Not sure I understand your reply:-

I understood Glen Richards to say that he changed the interconnects between
CD player and DAC and heard a difference. My contention is that there cannot
be a difference.

S.


"Mark R Penn" wrote in message
...
I don't think anyone said anything about that cable - isn't it the speaker
cables which are being compared? The relevance of the DAC is the quality of
the source isn't it?

Mark

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...
Mark R Penn wrote:


I then sent the digital output of the Technics player into an Arcam
Black Box 50 offboard DAC, and repeated the experiment.

This time there WAS a quite dramatic improvement in the sound each time
you went up the scale. Tighter and deeper bass, better projection and
soundstaging, more detail.

Now this I DO take issue with. The data that goes between player and DAC
is EXACTLY the same regardless of cable. In fact, I have done an
experiment where I used literally a short bit if wet salty string between
CD player and DAC, and the decoded audio was identical to using a
correctly matched 75 ohm cable. S-PDIF and AES/EBU is extremely rugged
and will withstand a lot of abuse. Cable-induced jitter could be an issue
with an inferior DAC that doesn't reclock the data adequately, and this
may be the case with the Arcam unit, I don't know the details of their
receivers, but even with a poor DAC receiver, whilst there may be a
difference between a good 75 ohm cable and something very inferior (very
poor impedance match) there would be negligible difference between two 75
ohm cables of normal domestic lengths.

S.

Eiron wrote:
Why don't you take the thousand pound challenge? Mr. Pinkerton's cash is
waiting.

Because some people simply don't care to, the money isn't important. We
have ears and some believe what we hear or believe we hear - and it
doesn't matter which. If you can't hear a difference, I could argue
that you're deaf, but I don't. Each to their own.

I'm going to get myself a short pair of tri-wired solid silver speaker
cables, it'll be interesting to see if I can hear a difference between
these and my existing ones, no doubt I won't convince the majority of
those on this group whatever I say.

Because some people simply don't care to, the money isn't important. We
have ears and some believe what we hear or believe we hear - and it
doesn't matter which. If you can't hear a difference, I could argue
that you're deaf, but I don't. Each to their own.

I'm going to get myself a short pair of tri-wired solid silver speaker
cables, it'll be interesting to see if I can hear a difference between
these and my existing ones, no doubt I won't convince the majority of
those on this group whatever I say.

Classic stereotype response.

In article , Mark R Penn wrote:
Yes, that's what I thought - there is a minimum below which degradation will
begin, but above which no amount of tweaking will be audible. Makes complete
sense to me.

Minimum what exactly?

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:26:38 GMT, "Mark R Penn"
wrote:

So to boil all that down then, my suspicion that you have to reach a certain
minimum standard of cable in order to get the best out of your system, but
that beyond that you'll make no difference at all, no matter how much you
spend, would be right?

Yes. And that minimum standard has nothing to do with what the cables
cost. Indeed, some very pricey 'designer' cables can be extremely
*poor* in technical terms.

And would it be at all true to say that the better the system, the more
information (wider frequency spread?) is extracted from the source, and
therefore the higher that minimum standard needs to be?

No.

I'd LOVE to see Stewarts test applied to the pebbles!

Me too, but it will never happen, because clowns like Glenn Richards
always duck out when challenged to *prove* their bull**** claims, even
when there's a decent cash prize involved.

Incidentally, top posting is a crime...................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:08:28 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Mark R Penn wrote:

That with less resistance and fewer losses in the cable, more
information must get through. It may be flawed logic, or good logic
with no perceivable real world benefit, I don't know, but at least
it's logic that the average layman would find it difficult to argue
against.

No point arguing with Pinkerton when it comes to cables, he's convinced
that they make no difference and anyone that disagrees with him is
"arrogant" or "ignorant" or both. (Usenet rule 1: If you're losing an
argument, resort to personal insults.)

Actually, we long ago perceived on this group that you're with
squirrel solutions because you're nuts. That do for openers? :-)

A few weeks back I posted something about some cheap but decent speaker
cables that Richer Sounds are doing, Audio Innovations Silver, and how
for £25 I'd greatly improved the sound of my second dedicated AV system.

And as always with you, it was utter drivel.

A useful bit of info that I thought I'd share with anyone who was
interested. What followed was people telling me that my speakers must
have been connected out of phase prior to changing the cables, people
disputing that I'd heard a difference, and Pinkerton resorting to
name-calling.

Actually, I pointed out that you were totally wrong, and *you* started
the rudeness. Granted I finished it....... :-)

All I'll say is that there were three people in that room, all of whom
were greatly impressed by the difference.

Easily done, and nothing to do with the physical world. Ever heard the
tale of the Emperor's Clothes? Standard practice in hi-fi stores.

Speaker cables (and interconnects) DO make a difference to the sound.

No, they don't.

But there is an optimum. There's no point, for example, on putting a
£100 interconnect between a £100 CD player and £120 amp, a £10 Cambridge
Atlantic from Richer will do the job just fine. In fact, to satisfy my
own curiosity I did a little experiment.

There's no point in putting it between £20,000 worth of Wadia and
Halcro either.

Technics SL-PG590 CD player, SU-VX600 amplifier (both pretty good
budget/mid range products). Tried switching between freebie
interconnect, Cambridge Atlantic (£10), Pearl (£15), Pacific (£30) and
Chord Company Cobra II (£60-ish, but cost me £24 at Sound & Vision 2005).

You could hear a clear and dramatic difference between the freebie and
Atlantic, but no audible difference between Atlantic, Pearl, Pacific and
Cobra II.

Bull****.

I then sent the digital output of the Technics player into an Arcam
Black Box 50 offboard DAC, and repeated the experiment.

This time there WAS a quite dramatic improvement in the sound each time
you went up the scale. Tighter and deeper bass, better projection and
soundstaging, more detail.

More bull****. You have ducked the blind test question every time, so
this is no longer ignorance, it's sheer stupidity and arrogance.

Case of horses for courses, you might say. As I said before, no point
sticking a £100 (or even a £60) interconnect on a £100 [1] CD player.


[1] Of course the price itself doesn't matter, I include it merely so
that you know what calibre of equipment is in use.

No point in putting 'designer'cables on *any* equipment.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:44:37 GMT, "Mark R Penn"
wrote:

That with less resistance and fewer losses in the cable, more information
must get through. It may be flawed logic, or good logic with no perceivable
real world benefit, I don't know, but at least it's logic that the average
layman would find it difficult to argue against.

If by 'information', you mean a digital data stream, then it's simply
not true. In the case of analogue audio signals, the resistance of any
interconnect is inconsequential, and you need a very long run of poor
cable to suffer any loss of treble due to capacitance. So, your
'scientific logic' is neither scientific nor logical - as is the case
with the truly risible claims made by the cable companies.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:16:59 GMT, "Mark R Penn"
wrote:

Isn't the harm that someone somewhere is getting away with a rip-off? The
fact that the "victims" can afford their losses doesn't really make it any
better I think.

Quite so.

At least with interconnects there's some scientific logic behind the
claims,
even if most people can't genuinely hear any difference.

Oh, Really? And what 'scientific logic' would that be, pray tell?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In message .com,
David Lodge writes
Eiron wrote:
Why don't you take the thousand pound challenge? Mr. Pinkerton's cash is
waiting.

Because some people simply don't care to, the money isn't important. We
have ears and some believe what we hear or believe we hear - and it
doesn't matter which. If you can't hear a difference, I could argue
that you're deaf, but I don't. Each to their own.


Or it could be that we have adequate hearing, and those who think they
hear a difference have tinnitus.

--
Chris Morriss

In article .com,
David
Lodge wrote:
Eiron wrote:
Why don't you take the thousand pound challenge? Mr. Pinkerton's cash
is waiting.

Because some people simply don't care to, the money isn't important. We
have ears and some believe what we hear or believe we hear - and it
doesn't matter which. If you can't hear a difference, I could argue that
you're deaf, but I don't. Each to their own.

I have heard the above 'reason' given on many occasions as being why
someone refuses to show in a test that they *can* hear what they claim.
However I am afraid it seems rather an insubstantial 'reason' to me.
Particularly as it seems to be given by almost *everyone* who makes the
claims, then refuses to show they can do what they claim.

I am afraid that the behaviour of the physical world isn't decided on the
basis of "each to their own". If you wish to make claims about how real
physical items have real physical effects, then that is subject to the
scientific method, and suitable measurements, etc. Either the change of
cables alters the resulting sound to an audible degree, or it does not.
This is testable, so asserting "each to their own" is an irrelevance.

I'm going to get myself a short pair of tri-wired solid silver speaker
cables, it'll be interesting to see if I can hear a difference between
these and my existing ones, no doubt I won't convince the majority of
those on this group whatever I say.

Correct. What might convince people is you being willing to actually
demonstrate that you can actually hear a difference when the only evidence
available to you is the sound - a la Stewart's test. Otherwise we have no
way to know if you are not simply deluding yourself. Given that:

1) the test *is* open to you, but you refuse to take it.

2) many of us have repeatedly tried to hear such differences and find
them inaudible in the defined conditions - despite being able to hear
other effects.

3) the 'explanations' given by makers are often technobabble.

4) This argument has been going on for decades. Although early on
some people *did* submit to tests, they failed to show they could
hear a difference. Since then the standard reaction seems to be
to refuse to put their claims to a test.

It seems reasonable to me to conclude you are talking nonsense, and
are probably self-deluded - until such time as you (or someone else)
takes the test and demonstrates they can back up their faith.

If you don't care if I/we regard you as self-deluded, then you should
feel no need to reply. However if you feel you should responde, then
note that the response that would be most plausible would be to take
Stewart's test...

Where "each to their own" *does* apply is where it is up to you to
decide if you wish others to regard you claims as having any
worth or not... On that issue, the ball is in your court.


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

Why so aggressive Roderick - I'm agreeing with you, not arguing.

I'm assuming that it must be possible to install cables of such poor quality
(you said "from B&Q with a decent amount of copper", so poor quality in this
context would presumably mean not enough copper?) that the sound quality
degrades? That doesn't mean that the quality will improve if you add more or
"better" copper once you have enough though. My lights shine as bright as
they ever will with 3amp (or whatever) cable. Installing 150mm sq armoured
won't make them shine (perceivably) any brighter.

Other people have said that for your test, which I'd love to see a hifi bod
take for cables, pebbles AND the clever clocks, you have a certain minimum
spec. I'm simply trying to establish what that spec is, and if it tallies
with my own unscientific view that it'll be "more than telephone extension
cable, but considerably less than 1mm sq flex".

I've used 1mm flex before now, as well as relatively expensive OFC speaker
cable, and I've never heard a scrap of difference. If I can get away with
something even cheaper, I will, so I'm interested to hear your views.

Mark

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article , Mark R Penn wrote:
Yes, that's what I thought - there is a minimum below which degradation
will
begin, but above which no amount of tweaking will be audible. Makes
complete
sense to me.

Minimum what exactly?