"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:19:46 +0000 (UTC), "neutron"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 19:26:51 +0000 (UTC), "neutron"
wrote:

"Stebbo" wrote in message
roups.com...
Have you seen this which was published in Saturdays Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/

I follow a couple of`Forums on the internet. It has caused a lot of
wriggling a squirming from a few belivers / snake oil sellers.

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

I wonder if anyone will take up the challenge.?

I would do one for interconnects. Power cables I'm not so happy about
doing
as it would be much harder I think.

They're all *impossible*, as you will discover. To avoid excessive
embarrassment, try it with a friend before entering into the full
challenge. I suspect that this is what happens with all the
loudmouthed subjectivists, who never actually step up to the plate
despite shrill claims of 'night and day' differences under sighted
conditions.

It's not at all impossible, it's just difficult, because they affect the
sound in subtle ways.

Bull****. Just try it, then slip quietly away........

I have tried it. And I'm right. Have you tried it?

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:09:36 +0000 (UTC), "neutron"
wrote:


"Joe Folly" wrote in message
roups.com...
What is interesting is a lot of these charlatans say they have
conducted there own blind trials and can pick these cables every time,
so why oh why dont they just take the test take Stewarts money and rub
his noise in it!???

Maybe it's because Stewart is a pretentious arsehole? Just a theory.

It's not even *my* test, you dumb prick, I'm just putting up the
money. What's 'pretentious' about that? What *is* pretentious is
pricks like you making ridiculous claims about cable sound, and then
running from a challenge to *prove* their case.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:09:58 +0000 (UTC), "neutron"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:19:46 +0000 (UTC), "neutron"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 19:26:51 +0000 (UTC), "neutron"
wrote:

"Stebbo" wrote in message
roups.com...
Have you seen this which was published in Saturdays Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/

I follow a couple of`Forums on the internet. It has caused a lot of
wriggling a squirming from a few belivers / snake oil sellers.

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

I wonder if anyone will take up the challenge.?

I would do one for interconnects. Power cables I'm not so happy about
doing
as it would be much harder I think.

They're all *impossible*, as you will discover. To avoid excessive
embarrassment, try it with a friend before entering into the full
challenge. I suspect that this is what happens with all the
loudmouthed subjectivists, who never actually step up to the plate
despite shrill claims of 'night and day' differences under sighted
conditions.

It's not at all impossible, it's just difficult, because they affect the
sound in subtle ways.

Bull****. Just try it, then slip quietly away........

I have tried it. And I'm right. Have you tried it?

Lots of times - which is why I know it's bull****. You of course
refuse to put your claims to the test, so one must reasonably suppose
that you also know it's bull****.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

neutron wrote:
"Mark Tranchant" wrote in message
...

It's not at all impossible, it's just difficult, because they affect the
sound in subtle ways.

Interconnects, possibly, if one is badly flawed in design or far too
long

Not true, but I wouldn't expect any other form of reply from someone like
you.

Assuming you mean "not true - they all affect the sound perceptibly",
then take Stewart's money. That would show him up far more than
resulting to juvenile insults on Usenet.

15/20 correct on a blind test should be fairly easy to achieve if you
really believe there are audible differences.

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:09:36 +0000 (UTC), "neutron"
wrote:


"Joe Folly" wrote in message
roups.com...
What is interesting is a lot of these charlatans say they have
conducted there own blind trials and can pick these cables every time,
so why oh why dont they just take the test take Stewarts money and rub
his noise in it!???

Maybe it's because Stewart is a pretentious arsehole? Just a theory.

It's not even *my* test, you dumb prick, I'm just putting up the
money. What's 'pretentious' about that? What *is* pretentious is
pricks like you making ridiculous claims about cable sound, and then
running from a challenge to *prove* their case.

No what is pretentious is your attitude to people who disagree with you.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:09:58 +0000 (UTC), "neutron"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:19:46 +0000 (UTC), "neutron"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 19:26:51 +0000 (UTC), "neutron"
wrote:

"Stebbo" wrote in message
roups.com...
Have you seen this which was published in Saturdays Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/

I follow a couple of`Forums on the internet. It has caused a lot
of
wriggling a squirming from a few belivers / snake oil sellers.

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

I wonder if anyone will take up the challenge.?

I would do one for interconnects. Power cables I'm not so happy
about
doing
as it would be much harder I think.

They're all *impossible*, as you will discover. To avoid excessive
embarrassment, try it with a friend before entering into the full
challenge. I suspect that this is what happens with all the
loudmouthed subjectivists, who never actually step up to the plate
despite shrill claims of 'night and day' differences under sighted
conditions.

It's not at all impossible, it's just difficult, because they affect
the
sound in subtle ways.

Bull****. Just try it, then slip quietly away........

I have tried it. And I'm right. Have you tried it?

Lots of times - which is why I know it's bull****. You of course
refuse to put your claims to the test, so one must reasonably suppose
that you also know it's bull****.

No I have tested it and it works. Your hearing is either pants or you're
lying. I think you're lying.

In article ,
Mark Tranchant wrote:


15/20 correct on a blind test should be fairly easy to achieve if you
really believe there are audible differences.

Slight correction of wording:

"15/20 correct on a blind test should be fairly easy to achieve if the
difference you believe in really exists." :-)

The test is not of the existence of the 'belief', but of if it has any
foundation in physical reality, and - if so - arises for the reasons
claimed.

The test have been available for some years. IIUC What has prevented it
taking place is that - so far at least - not a single 'believer' has been
willing to participate. All the other requirements are available. This
enduring lack seems odd, given how many people insist that their belief is
correct.

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

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 22:08:10 +0000, neutron burbled:


"Mark Tranchant" wrote in message
...
neutron wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton"

I would do one for interconnects. Power cables I'm not so happy about
doing as it would be much harder I think.

They're all *impossible*, as you will discover. To avoid excessive
embarrassment, try it with a friend before entering into the full
challenge. I suspect that this is what happens with all the
loudmouthed subjectivists, who never actually step up to the plate
despite shrill claims of 'night and day' differences under sighted
conditions.

It's not at all impossible, it's just difficult, because they affect
the sound in subtle ways.

Interconnects, possibly, if one is badly flawed in design or far too
long

Not true, but I wouldn't expect any other form of reply from someone like
you.

The behaviour of cables *can* be tested, both by measurement and by
listening tests. However, as listeners can be biased, all listening tests
*have* to be properly conducted double-blind ABX tests, otherwise any
result from them is useless.

My own views:
Mains cable is subject to ohms law. That's it. Anything else is in your
imagination. No-one can hear any differences.

Speaker Leads are also subject to ohms law. Thicker cable dissipates less
heat and requires less amplifier power for a given speaker load at a
given loudness level. There is a limit to this, however, as once the
total loop resistance of the speaker lead is less than a fraction of
an ohm (which doesn't need anything approaching "monster" cable over a
few metres) its effect is swamped by the speaker impedance. Once again,
that's it. Capacitance between conductors and to ground for just about any
cable that can be used is infinitessimally tiny and has no effect at all
audio frequencies. Likewise for inductance values. No-one can hear any
differences.

Interconnects carry tiny amounts of current at audio frequencies. The
cross-sectional area of the conductors is therefore irrelevent as there
is no volt drop, even for long lead lengths. Likewise, the capacitance
between conductors and to earth can be ignored (if the leads are
reasonably short and have reasonable thickness insulation) because it is
so small at audio frequencies. Inductance ditto. The only real difference
between interconnects is how much hum and noise they let in. Ordinary CAT5
is quite good! Basically, no-one can hear any differences between any
interconnects of reasonable quality.

All the above assumes that the connections at each end of the cables are
good. Bad connections can make any cables sound bad.

Now, if you genuinely *can* hear differences in a true ABX test why don't
you accept the challenge and take the money? What is there to stop you?
Think of the prestige that you would gain, not to mention making Stewart
poorer! :-)

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

In article , Neutron
wrote:
Maybe it's because Stewart is a pretentious arsehole? Just a theory.

It's not even *my* test, you dumb prick, I'm just putting up the
money. What's 'pretentious' about that? What *is* pretentious is
pricks like you making ridiculous claims about cable sound, and then
running from a challenge to *prove* their case.

No what is pretentious is your attitude to people who disagree with you.

Maybe Mr. P has been driven to exasperation by people who continually
express their unfounded disagreement over a matter that is completely
factual and could be settled by a simple scientific test, but continually
refuse to take the test.

Rod.

In article .com,
wrote:
Audio Power Amplifier Bandwidth

I am building a 500 Watt power amp with a bandwidth of about 1MHz
at full power. I think that this same design can be pushed to about
10MHz max.
Question: Is there any science to prove whether this should sound
any better than a 20KHz amp?

Unless you have some CDs that contain audio frequencies up to 10MHz and a
pet bat, I don't see how it could make any difference. There would only
be the possibility that any electronic instability could produce
inaudible output components, so a problem of this kind could pass
unnoticed for a while, except for the heating effect on your loudspeaker
cables, or possibly interference to your neighbours' radio reception.

Rod.