ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

andy wrote:
Dons answer to your questions 1, 2 and 3 perhaps needs qualifying but
is essentially correct in my view. I repeat that I can find no evidence
in your 3 links. If the assertions are not verifiable then they are not
evidence. I suspect most technically literate people will not dismiss
these "findings" out of hand but because:


You mean will, presumeably. Depends what their technical aptitude is,
their degree of literacy, and their 'language'. I think I've indicated
elswhere that this is not substantial evidence in the sense of
'reasonable proof'. It is some evidence of a possible correlation
between sound quality and cable design.

1. They have learned a set of rules which govern how electroacoustic
devices work. This set of rules holds for all devices they have so far
considered. If the rules are not to hold for cables then, quite
reasonably, they are going to require evidence and, hopefully, a
modification to those rules that provides a consistent and better model
of what is going on. (A famous example would be the replacement of
Newtonian mechanics with relativity.)

That is precisely my point. DBT depends on certain assumptions
concerning sound and perception. To link electroacoustics (I think you
mean audio electronics) to human percpetion in this way is possibly
misplaced.

2. There is no evidence presented in the 3 links only
assertions/statements.


They are opinions. In the social world (which is where you live, that
is) I'm afraid they count - however misguided you may think they are.

3. The interests of the authors are clearly not independent of the
presented "findings".


Everything is connected.

Why have we come to different conclusions when considering the same
text? What is in the text that makes you believe the assertions are
true and that the usual rules involving resistance, inductance and
capacitance are not going to hold for cables?

I do not believe the opinions are true, much less social fact. They are
observed phenomena. You have finally taken them - in part - seriously.
The reason you give (IIUC) for the observations of claimed cable
superiority and sound quality is vested interest - people pay a lot of
money for a cable and fool themselves that it sounds better. Correct?
Any other reasons, or any evidence, to back up your claim?

Rob

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

"Don Pearce" wrote


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.


:-)

OK, that was interesting. I don't suppose you know/remember what the
'wunderkabel' were...?? Not that it matters to me - once I read somewhere
that Peter Wossname (Quad) deemed 'decent lampflex' entirely suitable for
speakers, there was no way I wuz ever going to pay more than a quid a metre
(if that) for speaker *wire*.....!!


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


True, but if someone can do the 'test' without the prior knowledge, the
effect is all the more amazing!

Reminds me of the one where blindfolded people were fed bits of potato and
thought it was apple - same sort of thing, remove the visual stimulus and
we're all over the place!!



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 ;-)


Wouldn't be surprised - he's an 'aerospace engineer' with Astrium (was Matra
Marconi last week, feck nose who it'll be next week...)!!! :-)

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:24:23 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:

andy wrote:
Dons answer to your questions 1, 2 and 3 perhaps needs qualifying but
is essentially correct in my view. I repeat that I can find no evidence
in your 3 links. If the assertions are not verifiable then they are not
evidence. I suspect most technically literate people will not dismiss
these "findings" out of hand but because:


You mean will, presumeably. Depends what their technical aptitude is,
their degree of literacy, and their 'language'. I think I've indicated
elswhere that this is not substantial evidence in the sense of
'reasonable proof'. It is some evidence of a possible correlation
between sound quality and cable design.

1. They have learned a set of rules which govern how electroacoustic
devices work. This set of rules holds for all devices they have so far
considered. If the rules are not to hold for cables then, quite
reasonably, they are going to require evidence and, hopefully, a
modification to those rules that provides a consistent and better model
of what is going on. (A famous example would be the replacement of
Newtonian mechanics with relativity.)

That is precisely my point. DBT depends on certain assumptions
concerning sound and perception. To link electroacoustics (I think you
mean audio electronics) to human percpetion in this way is possibly
misplaced.

2. There is no evidence presented in the 3 links only
assertions/statements.


They are opinions. In the social world (which is where you live, that
is) I'm afraid they count - however misguided you may think they are.

3. The interests of the authors are clearly not independent of the
presented "findings".


Everything is connected.

Why have we come to different conclusions when considering the same
text? What is in the text that makes you believe the assertions are
true and that the usual rules involving resistance, inductance and
capacitance are not going to hold for cables?

I do not believe the opinions are true, much less social fact. They are
observed phenomena. You have finally taken them - in part - seriously.
The reason you give (IIUC) for the observations of claimed cable
superiority and sound quality is vested interest - people pay a lot of
money for a cable and fool themselves that it sounds better. Correct?
Any other reasons, or any evidence, to back up your claim?

Rob

Rob, I've already supplied an email with plenty of evidence - which
you are free to follow up if you wish.

What you have provided here is evidence for a psycho-social effect,
not an electronic one.

d

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
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". :-)


Wait until someone latches onto sampling method :-). Going back to my
original assertion:

1. Some people can differentiate between cables;

then evidence exists that they can. Whether you or I believe that to be
entirely misplaced or flimsy 'evidence' is irrelevant for the moment.
You would need to ask certain questions relating to *why* people think
that, and generate a meaningful hypothesis - not simply state
'cables-can't-sound-different-'cos-science-says-so'.



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). :-)


I seem to remember this from somewhere :-). My basic answer is:
'opinions matter'.

Rob

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

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?


I'm afraid the details are rather sketchy. What you have is a number of
field studies, each of small sample size, that point to some sort of
trend. The trend is that some people can differentiate between cables.

Rob

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:54:17 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:

1. Some people can differentiate between cables;

then evidence exists that they can. Whether you or I believe that to be
entirely misplaced or flimsy 'evidence' is irrelevant for the moment.
You would need to ask certain questions relating to *why* people think
that, and generate a meaningful hypothesis - not simply state
'cables-can't-sound-different-'cos-science-says-so'.



No. No evidence exists that they can. Assertion is not evidence. I
have already shown you how easily such claims (by professionals, not
amateurs) were blown apart.

Let me reword 1. for you.

1. Some people believe they can differentiate between cables.

And to follow:

When tested, no such person has ever demonstrated such an ability to
be real.

d

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

Don Pearce wrote:
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.


Which, and I'm sure we can agree on this, is a poor conclusion in this
case.


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.


Put simply, I should imagine very few of the anecdotes I've linked make
such a correlation. It is simply an assumption out of the air as things
stand.

Rob

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

I did it at Decca Studios Marble Arch in the early seventies.

Really?

I was at Decca 1965 to 1978. There were never any
facilities at Marble Arch.


Iain

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

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


I wonder why SP has not issued the challenge to the cable
manufacturers?

Iain

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On Tue, 31 May 2005 14:58:12 +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?


I'm afraid the details are rather sketchy. What you have is a number of
field studies, each of small sample size, that point to some sort of
trend. The trend is that some people can differentiate between cables.

Rob

Rob, are you seriously this naive? Please avoid watching TV adverts,
for your own sake.

d

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