Why? I'm saying that the pebbles scam is exactly that because there is
absolutely no attempt to find ANY logical science behind it, and therefore I
don't believe the perpetrators themselves believe in the effects.

Interconnects are slightly different, in that there is a logical explanation
that can be put forward (even if unproven), and when you combine that with
some peoples firm belief that they can hear a difference, it gets difficult
to brand it a con a such. I'm not trying to justify claims made for cables,
so don't need to put any figures forward.

I think the difference is that the pebble people are almost certainly
sitting there thinking "he he he, we got another sucker who believes what we
tell him, even though we don't", while (some of) the interconnect people
will genuinely believe that their customers are lucky that they can hear the
same effect as they can.

But I'm not out to argue that interconnects are NOT a con. Just that if they
are, it's a much wider held belief and that the argument works because some
people can see that it makes sense.

I may be wrong, but isn't it true that at some point, the interconnects can
be bad enough to degrade, so therefore making them "better" must be a good
thing? I think most reasonable people's understanding is that they can't
make their system better using ever better and better cables, but that they
do need to be of a certain minimum quality in order to have no adverse
effect.

For the record (pun intended), I've never ever heard interconnects make a
scrap of difference, but still wouldn't use domestic telephone cable.

Mark

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article , 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.

Give us some typical real world numbers for the physical effects and it
will
be very easy indeed to argue against them having any practical
significance
whatsoever.

Rod.

In article , Mark R Penn wrote:
Interconnects are slightly different, in that there is a logical explanation
that can be put forward (even if unproven), and when you combine that with
some peoples firm belief that they can hear a difference, it gets difficult
to brand it a con a such. I'm not trying to justify claims made for cables,
so don't need to put any figures forward.

You can easily brand it a con if you do apply some realistic figures, because
then it becomes clear that although cables do have real electrical
characteristics that can be objectively measured, the differences between
supercalifragilistic oxygen-free loudspeaker cables with fancy names and even
fancier prices, and any bog-standard cable from B&Q with a decent amount of
copper are in practice absolutely negligible.

Rod.

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.

Mark

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article , Mark R Penn wrote:
Interconnects are slightly different, in that there is a logical
explanation
that can be put forward (even if unproven), and when you combine that
with
some peoples firm belief that they can hear a difference, it gets
difficult
to brand it a con a such. I'm not trying to justify claims made for
cables,
so don't need to put any figures forward.

You can easily brand it a con if you do apply some realistic figures,
because
then it becomes clear that although cables do have real electrical
characteristics that can be objectively measured, the differences between
supercalifragilistic oxygen-free loudspeaker cables with fancy names and
even
fancier prices, and any bog-standard cable from B&Q with a decent amount
of
copper are in practice absolutely negligible.

Rod.

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?

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?

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 , 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