ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On Tue, 31 May 2005 18:10:33 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"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


Very sorry - it was Pye. My memories of those days are hazy.

d

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On Tue, 31 May 2005 18:13:56 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"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


Cable manufacturers know the score. It is the people who cut it up and
put it in bubble packs who are the problem.

d

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 May 2005 18:10:33 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"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


Very sorry - it was Pye. My memories of those days are hazy.

d
Phew! That's a relief, and explains the rest of your story:-)
Decca, like most other studios, used mains cable for speaker
interconnects.



Iain

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:00:28 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:

snip


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. 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.

So - you agree that cables can make a difference to sound quality for
some people? On a more down to earth note i am surprised that none of
the more strident cableophiles haven't taken Stewart up on his offer. Is
it one-way, or a bet? Or does Stewart have a horde of cable people
locked away, never to return, much less appreciate fine cables?

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.

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.

I agree. Let me go back to the beginning.

1. Some people can differentiate between cables;
Agreed - they sound different if they (we) can see them.

2. DBT doesn't reliably support that finding;
Agreed - they all sound the same.

3. DBT, for this purpose, is a flawed method?
I think we agree - DBT doesn't tell us anything about *why* this effect
arises.

As should be clear, I don't know that all cables have the same effect on
audio. I have four main points of focus:

1. Physical science: frankly, I don't have the capacity to prove
anything from that toolbox;
2. Controlled tests: magazines and DBTs. I don't really know what to
make of these. Overall i'm not convinced either way;
3. Anecdote: interesting as it goes, but too many variables;
4. Personal experience. The only speaker cable I've bought was QED 79
biwire - it's in the loft right now (I don't like the look of it!). The
other cables I have found or was given. I can't tell any difference
between them, and all I do is make sure they make a good physical
contact and are out of harm's way. The only exception was I thought at
one point biwiring made a difference, then I wasn't sure, then I gave up.

But that's just me, and I'm half-deaf and amuse myself at how daft *I*
can be during critical listening. Some people are very serious about
this, and spend significant proportions of their disposable income on
wire. I think there's more to this than DBT is telling me.


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


I think that's interesting, although I'd like to understand the point at
which auditory cues 'overstep' visual stimuli. Some of the 'best' cables
look very unpromising - I think DNM little skinny cables?

Rob

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

Keith G wrote:
"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....!! :-)


:-)

snip

Rob

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

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


Probably:-)
And when someone does detect the difference and is asked to name
the phenomenon, he will turn to his wife and ask:

"What is this thing called, love?"

:-)

Iain

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:


Rob wrote:




OK. Do you accept:


1. Some people can differentiate between cables


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


I'll take that as an 'OK' :-)


; 2. DBT doesn't reliably support that finding;


Depends which "that finding" you are referring to. :-)


The finding that "Some people can differentiate between cables"


3. DBT, for this purpose, is a flawed method?


Define "this purpose" in this context. :-)

The aim of explaining why some people can differentiate between cables.


The aim of Stewart's test is to see if *you* can provide any substantiation
of your claim/belief. If you find the differenced "night and day" I'd
assume you would think the difference was so great as to be easily revealed
by a simple test. Thus giving you a chance to pick up some case and show
you are correct. However I don't know if this is the "purpose" you have in
mind.

Er, steer clear of 'me' for the moment - I'm keeping well clear! The
bottom line with this is that DBT doesn't explain why people *can*
distinguish between cables. I'd also be interested in any lateral
thinkers out there who could explain why it's not, as a methodological
point, a substantial method in any event.

Rob

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

Don Pearce wrote:
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.


What I am (or am not) is irrelevant. The fact remains that quite a few
people spend a lot of money on wire.

Rob

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:31:39 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:

Wally wrote:
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'.



OK. Do you accept:

1. Some people can differentiate between cables;

No, they can't - when they don't already *know* which cable is
connected. Care to put some money on it? :-)

2. DBT doesn't reliably support that finding;

Why would it?

3. DBT, for this purpose, is a flawed method?

No, that's bull****, desoite all the frantic handwaving from the
'subjectivists'. Where two signals have *known* small differences, a
double-blind DBT is the *most* sensitive known method of identifying
them.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On Tue, 31 May 2005 09:11:11 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:31:39 +0000 (UTC), Rob
wrote:


OK. Do you accept:

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)

That's not *evidence*, that's self-promotional bull****, with a side
order of snalke oil.


2. DBT doesn't reliably support that finding;


Yes


Probably agreed (from Arnie's test reports).


3. DBT, for this purpose, is a flawed method?


No


This is always going to be difficult for you to explain given your
answer to (1).

Not really, since his answer to (1) has been proven to be correct by
many who fell flat on their faces when they actually tried it.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering