I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[AJinFLA]

Originally Posted by john curl

Brett, for completeness, to prevent a misunderstanding, let me give you a little background on this. Dr. Hawksford wrote a series of popular (knowing vector analysis helped) articles on wire theory, in several audio magazines, back in the '80's.
You can get the complete essay on wires from his website, and it is 89 or so pages in length, along with much other material.
Jneutron jumped on one of his measurements as appearing to show an error that looked similar to one he made on some project that he made at his work-site, due to a measurement mistake. He confronted Dr. Hawksford with this suggestion. Dr. Hawksford politely considered it and refuted it. This did not satisfy Jneutron, and he as never stopped complaining about it. I spoke to Dr. Hawksford in person on the subject, and he stands behind his test, which happens to match his mathematical model and calculated results, also in his paper. In other words, his math matches his measurements.
Still, there will always be controversy, and I would hope that you look at the entire paper, rather than accept its criticisms, from others, as so many do, here.

Is this it John? Is this how you will evade the conclusions? The facts that Rich and jneutron pointed out the errors in the theory and jneutron pointed out the error in this theoreticians attempted physical experiment? The fact that John Atkinson (of Stereophile, who would have a vested interest in this turning out to be real) could not duplicate, nor any one else, in 20+ years, including Hawksford himself (using steel wires, of all things). The fact that it could only appear in a HiFi rag, not a peer reviewed journal, never to be published, like all his other work?
As if your desperate appeals to authority and every other fallacy cannot be read by all in the AA archives?
Is this how desperate you are for your beliefs to be true?
I don't want to accept p; therefore, p isn't true.
Sad.

cheers,

AJ

[scott wurcer]

Originally Posted by john curl

Jan, where is part 1 of the Hawksford interview? Isn't that were the discussion on wire is at?

Why is it that the Brits seem so lax in getting peer review outside of their "club"? Hawksford's article is flawed at the very basic level as was Ben Duncan's. Also why do these flawed results just keep propagating?

[john curl]

Of course, he used steel wire. How could he exaggerate the effect so that it could be directly printed out? It would still happen in copper, just at a lower level.

[john curl]

Yes, Scott, all my friends are flakes. However, it doesn't matter what the results are, or how accurate they are, Dr. Lipshitz et al would consider it inaudible, in any case.
It is surprising that people actually think that peer review really fixes problems. We all, when we write a paper, always give it to our associates, in advance, before publishing. We don't like mistakes either. However, to make a monkey proof experiment that cannot be criticized in some way, especially when it is pioneering, is just about impossible. Someone, somewhere, will pull it apart, usually in print. Usually, they make a big thing out of something small.
For example, I once saw a criticism of early fossils of birds, by someone making a crude copy it and showing it around the his cronies. This was suppose to show that the first finding perhaps 150-200 years ago, was faked in the same way. No other 'proof' was necessary. Sound familiar?

[scott wurcer]

Well there is some serious egg on the face of many museums that have not caught up with the skills of the fraudsters. John, wrong is wrong. Hawksford was wrong, Ben Duncan was wrong, plain and simple they made mistakes they should say sorry and move on.

[AJinFLA]

Originally Posted by john curl

Of course, he used steel wire. How could he exaggerate the effect so that it could be directly printed out? It would still happen in copper, just at a lower level.

Originally Posted by john curl

Yes, Scott, all my friends are flakes. However, it doesn't matter what the results are, or how accurate they are, Dr. Lipshitz et al would consider it inaudible, in any case.
It is surprising that people actually think that peer review really fixes problems. We all, when we write a paper, always give it to our associates, in advance, before publishing. We don't like mistakes either. However, to make a monkey proof experiment that cannot be criticized in some way, especially when it is pioneering, is just about impossible. Someone, somewhere, will pull it apart, usually in print. Usually, they make a big thing out of something small.
For example, I once saw a criticism of early fossils of birds, by someone making a crude copy it and showing it around the his cronies. This was suppose to show that the first finding perhaps 150-200 years ago, was faked in the same way. No other 'proof' was necessary. Sound familiar?

[Joachim Gerhard]

Foreget the mathematics. what Malkolm tried to show was that there is an advantage using solid core cable with a diameter smaller then a bit less then 1mm diameter because that is the skin depth at 20kHz. that was my state of the art at that time and i still use small diameter teflon insulted cable for internal wiring when i am on a budjet. cable contruction is of cause important too and the effect of cable spacing is bigger then the skin effect most of the time. i have since moved on to litz wire. Boys, that paper is ages old and put Malkolm in an uncomfortable position. I could imagine that the least he wants is making cable manufactures rich that use his paper as argument. Still he had the balls to try something, as flawd as it may be. I think critisising that paper comes to late.

[AJinFLA]

Originally Posted by Joachim Gerhard

Foreget the mathematics.

Not to mention the physics, the logic, the repeatability, the audibility, etc, etc.

[Joachim Gerhard]

Yes, i do not measure cables any more, i just listen and do not care about double, triple or quadruple blind abcde tests. This things can not be resolved. You hear a difference or you hear no difference. Then a test is setup tp prove your position. Pathetic.
Use 1.5qmm Radio Shack cable and be happy how much money you have safed. It passes all so called scientific tests with flying colours.

[Steve Eddy]

Originally Posted by scott wurcer

Why is it that the Brits seem so lax in getting peer review outside of their "club"? Hawksford's article is flawed at the very basic level as was Ben Duncan's. Also why do these flawed results just keep propagating?

What's rather telling is that Hawksford, who is not the least bit shy of publishing, never bothered to publish this earth-shattering revelation outside of the hobbyist audio press.

se