ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:03:39 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Slainte,

Jim

[1] Is there some reason why Cole Porter songs seem to make differences in
audio equipment easier for people to detect? ;-

I can only follow that line with "You are the one".

d

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

In article , Rob
wrote:
andy wrote:
The evidence, I'm afraid, is against you:


http://www.reviewcentre.com/products45.html
http://www.audionote.co.uk/reviews/anspaanspe.htm
http://www.audience-av.com/cable%20reviews.htm


There are a lot of assertions but no evidence that I can find. Can you
please indicate a verifiable experiment in the links given that I may
have missed?


Andy - you seem to have snipped important parts of my post. The above
links are *evidence* that people can differentiate between cables.

You may need to distinguish between "evidence" and "assertions" or
"beliefs". :-)


Now, *I* wouldn't stretch the point to suggest that it's verifiable or
replicable; I haven't correlated it. But if you dismiss these findings
out of hand then you don't get past (1) - see my OP.

Please see my own response to (1). :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On 31 May 2005 11:03:38 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:



I guess you take issue with "The capacitive component of the cable is
too small to have much influence at audible frequencies, and is thus
omitted from the model."


No. The point is that in a cable (and this is where the lumped model has
problems) the capacitance tends to flatten the HF response, not further
reduce it. A cable is not a lowpass filter.

I've not checked so perhaps I am mis-remembering. Is not the Davis paper
on LS cables as distinct from signal interconnects?

If so, it seems a reasonable assumption to tend to neglect the shunt
capacitance for domestic LS cables. (Assuming the amp is stable, etc.)

I'd agree that such a cable is "not a low pass filter". However it is
generally pretty 'short' in terms of audio signal wavelengths, so a lumped
model is one I'd take to be OK for most purposes.

I appreciate that you were trying to illustrate the point that cables
don't have audible differences, but I had to point out that Fred's
article, by way of its errors, actually understates this case.

Is this an actual "error" in the sense of omitting something important?

I can see that shunt capacitance may be quite significant with
interconnects due to the (relatively) high source impedances often used.
But I would not normally expect this with LS cabling in domestic cases.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

"Don Pearce" wrote


big snip - not hard to do...


I simply don't know. I'd like to be able to explain point (1), that's
all. If you throw out actual difference, what are you left with?
Explanations could be: physiological; psychological; sociological;
environmental; political; anthropological. Or pathological :-)

Take your pick. And garnish with evidence, if you would.

Rob

The evidence is right there in Stewart's as-yet unclaimed thousand
pound prize to anybody who can show that they can hear a difference
between cables.



I would happily pay a thousand pounds to be be *able* to hear the
difference....!! :-)


The evidence is there with rabid high-enders like Greg
Singh (who no longer posts) who was strident in his claims of night
and day differences which mysteriously vanished when he could not see
which cable was plugged in.


Ha ha! Trotsky! - I wonder where/how he is???

(I miss him - he had a great wit and and lovely line in ****-take!! :-)



It is there in a test which I myself proctored, in which similarly
vocal types were asked to comment on the sounds of various cables in a
sighted test.
They all agreed that the cables sounded very different,
and they all agreed on a description of the types of sound they heard.
What they did not know until after the test was that the cables I was
changing were not the ones carrying the signal - which remained
unchanged throughout.


Where, when, what, who? - Details would be interesting.


I'm afraid that this and a thousand other physical and psychological
studies say that the human brain is very, very easily fooled, and
evidence from a sighted test is totally valueless.

If you want to see this in spades, look up the McGurk effect.


Yes, indeed:

http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html

IMPORTANT - do *not* read the text before playing the video (hide it with
your hand) for best effect!

I don't *do* cable threads - same old **** chasing round and round (bringing
out the worst in one or two posters here) and I most definitely CAN'T tell
the difference between speaker cables - sighted or not (I'm happily using
mains cable on one of my amps). But I will just say this - I've got a pair
of Monster XP speaker cables that my brother (no 'audiophile' whatsoever)
gave me because he said that 'they didn't sound too good' on his (mainly
Denon) 'hifi' system....???

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

In article , Rob
wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:


1. Some people can differentiate between cables;


No

The evidence, I'm afraid, is against you:

http://www.reviewcentre.com/products45.html
http://www.audionote.co.uk/reviews/anspaanspe.htm
http://www.audience-av.com/cable%20reviews.htm

(etc - try Google)


OK - in these terms, everybody can distinguish between cables, by
looking at them. Nobody has yet (to my knowledge) distinguished
between cables on the basis of sound.

Many of those reviews *claim* distinction by sound. I'm not making it up!

That is evidence that some people *believe* they can hear a difference.
However it is not evidence that they can genuinely do so. Having a belief
does not, in itself, establish if the belief is, or is not, well founded.



I simply don't know. I'd like to be able to explain point (1), that's
all. If you throw out actual difference, what are you left with?
Explanations could be: physiological; psychological; sociological;
environmental; political; anthropological. Or pathological :-)

The point of the test is to see if someone can provide evidence that helps
to show that their belief that they can hear a difference is well founded.

it is clear that some people beleive they can hear differences. Indeed, it
seems reasonable to accept that some people can, some of the time. e.g. as
a result of changes in frequency response due to impedance effects, etc.
Hence there there does not seem to me to be any requirement to test if
someone *believes* they can hear a difference. Nor if a change in response
causes this to be well founded. Hence AIUI Stewart's test is to see if
anyone can show they can hear differences which are *not* due either to
some expectation effect, or a bias, or a simple frequency response change.
So far as I can tell, this is what is contentious. Yet also so far as I can
tell, no-one has taken such a test and showed by the results that the
(alleged) "night and day" differences are actually so great as to allow
them to reliably tell one cable from another.

Take your pick. And garnish with evidence, if you would.

I'd be happy to see if those who hold the relevant belief were to take
Stewart's test. Then see if the results supported their claim. i.e. decide
on the basis of the evidence. If there is a suitable alternative test I'd
also be interested to hear the details and consider if it could distinguish
between a belief that is well-founded and one that is not.

After all, its not my money if they succeed. 8-]

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:21:57 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

It is there in a test which I myself proctored, in which similarly
vocal types were asked to comment on the sounds of various cables in a
sighted test.
They all agreed that the cables sounded very different,
and they all agreed on a description of the types of sound they heard.
What they did not know until after the test was that the cables I was
changing were not the ones carrying the signal - which remained
unchanged throughout.


Where, when, what, who? - Details would be interesting.


I did it at Decca Studios Marble Arch in the early seventies. I can't
remember who was involved, but it was a bunch of quite high powered
types, and it was very much "after hours" if you know what I mean.
Some new cables had just arrived, and people were raving about them. I
was getting really ****ed off because I couldn't hear any difference.
I was fairly sure I was being deliberately bull****ted, so I set up
the expose. It was quite a few years before I sussed that they were
probably being quite sincere in their beliefs, and not just trying to
wind me up.


I'm afraid that this and a thousand other physical and psychological
studies say that the human brain is very, very easily fooled, and
evidence from a sighted test is totally valueless.

If you want to see this in spades, look up the McGurk effect.


Yes, indeed:

http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arn...k_english.html

IMPORTANT - do *not* read the text before playing the video (hide it with
your hand) for best effect!


Point is, it still works perfectly even once you *know* what is
happening. The visual stimulus totally overwhelms the auditory one.

I don't *do* cable threads - same old **** chasing round and round (bringing
out the worst in one or two posters here) and I most definitely CAN'T tell
the difference between speaker cables - sighted or not (I'm happily using
mains cable on one of my amps). But I will just say this - I've got a pair
of Monster XP speaker cables that my brother (no 'audiophile' whatsoever)
gave me because he said that 'they didn't sound too good' on his (mainly
Denon) 'hifi' system....???

Bet he'd wired them up out of phase ;-)

d

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:18:30 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On 31 May 2005 11:03:38 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:



I guess you take issue with "The capacitive component of the cable is
too small to have much influence at audible frequencies, and is thus
omitted from the model."


No. The point is that in a cable (and this is where the lumped model has
problems) the capacitance tends to flatten the HF response, not further
reduce it. A cable is not a lowpass filter.

I've not checked so perhaps I am mis-remembering. Is not the Davis paper
on LS cables as distinct from signal interconnects?

If so, it seems a reasonable assumption to tend to neglect the shunt
capacitance for domestic LS cables. (Assuming the amp is stable, etc.)

I'd agree that such a cable is "not a low pass filter". However it is
generally pretty 'short' in terms of audio signal wavelengths, so a lumped
model is one I'd take to be OK for most purposes.

I appreciate that you were trying to illustrate the point that cables
don't have audible differences, but I had to point out that Fred's
article, by way of its errors, actually understates this case.

Is this an actual "error" in the sense of omitting something important?

I can see that shunt capacitance may be quite significant with
interconnects due to the (relatively) high source impedances often used.
But I would not normally expect this with LS cabling in domestic cases.

Slainte,

Jim

For the most part, and certainly for the purposes of assessing cables,
yes you can ignore the capacitance. But the argument here (and in
Fred's paper) is over fractions of a dB at the high end, and for that,
no you can't. It makes a difference.

So in brief, if one argues that cables sound different, you need to
consider the capacitance in analysing the claim. Fred did so argue,
but failed to consider capacitance. So his paper was flawed.

d

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 11:36:42 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:


andy wrote:

The evidence, I'm afraid, is against you:


http://www.reviewcentre.com/products45.html
http://www.audionote.co.uk/reviews/anspaanspe.htm
http://www.audience-av.com/cable%20reviews.htm


There are a lot of assertions but no evidence that I can find. Can you
please indicate a verifiable experiment in the links given that I may
have missed?


Andy - you seem to have snipped important parts of my post. The above
links are *evidence* that people can differentiate between cables. Now,
*I* wouldn't stretch the point to suggest that it's verifiable or
replicable; I haven't correlated it. But if you dismiss these findings
out of hand then you don't get past (1) - see my OP.

Rob


You have a very poor idea of what constitutes evidence. If I advanced
an opinion that you were a rapist, would you say "fair dos" and hand
yourself in at the nearest police station?


Er, no! On what basis would you make that claim?

Understand this - what people crow in the throes of pride of ownership
of something pretty and expensive is NOT evidence.


Good. Got there. The reason for the claims of superior cable sound is
'pride of ownership'. Phew. Now, evidence please.

Rob

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:07:41 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Depends on the cables and their conditions of use. e.g. Some cables have a
large (relatively speaking) series resistance or inductance, so with some
speakers would produce a change in response I'd find audible, and assume
others would find audible, in appropriate circumstances. Hence this isn't a
matter of blanket "accept" or not. Depends on what details

JIm, think about this. The top end response of a speaker cable is not
determined by the inductance, but by the square root of the ratio of
inductance to capacitance. So you simply can't think about cable
inductance in isolation when trying to work out possible effects; it
*must* be inductance and capacitance. A 1uH/300pF cable will have
precisely the same frequency response as a 10uH/3000pF cable. Both
would be 57 ohm cables, which you could treat as a black box as far as
response is concerned.

d

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:06:46 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:

You have a very poor idea of what constitutes evidence. If I advanced
an opinion that you were a rapist, would you say "fair dos" and hand
yourself in at the nearest police station?


Er, no! On what basis would you make that claim?

I thought you looked like a rapist, of course.

Understand this - what people crow in the throes of pride of ownership
of something pretty and expensive is NOT evidence.


Good. Got there. The reason for the claims of superior cable sound is
'pride of ownership'. Phew. Now, evidence please.

Rob

No, Rob. What we need is evidence that this is NOT so.

Over to you.

d

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