"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?

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 19:08:56 +0000 (UTC), "neutron"
wrote:


"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?


Why would you not use your own system, with your own cables? One of
the nicer aspects of this offer is that the test can be made as
comfortable as possible for the triallist to make sure that if there
is a difference, he will hear it.

d

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

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 19:08:56 +0000 (UTC), "neutron"
wrote:


"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?


Why would you not use your own system, with your own cables? One of
the nicer aspects of this offer is that the test can be made as
comfortable as possible for the triallist to make sure that if there
is a difference, he will hear it.


Sure. I'd rather do it for interconnects or speaker cables though, power
cables would be harder.

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 19:32:30 +0000 (UTC), "neutron"
wrote:

Why would you not use your own system, with your own cables? One of
the nicer aspects of this offer is that the test can be made as
comfortable as possible for the triallist to make sure that if there
is a difference, he will hear it.


Sure. I'd rather do it for interconnects or speaker cables though, power
cables would be harder.


All of these are simple to organize as a double blind test. Just
gather together the stuff you believe you can distinguish by sound and
tell us when you are ready.

Where do you live?

d

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

"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, 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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:38:14 GMT, "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

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, 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.

That's not a matter of 'covering my arse', you twit. No one has ever
denied that it's possible to hear gross level mismatches, but when did
you ever see Kimber, Transparent et al making claims about cable
resistance? No, this test is about debunking all the ******** about
special constructions and materials.

As you rightly say, get a level-match at the speaker terminals (which
you can do for a buck a foot against *any* 'audiophile' cable) and
there is no audible difference. Of course, you've been told all this
before, so you're simply trolling.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:38:14 GMT, "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

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, 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.

That's not a matter of 'covering my arse', you twit.

**Of course you are. When you make an unqualified pronouncement:

"I have personally offered £1,000 to anyone who can demonstrate the audible
supriority of 'audiophile' cables."

I (and others) are entitled to take your claim at face value.


No one has ever
denied that it's possible to hear gross level mismatches, but when did
you ever see Kimber, Transparent et al making claims about cable
resistance?

**You mean here?

http://www.kimber.com/Products/LoudS.../4PR_Spec.aspx

Or here?

http://www.kimber.com/Products/LoudS.../8PR_Spec.aspx

Or here?

http://www.kimber.com/Products/LoudS...alXL_Spec.aspx

Anyway, you get the idea. Kimber cables DO tend to provide lower inductance
figures than *any* figure 8 (or Zip, to our US friends) cables. And make no
mistake, it is inductance which can cause big problems.

No, this test is about debunking all the ******** about
special constructions and materials.

**Special construction provides low(er) inductance and may lead to
significant audible and measurable differences between cables. No ********
there. Just plain old engineering.


As you rightly say, get a level-match at the speaker terminals (which
you can do for a buck a foot against *any* 'audiophile' cable) and
there is no audible difference.

**Wanna bet? I'll choose the speakers and the cable length.

Of course, you've been told all this
before, so you're simply trolling.

**Nope. I just feel that by glossing over the facts, you're just feeding the
ignorant. Tell them that there may well be audible differences in cables.
Then explain why. Without the explanations, many people just keep sucking up
the hype.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:30:06 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:38:14 GMT, "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

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, 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.

That's not a matter of 'covering my arse', you twit.

**Of course you are. When you make an unqualified pronouncement:

"I have personally offered £1,000 to anyone who can demonstrate the audible
supriority of 'audiophile' cables."

I (and others) are entitled to take your claim at face value.

The rules have *always* been made perfectly clear, troll.

No one has ever
denied that it's possible to hear gross level mismatches, but when did
you ever see Kimber, Transparent et al making claims about cable
resistance?

**You mean here?

http://www.kimber.com/Products/LoudS.../4PR_Spec.aspx

Or here?

http://www.kimber.com/Products/LoudS.../8PR_Spec.aspx

Or here?

http://www.kimber.com/Products/LoudS...alXL_Spec.aspx

Anyway, you get the idea. Kimber cables DO tend to provide lower inductance
figures than *any* figure 8 (or Zip, to our US friends) cables. And make no
mistake, it is inductance which can cause big problems.

Not in any normal domestic system - as you're well aware.

No, this test is about debunking all the ******** about
special constructions and materials.

**Special construction provides low(er) inductance and may lead to
significant audible and measurable differences between cables. No ********
there. Just plain old engineering.

Bull****. I can replicate the most expensive Kimber or Alpha-Core MI
low inductance cable with a reel of cheap multiway ribbon cable, such
as you'll find inside your PC.

As you rightly say, get a level-match at the speaker terminals (which
you can do for a buck a foot against *any* 'audiophile' cable) and
there is no audible difference.

**Wanna bet? I'll choose the speakers and the cable length.

Fine - have at it.

Of course, you've been told all this
before, so you're simply trolling.

**Nope. I just feel that by glossing over the facts, you're just feeding the
ignorant. Tell them that there may well be audible differences in cables.
Then explain why. Without the explanations, many people just keep sucking up
the hype.

The facts are never 'glossed over', 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?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:30:06 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 22:38:14 GMT, "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
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, 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.

That's not a matter of 'covering my arse', you twit.

**Of course you are. When you make an unqualified pronouncement:

"I have personally offered £1,000 to anyone who can demonstrate the
audible
supriority of 'audiophile' cables."

I (and others) are entitled to take your claim at face value.

The rules have *always* been made perfectly clear, troll.


**Not so. Here are your words (in full):

"I have personally offered £1,000 to anyone who can demonstrate the audible
supriority of 'audiophile' cables."



No one has ever
denied that it's possible to hear gross level mismatches, but when did
you ever see Kimber, Transparent et al making claims about cable
resistance?

**You mean here?

http://www.kimber.com/Products/LoudS.../4PR_Spec.aspx

Or here?

http://www.kimber.com/Products/LoudS.../8PR_Spec.aspx

Or here?

http://www.kimber.com/Products/LoudS...alXL_Spec.aspx

Anyway, you get the idea. Kimber cables DO tend to provide lower
inductance
figures than *any* figure 8 (or Zip, to our US friends) cables. And make
no
mistake, it is inductance which can cause big problems.

**I note your lack of acknowledgement of Kmiber's specs, which are easily
available on their web site.



Not in any normal domestic system - as you're well aware.

**How long have Quad ESLs and other ESLs NOT been regarded as "normal
domsetic" speakers? I had always considered them to be domestic products.


No, this test is about debunking all the ******** about
special constructions and materials.

**Special construction provides low(er) inductance and may lead to
significant audible and measurable differences between cables. No ********
there. Just plain old engineering.

Bull****. I can replicate the most expensive Kimber or Alpha-Core MI
low inductance cable with a reel of cheap multiway ribbon cable, such
as you'll find inside your PC.

**No one suggested that you could not. That is not what you previously
stated.


As you rightly say, get a level-match at the speaker terminals (which
you can do for a buck a foot against *any* 'audiophile' cable) and
there is no audible difference.

**Wanna bet? I'll choose the speakers and the cable length.

Fine - have at it.

Of course, you've been told all this
before, so you're simply trolling.

**Nope. I just feel that by glossing over the facts, you're just feeding
the
ignorant. Tell them that there may well be audible differences in cables.
Then explain why. Without the explanations, many people just keep sucking
up
the hype.

The facts are never 'glossed over',

**In your words: ********. They are ALWAYS glossed over. There are
differences between speaker cables. Under some conditions, those differences
are measurably and audibly different. To suggest otherwise is blatant lying.


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?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

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. 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.

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.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering