In article ,
Bob Latham 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.

Exactly as meant, then.

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.

Of course I've tried different cables. Use lots of cables at work under
much more arduous conditions than a home Hi-Fi. If cables made a
difference then the long runs I use would make it all the more obvious.
It's not something new claiming cables sound different - it's been going
on now for over 40 years.

--
*Nostalgia isn't what is used to be.

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

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Eeyore
wrote:


I *think*, poor deluded soul that I am, that I have experienced sound
staging differences with interconnects and tonal balance changes with
speaker leads.

A change in frequency response of the system may affect such perceptions -
so may simply be due to the cable having a high enough series impedance to
alter this in the relevant manner.

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.

This depends on circumstances IMHO. I would say that 1db is just about
perceptible as a volume control change but could easily be missed.
However, raise the level of the bass driver on a speaker by 1 db leaving
the mid and tweeter where they were and there is no missing that. The
whole balance of the speaker is different.

Comment as above. Changes in frequency response may not be noticed as
such. Instead, they may alter some other aspect of how we percieve the
results. Also if the effect is slightly different for the two channels.

Although how significant that might be will depend on circumstances as the
room will have far more effect than any normal choice of something like
cables.

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

In article , Malcolm
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:07:33 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

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.

Whereas you, it would appear, appear to believe that your hearing
trumps scientific measurement and knowledge.


We are not measuring here - we are listening to music - or at least I
am.

Actually, you were also presenting your opinions as if they were unarguable
'fact' and stating your beliefs about the nature of the "knowledge of
science".

So far as I know, the scientific *evidence* wrt cables is in accord with

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

and

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/cables/lscables.html

and that whenever a well controlled comparison has been done, no-one has
been able to distinguish one cable from another apart from the fairly well
understood exceptions of the kinds noted in the above.

As you say, 'science' works on the basis that our understanding is
'provisional' and may change *when we have new and reliable evidence*. But
that does not mean we ignore the evidence we have, and 'science' bases
views on what evidence we have, taking its assessed reliability into
account.

Merry Christmas, :-)

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

I think there's a gulf between those who buy equipment and those that
build it.

Those that build use whatever is in the drawer in terms of wire,
connectors, chassis etc. What's important to them is the design,
layout and part selection.

Those that don't live with a bench and a warm soldering iron do
whatever is left for them to do - change cables, tubes, interconnects,
stands and little wooden feet. Because they are equally intelligent
and musical, they create what is within their capacity to create, and
then judge the results. Hence the whole culture of cables, tweaks etc.
I don't see anything wrong with this in moderation, though a lot of
money is being asked for some pretty meaningless stuff.

But in terms of the greatest degree of change you can make to an
existing system, you really have to get inside the chassis. Though
even as I write this I realise that in a digital age, kits and DIY
builds are getting ever more complex. "Maybe not for youngsters who
grew up with digital technology...." I hope to hear from somebody!!!

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 22:55:00 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

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.

Whereas you, it would appear, appear to believe that your hearing
trumps scientific measurement and knowledge.

We are not measuring here - we are listening to music - or at least I
am.

You're drawing a conclusion based on what you (believe you) hear.


What you hear is what you hear - end of story - there's no "belief"
involved.

That is effectively using your ear as a measuring tool in the same way
as estimating a distance (or comparing distnces) by sight uses your eyes
as a measuring tool.


Only if you're trying to determine differences of some sort - if you're
just listening to music there's no "measurement" of any sort involved.


The human ear is a terribly unreliable measuring instrument. Add to
that personal bias and the subjectivists must be seen as offering
nothing but empty hollow opinion.

Again, I'm not "measuring" - I'm listening to music.

Semantics. You're drawing a conclusion about the equipment not the
music.


Everyone has their own prejudices (or "personal bias" as you call it) -
so what?

Well .... may I ask if you believe that expensive 'esoteric' equipment
interconnects (NOT loudspeaker cables) offer any advantage ?


I don't know (since I've never listened to any) and I don't care
(since I couldn't afford them anyway). It is up to every individual to
make their own decisions based on their own prejudices, wealth,
perceptions, hearing etc etc. If you want to choose on the basis of
electrical specifications, that's fine by me. If Joe Bloggs wants to
choose by a listening test of some sort, that's fine by me also. Your
chosen method will be wrong in Joe Blogg's eyes (or rather ears) and
vice versa. As you're both happy with your choice, what's the problem?

The ear is very easily fooled btw. The most convincing demonstration I
know involves cannabis. Consumption of cannabis will hugely improve the
sound. Startlingly so in fact. That's becauae what you hear is
interpreted by your brain. Quite simply your ears aren't 'accurate'. I'm
sure that simple enthusiasm also affects hearing too, so your costly
investment in interconnects does indeed sound 'better' to YOUR ears (but
not mine of course).

Graham

There is nothing new here - it has been well known for many years. I
seem to remember reading about 30 years ago something to the effect that
£5 of malt whiskey will improve any hi-fi system by £1000. So what?
People's perceptions differ by mood, time of day, substances ingested -
and a myriad of other reasons. None of which mean that one cannot tell
the difference in musical quality (albeit of differing types) between
the Spice Girls and a late Beethoven String Quartet or between a Tesco
£100 midi system and a SME/Linn/Arcam/Naim/Rega/Quad (add other makers to
choice) hi-fi setup.

Malcolm

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:14:32 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Malcolm wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:33:11 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

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.
What about those of us who have measured things and done listening
tests and can demonstrate that a £2 interconnect in normal use is
sonically perfect?

Then please feel free to carry on listening to your £2 "sonically
perfect" interconnect with its "measured things".

Thanks. I shall.
Please feel free to suggest a method of demonstrating the differences
between interconnects. I'm quite willing to give it a try.

As far as I'm concerned it's up to every individual to determine the
best interconnect (or any other hi-fi component) for themselves on the
basis of whatever rationale they choose - be it price, electrical
specfications, colour, listening tests etc.

What I object to are the "objectivists" insisting that their chosen
rationale is the only one and (even worse) failing to follow it
themselves in their chosen hi-fi equipment.

Malcolm

Malcolm wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

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.

Whereas you, it would appear, appear to believe that your hearing
trumps scientific measurement and knowledge.

We are not measuring here - we are listening to music - or at least I
am.

You're drawing a conclusion based on what you (believe you) hear.


What you hear is what you hear - end of story - there's no "belief"
involved.

You're 100% mistaken if you think you hearing hears things the same from one
day (or even hour) to the next. What you heard on any given occasion may nor
be readily reproducible. So 'belief' does come into it.

For heaven's sake, even you *mood* can affect how you hear things ! It
certainly can with me.

The point I'm making is is that your hearing is unreliable. It can play tricks
on you. And that's the primary problem with subjectivism.

Graham

Malcolm wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Well .... may I ask if you believe that expensive 'esoteric' equipment
interconnects (NOT loudspeaker cables) offer any advantage ?


I don't know (since I've never listened to any) and I don't care
(since I couldn't afford them anyway). It is up to every individual to
make their own decisions based on their own prejudices, wealth,
perceptions, hearing etc etc.

Yet there is nothing about those high price cables that is capable of making
them any better ! That's why the makers have to resort to pseudo-science to
explain why you should buy one.

It is a simple fact that a conductor is a conductor is a conductor. There is
no such thing as copper that sounds better. Any suggestion otherwsie is ....
well fraudulent actually. The ONLY thing that can affect interconnect
performance is cable capacitance and that's simply determined by physical
construction such as the distance between conductors (conductor and screen
typically). And typical cable capacitance is simply not going to make an
audible effect with modern well-designed equipment.

Your gullibility is distressing to me.

Graham

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

[snip]

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!!

Quite an interesting mix of the use of three debating tactics... false
dichotomy, ad hom, and straw man. Plus, of course the vagueness of
referring to "they", etc, to avoid being specific, but to make sweeping
assertions regardless. :-)

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.

Well, I doubt a "good scientist" would think that a "fact" is the same as
an "hypothesis". I also doubt they would regard it as being part of the
scientific method to pre-assume that every hypothesis *will* be "disproven*
in advance of any evidence to that effect. So they would be unlikely to
dismiss an idea on the basis of such a belief. Your wording seems to be
based on this pre-assumption, although maybe this is simply that your
wording is so convoluted as to become ambiguous or vaguely sweeping.

An academic scientist might talk about an hypothesis being tested by
collecting relevant and assable *evidence*, and then seeing if that agrees
with or clashes with the hypothesis. The process would then be on a case by
case basis of assessment. Not a blanket presumption of the kind you assert.
Usually, conclusions follow evidence, not pre-assume it! :-)


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

"Jim Lesurf"
Eeyore

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.
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'. ;-


** A film cap of approximately 0.01 to 0.1 uF connected *directly* across
the speaker terminals will induce parasitic or even continuous HF
oscillation ( typically in the MHz range) in many amps ( valve and SS )
which are not designed to be "unconditionally stable". In some cases, the HF
oscillation is severe enough to cause overheating of the output devices and
eventual failure of the amp if allowed to continue.

However, connecting such a cap direct to the speaker terminals is a crazy
thing to do to an audio amp and falls well outside normal operating
conditions - so many amp makers did ( and still do) not consider it
important to make their products immune from this kind of abuse.

The arrival of high capacitance / low inductance woven speaker cables ( like
Tocord ) caused a few amp makers to issue warnings against their use -
notably Naim and Phase Linear.

A great many other less pretensions makes and models of amp would also burst
into HF oscillation when such cables were used - a rather serious problem
that resulted in many hi-fi dealers removing the cable from sale as they
could never be sure if the customer's amp could tolerate the high effective
capacitance.

The fix is ridiculously simple for anyone technically minded, just add a
zobel network (say 0.022uF and 10 ohms in series ) across the actual
loudspeaker's terminals - ie at the far end of the cable.

This loads the cable ( really a 8 ohm transmission line) with close to its
characteristic impedance at HF and hence neutralises the parallel
capacitance.



........ Phil