Not in a strict and hard limit way, correct. See below.
[snip]I have a problem with naysayers like Janneman. They have no problem dropping terms like "properly" or "reasonably" designed wire as if there's a standard and a deviation scale against which these terms can be "properly"gaged. Didn't anyone else notice that Janneman's response didn't answer a single one of my questions about what constitutes a "properly" or "reasonably" designed wire and how the standard was deteremined? I wonder why that is??? Maybe because he doesn't know what a "properly" or "reasonably" designed wire is? Hmmm?
To me comments about "properly" or "reasonably" designed wire is more intellectual dishonesty from wire naysayers that follows in the same vein as their "expectation bias" arguement! They want to use these ideas/terms as a weapon against proponents of wires but, when they're used as a weapon against them, they ignore the questions asked and respond vaguely or want to modify the what the ideas or terms originally meant!
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Hi TG,
The reason I didn't directly answer you question is because I don't have a clear answer. I cannot give a hard number for "properly" or "reasonably". But that doesn't mean I attack your test with those arguments. I said, and agreed that the "properly" or "reasonably" was a bit thoughtless of me. OTOH, I DO belive that for two cables to be audible different, they must be engineered for it in terms of L, C, R and whatever physical parameters you want. So in that sense "properly" or "reasonably" would in my view not be audible.
But I can not prove that, nor do I have a hard limit. It is my opinion based on knowledge and experience: I have often heard differences between cables and there was always a measureable difference. And as I said before, I fully support this test, if there is a clear outcome that differences are audible I will accept that, hell, I HAVE to accept it because you guys are using the method I think should be used. The fact that it is audible is then a fact.
Now if one of ICs you used had 1000pf per feet capacitance. Could we then not say, well, that MIGHT have been the reason that it was audible. Because, however you slice the pizza, there ALWAYS is a physical cause. Audible difference means an electrical difference of the signal at the speaker, resulting from physical differences, and in principle measureable.
Now suppose the test does not reveal any audible differences, and that one IC has 1000pF/feet. That is also a very interesting result. So you see, your test is very, very interesting and I am looking forward to your findings. I have my opinion, but I realise it is just that. Maybe with this test we all can get a bit more on firm ground.
I guess you could call me a 'conditional naysayer, so far'. I realise people tend to assign extreme positions to others, but what I don't know, I don't know, and can only develop a reasoned opinion on.
jd
Last edited:
Funny that you speak in terms of weapons. Are we at war or something? Don't you realise that terms like 'expectation bias' point to a phenomenon that is well documented and that can explain a lot of those seemingly unexplicable perceptions? A weapon? Give me a break, you would also call a book, an explanation, a course, a weapon?
Edit: if you call it a weapon against ignorance, yes I'll join you in your war ;-)
jd
Last edited:
Many a true word spoken in jest.It can be anything but the cable
The truth is it doesn't necessarily have to be the cable, when there are other plausible explainations still on the table.
If you're talking about voicecoils, it's typically a lot finer than 30 gauge.
se
Hello Janneman!
Like most things it's how something is used that defines "if" it's a weapon or not. Pick up a hammer to nail boards together in order to build a house and the hammer's a tool. Pick up that same hammer and go bash someone's brains in and what was previously considered to be a tool is now considered to be a weapon instead! Although the general tone of your post causes me to realise this isn't the case, at first I was hoping your next few following comments about "expectation bias" were an attempt at humor. As a reasonably intelligent person I certainly fully realise the term "expectation bias" points to a phenomenon that is well documented! However, that said, I also equally realise the way most wire naysayers use the term is as a weapon against wire proponents, and it's done in a manner that's intellectually dishonest and IMO is highlighted by a lack of integrity as well!
To take such a complex phenomenon as "expectation bias" and attempt to reduce it down to simply;
a) YOU SAW the wires
b) YOU EXPECTED to hear a difference and so you did!
Is screaming with a lack of integrity "if" it's done knowingly. Surprisingly enough it's quite easy to have the naysayers themselves prove they used the term "expectation bias" willfully in an intellectually dishonest manner. All one needs to do is remind them that just like placebo has it's negative, i.e., nocebo, "expectation bias" works in the negative too. Therefore if their arguement is a correct one, it's equally correct to assume the reason they don't hear a difference in wires is because;
a) YOU SAW the wires
b) YOU EXPECTED NOT to hear a difference and so you didn't!
Now all of a sudden this intellectually dishonest bunch of folks wants to be sure everyone fully well understands all of the complexities involved when speaking about the phenomenon of "expectation bias." Now that the light of "expectation bias" is being shone down on them in a negative manner, they want to be sure to remind everyone that these statements would ONLY be true "if" you were concious of "all" your expectations, which no one could ever possibly be. So Janneman I'd say "if" anyone here should be giving anyone else a break, it should be you giving that break to me.
Now as to whether or not I would also call a book, an explanation or a course, a weapon, would also be equally dicated by how they were used as well! I have to be honest with you Janneman and tell you I view this post of yours as suspect. Why? because I'd like to give you the credit of being intelligent enough to have known what the answers to your questions were well before you asked them of me. As I've also previously stated my postion on this topic I believe you knew what my answers would be as well. So now I have to wonder what other motives may have caused you to ask these questions...
Thetubeguy1954
~Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!~
Can't say I've seen a woofer with heavier than 30 gauge wire for the voicecoil. Not that they don't exist. Just can't say I've seen one.
se
The point you miss is that the folks claiming that there are non-mundane differences have yet to demonstrate it. And it's their responsibility to do so, especially the folk who make money selling this stuff with no evidence of efficacy. So your analogy is not so great- I don't care that I can't hear the difference, it's more important to me if anyone can. Hell, I can't hear 18kHz, but I won't claim that 18kHz is "inaudible."
Jan is simply pointing out basic engineering facts of life- one can deliberately design a lousy wire that dramatically changes the level, frequency response or noise- if that's the case, we're back to the mundane. For example, if I run a lead between my CD player and my preamp, don't shield it, and spread the hot and ground wires well apart, it will hum like an SOB and who could deny that this is audible? It's also stupid, but that doesn't mean that one couldn't find an idiot audio reviewer to hype it as "a cable that's particularly revealing of even minor system noises." Idiot Audio Reviewers have their audience, I'm afraid...
I really have a hard time finding an audio grade cable that would have any severe roll-off, or even extreme hum pickup. At CES, I saw PLENTY of different cables. I tried to find Ray Kimber to ask him what amp he used that was only stable with his wire, Vandenhul was not there at all, darn, I wanted to ask him about his wrist thingy. Nelson Pass and Charles Hansen were not there either. We used approximately $5,000 dollar wires in our room, sounded OK, but no phono, unfortunately. Charles had good sound and EXCELLENT video.
John, the last CES I went to was probably 15 years ago. The "upstairs" exhibits were far and away the most interesting.
I remember getting yelled at in one room for touching some hockey-puck gizmos someone had put in, ummm, strategic spots in the room to supposedly control the acoustics. I was just curious if they were hard or soft (they were probably about 90 Shore A). Apparently, their placement was critical down to the fractions of a millimeter, thus my touching might have knocked the universe out of alignment. Sound in that room was nothing special, but maybe they needed more hockey pucks.
I remember getting yelled at in one room for touching some hockey-puck gizmos someone had put in, ummm, strategic spots in the room to supposedly control the acoustics. I was just curious if they were hard or soft (they were probably about 90 Shore A). Apparently, their placement was critical down to the fractions of a millimeter, thus my touching might have knocked the universe out of alignment. Sound in that room was nothing special, but maybe they needed more hockey pucks.
I'll try to explain.
TG said what cables he has at home.Which of those cables you think is close to your example of a cable that an idiot reviewer would hype ....?
You said such idiot reviewers have their audience.Did any of the "believers"in this thread give you any clue that he might belong to such a reviwer's audiene?
Pathetic fallacy?I don't think so.
Personally, if I were to attempt to select a really potentially lousy cable, it would be industrial grade zip cord or very very thick cables attempting to do full range audio.
This is because of dielectric absorption, skin effect, marginal connections and perhaps corrosion at the cable ends, and I am mighty suspicious of mutual inductance.
This is because of dielectric absorption, skin effect, marginal connections and perhaps corrosion at the cable ends, and I am mighty suspicious of mutual inductance.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.