In article , 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?


It is essentially already agreed and accepted by everyone that

1) Changes in frequency response or overall level above a given amount can
be expected to be audible.

2) Hence if a change in cable changes the frequency response by more than
a smalll amount there is no dispute that this may cause an audible change.

Such changes may arise due to the simple, well-defined and known, values of
LCRG of the cables. This effect is easily measured, analysed, consistent
with simple physics/engineering, and not contentious.

Hence Stewart excludes what is not conentious, and which he does not argue
about.

However:

1) It seems that many of the claims and assertions regarding cables are
presented on the basis of *not* being due simply to the above.

2) This in turn implies that the claimed 'audible differences' are *not*
due to the well-know effect above, but due to various more mysterious or
exotic 'effects' which seem to be associated with expensive materials and
novel constructions.

Hence the test is aimed at what is contentious, and where the
'explanations' given seem to be either magic ot technobabble. Not at
disputing what Stewart (and others) already accept. This is why
Stewart stipulates a level of matching in the response to rule out
what is not in contention or dispute.

Please refer to

http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM...kracables.html

which summarises the background and outlines a set of specific situations
where it is generally accepted that a change of cable might cause an
audible effect. However also note that in normal use, with fairly standard
cables, these 'accepted exceptions' should *not* lead to an audible effect
if the system and cables are of a reasonably/appropriate design and
construction.

The argument is that, apart from a set of specific and well-defined cases -
primarily significant changes in frequency response or level, no-one has
demonstrated in a suitable critical test that they can hear a difference.
This has been the case during 20+ years of argument on this topic. Hence, I
think, Stewart's lack of patience with people who make such claims, but
then refuse to engage in a test that might show if they are correct or not.


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.

Indeed. It seems non-contentious that a change in response or level above a
given amount will be audible. But the issue in question here is claims for
more exotic effects which are *not* due to a simple change in the audible
(and measurable) frequency response.

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.

Indeed. :-)

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 , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
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?

I suppose they might if they wanted a specific change in the response, and
that was a reasonably cheap way to obtain it. However I suspect the real
issue here is when those making/selling/buying the cables claim or imply
any change is for other reasons...

I doubt many people are sold 1000 UKP cables on the basis that it acts much
the same as a tone control which could be obtained for a tenth of the
price, and which could be adjusted in use to suit the user... :-)

Curious, is it not, how 'unpopular' the very idea of 'tone controls' have
become with reviewers, etc...

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 .com,
Joe
Folly wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:


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.

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

I generally only go online for a few mins per day to send/fetch mail and
usenet traffic. [1] I then read and write items offline. Since I pay for my
phone by the minute, having to read (and write if I wish to participate)
discussions on a 'forum' would mean spending much more time (and money)
online.

If someone else wants to pay my phone bills, I could consider altering my
established practice. :-) Although even if they did, I'd still find it
less flexible and less convenient than the way I currently operate.

e.g. one of the refs given a while ago actually leads to 20 successive
pages, all with extras like images and quite bloated HTML+javascript.
Downloading all these as you read them takes far longer than just fetching
"new news" from your friendly new servers. Also not exactly friendly to
find things like pages with fixed widths wider than your usual screen
modes, etc.

So it seems to me that this particular 'wheel' was only reinvented by/for
people who had no real experience (or awareness) of usenet. Maybe they've
never used a GNKSA compliant mail/news agent and stored their items on
their own machine. ...or perhaps even had to pay their own phone bills...
:-)

Slainte,

Jim

[1] Main exception being when I ftp up new pages to one of my websites.
:-)

--
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 ,
Forwarder 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?"

Any cable worth the name will have a frequency response well within these
limits. So no 'tweaks' required.

--
*Taxation WITH representation ain't much fun, either.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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?

**It is "plain suitable wire" (i.e.: figure 8) which may alter the frequency
response in some systems.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

In article ,
Forwarder wrote:
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.

Err, why would you want to buy a *cable* that sets out to be some form of
equaliser? Especially since unless it's tailor made for your (faulty)
system it's unlikely to do exactly what you want? Amplifier makers etc
spend lots making sure their products are as 'flat' as possible. Or rather
good ones do.

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 doubt he's stipulated gauge - other that they must both be adequate for
the task in hand.

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

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

In article ,
Forwarder wrote:
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..

You can simply measure the loop resistance.

--
*We have enough youth, how about a fountain of Smart?

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
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.



An interesting and (almost) usefully informative post - pity you don't
choose to name the deck as it seems to represents a crappy and potentially
dangerous design....??

But you can't hear the effect of cable inductance or capacitance over a
reasonable length of any standard cable. The value is simply too small to
have an effect at audio frequencies. You *can* hear the difference in
levels at the speaker terminals though, if the feed is switched between
monster cable and bell wire or computer ribbon cable. That's why the
levels need to be matched, and at 2 frequencies to get rid of cables with
daft things like discrete capacitors and inductors built into them to
change their response artificially. Conductors are conductors, only the
loop resistance can make a difference and that can be calibrated out of
the test.

--
Mick
(no M$ software on here... :-) )
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Web: http://projectedsound.tk

"mick" wrote in message
news
But you can't hear the effect of cable inductance or capacitance over a
reasonable length of any standard cable.

**Without specifying the impedance of the load, the length of the cable and
the inductance of the cable, there is NO WAY you can make such a
pronouncement. BTW: I NEVER mentioned (speaker) cable capacitance. It is not
relevant.


The value is simply too small to
have an effect at audio frequencies.

**Oh really? When did you last study electrical theory?

You *can* hear the difference in
levels at the speaker terminals though, if the feed is switched between
monster cable and bell wire or computer ribbon cable.

**Given sufficient differences in resistivity, yes. BTW: Unless the computer
ribbon cable is specifically configured for low inductance, there won't be
much difference in inductance, between all the above cables.

That's why the
levels need to be matched, and at 2 frequencies to get rid of cables with
daft things like discrete capacitors and inductors built into them to
change their response artificially.

**See if you can understand:

Figure 8 cable has the highest inductance of any easily available cable.
Cables like Kimber, Goertz and others have LOW inductance figures. They are
LESS likely to affect the frequency response than figure 8 (zip) cables.


Conductors are conductors, only the
loop resistance can make a difference and that can be calibrated out of
the test.

**Wrong. Go hit the books and study up on electrical theory. After you do,
we can discuss.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au