ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

Hi,

Has anyone heard of this US Loudspeaker Cable manufacturer?(
www.zucable.com ) I was speaking to a friend who uses their "Wax" cable and
he couldn't praise them enough, he says his Wax out performs his now
disowned Kimber Kable 8TC.

I'm intrigued! Is there anybody in the UK who uses ZU cable? Your info will
be greatly received.

Mark.

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

Mark & Mel wrote:

Has anyone heard of this US Loudspeaker Cable manufacturer?(
www.zucable.com ) I was speaking to a friend who uses their "Wax"
cable and he couldn't praise them enough, he says his Wax out
performs his now disowned Kimber Kable 8TC.

I'm intrigued!

Don't be - he's been drinking snake oil by the gallon.


Is there anybody in the UK who uses ZU cable? Your
info will be greatly received.

No, we use ordinary copper and spend the savings on CDs.


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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On Sat, 28 May 2005 17:54:27 +0100, "Mark & Mel"
wrote:

Has anyone heard of this US Loudspeaker Cable manufacturer?(
www.zucable.com ) I was speaking to a friend who uses their "Wax" cable and
he couldn't praise them enough, he says his Wax out performs his now
disowned Kimber Kable 8TC.

Tell him to stop drinking that snake oil, it's bad for your hearing!

I'm intrigued! Is there anybody in the UK who uses ZU cable? Your info will
be greatly received.

It's wire, dude, and wire is wire, no matter what the price or the
fancy packaging. In purely technical terms, Kimber 8TC is superior to
almost anything on the market - but it still *sounds* the same as
ordinary 12 AWG 'zipcord'.

I've had a look at the Zu site, and it's a classic scam. They don't
give any proper specifications for the cable, the remarks about
directionality and burn-in are total bull****, and the rest of the
blurb reeks of purest snake oil. You'll get *exactly* the same sound
from 13 amp mains cable at a hundredth of the price.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

In article ,
Mark & Mel wrote:
Has anyone heard of this US Loudspeaker Cable manufacturer?(
www.zucable.com ) I was speaking to a friend who uses their "Wax" cable
and he couldn't praise them enough, he says his Wax out performs his
now disowned Kimber Kable 8TC.

I'm intrigued! Is there anybody in the UK who uses ZU cable? Your info
will be greatly received.

Maplin sell a very suitable flat twin speaker cable that will perform as
well as any other for under a quid a metre...

--
*Taxation WITH representation ain't much fun, either.

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

I don't know about this ZU stuff, but if someone can't hear the difference
between at least some speaker cables then they must either have low
resolution audio equipment or little ability to listen to the various
strands and acoustic of music or just the luck not to have picked a poor
cable. It's some time since I compared speaker cables but a few years back
there were night and day differences on my system with 3 types I bought and
various ones I made up. Now, interconnects I could believe, differences are
much smaller compared to speaker cables. With headphone extension cables
we're back to night and day differences, I had to make one myself to get a
non-screwed up sound.



"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 May 2005 17:54:27 +0100, "Mark & Mel"
wrote:

Has anyone heard of this US Loudspeaker Cable manufacturer?(
www.zucable.com ) I was speaking to a friend who uses their "Wax" cable
and
he couldn't praise them enough, he says his Wax out performs his now
disowned Kimber Kable 8TC.

Tell him to stop drinking that snake oil, it's bad for your hearing!

I'm intrigued! Is there anybody in the UK who uses ZU cable? Your info
will
be greatly received.

It's wire, dude, and wire is wire, no matter what the price or the
fancy packaging. In purely technical terms, Kimber 8TC is superior to
almost anything on the market - but it still *sounds* the same as
ordinary 12 AWG 'zipcord'.

I've had a look at the Zu site, and it's a classic scam. They don't
give any proper specifications for the cable, the remarks about
directionality and burn-in are total bull****, and the rest of the
blurb reeks of purest snake oil. You'll get *exactly* the same sound
from 13 amp mains cable at a hundredth of the price.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On Mon, 30 May 2005 07:39:33 +0100, "SteveB"
sbrads@nildramDOTcoDOTuk wrote:

I don't know about this ZU stuff, but if someone can't hear the difference
between at least some speaker cables then they must either have low
resolution audio equipment or little ability to listen to the various
strands and acoustic of music or just the luck not to have picked a poor
cable.

Bull****. If you can demonstrate an ability to hear 'cable sound'
under level-matched blind conditions, I'll give you £1,000.

It's some time since I compared speaker cables but a few years back
there were night and day differences on my system with 3 types I bought and
various ones I made up. Now, interconnects I could believe, differences are
much smaller compared to speaker cables. With headphone extension cables
we're back to night and day differences, I had to make one myself to get a
non-screwed up sound.

You're kidding yourself, pal. We've heard these claims many many
times, but not one single person has *ever* been able to back them up.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

In article , SteveB
sbrads@nildramDOTcoDOTuk wrote:
I don't know about this ZU stuff, but if someone can't hear the
difference between at least some speaker cables then they must either
have low resolution audio equipment or little ability to listen to the
various strands and acoustic of music or just the luck not to have
picked a poor cable. It's some time since I compared speaker cables
but a few years back there were night and day differences on my system
with 3 types I bought and various ones I made up.

ahem Stewart will probably be along again shortly... You may be able to
make some cash here... ;-)

Alas, although various others in the past have said they can hear "night
and day" differences, so far as I know, none of them have been able to
substantiate this in a reliable test. Still, this could be your chance to
make a lot of money quite easily if you are correct!

I'd be interested to know what lengths of cables you compared, and using
what speakers. FWIW your experience is quite different to mine.


Now, interconnects I could believe, differences are much smaller
compared to speaker cables.
With headphone extension cables we're back to night and day
differences, I had to make one myself to get a non-screwed up sound.

Question as above. Plus what amp you used and how the phone o/p was taken
from it.

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?)
 

If you can demonstrate an ability to hear 'cable sound'
under level-matched blind conditions, I'll give you £1,000.

Can the subject choose the amplifier and speakers?

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

In article ,
SteveB sbrads@nildramDOTcoDOTuk wrote:
I don't know about this ZU stuff, but if someone can't hear the
difference between at least some speaker cables then they must either
have low resolution audio equipment or little ability to listen to the
various strands and acoustic of music or just the luck not to have
picked a poor cable. It's some time since I compared speaker cables
but a few years back there were night and day differences on my system
with 3 types I bought and various ones I made up.

Were they all of suitable gauge wire?

Now, interconnects I could believe, differences are much smaller
compared to speaker cables.

Funnily, the only time I've heard a difference is with interconnects on
high impedance valve equipment. And pickups. But there's no magic to this.

With headphone extension cables we're back to night and day
differences, I had to make one myself to get a non-screwed up sound.

Likely the connector. Some jack types are notoriously poor.

--
*Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home.

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On 30 May 2005 01:37:45 -0700, "andy" wrote:

If you can demonstrate an ability to hear 'cable sound'
under level-matched blind conditions, I'll give you £1,000.

Can the subject choose the amplifier and speakers?

Yes, the only pre-condition is that the levels match across the audio
band. This is isn't a trick of any kind, it's just to stop someone
introducing say 20 feet of 40AWG wire, or a big series inductor, to
win the bet on a 'cheat'.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

In order to get an audible variation with typical cables I was
intending to direct drive electrostatic speakers. Obviously the
intention was to create significant differences in level across the
audible band but this is 'cheating'? (Actually I am not sure I would
want to mess with something potentially lethal for only GBP 1000).

Matching the levels across the audible band (20-20kHz?) is a pretty
severe precondition. Can I choose the source as well as the amplifier
and speakers?

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

I think I reused the same connectors for the headphone extension cable, they
certainly weren't anything special, it was the cables that made the
difference. I didn't need fancy wires to get a better sound, just shorter
ones with individual unscreened wires loosely spot tied instead of those
horrible sprung coil leads.

I don't believe a competition would have any merit at all as I'm convinced
most listeners don't listen properly and no offence but how do I know you
aren't in that category? Sorry, but listening is a skill that I'm willing
to teach to anyone with an open mind but only on my system which is far from
perfect, but has been tweaked over the years to give its best and I know it
inside out.

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
If you can demonstrate an ability to hear 'cable sound'
under level-matched blind conditions, I'll give you £1,000.

Can the subject choose the amplifier and speakers?

Yes, the only pre-condition is that the levels match across the audio
band. This is isn't a trick of any kind, it's just to stop someone
introducing say 20 feet of 40AWG wire, or a big series inductor, to
win the bet on a 'cheat'.

Well, of course, you *could* allow them to specify the amp - Naim - and
you the speakers. Electrostatics. And watch the smoke come out of the Naim
with basic cable. ;-)

--
*Red meat is not bad for you. Fuzzy green meat is bad for you.

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

In article ,
SteveB sbrads@nildramDOTcoDOTuk wrote:
I think I reused the same connectors for the headphone extension cable,
they certainly weren't anything special, it was the cables that made
the difference. I didn't need fancy wires to get a better sound, just
shorter ones with individual unscreened wires loosely spot tied instead
of those horrible sprung coil leads.

You don't need screened wire for headphones anyway - they're a high level
low impedance device, just like a speaker. Something like four core
burglar alarm cable at pennies a metre will do just fine.

--
*I'm pretty sure that sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it.

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

You don't need screened wire for headphones anyway - they're a high level
low impedance device, just like a speaker. Something like four core
burglar alarm cable at pennies a metre will do just fine.

Yeah, but you'd like something nice and flexible, and something that
doesn't fail if bent and flexed a lot.

Sennheiser used to use steel wire in their headphones. Kinda scary, I always
imagined those cabled being used to garrotte someone.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On 30 May 2005 09:06:11 -0700, "andy" wrote:

In order to get an audible variation with typical cables I was
intending to direct drive electrostatic speakers. Obviously the
intention was to create significant differences in level across the
audible band but this is 'cheating'? (Actually I am not sure I would
want to mess with something potentially lethal for only GBP 1000).

Sure it's cheating, since easily replicable level changes are never
what is claimed for 'audiophile' cables.

Matching the levels across the audible band (20-20kHz?) is a pretty
severe precondition.

Not really, unless you are trying to pull a fast one. When did you
ever see $1,000 a foot cable claim that it had a different FR from
zipcord?

Can I choose the source as well as the amplifier
and speakers?

Absolutely.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On Mon, 30 May 2005 18:11:29 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
If you can demonstrate an ability to hear 'cable sound'
under level-matched blind conditions, I'll give you £1,000.

Can the subject choose the amplifier and speakers?

Yes, the only pre-condition is that the levels match across the audio
band. This is isn't a trick of any kind, it's just to stop someone
introducing say 20 feet of 40AWG wire, or a big series inductor, to
win the bet on a 'cheat'.

Well, of course, you *could* allow them to specify the amp - Naim - and
you the speakers. Electrostatics. And watch the smoke come out of the Naim
with basic cable. ;-)

Aah, you've been around this game for a while, haven't you? :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On Mon, 30 May 2005 17:46:08 +0100, "SteveB"
sbrads@nildramDOTcoDOTuk wrote:

I think I reused the same connectors for the headphone extension cable, they
certainly weren't anything special, it was the cables that made the
difference. I didn't need fancy wires to get a better sound, just shorter
ones with individual unscreened wires loosely spot tied instead of those
horrible sprung coil leads.

I don't believe a competition would have any merit at all as I'm convinced
most listeners don't listen properly and no offence but how do I know you
aren't in that category?

It's not a competition, it's just *you* backing up your bull**** and
picking up an easy £1,000 if these differences are really 'night and
day', like you claim they are. Or even audible at all, to *you*, in
your own system, in your own time, and with your own choice of music.

Sorry, but listening is a skill that I'm willing
to teach to anyone with an open mind but only on my system which is far from
perfect, but has been tweaked over the years to give its best and I know it
inside out.

Yeah, right, asshole...................

You are free to use your own system and your own choice of music, the
only precondition is that the cables have the same FR over the audio
band. I've yet to see any 'audiophile' cable that claimed any FR
difference, so that shouldn't be a problem, should it? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

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'.

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.



"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Yeah, right, asshole...................

You are free to use your own system and your own choice of music, the
only precondition is that the cables have the same FR over the audio
band. I've yet to see any 'audiophile' cable that claimed any FR
difference, so that shouldn't be a problem, should it? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

In article ,
Fleetie wrote:
You don't need screened wire for headphones anyway - they're a high
level low impedance device, just like a speaker. Something like four
core burglar alarm cable at pennies a metre will do just fine.

Yeah, but you'd like something nice and flexible, and something that
doesn't fail if bent and flexed a lot.

Burglar alarm cable is multi-strand, and at least as flexible as most
normal cables - unless of the textile cored types.

--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up *

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

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.

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

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.

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

But why would you *need* to cheat

Money, status - the usual reasons people cheat.

If done properly it should give a good marketing edge for flogging my
Chinese cables (which are also distributed by several other cable
companies). As far as I know none of my competitors have ever offered
any proof of the superiority of these cables. Since it is rubbish that
would be transferred into the audible range by ensuring that my cables
are the ones that have the reduced response in the sub/ultra range it
should be unanimous which cable sounds better.

if Kimber cable (or substitute your favourite snake-oil peddlar) is 'night and day' better than ordinary twinflex?

Nah these cables are rubbish compared to mine and I would be able to
prove it (if you let me choose the amplifier, speakers and source).

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

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.


The test Stewart is inviting you to pick up cash for passing does not rely
on anyone's opinions. The test is a form of blind ABX where you have a
three way switch between cable 'A', cable 'B', and cable 'X'. Setting 'X'
will use either 'A' or 'B', but you will have no prior info on which during
each test. If you then listen and can show - with statistical significance
- that you can reliably identify when 'X' is 'A' from when 'X' is 'B' then
you get the cash.

Thus what anyone else can hear, or not, and their opinions, don't affect
how often you may write down 'A' or 'B' when deciding which 'X' may be at
that time. If it is a double-blind test, no-one in the room will know by
any prior knowledge...


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'.

The above is a way to test your claim that you can hear "night and day"
differences. If they are obvious to you I'd assume you'd welcome the chance
to rip some easy money out of Stewart's wallet. :-)

BTW If you fail to back up your claim, you pay nothing. All you get is the
opportunity to realise you may have been mistaken in your previous beliefs.
:-)

This gives you an advantage as you have nothing (in terms of cash) to
'lose', but you might get lucky and guess well even if your beliefs are
unfounded. If you *can* hear "night and day"[1] differences then it is easy
cash. :-)


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.

As an electronics engineer and physicist, as well as a music lover and
audio enthusiast, I don't think the above has much to do with what Stewart
is inviting you to do. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

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

--
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?)
 

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;
2. DBT doesn't reliably support that finding;
3. DBT, for this purpose, is a flawed method?

Rob

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

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

OK. Do you accept:

1. Some people can differentiate between cables;

No

2. DBT doesn't reliably support that finding;

Yes

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

No


Rob

d

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

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)


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).

Rob

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)

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.



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).

Rob

DBT reveals that there is no audible difference between cables that
meet a minimum condition of basic competence for an application.
Therefore DBT is NOT a flawed method.

Unless you consider it a flaw to fail to reveal a difference that
doesn't exist.

d

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

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?

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On 2005-05-31, 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

To add some published evidence, in Fred Davis' JAES
paper on cable, loudspeaker and amplifier interactions (see
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf) the normal
RLC parameters of the cables (no snake oil here) seem to produce quite
significant variations in the frequency responses of the amp-cable-speaker
system above 5 kHz. See for example figure 14, where there is a 0.5 dB
variation at 20 kHz, 0.4 dB at 15 kHz and about 0.2 dB at 10 kHz.

However, looking at JAES figures on audibility threshold (see for
example http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/t...LevelMatch.gif)
the differences above are probably not even audible to to someone whose
hearing is still "young" and extends to 20 kHz. For most "mature" ears
I am sure the reported differences due to the cable are not audible.

However as Trevor Wilson has pointed out on this newsgroup a few
loudspeakers do have extreme impedance curves. The above paper deals
with two loudspeakers whose minimum |Z| is 4.8 Ohms and 5.8 Ohms, so
maybe the "No" above (which I agree with under almost all circumstances
from the published research) could become a "Yes" under a few specialist
conditions where, for example, the loudspeaker |Z| falls, say, to 1 Ohm.

Note that someone doing Stewart Pinkerton's tests with the same set of
kit and cables as Fred Davis would apparently fail the 0.1 dB threshold
test.

--
John Phillips

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On 31 May 2005 09:48:25 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

On 2005-05-31, 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

To add some published evidence, in Fred Davis' JAES
paper on cable, loudspeaker and amplifier interactions (see
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf) the normal
RLC parameters of the cables (no snake oil here) seem to produce quite
significant variations in the frequency responses of the amp-cable-speaker
system above 5 kHz. See for example figure 14, where there is a 0.5 dB
variation at 20 kHz, 0.4 dB at 15 kHz and about 0.2 dB at 10 kHz.

However, looking at JAES figures on audibility threshold (see for
example http://www.pcavtech.com/soundcards/t...LevelMatch.gif)
the differences above are probably not even audible to to someone whose
hearing is still "young" and extends to 20 kHz. For most "mature" ears
I am sure the reported differences due to the cable are not audible.

However as Trevor Wilson has pointed out on this newsgroup a few
loudspeakers do have extreme impedance curves. The above paper deals
with two loudspeakers whose minimum |Z| is 4.8 Ohms and 5.8 Ohms, so
maybe the "No" above (which I agree with under almost all circumstances
from the published research) could become a "Yes" under a few specialist
conditions where, for example, the loudspeaker |Z| falls, say, to 1 Ohm.

Note that someone doing Stewart Pinkerton's tests with the same set of
kit and cables as Fred Davis would apparently fail the 0.1 dB threshold
test.

Do bear in mind the Fred Davis's maths is deeply flawed in this
article.

d

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

ZU Wax Speaker Cable (a Kimber basher?)
 

On 2005-05-31, Don Pearce wrote:
On 31 May 2005 09:48:25 GMT, John Phillips
wrote:

On 2005-05-31, 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

To add some published evidence, in Fred Davis' JAES
paper on cable, loudspeaker and amplifier interactions (see
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/cableInteractions.pdf) ...

Do bear in mind the Fred Davis's maths is deeply flawed in this
article.

I have not been through the maths. Could you give me an example?

--
John Phillips