the cable debate

[Notagenius]

without stooping to petty arguments, i've made some observations.

(1) not everyone runs traditional parallel cables. i've seen people run loose wires or have loops of cable laying about. i wonder how and if these types of systems should be modeled.

(2) Peter Aczel claimed that 15 out of 16 is pretty much proof of a difference in ABX. this is a gross misunderstanding of probability theory.

(3) making detailed calculations is a pain. most people seem to measure instead of using electromagnetic theory. i suspect real-world calculations are closer to Jackson than Halliday/Resnick.

[Conrad Hoffman]

I'll offer my observations to match yours-

1) Good measurements are hard. Electromagnetic theory is harder. I'll go with measurements, backed up by whatever math I can manage.

2) Loops have to be modeled as what they are. IMHO, loops are bad. They decrease an already small capacitance and add an inductance. Even if they don't cause a problem in the audio, they can really bring in the RF.

3) I like Peter Aczel because he knows where he stands and isn't afraid to say so. IMHO, he's right a large percentage of the time. I think ABX testing is a good thing to do; it has no flaws, but people do, thus it doesn't always give you the right answer. IOW, it's a perfectly logical rational way to test things that give consistent results. Audio doesn't seem to fall in that category.

4) There is no such thing as a legitimate cable-only discussion. Cables have to be analyzed as part of a larger system, and nobody wants to get into the details of component inputs and outputs with regards to impedance and phase over a wide range. Unless they've measured it, the data isn't available.

[jneutron]

Originally posted by Notagenius
(3) making detailed calculations is a pain. most people seem to measure instead of using electromagnetic theory. i suspect real-world calculations are closer to Jackson than Halliday/Resnick.

Nah, the calcs are pretty easy. So far, they tend to match measurements quite well.

Originally posted by Conrad Hoffman
(1) Good measurements are hard. Electromagnetic theory is harder. I'll go with measurements, backed up by whatever math I can manage.

I go with math, backed up by measurements.

Originally posted by Conrad Hoffman

2) Loops have to be modeled as what they are. IMHO, loops are bad. They decrease an already small capacitance and add an inductance. Even if they don't cause a problem in the audio, they can really bring in the RF.

Loops are certainly bad.. and they do cause a problem in the audio band.

Originally posted by Conrad Hoffman

3) I like Peter Aczel because he knows where he stands and isn't afraid to say so. IMHO, he's right a large percentage of the time. I think ABX testing is a good thing to do; it has no flaws, but people do, thus it doesn't always give you the right answer. IOW, it's a perfectly logical rational way to test things that give consistent results. Audio doesn't seem to fall in that category.

I like him also. His heart is in the right place. I don't concur with 6 or 7 of his 10 "lies" thing however. Unfortunately, too many people have accepted as gospel his writings without question, based on his rep..

Originally posted by Conrad Hoffman

4) There is no such thing as a legitimate cable-only discussion. Cables have to be analyzed as part of a larger system, and nobody wants to get into the details of component inputs and outputs with regards to impedance and phase over a wide range. Unless they've measured it, the data isn't available.

A cable only discussion can only be about T line theory, so very few people can do that. I agree, it is part of a larger system with loops, response, storage, and.....ears.

Cheers, John

[Brett]

Compared to the gross non-linearities in speakers, cables are pretty irrelevant.

[jneutron]

Originally posted by Brett
Compared to the gross non-linearities in speakers, cables are pretty irrelevant.

Considering we can image a soundstage quite decently using those "grossly non linear" speakers, stating other things are "irrelevant" is not factually substantiated.

Cheers, John

[Brett]

Originally posted by jneutron


Considering we can imagine a soundstage quite decently using those "grossly non linear" speakers, stating other things are "irrelevant" is not factually substantiated.

Cheers, John

There. I corrected it for you.

Nothing about the audibility of cables has been 'factually substantiated'.

[SY]

John, how about "not yet demonstrated to be significant except in rare, oddball, but perfectly explainable cases"?

[jneutron]

Originally posted by Brett
There. I corrected it for you.

Corrected what?

Originally posted by Brett
Nothing about the audibility of cables has been 'factually substantiated'.

Agreed. But that is not what you said. Your basic premise is that the transducers can't do better than some percent distortion figure, so therefore, anything below that isn't worth considering.

That is incorrect.

The real question is: can they alter the signal to the extent that a CORRECT test regime has the chance of finding it with humans.

So far, I've not seen any audibility tests which are done correctly to ascertain imaging shifts or alterations.

Do you think anybody on the planet has yet to measure a speaker with respect to it's affect on localization parameters?? They haven't. go figure..

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

Originally posted by SY
John, how about "not yet demonstrated to be significant except in rare, oddball, but perfectly explainable cases"?

Yup.

HI Sy, how's it shakin??

Cheers, John

[Brett]

Originally posted by jneutron
Corrected what?

Reading not one of your strongpoints?

Originally posted by jneutron
Agreed. But that is not what you said. Your basic premise is that the transducers can't do better than some percent distortion figure, so therefore, anything below that isn't worth considering.

No, I'd say comprehension. Where did I mention distortion figures? I said non-linearity, and any non-linear effects (that may possibly exist) of cables will be orders of magnitude below those that are present in loudspeakers.