Joe Folly wrote:
http://www.hifiwigwam.com/forum1/2862.html

A new thread. I believe. The older thread did continue as you say
unabated. It appears that anyone who doubts the sellers of the cable
get abused immediately.
They appear to be picking on some people at another forum
http://forum.hifichoice.co.uk as well.

Looks like they have closed the thread now due to someone not letting
them off the hook., I see Stewart P joined the forum and started
sorting them out. They wont like that.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:40:59 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

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?


The point is that once a speaker cable has achieved some minimal level
of competence - determined mainly by the gauge of the conductor -
there will be no difference in frequency response, therefore the
enhanced sound of the boutique cable must derive from some other,
unknown quality. If we could identify a genuinely audible difference,
we would be on the way to finding out what that quality might be.



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.

Well, the claims of the boutique cables are to do with their
construction, materials etc, not sheer quantity of copper. So it is
necessary to be sure that you are comparing like with like when you
are choosing your cheap cable. The best way to do this is to ensure
that the gauge of copper is the same in both cases. If you can't, then
measuring the resistance is probably the next best thing.

This is why I say the comparison is between types, not examples of
cable.

d

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
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.

You will forever remain a deluded usenet freak. Goodbye to you.

And you sir are a coward and charlatan.

"Forwarder" wrote in message
...
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.

I don't think it's a matter of being slimy low-life at all. If cables sound
different, then there must be a reason for it. There's no squir.... involved
in starting from a know position. Levels and frequency response need to be
matched to within 0.1 dB so that if there is a difference in cable sound,
then it is due to the cable, not just a level or frequency response
difference.

If those basic initial conditions are met, then exotic 'speaker cable will
sound the same as lamp cord.

S.

Don Pearce wrote:



The point is that once a speaker cable has achieved some minimal level
of competence - determined mainly by the gauge of the conductor -
there will be no difference in frequency response, therefore the
enhanced sound of the boutique cable must derive from some other,
unknown quality. If we could identify a genuinely audible difference,
we would be on the way to finding out what that quality might be.

Ok, thanks. Now let's do some speculation he The speaker cables I use
are just individual, thin strands of silver/copper wire shielded with
teflon coating and braided in a special construction, no boxes or
resistors anywhere. Your lamp cord is lamp cord. So if my cables somehow
produce enough a wider freq resp variation as compraed to your lamcord
(0.1) then does that mean that the test we have agreed upon on the
thread below can't be done?


In any case, when we were fooling around with ABX and amps we actually
tried out this also: we put the *same* brand and model two amps on the
ends of the abx box (it was a cambridge audio azur model). We messed
around with the *tone controls* of one (+%50 bass and treble) and left
the other alone. It was still almost impossible to hear a difference in
the abx protocol, with all those boxes, whatnot in between. When we
fully employed the bass and treble in one the task eased a bit, but it
was still very very hard.

But of course when you hear that amp sighted and crank up the bass and
treble like that it's a "night and day" difference.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 15:40:30 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:



The point is that once a speaker cable has achieved some minimal level
of competence - determined mainly by the gauge of the conductor -
there will be no difference in frequency response, therefore the
enhanced sound of the boutique cable must derive from some other,
unknown quality. If we could identify a genuinely audible difference,
we would be on the way to finding out what that quality might be.

Ok, thanks. Now let's do some speculation he The speaker cables I use
are just individual, thin strands of silver/copper wire shielded with
teflon coating and braided in a special construction, no boxes or
resistors anywhere. Your lamp cord is lamp cord. So if my cables somehow
produce enough a wider freq resp variation as compraed to your lamcord
(0.1) then does that mean that the test we have agreed upon on the
thread below can't be done?

That's right. Of course lamp cord is hardly a fair material for
comparison. You would need to use something that had a decent
thickness of copper within it. Of course if it turns out that the
special speaker cable you have is deliberately constructed to change
the frequency response away from flat, then the test does no apply.

In any case, when we were fooling around with ABX and amps we actually
tried out this also: we put the *same* brand and model two amps on the
ends of the abx box (it was a cambridge audio azur model). We messed
around with the *tone controls* of one (+%50 bass and treble) and left
the other alone. It was still almost impossible to hear a difference in
the abx protocol, with all those boxes, whatnot in between. When we
fully employed the bass and treble in one the task eased a bit, but it
was still very very hard.


Are you sure it was the presence of the boxes that made the changes
inaudible - that is a step too far in drawing conclusions, I think.
There are plenty of such switches in the recording path before you get
to your amplifier.

But I have to ask you - if you could not hear the difference between
two amplifiers with different tone control settings, do you seriously
believe you can hear the difference between two speaker cables?

But of course when you hear that amp sighted and crank up the bass and
treble like that it's a "night and day" difference.

Amazing what you can "hear" when you are looking, isn't it? You are
familiar with the McGurk Effect, I presume.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:

Of course if it turns out that the
special speaker cable you have is deliberately constructed to change
the frequency response away from flat, then the test does no apply.

Ok.



Are you sure it was the presence of the boxes that made the changes
inaudible


No, I am not.


- that is a step too far in drawing conclusions, I think.


You could be correct.

There are plenty of such switches in the recording path before you get
to your amplifier.

Ok, accepted.


But I have to ask you - if you could not hear the difference between
two amplifiers with different tone control settings, do you seriously
believe you can hear the difference between two speaker cables?

I employed (with the help of a friend) similar tests on myself for those
very same cables before. And they didn't involve fast switching, lab
environment and abx boxes. We won't be ABXing the cables, and I can
listen to all I want before making my mind up, yes?



Amazing what you can "hear" when you are looking, isn't it? You are
familiar with the McGurk Effect, I presume.

This was one source of fierce name calling, flameing and argument
between me and some pinkerton-similar person (not sure, it could be
pinkerton himself). The person got *really* ANGRY with me when I said
that I was hearing only the sound "tha tha tha" from that bearded dude,
eyes closed or not. I found the URL again and checked again, and yes,
AGAIN, eyes closed or not, I hear "thsa thsa thsa" type of a sound from
the fellow, can't help it.


d

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

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:11:51 +0200, Forwarder wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Of course if it turns out that the
special speaker cable you have is deliberately constructed to change
the frequency response away from flat, then the test does no apply.

Ok.



Are you sure it was the presence of the boxes that made the changes
inaudible


No, I am not.


- that is a step too far in drawing conclusions, I think.


You could be correct.

There are plenty of such switches in the recording path before you get
to your amplifier.

Ok, accepted.


But I have to ask you - if you could not hear the difference between
two amplifiers with different tone control settings, do you seriously
believe you can hear the difference between two speaker cables?

I employed (with the help of a friend) similar tests on myself for those
very same cables before. And they didn't involve fast switching, lab
environment and abx boxes. We won't be ABXing the cables, and I can
listen to all I want before making my mind up, yes?


Absolutely - each trial ends when you say it ends; not before.



Amazing what you can "hear" when you are looking, isn't it? You are
familiar with the McGurk Effect, I presume.

This was one source of fierce name calling, flameing and argument
between me and some pinkerton-similar person (not sure, it could be
pinkerton himself). The person got *really* ANGRY with me when I said
that I was hearing only the sound "tha tha tha" from that bearded dude,
eyes closed or not. I found the URL again and checked again, and yes,
AGAIN, eyes closed or not, I hear "thsa thsa thsa" type of a sound from
the fellow, can't help it.


Very likely there are cultural and linguistic effects at work
determining what you hear.

d

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

Jim Lesurf wrote:
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.

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

Expensive!! He asks with a puzzled look on his face?