Eeyore wrote:

Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:

Bob Latham wrote:
In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Electrical signals (including audio band ones) follow the laws of physics
and their behaviour is easily predicted. My belief is that certain 'cable
differences' are easily explained by those laws, rather than any audio
'voodoo'.
Yes, I can go along with that. A lot better statement than the usual 'all
competent cables sound the same'. Much as my electrical and electronic
knowledge would love to agree with the 'all sound the same' argument my
ears tell me (and easily) that they don't. No amount of bullying from here
will convince me otherwise.

Trouble is that statement is not true. What would be true is that to
your ears in YOUR SYSTEM, different cables sound different.

The generalisation you made is certainly not proven.

One's ears however may behave differently from day to day if not hour to hour.

Graham


Not to mention that your head won't be in EXACTLY the same position when
you do the second test after changing the cables.

Cheers

Ian

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...
Something struck me the other day whilst reading this group.

All these "do they/don't they" arguments about speaker cables and
interconnects... if there is a difference then the likes of Pinkerton,
Phil Allison, Krueger etc are so busy trying to out-Tourettes each other
that they wouldn't be able to hear it over the swearing anyway.

And these people expect us to take one word they say seriously?

**You should, perhaps, ask the question directly to each. You could, for
instance, ask:

Are there are any audible differences between speaker cables, under specific
conditions?

You may well be surprised at the answers. Don't assume answers, before you
hear them.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Glenn Richards wrote:
Something struck me the other day whilst reading this group.

All these "do they/don't they" arguments about speaker cables and
interconnects... if there is a difference then the likes of Pinkerton,
Phil Allison, Krueger etc are so busy trying to out-Tourettes each other
that they wouldn't be able to hear it over the swearing anyway.

And these people expect us to take one word they say seriously?

We are still waiting for you to publish a couple of short wav files to
demonstrate the difference between interconnects.
Or have you tried the experiment and found that the results don't
support your prejudices?
It would probably be best to agree a testing method in advance.

--
Eiron.

Eiron wrote:

We are still waiting for you to publish a couple of short wav files to
demonstrate the difference between interconnects.

And I shall do, when I have an hour or so spare to delve behind the
hi-fi to start swapping cables around.

It would probably be best to agree a testing method in advance.

How about this:

Analogue output from DVD player (Arcam DV79) interconnect Sony CD
recorder. Use a piece of music from mid to late 1980s, non-remastered,
so no "loudness wars" and overcompression to worry about.

Rip resultant recording to FLAC or high-bitrate MP3 (let's say that MP3
achieves transparency somewhere around 224kBit, let's make them 320kBit).

Upload to web site somewhere, post URLs on here.

Allow people to listen and attempt to determine which one was the
freebie and which one was the "expensive" interconnect.

Post answers after say 7-10 days.

--
Squirrel Solutions Ltd Tel: (01453) 845735
http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/ Fax: (01453) 843773

Registered in England: 05877408

Glenn Richards wrote:
Eiron wrote:

We are still waiting for you to publish a couple of short wav files to
demonstrate the difference between interconnects.

And I shall do, when I have an hour or so spare to delve behind the
hi-fi to start swapping cables around.

It would probably be best to agree a testing method in advance.

How about this:

Analogue output from DVD player (Arcam DV79) interconnect Sony CD
recorder. Use a piece of music from mid to late 1980s, non-remastered,
so no "loudness wars" and overcompression to worry about.

Rip resultant recording to FLAC or high-bitrate MP3 (let's say that MP3
achieves transparency somewhere around 224kBit, let's make them 320kBit).

Upload to web site somewhere, post URLs on here.

Allow people to listen and attempt to determine which one was the
freebie and which one was the "expensive" interconnect.

Post answers after say 7-10 days.

That sounds good except that I'd prefer a wav file
and a reference to the original CD so we can compare with that too.

--
Eiron.

In article , Glenn
Richards wrote:
Eiron wrote:

We are still waiting for you to publish a couple of short wav files to
demonstrate the difference between interconnects.

And I shall do, when I have an hour or so spare to delve behind the
hi-fi to start swapping cables around.

It would probably be best to agree a testing method in advance.

How about this:

Analogue output from DVD player (Arcam DV79) interconnect Sony CD
recorder. Use a piece of music from mid to late 1980s, non-remastered,
so no "loudness wars" and overcompression to worry about.

Rip resultant recording to FLAC or high-bitrate MP3 (let's say that MP3
achieves transparency somewhere around 224kBit, let's make them 320kBit).

Upload to web site somewhere, post URLs on here.

Allow people to listen and attempt to determine which one was the
freebie and which one was the "expensive" interconnect.

The above approach would mean each individual's reponse would have a 50:50
chance of being 'right' purely by random. Thus if a number of people
participated the results could be characterised (inappropriately) as "X
percent of people could tell which was which" when the result might simply
be due to chance.

It might be better to have a number of 'recordings' so each individual
could have a number of tries. Might also be better to provide trios of
recordings, one with one cable, the other with the other, and the third
with a randomly chosen cable.

An alternative would be to use either the same - or different - cables for
the L and R channel, and see if anyone could tell. :-)

Then we might be able to assess if the results had any significance.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

No one is a fool for being skeptical. Many of the claims in audioland
are quite foolish indeed.

Yet in a high resolution system, power cables and interconnects can
make a difference. Not always an improvement, but a difference. A
large fat power cable can augment an insufficient power supply in a
real world power situation. Admittedly not the right solution, but it
can help.

I recently changed the IC's in a Quad 306 power amplifier (TI's to
Burr-Browns) playing through some Quad 988s. My wife (not an
audiophile), walked in the room and immediately asked what had
changed... "it sounded more alive" was her comment.

In article
,
wrote:
Not always an improvement, but a difference. A
large fat power cable can augment an insufficient power supply in a
real world power situation. Admittedly not the right solution, but it
can help.

I've never come across a piece of decent equipment with an inadequate
power lead. Indeed in these days of IEC types they're all the same - and
the cable rated at 10 amps +.
Perhaps you could say what you're referring to?

--
*Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

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

No one is a fool for being skeptical. Many of the claims in audioland
are quite foolish indeed.


** And this ****** is about to add some more.


Yet in a high resolution system, power cables and interconnects can
make a difference. Not always an improvement, but a difference. A
large fat power cable can augment an insufficient power supply in a
real world power situation.

** LOL !!

What UTTER AUDIOPHOOL ******** !!!!


I recently changed the IC's in a Quad 306 power amplifier (TI's to
Burr-Browns) playing through some Quad 988s. My wife (not an
audiophile), walked in the room and immediately asked what had
changed... "it sounded more alive" was her comment.


** ROTFLMAO !!!

There simply is NO op-amp in the signal path of a Quad 306 - the circuit
is entirely made from discrete transistors.

So you fell for one of then dumbest SCAMS on eBay.

You ridiculous PITA moron !!




....... Phil

In article
,
wrote:
No one is a fool for being skeptical. Many of the claims in audioland
are quite foolish indeed.

Yet in a high resolution system, power cables and interconnects can make
a difference. Not always an improvement, but a difference. A large fat
power cable can augment an insufficient power supply in a real world
power situation. Admittedly not the right solution, but it can help.

People often make such claims. Usually on the basis of not having done any
test whose results could be assessed for reliability, nor having bothered
to ensure that the many well-known possible causes of error were dealt
with. Thus making the claim worthless.

I recently changed the IC's in a Quad 306 power amplifier (TI's to
Burr-Browns) playing through some Quad 988s. My wife (not an
audiophile), walked in the room and immediately asked what had
changed... "it sounded more alive" was her comment.

Comment much as above. It is a common experience that what we hear
'changes' from one situation to another. Afraid that simply isn't a basis
for deciding *why* a 'change' was heard. Far too many other possible causes
or reasons which your simple anecdote fails to deal with.

Or are you saying you had her repeatedly walk into the room, having
switched at random between the two types of IC? And that you carefully
arranged to always play the same music at the same volume? And that you
changed nothing else whatsover? And that she always walked in by the same
path, to the same position? etc, etc...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html