In article
,
borosteve wrote:
On 21 Dec, 03:32, Eeyore
wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
borosteve wrote:

Why is it that most of the contributors to this group seem to be
some sort of anti- hifi sound quality brigade who seem to think
that all cd players sound the same and that measurements and specs
of components are king? Have we reverted back to the 1970's when
all you had to worry about was how many watts your speakers could
handle? Come on guy's if you really don't like quality sound give
it a rest and talk about something else on another group! Maybe
there's a group about saddo's who just post controvertial stuff to
annoy everyone? Maybe their's a group about nerds who just like to
see their own posts on a screen!!

Well, we could talk about the misuse of the apostrophe, for a start.

Pluralisation by apostrophe ! Often called the greengrocer's
apostrophe.

Seen recently in a pub (honestly) .... " Fish and Chip's ".

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian....ostGrocers.htm

Graham

If I want a lesson in ****ing gramma and spelling I'll ask for one ok
**** head!!

If you are so thick as to not understand the simple laws on apostrophe use
it puts the rest of your argument into question. And adequately proved by
your later statement that 'cables do sound different'.

Of course it is possible to make a cable to modify an audio signal but
only charlatans sell them to satisfy the gullible.

--
*It's not hard to meet expenses... they're everywhere.

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

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:29:36 -0800, Andy Evans wrote:

Well, I used to be a jazz musician - so IT is just like that!

A lot of shouting and bashing of keyboards. :-)

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 06:20:32 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

Silk wrote:

Andy Evans wrote:

For that reason it's much more important to have academic
qualifications and memberships of professional bodies. You can't
argue with those.

Yeah, right. I suppose there are no charlatans with qualifications or
memberships of professional bodies, hmm?

Muses and thinks of recent examples of a certain doctor causing innocent
people to get jailed.

A highly qualified serial killer also springs to mind. And that's before
we start on highly qualified politicians.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:02:45 -0800, borosteve wrote:

Oh dear someone's spelt Sondek wrong, ooohh!!!

The extra "c" is a modification, you fool. ;-)

Silk wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Silk wrote:
Andy Evans wrote:

For that reason it's much more important to have academic
qualifications and memberships of professional bodies. You can't
argue with those.

Yeah, right. I suppose there are no charlatans with qualifications or
memberships of professional bodies, hmm?

Muses and thinks of recent examples of a certain doctor causing innocent
people to get jailed.

A highly qualified serial killer also springs to mind.

How would that make him a charlatan ?


And that's before we start on highly qualified politicians.

Charlatans the lot of them.

Graham

Silk wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Silk wrote:
Andy Evans wrote:

For that reason it's much more important to have academic
qualifications and memberships of professional bodies. You can't
argue with those.

Yeah, right. I suppose there are no charlatans with qualifications or
memberships of professional bodies, hmm?

Muses and thinks of recent examples of a certain doctor causing innocent
people to get jailed.

A highly qualified serial killer also springs to mind.

How would that make him a charlatan ?


And that's before we start on highly qualified politicians.

Charlatans the lot of them.

Graham

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:23:58 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

How would that make him a charlatan ?

Someone who makes out he's trying to cure you, turns round and kills you.
Can't get much more charlatan than that. :-)


And that's before we start on highly qualified politicians.

Charlatans the lot of them.

Graham

Bob Latham wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you are so thick as to not understand the simple laws on apostrophe
use it puts the rest of your argument into question.

That to me is a quite ridiculous argument.

You are saying that someone who is ignorant in one area of life even in
knowledge considered basic and elementary by the majority means he cannot
be the world's best expert in another. I'm quite sure most people (if not
everyone) have some weak areas for all sorts of reasons *least* of all
because they are thick.

It's not an encouraging sign though.


And adequately proved by your later statement that 'cables do sound
different'.

That is your opinion, you may be right. What worries me about this is that
some of you guys are so convinced that your knowledge of science is so
good that you *know* they cannot sound different so you never really tried
it.

How about those who are so confident of their ears that they choose to ignore
the science ? I'm a lot more concerned about them. And they make a lot of
noise too.

Aside from incompetently designed amplifiers that oscillated with low
inductance cables (was it Naim ?) can we agree that cables DO NOT affect
......

1. Distortion.
2. Signal to noise ratio or dynamic range

And that alleged improvements in such aspects as 'speed', 'pace', 'depth',
'soundstaging', 'granularity', and the like are imaginary poppycock ?

That leaves their effect on frequency response. As far as this is concerned it
would be easy to put scientific limits on it. Could you hear a 1dB difference
at some frequency ? Possibly ? 0.1dB ? Pretty damn unlikely I'd say.

Graham

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:01:56 +0000, Bob Latham wrote:

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you are so thick as to not understand the simple laws on apostrophe
use it puts the rest of your argument into question.

That to me is a quite ridiculous argument.

You are saying that someone who is ignorant in one area of life even in
knowledge considered basic and elementary by the majority means he
cannot be the world's best expert in another. I'm quite sure most people
(if not everyone) have some weak areas for all sorts of reasons *least*
of all because they are thick.

And adequately proved by your later statement that 'cables do sound
different'.

That is your opinion, you may be right. What worries me about this is
that some of you guys are so convinced that your knowledge of science is
so good that you *know* they cannot sound different so you never really
tried it. That of course reminds me of people saying the world cannot be
round otherwise it stands to reason we would all fall off on the other
side.


Cheers,

Bob.

Well said, Bob. Most of these so-called objectivists are nothing more
than hypocrites. If they really believed what they spout they'd all
have £50 CD players from Tesco's, £100 NAD (or whatever ) amps and use
£2 interconnects and bell wire/mains cable for their speaker connections.
After all, these all "measure" as well as £2k CD players/amps or expensive
interconnects/speaker cables.

They also, of course, would choose their wines or whiskies via double
blind tastings!!

The truth is that their "knowledge of science" as you put it, is
anything but knowledge. A good scientist knows that any scientific
"fact" is merely a working hypothesis that cannot be disproven to
agree with the state of scientific data at the time. The people we
are talking about here are not scientists but engineers with an overblown
faith in technology.

Malcolm

In article , Eeyore
wrote:


Aside from incompetently designed amplifiers that oscillated with low
inductance cables (was it Naim ?)

More precisely, the problem was that the amp(s) tended to oscillate with a
capacitative load of a given order. Low inductance per length cables tend
to also have high capacitance per meter. They also make it easier for the
amp to be affected by load (loudspeaker) capacitance.

It is easy enough to avoid the problem by a mix of sensible amp design and
the simple use of a series inductor. But the Naim amp(s) in question did
oscillate into some capacitative loads. So simply using some cables caused
problems.

The amp(s) would be OK if the total load did not look like a suitable
capacitance at HF. The simple solution would be to fit output inductors if
you want the rest of the amp design to stay the same. But that might look
like you'd not made the amp stable in the first place perhaps didn't know
what you were doing... :-) So the 'solution' was to tell people that
'high inductance' cables of at least a given minimum length were needed and
that this 'sounded better'. ;-

IIRC This all surfaced when Monitor Audio started selling interwoven cables
with a claimed 'low characteristic impedance' - i.e. lots of capacitance
per length and low inductance per length. I was told that Naim amps started
going off like firecrackers when people used this. But I haven't
experienced that, although I have in the distant past watched on a scope
bursts of oscillations from an old Naim amp when used to drive a load
without having a length of cable inductance to protect it. Indeed, I think
I also saw the problem with the MA cables IIRC. This was discussed in the
trade at the time, but for some reason never appeared in the magazines...
:-)

Wasn't listening at the time, but it would not surprise me if the results
did 'sound better' when the oscillations were stopped. 8-]

I assume/hope, though, that later Naim amps did not do this, and that
lessons were learned, even if never acknowledged in public!

I wonder how much of the wine tasting of 'cable sounds' grew out of that,
written by reviewers who had no idea what was happening. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html