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

[janneman]

Originally posted by Andy Bartha
[snip]Since the cables are connecting two dynamic components it would make sense that different types of cables would sound differntly depending on the capacitance, length and inductance of said cable.[snip]

Andy,

Beg you pardon, but you call this logical reasoning or what? This is completely hogwash. Why would this be so?? It is this kind of completely wrong reasoning that puts all of us on the wrong foot.

Jan Didden

[Pan]

Originally posted by MartinQ
Pan, can you make it a little easier for me and tell me more about Hawksford and Duncans? Is there a paper or book they released? Date? Title? Publisher? Thanks (feeling lazy).

HiFi+ ? What issue? I'll see if I can find it in the local store and give it a browse.

Dr. Malcolm Omar Hawksford, Ben Duncan. Have no links handy but run a search on the names and also try the "essex echo" for a series of articles by Hawksford. Duncan has published a book "High perormace audio performance" where he touches the cable subject and he also have puplished several articles, the most famous one in HFN/RR vol42 no2 (feb -97).

Oh, found a link;
http://www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/...lications.html

/Peter

[Steve Eddy]

Originally posted by Pan
Dr. Malcolm Omar Hawksford, Ben Duncan. Have no links handy but run a search on the names and also try the "essex echo" for a series of articles by Hawksford. Duncan has published a book "High perormace audio performance" where he touches the cable subject and he also have puplished several articles, the most famous one in HFN/RR vol42 no2 (feb -97).

Oh, found a link;
http://www.essex.ac.uk/ese/research/...lications.html

Hawksford's Essex Echo has rather been ripped to shreds. Which might explain why it never saw publication outside of consumer audio magazines.

And Duncan has been shown to be rather sloppy in his work, seemingly only interested in "proving" preconcieved beliefs rather than getting at the truth.

se

[Nelson Pass]

Originally posted by janneman
Beg you pardon, but you call this logical reasoning or what? This is completely hogwash. Why would this be so?? It is this kind of completely wrong reasoning that puts all of us on the wrong foot.

Excuse me, but I can't help but conclude that any difference in
the components will in fact make a difference in the performance.
The only reasonable argument would be whether these
differences are significant or audible.

[janneman]

Originally posted by Nelson Pass


Excuse me, but I can't help but conclude that any difference in
the components will in fact make a difference in the performance.
The only reasonable argument would be whether these
differences are significant or audible.

Thank you Nelson, exactly my point. The leap from: there will be a difference (on engineering grounds) to "there will be an audible difference" is just so much unfounded speculation.

Jan Didden

[slowmotion]

Hi all

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...023#post200023

I wrote this a while ago
Still true today

cheers

[janneman]

Originally posted by slowmotion
[snip]cheers

Jan, have you been hitting the øl again??

(Other Jan)

[slowmotion]

Originally posted by janneman



Jan, have you been hitting the øl again??

(Other Jan)

No, but I just had some strong coffee

cheers

[carlosfm]

Originally posted by janneman

Andy,

Beg you pardon, but you call this logical reasoning or what? This is completely hogwash. Why would this be so?? It is this kind of completely wrong reasoning that puts all of us on the wrong foot.

Jan Didden

Output impedance of sending device + cable capacitance + input impedance of receiving device = filter.

[rdf]

That's your paradox. And why I think the obsession with objective perfection on the reproduction side is rather silly.

No paradox, never being able to hit a target perfectly doesn't negate getting closer.
Taking the extreme example, say a half-wave rectified version of a recording, if it's at all valid to say it's a 'less accurate' representation of the original acoustic event than playing back the full waveform by neccessity it validates the concept of 'more accurate' and justifies asking - at the theoretical level at least - if altering other parts of the program chain make the resulting reproduction a 'more accurate' or 'less accurate' representation of the original event. What your line of reasoning implies is that, since we can never hope to achieve 100% fidelity to the original event, all reproduction is equivalently inaccurate. Considering the half-wave recitifed signal as equivalent (not trying to put words in your pen and I realize the discussion is about subleties, but the implied reasoning allows for this since it doesn't permit an objective 'target') is a difficult concept for me to accept.
OTOH I fully agree that the next frontier is the recording end, especially the microphones. But there too placing the best available mics optimally, for me, creates a more accurate representation of the original sonic event than placing Rat Shack switcheroo hi-balls beneath a rear hall seat.

I have two cables here of identical design, construction and materials except for ONE single factor. One of the cables is cut in two.

I can differentiate between them to a statistically valid degree, depending on how much I've had.