On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:57:06 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"mick" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:38:14 +0000, Trevor Wilson burbled:

snip

**Stewart has already covered his arse, by stating the frequency response
AT THE SPEAKER TERMINALS must be within 0.1dB. Stewart knows full well
that it is very easy to expose easily audible differences between speaker
cables. After level matching, that task becomes well nigh impossible.

He is quite right. You are testing for a difference in cables, not sound
level, so that has to be taken out of the equation. The level matching
also makes sure that the speakers are starting from the same common base
line. He has only fixed 2 frequency points to match, not the full response
curve and not via a mic, so there is plenty of room for exotic cables to
prove themselves - if they can.

**You miss the point. That is EXACTLY how (most) exotic speaker cables DO
sound different.

No, they bloody don't. How many times do I have to point out that
cheap computer ribbon cable is a match for any of those unobtainium
wonder cables?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:29:50 +0000, Eiron wrote:

neutron wrote:

There are plenty of cable believers who have no financial risk, the fact of
the matter is Stewart is a grade 'A' prick, arrogant to the extreme, smarmy,
with his head wedged fully up his own arsehole. Would you invite someone
like that into your home?

Is this what psychologists call 'projection'?

Yup............

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:55:30 +0000 (UTC), "neutron"
wrote:


"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
. com...
In article , Neutron
wrote:
I don't see this 'challenge' will ever be taken up - factor in a
'financial
risk' and I think you can forget about it....

There are plenty of cable believers who have no financial risk, the fact
of
the matter is Stewart is a grade 'A' prick, arrogant to the extreme,
smarmy,
with his head wedged fully up his own arsehole. Would you invite someone
like that into your home?

Is this the best that the "cable believers" can offer by way of well
informed
logically reasoned argument when offered a challenge? is it supposed to
increase the propensity of the scientific community, or indeed anyone, to
accept their point of view, and if so, how?

trouble is mate, when Stewart acts the way he does, he's going to find it
hard to make friends with anyone who has opposing views. It's the reason
he's doomed to posting on usenet, he's not welcome anywhere else because he
acts like a cocky prick. I think perhaps he does it purposefully because he
doesn't actually want anyone to sit the test.

Nope, the cocky pricks are the guys like you who come up with all
kinds of fairy stories about 'night and day' differences among cables,
but run a mile when asked to *prove* that they really can hear any
difference. I used to be polite about this, but six years of
loudmouthed bragging from gutless pricks like you tends to cause a
certain intolerance.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:13:29 +0000 (UTC), "neutron"
wrote:

There are plenty of cable believers who have no financial risk, the fact of
the matter is Stewart is a grade 'A' prick, arrogant to the extreme, smarmy,
with his head wedged fully up his own arsehole. Would you invite someone
like that into your home?

Since when has Stewart ever demanded that he be present at such a
test?

Carry on wriggling.

d

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:57:06 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"mick" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:38:14 +0000, Trevor Wilson burbled:

snip

**Stewart has already covered his arse, by stating the frequency
response
AT THE SPEAKER TERMINALS must be within 0.1dB. Stewart knows full well
that it is very easy to expose easily audible differences between
speaker
cables. After level matching, that task becomes well nigh impossible.

He is quite right. You are testing for a difference in cables, not sound
level, so that has to be taken out of the equation. The level matching
also makes sure that the speakers are starting from the same common base
line. He has only fixed 2 frequency points to match, not the full
response
curve and not via a mic, so there is plenty of room for exotic cables to
prove themselves - if they can.

**You miss the point. That is EXACTLY how (most) exotic speaker cables DO
sound different.

No, they bloody don't.

**Yes, they do.

How many times do I have to point out that
cheap computer ribbon cable is a match for any of those unobtainium
wonder cables?

**As many times as you wish. However, I know of no cheap computer ribbon
type commercially available speaker cables. Computer ribbon cable,
configured for low inductance IS fancy speaker cable. The ONLY cheap speaker
cables I know of are of the figure 8 variety. If you want to factor in the
cost of manufacturing computer ribbon cables, such that they can provide low
inductance, I suggest that you (personally) would be much better off buying
some low end Kimber cable. Unless, of course, you don't value your time. I
value mine, which is why I don't try servicing my car anymore. My mechanic
does it cheaper and faster than I can.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:23:02 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

anyone can easily understand that
comparing 12AWG cable to 24 AWG over long runs is not a reasonable
test. OTOH, I have already compared fifteen feet of Naim NACA5,
probably the most inductive speaker cable you can buy, to an ultra-low
inductance design into my own 3-ohm speakers. There was a *measured*
difference of more than 1dB at 20kHz, but no *audible* difference
whatever.

You're just whining and crying for no apparent reason. What, do *you*
think that Kimber 'Black Pearl' has any value ina domestic hi-fi
system? If so, why?

**I can't find Black Pearl amongst their speaker cable listing. Is it a
very
old, or a very new product? What is the inductance of the cable?

It's been around for 4 or 5 years, costs £1,000 a foot (yes, a grand a
foot!), and has very low inductance.

**Like I said: I can't find it anywhere in their listing in their site, so I
can't comment further. For a 1,000 Squid a foot, it would seem very
difficult to justify though. However, that is not the issue.

If you're about to suggest that
fifty feet of it would sound different from fifty feet of 12 AWG
zipcord when driving Quads, I wouldn't necessairily argue - but that's
hardly the point.

**Well, yes, it is the point. Speaker cables DO sound different, depending
on the particular system. This fact goes a long way to explaining why many
people hear differences in speaker cables.


As often noted, any fool can come up with an unrealistic cable to
'cheat' the test, which is why the level-matching requrement exists.
This isn't about EE 101, it's about the bull**** claims of Kimber,
Transparent, Cardas, MIT et al.

**T'ain't cheating. It is proving that speaker cables DO sound different,
under certain circumstances.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

In article , neutron
wrote:



There are plenty of cable believers who have no financial risk, the fact
of the matter is Stewart is a grade 'A' prick, arrogant to the extreme,
smarmy, with his head wedged fully up his own arsehole. Would you invite
someone like that into your home?

AIUI you do not need to do so. Instead, you simply agree on an
'independent' observer who is acceptable to all concerned. IIRC Stewart has
said that given such a person is involved he does not have to be present.

Given that he is offerring 1000 UKP of his own case for a trial where these
is a significant chance that it would be 'won' by chance alone, my
impression is that the conditions he lays down are very reasonable.

Indeed, it puzzles me that the people who find his behaviour so annoying
aren't all leaping at the chance to "wipe the smile off his face".
Particularly the makers and sellers of expensive cables who would 'win'
rather more than the 1000 UKP in terms of enhanced reputation at havings
supported their claims in such a test. Yet over the years they all seem to
fade away and not engage in such a test...

One of the things I found most suprising in the web-thread pages I've read
was the misrepresentations along the lines of needing 'two expensive
identical systems' and the test requiring loads of money. If these
statements are from people in the audio business then I think they really
should know better than this. What is involved/required for such tests has
been well established over the years, and does not require what these
people claim. Indeed, so far as I can tell, the main requirement we lack is
for some of those who believe they *can* hear the differences they claim to
actually engage in the test whose outcome might support their claim.

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 , neutron
wrote:

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...


"What is a newsgroup. All I get a list of them. looks like a jumbled
up over complicated forum."

(Sigh) I think I have been using the Internet for too many years now.

-- Nick

Trouble is, most people move on to messageboards years ago, newsgroups
are filled these days with weirdos, social misfit, and assholes.

You certainly know how to present your arguments in a persuasive manner...
:-)

Actually, my impression of the comments which Nick pointed out was that
they were made by people who had no idea what usenet or newsgroups were, or
that they even existed. This implies they have not rejected usenet for the
reasons you propose, but as a result of ignorance.

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 , Nick Gorham
wrote:
neutron wrote:


Trouble is, most people move on to messageboards years ago, newsgroups
are filled these days with weirdos, social misfit, and assholes.



Well given that at least ye and me are still here, you have suggested
three categories we fall into, which one do you feel fits yorself best?

I have long been happy to be weirdo social misfit, so that leaves one
for you.

Oi! Which one are you leaving for me! :-

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 ,
Trevor Wilson wrote:
He is quite right. You are testing for a difference in cables, not
sound level, so that has to be taken out of the equation. The level
matching also makes sure that the speakers are starting from the same
common base line. He has only fixed 2 frequency points to match, not
the full response curve and not via a mic, so there is plenty of room
for exotic cables to prove themselves - if they can.

**You miss the point. That is EXACTLY how (most) exotic speaker cables
DO sound different.

Why would anyone with half a grain of sense buy a cable which altered the
frequency response of the system over plain suitable wire?

--
*If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

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