Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
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.


Digital information can get 'lost', or simply not arrive, by virtue of
digital cables available in any PC shop. The resistance of cables is
real ('logical'), but may be of no audible advantage/disadvantage. To
describe cable difference as having no consequence is wrong - people buy
them.


"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, you're far too aggressive. It's not "my" logic, it's the logic that
is generally accepted by the cable buying layman.

My only point is that for cables, you CAN give a logic to the average layman
that will cause him to say "hmm, makes sense to me", while for the pebbles,
most will say "bollox" when presented with the idea. I therefore believe
that the pebbles can be categorically stated to be a con, while for cables
the debate will go on forever. That's it; my only point.

Mark

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
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

Well I thought he was talking about speaker cables using different quality
sources to see if the quality of the source made any difference to the
"sensitivity" of the speaker cables, but reading it again, you could be
right. If you are, then I'd agree that a digital signal is a digital signal
is a digital signal, and it would be very difficult if not impossible to
degrade it using cables.

Mark

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
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.

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

No it isn't. I can see that in this group, the majority bottom post, but in
most others it's considered old fashioned and bad manners nowadays. To
bottom post forces the users of most newsreaders to scroll all the way down
to the bottom of a message to see the reply, either in a preview window or
with the message open. Noone does that with an e-mail message, so why do it
with a news post?

Using a web based interface is different I agree, making it impossible to do
the "right" thing (do you please the web users, or the newsreader users?)
But in most groups even the bottom posters admit that it's a hangover
nowadays, preferred by "old fogies". That's not my phrase BTW, it's one from
a bottom poster when he was asked why he still does it.

I prefer to favour newsreader users over web based users, because most
regular posters on most groups agree that web based interfaces are clunky
compared to a "proper" reader.

I will say though that most of the groups I post in are MS ones, and that
the MS web interface is the clunkiest around, so that may be why I see so
many people rejecting it.

Mark

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
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

In article ,
Rob wrote:
Digital information can get 'lost', or simply not arrive, by virtue of
digital cables available in any PC shop. The resistance of cables is
real ('logical'), but may be of no audible advantage/disadvantage. To
describe cable difference as having no consequence is wrong - people buy
them.

People buy all sorts of things. Where a market exists someone will fill
it. Whether that product works or not. If it were a claimed cure for
cancer the authorities would take action - probably. But interconnects etc
don't interest them.

Surly you've heard the results of a digital stream being 'lost'? On DAB or
FreeView? It doesn't effect any of the analogue parameters 'depth' 'space'
'positioning' etc. It's usually a bloody great hole followed by a chirps
and bangs as things attempt to sync up again...

You'll effect these things by reducing the data rate. But no cable can do
do this.

--
*Great groups from little icons grow *

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

In article , Mark R Penn wrote:
Why so aggressive Roderick - I'm agreeing with you, not arguing.

Sorry, it wasn't intended to seem aggressive. I was simply hoping to clarify
what actual physical quantity people think they are talking about when the
"quality" of loudspeaker cables is discussed with regard to their putative
different effects on the sound. Use of terms like "quality" (and other even
less scientific ones) can make claims nice and vague, and therefore difficult
to refute.

I would have thought that in a typical domestic hi-fi setup, the only
meaningful physical property of the loudspeaker cables would be their
electrical resistance. This is a straightforward electrical quantity that can
be measured to as much accuracy as you feel like paying for, and about which
there is no need for any mystique or mumbo-jumbo. You just get a resistance
meter and measure it, or calculate it from the cross-sectional area and the
resistivity of copper. It is easy and very inexpensive to ensure that the
resistance of the loudspeaker cables is less than that of the loudspeakers by
several orders of magnitude, at which you'd think that any rational person
would cease to regard it as something that even needs thinking about. I doubt
if many of the people who ridicule the use of bell wire or lighting flex for
this purpose (because it isn't of suitable "quality") have any idea of the
relevant numbers.

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.

Well, it appears that you are talking about resistance, and talking sense, but
I wouldn't be surprised if somebody tries to convince us that there is
something more, some mysterious property of copper wire that every scientist
and engineer for the past century and a half has missed.

Rod.

In article , Chris Morriss 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.

Those who think they hear a difference have empty wallets and a need to
justify them. It's amazing what wishful thinking can do.

Rod.

In article ,
Mark R Penn wrote:
No it isn't. I can see that in this group, the majority bottom post, but
in most others it's considered old fashioned and bad manners nowadays.

Strange. I read some 20 newsgroups and subscribe to half a dozen e-mail
lists. And it's only the lazy who can't be bothered to trim that top post
because that's how OE is set up to 'work'. And this applies to both the UK
and US.

Private e-mails are a totally different matter - you'd be expected to
remember the discussion. So previous mail(s) are only quoted for reference.

Newsgroups are a different matter completely. Many posts will be replied
to commenting on various points. So it makes sense to interleave and put
your comment below the OP one so it makes some sense. If you accept this
then top posting where this isn't needed makes no sense whatsoever.

--
*A day without sunshine is like... night.

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

In article , Mark R Penn
wrote:
Incidentally, top posting is a crime...................

No it isn't.

It is not a criminal offence in the UK. However it does show bad manners as
it displays a lack of consideration for those *reading* what you write. By
top posting above an unsnipped prior posting you make it harder for people
to follow what points you are responding to, and to make appropriate
reponses *whilst snipping needless repetitions*.

I can see that in this group, the majority bottom post, but
in most others it's considered old fashioned and bad manners nowadays.

Well here, top posting is regarded as 'bad manners', and this is the case
on most of the usenet groups I have participated in over the years.

It isn't "bottom posting", though. It is putting your comments into a
logical order so that they are easier for people to see *in context*. Thus
my responses where I place comments after the statements upon which I am
commenting, and snip things which it seems unnecessary to remove.

To bottom post forces the users of most newsreaders to scroll all the
way down to the bottom of a message to see the reply,

That is why the division isn't between "top posting" (which forces people
to scroll down to find what you are referring to when writing) and "bottom
posting". It is between "top posting" and editing/placing your comments in
context, and making the results easier to read.

[snip]

I will say though that most of the groups I post in are MS ones, and
that the MS web interface is the clunkiest around, so that may be why I
see so many people rejecting it.

On that, we may agree. As ever, MS make things awkward... :-)

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

In article , Roderick
Stewart wrote:
In article , Mark R Penn wrote:
Why so aggressive Roderick - I'm agreeing with you, not arguing.


I would have thought that in a typical domestic hi-fi setup, the only
meaningful physical property of the loudspeaker cables would be their
electrical resistance.

The series inductance may also be relevant unless reasonably low.

In some cases the shunt capacitance may also have an effect.

However for R,L,C, with a reasonable cable, the effects should be somewhere
between 'small' and 'inaudible'.

[snip]

Well, it appears that you are talking about resistance, and talking
sense, but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody tries to convince us
that there is something more, some mysterious property of copper wire
that every scientist and engineer for the past century and a half has
missed.

Many such 'amazing properties' tend to feature in the publicity material
for expensive cables. Sometimes based on vacuous twaddle, but more often on
taking something wildly out of context and making a mountain out of a
molehill. The result is technobabble...

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