ends.
> >Both cables look identical from the outside.
> >Both cables use identical insulation and conductor area.
> >Both measure identically, WRT inductance, capacitance and resistance.
> >One cable uses silver plated conductors.
> >Around 90% of listeners prefer the silver plated cables. I have no idea
why.
>
> None of the above qualifies as a bias controlled listening test.
**How is that the case. The client has no knowledge of the idenity of the
cable (apart from arbitrary markings). I have no knowledge of which cable is
used and when it is used. Whilst not a perfectly controlled experiment, it
ain't bad.
As
> such the outcomes are neither valid or reliable and are meaningless in
> any discussion of fact. It is well proven that people will claim to
> hear differences between cables, even when no cable change has taken
> place in a test at all.
>
> BTW, this eliminates ALL the arguments about SOTA equipment, switching
> effects, etc.
>
> It is know as expectation effect, of which the placebo effect is one
> well known example.
**Emphatically agreed.
theBlob
>This is from representattives of a country that still thinks speakers are
>still the most important component in the hi fi chain. Join the 21st century
>(or even the late 20th century). the australian point of view seems to be
>that "If it measures good it must be good".
>
>give me a fucking break
>
>I'm glad I didn't buy ME when I was buying an amplifier, or else I might be
>spouting the same shit !
well this is nicely incoherent
but then the Welsh branch of the family was always difficult to understand
funny accents you know boyo
aussieBlob
Geoff
>
> Not true. When implemented correctly, both give gas tight connections
> between conductor and connector.
Would the critics be happy if you gave them all cables that were crimped and
then soldered? :)
Geoff
> still the most important component in the hi fi chain. Join the 21st
century
they are. CD players have extremely low distortion, so do amps. Cables
definitely don't cause a lot of distortion, they're just pieces of metal.
Speakers on the other hand convert electricity into sound, Transducers
always have a difficult task to fulfill. My woofers (Vifa P17WJ) apparently
have asymmetric compliance rates in the positive and negative direction,
which creates second harmonic distortion. I guarantee you that in any
well-proportioned system, the speakers distort the most.
> (or even the late 20th century). the australian point of view seems to be
> that "If it measures good it must be good".
If you had enough ability to measure things, this would be true. However we
can't measure a lot of aspects of audio that can be easily determined just
by listening. For certain, a flat response curve guarantees absolutely
nothing except that sounds at different frequencies will be reproduced with
correct amplitudes relative to each other. It says nothing about whether
the reproduction will sound anything like the original.
> give me a fucking break
if you need a break, just take one. Don't open your newsreader for 2 weeks.
> I'm glad I didn't buy ME when I was buying an amplifier, or else I might
be
> spouting the same shit !
I'm glad you didn't buy ME as well. Leaves one more amp available for people
who appreciate a well-engineered product.
Laz
laz
"Patric Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
news:3baa2816...@news.por.starwon.com.au...
Preamp
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> A products which measures badly, can never sound good
>(accurate).
Careful, that depends entirely on what you measure.
Rohan Jackson
cables!!!!!
"Patric Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ba8c5c...@news.por.starwon.com.au...
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 05:45:04 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Patric Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:3ba751a6...@news.por.starwon.com.au...
> >> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 09:48:17 +0800, "Laz" <larry31...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>snip <<
>
>
>
>
> >
> >**That is nothing like consensus. It is the opinion of some people.
> >Interestingly, some of the people who can reliably pick different cables,
do
> >not actually financially benefit from doing so.
>
> That is NOT the issue Trevor. So far, there is NO evidence of anyone
> doing better than chance, i.e., 50-50 identifying audible differences
> between such as Home Depot 12 guage and ANY of the expensive, exotic
> cables, under bias controlled conditions, e.g. double or single blind.
> This is fact, unless Dunlavy, Davis, Pinkerton, Nousaine, JJ, Pierce,
> and all the other reputable audio engineers are totally mistaken or
> telling lies.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> For speaker cables, even the most basic pvc insulated figure 8 or
> >> "zip" cord of 12 AWG or lower is as good it gets.
> >
> >**Bad advice. SOME systems require the use of low inductance cables.
'zip'
> >cord, is high inductance and unsuitable. It is wrong to generalise. It
would
> >be correct to state: "MOST systems will work satisfactorily, with 'zip'
> >cord."
>
> With the exception of extremely poorly designed amplifiers such as
> Naim, please name some of the systems that don't work with this
> product. To the best of my knowledge, the systems that have a problem
> with "low" inductance cables are prime examples of atrocious
> engineering. Please define what you mean by "high inductance", and
> while you are at it, identify the systems that don't work with zip
> cord.
>
> >
> >>
> Trevor, I have followed your posting record on rec.audio.high-end over
> the last year, and you have had your arguments as above refuted
> consistently. Why will you, an engineer, not reject the spurious
> claims that come from non bias controlled situations. All of the
> literature in the cognitive domain, when dealing with testing and
> factor analyis, insist that one tests ONLY for the quantity or quality
> under investigation. Ergo, when doing a listening test, the ONLY valid
> and reliable test is in fact one that ONLY tests the hearing, and no
> other stimuli may be allowed into the test situation. If they are, the
> test is by definition uselessl. And as an engineer you should know
> that when scientific, technical and engineering test are carried out,
> only the quantity being tested is measured, and varied.
>
> >More importantly: Listen for yourself.
>
> True, but one should ONLY listen, without sight or coaching about what
> is being heard. Anything else is quite literally useless. Absolutely
>
> Again, Trevor, please produce the evidence for your claims above. The
> evidence that you and others have singularly failed to do on other
> newsgroups when challenged.
>
>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Trevor Wilson
> >http://www.rageaudio.com.au
> >
> >
>
Trevor Wilson
> I've had a look in their catalogue (Feb 2001) Volume 2 Page 1634, middle
> right. Is this what your talking about the Deltron 4mm, Wide Cable Entry.
> The Gold Screw Termination ones are at most $3.79 ea, which seems to fit
> with your "used to be $3.00" line.
>
**Yes and, no. Solder termination, ONLY and forget the gold plating. Gold
plating is useless, with loudspeaker termination. Silver (if you can get it)
is the way to go. Failing that, the nickel is OK. But, yes, that is the
plug. It is a bloody ripper. I've got a coupla hundred around somewhere
(don't ask). You will not buy a better banana plug, at any price.
theBlob
>Just remember ppl that John Dunlavy sells his own range of speaker
>cables!!!!!
but IIRC he says you don't need to use them only that they
measure extremely well if you think that kind of thing is important
hyperlitzBlob
Patrick Turner
and Trevor Wilson.
Who would use 20 foot zip cords for speakers anyhow?
Who would notice a 6 dB roll off at 16 Khz.
Some would, and some wouldn't, that's for sure.
But why would anyone tolerate such a roll off
if it could be avoided by keepng length to 6 feet, and
cable size to be adequate?
To save a buck.
Some items like brand X or brand Y speakers are going to
sound different.
There are some folks who say there are big cable
differences,
but I have not been able to trap one into my simple test
where
and A to B switch is used to go between either cable.
And they maintain their claim that of course they hear a
difference,
no need for such testing.
They don't like the test, it might challenge pet theories.
Sometimes such tests are not needed, as with different
brands of speakers,
and sometimes with different amps.
But for me, cables and RCA connectors are about all the
same,
and my hearing isn't stuffed. I just don't use anything
which attenuates the
signal significantly at 30 Khz.
In some of the discussions talk about series inductance is
raised
when driving ESLs. Well, the C of the ESL and the L of the
cable can
cause a peaking of the response, not a roll off, due to the
resonance effect.
Many tube amps with too much leakage inductance such as old
Leaks and
Quads do this to some extent.
The response with them rises a bit before rapidly rolling
off,
and sometimes the way a NFB path is done can aid this
effect.
Some amps have a leakage inductance equal to 0.1 Mh at
their output,
and this with the 2 uF of an ELS will be resonant at 11.25
khz.
If the leakage is reduced to 10 uH, the Fo will be 36 kHz,
and of less concern,
as less peaking will occur between 10 and 25 kHz..
So with SS amps with a 10 uH output inductor, the same
thing would occur.
But then there are those whose hearing response is no
better than average, but
they are musically gifted, and hear a lot of things from
music subjectively that
most of us miss completely. The ear to brain processing is
very unequal between
individuals, and cannot be quantified.
But some of the most gifted musicians
have lousy sound systems, they get all they want from a
system,
which is to experience art, like looking at a painting's
emotional content,
not analysing the brush strokes, or frame materials,
and they don't notice much wrong with their system.
My 2.83 Volts worth,
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
Trevor Wilson wrote:
> "JasonB" <jas...@sachs.com.au> wrote in message
> news:9obltc$c4d83$1...@ID-105656.news.dfncis.de...
> > I've had a look in their catalogue (Feb 2001) Volume 2 Page 1634, middle
> > right. Is this what your talking about the Deltron 4mm, Wide Cable Entry.
> > The Gold Screw Termination ones are at most $3.79 ea, which seems to fit
> > with your "used to be $3.00" line.
> >
>
> **Yes and, no. Solder termination, ONLY and forget the gold plating. Gold
> plating is useless, with loudspeaker termination.
What is so wrong with gold plating?I thought it meant CLEAN terminals which is
the most important thing,
is it not?
> Silver (if you can get it)
> is the way to go. Failing that, the nickel is OK. But, yes, that is the
> plug. It is a bloody ripper. I've got a coupla hundred around somewhere
> (don't ask). You will not buy a better banana plug, at any price.
Funny you should mention banana plugs and sockets.
I like the recessed banana sockets on my amps and have gone right away from
binding posts, which soon allow a cable to wriggle free so it rattles in the
post hole.
I am always changing things round in my system here for testing purposes.
I like bananas and I have been able to get a few gold plated Gallard and Trewin
made hear locally by a fellow nearby in Canberra.
But he has no more goldies left, and won't do more due to lack of demand.
I tried to tell him he'd do OK to make better RCA sockets than Jaycar provide
but said he needs demand first.
Patrick Turner.
Trevor Wilson
"Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:3BAB14AA...@turneraudio.com.au...
> It was a long and tortous exchange between Patric Scully
> and Trevor Wilson.
**Yes, it was. It did not need to be so.
> Who would use 20 foot zip cords for speakers anyhow?
**Not many people, but some do. Hell, shorten it to 10 feet and the rolloff
is still going to be audible.
> Who would notice a 6 dB roll off at 16 Khz.
**An awful lot of critical (and young, usually) listeners. Though, one of my
instructors (aged 55) possessed a response out to 22kHz.
> Some would, and some wouldn't, that's for sure.
> But why would anyone tolerate such a roll off
> if it could be avoided by keepng length to 6 feet, and
> cable size to be adequate?
**Sure. Always a good idea, if possible. Not always possible, however.
>
> To save a buck.
**Not necessarily.
>
> Some items like brand X or brand Y speakers are going to
> sound different.
> There are some folks who say there are big cable
> differences,
> but I have not been able to trap one into my simple test
> where
> and A to B switch is used to go between either cable.
**Fair enough. Anyone who says the differences are "huge" is telling fibs.
Speaker cable differences are usually quite minimal.
> And they maintain their claim that of course they hear a
> difference,
> no need for such testing.
> They don't like the test, it might challenge pet theories.
> Sometimes such tests are not needed, as with different
> brands of speakers,
> and sometimes with different amps.
> But for me, cables and RCA connectors are about all the
> same,
> and my hearing isn't stuffed. I just don't use anything
> which attenuates the
> signal significantly at 30 Khz.
>
> In some of the discussions talk about series inductance is
> raised
> when driving ESLs. Well, the C of the ESL and the L of the
> cable can
> cause a peaking of the response, not a roll off, due to the
> resonance effect.
*Sure. More usually, it is a rolloff, though.
> Many tube amps with too much leakage inductance such as old
> Leaks and
> Quads do this to some extent.
> The response with them rises a bit before rapidly rolling
> off,
> and sometimes the way a NFB path is done can aid this
> effect.
> Some amps have a leakage inductance equal to 0.1 Mh at
> their output,
> and this with the 2 uF of an ELS will be resonant at 11.25
> khz.
**Just a nitpick here, Patrick. The ESL, I posted the impedance graph of,
has a reflected capacitance of around 18uF, not 1.8uF. BIG difference. A
difference which should be taken into account, when choosing cables and
amplifiers.
> If the leakage is reduced to 10 uH, the Fo will be 36 kHz,
> and of less concern,
> as less peaking will occur between 10 and 25 kHz..
> So with SS amps with a 10 uH output inductor, the same
> thing would occur.
**Sure, which is why amplifiers which use not output inductor are usually
preferred by ESL users. That and the pesky rolloff, of course.
Trevor Wilson
>
>
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
> > "JasonB" <jas...@sachs.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:9obltc$c4d83$1...@ID-105656.news.dfncis.de...
> > > I've had a look in their catalogue (Feb 2001) Volume 2 Page 1634,
middle
> > > right. Is this what your talking about the Deltron 4mm, Wide Cable
Entry.
> > > The Gold Screw Termination ones are at most $3.79 ea, which seems to
fit
> > > with your "used to be $3.00" line.
> > >
> >
> > **Yes and, no. Solder termination, ONLY and forget the gold plating.
Gold
> > plating is useless, with loudspeaker termination.
>
> What is so wrong with gold plating?
**For several reasons:
1) Gold is a relatively poor conductor (compared to copper and silver).
2) The thickness of gold plating is miniscule (compared to most metals) and
thus it wears off and does little for the improved conductivity.
3) Most gold plating must be performed over other metals, first. More
metals, is not my preference.
I thought it meant CLEAN terminals which is
> the most important thing,
> is it not?
**Very important. Which is why I suggested the plugs I did. They scrape the
internals of the socket, which each insertion. They also maintain a secure
connection using a spring under constant tension. The plug is very simple
and utterly foolproof.
>
> > Silver (if you can get it)
> > is the way to go. Failing that, the nickel is OK. But, yes, that is the
> > plug. It is a bloody ripper. I've got a coupla hundred around somewhere
> > (don't ask). You will not buy a better banana plug, at any price.
>
> Funny you should mention banana plugs and sockets.
> I like the recessed banana sockets on my amps and have gone right away
from
> binding posts, which soon allow a cable to wriggle free so it rattles in
the
> post hole.
**Some do. Again, my favourite banana socket/binding post is available from
Farnel. It's only available in black and it is very expensive ($39.49 each).
It has little pyramid shaped teeth, to grip the wires. It cuts through any
garbage on the wire. Excellent stuff. Naturally, it's not audio grade. Pure
industrial stuff. Excellent. Remind me to show you the terminals on the back
of the ME1400/1500 sometime. They NEVER shake loose. They're rated for 100
Amps, continuously, to boot.
> I am always changing things round in my system here for testing purposes.
> I like bananas and I have been able to get a few gold plated Gallard and
Trewin
> made hear locally by a fellow nearby in Canberra.
**Get him to do them in silver and I'll buy some. Silver is much better for
speaker terminations. Silver is a MUCH better conductor. It is easier to
plate, cheaper and can be plated very thickly, easily and silver oxide is
highly conductive. Win, win, win.
> But he has no more goldies left, and won't do more due to lack of demand.
> I tried to tell him he'd do OK to make better RCA sockets than Jaycar
provide
> but said he needs demand first.
**Gold plated RCA connectors make good sense, since current levels are very
low. Silver is the way to go for high power connectors. Ever wondered why
silver is used for high power RF equipment? They have no interest in
cosmetics, just the lowest losses. That's why they use silver.
Preamp
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>**Get him to do them in silver and I'll buy some. Silver is much better for
>speaker terminations. Silver is a MUCH better conductor.
It is not MUCH better. It is only a little better. Copper has a
relative resistance of 1. Silver is 0.95. Gold is 1.416.
In contrast steel is 7 to 12. Lead is 12.78. Tin is 6.7 Mercury is 55.
See, silver is only marginally better than copper and gold, and all
are MUCH better than others I have quoted.
Preamp
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> Some items like brand X or brand Y speakers are going to
>> sound different.
>> There are some folks who say there are big cable
>> differences,
>> but I have not been able to trap one into my simple test
>> where
>> and A to B switch is used to go between either cable.
>
>**Fair enough. Anyone who says the differences are "huge" is telling fibs.
>Speaker cable differences are usually quite minimal.
>
Fer chrissakes, if they are minimal, why are you carrying on so?
Patrick Turner
Trevor Wilson wrote:
Ouch, 18 uF!18 uF is about 0.44 ohms of reactive impeadnce at 20 kHz,
and would stuff up a lot of amps at 5 kHz when the Z is still only 1.8 ohms.
Nevertheless, there are those of us who would just use the highest available
turn ratio
on the OPT, and get around this little problem.
> > If the leakage is reduced to 10 uH, the Fo will be 36 kHz,
> > and of less concern,
> > as less peaking will occur between 10 and 25 kHz..
> > So with SS amps with a 10 uH output inductor, the same
> > thing would occur.
>
> **Sure, which is why amplifiers which use not output inductor are usually
> preferred by ESL users. That and the pesky rolloff, of course.
I have never met anyone who has 18 uF ESLs,maybe I just mix with the poor end of
town.
Patrick Turner.
Patrick Turner
Preamp wrote:
Good audio is the sum of many small things, all of which are discussable.....
Patrick Turner.
Geoff
> relative resistance of 1. Silver is 0.95. Gold is 1.416.
So silver's 5% more conductive than copper, and gold is 70% as conductive as
copper.
granted the thickness of gold is quite small, but it still seems like
silver's better, if its oxide is still more conductive than gold.
> In contrast steel is 7 to 12. Lead is 12.78. Tin is 6.7 Mercury is 55.
So we've just found out what NOT to plate banana plugs with.
> See, silver is only marginally better than copper and gold, and all
> are MUCH better than others I have quoted.
Every bit counts, if you're paying for a "quality" lead it should be made
out of the best material possible for the job. In this case it comes down
to copper, silver and gold. Silver seems the best, and it's cheaper than
gold...
Geoff
fibs.
> > >Speaker cable differences are usually quite minimal.
> > >
> >
> > Fer chrissakes, if they are minimal, why are you carrying on so?
>
> Good audio is the sum of many small things, all of which are
discussable.....
I agree. Once you've got the major factors worked out, the
minimal-difference changes become extremely important to you...
Have heard somewhere in the ether of a guy with a valve amp and expensive
speakers (dunno details, story might have been BS but I'm sure these people
do exist) who made a small change and then listened for 3 months before
changing anything else. He might have been rearranging wires around behind
his equipment for all we know, but if it makes a difference to some people
then so be it.
Preamp
<spamif...@cyberjunkie.com> wrote:
>> It is not MUCH better. It is only a little better. Copper has a
>> relative resistance of 1. Silver is 0.95. Gold is 1.416.
>
>So silver's 5% more conductive than copper, and gold is 70% as conductive as
>copper.
Try it as a percentage of tin. Copper is about 15%, silver about 14%,
and gold is about 21%. Against some others the difference is even
less significant.
>
>granted the thickness of gold is quite small, but it still seems like
>silver's better, if its oxide is still more conductive than gold.
>
>> In contrast steel is 7 to 12. Lead is 12.78. Tin is 6.7 Mercury is 55.
>
>So we've just found out what NOT to plate banana plugs with.
>
>> See, silver is only marginally better than copper and gold, and all
>> are MUCH better than others I have quoted.
>
>Every bit counts, if you're paying for a "quality" lead it should be made
>out of the best material possible for the job.
Not if the difference in quality is vanishingly small. The audibility
of the difference is highly questionable.
>In this case it comes down
>to copper, silver and gold. Silver seems the best, and it's cheaper than
>gold...
But it tarnishes and looks shithouse. Might as well use something that
looks nice, as, in the real world, it's gonna sound the same.
Patrick Turner
Geoff wrote:
The japanese bloke who designs Ongaku had this thing about the cobalt
percentagein his OPTs for SE amps. Darn it, couldn't work it out, what to do.
So he spends a month or two at mountain ashram to contempplate the sound,
and the idea of cobalt, and amps, and things, and stuff,
and eventually comes down the mountain to continue with the next amp.
Well he said the mountain trip was to zen the plobrem, so he said to the
waiting press,
But I heard from the bloke who lives next door that his missus is a real rotten
cook......
And he needed a break....
Patrick Turner.
CHOKY
yours trully Zen (from other ng) Moderator
--
message sent by Choky,
Prodanovic Aleksandar
ch...@EUnet.yu
YU
"Patrick Turner" <in...@turneraudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:3BAB45E6...@turneraudio.com.au...
Patric Scully
<rohja...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>Just remember ppl that John Dunlavy sells his own range of speaker
>cables!!!!!
Of course. And I have both read his comments and spoken to him about
them. Have you? Basically he provides cables because the market
demands them. Also, he claims to be the only one producing cables that
have been designed following proper engineering principles, and
measured to prove their qualities.
Patrick Turner
Patric Scully wrote:
I saw his postings on RAHE where he basically reckons there ain't much
differencein cables, and zip cord will do, most times.
But you would not use a woolworths seat cover for a Masseratti,
you may as well get something decent, you have spent a lot already.
So, may as well get decent DAL cables too. It makes sense.
And nobody is bulltwanging anyone. No absurd claims.
He might sell a lot more.
Patrick Turner.
Trevor
"Geoff" <spamif...@cyberjunkie.com> wrote in message
news:FYGq7.12250$Tv6....@news1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
> > It is not MUCH better. It is only a little better. Copper has a
> > relative resistance of 1. Silver is 0.95. Gold is 1.416.
>
> So silver's 5% more conductive than copper, and gold is 70% as conductive
as
> copper.
>
> granted the thickness of gold is quite small, but it still seems like
> silver's better, if its oxide is still more conductive than gold.
Ah there's the rub so to speak. Silver oxidises very quickly and silver
oxide is no more conductive than copper. Add to this the fact that you are
more likely going to connect them to copper cables rather than silver
cables, and the benefits over standard nickel plating are probably non
existent.
Nickel plating is cheaper and more durable.
If you can clean the mating surfaces on a regular basis, or make a gas tight
connection, then you are better off with straight copper terminals and
copper wire. NO disimilar metals and no thermally induced EMF's, although
this is not really important at speaker levels.
Trevor P.
Trevor
> Thanks.
>
> Reason I ask is that I look through the Jaycar 2001 Catalogue and I see
> separate bits but not bits together. Guess I should go and do the urban
> crawl and look for myself : )
I guess you need to look harder then. There are TONS of pre made
interconnects in the Jaycar catalog.
Trevor.
Trevor
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:DPuq7.75085$bY5.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> **I prefer Einsteinian physics, myself. Newton was wrong.
But there is no recognised term "Einsteinium Physics" and Einstein himself
was unsure of quantum physics.
Newton was quite correct within certain limits. These limits are not
exceeded by the current discussion.
Trevor P.
Trevor Wilson
"Trevor" <trevor@home> wrote in message
news:3bac53ec$0$7728$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:DPuq7.75085$bY5.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > **I prefer Einsteinian physics, myself. Newton was wrong.
>
> But there is no recognised term "Einsteinium Physics" and Einstein himself
> was unsure of quantum physics.
**Certainly. Nevertheless, Einstein proved Newtonian physics to be wrong.
> Newton was quite correct within certain limits. These limits are not
> exceeded by the current discussion.
**Agreed.
Perhaps I should have put a smiley after my comment.
Preamp
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> But there is no recognised term "Einsteinium Physics" and Einstein himself
>> was unsure of quantum physics.
>
>**Certainly. Nevertheless, Einstein proved Newtonian physics to be wrong.
>
Well, a better way to put it is he found a theory that fitted all
situations a little better than Newton's. Newton wasn't 'wrong'. His
theories work within the scope intended.
Welly
disagree, speakers are important but, I'm afraid I still go along with the
argument if you don't get it off the disc in the first place then the best
speakers in the world won't recreate it for you.
" Anyone who thinks otherwise, is an idiot."
very constructive.
"BTW: Australia is not the only country which thinks
this way. It is a universally accepted truism."
I would beg to differ. You never heard the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"
care to provide some foundation to the argument.
"A products which measures badly, can never sound good"
Apologies to any Valve and vinyl lovers out there, apparently you were wrong
all along.
"Then again, maybe you've missed on buying one of the finest
amplifiers available today"
Well, you would say that wouldn't you
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:J6tq7.74976$bY5.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Welly" <wels...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:4Glq7.22560$c5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> > > **There is very little difference between speaker cables, in most
> systems.
> > > Money is almost always better spent elsewhere.
> >
> > This is from representattives of a country that still thinks speakers
are
> > still the most important component in the hi fi chain.
>
> **Er, that's because, along with the room, they are. Anyone who thinks
> otherwise, is an idiot. BTW: Australia is not the only country which
thinks
> this way. It is a universally accepted truism.
>
> Join the 21st century
> > (or even the late 20th century). the australian point of view seems to
be
> > that "If it measures good it must be good".
>
> **Not at all. If it measures good, it has the CHANCE of sounding good
> (accurate). A products which measures badly, can never sound good
> (accurate).
>
> >
> > give me a fucking break
>
> **OK.
>
> >
> > I'm glad I didn't buy ME when I was buying an amplifier, or else I might
> be
> > spouting the same shit !
>
> **Perhaps. Then again, maybe you've missed on buying one of the finest
> amplifiers available today. Of course, if you've performed an honest, side
> by side listening test, with an ME compared to a competitive product, you
> have obviously made the right decision. Gongratulations.
Geoff
> looks nice, as, in the real world, it's gonna sound the same.
Riceboys of the audio world, slight improvement in conductiveness dismissed
in favour of material that's just a big shiny dickwank :)
Jokes aside, I agree that tarnished silver doesn't have a lot going for it
in the looks department.
Trevor Wilson
> "**Er, that's because, along with the room, they are."
> disagree, speakers are important but, I'm afraid I still go along with the
> argument if you don't get it off the disc in the first place then the best
> speakers in the world won't recreate it for you.
**Quite true. Fortunately, it is a trivial exercise to do so, with almost
any CD player costing more than around AUS$500.00. More money will certainly
buy better sound quality, but only incrementally so. And with turntables,
one needs to spend around AUS$2,000.00 to come remotely close to a $500.00
CD player. Even then, the turntable lacks many of the tangible advantages
attributable to CD players.
>
> " Anyone who thinks otherwise, is an idiot."
> very constructive.
**No less constructive, than these words:
"give me a fucking break
I'm glad I didn't buy ME when I was buying an amplifier, or else I might be
spouting the same shit !"
**Very helpful stuff. More like a feeble troll, if you ask me.
>
> "BTW: Australia is not the only country which thinks
> this way. It is a universally accepted truism."
> I would beg to differ. You never heard the phrase "garbage in, garbage
out"
> care to provide some foundation to the argument.
**Sure. Let's set up two systems. Both will cost roughly the same.
System 1:
Bose AcoustimessT loudspeakers, Sony surround sound amplifier and a
$5,000.00 turntable.
System 2:
VAF I-93 loudspeakers, ME850/ME14 amplifier/preamp and a Rotel RCD951 CD
player.
Wanna takes bets on which system will be preferred by 99% of listeners?
The sound of the speakers will totally dominate the sound of the two
systems. As they do in ALL systems.
>
>
> "A products which measures badly, can never sound good"
>
> Apologies to any Valve and vinyl lovers out there, apparently you were
wrong
> all along.
**Where did I say that? FYI: There are many high quality, accurate tube
products on the market. Good tube products (as opposed to crappy tube
products) can comfortably outperform most SS products. If you'd take the
time to read any of my posts, you would note that I have mentioned many by
name and model number. Audio Research, f'rinstance, build some excellent
tube products. Ditto, Conrad Johnson. As for vinyl lovers, be aware that I
own a large amount of vinyl and listen to it every now and again. IMO, even
the best CD player cannot achieve what the BEST vinyl can, in a couple of
areas. In most areas, however, even the cheapest CD player can comfortably
outperform the best vinyl rig.
>
> "Then again, maybe you've missed on buying one of the finest
> amplifiers available today"
>
> Well, you would say that wouldn't you
**Only the truth, Welly. Always the truth.
Martin Porter
Remember me? I posted the original humble query regarding
experiences/comments on DS and Jaycar speaker cable. Little did I know it
was to develop into one of the longest threads I've seen on this newgroup!
(Is there some kind of reward for this?)
Special mention must go to Trevor Wilson and Patric Scully who, despite
their strong differences of opinion, have shown that they *do care* about
the subject of cable in hi-fi.
OK - so what did I do after all this? Well, I ended up buying 18m of DS
Super Low Loss OFC at $4.75/m. So what are my findings?
Does it look better than grey electrical flex? Yes!
Does it sit better along the floor? Yes!
Does it sound better? This is the tricky one. My answer is a qualified
yes. I *believe* it has improved the level of detail delivered by my
speakers (Duntech PCL15) with varying results depending on what music is
being played. In some instances, I could swear the speakers were in better
control of the material than they've ever been in their 13 year lifetime. I
emphasise "believe" because it *is* hard to convince onself -- the audible
differences are subtle and totally subjective. But isn't that what tweaking
is all about after all?
Was it worth it? Yes - all in all, I would have to say I feel it was (a lot
of) money well spent. At least for me, I am now almost convinced there is
no further improvement to be had on my speakers without spending ridiculous
amounts of money.
Many thanks to all who contributed to this thread and who helped me make a
decision.
Regards,
Martin
Trevor Wilson
"Martin Porter" <m.po...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:UUir7.27769$c5.2...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Guys
>
> Remember me? I posted the original humble query regarding
> experiences/comments on DS and Jaycar speaker cable. Little did I know it
> was to develop into one of the longest threads I've seen on this newgroup!
> (Is there some kind of reward for this?)
>
**Thanks for posting your thoughts. All too often I (and others) post our
opinions and experiences and never know what the result is.
Welly
"**No less constructive, than these words:
"give me a fucking break"
**********************************
The words "give me a fucking break" were aimed at nobody. Your words were
aimed at anybody and everybody who believes that speakers are not the most
important item in a system. i.e anybody who thinks differently from you.
**********************************
"**Sure. Let's set up two systems. Both will cost roughly the same."
**********************************
Not the point of my statement. My comment was aimed at your statement "BTW:
Australia is not the only country which thinks this way. It is a universally
accepted truism.". I was asking you to provide substance, to your rash
generalisation, that speakers being important was a UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED
TRUISM.
**********************************
Extract
"A products which measures badly, can never sound good"
>
> Apologies to any Valve and vinyl lovers out there, apparently you were
wrong
> all along." End Extract
Your reply **Where did I say that?
**********************************
Not sure which part of the above you refer to when you say "Where did I say
that?" so I'll post an answer to both:
True, you did not mention valve and vinyl specifically, I included these as
examples of technologies which have no right to sound as good as they do
because, in the modern world, they have SPECIFICATIONS that your "$500"
dollar CD player and just about any SS AMP would beat by orders of
magnitude. Therefore, in your world, the $500 dollar CD player and any
modern SS AMP should sound better.
If your question "Where did I say that?" was related to the "A products
which measures badly, can never sound good", then refer your post dated
Fri, 21 Sep 2001 07:22:49 EST.
**********************************
"As for vinyl lovers, be aware that I own a large amount of vinyl and listen
to it every now and again."
**********************************
Well, if you listen to it "now and again", why not sell it on to someone who
would play it regularly
**********************************
IMO, even the best CD player cannot achieve what the BEST vinyl can, in a
couple of
areas."
**********************************
What areas, my guess would be that your answer will be something to do with
measurements.
**********************************
"In most areas, however, even the cheapest CD player can comfortably
outperform the best vinyl rig."
**********************************
see my previous comment.
**********************************
"**Only the truth, Welly. Always the truth."
**********************************
looking at your website, you may be a tad biased as this is the only
amplification product you appear to sell. please tell me that you sell other
amplification equipment (but only if it's true). btw, I don't mean the used
gear you sell (which everyone trades automatically once they've heard an ME,
of course).
Also, I would like to add that I have heard an ME product, so these posts
are not intended as a tirade against that particular brand (there are many
others more worthy of a tirade). I heard the Integrated model that ME
produces. Yes, a very nice amplifier, but during my listening to this
product, it was not what I was looking for. However, to claim that they are
"one of the finest amplifiers available today" just smacks a little (nah...a
lot) of salesmanship. Just about any company or retailer would say that (and
why not, if they sell that product).
regards
Welly
Preamp
wrote:
>**********************************
>looking at your website, you may be a tad biased as this is the only
>amplification product you appear to sell. please tell me that you sell other
>amplification equipment (but only if it's true). btw, I don't mean the used
>gear you sell (which everyone trades automatically once they've heard an ME,
>of course).
>
>Also, I would like to add that I have heard an ME product, so these posts
>are not intended as a tirade against that particular brand (there are many
>others more worthy of a tirade). I heard the Integrated model that ME
>produces. Yes, a very nice amplifier, but during my listening to this
>product, it was not what I was looking for. However, to claim that they are
>"one of the finest amplifiers available today" just smacks a little (nah...a
>lot) of salesmanship. Just about any company or retailer would say that (and
>why not, if they sell that product).
>
Don't bother. I also found his attitude with regard to ME hard to
swallow when I came into this group. I don't think he will ever
learn.
Welly
CD players have extremely low distortion, so do amps.
********************************************
Fine, doesn't mean they sound good though.
********************************************
Cables definitely don't cause a lot of distortion, they're just pieces of
metal.
********************************************
probably
********************************************
My woofers (Vifa P17WJ) apparently have asymmetric compliance rates in the
positive and negative direction, which creates second harmonic distortion.
********************************************
sorry to hear that, should I send flowers to the funeral or just donate the
money to your favouirite charity.
All speakers distort the signal to some extent. A $100,000 speaker distorts
the signal, a $1000 dollar speaker distorts the signal, just in different
ways. every design is a compromise.
********************************************
I guarantee you that in any well-proportioned system, the speakers distort
the most.
********************************************
I never disputed this, I merely stated that if you do not get the
information of the source of your choice in the first place, the best
amplifiers and speakers in the world cannot recreate it.
***********************************************************
> > (or even the late 20th century). the australian point of view seems to
be
> > that "If it measures good it must be good".
>
> If you had enough ability to measure things, this would be true. However
we
> can't measure a lot of aspects of audio that can be easily determined just
> by listening. For certain, a flat response curve guarantees absolutely
> nothing except that sounds at different frequencies will be reproduced
with
> correct amplitudes relative to each other. It says nothing about whether
> the reproduction will sound anything like the original.
************************************************************
who are you arguing with here, My comment was bemoaning the fact that you
can NOT determine how a piece of equipment sound from the measurements,
whereas many people do believe this to be the case. Do we agree on this
point?
********************************************
> > give me a fucking break
> if you need a break, just take one. Don't open your newsreader for 2
weeks.
********************************************
Only 2 weeks? You'er too kind! Will I be let in to play with all the good
boys then? (Sarcasm)
********************************************
> > I'm glad I didn't buy ME when I was buying an amplifier, or else I might
> be
> > spouting the same shit !
>
> I'm glad you didn't buy ME as well. Leaves one more amp available for
people
> who appreciate a well-engineered product.
********************************************
What is a well engineered product, one that measures like a dream and sounds
like a toilet flushing?
Or is it a something that reproduces MUSIC. Remember...music? that's what
your audio system is for.
Welly
CD players have extremely low distortion, so do amps.
********************************************
Fine, doesn't mean they sound good though.
********************************************
Cables definitely don't cause a lot of distortion
********************************************
probably
********************************************
, they're just pieces of
metal.
********************************************
so are most of the electronic components inside your hi-fi equipment. Does
all hifi sound the same too?
Who are you arguing with here, My comment was bemoaning the fact that you
can NOT determine how a piece of equipment sound from the measurements,
whereas many people do believe this to be the case. Do we agree on this
point?
********************************************
> > give me a fucking break
> if you need a break, just take one. Don't open your newsreader for 2
weeks.
********************************************
Only 2 weeks? You're too kind! Will I be let in to play with all the good
boys then? (Sarcasm)
********************************************
> > I'm glad I didn't buy ME when I was buying an amplifier, or else I might
> be
> > spouting the same shit !
>
> I'm glad you didn't buy ME as well. Leaves one more amp available for
people
> who appreciate a well-engineered product.
********************************************
You are trying to infer I can not appreciate a well engineered product. This
is definitely not the case. I am an engineer by profession (Electronic and
Electrical) and have been for over 15 years. Appreciating a well engineered
product is part and parcel of the job. But it depends on what you define as
a well engineered product, is it:
a. Something that measures like a dream?
b. Is it one that is built solidly?
c. Is it something that is easy to use?
d. Is it something that looks good on your rack?
e. Or is it a something that reproduces MUSIC. Remember...music? that's what
your audio system is for.
Well engineered Hi-Fi can be any of these or, in rare cases all of these.
The most important one, I beleieve is Item e.
I use my ears to buy Hi-Fi. My eyes are for reading (anything except
manufacturers spec sheets) and seeing the world around me.
regards
welly
Welly
CD players have extremely low distortion, so do amps.
********************************************
Fine, doesn't mean they sound good though.
********************************************
Cables definitely don't cause a lot of distortion, they're just pieces of
metal.
********************************************
probably
who are you arguing with here, My comment was bemoaning the fact that you
can NOT determine how a piece of equipment sound from the measurements,
whereas many people do believe this to be the case. Do we agree on this
point?
********************************************
> > give me a fucking break
> if you need a break, just take one. Don't open your newsreader for 2
weeks.
********************************************
Only 2 weeks? You'er too kind! Will I be let in to play with all the good
boys then? (Sarcasm)
********************************************
> > I'm glad I didn't buy ME when I was buying an amplifier, or else I might
> be
> > spouting the same shit !
>
> I'm glad you didn't buy ME as well. Leaves one more amp available for
people
> who appreciate a well-engineered product.
********************************************
What is a well engineered product, one that measures like a dream and sounds
like a toilet flushing?
Welly
SCM
Anyone know anything about using power cables as speaker cables?
"Martin Porter" <m.po...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:iP_o7.16318$c5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> Dick Smith and Jaycar both sell their own OFC speaker cable at various
price
> points. I'm wondering if anyone out there has tried them and has any
> comments they care to share. Are they worth trying out? How do they
> compare to brand-name "audiophile" speaker cable?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Martin
>
>
Preamp
>What about standard power cables? They're rated at 2400W. 240V @ 10A
>Anyone know anything about using power cables as speaker cables?
>
Most power cable makes excellent (soundwise) speaker cable. The 'zip'
cord, or figure 8 flex often referred to, is power cable.
SCM
than most speaker cable sold today.
"Preamp" <pre...@antispam.dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
news:3badd7d4...@news.dingoblue.net.au...
Preamp
>Is that because of their low impedance? That must be because they're thicker
>than most speaker cable sold today.
>
They probably aren't the lowest impedance, nor are they the thickest,
but for normal run lengths, the difference in sound is vanishingly
small. My reason for buying Dick Smiths flat speaker cable is that it
lays neater and lookes cooler :-) It has nothing to do with the sound.
Dale
dale
"Preamp" <pre...@antispam.dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
news:3bab28a3...@news.dingoblue.net.au...
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 11:19:49 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >**Get him to do them in silver and I'll buy some. Silver is much better
for
> >speaker terminations. Silver is a MUCH better conductor.
>
>
> It is not MUCH better. It is only a little better. Copper has a
> relative resistance of 1. Silver is 0.95. Gold is 1.416.
>
> In contrast steel is 7 to 12. Lead is 12.78. Tin is 6.7 Mercury is 55.
>
Patrick Turner
Preamp wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 12:32:12 GMT, "SCM" <n...@vailable.com> wrote:
>
> >What about standard power cables? They're rated at 2400W. 240V @ 10A
> >Anyone know anything about using power cables as speaker cables?
> >
>
> Most power cable makes excellent (soundwise) speaker cable. The 'zip'
> cord, or figure 8 flex often referred to, is power cable.
Mr Dunlavy who makes DAL speakers and I think formerly Duntech,reckons zip
cord is just as good as any expensive product made.
But he makes speaker cables which are not cheap,
so what gives?
Well, it appears Mr Dunlavy is not the pretentious type, and steers
clear of BS, and says ok, use zip cord if you want, but My Cables are better
made,
and look right alongside the expensive DAL speakers.
Nobody with an expensive BMW would put Woolworth's seat covers into the car,
would they? they'd get nicer ones....
This honest approach is refreshing, I wish him well.
I think a few BIG rewards are out for anyone who can proove
that expensive high falootin cables and interconnects are better than
the cheapest DIY which will measure well. Ain't it funny how the biggest
claimsters
are folks selling speaker wires and connecting wire.
The use of household wall cabling for speaker wiring is a bit awkward as the
wall wiring is so darn stiff and unmanageable, and the white outer plastic
insulation is
fragile and looks daggy.
I have some Cable Talk cabling which is arranged like wall cabling but nice
and tough
off white covering and nice black and red insulation, and it looks well,
as well as measuring excellently.
But 10 amp three core heavy duty flex would be as good and the green and
yellow
earth wire can be used for the common to both LF and HF drivers, with the
active and neutral
for the + of HF and LF, ie bi-wiring to some extent.
four core wire from an electrical supply place as used for 3 phase wiring is
also good stuff, and allows
for complete bi-wiring.
One could buy Nordost Valhalla, at $7,000 for a pair.
But before I do, I need to see a petition signed by a few hundred folks
urging me to buy them, following tests quite uncontaminated by BS.
Patrick Turner.
Patric Scully
<tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>snip<
>**Well, Patric, I'm telling that there is evidence. What there is not, is a
>well documented and controlled listening test. There is evidence, however.
More attempts at proof by assertion. The question is "audible"
differences. There are many well documented and controlled listening
tests. Published by such as Tom Nousaine, Arne Krueger, Howard
Ferstler. And the evidence thus far is that NO ONE has been able to do
better than chance in identifying audible differences. You appear to
agree with this, so when you state that:
>What there is not, is a well documented and controlled listening test<
I infer you to mean that no such test has demonstrated audible
differences. So what evidence are you speaking about, where is it to
be found, or is it not published yet.
irrelevant data snipped again
>> Audible differences, identified in bias controlled listening tests?
>>
>> NOT.
>
>**Nope. Tell you what: You pay for a test and we'll see what happens.
Over the years, I have done many tests of sensory perception in my
work in marketing. This has included listening test that were double
blind, blind and sighted. In all cases the results were predictable:
When sight was allowed, or people were told which was being used, they
claimed to hear differences. When visual evidence was removed, or
mis-direction was used concering what was being used, people still
claimed to hear differences. But no one was able to hear differences
that were more reliable than chance. And even when NO differences were
present people continued to hear them - due to expectation effect.
This is why, when doing product testing in the food, beverage,
pharmaceutical and medical industries, only the data from
bias-controlled tests are acceptable. This is a matter of recorded
fact, what is also a matter of fact is that where bias control was not
employed the resulst were universally invalid and unreliable.
>
>
> Given that these cables are connected to speakers
>> with inductance values in their crossover networks and voice coils
>> that are many many orders of magnitude greater, in the milli Henry
>> range. Just like the loop resistance of cables is miniscule compared
>> to the resistance of the inductors and voice coils. Check out the
>> actual figures demonstrated by Dick Pierce on many occasions, which
>> show differences in SPL of hundredths and thousands of a dB, are you
>> seriously suggesting that these differences can be heard?
>
>**Sure. I note that you have snipped my references. I'll re-post them, at
>this point and commend you to look at them, with scientific calculator in
>hand. Punch in the numbers, then get back to me.
Trevor, are you being purposely obtuse? The issue is audible
differences. In the examples you stated, do you have ANY evidence that
people can hear differences in bias-controlled conditions?
>Just to referesh your memory:
>
>XL = 2 * pi * f * L
>
>Where:
>XL is Inductive reactance, in Ohms
>f is frequency, in Hz
>L is inductance in Henries
Sarcasm is no substitute for knowledge.
>Let's plug in a 20 foot (yeah I know) speaker cable.
Hypothetical, as such this is totally irrelevant to the discussion
>Connect it to the
>second example, I quoted. You'll note an impedance dip of around 0.55 Ohms
>at around 16kHz. From our equation, above, you'll note that the inductive
>reactance of Belden 8477 is around 0.56 Ohms. That equates to a 6dB drop in
>output at 16kHz. Do you think that will be audible to a critical listener? I
>do.
You think! Please state the fraction of the power bandwidth of audible
sound that is present at 16KHz. Then please state the proportion of
the general population that have their original hearing ability at
this frequency, or even lower? Then please state the proportion of a
normal music program, or range of music programs that have audible
sound at these frequencies!
And please state where audibility of this reduction in spl has been
demonstrated using normal music program material at these frequencies.
I would even accept differences of audibility using sine waves, so
long as the tests were carried out in an anechoic situation.
>
>Now let's look at the Goertz.
>
>It's inductive reactance, over 20 feet, is around 0.008 Ohms. That equates
>to an inaudible drop at 16kHz.
>
>So, Patric, it appears low inductance speaker cables are useful for some
>loudspeakers. What say you?
You assert that it appears ... if you have any evidence that it is
audible, please state where it may be seen!
>> Like with 10 to 20 metre speaker cable runs?
>
>**Very rare, but not unheard of. In these instances, the value of low
>inductance cables will be even more pronounced. Almost any electrostatic
>speaker would demonstrate severe HF loss, with such runs of regular zip
>cable.
It would be trivially easy to measure such losses. Can you cite
evidence of audibility under bias-controlled conditions?
>
>**Sadly, my old outgoing posts were lost in crash, some time ago.
Convenient! But not a problem. Google Groups now appears to have
archives of Usenet postings going back many years. Cite the dates, and
the newsgroups and I will look them up.
>Nevertheless, if you read his posts, you will note he shows a fundamental
>lack of UNDERSTANDING of the issues surrounding cables. He can parrot book
>information, quite satisfactorily and he certainly knows how to read the
>characteristics of the Belden range of cables.
Most people, engineers included, other than those actually invoved in
research "...parrot book information, quite satisfactorily..." As you
do, even in relation to your infatuation with ME amplifiers. Or have
you tested these under ALL the circumstances that you describe when
promoting their virtues?
> Just read his posts with a
>critical view and you'll see what I mean.
Those that I have read, I read with a critical view, and I don't see
what you mean. In fact I read most things with a critical view. But I
don't bother trying to take the professional or personal character of
other people. This is something you seem to spend a lot of time doing,
vide your posting history over the last year or so on the Australian
newsgroups.
>**Read the figures, quoted above. This ain't no hypothesis. It is measurable
>and easily audible to a critical listener (and probably a goodly few not so
>critical ones).
I ahve already responded to this. And until and unless you can cite
evidence that what you claim is audible under bias controlled
conditions, it will remain hypothetical. Where is your evidence?
>
> When was this
>> demonstrated in a bias controlled listening test?
>
>**With a 6dB drop at 16kHz, I can't say that I'd even bother with a bias
>controlled listening test. Would you?
Given my experience with and knowledge of testing sensory perception -
covering all five senses, I most definitely would. And I have many
many times as a marketing consultant since the mid-70's
>
> You appear to be the
>> only one in possession of this information.
>
>**I seriously doubt it. Present my figures to Pierce, Pinkerton, Kreuger and
>Nousaine. Then ask them. I know what their answer will be. I know, because
>they have already agreed with me. Such a loudspeaker system, will demand the
>use of low inductance cables.
When and where have they agreed with you that audible differences
would be experienced in bias controlled circumstances? You claim to
know what their answer would be, whereas every word they post on the
subject of audible differences in cables under bias controlled
conditions contradicts everything that you write.
>**If you had taken the time to dust off your scientific calculator, you
>might have saved me all this nonsense. You think a 6dB drop at 16kHz is
>inaudible?
What I think or not is totally irrelevant. This issue is audibility,
measured in bias controlled listening tests.
Trevor, I have already asked you are you being purposely obtuse?
Dusting off my calculator, doing measurements and all the rest go
absolutely NOWHERE in relation to measuring AUDIBLE differences in
bias controlled LISTENING tests.
What is it about audibility and this statement do you not understand?
>>
>> where is your evidence for this.
>
>**I just showed it to you. SOME loudspeaker systems demand the use of low
>inductance cables.
Answer the question asked. You stated an hypothesis. Calculations
cannot predict what someone may hear or think they hear. Your claim
that SOME ... demand the use of low inductance cables. Where is YOUR
evidence for this. If you cannot produce any, then please shut up as
your continued refusal to address the question put is a waste of time.
>**Of course they can. Goertz is low inductance, whilst zip cable is about as
>high as a standard cable can get (inductance-wise).
And in terms of audibility, this is not significant. Show your
evidence and stop making hypothetical claims.
> There contribution to the loop
>> impedance is miniscule, even where there is NO inductor in circuit.
>
>**I see. Did you even bother to perform any calculations, with the speakers
>I provided references to? If not, why not?
Because in terms of "audibility" the references you quoted mean
nothing. Do you have evidence of these differences being audible under
bias controlled conditions? I have done these tests, over a period of
many years, and I have yet to find valid and reliable evidence that
what you are claiming is true.
>
>> The inductance of voice coils that I have measured is many many orders
>> of magnitude greater that that of a cable. And the issue is
>> AUDIBILITY, not measureability.
>
>**I think 6dB at 16kHz is audible to quite a number of listeners, don't you?
You think!!!!
>Hell, 1dB at 16kHz would be audible to a critical listener.
Define a critical listener, and cite your evidence. Not opinion,
hypothesis, or what ever. Actual evidence!
>**I have been specific. I even provided references (which you conveniently
>snipped). Is that enough, or do you want more?
You have referenced measurements of the qualities of certain cables. I
have created low inductance cables, using various combinations of low
inductance configurations based on Cat 5 and 50 core IDE cables to
mention two. I have tested these with my own speakers and those
generally available in the Australian and European markets. I have
done these tests under double and single blind conditions, in addition
to sighted and mis-directed blind conditions. And I have yet to record
ANYONE doing better than chance in identifying AUDIBLE differences
between standard 12AWG and the low inductance cables that I produced.
I am still looking for evidence of audibility, and your hypothetical
rhetoric is not contributing to that quest, and at this stage is
becoming quite tiresome.
If you have any evidence of audibility in the circumstances cited,
please put it up or shut up!
>**Correct. Inductance DOES vary dramatically, between cables which have been
>specifically manufactured for low inductance and those which are not,
>however. Those differences will, most certainly, be audible, under the
>circumstances, I have quoted.
You have quoted YOUR opinion of what will be audible. This is not
evidence, something of which you are obviously unaware.
>> No argument about measuring differences. As you know, my position is
>> that if a factor exists, it can be measured. At least in the domain of
>> Newtonian physics.
>
>**I prefer Einsteinian physics, myself. Newton was wrong.
What an arrogant pratt you are demonstrating yourself to be, Trevor.
Although I am not surprised at this stage. Tell me, what useful
purpose is served by comparing "apples with oranges". For this is what
you have done.
Classical Physics, e.g., Newtonian deal with large effects. Are you
claiming that Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics, Motion and Conservation
are wrong? Pray tell us exactly where and how this is so. I am sure
thousands of misguided souls like myself would like to hear this.
Einsteinian Physics. What are these, exactly. Do you mean the Physics
of Rutherford, Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg et al?
Oh, you mean Quantum Physics, do you? Sorry, but that does NOT
describe the world in the same context as Newton.
Well I have news for you. It seems, according to some stuff that I
have read lately, that Einstein's mental experiments may also be
wrong. Yes, did you know that he only ever operated at the theoretical
level, via mental experiments. Just like Freud.
But quantum physics don't have anything to do with sensory perception,
or the science of acoustics, AFAIK. But perhaps you have some
hypotheses that will speak to that as well.
>**No, Patric, I have supplied facts all along. I did not expect to have to
>do the calculations for you, that's all.
I'm really sorry for you, Trevor, if you consider the hypotheses,
thoughts and opinions that you have stated to be facts. FYI, they are
not. They can become facts, IF you can reliably observe them in bias
controlled tests, which you have yet to do.
>**Not at all. I contend that Steve Lampen is not a proper engineer. Either
>that, or he has forgotten everything he has learned. Quite possible, given
>some of the engineers I've encountered. Some of them pass their exams
>without a true understanding of the nature of what they are dealing with.
More opinion, sweeping generalisations and hypothetical statements
presented as fact. You are a truly arrogant person Trevor, something
which in hindsight is evident in some of the stuff that you have
posted over the years. It appears that you have a complex about
engineers! What happened, was your mother frightened by one? What a
load of biased, arrogant and inversely snobbish rhetoric!
FYI, Trevor. I am a qualified electrician, European style having done
my trades examinations and a five year apprenticeship; a qualified
Electrical Technician, having completed my Institute of City & Guilds
of London Full Technical Certificate, Parts 1 and 2; I hold Bachelor
Degrees in Electrical Engineering, Law, and Marketing; a Masters
Degree in Business Administration; and the Doctorate of Philosophy
which I achieved in the area of Strategic Marketing and Management.
I am also a musician since the late 50's and still playing in public,
have been designing and building loudspeaker systems since the late
60's, and have pursued the business and hobby of Audio and lately
Home Theatre since the 1968.
With all of these qualifications and matching work experience Trevor,
I can get a cup of very good coffee in a lot of restaurants where I
travel for around $3.00. In fact I can get the coffee if I have the
$3.00 regardless of the qualifications.
But I take care not to denigrate or take the character of people that
I don't know, and I am reluctant to do so even in the case of people
that I do know.
In my professional opinion, Trevor, your attacks on such as Mr Lamken,
and much of you posts that I have read over the last few years suggest
that you are sufferring from a massive inferiority complex. I think
that it is past time that you sought help in this matter.
>character assassination stuff snipped
>**I'm unsure why you choose to spell Belden incorrectly, in caps.
I didn't chose to spell it incorrectly, this was a typographical
error. As for the caps, it is sometimes practice to spell brand names
using capital letters. I have seem some of this companies products so
marked in the electrical wholesalers.
>However, that is your right to do so.
Gee Trevor, that's really big of you!
>
>
>**Dunno. Don't care. I'm not Mr Goertz. You'll need to proffer that question
>to the proper people.
So your use of this guy's cables was a strawman tactic, was it?
>**I doubt it. I've demonstrated many times. It is a trivially simple
>exercise.
No, Trevor, you have not demostrated this many times. And if it is a
trivially simple exercise, where is the evidence that it is true? You
continue to confuse opinion and hypothesis with fact. You should
really get something done about that!
>Further, it can be proven mathematically.
But it has NOT been proven audibly, under bias controlled conditions,
yet. Or if it has, it is being kept secret.
>**Dunlavy may claim what he wishes. He is a REAL engineer. One who has not
>forgotten what he has learned. Ask him about my quoted examples. He will
>concur with what I've stated.
He didn't!
>> As a marketing person, if I had a product that actually met the claims
>> that the likes of Canare, Nordost, Goertz et al make, I would welcome
>> the opportunity to demonstrate this. Particularly when the opportunity
>> exists to have head to head listening tests with such as DAL products.
>
>**I never, once stated, that there would be any audible difference between
>DAL cables and goertz. I am restricting my comments to zip cables.
Weak sophistry, Trevor. Given that on many occasions John has stated
that he hasn't identified AUDIBLE differences between HIS cables and
commonly available 12AWG zip cord. In fact he reports that so far, in
listening tests that he and his company have carried out, under bias
controlled conditions, NO ONE has been able to do better than chance
in identifying audible differences. And he has stated that HE has been
fooled on many occasions, hearing differences in cables where in fact
no change of cable had been effected. Expectation effect. And in the
now finished META thread on rahe, he has made this point clear to the
guy from BEAR Labs. Or have you not seen his posts in this thread?
>**You are entitled to your opinion. There are other possible reasons.
Yes, including the possibility that this guy's cables don't exhibit
any audible differences compared to 12AWG zip cord under bias
controlled conditions. But that is a hypothetical on my part, seeing
as he consistently refuses to participate in such tests.
>**You are forgiven. Please provide any reference where I have been proven
>wrong WRT the audibility of cables on RAT then. I await your reference.
It is not possible to PROVE you wrong, your failure to produce any
evidence supporting your position does not allow that. But it is true
that people such as Pinkerton and others have carried on the same sort
of dialogue as I have, and gave it up because of your propensity to
offer opinion and hypothesis as fact.
Something that I now propose to do!
>**No Patric. You said:
>"Trevor, I have followed your posting record on rec.audio.high-end over
>the last year, and you have had your arguments as above refuted
>consistently."
In research, as well as debating, consistently refusing to produce
evidence of what you are claiming, in the face of evidence to the
contrary, constitutes a de facto refutation. Unfortunately, you
continue to offer these opinions and hypotheses as facts so it is not
possible to positively refute you.
If you knew anything about research and the use of statistics, it is
NOT possible to prove the null hypothesis. One can merely accept or
reject it. Given that your position constitutes the null hypothesis in
dialogue and the META thread on rahe, all the evidence leads one to
reject it. Whereas when the null hypothesis is that "audible
differences have not been demonstrated under bias controlled listening
tests" the eviden is overwhelming for accepting the null hypothetis.
>Please feel free to provide these mythical references.
Your statements in this dialogue is the most contemporary example of
this. Your defence of audible differences on other newsgroups
concerning speaker cables and interconnects over the last few years
are more. As you should remember, you were taking the same positions a
few years ago with me in a number of "wire is wire" threads. Or do you
forget these?
>**You called me an engineer. The only person, who regularly claims
>electrical engineering status, in this group, ir Trevor Lees. I am not an
>engineer.
Sorry for insulting you! BTW I have always admitted to being an
engineer. As have other people. From my perspective it is nothing to
be ashamed of. And your use of Trevor Lees' name in this context does
you no credit.
>**That is fair enough. It is my contention that a non-DBT may be a good
>starting place.
Why would a test that is not bias controlled be a good starting place.
The only possible result from such tests would be data that are
neither valid or reliable. And if data are not valid or reliable, then
by definition they are useless when dealing with matters of fact.
>That comment does not invalidate DBTs.
As far as I know, nothing invalidates DBT's by definition. Only when
the bias controls are broken can this happen, and at that stage of
course they are no longer Double Blind Tests.
cables
>**How is that the case. The client has no knowledge of the idenity of the
>cable (apart from arbitrary markings). I have no knowledge of which cable is
>used and when it is used. Whilst not a perfectly controlled experiment, it
>ain't bad.
Bad? In the context of validity and reliability, it is totally
useless. Expectation effect will see to that, something which bias
control methods eliminate in the data. BTW, a similar situation was
hypothesised by Randy of BEAR Labs, which was responded to as I have
to you by John Dunlavy. Anyone who understands bias controlled testing
would not offer such an example.
You may respond to this or not, Trevor. I have no intention in
carrying on this exercise in futility with someone who refuses to
address questions as the are put. And as I should have realised, a
discussion with someone whose apparent belief is that it is possible
to get valid and reliable data from subjective tests that are not bias
controlled is a total exercise in futility.
Please continue to enjoy your mythological world!
Geoff
> experiences/comments on DS and Jaycar speaker cable. Little did I know it
> was to develop into one of the longest threads I've seen on this newgroup!
> (Is there some kind of reward for this?)
wtf... hey take a look at this guy, he wants credit for the thread even
though it's been all us ever since the second post! We made the thread what
it is, not you. bugger off :))))))
> Many thanks to all who contributed to this thread and who helped me make a
> decision.
Seems like you made a sensible choice. Once you've got decent quality
cable, IMO, you do have to spend a large amount of money to improve on it.
Hardly worth it unless you're rolling in your own wealth and the last
0.0001% matters that much :)
Trevor Wilson
> I never disputed this, I merely stated that if you do not get the
> information of the source of your choice in the first place, the best
> amplifiers and speakers in the world cannot recreate it.
**No one disputes that. Fortunately, achieving that is a trivial exercise,
with even modestly priced CD players.
> who are you arguing with here, My comment was bemoaning the fact that you
> can NOT determine how a piece of equipment sound from the measurements,
> whereas many people do believe this to be the case. Do we agree on this
> point?
**I certainly do not. It is possible, given enough measurements, to
determine very precisely, how a piece of equipment sounds.
Trevor Wilson
> **********************************
> "**No less constructive, than these words:
>
> "give me a fucking break"
> **********************************
>
> The words "give me a fucking break" were aimed at nobody. Your words were
> aimed at anybody and everybody who believes that speakers are not the most
> important item in a system. i.e anybody who thinks differently from you.
**Hmm. That is not how I interpreted your words. Further, I have known that
many people, over many years (since the early days of Linn) who claim the
supreme importance of source, in any given system. It has been shown, since
at least the second generation of CD players, to be a false trusim.
Certainly, the source plays SOME part in every system. It is the
loudspeakers (and room) which determine the major character of the sound,
however. With (say) a pair of Bose AcoutimessT speakers, it will be
virtually impossible to pick between (say) a $99.00 CD player and a
$20,000.00 one. Ditto, with turntables.
>
>
> **********************************
> "**Sure. Let's set up two systems. Both will cost roughly the same."
> **********************************
> Not the point of my statement. My comment was aimed at your statement
"BTW:
> Australia is not the only country which thinks this way. It is a
universally
> accepted truism.". I was asking you to provide substance, to your rash
> generalisation, that speakers being important was a UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED
> TRUISM.
**Well, just ask 100 audio professionals.
>
>
> **********************************
> Extract
> "A products which measures badly, can never sound good"
> >
> > Apologies to any Valve and vinyl lovers out there, apparently you were
> wrong
> > all along." End Extract
> Your reply **Where did I say that?
> **********************************
> Not sure which part of the above you refer to when you say "Where did I
say
> that?" so I'll post an answer to both:
> True, you did not mention valve and vinyl specifically, I included these
as
> examples of technologies which have no right to sound as good as they do
> because, in the modern world, they have SPECIFICATIONS that your "$500"
> dollar CD player and just about any SS AMP would beat by orders of
> magnitude.
**I certainly did not agree to that. CD players exhibit some deficiencies,
which can be bettered by even modestly priced turntables. Ditto, tube
amplifiers. Again, it ain't a mystery. CD players and most SS amps, have
their limitations. Certainly, SOME specs are easily orders of magnitube
better, in CD players and SS amps. Those specs, however, may be largely
unimportant to human hearing.
Therefore, in your world, the $500 dollar CD player and any
> modern SS AMP should sound better.
**Nope. You make bold, incorrect assumptions.
> If your question "Where did I say that?" was related to the "A products
> which measures badly, can never sound good", then refer your post dated
> Fri, 21 Sep 2001 07:22:49 EST.
>
> **********************************
> "As for vinyl lovers, be aware that I own a large amount of vinyl and
listen
> to it every now and again."
> **********************************
> Well, if you listen to it "now and again", why not sell it on to someone
who
> would play it regularly
**Why? I listen to it, now and again. I enjoy it. Why should I deprive
myself of pleasure? For the record: I have yet to hear a CD player exceed
the performance (sonically) of my Sheffield Direct Disk recordings. Having
said that, the specs suggest that SACD will.
>
> **********************************
> IMO, even the best CD player cannot achieve what the BEST vinyl can, in a
> couple of
> areas."
> **********************************
> What areas, my guess would be that your answer will be something to do
with
> measurements.
**Certainly.
>
>
> **********************************
> "In most areas, however, even the cheapest CD player can comfortably
> outperform the best vinyl rig."
> **********************************
> see my previous comment.
**Correct. S/N, low end FR, W&F, Speed accuracy, THD, etc, etc. All are
significantly better, in most CD players.
>
>
> **********************************
> "**Only the truth, Welly. Always the truth."
> **********************************
> looking at your website, you may be a tad biased as this is the only
> amplification product you appear to sell.
**Absolutely. In another life, I sold many different brands of equipment
(including ME). On an ethical level, I found it difficult selling products,
which I would not care to own. I decided to sell ONLY the products, which I
would happily own.
please tell me that you sell other
> amplification equipment (but only if it's true). btw, I don't mean the
used
> gear you sell (which everyone trades automatically once they've heard an
ME,
> of course).
**Nope. Just ME. In their respective price points, ME products are the best,
IMO. That opinion does not invalidate the many other products available.
>
> Also, I would like to add that I have heard an ME product, so these posts
> are not intended as a tirade against that particular brand (there are many
> others more worthy of a tirade). I heard the Integrated model that ME
> produces. Yes, a very nice amplifier, but during my listening to this
> product, it was not what I was looking for.
**That's fair enough. I have long since given up the notion of expecting
EVERY person to want to own an ME. I am very pleased that you took the time
to listen to one. That is all I ask.
However, to claim that they are
> "one of the finest amplifiers available today" just smacks a little
(nah...a
> lot) of salesmanship.
**True enough. At their respective price points, they are difficult to
better. The ME240 has stiff competition, from many of the UK built products
(Arcam, f'rinstance). Further up the ME range, however, it becomes more
difficult to find serious competition.
Just about any company or retailer would say that (and
> why not, if they sell that product).
**Of course.
remarkabel
Preamp wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 11:02:25 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Some items like brand X or brand Y speakers are going to
> >> sound different.
> >> There are some folks who say there are big cable
> >> differences,
> >> but I have not been able to trap one into my simple test
> >> where
> >> and A to B switch is used to go between either cable.
> >
> >**Fair enough. Anyone who says the differences are "huge" is telling fibs.
> >Speaker cable differences are usually quite minimal.
> >
>
> Fer chrissakes, if they are minimal, why are you carrying on so?
Hey, read the thread. (and please don't jump on me saying I'm only "me
too-ing") What trevor said (to paraphrase) is that all things being equal
differences are minuscule (often inaudible) but that some combinations of
(poorly) designed speakers and/or amplifiers require careful selection of
speaker cable. In the latter case (audible) differences between cables can
increase by several orders of magnitude over the former.
If you have a poorly designed amp and/or speakers the choice of speaker cable
becomes more critical. Given well designed components and speaker cables
exhibiting characteristics of sound design and engineering the differences
between those cables should be miniscule if not inaudible.
Cheers,
Mark
Trevor Wilson
"Patric Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
news:3bac0948...@news.por.starwon.com.au...
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 23:18:59 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
> >snip<
>
>
> >**Well, Patric, I'm telling that there is evidence. What there is not, is
a
> >well documented and controlled listening test. There is evidence,
however.
>
> More attempts at proof by assertion. The question is "audible"
> differences. There are many well documented and controlled listening
> tests. Published by such as Tom Nousaine, Arne Krueger, Howard
> Ferstler. And the evidence thus far is that NO ONE has been able to do
> better than chance in identifying audible differences. You appear to
> agree with this, so when you state that:
> >What there is not, is a well documented and controlled listening test<
> I infer you to mean that no such test has demonstrated audible
> differences. So what evidence are you speaking about, where is it to
> be found, or is it not published yet.
**I have not performed a serious scientific test, which would satisfy your
demands. I have performed a large number of informal tests, which suggest
that, under certain circumstances, cable differences are audible to some
people.
>
>
> irrelevant data snipped again
>
>
> >> Audible differences, identified in bias controlled listening tests?
> >>
> >> NOT.
> >
> >**Nope. Tell you what: You pay for a test and we'll see what happens.
>
> Over the years, I have done many tests of sensory perception in my
> work in marketing. This has included listening test that were double
> blind, blind and sighted. In all cases the results were predictable:
> When sight was allowed, or people were told which was being used, they
> claimed to hear differences. When visual evidence was removed, or
> mis-direction was used concering what was being used, people still
> claimed to hear differences. But no one was able to hear differences
> that were more reliable than chance. And even when NO differences were
> present people continued to hear them - due to expectation effect.
**I do not dispute this. I have seen it many times. I have experienced it
many times. None of us is immune to bias.
>
> This is why, when doing product testing in the food, beverage,
> pharmaceutical and medical industries, only the data from
> bias-controlled tests are acceptable. This is a matter of recorded
> fact, what is also a matter of fact is that where bias control was not
> employed the resulst were universally invalid and unreliable.
**Sure. And a good thing, too. Further, I would happy to become invloved in
such a test, with audio cables, provided certain criteria were met. I am not
anti-DBT. I have simply not had the time, nor wherewithall to become engaged
in such a test.
>
>
> >
>
> >
> > Given that these cables are connected to speakers
> >> with inductance values in their crossover networks and voice coils
> >> that are many many orders of magnitude greater, in the milli Henry
> >> range. Just like the loop resistance of cables is miniscule compared
> >> to the resistance of the inductors and voice coils. Check out the
> >> actual figures demonstrated by Dick Pierce on many occasions, which
> >> show differences in SPL of hundredths and thousands of a dB, are you
> >> seriously suggesting that these differences can be heard?
> >
> >**Sure. I note that you have snipped my references. I'll re-post them, at
> >this point and commend you to look at them, with scientific calculator in
> >hand. Punch in the numbers, then get back to me.
>
> Trevor, are you being purposely obtuse? The issue is audible
> differences. In the examples you stated, do you have ANY evidence that
> people can hear differences in bias-controlled conditions?
**No. I am extrapolating from the generally held theories surrounding the
abilities of human hearing. A 6dB drop at 16kHz, at 12dB/octave, suggests a
loss of several dB at lower frequencies. Under critical conditions, this
will be audible for a large percentage of listeners.
>
>
> >Just to referesh your memory:
> >
> >XL = 2 * pi * f * L
> >
> >Where:
> >XL is Inductive reactance, in Ohms
> >f is frequency, in Hz
> >L is inductance in Henries
>
> Sarcasm is no substitute for knowledge.
>
> >Let's plug in a 20 foot (yeah I know) speaker cable.
>
> Hypothetical, as such this is totally irrelevant to the discussion
**In what way. I merely quoted and extreme example. An example,
incidentally, which I have encountered in a real life system.
>
> >Connect it to the
> >second example, I quoted. You'll note an impedance dip of around 0.55
Ohms
> >at around 16kHz. From our equation, above, you'll note that the inductive
> >reactance of Belden 8477 is around 0.56 Ohms. That equates to a 6dB drop
in
> >output at 16kHz. Do you think that will be audible to a critical
listener? I
> >do.
>
> You think! Please state the fraction of the power bandwidth of audible
> sound that is present at 16KHz.
**Bugger all. Significantly, it is not zero, though.
Then please state the proportion of
> the general population that have their original hearing ability at
> this frequency, or even lower?
**For those over 40 years of age? Bugger all. For those under 30? Lots. My
own hearing was fine to 18.4kHz up until 35 years. I could barely remain in
the same room as most TV sets. So annoying was the noise from the line
frequency. Nonetheless, the actual percentage of critical listeners is
irrelevant. I never suggested that cable differences were audible to all
listeners. Just a few.
Then please state the proportion of a
> normal music program, or range of music programs that have audible
> sound at these frequencies!
**Bugger all, commerical releases. Quite a few audiophile ones, though.
>
> And please state where audibility of this reduction in spl has been
> demonstrated using normal music program material at these frequencies.
> I would even accept differences of audibility using sine waves, so
> long as the tests were carried out in an anechoic situation.
**I can't say.
>
> >
> >Now let's look at the Goertz.
> >
> >It's inductive reactance, over 20 feet, is around 0.008 Ohms. That
equates
> >to an inaudible drop at 16kHz.
> >
> >So, Patric, it appears low inductance speaker cables are useful for some
> >loudspeakers. What say you?
>
> You assert that it appears ... if you have any evidence that it is
> audible, please state where it may be seen!
**I've provided the numbers. Present my numbers to those who you respect.
Ask them, if they feel the differences will be audible to a panel of
critical listeners. I will abide by their comments.
>
>
> >> Like with 10 to 20 metre speaker cable runs?
> >
> >**Very rare, but not unheard of. In these instances, the value of low
> >inductance cables will be even more pronounced. Almost any electrostatic
> >speaker would demonstrate severe HF loss, with such runs of regular zip
> >cable.
>
> It would be trivially easy to measure such losses. Can you cite
> evidence of audibility under bias-controlled conditions?
**Nope. No need. With such huge losses, at HF, with difficult loads, audible
testing would be unnecessary.
>
>
> >
> >**Sadly, my old outgoing posts were lost in crash, some time ago.
>
> Convenient! But not a problem. Google Groups now appears to have
> archives of Usenet postings going back many years. Cite the dates, and
> the newsgroups and I will look them up.
**If I had my old posts, I could certainly quote the dates. Nevertheless,
you initially claimed that I have been proven wrong, many times. Please feel
free to quote YOUR references, of where this is the case.
>
>
> >Nevertheless, if you read his posts, you will note he shows a fundamental
> >lack of UNDERSTANDING of the issues surrounding cables. He can parrot
book
> >information, quite satisfactorily and he certainly knows how to read the
> >characteristics of the Belden range of cables.
>
> Most people, engineers included, other than those actually invoved in
> research "...parrot book information, quite satisfactorily..." As you
> do, even in relation to your infatuation with ME amplifiers. Or have
> you tested these under ALL the circumstances that you describe when
> promoting their virtues?
**Most of them, yes. I have a moderately well equipped workshop and I
regularly test ALL amplifiers, for performance parameters. That includes
MEs.
>
> > Just read his posts with a
> >critical view and you'll see what I mean.
>
> Those that I have read, I read with a critical view, and I don't see
> what you mean. In fact I read most things with a critical view. But I
> don't bother trying to take the professional or personal character of
> other people. This is something you seem to spend a lot of time doing,
> vide your posting history over the last year or so on the Australian
> newsgroups.
**Where it is warranted, yes. You seem to be holding Steve Lampen, as some
kind of cable guru. He is not. He is in the sales department of Belden
Cables. He plays no part in the design of the product, nor it's production.
Now, Dunlavy, Davis and Pinkerton, are completely different animals. They
really know their stuff. I respect their knowledge and experience.
>
>
> >**Read the figures, quoted above. This ain't no hypothesis. It is
measurable
> >and easily audible to a critical listener (and probably a goodly few not
so
> >critical ones).
>
> I ahve already responded to this. And until and unless you can cite
> evidence that what you claim is audible under bias controlled
> conditions, it will remain hypothetical. Where is your evidence?
**My evidence is in the numbers.
>
> >
> > When was this
> >> demonstrated in a bias controlled listening test?
> >
> >**With a 6dB drop at 16kHz, I can't say that I'd even bother with a bias
> >controlled listening test. Would you?
>
> Given my experience with and knowledge of testing sensory perception -
> covering all five senses, I most definitely would. And I have many
> many times as a marketing consultant since the mid-70's
**Fair enough. My experience suggests that a 6dB drop at 16kHz would be
readily audible to a large percentage of listeners.
>
> >
> > You appear to be the
> >> only one in possession of this information.
> >
> >**I seriously doubt it. Present my figures to Pierce, Pinkerton, Kreuger
and
> >Nousaine. Then ask them. I know what their answer will be. I know,
because
> >they have already agreed with me. Such a loudspeaker system, will demand
the
> >use of low inductance cables.
>
> When and where have they agreed with you that audible differences
> would be experienced in bias controlled circumstances? You claim to
> know what their answer would be, whereas every word they post on the
> subject of audible differences in cables under bias controlled
> conditions contradicts everything that you write.
**Present my figures to the above-mentioned people. Ask their opinions. I
will abide by what they say. If they say that a panel of critical listeners
cannot hear any difference between zip cable and Goertz cables, then that
will be good enough for me.
>
> >**If you had taken the time to dust off your scientific calculator, you
> >might have saved me all this nonsense. You think a 6dB drop at 16kHz is
> >inaudible?
>
> What I think or not is totally irrelevant. This issue is audibility,
> measured in bias controlled listening tests.
>
> Trevor, I have already asked you are you being purposely obtuse?
**Nope. Patric, I have been in audio for a very long time. Minor frequency
abnomalities are readily audible, in my experience. DBTs notwithstanding.
>
> Dusting off my calculator, doing measurements and all the rest go
> absolutely NOWHERE in relation to measuring AUDIBLE differences in
> bias controlled LISTENING tests.
>
> What is it about audibility and this statement do you not understand?
**As I have stated: A 6dB drop at 16kHz, is os gross an error, that a
listening test is hardly required. Certainly, if the opportunity presents
itself, I would be happy to engage in one.
>
>
>
>
> >>
> >> where is your evidence for this.
> >
> >**I just showed it to you. SOME loudspeaker systems demand the use of low
> >inductance cables.
>
> Answer the question asked. You stated an hypothesis. Calculations
> cannot predict what someone may hear or think they hear. Your claim
> that SOME ... demand the use of low inductance cables. Where is YOUR
> evidence for this. If you cannot produce any, then please shut up as
> your continued refusal to address the question put is a waste of time.
**Hmm.
>
>
>
> >**Of course they can. Goertz is low inductance, whilst zip cable is about
as
> >high as a standard cable can get (inductance-wise).
>
> And in terms of audibility, this is not significant. Show your
> evidence and stop making hypothetical claims.
>
> > There contribution to the loop
> >> impedance is miniscule, even where there is NO inductor in circuit.
> >
> >**I see. Did you even bother to perform any calculations, with the
speakers
> >I provided references to? If not, why not?
>
> Because in terms of "audibility" the references you quoted mean
> nothing. Do you have evidence of these differences being audible under
> bias controlled conditions? I have done these tests, over a period of
> many years, and I have yet to find valid and reliable evidence that
> what you are claiming is true.
**It is generally accepted that ideal human hearing extends out past 20kHz.
Parts of music extend past 20kHz. If a roll off is introduced, such that the
response of a system is 6dB down at 16kHz, then many critical listeners will
easily hear such a flaw. A listening test will certainly confirm, or deny
such a flaw.
>
> >
> >> The inductance of voice coils that I have measured is many many orders
> >> of magnitude greater that that of a cable. And the issue is
> >> AUDIBILITY, not measureability.
> >
> >**I think 6dB at 16kHz is audible to quite a number of listeners, don't
you?
>
> You think!!!!
**OK. Ask Dunlavy, what he thinks.
>
> >Hell, 1dB at 16kHz would be audible to a critical listener.
>
> Define a critical listener, and cite your evidence. Not opinion,
> hypothesis, or what ever. Actual evidence!
**A person whose hearing has been accurately tested to be past 18kHz. A
person who listens extensively to music, through a high quality music
system. A person who claims to be able to hear minute changes in his/her
system.
>
> >**I have been specific. I even provided references (which you
conveniently
> >snipped). Is that enough, or do you want more?
>
> You have referenced measurements of the qualities of certain cables. I
> have created low inductance cables, using various combinations of low
> inductance configurations based on Cat 5 and 50 core IDE cables to
> mention two. I have tested these with my own speakers and those
> generally available in the Australian and European markets. I have
> done these tests under double and single blind conditions, in addition
> to sighted and mis-directed blind conditions. And I have yet to record
> ANYONE doing better than chance in identifying AUDIBLE differences
> between standard 12AWG and the low inductance cables that I produced.
**Not surprising. Please table the impedance curve of your speakers. What
length of cable? These are absolutely critical issues. After that, you may
care to try some electrostatic speakers, with long(ish) cable lengths.
>
> I am still looking for evidence of audibility, and your hypothetical
> rhetoric is not contributing to that quest, and at this stage is
> becoming quite tiresome.
>
> If you have any evidence of audibility in the circumstances cited,
> please put it up or shut up!
**Ho hum. I have no evidence. I do have mathematics, however. Those figures
show a falling response, well within the audible range.
>
>
> >**Correct. Inductance DOES vary dramatically, between cables which have
been
> >specifically manufactured for low inductance and those which are not,
> >however. Those differences will, most certainly, be audible, under the
> >circumstances, I have quoted.
>
> You have quoted YOUR opinion of what will be audible. This is not
> evidence, something of which you are obviously unaware.
>
>
>
>
> >> No argument about measuring differences. As you know, my position is
> >> that if a factor exists, it can be measured. At least in the domain of
> >> Newtonian physics.
> >
> >**I prefer Einsteinian physics, myself. Newton was wrong.
>
> What an arrogant pratt you are demonstrating yourself to be, Trevor.
> Although I am not surprised at this stage. Tell me, what useful
> purpose is served by comparing "apples with oranges". For this is what
> you have done.
**Perhaps I should have placed a little 'smiley', at this point. Oh well.
>
> Classical Physics, e.g., Newtonian deal with large effects. Are you
> claiming that Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics, Motion and Conservation
> are wrong? Pray tell us exactly where and how this is so. I am sure
> thousands of misguided souls like myself would like to hear this.
>
> Einsteinian Physics. What are these, exactly. Do you mean the Physics
> of Rutherford, Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg et al?
>
> Oh, you mean Quantum Physics, do you? Sorry, but that does NOT
> describe the world in the same context as Newton.
>
> Well I have news for you. It seems, according to some stuff that I
> have read lately, that Einstein's mental experiments may also be
> wrong. Yes, did you know that he only ever operated at the theoretical
> level, via mental experiments. Just like Freud.
>
> But quantum physics don't have anything to do with sensory perception,
> or the science of acoustics, AFAIK. But perhaps you have some
> hypotheses that will speak to that as well.
**It was intended as a 'throwaway' comment. I am sorry you did not interpret
it as such. I will be more careful in future.
>
> >**No, Patric, I have supplied facts all along. I did not expect to have
to
> >do the calculations for you, that's all.
>
> I'm really sorry for you, Trevor, if you consider the hypotheses,
> thoughts and opinions that you have stated to be facts. FYI, they are
> not. They can become facts, IF you can reliably observe them in bias
> controlled tests, which you have yet to do.
**Fair enough. I have found measurements and figures to be extremely
reliable indicators of the audible characteristics of a system.
>
>
>
> >**Not at all. I contend that Steve Lampen is not a proper engineer.
Either
> >that, or he has forgotten everything he has learned. Quite possible,
given
> >some of the engineers I've encountered. Some of them pass their exams
> >without a true understanding of the nature of what they are dealing with.
>
> More opinion, sweeping generalisations and hypothetical statements
> presented as fact. You are a truly arrogant person Trevor, something
> which in hindsight is evident in some of the stuff that you have
> posted over the years. It appears that you have a complex about
> engineers! What happened, was your mother frightened by one? What a
> load of biased, arrogant and inversely snobbish rhetoric!
**There are good engineers and bad engineers. I have experienced both. My
first was when I was a trainee with OTC. As a third year trainee, I found
myself spending several weeks re-designing equipment, which had been
incompetently designed by a person who had spent 5 years at university,
studying I-don't-know-what and then another 10 years of the job. A complete
and utter boob. That was my first experience at dealing with an engineer.
There were many others. Some engineers are excellent. Some are not. Some of
the best people, I've met, in electronics do not have an engineering degree.
An engineer proves his/her worth, by his/her words and actions, not a piece
of parchment.
>
> FYI, Trevor. I am a qualified electrician, European style having done
> my trades examinations and a five year apprenticeship; a qualified
> Electrical Technician, having completed my Institute of City & Guilds
> of London Full Technical Certificate, Parts 1 and 2; I hold Bachelor
> Degrees in Electrical Engineering, Law, and Marketing; a Masters
> Degree in Business Administration; and the Doctorate of Philosophy
> which I achieved in the area of Strategic Marketing and Management.
**Sounds like a large bunch of useful qualifications. In the main, I've
found your posts enlightening.
>
> I am also a musician since the late 50's and still playing in public,
> have been designing and building loudspeaker systems since the late
> 60's, and have pursued the business and hobby of Audio and lately
> Home Theatre since the 1968.
>
> With all of these qualifications and matching work experience Trevor,
> I can get a cup of very good coffee in a lot of restaurants where I
> travel for around $3.00. In fact I can get the coffee if I have the
> $3.00 regardless of the qualifications.
>
> But I take care not to denigrate or take the character of people that
> I don't know, and I am reluctant to do so even in the case of people
> that I do know.
**I commented on Steve Lampen, purely because you hold him as some kind of
authority. He is not. I'm sure he is an excellent sales 'engineer'. He is
not a proper engineer, IMO. Well, unless he has forgotten huge chunks of
what he has learned.
>
> In my professional opinion, Trevor, your attacks on such as Mr Lamken,
> and much of you posts that I have read over the last few years suggest
> that you are sufferring from a massive inferiority complex. I think
> that it is past time that you sought help in this matter.
**Why would you say that? I have repeatedly expressed admiration for 'real'
engineers, such as Pinkerton and Dunlavy. These are guys who really know
their stuff. Lampen has forgotten his.
>
> >character assassination stuff snipped
>
>
>
> >**I'm unsure why you choose to spell Belden incorrectly, in caps.
>
> I didn't chose to spell it incorrectly, this was a typographical
> error. As for the caps, it is sometimes practice to spell brand names
> using capital letters. I have seem some of this companies products so
> marked in the electrical wholesalers.
>
> >However, that is your right to do so.
>
> Gee Trevor, that's really big of you!
>
> >
>
>
> >
> >**Dunno. Don't care. I'm not Mr Goertz. You'll need to proffer that
question
> >to the proper people.
>
> So your use of this guy's cables was a strawman tactic, was it?
**Nope. Goertz manufacture the lowest inductance cable, I am ware of. That's
all.
>
> >**I doubt it. I've demonstrated many times. It is a trivially simple
> >exercise.
>
> No, Trevor, you have not demostrated this many times. And if it is a
> trivially simple exercise, where is the evidence that it is true? You
> continue to confuse opinion and hypothesis with fact. You should
> really get something done about that!
>
> >Further, it can be proven mathematically.
>
> But it has NOT been proven audibly, under bias controlled conditions,
> yet. Or if it has, it is being kept secret.
**Tell you what, Patric. Set up a 16kHz filter, in your own system. This
will simulate the drop, using zip cable and ELSs. If you can hear a
difference under your own DBT conditions, then you will have your answer.
>
> >**Dunlavy may claim what he wishes. He is a REAL engineer. One who has
not
> >forgotten what he has learned. Ask him about my quoted examples. He will
> >concur with what I've stated.
>
> He didn't!
**You asked him? Got a quote for me?
>
> >> As a marketing person, if I had a product that actually met the claims
> >> that the likes of Canare, Nordost, Goertz et al make, I would welcome
> >> the opportunity to demonstrate this. Particularly when the opportunity
> >> exists to have head to head listening tests with such as DAL products.
> >
> >**I never, once stated, that there would be any audible difference
between
> >DAL cables and goertz. I am restricting my comments to zip cables.
>
> Weak sophistry, Trevor. Given that on many occasions John has stated
> that he hasn't identified AUDIBLE differences between HIS cables and
> commonly available 12AWG zip cord.
**Through WHAT speakers? What length of cable?
In fact he reports that so far, in
> listening tests that he and his company have carried out, under bias
> controlled conditions, NO ONE has been able to do better than chance
> in identifying audible differences. And he has stated that HE has been
> fooled on many occasions, hearing differences in cables where in fact
> no change of cable had been effected. Expectation effect. And in the
> now finished META thread on rahe, he has made this point clear to the
> guy from BEAR Labs. Or have you not seen his posts in this thread?
**No. Since I am unable to post to that group, any longer, I don't read that
much. I find RAT to be more interesting. Most of the interesting posters are
there, anyway. Nevertheless, I will read the META thread.
>
> >**You are entitled to your opinion. There are other possible reasons.
>
> Yes, including the possibility that this guy's cables don't exhibit
> any audible differences compared to 12AWG zip cord under bias
> controlled conditions. But that is a hypothetical on my part, seeing
> as he consistently refuses to participate in such tests.
>
> >**You are forgiven. Please provide any reference where I have been proven
> >wrong WRT the audibility of cables on RAT then. I await your reference.
>
> It is not possible to PROVE you wrong, your failure to produce any
> evidence supporting your position does not allow that. But it is true
> that people such as Pinkerton and others have carried on the same sort
> of dialogue as I have, and gave it up because of your propensity to
> offer opinion and hypothesis as fact.
**Please cite a reference where Pinkerton, et al, have given up carrying a
dialogue with me, WRT to cable audibility. Very few people dispute the
audibility of low inductance cables, when connected to the speakers, whose
inductance figures, I have tabled.
>
> Something that I now propose to do!
>
> >**No Patric. You said:
> >"Trevor, I have followed your posting record on rec.audio.high-end over
> >the last year, and you have had your arguments as above refuted
> >consistently."
>
> In research, as well as debating, consistently refusing to produce
> evidence of what you are claiming, in the face of evidence to the
> contrary, constitutes a de facto refutation. Unfortunately, you
> continue to offer these opinions and hypotheses as facts so it is not
> possible to positively refute you.
**There is abundant evidence, in science, where no physical evidence is
available, yet, mathematics have proven a hypothesis to the satisfaction of
peers. Such events include:
The existence of black holes.
The Big Bang.
Electrons.
Other sub-atomic particles.
The rotation of Mercury.
The existence of Pluto.
Etc.
>
> If you knew anything about research and the use of statistics, it is
> NOT possible to prove the null hypothesis. One can merely accept or
> reject it. Given that your position constitutes the null hypothesis in
> dialogue and the META thread on rahe, all the evidence leads one to
> reject it. Whereas when the null hypothesis is that "audible
> differences have not been demonstrated under bias controlled listening
> tests" the eviden is overwhelming for accepting the null hypothetis.
> >Please feel free to provide these mythical references.
>
> Your statements in this dialogue is the most contemporary example of
> this. Your defence of audible differences on other newsgroups
> concerning speaker cables and interconnects over the last few years
> are more. As you should remember, you were taking the same positions a
> few years ago with me in a number of "wire is wire" threads. Or do you
> forget these?
**Not at all. Please provide a reference, showing where a credible engineer
has proven me wrong, WRT the audibility of speaker cables and ESLs.
>
>
> >**You called me an engineer. The only person, who regularly claims
> >electrical engineering status, in this group, ir Trevor Lees. I am not an
> >engineer.
>
> Sorry for insulting you! BTW I have always admitted to being an
> engineer. As have other people. From my perspective it is nothing to
> be ashamed of. And your use of Trevor Lees' name in this context does
> you no credit.
**I used reference to Trevor to prove my point about engineers.
>
> >**That is fair enough. It is my contention that a non-DBT may be a good
> >starting place.
>
> Why would a test that is not bias controlled be a good starting place.
> The only possible result from such tests would be data that are
> neither valid or reliable. And if data are not valid or reliable, then
> by definition they are useless when dealing with matters of fact.
**It's a good starting place, because it's easy to set up and if a null
result occurs, then a DBT may be unnecessary.
>
> >That comment does not invalidate DBTs.
>
> As far as I know, nothing invalidates DBT's by definition. Only when
> the bias controls are broken can this happen, and at that stage of
> course they are no longer Double Blind Tests.
> cables
>
> >**How is that the case. The client has no knowledge of the idenity of the
> >cable (apart from arbitrary markings). I have no knowledge of which cable
is
> >used and when it is used. Whilst not a perfectly controlled experiment,
it
> >ain't bad.
>
> Bad? In the context of validity and reliability, it is totally
> useless.
**How? The testee has no knowledge of which cable is which.
Expectation effect will see to that, something which bias
> control methods eliminate in the data. BTW, a similar situation was
> hypothesised by Randy of BEAR Labs, which was responded to as I have
> to you by John Dunlavy. Anyone who understands bias controlled testing
> would not offer such an example.
>
>
> You may respond to this or not, Trevor. I have no intention in
> carrying on this exercise in futility with someone who refuses to
> address questions as the are put. And as I should have realised, a
> discussion with someone whose apparent belief is that it is possible
> to get valid and reliable data from subjective tests that are not bias
> controlled is a total exercise in futility.
>
> Please continue to enjoy your mythological world!
>
**Thank you.
remarkabel
Welly wrote:
> **********************************
> "**No less constructive, than these words:
>
> "give me a fucking break"
> **********************************
>
> The words "give me a fucking break" were aimed at nobody. Your words were
> aimed at anybody and everybody who believes that speakers are not the most
> important item in a system. i.e anybody who thinks differently from you.
>
> **********************************
> "**Sure. Let's set up two systems. Both will cost roughly the same."
> **********************************
> Not the point of my statement. My comment was aimed at your statement "BTW:
> Australia is not the only country which thinks this way. It is a universally
> accepted truism.". I was asking you to provide substance, to your rash
> generalisation, that speakers being important was a UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED
> TRUISM.
Certainly is MY experience of hi-fi opinion in both the US and UK (well England
at least...). No, I cannot provide evience of this because (strange as you may
find this) I DON'T record conversations I have in hi-fi stores....
And this would prove? what exactly? I have experience of many hi-fi dealers who
sell a wide range of utter garbage. I have experience of hi-fi dealers who sell
a great product and don't seem to know it. I have experience of hi-fi dealers
who stock products to "sell off against" (they take a respected brand and make
it sound as bad as possible to in comparison to the product they would prefer
to sell you because of higher profit or whatever. This of course *proves*
nothing other than a wide range of products does not of itself preclude bias.
TW may well be biased, in fact I would say he was (I don't think anyone on this
group - including Trevor - will deny it) I am also quite sure that he could
source a range of products that are easier to sell than ME and offer higher
profit margins. The fact that he doesn't says something about integrity
(whether or not you agree with his judgements/perceptions/biases/whatever)
>
>
> Also, I would like to add that I have heard an ME product, so these posts
> are not intended as a tirade against that particular brand (there are many
> others more worthy of a tirade). I heard the Integrated model that ME
> produces. Yes, a very nice amplifier, but during my listening to this
> product, it was not what I was looking for.
Fair enough...but doesn't really refute his position. Or am I missing
something?
> However, to claim that they are
> "one of the finest amplifiers available today" just smacks a little (nah...a
> lot) of salesmanship. Just about any company or retailer would say that (and
> why not, if they sell that product).
Or that he really believes it... and yes I am a cynic too but as said
above,..."I am also quite sure that he could source a range of products that
are easier to sell than ME and offer higher profit margins".
It is entirely possible that what TW says about ME is just salesmmanship. It is
entirely possible that he doesn't believe any of it himself. It is incredibly
unlikely as anyone (I think) who has followed this group for any length of time
could confirm. I even think that those who have had some serious disagreements
with TW in the past over his beliefs/understandings/assertions would not doubt
that he does truly believ what he says about ME. Whether you/they agree with
him or not is an entirely different matter..
Cheers,
Mark