Cable Nonsense
Dunlavy Audio Labs
Having read some of the recent comments on rec.audio.opinion,
concerning "audible" differences between interconnect and
loudspeaker cables, I could not resist adding some thoughts about the
subject as a concerned engineer possessing credible credentials.
To begin, several companies design and manufacture loudspeaker and
interconnect cables which they proudly claim possess optimized
electrical properties for the audiophile applications intended.
However, accurate measurements of several popularly selling cables
reveal significant differences that call into question the technical
goals of their designer. These differences also question the
capability of the companies to perform accurate measurements of
important cable performance properties. For example, any company not
possessing a precision C-L-R bridge, a Vector Impedance Meter, a
Network Analyzer, a precision waveform and impulse generator, wideband
precision oscilloscopes, etc., probably needs to purchase them if they
are truly serious about designing audio cables that provide premium
performance.
The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to
their performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance
and parallel capacitance per unit length), loss resistance (including
additional resistance due to skin-effect losses versus frequency),
dielectric losses versus frequency (loss tangent, etc.),
velocity-of-propagation factor, overall loss versus frequency into
different impedance loads, etc.
Measurable properties of interconnect cables include all of the above,
with the addition of those properties of the dielectric material that
contribute to "microphonic noise" in the presence of ambient
vibration, noise, etc. (in combination with a "D.C. off-set"
created by a pre-amp output circuit, etc.).
While competent cable manufacturers should be aware of these
measurements and the need to make them during the design of their
cables, the raw truth is that most do not! Proof of this can be found
in the absurd buzzard-salve, snake-oil and meaningless advertising
claims found in almost all magazine ads and product literature for
audiophile cables. Perhaps worse, very few of the expensive, high-tech
appearing cables we have measured appear to have been designed in
accordance with the well-known laws and principles taught by proper
physics and engineering disciplines. (Where are the costly Government
Consumer Protection people who are supposed to protect innocent
members of the public by identifying and policing questionable
performance claims, misleading specifications, etc.?) --- Caveat
Emptor!
For example, claiming that copper wire is "directional", that
slow-moving electrons create distortion as they haphazardly carry the
signal along a wire, that cables store and release energy as signals
propagate along them, that a "final energy component" (improperly
labeled as "Joules") is the measure of the tonality of cables, ad
nauseum, are but a few of the non-entities used in advertisements to
describe "cable performance.
Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of a "special
configuration" included with a loudspeaker cable which is advertised
as being able to "terminate the cable" in a matter intended to
deliver more accurate tonality, better imaging, lower "noise", etc.
The real truth is that this "special configuration" contains nothing
more than a simple, inexpensive network intended to prevent
poorly-designed amplifiers, with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the
expense of instability caused by too much inverse-feedback) from
oscillating when connected to a loudspeaker through a low-loss,
low-impedance cable. When this "box" appears at the loudspeaker-end
of a cable, it seldom contains nothing more than a "Zobel network",
which is usually a "series resistor-capacitor" network, connector in
parallel with the wires of the cable. If it is at the amplifier-end of
the cable, it is probably either a "parallel resistor-inductor"
network, connected in series with the cable conductors (or a simple
cylindrical ferrite sleeve covering both conductors). But the proper
place for such a network, if it is needed to "insure amplifier
stability and prevent high-frequency oscillations", is within the
amplifier - not along the loudspeaker cable. Hmmm!
Having said all this, are there really any significant "audible"
differences between most cables that can be consistently identified by
experienced listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom! Those who
claim otherwise do not fully grasp the power of the old
"Placebo-Effect" - which is very alive and well among even the most
well-intentioned listeners. The placebo-effect renders "audible
signatures" easy to detect and describe - if the listener knows which
cable is being heard. But, take away this knowledge during blind or
double-blind listening comparisons and the differences either
disappear completely or hover close to the level of random guessing.
Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and
manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company's staff more
than being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a
positive score during blind listening comparisons against other
cables. But it only rarely happens - if we wish to be honest!
Oh yes, we have heard of golden-eared audiophiles who claim to be able
to consistently identify "huge, audible differences" between cables.
But when these experts have visited our facility and were put to the
test under carefully-controlled conditions, they invariably failed to
yield a score any better than "chance". For example, when led to
believe that three popular cables were being compared, varying in size
from a high-quality 12 AWG ZIP-CORD to a "high-tech looking" cable
with a diameter exceeding an inch, the largest and sexiest looking
cable always scored best - even though the CABLES WERE NEVER CHANGED
and they listened to the ZIP Cord the entire time.
Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always
audibly identify differences between cables, even when the comparisons
are properly controlled to ensure that the identity of the cable being
heard is not known by the listener. We have accomplished too many
"true blind comparisons" with listeners possessing the right
credentials, including impeccable hearing attributes, to know that
"real, audible differences" seldom exist - if the comparisons are
properly implemented to eliminate other causes such as system
interactions with cables, etc.
Indeed, during these "comparisons" (without changing cables), some
listeners were able to describe in great detail the "big
differences" they thought they heard in bass, high-end detail, etc.
(Of course, the participants were never told the "NAUGHTY TRUTH",
lest they become an enemy for life!)
So why does a reputable company like DAL engage in the design and
manufacture of audiophile cables? The answer is simple: since
significant measurable differences do exist and because well-known and
understood transmission line theory defines optimum relationships
between such parameters as cable impedance and the impedance of the
load (loudspeaker), the capacitance of an interconnect and the input
impedance of the following stage, why not design cables that at least
satisfy what theory has to teach? And, since transmission line theory
is universally applied, quite successfully, in the design of cables
intended for TV, microwave, telephone, and other critical applications
requiring peak performance, etc., why not use it in designing cables
intended for critical audiophile applications? Hmmm! To say, as some
do, that there are factors involved that competent engineers and
scientists have yet to identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for
what should be called "pure snake oil and buzzard salve" - in short,
pure "fraud". If any cable manufacturer, writer, technician, etc.
can identify such an audible design parameter that cannot be measured
using available lab equipment or be described by known theory, I can
guarantee a nomination for a "Nobel Prize".
Anyway, I just had to share some of my favorite Hmmm's, regarding
cable myths and seemingly fraudulent claims, with audiophiles on the
net who may lack the technical expertise to separate fact from fiction
with regard to cable performance. I also welcome comments from those
who may have other opinions or who may know of something I might have
missed or misunderstood regarding cable design, theory or secret
criteria used by competitors to achieve performance that cannot be
measured or identified by conventional means. Lets all try to get to
the bottom of this mess by open, informed and objective inquiry.
I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true
engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take
a firm stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the
blatantly false claims frequently found in cable advertising. If we
fail to do so, reputable designers, engineers, manufacturers, magazine
editors and product reviewers may find their reputation tarnished
beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we are supposed
to serve.
Best regards,
John Dunlavy
Andrew N. Carpenter
An interesting post from John Dunlavy. I did notice one logical gap,
however. He wrote:
>To say, as some
>do, that there are factors involved that competent engineers and
>scientists have yet to identify is utter nonsense and a cover-up for
>what should be called "pure snake oil and buzzard salve" - in short,
>pure "fraud".
This is interesting. In a "real world" case like this where something
as complex as perceived audible differences comes into play, it is
extremely difficult to "prove the negative", that is to prove that
current theory and practice have identified all the relevant factors.
The problem with what John wrote is this: when he defends the claim
given above, he makes a rather gross non-seqitur. He wrote:
>If any cable manufacturer, writer, technician, etc.
>can identify such an audible design parameter that cannot be measured
>using available lab equipment or be described by known theory, I can
>guarantee a nomination for a "Nobel Prize".
There are two mistakes here. First, if a factor is "unknown", it
follows that it can't be identified in this way. Second, the issue of
unknown but relevant factors is independent from the debates between
subjectivists and objectivists that what can and cannot be measured.
I conclude that John's analysis of these issues, which are central to
many of the debates here, is inadequate. However, his entire post was
extremely interesting, and his cal for "open, informed and objective
inquiry" was right on target.
Thanks for the great post!
--
Andrew Carpenter
Dept. of Philosophy, U.C. Berkeley
http://violet.berkeley.edu/~phlos-ad/
fax: (410) 857-8778
sdura...@aol.com
In article <55tocv$d...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Dunlavy Audio Labs
<10236...@compuserve.com> writes:
>I sincerely believe the time has come for concerned audiophiles, true
>engineers, competent physicists, academics, mag editors, etc. to take
>a firm stand regarding much of this disturbing new trend in the
>blatantly false claims frequently found in cable advertising. If we
>fail to do so, reputable designers, engineers, manufacturers, magazine
>editors and product reviewers may find their reputation tarnished
>beyond repair among those of the audiophile community we are supposed
>to serve.
I applaud your effort to shed additional light on the cable
controversies.
Here's the situation from a consumer audiophile's perspective. As you
said, the proper application of transmission line theory can lead to
an optimum cable configuration between two given components. Since
there are thousands of possible combinations of component matches, the
only way an audiophile can determine the proper cable is to examine
the output and input impedances and find a cable with RLC
characteristics to match.
Question: Are published input and output impedances accurate? Would
two power amps with the same input impedance sound the same with an
optimized cable connection from the same preamp?
Siegfried
"A lot of the problems in the world today stem from people not doing what
they should be doing..."
sdim...@gandalf.bio.uci.edu
In <55vp1e$g...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>, phlo...@violet.berkeley.edu (Andrew N. Carpenter) writes:
>An interesting post from John Dunlavy. {cut by SD} >Interesting... {cut again} it is extremely difficult to >"prove the negative", that is to prove that current >theory and practice have identified all the relevant >factors.
>>If any cable manufacturer, writer, technician, etc.
>>can identify such an audible design parameter that >>cannot be measured
>>using available lab equipment or be described by known theory, I can
>>guarantee a nomination for a "Nobel Prize".
The Nobel bit is probably true.
There are fundamental problems with the common
arguments made from both camps in the debate:
(a) The subjectivists need to consider that if, as many say, there are
unknown factors that cannot be measured, then their own best efforts
are effectively a shot in the dark, and in that sense their guess is
as good as anyone's. No real gurus. No real clues. Just
speculation. How much money is speculation worth per metre?! And why
do some see the need to make silly claims in their odd, if not
blasphemous (the "cables God uses" series comes to mind...) ads? (b)
The objectivists should see, and, judging by their generally more
scientific/academic background, I'd like to hope they *do* see, that a
negative result is often of limited interest and significance.
>I conclude that John's analysis of these issues, which are central to
>many of the debates here, is inadequate.
John's analysis of the issues is among the most complete I have ever
seen posted. At some point I think there is little sense in trying to
explain one's viewpoint when neither side is willing to budge.
I suspect spending a large amount of money on cables of dubious design
and outlandish price when the same amount applied toward speakers
could move the customer up one model in the series would not be a good
idea.
Look at any wide speaker line; take B&W. A CDM set with voodoo wires
could exceed the cost of a 805V with Canare cabling. I'd rather have
the Matrix monitors. And if I was considering Dunlavy speakers, I
would either buy his cables, use zipchord, or ask him for appropriate
substitutes.
BTW all this is nothing to get upset about; what's it to me how much
people spend on their cables anyway?
SD
DISCLAIMER: Relax: Views expressed are the author's
alone and in no way reflect those of the University or
any balanced human being. Note: The author is available
for adoption...
shaw...@aol.com
John. Thanks for your informative and thoughtful posting on RAHE. Two
quick followup questions, if you will:
1) What are your thoughts on the sonic benefits of biwiring?
2) I suppose that if one is biwiring using different makes of cable
(with supposedly different electrical characteristics...) then the
notion of matching lengths, within reason (say a 6' and an 8' run top
vs bottom), really does not make a difference - since the amp and
speaker are seeing different conductors with dissimilar
characteristics anyway. Correct?
Thanks so much.
Steve Shaw (SHAW...@aol.com)
For the love of music!
Scott Frankland
Dunlavy Audio Labs wrote:
>
> Another pet peeve of mine is the concept of a "special
> configuration" included with a loudspeaker cable which is advertised
> as being able to "terminate the cable" in a matter intended to
> deliver more accurate tonality, better imaging, lower "noise", etc.
> The real truth is that this "special configuration" contains nothing
> more than a simple, inexpensive network intended to prevent
> poorly-designed amplifiers, with a too-high slew-rate (obtained at the
> expense of instability caused by too much inverse-feedback) from
> oscillating when connected to a loudspeaker through a low-loss,
> low-impedance cable.
A minor clarification. Slew-rate and stability are not directly
related. If an amplifier is unstable, it may oscillate due to an
uncompensated pole introduced into the feedback loop by the load
reactance. The solution involves compensating the amplifier into an
infinite load such that it is critically damped for all internal
poles. The external pole added by the load reactance then induces
ringing but not oscillation. The required compensation actually
increases the need for a higher slew-rate in order to avoid transient
distortion. The main point here is that the amplifier should be
internally compensated such that it is unconditionally stable into any
load--which is basically what you argue below:
> When this "box" appears at the loudspeaker-end
> of a cable, it seldom contains nothing more than a "Zobel network",
> which is usually a "series resistor-capacitor" network, connector in
> parallel with the wires of the cable. If it is at the amplifier-end of
> the cable, it is probably either a "parallel resistor-inductor"
> network, connected in series with the cable conductors (or a simple
> cylindrical ferrite sleeve covering both conductors). But the proper
> place for such a network, if it is needed to "insure amplifier
> stability and prevent high-frequency oscillations", is within the
> amplifier - not along the loudspeaker cable. Hmmm!
No question about it. This sort of tonality tuning trick is a clever
way around the sanction against tone controls in the
high-end. Personally, I think it's high time that tone controls were
resurrected by the high-end (and a spade called a spade). Only this
time, do it right, the way Marantz and McIntosh did it in the
60's--i.e., add filters to the existing gain stages rather than use
additional gain stages ala H-K and ARC in the mid-70's. My contention
is that until such time as all recordings have ideal tonal balance,
tone controls of one sort or another will not be amiss in playback
equipment.
~SF~
paug...@aol.com
SD writes:
>>(a) The subjectivists need to consider that if, as many say, there are
Pete Replies:
I don't know that I have ever heard it put quite this way, and
wanted to say a word or two. I have always considered myself a
"subjectivist", but would never say that there are factors that cannot
be measured. "Unknown factors that cannot be measured" perhaps -- it
is the "unknown" aspect that tends to make measurement difficult.
I am a scientist at heart, and believe in the ability of the
human mind to understand anything. Just because we are beginning to
understand our Universe dosen't make it any less magical. I think
that our understanding of the aspects of cable performance is perhaps
more limited than JD does -- certainly my personal understanding is!
What makes me fall into the "subjectivist" camp, however, is my
belief that High-End Audio falls into that category of human endeavour
where adjudication by recognised experts should be the standard. It
is the accepted standard for any other area that involves Art --
winemaking, sculpture, ballet -- even the creation of the Music that
the equipment is supposed to serve.
Thanks for the thread, John Dunlavy!
Peter Augello
Andrew N. Carpenter
sdim...@gandalf.bio.uci.edu wrote:
>(a) The subjectivists need to consider that if, as many say, there are
> unknown factors that cannot be measured....
Here again is the same logical goof that John made. The issues of
measurability and unknown factors are seperable, and one of the most
interesting possibilities is that there may be be unknown _measurable_
factors.
>John's analysis of the issues is among the most complete I have ever
>seen posted. At some point I think there is little sense in trying to
>explain one's viewpoint when neither side is willing to budge.
I agree that most of his post was quite cogent. He and you both need
to think more about the logical relations holding between the "unknown
factors" and "not measurable" claims. Holding open the possibilty of
unknown factors has nothing to do with subjectivists' claims that
measreuements are impossible or irrelevant, etc.
Kurt Strain
First, we are presented with the following presumptions about how a
proper cable interface should be defined:
Dunlavy Audio Labs (10236...@compuserve.com) wrote:
: The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to
: their performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance
: and parallel capacitance per unit length), loss resistance ...
But then we learn this:
: Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always
: audibly identify differences between cables...
And then we see a strange justification for making something that
tested negligible:
: So why does a reputable company like DAL engage in the design and
: manufacture of audiophile cables? ...
: why not design cables that at least
: satisfy what theory has to teach?
Yet the answer to the question ignores his position about the
negligible nature of these effects. This makes no sense to me. Is
this some strange way to sell cables that admittedly have no practical
merit but satisfies some scientific feeling of correctness
nonetheless? Mr. Dunlavy has good reason to knock pseudoscientific
explanations about someone else's cable designs, but when he goes in
and markets something he admits is of dubious value and trash talks
his competitors at the same time, well, it just doesn't impress me at
all. I hope he has a big disclaimer written all over his cables about
his proven fact that they won't enhance your system, in order to
prevent his own knowledge about them not to be interpreted as fraud.
You can't have it both ways. There is nothing new presented to the
discussion about cables that hasn't been discussed repeatedly long
before Mr. Dunlavy arrived on the net, even the concept of good
measured cables that sound no different to lesser, dirt cheap
conductors.
Kurt
John Ongtooguk
Dunlavy Audio Labs (10236...@compuserve.com) wrote:
: ....... And, since transmission line theory
: is universally applied, quite successfully, in the design of cables
: intended for TV, microwave, telephone, and other critical applications
: requiring peak performance, etc., why not use it in designing cables
: intended for critical audiophile applications?...
One problem seems to be the lack of a standard I/O impedance for
equipment which may make optimizing cable a problem, but maybe
designing for a few common configurations would work just fine.
: .... I also welcome comments from those
: who may have other opinions or who may know of something I might have
: missed or misunderstood regarding cable design, theory or secret
: criteria used by competitors to achieve performance that cannot be
: measured or identified by conventional means....
I don't think that you missed it but one of the reasons for such a
variety of cables seems to be the fine tuning that people try to do,
using cables of exotic configuration and materials which can produce
extremes of some parameters, parameters which can be perceived as
'solving' some sonic problem or 'enhancing' some sonic attribute. As
some others have suggested it's an expensive and problematic way of
attempting to fix sonic problems. It's also ridiculous in some cases
as if one were to pop the lids on the equipment in some systems one
would find that an almost equal length of hookup wire plus some
connectors is used from PC board to PC board. It's also seems strange
to see huge, expensive runs of speaker cable when it's all running
thru some tiny wires in a protection fuse, plus the hookup wire and
connectors.
In addition to some sane, well executed basic cable being offered
I'd like to see some cleaner cabling between equipment, especially in
low voltage applications like between a phono cartridge and the
preamp. I'll guess that in some cases poor connectors being exercised
by swapping a cable can produce as much 'improvement' as the cable
being evaluated, but again it's something that should be able to be
measured.
Shielding and conducted noise seems to be a problem area, in part
due to poor practices on the part of some equipment designers, which
will complicate shielding/grounding practices of cable designers and
the final customer.
It's nice to see the interest in weeding the industry of fakirs and
'cable charmers'.
John Ongtooguk (jo...@vcd.hp.com)
Leon Vick
Dunlavy Audio Labs <10236...@compuserve.com> wrote in article
<55tocv$d...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
> ...Having said all this, are there really any significant "audible"
>differences between most cables that can be consistently identified
by
> experienced listeners? The answer is simple: very seldom...
>...Speaking as a competent professional engineer, designer and
>manufacturer, nothing would please me and my company's staff more
>than being able to design a cable which consistently yielded a
>positive score during blind listening comparisons against other
>cables. But it only rarely happens - if we wish to be honest...
>...Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can
always
[ quoted text cut -- rgd ]
I wholly with every word in John's post, except for one teeny-tiny
problem. While he never actually says that there are NO audible
differences in cables, he seems highly inclined toward that
conviction. Playing the devil's advocate and begging forgiveness for
the absurdity, does that mean if I connected my 331 to my Mirage M1
speakers with 22-gage wire that all would sound the same as with
12-gage wire? What about 24-gage? 26-gage? Etc.? What if I used piano
wire (with home-made insulation), or clothes-line wire, or 300-Ohm
twin lead? None would be audibly different? I'd enjoy hearing an
argument that they would all be the same!
OTOH, if any DO sound differently to any reasonably qualified
listener, which one will sound the best, or the worst? We all know
that few of these are anywhere close to "ideal" conductors, but who
says an ideal conductor has to SOUND better than any other when
judged as part of a totally subjective system? Who here will stand
and say that 75-ohm coax or baling wire could not made into the best
SOUNDING speaker cable, to my ears in my system with my CD or LP?
Such are the problems of dealing with illusions!
Stewart Pinkerton
"Leon Vick" <lv...@mindspring.com> writes:
>I wholly with every word in John's post, except for one teeny-tiny
>problem. While he never actually says that there are NO audible
>differences in cables, he seems highly inclined toward that
>conviction. Playing the devil's advocate and begging forgiveness for
>the absurdity, does that mean if I connected my 331 to my Mirage M1
>speakers with 22-gage wire that all would sound the same as with
>12-gage wire? What about 24-gage? 26-gage? Etc.? What if I used piano
>wire (with home-made insulation), or clothes-line wire, or 300-Ohm
>twin lead? None would be audibly different? I'd enjoy hearing an
>argument that they would all be the same!
I think you'll find he's suggesting that, once you've eliminated
really stupid designs (who said Cardas?), all the good stuff is pretty
well indistinguishable, hence it would follow that if you DID hear a
noticeable difference in the sound of a cable (oooh, let's say MIT
CVTerminators, f'rinstance) then your first reaction should be deep
suspicion, as in "what the f**k is this cable doing to the sound?"
>OTOH, if any DO sound differently to any reasonably qualified
>listener, which one will sound the best, or the worst? We all know
>that few of these are anywhere close to "ideal" conductors, but who
>says an ideal conductor has to SOUND better than any other when
>judged as part of a totally subjective system? Who here will stand
>and say that 75-ohm coax or baling wire could not made into the best
>SOUNDING speaker cable, to my ears in my system with my CD or LP?
Pardon my simplicity, but I'd always thought the 'ideal conductor',
like any other ideal audio component, didn't have ANY sound. If your
speakers are crap, don't mess with the wire, get new speakers! Seems
obvious to my diddy little brain.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | If you can't measure what you're making,
A S P Consulting | how do you know when you've got it made?
(44) 1509 880112 |
"I canna change the laws o' physics" - the other Scotty
Bob Myers
Kurt Strain (ku...@sr.hp.com) wrote:
> First, we are presented with the following presumptions about how a
> proper cable interface should be defined:
> Dunlavy Audio Labs (10236...@compuserve.com) wrote:
> : The measurable properties of loudspeaker cables that are important to
> : their performance include characteristic impedance (series inductance
> : and parallel capacitance per unit length), loss resistance ...
> But then we learn this:
> : Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always
> : audibly identify differences between cables...
Are you disagreeing with this statement, Kurt? It isn't clear from
your response. Note, however, what John said: he doesn't buy the
claims of those who say they can ALWAYS audibly identify differences.
I don't buy such a claim, and you shouldn't either. I have a whole
lot of trouble with someone claiming such extreme confidence in their
own hearing as an objective test that they think they can ALWAYS
distinguish such differences reliably.
Bob Myers KC0EW Hewlett-Packard Co. |Opinions expressed here are not
O- Workstations Systems Div.|those of my employer or any other
my...@fc.hp.com Fort Collins, Colorado |sentient life-form on this planet.
Ray Paul
John makes two important points that have been ignored by the replies
so far, and, for my money, they are the most important points he
makes. The first is that he has carried out extensive double blind
tests with a variety of subjects and the results have been negative
without exception. The second is that when the test is not blind that
he, himself, believes he can hear a difference. In short, his post is
a testament to the placebo effect.
I encourage those who are certain they can distinguish "the good
stuff" from the "merely ordinary" to arrange a double blind test and
evaluate the results. The basic idea of a double blind test is that
neither the subject, nor the people admininstering the test who are in
contact with subject, know which cable is currently being used. The
subject then selects the cable he prefers. To properly carry out such
a test you would need to do multiple repitions and perform a
statistical evaluation of the results.
Craig Luna
In article <56fo3u$g...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>, rp...@best.com says...
>
>John makes two important points that have been ignored by the replies
>so far, and, for my money, they are the most important points he
>makes. The first is that he has carried out extensive double blind
>tests with a variety of subjects and the results have been negative
>without exception. The second is that when the test is not blind that
>he, himself, believes he can hear a difference. In short, his post is
>a testament to the placebo effect.
Dunlavy makes excellent speakers but chances are that maybe the
subject at hand didn't show its head because of the design of the
equipment used in testing (good, well matched equipment). It can be
agreed whole-heartedly that in the perfect world the link between the
amp and the speaker drivers could be completed with any old cable.
The problem is that their are certain irregular (and thus not optimal)
characteristics that are only made when brand A amp and brand B
speaker are connected by brand C cable.
If every speaker (inc. x-over) and cable were purely resistive in
nature, the "cable nonsense" would be just that, nonsense. It would
only require a little more gain in the amplification to adjust for
inferior cables. In reality, incompatible equipment is very
prevalent. What is funny is that in the audio industry, people want
equipment to show the "incompatibility" of their other attached
equipment. I want my guns to shoot even cheap ammo straight. I want
my modem to work without fault even if the line is dirty ... You
probably have gotten the point. In reality cheap ammo doesn't fire as
straight as it should in all guns (and sometimes doesn't even fire),
this can usually be described by a simple design flaw, but sometimes
it does.
A few years ago, I would have agreed that a cable wouldn't make a
difference (and still agree that it shouldn't) but upon upgrading
parts of my system (most of it) I can state that it (speaker cables)
will tremendously improve the imaging of my system. I will
attribute this improvement to mostly an inferior x-over design that
is compensated for by the "black box" that MIT uses (the MIT2 Bi-Wire,
the MIT5 and MIT2 were only a little "wider" in focus but either was
better that regular cables). The difference was not there when I
changed in some other sets of speakers that I own. In this case, $500
speaker cables made $1100 dollar speakers sound like $5000 speakers(I
did improve the X-over though in order to bi-wire), so the cost was
justifiable but it still sounds a little stupid. So to summarize my 3
points:
1) Cables can be used to "interface" or "buffer" incompatible
equipment and may make an "incredible" difference if such an
incompatibility exists. (Much like output transformers do in an amp)
2) If a case of audible improvement is experienced, the reason for a
change in sound must be looked upon as being caused by a design or
mechanical flaw of the entire systen as a whole.
3) Double-blind testing will only prove that a particular setup is or
isn't improved upon by the insertion of "better: cables (better in a
perceptive sense)
Thanks for listening,
Craig Luna
Leon Vick
Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in article
<56culp$f...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>...
> Pardon my simplicity, but I'd always thought the 'ideal conductor',
> like any other ideal audio component, didn't have ANY sound. If
your
> speakers are crap, don't mess with the wire, get new speakers!
Seems
> obvious to my diddy little brain.
Of course it wouldn't have ANY sound, but how would you know it when
you heard it, and what possible test might you use at home to identify
it within your system? What we do is select the one that "sounds" the
most "accurate" (read: "euphonic") in our LR in our system with our
source recording, and pronounce it so. Don't we?
Kurt Strain
Bob Myers (my...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com) wrote:
: Kurt Strain (ku...@sr.hp.com) wrote:
: > : Sorry, but I do not buy the claims of those who say they can always
: > : audibly identify differences between cables...
: Are you disagreeing with this statement, Kurt? It isn't clear from
: your response. Note, however, what John said: he doesn't buy the
: claims of those who say they can ALWAYS audibly identify differences.
I am not disagreeing with this statement. I am also unclear from
John's statements and I am simply trying to show why. Either he
thinks his not-exactly-ordinary-cost-zip-cord cables do more than zip
cord or he does not, and then what proof is he showing? His only
proof is that in all likelihood they do not? So which is it? And
then whose cables are built fraudulently, as John puts it - the guy
who makes up his own fantasy science and believes or John who uses his
professionally trained science and yet disbelieves? Or does he
disbelieve? Or what? This is confusing. If he believes in his
product, let him show the proof of how it made customers happy and
they could tell the improvement. None is provided. Huh?
As I have previously shown with my own tests on speaker wire, I have
not been able to prove that I can reliably tell in double blind tests
which wire was which, except maybe under some conditions. Upon
examining all the ways to analyze the data, there appears no
conclusion that the data was pure random, nor that a difference is
truly being detected. So I have already made the point that I don't
buy the claims that people can always audibly identify differences. I
have also made the point that it can be audibly different in a minute
way such that this one step comparison may not be enough to reliably
catch something that is a real contributor. If all such were ignored
then no total progress toward a better system could result when the
potential is there. Sometimes 3 variables must be shifted to hear it,
not just one, violating the scientific method. This is done all the
time by experienced artisans in winemaking (as my wife - a winemaker
herself - knows) and certain audio engineers do. And it does require
some intuition, and no guarantees. Accept that or not. Chess isn't a
game of single step or single variable optimization either.
And then my opinion about cables says "whatever makes it more
synergistic" could be the goal of cable design, rather cable choosing.
Maybe bad conductors would help out something weird in the system. It
is fairly presumptuous to think how a customer will demand this to
work, and that there's only one way to skin this cat. In radio
transmission, it is pretty clear that you want the cables to transmit
as much power as possible to the antenna and match the antenna's
impedance to get as many receivers to hear you. This does not
necessarily mean that in audio frequencies in a stereo system we think
the same way.
Kurt
John Kodis
In article <56a877$f...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>,
John Ongtooguk <jo...@vcd.hp.com> wrote:
> In addition to some sane, well executed basic cable being offered
> I'd like to see some cleaner cabling between equipment, especially in
> low voltage applications like between a phono cartridge and the
> preamp. I'll guess that in some cases poor connectors being exercised
> by swapping a cable can produce as much 'improvement' as the cable
> being evaluated, but again it's something that should be able to be
> measured.
No one seems very pleased with any of the connectors that are
currently accepted as the industry standard. The problem is that
because they are so widely used, no one manufacturer wants to change
to a better but incompatible scheme.
Our friends in the EC may be about to fix this, though. I've read
that within a few years it will be illegal to import equipment with
non-metric markings or fasteners into the EC. This may be enough to
finally drag the US kicking and screaming into using a sensible system
of measurements. Similarly, I understand that the commonly used
binding post/bannanna plug combo used on amplifiers and loudspeakers
has recently been declared unacceptable in Europe. This gives hope of
an improved standard to replace this less-than-wonderful connector
scheme. Perhaps the Speak-on (sp?) connectors used by the pro-sound
contingent will be adopted for consumer gear.
Now if only we can convince our European friends that RCA plugs and
jacks are an inherent evil from which society deserves protection,
there may be hope to set this situation right once and for all.
-- John Kodis.
Jim Gilliland
>2) If a case of audible improvement is experienced, the reason for a
>change in sound must be looked upon as being caused by a design or
>mechanical flaw of the entire systen as a whole.
First you must determine whether the "case of audible improvement"
that was "experienced" was real or imagined.
>3) Double-blind testing will only prove that a particular setup is or
>isn't improved upon by the insertion of "better: cables (better in a
>perceptive sense)
The scientists and statisticians of this group can tell you exactly
when and why double-blind testing is useful - in very precise terms.
I have a simpler concept in mind, though. I don't trust your ears. I
don't trust my ears. And I don't trust the ears of the reviewers that
write for our popular audio magazines. A double-blind test will help
to assure me that the audible differences heard by your ears, my ears,
or the reviewers ears are real audible differences, and not just
wishful thinking. Once that's been proven, then I'll be interested in
learning more about why you liked one cable over another.
Jim Gilliland
Dunlavy Audio Labs
[ moderator note: the highlighted text shows up with
characters which don't work well as ASCII text. -- rgd ]
Thanks to all who responded to my original posting concerning
audiophile cables and their audible/measurable properties.
Since some of the responses seemed to convey a discordant position,
perhaps a more detailed exploration of the issues is justified. A good
beginning might be to examine the issues that separate those whose
opinions are based mainly (or entirely) on subjective grounds (perhaps
from poorly controlled listening evaluations) from those who favor an
objective approach based upon correlating relevant measurements with
the findings of "blind", "double-blind" or other types of
properly-controlled listening comparisons.
To begin, I would like to make clear that I do not believe that a set
of cable measurements, taken alone, can consistently and reliably
predict how one cable will sound when compared to another cable,
without considering relevant "system interface parameters". This is
because the interaction between the electrical properties of a cable
and the input/output impedances (and other properties) of typical
audio equipment/components being connected by the cables are an
integral part of the overall performance equation. Thus, a full and
accurate set of measurements is only relevant if interpreted in the
context of such system interactions.
Given such interpretation, measurements can provide an important, if
not indispensable, guide as to the potential performance of a given
cable within a given system. To say otherwise is to acknowledge an
incomplete grasp of present-day measurement technology and the ability
of credible engineering knowledge/expertise to fully define and
accurately assess all of the relevant properties that affect the
performance of cables within an audio system. Despite the
pontificating of some individuals to the contrary, well-known laws of
physics and principles of engineering are fully adequate to meet the
challenge. (A Nobel nomination awaits anyone who discovers and
adequately identifies a property that proves otherwise!) The notion
that "physics lies", expressed in a recent magazine editorial, is
absolute hogwash!
Most "seemingly" unexplainable, yet truly audible differences
between cables, can be explained if critically examined with respect
to equipment interface considerations. For example, a well-designed,
low-loss loudspeaker cable (with a relatively-low
characteristic-impedance of perhaps 6 to 8 Ohms) can cause many
expensive, well-regarded power-amps (with a slew-rate exceeding
stability limits created by an improperly designed inverse-feedback
loop) to oscillate at frequencies well above the audio range. This is
sometimes audible as a low-level, high-frequency "crackling noise"
(usually emitted by the tweeter as it's voice-coil is being
cooked). Such amplifier instabilities may also alter the "sound" of
the amplifier by creating an "edgy" quality on musical transients or
an exaggeration of high-frequency notes, etc.. But the amplifier, in
this case, is at fault - not the loudspeaker cable.
Unfortunately, this is the reason many audiophiles avoid using
high-performance cables. Yet, a simple "Zobel" network (typically a
6.8 Ohm resistor in series with a 4.7 uF capacitor) in parallel with
the loudspeaker end of the cable can almost always cure the
problem. (A multi-turn coil of 20 AWG wire wound around a 6.8 Ohm, 1
watt resistor, connected in series with the amplifier output
terminals, will usually accomplish the same thing!)
However, while low-loss, low-impedance loudspeaker cables are
technically the ideal choice, from a purely academic point-of view,
most loudspeaker cables are quite short with respect to a wavelength
within the audio spectrum, diminishing the effects of
"standing-waves" and "reflections" that would normally be of
concern at frequencies well above the audio spectrum. But
low-impedance low-loss loudspeaker cables, represent the technical and
deserve serious consideration where "ultimate accuracy" is the goal!
With respect to identifying the cause of audible differences between
some interconnect cables, excessive capacitance is usually the
villain. This is true because transistor output stages of pre-amps, CD
players, etc. are frequently "load-sensitive", especially with
respect to excessive capacitance. This is also true of some
single-ended tube types. Thus, an interconnect cable with a
relatively high capacitance (exceeding 20-30 pF per foot) can often
cause some equipment to exhibit non-linear properties at higher
frequencies and/or higher output levels, resulting in audible levels
of distortion. But again, the cable is not always to blame, although
no good engineering reasons exist for not designing an interconnect
cable with a suitably low capacitance, e.g., below 10-15 pF/ft.
However, some of the most expensive interconnect cables, with a
high-tech appearance, exhibit measured capacitance exceeding 75
pF/ft. while some of the least expensive ones clock-in at only 12-15
pF/ft. (We believed the problem sufficiently important to justify the
development of an interconnect cable with a capacitance of only about
8-10 pF/ft.)
Thus, I sincerely hope that the above explanations help to explain why
measurements alone may not always fully explain the differences heard
between cables - without taking into consideration the interactions
between cables and the proclivities exhibited by the output stages of
some amplifiers, etc.. However, accurate measurements, properly made
and interpreted, can almost always predict how a given cable will
react within a given system, taking into account all of the
"interface" considerations that must be evaluated. Therefore,
measurements can be an invaluable design tool when properly
interpreted by a competent engineer seeking optimum performance from a
cable or a system.
So what about subjective listening comparisons for evaluating
"audible" differences between cables? Well, I will once again state
my belief that the "placebo effect is alive and well" and that
listening comparisons are virtually useless unless significant
differences exist and/or proper controls are employed! I base this
belief on a considerable number of carefully conducted and critically
analyzed comparisons between different cables over the past 20-plus
years. Initially, I and my staff fully expected to observe audible
differences - which we did, in the absence of proper and sensible
controls. But in virtually every instance, when controls were
instituted, the differences thought to be easily heard and identified,
either totally disappeared or closely approached the level predicted
by "chance". Yes, we have frequently consulted psychologists and
other experts familiar with "audibility testing" in devising
procedures and controls for our comparison evaluations, etc. But the
results we have obtained have always been consistent: we have simply
not been able to identify any audible artifacts that could not be
explained by a critical examination of the equipment, components,
etc., coupled with an analysis of their interactions --- period!
Keep up the questions - we all have a lot to learn!
Best regards,
John Dunlavy
Stewart Pinkerton
"Leon Vick" <lv...@mindspring.com> writes:
>Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in article
[ cut -- rgd ]
>Of course it wouldn't have ANY sound, but how would you know it when
>you heard it, and what possible test might you use at home to identify
>it within your system? What we do is select the one that "sounds" the
>most "accurate" (read: "euphonic") in our LR in our system with our
>source recording, and pronounce it so. Don't we?
Well no, not necessarily. Euphonic and accurate are most definitely
NOT the same thing, otherwise the CD vs. vinyl debate/catfight would
not exist! The best we can do is to build our system as best we can to
replicate the 'live experience'. Some of us find that easiest to do
with a CD source, some with vinyl. It really doesn't matter as long as
you end up with the system which maximises your appreciation of the
performance.
Leon Vick
> Well no, not necessarily. Euphonic and accurate are most definitely
Of course not, in theory. So what do you define as the most pleasing
reproduction?
> The best we can do is to build our system as best we can to
> replicate the 'live experience'.
I'm defining "euphonic" to mean the reproduction that comes closest to
satisfying the listener's recollection of the live experience. Does
any other definition make sense? By this standard, euphony and
perceived accuracy end up being the same in practice, at least as long
as the only tools available to the listener are his own ears and
memories.
> It really doesn't matter as long as you end up with the system
which maximises > your appreciation of the performance.
Musical appreciation or aural appreciation? If the former, you
certainly don't need a high-end system! And if the latter, does the
content _really_ matter? :>
Stewart Pinkerton
"Leon Vick" <lv...@mindspring.com> writes:
>Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in article
><56nh0d$c...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>...
>> Well no, not necessarily. Euphonic and accurate are most definitely
>> NOT the same thing...
>Of course not, in theory. So what do you define as the most pleasing
>reproduction?
I can't define 'the most pleasing reproduction' any more than I can
define 'the most beautiful woman'. That kind of thing is definitely in
the eye (or ear) of the beholder. I do feel that we should start with
the most accurate possible recording medium and adjust our replay
systems for personal preference, rather than have a set of
inaccuracies forced on us, whether euphonic or not, by the medium.
>> The best we can do is to build our system as best we can to
>> replicate the 'live experience'.
>I'm defining "euphonic" to mean the reproduction that comes closest to
>satisfying the listener's recollection of the live experience. Does
>any other definition make sense? By this standard, euphony and
>perceived accuracy end up being the same in practice, at least as long
>as the only tools available to the listener are his own ears and
>memories.
Well, everyone else from Webster's and the OED down seems to define
euphony as 'a pleasing sound', which has nothing to do with accuracy
of reproduction in any sense, so let's please not start by making up
our own definitions for standard words. A better word for what you
mean might be 'realistic' (you know, as in Rat Shack products!), which
does of course imply a sense of realism, or 'being there', which is
certainly what I'm trying to achieve with my system. I agree that this
goes beyond mere accurate reproduction of the recorded signal.
>> It really doesn't matter as long as you end up with the system
>which maximises > your appreciation of the performance.
>Musical appreciation or aural appreciation? If the former, you
>certainly don't need a high-end system! And if the latter, does the
>content _really_ matter? :>
This is of course the audiophiles dilemma. You're a very sad person if
you can't enjoy music on your car radio (which some extremists do
claim), but by the same token, the ability to hear so much more of the
performance on a really good system certainly ADDS to my own
enjoyment. The kind of anally retentive musical wallpaper to be heard
on many aurally superb direct cut discs does not however satisfy, so I
guess that answers your question. Content is everything, sound quality
merely a servant to the art. Your mileage may vary.
dale w smith
I appreciate the comments- keep up the good work. It is important to
discuss variables that change cables so that informed choices can be
made. I don't see any particular advantage to Dunlavy Labs taking a
position on cables but if informed engineers don't make their views
known ( especially ones that manufacture high-end products ) then the
field is left open without the necessary critical opinion. I'm not
concerned with conflicting opinions, just the absence of them.
Dale w. Smith
Scott Frankland
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> The best we can do is to build our system as best we can to
> replicate the 'live experience'.
Actually, the best we can do (unless we live in the back room of a
concert hall) is to build our system so as to replicate our MEMORY of
the live experience.
> Some of us find that easiest to do
> with a CD source, some with vinyl. It really doesn't matter as long
> as you end up with the system which maximises your appreciation of
> the performance.
This is good. This is what I have been referring to (in the "Re: On
Perception" thread) as "the search for the 'soul' of the performance."
Or, to use your terms, Stewart, the 'maximum appreciation' of the
performance. Now, this leads to the question of relying on one's
memory of a live event as a guide, or of simply trusting in one's
innate sensibility to sound and music, and using THAT as a guide.
This latter idea seems to me to be the foundation for the
single-ended-tube-amp (SETA) movement; i.e., the movement toward the
'soul' of the performance--as opposed to the strict manifestation of
one's memory traces. One is really engaging in an intellectual
exercise by pursuing the latter. Ironically, one hopes that in so
doing, one will be enabled to then experience the full emotional
impact of the music as well! But the SETA guys are asking--why not
just move directly toward the emotional content?
Each approach seems to me, unbalanced. If we postulate that
stereophony at best is a beautiful illusion--rather than a strict
replication--then I think that we must allow room for divergent
approaches to its manifestation. What so often happens, however, is a
polarization into camps. This is the easy way out. Pick a side, then
stick to it come hell or high water. Much of this polarization, I
find, is promulagated by manufacturers in their ongoing quest to
dominate the market.
There are, I think, two things to realize about audio systems: one is
that every playback system is (or ought to be) a statement of the
owner's sensibility to sound and music; and two is that strict
accuracy is at present not only impossible to obtain but impossible to
verify.
The upshot is that we ought to pursue accuracy to the extent that it
does not clash with our innate sensibility. Moreover, we can, if we
choose, improve the accuracy of our systems as well as the refinement
of our sensibilities. The question is, how? What is the methodology,
and what are the technical standards? To answer these questions, it
seems to me, is the express purpose of this forum.
~SF~
Larry Stein
Dunlavy Audio Labs <10236...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>So what about subjective listening comparisons for evaluating
>"audible" differences between cables? Well, I will once again state
>my belief that the "placebo effect is alive and well" and that
>listening comparisons are virtually useless unless significant
>differences exist and/or proper controls are employed!
I think we need a clarification as to what the "Placebo Effect" is. By
definition (Webster's Ninth College) the Placebe Effect is
"improvement in the condition of a sick person that occurs in response
to treatment but cannot be considered due to the specific treatment
used." Now, we can easily substitute "sick person" for "hi fi system".
The important thing is that the improvement is real. It's the stated
cause that is wrong. Again, applied to the current cable discussion,
the claim is that there is an improvement in sound, it's just not
caused by the manufacture's claims.
The objectivist will claim that the improvement is all in my head. So
what! Tell that to the sick person who was given a sugar pill but who
was cured of his ill anyway. Again, the effect is real.
The falicy in those who religiously hold to double blind testing is
that in the real world we don't listen to our systems blindly. We know
what equipment we are using. We see it every day. We can't help but be
influenced by its asthetics, its size, its color, its cost. You
cannot ignore these factors in your listening.
--
Larry Stein
la...@uplanet.com
Seyhun Agar
I regard Dunlavy speakers as one of the best for value/money products,
and congratulate Mr. Dunlavy for bringing such good products to our
listening rooms. So if anything is contributed by Mr. Dunlavy,
regarding audio products, I consider it to be a very serious and
unbiased article.
So, I have been following the "cable nonsense" series by
Mr. J. Dunlavy, with interest. i agree with most of the stuff like,
many advertisements have cable myths, unjustified claims, etc.
But the point where we depart is that, cables do make a difference in
audio. This applies both to the interconnects, and to the speaker
cables. (and especially to digital cables).
I don't claim that the cables improve the sound, but I claim that
cables make a difference. Nothing can improve the signal, if the
original is not good.(Except that I have learned that in remote cases
where a design problem in an item may be taken care of by the cable,
as indicated by Mr. Dunlavy, like preventing high-frequency
oscillations of an amplifier,etc.)
Although Mr. Dunlavy claims that it's all "placebo effect", in various
parts of his contribution, he himself points out that there are
differences in sounds of cables, and he tells us why:
-most"seemingly" unexplainable, yet truly audible differences between
-cables can be explained if critically examined with respect to
equipment -interface considerations..
or
-A simple Zobel network ... can almost always cure the problem.
or
-With respect to identifying the cause of audible differences between
-some interconnect cables, excessive capacitance is usually the villain.
-This is true because...
These are enough for me to prove that there are very important
differences between the cables, by Mr. Dunlavy's words. I don't care
if you can show the reasons with extensive testing or not.
I am not an audio or electronics engineer, but I am a music
listener. I don't care for the technical reasons, but I agree with
Mr. Dunlavy that some cables are designed better than the others, and
any serious listener, with a good system that can show such
shortcomings, can differentiate a very bad cable from a good
one. Differences among good designs are not so much pronounced,
(except some may be arising from main equipment designs as well), and
when you do not feel much difference, then different tastes or prices
may become the factor for preference.
This is why you should listen for considerable time to an expensive
cable, in your own system, before deciding to buy it. It may not
degrade the sound in my system, but may just not fit yours.
But even the above arguments made by Mr. Dunlavy, for the differences
in cables, creates doubts with me as to whether everything may be
claimed to "the placebo effect".
On the other hand, any unfulfilled claims or misleading advertisement
by the cable manufacturers should be stopped somehow. The best way
would of course be by high-end cable manufacturers contributions to
this and similar forums. I don't understand why they hesitate so much
to participate in this discussion.It is their field, and they owe an
explanation to us, their loyal customers.
Or is Mr.Dunlavy 100% correct in his remarks regarding the cable
manufacturers..
best regards, seyhun agar
Leon Vick
Scott Frankland <audi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<56q3nj$g...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>...
> The upshot is that we ought to pursue accuracy to the extent that
it
> does not clash with our innate sensibility. Moreover, we can, if we
> choose, improve the accuracy of our systems as well as the
refinement
> of our sensibilities. The question is, how? What is the
methodology,
> and what are the technical standards? To answer these questions, it
> seems to me, is the express purpose of this forum.
We are in total accord here, so I'd like to pursue the question you
ask rather than disagree with ANYthing you said! :-)
I think we may find clues about future developments in the THX
approach. What is important here, IMHO, is the concept of defining the
listening environment and then optimizing the recording to match.
Here, the recording engineer can preview his setup from the
perspective of the intended listener, within reasonable boundaries.
Then the question becomes one of how to control the LR in rooms and
systems in all imaginable combinations. This may not be as difficult
as it first seems.
First of all, it may be reasonably assumed that all high-end systems
sound more alike than different, if set up properly in the -same-
room. By high-end here, I mean one that is essentially full range with
no significant flaws in response or distortion. Almost any system
found in Stereophile, Stereo Review or Audio should meet these
criteria.
A second reasonable assumption is that similar listening rooms can be
made to have similar acoustics. Obviously, an A-frame LR cannot
present the same acoustics as an "average" living room, but I suspect
most living/listening rooms are rectangular with flat ceilings,
somewhere between 2000 and 3000 cubic feet. If 2500 ft^3 with
wallboard, a carpeted floor and "normal" furnishings are defined as a
standard, a majority of others might be made to have similar effects
on the sound of a system therein. Speaker manufacturers already have
to voice their systems for a target market, so this is nothing new.
The third requirement for this approach is that the recording engineer
actually use the above assumptions in evaluating recording setups to
provide the most "accurate" reproduction to most (?) prospective
listeners. This is just an extension of the "voicing" concept to
recordings. Some may already do this. Many, clearly, do not.
This approach should provide some improvement for many listeners
today. More importantly, it would provide a foundation from which
future designs would benefit by having a reference standard by which
to evaluate their performance. With experience, this standard would be
refined and perhaps even divided for small, average and large
systems...
Just a thought and I know it won't work for a lot of people, but
that's life.
Leon
Scott Frankland
Dunlavy Audio Labs wrote:
>Most "seemingly" unexplainable, yet truly audible differences
>between cables, can be explained if critically examined with
>respect to equipment interface considerations.
I agree that the most obvious differences between cables are most
often due to equipment interface problems (most, that is, but probably
not all).
>For example, a well-designed,
>low-loss loudspeaker cable (with a relatively-low
>characteristic-impedance of perhaps 6 to 8 Ohms) can cause many
>expensive, well-regarded power-amps (with a slew-rate exceeding
>stability limits created by an improperly designed inverse-feedback
>loop) to oscillate at frequencies well above the audio range.
The stability margin is set by the compensation, and does not depend
upon slew rate. Slew rate is not directly related to stability.
Moreover, a high slew rate is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. The
problem you cite is simply inadequate stability margin in the face of
real loads.
>Such amplifier instabilities may also alter the "sound" of the
>amplifier by creating an "edgy" quality on musical transients or an
>exaggeration of high-frequency notes, etc.. But the amplifier, in
>this case, is at fault - not the loudspeaker cable.
As you say, this particular problem is due to the amplifier designer
not considering the diverse effects of worst-case reactive elements
across the amplifier output. The problem is exacerbated by a rising
tweeter impedance with frequency (due to uncompensated voice coil
inductance).
>Unfortunately, this is the reason many audiophiles avoid using
>high-performance cables. Yet, a simple "Zobel" network (typically a
>6.8 Ohm resistor in series with a 4.7 uF capacitor) in parallel with
>the loudspeaker end of the cable can almost always cure the problem.
This most basic form of tweeter impedance compensation ought to be
required by law. The expense is virtually nil. What happens is that
the inductive component of the tweeter voice coil impedance is shelved
by the Zobel, therefore the inductance cannot resonate with the cable
capacitance. Thus, no regeneration occurs--i.e., no ultrasonic
oscillations arise--even for marginally stable feedback amps (this
assumes that all other sources of L are also under control).
The amplifier may still overshoot on transients, and this may be
audible under certain conditions. This problem, however, is by no
means insoluble. I want to emphasize that feedback per se is not the
problem here, rather, it's the failure of the designer to consider the
diverse effects of real loads that most often leads to problems.
>With respect to identifying the cause of audible differences
>between some interconnect cables, excessive capacitance is
>usually the villain. This is true because transistor output
>stages of pre-amps, CD players, etc. are frequently
>"load-sensitive", especially with respect to excessive
>capacitance.
So long as the spike is critically damped, contains no sinusoidal
components within the audio band, and does not force the feedback
summer to slew into the compensation, there should be no problem.
Ideally, the preamp/amp will be compensated with cables attached. In
this way, the spike can be eliminated. More practically, the output of
the preamp can be buffered so as to isolate the feedback loop from the
load reactance.
>This is also true of some single-ended tube types.
I get your drift, but it's worth clarifying that single-ended amps
need be no more sensitive to these factors than other types of amps.
The key factors are compensation (when feedback is employed) and
damping factor. An SE amp without feedback will of course be rather
high in output impedance. This makes the amplifier overly sensitive to
loudspeaker impedance variations, giving rise to frequency related
variations in output level. The amplifier in this case becomes an
automatic tone control with a mind of its own.
Ideally, output impedance should be made as low as possible across the
audio band. It is then incumbent upon loudspeaker designers to use
virtual voltage-sources when testing their designs; otherwise we have
no benchmark and we end up with a Pandora's box of
loudspeaker/amplifier combinations. This dictates the use of
amplifiers with high, broadband damping factors for speaker design
work.
Other than that, I would just like to say that I think John Atkinson
did an exceptional job of identifying possibly overlooked cable
distortion mechanisms in his "Wired" editorial (Stereophile, June
1995). A more conventional look at cable differences can be seen in
Andrew Marshall's Audio Ideas Guide (Canadian), Summer/Fall 1994 and
Winter 1995. This series by James Hayward contains extensive test
results that support your contention, as well as providing some key
references for further reading.
My own (informal) listening tests tell me that it is just not as
simple as all that, and I tend to share the views of the Stereophile
editors regarding the audibility of cables. The articles by Hawkesford
and Duncan tend to support this view.
I do agree, however, that whatever is being heard (IF it is indeed
being heard) ought in principle to be in some manner measureable.
This, however, leads to the subject of correlated listening tests,
which is another subject altogether.
~SF~
Brian Paulsen
In article <56snvt$h...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov> la...@uplanet.com writes:
>Dunlavy Audio Labs <10236...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>So what about subjective listening comparisons for evaluating
>>"audible" differences between cables? Well, I will once again state
>>my belief that the "placebo effect is alive and well" and that
>>listening comparisons are virtually useless unless significant
>>differences exist and/or proper controls are employed!
>I think we need a clarification as to what the "Placebo Effect" is. By
>definition (Webster's Ninth College) the Placebe Effect is
>"improvement in the condition of a sick person that occurs in response
>to treatment but cannot be considered due to the specific treatment
>used." Now, we can easily substitute "sick person" for "hi fi system".
>The important thing is that the improvement is real. It's the stated
>cause that is wrong. Again, applied to the current cable discussion,
>the claim is that there is an improvement in sound, it's just not
>caused by the manufacture's claims.
The improvement may be real, but it is important to understand that it
is *not* due to the treatment. Assume that a sick person has a 50-50
chance of becoming well. If we give him a sugar pill (as opposed to
the drug which will cure the person) and he gets better, was it due to
chance or due to the sugar pill?
>The objectivist will claim that the improvement is all in my head. So
>what! Tell that to the sick person who was given a sugar pill but who
>was cured of his ill anyway. Again, the effect is real.
You raise a good issue in that the sick person may *think* he is
getting well, but he is not. Or, he may have gotten well no matter
what we did. I hope that you aren't trying to suggest that we should
cure all of the sick by giving them sugar pills.
>The fallacy in those who religiously hold to double blind testing is
>that in the real world we don't listen to our systems blindly. We know
>what equipment we are using. We see it every day. We can't help but be
>influenced by its asthetics, its size, its color, its cost. You
>cannot ignore these factors in your listening.
Presumably, I could start a service by which I pronounce you able to
hear music better. The highs will be gorgeous, and the bass will be
tight and controlled and exactly as you like it. Please send me $1000
and I will send you the certificate which clearly displays how well
you can now hear the music. For an extra $1000, I'll even frame it
for you.
Maybe this example is a little extreme, but don't you think that if
you can't hear the difference between speaker wires in a double-blind
test, then perhaps your money is better spent on things on which you
*can* hear a difference?
Brian
Stewart Pinkerton
la...@uplanet.com (Larry Stein) writes:
>The important thing is that the improvement is real. It's the stated
>cause that is wrong. Again, applied to the current cable discussion,
>the claim is that there is an improvement in sound, it's just not
>caused by the manufacture's claims.
>The objectivist will claim that the improvement is all in my head. So
>what! Tell that to the sick person who was given a sugar pill but who
>was cured of his ill anyway. Again, the effect is real.
>The falicy in those who religiously hold to double blind testing is
>that in the real world we don't listen to our systems blindly. We know
>what equipment we are using. We see it every day. We can't help but be
>influenced by its asthetics, its size, its color, its cost. You
>cannot ignore these factors in your listening.
What you say is of course correct. The debate arises when certain
people try to insist that the difference IS a real physical effect,
and further try to 'prove' their case with spurious pseudoscience.
The objective viewpoint is I think of value when it comes to advising
newcomers on sensible ways to spend money on hi-fi purchases. While
you are perfectly entitled to buy $1,000 of Siltech or MIT cables for
your own system and enjoy the improvement you feel it makes, would you
genuinely advise someone to make that a priority in a $5,000 system?
Say someone had purchased a Sony XA3ES, an Audiolab 8000S and a pair
of Von Schweikert VR-4s, hooked together with Straight Wire Musicable
II and Naim NAC-A5. Would you suggest the sound could be improved by
more expensive cables/tiptoes/Shakti Stones etc, at the cost of
cheaper main components?
Leon Vick
> the eye (or ear) of the beholder. I do feel that we should start
with
> the most accurate possible recording medium and adjust our replay
> systems for personal preference, rather than have a set of
> inaccuracies forced on us, whether euphonic or not, by the medium.
All right, we'll do it your way. How do you identify an accurate
system other than by your recollection of what a recording should
sound like per your own ears? If you have some way to measure accuracy
of reproduction with respect to the sound you might have heard had you
been present when a recording was made, we'd all like to know about
it. Surely you'd agree that any other definition of accuracy is at
best incidental to the goal of reproducing the live listening
experience?
> Well, everyone else from Webster's and the OED down seems to define
> euphony as 'a pleasing sound', which has nothing to do with
accuracy
> of reproduction in any sense, so let's please not start by making
up
> our own definitions for standard words. A better word for what
you...
Whoa! What is your definition of "pleasing"? Maybe you like syrupy
bland mush or sparkling detail that leaves your ears ringing, but I go
to a lot of live concerts and I define "pleasing" as that which sounds
like the real thing. What sounds please YOU in this context may have
nothing to do with reproduction, but those that please ME have
EVERYthing to do with reproduction. So much for Webster and the OED!
> This is of course the audiophiles dilemma. You're a very sad person
if
> you can't enjoy music on your car radio (which some extremists do
> claim), but by the same token, the ability to hear so much more of
the
> performance on a really good system certainly ADDS to my own
> enjoyment...
Is it hearing more of the musical performance or more of the aural
performance that pleases you? Is it insight into the composer's score
or the competence of the performers that you feel is enhanced by good
audio, or is it more the shimmer of the cymbals, the lushness of the
strings and the punch of the drum that turn you on?
Sometimes I think we confuse music and sound so I submit that love of
music and love of sound are not the same, despite frequent
(incredible, IMHO) professions here that music is the only purpose of
our audiomania. Audio can do _nothing_ for the music and very little
for the performance. Music doesn't need audio, but audio needs music
for it is the music that justifies the very existence of audio! (I
don't have to tell you what audio does for the sound and the emotional
impact it adds.)
"What IS music?" can wait for another day, but the answer has no more
to do with audio than your grandmother's finest china had to do with
the excellence of her roast beef and Yorkshire pudding. (Or whatever!)
:>
Anders Kindlihagen
Larry Stein wrote:
[ cut -- rgd ]
> I think we need a clarification as to what the "Placebo Effect" is. By
> definition (Webster's Ninth College) the Placebe Effect is
> "improvement in the condition of a sick person that occurs in response
> to treatment but cannot be considered due to the specific treatment
> used." Now, we can easily substitute "sick person" for "hi fi system".
well, i think we equally well could keep "sick person" as "sick
person". the treatment of the "sick person" is to change cabels in
his hi-fi system (even better: change the looks of the cabels, but not
the audio related features). if the the "sick person" recovers health
from an aesthetic change of the cabels (or imagined improvement of
sound), he has clearly been cured by an placebo effect. happy
listening, anders.
-- =
-----------------------------------------------------
Anders Kindlihagen =
Department of Physics and Measurement Technology
University of Link=F6ping_____________________________
Stewart Pinkerton
"Leon Vick" <lv...@mindspring.com> writes:
>Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in article
><56qcsg$e...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>> the eye (or ear) of the beholder. I do feel that we should start
>with
>> the most accurate possible recording medium and adjust our replay
>> systems for personal preference, rather than have a set of
>> inaccuracies forced on us, whether euphonic or not, by the medium.
>All right, we'll do it your way. How do you identify an accurate
>system other than by your recollection of what a recording should
>sound like per your own ears? If you have some way to measure accuracy
>of reproduction with respect to the sound you might have heard had you
>been present when a recording was made, we'd all like to know about
>it. Surely you'd agree that any other definition of accuracy is at
>best incidental to the goal of reproducing the live listening
>experience?
OK, let's do it my way :-)
I cannot identify an accurate recording any more than you can. That's
the task of the recording engineer. OTOH, I go to lots of live
concerts and I DO have a good idea of what some recording venues
SHOULD sound like (Edinburghs Usher Hall, Birmingham Symphony Hall,
Southwell Minster etc). Obviously, nobody 'knows' the sound of a
studio recording, because it doesn't have one except in the sound
engineers head.
>> Well, everyone else from Webster's and the OED down seems to define
>> euphony as 'a pleasing sound', which has nothing to do with
>accuracy
>> of reproduction in any sense, so let's please not start by making
>up
>> our own definitions for standard words. A better word for what
>you...
>Whoa! What is your definition of "pleasing"? Maybe you like syrupy
>bland mush or sparkling detail that leaves your ears ringing, but I go
>to a lot of live concerts and I define "pleasing" as that which sounds
>like the real thing. What sounds please YOU in this context may have
>nothing to do with reproduction, but those that please ME have
>EVERYthing to do with reproduction. So much for Webster and the OED!
That's the problem with this kind of argument, Leon. I define
'pleasing' as 'lacking in nasty sounds', but that's not always the way
a live performance really is (be honest now!). It might be nice if we
could agree that neither of us has a lock on what 'accurate
reproduction' really means. That way lies megalomania............
Remember the second half of my original paragraph, which you
conveniently chopped off?
"A better word for what you mean might be 'realistic' (you know, as in
Rat Shack products!), which does of course imply a sense of realism,
or 'being there', which is certainly what I'm trying to achieve with
my system. I agree that this goes beyond mere accurate reproduction of
the recorded signal."
You're starting to sound like my favourite lawyer, Leon............
>> This is of course the audiophiles dilemma. You're a very sad person
>if
>> you can't enjoy music on your car radio (which some extremists do
>> claim), but by the same token, the ability to hear so much more of
>the
>> performance on a really good system certainly ADDS to my own
>> enjoyment...
>Is it hearing more of the musical performance or more of the aural
>performance that pleases you? Is it insight into the composer's score
>or the competence of the performers that you feel is enhanced by good
>audio, or is it more the shimmer of the cymbals, the lushness of the
>strings and the punch of the drum that turn you on?
Try quoting ALL of what I posted instead of selectively editing it.
"This is of course the audiophiles dilemma. You're a very sad person
if you can't enjoy music on your car radio (which some extremists do
claim), but by the same token, the ability to hear so much more of the
performance on a really good system certainly ADDS to my own
enjoyment. The kind of anally retentive musical wallpaper to be heard
on many aurally superb direct cut discs does not however satisfy, so I
guess that answers your question. Content is everything, sound quality
merely a servant to the art. Your mileage may vary."
The fully quoted post would seem to indicate that I am trying to
reproduce the intensity of the performance, not the mere soundfield,
dontcha think? Or were you just trying to score points?
Looks your mileage does vary, but not to your credit.
>Sometimes I think we confuse music and sound so I submit that love of
>music and love of sound are not the same, despite frequent
>(incredible, IMHO) professions here that music is the only purpose of
>our audiomania. Audio can do _nothing_ for the music and very little
>for the performance. Music doesn't need audio, but audio needs music
>for it is the music that justifies the very existence of audio! (I
>don't have to tell you what audio does for the sound and the emotional
>impact it adds.)
Wow! MAJOR DUMB COMMENT!!!!!!! Music most certainly DOES need
audio. How else could I (and anyone else with half a soul) cry when
Jacqueline plays the Elgar Cello Concerto? Without audio, music
remains an elitist and ephemeral art (although the sound quality would
be better).
>"What IS music?" can wait for another day, but the answer has no more
>to do with audio than your grandmother's finest china had to do with
>the excellence of her roast beef and Yorkshire pudding. (Or whatever!)
My maternal grandmother was a fine cook and a true communist (small c,
like Jesus) but hailed from North of that particular border. The other
one was a grand old Highland lady but not a great cook..........
[ Moderator Note: stick to audio please. rgd ]
Bernd Ludwig
la...@uplanet.com (Larry Stein) writes:
>>The falicy in those who religiously hold to double blind testing is
>>that in the real world we don't listen to our systems blindly. We know
>>what equipment we are using. We see it every day. We can't help but be
>>influenced by its asthetics, its size, its color, its cost. You
>>cannot ignore these factors in your listening.
That's funny! We are in a rec.audio...-newsgroup - not in
rec.lifestlye... Maybe it is much more pleasant to be in time with a
$10000-watch - but nobody will expect a different time from it. Maybe
you will be more pleased by an expensive / blue / heavy ...
cable. But this is (especially in case of the 'cost-pleasure') mostly
a result of postings in rec.audio.high-end - or ads! - and just
dependent of your personal 'aestetics' which has NOTHING to do with
'audio'...
It IS NOT at all a sign of madness to buy a $10000-watch or some
$10000- speaker cable. But I suspect it IS a sign of madness to
declare that this will give you a better statement of time or a better
audio-signal.
Happy listening anyway
--
Bernd....@UniBw-Muenchen.de
Scott Frankland
Leon Vick wrote:
> We are in total accord here, so I'd like to pursue the question you
> ask rather than disagree with ANYthing you said! :-)
Aw, now you've gone and spoiled the whole reason for writing--fightin'
n' arguin'! ;-)
> I think we may find clues about future developments in the THX
> approach. What is important here, IMHO, is the concept of defining the
> listening environment and then optimizing the recording to match.
> Here, the recording engineer can preview his setup from the
> perspective of the intended listener, within reasonable boundaries.
> Then the question becomes one of how to control the LR in rooms and
> systems in all imaginable combinations. This may not be as difficult
> as it first seems.
Probably is, actually. At least, it was for RCA in the golden era.
That's exactly what they tried to do. Their philosophy of manipulating
the sound to enhance the illusion of a "concert in the living room"
was directly at odds with Mercury's approach. Nonetheless, I think
Pfeiffer, Layton, et al produced some spectacular successes in this
regard (not to mention some dismal failures). But I agree with this
approach.
> First of all, it may be reasonably assumed that all high-end systems
> sound more alike than different, if set up properly in the -same-
> room.
Not by me (but I'm partic'lar).
> By high-end here, I mean one that is essentially full range with
> no significant flaws in response or distortion. Almost any system
> found in Stereophile, Stereo Review or Audio should meet these
> criteria.
Stereo Re-who?
> A second reasonable assumption is that similar listening rooms can be
> made to have similar acoustics.
Seems to me the AES developed specs for a "standard listening room" a
while ago.
> This approach should provide some improvement for many listeners
> today. More importantly, it would provide a foundation from which
> future designs would benefit by having a reference standard by which
> to evaluate their performance.
Multichannel sound might work if we can control the room reflections.
But who wants to turn their living room into an anechoic chamber?
Works for me (signed: Joe Audiophile).
~SF~
Jim Gilliland
In <56t2ur$n...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Scott Frankland <audi...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Dunlavy Audio Labs wrote:
>>For example, a well-designed, low-loss loudspeaker cable
>>(with a relatively-low characteristic-impedance of perhaps
>>6 to 8 Ohms) can cause many expensive, well-regarded
>>power-amps to oscillate at frequencies well above the audio range.
>>Such amplifier instabilities may also alter the "sound" of the
>>amplifier by creating an "edgy" quality on musical transients or an
>>exaggeration of high-frequency notes, etc.. But the amplifier, in
>>this case, is at fault - not the loudspeaker cable.
>As you say, this particular problem is due to the amplifier designer
>not considering the diverse effects of worst-case reactive elements
>across the amplifier output. The problem is exacerbated by a rising
>tweeter impedance with frequency (due to uncompensated voice coil
>inductance).
>>Unfortunately, this is the reason many audiophiles avoid using
>>high-performance cables. Yet, a simple "Zobel" network (typically a
>>6.8 Ohm resistor in series with a 4.7 uF capacitor) in parallel with
>>the loudspeaker end of the cable can almost always cure the problem.
>This most basic form of tweeter impedance compensation ought to be
>required by law. The expense is virtually nil. What happens is that
>the inductive component of the tweeter voice coil impedance is shelved
>by the Zobel, therefore the inductance cannot resonate with the cable
>capacitance. Thus, no regeneration occurs--i.e., no ultrasonic
>oscillations arise--even for marginally stable feedback amps (this
>assumes that all other sources of L are also under control).
I'd like to know more about this particular phenomenon and its cure.
How prevalent do you think this problem is? Are there particular
types of speakers and amplifiers in which it is most likely to occur?
I ask because I've been trying to figure out the cause of an apparent
high frequency interaction between my speakers and amplifier. The
words that John used to describe the problem seems to fit quite
closely with what I've been hearing.
How critical are the values of the capacitance and resistance in the
network? How critical is the quality of the components - is there any
reason to use high-end resistors and capacitors? It would seem that
this would be a fairly cheap experiment.
Are there any downsides to placing a Zobel network across the speaker
terminals? Would such a network cause response, phase, or other
problems on a properly working system?
I assume that it would go across the tweeter terminals on a bi-wire
system.
Gee, maybe there's a marketable tweak here! <grin> Or is this what MIT
has hidden in the box in their cables?
Thanks in advance for any information.
Jim Gilliland
Lee Meador
sdura...@aol.com wrote:
> three prevailing paths:
> 1. relate our memory of live events <to the sound we hear>
> 2. enjoy the sound even though it doesn't sound like our memory
> 3. strive for technical accuracy.
> The first two rely more on an emotional response, the last is largely
> an intellectual exercise. I think seasoned audiophiles can blend
> these three by varying degrees to reach the point where they *should*
> be satisfied with their systems.
To Mr. Duryabito: I hope I have done justice to what you intended
while carving away what I considered non-essential to my comments.
I heard a lady on the radio today talking about how parents of
multiple children see their children's extreme differences. She used a
simple test to break the world into two types of people. I forget the
names she used.
(Bear with me ... I'll get back to audio in due time)
Consider how people eat M&M candies.
One man, she mentioned, would eat all the primary colors first before
the others. He liked his world well ordered.
She would randomly grab handfuls and pop them in her mouth.
This actually relates to this thread and the continuing sub- vs. ob-
jective debate. My method of eating M&M's is to:
1) grab a handful
2) segregate the colors
3) Select the color with the largest quantity
4) Eat one of its constituents (sometimes the largest or smallest)
5) eat the one selected slowly
6) savor the chocolate taste thoroughly and completely
7) repeat steps 3 through 6 until they are all eaten
In step 3, if two or more colors have the same quantity, select any of
those colors on a whim. Red, BTW, gets special consideration since
they were unavailable for some many years.
My theory is that the more random the eating of M&M's, the more
objectivist the leanings. And, similarly, the more structured the
eating, the more subjectivist the leanings.
Nobody is purely one way or the other. Nobody completely ignores the
colors. Everyone notices the colors to some degree. Nodody spends all
their time lining up the candies while skiping the eating part.
Everyone enjoys the chocolate to some degree.
I would suggest that those leaning toward SD's #3 in the quote above
would be more likely to line up the M&M's and eat them in some
"correct" order--according to their idea of what is correct.
Further, leaning toward SD's #2 would be more likely to just chunk the
candy in their mouth and get on with the, oh so sweet, taste of the
chocolate.
#1 above is structured but in a fashion that pays more attention to
their sense of sound. Perhaps those people do a bit of candy
organization as well as a fair amount of chocolate enjoyment.
So am I on to a new way to identify audiophile's or am I circling in
the weeds?
-- Lee Meador
sdura...@aol.com
In article <56q3nj$g...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>, Scott Frankland
<audi...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>The upshot is that we ought to pursue accuracy to the extent that it
>does not clash with our innate sensibility. Moreover, we can, if we
>choose, improve the accuracy of our systems as well as the refinement
>of our sensibilities. The question is, how? What is the methodology,
>and what are the technical standards? To answer these questions, it
>seems to me, is the express purpose of this forum.
[Moderators Note - Tread these waters carefully, everyone. Don't
make this into another "Does too" - "Does not" discussion of
objective vs. subjective. Keep to the issues, not the personalities,
as well. Thank you -- bt]
It seems to me there are three prevailing paths:
1. One is to relate our sensibility to our memory of live sonic
events - the Harry Pearson approach of the Absolute Sound.
2. Another is to relate our sensibility to what sounds aesthetically
pleasing, without significant effort to correlate with our memories of
sound. An example would be to enjoy the sensibility of synthesized
string sound even though it doesn't sound like our memory of massed
violins.
3. The last would be to defer sensibility in the interest of knowing
that a system is reproducing the performance as faithfully as possible
to the original. Our best approach to this so far has been to strive
for technical accuracy.
The first two rely more on an emotional response, the last is largely
an intellectual exercise. I think seasoned audiophiles can to blend
these three by varying degrees to reach the point where they *should*
be satisfied with their systems.
The trouble comes when a system is not satisfactory. Which one of
these paths is best suited to restoring a satisfactory system?
Siegfried
"A lot of the problems in the world today stem from people not doing what
they should be doing..."
Leon Vick
This seems to be getting a bit personal for no particular reason that
I can see. I will try to keep my response civil.
Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@popmail.dircon.co.uk> wrote in article
<572c5o$h...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>...
> That's the problem with this kind of argument, Leon. I define
> 'pleasing' as 'lacking in nasty sounds', but that's not always the
way
> a live performance really is (be honest now!). It might be nice if
we
Hey Stewart! "Euphonic", or "pleasing" just don't mean the same to you
and me! Why can't you accept that and get on with it? I attended a
live and very dynamic performance of Le Sacre de Printemps last night,
and was pleased by every note I heard: sweet, lush, raspy, shrill or
otherwise. More importantly, when attempting to reproduce that sound,
nothing could please me LESS than to distort it into what you describe
as pleasing.
> Remember the second half of my original paragraph, which you
> conveniently chopped off?
> "A better word for what you mean might be 'realistic'...
If I don't chop out the excess verbiage the moderator (rightfully)
will, to hold down bandwidth. (Quote-backs are supposed to be
reminders, not ongoing chronicles of inane debates!) This was after
YOU chopped out my question about any definition of euphonic (in the
context of high-end audio) making sense, other than as faithful to the
original musical experience. I know the difference between Realistic,
realistic, euphonic and pleasant and continue to insist on euphonic as
the most relevant to our selection of and satisfaction with the
systems we buy. But this is just a semantic pissing contest! Surely
we can agree to disagree?
> Try quoting ALL of what I posted instead of selectively editing it.
Perhaps one of our wise and gentle moderators would be willing to
address this problem further.
> Wow! MAJOR DUMB COMMENT!!!!!!! Music most certainly DOES need
> audio. How else could I (and anyone else with half a soul) cry when
> Jacqueline plays the Elgar Cello Concerto? Without audio, music
> remains an elitist and ephemeral art (although the sound quality
would
> be better).
Well, you might learn how to read music. Lots of musicians can "hear"
the music just by reading a score. (No, I can't) You see, the music is
there whether anybody performs it or not, much less whether anybody
reproduces a performance or not! But given that most of music has been
performed, and recorded, it still doesn't take a high-end system (That
IS the kind of "audio" we're discussing here, isn't it?) to transmit
musical emotions. I can remember one New Year's Eve, alone on a
temporary assignment far from home, when Beethoven's Ninth brought
tears to my eyes - played from a tiny bedside radio played as low as
possible so not to bother others nearby. The point is that high-end
audio is but a toy that is totally unessential to music, if not
distracting from it. We all happen to love these expensive toys. I
find no fault with that. But to assert that they serve music by
somehow improving it is patently naive. I'm sure glad nobody told
Bach, Beethoven or Elgar about such forthcoming developments. They
might have tried to wait... Think about it.
epotter
Have you put a scope on your speaker leads to look for oscillation or
anything funny? to find out about zobel networks, look at linsley
hood, or any of several british books on hi fi. american books tend
either to be too simple or too technical.
Scott Frankland
Jim Gilliland wrote:
> I'd like to know more about this particular phenomenon and its cure.
> How prevalent do you think this problem is? Are there particular
> types of speakers and amplifiers in which it is most likely to occur?
The problem occurs with all conventional moving-coil type tweeters.
It is due to the inductance of the wire wound around the voice-coil.
At high f's, this inductance resonates with cable capacitance. This
can cause oscillations in feedback amplifiers that have inadequate
stability margins. Amplifiers with falling damping factors at high f's
can aggravate this effect. The problem is especially evident for
transients, which tend to excite resonances.
> How critical are the values of the capacitance and resistance in the
> network?
Somewhat critical. Mr. Dunlavy's recommended values will probably work
in most cases. If you are fussy, you can start with these values and
then plot the impedance vs. frequency. You can tailor the network
until the impedance is as flat as desired.
> How critical is the quality of the components - is there any
> reason to use high-end resistors and capacitors? It would seem that
> this would be a fairly cheap experiment.
Since the Zobel shunts the signal AWAY from the tweeter at high
frequencies, parts quality would SEEM to be noncritical.
> Are there any downsides to placing a Zobel network across the speaker
> terminals? Would such a network cause response, phase, or other
> problems on a properly working system?
The Zobel will CORRECT these problems when the values are properly
chosen.
> I assume that it would go across the tweeter terminals on a bi-wire
> system.
Right.
> Gee, maybe there's a marketable tweak here! <grin>
Groan...
> Or is this what MIT has hidden in the box in their cables?
You'll have to saw one in half to find out! (don't do this at work).
<g>
~SF~
rafe...@aol.com
Rather than join the debate about whether double blind tests are the
way to judge cables, I have a simple question: HAVE double blind
listening tests been performed to compare cables? What were the
results?
Rafe Evans((()))snavE efaR "Moderation in Moderation"
Stewart Pinkerton
"Leon Vick" <lv...@mindspring.com> writes:
>Hey Stewart! "Euphonic", or "pleasing" just don't mean the same to you
>and me! Why can't you accept that and get on with it? I attended a
>live and very dynamic performance of Le Sacre de Printemps last night,
>and was pleased by every note I heard: sweet, lush, raspy, shrill or
>otherwise. More importantly, when attempting to reproduce that sound,
>nothing could please me LESS than to distort it into what you describe
>as pleasing.
Yes fine, as it happens I attended a Russian concert evening last
night, climaxing with the '1812'. There were several errors and
'missed notes which, while inevitable in most performances, I would
NOT describe as euphonic!
>I know the difference between Realistic, realistic, euphonic and
>pleasant and continue to insist on euphonic as the most relevant to
>our selection of and satisfaction with the systems we buy. But this
>is just a semantic pissing contest! Surely we can agree to disagree?
No, it's a deliberate attempt on your part to twist the meaning of a
commonly used word. As you well know, there is a common argument in
these newsgroups that LP lovers preference is not due to superior
accuracy but to euphonic distortions. Euphonic is a well established
word with a commonly agreed meaning. Your attempt to alter that
meaning to 'lifelike' is semantic hijacking of the most cynical
sort. Euphonic does NOT mean accurate or lifelike, never did and never
will.
If you prefer vinyl, that's just fine, but give up these simplistic
attempts to change the rules in your favour.
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
>The objectivist will claim that the improvement is all in my head. So
>what! Tell that to the sick person who was given a sugar pill but who
>was cured of his ill anyway. Again, the effect is real.
Let's be clear now, a placebo results (sometimes) in a healthy person.
The result of inadvertant self-deception in audio listening does NOT
result in a healthy person, only in a satisfied (for now) person.
That's not wrong, but please don't confuse a medical placebo with the
problems in blind testing.
>The falicy in those who religiously hold to double blind testing is
Please retract your accusation of double blind terting in respect to
religion. Double blind testing is repeatable, verifiable, and
testable, UNLIKE religion.
That is why they are utterly unrelated.
>that in the real world we don't listen to our systems blindly. We know
>what equipment we are using. We see it every day. We can't help but be
>influenced by its asthetics, its size, its color, its cost. You
>cannot ignore these factors in your listening.
Of course, here we go again, railling against the same old straw men
that are used to attack the SIMPLE FACT that blind testing is the only
currently available testable, repeatable, verifiable, etc, method to
establish the question of "is this an audible difference" as opposed
to the question you're answering, which is "do I THINK this is an
audible difference".
If you want to know if it really, truly sounds different, you must,
absolutely, without any question whatsoever use a blind testing
strategy. If you want to know if you THINK it's different, but you
are willing to allow all those things like size, color, softly glowing
heaters, etc, to influence yourself, be my guest.
But do, please, absolutely and forever cease your inane, offensive,
and incorrect attacks on those of us who actually do science.
--
Copyright alice!jj 1996, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET
and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any use by a
provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this article
and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Randall Bradley
I'd like to remind everyone, that our "systems" and the overall system
used in the reproduction of sound is at present extremely primative,
and quite limited.
It is in fact, quite a serious compromise.
An article I wrote for PF, and not published :[ , explored the nature
and gave examples of simple tests which illustrate the type and nature
of some of these compromises.
Here's a quick one: (do it as a mind experiment - need be)
Set up your ultimate recording system, for "perfect"
stereo, in the best "room", etc. etc.
Turn it on, record the following:
Throw your keys randomly into the room!
Now go to your ultimate listening room/system and play it
back. Where are the keys? Regardless of what you do, or
did in the recording (unless you cheated heavilly) the keys
*MUST* be somewhere between the two speakers.
If your recording room and the playback room are one and the
same -let's say they are- then clearly the playback is *NOT*
an accurate copy of the original event *in all aspects*!!
(unless you happened to throw the keys exactly between the
two mics, which were positioned exactly where the speakers
are, and BOTH were at floor level!!) Even with this last
constraint it's *still* not a truly complete re-creation
of the original event.
In fact we DO NOT KNOW HOW to record or playback an acoustic
event so that it is a recreation of the original in "all"
aspects -even if each and everyone of those aspects is not
particularly well done!!
It seems to me that without this understanding being first and
foremost in our discussions/debates that we are always going to miss
the mark - by a wide margin.
This present debate is about symptoms, not the underlying issues and
what to do about them or how to solve them. Step outside - and see the
big picture. That is, if you want to make any progress! :}
--
_-_-randy
BEAR Labs ra...@rdrc.rpi.edu <---email here!
" BEARs know a real fish when they see one..."
Andre T. Yew
Scott Frankland <audi...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Jim Gilliland wrote:
>> How critical are the values of the capacitance and resistance in the
>> network?
>Somewhat critical. Mr. Dunlavy's recommended values will probably work
>in most cases. If you are fussy, you can start with these values and
>then plot the impedance vs. frequency. You can tailor the network
>until the impedance is as flat as desired.
Perhaps someone can help me out here. What is the official
way of calculating Zobel networks? I've never done it, and can only
imagine the procedure to be something like: find the complex impedance
of the total network, make its imaginary part equal to zero. The
second step brings out a relation between R, L, and C. Since L is
constant, one adjusts R and C for conveniently available values. Does
this make any sense? The circuit in mind is:
o
|
+-+-+
| R
L |
| C
+-+-+
|
o
The relation becomes:
RC^2 = L, assuming RLC >> 1, which we have to check after we get our
values. I did this in a rush, so the formula may be wrong ...
--Andre
--
PGP public key available
Gene Steinberg
>Rather than join the debate about whether double blind tests are the
>way to judge cables, I have a simple question: HAVE double blind
>listening tests been performed to compare cables? What were the
>results?
Yes they have been conducted.
The most recent published test I've seen appeared in the September
1995 issue of Canada's "Sound & Vision." In that article, Tom Nousaine
wrote about three different double blind trials of speaker cables.
Each of the tests occurred at the homes of the participants, using
their high-end systems and their megabuck cables. All those
participants had to do was prove they could hear a difference between
cheap zip cord and their own cables (whose sound, if it has a sound,
they'd be familiar with). Doing the test in their listening rooms
meant they wouldn't have to get accustomed to anyone else's system,
and they used their own recordings for the test. They also had the
option of doing the double blind tests with or without the ABX box.
I heartily recommend this article as a good primer on the way such
tests are done and the kind of results they achieve.
Basically, the listeners could not detect an audible difference
between their cables and the cheap zip cord beyond the level of
chance.
--
Peace,
Gene
Scott Frankland
Andre T. Yew wrote:
> Perhaps someone can help me out here. What is the official way of
> calculating Zobel networks? I've never done it, and can only
> imagine the procedure to be something like: find the complex
> impedance of the total network, make its imaginary part equal to
> zero. The second step brings out a relation between R, L, and C.
> Since L is constant, one adjusts R and C for conveniently available
> values. Does this make any sense? The circuit in mind is:
> o
> |
> +-+-+
> | R
> L |
> | C
> +-+-+
> |
> o
The circuit is more complex than this, although what you show does
give the lumped approximation in rough outline. Suggest you consult
*High Performance Loudspeakers* by Martin Colloms (pp. 142--146,
second ed.) to get the equivalent circuit; then check *Network
Analysis* by M.E. Van Valkenburg (pp.331-353) re Zoebels. The
references to Zoebel's original BSTJ articles are given on p. 358.
~SF~
Jim Gilliland
In <57clta$n...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, Scott Frankland
<audi...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> Jim Gilliland wrote:
Scott, thanks for the detailed reply to my questions.
> The problem occurs with all conventional moving-coil type tweeters.
> It is due to the inductance of the wire wound around the voice-coil.
> At high f's, this inductance resonates with cable capacitance. This
> can cause oscillations in feedback amplifiers that have inadequate
> stability margins. Amplifiers with falling damping factors at high
> f's can aggravate this effect. The problem is especially evident for
> transients, which tend to excite resonances.
>> How critical are the values of the capacitance and resistance in
>> the network?
> Somewhat critical. Mr. Dunlavy's recommended values will probably
> work in most cases. If you are fussy, you can start with these
> values and then plot the impedance vs. frequency. You can tailor the
> network until the impedance is as flat as desired.
> ....the Zobel shunts the signal AWAY from the tweeter at high
> frequencies....
>> Are there any downsides to placing a Zobel network across the
>> speaker terminals? Would such a network cause response, phase, or
>> other problems on a properly working system?
> The Zobel will CORRECT these problems when the values are properly
> chosen.
That makes sense. But since I have no access to the scopes and other
equipment that might be used to determine whether or not these
oscillations were occurring, or to plot an impedance curve, I'm mostly
left with my own ears as measuring devices. As I've noted in earlier
posts, I don't consider them to be perfectly trustworthy <g>.
From your discussion, it seems that the Zobel - depending on the
values chosen and the characteristics of the tweeter, cable, and amp -
will reduce the signal to the tweeter regardless of whether or not the
system is oscillating at high frequencies. If I construct a Zobel and
place it across the terminals, I will be able to find values that
_will_ lower the high freq response - regardless of whether or not
there is really a problem in this area.
It would seem inappropriate to use a Zobel, for example, to fix a
problem that was actually due to a room interaction rather than an
impedance problem. And without sophisticated measuring equipment (not
the mention the knowledge necessary to use it correctly <g>), I have
no ready way to know what is causing the strident high freq edginess
that I'm hearing.
I guess I was hoping that the Zobel would be effective only in the
case of a genuine oscillation, and benign otherwise. It sounds like
that was wishful thinking <g>.
Interestingly, I did experiment with a simple Zobel on Sunday. I
acquired some basic Radio Shack components (yes, I can hear everyone
groaning <g>) - two 15ohm resistors paralleled, connected in series
with a 4.7 uF non-polarized electolytic capacitor. I placed one such
unit across each tweeter terminal and found that, indeed, the edginess
was gone. The system still produced an excellent high-end, but
without the strident transients that seemed to plague it in the past.
So my ears tell me that this was a good move.
But I have no way of knowing whether I've attacked the correct
problem, or just found a way to compensate for another problem
elsewhere in the system. Maybe I just constructed a tone control.
I'll continue to listen, and I may well experiment with some other
values to see what happens - hopefully with a somewhat better
component than those available at the local mall <g>.
One more thought - since the potential oscillation is triggered when
the tweeter coil inductance interacts with cable capacitance, could I
just as easily solve the problem by choosing a cable with less
capacitance? I have no idea what the capacitance is of my cable (it's
an entry level Tara Labs cable).
Looking at the Audio Advisor catalog, I note that there is absolutely
no basic capacitance or inductance information provided for almost any
of the cables that they carry. They provide all kinds of other
information about the construction of the cables, most of which sounds
to me to be irrelevant to their signal carrying capabilities. Is
there anyone who sells high quality cables and also provides useful
technical information about them?
Thanks in advance to Scott and the other experts in this group.
Jim
PS - I enjoyed part one of your Stereophile series on the history
of amplifier design. Looking forward to the rest.
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <57cerj$n...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> ra...@rdrc.rpi.edu
(Randall Bradley) writes:
> Set up your ultimate recording system, for "perfect" stereo, in the
> best "room", etc. etc.
> Turn it on, record the following:
> Throw your keys randomly into the room!
> Now go to your ultimate listening room/system and play it
> back. Where are the keys? Regardless of what you do, or
> did in the recording (unless you cheated heavilly) the keys
> *MUST* be somewhere between the two speakers.
Um, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There are lots of issues here
related to direct vs. indirect sound, possible inclusion of pinna
response in the recorded sound, etc, but you ARE wrong.
> In fact we DO NOT KNOW HOW to record or playback an acoustic
> event so that it is a recreation of the original in "all"
> aspects -even if each and everyone of those aspects is not
> particularly well done!!
Well, yes and no. Reproducing the actual soundfield is understood,
and understood to be not possible.
Reproducing something that sounds the SAME as the actual soundfield
might not be so very far off.
Now, your basic point is something I agree with, but I'd state it as
"stereo imaging is at best a lame substitute for the real soundfield".
Mike Guyote
I was visiting John recently and was given an opportunity to read his
latest post on cables. Having done so and wishing to add a few
comments of my own, what follows is a somewhat invited set of added
comments from an interested observer:
I add my comments with the qualifying statement that I have been a
dedicated audiophile for many, many years. I know music, I play
music, I love music. I am also a fully qualified geek and love the
design of electronic equipment. My live acoustical references include
a grand piano at home, and numerous hours spent playing the pipe organ
at the US Air Force Academy.
I regularly visit John's lab in order to gain sanity from the academic
world and enjoy doing "real science" with John, who's technical
competence I know and respect. Today, he showed me the message above,
along with copies of some of the patents/advertisements of companies
other than DAL. GASP! (Please, tell me that I am dreaming.) My
impressions reflect a recent newspaper article that the U.S. ranks at
or near the bottom of the civilized world in maths and science. The
patents that I saw were not even up to the level of elementary
transmission line theory. The ideas expressed are all covered in much
greater detail in a first-level EE class. What the hell was there to
patent? A cable with simple one-pole, one-zero filtering? Show me an
audio cable that stores hundreds of Joules. After you do that, tell
me where all of the energy that is supposedly stored in the cable goes
when audio signals are pumped through them? This energy, when
released into the audio signal, should markedly affect a system's
pulse response. How do some cables "separate" various frequency ranges
through some magical interaction of the cable strands? What is "cable
efficiency"? Are there really people out there willing to pay $1k or
greater for cables?
With reference to a recent article in one of the best-read audiophile
magazines, how can cables conduct audio signals so "slowly" that there
are significant phase/delay differences between 20 Hz and 20 kHz? If
they did, the phenomena could clearly be identified by simply passing
a square wave through the cable and examining the "waveform
distortion" at the output. In another "feature article" in the same
magazine, I read the statement "...nothing can happen in audio that we
can't understand on the basis of the laws of physics"...is
"...persuasive - but...false." Give me a break! Name a repeatable,
audible phenomena that cannot be explained. The examples given in the
article clearly demonstrated the author's apparent lack of
understanding of first principles. Statements like this might be OK on
television (the land of the bottom of the SAT scores) but they
certainly are NOT tolerated in any reasonable academic institution
-and ... they should not be tolerated here ... unless, of course,
they could be proven to be true. If so, I would humbly eat my words!
However, I do not expect to have any humble pie meal in the near
future!
With respect to information transmission at audio frequencies (at
least in Colorado), simple zip cord between an amplifier and
loudspeaker seems to do the job satisfactorily for most uses! If I
really wanted to be critical, I can get even "more perfect" results
using a lower impedance cable, suitably matched to the average
impedance of the loudspeaker (and, perhaps, even to the amplifier to
further reduce reflections and ringing?). What is going on?
Virtually all of the advertising claims that I read would merit a
solid, fat "F" on any kind of decent engineering examination. Unlike
politics, the laws of physics are readily revealing of lies. If you
sincerely believe that "the laws of physics lie", please, please come
to my classes and explain to my students how these things can violate
all that we thought we knew to be true! Indeed, if you can prove that
the laws of physics lie, allow me to offer you a job. We're always
looking for good EE professors.
With respect to John, I can truthfully state that he knows that of
which he speaks and can prove what he says in his very well-equipped
lab. He is meticulously honest. Would it be so that some of the
purveyors of audio floobydust were that way also. I have learned much
from him -- and I must reluctantly admit some of the lessons learned
involved my discarding many audiophile "truths".
Yes, Matilda, he got me too!
--
Michael F. Guyote, Ph.D. (guy...@colotech.usa.net)
Professor of Electrical Engineering
Colorado Technical University
John Dunlavy
The many well-written responses to my recent "cable postings" have
convinced me that a significant number of readers have awakened to the
mess that exists with respect to questionable advertising claims being
made for the properties and performance of audiophile cables.
It has become increasingly obvious that many audiophiles are well
aware that most cable advertising is based upon gibberish intended to
sell expensive, "high-tech looking" cables that seldom perform as
claimed. Indeed, it is a provable fact that most cables, regardless
of cost or appearance, are not designed according to the teachings of
credible engineering criteria, confirmed by meaningful measurements
and properly conducted listening evaluations.
Intrigued by the questionable technology underpinning the advertised
claims for patented cable designs, I contacted a friend who is both a
patent attorney and a competent E.E. As a result of our discussion,
he secured copies of several patents relevant to some of the most
expensive, well-advertised and best-selling cables presently
available. Perusing these patents, I was shocked by much of what I
read. I was also dismayed that the U.S. Patent Office issued them, in
view of the flooby-dust and gobbledygook explanations given for how
they were supposed to work and perform.
Over the past 33 years, I have participated in numerous listening
comparisons, often in the presence of knowledgeable, well-intentioned
audiophiles claiming the ability to "always hear a difference between
cables". These listening sessions frequently took place within
listening rooms that most audiophiles would probably "kill for"!
Initially, before appropriate controls were introduced, results always
favored the most expensive cable with a high-tech appearance and the
greatest "sex appeal"!
However, when "blind", but non-intimidating, controls were instituted,
the differences originally identified could no longer be recognized -
and tabulated results revealed scores very close to those expected for
random-guessing. Yet, many self-proclaimed golden-ear audiophiles
continue to insist that they can always identify audible differences
between cables and abhor "blind evaluations" on the basis of perceived
intimidation.
Reliable studies have conclusively proven that "audible differences"
perceived during poorly-controlled subjective listening comparisons
almost invariably vanish when proper "listening controls" are
instituted. Without proper "blind" controls, listening evaluations
almost never yield any relevant or reliable information regarding
possible differences between cables. (However, such controls must be
designed to effectively eliminate "listener stress" - claimed by some
who do not believe in the relevance of blind comparisons.)
In attempting to eliminate (or reduce) the effect of such perceived
intimidation, we have devised an interesting "deception technique",
wherein we pretend to change cables, letting listeners believe they
know which cable they are hearing, when in reality they are hearing
the same cable throughout the entire session. Interestingly, all
participating listeners invariably continue to identify differences
they believe exist, even though they have listened to the same cable
throughout the evaluation.
An alternate version consists of actually changing cables but mixing
up the order, permitting listeners to believe they are listening to a
particular cable they have earlier identified as possessing certain
audible differences - when they are actually listening to a different
cable. Again, their choice of descriptive adjectives always tracks
the identity of the cable they thought they were listening to, but
were not!
Of course, as I have reiterated many times, it is indeed possible to
sometimes identify barely perceptible differences between
cables. These are almost always traceable to cable/equipment interface
problems, etc., and have always proven to be measurable, quantifiable
and explainable, using well-understood theory and technical knowledge,
along with adequate measurement tools.
Lets now consider the relevance of the many impressive-looking,
high-tech appearing specs and graphs that regularly appear in
expensive magazine advertisements, used to compare presumably
important "measurable" differences between cables. These include
graphs supposedly comparing a zip-cord and one being promoted on the
basis of its superior curve of Joules versus frequency. But a Joule is
defined as a unit of energy or work in the MKS system. In electrical
terms, a Joule is simply a "watt-second".
With respect to energy, it is the work done when "a force of one Newton
produces a displacement of one meter in the direction of the force".
However, neither definition seems very relevant for describing an audible
or measurable property of an audiophile cable.
A similarly impressive-looking graph, advertised as comparing the
"efficiency" of different cables, also begs examination. Here, the
advertisement defined efficiency as being related to "the phase
between voltages and currents along the cable". In the graph,
zip-cord is depicted as exhibiting an efficiency very close to zero at
frequencies below 100 Hertz, including the mains frequency of 60
Hz. But if zip-cord exhibited such a low "efficiency" (according to
normal use of the term), it certainly would not be usable for
supplying A.C. current from an outlet to lights, toasters, fans,
etc. (Indeed, in most household applications, zip-cord would likely
overheat and probably catch fire!) Hmmm!
A further, frequently encountered advertising claim for cables is the
use of "six nines" or 99.9999 percent pure copper (usually designated
6N copper). Such ads usually imply that 6N copper is unique and is
used only in the world's finest and most expensive audio
cables. Further references are often made to an audible correlation
between the use of 6N copper and sonic purity. But, according to the
Directors of the Engineering Departments of several of the largest
wire and cable manufacturers in the United States, virtually all of
today's copper wire is made of "six nines" copper. Every one of them
claimed it would be hard to find any cable, whether zip-cord, house
wiring, etc., that did not use it.
Some cable manufacturers even refer to their products as being made of
special "grain-oriented" copper or copper with "directional
properties", with respect to current/signal flow (gulp)! All large,
reputable wire and cable manufactures, with whom we have spoken, laugh
(or cry) at such assertions and claims. Indeed, if a wire exhibited
directional properties with respect to current flow, the
directionality would "rectify" audio signals (like a diode in series
with a wire carrying an A.C. current), creating unlistenable levels of
second-order harmonic distortion components (wow!).
Another means for selling more loudspeaker cables is that referred to
as "bi-wiring", requiring the use of two cables. However, bi-wiring
does not work in the simplistic fashion imagined by audiophiles
lacking the engineering credentials to analyze the potential system
degradation in accuracy that can result from using separate cables to
connect the output of the power-amp to the separate high and
low-frequency input connectors at the loudspeaker. In fact, such usage
can induce many expensive high-slew rate amplifiers to oscillate at
frequencies above the limit of audibility. This condition can arise
because of the added (effectively doubled) capacitance introduced by
the "bass cable" not being "resistively- terminated" above the bass
crossover frequency and the "mid-tweeter" cable not being
resistively-terminated above the tweeter range, where a typical
tweeter's impedance nearly doubles within each octave above the audio
range.
As well, the issue of bi-amping should be addressed with regards to
using this application in an attempt to better the quality of sonic
reproduction. A straight-forward analysis reveals that this process
may actually adversly affect sound reproduction. This is especially
true when the amps have different properties, such as a tube-amp for
the treble and a solid-state amp for the bass, each possessing
different gains, output impedances, etc. Amplifiers with different
gains, unless compensated to be equal, can audibly affect the
frequency-response, etc. of the loudspeaker.
I could go on and on, ad nauseum, reciting more nonsense, but it seems
prudent to preserve readers from further pain and anguish!
To see what a sampling of competent engineers had to say about typical
cable advertisements, I had three E.E. types (all holding Ph.D's from
different major U.S. universities) read several examples and provide
me with their opinions. Their comments and explanations matched my
own, with all three being in full agreement with the comments I
expressed above. Some of their comments incorporated expletives I
prefer to not to repeat!
Many readers may question my motives for making the above comments and
observations. Well, I originally undertook the task of studying the
properties and design criteria for audio cables for three reasons: (1)
I am the curious type that cannot rest until I have studied the
relevant facts concerning controversial subjects, (2) Measurements of
the electrical properties of a large sampling of commercially
available cables revealed relatively poor performance properties, that
did not correlate with their cost, advertised attributes and or
high-tech appearance, (3) I needed cables with performance as close to
"perfect" as possible, so that I could rule out any contributions from
the cables when making measurements of our loudspeakers or performing
critical evaluations with them within our listening room.
But other reasons cut deeper: when advertised performance claims for
products are structured to convey integrity and a sense of being true
in every respect, yet in reality are either misleading or outright
false, the basic covenant of trust that should exist between
manufacturers and consumers is breached. If permitted to continue
unabated and without appropriate redress, increasing consumer distrust
will eventually destroy the integrity of the audiophile industry as a
whole. Ultimately, I believe this has the potential to erode the
rewards available from a very neat hobby, especially for those in
pursuit of "true, documentable perfection" in the reproduction of
music.
When profits and desired market share are given priority by any
manufacturer over their obligation to provide products with
performance and features that conform to advertised claims, I believe
that consumers have a right to know and be concerned. Too many
innocent and uninformed consumers wrongly assume that Government
"protection agencies" are vigilantly pursuing false/misleading
advertising claims and products that do not perform as claimed. Not
so! Today, most government regulatory agencies effectively have their
hands tied behind their backs by bureaucrats representing "special
interest groups" whose only gauge of success is profit - and profit,
alone! As such, they are frequently impotent to take any meaningful
action against companies engaged in advertising, marketing and selling
products whose performance does not meet the rightful expectations of
the purchaser.
Best of listening,
John Dunlavy
P.S. - If anyone would like to introduce credible information or
measurements that disprove any of the comments I have made above, I
would sincerely be open to receiving them.
Randall Bradley
jj says I'm "wrong" but then goes on to agree - in effect
contradicting himself! :}
How we hear - the physics/mechanics/biology is somewhat irrelevant to
my point. The idea that in any way we "understand" *what* needs to be
recorded to "capture" the *original* sonic event is questionable at
best, probably arrogant if you really think that you know this.
It is clear that no one has the slightest idea of how to practically
reproduce it. Approximations abound - all have noticable flaws.
It is quite optimistic to believe that such a reproduction system will
happen any time soon, unless direct cranial input becomes a reality -
and even then who knows?
The *POINT* is that STEREO is a very *LIMITED* paradigm for the
reproduction of a "live" sonic event. Lest the 'keys' example not be
"clear" enough for some, let's try another (perhaps more obvious)
example - again do it as a mind experiment unless you have the gear:
Set up two mics, one on each side of train tracks. Record the
train as it passes between the mics. (in fact it matters not
one wit how you set up the mics!) Now play it back - with the
mics as I indicated the sound of the train will appear to
approach from a point between the speakers, move forward
toward the listener and then *MOVE AWAY* in the direction that
it came from. CLEARLY, this is NOT the behavior of the
*original* sound source - which if you were sitting on the
tracks would have gone through you (very loud at that point -
being 0 distance away from your ear :] ) and then *behind*
your back. Stereo is *too* limited to fully portray the
original event.
Recognizing the limitiations inherent in the medium is essential if we
are to have an intelligent and *productive* discussion.
Leon Vick
> ...it's a deliberate attempt on your part to twist the meaning of a
> commonly used word. As you well know, there is a common argument in
> these newsgroups that LP lovers preference is not due to superior
> accuracy but to euphonic distortions. Euphonic is a well established
When evaluating the sound of a high-end system you have one reference:
your own recollection of what the original sound (music, passing
trains, thunderstorms, whatever...) should be like. The system you
rank the highest will be the one that comes the closest to that
standard (that pleases you the most). You may THEN choose to play
pleasant or unpleasant sounding recordings through it, as you wish,
just as you may hear similar sounds at a live performance. I'm
referring to euphony WRT the excellence of the reproduction, not the
sound reproduced!
As for the word itself, my purpose is to point out the importance
invariably given in practice to purely subjective criteria in the
evaluation and selection of hardware, in contradiction to the
theoretical rhetoric wasted on meaningless terms like "accurate".
Scott Frankland described an accurate system as one that revealed the
greatest differences between different recordings. If you or anyone
else reading these words has ever given such criteria greater weight
in the selection of hardware than your own subjective judgments, I'll
submit that you were not spending your own money at the time!
As an aside, long years ago I had a pair of JBL Olympus speakers. I
took personal pride in those edge-wound aluminum voice coils, cast
baskets and 20 lb. magnets, despite my difficulty in getting what I
thought these wonders should provide. Then, when I heard better
sounding cheaper systems I realized that "good" speakers - as measured
by these parameters - do not necessarily sound good.
> Euphonic does NOT mean accurate or lifelike, never did and never will.
I never said it did. I've been discussing the ability of the system to
reproduce audio satisfactorily - as determined by the listener - not
the audio material reproduced.
> If you prefer vinyl, that's just fine, but give up these simplistic
> attempts to change the rules in your favour.
Heh! I have not bought one single LP since I first got a CD player in
1984! It appears that you've been debating with your own
misconceptions of my position and purpose. I'm only trying to
stimulate some intellectual honesty around here, about what a
contemporary audio system can and cannot be or do.
Scott Frankland
Jim Gilliland wrote:
>>> Are there any downsides to placing a Zobel network across the
>>> speaker terminals? Would such a network cause response, phase, or
>>> other problems on a properly working system?
>> The Zobel will CORRECT these problems when the values are properly
>> chosen.
> That makes sense. But since I have no access to the scopes and other
> equipment that might be used to determine whether or not these
> oscillations were occurring, or to plot an impedance curve, I'm mostly
> left with my own ears as measuring devices. As I've noted in earlier
> posts, I don't consider them to be perfectly trustworthy <g>.
Then use the values specified by John Dunlavy (from which this thread
derives).
> It would seem inappropriate to use a Zobel, for example, to fix a
> problem that was actually due to a room interaction rather than an
> impedance problem. And without sophisticated measuring equipment (not
> the mention the knowledge necessary to use it correctly <g>), I have
> no ready way to know what is causing the strident high freq edginess
> that I'm hearing.
The Zobel is step 1 and should be mandatory in any case.
> I guess I was hoping that the Zobel would be effective only in the
> case of a genuine oscillation, and benign otherwise. It sounds like
> that was wishful thinking <g>.
A Zobel can help in flattening the f-response also, for some
amplifiers. It also tends to stabilize the filter function of the
crossover network in many cases. It is a free lunch. Use it.
> Interestingly, I did experiment with a simple Zobel on Sunday. I
[ quoted text deleted -- jwd ]
> But I have no way of knowing whether I've attacked the correct
> problem, or just found a way to compensate for another problem
> elsewhere in the system. Maybe I just constructed a tone control.
You corrected the problem. Rejoice. The Zobel is not a tone control.
It's function is to flatten the impedance curve without adversely
affecting the f-response.
> One more thought - since the potential oscillation is triggered when
> the tweeter coil inductance interacts with cable capacitance, could I
> just as easily solve the problem by choosing a cable with less
> capacitance?
There is a critical capacitance at which resonance occurs. You need to
avoid this window by either going up or down (preferably down).
> Looking at the Audio Advisor catalog, I note that there is absolutely
> no basic capacitance or inductance information provided for almost any
> of the cables that they carry. They provide all kinds of other
> information about the construction of the cables, most of which sounds
> to me to be irrelevant to their signal carrying capabilities.
Perhaps they need a consultant? An advisor to the Advisor. <g>
> Is there anyone who sells high quality cables and also provides
> useful technical information about them?
Nordost comes to mind. There are probably others.
~SF~
Scott Weinmann
John Dunlavy <10236...@compuserve.com> wrote in article
<57hn3d$s...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
{Snipped by SW}
> Another means for selling more loudspeaker cables is that referred
> to as "bi-wiring", requiring the use of two cables. However,
> bi-wiring does not work in the simplistic fashion imagined by
> audiophiles lacking the engineering credentials to analyze the
> potential system degradation in accuracy that can result from using
> separate cables to connect the output of the power-amp to the
> separate high and low-frequency input connectors at the
> loudspeaker. In fact, such usage can induce many expensive high-slew
> rate amplifiers to oscillate at frequencies above the limit of
> audibility. This condition can arise because of the added
> (effectively doubled) capacitance introduced by the "bass cable" not
> being "resistively- terminated" above the bass crossover frequency
> and the "mid-tweeter" cable not being resistively-terminated above
> the tweeter range, where a typical tweeter's impedance nearly
> doubles within each octave above the audio range.{Snipped by SW}>
So what does this mean to a Dunlavy SC-IV-owner? The speaker clearly
has two sets of terminals on it...making it obvious that bi-wiring is
preferred, no? You (actually, my dealer..) sold me more speaker cable
(DAL Z6, two 15' runs - not cheap either..) so that I could bi-wire my
Dunlavy speakers.
Do I now need resistors to resistively terminate each run of cable?
Is my amp (Pass Aleph 3) oscillating?
Are you saying that you include two terminals (bi-wireable) just
because of market dynamics? Because people WANT to bi-wire? I wish I
knew this before I sprang for a bi-wired run of $750-$850 worth of DAL
Z6... I could have gone with lamp cord instead, and a single run at
that!
What are you tellin' me, John?
Scott Weinmann
Owner, Dunlavy SC-IV Serial #s 729 A-B
Bradley Sanders
On 27 Nov 1996 10:35:09 -0500, John Dunlavy
<10236...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Intrigued by the questionable technology underpinning the advertised
>claims for patented cable designs, I contacted a friend who is both a
>patent attorney and a competent E.E. As a result of our discussion,
>he secured copies of several patents relevant to some of the most
>expensive, well-advertised and best-selling cables presently
>available. Perusing these patents, I was shocked by much of what I
>read. I was also dismayed that the U.S. Patent Office issued them, in
>view of the flooby-dust and gobbledygook explanations given for how
>they were supposed to work and perform.
I can't agree more. Some years ago, when I was on TAN, one of the
members was selling "cable clamps." He pointed out he had received a
patent on them, and offered folks go check out the documentation.
I did just that.
The "patent" was for a piece of ferromagentic material that was
intended to clamp around a cable. The clamp was imbued with a "bias"
that was supposed to remove noise by imparting a magnetic bias.
Anyone who remembers second grade science should recognize this object
I describe as a permanent magnet. How this "directional filtering" is
supposed to help an AC signal is beyond me.
The groups response to my pointing this out was not favorable.
Needless to say, it was the beginning of the end.
I, too, can't believe what granted a US patent. Perhaps the secret
isn't coming up with something *useful* - only unique (bizzarre,
insane, assinine) enough to be "original."
This gives me new encouragement; perhaps I should pursue a patent on
my telephone that lies...
http://www.radioactive.home.ml.org
another monolithic organization
Thomas Nulla
On 25 Nov 1996 17:54:16 GMT, Rafe Evans wrote:
>Rather than join the debate about whether double blind tests are the
>way to judge cables, I have a simple question: HAVE double blind
>listening tests been performed to compare cables? What were the
>results?
>Rafe Evans((()))snavE efaR "Moderation in Moderation"
John Dunlavy (originator of this thread) has written quite a bit about
this and performed numerous tests. You could search DejaNews for his
name or check out a page on my site containing most of his posts to
r.a.h-e.
Good sig, reminds me of the High Lama in 'Shangri-La'.
Regards,
Thomas
http://www.io.com/~nulla (high fidelity and miscellany)
*** The humor-impaired should avoid this page. ***
Newest Fuzzballah, John Dunlavy RAHE archive to 17 Nov 96
"Watch out where the huskies go..."
Bruce Abrams
Leon Vick wrote:
> Well, you might learn how to read music. Lots of musicians can "hear"
> the music just by reading a score. (No, I can't) You see, the music is
> there whether anybody performs it or not, much less whether anybody
> reproduces a performance or not! But given that most of music has been
> performed, and recorded, it still doesn't take a high-end system (That
> IS the kind of "audio" we're discussing here, isn't it?) to transmit
> musical emotions. I can remember one New Year's Eve, alone on a
> temporary assignment far from home, when Beethoven's Ninth brought
> tears to my eyes - played from a tiny bedside radio played as low as
> possible so not to bother others nearby. The point is that high-end
> audio is but a toy that is totally unessential to music, if not
> distracting from it. We all happen to love these expensive toys. I
> find no fault with that. But to assert that they serve music by
> somehow improving it is patently naive. I'm sure glad nobody told
> Bach, Beethoven or Elgar about such forthcoming developments. They
> might have tried to wait... Think about it.
With all due respect, you have completely missed the point! Music
does not exist in absence of performance. Case in point: I sing in a
well respected amateur choir in northern New Jersy. Last night we had
the pleasure of welcoming in the 74 year old composer of several
pieces we will be performing this season. After listening to us for
about half an hour, he taught us by ear several cannons he had
composed some 40 and 50 years ago but had never heard performed. With
much emotion, he stopped us in the middle and stated "Ladies and
Gentleman, you have proven what I have been saying for years. I can
be likened to an architect who draws the blue prints. Until the
structure is built, however, it is nothing." So too with the music.
I read music extremely well, and can know what something will sound
like by reading it. To say that the music exists to me before I
actually hear it, however, would be absolute idiocy.
If Bach would have heard his St. Matthew's Passion reproduced on a
"tiny bedside radio", I'm guessing his response would have been an
unremarkable "So What?". If, however, he would have heard it across a
more "high-end" system, I'm again only guessing that he would have
understood it to be a very remarkable method of disseminating his
music to a much broader audience. I would venture to say that your
experience with the radio and Beethoven's 9th had more to due with
your emotional state, than that which was being conveyed by the music
heard through the radio. You're not really trying to convince anyone
that a "high-end" system doesn't do a far better job of conveying the
feeling, emotion, alright...gestalt of the music than does a tiny
transistor radio, are you?
--
Listen to the Music!
Bruce
Lars Christensen
>Another means for selling more loudspeaker cables is that referred to
>as "bi-wiring", requiring the use of two cables. However, bi-wiring
>does not work in the simplistic fashion imagined by audiophiles
>lacking the engineering credentials to analyze the potential system
>degradation in accuracy that can result from using separate cables to
>connect the output of the power-amp to the separate high and
>low-frequency input connectors at the loudspeaker. In fact, such usage
>can induce many expensive high-slew rate amplifiers to oscillate at
>frequencies above the limit of audibility. This condition can arise
>because of the added (effectively doubled) capacitance introduced by
>the "bass cable" not being "resistively- terminated" above the bass
>crossover frequency and the "mid-tweeter" cable not being
>resistively-terminated above the tweeter range, where a typical
>tweeter's impedance nearly doubles within each octave above the audio
>range.
While I certainly agrre with you on the hype and marketing bluff used
to market expensive cables, I am curious about these comments about
bi-wiring.
You do not exactly say that bi-wiring have no positive effect, yet I
feel that you are implying it, by setting it along with the other
marketing hype.
In the manuals for both my B&W 805 speakers and Audiolab 8000S amp
bi-wiring is recommended. The B&W 805 manual even stresses the point
and 'strongly' recommends it.
Now, I don't expect you to be responsible for other companies'
marketing, but could you please clarify your view: Does bi-wiring, in
your opinion, generally have a positive effect, or are B&W and
Audiolab (just translate that to 'some companies') really full of it?
Lars Christensen
Richard Dal Farra
>Another means for selling more loudspeaker cables is that referred to
>as "bi-wiring", requiring the use of two cables. However, bi-wiring
>does not work in the simplistic fashion imagined by audiophiles
>lacking the engineering credentials to analyze the potential system
>degradation in accuracy that can result from using separate cables to
>connect the output of the power-amp to the separate high and
>low-frequency input connectors at the loudspeaker. In fact, such usage
>can induce many expensive high-slew rate amplifiers to oscillate at
>frequencies above the limit of audibility. This condition can arise
>because of the added (effectively doubled) capacitance introduced by
>the "bass cable" not being "resistively- terminated" above the bass
>crossover frequency and the "mid-tweeter" cable not being
>resistively-terminated above the tweeter range, where a typical
>tweeter's impedance nearly doubles within each octave above the audio
>range.
Could you elaborate a little more on this please? I don't quite
follow the argument regarding "cable termination". Wouldn't the high
frequency impedance seen by the tweeter cable in bi-wiring be exactly
that seen by a cable in single wiring? This impedance would also still
in parallel with the bass driver and its crossover, and would
therefore still be the dominant impedance the amp sees at high
frequencies, based on the safe assumption that the tweeter's voice
coil is far less inductive than the woofer's voice-coil/x-over
network. Are you saying that some amplifiers don't like seeing an open
cable on their output, even if the amp itself is terminated by a
parallel load, for reasons other than the added capacitance? If so,
what would these reasons be?
I agree with you that bi-wiring can cause problems due to the added
capacitance. If I recall correctly, twenty years ago the combination
of Polk speaker cables and Naim amplifiers made a fine smoke machine.
But beyond capacitance, and perhaps the very slight (possible) change
around the x-over frequency that would result from isolating the high
and low passes more effectively from each other with bi-wiring, I
don't understand how cable terminations come into play.
sdura...@aol.com
In article <57hn3d$s...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, John Dunlavy
<10236...@compuserve.com> writes:
>When profits and desired market share are given priority by any
>manufacturer over their obligation to provide products with
>performance and features that conform to advertised claims, I believe
>that consumers have a right to know and be concerned. Too many
>innocent and uninformed consumers wrongly assume that Government
>"protection agencies" are vigilantly pursuing false/misleading
>advertising claims and products that do not perform as claimed. Not
>so! Today, most government regulatory agencies effectively have their
>hands tied behind their backs by bureaucrats representing "special
>interest groups" whose only gauge of success is profit - and profit,
>alone! As such, they are frequently impotent to take any meaningful
>action against companies engaged in advertising, marketing and selling
>products whose performance does not meet the rightful expectations of
>the purchaser.
I sympathize with your frustration that cable manufacturers are
bandying about claims that are simply unverifiable. I think, though,
that it's a question of what people want to believe.
Let me trot out a subjectivist's favorite for a moment: the wine
industry, Suppose certain vintners began to advertise that their wines
taste better because of a peculiar chemical composition. Do you think
that wine enthusiasts would suddenly be convinced of this wine's
superiority and start drinking it in droves? No, of course not.
I think it's easy to forget that the psychological expectation of
audiophiles extend beyond what's strictly quantifiable. I can't
imagine you could dictate or legislate to audiophiles that they must
accept certain cable because it's been "proven" to adequately transmit
an audio signal. Audiophiles must have the freedom to select $1000
cable for whatever reason they choose, just as wine entusiasts must
have the freedom to buy Chateau Lafite.
>P.S. - If anyone would like to introduce credible information or
>measurements that disprove any of the comments I have made above, I
>would sincerely be open to receiving them.
During the past year, Stereophile published a couple of articles with
extensive quantitative analysis suggesting cable differences. I'm at
the office now and don't have the issues on hand - I can get them for
you - what are your thoughts concerning their findings?
Bruce Abrams
You don't have to go to so far to prove this point. John Atkinson has
already proven it on one of the Stereophile Test CD's. (I don't
remember whether it was the 1st or 2nd.) When he walks around the
church in which the recording is to take place, he walks from the back
of the hall up to the mikes and then continues to the front of the
hall. Even the liner notes make mention of the fact that you can't
differentiate between coming and going! (Y'all can read into that
whatever you'd like :-))
But what does that really mean, since I'm not aware of any recording
technique wherein the microphones are placed in the middle of the live
soundfield. Since the mikes are always placed in front of the
performance group, the inability to differentiate in front of or
behind appears to be irrelevant.
[excessive post-quoted text deleted by RD]
Scott Frankland
John Dunlavy wrote:
> P.S. - If anyone would like to introduce credible information or
> measurements that disprove any of the comments I have made above, I
> would sincerely be open to receiving them.
Dear John,
This is the third time you have ascribed high slew-rate amplifiers to
the problem of cable interface. This is misleading. It's also the
third time I have contradicted you on this point, which is why I'm
sending this reply directly via email this time (as well as to the
ng).
"In fact, such usage can induce many expensive high-slew rate
amplifiers to oscillate at frequencies above the limit of audibility.
This condition can arise because of the added (effectively doubled)
capacitance introduced by the "bass cable" not being "resistively-
terminated" above the bass crossover frequency and the "mid-tweeter"
cable not being resistively-terminated above the tweeter range, where
a typical tweeter's impedance nearly doubles within each octave above
the audio range."
It is apparent that you have not been following this thread very
closely, which is fine, as I'm sure you've got other things to do. I
also realize that my point is a minor one and not very relevant to
your argument, but it is not doing amplifier mfr's any service to
point to slew-rate as a problem. The problem is conditional stability,
or marginal stability, which has nothing directly to do with slew-rate
unless the designer decides to trade-off stability for an increased
slew-rate limit. I realize you stated as much in an earlier post, but
please don't point to slew-rate as the problem. The fundamental
problem is not the slew-rate, it is simply *marginally stable feedback
amplifiers*. Please refer to my earlier posts in this thread if you
need further clarification on this point. Sorry to be so blunt about
it, but, after all, I've got other things to do, too....
~SF~
mcdonalk
I, myself, am an E.E. and enjoy listening to my "audiophile" (gulp)
system. Like most engineers, my analytical processes have been
enhanced, some might say at the expense of my abstract cognition.
Anyhow, I won't go into too much detail, but I have conducted blind
tests with "non-religious" friends and my wife, with my own system,
using different speaker cables, green CD paint, and CD rings. Almost
without exception, for the first 8 or so iterations, the listeners
could discern differences, could track the differences, and determined
when the object of the test was switched and not switched. However,
which of two alternatives sounded better was not always agreed
upon...but the differences were discerned.
After 8 or so incidences, the differences began to disappear and
the differences became inaudible. My conclusion was different than
most postings on this newsgroup:
I believe some tweaks make a difference. In my case, CD stabilizer
rings made a difference, the "green pen" made a difference, and so did
AudioTruth Diamond vs Kimber Cable vs. "zip cord."
After multiple tests, the inaudibility occurred because the test
"subjects" (of which I was one), fell prey to psychoacoustic affects.
In other words, we all got sick of listening to the same musical
passages over and over again.
Based on my personal experience, the methodology of which is
certainly open for dispute, I condludfe that blind tests are not
reliable because of not-well-understood psychoacoustic affects. I
believe that first impressions are more reliable.
I don't want to waste money any more than anyone else, and I don't
like marketing jargon, but I like my system to sound as good as
possible. I like to think that I don't waste money on things that
make no audible difference.
Seyhun
John Dunlavy wrote:
> The many well-written responses to my recent "cable postings" have
> convinced me that a significant number of readers have awakened .......
........most cable advertising is based upon gibberish intended to
> sell expensive, "high-tech looking" cables that seldom perform as
> claimed. Indeed, it is a provable fact that most cables, regardless
> of cost or appearance, are not designed according to the teachings of
> credible engineering criteria, confirmed by meaningful measurements
> and properly conducted listening evaluations.
Hi John,
These claims may be correct for many cables. But after such long
discussions in this news group, you should not make people doubt about
*all* of high-end cable manufacturers. There *may* be some of them,
making cables even better than yours, and can also be with the
high-tech look.(nothing to avoid). Yesterday I have listened to your
speaker cables (with Dunlavy IV speakers) and liked it, and the cables
looked not much different than the others (Maybe thinner). And
congratulations for the good price.
If I'm not mistaken this is your third contribution om this subject,
and rather than being general, you should now start giving *brand
names* and examples on specific points where they can not fulfill
their *claims*. Unless specificly addressed, a known manufacturer
can't enter the discussions, because if they do, that will imply that
they have taken the accusations directly for themselves. If you were
giving technical measurement results with brand names, it could have
been a better approach. But now only some general problems.
Since everything you say is general and vague regarding manufacturers
identification, you can always say, if needed, that you did not mean a
certain cable, if you received a reply from a that competitor which
may be correct.
Then, since your comments are general, then I must agree with you in
general, but as you see, I also beleive that there *are* many good
reputable cable manufacturers also, in addition to your company, who
should not be harmed with general claims without address.
Most can only be blamed for selling these at very very expensive
prices.!!!
> However, when "blind", but non-intimidating, controls were instituted,
> the differences originally identified could no longer be recognized -
I have been to sone blind tests, using high end equipment, and a
simple zip cord can always be distinguished.(60% of the people) The
differences are subtle or none among some better cables. (a good cable
is not necessarily an expensive one. and as a customer, isn't the
blind test the best means of buying a cable? Choose the cheapest among
the ones you like).
But please do not recommend a zip cord in the future, then there will
be no reason why your company should be making cables.
> As well, the issue of bi-amping should be addressed with regards to
> using this application in an attempt to better the quality of sonic
> reproduction. A straight-forward analysis reveals that this process
> may actually adversly affect sound reproduction. This is especially
> true when the amps have different properties, such as a tube-amp for
> the treble and a solid-state amp for the bass, each possessing
> different gains, output impedances, etc. Amplifiers with different
> gains, unless compensated to be equal, can audibly affect the
> frequency-response, etc. of the loudspeaker.
I am using tube amplifiers for the midrange and treble (2 monoblocks
200w each) and Classe DR 25 SS for the bass. Speakers are Mirage
M-1si. I always wondered whether there is a good balance between the
lower frequencies, and the rest of the music. I think it is OK at my
normal listening level (just by comparing a single amp to my bi-amp
sound), but I really don't know what happens at other points, but I
don't care much. But my comment to your sentence is that, bi-amp,
bi-wire configuration *may* also better the quality of the sound
reproduction, by combining low bass, well defined bass, with good
musicality, grainless outstanding midrange of the tubes. Why do you
always look at these from only a *negative* perspective. (glass half
full or half empty). In may case, my glass is half full!! Especially
when it is classical music. I recommend everyone to try and see for
themselves.
regards, seyhun
Jim Andrews
Leon Vick wrote:
> I'm referring to euphony WRT the excellence of the reproduction, not
> the sound reproduced!
>
> As for the word itself, my purpose is to point out the importance
> invariably given in practice to purely subjective criteria in the
> evaluation and selection of hardware, in contradiction to the
> theoretical rhetoric wasted on meaningless terms like "accurate".
As long as part of the high-end community considers terms like
"accurate" meaningless, and discussion regarding such topics as
theoretical rhetoric, we're going to get nowhere.
> As an aside, long years ago I had a pair of JBL Olympus speakers. I
> took personal pride in those edge-wound aluminum voice coils, cast
> baskets and 20 lb. magnets, despite my difficulty in getting what I
> thought these wonders should provide. Then, when I heard better
> sounding cheaper systems I realized that "good" speakers - as
> measured by these parameters - do not necessarily sound good.
You are completely missing the point. Did the JBL Olympus really
measure well? By today's standards? I doubt it. You are associating
"features" with "goodness", and have managed to avoid the nagging
issue that marketing doesn't have to have any correlation with the
truth. I can edge-wind a speaker coil today that will suck -- hell, I
probably _couldn't_ build a speaker that doesn't suck. Just because
JBL isn't much farther down the path than me doesn't mean that someone
can't engineer a good audio component.
There are many battle to be fought between today's state of the art
and tomorrow's audio nirvana. Ignoring sound engineering principles
only prolongs the agony. Accuracy = goodness, no doubt about it. Now
we just have to get everything accurate, including the initial
transduction and the final transduction. Most everything in between
is doing OK.
Jim Andrews
Greg Guarino
John Dunlavy <10236...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> The many well-written responses to my recent "cable postings" have
> convinced me that a significant number of readers have awakened to
> the mess that exists with respect to questionable advertising claims
> being made for the properties and performance of audiophile cables.
I'd like to approach this from a different angle by asking the
following question:
Who actually makes the WIRE for these kilobuck cables?
I seriously doubt it could be the small company advertising the cable.
Think about the steps that must be involved:
1. Pulling copper into uniform gauge strands.
2. Winding strands together.
3. Applying individual insulators.
4. Winding conductors together with strain relief cord, shielding,
drain wire etc.
5. Applying the outer jacket.
I'm not a cable manufacturer so I'm sure that the above list greatly
simplifies the process. But even these five steps must require a
substantial investment in machinery, much greater than could ever be
justified for a low volume business.
In my opinion the audiophile cable companies must have their wire made
for them by Belden or some other wire manufacturer. If this is the
case I pose the following questions (hopefully to be answered by the
cable and /or wire manufacturers themselves):
1. What specifications do they give to the manufacturer? Do they
actually get a different grade of copper or not? Is there anything at
all about the process that is different from the way the wire
manufacturer makes their "non-audiophile" cables?
2. What do they pay for the wire? Regardless of what one thinks of the
"sonic" properties of these cables some of the prices are insane and
bear no relation to the cost of the materials or the labor involved.
We had a dealer try to sell one of our clients $3000 interconnect
cables and $7000 speaker cables (yes, EACH)!!! What justifies such
prices?
[ Good questions Greg. Best of luck getting them answered. They've
been posed here at least once in the past, without much in the way
of a meaningful response. Here's hoping for a different result
this time around. The truth is out there Scully. -- jwd ]
Greg Guarino
Richard D Pierce
In article <5759v4$a...@canyon.sr.hp.com>, <sdura...@aol.com> wrote:
>1. One is to relate our sensibility to our memory of live sonic
>events - the Harry Pearson approach of the Absolute Sound.
Is this the same "Harry Pearson" whose memeory of live music lead him
to proclaim the value of a recording of a harpsichord that clearly
imaged the strings in two levels, something that NO harpsichord in
existance has? If so, then that serves as a siimple existrance proof
that Harry Pearson's memory of live music and instruments is
demnstrably defective.;
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Loudspeaker and Software Consulting |
| 17 Sartelle Street Pepperell, MA 01463 |
| (508) 433-9183 (Voice and FAX) |
hen...@nortel.ca
sdura...@aol.com wrote:
: I sympathize with your frustration, John, but the truth is that
: audiophiles expect to be deceived and want to be lied to. It just
: isn't fair to require manufacturers to publish truthful advertising,
: because this limits comsumers' rights. In the end, preserving the
: right of audiophiles to choose and to be deceived is more important
: than protecting consumers from fraud and honest manufacturers from
: unfair competition.
Well put, Siegfried! I couldn't have said it better myself.
But I don't agree with you. Requiring manufacturers to tell
the truth when they publish technical ads doesn't keep them from
communicating with buyers. It certainly doesn't limit the freedom
of consumers to buy their products. All it does is insure that
consumers who want to be well-informed don't need engineering
degrees to protect themselves from deceitful advertising. And
it eliminates the unfair disadvantage suffered by manufacturers
who choose to tell the truth.
-Henry
--
ATTENTION! Reply to h...@nortel.ca (hen...@nortel.ca won't work).
Dennis Davis
I agree that one must take advertising copy of cable sellers with a
grain of salt. I do not see that your implicit conclusions from this
thesis follow. The fact that advertising copy is a bunch of bull does
not mean that cables do not sound different. When I see people up in
arms about this subject, claiming the government is falling down on
the job in not "regulating" such advertising, I become suspicious.
Advertising for most products is inherently misleading. Sit down at
your television for a few hours this evening and see for yourself.
Have you written so much before about reforming other areas of
advertising, where the target audience is generally much less
sophisticated, and the potential damage far greater? Some in the
engineering community appear overly paternalistic. Do we really need
the government to protect us from the big, bad cable cartel? Are our
powers of perception so pathetic that we need an engineer at our doors
with a double blind switch each time we make an audio purchase? I
think not.
Dennis Davis
Leon Vick
Leon Vick wrote:
>> ...We all happen to love these expensive toys. I find no fault
>> with that. But to assert that they serve music by somehow improving
>> it is patently naive....
Bruce Abrams <bab...@unix.trilogy.net> wrote in article
<57iq0n$o...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
> With all due respect, you have completely missed the point! Music
> does not exist in absence of performance.
Then what do you call the music you hear between your ears? (Other
than tinnitus?) Anyway, "the point" was whether audio serves the music
or music serves the audio:
> pieces we will be performing this season. After listening to us for
> about half an hour, he taught us by ear several cannons he had
> composed some 40 and 50 years ago but had never heard performed.
IMHO, your story contradicts your thesis. Did these canons not exist
until you sang them? Is a Beethoven (or Beatles) score nothing but ink
on paper? No. I agree that it is like a blueprint, but it is the
blueprint that contains the genius. A successful implementation of it
is the proof of that genius.
> If Bach would have heard his St. Matthew's Passion reproduced on a
> "tiny bedside radio", I'm guessing his response would have been an
> unremarkable "So What?". If, however, he would have heard it across a
This is called something like "killing your own strawman". Whatever
you (or I) guess (about anything) and any relevant truth are purely
coincidental, especially when the subject of the conjecture has been
dead for 346 years!
> heard through the radio. You're not really trying to convince anyone
> that a "high-end" system doesn't do a far better job of conveying the
> feeling, emotion, alright...gestalt of the music than does a tiny
> transistor radio, are you?
If the radio allows you to focus on the music while the audio system
distracts you with concerns about tubes, transistors, CDs, LPs,
speaker placement, spikes, cones, stands, cables, green ink, etc. - or
is used for background music while you read a book (you admitted it
already!) - then yes, the radio serves the music better.
> Listen to the Music!
Amen! So what am I trying to say? Certainly not that the music is
irrelevant, but only that audiophiles value the sound of their systems
as much as the music they play through it, and that these are separate
though interdependent interests. Why do you have so much trouble
agreeing that you LIKE the sound per se, or that liking the sound and
liking the music are equally valid amusements?
F. Blaine Dickson
In article <57ff76$5...@agate.berkeley.edu>, Ge...@worldnet.att.net
(Gene Steinberg) wrote:
W In article <57cqs6$s...@agate.berkeley.edu>, rafe...@aol.com wrote:
W
W >Rather than join the debate about whether double blind tests are the
W >way to judge cables, I have a simple question: HAVE double blind
W >listening tests been performed to compare cables? What were the
W >results?
W
W Yes they have been conducted.
W
W The most recent published test I've seen appeared in the September
W 1995 issue of Canada's "Sound & Vision." In that article, Tom Nousaine
W wrote about three different double blind trials of speaker cables.
Three does not qualify as scientific, either does the fact that they
were listened to on diffrerent systems, really making the test as ONE
person listening to a cable compared to zip cord. Hardly scientific at
all.
Besides Sound and Vision is a magazine that also that trumpets belief
that all audio equipment sounds the same, and there is no reason to
buy anything over $500. As a matter of fact, most of the equipment
they review, if not all, is mid-fi stuff in that price range. One of
their contributors, Ian G. Masters has even stated that all amplifiers
sound alike, making it implausible to buy anything other than Yorx
amps to drive a Sony Discman.
W Each of the tests occurred at the homes of the participants, using
W their high-end systems and their megabuck cables. All those
W participants had to do was prove they could hear a difference between
W cheap zip cord and their own cables (whose sound, if it has a sound,
W they'd be familiar with). Doing the test in their listening rooms
W meant they wouldn't have to get accustomed to anyone else's system,
W and they used their own recordings for the test. They also had the
W option of doing the double blind tests with or without the ABX box.
W
W I heartily recommend this article as a good primer on the way such
W tests are done and the kind of results they achieve.
If you want to flout the scientific method. There are so many
confounds in this test, it renders it useless.
[ quoted text deleted -- jwd ]
--
F. Blaine Dickson
Kelowna BC Canada
"Take time to dream"
Thomas Nulla
On Sat, 30 Nov 1996 22:08:43 -0800, Seyhun wrote:
>John Dunlavy wrote:
>> The many well-written responses to my recent "cable postings" have
>> convinced me that a significant number of readers have awakened ....
>........most cable advertising is based upon gibberish intended to
>> sell expensive, "high-tech looking" cables that seldom perform as
>> claimed. Indeed, it is a provable fact that most cables, regardless
>> of cost or appearance, are not designed according to the teachings of
>> credible engineering criteria, confirmed by meaningful measurements
>> and properly conducted listening evaluations.
[quoted text deleted by RD]
>If I'm not mistaken this is your third contribution om this subject,
>and rather than being general, you should now start giving *brand
>names* and examples on specific points where they can not fulfill
>their *claims*. Unless specificly addressed, a known manufacturer
>can't enter the discussions, because if they do, that will imply that
>they have taken the accusations directly for themselves. If you were
>giving technical measurement results with brand names, it could have
>been a better approach. But now only some general problems.
[quoted text deleted by RD]
Seyhun,
I'm guessing from your e-mail address that you are from outside the
U.S.
Here in the U.S., the legal system is easily abused by large companies
who can sue anyone who makes statements that _they_ consider false.
Although the speaking the truth is a defense in court, just going
through these legal proceedings can cost an unbelievable amount of
money, despite winning in the end. John Dunlavy is potentially
risking a large sum of money in being as forthright as he is.
If I made a (true) statement about a specific cable company's ads and
they threatened to sue me, I would _have_ to apologize to them
publicly, simply because I could not afford to be sued, despite a near
(only near, because many in the legal system are pathetically ignorant
of science) certainty of winning in the end. The costs of defending
myself would be in the tens of thousands of dollars (at least!).
I hope this shows some of the difficulties that a person can face in
going up against these companies, even if they are 100% right. The
USA is a great place to live for many of us, but our legal system
often rewards those who exploit ignorance and punishes those who try
to reveal uncomfortable truths.
There's even a name for this harassment: SLAPP's; Strategic Lawsuits
Against Public Participation. The object is not to win, but to
financially ruin the corporation's opponents. Often used against
environmentalists and consumer advocates.
Thomas
http://www.io.com/~nulla (high fidelity and miscellany)
*** The humor-impaired should avoid this page. ***
Newest Fuzzballah, John Dunlavy RAHE archive to 27 Nov 96
Jim Cate
In <57qeoe$h...@agate.berkeley.edu> Seyhun <seyhu...@turk.net> writes:
>John Dunlavy wrote:
[quoted text deleted by RD]
>> However, when "blind", but non-intimidating, controls were
instituted,
>> the differences originally identified could no longer be recognized
>I have been to sone blind tests, using high end equipment, and a
>simple zip cord can always be distinguished.(60% of the people) The
>differences are subtle or none among some better cables. (a good cable
>is not necessarily an expensive one. and as a customer, isn't the
>blind test the best means of buying a cable? Choose the cheapest among
>the ones you like).
>But please do not recommend a zip cord in the future, then there will
>be no reason why your company should be making cables.
A "simple" zip cord may not be a fair comparison. -- The test is
whether a "zip cord" of equivalent gage can be distinguished from a
given speaker cable, comparing audio outputs having precisely matched
levels.
I just finished re-wiring my system using 12-gage speaker wire
purchased from our local building/electrical supply house, for
28-cents per foot. -- Total costs for four speakers was about $25,
counting the connectors and solder used to ensure good connections
throughout. I bring this up for those who want to try a heavier cable
but don't want to spring several hundred dollars. Jim Cate
Gene Steinberg
In article <57slfm$6...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, bdic...@awinc.com (F.
Blaine Dickson) wrote:
>Three does not qualify as scientific, either does the fact that they
>were listened to on diffrerent systems, really making the test as ONE
>person listening to a cable compared to zip cord. Hardly scientific at
>all.
I agree it is not a large sampling, but your logic in turning 3 tests
into one seems weird. However it does represent what all published
tests have shown so far. With product labels hidden, folks cannot hear
differences in speaker cables (so long as they are of sufficient gauge
for the length used). The consistency with other tests is, itself is a
viable argument in favor of the validity of the ones published in
Sound & Vision.
>Besides Sound and Vision is a magazine that also that trumpets belief
>that all audio equipment sounds the same, and there is no reason to
>buy anything over $500. As a matter of fact, most of the equipment
>they review, if not all, is mid-fi stuff in that price range. One of
>their contributors, Ian G. Masters has even stated that all
amplifiers >sound alike, making it implausible to buy anything other
than Yorx >amps to drive a Sony Discman.
There is no such belief. This is a typical way some elements of the
high-end community create a strawman argument to knock down. Besides,
we're talking of an article by Tom Nousaine (a contributor to Sound &
Vision, not an employee), not Ian G. Masters or anyone else.
The typical mainstream opinion of amplifiers is that any two with a
flat frequency response, low distortion, low output impedance, and not
run into overload will not be distinguishable in a level-matched
double blind test. That is not the same thing as saying they all
sound the same, and your statement is uncalled for in every respect.
--
Peace,
Gene
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <57hqad$s...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu> ra...@rdrc.rpi.edu
(Randall Bradley) writes:
>jj says I'm "wrong" but then goes on to agree - in effect
>contradicting himself! :}
Somehow, I think there's a context problem here...
As far as what constitutes "exact" reconstruction, one can say what it
is in theory. Reproducing it is another story altogether.
As to stereo as a limited medium:
> Set up two mics, one on each side of train tracks. Record the
> train as it passes between the mics. (in fact it matters not
> one wit how you set up the mics!) Now play it back - with the
> mics as I indicated the sound of the train will appear to
> approach from a point between the speakers, move forward
> toward the listener and then *MOVE AWAY* in the direction that
> it came from. CLEARLY, this is NOT the behavior of the
> *original* sound source - which if you were sitting on the
> tracks would have gone through you (very loud at that point -
> being 0 distance away from your ear :] ) and then *behind*
> your back. Stereo is *too* limited to fully portray the
> original event.
Of course, if you use the right mikes with the right off-axis
response, this will not work out this way, in fact, the train will
drive right over you and then move off to your back (assuming it came
from the front).
This is a simple HRTF issue, and perhaps one of the simplest of HRTF
issues going.
It has very little to do with the problems involved in stereo imaging,
or in the problems involved in reproducing a soundfield.
--
Copyright alice!jj 1996, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET
and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any use by a
provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this article
and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Chris Sommovigo
In article <57seed$4...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
ggua...@pipeline.com wrote:
> In my opinion the audiophile cable companies must have their wire made
> for them by Belden or some other wire manufacturer. If this is the
> case I pose the following questions (hopefully to be answered by the
> cable and /or wire manufacturers themselves):
>
> 1. What specifications do they give to the manufacturer? Do they
> actually get a different grade of copper or not? Is there anything at
> all about the process that is different from the way the wire
> manufacturer makes their "non-audiophile" cables?
>
> 2. What do they pay for the wire? Regardless of what one thinks of the
> "sonic" properties of these cables some of the prices are insane and
> bear no relation to the cost of the materials or the labor involved.
> We had a dealer try to sell one of our clients $3000 interconnect
> cables and $7000 speaker cables (yes, EACH)!!! What justifies such
> prices?
[ quoted text deleted -- jwd ]
I'll do my best to answer your questions, Greg, but Illuminati may not
be typical in the way things are done. I can only speak for
Illuminati.
I have Illuminati's wire manufactured between two small companies that
specialize in small runs for military, aerospace, and surveilance
communications. Either pure silver or silver-plated copper is used in
the present designs, but not too much money actually goes in to those
materials. The wire I purchase through these companies is a little
more expensive than would otherwise be, but not enough to make it an
issue.
There is nothing in general different about the way my wire is made
versus the way their specialty wire is made, save for the execution of
my particular design. Because my market is relatively small, and
because these companies are accustomed to government money, the first
real expense in getting the wire made lies in what is charged for
their services. I'm rewarded with an execution of my designs that is
very, very precise. If one were to look at the actual cost of
materials involved in creating one of these cables, it would quickly
become clear that the majority of the expense is process.
Once manufactured, the cable is then batch-tested (AC Corona testing,
Characteristic impedance), and any portion of the run that doesn't
conform to the specifications I have set forth gets tossed away. For
instance, if I have a run of 75 Ohm cable made, and I specify that the
tolerance for the run should be +/- 1.0 Ohms @ 75 Ohms through to GHz,
the entire run rarely looks this precise. Examinations then reveal
veins which have fallen out of spec during manufacture. Those are
removed from the run and thrown into the garbage. Consequently, when
runs are sent to me, they rarely exceed 200' per roll. If anyone wants
a 250' D60, they'll have to wait quite awhile.
(incidentally, if you think that High-End cables are expensive... I
was shown a part of a whip being made for a submarine - this multi-way
wire of no particular physical consequence sells for about $800 /
foot. I say "about" because, at the time I saw the portion, they were
still developing the cable and the price was just an estimate. That
wire would be sold in the high-end through a dealer, you could expect
a price of about $4,000 per foot, or $8,000 per stereo foot, or
$26,720 per stereo meter!).
Next, I ship the wire to another small microwave/RF manufacturing
house for termination. They are a certified DOD 2000A Mil-Spec house
with a fully Mil-Spec Quality Manager. Throughout the course of
assembly, the cables go through the same MIL inspection as the various
military products created there. So, again, we are not necessarily
looking at expensive materials, but we are looking at expensive
process.
This is the process by which wires are made for Illuminati. Now the
product must be sold, and so distribution and advertisement play a
part in the expense of the product. The product must be distributed,
and each person in the distribution chain expects to make a fair
profit (including myself).
It is entirely plausible that someone can actually go through all of
this trouble and still wind up with junk - for instance, the design is
flawed or the premise(s) upon which the design was based is(are)
flawed. What I am saying is that, although it is advantageous to have
precision processes by which the wire is constructed and tested, none
of that guarantees the satisfaction of the end-user if the design
isn't 'tops' - you'd just have precision junk.
Prototyping strange, new designs can tend to be very expensive - gobs
of wire get thrown out because it's relatively impossible to make 20'
of a particular design. Several hundred feet of wire get manufactured
every time there is a change, and this might happen several times
throughout the development of a product.
Once a product is released to market, it is up to the consumer to
determine if the value of the product as a component in an audio
system is outweighed by its expense. Having audiophiles as customers
doesn't simplify one's life. Whereas some people who post here might
consider audiophiles as gullible spendthrifts, my experience has been
that audiophiles (including myself) are some of the most critical
people in the world.
We tend to be increasingly critical as the resolution of our
audio-systems becomes more refined. At times this can be maddening, at
other times it leads to wonderful experiences of music. Nevertheless,
regardless of competency in design or precision performance, or any
other parameter one may be able to illustrate as "quantifiably
superior,' the preferences/prejudices/priorities of each audiophile
can be very different from one another, which virtually ensures that
no single audio product will be in every audiophile home.
Now I realize that there are plenty of people who consider 'High End"
cables as voo-doo and rather worthless over and above the minimum cost
required to get your audio system to work. I have never begrudged
these folks their opinions, regardless of how they are derived. I also
realize that, by posting this here I potentially open myself (and
others) to another hackneyed flame-war about cables.
For those that would find fault with what I have mentioned in this
post, I would like to kindly ask you to reread it first. Any
asessments of quality I may have made in the previous text are based
upon my opinions. Opinions have the tendency to be subjective,
regardless of what they are based upon.
The issues surrounding the audibility of High-End cables have ignited
passions on both sides of the argument, escalating often to indignant
and boorish demonstrations (on both sides of the argument). I have
attempted to remove some of the mystery behind the manufacture of
high-end wire as concerns the way Illuminati produces, but I do not in
any fashion speak for anyone else in this business, nor can anything I
have mentioned be considered typical (or atypical - I just don't know
how any of the other companies go about creating product).
I hope that this has been helpful to you, and that I have answered
your questions satisfactorily. Anyone may feel free to write directly
to me at:
Note: I will be out of the country from 12/7 through 12/18. Any mail
sent during that time will be answered upon my return to the USA.
--
Chris Sommovigo / Illuminati ES&C, Inc.
illum...@inetnow.net
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <57ndee$e...@agate.berkeley.edu> bab...@unix.trilogy.net
writes:
>You don't have to go to so far to prove this point. John Atkinson has
>already proven it on one of the Stereophile Test CD's. (I don't
>remember whether it was the 1st or 2nd.) When he walks around the
>church in which the recording is to take place, he walks from the back
>of the hall up to the mikes and then continues to the front of the
>hall. Even the liner notes make mention of the fact that you can't
>differentiate between coming and going! (Y'all can read into that
>whatever you'd like :-))
Of course, that's with a mike setup that doesn't come close to
mimicing the HRTF of an average listener.
With a bit of HRTF shaping comparing back to front to side, I think
that the results will be startlingly different.
>Since the mikes are always placed in front of the performance group,
>the inability to differentiate in front of or behind appears to be
>irrelevant.
Well, actually, the "image" or "hall sound" is an essential part of a
good soundstage, and that usually sounds like it comes from behind,
doesn't it?
Leon Vick
Jim Andrews <jand...@activepower.com> wrote in article
<57sdeb$3...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
> As long as part of the high-end community considers terms like
> "accurate" meaningless, and discussion regarding such topics as
> theoretical rhetoric, we're going to get nowhere.
1. We are getting nowhere now. That's why I brought it up.
2. "Accurate" WRT to component input/output functions is perfectly
legitimate, but it won't tell you how a system will sound. WRT to a
system in a room with a recorded input the word can either be
objective or subjective. If the latter, it's an oxymoron. If the
former, it can't be measured. "Accuracy" has never been used here (at
least by me) except in this total system concept of reproduced sound
vs. live sound as heard by the ears/brain of a listener. The
difference is one of perspective.
> You are completely missing the point. Did the JBL Olympus really
> measure well? By today's standards? I doubt it. You are
associating
> "features" with "goodness", and have managed to avoid the nagging
My point was that marketing features and goodness have nothing to do
with each other, a lesson I paid well to learn. Once, twenty years
ago, was enough.
> There are many battle to be fought between today's state of the art
> and tomorrow's audio nirvana. Ignoring sound engineering
principles
> only prolongs the agony. Accuracy = goodness, no doubt about it.
Now
If we have any disagreement at all, it is whether there are any sound
engineering principles that are relevant to audio systems from end to
end. There is not only transduction, but the number of channels, the
placement of mikes and speakers, the acoustics of the recording and
playback environments and who knows what psycho-acoustic trickery
required to fool the ears into believing what they hear. This is
science of the highest order; there is no voodoo involved. Voodoo is
calling a system accurate or inaccurate (with respect to live
listening) with no way to measure it. Proclaiming accuracy without a
reference recording and listening room, based on playback component
specs/measurement is sheer fantasy, because they are but a small part
of the WHOLE audio system.
Leon
bl...@vnet.ibm.com
> After 8 or so incidences, the differences began to disappear and
> After multiple tests, the inaudibility occurred because the test
>"subjects" (of which I was one), fell prey to psychoacoustic affects.
Another very plausible explanation is that the clues that made the
first 8 trials work were not audio related at all, such as clues in
the experimenter's body language or voice tone. You did say "blind"
and not "double blind", right? Unconscious communication contaminates
results very easily, which is the reason for "double blind". When the
excitement of the new situation wears off and it becomes routine, the
ability to pick up such unconscious clues might well disappear too,
giving just the effect you saw, without anything ever having been
audible in the test itself.
Bob
dpl...@iq.navio.com
>2. What do they pay for the wire?
Here's one set of data points, for whatever they're worth.
A few years ago, I had the chance to buy several lots of surplus wire
which had been sold off from some military/aerospace projects. It's
nice stuff - stranded copper conductors, individually silvercoated
prior to being twisted together; color-coded Teflon insulation; a
silver-plated copper-braid shield; Teflon outer jacket (either
heat-fused spiral-wound tape, or a fairly thick extruded jacket). I
got several types (coax, twisted-pair, twisted-quad) in a bunch of
different gauges (from 24-gauge coaxial, to 14-gauge 4-conductor).
I paid $3/lb for most of it (quite a bargain) and have used it in my
own stereo, and sold lengths of it to people who wanted to make their
own interconnects.
In the process of setting my resale prices for it, I looked it up in
the original manufacturer catalogs and in the catalogs of distributors
such as Newark, Allied, etc. It's made by Alpha, Belden, and similar
well-known manufacturers, to military specifications (MIL-W-16878,
specifically).
From Alpha or Newark, the coaxial type sells for about $.75/foot in
100-foot rolls. Twisted-pair (with shield) sells for about
$1.00/foot. The heavy gauges are more expensive, naturally... some
12-gauge twisted-pair-plus-shield from Alpha sells for about $4/foot,
I think. I haven't been able to find a representative price for the
shielded 4-conductor 14-gauge - it appears to have been a custom lot -
but I suspect it's probably in that same range.
I decided to set my by-the-foot price at about 5% under the
100-foot-roll cost... hard to undercut, and I still made a reasonable
profit.
Now, if a cable-assembler decides that they really want to use a
completely custom wire configuration, their cost from the manufacturer
is probably going to be significantly higher, as they'll be asking for
a relatively small customized "run" and the NRE charges will be
significant.
>Regardless of what one thinks of the "sonic" properties of these
>cables some of the prices are insane and bear no relation to the cost
>of the materials or the labor involved. We had a dealer try to sell
>one of our clients $3000 interconnect cables and $7000 speaker cables
>(yes, EACH)!!! What justifies such prices?
Either the cables are made from 100% pure unobtanium, forged by
moonlight on the 30th of February by virgin smiths from Hollywood...
or there are some non-technical "justifications" for the price that
are largely independent of the manufacturer's costs.
Some years ago, Wayne Green (the founder of CD Review magazine) wrote
some scathing editorials about the unjustifiably high cost of CDs. He
set up a retailing company (which advertised heavily in the back pages
of CD Review) with the avowed intention of selling high-quality CDs at
lower cost. He apparently put a good deal of effort into locating
some excellent "independent" music, and making these indie CDs
available by mail-order. He had a whole category of CDs that he sold
at bargain prices.
After a while, he wrote a rather discouraging note. He'd come to the
conclusion that his attempt to sell "bargain" CDs was a flop. They
just weren't selling. He was quite frustrated - his tests had shown
that the CDs would sell _better_ (often much better) when offered for
sale at prevailing prices... reducing the asking price _hurt_ sales
rather than helping.
His conclusion: people have a strong tendency to assume that high
price implies high quality. Products sold at higher prices are
perceived as being better than similar (or identical!) products sold
at lower prices.
Based on what I've heard/read since then, this is a well-understood
phenomenon in retailing. A product's attractiveness is often more a
function of how it's "branded" and priced, than how well it actually
performs vs. the competition. In its extreme form, this phenomenon
shows up as "snob appeal" - but it seems to affect the whole range of
pricing from low to high, and affects people regardless of whether
they're snobs or not.
So... why _shouldn't_ a cable-assembler try to sell cables at an
obscenely-high price (with profits to match)? Doubling the retail
price may triple or quintuple their profits-per-unit, and (if
advertised suitably) it may not hurt sales at all... might even
increase sales.
There's money to be made by taking advantage of human nature, and
there are many who are willing to make money by doing so.
For a wonderful (and whimsical) example of this process, pick up a
copy of "The Princess Bride" by William Goldman and/or S. Morganstern,
and read the section about the sword-makers Domingo Montoya and Yeste.
Steven Abrams
Bruce Abrams <bab...@unix.trilogy.net> writes:
> With all due respect, you have completely missed the point! Music
> does not exist in absence of performance.
> [...] With
> much emotion, he stopped us in the middle and stated "Ladies and
> Gentleman, you have proven what I have been saying for years. I can
> be likened to an architect who draws the blue prints. Until the
> structure is built, however, it is nothing." So too with the music.
Whoa, there, brother.
Ludwig von Beethoven managed to write an awful lot of music while he
was completely incapable of hearing the performance. He *knew* how it
would sound and wrote brilliant music. The music existed to him
without ever actually hearing it.
Mozart is said to have written much music away from the keyboard,
taking pen directly to paper. Remarkably (and quite unlike
Beethoven), most of his original manuscripts have few if any
corrections. That is, the pieces stood as he wrote them in ink the
first time.
> I read music extremely well, and can know what something will sound
> like by reading it. To say that the music exists to me before I
> actually hear it, however, would be absolute idiocy.
The music most certainly can exist in absence of the hearing the
performance. Maybe not to *you*, but it does to other people.
> [...] You're not really trying to convince anyone
> that a "high-end" system doesn't do a far better job of conveying the
> feeling, emotion, alright...gestalt of the music than does a tiny
> transistor radio, are you?
No, but sometimes a *score* does as good a job as any performance.
And sometimes a score does a better job than a bad performance, eh?
A crappy performance on your Martin-Logans over a better performance
over a transistor radio?
~~~Steve
--
Steven Abrams abr...@cs.columbia.edu
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
-Lennon/McCartney
grims...@aol.com
Excellent work! The cable madness has gone on for too long. Without
going in to great detail I have been involved with Electronics/Audio
fog 38 years. Your comments about so called audiophile"s abilities to
distinguish between different cables only serves to strengthen my own
experience and opinion.
I would like to take this one step farther I would suggest that
before we take ANYONE'S opinion on audio equipment, we should insist
on some qualification in their ability to distinguish between like
components. In other words before you tell me you can hear the
diffference between interconnects show me you can tell the difference
between (for example) the cheapest Pioneer reciever and the top of the
line Krells, tubed mono blocks and a solid state power amp etc. etc.
Until we insist on some form of ability to do this anybody who can con
his way on to the staff of a stereo mag.can justify his or her opinion by
sayig that THEY could hear a difference. To use an analogy; It's like
proclaming yourself an authority on wines, discussing the nuances between
a '58 and a '59 without first proving you can distinguish between red or
white, let alone Chiantti and Beaujolais.
Tony
Scott Frankland
Steven Abrams wrote:
>
> The music most certainly can exist in absence of the hearing the
> performance. Maybe not to *you*, but it does to other people.
I prefer to make a distinction here. I would make "music" that which
travels from the outside in. That which arises purely from within is
the "archetype" of the music. The archetype exists purely within the
mind of the composer--until someone obtains the score and performs
it. The task of the conductor is thus to divine the archetype in its
original form (this is called "strict interpretation").
Musicians have long called this process of divination "the pursuit of
the muse". The muse, whatever it may be, does seem to be a universal
touchstone, otherwise why would there be so much consensus among music
lovers as to whose performance is closer to the archetype? The
touchstone is nothing more than human sensibility, a thing far more
subtle than we often realize.
The muse is meaningful because it causes emotions to arise within the
listener that were not only felt by the composer, but by anyone else
who might be listening or performing the piece. This emotion, commonly
felt, is part of what binds us together as a species. Jung called it
the "universal unconsciousness". I call it the universal pool of human
life experience.
Unfortunately, music is often used to define tribal distinctions,
religious sects, nationalist agendas, and other means of artificial
separation. This completely overlooks the meaning and intent of
Beethoven's 9th symphony, a paean to universal brotherhood. What
separates us, of course, is self-interest and the irrationality that
often results from it (because self-interest leads inevitably to
inadvertent self-deception).
This then, is what I take to be the philosophical underpinning of what
is required in a playback system. The object of the system is, in
essence, nothing more than to reproduce within the listener the same
emotions that arose within the composer when he divined the original
archetype. The process is fundamentally one of *discovery* in each
case. It should be obvious that a better system will enhance the
transference of any given archetype.
Of course, the success of this transference will depend upon the skill
of the recordist! The playback system is thus dependent upon the
success of the recordist in *capturing* the archetype. The challenge
for the recordist will be to somehow find a way to transcend the
limitations of his technology.
The bemused audiophile is thus three steps removed from the original
archetype: he is separated by the interpretation of the recordist as
well as of the conductor! Finally, the audiophile must necessarily
impose his own interpretation and stamp upon the archetypes when he
assembles and tweaks his "personal playback system."
> > [...] You're not really trying to convince anyone
> > that a "high-end" system doesn't do a far better job of conveying the
> > feeling, emotion, alright...gestalt of the music than does a tiny
> > transistor radio, are you?
>
> No, but sometimes a *score* does as good a job as any performance.
> And sometimes a score does a better job than a bad performance, eh?
>
> A crappy performance on your Martin-Logans over a better performance
> over a transistor radio?
Good sound enhances good music. That's the point, eh? The music always
matters most, however, because it is the music that brings us closest
to the muse. Sound per se cannot do this. Music is *sound* + the
*archetype*.
~SF~
Bruce Abrams
Chris Sommovigo wrote:
The question that I continues to bother me after reading Chris's post
is as follows:
I don't question the ridiculous prices some high-end companies charge
for cables and other items. I'm quite sure that after their "R&D"
costs have been recouped, and manufacturing, and engineering, etc.,
etc....That the end selling price is in line with that of other high
price low volume industries, ie: jewelry and furniture industries.
What bothers me is paying for engineering that may have little or no
benefit. Take the aesthetics on a Levinson piece. Any piece. Do I
have to pay for having the face plate milled from a four thousand
pound billet of solid aluminum? With regard to cables, of what
benefit is having the cables terminated in a Mil-spec house? I'm not
suggesting that the cables be finished by a bunch of monkeys in my
basement, but there must be a compromise that wouldn't result in
ridiculous process costs.
Stewart Pinkerton
Bruce Abrams <bab...@unix.trilogy.net> writes:
>Chris Sommovigo wrote:
Well, leaving aside whether it matters to the sound, I've spent a LONG
time in industrial electronics, mostly on MIL-spec gear. I would back
Chris's claim that it is necessary to use a very restricted number of
assembly and test houses if you are to maintain a consistent
high-quality product. At the price charged for D-60, Chris really
can't afford a single bad unit to get to a retailer and those military
houses he uses are VERY committed to quality and consistency. They
also have the best test equipment, which is simply not affordable by a
small audio manufacturer working in-house.
Whether or not you think you NEED that kind of quality in a domestic
audio cable is up to the individual purchaser, but Chris makes an
excellent and very honest case for how the retail price of Illuminati
cables is arrived at, in his case by providing an absolutely top
quality product at a top price. Whether the same can be said for other
more famous makers of musical hospipes is however an entirely
different matter, especially with the increasing use of dumb materials
like gold wire, which is a significantly poorer conductor than
silver........
--
Stewart Pinkerton | If you can't measure what you're making,
A S P Consulting | how do you know when you've got it made?
(44) 1509 880112 |
"I canna change the laws o' physics" - the other Scotty
brad sanders
Bruce Abrams <bab...@unix.trilogy.net> wrote:
>What bothers me is paying for engineering that may have little or no
>benefit. Take the aesthetics on a Levinson piece. Any piece. Do I
>have to pay for having the face plate milled from a four thousand
>pound billet of solid aluminum?
Bruce... Y'all...
Nobody *has* to pay for *anything.* If you don't feel billet front
panels are worthwhile, don't buy gear with billet front panels. If you
don't feel Mil-Spec connectors are worthwhile, spend your money
somewhere else (like CDs).
It's a free market. Praise the Lord.
"Look, you don't just get a guy into a viking outfit and hit him
over the head with a chicken; you have to PLAN these things."
(M. Palin)
> http://radioactive.home.ml.org <-------------------------------
Leon Vick
Scott Frankland <audi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<587l4s$g...@canyon.sr.hp.com>...
>
> I prefer to make a distinction here. I would make "music" that
which
> travels from the outside in. That which arises purely from within
is
> Musicians have long called this process of divination "the pursuit
of
> ...The object of the system is, in essence, nothing more than
always
> matters most, however, because it is the music that brings us
closest
> to the muse. Sound per se cannot do this. Music is *sound* + the
> *archetype*.
Before we get carried away to new semantic frontiers, let me clarify
my intent to separate listening to the "sound" from listening to the
"music", why good (or bad) sound has nothing to do with music, and why
the pursuit of (good) sound is indeed complementary to the love of
music! :>
In previous articles I've tried to establish the independence of music
from sound, as was best supported by Steve Abrams' references to
Beethoven and Mozart. This viewpoint has required reducing "music" to
an abstraction like Scott Frankland's muse, something that can exist
only in the mind, separate from any performance or reproduction. In
practice, we may use "music" in different ways, but less abstract
definitions are invariably complicated by our "irrational exuberance"!
So, by this measure, what we hear when we go to a live concert is not
music, but the *performance* of music, and what we (normally) hear
from our audio systems is not music either, but is the reproduction of
a recording of a performance (of music)! The objective of the system
is then the "accurate" reproduction of the performance as we perceive
it to be, i.e., a reproduction that simulates the emotional experience
of "being there". By my count, this goal is now 4 (four) steps removed
from "music": the performance, the recording, the reproduction, and
the recollection.
What the audio system serves is then the "recollection", the mental
image of how a performance should sound. If the satisfaction of this
goal brings a listener closer to Beethoven, or closer to the
performers, that's wonderful! But I suspect that, in most of us here,
the ecstasy of actually experiencing Harry Pearson's "absolute sound"
in our own LRs would be so thrilling it wouldn't much matter what
recording of whose performance of which music were played! Of course,
I can only speak for myself.
Happy listening to all!
Scott Frankland
Leon Vick wrote:
> Before we get carried away to new semantic frontiers, let me clarify
> my intent to separate listening to the "sound" from listening to the
> "music", why good (or bad) sound has nothing to do with music, and why
> the pursuit of (good) sound is indeed complementary to the love of
> music! :>
Pray continue, Leon, but please don't mistake my semantics for
anything like "new". These terms and concepts were all developed in
the 5th century BC; first by the Greek poets, and later (formally) by
Plato.
> So, by this measure, what we hear when we go to a live concert is not
> music, but the *performance* of music, and what we (normally) hear
> from our audio systems is not music either, but is the reproduction of
> a recording of a performance (of music)! The objective of the system
> is then the "accurate" reproduction of the performance as we perceive
> it to be, i.e., a reproduction that simulates the emotional experience
> of "being there".
Forget simulation. It's real! The emotion is the essence of the
composers archetype, and is no less real in the living room than in
the concert hall. Besides, what does it matter that we hear the music
exactly as it was performed in concert if the archetype is effectively
transferred to us through our system in something OTHER than the
"accurate reproduction of the performance"? Something that we might
obtain NOW? The idea is to approach the essence of the composer's
archetype. We MIGHT be able to do that BETTER at home than in the
concert hall in certain cases (and certainly in those cases where
Charlie Parker is blowin' the blues!).
> By my count, this goal is now 4 (four) steps removed
> from "music": the performance, the recording, the reproduction, and
> the recollection.
But the point is that recollection is not needed! Only the essence
(emotion) of the archetype is essential.
> What the audio system serves is then the "recollection", the mental
> image of how a performance should sound.
Ouch! I cannot be a slave to that. Too cerebral. What is better served
is not recollection, but human sensibility, because it is THIS that
allows the transference of the composer's archetype via music. Trying
to recreate the exact recollection is an intellectual exercise that
may or may not effect a transference. And besides, you and I both know
it's impossible to duplicate one's recollection in the first place!
In conclusion, I submit that my "new semantics" are useful in that
they allow for *new distinctions* to be made; and, it is hoped, for a
better understanding of the problems of music recording, playback, and
perception. Thank you and good night.
~SF~
Gordon Gilbert
On 06-Dec-96 22:31:06, Leon Vick had this to say about
Re: Cable Nonsense
I see my attempt to change the subject to what we're talking
about here failed, as my post with a changed subject several days ago
apparently went largely unnoticed and "Cable Nonsense" continues to be
the song of the day, so this time I'll leave it alone.
LV> In previous articles I've tried to establish the independence of
LV> music from sound, as was best supported by Steve Abrams'
As I tried to do in my message under "Music vs. Audio (was
re:Cable Nonsense) even before you.
LV> references to Beethoven and Mozart. This viewpoint has required
LV> reducing "music" to an abstraction like Scott Frankland's muse,
LV> something that can exist only in the mind, separate from any
LV> performance or reproduction. In practice, we may use "music" in
I think it CAN only exist in the mind. If a tree falls and no
one hears it, did it make a "sound" or a just a pressure wave? If one
hears a song and one's mind decides it's garbage or noise (I can
certainly name more than a few such instances, especially under a
certain "type" of "music" that shall go unnamed so as not to offend),
does that make is MUSIC anyways or is it only music if one appreciates
it at some basic level? I think it's the latter. I would term such
so-called "music" as noise, garbage, trash, anything but music. Music
suggest musicality and if one's personal sensibility says a song is
not musical, then how CAN it be music? This is really a philosophical
issue, I think. Perhaps, the most simple way I can put it is by
distorting a common piece of wisdom:
"MUSIC is in the ear (brain) of the beholder."
LV> different ways, but less abstract definitions are invariably
LV> complicated by our "irrational exuberance"!
Irrational exuberance? Maybe when you exuberate, you are
irrational, but some of us try to be logical while taking part in the
process of exuberation. :)
LV> So, by this measure, what we hear when we go to a live concert is
LV> not music, but the *performance* of music, and what we (normally)
Perhaps I can remove a few "layers" between the music and the
listener by saying when we go to a live concert, we hear AUDIO, which
our brain may interpret as being musical, and thus music. When we
listen to a stereo, our brains may do the same thing. Thus, I submit
that within these bounds, music can be appreciated just as fully
through a stereo or even an AM radio in mono on a $0.50 radio shack
special as from a live performance if one's psyche will allow it.
Indeed, if participating in the creative process, no acoustical input
into the transducer known as the eardrum is neccessary to experience
music.
LV> hear from our audio systems is not music either, but is the
LV> reproduction of a recording of a performance (of music)! The
No, we shall call that a recording of a performance of a
score, conceived as music by its creator, but not neccessarily music
to all those who may or may not appreciate it as such in general or in
any given reproduction of it, no matter how elegant another might
perceive it. If we are discussing layers removed from reproducing an
actual and particular symphonic sound field in Platonic terms, yes, a
stereo reproduction is several layers from the event. However, a
sound field and music are not even neccessarily related. If I play
back Beethoven's 5th in my head right now, am I reproducing a
particular performance or is it my general musical interpretation of
the current moment? With studio recordings of a current artist, it
might very well be a particular performance as it was recorded in
memory, BUT modifying that song or having heard several versions of
it, or having first read a score of it and producing my own musical
conception of what it might or should sound like is a FAR cry from any
given performance. Thus, they are not neccessarily linked or related.
A particular performance may be judged musical by an individual, but
that step occurs in the individual's mind, not in the air.
LV> objective of the system is then the "accurate" reproduction of
LV> the performance as we perceive it to be, i.e., a reproduction
LV> that simulates the emotional experience of "being there". By my
Being where? How would you define a stereo recording of a
multi-tracked recording that has tracks recorded in 5 different
studios, some miked, some directly input as synthesizer and electric
guitar inputs, and some electronically modified beyond recognition?
Where is "there" in that scenerio? Is the job of the playback chain
removed in such an instance, as there could be no musicality without a
specific cohesive event? I don't believe so. In many cases, I prefer
the studio versions to given specific live performances. I find them
more musical.
LV> count, this goal is now 4 (four) steps removed from "music": the
LV> performance, the recording, the reproduction, and the
LV> recollection.
My point is those steps are only steps from reproducing a
given sound field, not capturing "music." Whether an artist captures
a given moment in time on his or her canvas is always up to the person
appreciating or disliking the artists work, not the artist
him/herself. I don't see how it's any different for arts involving
the auditory senses or even the palettory (if there is such a word)
senses, better known as the culinary arts.
LV> What the audio system serves is then the "recollection", the
LV> mental image of how a performance should sound. If the
No, I think the audio system serves as a poor reproducer of a
real honest to goodness soundfield. This alone says nothing about the
musicality of such a system to a given person with a given recording.
This is why I may find dipole ribbons to be more musical with a given
set of recordings, while another may prefer dynamic monopoles of a
given brand for the same recordings. Accuracy may or may not be
related to this. This is also why some people may find euphonically
enhanced mediums such as the LP or SET amps more pleasing in general
than live performances.
LV> satisfaction of this goal brings a listener closer to Beethoven,
LV> or closer to the performers, that's wonderful! But I suspect
I don't think one can ever really know whether they felt what
Beethoven felt. Heck, just yesterday I found out I was completely
misinterpreting a Tori Amos song because I didn't have the lyric sheet
and I misinterpreted several words (easy to do considering how she
blurs words together). When I found the lyrics on the Internet, I
discovered the song was not about what I thought it was about and so
my emotional reaction changed quite a bit. I thought I knew what she
was feeling or at least expressing, but I was dead wrong. I've since
reevaluated the song several different times and come to several
different conclusions. I'm sure I'm still wrong, at least to a
certain degree, but that's ok. It doesn't affect my enjoyment at a
given moment. In other words, I don't need to know what Beethoven
felt; my perception is what really matters. I don't care if he
enjoyed the song. If it invokes emotion in me that is pleasant on
some level, then that's what's important, not whether it's the same
exact emotion Beethoven was feeling when he wrote it.
LV> that, in most of us here, the ecstasy of actually experiencing
LV> Harry Pearson's "absolute sound" in our own LRs would be so
LV> thrilling it wouldn't much matter what recording of whose
LV> performance of which music were played! Of course, I can only
LV> speak for myself.
Harry Pearson's "absolute sound" ignores the intentional
creation of music that is not live nor meant to sound live. The
absolute sound assumes absolute intention for all music to sound like
a live performance. I might as well throw out my old analog
synthesizer recordings by Tangerine Dream, following that line of
thinking. Synthesizers must be played back with speakers. How do I
know that my speakers aren't more accurate than the ones they used in
the recording studio to faithfully reproducing the synthesizer's
output? Does it even matter with made-up sounds? Does it matter
period? Do I even want to be transported to the original venue? In
this case, it's neither possible nor desirable.
All music starts as an idea, not a live performance. Perhaps
that's why the above is best termed the "absolute sound" and not
"absolute music." Whether the "absolute sound" is as thrilling for
all people as it is apparently for you, should not be assumed, as you
correctly state.
--
- Gordon Gilbert | g...@imperium.net | g...@uakron.edu -
Todd Jenkins
Bruce Abrams writes:
>I'm quite sure that after their "R&D"
>costs have been recouped, and manufacturing, and engineering, etc.,
>etc....That the end selling price is in line with that of other high
>price low volume industries, ie: jewelry and furniture industries.
This may be slightly off-topic, but the example of jewelry is a bit
off. Jewelry is anything but a low-volume industry (unlike cables),
and the prices are artifically inflated (like cables). General prices
for a 7mm round synthetic ruby in 14k gold is significantly less than
$30 to the manufacturer, who then marks it up to the retailer, and
then again to the customer. End selling price is around $150-200 at
your local Service Merchandise or other inexpensive retailer. Markup
over VMC of around 5-7x, which is much, much more than typical audio
products.
Jewelry is a very profitable business, as is cable manufacturing. I
would agree that in many cases the cost is not justifiable by any
performance changes, particularly since I've found that some fairly
inexpensive wire from Belden works just as well (and in some cases
better) as the expensive "audiophile-grade" cabling. I can't help but
think that there are some fairly big salaries out there in the "R&D"
section...
Cheers!
Todd Jenkins
Project Engineer - EV/Altec Lansing
The opinions expressed herein do not represent those of EV/Altec Lansing
Gordon Gilbert
On 07-Dec-96 01:04:35, Scott Frankland had this to say
about Re: Cable Nonsense
SF> Pray continue, Leon, but please don't mistake my semantics for
SF> anything like "new". These terms and concepts were all developed
SF> in the 5th century BC; first by the Greek poets, and later
SF> (formally) by Plato.
I agree you've correctly identified the issue, but where I
disagree with Plato is in that all forms are universal to everyone. I
think he failed to recognize that the entire world is ultimately an
individual's perception. In trying to communicate a form, such as a
specific emotion, through music, one's perception can and will
invariably affect the message's translation even to the point where
it's completely wrong in terms of the original intention. This is to
be expected, but it's not neccessarily a bad thing. It only reflects
differing tastes. Obviously, my perception of brussel sprout differs
quite a bit from those that actually like them! Musical tastes are no
different. I don't feel the original emotions felt by the composer
ultimately really matter, at least to me, because I can never know for
certain whether I interpreted it correctly, even if the composer was
there for me to question because I can never feel exactly what he/she
feels anyways. Ultimately, it comes down to individuality. If we
were the Borg, we'd all feel the same reactions to a given piece of
music, a given speaker, a given sandwich, etc. Since we are not,
invariably, everything emotional comes down to personal tastes.
SF> Forget simulation. It's real! The emotion is the essence of the
SF> composers archetype, and is no less real in the living room than
I'm saying the listener's perception will never be the same as
the composer's archetype. There's no way to directly communicate
emotions. You can try to invoke them in another, but you can't
directly convey them, unlike logical data.
SF> in the concert hall. Besides, what does it matter that we hear
SF> the music exactly as it was performed in concert if the archetype
SF> is effectively transferred to us through our system in something
SF> OTHER than the "accurate reproduction of the performance"?
I do agree that one's perception of musicality or an emotion
invoked by such a musicality need not be tied to a particular
peformance, venue, or even an audible sound. Otherwise, no song would
ever be created.
If one were to regard the goal of music to invoke emotions
similar to the one felt by the artist or at least the one the artist
hopes to capture, then one must compare music to all art forms in a
hiearchy where all forms of art are equal with emotions at the apex of
the pyramid.
Leon Vick
Leon Vick wrote:
The objective of the system is then the "accurate" reproduction of the
performance as we perceive it to be, i.e., a reproduction that
simulates the emotional experience of "being there".
Scott Frankland <audi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<589vg5$j...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
> Forget simulation. It's real! The emotion is the essence of the
Oops! Try "stimulation". Darned typos!
> Besides, what does it matter that we hear the music
> exactly as it was performed in concert if the archetype is
effectively
> transferred to us through our system in something OTHER than the
> "accurate reproduction of the performance"? Something that we might
Agreed! So a performance recorded in Carnegie Hall may sound like it
was done at Lincoln Center, but that's okay if the listener perceives
that it's "real". Hmmm... I wonder if HP could tell the difference?
> > What the audio system serves is then the "recollection", the
> > mental image of how a performance should sound.
> Ouch! I cannot be a slave to that... Trying
> to recreate the exact recollection is an intellectual exercise that
> may or may not effect a transference. And besides, you and I both
know
> it's impossible to duplicate one's recollection in the first place!
I never said the recollection had to be "accurate", but only that the
playback served the perception of what the listener thinks a real
performance should sound like. (Did I get enough qualifiers in there?)
Hey, if I can convince you that tofu is turkey, what's the
difference???
> In conclusion, I submit that my "new semantics" are useful in that
> they allow for *new distinctions* to be made...
Undoubtedly, but it will take a while for "archetype" to worm its way
into my audio vocabulary. ;>
Leon
Arnold B. Krueger
Randall Bradley <ra...@rdrc.rpi.edu> wrote in article
<57hqad$s...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
> jj says I'm "wrong" but then goes on to agree - in effect
> contradicting himself! :}
>
> reproduction of a "live" sonic event.
This is an excellent point. The idea that a totally realistic
listening experience can be reliably achieved using current technology
is a flight of fancy. Much of the emotional impact of a live concert
and many of the noises can be recreated. But literal recreation is
some distance off.
Scott Frankland
Gordon Gilbert wrote:
>
> I'm saying the listener's perception will never be the same as
> the composer's archetype. There's no way to directly communicate
> emotions. You can try to invoke them in another, but you can't
> directly convey them, unlike logical data.
Well, that depends on how close you hold her and whether or not the
feeling's mutual! I take your point, but such doubts shouldn't prevent
us from trying to approach the composer's archetype as closely as
possible. This is what I take to be a "strict" interpretation. The
work of divining a work of art then parallels the work of creating
it. Naturally there will be differences.
> If one were to regard the goal of music to invoke emotions
> similar to the one felt by the artist or at least the one the artist
> hopes to capture, then one must compare music to all art forms in a
> hiearchy where all forms of art are equal with emotions at the apex of
> the pyramid.
I think it's certainly possible to divide artworks into emotional
categories (if one wanted to bother). For example, a certain work
might consistently evoke the sense of awe, of nobility, and of terror,
all at the same time (such as Beethoven's 5th, or Aeschylus's
Oresteian Trilogy). Another work might consistently convey the sense
of tranquility, of majesty, and of gratitude (such as Beethoven's 6th,
or the sight of a great cathedral).
These emotions are rather universally felt, it would seem; it's the
subtler ones that are most often conflated. I also think that a
certain amount of exposure is required.
~SF~
Arnold B. Krueger
Dennis Davis <blue...@a.crl.com> wrote in article
<57silk$6...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
> I agree that one must take advertising copy of cable sellers with a
> grain of salt.
Try a whole bag.
> I do not see that your implicit conclusions from this
> thesis follow. The fact that advertising copy is a bunch of bull does
> not mean that cables do not sound different.
That is right.But the fact that cables don't often sound different,
means that the copy is a usually bunch of bull.
>When I see people up in
> arms about this subject, claiming the government is falling down on
> the job in not "regulating" such advertising, I become suspicious.
Better to direct your suspicion at the claims, (and the folks
swallowing them) not the govt.
> Advertising for most products is inherently misleading.
But at least a lot of it is based on facts, no matter how marginal the
relevance is. Different breakfast cereals at least taste different.
And while the profit margins of the breakfast cereal makers are high,
they pale compared to what someone makes on $50/meter cables.
> Sit down at
> your television for a few hours this evening and see for yourself.
> Have you written so much before about reforming other areas of
> advertising, where the target audience is generally much less
> sophisticated, and the potential damage far greater?
Just because there are liars everywhere do we have to make heros out
of the ones on our doorsteps.
>Some in the
> engineering community appear overly paternalistic. Do we really need
> the government to protect us from the big, bad cable cartel?
IMO, Its not the cable cartel, its the High End Press, churning
untutored audiophiles systems for ego fun and profit.
> Are our
> powers of perception so pathetic that we need an engineer at our doors
> with a double blind switch each time we make an audio purchase?
I think your comments grossly underestimate the size of the problem.
IMO, the High End Audio market and press is primarily based on
multiple illusions of audible differences that can't be proven to
exist by ANY scientific means. This is analogous to the sports car
market being based on cars with identical accleration and handling
under all driving conditions. This would be analogous to wine tasting
being based on wines whose flavors and odors cannot be distinguished
by any human or mechanical means.
Arnold B. Krueger
F. Blaine Dickson <bdic...@awinc.com> wrote in article
<57slfm$6...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
>
> W Each of the tests occurred at the homes of the participants, using
> W their high-end systems and their megabuck cables.
Seems like the listener was given every chance to be comfortable.
> W All those
> W participants had to do was prove they could hear a difference between
> W cheap zip cord and their own cables (whose sound, if it has a sound,
> W they'd be familiar with).
So many say that cheap zip cable has an egregiously bad sound of their
own, so it would seem that even if the listener's own cables were not
the best sounding, it should be easy to reliably detect the zip cable.
> W Doing the test in their listening rooms
> W meant they wouldn't have to get accustomed to anyone else's system,
> W and they used their own recordings for the test. They also had the
> W option of doing the double blind tests with or without the ABX box.
While I have not read the article, it sounds to me like these were
tests that addressed many of the complaints I hear on this forum. The
listeners seem to have had pretty free choice over most of the things
that conference participants think matter.
> If you want to flout the scientific method. There are so many confounds
in this test, it renders it useless.
Thats an interesting charge. Care to share the details of your
critique of these tests?
Arnold B. Krueger
grims...@aol.com wrote in article <5873jk$h...@tolstoy.lerc.nasa.gov>...
> Excellent work! The cable madness has gone on for too long.
There is a great deal of madness that has gone on way to long. Its all
around us! Cable directional conduction madness, CD player magic
markers, snake oil, magnetism and multi-colored lights; capacitor and
resistor weirdness, digital audio that "needs to be" recorded with
what seems like 400 bits per sample with a sample rate in the
microwave region, and on and on. I would very much like to see
scientific proof of even 10% of it.
> I would like to take this one step farther I would suggest that
> before we take ANYONE'S opinion on audio equipment, we should insist
> on some qualification in their ability to distinguish between like
> components.
Well, that was the whole idea of ABX say, 15-20 years ago. And ABX is
a limited test - all it proves is the audibility of a difference, not
preference. Later test paradigms, I understand, do both. Good for
them!
> In other words before you tell me you can hear the
> diffference between interconnects show me you can tell the difference
> between (for example) the cheapest Pioneer reciever and the top of the
> line Krells, tubed mono blocks and a solid state power amp etc. etc.
Funny story that actually happened at a SMWTMS club meeting. Local
well known auto dealer has Krells at home and wanted to do a double
blind test to justify an "upgrade". His teen aged son goes behind a
wall and swaps some cables and changes the other amp from something
interesting to his own cheap Pioneer 32 watt receiver. Needless to say
folks are testing really seriously and coming up null. Good thing the
guy loves his son or there might have been blood on the floor when the
cat left the bag!
> Until we insist on some form of ability to do this anybody who can con
> his way on to the staff of a stereo mag.can justify his or her opinion by
> sayig that THEY could hear a difference.
This is just proof by assertion, and its no proof at all. If it was
anything but recreational money that was at stake, there would be
legal action.
> To use an analogy; It's like
> proclaming yourself an authority on wines, discussing the nuances between
> a '58 and a '59 without first proving you can distinguish between red or
> white, let alone Chiantti and Beaujolais.
Exactly. And while other connoisseur hobbies qualify their experts and
identify the charlatans, Audio lets itself be ravaged by what may well
be professional liars and turned into what is probably just another
bragger's art.
Its time for audio consumers to demand to be told the truth!
BTW, there is now a web page devoted to the ABX Double Blind
Comparator, at http://mars.acs.oakland.edu/~djcarlst/abx.htm.