Dunlavy at the 2001 Electronics Show
Drew Rigby
Vegas January 6 through January 8 at the following venue:
Amerisuites Hotel
Paradise & Twilight Rooms
4520 Paradise Road
Las Vegas, NV 89109
Dunlavy's active display will consist of three distinct systems - two
stereo systems and one audio/video multi-channel system.
The Twilight Room
Measuring 15' x 25' will host stereo system #1, which will feature the
following Dunlavy Audio Labs products:
Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-I/AV
Dunlavy Audio Labs Cantata
Dunlavy Audio Labs Aletha II
DAL Wall Mount loudspeakers
Associated equipment in the DAL stereo system #1:
Sony 777ES SACD player
Jeff Rowland Design Group Synergy II preamplifier
Jeff Rowland Design Group Model 12 power amplifier
The Paradise Room
Measuring (43' x 25') will host two additional active Dunlavy Audio
Labs demo systems:
Stereo System #2:
Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-VI
Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-V
Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-IV/A
Dunlavy Audio Labs SM-I
Associated equipment for DAL stereo system #2:
Audiomeca Mephisto 2 CD transport
Audiomeca Ambrosia DAC
Aloia 11.01 Inductive preamplifier
Aloia 13.01 Inductive power amplifiers
PSAudio P600
Home Theater System #1:
Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-III: Front L/R
Dunlavy Audio Labs SM-I: Center
Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-II: Rear L/R
Associated electronics and components for home theater system #1:
Enlightened Audio Designs Theater Vision P DVD player
Enlightened Audio Designs Theater Master Ovation Plus
preamp/processor
Enlightened Audio Designs Power Master 1000 power amplifier
All three systems will utilize DAL Z6 Loudspeaker Cable and ULC
Interconnects.
Anyone attending the 2001 Winter Consumer Electronics Show in Las
Vegas, January 6 - January 9, is welcome to stop by for an audition
of these systems.
Have a very happy holiday season!
Sincerely,
Andrew Rigby
Director of Marketing & Sales
Dunlavy Audio Labs
www.dunlavyaudio.com
BEARlabs
zip cord and Radio Shack Interconnects? I would expect this, since
Mr. Dunlavy has certainly stated many times on this forum that there
is no point to using "better" or more expensive wire(s), and so he
would therefore be following the same advice that he has proffered to
others for himself?
_-_-bear
--
_-_- BEAR Labs
"Custom Handcrafted Audio Components & Cables"
Drew Rigby wrote:
> Dunlavy Audio Labs will be demonstrating it's product line in Las
> Vegas January 6 through January 8 at the following venue:
>
> Amerisuites Hotel
> Paradise & Twilight Rooms
> 4520 Paradise Road
> Las Vegas, NV 89109
>
> Dunlavy's active display will consist of three distinct systems - two
> stereo systems and one audio/video multi-channel system.
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
Howard Ferstler
>
> Am I correct to presume that the systems there will be connected with
> zip cord and Radio Shack Interconnects? I would expect this, since
> Mr. Dunlavy has certainly stated many times on this forum that there
> is no point to using "better" or more expensive wire(s), and so he
> would therefore be following the same advice that he has proffered to
> others for himself?
I believe that Mr. Rigby's notice indicated that hookups
would be accomplished with Dunlavy's own wire.
Mr. Dunlavy heads up a company that caters to high-end, and
often very discriminating enthusiasts. Therefore, he is in
the sometimes unenviable position of having to use wires
(and amplifiers, preamplifiers, and CD playback devices,
too) that get the attention of certain of those enthusiasts
who believe that the only way to get "real" hi-fi in the
world is to pull out all the stops, everywhere. If he does
not do this, sales no doubt will suffer. That is a fact of
life that he and a number of other rational manufacturers
must live with.
In a more perfect, more rational world, I would imagine that
he would make some changes in his ancillary hardware.
Howard Ferstler
JohnDunlavy
belittle those who possess credible engineering credentials and
attempt to make the truth known regarding the "real-world" properties
of expensive audiophile cables, magic discs, etc.
At the January WCES, we (DAL) will be showing and demonstrating
various models of our loudspeaker systems, connected with our Z-6 and
new Ultra-Zip loudspeaker cables. Interconnect cables will be our own
"ultra-low" capacitance ULC coaxial cables.
So! Glad that you asked. Now, you and others know the "secrets"
(gulp!) we have been keeping from everyone - except for most of the
"real" audiophile world.
And, by the way, why do you seem inclined to "belittle" the audible
properties of 12 AWG ZIP Cord (with quality gold-plated connectors)
and inexpensive but excellent Radio Shack interconnect cables?
John D.
Thomas Nulla
hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu wrote:
>Mr. Dunlavy heads up a company that caters to high-end, and
>often very discriminating enthusiasts. Therefore, he is in
>the sometimes unenviable position of having to use wires
>(and amplifiers, preamplifiers, and CD playback devices,
>too) that get the attention of certain of those enthusiasts
>who believe that the only way to get "real" hi-fi in the
>world is to pull out all the stops, everywhere. If he does
>not do this, sales no doubt will suffer. That is a fact of
>life that he and a number of other rational manufacturers
>must live with.
>
>In a more perfect, more rational world, I would imagine that
>he would make some changes in his ancillary hardware.
Similarly, John has mentioned the uselessness of bi-wiring.
Nevertheless, my SC-III's are bi-wireable...because some listeners
want to bi-wire.
I don't think John would do anything to *degrade* the performance of
his speakers, no matter what. But if someone is willing to pay for
the DAL cable's purely theoretical performance advantages, why not?
I wish all high-end companies would be as forthcoming about their
designs...
>Howard Ferstler
Thomas <now playing: Ozric Tentacles, "The Hidden Step">
http://home.austin.rr.com/tnulla/index.htm (high fidelity and more)
"You can't predict the future, but you can invent it."
Harold Nash27929
>Mr. Dunlavy heads up a company that caters to high-end, and
>often very discriminating enthusiasts. Therefore, he is in
>the sometimes unenviable position of having to use wires
>(and amplifiers, preamplifiers, and CD playback devices,
>too) that get the attention of certain of those enthusiasts
>who believe that the only way to get "real" hi-fi in the
>world is to pull out all the stops, everywhere. If he does
>not do this, sales no doubt will suffer. That is a fact of
>life that he and a number of other rational manufacturers
>must live with.
>In a more perfect, more rational world, I would imagine that
>he would make some changes in his ancillary hardware.
From the above, are we to assume that you are saying that Dunlavy
does not have any integrity and does not have the courage of his
convictions? How do you otherwise condone his compromise?
How about if he also advertised that he will use Shakti stones on
his gear and paint all his CES show CDs purple? Would you then
defend what appears to be hypocrisy on Dunlayvs part by saying
what you said above? I guess you mean that business is business,
caveat emptor, never give a sucker an even break. etc.
From your record of postings here and elsewhere which are repleet
with diatribes about snake oil and sleezy high end salespeople it is
shocking to see you write what you just did. If you condone Dunalvy
using 'snake-oil' to sell gear and attract customers then you cannot
condem anyone else for that. I used to admire your courage
Howard but I now wonder of you lack the courage of your own
loudly repeated conviction as it seems that Dunalvy does.
This is a black day for the Rationalists who beleived in you.
Howard Ferstler
>
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:50:48 GMT, in rec.audio.high-end
> hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu wrote:
> >Mr. Dunlavy heads up a company that caters to high-end, and
> >often very discriminating enthusiasts. Therefore, he is in
> >the sometimes unenviable position of having to use wires
> >(and amplifiers, preamplifiers, and CD playback devices,
> >too) that get the attention of certain of those enthusiasts
> >who believe that the only way to get "real" hi-fi in the
> >world is to pull out all the stops, everywhere. If he does
> >not do this, sales no doubt will suffer. That is a fact of
> >life that he and a number of other rational manufacturers
> >must live with.
> >
> >In a more perfect, more rational world, I would imagine that
> >he would make some changes in his ancillary hardware.
> Similarly, John has mentioned the uselessness of bi-wiring.
> Nevertheless, my SC-III's are bi-wireable...because some listeners
> want to bi-wire.
Those dual-cable inputs also allow for biamping. There can
be definite advantages to doing that.
Howard Ferstler
Steve Zipser
says...
> From the above, are we to assume that you are saying that Dunlavy
> does not have any integrity and does not have the courage of his
> convictions? How do you otherwise condone his compromise?
>
Where is the compromise? What are you talking about? He sells properly
(according to him) engineered cables for his speakers. Since there are
many speaker cables which have all kinds of weird inductance, capacitance
and reactive problems, using his cables insures that the owner of a DAL
speaker will get the proper signal for best performance. One can
disagree with that philosophy without masking absurd claims that DAL
compromises his principles ;-)
Zip
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://www.sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
Conrad Johnson Spectron Parasound PASS PSB DUNLAVY REGA LEXICON EAD PSB
ORACLE Gallo Panasonic Video Straightwire Audible Illusions & lots more!
*CHECK OUT OUR LIST OF SPECIALS ON OUR WEBSITE*
Harold Nash27929
>Where is the compromise? What are you talking about? He sells properly
>(according to him) engineered cables for his speakers. Since there are
>many speaker cables which have all kinds of weird inductance, capacitance
>and reactive problems, using his cables insures that the owner of a DAL
>speaker will get the proper signal for best performance. One can
>disagree with that philosophy without masking absurd claims that DAL
>compromises his principles ;-)
Hmmmm....Aside from the obivous that I was talking more about Mr. Fertler than
Dunlavy...
Speaking of principles, compromise, consistency, truth,
justice and the American way, given your response and all its imprecations,
as a Dunalvy dealer would you:
1- Ever sell a customer cables OTHER than Dunlavys for Dunlavy speakers?
2- Ever recommend to a customer far less expensive cables than the Dunlavys
for use with his speakers if they had similar inductance, capacitiance,
impedance characterisitcs?
3- Ever sell cables MORE expensive to ANY customer OTHER than the
Dunlavys if those cables have their own their own idiosyncratic (your term
was'weird') characterisitics?
I accept your taking the Fifth in response... This is, after all, America...
mcn...@my-deja.com
haroldn...@aol.com (Harold Nash27929) wrote:
> From the above, are we to assume that you are saying that Dunlavy
> does not have any integrity and does not have the courage of his
> convictions? How do you otherwise condone his compromise?
>
> How about if he also advertised that he will use Shakti stones on
> his gear and paint all his CES show CDs purple? Would you then
> defend what appears to be hypocrisy on Dunlayvs part by saying
> what you said above? I guess you mean that business is business,
> caveat emptor, never give a sucker an even break. etc.
Hold on, Harold. Snake oil invariably involves false claims.
Dunlavy's claims for his cables are electrical, not sonic, and they
are quite accurate. He isn't compromising his principles when he
sells what is probably, for most applications, an overengineered
product. And Howard F. isn't compromising *his* principles when he
recognizes the difference between between Dunlavy's marketing claims
and those of so many other cable purveyors.
Every consumer has the right to spend more than makes sense to you
for cables, amps, or anything else. And every producer has the right
to try to capture that market. The evil ones are those who market
through misinformation. Try to keep that difference in mind.
bob
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
JohnDunlavy
From: johnd...@aol.com (John Dunlavy)
Date: 12/20/00 2:00 PM Mountain Standard Time
Re: Post of 12/20.00 from haroldn...@aol.com
In his above referenced post, commenting on a recent post from Howard Ferstler,
Harold Nash wrote:
From the above, are we to assume that you are saying that Dunlavy
>does not have any integrity and does not have the courage of his
>convictions? How do you otherwise condone his compromise?
>How about if he also advertised that he will use Shakti stones on
>his gear and paint all his CES show CDs purple? Would you then
>defend what appears to be hypocrisy on Dunlayvs part by saying
>what you said above? I guess you mean that business is business,
>caveat emptor, never give a sucker an even break. etc.
From your record of postings here and elsewhere which are repleet
>with diatribes about snake oil and sleezy high end salespeople it is
>shocking to see you write what you just did. If you condone Dunalvy
>using 'snake-oil' to sell gear and attract customers then you cannot
>condem anyone else for that. I used to admire your courage
>Howard but I now wonder of you lack the courage of your own
>loudly repeated conviction as it seems that Dunalvy does.
>This is a black day for the Rationalists who beleived in you.
Well, how does one answer such a post as this?
I have clearly stated, within many of my posts here on the NET that,
within properly operating hi-end audiophile systems, expensive
loudspeaker and interconnect cables can seldom make an audible
difference or improvement. So - why did I design and why does DAL
sell cables that might not make any improvement in the audible
accuracy of a system?
The answer is relatively simple and should be easily understood by
most readers.
As an engineer with appropriate technical/professional credentials, I
believe in designing products that first conform to the teachings of
competent engineering and physics - and whose relevant
electrical/audible properties can be confirmed by accurate, lab
quality measurements. (Such professional E.E. credentials are
typically missing among those who design audiophile cables for many
large audiophile cable companies.)
Most of the expensive, "high-tech appearing" audiophile loudspeaker
cables do not conform to this criteria. They are sold largely on the
basis of a "hi-tech appearance" rather than "real world design and
performance criteria".
Recognizing this, I was curious (as an engineer) whether audiophiles
would accept and approeciate cables designed according to good
engineering criteria.
Frankly, however, during blind A-B comparisons between the most
expensive loudspeaker cables, 12 AWG ZIP Cord and DAL's Z-6 cable, no
audible differences appear to exist within a properly operating,
hi-end, audiophile system.
But my "reasoning" asks the question: why not manufacture and sell
cables whose properties conform to proper design criteria - rather
than mere "appearance" and a "high ticket" price tag?
However, I do believe it is possible that a properly designed cable
might potentially improve the audible accuracy of some high-end
audiophile systems. But it is far less likely that an expensive but
"poorly designed" cable could achieve the same result.
Much the same can be said for expensive interconnect cables with a
hi-tech appearance but which seldom possess optimum electrical
properties required for bes audiophile system performance. The three
most important electrical properties of interconnect cables are: 1)
good shielding, 2) low capacitance and 3) low micphonics. I designed
DAL interconnect cables with the intent of achieving these three most
important properties.
I sincerely hope the above info explains my position regarding hi-end
audiophile loudspeaker and interconnect cables.
John D.
Dave Platt
Harold Nash27929 <haroldn...@aol.com> wrote:
From the above, are we to assume that you are saying that Dunlavy
>does not have any integrity and does not have the courage of his
>convictions? How do you otherwise condone his compromise?
>
>How about if he also advertised that he will use Shakti stones on
>his gear and paint all his CES show CDs purple? Would you then
>defend what appears to be hypocrisy on Dunlayvs part by saying
>what you said above? I guess you mean that business is business,
>caveat emptor, never give a sucker an even break. etc.
>
From your record of postings here and elsewhere which are repleet
>with diatribes about snake oil and sleezy high end salespeople it is
>shocking to see you write what you just did. If you condone Dunalvy
>using 'snake-oil' to sell gear and attract customers then you cannot
>condem anyone else for that. I used to admire your courage
>Howard but I now wonder of you lack the courage of your own
>loudly repeated conviction as it seems that Dunalvy does.
>This is a black day for the Rationalists who beleived in you.
If Dunlavy were to state, claim, advertise, or even hint loudly that
his proprietary speaker cables actually produced audibly-superior
results (as compared to a generic zipcord-style cable of equivalent
gauge) I'd have a real problem with it, since he's on record as saying
that he believes that this isn't the case.
If he simply designs, builds, and demonstrates a type of product based
on his perceptions as to what many customers want or expect, and does
not make or imply claims for "advantages" that he knows do not exist,
I don't have a problem with him.
I have no objection to anyone designing, making, or selling products
with any particular design (as long as it doesn't introduce
characteristics which are threatening to life or limb). I _do_ have a
problem with anyone claiming characteristics or advantages for their
product which cannot be demonstrated, or which fly in the face of
widely-established-and-respected principles of physics. To me, _that_
is the point at which salesmanship crosses the line between "Sell what
the customer wants to purchase" and "Sleazy snake-oil salesman".
To the best of my knowledge, Dunlavy has not crossed this line. I
don't see that he's even come close to it.
--
Dave Platt dpl...@radagast.org
Visit the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior/
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Chris Young
I have read with much interest your debunking of the majority of hi
end cables based upon engineering principal. I was particularly
intrigued by your assertion regarding speaker cables in relation to
their characteristic impedance being far higher than that of a
typical load (speaker). You had mentioned previously that you were
designing or would be releasing a new speaker cable that optimized
resistance, inductance and capacitance (as in low), while providing
an impedance on the order of 6-8 ohms, all at an affordable price. Is
this cable ready yet?
Thanks,
Chris
btw, not sure where Zip is getting the opinion that your Z-6 or
whatever cable is optimised for your speakers... my interpretation of
what I have read of your design goals your cables would seem to be
simply... uh.. neutral???
Howard Ferstler
> >Mr. Dunlavy heads up a company that caters to high-end, and
> >often very discriminating enthusiasts. Therefore, he is in
> >the sometimes unenviable position of having to use wires
> >(and amplifiers, preamplifiers, and CD playback devices,
> >too) that get the attention of certain of those enthusiasts
> >who believe that the only way to get "real" hi-fi in the
> >world is to pull out all the stops, everywhere. If he does
> >not do this, sales no doubt will suffer. That is a fact of
> >life that he and a number of other rational manufacturers
> >must live with.
>
> >In a more perfect, more rational world, I would imagine that
> >he would make some changes in his ancillary hardware.
> From the above, are we to assume that you are saying that Dunlavy
> does not have any integrity and does not have the courage of his
> convictions? How do you otherwise condone his compromise?
I never said this, or even implied it. The fact is that if
Dunlavy used a top-line Sony receiver and hardware-store
lamp cord in his demos the high-end press would turn their
backs on him, and so would many of his dealers. The only way
that he and a number of other high-end outfits that have any
integrity can survive is to play the damned game. Note that
Dunlavy is not the only high-end speaker company that uses
super-grade ancillary hardware in their demos. The high-end
mantra demands respect, and customers demand perceived
quality.
He did not invent this game: the high-end, tweak press did,
and it continues to be supported by assorted dealers and
their customers.
> How about if he also advertised that he will use Shakti stones on
> his gear and paint all his CES show CDs purple? Would you then
> defend what appears to be hypocrisy on Dunlayvs part by saying
> what you said above?
Well, he has not done that, has he? Indeed, he has posted
numerous times on some of the idiocies we find in audio, and
the ancillary gear he uses is at least high in sonic
quality. It is the kind of gear that his customers would be
able to afford.
> I guess you mean that business is business,
> caveat emptor, never give a sucker an even break. etc.
If a consumer wants to blindly get into high-end audio, they
will see the game, join the game, and believe in the game.
Dealers and high-end journalists depend upon such people to
survive. If they want to get into high-end audio on an
intelligent level, they will not play the game and still get
high-end sonic quality.
> From your record of postings here and elsewhere which are repleet
> with diatribes about snake oil and sleezy high end salespeople it is
> shocking to see you write what you just did.
I am a realist. To survive in the high-end, consumer-audio
business these days, participants must play the game. If my
readers are made aware of just what the game involves, they
can ignore the fleece and end up with remarkably good
systems - and do so fairly on the cheap.
> If you condone Dunalvy
> using 'snake-oil' to sell gear and attract customers then you cannot
> condem anyone else for that.
Well, Dunlavy does not exactly line the walls with tuning
dots, pre-spin CDs, and hang his cable off the floor with
miniature towers. He does use premium-grade ancillary
hardware (stuff that I would personally never purchase, even
if I was loaded), because many high-end enthusiasts have a
kind of blind faith in that kind of gear. Many also just
want to have "statement" products in their listening rooms,
even if they are not exactly sure what is being stated.
Roy Allison played the no-compromise game and in the end the
high end simply ignored him. There were other reasons for
his company's losses, of course, but ignoring the
eccentricities of the high-end establishment certainly did
not do him any financial good.
> I used to admire your courage
> Howard but I now wonder of you lack the courage of your own
> loudly repeated conviction as it seems that Dunalvy does.
> This is a black day for the Rationalists who beleived in you.
I am sorry that I cannot satisfy everyone, and I am sure
that those who were depending on me will find somebody else
to lead them through the minefields of high-end audio.
I will note that I did not condone the use of upscale gear
when I made my initial comments. I simply stated some
high-end-audio facts. Anybody who reads my product reviews
will discover that overkill products are certainly not
lauded by me.
Note that Dunlavy does not (to my knowledge at least) use or
condone the use of tiptoes, green ink, exotic power cords,
air bladders, disc demagnetizers, etc., or other really
weird items that I have railed against many times. Note also
that I never have said that good high-end amps, CD players,
etc. were not good. However, they are overkill, in terms of
cost, and I believe that rational audio buffs will steer
clear of such items and spend their surplus cash on
recordings or hardware that does something.
When demonstrating his super-duper gear, Dunlavy does indeed
employ the kind of expensive, upscale amps, CD players, etc.
that the kind of well-heeled customers he is trying to sell
his products to would want, if only for the kind of
"statement" they might make about their monetary status. As
far as I can tell, those items are not detrimental to sound,
and in many cases they might offer a degree of reliability
and customer support that cheaper gear would not. They are
not my bag, but obviously people with the kind of money to
afford Dunlavy's upscale speakers are not afraid to make
them their bag.
Howard Ferstler
BEARlabs
> Gee, Randy, you just seem incapable of resisting the temptation to
> belittle those who possess credible engineering credentials
I don't see where I belittled anyone personally.
> and
> attempt to make the truth known regarding the "real-world" properties
> of expensive audiophile cables, magic discs, etc.
The "truth" is not a private possession of one individual. And since
you seem to have patented, and manufacture, "expensive audiophile
cables" yourself, I find your position(s) to be somewhat contrary and
paradoxical.
I am calling attention to this fact.
>
>
> At the January WCES, we (DAL) will be showing and demonstrating
> various models of our loudspeaker systems, connected with our Z-6 and
> new Ultra-Zip loudspeaker cables. Interconnect cables will be our own
> "ultra-low" capacitance ULC coaxial cables.
>
> So! Glad that you asked. Now, you and others know the "secrets"
> (gulp!) we have been keeping from everyone - except for most of the
> "real" audiophile world.
>
> And, by the way, why do you seem inclined to "belittle" the audible
> properties of 12 AWG ZIP Cord (with quality gold-plated connectors)
> and inexpensive but excellent Radio Shack interconnect cables?
I am not slamming 12 AWG zip cord, as much as I find hypocracy in
your stated positions & advice here on rahe vs. your business's
actions.
I do not think that zip cord is the best way to wire speakers, but
that has less to do with the fact that it is used for wiring lamps,
than it does with the effect that *any* wire done up with the same
geometry will have.
Personally, I think that it is fairly clear that there audible
differences between some very surprising things.
I also think that your speakers are good.
So there!
>
>
> John D.
Harold Nash27929
>
> So - why did I design and why does DAL
>sell cables that might not make any
>improvement in the audible
>accuracy of a system?
>
>The answer is relatively simple and should be easily understood by
>most readers.
Well yes. As I understand it, your logic implies, as you'll see,
that you design and sell them to make a profit and for no other
reason, since you admit that they sound no better than cheap
12 guage. No crime there, certainly. But let's call a spade a spade.
The question, John, is this: Is the proof of the pudding in the
eating, or in the 'techincal correctness' of the recipe?
You state that you make and sell these cables because people
might want to buy well-engineered wire that makes no audible
difference because it is, well, it is well engineered and based on
sound princples. Again, you are within your rights to do so, but it
is no different than a winemaker saying: "Our grapes were grown
with the best of scientific knowelge available today. We have
degrees in 'Wineology' while those jerks over on that other hill don't.
Our wine is tecnically more correct than theirs. True, nobody can
taste the difference. But you can feel wonderful about spending
much more on our wine than theirs because we do it right!"
Frankly, while I tried my best to curb my language in response to
your post so that our dear moderators wouldn't bounce it, my gut
reaction was the same one I had when I, a city kid, was first given
a tour of a Dairy Farm out in the country. I spotted a pile of some
natural substance in the corner of a field and blurted out: "Gee dad!
So THAT'S what real ---- ---- looks like!"
Christopher S. Kush
> [rant deleted]
Gee, so that's what real ---- ---- looks like on Usenet.
Look, we've beaten this to death. Who is JD? He is an
audio designer and a businessman. Is he a good audio
designer? Probably. Is he a good businessman? Well,
he's at least passable, because he recognizes a market
when he sees one. And aside from this thread, which
rises from the grave like the world's most tedious
zombie as soon as last month's articles expire, I can't
recall seeing any complaints about his business practices.
It is most emphatically *not* JD's responsibility to
protect idiots from their own delusions. Why not?
1) That's not what he gets paid for.
b) Unless they're his minor children, he can't be
held responsible legally.
iii) He is not the Jesus Christ of audio engineering
knowledge, sent to save the errant and helpless.
His cables are exactly what he says they are. They are
not anything else. They are not tobacco, lottery tickets,
crack, prostitute services or any other inherently hurtful
thing. They are much more like a Ferrari: Probably
unnecessary, but fun if you like that sort of thing, and
helpful if you need to get from Denver to Cheyenne in an
hour.
Perhaps you object to the production of luxury items,
and/or their sale. That's a different argument.
--
Christopher S. Kush
mcn...@my-deja.com
haroldn...@aol.com (Harold Nash27929) wrote:
>
> You state that you make and sell these cables because people
> might want to buy well-engineered wire that makes no audible
> difference because it is, well, it is well engineered and based on
> sound princples.
Yes, and that phenomenon is more widespread than you might think. The
Audio Critic, for example, firmly believes that all solid-state
amplifiers are sonically indistinguishable (barring incompetence or
intentional tweaking of frequency response). And yet it devotes
plenty of space to reviews of amplifiers, up into the Mark Levinson
price range and beyond, praising them for the fine engineering that
went into them. Does that make Peter Aczel and David Rich hypocrites?
I think not. They are very clear both about what matters sonically
and about what it is they admire in these products. The same could be
said for John Dunlavy.
Your quarrel is not with John Dunlavy, but with some of his
customers, who might be buying his products for what you would
consider to be the wrong reasons. Lots of people take vitamin C
supplements because they think it can prevent colds. Guess what the
best scientific evidence has to say about that theory. Does the
phrase "placebo effect" ring any bells? Should we take vitamin C off
the market, or make it available only by prescription, to protect
these people?
(For the record, I've had only one cold in the year and a half since
my doctor told me to try vitamin C. God bless placebos! Think I'll go
shop for some cables...
BEARlabs
> Subject: Re: Dunlavy at the 2001 Electronics Show
> From: johnd...@aol.com (John Dunlavy)
> Date: 12/20/00 2:00 PM Mountain Standard Time
> Re: Post of 12/20.00 from haroldn...@aol.com
>
> In his above referenced post, commenting on a recent post from Howard Ferstler,
> Harold Nash wrote:
>
>
<snipped>
>
>
> However, I do believe it is possible that a properly designed cable
> might potentially improve the audible accuracy of some high-end
> audiophile systems. But it is far less likely that an expensive but
> "poorly designed" cable could achieve the same result.
This is self evident.
But, now JD says that cables MAY be audible. Since accuracy
presumably is audible. If not, then why build anything that is
accurate to begin with???
>
>
> Much the same can be said for expensive interconnect cables with a
> hi-tech appearance but which seldom possess optimum electrical
> properties required for bes audiophile system performance. The three
> most important electrical properties of interconnect cables are: 1)
> good shielding, 2) low capacitance and 3) low micphonics. I designed
> DAL interconnect cables with the intent of achieving these three most
> important properties.
These are the three MOST important, I wonder, what are the rest??
And, so do ALL of the rest add up to being equal or part equal of any
of these three??
And, again, I presume JD is saying that compared to Radio Shack's
cheapo cables, that HIS will be more accurate. And because it is more
accurate, in a "good" system (good being "accurate") the listener
will hear the difference!
It is self evident, that between two "accurate" (read well designed
and engineered) cables that there is likely to be *less* audible
differential than between an "accurate" cable and zip cord (for
example).
JD has argued, in effect, that there are NO cables being sold by any
"audiophile" companies that are any better than zip cord, only his.
>
>
> I sincerely hope the above info explains my position regarding hi-end
> audiophile loudspeaker and interconnect cables.
Good. Finally, we agree. You can **"hear cables"**, and Radio Shack
and zip cord may be "good" but they are NOT the best, not the most
accurate, AND IF your system is "accurate" you are likely to hear a
difference.
Which, is pretty much what I have said for some time.
Thank you, finally.
GRL
Dunlavy wrote. You post leave this reader with the same impression as
too many of the recent political campaign ads seeking a similar,
destructive, end to an opponent in the last election - great
distaste.
Mr. Dunlavy's position is clear, reasonable, honest, and nothing like
what you say it is. Nothing.
- GRL
"When someone annoys you, remember that it takes 42 muscles to frown,
but only 4 muscles to extend your arm and smack them on the back of
the head."
"BEARlabs" <bear...@coollink.net> wrote in message
news:91u4u...@news2.newsguy.com...
JohnDunlavy
Thanks for your interesting reply.
Our Z-6 loudspeaker cable sells at a relatively high price because it
is expensive in the relatively small quantities we purchase from our
supplier.
Our new "Ultra-Zip" loudspeaker cable, using "00 AWG" conductors,
will sell at retail for a lot less and will probably perform equally
well within most audiophile systems.
It is also a beautiful cable in appearance. And, its series L, R and
parallel C are virtually optimum for feeding most audiophile
loudspeakers.
You might want to try some yourself.
(e-mail me your address and I will send you a short sample to look at.)
John D.
GRL
merely insulting and tasteless and the moderator should have rejected
it as such. That short of thing belongs over in the RAO snake pit.
If you really are that lacking in understanding, go read Howard's
post in this thread for a very understandable explanation. Read it
twice if you don't understand the concepts the first time.
--
- GRL
"When someone annoys you, remember that it takes 42 muscles to frown,
but only 4 muscles to extend your arm and smack them on the back of
the head."
"Harold Nash27929" <haroldn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:91tnh5$gba$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Harold Nash27929
>Yes, and that phenomenon is more widespread than you might think.
The phenomenon in question being the purchase of technically sound
well-engineered gear that makes no audible difference.
>Your quarrel is not with John Dunlavy, but with some of his
>customers, who might be buying his products for what you would
>consider to be the wrong reasons.
In truth, my quarrel is with the self-serving hypocrites on the Supreme
Court. However, since this isn't the time or place, let's talk about
another brand of hypocrisy. It galls me to see technocratic audiophiles
mock another breed of audiophile for spending money on 'placebos'
when this whole 'well-engineered', technically accurate thing Dunlavy
is touting turns out to be, by his own admisiion, a big fat placebo too.
Both result in a pleasurable 'belief' that a piece of gear is better which
grows out of a preconception and not out of sensory experience.
Cosmic Audiphile: "Wow! My system sounds great because I've painted
all the screws green and use only magic rubber washers!" (N.B. None of
the above makes any audible difference)
Technocratic Audiophile: "Wow! My system sounds great because its
engineered by real engineers and has great specs and is accurate.(N.B.:
It could not be distinguished from the system above in a blind test.)
My point is that when Dunlavy goes around trashing the Cosmic Audiophile
and promotes his gear to the Technocratic Audiophile, the result is the
same: People spending money on nonsense.
Now, as I said, God bless America! All the above is certainly Capitalistic
Cricket. But Dunlavy decries one brand of snake oil from one side of his
mouth while selling 'Eau De Reptile" out of the other. And that ticks me off.
But not nearly as much as does slimy Scalia and Uncle Tom Thomas. :-)
Stewart Pinkerton
>>From: johnd...@aol.com (John Dunlavy)
>>
>> So - why did I design and why does DAL
>>sell cables that might not make any
>>improvement in the audible
>>accuracy of a system?
>>
>>The answer is relatively simple and should be easily understood by
>>most readers.
>
>Well yes. As I understand it, your logic implies, as you'll see,
>that you design and sell them to make a profit and for no other
>reason, since you admit that they sound no better than cheap
>12 guage. No crime there, certainly. But let's call a spade a spade.
Your logic is flawed. JD has explained ad nauseam that he designed Z-6
to be the best *engineered* speaker cable that money could buy. It
would seem from the specification that he achieved that aim, and the
cost is what it is, you can choose to pay it or leave them alone.
Thomas Nulla
haroldn...@aol.com (Harold Nash27929) wrote:
>
>In truth, my quarrel is with the self-serving hypocrites on the Supreme
>Court. However, since this isn't the time or place, let's talk about
>another brand of hypocrisy. It galls me to see technocratic audiophiles
>mock another breed of audiophile for spending money on 'placebos'
>when this whole 'well-engineered', technically accurate thing Dunlavy
>is touting turns out to be, by his own admisiion, a big fat placebo too.
>Both result in a pleasurable 'belief' that a piece of gear is better which
>grows out of a preconception and not out of sensory experience.
How is there a placebo effect or hypocrisy when the user is fully
informed? As you yourself note above, John has explicitly stated here
that the technical superiority of DAL cable is not likely to be audible
(and BTW, I don't use it myself). Who's deceived? No one with two
brain cells to rub together!
What you also fail to understand is that there is aesthetic pleasure to
be had in the appreciation of technically excellent creations even when
there is no practical need. Are you aware that there are handcrafted
mechanical wristwatches (not just Rolexes) costing many thousands of
dollars, and long waiting lists for some of these watches? Do you
believe that the purchasers think their watches will be better
timekeepers than a $200 Seiko, and are 'placebo victims'? Or that this
is always simple 'snob appeal', when 99+% of the population never heard
of these watch brands?
Sure is odd to see someone attacking the honesty of one of the *very*
few companies in high-end audio that tells you exactly what you're
getting for your money, measurements and all. I could easily come up
with a list of worthier targets as long as my arm... :-)
Thomas <now playing: silence>
http://home.austin.rr.com/tnulla/index.htm (high fidelity and more)
"You can't predict the future, but you can invent it."
JohnDunlavy
I would like to inject a few facts relevant to some of the negative
comments being made about DAL loudspeakers.
First: DAL unconditionally guarantees that every loudspeaker it makes
and sells meets or exceeds all advertised performance specifications.
(There is no "small print" associated with this guarantee!)
Second: DAL unconditionally guarantees that all published
measurements for every DAL loudspeaker model accurately portray, in
every respect, the measured performance of every production
loudspeaker sold and shipped by DAL.
Unlike many companies that design and manufacture expensive
loudspeakers for the "high-end audiphile market", DAL has made a very
large investment in establishing what is believed to be the most
extensive, best-equipped loudspeaker and cable measurement facility
in the world. (This facility includes two large and one small
anechoic chambers, each with an extensive array of "state-of-the-art
measurement equipment", etc. - an investment easily exceeding a
half-million dollars. See DAL's web site for complete pictures, etc.)
Further, it is hardly a "placebo effect" when a pair of DAL
loudspeakers is demonstrated (in real-time, within a good listening
environment) to be capable of emulating live musical instruments and
voices with an accuracy that precludes competent listeners from
discerning any audible difference between them.
DAL stands fully behind the accuracy of all its published
specifications and the accuracy of all its products.
John D.
Harold Nash27929
>I would like to inject a few facts relevant to some of the negative
>comments being made about DAL loudspeakers.
For the record, I myself have made no such comments. Your speakers
were never in question in any of my posts, although they aren't
particular favorites of mine. I do still consider your 'cable sales'
explanation rather disingenuous and we will agree to disagree.
>Further, it is hardly a "placebo effect" when a pair of DAL
>loudspeakers is demonstrated (in real-time, within a good listening
>environment) to be capable of emulating live musical instruments and
>voices with an accuracy that precludes competent listeners from
>discerning any audible difference between them.
Well yes. But that's no big deal since I also experienced the
self-same phenomenon at Acoustic Research demonstrations some forty
years ago using tape as a source vis a vis live music and a passle of
their dreadful speakers. With eyes shut, nobody could tell if it was
the live flamenco guitarist and dancer or the Memorex. Same thing
with a string quartet. It's amazing just how 'foolable' we all are
under the right conditions. I wouldn't go posting the above
'commercial' and brag about that to anyone my age who was at those
early demos or they might just get to thinkin' that your speakers
ain't no better than them thar ol' AR antiques. (Just teasin'...)
GRL
reproducing a live performance perfectly (or as well as the human ear can
discern, which is all that matters -- unless you're a dog or some such beast
that can hear things we can't hear as humans). By the way, as you should
know, THERE IS NO HIGHER STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT. NONE! EVER. PERIOD. That
is high fidelity at its best. Any discussion beyond that has no relevance to
the subject of music reproduction. None at all.
Thank you for identifying yourself as one whose true interests lie in some
area other than high fidelity music reproduction. Your comments should all
be read in that light. This does help the interested reader to properly
weight your remarks and for that I do, again, thank you.
No kidding.
- GRL
"When someone annoys you, remember that it takes 42 muscles to frown, but
only 4 muscles
to extend your arm and smack them on the back of the head."
"Harold Nash27929" <haroldn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:92dgp...@news2.newsguy.com...
Christopher S. Kush
> I do still consider your 'cable sales' explanation rather
> disingenuous and we will agree to disagree.
Some may agree, but I cannot.
From the online Cambridge Dictionary:
"disingenuous
adjective
(of a person or their behaviour) slightly dishonest; not
speaking the complete truth"
JD is marketing wires for which he makes specific, testable
claims. JD has stated on this forum that under reasonable
circumstances, zip cord sounds as good as his stuff.
I am unable to see what you find dishonest about what JD
has stated.
--
Christopher S. Kush
(303) 661 7509
kus...@ib.stortek.com
Harold Nash27929
>OK, so those "dreadful" AR loudspeakers passed the ultimate test of
>reproducing a live performance perfectly (or as well as the human ear can
>discern,
Well yes. I owned a pair of AR 2s way back when and, I assure you, by
todays standards, they are dreadful indeed. How do I know? I still
have them, along with the the Scott tube amp I used to power them.
(No. That isn't the system I use for daily listening, but one of the
many I keep around for fun.) The point, sir, was simply that speakers
well inferior to Mr. Dunlavys good efforts can live up to his brag.
>THERE IS NO HIGHER STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT. NONE! EVER. PERIOD.
And with this, of course I agree, Was it not yours truly who asked
Mr. Dulavy whether the proof of the pudding was to be found in the
'eating' or in the correctness of the recipe? It was indeed. But you
must have missed the post.
>Thank you for identifying yourself as one whose true interests lie in some
>area other than high fidelity music reproduction.
As a retired professional musician of some success, and as a
philanthropist, and a humanist, my interests, sir, are in debunking
the myth of the reviewer as expert -- most are somewhat less than --
and in elevating each person to be his own judge and jury, while
recognizing his own fallibility. And too, I remain (despite my
adavancing years) rather interested in the magic that lies in all
that pheromones might provoke. But I digress...
>This does help the interested reader to properly
>weight your remarks and for that I do, again, thank you.
You're welcome, I'm sure.
Although the source of your ire remains, as the King of Siam spat
out: "A puzzlement!"
auplater
> My point is that when Dunlavy goes around trashing the Cosmic Audiophile
> and promotes his gear to the Technocratic Audiophile, the result is the
> same: People spending money on nonsense.
>
> Now, as I said, God bless America! All the above is certainly Capitalistic
> Cricket. But Dunlavy decries one brand of snake oil from one side of his
> mouth while selling 'Eau De Reptile" out of the other. And that ticks me off.
> But not nearly as much as does slimy Scalia and Uncle Tom Thomas. :-)
What galls me is the politically convenient perspective of
re-defining reality and fact to serve whatever purpose happens to be
under discussion at the time... aka Madam Ginsburg, Sir Clinton,
Messeur Gore, et als... but as you say, this is not the place. A boat
without an anchor, so to speak.
That said, I don't think this argument of snake oil vs. 'Eau De
Reptile' has any "legs" (sic), since John is forthcoming in his
description; that is, he's not proposing some mythical un-measurable
property of his cables. He simply builds them to a price point, and
offers them to those interested in same. Pure and simple. Your
feigned outrage at this is contrary to common sense, and certainly
the argument of the 'technocrat' vs. the 'Cosmic' audiophile is
specious. You can do and buy whatever you want. No one has proposed
otherwise. However, when you project your own preferences into the
realm of factual information, be prepared to defend them with real
world data and tests, as John does, rather than the infamous "flooby
dust" and "unobtanium" rampant in the cosmic netherworld of
astro-logic.
BTW: I had the opportunity to meet John in July in Co. Springs, and
found him to be emminently gracious, his facility top notch, and his
passion for audio above reproach. I would recommend a visit to anyone
having the opportunity.
auplater
Harold Nash27929
>Some may agree, but I cannot.
>
>JD has stated on this forum that under reasonable
>circumstances, zip cord sounds as good as his stuff.
>I am unable to see what you find dishonest about what JD
>has stated.
The dishonesty lives in his ongoing put-downs of other high end
manufacturers (he implies it without stating it directly) as
charlatans who market badly engineered, inaudible flooby dust,
and who are in it for the money, while he himself markets
something he admits is inaudible, purely for profit, though he
doesn't admit that directly either. Yes. Dunlavy is entitled to feed
off the foolishness of those who buy his cables, but it is
disingenuous to disparage others who feed off of similar, though
slightly different foolishness.
BEARlabs
Thanks for the friendly response.
Of course, I am still puzzled by the dichotomy between the advice you
proffer here on rahe, and the product (wires, especially) you
manufacture and sell.
I've said that before.
So, I am completely lost as to why you would "waste" money on a "00
AWG" wire, ("welding wire")when the "research" published in JAES has
shown that 12 ga. is "optimum" - and 10ga. or 14 ga. is less optimal
in certain situations? It would seem on the surface that you are
flying in the face of "established" science.
I completely understand the need to price according to the costs of
R&D plus manufacturing costs - no quarrel there.
The question is why make it at all, and why market it in light of
your professional opinion that it makes no difference?
I suppose that for me the ultimate question revolves around the
potential audible difference between "optimal" (throughout) system
design vs. less than optimal.
I personally feel that optimization yields small gains, that when
done throughout a system *can* yield subtle but audible and
beneficial positive result. Therefore, it *is* worth doing. Cost,
price, and these factors are strictly personal issues, and play no
role in the conceptual debate, nor ultimately in the
"scientific/engineering" debate.
I agree, that for most people, and many systems, zip cord and Radio
Shack intercons *may* well perform adequately. But this does NOT
obviate the efforts of those who strive for optimization, on all
fronts. It does not make ALL the *effects* that are debated endlessly
on rahe (etc.) irrelevant, non-existant, or imaginary.
_-_-bear
JohnDunlavy wrote:
--
_-_- BEAR Labs
"Custom Handcrafted Audio Components & Cables"
Notice: "bear...@coollink.net" is extinct as of Jan 5,2001 -
temp email after JAN 5 will be bear...@Netzero.net
Howard Ferstler
>
> From: "GRL" GLitw...@BIGFOOT.COM
>
> >OK, so those "dreadful" AR loudspeakers passed the ultimate test of
> >reproducing a live performance perfectly (or as well as the human ear can
> >discern,
> Well yes. I owned a pair of AR 2s way back when and, I assure you, by
> todays standards, they are dreadful indeed. How do I know? I still
> have them, along with the the Scott tube amp I used to power them.
The tweeter/midrange driver used in the AR-2 was
substantially less precise than the separate midrange and
tweeter combination used in the AR-3 or AR-3a.
So, holding the AR-2 up as an example of the kind of speaker
that could pass a live vs recorded session back in the
heyday of AR supremacy is not really a good ploy.
Howard Ferstler
BEARlabs
> Whoa!
>
<snips>
>
>
> Further, it is hardly a "placebo effect" when a pair of DAL
> loudspeakers is demonstrated (in real-time, within a good listening
> environment) to be capable of emulating live musical instruments and
> voices with an accuracy that precludes competent listeners from
> discerning any audible difference between them.
>
> John D.
I would just like to make an historical point here.
Edison claimed this - and demonstrated this as well.
I believe that AR did much the same.
Mike Littlefield
> From: Howard Ferstler hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu
> >
> >snip>
> >In a more perfect, more rational world, I would imagine that
> >he would make some changes in his ancillary hardware.
>
> From the above, are we to assume that you are saying that Dunlavy
> does not have any integrity and does not have the courage of his
> convictions? How do you otherwise condone his compromise?
I don't believe Howard said (or meant) that. You shouldn't attribute
your own conclusions to other people's words.
> How about if he also advertised that he will use Shakti stones on
> his gear and paint all his CES show CDs purple? Would you then
> defend what appears to be hypocrisy on Dunlayvs part by saying
> what you said above? I guess you mean that business is business,
> caveat emptor, never give a sucker an even break. etc.
I think Mr. Dunlavy IS giving everyone an even break. He accurately
states the performance issues, and the facts of what he experiences
about cables.
>
> From your record of postings here and elsewhere which are repleet
> with diatribes about snake oil and sleezy high end salespeople it is
> shocking to see you write what you just did. If you condone Dunalvy
> using 'snake-oil' to sell gear and attract customers then you cannot
> condem anyone else for that. I used to admire your courage
> Howard but I now wonder of you lack the courage of your own
> loudly repeated conviction as it seems that Dunalvy does.
> This is a black day for the Rationalists who beleived in you.
>
There is NO hypocrisy at all in Mr. Dunlavy's behavior. He states
clearly his views on cable. When customers demand an esoteric
product, he provides it, along with the truth about his views, and
the truth about his product. Your post resembles the behavior of
people who like to take a shot at the "big boys"; just because
they're the "big boys".
I've heard his speakers and would love to own any of them. I don't
have a clue, and don't care what interconnects/wires they were
connected with.Unfortunately, my budget doesn't permit it. I probably
would not buy his wires, BECAUSE he's told the truth about his views
on the subject. He has helped to make me an "informed" consumer, and
I applaud him for that.
Mike Littlefield
It really is shameful the way you have just twisted and mangled Mr.
Dunlavy's assertions. It would take more bandwidth than it deserves
to point out the details of your disengenuous message. The
participants with half a brain will recognize all of the twists and
tangles on their own.
Thomas Nulla
haroldn...@aol.com (Harold Nash27929) wrote:
From: "Christopher S. Kush" kus...@ib.stortek.com
>
>>Some may agree, but I cannot.
>>
>>JD has stated on this forum that under reasonable
>>circumstances, zip cord sounds as good as his stuff.
>>I am unable to see what you find dishonest about what JD
>>has stated.
>
>The dishonesty lives in his ongoing put-downs of other high end
>manufacturers (he implies it without stating it directly) as
>charlatans who market badly engineered, inaudible flooby dust,
>and who are in it for the money, while he himself markets
>something he admits is inaudible, purely for profit, though he
>doesn't admit that directly either. Yes. Dunlavy is entitled to feed
>off the foolishness of those who buy his cables, but it is
>disingenuous to disparage others who feed off of similar, though
>slightly different foolishness.
The majority of high-end cable makers DO claim that their expensive
cable actually *sounds* better than inexpensive cables. John
explicitly says that his DOES NOT.
This is so obvious and basic a difference, I can't see how anyone
would confuse the issue. And the available evidence on cable sound
would suggest that most other cable manufacturers' claims are false,
while John is telling the truth.
(I already addressed the issue of "why sell a cable that is
technically superior, but inaudible". Even for a <oh, no!> profit!)
Thomas <now playing: Frank Zappa, "The Best Band You Never Heard">
Richard D Pierce
In fact, there were several "AR-2" models, NONE of which came
close to either the AR-3/3A or the AR-5 in any measure of
performance. There was the AR-2A/2AX which was a 3-way, and then
there was the AR-2X, a two way, which was a real dog. In fact,
having known several people at AR from the time, the AR-2
series was sort of a joke within the walls of the plant. As
Howard said, it did not have the midrange or tweeter (or
crossover) of the high-end of the AR line, and the difference
was not, uhm, subtle.
The joke went something like a logical deduction:
Premise: The AR-3 is the best loudspeaker in the universe
Premise: The AR-5 is almost the best loudspeaker in the
universe, and only compromises the extreme base
because of its 10" woofer and smaller cabinet.
Premise: The AR-2AX has the same size woofer and cabinet
as the AR-5, so it's bass is just as good
<invisible leap of logic here>
Premise: The AR-2X uses the same woofer as the AR-2AX, which
is as good as the AR-5, after all (and we won't talk
about what happened to the midrange and tweeter
Premise: I can buy AR-2x's in utility grade (plywood finish) at
a substantial savings over the normal muddy chocolate
walnut veneer AR normally sells.
Conclusion: The AR-2X utility grade is just about as good as an
AR-3A, for less than half the price.
A LOT of AR-2X's were sold on this less-than-solid logic, and it
succeeded in bringing the magic of cognitive dissonance to a lot
of hi-fi owners in the late '60's and '70's (of course they
don't sound ANYWHERE near like an AR-3A, so it must be MY room,
or MY ears, or MY taste). They were real bow-wows, even for the
time.
So, yes, AR-2's are dreadful by today's standards. And they were
pretty awful by the standards back then as well. TO hold them up
as examples of the best of the time is, well, in contradiction
to history. AR-3A's had their own problems (not just a little
"wooly"), and the AR-5's, were probably overall a better
speaker. They were a lot better than MANY contemporary box
speakers of the time (remembering, of course, that AR-3a's came
out AFTER Quad ESLs, to put things in perspective).
AR-2's? Yup, as problematic as AR-3's were, they were a LOT
better than AR-2's.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
JohnDunlavy
level of reproduction "accuracy" was considered a "near miracle".
I have an early phonograph that belonged to my wife's grandmother and
I can assure that it does not quite live up to what current
technology can accomplish - by a "gap" comparable to the distance
between the earth and the moon>
Hmmm!
John D.
Harold Nash27929
>>So, holding the AR-2 up as an example of the kind of speaker
>>that could pass a live vs recorded session back in the
>>heyday of AR supremacy is not really a good ploy.
>
>In fact, there were several "AR-2" models, NONE of which came
>close to either the AR-3/3A or the AR-5 in any measure of
>performance. There was the AR-2A/2AX which was a 3-way, and then
>there was the AR-2X, a two way, which was a real dog
Thank you ever so for all that information, misters Ferstler and
Pierce, however curiously irrelevant to the gist of my post. Which
was:
Given that some many years ago, AR was able to accomplish the
self-same feat as Dunlavy boasts about, such a feat isn't exactly
boastworthy. Unless, of course, the two of you opine that the old
(and venerable, apparently) AR3s are every bit the equal of Dunlavys
finest efforts today. Do you believe that to be the case? But of
course you don't.
Howard Ferstler
Speaker placement and equalization and room acoustics can do
a lot to fine-tune the sound of speakers being compared to
live music (this kind of care pays off when setting speakers
up for regular use in a home environment, too), and I am
pretty sure that a LOT of care was lavished on setting up
the AR demonstrations just so. That one could get away with
such comparisons is a sign that maybe the more important
aspects of speaker "sound" have not come all that far in the
past 30+ years, but it also may be a sign that Villchur
worked very hard to get his speakers into proper position,
get those recordings made in a way that allowed microphones
to pick up direct-field signals that mimicked the
wide-dispersion characteristics of the instruments, and
maybe equalize the speakers for the required flat output. I
am just guessing about the equalization, however, but the
speakers did have level controls that allowed for some
spectral balancing.
The AR models used (AR-3 systems) were not as
wide-dispersing as some of the later AR models (AR-3a and
AR-LST) and so possibly they were actually a bit better
suited to deliver the goods in the kind of larger rooms
(larger than typical home-listening rooms, at least) that
the live vs recorded sessions took place.
Dunlavy's speakers are by design directional (not chancy
directional but very controlled directional) in the upper
midrange and treble, and with really careful setting up, I
see no reason why they should also not be able to deliver
the live-vs-recorded goods. Certainly, the two different
models I have fooled with have been exemplary performers.
I believe that Dunlavy favors having the listener occupy the
sweet spot for the very best illusion, whereas in the AR
demonstrations the acceptable listening area was large
enough to accommodate a small audience. Possibly the reason
that larger area could be covered had to do with the
moderately wide and moderately uniform dispersion pattern of
the AR-3 systems. (Admittedly, the woofer certainly did have
to beam near the top of its operating range, what with that
one-kHz crossover point.)
The Villchur demonstrations involved a string quartet, which
eliminated some potential problems in the low-bass range.
Perhaps stringed instruments are a bit easier to reproduce,
also. I could not really say. I will say that when I compare
assorted loudspeaker systems in my reviewing work, the
recorded strings are often the instruments that sound most
alike from speaker pair to speaker pair.
I am not sure what musical instruments Dunlavy worked with,
but perhaps they were a bit more demanding than what the AR
crew decided to play with. The AR-3 was not as competent at
cranking out high volume levels as most of today's super
systems (no liquid cooling), and so a live-vs-recorded demo
certainly could not involve super-high output levels. String
quartets would be a safe bet.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> JohnDunlavy wrote:
> > Further, it is hardly a "placebo effect" when a pair of DAL
> > loudspeakers is demonstrated (in real-time, within a good listening
> > environment) to be capable of emulating live musical instruments and
> > voices with an accuracy that precludes competent listeners from
> > discerning any audible difference between them.
> >
> > John D.
>
> I would just like to make an historical point here.
>
> Edison claimed this - and demonstrated this as well.
>
> I believe that AR did much the same.
In the case of the Edison demonstrations, people were awed
when they heard any recorded sound at all.
With the AR demonstrations (which involved genuine,
immediate switchovers between the live group and the
speakers), the audience members were often very serious
audio buffs who were looking to hear differences. Some even
wrote up their experiences in audio-magazine reports. So, I
think we can conclude that they were considerably more able
to listen critically than the group that first experienced
the Edison demonstrations.
I will note that the speakers used in the AR demos (AR-3
models when Villchur was doing them and AR10pi models later
on when Victor Campos did some of his demos) were anything
but able to deliver phase-coherent first-arrival signals.
Their strong points involved uniform dispersion in the front
hemisphere and flat power response.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
>
> From: "Christopher S. Kush" kus...@ib.stortek.com
>
> >Some may agree, but I cannot.
> >
> >JD has stated on this forum that under reasonable
> >circumstances, zip cord sounds as good as his stuff.
> >I am unable to see what you find dishonest about what JD
> >has stated.
> The dishonesty lives in his ongoing put-downs of other high end
> manufacturers (he implies it without stating it directly) as
> charlatans who market badly engineered, inaudible flooby dust,
> and who are in it for the money, while he himself markets
> something he admits is inaudible, purely for profit, though he
> doesn't admit that directly either. Yes. Dunlavy is entitled to feed
> off the foolishness of those who buy his cables, but it is
> disingenuous to disparage others who feed off of similar, though
> slightly different foolishness.
I know of no other manufacturer of wire who makes statements
about the sonic attributes of their own products the way
that Dunlavy does. Do any of those other wire producers come
out and say that their wires are basically no better
subjectively than regular old, heavy-duty lamp cord or Radio
Shack Gold interconnects? Dunlavy at least does this. This
in itself kind of sets him apart from those others, I think.
When I reviewed his speaker wire for TSS some time back, I
noted that it was indeed well made and also noted that the
stuff did indeed measure flatter in the top octave than 12
AWG lamp cord. However, I also noted that it sounded no
different, because the very slight differences (entirely in
the top 1.5 octaves) were sonically insignificant. I caught
no flack from Dunlavy for those conclusions, because they
were the same as his conclusions.
The cable was an academic exercise, mainly, I think, and
Dunlavy has made it pretty clear that is what it was.
Howard Ferstler
BEARlabs
forth here is less than persuasive. Why? Since the only thing that
Edison had to compare to *was* the live instruments, my point
remains valid.
JohnDunlavy wrote:
--
BEARlabs
>
<snipped>
> The majority of high-end cable makers DO claim that their expensive
> cable actually *sounds* better than inexpensive cables. John
> explicitly says that his DOES NOT.
What John said is:
(from his post: Re: Dunlavy at the 2001 Electronics Show Date: 20 Dec
2000 21:27:13 GMT)
"Frankly, however, during blind A-B comparisons between the most
expensive loudspeaker cables, 12 AWG ZIP Cord and DAL's Z-6 cable, no
audible differences appear to exist within a properly operating,
hi-end, audiophile system."
The key word here is "appear."
Clearly, the limiting factors are the "properly operating audiophile
system"
and the listener's ears.
"However, I do believe it is possible that a properly designed cable
might potentially improve the audible accuracy of some high-end
audiophile systems. But it is far less likely that an expensive but
"poorly designed" cable could achieve the same result."
Note, again, "might potentially improve the audible accuracy" is a
key phrase.
Neither of these statements truly support your view of what John
actually said. He appears to be more open to the possibility of a better
("accurate") cable actually having a positive sonic result.
> This is so obvious and basic a difference, I can't see how anyone
> would confuse the issue. And the available evidence on cable sound
> would suggest that most other cable manufacturers' claims are false,
> while John is telling the truth.
John's claims may be "truthful" but they are not "the truth" either.
As far as *most other manufacturers' claims" being false, that has
yet to be shown as true. Precisely what are *most* manufacturers
claiming??
The issue is still what is audible, and what is not. Clearly, not
everyone's
hearing is equal. Not everyone's system is equal - and the systems used
for "testing" are not all equally capable.
Those who have a "black and white" view of these things IMHO are simply
being close minded in a preemptive way since the equipment we now use is
actually in a fairly primitive stage of development.
>
<snip>
>
>
> http://home.austin.rr.com/tnulla/index.htm (high fidelity and more)
> "You can't predict the future, but you can invent it."
--
Thomas Nulla
bear...@coollink.net wrote:
>Those who have a "black and white" view of these things IMHO are simply
>being close minded in a preemptive way since the equipment we now use is
>actually in a fairly primitive stage of development.
When someone can rigorously demonstrate human-listener-detectable
differences between audio-frequency cables that are not explainable by
simple, easily measurable variations in L, C, or R, I would become very
interested in discovering the reasons why.
Until then, why waste time and money worrying about how 'primitive' our
cables allegedly are? There are a lot of _genuine_ problems in audio to
deal with--and expensive bizarro wires are highly unlikely to solve
them.
Thomas <now playing: L. A. Guitar Quartet, "Air & Ground">
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Thomas Nulla <nu...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>When someone can rigorously demonstrate human-listener-detectable
>differences between audio-frequency cables that are not explainable by
>simple, easily measurable variations in L, C, or R, I would become very
>interested in discovering the reasons why.
Now that is very VERY VERY true indeed.
Ditto for break-in, etc.
New evidence of audibility is how one makes advances. Shouting
at each other does not suffice.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2000, 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.
BEARlabs
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:00:04 GMT, in rec.audio.high-end
> bear...@coollink.net wrote:
>
> >Those who have a "black and white" view of these things IMHO are simply
> >being close minded in a preemptive way since the equipment we now use is
> >actually in a fairly primitive stage of development.
>
> When someone can rigorously demonstrate human-listener-detectable
> differences between audio-frequency cables that are not explainable by
> simple, easily measurable variations in L, C, or R, I would become very
> interested in discovering the reasons why.
Yes, so would I.
I offer to participate in such an investigation, IF someone or some group or
company can come up with the capital/time/space/test gear/manpower needed to
properly execute such tests. So far no "white knights" have appeared from
amongst the folks that read this newsgroup.
>
>
> Until then, why waste time and money worrying about how 'primitive' our
> cables allegedly are? There are a lot of _genuine_ problems in audio to
> deal with--and expensive bizarro wires are highly unlikely to solve
> them.
The phrase "expensive bizarro wires" is simply hyperbole - and as such is
inflammatory and merely serves to polarize the dialog, not create a common
understanding. And, of course leaves out the inexpensive weird wires, the
expensive "accurate" wires, and the like.
I'd suggest that you would be better off leaving the door open to the idea
that John Dunlavy accepts, that better cables MAY be an audible
benefit in some systems.
--
_-_- BEAR Labs
"Custom Handcrafted Audio Components & Cables"
Notice: "bear...@coollink.net" is extinct as of Jan 5,2001 -
temp email after JAN 5 will be bear...@Netzero.net
>
>
BEARlabs
> BEARlabs <bear...@coollink.net> wrote in message
> news:91u4u...@news2.newsguy.com...
> > JohnDunlavy wrote:
> >
> > > Subject: Re: Dunlavy at the 2001 Electronics Show
> > > From: johnd...@aol.com (John Dunlavy)
> > > Date: 12/20/00 2:00 PM Mountain Standard Time
> > > Re: Post of 12/20.00 from haroldn...@aol.com
> > >
> > > In his above referenced post, commenting on a recent post from Howard
> Ferstler,
> > > Harold Nash wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > However, I do believe it is possible that a properly designed cable
> > > might potentially improve the audible accuracy of some high-end
> > > audiophile systems. But it is far less likely that an expensive but
> > > "poorly designed" cable could achieve the same result.
> >
> >
<snip>
>
> > >
> > > I sincerely hope the above info explains my position regarding hi-end
> > > audiophile loudspeaker and interconnect cables.
> >
> > Good. Finally, we agree. You can **"hear cables"**, and Radio Shack
> > and zip cord may be "good" but they are NOT the best, not the most
> > accurate, AND IF your system is "accurate" you are likely to hear a
> > difference.
> >
> > Which, is pretty much what I have said for some time.
> >
> > Thank you, finally.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > John D.
> >
> > --
> > _-_- BEAR Labs
> > "Custom Handcrafted Audio Components & Cables"
>
> It really is shameful the way you have just twisted and mangled Mr.
> Dunlavy's assertions. It would take more bandwidth than it deserves
> to point out the details of your disengenuous message. The
> participants with half a brain will recognize all of the twists and
> tangles on their own.
Shameful??
Twisted and mangled??
Hardly.
Your assertion notwithstanding, this "conversation" regarding Mr. Dunlavy's
positions and their relationship to his product line, and "accuracy" vs.
"audibiliy" has been going on for quite some time. What has happened is
that Mr. Dunlavy has finally moved his position to the point where he now
has stated that he believes that an "accurate" cable *COULD* result in
a better sound.
In fact, as I stated, Mr. Dunlavy's position and mine are at last virtually
indistinguishable about this point!
If using zip cord and Radio Shack interconnect brings you happiness,
and you wish to believe that they represent the best way to transfer
signal around your system, so be it.
Finally, it is a shame that only the "participants with half a brain " and
not
those who have full brains will be able to see your point. :- )
--
_-_- BEAR Labs
"Custom Handcrafted Audio Components & Cables"
Notice: "bear...@coollink.net" is extinct as of Jan 5,2001 -
Seung
> differences between audio-frequency cables that are not explainable by
> simple, easily measurable variations in L, C, or R, I would become
very
> interested in discovering the reasons why.
This could be one reason: An interconnect with poor shielding injects
more noises than well-shielded ones, and this can make audible
differences even on a low-fi component system.
Compare yourself a Radio-Shack coaxial interconnect that Mr. Dunlavy
recommends and a molded-plug zip interconnect that comes free with VCR
or CDP purchases. My point is that when changing a cable makes audible
differences, it is not necessarily due to the direct result of the
property (i.e. L,R,C) of the cable itself but more likely due to an in-
direct effect or an interaction with the components.
--
Seung Hyun (seungse...@yahoo.com)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Howard Ferstler
> Compare yourself a Radio-Shack coaxial interconnect that Mr. Dunlavy
> recommends and a molded-plug zip interconnect that comes free with VCR
> or CDP purchases. My point is that when changing a cable makes audible
> differences, it is not necessarily due to the direct result of the
> property (i.e. L,R,C) of the cable itself but more likely due to an in-
> direct effect or an interaction with the components.
As part of researching an article I once did for The
Sensible Sound, I once used an outboard, interconnect switch
box with a shunt inside to compare the shunt with 12 feet of
standard-grade Radio Shack interconnect cable. This was not
their "Gold" version, but just plain, old interconnect that
cost about seven bucks. The cable and box/shunt were
interfaced between a Panasonic DVD player and the preamp.
The amp/preamp used was a Yamaha DSP-A1, with its
main-channel output sent to a Carver M500 amp.
With a variety of musical sources, as well as pink noise, I
simply could not hear the difference with the Allison IC-20
speakers I used. To push the envelope, I then used an RCA
splice connector to hook a second set of 12 footers in
series with the first set. I still could not hear a
difference between 24 feet of cheap cable and the internal
shunt on the switch box.
Yes, I suppose we could say that the shunt itself was
substandard, but does "substandard" mean that it would sound
identical to 24 feet of cheap cable?
Recently, I had a pair of Waveform MC/MC.1 sub/sat speakers
on hand, and more recently still a pair of Dunlavy Cantata
speakers. With each set up, I did the trick again. (It is
easy to set up, since level matching is not required.)
Again, I heard no differences at all. With the Waveforms, I
used an Outlaw receiver and Samsung DVD player. With the
Cantatas, I used an Onkyo TX-DS787 receiver and the new,
top-of-the-line Onkyo THX-Ultra certified DVD player.
I think that with cable, people put a lot more into what
they think they hear than what the cable itself contributes.
Howard Ferstler
GRL
hard earned money on boutique cables after getting snow jobs from salesmen
who either care only about getting into the customer's wallet or even might
honestly think they are doing the customer a favor with their
recommendation. Such a customer is, of course, far better off upgrading his
speakers or even his amp (if he was a really poor one or just would like
more features) or software. So that instead of an investment in better
sound, he just wastes his money which he does not have all that much of. A
shame.
The rich guys who are gullible enough to buy into this cable snake oil
deserve to be snookered and it will not hurt them anyway. At least it will
help the salesman with his Beemer or boat payments, so some overall good
does come of it, anyway.
- GRL
"When someone annoys you, remember that it takes 42 muscles to frown, but
only 4 muscles
to extend your arm and smack them on the back of the head."
"Howard Ferstler" <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
news:9357b3$jgl$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Seung
hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu wrote:
> As part of researching an article I once did for The
> Sensible Sound, I once used an outboard, interconnect switch
> box with a shunt inside to compare the shunt with 12 feet of
> standard-grade Radio Shack interconnect cable. This was not
> their "Gold" version, but just plain, old interconnect that
> cost about seven bucks. The cable and box/shunt were
> interfaced between a Panasonic DVD player and the preamp.
> The amp/preamp used was a Yamaha DSP-A1, with its
> main-channel output sent to a Carver M500 amp.
>
> With a variety of musical sources, as well as pink noise, I
> simply could not hear the difference with the Allison IC-20
> speakers I used.
I was not surprised by your result since I think that coaxial
interconnect cables from RadioShack are indeed good. But molded-plug zip
interconnects that are usually given us free are quite often terrible on
many components. And I think it's not because of its L,R,C property but
some other in-direct effects like noise injection.
Thomas Nulla
bear...@coollink.net wrote:
>Yes, so would I.
>
>I offer to participate in such an investigation, IF someone or some group or
>company can come up with the capital/time/space/test gear/manpower needed to
>properly execute such tests. So far no "white knights" have appeared from
>amongst the folks that read this newsgroup.
The obvious ones to do additional such investigations, the high-end
cable companies, should have strong motivations to do such tests.
Scientific evidence of unmeasurable but detectably audible differences
would be a *extremely* persuasive selling point for any cable
manufacturer, in a very competitive market.
Stereophile could greatly enhance its credibility if they could prove
their reviewers able to hear unmeasurable cable differences--and they
have a lot of opportunity to hear different cables.
A bit odd that none of these very interested parties should present some
repeatable, reliable evidence for their claims, I think.
John Dunlavy has done a number of cable listening tests and reported
them on them in some detail. I maintain a small archive of these posts.
http://home.austin.rr.com/tnulla/dunlavy.htm
>> Until then, why waste time and money worrying about how 'primitive' our
>> cables allegedly are? There are a lot of _genuine_ problems in audio to
>> deal with--and expensive bizarro wires are highly unlikely to solve
>> them.
>
>The phrase "expensive bizarro wires" is simply hyperbole - and as such is
>inflammatory and merely serves to polarize the dialog, not create a common
>understanding. And, of course leaves out the inexpensive weird wires, the
>expensive "accurate" wires, and the like.
Some audiophile wires are very expensive indeed by nearly any measure,
and some of the rationales presented for their claimed superiority
surely qualify as scientifically bizarre! And (what I was saying)
audio's problems aren't going to be helped by inexpensive weird wires,
expensive accurate ones, or whatever kind of wire; audio-frequency wires
just aren't much of an audiophile's problem, period, compared to
recordings, rooms, speakers, and a number of other factors.
>I'd suggest that you would be better off leaving the door open to the idea
>that John Dunlavy accepts, that better cables MAY be an audible
>benefit in some systems.
I prefer to credit what I've heard John Dunlavy say, rather than your
interpretation of his meaning. Anyone continuing to be interested in
this issue should refer to the archive URL above, where John's cable
(and other) posts can be seen.
Thomas <now playing: Wagner, "The Ring Without Words">
Thomas Nulla
bear...@coollink.net wrote:
>Yes, so would I.
>
>I offer to participate in such an investigation, IF someone or some group or
>company can come up with the capital/time/space/test gear/manpower needed to
>properly execute such tests. So far no "white knights" have appeared from
>amongst the folks that read this newsgroup.
The obvious ones to do additional such investigations, the high-end
cable companies, should have strong motivations to do such tests.
Scientific evidence of unmeasurable but detectably audible differences
would be a *extremely* persuasive selling point for any cable
manufacturer, in a very competitive market.
Stereophile could greatly enhance its credibility if they could prove
their reviewers able to hear unmeasurable cable differences--and they
have a lot of opportunity to hear different cables.
A bit odd that none of these very interested parties should present some
repeatable, reliable evidence for their claims, I think.
John Dunlavy has done a number of cable listening tests and reported
them on them in some detail. I maintain a small archive of these posts.
http://home.austin.rr.com/tnulla/dunlavy.htm
>> Until then, why waste time and money worrying about how 'primitive' our
>> cables allegedly are? There are a lot of _genuine_ problems in audio to
>> deal with--and expensive bizarro wires are highly unlikely to solve
>> them.
>
>The phrase "expensive bizarro wires" is simply hyperbole - and as such is
>inflammatory and merely serves to polarize the dialog, not create a common
>understanding. And, of course leaves out the inexpensive weird wires, the
>expensive "accurate" wires, and the like.
Some audiophile wires are very expensive indeed by nearly any measure,
and some of the rationales presented for their claimed superiority
surely qualify as scientifically bizarre! And (what I was saying)
audio's problems aren't going to be helped by inexpensive weird wires,
expensive accurate ones, or whatever kind of wire; audio-frequency wires
just aren't much of an audiophile's problem, period, compared to
recordings, rooms, speakers, and a number of other factors.
>I'd suggest that you would be better off leaving the door open to the idea
>that John Dunlavy accepts, that better cables MAY be an audible
>benefit in some systems.
I prefer to credit what I've heard John Dunlavy say, rather than your
interpretation of his meaning. Anyone continuing to be interested in
this issue should refer to the archive URL above, where John's cable
(and other) posts can be seen.
Thomas <now playing: Wagner, "The Ring Without Words">
http://home.austin.rr.com/tnulla/index.htm (high fidelity and more)
Thomas Nulla
bear...@coollink.net wrote:
>Yes, so would I.
>
>I offer to participate in such an investigation, IF someone or some group or
>company can come up with the capital/time/space/test gear/manpower needed to
>properly execute such tests. So far no "white knights" have appeared from
>amongst the folks that read this newsgroup.
The obvious ones to do additional such investigations, the high-end
cable companies, should have strong motivations to do such tests.
Scientific evidence of unmeasurable but detectably audible differences
would be a *extremely* persuasive selling point for any cable
manufacturer, in a very competitive market.
Stereophile could greatly enhance its credibility if they could prove
their reviewers able to hear unmeasurable cable differences--and they
have a lot of opportunity to hear different cables.
A bit odd that none of these very interested parties should present some
repeatable, reliable evidence for their claims, I think.
John Dunlavy has done a number of cable listening tests and reported
them on them in some detail. I maintain a small archive of these posts.
http://home.austin.rr.com/tnulla/dunlavy.htm
>> Until then, why waste time and money worrying about how 'primitive' our
>> cables allegedly are? There are a lot of _genuine_ problems in audio to
>> deal with--and expensive bizarro wires are highly unlikely to solve
>> them.
>
>The phrase "expensive bizarro wires" is simply hyperbole - and as such is
>inflammatory and merely serves to polarize the dialog, not create a common
>understanding. And, of course leaves out the inexpensive weird wires, the
>expensive "accurate" wires, and the like.
Some audiophile wires are very expensive indeed by nearly any measure,
and some of the rationales presented for their claimed superiority
surely qualify as scientifically bizarre! And (what I was saying)
audio's problems aren't going to be helped by inexpensive weird wires,
expensive accurate ones, or whatever kind of wire; audio-frequency wires
just aren't much of an audiophile's problem, period, compared to
recordings, rooms, speakers, and a number of other factors.
>I'd suggest that you would be better off leaving the door open to the idea
>that John Dunlavy accepts, that better cables MAY be an audible
>benefit in some systems.
I prefer to credit what I've heard John Dunlavy say, rather than your
interpretation of his meaning. Anyone continuing to be interested in
this issue should refer to the archive URL above, where John's cable
(and other) posts can be seen.
Thomas <now playing: Wagner, "The Ring Without Words">
http://home.austin.rr.com/tnulla/index.htm (high fidelity and more)
Thomas Nulla
<seungse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <930dhm$68p$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> Thomas Nulla <nu...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> When someone can rigorously demonstrate human-listener-detectable
>> differences between audio-frequency cables that are not explainable by
>> simple, easily measurable variations in L, C, or R, I would become
>very
>> interested in discovering the reasons why.
>
>This could be one reason: An interconnect with poor shielding injects
>more noises than well-shielded ones, and this can make audible
>differences even on a low-fi component system.
This is a good point, and I have seen it once myself; in an eccentric
multichannel A/V setup I tried some years ago, hum pickup caused me to
replace Kimber PBJ interconnects with Radio Shack Gold. There are also
additional, known minor issues such as microphonics that could
conceivably have some effect in unusual situations as well.
>Compare yourself a Radio-Shack coaxial interconnect that Mr. Dunlavy
>recommends and a molded-plug zip interconnect that comes free with VCR
>or CDP purchases. My point is that when changing a cable makes audible
>differences, it is not necessarily due to the direct result of the
>property (i.e. L,R,C) of the cable itself but more likely due to an in-
>direct effect or an interaction with the components.
The LRC problems *are* interaction issues, and 'high-end' gear often has
defects (unnecessarily high output impedance, for example) that cause
interaction problems.
The fundamental point I am making is that audible cable differences, in
the few real-world occasions where they exist at all, are the result of
easily explainable, easily measurable differences in known electrical
characteristics, not the strange (and frequently expensive) fantasies of
cable companies and the subjectivist press.
There is nothing about the function of audio-frequency cables that
requires or benefits from exotic materials, exotic geometry, or exotic
BS.
John Dunlavy has examined these matters in considerable detail in posts
archived at: http://home.austin.rr.com/tnulla/dunlavy.htm
(keeping some connection to the original thread title...otherwise it's
morphed into Yet Another Cable Thread...ack, yuck!)
Thomas <now playing: J. S. Bach, "Triple and Quadruple Concertos">
BEARlabs
what happens when one uses a system that in and of itself has certain
sonic limitations to its "accuracy."
It shows quite clearly why many individuals, indeed, have not and do not
hear any of these "subtle" differences which have been reported by others!
This has been one of the reasons that I contend that the so-called
"objective"
peer reviewed articles on cable testing may in fact be highly flawed, and so
it
is in effect impossible for anyone participating in these tests to actually
hear
anything but gross differences.
Mr. Ferstler is adamant in his beliefs, as are many others. I would seriously
suggest that the readers of this ng keep in mind that the opinions stated
here,
no matter how strongly held are still opinions, and are open to the sorts of
inquiries as to their validity like those I raised above.
Also, it is important to keep in mind that different people have different
physiological
limitation upon their hearing equipment, and that everyone's hearing changes
over time for the worse.
--
_-_- BEAR Labs
"Custom Handcrafted Audio Components & Cables"
Notice: "bear...@coollink.net" is extinct as of Jan 5,2001 -
temp email after JAN 5 will be bear...@Netzero.net
Seung
Thomas Nulla <nu...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 19:03:12 GMT, in rec.audio.high-end Seung
> <seungse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Compare yourself a Radio-Shack coaxial interconnect that Mr. Dunlavy
> >recommends and a molded-plug zip interconnect that comes free with
VCR
> >or CDP purchases. My point is that when changing a cable makes
audible
> >differences, it is not necessarily due to the direct result of the
> >property (i.e. L,R,C) of the cable itself but more likely due to an
in-
> >direct effect or an interaction with the components.
>
> The LRC problems *are* interaction issues, and 'high-end' gear often
has
> defects (unnecessarily high output impedance, for example) that cause
> interaction problems.
Yes, LRC can cause problems if components have unusal impedances.
What I meant was that many seem to think of an effect of a cable
without context and assign credit (or blame) to the cable alone when
there are audible differences.
When changing a cable makes audible differences, I think most of it is
due to the behavior of the components not the cable. Thus, to explain
(or to find out the cause for) audible differences, it's the components
that also should be inspected.
For example, Radio-Shack coaxial vs. molded-plug zip interconnects, if
high frenquency noises are picked up by the latter and the component
shows a very non-linear behavior in that range, I bet almost everyone
can hear audible differences.
Howard Ferstler
>
> To be as polite as possible, Mr. Ferstler's account of his tests merely shows
>
> what happens when one uses a system that in and of itself has certain
> sonic limitations to its "accuracy."
Well, I certainly hope you are not referring to the Allison,
Dunlavy, and Waveform speaker systems I used. After all, no
matter how people feel about speakers, I think that just
about any audio buff will say that at least one of those
brands is pretty good. The smart ones will say that all
three are good.
As for the amps, I have compared them to each other (level
matched, with quick switching) on a number of occasions, and
have yet to hear any differences. (This was also done with
the Waveform speakers, as well as the Allison models,
although I have not had a chance to do it with the Dunlavy
Cantatas I have on hand - yet.) Now, someone might say that
those amps were all defective or substandard, but I think
that the odds of them all having the same sonically similar
problems are pretty slim. They were made by quite a few
different companies (Yamaha, Carver, Onkyo, JVC,
AudioControl, and Outlaw), and the chances of so many
different models having identically substandard sound is
just about zero.
> It shows quite clearly why many individuals, indeed, have not and do not
> hear any of these "subtle" differences which have been reported by others!
Indeed, which is why I encourage people to do their own
level-matched, quick-switch comparing - blind if they are
worried about their own prejudices screwing things up. That
issue of The Sensible Sound I noted (Sept/Oct, issue 82)
makes a point of telling people to compare for themselves.
However, doing the comparison does involve more care than
what we have with the usual unplug/plug/listen technique.
The latter opens up all sorts of Pandora-like boxes.
> This has been one of the reasons that I contend that the so-called
> "objective"
> peer reviewed articles on cable testing may in fact be highly flawed, and so
> it
> is in effect impossible for anyone participating in these tests to actually
> hear
> anything but gross differences.
Well, all people have to do is satisfy themselves. If they
carefully compare and hear no differences, then obviously
they are adequately satisfied, and if the lack of
differences involve components that are low in price, they
are very lucky people, indeed, aren't they?
> Mr. Ferstler is adamant in his beliefs, as are many others. I would seriously
>
> suggest that the readers of this ng keep in mind that the opinions stated
> here,
> no matter how strongly held are still opinions, and are open to the sorts of
> inquiries as to their validity like those I raised above.
Well, if level-matched, quick-switch comparisons (with
wires, or with amps, either, for that matter) do not do the
trick with the first outing, the listener at least owes it
to himself to do the comparison again - but this time blind.
If they do not hear differences this second time, they would
be foolish to invest big bucks in products that provide no
audible advantages. I certainly suggest that kind of thing
to my readers.
> Also, it is important to keep in mind that different people have different
> physiological
> limitation upon their hearing equipment, and that everyone's hearing changes
> over time for the worse.
See my comments, above. All one needs to do is satisfy their
own needs. Of course, doing that does require some care, and
if they have a propensity to believe that certain products
have mysterious qualities that set them apart from others,
they owe it to themselves to do the comparisons blind. That
way, they will be absolutely sure that the ears are doing
the determining and not an internal propensity to believe in
things for reasons that have nothing to do with real
performance.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
> If using zip cord and Radio Shack interconnect brings you happiness,
> and you wish to believe that they represent the best way to transfer
> signal around your system, so be it.
Actually, Randy, this really is all that matters. Right? I
assume that Mr. Littlefield carefully did his comparing and
came to the conclusion that he could hear no differences
between the exotic/expensive stuff and the cheaper stuff. It
is certainly not fair of you to try to intimidate him in
such a way that he would feel that either his audio system
or his hearing is so defective that he should somehow be
ashamed of himself.
On the contrary, he should be happy. He has discovered that
he can save himself a pile of money by investing in cheaper
wire and interconnects. He can now use that money to
purchase other hardware that will make an audible
difference, like a subwoofer, or upscale surround processor,
or better speakers, or additional surround speakers, or
big-screen TV, or whatever. Indeed, if he already has really
good ancillary hardware, he can use that cash to purchase
more software, be that software musical or motion-picture
program material.
He is really in a very advantageous position, actually.
Howard Ferstler
Stewart Pinkerton
>Also, it is important to keep in mind that different people have different
>physiological
>limitation upon their hearing equipment, and that everyone's hearing changes
>over time for the worse.
Well, we've certainly heard this *claim* many times, but strangely
enough no one has ever been able to back up their 'superior hearing
acuity' in controlled blind tests.
There are certainly variations *within certain limits* in human
hearing, but not one single person has yet shown evidence that readily
*measurable* differences in cables are not still well below the
*hearing* threshold of any human who has yet been tested.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
auplater
> To be as polite as possible, Mr. Ferstler's account of his tests merely shows
> what happens when one uses a system that in and of itself has certain
> sonic limitations to its "accuracy."
>
> It shows quite clearly why many individuals, indeed, have not and do not
> hear any of these "subtle" differences which have been reported by others!
Another interpretation (the correct one) would be that it
demonstrates that under controlled testing conditions (as opposed to
possibly biased conditions corrupted by the testers need to justify
mysterious qualities to sell product), there is no audible
difference.
> This has been one of the reasons that I contend that the so-called
> "objective"
> peer reviewed articles on cable testing may in fact be highly flawed, and so
> it is in effect impossible for anyone participating in these tests to actually
> hear anything but gross differences.
>
> Mr. Ferstler is adamant in his beliefs, as are many others. I would seriously
> suggest that the readers of this ng keep in mind that the opinions stated
> here, no matter how strongly held are still opinions, and are open to the sorts
> of
> inquiries as to their validity like those I raised above.
Some posts are actually facts, not opinions, contrary to efforts to
obscure and deflect reality.
> Also, it is important to keep in mind that different people have different
> physiological limitation upon their hearing equipment, and that everyone's
> hearing changes
> over time for the worse.
Another tired, oft repeated stanza attempting to "shoot the
messenger".
> --
> _-_- BEAR Labs
> "Custom Handcrafted Audio Components & Cables"
The important thing is to pay attention to what is used to advertise
the product, whether it makes any sense or is simply an exercise in
mysticism and hyperbole, then listen for yourself before you spend
tens or hundreds of dollars on cables that could be better spent
upgrading other components. There seems to be a much larger base of
well researched factual information supporting the use of quality
inexpensive cables than exists for the mystical high end subjective
anecdotal basis for spending mucho bucks on designer cables (unless
one includes ego satisfaction).
auplater
JohnDunlavy
Date: 1/17/01 MST
Re: Post from Bear Labs on 1/5/01 8:45 AM MST)
Randy,
With respect to your post, I find your ability to distort what
people, like myself, have said regarding the audible and measurable
properties of audiophile cables to be regretable. Indeed, many of
your past and recent comments also seem to conflict with the
well-known teachings of engineering and physics as they pertain to
cable properties and performance.
Indeed, do you believe that audible differences exist between
different loudspeaker (and interconnect) cables that cannot be
explained by transmissionline/network theory or that cannot be
measured using existing laboratory instruments?
It would be very interesting if you would take the time to provide
readers here on RAHE with some information regarding what
capabilities and lab equipment you possess for obtaining accurate
measurements of all meaningful audio cable properties. I requested
this some time ago but cannot recall ever having received a
satisfactory reply.
(Posting such information might add some credibility to the
statements you frequently make regarding the audible and measurable
properties you believe cables possess.)
Respectfully,
John D.
Steve Lampen
<nu...@austin.rr.com> writes:
>>I offer to participate in such an investigation, IF someone or some group or
>>company can come up with the capital/time/space/test gear/manpower needed to
>>properly execute such tests. So far no "white knights" have appeared from
>>amongst the folks that read this newsgroup.
>
>The obvious ones to do additional such investigations, the high-end
>cable companies, should have strong motivations to do such tests.
>Scientific evidence of unmeasurable but detectably audible differences
>would be a *extremely* persuasive selling point for any cable
>manufacturer, in a very competitive market.
I missed this a few weeks ago. You can always count Belden in on any
tests. We would be delighted to send wire samples of any cable we
make, of any appropriate length. I only ask two things: we only
make cable, so you would have to connectorize them as you see fit and
(2) the results of this testing must be posted on one or more
newsgroups, good, bad or ugly, for all to read.
Steve Lampen
Technology Specialist, Multimedia Products
Belden Electronics Division
http://www.belden.com
BEAR
Thomas Nulla.
It stands...
_-_-
Steve Lampen wrote:
--
_-_- BEAR Labs
"Custom Handcrafted Audio Components & Cables"
reply to: bear...@Netzero.net
mark feferman
have a non-audiophile front-end (Denon AVR-2500) connected to my
Dunlavy SC-IV/As using Rat-Shack 18-guage solid-core wire that I
twist myself. Email me if you want my physical address for sending
wire. ( I will return any and all wire that I test it so desired.)
mfef...@houston.rr.com
"BEAR" <Bra...@rpi.edu> wrote in message
news:94kssj$jve$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
BEAR
that we are speaking of, here in this thread, and on rahe in
general.
If you want to try my cables, they are generally sold with a 30 day
money back guarantee, it is rare that I have had to refund money.
Please contact me directly via email if you wish to pursue this...
Regards,
_-_-bear
--
_-_- BEAR Labs
"Custom Handcrafted Audio Components & Cables"
reply to: bear...@Netzero.net
mark feferman wrote:
--