PaleRider, I've asked you a few times already whether this statement is also applicable with HF or only with LF.
I've got a table showing a 35% increase in impedance with 12AWG wire at 20kHz.
Can you explain why a high end cable will suffer from detail loss,unless it is purposely engineered?
Also explain why CAN'T consumers act logically as you would do and try the cable at home before they buy?How do you come to the conclusion that they pay their money and realize they were cheated ONLY when they try them at home?
A generalization indicative of arrogance of the worst kind.SAD.
More like ignorance as they do not of what they speak about. Many people that have never purchased good quality cables, have no idea as to "home audition" programs. These people think that every cable buyer has been duped into the purchase without benefit of a guarantee. As we know this is not the norm.
I'm not so sure. You're thinking reputable dealers, think instead Best Buy, Future Shop, etc.. I'm sure consumers are going home with gold-flashed junk all day long.
Not at all. Non-experts and 'newbies' are sold upgrades and accessories the whole day long across a slew of industries. What about ma and pa buying their first LCD sold on ~$200 of Monster HDMI for their $129 non-oversampling DVD?
Have you haunted the halls of a Best Buy recently? It's always struck me as a curiousity, the level of audio equipment by any reasonable metric is bottom rung (London Drugs literally has a higher grade selection) yet there's nearly an aisle long display of Monster Cable. Someone's buying both.
Banned
Joined 2002
No,I'm not in a position to know monster or any other cable brand's marketing ways and how long displays they have.I know though that many big dealers have most of the items they sell,on consignment,and pay the manufacturers if and when they sell them.Sometimes,long displays might mean low sales
I thought that in this thread however,we all have some experience,and we are not ma's or pa's "babies" who must have everything lying on their feet
My first (Ithink) cd player was the marantz cd52mkII SE. At that time it was a favorite in every magazine around the world,a best buy and one that filled many long displays in nearly every hi-fi store.I'm still using it and since then I have listen to a respectable number of other players.Result?I believe the cd52mkII SE was rightly a best buy,well reviewed,rightfully filled long displays in stores,and I know that sales were phenomenal.So,reviewers and sellers have their good moments too.That is why I hate generalizations,especially irresponsible ones,and that RDF does not apply to you.
Last edited:
Agreed, but I was replying to Curly's post.
Bolding mine. Ironically I just came back from the London Drugs next door and yes, another shelf of Monster cables, outlet strips and power conditioners. My only intent was to not discount the 'invisibles', the mass of buyers who do buy cables and wouldn't know what diyaudio means. Accusations of cable rip-offs can be warranted or false. The situation determines.
Bolding mine. Ironically I just came back from the London Drugs next door and yes, another shelf of Monster cables, outlet strips and power conditioners. My only intent was to not discount the 'invisibles', the mass of buyers who do buy cables and wouldn't know what diyaudio means. Accusations of cable rip-offs can be warranted or false. The situation determines.
But here's the low down. Who builds better sounding systems? Really?
Both camps will shout "we do, we do!". But do they? Is there any evidence, objective or subjective to back it up? What would a survey of 100 or 1000 systems built using the different methods reveal? Probably a real mish-mash. Maybe no clear "winner" either way.
So "Where's the Beef?"
I know what my visits have taught me, but I wouldn't want to bias the argument.
The very same thing I wonder too, and alluded to recently in my posts.
TBH tho, I really do wonder about this question on places like the stereophile forum (rather than here particularly) when those bozos are defending to the max machina dynamica (geoff kait) and all of the belt tweaks. And when challenged, NONE will even begin to give a hint of what their oh-so revealing system consists of, absolutely no measurements of any kind (who needs 'em, we have our pair of 'the most exquisite measuring devices in the known universe) and on and on it goes.
The one that made me roar with laughter recently was just how much room treatment destroyed good sound reproduction (unless it was the synergistic art bowls or something like that, acoustic resonators or hallographs).
Anyway, I digress. I myself have wondered and very much questioned this idea that 'if you cannot hear what cables etc are doing, your system must not be revealing enough'.
I call shenanigans.
Can I ad ONE small modification to your summary???
To me perhaps the most important and essential difference between the two camps is that the camp that I am in is completely happy and willing to test themselves and their thoughts.
The other side will make excuses about how hard it is, will say 'we do not need to convince anyone' (oh yeah?? why are you arguing here then?), point out that any test that hides the identity will skew the results (yep, I reckon it will) and simply NOT have the intellectual honesty or moral courage to put one of their worldly beliefs to the test,
Like a lot of religious beliefs, you must have FAITH and never need proof.
Me?? I always put things that interest me to the test (not just audio), because the only fun in living is learning in my book.
Curly, both you and SY are in texas??? Obviously I cannot speak for anyone else, so this is all hypothetical, what would your response be to the following hypothetical situation??
'SY and curly will do a proper test that both agree on, regarding the audibilty of cables'.
I, for example, have made many many offers to andy G to set up such a test. I only mention this because andy has been one of the most vocal critics of all the flaws in any test ever done at any time at any place in the past that did not ever show any difference between cables.
So I am willing to do the test under HIS proposals that eliminate the flaws of all the past tests ever done yada yada.
So, are YOU willing to do a test? YOU can agree to how it is done too, I have faith that someone like SY would make sure it was a rigorous test (note, not suggesting it would occur, am asking a theoretical question)
I am wondering how confident you ACTUALLY are. You seem pretty confident in your postings.
Andre Visser:
The word 'optimum' here implies that for each 'use' not only can there be too small a cable diameter but also too great a diameter. It's extraordinary enough to claim that DC resistance has any subjective effect on sound quality beyond mere volume level but to take your claim to have found an optimum diameter (and a different optimum diameter for different 'uses' too!) is even more incredible.
Still, if you can confirm you achieved this remarkable insight whilst using properly implemented DBT techniques then you are in a unique (I think) position to advance science and human knowledge. You really ought to publish a paper through an institution like the AES. Not only that, but publishing your results (and methodologies, of course) would make you a house-hold name in the audio world, up there with such luminaries as Peter Walker, Jim Thiel or Henry Kloss. You could make a genuine fortune assessing and endorsing the products of cable companies, offering the kind of solid, scientifically credible buying recommendations that till now the consumer has been denied.
Or maybe you've deluded yourself.
What, really, have you to offer this discussion beyond personal anecdote? You could at least post a thread where you rigourously set out the experiments you did, the data you obtained and the conclusions you reached. Then at least we can give a basic assessment of your efforts and you would obtain a valuable - IMO essential - double-check on your work to verify the results. And if we accept your work as is, then at least we can repeat it ourselfves. That is, after all, how science works and human knowledge is added to.
You and others might feel that there is a place for 'personal' experience and 'expertise' but in reality there is no real justification for such, and it is rightly ignored by those question for actual knowledge. Just look at Einstein - one of the greatest scientists and greatest minds of all time - yet he still made an *** of himself more than once (claiming a steady-state universe, that black holes could not exist). If a guy as smart as Einstein can embaress himself when he falls back on personal opinion and guesswork, what chance do you and other cables-make-a-difference advocates have?
Some more points:
There are now two eyebrow-shaped dints in my ceiling after reading this...
The word 'optimum' here implies that for each 'use' not only can there be too small a cable diameter but also too great a diameter. It's extraordinary enough to claim that DC resistance has any subjective effect on sound quality beyond mere volume level but to take your claim to have found an optimum diameter (and a different optimum diameter for different 'uses' too!) is even more incredible.Still, if you can confirm you achieved this remarkable insight whilst using properly implemented DBT techniques then you are in a unique (I think) position to advance science and human knowledge. You really ought to publish a paper through an institution like the AES. Not only that, but publishing your results (and methodologies, of course) would make you a house-hold name in the audio world, up there with such luminaries as Peter Walker, Jim Thiel or Henry Kloss. You could make a genuine fortune assessing and endorsing the products of cable companies, offering the kind of solid, scientifically credible buying recommendations that till now the consumer has been denied.
Or maybe you've deluded yourself.
What, really, have you to offer this discussion beyond personal anecdote? You could at least post a thread where you rigourously set out the experiments you did, the data you obtained and the conclusions you reached. Then at least we can give a basic assessment of your efforts and you would obtain a valuable - IMO essential - double-check on your work to verify the results. And if we accept your work as is, then at least we can repeat it ourselfves. That is, after all, how science works and human knowledge is added to.
You and others might feel that there is a place for 'personal' experience and 'expertise' but in reality there is no real justification for such, and it is rightly ignored by those question for actual knowledge. Just look at Einstein - one of the greatest scientists and greatest minds of all time - yet he still made an *** of himself more than once (claiming a steady-state universe, that black holes could not exist). If a guy as smart as Einstein can embaress himself when he falls back on personal opinion and guesswork, what chance do you and other cables-make-a-difference advocates have?
Some more points:
'imaging' and 'sound-staging' etc all follow from HF information in the signal - this shold be obvious as the more precise the audible location of a sound, the higher the frequency of sound needed to locate it. Secondly, what exactly is 'low level detail' supposed to be anyway? How does 'low-level' detail get lost but 'high level' detail remain (other than by a net attenuation of the *whole* signal)?
I suppose you would, given the conclusions you claim to have reached. I'd like to ask though, which areas? The more detail and precision that you can give to describing these areas and your listening results in assessing them, the more that others can verify your work and build upon it. Again - as in science - rigourous methodology and communication is key. Anecdote ...is useless. I'm in no position to refute your claim but by itself your claim is useless to me. What am I supposed to say? "Some guy on the internet called Andre says he thinks we've progress to make in describing human hearing fully?". Why would anyone agree with me if I said that?
Why on earth would I? You miss the point, which is that MP3 (etc) audio shows that we have a good understanding of pyscho-acoustics - scientifically arrived at and verifiable - that we are able to exploit to good effect. MP3 audio is not as good as CD audio but it also is not that bad either and - importantly - it achieves (say) 90% of the subjective sound quality of CD with just 10% of the data rate - a *significant* achievement, and one only possible thanks to a scientific understanding of how human hearing and audio perception works.
It's used throughout the pharmaceutical industry and medical world to assess the effectiveness of drug protocols, treatments etc etc - and with good reason! And whilst it may seem *to you* that DBT is used for 'average listeners' (rather an ad hominem argument) on unknown systems in unnatural listening conditions, those points are irrelevant. All that matters is whether the listener can genuinely perceive a difference. What's essential to DBT is consistency, not 'naturalness', in the experiment setup. An argument for naturalness is just a fig-leaf to disguise your discomfort with the results these DBT experiments repeatedly produce - cables (and many other things) don't make a difference.
Admirable logic.Wasn't a "guy" like Einstein a scientist?He was sure he was wrong and he admited it.Before that he was sure he was right......like some scientists and non-scientists here.Why is yourself out of this?I guess because you think you are right too.......right?
To answer your question,we don't have a chance next to Einstein.Now tell us what chance YOU have.............
I am willing to ship a pair of 3 meter interconnects anywhere, via USPS, for test purposes. They will be 140 strands of #40 AWG Polyurethane / Nylon insulated, four nines magnet wire with bleached cotton sleeves, one additional piece of polyethylene shrink tube 1 inch long placed at a 1/2 meter distance, no shielding. The current plugs are absolute shite, from Radio Shack, but have the least possible amount of metal and molded polypropylene shells. Shipping speaker cables would be a bit of time, perhaps 2 months as I am currently out of fresh wire, due to "Ground Control".
These are what I used to help in developing and removing any "voice" from our audio reproduction output and DAC transformers. They have the most neutral sound, that still provides access to musician emphasis in what I considered to be correct amounts, that I auditioned for this purpose. This intuitive evaluation standard coming from my orchestral player days, when I played upright tuba.
Bud
These are what I used to help in developing and removing any "voice" from our audio reproduction output and DAC transformers. They have the most neutral sound, that still provides access to musician emphasis in what I considered to be correct amounts, that I auditioned for this purpose. This intuitive evaluation standard coming from my orchestral player days, when I played upright tuba.
Bud
There are now two eyebrow-shaped dints in my ceiling after reading this...
Likewise. You appear convinced the opposite - that cables have generally been proven entirely neutral - is a proven scientific fact. Citations?
I can't remember if I've said it in here or not but...
I have tried 3 different types of cable in my system.
Monster 12g.
12g solid romex house wiring.
Cat5 twisted pair.
The cat 5 sounds the best with the solid 12g sounding the worst.
I don't have the equipment to run in depth tests on the electrical behaviors but I know that when I switched from the monster to the cat5 I asked my wife what she thought of the sound(without telling her what I'd done) and she almost immediately answered that she thought the sound had a clearer midrange and treble which was exactly what my ears told me.
My system is not the most revealing although with horn loaded mid and tweeter it is fairly sensitive.
-Josh
I have tried 3 different types of cable in my system.
Monster 12g.
12g solid romex house wiring.
Cat5 twisted pair.
The cat 5 sounds the best with the solid 12g sounding the worst.
I don't have the equipment to run in depth tests on the electrical behaviors but I know that when I switched from the monster to the cat5 I asked my wife what she thought of the sound(without telling her what I'd done) and she almost immediately answered that she thought the sound had a clearer midrange and treble which was exactly what my ears told me.
My system is not the most revealing although with horn loaded mid and tweeter it is fairly sensitive.
-Josh
- Status
- Not open for further replies.