So we can have a different frequency response just above/below the
audible range with the two cables? The loudspeaker/amplifier response
can be non-linear in this range and so transfer energy into the audible
range. The source can be chosen to have plenty of energy just
above/below the audible range.

It looks doable with test tones (is this cheating?) but will be more
difficult with music. Would make an interesting little project.

SteveB wrote:

Come off it, I can't see there being any problem with me being able
to hear differences, but you would just say there's no difference.
Perhaps people's hearing is different in ways we can't describe, it
would be unprovable, which is why there's no way of resolving debates
about the existence or not of 'cable sound'.

That's what a double blind test is for. It doesn't matter what he says -
it's purely down to whether you can consistently tell the difference.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

In article ,
SteveB sbrads@nildramDOTcoDOTuk wrote:
Come off it, I can't see there being any problem with me being able to
hear differences, but you would just say there's no difference.
Perhaps people's hearing is different in ways we can't describe, it
would be unprovable, which is why there's no way of resolving debates
about the existence or not of 'cable sound'.

It's quite simple. You have to tell the difference - reliably - between
cables purely by ear without knowing, by sight, which cable is actually
connected and in use. Called double blind testing. To remove the 'I've
just paid a hundred quid for this cable and the adverts say it's miles
better' syndrom.

As an electronics engineer mainly working on switch mode power supplies
running between frequencies of 10kHz and 2 MHz, I can see scope
waveforms or spectrum analysis change dramatically with cable lengths
of 2 inches or copper track changes of a few mm, so 4 metres of audio
cable has a lot of potential with all that nasty music stuff flying
around but music's 'jumbled mess' just doesn't lend itself to easy
analytical observation, that's what our ears are for.

A few mm at 10Khz? I find that hard to believe.

--
*He who laughs last has just realised the joke.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 30 May 2005 23:11:27 +0100, "SteveB"
sbrads@nildramDOTcoDOTuk wrote:

Come off it, I can't see there being any problem with me being able to hear
differences, but you would just say there's no difference. Perhaps people's
hearing is different in ways we can't describe, it would be unprovable,
which is why there's no way of resolving debates about the existence or not
of 'cable sound'.

I don't think you have quite grasped Stewart's offer. He is not
insisting that he should hear a difference, but that you should
demonstrate that you can hear a difference.

It doesn't matter what anybody else's hearing is like - if you can
demonstrate that you can hear a difference between your high end
cables and some cheap, generic but electrically competent cables, you
pick up the grand. He is even letting you choose the music, the
ancillary equipment and the setting. What could be easier?

I am looking forwards to the result.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Mon, 30 May 2005 23:11:27 +0100, "SteveB"
sbrads@nildramDOTcoDOTuk wrote:

Come off it, I can't see there being any problem with me being able to hear
differences, but you would just say there's no difference. Perhaps people's
hearing is different in ways we can't describe, it would be unprovable,
which is why there's no way of resolving debates about the existence or not
of 'cable sound'.

It's nothing to do with what *I* say, it's a matter of whether *you*
can hear a difference when you don't *know* what's connected.

As an electronics engineer mainly working on switch mode power supplies
running between frequencies of 10kHz and 2 MHz, I can see scope waveforms or
spectrum analysis change dramatically with cable lengths of 2 inches or
copper track changes of a few mm, so 4 metres of audio cable has a lot of
potential with all that nasty music stuff flying around but music's 'jumbled
mess' just doesn't lend itself to easy analytical observation, that's what
our ears are for.

If you're an EE, you should understand that what cables do at 2MHz has
nothing to do with music. As noted, all you have to do is demonstrate
that *you* really can hear the 'night and day' differences you claim.
If you can, you'll be the first................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:37:17 GMT, "Wally" wrote:

SteveB wrote:

Come off it, I can't see there being any problem with me being able
to hear differences, but you would just say there's no difference.
Perhaps people's hearing is different in ways we can't describe, it
would be unprovable, which is why there's no way of resolving debates
about the existence or not of 'cable sound'.

That's what a double blind test is for. It doesn't matter what he says -
it's purely down to whether you can consistently tell the difference.

Eggzackly!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 31 May 2005 00:06:42 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
SteveB sbrads@nildramDOTcoDOTuk wrote:
Come off it, I can't see there being any problem with me being able to
hear differences, but you would just say there's no difference.
Perhaps people's hearing is different in ways we can't describe, it
would be unprovable, which is why there's no way of resolving debates
about the existence or not of 'cable sound'.

It's quite simple. You have to tell the difference - reliably - between
cables purely by ear without knowing, by sight, which cable is actually
connected and in use. Called double blind testing. To remove the 'I've
just paid a hundred quid for this cable and the adverts say it's miles
better' syndrom.

Quite so, and that is the perfect way to resolve debates about cable
sound. It's called 'put up or shut up'.

As an electronics engineer mainly working on switch mode power supplies
running between frequencies of 10kHz and 2 MHz, I can see scope
waveforms or spectrum analysis change dramatically with cable lengths
of 2 inches or copper track changes of a few mm, so 4 metres of audio
cable has a lot of potential with all that nasty music stuff flying
around but music's 'jumbled mess' just doesn't lend itself to easy
analytical observation, that's what our ears are for.

A few mm at 10Khz? I find that hard to believe.

Me too - although of course if he's a *bad* EE, his circuits may be
only marginally stable! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 30 May 2005 15:35:04 -0700, "andy" wrote:

So we can have a different frequency response just above/below the
audible range with the two cables? The loudspeaker/amplifier response
can be non-linear in this range and so transfer energy into the audible
range. The source can be chosen to have plenty of energy just
above/below the audible range.

It looks doable with test tones (is this cheating?) but will be more
difficult with music. Would make an interesting little project.

But why would you *need* to cheat, if Kimber cable (or substitute your
favourite snake-oil peddlar) is 'night and day' better than ordinary
twinflex?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Mon, 30 May 2005 22:37:17 GMT, "Wally" wrote:


SteveB wrote:


Come off it, I can't see there being any problem with me being able
to hear differences, but you would just say there's no difference.
Perhaps people's hearing is different in ways we can't describe, it
would be unprovable, which is why there's no way of resolving debates
about the existence or not of 'cable sound'.

That's what a double blind test is for. It doesn't matter what he says -
it's purely down to whether you can consistently tell the difference.


Eggzackly!


Again and as usual in this context - read 'in ways we *can't* describe'.
So, I think the summary reply to Steve's post is: 'Possibly'.

Rob

Rob wrote:

That's what a double blind test is for. It doesn't matter what he
says - it's purely down to whether you can consistently tell the
difference.

Eggzackly!

Again and as usual in this context - read 'in ways we *can't*
describe'.

This isn't about some airy-fairy review of the qualities of the cables -
nobody is being asked to describe the differences. The person taking the
challenge just has to *identify* them as 'A' or 'B'.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk