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

Think you've missed out those who still believe in fairies at the bottom
of their garden.
Such people always migrate to closed groups where they can congratulate
one another on their unique perception...

--
*Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *

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

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"neutron" wrote in message
...

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 21:12:10 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:46:13 GMT, " Dave xxxx"
wrote:


Rob wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/

"I'm told that Russ Andrews is away but that he will show me
measured
proof [of the superiority of his cables] on his return".

So there we are - just wait for Russ to get back from his hols ...

Rob


this web site and also hi fi choice forums have threads going on the
item
hi fi choice is down at the moment

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/2806.html

http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/2815.html

Actually, this challenge has already been offered as a listening
comparison, and was at first accepted by RATA's marketing manager.
When Russ Andrews heard about it, he immediately fired a rocket up the
guy's arse and ran at top speed in the opposite direction.

There is absolutely no way that Russ will *ever* allow a proper
comparison to be made, since that would inevitably show his extremely
expensive Kimber cables to be no better than cheap 'freebies'.

It's all snake oil, smoke and mirrors, and Russ is well aware of this.
I have personally offered £1,000 to anyone who can demonstrate the
audible supriority of 'audiophile' cables. That offer has been on the
table for more than six years, and despite many loudmouthed claims
from the 'subjectivists', no one has even *tried* to claim the prize.

**I'll take that offer, Stew. You know my conditions, I presume?

*The* conditions are that signals are level-matched at the speaker
terminals at 1kHz and 10kHz +/- 0.1dB, and you have to get better than
15 out of 20 double-blind trials correct.


I would do it. My conditions would be that I was given a few hours to get
to
know the test system, and also have hear each of the cables in the test
system before the test starts. After that, your conditions sound good. Is
that fair?


**Stewart has already covered his arse,

Stewart is one big hole of an arse, for him to cover something like
himself up is well nigh impossible.

by stating the frequency response AT
THE SPEAKER TERMINALS must be within 0.1dB.

Just how would that be done in practice? Some box in between? Volume
level adjustment? How?

And yes, if cables make no difference then why the need for such an
adjustment in the first place?

To stop people from trying the test with a "cheat cable" just to win
the money.

Joe Folly wrote:

To stop people from trying the test with a "cheat cable" just to win
the money.


Thanks Joe for answering my question.

Can you give a guess on this one also:

"Just how would that be done in practice? (frequency response AT THE
SPEAKER TERMINALS must be within 0.1dB.) Some box in between? Volume
level adjustment? How?"

In article .com, Joe
Folly wrote:

1) http://forum.hifichoice.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=15486 entitled the
myths of hifi. I laughed at many of them
2) http://forum.hifichoice.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=20913 entitled how to
win a hifi argument. A real peach this one.


I found both topics 'interesting' as they do shine some light on some
areas. Pity the OP's of the topics didn't post them here.

Afraid that I don't normally bother with such 'forums' sic though as I
find them a relatively inconvenient and expensive way to discuss things.

One item did make me think of a recent experience, though...

Just before Christmas a colleague brought me the electronics from his TT as
it had stopped working. (Well regarded UK brand.)

Examining it, and working out the circuit, worried me.

There was no mains transformer, and no mains switch. The circuit was
therefore live all the time the deck was plugged into the mains, regardless
of the switches and indicators visible/useable on the deck.

I quickly worked out that it was the mains diode bridge that had failed.
Caused by an inrush surge. He had - understandaby - normally left the TT
plugged into the mains (but 'off' sic) as he'd assumed this was safe. But
had unpluggged it for a few mins to move some things in the room. The
bridge then failed when he plugged the TT back into the mains.

For similar reasons, dropper resistors and the board under them was quite
discoloured. Running too hot for years on a 24/7 basis, unknown to the
owner.

Immediate cause: Using diodes with far too low a surge rating, and not
having the benefit of the surge limiting action of either transformer
saturation/resistance or a deliberate surge limiter.

General cause: Awful design of the electronics. IMHO.

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

"Forwarder" wrote in message
...
Joe Folly wrote:

To stop people from trying the test with a "cheat cable" just to win
the money.


Thanks Joe for answering my question.

Can you give a guess on this one also:

"Just how would that be done in practice? (frequency response AT THE
SPEAKER TERMINALS must be within 0.1dB.) Some box in between? Volume level
adjustment? How?"

(not top posting!)

The "reference" cable will have been previously measured, and the frequency
response between source and loudspeaker terminals will be within 0.1dB. Now,
if the subject cable changes the frequency response by more than 0.1 dB,
then it falls outside the accepable parameters for the test. After all. we
are trying to assess whether cable differences can be heard, not whether
frequency response diffrences can be heard. If the only attribute of an
expensive cable is to change the frequency response, then, as someone
previously posted, why would anyone want to buy it?

S.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:18:19 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Joe Folly wrote:

To stop people from trying the test with a "cheat cable" just to win
the money.


Thanks Joe for answering my question.

Can you give a guess on this one also:

"Just how would that be done in practice? (frequency response AT THE
SPEAKER TERMINALS must be within 0.1dB.) Some box in between? Volume
level adjustment? How?"

If the cables are both reasonable for the job, then the response will
be within 0.1dB - there is nothing that needs to be done. See my later
thread on a protocol.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:18:19 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


Joe Folly wrote:


To stop people from trying the test with a "cheat cable" just to win
the money.


Thanks Joe for answering my question.

Can you give a guess on this one also:

"Just how would that be done in practice? (frequency response AT THE
SPEAKER TERMINALS must be within 0.1dB.) Some box in between? Volume
level adjustment? How?"


If the cables are both reasonable for the job, then the response will
be within 0.1dB - there is nothing that needs to be done. See my later
thread on a protocol.


So in effect, stewart is suggesting that some exotic speaker cable must
sound the same as lamp cord (have the same freq resp) and sound
different at the same time? Wierd.

We recently ahd a row with this stewart on the same subject. I had
*accepted* his challenge. But when he started squir.. err.. stipulating
this and some other conditions (same gauge, same length, etc) I backed
out. Being the slimy low-life audiophool that I am.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:48:49 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:18:19 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


Joe Folly wrote:


To stop people from trying the test with a "cheat cable" just to win
the money.


Thanks Joe for answering my question.

Can you give a guess on this one also:

"Just how would that be done in practice? (frequency response AT THE
SPEAKER TERMINALS must be within 0.1dB.) Some box in between? Volume
level adjustment? How?"


If the cables are both reasonable for the job, then the response will
be within 0.1dB - there is nothing that needs to be done. See my later
thread on a protocol.


So in effect, stewart is suggesting that some exotic speaker cable must
sound the same as lamp cord (have the same freq resp) and sound
different at the same time? Wierd.

Don't understand

We recently ahd a row with this stewart on the same subject. I had
*accepted* his challenge. But when he started squir.. err.. stipulating
this and some other conditions (same gauge, same length, etc) I backed
out. Being the slimy low-life audiophool that I am.

Nothing wrong with that. It would be too easy to insist that you
compare three feet of 14 gauge with a hundred yards of bell wire. Such
stipulations are absolutely vital. The comparison is between types of
cable, not between pieces of cable.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:48:49 +0200, Forwarder wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:


On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:18:19 +0200, Forwarder wrote:



Joe Folly wrote:



To stop people from trying the test with a "cheat cable" just to win
the money.


Thanks Joe for answering my question.

Can you give a guess on this one also:

"Just how would that be done in practice? (frequency response AT THE
SPEAKER TERMINALS must be within 0.1dB.) Some box in between? Volume
level adjustment? How?"


If the cables are both reasonable for the job, then the response will
be within 0.1dB - there is nothing that needs to be done. See my later
thread on a protocol.


So in effect, stewart is suggesting that some exotic speaker cable must
sound the same as lamp cord (have the same freq resp) and sound
different at the same time? Wierd.


Don't understand

Is it not freq response that determines how a cable might "sound" if at
all? What's not to understand?



We recently ahd a row with this stewart on the same subject. I had
*accepted* his challenge. But when he started squir.. err.. stipulating
this and some other conditions (same gauge, same length, etc) I backed
out. Being the slimy low-life audiophool that I am.


Nothing wrong with that. It would be too easy to insist that you
compare three feet of 14 gauge with a hundred yards of bell wire.


Agreed, that would be ludicrous..

Such
stipulations are absolutely vital.

To a point.. My speaker cables are very special construction, braided,
teflon shielding, etc. One would have to take them apart to determine
the "gauge" for instance..

The comparison is between types of
cable, not between pieces of cable.

Care to open this one up a bit? Thanks.


d

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